@DePiep: So you'd be fine with considering the element discovered before IUPAC and IUPAP say yes? (That's what we did for all cases up to 118, FWIW.) Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Double sharp: This note first: by now, unclear to me if this is about the Naming process, or Discovery + Naming process? Anyway. The encyclopedia is not to declare "discovered". After a first RS publication claiming a discovery, we can report that as such. Expect this to be in an other article's section only (like in Extended periodic table), because as a WP:PRIMARY we cannot hang a complete article on it. WP:PRIMARY has more interesting and strong guidelines in this, btw. Even if this claim article would be formally retracted later on, we can process that also, correctly. Then when confirmations or secondary sources appear, an article might be earned, describing the status. So far, all this is basic WP physical sciences articl'ing. We do not need extra (ELEM) guidelines for this process. Then IUPAC enters which acts as a governing institute wrt formal confirmation, recognition, name-proposal, establishing formal name, maybe relevant side-issues are published. This encyclopedia just needs to report these external steps (and not engage in speculation about naming: as this is a non-scientific process, it cannot be RS'ed). If RL publications would start using a non-formal new name (as in the TransFmwar era), we should decide our editing in situ.
Enwiki should not say "discovered" (OR as in: original conclusion), but "claimed to be discovered" etc. as the encyclopedic attitude.
All this can be done well by existing guidelines and right sentence wording, I see no need to establish extra rules in this. HTH -DePiep (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: To clarify that this is now about discoveries, I made this a new section.
I'm confused by your statement. First of all: we already have articles for undiscovered elements 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126. Nobody today is seriously claiming they have been discovered, but there has been so much theoretical work that we already decided they deserved breakout articles.
Second: in the past, we never did wait for IUPAC to officially acknowledge the discovery. Elements 113, 115, 117, and 118 were on our periodic table before 2015 when IUPAC recognised them. Same story for all the elements 110 and up. That's because there was never a lack of serious secondary sources saying the element was discovered even before that, e.g. element 117 (2010 only). And there was never a lack of serious secondary sources putting those elements on the table (of course, with systematic names, "ununtrium" etc.). You can just look at the old NIST tables. The only time an element ever disappeared from those was 118 after the Ninov scandal (and after a few years, it was back because it'd been made for real – again way before IUPAC approval).
Therefore, if we were going to go through the exact same procedure we used on past elements, we would end up reporting the discovery as soon as secondary sources reported it, without waiting for IUPAC; but waiting for IUPAC to make the name official. In other words: the discovery would be treated as a done deal without IUPAC (just any other secondary source would do), but not the naming.
I am a bit confused. What is the original question? -- In #there, you quoted "we waited for the final IUPAC approval for new elements", and added "there is a good point here". Now here you say "in the past, we never did wait for IUPAC". So re discovery, what is the problem we are discussing? (Is it that we treated the group 3 publication differently, as in: inconsistent?). As for naming, I see no problem either. We have used preliminary Uxx names, or simple "E123", "element 123" (as sources do too), and noted formal name proposals as such at the time. Is it that you see issues in writing style and source representation, e.g. such differences in the various excisting new-element articles? (we could take a look into that, sure, but is not what we are discussin here are we).
Maybe you see a problem with "declaring a discovery", and "establishing a name"? That is, the more normative side of the process as opposed to the hard physics of creating an element (I don't think the the newborn unnamed element does not care very much about its name or discoverer attribution—expect that interest at a later age, when it's grown up like humans do ;-) ). Of this I say, and repeat: 1. this encycopedia cannot make such judgements at all (would be OR or POV or so). Instead of "discovery" we could safely write like "claimed" (or earlier on: "theorised"). Looks all fine with me. We even have theorized elements in some PTs.
Is there any actual example of a sourced statement that you are prohibited or restricted to use in mainspace because of whatever (discovery-related) guideline?
(Could it be, Double sharp, that this issue originates from a less desired approach to write OR-like or speculative contributions at enwiki? Please consider).
All in all, I still do not see a reason, situation or problem to add extra, ad hoc guidelines for the discovery & naming statuses above E118. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: Okay, let me try to distill it down to a single question.
When a lab claimed it had made a new element, we initially treated the discovery as a claim. (Only example from mature WP: here for 117.) To me this makes sense: at that point, IUPAC has not approved the discovery. So it is just a claim. I think we agree on this.
But should we put claimed elements on the main periodic tables, or not?
In the past, we did. 117 was already on our main PT before it was approved (link). However, since IUPAC doesn't actually put the claims up on its periodic table until they actually approve the discovery, I now think that may have been too hasty of us. So I want to know what you think. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Icons for state of matter
@DePiep: Could I inquire as to their status? The rewrite User:Double sharp/Periodic table is almost done, but refers to them as the anticipated way to show state of matter in the PT graphic. So, I'd like to know if they'll be ready soon, so I know whether or not to have that sentence appear in the live version for now.
(I would at least like some way to show state of matter, because this is an easy way to introduce the notion of a simple substance.) Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Published in PAC, Vol. 93, Issue 1. The relevant project is marked as completed. Was also published in latest Chemistry International (Jan-Mar 2021), pp. 36–37, under the section "Making an imPACt" ("Recent IUPAC technical reports and recommendations that affect the many fields of pure and applied chemistry").
“
When expressed as an interval, the lead atomic weight is [206.14, 207.94]. It is proposed that a value of 207.2 be adopted for the single lead atomic-weight value for education, commerce, and industry, corresponding to previously published conventional atomic-weight values.
”
Note that this is a change from a single value to an interval.
It is still not on the IUPAC periodic table (last updated 2018), but neither is hafnium which got an official revision in 2019. That was published in the same section of the Apr-Jun 2020 Chemistry International (p. 31).
CIAAW has not updated their site for Pb yet, but they have for Hf.
FYI, there is also an ongoing project for strontium per this publication. No value yet.
Cl is another element with both a range and a customary value - are there more? Consistency of presentation in our articles across the PT would be desirable.
@Narky Blert: As of 2019, there were thirteen elements with both a range and a customary value: H, Li, B, C, N, O, Mg, Si, S, Cl, Ar, Br, Tl. So Pb will be the fourteenth now. On {{Periodic table}} we apparently consistently use just the customary value. Perhaps we should give both like the IUPAC periodic table does. Infoboxes already give both, e.g. {{Infobox thallium}}.
The 'atomic weights' we use at enwiki are those published by CIAAW. CIAAW updates the value bianually, last one was in 2019 (Hf changed). This update is nominally (actual publication date may vary). The first ref here is by "IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division", a second one here says the [ouch] IUPAC periodic table.
I see no reason to skip CIAAW conformance in this. I do not understand why the IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division does not mention CIAAW as the institute to conform methodology & results. Before changing the Pb value, this should be cleared up. As for the "the IUPAC PT", we should ignore that one in this topic, as it shouuld take data from tha same source (CIAAW).
Maybe it's not that bad. Reading the Project's Objective and Description: it is cleary aimed to "provide CIAAW with information to update the “Table of Standard Atomic Weights”", and "It is anticipated that a new standard atomic weight will be recommended for lead and published in the next “Atomic Weights of the Elements“. So the report is nicely presented to CIAAW. Which, imo, says that they want to leave it to CIAAW to formalise the changed value. (Note that the project also correctly writes "standard atomic mass", consistent with CIAAW terminology). -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
In infoboxes, I would give the standard and conventional weights when the former is expressed as an interval. Lead, especially, can have a composition ranging from nearly pure 206Pb to nearly pure 208Pb, depending on where it came from. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
[OT] @LaundryPizza03: Don't know what you mean by 'composition range' exactly, but I see no reason to have this in the infobox. If relevant, it should be in article body yes. (Similar itch in Isotopes of lithium #infobox: why footnote this not-an-exception info?) -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Overview: Atomic weights and enwiki
1. Per CIAAW (Meija 2016). BTW, for the value we are talking about, CIAAW uses the quantity name "standard atomic weight" (historically), which could be modernised as "standard relative atomic mass". The word "relative" says the unit is dimensionless (because: the measured mass value is devided by a standard mass value (12C) in the same unit; no 'dalton' then).
2. CIAAW mentions three types of "the" atomic weight. IOW: the value can appear in three numeric forms. Described in Meija (2016) with Table 1, 2 and 3. Uncertainty "(1)" may be omitted (=implicit). Instable atoms are not considered at all; the "m.s.i" value we show for instable elements like Tc is not by CIAAW.
The value "Formal short" (Table 2 Xor Table 3 value) is created in enwiki to merge two tables: use "conventional" value when from interval, and "abridged" value otherwise.
4. In element infoboxes, we currently note: 1. Atomic weight (the formal value; Table 1; see F); and 2. "conventional value" (Table 2) when the value is an interval (H). The abridged form is not mentioned. (to consider: the long detailed value below in the infobox, and the formal-short one in top section of infobox?).
In January 2021, I did this emergency edit: cancelling State-of-Matter font coloring (color contrasts were really too bad, while the info was not that crucial). Then and now, plans were made to illustrate the SoM by icons. By now, I have a basic setup. Double sharp (talk·contribs), working on an overhauled PT article, asked me to make new SoM graphics fit for article space.
Firstly, nice to see someone else already tried this: [1]. So it seems YBG's cube, teardrop, cloud are somehow obvious, as that is what was used.
Secondly: I very much prefer the 3D pictures as discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/PTG/state-of-matter. A blank black square looks more to me like text, as if my computer is missing some character or something.
re the el. I do not see how the SoM is illustrated in there at all. I did not see or recognise any icon or image. Maybe a 3d picture is used, but that does not argue it was used by good design.
re 3D pictures vs. icons. Again: the PT at its best is not a properties list of each element, it is showing patterns (and exceptions) over the elements. So: for glancing, not reading. Element details (='reading', or zooming in) is/shouldbe available through clicking or moushoovering, for example. (In current form, maybe the drops shold stand out more b/c they are isolated places = hard to detect). Then making them even smaller as image not icon, that would not help recognisablity. 3d image is harder to draw than 2D icon. Of course a legend must be added.
Improve recognisability: could use dark blue instead of balck, could try that (1 color for all still). Hey, a could for gaseous, why add a needless distraction?
More important to note is that it is good to use a dedicated PT to illustrate this property (show 'one value' per element only). While, in a classroom size PT, using icons/images could be recognisable still (instead of more text/numbers, or color codes). But to add this infgo to our basic PT: not helpful.
Altogether, I repeat theat it we shold design for PT recognition, not loose ourselves in nice-but-ineffective details. What PTs do might not be well-thought or even applicable. Our (old) habits are not a good guideline to convey an encyclopedic message.
I will refine another round, and will revisit this. In general, we want this kind of PT to illustrate the phase? Or smaller really? -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Open question: in what type of PT would the SoM be used, preferably?
I think of the three, only the basic one. The compact one ought to be symbols only, and the last one is illustrating just one property (EA) and doesn't need another one. Double sharp (talk) 06:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the 120 decay chain and some more superheavy things
The reported half-lives of 299120 and 295Og seemed way too high in comparison to any predictions I've read about in other sources, so it may be worth mentioning now that we have the 2017 article saying the same thing (off by a factor of 106 for 120). I also think so because the original report (even with its doubts, but without the analysis of later challenges) of this chain pretty much contradicts everything we have in WP about predictions for yet-undiscovered nuclides in this region. Of course, the wait for more data continues, but at least my own skepticism seemingly was not entirely (?) amateurish. ComplexRational (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe it was too beautiful to be true. With such a half-life, chemical study of 120 would have been possible(!). I still do wonder if the original 114 decay chain will ever get clearly confirmed and assigned. Agree, is worth mentioning in unbinilium. Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: I changed the wording at unbinilium to Three signals were observed on 18 May 2011; a possible assignment to 299Ubn and its daughters has been considered,[8] but could not be confirmed,[56][57][55] and a different analysis suggested that what was observed was simply a random sequence of events.[58]
Now, what should we do about the possible reinterpretations of old VASSILISSA data (the early 112 and 114 mystery chains)? Keep them as "unconfirmed"? Remove them from the tables and leave them in text? I favour the second approach, since in 2018 JWP report Hofmann wrote "In any case a definite assignment of this chain of isotopes with long lifetimes cannot be made now..." – but curious what you think.
Sources: [2], doi:10.1111/1600-0498.12328. Apparently there were some differing ideas about whether nomenclature and priority should be connected questions, with the IUPAC Comission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (CNIC) on the side of "no", and Paneth and the actual discoverers of superheavies firmly on the side of "yes". Success in the "yes" department, in contentious cases, seems to have been achieved only for what happened immediately after Paneth's 1947 paper, when technetium and promethium firmly kicked out masurium and illinium despite widespread use of the latter. Nonetheless, the Transfermium Wars probably show that some relaxation away from Paneth's ideal was inevitable. Alas, even Paneth mentioning that case did not prevent CNIC from picking lutetium over cassiopeium for element 71 two years later. (He had already explained it back in 1923, see doi:10.1007/BFb0111703. See p. 173 of that paper for an astonishing appearance of the IUPAC 1-18 group numbers way before 1988!) Double sharp (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I suppose it is not so bad. Urbain did have some real element 71, which he later purified (but then misidentified). So, naming element 71 lutetium is still somewhat in accordance with priority, and indeed Auer von Welsbach is usually still named as a co-discoverer. Celtium was the one that had to be struck out in favour of hafnium, and indeed it was so. As for actinium and emanium, it seems Giesel did not press his claim much, and that name change would impact too many other things. Double sharp (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Minor category cleanup
I plan to speedy-delete some tracking categories. They are unused, and their wide scope is not useful.
