Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Suggestions

Here are two comments from the ongoing lead FAC:

  • The unit-cell size is missing (from infobox). This only needs one number since it is a cubic structure.
  • A question about other registries: In chemical articles we include chemspider and pubchem and possible some other registry numbers in the infobox, not just cas. Should this happen for elements too?

My understanding is that we should work out a project-wide solution. Personally, I am not too keen on having a, b, c, and alpha for structures, but won't oppose, either. The main difficulty is to add all of this information to the infoboxes.

As for other registries, I don't know. You decide.--R8R (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Then, you say for lead this is cubical so a=b=c, but not for all elements.
Idea: shall we add an open data row (2 parameters: label, data) that can be used freely for incidental data? In section Miscellaneous I guess. -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I've had this idea: since a picture of crystal structure takes half the width of the infobox or less, we can havw these a, b, alpha, etc. parameters next to it. Maybe as two columns if we have enough space. This way, the lengtg of the infobox will increase to the smallest extent possible.--R8R (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If the numbers are important, we will add them anyway (just make sure they are in the body text). If the numbers are very important, we'll add them even without being mentioned in the article body. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd say they are important. Not sure if super important, but as for regular important, definitely.--R8R (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • About Identifiers and more data: Add data like PubChem, ChemSpider (string), and I add health & safety issues, pharma data (toxity, medicine effects), etc. The {{Chembox}} has this same need/question, although it already does have much more data rows (including external identifier links like PubChem).
A. I don't want the infobox be extended.
Thank you. I was leaning there but wanted this to be brought forward by anyone else.
B. My idea is to add a section called "Data sheet", having:
  1. Miscellaneous data (moved here from main infobox, and more)
  2. The data from a ... (data page), fully merged
  3. Data lists like "Boiling points of the elements"
  4. Technical (non-readable) data like SMILES string.
  5. External identifiers + links (PubChem, ...), aka resources
At the concept level, this is the same for articles with {{Chembox}} and {{Infobox element}}. In practice, the sections might be different (with different templates).
The main issue is: is such a data sheet encyclopedic information, or is it trespassing guidelines like 'no dictionary'. The approach must be from the information point of view, not from a "this is an important fact" incidental argument. IMO should be the RfC, and covering both page series (Chembox and Element). -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
From my perspective, an article must be first and foremost readable and good to read. So I propose to pull all datasheet info to a separate daughter page. I think this could also solve the current infobox overload problem and provide us a good chance to finally get a good infobox. And there we can have all new data we want. How would that be?--R8R (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
A separate datapage would be an article still, so how would that be acceptable? (why not into the article? Are you thinking about page size?) And wrt the big infobox: moving data to a section would help too. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the infobox really counts as article content. How would you read it? I tend to see it as supplementary figures to the text; the main body is what you will read, and only for looking up specific facts will you go to the infobox. So I'm not sure if there is really much of a problem with information overload here. Others might disagree, though, and I shall defer to consensus. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's an infobox you can read: Omar Khayyam. You may say, our articles are more technical, right? Have a look at Zagreb and how much info they got there. There are certain facts I check about a city/country I check every time I encounter one: population, area, GDP, etc., and these make up a huge margin of all facts here. Pictures aside, this infobox is informative and fits into one screen on my laptop (screen resolution 1600x900); ours is far from that.--R8R (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I find that the more you learn in chemistry the more things in the infobox become useful, so we have to draw a line somewhere. Perhaps I would draw it a little higher than for the average reader and put in a few more things, primarily based on how much can be talked about them beyond baldly noting that such-and-such a property takes such-and-such a value for such-and-such an element. Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time trying to follow. Could you be a little more specific?--R8R (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
If I got it right, you refer to the infobox being used as a data sheet, with someone who knows what a "Young modulus" could use. And that's cool, but that's not what an infobox is supposed to do. An infobox is supposed to give a brief overlook. That's it.
I considered why the chemboxes you mentioned seem fine to me the way they are. Here's the explanation I found: the reason is that a vast majority of chemicals are just chemicals and there's little to nothing to know about them apart from chemistry. Elements, on the other hand, are different in this perspective: they have issues not directly related to their chemistry like histories. We are still free to give data pages for all info we already have and we can add there more. See the short infobox for Nikolai Gogol: some readers that are better with literature than an average reader could use a list of what books he wrote and when right in the infobox, but instead, that data is located in a separate Nikolai Gogol bibliography article. We should follow suit.--R8R (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it's just as acceptable as Abundances of the elements (data page) with its immediate "Main article" template. I imagine we can do the same for the elements as well.--R8R (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll get back to this at some point: in the meantime, putting this here to stop it from getting archived. Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Same. -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

IUPAC on group 3

Notes

  • Chair of the project is Eric Scerri.
  • Apparently IUPAC has abandoned the Sc/Y/*/** option altogether. Group 3 does not consist of Sc, Y, all lanthanides and actinides (would be 32 elements in total).
  • It states that the presentation form (in 18 or 32 columns) is not related to the content (especially not the group 3 constitution).
  • It nicely uses the descriptive "32-column" wording, not the ambiguously defined "long form" wording. -DePiep (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The outcome will possibly imply a change of the periodic table structure, away from the 1945 Seaborg version (that puts all lanthanides and actinides in group 3). That would be huge in PT history. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • When announcing the four new element names and symbols, IUPAC has published this this version, dated 28 November, 2016. It is still showing the Seaborg Group 3 constitution (Sc/Y/*/**). -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The RfC on group 3 has closed. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, moving most of the lanthanides and actinides definitely out of the group 3 (III) column, the new form may be labeled long long form. The long form originated by splitting, within one single period, two sets of valences (I–VII) into two (labeled A and B). At last, the new version would split off multiple elements in one group/column once more. [more WP:OR below]. -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • IMO best description so far of this development is Jensen (2003). Nicely defines wordings like "short form, 18-column, 32-column", and conflicting approach by chemistry–electron config. Great paper.[1] -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you DePiep, for posting this here. On a slow day, I happened upon this "news item(?)" discussing the placement of Lr in the periodic table. It isn't very good but is interesting in that it mentions Jensen's, Lavelle's and Scerri's views on the placement question (but see also here, for a different opinion by Jensen), and quotes Jan Reedijk, president of IUPAC's inorganic chemistry division, on how long it might take IUPAC to make up their mind, once Scerri's project team makes their recommendation:

Reedijk, of IUPAC, looks forward to Scerri's report. But he cautions that IUPAC's deliberations will probably be slow. When IUPAC proposed modifying the periodic table's column numbering in 1985, it took about five years to decide and another 10 to 15 years for chemists to adopt the changes, Reedijk says.

Joy. Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Interesting link indeed (from May 2015, so when the Lr ionization energy was first published. Scerri's project team had not even started then).
Wrt the "5+15 years" remark, I can say this. Back when the group numbers changed, there was an alternative valid set (two even: US and European style). These sets are still valid. Current group numbering was just an improvement/change, that took a long time to replace because there was no urgent need to do so. However. In the case of Group 3 constitution, the current form will be declared invalid. Today no source can be found to claim that group 3 has those 32 Sc/Y/*/** elements. So it must be replaced into one form or another. Now, even the latest IUPAC PT (28 November 2016, adding the four new names) says old style Sc/Y/*/** because the Scerri-project has not published yet. Unless the Scerri-project has some surprise up their sleeve, when they publish the Sc/Y/*/** graphic will be illegal. Publishing it will be a scientific fraud. IUPAC will have to publish a new version, or two.
We at Wikipedia can easily adopt the new version(s). For reasons we know, we are free to pick a preferred version etc. Enwiki will publish a correct new version. When, over 15 years, the scientists finally have agreed on the obvious, all young scholars (under 25 y) already will have learned the correct, legal version(s) by heart—from us. -DePiep (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a good (non-wiki) source here (p. 128). He appears to treat the lanthanides as Ce–Lu and the actinides analogously (Th onwards). Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting enough. This is the first time that I can think of when I see not only hydrogen but also aluminum taking two positions in the table instead of the usual one. The intent is clear; that's just interesting. Thank you for sharing.--R8R (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to seeing you mention that as well when you get to Al! There are several good chemical reasons for thinking of Al in that position as well as the standard one. Double sharp (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ...At last, the new version would split off multiple elements in one group/column once more. If and when those lanthanides/actinides would need valence column numbers, we could reuse (I–VII) and start adding "C". I am definitely not proposing to use "long long form" or "...C" names. It is to illustrate the repetition of the principle. (More below). -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Above I pointed out that the new form could principally be named "long long form", for being a systematic prolonguement of the "long form" creation. In other words: this change uses the same logic as when the transition metals were split from the main block.
File:Mendeleev's 1871 periodic table listed eight (valence) groups, still present in the modern PT. However, the Reihen (German for 'rows') do not correspond with modern periods (12 Reihen cover 7 periods, for starters). The transformation from Reihe to Period, that created the "long form", is as follows:
Reihe 1, 2, 3 correspond with period 1, 2, 3, respectively.
Reihe 4, 5 correspond with period 4
Reihe 6, 7 correspond with period 5
Reihe 8, 9, 10, 11 correspond with period 6
Reihe 12 corresponds with period 7 (incomplete at the time).

Details not considered for now: group 0 missing, and group VIII has a fourth element today in group I: Cu, Ag, Au. Modern group numbering 1–18 is not helpful in this.

Reihe 4 and 5 quite simply show that the group numbers are reused (after group VIII Fe, Co, Ni, restart with Reihe 5, group I Cu, group II Zn etc). This is the modern period 4. The same pattern appears for Reihe 6, 7 into modern period 5 and reused valence numbers. (Today, the repeated valence group numbers are labeled A and B). When split into repeated valence group numbers, the form is named "long form".

Now, skipping less-well defined "medium long form" etc. namings, once again stacked elements are freed into their own columns. Formally, today 32 elements are crammed into one single column numbered "3" (formerly "IIIA", the alternate IIIB"" is group 13 and not in play. Also true if you swap A and B - i.e., whichever A-B selection you choose). What this IUPAC project does is split out the elements from this single group. The first "long form" added the visible block of ~transition metals, this repetition into "long long form" adds a visible block of ~lanthanides and actinides.

The core for this sequence already is present in the 1871 table: modern period 6 is covered in Reihen 8, 9, 10 and 11 (back then lanthanides La, Ce, Er were already known and had to be accomodated too). Given the behaviour of the LN, AN elements, any valence numbering would not be helpful or practical. But, by the principle, these groups could deserve their own valence number, to be identified by adding a "C".

I do not propose to start using the name "long long form", nor the C-specified valence group numbers. I just want to point out the principle repetition. I also note that this has nothing much to do with (editorial choice) of 18- versus 32-column presentation. Instead, it is a more structural change that describes periodicities in a different way. -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

