Request for comment on the classification of chemical elements
LIMITED CONSENSUS
This discussion concerned whether the current block-based color scheme (involving four colors) should be replaced by a 10-color scheme. Editors in opposition chiefly pointed out that the groupings made by the 10-color scheme option were not universally agreed upon. Several other arguments were made, but further analysis would do little good here: The only user who supported using the 10-color scheme in the survey later withdrew their support. ("I had a look at the periodic tables in 100 chemistry books to see how they indicated categories (if any) of elements. .... I conclude that: ... my support for a reversion to our multi-category PT was misguided and non-representative for our lede PT." and, later, "Since I no longer support the RfC proposal it is effectively dead given it has attracted zero support.") The user that introduced the RFC, while participating in the discussion, declined to weigh in in favor of one option or the other.A few proposals were made with and without this RFC, some of which were withdrawn, and some of which were—against the wishes of the proposer—dragged into this RFC. I do not think it appropriate to make any findings as to those proposals here—particularly in the case of one which was made a month after this RFC started and which no users responded to. Further, at least a few editors contemplated continued discussion of the various proposals in subsequent conversations and RFCs. As such, I think only a limited finding is appropriate here. There is a consensus that the 10-color scheme periodic table should not replace the 4-color scheme version.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I thought it would've been closed by now; no matter.
Following the eventual close of this RfC, and after a break in proceedings, I intend to start a new RfC proposing essentially the same as this one, at the Periodic Table talk page. But first I'll increase the size of the COPTIC survey of periodic tables from 62 to about 200, as mentioned later in this thread. I'll post the results in a new article called "List of categories appearing in Periodic Tables". For now it is worth noting, once again, that a block-based periodic table is not representative of what appears in chemistry textbooks. Sandbh (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Straight WP:FORUMSHOP announcement, not acceptable. If you think you have additional, new contributions, this RfC is still open & you're supposed to discuss. FORUMSHOP can lead to early procedural closure.
Meanwhile, you are not discharged from explicitly withdrawing personal attacks in here, as requested. IOW, "discussing" while casting aspersions may have consequences. DePiep (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, this talk page has never been the most appropriate page to conduct an RfC about the periodic table article. That is what the periodic table talk page is for. WP:ELEMENTS has been down this path before. As stated, I intend to have additional contributions by way of the "List of categories appearing in Periodic Tables" article. Based on the earlier survey of 62 chemistry textbooks we already know that a block-based table is not representative of the literature. Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
RfC !Voting
Sub-section added to make it easier for new editors to add their !Vote. To add your !Vote, you can either edit the top-level section and scroll to the middle where the last !Vote has been added, or you can edit this sub-section and scroll to the bottom.YBG (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Retain blocks, as they are mentioned in the IUPAC Red Book, are generally agreed by chemists and physicists, and relate directly to the atomic properties of the elements and the mathematical and physical bases of the periodic table. Strongly oppose the former 10-color scheme, because it fails to classify elements unambiguously: (1) authors differ on which elements belong to which category (see lists of metalloids for example for just how far "metalloid" can stretch; is As one? is Sb one? is Bi one?), (2) IUPAC has not made a ruling on the matter, (3) the proposed categories can overlap (Lu can be both a lanthanide and a transition metal; Og is a noble gas according to IUPAC just by being in group 18, but has unknown chemical properties), and (4) the set is arbitrary and not agreed on even among sources who use such schemes (is it post-transition metals or poor metals or other metals? are halogens a category or not? indeed, are metalloids a category or not?). Therefore, any use of such a scheme runs straight into WP:NPOV concerns (because of the variation) and means feeding our readers oversimplifications (because of the overlaps); and judging by history in past years, all it really ends up leading to is extremely long discussions that tend to veer into OR to deal with problems like how to name the nonmetals that aren't noble gases (or aren't noble gases or halogens), e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 15. Much of this has already been explained directly above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Should we go back to coloring elements by metallicity? and is already codified in WP:NCCHEM#Categorising elements. The current block scheme neatly avoids wasting time fishing in such murky waters and preserves some colouring. Double sharp (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I would indeed find it preferable to remove all the colouring than to reinstate the old 10-colour scheme, yes. However, it would probably end up attracting people trying to restore the categories that are supposedly missing. Using blocks as a colour scheme is not too uncommon, e.g. WebElements, some (especially Russian) tables, and makes it clear that the current situation is deliberate. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
people trying to restore the categories that are supposedly missing shouldn't be a problem or reason not to do it, because we can just revert the edits, block the users, or protect the pages. 123957a (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
re Ds (slightly as side-topic): Of course "to prevent other coloring" is not to compromise this way, but there are sound reasons :-). Both by RL and by be-the-encyclopedia reasons 10-colors are not likely, and I'm happy to read all about this below. Looks like this topic itself is in transition for a decade or so (longer/earlier in specialist areas).
However, I want to note a different reason to prefer black/white: current colors put way too much stress on the blocks, shading the tabular principles of period and groups! This, while the blocks are perfectly present already in the table structure (i.e., as rectangles). The ideal presentation is Janets Left Step: all three main principles spring to the observer, uncomplicated. Even and better so in black and white.DePiep (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
If helium were standardly in group 2, I would agree, because then the blocks (as important they are for the mathematics behind the whole thing) are completely obvious. However, as long as helium is in group 18 (which it should be on WP, as most sources have it that way), its block assignment is not obvious to the average reader without a colouring. Double sharp (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Issue acknowledged, but this way (add colors) a detail takes over the major point, which defeats the job of conveying The Periodic Table. Information presentation, not perfecticise individual issues. (Also: more support for Janets Left Step then :-) BTW, is thoughts only, not a variant proposal. DePiep (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I already think Janet's left-step is the correct form of the table. See my userpage. Of course, correctness and whether or not it belongs as the main WP table yet are two different things. Acknowledged that this is just thoughts. :) Double sharp (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. As Double sharp says above, including #linked talks.
I can add (5): about the aim to classify all in one scheme, that is: put each element in one and exactly one class.
This cannot be based on the 10 (or anywhere between 5 and 12) classes. Because the classes are based on different, independent grounds. (As if one tries to classify a group of people by age and by length—at the same time). For example, where does the distinction between lanthanides and actinides come from? What are the distincting properties for metalloids, compared to those for halogens, alkali metals? Now check the answers for same-property or not.
Note that this issue is not about border issues for individual elements (which could be handled acceptably by themselves, by noting a "grey status" but still in-between-two-values-of-the-same-property).
Yes, restore (updated) 10-colour scheme. A survey of 62 chemistry textbooks that I undertook in September 2020 found just 15% of them had 4-colour, block-based colour schemes. Our current PT colour category scheme is non-representative. It is crashingly boring. The WP PT article used to be the second most popular hit on Google, behind (ptable.com). Now it's in 4th position. The top three tables, PubChem, RSC, and ptable.com, have multi-colour schemes. Even the American Chemical Society PT, which is conveniently printed on the back of their membership cards, is 10-coloured. Worse, even the Encyclopedia Britannica PT has a multi-colour scheme. For metalloids, it's well-known that the most popular of these are B, Si, Ge, As, Sb and Te. Probably the following scheme, with DePiep's colours, would work:
Periodic table categories
Alkali metal
Alkaline earth metal
Lanthanoid
Transition metal
p-block metal
Metalloid
Unclassified nonmetal
Halogen
Noble gas
Actinoid
The bluish-green (?) for the noble gases works well; as does the yellow for the halogens; and the green for the biogenic unclassified nonmetals. The red for the alkali metals is nice, too, as is the earthy colour for the AEM. The pinks relate all the outer and inner transition metals.
Halogen = all group 17 elements. Yes, astatine may well turn out to be a metal but until we have more reliable evidence it remains categorised as a halogen. On the day it changes colour to a p-block metal that is the day we can worry about whether to change "halogen" to "halogen nonmetal".
Noble gas = all group 18 elements. It won't matter if Og turns out to be a solid. The name refers to which group the noble gases occur in and does not necessarily rule out Og being solid. Equally, Be and Mg are not really alkaline earth metals, but that it where they've ended up. Nor is helium a p-block element but that's where it's located.
p-block metals = metals in group 13 onwards. Whatever you call them they are unambiguously p-block metals.
The concerns about overlapping categories and ambiguity can, and should be addressed in the article. Certainly, as DePiep observed, the aim is to assign each element to one class, and it is a worthy aim, but this is usually not achievable. Indeed, such fuzziness extends to the 4-colour block scheme, too. The best example is probably Ca, Sr, Ba which are known to have some d-involvement in some of their compounds. Going further, p-hybridisation is know to occur in in Be-Mg and Group 12.
As Jones wrote:
"Though classification is an essential feature of all branches of science, there are always hard cases at the boundaries. The boundary of a class is rarely sharp…Scientists should not lose sleep over the hard cases. As long as a classification system is beneficial to economy of description, to structuring knowledge and to our understanding, and hard cases constitute a small minority, then keep it. If the system becomes less than useful, then scrap it and replace it with a system based on different shared characteristics."
— Jones BW 2010, Pluto: Sentinel of the outer Solar System, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 169–171
As far as concerns go about "classes are based on different, independent grounds" we can only go by the approaches taken in the literature. If the literature bases classes on "different, independent grounds" so be it. As an encyclopedia we can only reflect what is in the literature (acknowledging there can be some wriggle room in the pursuit of a better article). In any event, the 10-colour scheme does a pretty good job of showing the progression in metallic character from left to right across the periodic table.
YBG's rules are excellent as something to aspire to, noting they are usually not achievable in the real world, per Jones' observation.
In this long post Sandbh refers to PubChem, RSC, ptable.com, and Encyclopedia Britannica. But they all use different schemes, proving exactly my point about WP:NPOV. We cannot reflect what is in the literature with a category colouring when there is no consensus within it. Double sharp (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
"boring" nor "popularity" is an argument in scinece, and our encyclopedia. Tallying this way is meaningless: they are different schemes (as Double sharp noted), and also obviously "colors because of colors" (this alone is enough a rejection of your argument). It also is a non-scientific method. You might as well propose to have an animation of colorfully dressed dancers around the table. So far for the presentation.
Then, you misread me wrt "aim" (I say about the proposal: [is an] aim to classify all in one scheme). That creates your easy way and incorrect way out by saying "so be it". But it's not a nice-to-have, it's a principle. And once chosen, you'll have to make it truth. The question for you is: now, what is the one-scheme classifying ground?
Minor notes, more illustrations:
- It occurs to me that Scerri, with philosophical background, never mentions this question.
- Yes, halogens & noble gases are a fine "class" each. That is, because they are a fine set already by themselves (as groups, incidentally), not in relation to, say, actinides. They are not a class horizontally next to eg post metals. So you picked the easy examples, meanwhile evading the point. Sure "metalloids" exist as a set, but only opposed to the class or two of "non-metalloids". But have nothing to do with alkalis. REE's are a set too—by themselves, distinguished only from the class of non-REEs. As are coinage metals, platinum group.
- As long as you have not given a classification ground, classes are basically unrelated.
- Al ready just within nonmetals the problem shows: squeezing and dealing to get complete "categories" scheme, compromising along the way. Tellingly, the only stable "classes" in there are those already existing before, from elsewhere: metalloids, halogens and noble gases. Leaves the (artificially created) need to "classify" a never-named set of the "leftover nonmetals".
- You mention astatine as example for "border" issues, and "hard cases". But it is not about border-element-dangling-between-classes. The "border" issue is: conflicting and nonmatching class definitions. "people born on a Monday go stand left, people born on an uneven day stand to the right; now lets solve the border issues".
Comment: The classifying ground is a 2019 machine-based analysis of the proximity of names of the elements occurring in academic journals. The journal article in question, which was published in no less than Nature, has 653 citations. The analysis was based on 3.3 million abstracts published between 1922 and 2018 in more than 1,000 journals. The authors used our now deprecated WP 10-category scheme, which had polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals. You can see the ten categories below the map. I have added dashed borderlines to the map, and proposed category names, to show how the map relates to the current proposal. The proposed categories, across "merely" 3.3 million abstracts, are clustered nicely. You can see a few oddities such as At, Fr and Tc which are radioactive and hence tend to cluster with the other radioactive elements. Be is another anomaly due to its symbol being the same as the word "be". Hidden pinging all voters to request a review of their position. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Clarifications needed (I cannot access the paper now). So you, Sandbh, added the dashed lines, and the English names in the legend. Who added the symbols (pink triangle, purple hex, etc.)? I assume, results must have been indiscriminate dots only. What are the axises defined (named)?, this must describe/define the "word vector".