Recently, User:Quondum has improved value formattings in our infoboxes ([3], [4]). That is a great improvement. Their editsummary says: "SI-compliant format", and that it is.
To be clear: SI says, 'quantity' can have a 'value' which is 'number times unit'.
To handle all physical values correctly, I nicely propose:
Proposal formatting physical quantity values
In WP:ELEMENT articles, all physical quantity values are formatted by {{Val}} or {{Convert}}.
These templates apply MOS:NUM, including SI requirements.
Incidental exceptions can be made by talked consensus.
This makes sense to me; it is worth using a standard WP number formatting template. Mostly the units are provided separately, and so these would not normally be provided to the {{val}} template. Even for values that do not need scientific notation, the template takes care of 1000s separators, etc. —Quondum19:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Changed infoboxes where the middot was used into {{val}} using WP:AWB ([5]). Some 50% of 124 were edited. Appears that only |magnetic susceptibility= uses the middot (but other values might need {{val}} e.g. to format _×_ spacing). -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Infobox templates: magnetic susceptibility
Infobox templates (e.g. Template:Infobox aluminium) seem to list the SI or CGS quantities for properties. In most cases, these are the same, but relating to electromagnetic properties, there is often a difference in units or sometimes only a factor of 4π (the latter applies in the case of magnetic susceptibility). From Magnetic susceptibility I infer that the CGS quantity is given in the infoboxes. Because of the potential for undetected confusion, it would seem appropriate to visibly indicate which system's magnetic susceptibility is being referred to, e.g.:
Magnetic susceptibility (SI): +2.2×10−10 m3/mol
Magnetic susceptibility (CGS): +16.5×10−6 cm3/mol
The mere difference of cm3/mol vs. m3/mol is insufficient, since these units are valid in both SI and CGS. I would suggest that two susceptibility parameters be defined, one named for SI and one named for CGS, and the existing one defaults to CGS but gets phased out slowly. —Quondum18:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Quondum: Quite a relevant distinction. I look at the #Examples table. So the unit changes from "m3/kg" (CGS) to "cm3/g" (SI); conversion factor=1 then. Now you describe it is a different quantity, although not notified as such in the table.
Questions from here: how are the quantities defined anyway? Do they both use "χ" or even " χmass" without distinction? In that case, the question is for 'Magnetic_susceptibility' people, not us ;-) Being a different quantity, adding "(SI)" / "(CGS)" to the label in the infobox is not the right distinction imo (still understanding that distinction is needed). "CGS" should not change the quantity really of course.
The table that you linked has 4π as the constant of proportionality. The table does not highlight that the same symbol is being used for different quantities, but this is typical despite being confusing; it may be worth modifying the table to use different symbols. Magnetic susceptibility#In CGS units defines the closely related volume quantities. The underlying phenomenon is the same, but the quantities are different in the same way that a radius and a circumference of the same-size circle are different. The question remains: How should we indicate that the CGS quantity is what is given? —Quondum21:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
About infobox label119 "Molar magnetic susceptibility". I don't think current form by Quondum is useful. First of all, this is a WP:INFOBOX. While {{Infobox element}} already is stretching that definition (items in the infobox are supposed to be pulled from existing content in the article body; our infoboxes are extended with datasheet-data really). Apart from this, the descriptive label (i.e., the lefthand text incl wikilink) for Magnetic susceptibility ('χ' right?) should be more crisp, and especially: the label does not have to solve definition issues.
Main issue. I am not familiar with Magnetic susceptibility, but I do know about physical quantities and their SI notation forms. The problem is, that the χ-community has not defined their quantities well enough. As Quondum, the article, and esp #In CGS units decribes, the community uses straight regular SI units for two different quantities, without exterior distinction. The units are: "m3/mol" in jargon 'SI', and "cm3/mol" in jargon '(Centimetre–gram–second_system_of_units#Electromagnetic_units_(EMU)) CGS-EMU'. IOW: the initiated ones recognise the quantity intended by units used. While both units are in SI.
First conclusions: It is not SI-compliant (distinction and identifying by unit?!). Because this is unclear and from outside of Elements: this has to be sorted out by/in the χ-community first. Also, current label119 text is detouring from Infobox guidelines. For these reasons, I will revert the label edit.
I am working on this. It appears, there are three variants too, complicating (multiplicatingadding an extra dimension to) the quest: , , . Interesting. -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The three variants are not a significant complicating factor. is the quantity of interest in electromagnetic calculations, but for a given substance this tends to be closely proportional its density. When tabulating properties of substances, it makes sense to list the ratio as this remains pretty constant, hence or , from which one calculates . The template as well is the CRC Handbook give .
If it is of any help, here is a quote from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 97th Edition, p. 4-126 that precedes the table of molar magnetic susceptibilities: "In keeping with customary practice, the molar susceptibility is given here in units appropriate to the cgs system. These values should be multiplied by 4π to obtain values for use in SI equations." It is essentially the clarification given in this quote that I wanted to make available to the reader. —Quondum20:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
^Huang, W.J.; Wang, Meng; Kondev, F.G.; Audi, G.; Naimi, S. (2021). "The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (I). Evaluation of input data, and adjustment procedures*". Chinese Physics C. 45 (3): 030002. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abddb0.
^Wang, Meng; Huang, W.J.; Kondev, F.G.; Audi, G.; Naimi, S. (2021). "The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references*". Chinese Physics C. 45 (3): 030003. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abddaf.
Well, first source says it is named "Heavy Ion Research Facility in Lanzhou (HIRFL)", not SHANS then. [8].
Second source mentions [9] "CAS Key Laboratory of High Precision Nuclear Spectroscopy, Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China".
Third source: "The researchers created the new uranium isotope at the Heavy Ion Research Facility in Lanzhou, China". (HIRF?)
Hi editors, a few weeks ago I posted concerns about titanium's FA status on its talk page. The next step is to bring this article to WP:FAR, but if editors are willing to improve it we can avoid listing it there. Are any editors willing to help bring this article back to featured article standards? I am hopeless with science topics, but I am willing to copyedit the article, point out science jargon that the average editor would struggle with, and other areas of helpfulness. If no one is willing to tackle this, I'll list it at FAR in the coming days or weeks. Please ping me in your responses. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I have not much time till late next month, and for this element I have only generalist sources, but I've fixed a few easy-to-fix CN tags. Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
To be clear: those who corrupted 'category' into 'block' have spoiled more than one can imagine. And then left it to others to clean up, apparently. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Today in {{Infobox element}} all group, period and block values are read from data-central i.e., {{.../symbol-to...}} [10]. This helps reuseage, and control all border cases (like E>=119) consistently. -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I have made our element categorisation deprecated (for example, {{.../symbol-to-category}}). We can let is sit for the time being, to not disturb detailed misedits (instead of boldly deleting, which is not needed nor helpful). -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I have reinstated (pulled out of deprecation) the "noble gases" color, as it is helpful in element lists like these. Actually, it is used as a group color, and so "category" is not reintroduced.
Just one would be OK IMO, 'the' does not constitute a meaningful name difference. I thought 'the' coiuld be resolved lingualistically. I was only trying to settle on whichever one (& the First Graphic should follow).
The PT of existing elements is complicated by itself already. No reason to have this extra-complication near the top. 'New elements' should be ~the bottom section. Also, the section title better be like "New elements" tout court. -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: Since new elements are going to be in the extended table anyway (past period 7), moved this to part of the "Extension beyond the seventh period section". Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that this is something that exists. IUPAC even mentions it on their page: "IUPAC has no recommendation for a specific form of the periodic table, i.e. 18-column or 32-column format". (Note that that's just about the form; it certainly did recommend group numbers, for instance.) And most periodic table posters you buy are going to show the 18-column form which requires an explanation of where the asterisks came from.
@DePiep: The logical way in which the PT is built up gives you a 32-column table. Because Aufbau knows no special treatment of the f-block.
However, the most common form you will get on your posters is 18-column.
Therefore, if I don't put it there this early, I cannot logically introduce {{Periodic table}} (the showcase one) early enough. Or I have to introduce that one and then explain immediately what the asterisks mean – which amounts to the same thing. Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
A try: the header is removed, but one sentence is retained to explain the asterisks: The periodic table is commonly presented with the f-block elements cut out and placed as a footnote below the main body of the table, as below. This at least preserves the explanation (and is inspired by how it's done in one of my sources), while not mentioning the terms "18-column" and "32-column". (After all, some confusingly call them "medium-long" and "long" instead.) Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
"Overview" a great section, and a useful introduction to the chemical & electrons things. (Sections might need some condensation?).
Now this, since I have been thinking about the 18-vs-32-presentation. Would it be helpful to add to "Overview", before of after the two subsections, the section "Presentation forms". If could have the big, basic 18-column one (as already present), and then note like:
@DePiep: Thanks for the kind words. I kind of wondered if the section on chemical elements might be cut further; technically speaking atomic structure and chemical elements are more a matter for chemical element. It is there now for two reasons: (1) I find it easier to write much and then cut, and (2) I wanted to explain what relative atomic mass is and why some elements are synthetic only. But maybe wikilinks are enough. In which case one could very well cut it a lot. Until it hits electron configurations.
I like your proposal. Maybe can go at the end of the section where currently I explain asterisks. (Although, isn't there already a 32-column table right above the 18-column one?) Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I'd strongly suggest condensing the history section to a summary of no more than a few paragraphs. Although the history of the periodic table article has not yet been fully expanded, the section in your draft incorporates the bulk of the history article's content, which (a) renders the history article useless for now, or (b) suggests that the history article will grow to some ~200 kB on its own, which would be quite significant and perhaps even longer than a hypothetical FA on the topic. I've been thinking about this and discussing it off-wiki for some other PT-related aspects, and I strongly believe that summarizing all the sub-topics and using hatnotes is both more digestible for readers and less contentious for editors. It's easier to avoid breaching NPOV or UNDUE with concise summaries and expand upon them in sub-articles, rather than risking breaches and having an uncomfortably long article in which we try to shove in everything.
I haven't read through your entire draft yet, and probably won't be able to offer a detailed review for at least six weeks (busy with classes IRL), but I believe the same line of reasoning also applies to periodic trends. It's a very intricate subject matter; each section probably merits its own article to explain in greater detail, and summaries are much more navigable. I know this would be a side project, so I'm not encouraging it if you don't have the time, but I find it easier to first expand the sub-articles and then write a condensed section in the general (all-encompassing) article. At least that's how it was when I did some significant non-scientific writing a few months ago. ComplexRational (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Yeah, I remember when writing thorium I usually ended up writing too much and getting a good subarticle, then summarising. I agree we will probably have to do that here. On the plus side though, periodic trends article will likely suck less by just copying this in. XD
Same done for periodic trends section. Old version is at User:Double sharp/Periodic table/Old periodic trends section, which maybe can be copy-pasted into Periodic trends. The sections I kept are the trends that even something like The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry covers, although I have pruned it significantly. Mostly looked at Chemguide (which tries to follow UK syllabus AFAIK) for what to keep (and then pruned some more). One section is retained for a quick whistle-stop tour of a few more trends that Scerri covers in his last chapter.
Probably alkali metals, halogens, noble gases should be mentioned clearly as examples before we say that usually trends are more complicated and kinked (pnictogens were given as an example). Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
My two cents as a non-expert but interested reader: I think the top-level article (Periodic table) should serve as an 'overview for dummies', with short concise paragraphs on each revelant topic and appropriate 'Main Page' hyperlinks. Then, if people are seeking more information, they can head to a 'second-tier' article, and if they require even more expert information, to perhaps head to a third-tier and beyond, where each new layer has added specificity, comprehensiveness, and jargon. Periodic table should be a menu, that gives me a taste of what each meal looks like before I even choose to sit down at that restaraunt for a long, sense-consuming evening.--Coin945 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
There is so much of a mess here, that I'm thinking that if we want the table of discoveries at all, we should stick to something like the IUPAC table with half-century gatherings.
Calcium is given by IUPAC as "Before 1800". I suppose lime is counted as calcium since Lavoisier knew it was an earth. Same situation going on for aluminium. But what about silicon as 1800-1850? It was on Lavoisier's list also.
Flerovium is given as uncoloured (so 2000 to present, must be). Well, I suppose that must be because they didn't approve the original 1999 discovery, but the later papers, yes.
Neodymium is 1800-1849, which must indicate that Mosander's didymium is treated as such. (Normally, when you split a new rare earth into two, the old name got kept for the bigger component.)