For the lanthanides, the most sensible valence number is 3, which is the most characteristic for all of them. That's where the idea of putting all the Ln and An in group 3 comes from: it also works for most of the actinides, but Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu, and Am are markedly unhappy with that. Double sharp (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
"That's where the idea of putting all the Ln and An in group 3 comes from" -- I beg to differ. Already Mendeleev's 1871 PT did not put them together. Instead, then known Er, La ("Ln"), Ce, Th and U are under their own valence number (only two under III). In 1871 this caused current period 6 to be over four Reihen. When this short form first changed into the long form (introducing the distinctive d-block visually), Th, Pa and U were accomodated outside of group III (under transition metals/d-block) (Scerri 2007, fig 1.9). Note that even in this long form, Mendeleev 1871 would need two Reihen for period 6. Then in 1945 Seaborg put them all in one single group III column, graphically by using the placeholders (like asterisks). I dare say that Seaborg was not that much concerned about their (irregular) valences, but more by their newly discovered f-block. Only these years people are considering/requiring breaking out the f-block as such (similarly, as I point out, as the long form was created by splitting the d-block split from the monolith short form). Now finally Mendeleev's four Reihen 8–11 can be shown in one period, one element per period×group cell. It shows the f-block knowledge developing. That it would need repetitive "IIIC" group numbers (if feasible at all given the An valence below). But that is a minor detail to solve, not prohibiting the big scheme—Mendeleev ;-). For example, an other curiosity that group VIII has three elements in a row and does not appear in the main group, did not prevent the PT going long form (d-block) correctly. -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I coin: long long form is the periodic table with the f-block explicit. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The reason why Mendeleev did not put them together was that under his theory at that time, there should only be one trivalent element in each period. This is why he placed La in group IV, and increased its atomic weight by one-third: because otherwise both La and Di (what we know today to be a mixture of Pr and Nd) need to be in group III. (It was the same logic behind how Mendeleev doubled the atomic weight of U to put it in group VI instead of group III, but this time with an even less happy outcome.) Some later chemists did indeed try to keep going, but Ce is not a great bedfellow of Zr, and Pr and Nd are strangers to Nb and Mo. That is why the "asteroid hypothesis" in which the lanthanides were all crammed into one cell (like the asteroids into one asteroid belt) took hold; since the transuranium elements were undiscovered, the actinides posed no issue, even though Pr/Pa and Nd/U are singularly weird pairs. Double sharp (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
First replies (I really need to make that animated graphic that shows the PT development from 1871 to 2017). re "only be one trivalent element in each period". I cannot fully disprove this. But in group VIII he put four elements together in one Reihe, did not spread them over more places (three of these four are in group VIII/8-9-10 today, clearly).
Note on concepts: he used multiple "Reihe" for one modern period. Periods 4 and 5 are perfectly present in two Reihen each (later recognisable in group suffixes A and B). So equally interesting is period 6 being present in four Reihen. It fits.
Sure U was put in group VI, but its then known valence was 6 right? So this weight change was not to keep U out of III, but to support its VI position by its weight (IOW, the reversed reasoning from as you describe).
re "asteroid hypothesis" -- if I get this: Yes they were crammed into one cell, so my point takes hold: after discovery of the f-block they were released into an enlonguement of the PT?! (Actually, Mendeleev already has put them in a separate Reihe, as he had done with the d-block elements). -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Group VIII is a bit of an exception, as their "theoretical" maximum valence of 8 in MO4 (as listed in Mendeleev's table) is not attained except for Ru and Os, and Ru is reluctant to do it. (Now we know that Ir can do it too, but that's not something you can really deal with in a normal laboratory.) That's why the original meaning of "transition element" was restricted to those elements: they form a transition from one valence cycle of 1 through 7 (e.g. K, Ca, [Sc], Ti, V, Cr, Mn), passing through them (Fe, Co, Ni, Cu) before reaching another ([Cu], Zn, [Ga], [Ge], As, Se, Br). When the noble gases were discovered, some suggested that they were also "transition elements" for similar reasons: von Antropoff even called them group VIIIB instead of group 0, presciently predicting octavalence as was finally seen in XeO4 decades later!
At the time, uranium was thought to be trivalent. There was a big mess at this point: diatomicity in the common elements was not recognised as it was thought that atoms of one element would have no chemical affinity for each other. Cannizzaro only sorted this out in 1860, a few years before Mendeleev came up with the periodic table; and while most elements were correct, a few were wrong because of deceiving chemical similarities. Uranium was one; beryllium, thorium, and the rare earths were others.
Since Mendeleev's table identified group with valence (and some of that is still there in today's table), and the lanthanides were mostly unexplored, it is not surprising that he would try to include the elements between Ba and Hf among the groups. But that makes no chemical sense. In every other Reihe the valences from 1 to 7 are followed perfectly; here they stall after Ce (and Pr if you force it). More lanthanides were known in 1869 than he includes in his table (Tb is not there, but was known); he did not include them because of this problem, and so he predicted non-existent elements in these Reihen. When Winkler discovered Ge, he even thought he had found one of them, a supposed "eka-antimony" (bismuth then being dvi-antimony); it was only later that he realised that what he had was really eka-silicon.
The basing of the PT on valence is why group 3 was thought to include all the Ln, as they clearly all are trivalent. That's why I find it really boring to write most lanthanide articles: La tells the story for all of them, except for Ce, Sm, Eu, and Yb. There was some resistance to it for the actinides, as group 3 does not fit Th, Pa, and U well at all; Np, Pu, and to a lesser extent Am act more like U and as a result some like Bohr thought the 5f intervention started after uranium, creating a "uranide" instead of an "actinide" series! It took until the synthesis of Cm for this to be cleared up, IIRC. Double sharp (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Adding to this: while doing my OR, I found this PT-history bonanza: Jensen (2003);[1] both graphic and scientific. Just wow. So much to learn. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Jensen, William B. (2003). "The place of zinc, cadmiuum, and mercury in the Periodic Table". j.chem.ed. Retrieved 2017-04-17.

Infobox element: remove navigation details (element neighbours)

Testcases: Mercury, E120
The neighbours of gold
Category:Periodic table infobox templates (0)

{{Infobox element}} shows the 'periodic table neighbours': the four neighbouring elements (North, E, S, W) of an element. See for example gold. I claim that this navigational information does not belong in this infobox. Quite clearly, already this first section of WP:Infobox: The purpose of an infobox says what the infobox is about. These neighbours are failing:

Not summarising the article
Not derived from article main text (not in article body)
Not a defining/characteristic/major aspect of the element
Not element information

Really, navigation should be elsewhere. Like

In the micro periodic table, already there
In the navboxes at the bottom, already there
In the TOC, if really important

So, we really should remove that. There is good news:

It reduces infobox space (its width & length is horrible; even worse in mobile view)
These four neighbours are not that special.
The navigation is still present in other forms (micro periodic table, article bottom).

So, Remove? -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that the micro table is small and difficult to click on, I think this actually does serve a useful purpose: the neighbours tend to best illustrate trends across a group and period. There is a reason why in a lot of the actinide articles you will see things like "Bk appears in the table to the right of Cm, to the left of Cf, and below Tb with which it shares many physical and chemical properties", because there are clear trends going on there. I would claim that most element articles would benefit from something like this in the body, actually, and to be honest I think it is a great shame that we don't have room to show the symbols on the micro table: this is at least an effective measure. (If we could show those symbols, I would of course support removing the navigation.) Double sharp (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'll agree. I have used myself these navigation links many many times because the squares are so small and it's so easy to misclick. As for reduction of space, width wouldn't decrease at all; height would decrease by height of a small-font single line of text.
My common sense tells me these links should be used and there is a rule that tells us to use common sense. So please let's leave it as it is. Practically, removing them would be a net negative move.--R8R (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I wonder: if we used the 18-column form there, would we have enough space to be able to squeeze in the symbols?
(The period 8 elements will still have a problem; we can avoid the problem now because we only have eka-francium, eka-radium, and eka-actinium, but we can't ignore it forever. Still, given how ephemeral these elements will be, and how much they mess up the shape of the table, I have to wonder if the periodic table taught in general chemistry texts will still stop at oganesson, with heavier elements being listed in their own little section. I wonder if anyone is up to the task of producing a 3rd edition of Greenwood and Earnshaw, to take over from the original authors, now sadly deceased? ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Re "show a trend": these links don't illustrate or decribe any trend at all. None. A trend is not described by a few local points. A trend is by definition over a longer, er, period or area. Now this is plainly entering through the wrong door: one cannot show a trend by a single detailed point.
Then again, which trend is pointed at? The only statement that could be deduced is: these neighbours are "part of some trend(s)", which does not help. This omission is another proof (tough information test failed) that it is misplaced. The main trends that actually are in play could be period, group, and category, and exactly those are already present in the PT, in infobox text, elsewhere (and shown much better too).
Also, if the element would be crucial in a trend (if that is a possible statement), that would be in the article body first, of course, and if that's infobox-relevant then it should be explicitly in there (proposals welcome). Keep in mind that we the articles are about an element, not about the periodic table. So trends are not the main characteristic to describe (check this: which trend is mentioned in an element lede text, today?).
Re 'makes things easy & let's break the rule': First of all, any 'ease of use' or 'handy for me' is not a reason to include information in an infobox. If that's the argument, I turn it into my claim: see, clearly not infobox info. This also includes the 'difficult-to-click' remark (which with me is not the case; anyway, that asks for redesign of the micro PT not for inclusion of this non-info data). Remember it is top-of-the-article, top in mobile view even. And then you propose to add non-info? It is a total lack of understanding what the infobox is and does.
Yes, maybe we should go for a PT redesign in a hope that a 18-column table will be easier to use and we won't have this argument in the first place. That would probably be the best solution available.--R8R (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Re 'does not save width, length': not an argument (and not a correct statement either). The target is not to reduce infobox size. That would just be a welcome bonus, we gladly accept. The argument is: it does not belong there. The target is: remove non-infobox info.
I follow why you don't accept this one, but I only replied to what you've brought up. If we also render this comment invalid: "There is good news: It reduces infobox space (its width & length is horrible; even worse in mobile view)", then okay, sure. If we don't, then I argue we're lacking logical consistency.--R8R (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Re 'rebuild the micro periodic table': while that might be a good thing, it does not alter the fact that these neighbours do not belong there. They are stil only navigation aides (as you two have been admitting already). Micro-PT changes should be in a separate discussion, because it is unrelated to this topic. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The lead of the strontium article actually compares it directly to its vertical neighbours Ca and Ba; I tend to include this sort of thing whenever I rewrite an article, and when it's not there I would argue that it should be there. Saying that an element is in period X and group Y is all well and good, but it rings no bells unless you know what else is in period X and group Y. Then you can start to get an important understanding of the element via pretending to be Mendeleev. That's why I would propose scrapping the current one completely and replacing it with a table large enough to see and click on the symbols, so that it would both serve as infobox info (an element's location in the table is crucial, and it does our readers a slight disservice if we force them to have memorised the thing already) and as a navigational aid on the side. (In other words, I think the reason we end up wanting those navigational arrows is because the micro table is not doing a good enough job by itself.) Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That would make Sr a good example for an exception (note: but it actually says "behaves like its group members" - hardly noteworthy I'd say. More interesting would be: "H does not behave like its fellow group members"). The point is: this Sr info I could not get from the neighbour-links in the infobox! If this is considered infobox-relevant info (as said, I doubt it), we should also check on whether it is already in there (methinks it is: it is group-property).
Anyway, this would ask for a new infobox parameter: |periodic table particularity=. This parameter scould describe an noteworthy exception -- which happens to be the opposite of a trend ;-). (We can add this one after the neighbour-things have been removed: we cannot apply "this is important so add" while ignoring "this is irrelevant so remove"). This should be PT-related exceptions, which should be really charateristic or defining e.g. by being in the TOC already. I expect a hard time restraining us all to keep this important info only, lax additions are made too easy. As this topic shows.
re rings no bells unless you know what else is in period X and group Y.: not exactly that important imo. Important is: what does it mean to be in group Y, that is: group properties prevail, not fellow-members. And anyway, both group id and fellows (and period, block, category) already are mentioned several times.
None of this info is added or clarified by the neighbour-navigation.
As for replacing micro-PT working: I strongly disagree, and PT-changes are virtually unrelated. Please open a different thread for that. -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a relation you point to: putting the symbols in there is again navigational only, and so abusing the infobox. Symbols are not clarifying a trend. ANy trend you want to show is already in there: group, period, category, block even. (An improvement could be: add clicks for group and period (where we usually have their number). -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It is quite a normal thing that an element behaves like its neighbours, especially the vertical neighbours (most of the table) or the horizontal neighbours (Ln and An). One can hardly say that without making it clear what those neighbours are, no? Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is. But mentioning the neighbours makes it sound like a coincidence. That is missing the whole point of the periodic table: periodicity. So one should mention the trend itself, not some isolated symptoms & effects. If you want to describe the population growth of India, saying the numbers for 1997, 1998, 1999 is not good. Also, the lede text "Strontium has properties similar to those of its two vertical neighbors in the periodic table, calcium and barium" is making a random curiosity out of a well-understood trend: groups and periodicity. Better, from potassium: "In the periodic table, potassium is one of the alkali metals. All of the alkali metals have ...". That is lede quality stuff, and for that we only need to show that group (category) showing, not accidental neighbours.
Then, adding the symbols to the infobox micro PT is just as bad. It adds one redundant symbol, and 117 navigational distractions. What do those 117 symbols add, clarify or describe for the element? Again it is adding incidents, not trends. -DePiep (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Recap on the 'trend' argument: just mentioning two elements like Sr does is bad. It is about the trend: group behavior, periodicity, etc. That is what it is about. Should we add that to the infobox? It-is-already-in!, it's what the periodic table is showing! (Besides, mentioning the neighbours does not convey that relationship. All elements have those neighbours now, and none has the arrows saying such a thing). Next, adding all symbols to the periodic table?: useless. Why show "Si" in the Sr article infobox? Again, element id's do not say a trend. Colors, columns & rows do. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I would argue for adding all symbols, actually: when compounds with Si or any other element may show up anywhere in the text, it is helpful to see where they all are. The periodic table is just that important; you might well ask "why not just show the nearest bits of the table", and there's a good reason why we show the whole thing anyway. Lots and lots of general inorganic texts reproduce the whole thing when covering every element and every group; why shouldn't we? Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Solution I prefer: 1. Create new micro-PT (svg not wikitable), to have more clickability & occupy less space. Into 18-column is better, probably. Keep blind (no text or symbols). Add headercells for group & period. 2. Remove the neighbours. (IOW, the difficult PT clicking is bad, and navigation-only stuff has no place). -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
No, wait. A 18-column table will surely be easier to click, it shouldn't be as difficult. This won't be the problem any longer.
Besides, I can see your opposition to navigational elements in the infobox. "navigation-only stuff has no place" -- okay. But this is not navigation-only; you're purposedly carving out the navigational help (if links at all qualify for that) with no benefit in return: no space contraction, no more clarity, no visual simplicity, no anything. What is the benefit, apart from simply not having those links?--R8R (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the hard-to-click issue as I see it: the cells are small, and therefor hard to click precisely (easy to be off one cell). In mobile view the cells have very large whitespace borders (separation), which actually helps clickability (but makes the PT very wide: going off-screen, needs hor scrolling). To improve this (i.e., larger cell-size as in: larger keyboard keys), I don't think a wikitable should be used. svg would be better. This is a job to do. DePiep.
Meanwhile, the micro PT is very wide: because 32-column and because added whitespace in mobile view. This (and only this) is improved by changing it into an 18-column wikitable. It reduces the PT width, not cell-size. This is a single improvement, quite simple to achieve, while not harming anything else. (It does not improve clickability, cells are equally small. It does make hor scrolling easier because less wide). DePiep.
Still, the neighbour-navigations in there are out of place because it only helps navigation not information while in an infobox. (This is where I disagree with Double sharp 'mention the neighbours to point to the trend' -- the group etc should do so). I'm cavaliering against the "it's so easy to have them nearby" reasoning. Also, since we're talking about PT width, removal nicely serves size-reduction as a bonus. -DePiep (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I will not focus on the neighbor links for now as I am concerned with links in the micro-PT. R8R.
I still don't follow. First, I don't have this problem on my smartphone. The links are okay. Can you confirm this is not related to one particular browser or one phone? R8R.
Correction: I simply forgot I'd switched off the mobile view on my smartphone. Well, given these distances between the cells, I assume it would be fair to assume it's bugged and will be improved. Maybe we could contact Wikimedia and ask them to fix it. We could make cells twice as big and a conversion to 18 columns will still be an improvement.--R8R (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Second, if we switch to the 18-column version, probably we can regulate width of the space between cells? (Maybe we can even now?) Even if we can't, the new mobile micro-PT now fits into the infobox? (does it? can't estimate because, again, it's okay on my phone.) That would still be an improvement. R8R.
Third, how is going from "difficult to click" to "impossible to click" is an improvement? I really don't see the logic that got you here. The point of having larger cells is easier clickability because having a simple illustration that is the purpose of the micro PT is already achieved.--R8R (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see your concerns now. Will rethink this. R8R.
In the meantime, I don't see why you equate having an svg to not having links. I've seen a few clickable maps in Wiki (see the main map for Member state of the European Union, for instance); we can probably do the same.--R8R (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • R8R Gtrs, Please confirm we are talking about the same:
About the micro-PT in {{Infobox element}} only.
In desktop view, cells are "difficult to click" becasue very small. (that is not: impossible to click).
In mobile view, the cells are equally small, but have much whitespace in between. So: the whole micro PT is very wide, but at least the clicking does not mistake that easily.
(With me, the mobile-view-on-desktop emulation shows different than my true smartphone does. Smartphone is the most problematic, so we should test in the real smartphone situation).
Is this description right? Why do you say "impossible to click" (not so with me)?
FYI, I'm checking mercury (element) by now. -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC). Ping R8R Gtrs -DePiep (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
One by one: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, because that's what I originally thought about why you wanted to go svg: to get rid of cell links.--R8R (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
R8R Gtrs re svg: ? svg does allow clickable areas (by adding a layer of coordinates; see this). Is why I consider it. Problem with a wikitable (current technique) shows in mobile view: we can not control enough how mobile shows. Also, an image (like svg) has the web-based possibility of zooming in/out! This is a major advantage for the periodic table (read cell vs. see overview). -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Simple proposal: change the micro PT into 18-column