Then, about the methodology: The authors used our ... 10-category scheme. "used" as in some selection set beforehand? I do not understand. The abstract says "information-dense word embeddings (vector representations of words) without human labelling or supervision", and "Without any explicit insertion of chemical knowledge". I.e., no category filtering/handling beforehand. BTW, I note that this is an early application of AI :-) DePiep (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
The proposed categories are supposedly "clustered nicely", except when they're not (aluminium far away from other metals in the p-block, mercury almost with nonmetals). The dashed borderlines and category names are OR going against the source's actual classification (which prefers to split as polyatomic/diatomic instead of unclassified/halogen), and how this is supposed to deal with radioactives is unclear. And none of this changes the fact that authors still do not agree on the exact boundaries of each category, noting in particular the quite borderline position of boron and phosphorus. Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
True. Take home: except when they're not, OR going against the sources.
I add my hobbyhorse boilerplates. Not just the category borders, but the category definitions are incompatible. That is, by "classification" design. Note how Sandbh draws exceptional lines to grab away Sc, Y from the rare elements (independently defined category). Similar for radioactive elements: all together beaming "I am an independent category". Default boilerplate argument: most "classes", both by OR-symbol and by OR-dotlines, are already classes from before & outside: group, block/period selection. And try not to laugh: the survey could not distinguish between "Be" and "be", really? DePiep (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
This image is interesting, but if our readers can figure out the properties of elements on their own, we might not need to use such classification on our periodic table. 123957a (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@123957a: So why do PubChem and RSC, use colour-categories on their periodic tables given most of their members/readers are chemists? Even the ACS issues a membership card with a nine colour-category PT on the back. How about the general reader whom Wikipedia is aimed at? May as well refer them to the Encyclopedia Britannica colour-category coded periodic table. Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Another popularity poll, another tallying, another OR, another falsified methodology, another i-did-not-hear-your-argument post. Stop it, Sandbh, just stop it. -DePiep (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@DePiep: I added the dashed lines. The category names are those used in the article with the exception of polyatomic metals and diatomic metals, which I replaced with unclassified nonmetals and halogens. The symbols are those used in the article. The axes are unnamed. The authors ran their survey, then looked at the resulting map, then selected the WP colour category scheme. There was no category filtering/handling beforehand as the survey was based on the proximity of mentions of elements in the abstracts of the 3.3 million articles.
@Praseodymium-141: I don't yet know why Cn was included in the survey if Rf-Rg were not.
@Double sharp: As noted, a 4-colour, block-based colour scheme is not representative of the literature, and therefore un-encyclopedic. The Encyclopedia Britannica nine-color-category PT is, OTOH, encyclopedic.
Please now excuse a short moment of abruptness: So what about Al and Hg? There is no need for anyone to lose sleep over the hard cases. There is no OR here. A map is just a pictorial representation of so many words. That the authors choose to use the Wikipedia categories of polyatomic nonmetal and diatomic nonmetal is not representative of the literature. Effectively all the literature refers to F, Cl, Br, I (and At) as halogens. What does that leave? The "Here be Dragons" nonmetals, which have no widely agreed collective name. They are effectively "unclassified nonmetals" IOW. The radioactives are dealt with using common sense, as guided by the literature. P is effectively an unclassified metal. Yes, B is on the boundary and nothing to lose any sleep over. If there is a metalloid category, which the authors chose to include, then that is consistent with the situation in the literature whereby B, Si, Ge, As, Sb and Te are the elements most commonly classified as metalloids. As far as the block categorisation scheme goes, authors do not agree on the exact boundaries of each category, noting the arguments about where the f-block starts and finishes, and whether the f-block has 14 or 15 members. If we can say no need to lose sleep about the boundaries of the f-block, then we can say no need to lose sleep about the proposed colour categories, and provide the general reader with a more informative presentation of the PT at the same time. Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
The classification do not follow from the study/graph.
None of the "outliers", "border issues", "concluded(!) class definitions" can be explained in support. That's not "hard cases", that's falsifying cases. Then, using the grouping by old enwiki definition to base a claim is WP:SELFREF. Whether the authors did it or you (Sandbh) bring it forward as an argument: WP:SYNTHESIS too. If anything, it proves to itself that our old color scheme is faulty: Sc and Y have no reason to be pink in a panhandle. (Obviously they are related here to the REEs. Why not?). How are we supposed to work with unnamed axes? WP:NOTRS. DePiep (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
"Effectively all the literature" refers to F, Cl, Br, I, and At as halogens, indeed. They also refer to O, S, Se, Te, and Po as chalcogens (maybe some would exclude O, so let's stick to the heavy four). So why are halogens a category and not chalcogens, especially when it's common for inorganic textbooks to split their chapters by groups? The RSC table even has both, whereas the polyatomic/diatomic scheme the article you refer to recognises neither, proving once again the point that the literature is clearly not unified behind any particular categorisation scheme. What literature provides the "common sense" for the radioactives, noting that the diagonal line between metals and nonmetals meets the halogens and noble gases at At, Ts, and Og? In the literature, B and Sb are noticeably less commonly classed as metalloids than Si, Ge, As, and Te. And again, where does the name "unclassified nonmetals" come from?
Retain blocks due to WP:NPOV concerns; there is not enough consistency across publications to justify one firm classification scheme. It also happens that some elements can correctly fit into more than one category (e.g., At = halogen or metalloid, notwithstanding that the set of metalloids is also not universally agreed upon), which would be rather difficult to depict in smaller-scale graphics. We would also open a can of worms with explanatory footnotes to fairly explain differences, as not doing so might appear to favor certain sources over others. Conversely, although electron configurations can deviate from the pattern, nobody really disagrees on which elements belong to which block. Double sharp and DePiep raise similar points above with which I agree. Complex/Rational13:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose for now. As soon as there is a consensus in the literature on a particular category scheme, I will support going to a category-based color scheme. Until then, let’s stick with blocks. YBG (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Retain blocks as per ComplexRational, agree 100%. Also agree with YBG that this could be revisited someday, but there is no consensus in the teaching or primary literature. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Alright everyone, to raise a third option: should there be no classification of elements at all (that is, all elements have the same color)?123957a (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)For this thread, I have withdrawn this third option.123957a (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I think blocks are actually an important and fundamental aspect of the periodic table. Without them you can't understand why the breaks open up in the top rows between Be/Mg and B/Al. A periodic table that wasn't based on the quantum atom (which inherently includes blocks from the azimuthal quantum number) would be like Mendeleev's and have only eight groups to match the valences. Now, it is true that the rectangular structure makes them almost completely obvious. But helium still sticks out, and I would argue that that one case makes it necessary to clarify that it is really an s-block element that is moved for the sake of something else. (Incorrectly in my view, but the issue is still debated, so we stick to the status quo and IUPAC.) Double sharp (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
What a horrible fork, 123957a. Procedural objection. Why couldn't you just wait/help to close the RfC (your own RfC), and write independent questions in an independent thread? This forked process is now broken, and no well-performed discussion or result can be called from it. (Besides, 123957a, you are asking a lot of extra time and studies from serious editors. Instead of asking a question by RfC you could have read and probed the existing routes and replies—replies already made to you).
Totally agree. Can the submitter 123957a please withdraw this RFC? Alternately could an uninvolved editor please close this as either Retain blocks or No consensus, perhaps under WP:SNOW? Any of the these would allow someone to submit another RFC if they like. YBG (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose closure of RFC, on the grounds of its short duration and insufficient awareness of the RFC outside of WP :ELEM. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Moot. "closure" was asked for the "to raise a third option: .." (bullet) to not complicate the discussion. Third option now withdrawn / struck by OP. OP RfC can continue. All fine AFAIK. DePiep (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Hey everyone, how can I give this RfC more publicity? This RfC hasn't been getting as much attention as I would have hoped for, so I would like to know how I can get more people's input. Thank you. 123957a (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposal
I feel it may be helpful to have more data on the taxonomical structure of periodic tables in the literature. I did this a while ago with the COPTIC survey in Archive 50. But that was limited to 62 chemistry textbooks. I'd like to increase this to around 200, if possible. The results could at least inform a sub-article of the PT article, in the same way that we have a Lists of metalloids article. Sandbh (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Object. No reason to pause this RfC, no reason to wait for more such data.
@Sandbh: already in this very thread, and multiple times in the past, in replies to you yourself and others, it has been pointed out that your methodology of polling is flawed and is not acceptable as sourcing for statements in the encyclopedia. You have been informed it is WP:OR. Your resonse The authors ran their survey, then looked at the resulting map, then selected the WP colour category scheme" is WP:SELFREF so unacceptable, and SELFREF is also polluting their result for usage in this question. You are arguing like 'This survey that uses enwiki classification shows that enwiki classification is used throughout in RL' (iow, your conclusion is the input of the graph). Falsifications already are mentioned above.
You are invited to grasp and understand the problems mentioned with such pollings. Instead of proposing here 'Let's do the exactly same once more with an other dataset'. DePiep (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@DePiep: This is a fine example of not knowing what it going on; losing the plot of building a better encyclopedia; wikilayering; a failure to understand the subject matter; and a failure to understand the historical background.
This is not my poll. What is or is not WP:OR is a matter of opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with you. Speaking personally I have seen WP:OR used unreasonably in this forum to strangle the life out any improvement efforts. No, the authors did not effectively select the WP colour scheme although it might've looked as if they had. Instead, as I understand it, it so happens that their clusters of like elements happened to correspond to categories found in the literature. Indeed, the original colour category scheme for the Wikipedia periodic table originated out of literature research. There is simply no WP:SELFREF here. There are no falsifications only overlapping boundaries, a phenomenon well known in classification science and in the regions of the periodic table. No, the Lists of metalloids article is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All entries on the lists of metalloids are cited. The list of lists has been cited in the literature, and the article in which it has been cited (Which elements are metalloids?) has itself been cited 50 times. Ill-considered posts such as the one I am responding to here are aggravating and needless time-wasters. Given an evident lack of technical background I would prefer future posts engage the brain first and do the necessary homework including, if needs be, asking questions.
Further, accusations of: "misleading polling" being flawed; being informed of WP:OR; falsifications; and doing the exactly same once more with an other dataset, are equally aggravating and annoying. In future I would prefer it if such accusations are accompanied by the corroborating evidence. I will treat further recurrences of this kind as breaches of Wikipedia:Civility.
@Sandbh:.. not knowing what it going on .. losing the plot .. wikilayering .. a failure to understand .. a failure to understand the historical background, WP:CIVILITY: you are responsing to content-related posts with WP:PERSONALATTACKS. ("the editor not the edit"). Unless you redact these attacks out unambiguously, I will not and can not reply to your input. Nor can one consider your "arguments" hidden in here as substantial. I am free to pursue other routes. I note that you recently have initiated similar deviations. DePiep (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@Double sharp:, did you notice that the accusations along being informed of OR and OR is a matter of opinion are aimed at an other editor that the editor who originally linked to the very searchable "OR" guideline? Strange. DePiep (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that the periodic table is used by more than chemists, a Google Ngram search conducted in September 2020 found that the following categories were the most frequent: Alkali metals; Alkaline earth metals; Ln; An; Transition metals; Metalloids; Halogens; Noble gases. The categories of Chalcogens and Pnictogens have low frequencies and cut across the more popular Metalloid category and are impractical for that reason.
That just leaves the metals in the p-block and other nonmetals. The most common names for these are p-block metals or Post-transition metals, and Other nonmetals.