Antiquity is not separated as a period, which avoids some quibbles about things like zinc or bismuth or platinum.
Radon and actinium are true mistakes by IUPAC, rather than different ideas of what counts as a discovery. On radon, see this; on actinium, see this.
Berkelium may not be a mistake: discovery was in 1949, but published in 1950.
I've created this article. I don't believe it contains anything controversial but if you see anything like that please let me know. Sandbh (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Nonmetal article
I intend to tidy up the nonmetal article. @Coin945: I'll bear in mind your "overview for dummies suggestion", here.
Following the deprecation of the fixed colour categories I propose to, among other things, discuss the following four "clusters":
Thank you for the shout-out! Hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but I can't help wondering if your resources aren't better spent filling out the Stubs and Starts listed here (Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Popular pages - the most viewed articles within this Wikiproject many of which are in a poor state), rather than tidying up an article that is already GA?--Coin945 (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea, Sandbh, and you being present here ;-). As I wrote above, "categories" noble gases can be kept for being a group, when explicitly used as such (like here). Same applies to halogens: as a group.
Also, "metalloids" is a viable classification, either stand alone (as exists, say, "coinage metals") or in completion of the set metals–metalloids–nonmetals. With these three you mention, it seems perfectly right to point out the remaining ones as "unclassified nonmetals" (nice neutral name) in applicable places. Obviously we do not want mixing with old categories, so I understand that the other elements (metals) are left white in this instance.
Maybe over time we can pick a better color set for the metals–metalloids–nonmetals set. For now, do you have a color in mind for the uncl.nonmet class?
Dear DePiep, thank you for the warm welcome. After the colour category periodic table was replaced with the coloured block periodic table I've not thought about old or new bg colours for chemical element categories at wikipedia. Outside of wp, the colours I've been using are:
Bright
Pastel
metalloid
metalloid
unclassified
unclassified
halogen
halogen
noble gas
noble gas
For an example of my use of the bright colours, see figure 9, in this journal article. For an example of my use of the pastel colours, see here.
Will take a look later on. I just noticed, that the "nonmetal halogens" are not te same set as the halogens (eg At might differ). For the nonmetal article we can use use a different color for the nonmetal halogens incidentally. (so: 1 color for halogens group, another color for nonmetal halogens in here). DePiep (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think a different color is necessary in this case, we are only showing that of the nonmetals, these yellow-colored ones are halogens. This graphic is not claiming that the yellow-colored ones are the only halogens, merely that of the nonmetals, these yellow-colored ones are halogens. YBG (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@YBG and Sandbh: For now, neither do I. However. Here and elsewhere (like here) we cannot suggest that halogens are nonmetals. (If needed to describe the nonmetals: fine using such a Venn with group & metallic class, but this should be clarified at least).
But from a higher perspective, I am not sure yet that it is strong to devide the nonmetals into subclasses eg (I) 'nonmetal halogens'. Section Nonmetal § Classes does not argue strongly that their halogeneishness is physically & chemically related to them being nonmetallic, and also (II) why the other halogens do not have this connection. Could this be a mistaken "common property but not causing property" for the two Venn sets? Also (III), is the split within nonmetals between its halogens and the unclassified ones is a well-based one? The article now says "After the nonmetals are classified as either metalloids, halogens or noble gases, ..." [the others remain]. This is the very same classification soup we have discussed over and over again, and this was one of the reasons to drop our classification (categorisation) altogether. (IMO: The use of metalloids class looks undisputed, and the noble gases (group) can stay by itself and could be specified in article nonmetals when judged along the lines mentioned for the other classes). IOW, I am missing the need, usefulness or even correctness from the periodic table to reintoduce this categorisation in the nonmetals. -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Nonmetals
unclassified
halogen nonmetal • noble gas
(I) I'll see if I can better bring out the connection between halogen-ish-ness and nonmetallic character; and (II) why the heavier halogens, starting with At, may not have this character. (III) For halogens, it's common enough to contrast e.g. the alkali metals with the halogens. After that, there are the metalloids, and the noble gases. What's leftover are the unclassified nonmetals.
It wasn't my intention to revisit the category soup that resulted in dropping the colour categories from our periodic table. The higher level perspective is now provided by the colour block table. That is fine; the theoretical colour block boundaries are sharp.
To this end, I've attached the outline of a map, published in Nature, showing the proximity of names of the elements mentioned in 3.3 million scientific abstracts published between 1922 and 2018 in more than 1,000 journals. It has a topology reminiscent of the periodic table, which lies at the heart of chemistry. The source is:
Here is the detailed image. To the right of that image is our twice superseded WP:ELEM old categorisation scheme including polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals.
In the literature, the value of classes of nonmetals is that using “natural” classes or clusters to organise information is consistent with the cognitive-load theory of breaking up information into discrete or more easily memorisable factors i.e., chunking of information, and helps with content processing. The practice of chunking nonmetals predates Mendeleev. For example Dupasquier, a French doctor, pharmacist and chemist, some one and three-quarter centuries ago divided the nonmetals into what he called organogens (O, N, H, C); sulphuroids (S, Se, P); chloroides (F, Cl, Br, I); and boroids (B, Si):
Dupasquier, A.: Traité élémentaire de chimie industrielle. Charles Savy Juene: Lyon, 1844, pp. 66–67.
YBG will be familiar with some of this; I have discussed it with him previously, offline.
In the literature, the practice of referring to e.g. transition metals, lanthanides, metalloids etc continues to this day.
A. @Sandbh: re The higher level perspective is now provided by the colour block table. The block classification is not a "higher level" of nonmetals (or metallicity) classification. It is a different classification. One cannot say that nonmetals is a more granular form of blocks. (And sure there may be sources that can specify metallicity from block properties, though that we call fringe).
The division into blocks is justified by their distinctive nature: s is characterized, except in H and He, by highly electropositive metals; p by a range of very distinctive metals and non-metals, many of them essential to life; d by metals with multiple oxidation states; f by metals so similar that their separation is problematic. Useful statements about the elements can be made on the basis of the block they belong to and their position in it, for example highest oxidation state, density, melting point… Electronegativity is rather systematically distributed across and between blocks.
I respectfully disagree. The blocks are the building blocks of the table:
Block
Nonmetal
Metal
s
H
Alkali Alkaline earth
f
—
Ln, An
d
—
Transition metals Refractory metals Noble metals
p
Metalloid Unclassified Halogen Noble gas
Post-transition
An example is Parish, The metallic elements, who examines the metals on a block-by-block basis. Below the metal and nonmetal classes are the elements themselves. Sandbh (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
B. re It wasn't my intention to revisit the category soup that ... — not your intention all right, but effectively you did. You are introducing the very same approaches and classes and arguments that were used in the nonmetals discussions since ca. 2012. Including comparision lists 1, 2that were causing the categorisation troubles. As if nothing else happened, and nothing evolved.
On July 4 just gone I notified my intention to discuss four classes, including metalloids; helpful and uncontroversial discussion ensued. Since ELEM deprecated the use of fixed colour categories, those categorisation troubles are in the past. As Double sharp wrote: "Now we are not using or proposing to use this category scheme everywhere. In this case we are using a specific category scheme for the context at hand, and only for the elements at hand. There is nothing stopping us from using other categories elsewhere. I see no problem with that." Sandbh (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
C. This about the approach. About content: the question on including metalloids as regular nonmetals is discussed below § Including metalloids?. There also is the point that the class of "nonmetals" apart of the complete & high level set metals–metalloids–nonmetals is as much as not handled in the article nonmetal at all. No comparision with the other two, no highlighting of essential properties and aspects; the article jumps right into the subclasses. Even the lede image is skipping the main classification.
The contrast between metals and nonmetals is addressed in the lede: "In chemistry, a nonmetal (or non-metal) is a chemical element that mostly lacks the characteristics of a metal. Such elements can be taken to include metalloids which, chemically, behave predominately like weak nonmetallic elements." The essential properties of the metals are set out later in the lede. The properties section explains the properties of the nonmetals in contrast to the metals. I will look further at these concerns in the lead up to the FAC process. Sandbh (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
D. Also, I asked to clarify the need or urgency to subdivide the nonmetals. I see no argument for this, except that sources can be found that do so, which is still no reason why promoting this approach to this importance is applicable. Just as well one could argue that "diatomic" vs. "polyatomic" is a main distinction ground (as this wiki did). In other words: quote random a criterium, and possibly fringe. For the moment, I skip the possible OR aspect of this subclassification.
"Diatomic" vs. "polyatomic" was never a main distinction ground in the literature. I was wrong to promote it. OTOH (setting aside the metals) the halogens, noble gases and, to a mixed extent metalloids, are relatively common classes in chemistry. After that, there are the unclassified nonmetals. Nothing random about that. Sandbh (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
E. The current subclasses still have the issue of "leftover nonmetals". The halogen-distinction is not made clear from the perspectiuve of nonmetalishness (my Q was: why is being a halogen distincting a nonmetal from other nonmetals?). The noble gases too need this solved: how are they distinct from other nonmetals, and why is that distinction a nonmetallish one? It comes down to the classification guidelines YBG formulated time ago: (sub-)classes should be conected internally strong AND outwardly none (say, regarding properties); and in this article this should be related to the article(-title). So, of course in article halogen their properties and commonness can very well be described, but here "halogens as a nonmetal" this is not (yet?) so.
The leftover nonmetals are referred to as as unclassified nonmetals. As you posted earlier, "With these three you mention, it seems perfectly right to point out the remaining ones as "unclassified nonmetals" (nice neutral name) in applicable places." The halogen distinction and the noble gas distinction are made clear in the lede: "The more electronegative halogens are characterised by stronger nonmetallic properties and a tendency to form predominantly ionic compounds with metals. The noble gases are distinguished by their reluctance to form compounds." Sandbh (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It wasn’t my intention to quote out of context. The distinctions between the subclasses is briefly mentioned in the lede, elaborated in the properties section, and discussed individually in the properties section. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
F. Another effect of the classes being misplaced is showing in the two comparision tables: physical, chemical. (a) The list of properties that is compared (=lefthand column: From, Appearance, ..., Oxides, Sulfates) is not reflecting metallishness. (b) Also, the distinction between the subcategories is not convincingly strong (see the exceptions, overlaps and indifferences for practically each row). So, the listing very well wll be correct, but again not distinctive (That is: even if we leave out the "nonmetallishness" requirement, the subclasses are not standing out by themselves against others).
The list of properties is sourced from the literature. The same approach is taken in Metalloid, and Properties of metals, metalloids, and nonmetals. The lede notes that, “The distinction between subclasses is not absolute. Boundary overlaps, including with the metalloids, occur as outlying elements in each subclass show or begin to show less-distinct, hybrid-like, or atypical properties.” Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
G. wrt the A and B categorisation notes by Double sharp below, very quick & short: (1) if the subclasses deserve a place in the article (I've listed my IMO requirements), they should move downwards in the article as all details do in dedicaed articles (eg, like H placement is elsewhere). In top more space should be used for nonmetals as a class by itself, and for example a comparision table wrt the three metallisness classes. (More reply below if need be).
H. late: I noticed that the "noble gases" are not included: the group is not completely included. So here the same issue as with halogens exists: the subclass is "nonmetal noble gases". Another issue of the same problematic subdivision. -DePiep (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
On group names, IUPAC does not recognise these. The only thing they do recognise is group numbers. They also recognise and approve collective names for like elements e.g. "alkali metals: (Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fr)"; "pnictogens (N, P, As, Sb, Bi)", "halogens (F, Cl, Br, I, At)", "noble gases (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn)" and so on. The reference is the IUPAC Red Book (2005, p. 51). Since all the noble gases are nonmetals there is no need for a "nonmetal noble gas" subclass. On the structure of the article, the lede needs to summarise this structure. Therefore, reference is made in the lede to three or four subclasses of nonmetal, with details set out in the main body of the article. Sandbh (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there's a difference between classification soups. :)
A. Default categories. The point of removing the categories as a default thing was that different people used slightly different categories all the time. This is both because of (1) slightly different interest points and because of (2) differences in interpreting the data. Examples: (1) "halogens" is a normal category to those people not focused on radiochemistry (so that At and Ts are irrelevant), because F through I are similar, and At and Ts are minor enough from this perspective that they can just be largely ignored exceptions. However, the radiochemist does focus on At and maybe Ts, and so would want to explicitly say they are not halogens. (2) Differences in categorisations as metalloids, e.g. Sandbh prefers to treat Sb as a weak nonmetal, whereas I prefer to treat it as a weak metal (both off-WP). That's just because it has some properties of both. From what I understand I prefer to simply make an easy beginner's definition (so Sb is easier to keep with metals because there is no stereotypically metallic property it fails that some other metal it doesn't also fail), whereas Sandbh seems to prefer a more holistic view here (so Sb is removed from metals because no metal fails quite so many stereotypically metallic properties). Neither of us is really "wrong" here. Both ideas are pretty natural. The preference between them is simply a matter of how you prefer to organise the facts.