I propose to change the micro 32-column PT into an 18-column one, when in the element infobox. Background is discussed above. This proposal does not imply or prevent any other changes.

Tests: Template:Infobox mercury/testcases, Template:Infobox unbinilium/testcases (E120. Not prepared). Note: currently all Infobox /sandboxes show the proposal (e.g. {{Infobox silver/sandbox}}.

Please do check the mobile view! Also, do not inject other changes. IMO, a mere technical change. -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks good.--R8R (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Q: Double sharp What to do with period 8? See E120 test (not yet adapted). If the main PT is 18-column, we have 14 columns in the Ln, An box (OK), and would need 14+22=36! columns for period 8. Any suggestion or good example page? (One solution: for E119 and up, use old 32-col micro form). -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Judging from Pyykkö's article, the folding in the 18-column table would imply a sort of "footnote to the footnote"; elements 144-157 would fall under Th-Lr, while there would be another note before 144 pointing downwards to the line at the bottom showing 122-143. I realise that this is rather convoluted (rather like an IKEA periodic table if you ask me), but I have not seen a source that does anything else to show the eighth period. (Other than those like Fricke, but by putting both the g- and f-blocks in the main body of the table and eschewing footnotes altogether, they make the width problem even worse.)
Using the old 32-column form for elements past 118 is to me a sort of "last resort"; the reader has been used to the common form for all the elements that are actually known, and I think s/he would have it easier if we just added to it rather than visually changing the shape of it. If the double-footnote solution is really too awkward, though, I can accept this one.
P.S. I am curious to see how periodic table makers will respond once elements 119 and 120 are synthesised in the near future. It is an intriguing possibility that most of them may not actually put period 8 elements on the table, instead listing them in a separate footnote in plain text, because of the violence they would do to the 18-column arrangement which works well for the elements up to the actinides that people can work with. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, for elements 119 and heavier we keep using the current "32-column" format with the superactinides repositioned.
(And here are my P.S. sidenotes: Sure that would be IKEA-like, but the 18-column already is. Except for "keep getting used to it" and width space, there is no improvement going from 32 to 18. Nature did a bad service by making the PT this 32:8 (0.25) ratio, unfit for book and web pages (being ~0.62). On top of this, since WW2 the Ln, An set has always been presented misformed (e.g., wrt group 3), so striving for that arrangement is ill advised.
re ... see how periodic table makers will respond [to E119 etc]: Well, we are those PT makers! And for E119, E120 there will be little fuss: just added to their groups 1 and 2 (already in done Janet's Left Step PT, btw). Issue arises for E121 and up.) -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Another solution: for elements 119, 120 (only), we can use the 18-column one. No showing of superactinides, just these elements in group 1, 2. (The Pykko extension then only needed for E121 and higher, currently without article/infobox). Would that be correct? -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Almost. Element 121 already has an article, but given the use of Sc-Y-La-Ac here it is OK (it just goes nicely under group 3, and the g-block hasn't yet started). This seems very sensible for now; just add 119, 120, and 121 under Fr, Ra, and Ac without needing to change the 18-column table. (Something like how the periodic table by quality currently looks.) Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Applied: 18-column PT with group 3 = Sc-Y-La-Ac and 'asterisks' (as common).
Chagne: When element is E119, E120, E121: extended with period/row 8, just those 3 elements show in group 1, 2, 3. No more elements (superactinides) show. For E122 and higher: not prepared, no articles exist, not needed now.
Minor change: group 7 elements 100Mt and up stay 'unknown' grey in extended PT version (do not change into 'predicted' colors, any more).
Please check mobile view. -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually I think Mt and up should still change into the "predicted" colours; either that, or 119, 120, and 121 should appear with some sort of "unknown" colour (perhaps an even lighter grey?). Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the right logic. Agree we should diff between "properties unknown" and "element unknown". I'll keep Mt+ grey because the cells are very small and a 'predicted' color is not clarified anyway. For E119-E120-E121 I added dark grey. This grey is visibly one step darker (next to PTM grey and unk properties grey). Please check. -DePiep (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • New issue: no horizontal scrolling of this PT. Try mercury on mobile. It appears that the micro PT is not scrollable, horizontally, while the rest of the infobox (data rows etc) is. This, when the infobox is too wide. In the /sandbox version (which already is smaller, great especially for mobile), I re-added the scroll option, but with a construct. (Cause is: the bottom line with the left-right neighbours prevents scrolling, so I moved that line out. Works, but looks bad). Of course this is solved by ... removing the neighbours. Will try to find something else. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I'd be fine with removing the neighbours iff we can show symbols in the micro PT like pretty much every inorganic text does. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
      • No. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Well, if you're going to be like that about it, then no. Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Double sharp, this is a wrong tradeoff. We cannot swap bad-for-being-this with bad-for-being-other. I've described the bads. (OK, in short: the infobox is too large, navigation neighbours are not in place, and adding all element symbols in the PT is not relevant for the element) -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
            • @DePiep: Apparently everything has now become irrelevant, even when just about every inorganic chemistry textbook will give a picture of the periodic table (yes, with all symbols) so that you can see where any given element is located. Location in the periodic table is massively important and we're not easily allowing this information to come through without the symbols. I am not even the first one to propose this: either Petergans or Axiosaurus suggested it a few years ago, and even TCO while writing fluorine with R8R had to ask the Graphics Lab for an image cut-out showing the neighbourhood of F with elements (because the infobox is not getting that important info done). And then an image of the PT with how elements are covered was still needed because the infobox tells us nothing about which elements are where on it. Need I say more? Double sharp (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to archive. WP:ELEMENTS members will pull out of archive whenever whatever needed. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Leading editors

Congrats & compliments to all of you who lifted that heavy metal to the top. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC) R8R Gtrs

Thank you!--R8R (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox element: proposal to remove spectral lines images

I propose to remove all 'spectral lines' images from {{infobox element}}. It usually is present as second image (see helium). It is not infobox/lede level information.

First of all it is not mentioned in the article body, and I don't think it can claim an exception like 'melting point' relevance. As it shows then, it is more illustration than information. Note that it requires a clarifying caption. And since the lede+infobox is the main entrance for the reader, this image so high in top is more of a distraction (compare chromium which has a single top image: inviting candy for the eye & read).

What could be considered is adding the image to the article body, and describing its relevance for that element (is not the relevance of spectral lines in general BTW). Even then, presence in the infobox is not apparent.

Note: in 2013 this same question was discussed. Allow me to change my view since then: no secondary or tertiary info in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a high-quality external site that has them (comprehensive set, traceable to verifiable data)? I do not have a strong position on keeping this in infobox, but if we scrap it, I think that would be a suitable standard extlink. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. We could:
1. Add in article body with description, demonstrating relevance
2. Add external link in section ==External links===
3. Create [[Spectral lines (datapage)]] and list all (pref with source)
4. Create section ==Data sheet== for every element and add this (long shot development; also useful for other chemicals, drugs). However, that section would require a thorough enterprise RfC on information & pagedesign.
None of these options is reason to keep it (for so long) in the infobox. IOW: remove now, create new placement later. -DePiep (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I think (4) is terrible as stated, but if we had a separate data page for each element linked (something like Noble gas (data page)), it would probably work very well. The trouble with inserting most of these incidentally is that there are lots and lots (have you seen the list for Fe I?), and only a few of them are really important (e.g. Balmer series for hydrogen). As a mindless data dump it would be fine, but I would prefer to have that well out of sight of the main element page, only to be referred to in dire need. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
re (it's off-topic, but alas): So you find a data sheet section terrible. While main candidate-info now sits ... in the infobox, top of page, in first or second reader's view (unskippable, must scroll it). Five vapor pressures, magnetic susceptibility, you name it.
It's even worse with {{Chembox}}, e.g. carbon monoxide, because a chemist thinks everything chemical that important, including two or three images of the very same molecule, a Health & Safety worker finds alls NIOSH H&S data important, a Wiki editor finds a dozen external links important, supplemental "data page" links that are not article-specific, (some people even want to add navigational data) ... all in the infobox. But moving secondary stuff further down the page is "terrible"? As I said, it takes a huge information reeducation to fix this concept. For now and here: let's remove that one image. -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I oppose removing the spectral images. Its a better representation of the elements than the gas discharge tubes images (but not as colourfull), and books like "The Elements - a visual exporation of every known atom in the universe" has spectrums like this too. I think its a bad idea to add a "data sheet" section (or a data article which nobody neother see nor edit). WP:Infobox#Purpose of an infobox says its fine to add key specialised information to the infobox (quote: "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. [...]"). Christian75 (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Where the image should or could re-appear is not part of the proposal. Te proposal is: remove from infobox. More so because there appears to be no way to add it in the article body (or people would have mentioned it here).
Then, yes there may be key-information (what I already called 'the melting point exception'). However, I do not see why this exception argument is valid for the spectral lines. The image in itself does not clarify why it is, nor why it is that important or relevant. How is it "key"? -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Christian75, asked in a different way. The infobox is too large. If we keep the spectral lines in, what other three datarows would you have removed? That is: what is your solution re the oversized box? -DePiep (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
(The question is still open. Not for archive). -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Molybdenum

There's an edit request over at Template talk:Infobox molybdenum that needs a look. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Isotope infoboxes: easy changes

About {{Infobox element isotopes}} and {{Infobox element}}. Some older wide discussions about these infoboxes: Archive 28, and New tables. These did not fully conclude.

Today, I want to pick up two easy (non-controversial) change proposals:

  • Change text "is stable with 10 neutrons" into "is stable" (both tables)
  • Remove column "Decay energy (MeV)" completely from the isobox (not that relevant info).