Of course there are some other popular category names such as Heavy metals; Precious metals; and Noble metals, but these overlap the top-level categories, and are ostensibly impractical for that reason. Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2023 [1]
@Sandbh: in this thread you have casted personal attacks. You have been asked to unambiguously remove them e.g., by redacting. As long as you persist to keep your PAs up this frivolously, you are not supposed to continue "discussing", as you have disrupted the flow. Disrupting a discussion might be casuse to have all of you contributions scrubbed. -DePiep (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Post-transition metals raises questions about aluminium. And somehow, the fact that halogens cut across the metallicity categories as well is not considered. I also note that in the link from September 2020 you are instead using the Ngram data to argue for merging alkali and alkaline earth metals, which rather confirms my opinion that the literature is in enough flux about this that you can probably cherry-pick some of it to find arguments to support just about anything that isn't complete nonsense. That, however, is not our business on WP. Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. "Post-transition metals" is as popular (or unpopular) as "p block metals". I agree with you(!) that the former term is problematic; that is why I used the term "p-block metals". The fact that "halogens" cuts across metallicity is a reflection of how the term us used. There is not enough yet known, with sufficient confidence, about At and Ts, to prompt them being commonly referred to as any anything else than halogens. I no longer argue for merging alkali and alkaline earth metals nor did I raise that possibility in this thread. There is insufficient support in the literature to support such a change. Equally, you once supported La in group 3; now you support Lu. We are in agreement(!) that the business of WP is to reflect popular usage. Between the survey of 3,300,000 abstracts and however big Google Ngram is, there is no support in the literature to confirm your opinion that there is too much flux to support the proposed categories. Quite the opposite in fact. AM, AEM, Ln, An and TM are shoe-ins, as are metalloids, halogens and noble gases. That there are metals in the p-block is universally recognised, That there are nonmetals between the metalloids and the halogens is universally recognised. Sandbh (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
So you pick "p-block metals" over "post-transition metals" just to avoid a problem over aluminium, never mind that both are equally unpopular. That already illustrates the problem with making colour categories: the point of all these categories was not to classify all elements on the table once and once only, but to just have names for a roughly similar set of elements that are under the author's scrutiny for the moment. That is why people are fine with "post-transition metals", because Al is not a problem unless you want such a category scheme, and it is why people have no problem with the massive overlap between "transition metals", "rare earth metals", "refractory metals", "noble metals", "coinage metals", and "platinum group metals" and use all these terms (but of course a category scheme with colours cannot deal with this). By turning them into a category scheme with colours, you are going against what sources actually use them for!
It's literally been known almost since its discovery that astatine does not behave quite like the four more familiar halogens. And why is this argument not allowed for chalcogens, when again it's polonium that's the most ambiguous (well, among natural elements)? Seems to be another arbitrary decision to create a classify-everybody-once scheme, that does not follow from the literature.
When I supported La in group 3 it was based on a mistaken understanding of the chemistry and the state of the literature. So I was using different data from what I know of now, and the old data turned out to be wrong. It happens, there is no shame in changing one's mind for that reason. On the other hand, it appears that you are using exactly the same data (the Ngram results) as you did in 2020, but argue for something different. If the same dataset can support two different schemes it must not have supported either one very clearly.
The surveys would be more convincing if there were not so many hard cases. The boundaries you draw between not losing sleep about them (e.g. Al, Hg, B, and P) and drawing panhandles (Sc and Y) do not seem to have any clear reasoning behind them.
The question is not whether or not there are metals in the p-block. That is indeed obvious. Neither is it whether or not there are nonmetals between the metalloids and halogens. That is also obvious. The question is: which elements are they? Note in passing that it is not even unheard of for the same author to refer to the same element both as a metal and as a nonmetal, e.g. Sherwin and Weston's 1966 Chemistry of the Non-Metallic Elements has Sb as a metal on p. 7 and as a nonmetal on p. 115. Double sharp (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Great post, thanks DS. Sums up this thread, into fine conclusions (I underwrite). No need for me to check out details then. DePiep (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Flaws.
About polling & popularity. Search is by ngram, which is only about (1) word counting ("frequency"), and (2) in search string (ie, not in the sources being searched). This can conclude "popularity for that word": (3) liked or accorded status only then; this being a search, we need (4) interested to be added to the definition of 'popularity' to make sense—but that's ~OR/SYNTH already. And that word search is done (5) by the searching population of internet which is not the, say, science community. So, (1–5): google searches is not a citation index.
About data selection (cherry picking). Given the list as provided from outside, here Sandbh is selective in its results. More 'popular' names like heavy metals, transition metals, precious metals, noble metals, base metals, ferrous metals (these #six are the in top eight no less) are (6) not used in the conclusions, (7) nor is their absence comprehensively explained ("impractical" is not enough—maybe even exposing an other intention). In addition, the set rare earths (REM) is (8) not mentioned at all in the conclusions (a #seven missing from the top-eigth; see more on REM below). Data thrown out. Further, pre-exisiting (9) classification as group is used as "category", also without comprehensive clarification why an existing group would be an argument in categorisation (this is #eight of the top-eight list—now all eight are flaw-listed then). (6–9): cherry-picking and data disappearing.
Then, the need for causality. The conclusions by Sandbh also do (10) not solve at all the grand question of: What Is The Classification Ground? In these statistics, a causality is required: what is the cause for being in that class/set/category? As this is missing for each and every category introduced (except for the pre-existing ones ;-), (11) no meta-claim can be made about Classification-Of-All-Elements-Exactly-Once. This not about border cases between categories (not even hard or difficult ones). This is about category-definition by itself. This is proven & illustrated by, for example, REM/REE: a workable definition all right, but not vis-a-vis the other categories like halogens. (12) The REM has a stand-alone definition: "this element is yes-or-no an REM". Same for coinage metals, metalloids as we treat them, radioactive elements. Check: all judgements for these on a one-dimensional scale. All this includes bordercases btw: they to are not about some meta-ground. Thats why they are workable & useful: in-or-out is a good enough set definition to work with; no question "but how do the REM relate to halogens" is on the table. (10–12): no causality.
1. p block metals. I picked "p-block metals" over "post-transition metals" since both are equally popular, and the 4-block distinction is maintained. The point of the colour categories is to convey a sense of the left-right transition in metallic to nonmetallic character. As noted, our current PT colour category scheme is non-representative. From my survey of 62 books, just 15% of them had 4-colour, block-based colour schemes. The top three tables, PubChem, RSC, and ptable.com, have multi-colour schemes. Even the American Chemical Society PT, which is conveniently printed on the back of their membership cards, is 10-coloured. Worse, even the Encyclopedia Britannica PT has a multi-colour scheme. Yes, there are minor variations in these five schemes which is why I quoted the Nature article, and Ngram in order to shed light on the most representative categories. In popular media, PT representations are more often shown with a rainbow colour scheme since people like the colours. Of course, there are uber-categories such as rare earth metals, and sub-categories like refractory metals, noble metals, platinum group metals, and coinage metals, but their depiction is impractical in our main PT and they are instead discussed in the names for sets of chemical elements article or individual articles.
2. At and Po. Astatine is most likely a p-block metal. When it was first synthesized it was suspected of being a metal. This categorisation is not yet popularly reflected in the literature due the rarity of At, the fact of its likely metallicity being obscure, and the overwhelming notion of At being a halogen. The metalloid category cuts across four groups including chalcogens, so use of the chalcogen category is excluded on that basis.
What is known about polonium? When the Curies announced in 1898 that they had synthesised polonium they wrote of it as a metal.
It has a silvery, metallic appearance; it conducts electricity like a metal; it has the electronic band structure of a metal; its enthalpy of fusion is near the average for close-packed metals; it is soluble in acids, forming the rose-coloured Po++ cation and displacing hydrogen; many polonium salts are known; and the oxide (PoO2), which assumes the fluorite structure more typical of ionic compounds/metallic oxides, is predominately basic in nature.
Whether polonium is ductile or brittle is unclear. It is predicted to be ductile based on its calculated elastic constants.[1] It has a simple cubic crystalline structure. Such a structure has few slip systems and "leads to very low ductility and hence low fracture resistance".[2]
Polonium also has some intermediate or nonmetallic properties. It has an intermediate coordination number, electronegativity, ionisation energy and metallicity ratio; and it can form anionic polonides; volatile and easily hydrolysed halides (which are soluble in organic solvents); and a volatile and unstable hydride (PoH2). Most of the latter properties are characteristic of the heavier noble metals or post-transition metals.
The elements commonly recognised as metalloids (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te) are semiconductors (B, Si, Ge, Te) or exist in less stable semiconducting forms (As, Sb). Polonium is not known to have a semiconducting form. The commonly recognised metalloids have crystalline packing efficiencies of between 34% and 41%; cf polonium at 52%.
If the elements are categorised on the basis of whether they are judged to exhibit a preponderance of metallic or nonmetallic properties (or neither, in which case you may have a metalloid) then I suggest the weight of evidence, in the case of polonium, falls on the metal side of the line. A parallel may be drawn with gold, which exhibits several nonmetallic properties, including auride (Au–) formation, yet is universally categorised as a metal on account of its distinctive metallic properties.
[1] Legit D, Friák M & Šob M 2010, Phase stability, elasticity, and theoretical strength of polonium from first principles, Physical Review B, vol. 81, pp. 214118–1–19, doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.81.214118
[2] Manson SS & Halford GR 2006, Fatigue and Durability of Structural Materials, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, pp. 378; 410
3. Ngram. I used the Ngram results from 2020 since I don't expect anything has changed. And the Ngram results are consistent with the colour category proposal. The proposed categorisation scheme is consistent with the Nature report. Sure, there are a few borderline cases but the broad contours are there. And the fact of the existence of some borderline cases is nicely acknowledged in the periodic table article, hence, "A periodic table colour-coded to show some commonly used sets of similar elements. The categories and their boundaries differ somewhat between sources." Well put.
4. and 5. Hard cases. There are only a few hard cases, rather than "many". Even here, that there are hard cases at the boundaries is nothing unusual. Al, and Hg are non-starters given Al is a p-block metal, and Hg is a transition metal. It is 50/50 whether Hg is a transition metal or a post-transition metal. Calling it a transition metal is easier. B is counted as one of the elements most commonly recognised as metalloids. P is indisputably a nonmetal albeit black P, the most stable form, has been referred to as a near metalloid. Sc and Y are where they are (i.e. in the pan handle) due to their two-hatted association with the Ln or rare-earth metals, and the TM.
Which elements are metals in the p-block is easily resolved. Starting with the six elements most commonly recognised as metalloids, that leaves Al, Ga, In, Tl, Sn, Pb, Bi and Po as metals. On the other side of the metalloids, between the halogens and the noble gases, are C, N, O, P, S, Se nonmetals all. That leaves H, which is nonmetal.
— Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel the response given here to #2 says it all: instead of recounting what authors actually do, Sandbh instead apparently relies on his own OR judgement. Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I subscribe the notion Double sharp makes here (@15:34). OR is serious.
I also note that Sandbh has conveniently dismissed this @10:32 post beforehand, evading 12 numbered points raised re their "polling & popularity" (≠ citation index), data cherry picking, and lacking causality.
That dismissal btw [2] I consider as another WP:PA.
For #2 there is no issue about At since my proposal was to categorise it as a halogen, which is still the common practice in the literature. Likewise there is no issue about polonium as our article counts it as a metal, consistent with its properties mentioned in the literature. Sandbh (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
It certainly is and that would not make any difference to the original proposal to refer to it as p-block metal. DePiep, I said I would not respond to the sub-thread "Flaws". This is not that sub-thread. Sandbh (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The literature calls Po both a metal and a chalcogen: you propose to call it a metal. The literature calls both At both a metal (or at least the actually reliable part of it that based itself on the properties of At or serious calculations, which is the part we should be looking at anyway) and a halogen: you propose to call it a halogen. Seems like both OR and a double standard. Double sharp (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
The question of At and Po goes back to my original answer:
"Astatine is most likely a p-block metal. When it was first synthesized it was suspected of being a metal. This categorisation is not yet popularly reflected in the literature due the rarity of At, the fact of its likely metallicity being obscure, and the overwhelming notion of At being a halogen. The metalloid category cuts across four groups including chalcogens, so use of the chalcogen category is excluded on that basis."
I had a look at the periodic tables in 100 chemistry books to see how they indicated categories (if any) of elements.
A summary of the results follows:
66 tables marked only the Ln and An.
The next most popular categories were Nonmetals (30), Metals (26), Transition metals (24) and Metalloids (23).
The four blocks were marked in 12¾ tables. The fraction was caused by some tables marking less than four blocks.
After that was Noble gases (11).
All other categories appeared less than 10% of the time.
I conclude that:
our "blocks-only" lede table is not representative of the literature.
my support for a reversion to our multi-category PT was misguided and non-representative for our lede PT.
Our lede table should at least mark the Ln and An. At the level below that are metals, metalloids, and nonmetals, and transition metals. If we want to also show blocks then probably the noble gases should be marked as well.
I do not think this is so hard. Presumably we can add markers for the Ln/An. A zig-zag line in the p-block delineates the metals from the nonmetals. A different shade of yellow shows where the metalloids are. Presumably we can add a marker to the d-block saying "Transition metals", and to group 18 saying "Noble gases".
