Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

This section is to wind down this talkpage, WT:ELEM.

Last year many threads were started, often handling multiple topics and intertwined with other threads; also often no stable consensus was reached. The WP community has concluded that the discussions were not always performed to the best of Wikipedia. Also, the sheer volume of this page (at this moment, 700k in 100+ TOC lines) requires some organised slimming down to regain a workable situation.

How to proceed? Some thoughts:

Idea 1: The WT:ELEM existing TOC is frozen per Jan 5 2020. Refactoring can only be done after explicit consensus. (A not good idea. We are serious grown-up wiki-editors. -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC))Reply

Adding well-considered (sub)threads is OK, please think beforehand (community-serving, on-topic, useful next step, no doubling)

Idea 2: Per main thread (section level ==) we try to decide a conclusion. Could be?: Keep open/Close & archive/Split/Archive & reopen anew/...

Idea 3: Keep posts short. TL;DR only should do (without the 'TL;DR').

Idea 4: Some topics may deserve their own discussion, continued or renewed. Then, a new ==-start is appropriate? For example: Article Periodic table, Chemical categorisation, Colors of categories, Group 3. (Some may be considered closed just as well).

Idea 5: Action proposal: Shall we open a subthread per toplevel section (15) here, to meta-discuss its future?

-DePiep (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Goal is to reach, for each section, a conclusion like: Keep open/Archive/Split into X, Y/Move to page X/Discuss section by itself/.

I propose to use, per section, a talk setup following "Comment, Proposal(s), Vote".

After one week, conclusions & effects may be drawn. (Jan 13 then).

pings

@YBG, Double sharp, ComplexRationale, and R8R: -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ComplexRational: fix & reping -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EdChem: -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Question: Is there a need or use for a compilation of threads about our, ahem, discussing WP:ELEM discussions? Like, a list having Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § WP:NOTAFORUM and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 56 § Too Bold? Alternatively, when in archive, we could list a permanent link. My first thought: no, no separate list, just archive as is. -DePiep (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Conclusion: No, no need. btw, archive search on "2020" or "2021" can help to find recent discussions. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here are the WT:ELEM main sections as of 20:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC) [1] (level ==, page is 732k bytes).

• 1. § Interesting publications

  Done See Archive 58. Thanks for all your contributions. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 2. § Interesting publications, with discussion

BTW, Section was renamed into '(2020)': § Interesting publications, with discussion (2020) (usefully, & with anchor). -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Done See Archive 58, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 58 § Interesting publications, with discussion (2020) -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § Group 3

  Done See Archive 55: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § Group 3. Thanks for all contributions to this topic. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 4. § Colouring scheme

Renamed section title into § Colouring scheme (2020, Nov–Dec) [2], to help archive searching. Old name kept in an anchor.

  Done [3], see Archive 57. Thanks for your contributions yall. -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 5. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 56 § Organising the nonmetals

  Done [4] See Archive 56 § Organising_the_nonmetals. -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 6. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § Element articles, untangling

  Done See Archive 55: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § Element articles, untangling. Thanks for all contributions to this topic. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 7. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 56 § Isotope page improvements

  Done [5] See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 56 § Isotope page improvements. Thanks for all your contributions. -DePiep

[6]

• 8. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § Use of sources at WP:ELEM

  Done [7] See Archive 55: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § Use of sources at WP:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 9. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 56 § Launch of revamped 2010 category scheme

  Done [8]

• 10. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § Splitting the p-block

  Done [9] See Archive 55 . Continue at § Splitting the p-block (2021). Thanks for all your contributions. -DePiep (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 11. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § WP:NOTAFORUM

  Done See Archive 55: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55 § WP:NOTAFORUM. Thanks for all contributions to this topic. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 12. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 57 § Periodic table article

  Done.