Agree? (Other parts of the discussions could be reopened some other time). -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I support this. Decay energies can be left instead for the main table in the "isotopes of X" articles. Double sharp (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I also support these changes – removing the decay energy column for essentially the same reasons as DS's and removing the neutron count because it is simple arithmetic. Parcly Taxel 15:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done
Other change proposals can be kissed to wake up when we want to. New tables is about adding new columns: spin, decay chain, from 1st-when 1st-who (history), stable only. It appears that adding such columns requires a per-element table choice (1 out of 4). -DePiep (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm too impatient. Double sharp and R8R, could you describe why New tables did not trigger none of you at all? Look at the Double sharpe quotes in there! (OTOH, I'm not waiting for this exrta a development either). -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Not uninterested, simply busy. Will comment when I have spare time. Also, can we replace "is stable" with just "stable"?--R8R (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't watching that page, and didn't get pinged. I shall take a look and try to reply tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If we polish Erbium up, then we can rid ourselves of the last orange box!

That also means no more Start articles for elements! Everything will be at least a C quality!

Unfortunately, I'm not a chemist. I'm just some guy interested in science that wants to helps around here. I'm not that well-versed in erbium, or any of the uncommon elements.

For the more everyday type of chemist: Magnesium, calcium, gold, tin, aluminium, phosphorus, and sulfur also need some work to get them out of C quality. I'm not too concerned about neodymium, gadolinium, terbium, or holmium, though (which are also C quality). Maybe a lanthanoid chemist will come along and help polish those up. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The thing about writing lanthanide articles is that the chemistry gets really boring, because it is usually just Ln3+. Among the ones that are left, only Tb really interests me, because TbIV is a thing. Do bear in mind that you don't need to be a chemist to write a sensible article here; if you get one of those standard inorganic chemistry textbooks (e.g. Greenwood and Earnshaw, Cotton and Wilkinson, or Hollemann and Wiberg) you'll have enough info to write a very good article.
Calcium is being worked on. Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, I have had plans to fix silicon since last year. Maybe it will happen now, given that I am in the middle of discussing its chemistry above. I would also suggest not forgetting the articles on the groups, many of which are not in a very good state. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Erbium was set from C- to Start-class back in September 2010 being this version (17k, 16 refs). Today it is 18k with 18 refs. I don't see why it should be Start, even back then. Per WP:ASSESS, can we reassess (IMO resulting in C class)? Sure, Double sharp, it won't be a shining inviting GA/FA article soon, but that's some more steps away. -DePiep (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite care which it is listed as since we all know that it's not of good quality. However I also don't really care enough to reassess it; it being a flaring orange marker certainly seems to draw more attention to the lanthanides than usual. If you'll permit me some heresy, I think we only need four categories: A, B, Start, and Stub. But is anyone going to support that? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 ToDo The article I will likely be working on most once I enter NUS is sulfur. It has the least references among the period 3 elements and it's got a maintenance template near the bottom. Phosphorus comes in a close second. Parcly Taxel 05:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I want to do it too! Would you mind working with me on P and S? (After all, I was the one who added them to the list of goals. ^_^) Since you said you're going to enter university in August, that should give me enough time to finish getting silicon to GA before jumping in and making period 3 finally stop sticking out like a sore thumb. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thumbs up Great! Parcly Taxel 06:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Calcium is now suddenly a GA? Great! Six more of the major ones to go! 8.40.151.110 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Mg should not be too hard to do now that I finished Ca, actually. Double sharp (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Double sharp: So, will you be doing magnesium now? Parcly Taxel 08:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If no one else wants to do it, yes, I shall. But please expect a few days before it happens: I have to write a section or two for Th, and I'm still finishing the last bits of the Si article rewrite in my sandbox, and I don't think I can pile on a third article while both are still active concurrently. Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm So you were actually doing silicon! Fine then, magnesium may be done after the work on silicon and thorium is done. Parcly Taxel 08:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Reclassifying the nonmetals: naming the group of eleven

It has been four months since the initial proposal of corrosive, intermediate and weak nonmetals was proposed by Sandbh, and the resulting threads have grown to such an extent that certain mobile browsers die trying to render it. In other words, given a survey of all the chemical literature in the world, it has been found that completely no consensus exists as to how the nonmetals should be grouped.

Some partial results have been obtained though.

Yes, absolutely keep the noble gases. It would be perverse to give up such a homogeneous category just because of how oganesson might behave.

— Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The six commonly recognised metalloids are boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and tellurium.

— The metalloid article

In contrast, weak/strong nonmetals are, by definition, fuzzy concepts and requires something else to complete the definition (phosphorus is weak/intermediate only because we can compare it to fluorine and chlorine and see the difference). Which, to my understanding, is a clear negative answer to the question in the beginning of this section: "Is there a compelling need to subcategorize the non-noble nonmetals?"

— R8R (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Therefore, and since it took another long argument to settle on the current poly/di/monoatomic classification, we are best off sticking with status quo. If nobody raises objections I'll be archiving the entire wall of text as Archive 27. We just need to keep the main talk page clean. Parcly Taxel 02:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I support the movement of section 3 into archive 27, which I think is what @YBG: has in mind. Sandbh (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done Parcly Taxel 04:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sandbh: Exactly what I had in mind.
@Parcly Taxel: Thank you for taking the bull by the horns.
Looking back at our long discussion, I can think of several ways it could have been improved:
  1. Having a greater sensitivity to the size of the talk page by proactively summarizing arguments, verifying that the summary includes all major points, and archiving the detailed discussion that has been so summarized.
  2. Using this summarize-validate-archive methodology instead of other methods of refactoring other editors contributions
  3. Keeping lengthy summaries of the literature off-page
I suspect that there may be other ideas for improving our discussions; I am keenly aware that others are in a better position to suggest ways that I may improve, and I hereby invite others to make such suggestions to me, either here, on my talk page or by e-mail. Thanks to one and all for working to improve WP's coverage of the elements! YBG (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Trying to be a bit proactive here. The remaining discussion continues to grow; perhaps it is time to summarize-validate-archive? I'm putting this note here to serve notice that I'm thinking about this; everyone else if free to try their hand at it before I do. On the other hand, I'd also want to hear from anyone who thinks this might be premature. YBG (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@YBG: I believe that we've reached a consensus for my Mark 5 proposal, that the polyatomic and diatomic nonmetal categories should be merged into one category. At this time we are still discussing what the name of this eleven-member category should be, but the leading proposal (and link formatting) appears to be chemically active nonmetals for its relative lexical independence. Parcly Taxel 05:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I understand it. Based on the discussion at the continuation (link below) I believe it would be fair to state
  1. We have a consensus to combine the polyatomic and diatomic nonmetal categories in our PT coloring scheme
  2. The discussion at #Reclassifying the nonmetals, Continuation has reached a natural conclusion
  3. I believe this numbered list provides an adequate summary for that discussion
  4. That discussion is ready to be archived
  5. The best name so far proposed for this 11-element category is chemically active nonmetals
  6. The floor is open for further name suggestions.
  7. If no better name is found, we should accept that name
  8. The next step would be for someone to make a list of the edits and decisions necessary to implement this change.
I have numbered these points to allow further discussion to refer to these points. I believe our discussion has rendered each of these points non-controversial and I trust if I am mistaken, someone will let me know.
YBG (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and archived the entire continuation section at the end of Archive 28. I leave below the agreed-upon categorisation for reference Mk. 11:

Metal Metalloid Nonmetal Unknown chemical properties
Alkali metal Alkaline earth metal Lan­thanide Actinide Transition metal Post-​transition metal Chemically active nonmetal Noble gas

Other than "chemically active nonmetal" the main contender for the new category's name is simply "active nonmetal". "Molecular nonmetal" was found to be flawed since the noble gases are technically monoatomic molecules; "reactive nonmetal" and "pre-noble nonmetal" never gained significant support. Parcly Taxel 08:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I am temporarily withdrawing my support for this proposal. I ask that no further action be taken with respect to implementation until I have at least had time to complete further research, and discussions with individual project members. I expect to be able to post reasons for my actions, shortly. Sandbh (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
re Sandbh: sure, take time. Nothing will be enforced. Waiting for your thoughts. (I myself am positive about this). -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As this section is called "Reclassifying the nonmetals: naming the group of eleven", let me draw it to a close here by pronouncing this consensus:

The best name for the 11 non-noble nonmetals is chemically active nonmetals.

YBG (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Colour group 12 as post-transition metals

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to color code the group 12 elements as post-transition metals Sandbh (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(Done at the prompting of Sandbh on my talk page; thank you!)

Earlier discussions:

In the IUPAC Red Book, two definitions of "transition metal" are given: one is groups 3–12, while the other is groups 3–11. The exact quote is "the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included".

Now, the last time we proposed this colour change for group 12, it got steamrolled by the fact that "poor metals" is a name that nobody uses outside PT fans. Now that we use "post-transition metals", it seems that a second look at this is justified, as the situation is different. As another example of changing situations, at our previous look, HgF4 seemed to be a real compound and CnF4 was predicted to be possible; however, new experiments have not found any evidence of HgF4, and newer calculations also cast serious doubt on the existence of CnIV.

By the time we get to group 12, there is no transition-metal-like chemistry, and as can be seen from the abrupt drop in melting and boiling points, there is no longer any cohesive effect from the d-electrons – unlike group 11 (which has a clear mix of main-group and transition properties), and group 3 (for which the d-electrons still contribute physically, even if their chemistry is basically that of trivalent versions of Ca, Sr, and Ba). Even when relativistic effects are in play, where the relativistic maximum in period 7 is expected to happen at Cn instead of Rg (it happens at Au in period 6), there is a big increase in volatility expected between Rg and Cn, and the high volatility is expected to stay all the way to Og.

Hence I would like to propose once again that we recategorise Zn, Cd, Hg, and Cn from "transition metals" to "post-transition metals", following the simple IUPAC-approved group 3–11 definition. There would be no need to look through predicted transactinide chemistry and search for 6d chemistry; they can simply follow their appropriate groups, so that Mt, Ds, and Rg continue being predicted transition metals, for example. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me, given (1) IUPAC statement and (2) the agreed primacy of chemical properties. YBG (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I am quite indifferent on this one, be it one way or another. But have you considered inviting WP:CHEM and WP:CHEMS to get more opinions? It's fifty-fifty in the literature for a reason.--R8R (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Never mind about second opinions. Since the group 12 elements have filled subshells but the transition metals show varied oxidation states mainly because of their unfilled subshells, you might as well go ahead and recolour the former set of elements as PTMs. Parcly Taxel 16:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
re Never mind about second opinions: this indifference to quality reasoning sounds a bit ... indifferent, Parcly Taxel. If it's that sidetopical, that's an argument too to not change anything. But actually, I'd like to hear & read: in which article(-section) will this be described & motivated? We from WT:ELEMENTS cannot just impose this on our readers. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Nearly effectively everyone agrees that 3–11 are transition metals. The fact that it's about 50-50 when it comes to treating group 12 as transition metals suggests to me that the default position should be 3–11, unless a robust case can be made for 3–12. I know which side I'd want to be on.
My impression is that 3–12 are treated as transition metals at least in part due to (a) a misguided conflation with the d block metals: (b) the previous absence of a good name for the group 12–16 metals; and (c) the "tail wagging the dog" phenomenon, wherein a minority of similarities the group 12 metals have with the transition metals is used to leverage the whole group into the same category as the transition metals.
For example, the transition metal article says:
  • [1] "When discussing the crystal field stabilization energy of first-row transition elements, it is convenient to also include the elements calcium and zinc, as both Ca2+ and Zn2+ have a value of zero against which the value for other transition metal ions may be compared.
The same article goes on:
  • [2] "Another example occurs in the Irving-Williams series of stability constants of complexes."
The first example strikes me as highly dubious given Ca is effectively never categorised as a transition metal.
The second example is elaborated in the Group 12 element article: "…they [group 12] share many characteristics with the neighboring group 11 elements on the periodic table, which are almost universally considered to be transition elements…Zinc complexes merit inclusion in the Irving-Williams series as zinc forms many complexes with the same stoichiometry as complexes of copper(II), albeit with smaller stability constants." My response to this is to note that (according to Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, Cotton et al. 1999, p. 598) zinc forms none of the other typical sorts of transition metals complexes i.e. the similarity is passing rather than substantial.
The same article goes on to say that, "There is little similarity between cadmium and silver as compounds of silver(II) are rare and those that do exist are very strong oxidizing agents. Likewise the common oxidation state for gold is +3, which precludes there being much common chemistry between mercury and gold, though there are similarities between mercury(I) and gold(I) such as the formation of linear dicyano complexes."
I don't see anything here that warrants categorising group 12 as transition metals.
Smith's approach in Inorganic Substances: A Prelude to the Study of Descriptive Inorganic Chemistry (1990, p. 113) is wise: "Textbook writers have always found difficulty in dealing with these elements. In this book, they will be placed with either the transition elements or the Main Group elements, as the occasion demands." So yes, categorise them as post-transition metals, and feel free to include or make reference to them in the transition metal article or the Irving-William series article, for comparative purposes.
It is tempting to be bold but I don't want us to be reverted. So, I suggest putting a formal proposal at Talk: Periodic table and notifying WP:CHEM, WP:CHEMS, and Template talk: Periodic table, and seek to establish consensus (which does not require unanimity of opinion, as Double sharp reminded me a while back).
Alternatively, act first, and then go for consensus if we get reverted. Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to go ahead with the formal proposal. As for where the distinction between groups 3–11 and group 12 will be discussed, I suggest discussing it on the post-transition metal page, explaining why group 12 has been included there. Parcly Taxel 06:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Double sharp and Sandbh for clarifying this issue, including its confusing RL history. It all looks much well-sourced & simpler now. This being uber periodic table (a dozen of articles and all PT images), an RfC might as well be opened here (not Talk:PT) with advertisements around. Consensus by RfC makes another very strong case (into 'standardising' the enwiki classification scheme wiki-wide and possibly even outside). -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the fact of having an RfC might even be more important than where it is, given the one at Template talk:Periodic table deciding on a Sc-Y-La-Ac group 3. I think Sandbh would write a better and more well-researched opening statement than I would, though. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Sandbh would be a good person to write it up. YBG (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Sandbh doing this bold: OK with me. He already described the risk. I just wanna say: our cat&color-thing here is so sound, we'd wanna have it wider than just enwiki (as with group 3).
Also, our current (2013 CAT) images & tables are used on many lang-wikis, even blindly I think. New 2017 CAT images should be a new file (do not overwrite 2013).
Detail: "group 3" was about the PT itself, but this is just about group 12.
About Cn: will it be still in? Cn was convincingly made "Transition metal", while it mostly has speculations. (mean Q:) Now it is this easily changed into a PTM? :-DePiep (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
reply by Double sharp (here): "Yes, Cn will fit OK as a PTM, because chemical experiments have shown that it behaves like a typical group 12 member, and by the group-based definition group 12 would be a PTM group. There was originally room for doubt based on the expected existence of CnIV, but given that newer calculations have refuted this (see copernicium) that has vanished." (end of quote). -DePiep (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to draft the RFC proposal and will do so, subject to RL commitments. Sandbh (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Colour group 12 as post-transition metals