So if you put up a category scheme and enforce it consistently across articles, you end up not being neutral to these nuances. This becomes awkward when you want to write about something where the most natural classification for your context is not the one you enforced as a standard. Worse still, you end up with a problem that edge cases tend to dominate the decision-making process far out of proportion: e.g. the problem of "halogen" that started the whole thing back in 2012, because of astatine, even though At is a backwater for most chemists. This is inevitable if you want one standard, because as far as the radiochemist is concerned, calling At and especially Ts halogens is missing the point and not-useful, whereas nobody else cares. But it didn't need to be this way.
B. The situation for nonmetal. Now we are not using or proposing to use this category scheme everywhere. In this case we are using a specific category scheme for the context at hand, and only for the elements at hand. There is nothing stopping us from using other categories elsewhere. I see no problem with that. Same as how depending on what you're writing about, "transition metals" might either strictly refer to the d-block, or it might refer to preponderance of chemistry (in which case you probably mark out Zn/Cd/Hg as being not very stereotypically transition, among other elements). I seem to recall that Greenwood & Earnshaw is not always consistent about which elements they call metals either. Again, that's because a different break is more appropriate in different situations. We even can give the due weight to the astatine thing: simply say that it's usually added to halogens to complete the group, and only in the weird case when it is the focus does it matter that it acts differently. (Witness how At and Fr don't pattern with their groups in Sandbh's graphic. For Fr, it's not because it behaves any differently chemistry-wise, it's because the literature Fr is mentioned in is the far different radiochemistry literature to the general literature Na and K would appear in.)
Halogens (in the F-I sense) are a very clear subclass of nonmetals that behave similarly. It's like noble gases. Or like alkali metals for metals. Actually, these are so good that in almost any field they are natural categories. That's what caused the desire for A in the first place, I think: there are enough categories of this level of naturalness across use cases, that you can almost but not quite fill the entire periodic table. Except that there are a few annoying gaps, as the graphic Sandbh posted explains. "Unclassified nonmetals" would not be good for an A-style default category scheme: after all, they can be classified naturally in some contexts (e.g. pnictogens, chalcogens, organogens...) But for what we're doing here (B), just discussing one categorisation useful for the current context, without being forced to use it in every context? Just fine, AFAICS.
Now we have blocks taking the place of the A category scheme. I think that is just fine. They are useful for everywhere, because they're inherent in the shape of the periodic table that's useful everywhere. Of course, they're rather too smoothed out for most purposes, but that's precisely the function of a first-level break. Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Nice! I wonder if it's worth mentioning the reason why 'nonmetals' exists as a category, despite it being so varied and undefiniable. I.e., what is the usefullness in even having this category to begin with if it doesn't mean wnything concrete? (I would assume it's because people discovered these useful things called 'metals', and then needed a catch-all to describes 'other things', into which all the nonmetals got dumped. Perhaps it was from a time when people thoguht some compounds and other things were also elements? Dunno. Could be fun to find out.--Coin945 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I wonder if the 'Comparison of properties' table could be collapsed, or at lease spun out into a seperate article with shorter summary in this one?
Discovery section could afford to be a bit bigger. Now it's 'too' much of an idiot's guide and doesn't make me interested in learning more by clicking on the link. :P--Coin945 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Coin945: about collapsing tables: not OK in article body (per WP:NOHIDE), so I have made a different solution. I have put each table in its own ===-section, which makes it legally collapsible in mobile view for being a TOC-section ;-). That's what we can do (in desktop view, not collapsible then). Also, I have put them in level ===, so that they follow the list of subclasses in this TOC-level. -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll take on board your suggestion as to why nonmetals exist as a category. It's at the heart of chemistry, i.e. that the elements can be divided into metals and nonmetals, according to broad differences in their properties. I think it started with Lavoisier and his distinction between subftances fimples métalliques and non métalliques in his work Traité élémentaire de chimie (1789). That may be worth mentioning.
The 'Comparison of properties' table is tricky since there is already a Properties section, and this table goes the next level down into a side-by-side comparison of the classes. It is a question of, if you spin out the table into a separate article will there be enough left in the slimmed down table and will there be enough in a separate article to sustain it as a separate article. I could try simply dividing the big table into two, and collapsing each one separately.
The discovery section suffers somewhat from the same phenomenon of getting the balance right between a summary section and the content that goes into a separate article. Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Partly done.@Coin945: I've divided and collapsed the comparison table. I've slightly expanded the discovery section to try and make it more engaging, and added an image. Still to do: why nonmetals exist as a category. Sandbh (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Nice edits! I've noticed that Lavosier includes things like compunds, ethers and light as elements. Were they considered non-metals at the time? Were the four classical emenets considered in these terms? Surely even in the Stone Age people were distinguishing between things that were metals and things that were not. Would the history of non-metal discovery not start from when the first non metallic element was used by man? And develop as we came up with better ways to classify these dispirate things under a common name?--Coin945 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
All done.@Coin945: Thank you! I've now added a section on why nonmetals exist as a class. The history of the term nonmetal is peculiar. I need to layout the history of what metals are to make sense of things:
A potted history of the notion of metals
Ancient conceptions of metals as solid, fusible and malleable substances can be found in Plato's Timaeus (c. 360 BCE) and Aristotle's Meteorology. More sophisticated classification arrangements were proposed by Pseudo-Geber (in the Geber corpus, c. 1310), Paracelsus (De Natura Rerum libri nonem, 1525–6; and later works), Basil Valentine (Conclusiones, 1624), and Boerhaave (Elementa Chemiæ, 1733). They attempted to separate the more characteristic metals from substances having those characteristics to a lesser degree. Such substances included zinc (brittle if impure), antimony, bismuth, stibnite, pyrite and galena. These were all then called semimetals or bastard metals.
In 1735 Brandt proposed to make the presence or absence of malleability the principle of this classification. On that basis he separated mercury from the metals. The same view was adopted by Vogel (1755, Institutiones Chemiæ) and Buffon (1785, Histoire Naturelle des Minéraux). In the interim, Braun had observed the solidification of mercury by cold in 1759–60. This was confirmed by Hutchins and Cavendish in 1783. The malleability of mercury then became known, and it was included amongst the metals.
In 1789 Fourcroy highlighted the weakness of this distinction between metals and semimetals. He essentially said the progression from malleable to brittle was too granular to be able to make a reliable distinction.
This idea of a semimetal, as a brittle (and thereby imperfect) metal, was gradually discarded after 1789 with the publication of Lavoisier's 'revolutionary' Elementary Treatise on Chemistry.
I've previously looked for the origin and etymology of nonmetals. AFAI have been able to discern Lavoisier was the first to introduce the term nonmetal. This is surprising, but there it is. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
You quote Lavoisier using the letter "f" in place of the long s. I actually think you should simply use modern orthographic conventions, but I have inquired at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Long S in quotations to see if my understanding of the MOS is correct. If for some reason it the archaic orthography is imperative, you should use the correct character, ie, "ſ" not "f".
You also wikilink to natural kinds, but that article states that term is a label to which scholars have assigned incompatible meanings. It seems to me that if there are incompatible definitions, the link should be appropriately disambiguated. Or perhaps the best thing would be to link to wiktionary.
I've replaced Lavoisier's French terms with the English equivalents. The wp article on natural kinds is less than satisfactory; Wiktionary has no entry for natural kind, that I could find. I'm inclined to leave the link but add a note giving some further elaboration of what a natural kind is in a chemistry context. Sandbh (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, I completely missed this in MOS:CONFORM: Normalize archaic glyphs and ligatures in English that are unnecessary to the meaning. Examples include ... ſ→s ....YBG (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I have modified it now now to make explicit the "nonmetal" that I thought was understood. Since apparently the implied "nonmetal" was not understood (and for consistency) I have also made the word "metal" explicit. The pertinent portion of the sidebar is shown to the right. YBG (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
As the article nonmetal has been changed after July 4, there some major changes in the presentation, which is inconsistent with our throughour PT presentation. One of the major, and problematic, changes is that with one line "The nonmetals can be broadly divided into four classes: ...", " ... metallic properties can be regarded as a nonmetal". As a result, in this article the three-class distinction metal–metallopid–nonmetal is abandoned for the two-class metal–nonmetal scheme. (In the process, the list of metalloids is defined to be six only, ignoring Po and At). Throughout the article, metalloids are simply presented as just another nonmetal subgroup.
So far, I have seen no discussion nor sources where this reduction is convincingly masdfe accepotable. Of course, with a selection of arguments it is possible to make a case (off-article, as User:Sandbh is doing e.g. here), but WP:FRINGE has not been removed.
I propose to stay with the status-quo-ante, stating that metalloids differ from nonmetals. In general, throughout and consistently. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it would be better not to treat the metalloids as nonmetals in this article. However, I do think it is helpful to include them in the section which compares the various subclasses. I have tweaked the wording in that section. YBG (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
There is some probably overlooked background to the inclusion of metalloids:
It has been known for over 120 years that metalloids have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry (Newth 1894; Friend 1914).
Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, a standard reference for over a century, has defined "nonmetal" as including B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te for at least its past four editions (1993 to 2016).
There is a note in the metalloid article saying, "Oderberg[80] argues on ontological grounds that anything not a metal is therefore a nonmetal, and that this includes semi-metals (i.e. metalloids)."
chemically, metalloids behave mostly as nonmetals;
metalloids are not always recognised as metalloids;
"a binary classification can facilitate the establishment of rules for determining bond types between metals and nonmetals.[76]"
When I compiled lists of metalloids I recall ca. 40% of the books I examined mentioned metalloids. IOW to get close to 200 lists of metalloids I had to check about 500 books (across three University libraries).
A Google Ngram search shows that the expression "metals and nonmetals" is about forty times as common as "metalloids and nonmetals" i.e. in the expression "metals, metalloids and nonmetals".
Within ELEM, we no longer AFAIK maintain a formal three-class distinction. OTOH there are still separate articles for metal, metalloid and nonmetal. Along these lines, the nonmetal article says that chemically, metalloids behave predominately like weak metals and can be treated as such for comparative purposes.
Sources
Friend, J.N.: A text-book of inorganic chemistry, vol. 1. Charles Griffin and Company, London, p. 9 (1914): "Usually, the metalloids possess the form or appearance of metals, but are more closely allied to the non-metals in their chemical behaviour."
Newth, G.S.: A text-book of inorganic chemistry, Longmans, Green, and Co, London, pp. 7−8 (1894).
I agree metalloids differ from unclassified nonmetals; halogen nonmetals F, Cl, Br, and I; and noble gases (in degree rather than kind).
In Discovery of the nonmetals, I have removed the metalloids from the lede image (and other, non-articvle relateddetails) [12]. This POV/FRINGE pushing is not encyclopedic. And yes, we knowe that there are sources that consider them as metallic (of course, often discarding the notion of 'metalloid' altogether). -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
My impression is that those sources that discard metalloids altogether are more likely to call them nonmetallic. Sometimes with Sb as an exception. Although those are, indeed, not the majority among English-language authors. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Then this encyclopedia [shall] point this likeness out in nonmetals. But current edits are indirectly abandoning metalloids as a class next to metals-nonmetals. (A). that is not the correct wiki route to abandon the notion, and (B). erasing or downgrading the word [metalloid] is not encyclopedic. -DePiep (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer if the lede made it clearer that metalloids are not generally considered nonmetals, at least among English-language sources, and that they are added for comparative purposes. I'm OK with talking about them later once that is sorted out: since the boundaries of nonmetals and metalloids are fuzzy anyway, it stands to reason that the article should discuss anything that some reputable authors have considered a nonmetal. I like the statement in Nonmetal#Metalloid: Although usually considered to be separate from both the metals and the nonmetals, the metalloids are included here to facilitate comparison with the nonmetals. Putting that in the lede would resolve my concern.
Double sharp: I tend to agree. I suggest the nub of the issue is that:
Some authors use a three-fold arrangement i.e. “metals-metalloids-nonmetals”. Some of these authors consider metalloids to be special in some way e.g. they are “intermediate between metals and nonmetals”, and then make no further explicit reference to this “special nature” in the rest of the book. In other cases these same authors note the metalloids behave chemically like nonmetals, and treat them like that in the rest of the book.
Some authors stick to just metals-nonmetals. In this case there are no metalloids as such, only metals and nonmetals, with all or most of the metalloids regarded as nonmetals.
The other way around. So far, all we can see is an annihilation of "metalloids" as a class inherently distinct from nonmetals. Sure there are authors that say so, but it is undue to make that a leading principle. Also, the editing process that is doing so is randomly, ad hoc and getting the look of POV pushing. Not sure if the article can maintain its GA status. Recent changes are breaking the coherence in & between PT articles. -DePiep (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The lede has been updated to incorporate the variable treatment of the elements sometimes treated as metalloids. The lede and the caption to the lede image say that the elements sometimes recognised as metalloids are included only for comparative purposes. Sandbh (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The two properties tables have been updated so that there are now dashed borders around the columns for the metalloids. The intro text at the top of the physical properties table has been accordingly expanded to explain the status of the dashed borders.