I object to this proposal. Since I no longer support the RfC proposal it is effectively dead given it has attracted zero support. The other thing about the RfC was that it was inadvertently placed on the wrong (this) page. In the event that we need an RfC about the PT then the right page to run it from is the PT talk page. Sandbh (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Repositioned into the RfC section. By topic, authors own admission, and procedural (RfC still open, plain extension of discussion, repetition of arguments) belongs in the RfC. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
the traditional dividing line between metals and nonmetals is there;
the ambiguity of the group 12 metals is there;
the real location of the Ln and An is nicely shown;
the caption is spot on, in terms of its reference to the most or more commonly named sets of elements in periodic tables;
there is no need for arguments around the borders;
helium as an s-block element is accommodated;
the links in the caption are nice;
colour-challenged folks are accommodated;
there are sufficient accoutrements to prompt further interest.
Rather than highlighting the metalloids I've noted that elements in the vicinity of the traditional dividing line are sometimes counted as metalloids.
I intend to upload this image into the PT article. It captures the precision of the blocks and at the same time some of the ambiguity elsewhere in the PT. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
This is actually something I wouldn't mind so much. While the metal-nonmetal divide is subjective, this is at least a very traditional place to put it, and the caption notes that it is a matter of tradition. Of course I still dislike "germanium the metal" because by conductivity it is not one, but crucially here there is not a fully agreed definition of "metal" and it depends on context: if one's criterion for the p-block is "forms an aqua cation that doesn't immediately protonate water", then Ge and Sb as metals (but not At) actually becomes correct. (I suspect Og would form such a cation, though. But who cares about it?) So this is okay with me.
Also, typos: element 73 is tantalum (Ta), the group number 18 is duplicated, and I think that if you abbreviate "excluded" to "excl." then "included" should be abbreviated to "incl.".Double sharp (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Typos fixed.
I recall that early samples of Ge were found to be fairly good conductors due to the presence of impurities hence the notion of it being a metal. Later, when sufficiently pure samples became available it was realised that Ge was in fact a semiconductor. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The font size for the label text has been increased marginally. The ragged right margin of the metalloid note now has more of staircase look. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
NB. Per WP:RFC, I have closed this part of discussion since the consensus to show all the elements the same colour is uniformly opposed. Even an involved editor can so close the discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC responses/discussion
Oppose. Firstly, this amounts to removing information when there's no need to do so. Certainly, the block classification does not occupy too much space.
Secondly, it's hard to overstate the importance of blocks. They are directly related to the azimuthal quantum number and hence to the quantum bases of the entire periodic table. A block-based division scheme is mentioned in the IUPAC Red Book as an option on par with labelling groups, which we always do: The groups of elements in the periodic table (see inside front cover) are numbered from 1 to 18. The elements (except hydrogen) of groups 1, 2 and 13–18 are designated as main group elements and, except in group 18, the first two elements of each main group are termed typical elements. Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. (p. 51). Unlike the other names for sets of elements given by the Red Book, blocks cover every element once clearly and there is not much debate on which elements belong to which block, so they can well serve as a classification. A colouring is necessary to make it clear that helium is an s-block element despite its position. Double sharp (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose' not enough justification, with 4 colors there is at least some good simple important information that can be extracted visually. Removing colors will just make it more plain.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't see any good reason for removing this information. With the 10-colour option that was previously proposed (at the link above), there was some ambiguity as to what counted as what, but there's a pretty strong consensus as to where the blocks are, so unless there's some strong reason why we don't want that information, I can't see what harm it does to retain it, and it's potentially useful. Anaxial (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The 4-color scheme has all (or nearly all) of the positives of the schemes with more categories (display useful information, categorize elements, more eye-catching) but none (or nearly none) of the negatives (border ambiguities, elements in multiple classes, lack of consensus in the literature for category selection/names/membership, no single classification principle, nearly-endless talk-page arguments). I say this even though the discussion and perfection of the larger category scheme is what really got me involved in WP. But in the end, I have to say that all the time spent by me and several other collaborators over the years would have been much better spent making edits that significantly improved the encyclopedia rather back-and-forth tweaks that verge on the meaningless. YBG (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. While the 4-color block scheme is not representative of the literature, showing all elements with the same color would be even worse. Sandbh (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. The block names (s, p, d, and f) are in common use using colour to highlight them is useful. Other colour schemes are seen elsewhere but they can become too fussy. Monochrome has no advantages, in my opinion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose there is already another plain table around. The coloured one look better, and is useful for its purpose of highlighting blocks. Perhaps it is not accessible, but those that cannot see colour can find the facts in text elsewhere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I saw the RfC at WT:PHYS and so I'm responding as a casual bystander. Frankly, I'm amazed that the 10-color table was eliminated. The four-color table is eye-bleedingly ugly, and almost devoid of information. The whole point of colors is to say "some of these are not like others", and white-washing the thing, by removing information, just makes the affair boring and stultifying. WP should make readers think "Wow! This is interesting! Something is going on here! Let me investigate!". Coloring it in only a handful of colors just promotes a know-it-all syndrome: "its just four colors, what more is there to know?" and the know-it-all syndrome is a mind-killer. (And yes, I understand the 10-color coloring was ambiguous; but there is a way of coloring it indicate that ambiguity! Ambiguity itself is a terrible excuse!) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Presumably you mean Talk:Periodic table. Discussions there should concern that one specific article, but this RfC is somewhat broader in its scope, having potentially far-reaching effects. We don't have a WikiProject dedicated to the periodic table, so it's either Chemistry, Physics or here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I did indeed mean Talk:Periodic table for the reason that the PT appearing in the lede of that article is generally regarded as the Wikipedia PT. The chemistry project is too disinterested, the ELEM project is too small and non-representative (I speak here as a member of that project) and since the PT is an organising icon of chemistry and the relationships among the elements, Physics is not appropriate. YBG has the right idea; post any further RfC at Talk:Periodic table, then at least ping ELEM, CHEM and PHYSICS. Sandbh (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I was impressed by the comment from the IP editor in support of their oppose, namely:
"And yes, I understand the 10-color coloring was ambiguous; but there is a way of coloring it indicate that ambiguity! Ambiguity itself is a terrible excuse!)"
It is indeed true that chemistry has all sorts of fuzzy definitions.
And yet the 4-colour table was adopted to eliminate this very fuzziness. How unrepresentative, especially for an encyclopedia. I wonder what gives? What is so concerning about ambiguity? --- Sandbh (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, a table showing just the four blocks is not representative of the way “feature” periodic tables are shown in textbooks and is therefore in breach of WP:NPOV. Equally, a table showing ten categories is not representative. A representative table would show just the Ln and An, the TM, metalloids, the noble gases, and the unknowns, and it would need to mark out the four blocks. (Yes I know, one would think that the halogens too would be commonly shown in such tables, but they aren’t.)
There would need to be some kind of fuzziness at least for group 12, to show that they are sometimes counted as TM and sometimes not.
As well, while the elements commonly recognised as metalloids are B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, and Te it is undeniably true that Po and At are sometimes counted as metalloids, and to a lesser extent Se too.
Past problems with the PT in the lede have originated in the fact that we have tried to categorise every element into precisely one category which works fine for most elements but is not representative of some of the elements at the boundaries, such as Po, At and Se.
Pinging other editors to ask if you could chime in with your views. --- Sandbh (talk)
You are still re-arguing the previous RFC in this one. It's not a particular NPOV concern to say that selenium is in the p-block, and similarly for the other elements. On the other hand, has anyone ever seen a periodic table that uses precisely the categories you advocate for a "representative table" and no others? At least such tables exist for the 4-colour scheme. Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Responding to the ping. As I understand it, you are requesting that the previous RfC be re-opened? If so, while I have no strong opinion on the outcome, surely 23 days is too soon to re-open a formally closed RfC, and it would be off-topic to discuss as part of this RfC anyway. But I perhaps I misunderstand what you're asking? Anaxial (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Also responding to ping. Let's just close this RfC first, which will lead to us retaining the status quo. If the IP editor or anyone else wants to make a new multi-coloured proposal, let them do so. I would oppose the current 10-coloured version replacing the 4-coloured one. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for separating this aside in a separate section. Nevertheless I strongly encourage you to refrain from further discussion off the current topic. Having one IP agree with your POV surely should not be reason for an off-topic discussion. YBG (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I feel the 10-color scheme is a compromise between the many different schemes found in external sources; I think it's okay to settle for a compromise if it shows more useful information. To me, the switch from the 10-color scheme to the 4-color block-based scheme seems like it may be a case of "perfect is the enemy of good"; by trying to change from a scheme with fuzzy areas to a scheme with no fuzzy areas, we may have made the periodic table less useful. I also feel the current scheme puts too much emphasis on the blocks and fails to show the huge differences among elements in the p-block. 123957a (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
123957a: I recall the 10-color scheme was deprecated due to it implying sharp boundaries between all categories; and a lack of consistency in the literature on what to label the leftover metals and nonmetals immediately to either side of the metalloids.
A 4-color-block-based scheme is sharp, and useful from a physics perspective, and not representative of the fuzziness associated with chemistry.
Looking at the featured periodic tables appearing in 101 chemistry textbooks (steering clear of the leftover metals and nonmetals) resulted in eleven labels with the indicated appearance %'s:
Actinides (66)
Lanthanides (66)
Nonmetals (30)
Metals (26)
Transition metals (24)
Metalloids (23)
s-block (13)
f-block (13)
d-block (13)
p-block (13)
Noble gases (11)
All other labels have appearance frequencies of < 10% e.g. halogens (6).
Double sharp: Thanks. 1. The closure note to the prior RFC noted, in part, "Further, at least a few editors contemplated continued discussion of the various proposals in subsequent conversations and RFCs." That is what I'm doing, since the current RfC is effectively a non-starter. 2. Of course, there is no NPOV concern about placing Se in the p-block. Rather, the NPOV concern is that a 4-colour block-based colour scheme is unrepresentative of feature tables appearing in the textbooks. 3. I don't know if anyone has ever seen a PT that uses just the categories I suggested, nor is that the point. Instead, the point is that if an NPOV is taken then the categories I suggested are most representative of feature tables appearing in textbooks rather than four coloured blocks. 4. A 4-colour block PT has a place in the periodic table article but not in the lede.
Anaxial: Thanks. No, I'm not requesting the prior RfC be re-opened. Since this current RfC is effectively a non-starter, I'm starting—as flagged in the closing comments of the previous RfC—a discussion of another proposal.
Upon further consideration this actually looks surprisingly good:
the blocks are all there;
the traditional dividing line between metals and nonmetals is there;
the ambiguity of the group 12 metals is there;
the elements commonly recognised as metalloids are there, as are the sometimes runners, Po and At, plus Se further back in the pack (is the shading for Se too light?);
the real location of the Ln and An is nicely shown;
the caption is spot on, in terms of its reference to the most or more commonly named sets of elements in periodic tables;
there is no need for arguments around the borders;
helium as an s-block element is accommodated;
the links in the caption are nice;
colour-challenged folks are accommodated;
there are sufficient accoutrements to prompt further interest.
How this looks in the PT article can be seen here, noting the caption is an earlier draft.
Support I think this is an incredible image that adds more detail about the periodic table without putting classifications that are objective (e.g. having multiple colors for categories) I'm all for it being the lead image. OmegaMantis (call now!) 10:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a further courtesy notice to the project that in the last few days, I have nominated dozens of unused template pages at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Many of these template pages and subpages are related to this project. Deletion, which is the usual fate of unused template pages, may not be the best outcome for a few of them; if the project finds some of them useful, it may be better to move those pages to be subpages of the main WikiProject page. It is also possible that I have nominated a few pages in error due to a misunderstanding on my part. You are welcome to peruse the discussions and contribute to them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Collaboration between the JINR and the US labs cannot continue due to the war in Ukraine. So the LBNL in the US will be going alone. First they will try bombarding plutonium with 50Ti to try to make Lv in a new way; if that works, then they will try 249Cf+50Ti to make 120, in 2024 at the earliest.
Meanwhile RIKEN is still focused on 248Cm+51V to make 119. The GSI cannot commit enough resources until the FAIR synchrotron is finished by 2025.