The origin of this proposal can be traced to a 1983 article by Bill Jensen, in the Journal of Chemical Education, here, in which he noted that there was "roughly a 50–50 split between those texts that included the Zn group among the transition metals versus those that did not." In the same article he gave supporting arguments for treating group 12 as other than transition metals.
IUPAC does not take a firm position on this question. They say that groups 3 to 12 are the d-block elements and that these are commonly referred to as transition metals though group 12 is not always included (see here, p. 51). Certainly, the group 12 elements do not satisfy the IUPAC Gold Book definition of a transition metal, which is "An element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations with an incomplete d sub-shell."
Most of the chemistry of group 12 is that of main group elements rather than transition metal chemistry. This is due to d-shell being inaccessible in these elements. Physically, there is a related abrupt and significant reduction in metallic character going from group 11 to group 12.
My impression is that groups 3–12 are treated as transition metals at least in part due to (a) a misguided conflation with the d-block metals: (b) the previous absence of a good name for the group 12–16 metals; and (c) a "tail wagging the dog" phenomenon, wherein a minority of similarities the group 12 metals have with the transition metals is used to leverage the whole group into the same category as the transition metals.
For example, the transition metal article says:
[1] "When discussing the crystal field stabilization energy of first-row transition elements, it is convenient to also include the elements calcium and zinc, as both Ca2+ and Zn2+ have a value of zero against which the value for other transition metal ions may be compared."
The same article goes on:
[2] "Another example occurs in the Irving-Williams series of stability constants of complexes."
The first example strikes me as highly dubious given Ca is effectively never categorised as a transition metal.
The second example is elaborated in the Group 12 element article:
"…they [group 12] share many characteristics with the neighboring group 11 elements on the periodic table, which are almost universally considered to be transition elements…Zinc complexes merit inclusion in the Irving-Williams series as zinc forms many complexes with the same stoichiometry as complexes of copper(II), albeit with smaller stability constants."
My response to this is to note that (according to Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, Cotton et al. 1999, p. 598) zinc forms none of the other typical sorts of transition metals complexes i.e. the similarity is passing rather than substantial.
The Group 12 article goes on to say that, "There is little similarity between cadmium and silver as compounds of silver(II) are rare and those that do exist are very strong oxidizing agents. Likewise the common oxidation state for gold is +3, which precludes there being much common chemistry between mercury and gold, though there are similarities between mercury(I) and gold(I) such as the formation of linear dicyano complexes."
I don't see anything here that warrants categorising group 12 as transition metals.
Smith's approach in Inorganic Substances: A Prelude to the Study of Descriptive Inorganic Chemistry (1990, p. 113) strikes me as wise: "Textbook writers have always found difficulty in dealing with these elements. In this book, they will be placed with either the transition elements or the Main Group elements, as the occasion demands."
So yes, categorise them as post-transition metals, and feel free to include or make reference to them in the transition metal article or the Irving-William series article, for comparative purposes.
There was a flurry of excitement a little while back when it seemed that HgF4 was a real compound and CnF4 was predicted to be possible (and hence both Hg and Cn could arguably have perhaps been regarded as transition metals, since such compounds would require the involvement of either 5d or 6d electrons), however new experiments have not found any evidence of HgF4, and newer calculations also cast serious doubt on the existence of Cn(IV).
The fact that (a) nearly effectively everyone agrees 3–11 are transition metals; (b) it's about 50-50 when it comes to treating group 12 as transition metals; (c) IUPAC is either no help or contradictory; (d) the chemistry of group 12 is very largely main group chemistry, suggests to me that the default position for categorising transition metals should be 3–11, unless a robust case can be made for 3–12. In my view, there is no such case. As noted, if group 12 were to be categorised as post-transition metals, they can still be referred to, for comparative purposes, in e.g. the transition metal article.

Sandbh (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Done. Also posted to Template talk:Periodic table, Talk:Perioidic table, Talk:Group 12 element, Talk:Tranisition metal, and Talk:Post-transition metal. Sandbh (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • About "category" and "color".
In periodic tables, this enwiki uses category for sets of elements that are classified (grouped) by their metallicity. There are ten categories, from alkali metals to noble gases; they show a trend (pattern) in the periodic table. The word "category" is used only in this enwiki grouping: there is no standard IUPAC word for it (while group, period are well-defined).
Also in enwiki, each category has its own, same color in every periodic table shown.
So when this RfC says 'recolor elements', it means 'change [enwiki] category'. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support (both the wording and the position). Parcly Taxel 07:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as proposal nominator. Sandbh (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. In practice, we are already doing this in the more advanced chemistry articles: for example, Metal ions in aqueous solution mentions at one point the "transition metals and group 12 metals". The reason is obvious: the group 12 elements have so little transition-like chemistry that trying to force them in regardless always results in the need to cover their distinct behaviour separately. The change here is that we would then start from a reasonable foundation, instead of lying to children and conflating the d-block with transition chemistry. It just isn't so. Double sharp (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-written proposal that details the subtle reasoning behind it clearly enough for those (like me) whose knowledge of chemistry is at the broad-brushstrokes level. YBG (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC) clear→clearly YBG (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. (I've sometimes wondered why zinc is classified as a transition element, while failing to behave as one.) Maproom (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It occurs to me that (especially in the 2013 discussion), counter-arguments are (1) categorisation of these poor metal/post-transition elements is not strong, useful or meaningful enough, and (2) falling back on non-category criteria, like relying on properties block and group/valence. Well, (1) may be true, but then categorising on a less strong basis is acceptable too, especially since we do categorise all elements (we don't want less-clear elements to be colored white), and it does show a trend. And (2) defies the essence of categories: that they can form a new pattern in the periodic table (as the metalloids clearly show: a tetris area), unrestricted by other classifications like block or group. On top of this, the topic is well sourced. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I add: this argument (3) is looming around: because the borders of categories (border elements) are extra uncertain on top of the "50/50" category definition itself, we more so should stay away from categorising. IMO, yes (3) is true, but we still can make a well-based decision (choice) in this greyish area, reading the sources. This wiki also made an intelligent solution wrt metalloids. Such subtleties can be detailed in dedicated articles & sections, while retaining the overall intention: show the trend in the periodic table. -DePiep (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
re Roches: What is "(Summoned by bot)"? Are you not free? -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: I know you weren't asking me, but "(summoned by bot)" is nicely explained in {{sbb}}, which is visible in the wikitext of Roches's !vote. YBG (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Discuss

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.

Help with theoretical stuff

I'm working on a project involving theoretical elements, so I'm trying to make a reference page for it. Can someone here help me fill out the missing electrons per shell counts in this section? It starts with 122. I haven't done anything with chemistry for over 27 years. I appreciate any help. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: You can find them all at Electron configurations of the elements (data page), but do note that because of the insertion of the g-block, you don't get back to group 4 until element 158. Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Sadly, I don't undertand how to read that information. I don't understand the notation. I haven't done any chemistry for over 27 years. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: The bottom rows (below all the spdf stuff) give the counts per shell. For example, if you look at the row for lutetium, element 71, the first row gives "[Xe] 4f14 5d1 6s2", and the second row breaks that down, but the third row has "2, 8, 18, 32, 9, 2" as you want. Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Double sharp: So each shell can have multiple orbitals in it? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Shell = Electron shell (K, L, M, ...), principal quantum number n = 1, 2, 3, ... .
Orbital = Atomic orbital: " is characterized by a unique set of values of the three quantum numbers n, ℓ, and m"
-DePiep (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: Yes. Atomic orbital may help. Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oxygen TFA

I'm planning to rerun oxygen as WP:TFA on 5 September. It's deteriorate since it was promoted, so I cleaned it up, removed refs from lead section (now frowned upon) replaced a dead reference, removed a dead EL and generally tried to tidy it up for TFA. I removed a number of unsourced or inappropriately sourced statements, since it's effectively impossible to run an article at TFA with uncited text. If anyone can further tidy the article before it runs, that would be great. Most of the unsourced material I have no reason to believe to be incorrect, so if it can be supported by FA level refs, obviously it can be added back. My edits. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I have reinstated some of the unsourced material that I could easily find a citation for. Double sharp (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oxygen scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the oxygen article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 5, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 5, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox element: placement of atomic weight

Currently, {{Infobox element}} has standard atomic weight (aka atomic weight; Ar) in its section "[Hydrogen] in the periodic table". I propose to move Atomic weight into the isotopes section "Main isotopes of [hydrogen]". Either above or (preferably) below the isotopes table in there. For instable elements we mention "mass number (most stable isotope)", which could go there too. No formatting changes in play.

Quite simple, atomic weight has nothing to do with the periodic table (ask Mendeleev). Putting it with the isotopes is more obvious. IMO most logical is below the table (as this infobox already has), as a summary result of the abundances. Above the table might be considered for the importance of this value, but less logic.