The nonmetal class and its subclasses
Since "nonmetals" is a class in the set metals–metalloids–nonmetals, it follows that any division or subgroup of nonmetals (for & while being declared a nonmetal) is a subclass. I have edited the article accordingly [13]. Does not prejudice any changes &tc wrt such subcasses. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
IMO the term "subclass" is technically correct but a bit pedantic, making the article less accessible to the reader. YBG (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the 'pedantic' issue. However, it might be stemming from an other issue that is in my mind: that, in current version, the general description of "nonmetal" is not developed enough. That is, essentially being different from classes 'metals' and 'metalloids'. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
No, that the general description is not developed is not the problem I see. It is simply that the word "class" is perfectly acceptable and accurate, so there is no need to emphasize the hierarchy by saying "subclass". The elements themselves but one class of substances, the others being alloys, compounds, mixtures, etc. But I don't think anyone would insist on saying that "the nonmetals are a subclass of elements" just because the elements are themselves but one class of substances. In the same way, I don't see that there is any reason why it would be necessary to say "the noble gasses are a subclass of nonmetals" instead of simply saying "the noble gasses are a class of nonmetals". In fact, at least in this context, the word "class" seems much preferable to "subclass". YBG (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
In general that is true, but the article is named nonmetals. Therefor the classes are explicit subclasses. It would be different in a generic article, where one can write "the halogens are a class of elements, based on ...", or "the rare earth elements form a class". -DePiep (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The article now refers to, depending on the author, 2–3 classes and 3–4 subclasses, per DePiep's preference. Sandbh (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Categorisation in general
Just a thought (from a non-chemistry expert)... It seems to me that one of the main issues with categorisation is that there is an innate desire for said categories to fit with vertical or horizontal lines within the Periodic Table because it makes things all nice and neat. (Generally to have grouping among consecutive elements, generally in a square-type shape). But elements just don't seem to fit into tight boxes like this. Would it be better to ignore the Periodic Table structure for a second and consider beyond that which elements are most 'like', even if they don't sit side-by-side in the Table?
Another consideration could be that if there are more than one way to categorise such things, any 'choice' Wikipedia makes is WP:OR, so wouldn't it be better to instead have an article that examines the different proposed forms of categorisation put forth by the literature, and perhaps the different applications in which they may prove useful? Yes, there are some things that trnd from the 'bottom left' to 'top right', but it's always more complicated than that, and trying to squeeze elements into such trends when their properties might work against them is trying to fit the evidence into your own predetermined conclusion by any means necessary.--Coin945 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
As a minor note: the word "categorisation" has been abandoned more or less (here at enwiki ELEMENTS, Jan 2021), because it caused continuous definition problems (border elements, category definition, ...). Instead, the more general "class" can be used.
@Coin945: I do not have the impression that the categories (or classes, sets) we use are (mis)guided by PT structure. Even the opposite: for some classes, the PT structure is the cause of their class: noble gases, halogen, and many of the numbered groups (columns) are such a group because of their column (alkaline earth metals, valence-related behaviour). OTOH, the metalloids set is not guided by the PT appearance: it is a staircase (irregular?); and so metals and nonmetals classes are irregular wrt this. Also, whilwe alkali metals fit group/column 1, nowhere this set is extended to include hydrogen while it can be positioned on top of them. More irregular classes: rare earth metals, coinage metals, ... So: classes are formed according to properties and behaviour, and the scientists are aware of the pitfall you point to. HTH. -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I know the founders of the now deprecated wp colour categories were guided by what they found in the literature. They tried to come up with something that seemed to be the most representative. Even back then they had categories for other metals, metalloids, other nonmetals, halogens, and noble gases. Nothing has essentially changed since then. There is Names for sets of chemical elements, too. Sandbh (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Gnomish work ahoy! :(
Ready for pre-FAC work
I believe nonmetal is now ready for gnomish pre-FAC work. I feel the lede has been sufficiently refined so as to make the variable status of metalloids clearer, as per feedback received; see also the Nonmetal#Metalloid section. Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe my gnomish labour has concluded, including reference formating, wikilinks, and "alt=" tags for images. Any further changes from here (I hope) will be sub-gnomish minutiae, barring any headslap discoveries :) Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I saw nothing "non-jokeful" about "Gnomish work ahoy! :(". Quite the contrary; it was an attempt to inject some humour into a task requirement which I do not especially enjoy i.e. gnomish work. Sandbh (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
By group?
Nonmetal § Unclassified nonmetals says They are generally regarded as being too diverse to merit a collective examination. Consequently, their chemistry is taught along group lines. This is just as true of the nonmetals as a whole as it is of the unclassified nonmetals. So does this factoid belong in the unclassified section or someplace else? YBG (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I’ve amended the text in that part of the article in an attempt to make my intended meaning clearer. What tends to happen is that the halogens and the noble gases represent two cohesive sets. The metalloids, when recognised as such, make up a reasonable set too. After that, hydrogen, and the other six nonmetals tend to be covered in four disparate tranches, one for H and the other three as part of separate examinations of the chemistry of groups 14 to 16. This is not so bad in organic chemistry where CHON tend to get more of a holistic treatment; or in biochemistry where CHONPS are better recognised, with Se receiving variable treatment. Sandbh (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
A few months back there were some comments by Z1720 at Talk:Titanium, so I did some cleaning up of a few citation issues.
Unfortunately, I'm having a difficult time finding sources for the remaining statements, and I'm currently wondering if a more extensive rewrite of some parts may be warranted.
@Double sharp: Thanks for the ping. There are a few places where I might be able to find and add sources or help with rewrites and copy-editing, though I won't be able to take on the bulk of the work. I'm also working on another article outside WP:ELEM right now and my university semester starts in two weeks, so my free time after then will be limited. ComplexRational (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a good time, now that Sandbh is back, to seek further comments about my Periodic table redraft. There's a draft of every section in there, except "Trends across groups and periods" where I apparently never got around to finishing it (will need to look through my offline notes to see what I was planning to write there).
It is good to go IMO, and can be boldly uploaded. I suggest some follow-on work will then be required. The following sections are too long, per Coin945's earlier post about, "the top-level article (Periodic table) should serve as an 'overview for dummies', with short concise paragraphs on each relevant topic and appropriate 'Main Page' hyperlinks": Chemical elements;Electronic structure; and History. The table "Bonding of simple substances in the PT" needs a legend. The lede PT could benefit from some extra eye-candy, IMO. Sandbh (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
A rewrite needs to be checked against the October 2020 comments foremost. I remember, it was about being encyclopedic. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Did a tremendous cutting of "Chemical elements" (indeed, I should trust the Chemical element article with most of that), so mostly "Electronic structure" has the material. I feel like the electronic basis of the PT has no better place to be covered, though. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I've gotten some extra comments on the talk page from DA, which I've acted on (though I'm not sure if he's finished). If nothing else comes in in about a week, I plan to follow Sandbh's suggestion and boldly upload. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thanks for the ping. At least for now, I'll probably only be able to make specific scattered comments. One thing I noticed right away, though, is that the image of the Benfey spiral PT overlaps with the collapsible left-step PT. I tried resizing it, but it doesn't fix the display issue; not sure how to do this without "blowing up" all your work on image formatting ;) ComplexRational (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Top image
I have reinstalled into live the top image that was already prepared in the Double sharp sandbox.
Incidentally, the old top image was preserved in the Big Change [15], and then kept [16].
Apart from being the prepared one, it has these plusses:
The black-and-white image is iconic and immediately recognisable (even better when there is no 18-column group-f-subbing which confuses without adding).
Iconic, does not need a caption.
Does not overstress block importance by block colors. So primary PT properties column, row, and (blasted wall effect) rectangles (i.e., group/period/block) are equally visible.
In this b/w version, group numbers and period numbers are visually distinct by adding verticals lines / circles (just see & think how the period numbers are clubbing and recognisable!).
Being the top image, no need for details — just show the main lines. One could even argue that the element names should be in there, so Readers can find "gold and "iron". But atomic weights here? — nah.
Also shows OK in mobile view (checked Safari and Firefox)
@DePiep: I reverted the lede back to the 18-column form, consistent with WP:BRD. Showing the 32-column form in the lede is completely non-representative compared with the vast majority of textbooks which nearly always show the 18-column form as their lede table. The most recent consensus established at WP:ELEM was for the 18 column form with coloured blocks. If you would now like to start a discussion seeking to establish consensus for the appearance of a 32-column table in the lede feel free to do so now, consistent with WP:BRD. Sandbh (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
PS. The IUPAC Group 3 Project, in its survey of textbooks found one book out of 193 with a 32-column lede table = 0.5%. They found five books in total (2.6%) showing a 32-column table. Sandbh (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I have a vague recollection of a consensus to use an 18-column B&W table as the lede image, on the grounds of it being iconic. But my memory may be faulty. YBG (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
2. DS did c/p it in the overhaul rewrite (copy/paste) [17].
3. Obviously and understandably, DS forgot to remove the old one (which was hidden between other top templates to be kept, such as GA).
4. DS corrected this, removing one [18], but inconsistently removed the wrong image: not the sandbox version. A GF mistake.
5. I installed the sandbox one: as proposed by DS.
6. ... and started the talk [19], including a mentioning of these steps.
So, Sandbh, since you reverted my edit while claiming BRD breach by me, could you specify where this breach occurred? Please be specific on the B, the R and the D. I described my actions already in the very post you replied to here, so I note that one should not invoke such matters sloppily.
Then, the source you link to, an IUPAC workgroup, says: "The task group does not intend to recommend the use of a 32-column periodic table or an 18-column". So, the "source" you refer to is explicitly invalid by itself. In short: you are presenting OR as a RS claim. In reality, our article was to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic: that is by editorial choices (enwiki editing). -DePiep (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll just clarify that I prefer the 32 column one I originally had. For a simple reason: that way, it cannot be misunderstood that Yb and No are somehow also in group 16.
That said, I wanted to follow comments I got, and above Sandbh stated that he thought the lede pic could use more eye candy. Hence I decided to leave the old one with the block colours to allow for that, even though I think it's not better.
Well, we have different preferences, so it seems best to discuss to find what the consensus is, and that seems to be happening. :) Double sharp (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
"eye candy" is not enough for an encyclopedia (& for me, the b/w is; since 1869 tbh). "iconic", and "immediately recognisable", "non-cluttered", is. BTW, I maintain that the starting point for talk is your sandbox version. -DePiep (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I think that is great. I think it could be even better if we eliminated the group and period numbers, leaving the bare PT with just Z and symbol. Periods, groups, and blocks are still visible as rows, columns, and rectangles. It would also be better without the gaps between the cells, so the borders merged together. This and removing the period numbers would mean that an image the same width would have Z/Sym much more legible. YBG (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Worth considering (but, a PT without p/g numbers? ... ~cold shivers here ;-) ). I propose future changes/improvements be discussed elsewhere, new == section likely. -DePiep (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
If model experiments work out, then element 120 experiments should start this year: There is still much work to adjust the system. I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but if we can successfully conduct all the model experiments, then the first experiments on the synthesis of element 120 will probably start this year. So, let's be ready when it hopefully arrives.
Interesting that they will apparently go for 120 before 119. Though, they did do all of 114, 116, 118 before going for 113, 115, 117, so it's the same policy of evens first. :) Double sharp (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
"common" halogen is neither descriptive nor informative. It is not a commonly used name for that set. If "nonmetal" in "nonmetal halogen" is redundant ("a bit" huh?), that says that all halogens are nonmetal—then the new set is not tha same (iow, you are changing the set). Your statement "I am now using ..." is referring to the OR and FRINGE flavours that the recent nonmetal article has; no advantage to spread this through The Elements. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I have not heard of "common halogen" used in this way. If it cannot be "nonmetal halogen", then it seems to me that "stable halogen" would be more familiar. But I still prefer "nonmetal halogen", because the fact that stability and nonmetallicity coincide for this group is pretty much a coincidence (they don't for the noble gases, where radon is quite noble). Double sharp (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Double sharp: we clearly dropped the "each element just once" categorisation back in February (quite thoroughly, I say). The crisp alkalis were not the problem, but the annually returning classifiction disputes, like the ouchy "unclassified nonmetals", were — for good reason. Now from the bottom of a rewritten (not past present) article nonmetal, where such a category might be relevant in the lower local sections, this dead whale pops up in main element pages without proper encyclopedic base. I see no need to discuss the proper naming of such an invented subclass: The Class Does Not Exist at all. -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I agree that it should not be in this navbox. Lower local sections of nonmetal are where "nonmetal halogens" makes some sense to appropriately cover those authors who ignore At and Ts, by listing that among possible categories, and then various names to show it is not agreed on in the literature. But in this navbox, I'd say no as I said below. Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Bear in mind the sidebar offers three perspectives on segmenting the periodic table:
By groups, periods or blocks, as shown in the "By periodic table structure" drop down menu. Here the block and group names are IUPAC territory. Note that the IUPAC Red Book first discusses block names and then group and series' names, and that it does not number the periods.