Quite interesting! I feel like I've seen a lot of interesting info about how some transuranic elements (besides Np and Pu) might have existed in small amounts in nature in the past or currently. Maybe a Wikipedia article about scientific hypothesises about transuranic or superheavy elements in nature should be created? OmegaMantis (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
This seems like a failure to apply Occam's razor. There are a lot of asteroids whose masses are poorly determined, and Polyhymnia is just one of them. Indeed, the original paper giving that mass literally marks the extreme density estimate with a cross, indicating that it is not reliable (p. 20). And that holds for literally every supposedly "ultra-dense" asteroid listed. Speculation based on unreliable data is clearly not reliable: the obvious conclusion is simply that the mass estimates are wrong. Moreover, Polyhymnia has already been spectrally analysed as an S-type asteroid, so it is unrealistic for it to be made of anything but rocky silicates. See discussion at the Minor Planet Mailing List.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An IP editor today at the Help desk pointed out that the lead of our articles are inconsistent: some say "X is a chemical element....", while others say "X is the chemical element...." (my emphasis). Although the IP editor prefers "a", I believe that the definite article is to be preferred over the indefinite article in English grammar, since X is in each case a unique member of the group of chemical elements. I seek consensus to make this change to all leads that currently use "a". I have already done sodium. Comments? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not that sure actually, but I think that the indefinite article places more emphasis on the fact that it's a chemical element, but the definite article places more emphasis on the "with the chemical formula XX and atomic number YY" part. Any thoughts? 141Pr {contribs}16:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the sentence "Potassium is a chemical element." is grammatically correct, while "Potassium is the chemical element." is clearly wrong. However, when the phrase is the first part of a definition (as in all our articles) then "the" is better, IMO. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it depends if we want it to be specific ("the") or general ("a"). I'm not sure which to choose, but I'm leaning towards "the" as opposed to "a". 141Pr {contribs}19:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Split the sentence in two, and we'd say Potassium is a chemical element; it has a symbol K and atomic number 19.. The first part states what it is, the second gives some description about what separates it from all the other things which are chemical elements. I am not in favour of using "the", rather than "a". Bazza (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Taking some examples:
Hydrogen is the chemical element with the symbol H and atomic number 1.
Helium is a chemical element with the symbol He and atomic number 2.
Lithium is a chemical element with the symbol Li and atomic number 3.
Beryllium is a chemical element with the symbol Be and atomic number 4.
Boron is a chemical element with the symbol B and atomic number 5.
Carbon is a chemical element with the symbol C and atomic number 6.
Nitrogen is the chemical element with the symbol N and atomic number 7.
Oxygen is the chemical element with the symbol O and atomic number 8.
Fluorine is a chemical element with the symbol F and atomic number 9.
Neon is the chemical element with the symbol Ne and atomic number 10.
This tallies at "a":6; "the":4. Clearly there is some inconsistency, but I don't think that it's worth worrying about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)#
If the lede sentence is NAME is A/THE chemical element with the symbol SYMBOL and atomic number NUMBER, and the sentence contains nothing more, then I favor saying … is the chemical element that…. At least in my idiolect, … is a chemical element that… leaves open the possibility that some other element also has the same symbol and atomic number. YBG (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I think that User:Bazza_7's proposal of separating the sentence is probably the best one, as it is more grammatical but does not confuse the reader (do other elements have atomic number of 6?) and should be standardized across the element articles. OmegaMantis (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Sounds ok to me. I’d leave the article off before symbol, so it says Potassium is a chemical element; it has symbol K and atomic number 19, wikilinking symbol and atomic number.
It might be nice to put an adjective before chemical element, if that doesn’t mess up the rest of the paragraph, but that seems a lot of work. YBG (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion. I'm happy with any reasonable consistency and the latest proposal using a semicolon is fine. To Redrose64's point, all elements have isotopes and it just happens that we give specific names to deuterium and tritium individually owing to their importance but we also have articles on carbon-12 and carbon-13, for example. @Praseodymium-141 I suggest we wait another couple of days to see if anyone argues against the current consensus and then proceed with the changes. If you start at H and work forward, I'll start at Og and work backwards until we meet! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Bazza 7 I was thinking of a color, state of matter, (non)metallic, or something more specific. But such things are no doubt mentioned later and so this could force recasting the whole paragraph. I withdraw this unwieldy suggestion.
I am happy with the current proposal, but here is some alternatives:
I think these read a bit smoother, and the parentheses and bolding make clear that the symbol and Z are synonyms. I’m not agitating against the current proposal, just offering alternative ideas in case they jump out to someone. YBG (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
The first alternate proposal seems to be really good; I like how smooth it is. I'm for the first alternate proposal, but I'm also fine with the current proposal. 
The second proposal I'm not for, as the 118 known seems kind of unnecessary (I think the first sentence should probably be just about what the element is, it doesn't need to describe that there is this number of elements). Plus, when more elements are synthesized, we would have to update every single lede sentence.
I am not keen on introducing anything before "X is a chemical element".
Whichever wording you choose, if this is to be implemented on all chemical element articles, then a template may created to (a) make implementation easier and (b) allow rapid and simple rewording should that be needed in the future. For example, {{chemical element definition|Hydrogen|Li|3|metallic}} might produce Lithium is a metallic chemical element; it has chemical symbol Li and atomic number 3.(Template parameters and initial wording subject to agreement, of course.)Bazza (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Writing the template out will be nearly or even just as long as simply writing it by hand. I get that it would be good to ensure consistency though. Polyamorph (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I thought that consistency was the purpose of this discussion. There is also the possibility of extracting the parameters from the article's infobox, thus simply requiring {{chemical element definition}}. as the first sentence of the article. Bazza (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'm just not sure a template is needed for that, provided it is prescribed in the MOS, infobox templates or conversions etc. is one thing, but templating article prose I'm not sure is something we should be doing. Polyamorph (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The second option is my preference as it uses specialist subject terminology ("symbol" and "atomic number") after introducing the subject ("chemical element"). (If, however, the first option is adopted, then note that "K" and "19" should be MOS:NOTBOLD; neither are MOS:BOLD#OTHER.)Bazza (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
@Praseodymium-141 I think we now have sufficient consensus to start editing the articles to the version with the semicolon. I'm going to link to this discussion in my edit summaries. As I mentioned, if you start at hydrogen and work up, I'll start at Og and work down. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I prefer the first option, and I believe that the symbol should be bold per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Although it puts the technical terms first, it is shorter by avoiding the use of the empty phrase "it has". YBG (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
@YBG, @Praseodymium-141. I began to make the changes but have stopped for now until we agree this point! All element articles I've looked at do indeed bold the element symbol but there are almost no redirects that use them because, of course, the element symbol is rarely the most important topic for H, He, K or even unusual cases like Og etc. I would like to hear from @Bazza 7 again, who has consistently argued for the semicolon version. Do you accept the "empty phrase" argument? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: Thanks for asking. Shortness should not be a primary concern, especially considering the small nuymber of words under discussion.
I prefer the second option because it puts the elementary (pardon the pun) definition immediately after the element's name: Xxxx is a chemical element. We could delete the rest of the sentence and still have this basic fact to satisfy MOS:FIRST.
I don't agree about the "empty phrase" bit: it's standard English use of two related phrases in a sentence separated by a semicolon: Gold is a chemical element; it's yellow and shiny and considered valuable.
If consensus is to use the first option, then that's how WP works and I will not argue further. I will, though, continue to argue that MOS:NOTBOLD explicitly states that using bold is to be avoided other than for the first occurrence of the article's title or any terms which redirect to the article. As has been already pointed out, few (if any) symbols, and no atomic numbers, are redirects to chemical element articles. Bazza (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Personally, I accept your view. I note that @Praseodymium-141 has already done all up to #86 already so as Magnus Magnusson would say "I've started, so I'll finish". If, after further discussion here we settle on something nearer @YBG's version, I'm happy to go through them all again! Also, making these changes today will have alerted many editors who have the element pages on their watchlist to the discussion, since we have been linking it in our edit summaries. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks folks for your work on this. I still prefer the first version but, for reasons previously stated and because it fits in with the common WP pattern used with alternate names. I would not expect that very many of the atomic symbols exist as redirects since they are just one or two letters long. MOS:BOLDALTNAMES only says they should ^usually* be redirects. The symbol is very often pipelinked to the element name, so a similar line of reasoning should apply.
Nevertheless, this is not a mole hill I would make a mountain of, much less one I would die on. Besides, despite WP:!VOTE, when only three editors participate in a discussion, the out!voted minority must be either very stubborn or very bellicose to fail to WP:DTS.
I am glad of your effort to eliminate ambiguity and bring consistency to these two articles. This is something we can all rejoice over! YBG (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Interestingly, the blurb for today's featured article 90377 Sedna has the same sort of ambiguity caused by "is a .... with". The article itself avoid the issue by using parentheses.
I didn't have a strong position on the wording (sentence structure, etc.) and am happy that a consistent solution seems to have been found. But I support bolding the symbol. In addition to being important synonyms for the article topic, we actually do have symbol (element) redirects and the elements are listed on the symbol (disambiguation) pages. DMacks (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
@DMacks: That's a good point. Had I realised earlier than symbol (element) articles exist, I would have supported bolding the symbol in these articles (MOS:BOLDREDIRECT). Incidentally, your use of the strange {{fake link}} was very confusing; I initially thought my browser was playing up when I tried to open them in new tabs.Bazza (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I now realise that we have all the "Element n" e.g. Element 101 redirects as well! Does this mean that we should return to bolding the numbers as well as the symbols? One final sweep through would be fine if so but I'd like the inputs from @Praseodymium-141 and @YBG first, given their interest. One counterargument is that the element symbol and number (e.g. Mendelevium, 101Md) is always included and bolded in the title of the Chembox, which is different than the case for articles about non-elements, where the infobox, if present, would normally just repeat the article's title. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I strongly favor bolding the symbol, but am ambivalent about the atomic number. The elements are included on at least some dab pages like at 19 § Science, if that sways anyone to bold both like this:
Yes, these put “is a chemical element” later in the sentence, but the nontechnical reader would gloss over the parenthetical much like they do for parenthesized birth and death dates or pronunciations or native language forms, all of which are technical details that come before the “is a xxx” in the lede sentence.
I suppose this post should be construed as a strong argument for bolding the symbol and a weak argument against bolding the atomic number (unless we use the parenthetical form). YBG (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:BOLD, I don't think we should bold the atomic number. The symbol should be bolded, because it's synonymous with the element name, and the two may be substituted salva veritate with in a sentence. But that's not true of the atomic number; you can only substitute the atomic number for the symbol in the context of a nuclide symbol or chemical equation (where it could be used as a substitute symbol when the element hadn't been discovered or named), not within a sentence. Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I took a look at the first sentence of some articles from other topic-areas that have similar situations:
Speed of light: "The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant that is exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 300,000 kilometres per second; 186,000 miles per second; 671 million miles per hour)."
OK, we seem to have a new consensus that the symbol should be bolded, as in fact it was on all these articles before the latest changes. I'm going to go ahead now to do that. I suggest that this Section be closed to further comments and if anyone feels there needs to be further discussion on any aspect, this should be done in a new Section. Mike Turnbull (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not my field, but doesn't the recent change to the introduction of elements ("it has symbol Cu and atomic number 29") feel rather ungrammatical? "Has an atomic number of" is more common than "has atomic number" on Google Scholar. "Has the symbol" is also seemingly more common in chemistry textbooks. Marboxil (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I should note that this will overwrite all of the sources, except for isotopes such as 241U discovered more recently than NUBASE2020. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I have a question though, for some superheavy nuclides that are listed in NUBASE2020 (such as 278Bh, 278Hs, 293Og, and 295Og), how do we sure they are confirmed or not? NUBASE2020 said they were discovered in 2016, 2016, 2010, and 2006 respectively, but the isotopes pages lists 278Bh as unconfirmed, and don't even list the other three. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
AFAIK they are not confirmed. But I think there's no problem with using NUBASE2020 as a start, and then checking against the sources to see how confirmed they really are. Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I was looking at some of the articles and was wondering if the fusion equations in the articles for the superheavy elements and their respective isotope articles are examples of beta-delayed neutron emission.
@Purplemountainman: The equations in these articles only describe neutron emission during de-excitation of a compound nucleus; no beta decays are involved. In the case of nihonium, the given equation suggests first neutron emission, then electron capture (effectively the inverse of beta-delayed neutron emission), though that assignment is uncertain. Complex/Rational20:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I submitted samarium for FAC last year (here) but it failed due to the reference issues posted by Sandbh. I wonder if we can check the sources so I can attempt another FAC? I can't access many of them. 141Pr {contribs}17:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
1.
Standard atomic weight Ar°(Sm)
150.36±0.02
150.36±0.02 (abridged)[1]
I do not understand the need for two entries for atomic weight nor the mention of "abridged". Citation 1 does not use this term.