A negative is that this is the very bottom of the infobox for such an important value, that did win people Nobel prizes (even worse with all that Miscellaneous data taking space & attention, like a garden shed that needs cleaning up or complete removal). In this, I prefer logical consistency. -DePiep (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Atomic weight is actually pretty disproportionately useful because you need it for just about every chemistry calculation of significance right from the first year, so I would perhaps be willing to consider it a case where extreme utility means it is a worthy exception to the scheme. Surely it should give one pause when one considers that atomic weight tends to get top billing in most printed periodic tables, behind only the chemical symbols, element names, and atomic numbers. Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
In that case, move to upper "General properties"? (taking the risk of scaring readers away given the value format...) -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Enter topic 'simplify for reader, complicate for us editors': IUPAC also publishes an "abridged" value (think: rounded to 5 sigfig, usually with a (1) uncertainty. Ar, abridged(He) = 4.0026 i.e. 4.0026(1)). We could add that for every element, to ease the eye of the reader. The H: [x, y] elements (12×) already do this, as the 'conventional' value. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. Double sharp (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, I do not want it under "General properties". Information should be presented structurally, not by popularity. Whether it is "useful" (as you say) is not very eh useful (should order properties by usefulness?). Maybe you mean "it's important", but that can be said about everything in the infobox—otherwise, it shouldn't/wouldn't be in there. The infobox is not a personal scrapnote. We should keep aiming for systematic presentation of the info, and so with isotopes is most logical. -DePiep (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Except that if you put it all the way there at the bottom hardly anyone is going to find it. And yes, I would argue that atomic weight is much more important than almost anything else we currently have there. Double sharp (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Putting it in a random place does not help finding at all. What is missing is a WP:INFOBOX-approach. I've maintained similar {{Infobox element}}, {{Infobox drug}} and {{Chembox}} for some years now, and everybody finds 'their' parameter hugely important, it Must Be In Top (see for example the external links (!) being in top of {{Chembox}}). Nobody takes an approach from infobox perspective. So Double sharp, if the bottom of the box is deemmed out of sight, how would you improve that situation? -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
We can of course remove some of the less important information, especially in the "Miscellaneous" section. But when something is literally in just about every printed periodic table that chemists refer to, as atomic weight is, perhaps it really is hugely important and deserves a prominent spot on a par with the very name and symbol of the element. Already in the first year of chemistry you learn to use atomic weights to do just about all the standard stoichiometric calculations (e.g. deriving empirical formulae, mole ratios of reactants and products, finding limiting reagents), and then even further when dealing with gases, equilibria, and so on, all before one is done with high school. I cannot think of a single branch of chemistry where this isn't important, unlike perhaps what you could say for some of the isotopes. Sure, it may look logically in the wrong place, but it is so fundamental that I would argue strongly in favour of WP:IAR in the interests of common sense. Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Atomic weight is so important it must be close to the top. Ulflund (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Double sharp as to the fundamental importance of atomic weight in chemistry. Sandbh (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Atomic weight, valence, being radioactive, electron config, metallicity, phase at STP: all properties that are shown "literally in just about every printed periodic table". Should all these get an exception, and go in top then? I am not discussing let alone denying importance, I am asking how to organise the infobox with this. A reader is not helped having to look for data in an irregular, illogical place (why should valence be in its structured place, and atomic weight not?). Why would a reader not find data in the place it is expected? Or is this admitting the the infobox has gotten useless, and we only keep it up by exceptions? We only want changes that prevent the need for exceptions. -DePiep (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure if you have seen one of those periodic tables that chemists actually refer to and use instead of hang on the wall to look pretty, but in those the only three properties that you are guaranteed to find are chemical symbol, atomic number, and atomic weight.
You will not find valence because beyond basic school chemistry it is not the most well-defined of concepts; electron configuration is easily determined anyway from the element's position, bearing in mind a few exceptions, and is also usually omitted; radioactivity is easily remembered as "43, 61, everything past 83" and I have never seen it there in a serious table; metallicity and phase at STP are easily remembered by the few that are not the default "solid metal" and are often omitted, combined with some of those tables that put "synthetic" as if it were a state! But atomic weight cannot easily be so deduced and is useful everywhere.
If the idea is to prioritise slavish devotion to organising principles over putting fundamental information in a proper place to reflect how fundamental it is, I am 100% in favour of the latter and common sense. Perhaps this is not evidently common sense unless you remember high school chemistry, but I do not see how anyone who does can possibly argue against it. Double sharp (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
As predictably expected, the list I provided is made moot by ad hoc treats into non-exception. Still not an infobox approach on how to present information (even "can be deducted so is not important" is an argument now?!). Instead, carefulness is called "slavish devotion". -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd say that atomic weight is of such an importance that it should be even more visible than the various properties listed under "<element> in the periodic table". And it does appear (ever so) slightly anomalous in amongst the PT properties, which are all directly related to periodicity. So count this as a vote to promoting atomic weight to the "General properties" section. But I'm fine with leaving it in its present location. YBG (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
YBG, atomic weight has nothing to do with PT position. So current placement is wrong. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done into General properties now. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

New WikiProject: WP:Periodic table category colors (PTCC)

I have started a new WP project: WP:Periodic table category colors (WP:PTCC). It is to be the central place to develop category colors.

For example, current issues with PTCC are:

  1. New colors for new categories ("corrosive nonmetals").
  2. Bad contrast for AM and TM (alkaline metals and transition metals)
  3. The PT colors need a new set (10+1 categories), keeping good design in mind.
  4. Since our PT images (templates, images, facts) are re-used all over interwiki, we should keep that usage in mind (iw-wikis often use our image blindly, trusting us. Could be bad info in the end).

Question: please take a look at Help:PTCC (improve content). This page is the goto-page for other wikis, I suggest (describing our PTCC best).

-DePiep (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and see User:DePiep/PTCC. -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Meitnerium#Bond distances predictions

The author of a cited paper reported a mistake in this article, please give a look. --Nemo 10:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Reclassifying the nonmetals: Another continuation

(as this seems to be a natural break, a section head was inserted by YBG (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I changed my mind for around a half-dozen reasons.
Properties table. I drafted a summary table of 21 properties of the metalloids, the other nonmetals, and oxygen and the halogen nonmetals—the table can be found here—and was pleasantly surprised by the contrast between the three classes in terms of at least the headland properties of oxidising power, ionic v covalent bonding, ionisation energy, electron affinity, and electronegativity. Please note that the table is a work in progress, and that the supporting citations are missing.
Muddying the waters/consensus in the literature. Looking at the table I can now see that moving oxygen into an other metals category would "muddy the waters" as much as would moving nitrogen into the same category as oxygen and the halogens. Placing oxygen and nitrogen in different categories accords with consensus in the literature that oxygen and the halogen nonmetals are chemically the strongest of the nonmetals.
Category names. Being consistent with the literature-based distinction between chemically weaker and chemically stronger nonmetals is more important than category names. In that light I'd be happy to call the other nonmetals "other nonmetals" rather than "intermediate nonmetals".
The nonmetal article. The properties table I referred to earlier provides a superb foundation to draft a revised nonmetal article around. The end result would be richer than the current version of the article and would, in my view, have FAC potential.
Electronegativity values. I finally understood where Double sharp was coming from on the nitrogen question. He was starting with the high electronegativity value of nitrogen, which would place it among oxygen and the halogen nonmetals. I was starting with nitrogen's ionisation energy, electron affinity, electronegativity, oxidising power, and covalent chemistry which, when considered together, would place it among the other nonmetals. Neither approach is wrong.
After I drafted the above reasons, Double sharp and I were able to agree offline that, since metallic and nonmetallic character are composites of several properties, and given the high level of abstraction we are attempting to cater for in our colour categories, nitrogen is more suitably placed among the other nonmetals.
We further agreed that in our periodic table article, in the electronegativity section, it would be good to include a periodic table showing the elements colour-coded (using a different colour scheme) by electronegativity, with black dividing lines between the periodic table categories.
Subject to your views I intend to draft a revised nonmetal article for your consideration and, if this is acceptable, to seek consensus at Template talk: Periodic table for the two new colour category names i.e. "other nonmetals", and "corrosive nonmetals".
I'm not fussed if the metalloids remain as a third super category rather than a nonmetal category, and would welcome any further thoughts about this in light of the "Parsing the nonmetals" essay in my sandbox, which has matured a lot since I last brought it your attention.
Thank you to:
  • Double sharp for making me think so hard and at such length;
  • Parcly Taxel for your category name ideas, especially oxidative and reductive nonmetals, and seeking to move things forward;
  • YBG for your category name ideas and for suggesting that Double sharp and I might be able to reach an agreement;
  • R8R for challenging me on the notion of a dichotomy among the chemically active nonmetals and reminding me about the corrosive nonmetals;
  • DePiep for reminding me of Mendeleev's wisdom.
--- Sandbh (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of where we are

To summarize where we are:

  • Retain "Metalloids" as a supercategory parallel with metal and nonmetal
  • There seem to be three distinct possibilities for categorizing nonmetals
    1. Status quo: noble gasses, diatomic NM, polyatomic NM
    2. Proposed trichotomy: noble gasses, 6 corrosive NM, 5 other NM
    3. Proposed dichotomy: noble gasses, 11 chemically active NM
  • The primary (only?) argument for the status quo seems to be a lack of consensus on an alternative
Previous trichotomy: NG NMs / Other NMs / Halogens He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn,Og C,P,S,Se H,N O F,Cl,Br,I At B,Si,Ge,As,Sb,Te
Current trichotomy: Monatomic NMs / Polyatomic NMs / Diatomic NMs He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn,Og C,P,S,Se H,N O F,Cl,Br,I At B,Si,Ge,As,Sb,Te
Proposed trichotomy: NG NMs / Other NMs / Corrosive NMs He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn,Og C,P,S,Se H,N O F,Cl,Br,I At B,Si,Ge,As,Sb,Te
Proposed dichotomy: NG NMs / Chemically active NMs He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn,Og C,P,S,Se H,N O F,Cl,Br,I At B,Si,Ge,As,Sb,Te

YBG (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

YBG

I believe that Sandbh has provided clear reasoning for calling O,F,Cl,Br,I "corrosive nonmetals" and including clear reasoning for why O should be included in this set and why N should not be included. He has demonstrated quite well that this set of elements is much more coherent chemically than the current diatomic nonmetals. Specifically, he maintains that this coherence makes sense from two different but related points of view (1) the literature tends to treat these elements together and (2) the chemical properties of this set of elements are similar.
All of this argues indisputably for adding a new corrosive nonmetals sub-section to nonmetal § Categories, and I believe this can and should be done right now without waiting for this discussion to reach a conclusion.
There remains the question of whether this category should be used in our PT-coloring scheme or not.
Sandbh says Being consistent with the literature-based distinction between chemically weaker and chemically stronger nonmetals is more important than category names.
I agree that our PT-coloring categories should be consistent with literature-based distinctions. But there are many literature-based distinctions, far more than we could hope to include in our coloring scheme. The question for us as editors and as a wikiproject is Which of the literature-based distinctions should we include in our PT coloring scheme? - specifically should this distinction be included in our PT-coloring scheme.
We have these choices, listed in the order that I believe Sandbh currently prefers:
  • The proposed trichotomy: include the distinction between corrosive nonmetals and the rest of the non-noble nonmetals in our coloring scheme or
  • The proposed dichotomy: categorize all 11 chemically active nonmetals together or
  • The status quo: retain the status quo. [yuck]
My preference would be (1) proposed dichotomy (2) proposed trichotomy (3) status quo. My reasons, in order of importance to me, are
  • I find the category name "Other nonmetals" to be fundamentally flawed, and
  • the distinction between "corrosive" and "other" nonmetals, while great, is much less than the distinction between noble gasses and the chemically active nonmetals, and
  • we have too many categories as it is. (I believe we should aim for The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two.)
I could be persuaded to accept the proposed trichotomy provided Double sharp both agree on it and we come up with a better name than "Other nonmetals". "Weak nonmetals" is marginally acceptable, but certainly if this categorization is notable, we should be able to come up with a better category name.
(Note: There is a difference between (a) the set corrosive nonmetals is a significant and notable set of elements and (b) the categorization of NNNM into corrosive and other nonmetals is a significant and notable classification. The latter is a MUCH stronger statement. YBG (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
YBG: Points 1 and 2 (ONM a flawed name, distinction vs. cohesion) are strong, then you killed it by point 3: "seven" it should be. Nice in human perceptions, not relevant in the PT. If seven is the number, Nature would have dealt us a magic square PT with 49 elements. -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
IMHO, things like groups and periods are almost always presented to us indisputably and are subject to interpretation only at the ragged edges. That is to say, at the ragged edges we might have a vigorous discussion about the constitution of group 3, but this is not the norm. I cannot come up with any conceivable circumstance in which two people would disagree about which elements are in group 2 or group 12, right? But with these categories, there really is a lot of room for editorial input. Should we stick to just three top-level categories? Should the chemically active nonmetals be one category or two? Should the lanthanides and actinides be two categories or one? Should the alkali metals and alkaline earth metals be two categories or one? Should metalloids be a separate supercategory or a subcategory of nonmetals? Knowledgeable people of good will might very easily disagree about these questions about categorization. My point with the 7±2 reference is that one important consideration is that we should keep our readers in mind. To the extent that it is possible, we should aim to have the number of categories small enough so that the reader is not overwhelmed and can keep them in mind easily. YBG (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you can go over the magic number, but only if you have some sort of hierarchy to it, so that each individual subset of the categories is not so large. Combined with an "unknown properties" lack of category, I think the ten we have now is a reasonably good number. (By the way, your mentioning of groups 2 and 12 as an indisputable case is kind of funny; in the early 20th century quite a few periodic tables moved Be and Mg to be on top of Zn, and indeed they fit rather well there thanks to their small size. The argument against that is to some extent almost as dicey as that for group 3.) Double sharp (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Yea, hierarchy and "chunking" helps you go over 7±2; my concern is that when viewing our PT, one does not see a hierarchy but rather 10 different categories that pretty much stand parallel to each other. The legend does display the hierarchy, but I don't think it is enough to help people "chunk".
As to 2 and 12, yea, I hadn't thought about that. I suppose there was some IUPAC subcommittee, a predecessor to Scerri's group 3 group, that finalized the group membership, or maybe it was just professional consensus (and without the benefit of talk pages). But I have a hard time thinking about the IUPAC setting up a committee that would make a final decision about category definitions and boundaries. But on second thought, maybe they would, and then DePiep would be right in that we may just be part of the foundational work of PT categories: 'Our' PT Categorisation ... has a high degree of quality for the RL scientific world ... so that it isn't too much of a stretch to say that we are claiming and defining ... the word 'category'. YBG (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Re helping people to chunk, the legend helps but there is no immediately accompanying guide to the legend, that explains how it works and summarises the nature of the elements in each category. The closest we get to doing this doesn't happen until another two images and eleven paragraphs later. Maybe a guide could be done as a drop down to the big PT. Sandbh (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
(outdent)

I have changed my opinion and now favor three categories of nonmetals: (1) the nobel gases He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn, Og; (2) H, C, N, P, S, Se and (3) O,F,Cl,Br,I. The main thing that convinced me was to recognize that because the nonmetals are so much more diverse than the metals, it makes sense that the nonmetal categories would have fewer members on average than do the metal categories. But my support for changing from the diatomic/polyatomic status quo is contingent on eliminating the category name "other nonmetals". @Sandbh, Double sharp, and Parcly Taxel: It seems all four of us now agree that this categorization of the nonmetals is the best. Might we also be able to agree on the best names for the two NNNM categories? The only two alternatives that have been mentioned, AFAIK, are

  • (a) NNNM = "corrosive nonmetals" + "other nonmetals"
    I am strongly opposed to using the term "other nonmetals" for reasons that have been oft stated before and which I will repeat here if so requested. Further, I suspect that even those who don't share the strength of my opinion would still prefer to avoid that term.
  • (b) NNNM = "oxidative nonmetals" + "reductive nonmetals"
    This was proposed by Parcly Taxel and AFAIK, there has been nothing said against this. Unless something better appears, I also support it.