By "Metallic classification", in which there is a L-R progression in metallic to nonmetallic character as noted in the literature. This is not IUPAC territory.
By "Other characteristics", which has some of the overlapping subsets that don't cover the entire table. Neither is this IUPAC territory.
In the first drop down, a link to the halogens, as an IUPAC approved collective name, is fine.
In the second drop down, links to metalloids, and then to unclassified nonmetals • nonmetal halogens • noble gases could work. Under "Metalloids", rather than "(dividing metals & nonmetals)" it would be more representative of the literature to show "(metals & nonmetals to either side)".
I now agree with Double sharp; "Nonmetal" halogens is better. There is some redundancy by having "Nonmetal" halogens under the "Nonmetals" heading but I think the extra clarity is worth it. Sandbh (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: In what way is it neither descriptive nor informative? At any one time there may be no more than 30 grams of At in the entire Earth. Compare this to iodine, the rarest of the halogens, of which there is ca. 298,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams in the entire Earth. F, Cl and Br are even more abundant.
The "nonmetal" in nonmetal halogen is a bit redundant, since the set that it belongs to is:
Nonmetals
unclassified • nonmetal halogen • noble gas
We already know the expression, "nonmetal halogen" refers to a kind of nonmetal, so why do we need to say this twice? The answer is to distinguish F-Cl-Br-I—which are known to be nonmetals—from At, which was declared by its discoverers to be a metal, assessed as a metal based on qualitative and quantitative assessments published thereafter, with the latter recently confirmed by relativistic modelling.
So I'm now using "common halogens", consistent with the following twenty-two examples from the literature, courtesy of Dr Google:
Examples of the use of the expression "common halogens" in the literature
"give some of the physical properties of the common halogens", Inorganic Chemistry: Butterworths Intermediate Chemistry 1982, p. 272
"However, of the four common halogens, iodine has the lowest electron affinity", Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 2013, p. 1752
"it is the most polarisable of the common halogens", Electrophilic Halogenation: Reaction Pathways 1976, p. 159
"Iodine is the most expensive of the common halogens and is much less frequently used in synthesis than bromine, chlorine or fluorine", Heteroatom Manipulation 1992, p. 213
"Of the four common halogens ( fluorine , chlorine , bromine , and iodine )…", Technical Note, United States Bureau of Land Management 1980, p. 6
"applied to other common halogens…", Handbook of Industrial Chemistry and Biotechnology 2017, p. 488
"Iodine is the heaviest of all the common halogens", Kirk-Othmer Concise Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 2007, p. 1353
"X = the common halogens", Inorganic Chemistry 2000, p. 815
"the other common halogens", Chemistry of Hypervalent Compounds 1998, p. 327
"As we proceed down the Group VII column from F to I for the common halogens…", Halogen Bonding I: Impact on Materials Chemistry and Life 2015, p. 247
"The common halogens are fairly abundant elements", Inorganic chemistry 1960, p. 458
"all four of the common halogens", Principles of General Chemistry 1951, p. 156
"For this reason it will not be considered with the four common halogens in this chapter", Essentials of General, Organic and Biochemistry 1977, p. 163
"the four common halogens", Textbook of General Chemistry 1969, p. 530
"Consult a handbook , then list ten compounds for each of the four common halogens", General College Chemistry 1961, p. 432
"Gradual changes are also seen for the covalent radii of the four common halogens", Science of Synthesis: Houben-Weyl Methods 2000, p. 6
"Name the four common halogens", General Chemistry, Inorganic and Organic 1965, p. 210
"Each of the common halogens", Chemistry 1979, p. 785
"Every binary combination of the four common halogens is known", Chemistry 2003, p. 592
"Iodine is the least active of the common halogens (not counting astatine)", Encyclopedia of Science: G-L 1998, p. 76
"The four common halogens are present", Chemistry: A Study of Matter 1977, p. 284
"of the four common halogens", Chemistry 2007, p. 254
I'm fine with using either "nonmetal halogen" or "common halogen".
The remaining niggle I have with "nonmetal halogen" is that when this term is used in the literature, one can't be sure whether the meaning extends to astatine. So, an author may use this expression to include astatine, even though they don't have anything to say about astatine. OTOH, there can be no doubt about what is meant by the expression "common halogen". Sandbh (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd argue that it's not necessarily a problem that we're not sure whether the meaning extends to astatine, because we still don't experimentally know that astatine is a metal. To be really sure we should need to know its bulk band structure, and we have only theory for that. Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
I note that in the case at hand, the wikilink points to halogen where all of group 17 is discussed, including At and Ts. On the other hand, in the context, the link appears as a subset of nonmetal. I submit therefore, that it is not redundant to use the adjective "nonmetal" to clearly indicate that in the the set of element in this case includes some but not all of group 17. But I think that the current form is incorrect:
nonmetal halogen[[halogen|nonmetal halogen]] incorrectly implies that the target of the link points to a set of nonmetals.
More accurate would be to write
nonmetal halogennonmetal [[halogen]] correctly indicates that the group being represented at this point of the hierarchy is not all of the halogens, but only those which are nonmetalic.
Furthermore, if I understand the situation correctly (a) it is disputed whether astatine is a metal, nonmetal, or metalloid but (b) no one would mistake astatine for being a "common halogen". Consequently, in the sidebar, where the phrase is unambiguously shown as one of three subsets of "nonmetal", it is more correct to say "nonmetal halogen" because that makes the hierarchy true no matter the status of At, whereas "common halogen" would only be true if in fact At is not a nonmetal. Better to use a term that makes the hierarchy true whatever one's opinion of the state of At.
And, as far as the nonmetal article (which I have not recently looked at), I don't see how it is inconsistent to use the use one descriptive term (common halogen) in the article when referring to the first four members of group 17. It is a good descriptive term and nothing hinders its use in the article.
But there is nothing inconsistent about using the one descriptive phrase in the article to refer to 1st four group 17 elements, and another descriptive term in the sidebar to refer to the nonmetallic members of group 17, which some say are 4 in number but others say are 5 in number. These two descriptive phrases - even if they exactly the same four elements - are not synonymous as they have different meanings.
The list of Sandbh clearly indicates that however uncommon the phrase "common halogen" may be, it is in fact used in the literature as a descriptive phrase. But there is no reason why a descriptive phrase must be found in the literature in order for it to be used in WP. If one wanted to discuss the first two halogens, one could say "gaseous halogens" and there would be no need to do a literature search to validate the appropriateness of the use of the descriptive phrase. In fact, one could use the term even if it was no where found in the literature because it is a descriptive phrase.
In short: I believe the right thing is to change the sidebar to nonmetal [[halogen]]
To some extent I kind of feel that this entire section of the navbar is a holdover from the days when we were trying to use a categorisation scheme that covered everything once and once only. Hence category intersections like "nonmetal halogens" (which is not so much a category but an intersection of two: nonmetals and halogens), and the absence of common categories that nonetheless are complete overlaps with other categories (e.g. rare earth metals, platinum group metals), and the non-category "unclassified nonmetal" that unfortunately starts looking a lot like a category when put together with all the actual categories.
re @Sandbh: "In what way is it neither descriptive nor informative?" -- Of course the word 'common' is too loosely defined to be useful in the metal-nonmetal topic. And most important: nowhere is explained that being common is related to, and caused by, being a nonmetal. The desire to subclassify (the article shows) is not met by the non-urgency of the subclass itself. iow: the noted subclass is not pushing itself forward by nature; it is constructed. Also, what Double sharp notes above about the cleation of these subclasses. The Is No Such Subclass. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks DePeip.
I agree with you that using common by itself is not useful in a metal-nonmetal topic.
However, "common" is used together with "halogen", to give the phrase, "common halogen". Ask any chemist what they think this means. They will not have astatine in mind.
The general reader won't know this.
Similarly, they won't know about expressions like "rare earth" and "transition metal". What does "rare" have to do with being a metal? What does "transition" have to with a metal? Why are metalloids called metalloids when C, P, Se, and iodine look like metalloids too? Why are pnictogens called that when only N is an asphyxiant? That is why we have wikilinks or footnotes.
Despite these concerns, the expression "common halogens" is found in the literature, in ordinary chemistry textbooks. It does not currently have a footnote but one could easily be added.
For the nonmetal article, it is the literature that divides the p-block into metalloids; halogens and noble gases. That leaves H, C, N, O, P, S and Se as the "unclassified" nonmetals.
"Unclassified" means that while the elements involved are nonmetals, the properties common to them have seem to be too diverse to make for an appropriate collective term. Some comparable examples in the literature are:
Examples of unclassified items
"The hepatitis E virus…displays particularities that resulted in its placement in a separate, unclassified taxon." Genetic Immunization 2013, Springer
"The following 13 species (including one unclassified taxon) were identified…" African Study Monographs 1988, vol. 8
"UNCLASSIFIED ALLOYS…" Macmillan's Chemical and Physical Data 1992
"The number of unclassified galaxies with the Hubble's classification scheme increases with the distance: 7% in local universe, 39% in HDF…" Multiwavelength Cosmology 2006
"Group 3 — Unclassified chemicals. This group includes chemicals or groups of chemicals which cannot be classified as to their carcinogenicity in humans." Indoor Air Quality: A Comprehensive Reference Book 1995.
Hi. I would like to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.
WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland or New Zealand. These national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.
We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive image or video to Commons, please consider to submit them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
For the {{Infobox element}}Allotropes data point, I have created & added {{Infobox element/symbol-to-allotropes}}. Ten elements now have a link (B, C, N, O, Si, P, S, Fe, As, Pu). Existing local parameter input was used (copied), while five new allotrope links are found (they were not used in the infobox at all). Please take a look, also for the subtle wording involved. -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Titanium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Element 123... again
The article for element 123 (unbitrium) has been recreated again: [22]. The new version appears to incorporate everything from every past incarnation and draft of the article (the latter of which I mostly wrote), though I'm not aware of anything that would lead it to pass GNG now. I thought about reverting per the old discussions, though I might give it another look and I wanted another opinion, because IMO the draft content is just short of notability given that fewer in-depth studies about 123 have been published compared to 122, 124, and 126. Even if kept, which I'm inclined to doubt, some unsourced or irrelevant content needs to go.
Pinging @Double sharp, YBG, and DePiep:ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I was unaware of that draft. Indeed, nothing has been clearly stated that would challenge the 2011 AfD and the draft has unaddressed issues, though the content has changed substantially since the version that went to AfD. I'm fine either doing a speedy redirect (personally, I think what was discussed in 2018, in my first days at the project when we discussed sources, still applies) or a second AfD to gauge opinion outside WP:ELEM. ComplexRational (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I redirected it again. Most of it is simple repetition of what's already on other hypothetical elements, and Lr+Ca reaction to synthesise 123 is not remotely achievable today. Double sharp (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Rfc about the PT in the lede of the PT article: 18 columns or 32?
Should the periodic table in the lede of the periodic table article have 18-columns or 32?
Cerium has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Probably there are two decay branches down the 287Fl-283Cn-279Ds chain. Results have been asked to be published ASAP. Haven't added anything about isomerism here, since details not mentioned in this post.
As it turns out, there actually is data! One of the figures in [23] gives for 286Mc a half-life of 20(+98−9) ms and indirectly states that it is an alpha emitter (not that we seriously expected otherwise), populating 282Nh and its previously-observed decay products. I added this data to isotopes of moscovium; should it also go in the infoboxes? ComplexRational (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh my, CR's link gives a slideshow with plans for 2022. :)
To test working with 50Ti and 54Cr, some model reactions are proposed: 238U+50Ti (expected 3 events per 25 days), 244Pu+50Ti (expected 3 events per 50 days), 238U+54Cr (expected 3 events per 5 months). Last one goes down to 0.015 pb, beyond RIKEN's "world record" 0.03 pb for 209Bi+70Zn. Should also make new light isotopes 288Lv and 289Lv. Double sharp (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
I want to add "Molecular Weight" to the template, but the template does not have a "Molecular Weight" field, but rather has a "Standard atomic weight" field. So I request to add the "Molecular Weight" field, please ASAP, so that I can start enriching the articles with information. Mohmad Abdul sahibtalk☎talk
Comment I think this question means widening the article scope to include (diatomic) molecules, which then should require say a dedicated section for these substances, next to description ot the element. Or are diatoms (to be) described in separate articles, (cf. allotropes)? -DePiep (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
We already describe them within the article. When you see anything about physical properties in iodine, it is clearly about the bulk solid made up of I2 molecules. This is natural, because that is the standard state of the element, and there aren't any other significant allotropes at standard conditions. Naturally, when there are, we describe them (e.g. Arsenic#Physical characteristics), and maybe sometimes spin it off into a different article (phosphorus, as you mentioned).