2-5
2.Y Both sources check out.
3. Checks out but mention of "SmB6-" should be to "SmB6-", Fixed
4.Y Correct.
5. The date of the source is shown as 1984 but is in fact 1983. The page number is shown as E110 but is in fact E-112. The units are shown as cm3/mol but in the reference are shown as cgs. The figure in reference is for a temperature of 291 K; this should be noted in the WP entry. The ISBN of 0-8493-0464-4 should be converted to 13-number format. Fixed.
6. An entry for 145Sm is missing (half-life 340 days). The half-life for 146Sm does not check out; the source lists it as 68 My. There is no consistency in rounding of abundances and half-lives.
Removed
7. I could not find anything in the citation supporting the assertion that "Samarium has no significant biological role; some samarium salts are slightly toxic."
Removed.
7
7. The source says, "Samarium has no significant biological role". Fixed
8. This source supports the listed boiling point of Sm. i do not understand why it is required since source 10 says the same thing.
9. This source is linked to the 81st (2000) edition of the CRC Handbook but the WP entry strangely says it is for the edition of "2004-06-29", whatever that means. The entry in the CRC Handbook does not support the WP statement that, "samarium is the third most volatile lanthanide after ytterbium and europium and comparable in this respect to lead and barium; this helps separation of samarium from its ores."
10. "Samarium is calculated to have one of the largest atomic radii of the elements; with a radius of 238 pm, only potassium, praseodymium, barium, rubidium and caesium are larger."
The citation only partly checks out. It only covers from He to Rn. Potassium, praseodymium, barium, rubidium and caesium are indeed larger. I note La and Ce have larger radii shown in parentheses. The paper does not explain what the parentheses mean.
I do not have access to the source. The reference is also used here, where La and Ce have smaller radii. I don't know though. 141Pr {contribs}16:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
11. Is noted below and does not check out.
a b c d Shi, N.; Fort, D. (1985). "Preparation of samarium in the double hexagonal close packed form". Journal of the Less Common Metals. 113 (2): 21. doi:10.1016/0022-5088(85)90294-2.
Here:
a = a tetragonal phase appearing at about 900 kbar.
b = Thin films of samarium obtained by vapor deposition may contain the hcp or dhcp phases in ambient conditions.
c = trigonal samarium
d = hexagonal samarium
Item b is indeed mentioned by Shi & Fort. However they say nothing in support of a, c and d that I could see.
12-16
12. "The metal transforms to an antiferromagnetic state upon cooling to 14.8 K."
The article says, "it is believed [italics added] that these metals become anti-ferromagnetic below these temperatures." Since the article is from 1957 there is probably a more recent citations that would confirm this.
13.Y Cited to support #12, above. Checks out.
14. "Individual samarium atoms can be isolated by encapsulating them into fullerene molecules."
Y Correct.
15. "They can also be doped (intentional adding of samarium atoms) between the C60 molecules in the fullerene solid, rendering it superconductive at temperatures below 8 K." Fixed
The source says at a temperature of 8 K, rather than at temperatures below 8 K. The WP sentence is badly constructed. It should say something like, "Samarium atoms can be intercalated into the interstices of bulk C60 to form a solid solution of nominal composition Sm3C60, which is superconducting at a temperature of 8 K.
16. "Samarium doping of iron-based superconductors – a class of high-temperature superconductor – increases their transition to normal conductivity temperature up to 56 K, the highest value achieved so far in this series."
Y Correct.
17. "Samarium is quite electropositive and reacts slowly with cold water and rapidly with hot water to form samarium hydroxide:"
The citation is to Webelements. Retrieved 2009-06-06. A more reliable source is needed.
18
18. "Samarium dissolves readily in dilute sulfuric acid to form solutions containing the yellow..."
The citation is to "Greenwood", which refers to Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth–Heinemann. ISBN 0-08-037941-9. The citation should say, "c:.
The ISBN needs to be converted to 13 digit form. Fixed
The citation does not check out; I could not find any reference in the source to samarium acting in this way.
Found in Greenwood & Earnshaw 1997 page p. 1243, saying that the Sm3+ is yellow in aqueous solutions. Doesn't explicitly say that sulfuric acid dissolves samarium metal, but considering that it readily reacts with water, it would do with sulfuric acid too.
19. "Samarium is one of the few lanthanides with a relatively accessible +2 oxidation state, alongside Eu and Yb."
This citation is factually correct but incorrectly sourced. The source is given as "Stephen T. Liddle; David P. Mills; Louise S. Natrajan, eds. (2022). The lanthanides and actinides: synthesis, reactivity, properties and applications. London. p. 213". The source is actually to a chapter in the book, namely "Organometallic Chemistry of Lanthanides" by Wenliang Huang and Paula L. Diaconescu, pp. 209 to 310.
20. Source says:
The coordination chemistry in this oxidation state is essentially confined to the ions SmII, EuII and YbII. These are the only ones with an aqueous chemistry and their solutions may be prepared by ... These solutions are blood-red for SmII...
Yttrium and all lanthanides except Ce and Pm have been observed in the oxidation state 0 in bis(1,3,5-tri-t-butylbenzene) complexes, see Cloke, F. Geoffrey N. (1993). "Zero Oxidation State Compounds of Scandium, Yttrium, and the Lanthanides". Chem. Soc. Rev. 22: 17–24. doi:10.1039/CS9932200017. and Arnold, Polly L.; Petrukhina, Marina A.; Bochenkov, Vladimir E.; Shabatina, Tatyana I.; Zagorskii, Vyacheslav V.; Cloke (2003-12-15). "Arene complexation of Sm, Eu, Tm and Yb atoms: a variable temperature spectroscopic investigation". Journal of Organometallic Chemistry. 688 (1–2): 49–55. doi:10.1016/j.jorganchem.2003.08.028. Can only see abstract.141Pr {contribs}11:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
SmB6- cluster anion has been reported and contains Sm in rare oxidation state of +1; see Paul, J. Robinson; Xinxing, Zhang; Tyrel, McQueen; Kit, H. Bowen; Anastassia, N. Alexandrova (2017). "SmB6– Cluster Anion: Covalency Involving f Orbitals". J. Phys. Chem. A 2017, 121, 8, 1849–1854. 121 (8): 1849–1854. doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.7b00247. PMID 28182423. S2CID 3723987.. Can only see abstract.141Pr {contribs}11:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). "Magnetic susceptibility of the elements and inorganic compounds". CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (PDF) (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. p. 4-134. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5. Can see archive.141Pr {contribs}11:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Weast, Robert (1983). CRC, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Boca Raton, Florida: Chemical Rubber Company Publishing. pp. E112. ISBN 978-0-8493-0464-4. Cannot access.141Pr {contribs}11:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Kondev, F. G.; Wang, M.; Huang, W. J.; Naimi, S.; Audi, G. (2021). "The NUBASE2020 evaluation of nuclear properties" (PDF). Chinese Physics C. 45 (3): 030001. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abddae. Can access.141Pr {contribs}11:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
"Samarium (Sm) | AMERICAN ELEMENTS ®". American Elements: The Materials Science Company. Retrieved 2023-11-17. Can access.141Pr {contribs}11:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Emsley, John (2001). "Samarium". Nature's Building Blocks: An A–Z Guide to the Elements. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 371–374. ISBN 0-19-850340-7. Can access.141Pr {contribs}11:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
J.A. Dean, ed. (1999). Lange's Handbook of Chemistry (15th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Section 3; Table 3.2 Physical Constants of Inorganic Compounds. ISBN 978-0-07016384-3. Cannot access.141Pr {contribs}11:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hammond, C. R. (2004-06-29). "The Elements". Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). Boca Raton New York Washington: CRC press. p. 4-27. ISBN 978-0-8493-0481-1. On archive.org, can only borrow for an hour.141Pr {contribs}11:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Clementi, E.; Raimond, D. L.; Reinhardt, W. P. (1967). "Atomic Screening Constants from SCF Functions. II. Atoms with 37 to 86 Electrons". Journal of Chemical Physics. 47 (4): 1300–1307. Bibcode:1967JChPh..47.1300C. doi:10.1063/1.1712084. Cannot access.141Pr {contribs}11:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Shi, N.; Fort, D. (1985). "Preparation of samarium in the double hexagonal close packed form". Journal of the Less Common Metals. 113 (2): 21. doi:10.1016/0022-5088(85)90294-2. Can only access first page.
Lock, J. M. (1957). "The Magnetic Susceptibilities of Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodymium and Samarium, from 1.5 K to 300 K". Proceedings of the Physical Society. Series B. 70 (6): 566. Bibcode:1957PPSB...70..566L. doi:10.1088/0370-1301/70/6/304. Only abstract.141Pr {contribs}11:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Huray, P.; Nave, S.; Haire, R. (1983). "Magnetism of the heavy 5f elements". Journal of the Less Common Metals. 93 (2): 293. doi:10.1016/0022-5088(83)90175-3. Abstract only.141Pr {contribs}11:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Okazaki, T.; Suenaga, Kazutomo; Hirahara, Kaori; et al. (2002). "Electronic and geometric structures of metallofullerene peapods". Physica B. 323 (1–4): 97. Bibcode:2002PhyB..323...97O. doi:10.1016/S0921-4526(02)00991-2. Only section snippets & abstract.141Pr {contribs}11:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Chen, X.; Roth, G. (1995). "Superconductivity at 8 K in samarium-doped C60". Physical Review B. 52 (21): 15534–15536. Bibcode:1995PhRvB..5215534C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.52.15534. PMID 9980911. Abstract only.141Pr {contribs}11:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Wu, G.; Xie, Y. L.; Chen, H.; et al. (2008). "Superconductivity at 56 K in Samarium-doped SrFeAsF". Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter. 21 (14): 142203. arXiv:0811.0761. Bibcode:2009JPCM...21n2203W. doi:10.1088/0953-8984/21/14/142203. PMID 21825317. S2CID 41728130. Abstract only.141Pr {contribs}11:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Stephen T. Liddle; David P. Mills; Louise S. Natrajan, eds. (2022). The lanthanides and actinides: synthesis, reactivity, properties and applications. London. p. 213. ISBN 978-1-80061-015-6. OCLC 1251740566. I don't want to pay £266...141Pr {contribs}11:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a regular user of the Wikipedia Library - I've tried searching a citation (#2) - it still shows some metadata and the abstract but not the actual content. 141Pr {contribs}14:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: I think 8B should be added to your list. Not only is it an interesting halo nucleus and the longest-lived boron radioisotope, but it also occurs in the p–p III branch. Probably also 57Ni should be added as a product of supernovae. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I had previously read about the history of artificial radioactivity and 30P, so added that one to the list. 13N was already there (as it is used in PET and has its own article), and I'm not quite familiar with the story of 27Si and 28Al. Complex/Rational15:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Adopting criteria for "main isotopes" tables in element infoboxes
Should the following inclusion criteria be adopted for the tables of isotopes in element infoboxes?
Element infoboxes and the heads of the coresponding lists of isotopes should include a short table of isotopes that satisfy at least one of the following properties:
Support. A brief overview of the most notable isotopes is useful, and this seems to nicely summarise the reasons an isotope may be particularly notable (with 8 as a stopgap for special cases like 8Be). Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Support. The main reasons for having such criteria are to define a set encompassing (almost) all isotopes for which there exists some interest outside pure nuclear physics research, and to have lists in the infoboxes that are consistent and comprehensive, but not exhaustive or with arbitrary inclusion criteria. I have noticed that some infoboxes include only one or two primordial isotopes, and others include miscellaneous radioisotopes without a consistent cutoff in terms of applications or stability. I do think, though, that we need a bit of clarity on points 2 (do we include the shortest-lived like 212Po in infoboxes as well?) and 8 (how would an outside editor qualify "interesting"? WP:GNG?). Complex/Rational14:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
IMHO, decay products like 212Po can't be excluded just because their half-lives are too short, and how short is "too short" is also quite arbitrary. I think the infobox need to include all nuclides with historic name (206-208,210Tl, 210-212,214Pb, 210-212,214Bi, 210-212,214-216,218Po, 219,220,222Rn, 223Fr, 223,224,226,228Ra, 227,228Ac, 227,228,230,231,234Th, 231,234,234mPa, 234U).