Created § Periodic table article (2021)

Subthreads moved into this thread: § Consenus requests, § ELEM future plans (re PT article)

Archived in Archive 57 # Periodic table article (2020) [10]. -DePiep (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 13. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 57 § WP:ANI (26-12-2020)

  Done. See Archive 57 § WP:ANI (26-12-2020). -DePiep (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 14. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 57 § Archiving old threads

  Done. Now in Archive 57. Thanks for the contributions. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 15. § Helium over beryllium

  Done.§ Helium over beryllium moved to below this thread. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 16. § WT:ELEMENTS: winding down

I think this task-&-section has reached its purpose: clean up the WT:ELEM talkpage (say, 2020 topics & threads) nicely and gently. Respecting all contributions & contributors, without blaming. I tried to keep all topics searchable, including the /Archives; sometimes by adding the 2020/2021 annum split. Thanks for your contributions. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Table of nuclides (segmented, narrow) hasn't been updated since 2019, until I added a number of neutron-rich nuclei from Sr to Ru. It has even fallen behind the lists in Category:Lists of isotopes by element. The data in the table is contained within Template:Isotones. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I cannot reply to this specific Q. But we could use a taskforce Isotopes.

About handling ~3500 items: Wikidata looks like a good friend. Someone added all recent AME and NUBASE data into there! -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

LaundryPizza03, it certainly does need to be kept up to date. Have you checked if its main editors are still active? As for working with Wikidata, that sounds sensible in theory but the amount I know in practice is virtually nil, so I am not the editor to do it. EdChem (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The top editor was ProDuct0339 (talk · contribs), who last edited in April 2017. We also have Quilbert (talk · contribs), who edits sporadically in English and German. Try contacting Kwamikagami (talk · contribs), Reyk (talk · contribs), or Greg L (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Recent discussions (2020):

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 56#Organising the nonmetals (18–25 Nov 2020)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 56#Launch of revamped 2010 category scheme (–30 Nov 2020)

-DePiep (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

That is, Metal – Metalloid – Nonmetal

See the current category representations:

We consider the 3-category set as a aggregation of the 10-category set. However, since the 2020 introduction of the halogens category, At is altering between metalloid (M-M-NonM set) and halogen (10-category set). How to handle this? Is the altering to be kept?

As a sidenote, a similar question can be asked about the "unknown M-M-NonM elements"; does the removal of 'unknown' classification apply here too? -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

DePiep, just so I am clear, are you asking about for the PT article or a more general use across WP? I'm thinking that we (ELEM / previous discussions, etc, rather than you and me) have a problem of black-or-white in a world of grey. EdChem (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

re EdChem: This question pertains to the classifications and so would be handled consistently throughout the topic, that is all relevant articles. As always, dedicated articles can have more details and background. -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The usual definition of a halogen (which seems to be taken by everybody except superheavy specialists) does not actually care about metallicity, only about being in group 17. So there is no contradiction. It does mean that anything that puts "halogen" as a subset of "nonmetal" is strictly speaking wrong. R8R recently raised this at #Other metal and other nonmetal; maybe that thread should be split and put down at the bottom for visibility.

I am sceptical about whether At should be coloured at all by metallicity instead of being left unknown, but if it has to be, metalloid is probably best. Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: The inconsistency (or break in consistency) is that by introducing halogens this way, ELEM articles have left the notion of subcategorising the three metallicity categories, and introduces systematically overlapping categories. That is leaving the YBG setup of good classification criteria. Also, saying "halogen does not actually care about metallicity" is illustrating the same problem, plus that it adds one more puzzle to the "Other nommetals" descriptive name. NB Declaring At 'unknown' does not nullify this [11]. -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: Well such a notion was not exactly consistent in RS anyway. I have probably explained this, but categories were always meant by RS to just unify elements that act similarly. There was never any idea that they would be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. And different categories are more relevant in different circumstances: the circumstances in which "pnictogen", "chalcogen", "halogen" are cared about are rather different from those in which metallicity matters. I don't think anyone is that confused by Russia being culturally European, but geographically cutting deep into Asia...

This said, I think this does constitute a good argument for what R8R seems to be in favour of below: just stick to the blocks for a simple categorisation, and leave all other categories to text (not colours). Those are at least clear. Double sharp (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whom I could ask about this now, but it seems I finally remembered why I didn't like categories named "other metal" and "other nonmetal."