On the one hand, this makes sense for the elements with molecular standard states (H2, N2, O2, F2, P4, S8, Cl2, Br2, I2). It could be argued for cases like As4 too. On the other hand, it would literally be a trivial multiplication (to get the molecular weight for I2, just take the atomic weight for I and double it). Double sharp (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Oddly enough, the current Wikipedia article about astatine really says nothing about its state of matter. Last I checked, I assume that it was known with at least some certainty that it was predicted to be a solid at STP. We even make predictions about the state of matter about elements like copernicium, flerovium, and oganesson in their articles... so why not astatine? It seems to be the only outlier among all the element articles on Wikipedia. 2600:1700:D11:930:A899:E5AE:3978:2CF3 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
It's simply because in 2013 it was predicted that condensed At is not diatomic like iodine, but metallic. Which means that the old predicted values would then all be wrong because they were mostly for At2. (And yes, that 302°C value is obviously a prediction. How could one measure it with such a half-life?) Of course common sense would imply that At probably has even higher melting and boiling points than predicted, if it truly is metallic, but no one said it outright. Adding to the conundrum is that the standard melting and boiling point data in those sources contradicts the one experimental indication we have of boiling point. On the other hand Gmelin handbook points out that that there are some issues about how to interpret that data (which I guess makes sense, because somehow this value is lower than the "handbook" one). So, yes it obviously is solid, but so far none of the sources based on the latest predictions have said so, and that's why (unlike Cn, Fl, Og where predictions have said so) we don't say it outright.
That said, the data for Fr is just as sketchy. It's just that I don't have that volume of Gmelin; if I did, I'd probably have excised it already. I suspect even less work has been done on that one, mostly because of (1) more boring chemistry, (2) even shorter half-life, and (3) even greater difficulty in making it. But who knows, maybe I missed something in this backwater. Double sharp (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, the link you provided (which shows Astatine's boiling point ~70 degrees lower than its melting point) reminded me of a book of 1970s, where been told about that Astatine melts harder that it boils, i.e. it exists in gaseous state at 299°C, and transits in liquid at 411°C and at respective vapor pressure (as I understand). Everything of this was marked as calculations based on its neighbors' data in that book. Authors weren't that accurate and mixed boiling and sublimation processes.
However, the Wikipedia article says: "Many values have been predicted for the melting and boiling points of astatine, but only for At2.[citation]" If they all are much higher than 20°C, why not mark Astatine (diatomic) as predicted solid? Tosha Langue (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tosha Langue: Like I said, because At is probably not At2 in the standard state, so values for diatomic astatine might be doubly rather than singly academic. ;) But since obviously metallic At should have an even higher melting point, I take the point that this is perhaps the point where sticking precisely to what is said is a bit pedantic. :) So, okay, back to "solid (predicted)" it goes. Double sharp (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Standard atomic weights of the elements (2021) have now been published in the IUPAC journal Pure and Applied Chemistry
This is not a drill; I repeat, this is not a drill
Hello all,
I'm here to announce that the IUPAC Technical Report "Standard atomic weights of the elements 2021"[1] was officially published online on 4 May 2022. Here's a brief list of the changes that were made:
The changed values of the standard atomic weights of Ar (argon), Hf (hafnium), iridium (Ir), lead (Pb), and ytterbium (Yb) are now definitely official. (I'm quite sure that the standard atomic weights of these elements have already been updated, so we don't need to worry about this.)
Based on the Atomic Mass Evaluation of 2020, the standard atomic weights of F (fluorine), Ho (holmium), Sc (scandium), Tb (terbium), Tm (thulium), and Y (yttrium) have been updated to more accurate values.
The conventional atomic weights have been replaced by abridged standard atomic weights with conservative uncertainties. The abridged standard atomic weights of other elements have also been given conservative uncertainties.
Now, speaking from experience, I'm quite sure that we all don't want another situation like the "Isotope" pages situation (where the relative atomic mass values of the isotopes were, and on many of the articles, still have not been updated from the 2016 values despite being 6 years), so I think we someone should get onto this as soon as possible. Cheers to the atomic weights :D
re "definitely official": what does that mean? : "2017"[2], "2019" (Hf)[3], and "2020" (sic) (Pb)[4] looked serious enough and had no caveat notices. btw, 2017 list 14 elemnts changed, plus two makes 16 changes "2017-2020". And yes, we had them updated right away [24].
Good that today the abridged values are added with these earlier changes; tricky business having to deduct them manually.
Nice to find new dedicated symbol Ar°(E). Only issue left is getting rid of the "Weight" miswording then, really. Can be tiresome having to explain this. Especially when the same people also still want to change the dimensionless (relative) value into a dimensional one, even in the encyclopedia (wikidata, actually).
Glad we are back to the regular, uneven year publishing. Am I the only one that found "2020" to be a, well, weird year?
Anyway thanks for the heads-up. I missed this announcement in my regular visits to CIAAW news locations [25][26].
I'm sorry you found reason to ask for a speedy update. AFAIK, we were very up to date since ~2015 1, [27], [28]. Might not need this fine a point, but the same "6 years" you saw in our wiki isotopes-area, is referred to in the very source you linked to, as in: "2016 AME has been processed". Anyway, we are happy to have the July 2021 CIAAW decisions available this May.
I note that the new data & presentation forms are visible in mainspace, eg the infoboxes here and here, but not here as expected; and in overview here. Main article has been updated including the new symbol), but needs more eyeballs (and the Cu-image is to be updated). Anyway, nice to note to have beaten CIAAW in uncertainty presentation like here :-)
@DePiep: Thanks for the reply! I won't blame you for missing this announcement at the places you linked - I found it by looking at the "Publications" page on the CIAAW website. Let me explain some things in my original comment:
When I said "definitely official", I was thinking about the fact that normally, the standard atomic weights are announced in a paper that is published in the IUPAC's official journal Pure and Applied Chemistry – for example, the current standard atomic weights of Pb (lead) and Ar (argon) were first published in Pure and Applied Chemistry before the changes were announced in press releases by the IUPAC. Either way, there's no excuse not to update them now (which, like I said, have already been updated: nice job).
As for the request for a speedy update, the reason I requested it is connected to the time we first encountered each other on Wikipedia on the "Isotopes of hydrogen" talk page. I was updating the relative atomic masses of the hydrogen isotopes under Isotopes of hydrogen#List of isotopes from AME2016 to AME2020, because somehow, no one had updated them to the 2020 values despite the (relatively long) stretch of time between the release of AME2020 and the time I stumbled onto the page. (I now realise that saying "6 years" in my original comment was incorrect: apologies for that.)
Also, while we're here, I think it would also be a good idea to directly reference the "Standard atomic weights of the elements 2021" paper in the infoboxes next to the standard atomic weight values. IIRC there is some stuff from the IUPAC that addresses why it is still called "standard atomic weight" (because apparently, even some of the newer members of the IUPAC have the same question): I'll try to dig it up for you.
All fine, I'll do these checks @ isotopes. Of course, everyone is welcome to check & update articles. If something is buried deep in templates etc., just ask here or me. I've created & used {{CIAAW2021}}→[5].How to write the symbol for abridged value? "Ar, abridged°(E)", "Ar°(E) (abridged)"?
@DePiep: Actually, yes, there is one thing. I've been poking around in the "Isotopes" pages, and I've found that there's something wrong with the "Standard atomic weight" part of the infobox - {{{abridged}}} is shown instead of the abridged value. As for the symbol for that value, I personally prefer the second one ( (abridged)), but ultimately that's only the opinion of one Wikipedian, and the symbol choice is ultimately somewhat arbitrary anyway.
As for the IUPAC stuff, I found what I was thinking of: it was a PowerPoint from a report summary of a meeting of the IUPAC Subcommittee on Natural Assessment of Fundamental Understanding of Isotopes, which was held at the University of Groningen in 2017. In hindsight, after reading the document it's not very helpful, but I'll link it anyway.
Fixed both issues in Infobox isotopes (eg here). Notation of the abridged quantity: tbd. Current form is verbose; if we want it in-symbol it must be on the lefthand, quantity side (not as a specifaction in the "unit", per SI rules). -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of world production until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elastic properties of the elements (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
I have nominated Iridium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk15:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
There is help needed from the native speekers, I am digging through the references. There is need for somebody will a Holleman Wiberg in english. So, who is still here? I was semi inactive for some while. --Stone (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
early history section of platinum and iridium
Can we simply copy the much better early history of platinum to replace the early history of iridium? The one starts in 1748 while the other states that this is a miss interpretation and starts with a publication in 1557.--Stone (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
So far, the RL world and we use "n/a" ('not applicable') for the unnumbered columns, f-block or re between groups 2/3/4.
I want to get to a welldefined, stable & useful name convention for these, MOS:PERIODICTABLE grade. This also be used internally, e.g. in link-to habits. Kickoff:
[1] "n/a": We use "n/a" ("not applicable") for the unnumbered columns in the f-block.
These are the leftover columns after group 3 is stated in the specific PT context. IOW, it covers no predefined set.
[2] Acceptable synonyms "n.a.", "N.A.", "N/A"? "remaining f-groups", "remaining f-columns"? When needed at all?
[3] "unknown" wording: used when group number is simply unknown. This can involve any group including 1–18 and g/h/..-block elements. "unknown" is defined by/in context only. "unknown" is not a synonym for "the n/a f-block columns".
[4]"Group Ce" can be used to specify a certain column (example case: Ce/Th, cerium/thorium). That is, containing a single lanthanide and a single actinide element (similar to regular top element name as in 'boron group'). Only top element can be used (Ce not Th).
Question: how to indicate that "Group Ce" is a "n/a"-group? Other wordings, like "cerium n/a group", "group Ce-f"?
[5] More elements could be included by definition when the PT is intentionally drawn to include g-block elements etc. For example, "Group Ce" by Pyykkö's also includes E142.
[6] For future/theoretical new columns, e.g. g-block elements not under f-block (like E121): name convention, "g-groups"? "g-group E121"?. Then, also preferably start using "f-.. "?
[7] We should apply "column" and "group" consistentyly. "Column"=tabular, "group"=chemical.
So except for the reserved word status of "n/a" and untying of "unknown", no hard changes are proposed. However, adoptation would imply we should review all instances where this "n/a" is used. Like Infoboxes. Also, future g-block texts should require this clairness (unambiguity). Internally, when handling data & tempaltes, such a stable naming would be welcome—and is required anyway.
@DePiep: I agree that the "n/a" should be removed. They simply don't have a group number. I don't think anyone would understand "group n/a" to be a synonym of "f-block".
There were some proposals to name the f-groups before IUPAC adopted the 1–18 numbering in 1988. Fluck proposed 1f–14f, while the ACS proposed 3f–16f. The latter makes more sense (and Gary Wulfsberg adopts 3F–16F in his 2000 textbook Inorganic Chemistry), but the fact that these systems use "3f" to mean two different things means that we can't seriously use them (and also they're rare and probably hard to recognise; also, how would we distinguish "4f" the orbital from "4f" the group?). I think the only actually accepted way to do it is by the first element: "La group", "Ce group", ..., "Yb group".
Column and group should be the same: being in the same group does not imply that chemical behaviour has to be similar. Hydrogen is in group 1, but it's not an alkali metal: nitrogen is so different from the other elements of group 15 that some authors exclude it from the pnictogens. Placement in the periodic table is about electronics (well, apart from helium), not about chemistry.
As for the g-block, the same thing will work: "Ubu group", "Ubb group", ...
So for maximal clarity, the solution I favour is: "group 1", "group 2", "La group", "Ce group", ..., "Yb group", "group 3", ..., "group 18". In a table, this might be shortened to "1, 2, La, Ce, ..., Yb, 3, ..., 18". Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
LOL I do not want to remove "n/a", I want it to be well-defined, and linkable ;-) We do need a welldefined code/wording for the 14-15 columns we, and RL, label "n/a". No change, just better definition.
What you write about individual groups is usable yes. KImind: when introducing or MOS'ify, prevent all ambiguity full stop.
Sure, naming "Group Ce" or "Ce group" serves well. Only used in detailing texts though. I do not propose to actually label every f-column separately (except for detailed, on-topic texts).
When shortening, we cannot skip using brackets I guess "(f-Ce)" , "[f-12]", .. since it is not established in RL.
It would be nice of our solution would be stable/consistend wrt the 14 or 15 f-columns that can legally appear. At least note it?: "n/a14-cols", "n/a15-cols" (would help me surely)
Then, column≠group. I repeat: column≠group. For example, former Group VIII has three columns. In this case: "group n/a" has 14 or 15 columns. DePiep (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep:Pre-1988, column≠group, as evidenced by "group VIII" indeed. But now they are the same. "Group n/a" is not a group that spans the whole f-block: it is not even a thing. Really, you will not find this label IRL (or at least not in the journal articles I've been reading about f-elements.) The groups there are La-Ac, Ce-Th, ..., Yb-No. Just like the d-block groups are Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, Ti-Zr-Hf-Rf, ..., Zn-Cd-Hg-Cn. The only difference is that the d-block groups have numbers and the f-block groups don't. So you can call Sc-Y-Lu-Lr "the scandium group" or "group 3", but for La-Ac the only name is "the lanthanum group".