I would agree that a historic name is definitely an "interesting" property that merits inclusion, so would suggest incorporating that into criterion 2. Complex/Rational22:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
For property 8, the longest-lived radioisotope can be included if other shorter-lived radioisotopes are listed. Long-lived isomers that are in the list of top 3 longest-lived isotopes can also be included. I'm not sure about do nuclides in stellar nucleosynthesis like 56Co are interesting to be included. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Support. Seems reasonably limiting with enough wiggle room to keep from being overly strict. I support an explicit rule for all nuclides with historic names. I’ve got some thoughts about the infobox itself which I’ll briefly mention here: (1) Add a line at the bottom plus nnn more isotopes with t1/2 < ttt appropriately wikilinked. (2) Redo the headers to avoid ugly line wrapping. YBG (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Isn't every other nuclide probably technically extinct? Surely many of them were created by the r-process and then quickly decayed away, for example. The way that point is formulated, I would find it confusing and avoid using it. Perhaps if a line is drawn somewhere, the rule becomes easier to follow, but it's not obvious to me where that line should be. Maybe one could opt for something simpler such as "half-life over 1,000 (1,000,000, etc.) years."--R8R (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Good point. A 10,000 year threshold would be enough to get 41Ca, which IIRC is the shortest-lived that we have positive evidence was there, rather than a case of "r-process and fission would produce many things that soon disappeared".
That being said, I could be persuaded to replace this with a blanket 10-year threshold (so tritium appears near the bottom). I don't think it would lead to overly large tables. Double sharp (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
There are only 2 nuclides with half-life longer than 10 years but not listed, which are 93Mo and 182Hf. Many such nuclides get listed by the reason “Most stable radioisotope(s)”. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Updated to reflect this thread and include decay products with historic names. Feel free to correct anything that I may have missed.
Regarding extinct radioisotopes, I was going for those for which there exists clear evidence of past natural occurrence (e.g., overabundance of a decay product) as described in RS, which generally correlates with having a longer half-life. Complex/Rational13:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
It seems like we could avoid the ambiguity and end up with basically the same results by replacing that criterion with one that says any nuclide with half-life > 10 years gets included. Actually, even a 1-year threshold would only add three nuclides to the list: 102mRh, 236Pu (beta-stable!), and 235Np. Double sharp (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't really support such a threshold because of measurement uncertainty and borderline cases regardless of what we choose. With a 1-year threshold, there's a problem for 144Pm, as its listed half-life is 363±14 days and thus not unambiguously on either side. And picking an arbitrary number where this problem doesn't occur (e.g., 7 years, between 194Os and 154Eu) would run into the issue of needing an ad hoc justification.
It seems that all the significant or long-lived nuclides are already accounted for. Perhaps I should also note that all the nuclides with standalone articles are on the list, though that is a consequence of the same coverage in the literature leading to their inclusion. Complex/Rational22:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Those deletions each had time for discussion. If a merge into the article is proposed, then we can point out that they are useful for keeping the element article wikitext tractable, so I thinks it's no problem. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Lattice Constant
Hi all - there's currently an edit request open at Template talk:Infobox gold to add the lattice constant. It seems like a reasonable request to me (although it looks like I would first have to add it to Template:Infobox element, which is fine), but I thought I would ask people with more subject knowledge here first to see if this is a reasonable addition before adjusting that template. Thanks! LittlePuppers (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@LittlePuppers: Yes, good idea to add the lattice constant to the infobox as a crystal structure comment. Looks like onlycarboniron and lead have them now, and I'd be glad to add them to a bunch of elements. This looks like a good source:
King, H. W. (1981). "Crystal structures of the elements at 25°C". Bulletin of Alloy Phase Diagrams. 2: 401–402. doi:10.1007/BF02868307. ISSN0197-0216.
Can you access that ref above (unfortunately not open-access). I like it because it gives the original sources it draws from, and states everything for the same temperature 25 °C. Can recommend other sources instead or in addition? Most content of the infoboxes is not sourced now, so what's your take on whether to reference everything new added there? Seems like enough to leave sources out of the infoboxes but add the constants, with sources, also to lattice constant#List_of_lattice_constants. Eventually let's separate elements from the compounds as separate lists there. Thoughts? –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good to make such a data page and I'm glad to help. I'll follow your lead, or just start an element table in lattice constant for now, which can become a data page later. Do you have a preference for the source to use: the ref above, or the WebElements site, or a variety as needed? WebElements doesn't seem to give the temperature, and neither gives more than one allotrope. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Whatever we decide, I'd favour consistency. So the ref above is fine with me. I guess we should make an exception for Cf, which is given by WebElements but not your ref. Double sharp (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that it should be as consistent as reasonably possible and try to stick with a main source, then a couple backup sources to fill in the holes.
This book seems ideal except that one of us would have to shell out $300 or find it in a library:
Arblaster, John W. (2018-03-01). Selected Values of the Crystallographic Properties of Elements. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International. ISBN1-62708-155-0.
It's recent, thorough, sourced, gives a preferred value, temperatures, and covers different allotropes. Google books lets us see about a fifth of it: [5]
Do you think this is the best choice as the main source for lattice constants in the elements, data page, and Lattice constant page?
And are you willing to take on the Lion's share of transcribing the data into WP? If you put it in one place then I will help place it in the others. Otherwise I will cringe and then consider buying a copy.
Using 20 °C as the reference temperature as in this book.
Adding a Pearson symbol parameter to the Infobox element template. Pearson symbol seems to be the modern standard way, eclipsing the Strukturbericht designation.
Possibly updating the thermal expansion coefficients using this source.
@MadeOfAtoms: I would consider it a good and comprehensive recent source, so count me in as supporting its use. I'll start by transcribing the summary of crystallographic properties (including lattice constants) in Appendix B. Double sharp (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Excellent! I will start updating the element infoboxes with lattice constants and densities, and this reference. For example see carbon. While we're at it, what do you think of including the Pearson symbol as a new infobox parameter and display it as "Pearson symbol: hP4" or maybe just "(hP4)" as another line in the "Crystal structure" field? Useful, or just distracting for most readers? –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I looked briefly but couldn't find any that did right now. Looking at how lead does it, it appears to set |crystal structure comment=''a''=495.08 pm. I assume it would be easier if this was set to something like |lattice constant=, but a couple quick questions:
Is this the best format to display it (next to the diagram), or would it be clearer to display as a line below, something like "lattice constant: 495.08 pm"? (This has the benefit of providing a link for people like me who don't have a lot of background knowledge.)
If so, should it, still specify "a ="? (From a glance over the lattice constant article, it appears that a is just one of (or the most common of) a few measures of lattices, so maybe?
Should units be supplied by the template (i.e. automatically append pm or Å or something), or be provided individually for each infobox? Or have a default only if nothing is specified? (And if so, what should that be?)
@LittlePuppers and Double sharp: Initially I also thought we should add a parameter "lattice constant" to the Infobox element template. But the info varies in several ways so we would need a bunch of parameters and cases: many elements have several lattice constants, and some like carbon have different allotropes to specify. I think it works just fine to put the information into the "crystal structure comment" parameter so it appears near each allotrope's little structure image, which nicely illustrates the meaning of a, b, etc as needed. I think it's okay to just add the labels and units and temperatures ourselves in the comment text, which allows notes and links customized as appropriate to each element. For example, for Hg it could show "a = 300.5 pm; α = 70.53° (at 225 K)". My only regret would be that the "lattice constant" as a link and searchable phrase are absent. Opinions?
While we're at it, it would help to add a more specific crystal structure designation in each case. (It could ride along on the "crystal structure comment" parameter, in the simplest implementation.) The Strukturbericht designation is good because we can pipe it to the specification in that article, which is nice and complete, such as A3' for La. (The Pearson symbol is another widely used option but it doesn't seem as helpful.) –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, would it be of any use to just have the a link to lattice constant? Theoretically that'd be better than nothing.
Looking at how this is implemented, it seems like it might be possible to have Lattice constant: a= appear still to the left of the diagram, rather than below (i.e. how iron and lead appear now, but with a the text and a link to "lattice constant" below "crystal structure" and to the left of "a=". Again, I'll leave it to you guys as to the best way to present this, though; I'm just throwing possibilities out there. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @LittlePuppers and Double sharp: for all the ideas and brainstorming. Let's go with the simple and compact link form a = in the "crystal structure comment", and use King (1981) as the source for the main allotrope unless you prefer a different form. See gold for example to see if you like it (please pardon me LittlePuppers if I just stepped on your toes there). –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@LittlePuppers: I'm fine with how it is now on gold, but I like your proposed layout better. There are two ways to do it: as one or as two Infobox label/data pairs. Doing it with one is easy: conditionally add a line "Lattice constant" to the label so it looks similar to a new label. But the vertical spacing is not quite the same as for "real" labels. Or do it with two label/data pairs: "Lattice constant" becomes its own label and we move the small image out from "Crystal structure" and into this field. The second option seems more "correct" as it gets the vertical spacing correct and gets the template data labeled clearly, but requires a bit more template hacking to keep the little crystal image in a good place given that only some elements have a Lattice constant field so far. I have just enough template skill to try implementing it, or feel free to go for it. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I mocked it up by linking both in one label (and noticed that the spacing was weird), but having two and putting the diagram next to the second makes more sense. I was thinking that would push the diagram down, but now that I actually look at it I realize that the name of the structure (e.g. "face-centered cubic") takes up enough room that the diagram is already down there. I'll play around with how to implement it. LittlePuppers (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Everything should stay exactly as it is, until you move it to the |lattice constant= parameter.
"Lattice constant" vs "lattice constants"? I went with the singular, but feel free to switch it (or should it vary depending on the template?)
I'm pretty sure this should play nicely with with |crystal structure prefix=, |crystal structure comment=, and having two crystal structures (use |lattice constant 2=), but it's probably worth double checking that everything looks right in articles with those to make sure I didn't screw something up.
I'm currently prepending ''a'' = , but feel free to take that out.
I also pondered (without a clear opinion) whether to have both a lattice constant and a lattice constants= parameter, or instead to add lattice constant suffix parameters that we set to "s" as needed. Your thought?
I guess we'll want to take out the ''a'' = because half the elements have various other constants. The only other option I can think of is to have many cases in a switch on yet another parameter (like the number of lattice constants) or a big {{#switch{{{crystal structure}}}...}}, which all seems unnecessary as it's easy enough and more transparent for future editors to format them all ourselves. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I think either of those could work to make plurals. Having lattice constant and lattice constants is probably easier for each element's infobox, whereas just having something for the suffix is easier in {{infobox element}}. Neither of them seem to make it particularly obvious how this works, but realistically these will probably all be put in by a handful of people and then rarely touched again.
My thought with a= is that it seems like even elements with multiple constants have that and the others can get tacked on to the end; but it may be easier to be consistent and have to format all of them, instead of all but one. Feel free to take it out. LittlePuppers (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Your edit to {{Infobox element}} works beautifully, and I added also the "lattice constants" parameter, and moved the little image up a bit. Took out the formatting on the "lattice constant" value, but I could go either way – just thought it might be confusing to format that one but not the plural version. Check it out at carbon to see what you think. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
A few points that occurred to me based on the data:
For elements that are not solid at 293.15 K, we should list the conditions explicitly.
For H and He, it is rather isotopes that we should show separately, rather than allotropes. (I mean, if you get to enough precision, then this is an issue for nearly every element: isotopically pure 208Pb will surely have a different density from isotopically pure 204Pb. But for H and He the differences are the most serious, since they are so light. Side question: has anyone ever found or calculated crystallographic data for tritium?)
Agreed. Looks like your table at User:Double sharp/Crystallographic properties of the elements has these conditions carefully specified and ready to go. It can go into the infobox as is, but I suggest making it more compact e.g. by specifying in an {{efn}} that n-H2 is "normal hydrogen (protium), 75% o-H2 25% p-H2".
Also, the element infobox templates now take the "crystal lattice Pearson symbol" parameter(s) so we can update that, the density, and the lattice constants all in one go, and share the reference, as done in carbon.
I couldn't find data for tritium indeed. Since we both can't find any data, I guess it probably has not been studied. I was hoping because even francium had estimated/predicted data, but oh well. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Double sharp thanks again for the great lattice data table. I'm gradually adding the info to the element infoboxes starting arbitrarily at K. I agree that the temperature (or "at the triple point") should be given clearly for density and other parameters where it matters.
Would you please consider adding a column of thermal expansion coefficients at 20 °C also available in Arblaster (2018)? It would make a nice set of relate crystallographic info and would allow us to add this up-to-date thermal info to the element infoboxes. I hope you'll want to transclude this table into lattice constant and others. A complication for some crystals is the highly anisotropic thermal expansion (most commonly for hcp) so there's a coefficient for each axis as given in Arblaster. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Sure, when time permits. I'll ping you when I've done it. :)
A new paper has announced the discovery of 15 new neutron-rich isotopes of elements copper through krypton and with mass numbers from 84 to 103.