In the infobox for aluminium, the category field now says, "other metal, yada yada". We never learned by that point other than what. "Post-transition metal" had some meaning in it, "other metal" has nothing. This is not so much a problem when other categories are present, but without them, this name is meaningless, and it seems nobody (including me) has thought this through and meaning cannot be easily obtained from the context in some cases. Would it make sense to return to any previous coloring scheme that doesn't have these meaningless names?--R8R (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: I'm glad to be able to ping somebody who has participated in the discussion that resulted in that name; I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on this if you could.--R8R (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@R8R: Guess what, I don't like it either. Problem is that there isn't a standard name for the category and I feel that giving one is just UNDUE. Should it be "post-transition metal", "poor metal", "B subgroup metal", etc.? The best solution I can think of is for the infobox to just say "metal" instead of "other metal". Double sharp (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: That proposal is not without its disadvantages, too, but let's say we do that. How do we know which element is what? Should metalloids be a thing, for example?

Not to mention that the lead picture in periodic table claims that astatine and tennessine are nonmetals; should we replicate that in the infobox? Should we not, given that they are neither predicted nor observed to behave as such? If not, should we not remove that claim from periodic table? If we should, do we simply scrap the metal-nonmetal division in that picture or rethink the whole categorization?--R8R (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@R8R: I also think we should not say At and Ts are nonmetals. And indeed, what you say is why I originally would have preferred a scheme in which only blocks are coloured, and everything else is given only in text: because nothing else is actually agreed between sources, and we don't know which element is what, because the categories were never meant by anyone to be mutually exclusive or jointly exhaustive. So you'd colour Ts as "p-block" and its infobox would say under "categories": "halogen, predicted to be post-transition metal, sometimes counted as metalloid". And Al could say "sometimes considered post-transition metal [see other names for similar categories], sometimes considered metalloid". And Se could say "chalcogen, either metalloid or nonmetal". Finally Cn could say "experimental results inconclusive, usually considered a transition metal; post-transition metal under other definitions; depending on calculations, may not be a metal but rather a semiconductor or a noble liquid". I still think that that is the best way to avoid this kind of problem. It also nicely solves the WP:A11Y problem on the grounds of leaving only four colours rather than ten.

But you may recall that me trying to push that led to a big fight with Sandbh, which is why I decided: okay, a compromise is better. If everyone left is for "blocks only" in this way, then OK, we can change it. Otherwise I prefer not to stir up the hornet's nest. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, I like your logic, and I am for it. In principle, I am open to different ways to resolve this problem; I simply don't want to keep claiming that At and Ts are nonmetals when they are neither predicted nor observed to act as such. This solution would work. I suggest we do that unless opposition emerges within a week.

For the record, I did want to raise this problem as mislabeling At and Ts sooner or later anyway.--R8R (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Section move? On (re) organising this page. It appears to me, by date order (18 Nov–20 Nov 2020) and by participants (Sandbh, Double sharp), that this thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 56 § Organising the nonmetals precedes the more concluding § Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Launch of revamped 2010 category scheme (30 Nov 2020, also considered closed).

I therefor propose:

1. Move this newer section (by User:R8R) into new ==-thread, say, "Discussion the new chemical Categorisation" (keep name & sublevel); BTW, I use 'Chemical', as opposite to 'Coloring').

2. Archive the thread that stopped 20 Nov. -DePiep (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Done Section moved in § The chemical categorisation (2021) [12] [13].

A week has passed, and no comments, let alone objections, have been raised on this issue. I will therefore change the coloring scheme to blocks only.

We'll need six colors: red for the s-block, yellow for the p-block, blue for the d-block, green for the f-block, purple for the g-block, and light gray for the unknown category. We already use the first four of these, and we'll need the other two just in case rather than because I can envision a use for them at the moment.

I'll change the infobox. Hopefully images will follow later.--R8R (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have recolored many periodic tables. I hope I didn't miss anything.

Most infoboxes currently don't mention any element categories, like transition metals or halogens. They can be added manually on a per-case basis. For this purpose, I have added a new parameter |categories= to {{Infobox element}}. It is also meant to supersede the existing parameter |category comment=.--R8R (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since this has been done (I do not object), I have done some image replacements. Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Based on what appears to be a total lack of opposition, and some strong arguments from myself, R8R, and DePiep that the 2020 compromise scheme had problems, R8R seems to have resolved the discussion into a change to a blocks-only scheme. This is shown to the right: red = s-block, yellow = p-block, blue = d-block, green = f-block. As already expressed, this avoids any sign of overlapping subcategories: every element is unambiguously assigned to exactly one block.

One note.