I believe that further discussion of the category names should be either in #The other test or in a brand new sub-section. YBG (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Parcly Taxel

Come to think of it, I'm now convinced by Sandbh's arguments that the distinction between H/C/N/P/S/Se and O/F/Cl/Br/I is significant, and thus I now have more support for the proposed trichotomy. Remember how I argued that a viable category needed to have a representative element? Well, considering these categories as the oxidative and reductive nonmetals (and these are definitely the best names we have now), we have representatives:

  • Hydrogen represents the reductive nonmetals and reduction
  • Oxygen represents the oxidative nonmetals and oxidation

These are the two elements that figure most prominently in redox reactions. Just as we have oxidising agent and reducing agent, so we can have oxidative nonmetal and reductive nonmetal. The overall nonmetal article would then emphasise this division first, linking to the two smaller categories' pages in its section, before moving on to lesser categorisations.

Electrochemical categories: NG NMs / Reductive NMs / Oxidative NMs He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn,Og H,C,N,P,S,Se O,F,Cl,Br,I B,Si,Ge,As,Sb,Te,At

But then there is a far more compelling argument in favour of the proposed trichotomy: our periodic table then becomes one solidly based on electrochemistry. All the metals are reducing, with the alkali and alkaline earth metals particularly so; metalloids are slightly more oxidising, and the proposed trichotomy illustrates very clearly the rest of the transition to oxidising tendencies. The status quo is dead, since its polyatomic/diatomic classification has nothing to do with electrons. Likewise, leaving the Group of Eleven as just the chemically active nonmetals is not going far enough in this regard – we can be more detailed than that. Parcly Taxel 02:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I hereby invite others to comment on Parcly Taxel's proposal to use the terms oxidative nonmetals and reductive nonmetals. I don't know enough to voice an opinion other than my extreme revulsion to other nonmetals. YBG (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
sure. What is trichotomy, why is that now a classifying principle (why as in: 5 mths later while this page does not introduce it), and I do not trust yet the 'needs [!] example element' claim then disrupting the logic using that invented need. For all you still here: did you known Sandbh did not sign his OP? I invaded the archive to post-fix this. DePiep (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
wikt:Trichotomy means dividing things into three classes, but that has nothing to do with my question, which related specifically to Parcly Taxel's proposal to use the terms "oxidative nonmetals" and "reductive nonmetals" for the categories that Sandbh has been calling "corrosive nonmetals" and "other nonmetals". YBG (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

DePiep

re Sandbh "I changed my mind for around a half-dozen reasons". To be clear, what this is about: now you oppose a dichotome division ('Chemically active NMs', 'Noble gases') which you earlier on liked? (or should I just read Archive 27? Any reading advice?)

re article "periodic table showing the elements colour-coded (using a different colour scheme) by electronegativity": can be done always, irrespective of this nonmetallictivity topic outcome. The electronegativity color scheme should be different from the category color scheme to prevent any confusion. We already have single-property colored PTs like {{Periodic table (crystal structure)}} and {{Periodic table (electronegativity by Pauling scale)}}. IOW: electronegativity is off-topic (nice, and helpful).

DORG re "to seek consensus at Template talk:Periodic table for the two new colour category names i.e. "other nonmetals", and "corrosive nonmetals"." Please no! This category issue is so abstract and comprehensive that it should be at our king talkpage WT:ELEMENTS. I think 'our' PT Categorisation by now has a high degree of quality for the RL scientific world and it might become leading (for starters, claiming and defining claiming the word 'category'). If the organisation of a big long talk is an issue, we should tackle that in other ways — here. (I even doubt if element properties is just a periodic table topic; also Talk:nonmetal could be thought of).

By now, Sandbh, could you give us an outline of the articles for the new categories? What will corrosive nonmetal, other nonmetal be like? They can't be redirects like today's diatomic nonmetal. I can imagine an article NNNM that describes these two, especially since the comparing is major. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Also: a single article NNNM can nicely solve that awkward "Other ..." naming issue. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: Just to clarify, I still support the dichotomy (chemically active) more. It's just that I found the trichotomy (oxidative/reductive) arguments good enough that they should be covered in more detail in a chemically active nonmetals article (the NNNM article you mentioned). Parcly Taxel 00:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: Yes, I currently no longer support a division into chemically active nonmetals and noble gases.
I never really liked the proposed division into chemically active nonmetals and noble gases because, to me, this would hide knowledge and make it harder to see the symmetry of the periodic table. The care we take with categorising the metals deserves to be carried over into the nonmetals.
In the end I went along with the active-noble division as the lesser of two evils.
On why I then changed my mind, I can advise you to read the Parsing the nonmetals mini-essay in my sandbox and especially the summary table comparing the metalloids, the other nonmetals, and oxygen and the halogens, across 21 properties. I changed my mind largely as a result of compiling that table.
Yes, to be clear about the electronegativity table, this would show the elements colour coded by EN, and there would be black dividing lines, somewhat like the periodic table in the heavy metal article, showing our ten periodic table categories. The purpose of doing so is to be able to compare the pattern in electronegativity with the progression in metallic or electrochemical character represented by our colour categories. I expect that, for example, N, O, F, and Cl would be in the EN > 3 category, and that Au, C, S, Se, Br and iodine would in the EN 2.5--3 category.
On seeking consensus at Template talk: Periodic table I recall we sought consensus outside of our project page for the polydi categories essentially for the reason that we are a small project. I think we also recognised the need to seek consensus outside of our project for similar changes in the future.
For articles there would be our nonmetal article, and our noble gas article. Beyond that, I won't know until I redraft the nonmetal article. Certainly, if the nonmetal article got too long, we could have separate articles for the rest of the nonmetal categories.
On the "other nonmetal" category name issue, I'm still thinking about this.
PS: What does DORG stand for? Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I've started drafting a rewrite of the nonmetal article to see how it would look. Sandbh (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Visually combining category and electronegativity in a PT looks great (informative). I introduced DORG "Organisation of the discussion (not content)" to indicate a non-content paragraph, trying to separate organisation from content in the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: if we create new any new categories (for those NNNMs), new colors are required too. Good key-coloring is: "different definition = different color". We cannot reuse the green and yellow. When a changes nears, I'll suggest new colors (will still be some green and yellow, these are good). -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The other test

Anything better than "other nonmetal" needs to work better than these descriptions:

Location Description
Other/Corrosive                      — Sandbh (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Group 16 Oxygen is a corrosive nonmetal, sulfur and selenium are other nonmetals, tellurium is a metalloid, and polonium is a post-transition metal.
Group 15 Nitrogen and phosphorous are other nonmetals, arsenic and antimony are metalloids, and bismuth is a post-transition metal.
Period 2
(p block)		 Boron is a metalloid, carbon and nitrogen are other nonmetals, oxygen and fluorine are corrosive nonmetals, and neon is a noble gas.
Reductive/Oxidative                      — YBG (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Group 16 Oxygen is an oxidative nonmetal, sulfur and selenium are reductive nonmetals, tellurium is a metalloid, and polonium is a post-transition metal.
Group 15 Nitrogen and phosphorous are reductive nonmetals, arsenic and antimony are metalloids, and bismuth is a post-transition metal.
Period 2
(p block)		 Boron is a metalloid, carbon and nitrogen are reductive nonmetals, oxygen and fluorine are oxidative nonmetals, and neon is a noble gas.
Heterogenic/Corrosive                      — YBG (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Group 16 Oxygen is a corrosive nonmetal, sulfur and selenium are heterogenic nonmetals, tellurium is a metalloid, and polonium is a post-transition metal.
Group 15 Nitrogen and phosphorous are heterogenic nonmetals, arsenic and antimony are metalloids, and bismuth is a post-transition metal.
Period 2
(p block)		 Boron is a metalloid, carbon and nitrogen are heterogenic nonmetals, oxygen and fluorine are corrosive nonmetals, and neon is a noble gas.
Heterogeneous/Corrosive                      — YBG (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Group 16 Oxygen is a corrosive nonmetal, sulfur and selenium are heterogeneous nonmetals, tellurium is a metalloid, and polonium is a post-transition metal.
Group 15 Nitrogen and phosphorous are heterogeneous nonmetals, arsenic and antimony are metalloids, and bismuth is a post-transition metal.
Period 2
(p block)		 Boron is a metalloid, carbon and nitrogen are heterogeneous nonmetals, oxygen and fluorine are corrosive nonmetals, and neon is a noble gas.
Foundation/Corrosive                      — Sandbh (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC) (UTC)
Group 16 Oxygen is a corrosive nonmetal, sulfur and selenium are foundation nonmetals, tellurium is a metalloid, and polonium is a post-transition metal.
Group 15 Nitrogen and phosphorous are foundation nonmetals, arsenic and antimony are metalloids, and bismuth is a post-transition metal.
Period 2
(p block)		 Boron is a metalloid, carbon and nitrogen are foundation nonmetals, oxygen and fluorine are corrosive nonmetals, and neon is a noble gas.
Formative/Corrosive                      — Sandbh (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC) (UTC)
Group 16 Oxygen is a corrosive nonmetal, sulfur and selenium are formative nonmetals, tellurium is a metalloid, and polonium is a post-transition metal.
Group 15 Nitrogen and phosphorous are formative nonmetals, arsenic and antimony are metalloids, and bismuth is a post-transition metal.
Period 2
(p block)		 Boron is a metalloid, carbon and nitrogen are formative nonmetals, oxygen and fluorine are corrosive nonmetals, and neon is a noble gas.

Update

I’ve drafted a revised nonmetal article, here, using the categories other nonmetal, corrosive nonmetal, and noble gas. It includes biographical sketches of all the nonmetals as per, if memory serves, a suggestion by Parcly Taxel. I’ve referred to the metalloids for comparative purposes.

The draft needs polishing in some areas. The PT images need to be updated. There are a couple of red letter notes in the article I need to address.I need to add more supporting citations. I said I’d include a PT coloured by electronegativity, with dividing lines between our ten categories, but haven’t done this yet.

I’m posting this FYI or comments, given the draft has now got to a state where I’m more or less happy with it. Sandbh (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A wonderful reading it is! It nicely sails the seas of categorisations, smartly uses metalloids all along for perspective, describes other schemes as well. I enjoyed it. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • About the table in #Alternative_categories. Wouldn't it be helpful and illustrative to add the basic Other/Corrosive/Noble set in top, for comparision? BTW, it is the first table-form listing of these in the article. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • About the order and introduction of the categories: "The seven metalloids are", "There are six other nonmetals", "There are five corrosive nonmetals namely", "Six nonmetals are categorised as noble gases". We know why it is this way, but the "other nonmetals" position now reads illogic (as a leftover class, expected at the end of a listing). Is there a solution? Italicise as words like "called other nonmetals"? -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you DiPiep for your kind words. I especially liked "nicely sails the seas of categorisations" and I appreciate your comment about the metalloids. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

  • Yes, that's a good idea.
  • I think the solution is to come up with a better name than "other nonmetals". I posted something to my talk page about this a day or so ago, to see if could get some in-principle agreement before posting something more formal here. Sandbh (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
YGB, Double sharp, and I agree with Parcly Taxel's well-put proposal to have the following categories of nonmetal: reductive nonmetal (H, C, N, P, S, Se), oxidative nonmetal (O, F, Cl, Br, I), and noble gas. This trichotomy, if it gets up, would replace the current trichotomy of diatomic nonmetal, polyatomic nonmetal, and noble gas.
Parcly Taxel's proposal is here. The discussion that YBG, Double Sharp, and I had that got us to this point is here. I'll make some adjustments to the draft in my sandbox and then post a RfC.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbh (talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
As a part of that RfC, it would be good to summarize the rationale for this categorization change and briefly list some of the significant alternatives considered, including the status quo and the previous status quo for context. Such a summary should be self-contained so that it can be evaluated without having to refer off-page to prior discussions. YBG (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

A glitch with nitrogen as a reductive nonmetal

It appears we cannot describe N as a reductive nonmetal. That would imply that it is better as a reducing agent (when it loses electrons) than as an oxidising agent (when it gains electrons).