Shimizu, Y.; Kubo, T.; Sumikama, T.; Fukuda, N.; Takeda, H.; Suzuki, H.; Ahn, D. S.; Inabe, N.; Kusaka, K.; Ohtake, M.; Yanagisawa, Y.; Yoshida, K.; Ichikawa, Y.; Isobe, T.; Otsu, H.; Sato, H.; Sonoda, T.; Murai, D.; Iwasa, N.; Imai, N.; Hirayama, Y.; Jeong, S. C.; Kimura, S.; Miyatake, H.; Mukai, M.; Kim, D. G.; Kim, E.; Yagi, A. (8 April 2024). "Production of new neutron-rich isotopes near the N = 60 isotones Ge 92 and As 93 by in-flight fission of a 345 MeV/nucleon U 238 beam". Physical Review C. 109 (4). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.044313.
The new nuclides are 84Cu, 86–87Zn, 88–89Ga, 91–92Ge, 93–95As, 96–97Se, 99–100Br, and 103Kr. I cannot access the paper beyond the abstract and figures in order to get any nontrivial information that is not extrapolated in NUBASE2020 + AME2020 II, such as a lower bound on the half-life of the new nuclides.
Also, some of the isotope lists affected by this update are extremely out of date; Isotopes of copper, for example, did not include 81–83Cu until I fully updated the list to NUBASE2020 + AME2020 II, which is why I took the effort to update this one thoroughly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03: I had seen this paper, though I've been too busy the past few days to update the isotopes pages – thanks for doing so. There isn't any mass or decay data in the article, though if you'd like a PDF copy I can email you. Complex/Rational02:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, I recently discovered this WikiProject and I'd really like to contribute to the good work that is being done here. I have looked around on the project pages, and am wondering what I could do that would be most useful. Should I adopt one of the element/period/group pages that are not GA yet (and not actively worked on by a project member) and focus on improving it? Patrol the recent changes on the pages followed by the project? Something else that is crucial but not obvious at first glance? A bit of everything? Thanks! Choucas Bleu (T·C) 14:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you should edit pages that you are most interested in. Every edit adds that page to your "watch" list. Also "watch" this page. I expect your list of topics will grow over time.
In case it is helpful, there is a tool for look for most-visited pages by category:
Choucas Bleu Hi! This is an effort initiated and continued by volunteers. People enjoy themselves here, so you should, too. Other editors will be genuinely glad to assist you in your effort if they can :)
What do you want from this project? As for me, I joined this project because I hoped to increase my knowledge of chemistry (surprisingly, it didn't really have this effect, and some other editors here know chemistry better than I do; they learned it elsewhere) as well as improve my English, since I come from a non-English-speaking country. I hope the editors who remember me from more than ten years ago will say that I have at least partially succeeded in that course. Over time, I grew a genuine liking to writing and thinking about how my writing will be perceived by others. What kind of content do I want, can I provide that? I asked myself questions and looked for answers to them, that was also a major part of the experience. I liked my writing, and others did, too; that came with practice. I also got a liking for collecting bronze stars.
I started working on fluorine because I expected that article to be an easy target, given how its chemistry is always formation of mononegative anions. I learned along the way that the task was more difficult than I imagined (okay, I learned some chemistry here). It wasn't easy, but in the end the goal was reached. Along the way, I met User:TCO (who is, sadly, not around anymore). He had a very positive effect on me, particularly with this essay of his. It taught me to want to provide value rather than collect stickers. I've been doing that ever since.
So, try to understand what it is that you'd like to do. If you're anything like me, I would suggest considering starting to aim for a bronze star on a regular element (not an overly important and therefore difficult one, like sulfur or gold), even regular elements have articles with tens of thousands of views every month. It'll teach you a lot along the way. Other editors will be glad to assist a new member finding his way. You can also ask me personally, I like to think I have a lot of tips to share, and I'll be glad to help out, too, though just in case, you better communicate with me per email since I'm not around for the time being. I harbor plans to return one day, but that day is not nigh yet. I won't be bothered if you contact me often, though I can't promise to respond quickly.
If you're not, well, be yourself; you do you. It's not gonna be fun if you don't enjoy it.
Also, do contact me anyway, since I can share a bunch of sources with you, which will help you greatly to write an article (they helped me a lot). Click on my user page, and on the panel on the left you'll see an option saying something like "Email this user."--R8R (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Completely deleting this column to all pages might be too disruptive, but IMHO this column can be removed for mononuclidic elements. There is only one isotope with abundance 100% for them, so they don't need this column. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree for mononuclidic elements. As for the others, maybe at some point they'll stop being empty as IUPAC turns more atomic weights into intervals, but that'll take a while and might not affect all elements. Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I added an image to Deuterium a while ago when I found one, and I recently noticed there was already an image for it on the Hydrogen page. The problem is that while image one, by @Alchemist-hp, glows pink, image two, by this website, glows purplish-white. Does anyone know which of these are correct? I think image two is preferable because it highlights the color of the gas more, but I'm starting to wonder if the images on that website are wrong. They also disagree on helium: see the website version and the alchemist-hp version. Helium has a particularly stark difference: maybe it's that different energy transitions are active or something related to that? The sites and the alchemist-hp images agree on Argon, Xenon, and Krypton fairly well, too. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that's pretty much what I was looking for. Disappointing, though: the other set was pretty nice for highlighting the color (the alchemist-hp ones had different colors in different parts of the displayed tube, which I think subtracted from the effect a bit). I'll remove the deuterium one.
The Argon, Xenon, and Krypton ones possibly are uncontaminated, but it might be better not to use them. Maybe it would be better to crop the alchemist-hp images? Mrfoogles (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Upon updating Isotopes of argon, I noticed that a reference used for the lightest isotope, 29Ar, does not quote a half-life or decay-width measurement for this nucleus — I do not see how the value of 40 zs (decay width 11 keV) was obtained. However, the lower bound reported in NUBASE2020 is implausibly large compared to the upper bound reported for 30Ar. This also affects 28Cl, which was discovered in the same paper.
Huh. Looks like I added it in 2019, probably making a calculation mistake when invoking WP:CALC. It's probably better to not write anything in the table, though, since such an unbound state would have a lifetime many orders of magnitude shorter than the NUBASE2020 lower bound. Thanks for taking note of this. Complex/Rational14:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
The full width at half maximum of the probability distribution provides the evaluation of the [proton-emission decay energy] uncertainty.
For the lowest observed state of 29Ar, this is reported as 0.18 MeV, or 2.5 zs — the ground state is postulated to lie at a lower level. For 28Cl, this is 0.08 MeV (6 zs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Would you like to update the elements Fm–Og to NUBASE2020 where applicable? This is complicated by the heavy reliance on other sources. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I think a good rule of thumb for those is to use NUBASE2020 if the most recent data predates 2020, and cite individual articles for nuclides investigated in subsequent studies. I can start reviewing the lists from Og and work my way down. Complex/Rational11:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Adding some images to the superheavy elements
There are a number of superheavy elements with no macroscopic quantities, whose preview images come up as confusing diagrams of their crystal structure. So, I've decided to add some electron diagrams. I don't know if there have been discussions on this before (I couldn't find any), but I figured it was a big enough topic I'd put a notice on some talk pages. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@Mrfoogles: This has been discussed before, but not recently: the latest thread I can find is this one from 2013.
I oppose adding these diagrams because they're oversimplified and misleading – good to introduce the concept to someone unfamiliar with chemistry or atomic physics, but inappropriate to illustrate a higher-level article. Namely, electrons do not "orbit" the nucleus in a classical sense, but are governed by quantum mechanics wherein wave–particle duality is significant. We never know exactly where an electron is – only where it is most likely to be, as described by its wavefunction and observed in interactions with other particles – and atomic orbitals are not orderly, concentric rings as depicted in the diagrams.
While it also is not necessary to explain basic quantum mechanics in every element article, it's better to have no image than a misleading image, especially since quantum mechanical effects become more significant for superheavy elements. I ask that you revert your additions on these grounds. Complex/Rational23:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
It's true that the electrons are not physically in the positions shown on the Bohr diagram, and that they aren't actually in circular shells around the atom. But what Bohr diagrams show technically are energy levels, and that is a valid way to view an atom. I think that if there were photos of the electron density around superheavy atoms, those would be great images to use, but given that those photos don't exist (I assume, given most superheavy atoms evaporate long before they could be taken), I think this might be the best picture that can be there.
I don't think the image is misleading. If you look at this diagram, it's interesting to notice that not all of the electrons are in the lowest shell they could be in: 2 are in the outside shell when the second-to-outside shell is not already filled. So it actually does illustrate some complicated effects around which orbitals are the lowest energy, and it has some useful information. I think that the image isn't really misleading to people who do know about orbital shapes, because they know to treat it as an energy level diagram, and even if you did think electrons when in spherical shells around the atom, it isn't a drawing of spherical shells.
What I mean is it's an energy level diagram, not an orbital shape diagram. It doesn't dispel misconceptions, but I don't think it perpetuates them. I think it should be included because it has a decent amount of useful information, and it's the best image that exists currently, and it's nice to have a visual complement to an article. Also, it means the article previews aren't the confusing crystal structure diagrams anymore (which was the original motivation) Mrfoogles (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
But it does perpetuate a misconception. In darmstadtium, the 7s energy level is actually lower in energy than the 6d, yet it is drawn as higher. Meanwhile, for oganesson, the eight outer electrons are actually at three very different energy levels (two in 7s, two in 7p1/2, four in 7p3/2), so much so that only the four 7p3/2 electrons should be available for chemistry. The model just doesn't work that well for superheavy elements when relativity is too important to ignore.
I removed the diagram for Nh as well. Yes, to some extent the crystal structure images are confusing, but the issue with such elements is that no image is actually possible. I wonder if it's possible to suppress images altogether for the preview: that would be preferable, IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that it would perpetuate a misconception, particularly for superheavy elements and still-undiscovered elements beyond (when the Aufbau principle breaks down altogether).
A bit more context given people replied to this (surprisingly quickly): was going to add the images made by User:GregRobson, which all got turned into SVGs a while ago. Ran into the problem that a lot of the SVGs have some sort of bug where they display correctly on most software but not while minimized on Wikipedia, so I only added a few. (Think it can get fixed by running them through a minifier or formatter, but could not figure out how to reupload images to Commons). Leaving Nihonium up for an example to look at. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Update: Can't really disagree with what @Double sharp said, and mostly the people here seem to not like this idea, so I'm giving this one up. No idea if there's any way to disable previews on Wikipedia, but I think probably not. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The article on Erbium the section on Isotopes uses NUBASE2020 as its sole reference. Then it makes statements like:
Naturally occurring erbium is composed of 6 stable isotopes...
However, the NUBASE reference contains nothing but tables of isotope properties. It seems to me that we could cite the table for facts about specific isotopes, but nothing about the collection of them. That is, the entire isotopes section is original research based on analyzing the tables. Since this is a template reference it seem like the use may be widespread. What do you think? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
NUBASE includes detailed decay data, and for primordial isotopes, gives their fraction of natural abundance. Indeed it is widely used as a reference, though in exactly the same context (citing isotope data), and pages that contain data more recent than 2020 or describe applications or properties in detail have additional reference. I wouldn't say that identifying precisely six primordial (and stable, as it happens) erbium isotopes from the table, given that they have abundance fractions, is WP:OR; arguably it's simple counting as permitted under WP:CALC. However, if you feel that adding additional sources would be helpful, feel free to do so. Complex/Rational17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Cropping gas discharge tube images
I cropped a few of the gas discharge tube images to make it more clear which part was the noble gas (specifically krypton, argon, and xenon are currently cropped) but this has been contested by @Zzzs (pinging here), so I'm putting up a talk page section.
Why I cropped the images: With the strong colors from both parts of the tube it's hard to tell which part is the gas; cropping it makes it obvious and makes it easier to compare them. It also makes the images less overly wide, which is good generally. Mostly it makes the image dominated by the important color. I reverted hydrogen because that one doesn't have very strong colors not coming from the gas, so it doesn't really need it, but I think the other ones do.
They are featured pictures, but it's still a featured picture if you crop to the important bit for ease of understanding & comparison. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Zirconium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