Admit, IRL common caption is "<blank>" (e.g., Scerri passim). Which is utterly useless for what we need here. Say, in IB like at cerium. I find "Cerium has no IUPAC group number, but one can informally use 'cerium group'" up for improval. Plus, it could use a wikilink target. DePiep (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: Yes, "unnumbered f-block groups" is a correct descriptive phrase. I'm on my phone now, so it's hard to check, but IIRC the IUPAC Red Book says explicitly that you can refer to groups by their first element, so that's strictly speaking not even informal. Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: The specific passage from the Red Book is on p. 51: If appropriate for a particular purpose, the various groups may be named from the first element in each, for example elements of the boron group (B, Al, Ga, In, Tl), elements of the titanium group (Ti, Zr, Hf, Rf), etc.Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Obvious, OK.
And what is the wording/code/name for the range of groups we now label "n/a"? "blank" is not useful. "unknown" is generic. In the future, we (and RL) might need some notation form to differentiate subsets like g, f. DePiep (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: No labels given; they're left blank. Clarified in this 2009 article in Chemistry International about the group labels: Fig. 2 (which is exactly {{Compact periodic table}} without the block colouring and not yet named Cn–Og) is captioned "Figure 2. A long, long form of the periodic table which retains the approved 1–18 Group numbering but omits any individual group designation for the lanthanoids and actinoids". Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: It does not seem that IUPAC has approved any labels for the groups of the f-block. However, since the Red Book 2005 allows for naming groups by first elements and does not exclude the f-block groups, presumably the most officially accepted way to do so is to call them "La group", "Ce group", "Pr group", etc. I guess we could collectively call them the unnumbered f-block groups.
For the g-block groups, I couldn't find any information, probably because none have been discovered and IUPAC hasn't said anything about what the 8th row should look like. Presumably they could be called the unnumbered g-block groups, or they could be called the "E121 group", "E122 group", "E123 group", etc. Double sharp (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Already five posts ago: "What you write about individual groups is usable yes". Question is about multi-column sets as in § Group names, between "2" and "3" (currently having "n/a"). Please do not start about single-column group names like "thorium group" again.
I'm a bit worried about writing "cerium group" and similar in articles because some such names also have meanings that are more like "platinum group", i.e. not a vertical column, but grouping together some similar elements, e.g. "praseodymium group" used historically as meaning Pr, Nd, and Pm. Similarly "cerium group" and "terbium group" here or "ytterbium group" here, again not meaning the columns. So I would classify them as something like "iron group": by "first-element names" they should mean something, but in practice they often mean something else, so it's best not to use them. Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The other thing to note is that the f-block groups all have just two elements each, so there's little need to refer to them in text. One doesn't ever really need to say "gadolinium group" when "gadolinium and curium" is just one extra word. Also, elements in the same f-block column can often be quite different in chemical behaviour; so just like how hydrogen is often discussed separately from the other group 1 elements (and "alkali metal" even excludes hydrogen), one would not normally discuss neodymium and uranium together, except to discuss how different they are. Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
re "cerium group" -- ok then, so not to be used for column. Or, allow when explicitly clarified in context. But canonise them as "iron-like group" is too much of a stretch. After all it is by IUPAC recommendation, and also "iron-group" is adding to the confusion. Is there any other solution for discussing such a column, from RL?
re "little need" -- well, if an article is not about such a column, then don't use that wording sure (we have some 6.5M articles like that). But "it's only two, you can list them" is not what MOS is about, nor does it refer to the group status it is to address. Number (two) is irrelevant, and anyway g-block could be included too. (Instead, listing is the preferable solution for the "cerium group", above!). Main MOS point still: how to address such a group/column. DePiep (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: We don't even have articles about the f-block or g-block columns, so I suspect that this would end up never being used in practice. I'd suggest listing for every column as the best: "lanthanum and actinium", "cerium and thorium", ..., "thulium and mendelevium", "ytterbium and nobelium". Double sharp (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes that'll be the effect. We should keep in mind that we are writing a MOS here, not articles or talkpages. That means: write do's and don'ts, no unresolved disputes or verbose backgrounds. Is why I bulletised the section: crisp answers expected. So, also, considerations as "won't be used very much" matter little. When actual MOS bulllet is not stable, write like "clarify in the context", or remove altogether. For now, since this MOS section just started, some development is needed. DePiep (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: I added to the MOS: "For the f-block groups (unnumbered in the 1–18 scheme), list the elements explicitly instead of naming by the first element, e.g. ytterbium and nobelium but not ytterbium group. The reasons for this are that many of the expected first-element names have other meanings as rare earth separation groups (see "Non-column groups" below), and that referring to individual f-block groups in the literature is rare (so it's better to be explicit)." Of course, the wording can be improved, but looking at what occurs in sources (lack of standard names, and expected first-element names often meaning other things) this seems to be the only available unambiguous route. Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
By now, this topic has evolved into a stable MOS:PERIODICTABLE § Groups. The specific question re "n/a" & f-block is clarified (and lead to adaptations in Group and Infoboxes (neodynium now says "f-block groups (no number)").
I am working on the status of theoretical elements, their content pages existance, and their templated (automated) presentation. It now simply concerns E119 and higher, incidentally full period 8.
Expect the status & article creation to change when major developments in RL occur (for example, element discovery, or an early claim to).
As of 4 Jan 2023[update], conforms MOS:no new elements (no idle pages created; redirects for element names only)
Uue–Uoq (E119–E184) each have an article page by their systematic name. That is 66 article page. Six of these are content pages (articles), and 58 are a redirect.
R: Redirects are non-content pages. Treated as non-existant page.
E172 would be the end of period 8 ("noble gas") and E173 would be the beginning of period 9.
@DePiep: I don't see any need to bother with such a limbo-period. When JINR claimed element 117 in 2010, it was pretty much accepted as being discovered in the literature immediately. Just not "officialised" by IUPAC/IUPAP yet. Similar things happened for 113 and 115. In general, by the time IUPAC and IUPAP sign their approval, pretty much everybody agrees that the element has been discovered, even if some might like stricter standards of proof (as happened for Mc and Ts). So I'd say that once a discovery is reported by RIKEN or JINR or anybody else of 119, we can add it to our periodic tables. For evidence, see the version of the element 118 article that passed FA back in 2008, or the version of the element 115 article that passed GA back in 2014. Just saying in the lede and body that IUPAC+IUPAP have not officialised it is enough, IMHO. (BTW, based on the new post-2020 criteria for element discovery, the procedure for official approval should be faster than it was before: see section 7.2, in particular the phrase In order to accelerate the process of recognition.)
True, there was the Ninov saga when 116 and 118 were discovered and then undiscovered when it turned out that the data had been faked – but if memory serves well, in 1999 it was mostly considered a discovery anyway (it certainly seemed convincing based on what was presented), and the doubt only came in later as nobody could reproduce the results. If such a thing ever happens again (and I doubt it – once bitten, twice shy), it will certainly be in keeping with RS practice to mark it as discovered and then revise it as information comes out. Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@DePiep: Agree with Double sharp. I'd only explicitly describe "claims" if the authors cast doubt on their own results.
This would be similar to what we did a few years ago with E120, but ideally with a stronger claim if such a middle ground exists between "possible assignment/correlation of these events" and "discovery". Regarding the Ninov saga, some basic chemistry books I borrowed from a library many years ago included E114 (288), E116 (289), and E118 (293) with no indications of then being unconfirmed; of course, now we know that 288114 was really 289114 and the other two were fabricated, but everything ranging from those books to textbooks (?) changed their PTs based only on this.
For clarification: the initial signs of 120 at GSI were never actually put forward as a claim by them. So we followed the RS and did not call it a discovery, just an unconfirmed thing. Likewise, we never put it on the PT. Since then another analysis concluded that it was probably not real, which is how we treat it now at Unbinilium. But of course, that's very different from how 117 was announced in its 2010 discovery paper: in that situation when a discovery is claimed, I agree with putting it up.
And yes, I remember seeing 288114, 289116, and 293118 at the top end of the PT before. I can't recall off the top of my head when that finally faded. The actual discovery of 118 at JINR had a bit of a weird announcement anyway: it was first only reported internally in 2002 (the year the Ninov stuff was retracted), before being published in a journal in 2005 when they had more atoms. I'd personally have been fine with calling it discovered in 2002 (IIRC, the TWG considered such internal publications), but there'd certainly be room for discussion should something like that recur. Double sharp (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
OK then. Thanks all, another fine overview. This time about the discovery traject. We'll freeze this for future reference (building a talkpage library). DePiep (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
At the moment, we bg-color all cells by block. Should we use different color for theoretical ones? Especiallly their predicted block (is not the same as predicted isotope).
@DePiep: For 119 and 120, s-block membership is straightforward and obvious. For 121, it follows essentially from the group 3 decision that it should be a g-element (maybe Umemoto and Saito 1996 can be interpreted as calling 121 and 122 p-elements, but it is not stated explicitly). Beyond 138 there is a real disagreement, but it will take a long while to get there: by the time we do, there's probably going to be less disagreement, so there is no real reason to try to solve that problem now based on the incomplete data we have.
In general, there's a tradition to not worry about theoretical vs empirical concerns when it comes to assigning elements to blocks, as long as the element is actually discovered: nobody uncolours Mt to Og even though electron configurations are only known till Hs per NIST. Block membership seems to be rather inherent in where you put elements on the PT (and this is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for saying that today, putting new elements on the PT has little to do with chemistry, in my opinion: there is zero experimentally known Og chemistry). Uncolouring rather seems to imply that the element has not even been discovered yet: WebElements did not colour in 117 until 2010 (visible in this clip from Periodic Videos). This accords with our current convention in {{Navbox element isotopes}}.
I'd also say that recoloring is not really necessary. The main source of disagreement is how the blocks themselves are structured, such as how many elements go in the g-block and what happens in period 9 (if we ever get that far). Similarly, already in known elements, we see anomalous chemistry despite a firm block placement, so at least for the beginning of period 8, our current color scheme should still be appropriate. Bizarre would be an understatement for 8s filling somewhere other than E119 and E120, and indeed the literature is in unison for their placement as 8s elements. Complex/Rational15:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think there have yet been enough calculations to be truly certain about the structure of the later parts of the 8th period. (Given the difficulties in getting that far up by experiment, and thus in actually confirming any such calculations, it will probably take some time for enough calculations to appear!) However, there apparently isn't much if any disagreement up to 138 anymore, which settles all the elements we are likely to have articles on in the foreseeable future. So, I would say: colour elements in as they are discovered (so if 122 comes before 121, colour in 122 but not 121); 119–120 are s-block and 121–138 (at least) are g-block; and just check every so often to see what the latest theories are in RS. By the time going past 138 is an actual issue, the theoreticians should hopefully have more of a consensus.
A discovery of 121 would in any case cause significant ramifications for the PT, because it would suddenly mean that both an f-block footnote and a g-block footnote are needed, making the IKEA assembly even more complicated. For this graphic design issue I can only agree with the same sentiment that applies generally across all of WP: when the time comes, look at what RS do. No point speculating before they come. Double sharp (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with your decision. No pages currently use these templates, and Ubt, Ubp and Ubo are currently not notable. What shall I tag them as in WP:SPEEDY? 141Pr09:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with deletion, as they simply aren't used. There is a draft (mostly written by CR) for 123 at User:Double sharp/Unbitrium, but even there the infobox is coded in the draft (not as a template). Even in that case there is not enough content that wouldn't be mindless duplication (only one article AFAIK focuses on 123), and for 125, 127, and 128 there would be even less.
Of course, recreation in the future is a possibility, but likely not until 119 and 120 are found. Cross-sections should be so much worse past 120 (according to recent calculations) that I wonder if even the SHE Factory will be enough, so there's no point behind any of these templates right now.
(What a contrast given early predictions all the way to Fricke in the 1970s that went into quite large amounts of detail up to 120, that we still don't have. Whereas now predictions fall into an abyss not far from our current limit.) Double sharp (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. This is only about "content" pages, i.e., those aimed at Public Readers. A regular element has six! Testcases, sandboxes, userspaces, drafts: no problem. DePiep (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Same for article pages Isotopes of unbitrium R (E123), Isotopes of unbipentium R (E125), Isotopes of unbiseptium R (E127): meaningless, page secondary to non-existant main article for that element. No use in Ridirect. (And btw, wrong target now, should be E-article#Isotopes.)
I deleted all the pages mentioned above; happy to restore them whenever they're needed. I too am somewhat surprised that no more substantial predictions have been made since I did extensive research back in 2018, outside of theoretical decay modes. Complex/Rational15:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. FYI: this section is aimed at enwiki-techicals: does the Article Exists or Not? eg to automate the Infoboxes for period 8 (hide redlinks "Isotopes of E120"). RL reseach & discoveries topics may be better received when elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
.svg)
.svg)
Resolved
Template:Extended periodic table (by Nefedov, 54 columns, compact cells) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
I have saved the PT in my userspace, in case it be needed in the future, about extensions & structures. At User:DePiep/PT/PT Extended (Nefedov, 54 col, compact, G3-LuLr). -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Done via a new redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pionic atom and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#Pionic atom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Not done