In fact N is both a poor reducing agent and a poor oxidising agent.

Subject to your thoughts it looks like we may have to go back to corrosive nonmetal (either that, or keep oxidative nonmetal in any event) and that we'll need to find another adjective to cover the other nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It may be true that nitrogen is neither very reducing or very oxidising. What that means, though, is that it tends to form covalent bonds over ionic bonds, as do the other five reductive nonmetals. In contrast, the oxidative nonmetals show more ionic compounds than covalent compounds. So we may go with ionic and covalent for oxidative and reductive.
Yet nitrogen is still slightly more reducing than oxidising, weak as it may be. It's either ionic/covalent, or we stick to oxidative/reductive. Parcly Taxel 04:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Or what about ionogenic and covalogenic? YBG (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Ionogenic is a real word; covalogenic would be a neologism. Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
That's better than I thought; I figured both for neologism. Covalogenic also doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, so "ionic nonmetals" and "covalent nonmetals" will have to stand as the best ideas in this idea space. YBG (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Parcly Taxel: Curious. How would you show that N is slightly more reducing than oxidizing? Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Just my hunch; you've already done the research so you should know. We can still look for other pairs of category names. Parcly Taxel 07:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I've looked closer at the standard electrode potentials involving N2 and it's too close too call one way or the other. I thought I might've missed something but it seems not. Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Being conscious of space limitations in the category legend boxes could we try:

  • Less active nonmetal
  • Corrosive nonmetal
  • Noble gas

Thus, oxygen is a corrosive nonmetal, sulfur and selenium are less active nonmetals, tellurium is a metalloid, and polonium is a post-transition metal. A single "-ive" word to replace "other nonmetal" would be ideal however I'm not sure such a word exists, hence "less active". Sandbh (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Hey, at least "less active" ends in "-ive". :) It has the advantage of making all three nonmetal categories described in terms of chemical activity - the noble gases are so named because they are the least active elements, and corrosive nonmetals are so named because of they are very chemically active.
What about "covalent nonmetals"? I don't think I've seen anything negative about this term. Of course, it is actually metonymy (since it is actually the compounds, not the elements, which are covalent) but I don't think that disqualifies it. YBG (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I hesitate using the term covalent nonmetal since O, F, Cl, Br, and I are all covalent (i.e. diatomic) nonmetals, and the fact that O, F, Cl, Br, and I form covalent compounds with the other nonmetals does not help. I feel that there is too much cognitive dissonance. I was also trying to avoid category names starting with the same letter.
I agree with you about maintaining the chemical activity sense of the proposed category names, which is a good idea. There is a similar sense among the metals, starting with the alkali metals. Sandbh (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
What about weak nonmetals or weakly active nonmetals? Essentially saying the same thing, but less overtly comparative. YBG (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Weak or weakly active are too overtly comparative\judgemental. It implies that the other nonmetals are all weak or weakly active, whereas (being a heterogenous mob :) they show a range of properties (weak, moderate, or strong) associated with chemically active nonmetallic character. The other nonmetals are more accurately thought of as "weak to moderate" or "weakly to moderately active", rather than weak overall. This is why I prefer "less active" as it copes with a lot of territory in a relatively small title, and should convey a good amount of realistic complexity without misleading anyone. Sandbh (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, but doesn't this bring us back to the problem of "intermediate nonmetals": less active than what? Double sharp (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. Should we try(?):
  • Less active nonmetal
  • Active nonmetal
  • Noble gas
Some explicit quotes from the literature:
  • "A salt is a compound of metal ions and nonmetal ions. The halogens being active nonmetals are excellent salt-formers." (Allen et al. 1942, p. 484)
  • "What, in general, is the difference between active metals, less active metals, less active non-metals, active non-metals, and inert gases…?" (Friedenberg 1946, p. 230)
  • "The halogens and oxygen are the most active non-metals." (Lee & Van Orden 1965, p. 197)
  • "The most active non-metals are in the upper right-hand corner of the chart; the most active metals are in the lower left-hand corner." (Luder 1965, p. 39)
  • "From Group V on, the series passes from the less active nonmetals to the most active ones, like chlorine, in Group Vll." (Gardiner & Flemister 1967, p. 22)
  • "Across each period is a more or less steady transition from an active metal through less active metals and weakly active non-metals to highly active nonmetals and finally to an inert gas." (Beiser 1968, p. 234)
  • "If you don't count the noble gases, Family 18, the most active non-metals are found in the upper right corner." (Aldridge 1993, p. 175)
  • "Active nonmetals, such as the halogens (Group VIIA) and oxygen, are good oxidizing agents." (Grolier Incorporated 1999, p. 162)
  • "Oxygen is one of the most active nonmetals and one of the most important. It forms compounds with all the elements except the light noble gases (He, Ne, and Ar). In general, oxygen forms ionic compounds with metals…" (Hill and Petrucci 1999, p. 903)
I am a little bit giddy thinking this was in the literature all along. Have we finally cracked this sucker now?
  • Aldridge 1993, Science interactions, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, New York
  • Allen JS, French SJ, Woodruff JG 1942, Atoms, rocks and galaxies: a survey in physical science, Harper and Brothers
  • Beiser A 1968, Perspectives of modern physics, McGraw-Hill, New York
  • Friedenberg EZ 1946, A Technique for developing courses in physical science adapted to the needs of students at the junior college level, University of Chicago, Chicago
  • Gardiner MS & Flemister SC 1967, The principles of general biology, Macmillan
  • Grollier Incorporated 1999, The encyclopaedia Americana, vol. 21
  • Hill JW & Petrucci RH 1999, General chemistry: An integrated approach, Prentice Hall
  • Lee GL & Van Orden HO 1965, General chemistry: Inorganic and organic, 2nd ed., Saunders, Philadelphia
  • Luder WF 1965, General chemistry, Saunders, Philadelphia
-- Sandbh (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I like this one very much, and it's surely great to find that it was in the literature all along! Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Yahoo! Sandbh (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
👍 Like Parcly Taxel 13:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 Works for me YBG (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
So it's (from today's /Nonmetal redraft):
  • Less active nonmetals (6×): hydrogen (H), carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), sulfur (S), and selenium (Se).
  • Active nonmetals (5×): oxygen (O) and the four halogen nonmetals fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I).
Will adjust these names in the color-tables (not the new colors themselves). Nice improvement. It is even getting great by esthetics, this category language. -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Out of category interest: by this new scale less active – active, is the border line wide? As in: do the two categories cling together strongly, and separate wide between them, on this 'active' thing? (See for example: the Lists of metalloids shows that there are four groupings recognised with diverging percentage, not a continuum: Commonly (93%), Irregularly (44%), Less commonly (24%), Rarely recognized (9%)). -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If one looked up 200 chemistry books, I guess effectively all would count F, Cl, Br, and I as the most active of the nonmetals. The most visible manifestation of this activeness is their corrosive nature. In numerical terms I guess it would be their oxidising power. Of the remaining nonmetals, most books would comment about the relatively avaricious (electron greedy) character of oxygen. The rest of the nonmetals generally don't get spoken of in these terms. Qualified exceptions are:

  • H: Its flammability (i.e. with oxygen) is sometimes noted.
  • C: Finely divided C "may heat spontaneously in air, and the presence of water accelerates this…ignition may occur if contamination by drying oils or oxidising agents occurs…[less powdered forms] "will ignite or explode on suitably intimate contact with oxygen, oxides, peroxides, oxo-salts, halogens, and oxidising species." (Bretherick's handbook of reactive chemical hazards 1999, pp. 119–120)
  • N: Its high EN is often commented favourably upon and this is manifested in some associated properties namely, its capacity to form unusually strong hydrogen bonds, and its complex forming ability. Unlike O however, N is a poor oxidising agent (its needs to be in combination with O or F to become a good oxidising agent) and most of its compounds are covalent in nature. OTOH, many compounds of nitrogen are less stable than diatomic nitrogen, so nitrogen atoms in compounds seek to recombine if possible and release energy and nitrogen gas in the process, which can be leveraged for explosive purposes. Even here, however, most common explosives contain nitrogen bonded to one or more oxygen atoms. And explosives like lead azide are unstable due to bond strain in the ion. Nitrogen prefers to form a more stable triatomic bond with itself, whenever it can, as an outcome of its electron configuration, and its small size. The nitrogen molecule has an ideal configuration of molecular orbitals for all its electrons. Each nitrogen atom has three 2p electrons, making six for the pair of atoms. Each atom has three 2p orbitals; two atoms close to one another make six molecular orbitals. Three such orbitals are bonding, with favourable energy; three others are anti-bonding. Each orbital can accept two electrons of opposite spin, so the bonding molecular orbitals take six electrons = bonding heaven. P has a much harder time doing this forming a triple bond, on account of its larger size.
  • P: Its reactivity varies according to its degree of catenation. White P (P4 molecules = most unstable) > red P > (polymeric = P4 molecules joined in chains = metastable) > black P (sheets of P = stable). According to Bretherick pp. 1885–1887), the white and red forms ignite on contact with F and Cl; white explodes on contact with Br vapour; red ignites in liquid Br; white ignites in contact with I. Red P ignites in contact with some peroxides. Mixtures of P with oxidising agents like ammonium nitrate, mercury(I) nitrate, or silver nitrate explode on impact. Black P, the most stable form, is less generally much less reactive than white P.
  • S: Greenwood & Earnshaw say it is a very reactive element especially at slightly elevated temperatures. OTOH, General chemistry for colleges (Hopkins & Bailar 1956, p. 258) says: "Sulfur should be a typical nonmetallic substance, but since the nonmetallic properties decrease as the atomic weight increases we should expect sulfur to be less active than oxygen. This decrease in chemical activity is so evident that we shall do well to contrast the activity of oxygen with the chemical inertia of sulfur."
  • Se: From my reading of Bretherick, selenium appears to be less than or equal to as reactive as sulfur, e.g. with oxidising agents and some metals (especially but by no means exclusively, the powdered forms of these nonmetals).

Having said all of that none of the less active nonmetals can match the oxidising power of the active nonmetals without help from oxygen (or F), and none of them match or surpass any of the active nonmetals across all three properties of electronegativity, electron affinity, and ionisation energy, these properties being prominently correlated with nonmetallic character.

So the border line has little overlaps here and there but it's reasonably wide, overall. Sandbh (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

New colors

Two newly defined categories are created, so we need two new colors. It is fundamentally wrong to re-use existing colors for a different category. IOW, the green (polyatomic) and yellow (diatomic) will be abandoned together with their category. I propose these new colors:

  •    Less active nonmetals → transparent  [green] (Corrosive nonmetal) H, C, N, P, S, Se.
  •    Active nonmetals → transparent  [yellow] (Other nonmetal) O, F, Cl, Br, I.
(Adjusted, new new category names. DePiep (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC))

They are only slightly different from the old ones, because green and yellow fit nicely in the set. The names used (e.g. in {{Element color}}) are those proposed by Sandbh. If a name would change before going live, we'll adjust it here. Please use these colors in further proposals. -DePiep (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC) (This is only about using new and different color numbers. No prejudice is made on the new category names & definitions. At all. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC))

Solved
Could I check that you have the colours the right way around? We currently show the diatomics as yellow, which is a holdover from when we showed the halogens as yellow. I also think the metalloids are brown because IIRC that was a colour between post-transition metal grey and polyatomic green. Presumably then that the corrosives would be yellow, and the other nonmetals green, or are you proposing to swap the colours? Sandbh (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
No green/yellow swap! Per User:Sandbh/Nonmetal redraft:
  •    Polyatomic nonmetal → #a1ffc3  = green:C P S Se
  •    Diatomic nonmetal → #e7ff8f  = yellow: H N O F Cl Br I
  •    Corrosive nonmetal → #f0ff8f  = green: O F Cl Br I formerly green, now yellow YBG (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  •    Other nonmetal → #a0ffa0  = yellow: H C N P S Se formerly yellow, now green YBG (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Please tell: "corrosive nonmetals" should be green or yellow? -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favour of having the oxidative (corrosive) nonmetals yellow and the reductive (other) nonmetals green to keep the present order of the colour bands. As it stands above, the colours would actually be swapped. Parcly Taxel 00:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
By now, I follow Sandbh — blindly. -DePiep (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with what Sandbh and Parcly Taxel have stated above, that corrosive nonmetals should be yellowish and other nonmetals should be greenish. YBG (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I note that this also appears to be Sandbh's intent in User:Sandbh/Nonmetal redraft. YBG (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I have just now edited {{element color/secondary}} to make corrosive NM yellowish and other NM greenish. This will automatically change the colors above, which may make the discussion a bit difficult to follow. YBG (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Not helpful, YBG. -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki changes

Our PT images are used on many wikis. See File:Periodic Table Chart.png for example. Often these wikis use it in the blind. I wonder, if we make this NNNM change in these images, should we overwrite the old one, or create a new file? If we overwrite, the legend is not correct any more in these other wikis. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

See also #WP:PTCC below. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_29&oldid=1136416041"