Group 3. The block assignment of four elements is contingent on the group 3 dispute in sources: La, Ac, Lu, and Lr. Currently we show a La-Ac group 3, so the first two are d-block but the last two are f-block. When the IUPAC thing comes out in a month, this may change. (In a Lu-Lr group 3 it would be of course the other way round.) So I have been a bit lazy about getting things completely consistent now because there is a significant possibility we will need to change things again shortly. And also because I have a lot of RL stuff to do, to be fair.

R8R and I have done some changes of pictures and templates; anyone should be welcome to do any we have missed. If you think that we should not have changed some particular one, then by all means, revert and inform us, and we can discuss. I am saddened to see below that R8R appears to have left, but I am contactable here still and should respond within a week.

Unless anyone has anything else to say, I think this discussion can be archived as finished. Remaining WP:A11Y issues should probably be discussed in another thread; I guess they will be fewer now that there are only four colours. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

For starters, you are not top speedily "archive" and bury this discussion. As you know, I already protested the process of enfoprcing an outcome applied, and one might assume that that should be looked at. Also, in an unpleasant strike of reasoning, you Ds here introduce my notes on problems with the 2020 categorisation scheme, as advocacy for this change. In short, please do speak for yourself. As a complicating twist, I can note that R8R knew I was working on solutions (because I informed him [14]), and so this action by R8R was willingly bypassing & shortcuttng these efforts in cooration & improvement while enforcing an outcome not fleshed out. No less important I want to note that this very same process of enforing "bold", undiscussed edits (undiscussed as in: mentioned maybe somewhere, concluded no let alone consensus sought & found), such undiscussed editing in mainspace was the pattern that brought the PT article down, had two editors left in frustration and had to one editor with difficulty explained that this was not the good WP contributing way. After all, EdChem's critique on the article was used as an argument to make huge and many "bold" edits (again: undiscussed)—without regarding that very critique, i.o.w. as a false argument. In the end the backchamber dealing bit you in the tail too didn't it?

The point is, Double sharp, that one cannot support such a tactic when it suits you, and next time complain when there are problems equally easily fllowing from it. The same problematic situations that arose in November wrt ArbCom, and at Christmas will reappear if editors do not commit to basic editing processes. -DePiep (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

For clarity, I add this about the prime source disappointment: the thread is named § Other metal and other nonmetal, OP about ... categories named "other metal" and "other nonmetal.". That is: (chemical) categorisation. The then thread deviating to a totally different topic, in a 700k page, is part of the lack of talkpage discipline/discussion management in this Wikiproject I have mentioned before. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: Well, I'm ready to ask you then what you think we should have done. R8R wrote here over a week ago "I suggest we do that unless opposition emerges within a week", and there wasn't such opposition. Since he did it and nobody objected, I just edited an image and did a few replacements. I wrote a summary conclusion here, since there appeared to be no objections, and because R8R is not here to do it himself anymore. Should I have done that differently? Double sharp (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: We, including you, could have strived for a more thorough discussion, well-performed in any sense. One could ask oneself: did I, recently?

In short(yes): the "proposal" (or idea) was buried in the aftermath of some huge discussions about WP:ELEM (including this Talkpage & its Members; then 740k). Its section title is § Other metal and other nonmetal, i.e. straight Periodic Table Categories talk (about the 6-week old overhauled version Nov 30, 2020 made by you after an obscure discussion).

Later, the topic of that Jan 6 topic in a few posts completely moved away from its title and from the WP:ELEM:Category setup. It included dropping the Category concept completely (btw it ended up corrupting & breaking our template setup [15]). This is "conclusion" and "consensus"? Astonishing that you do not see the problem in this.

Now this is just a recent example (with consequences). Last six months there have been more examples. I am surprised that you wonder just now what went wrong just yesterday? As I wrote above, Ds, if there is no self-criticism to discussion & editing process, the pattern is to repeat itself. IOW, if you use a hidden diff to prove your point, then don't complain if other editors do complain with/without reversal. I also noted that it might fly in your own face (which is not important for WP, but does illustrate the problematic nature of hidden 'consensus'). For myself, I can note that I worked last weeks to the winding down of this tumultuous page. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep and EdChem: Please be advised that EdChem asked me tidy of these requests for consensus, by dividing them up into the proposal, followed by the rationale, and the discussion, or the like.[16] I said it would be OK for EdChem to do so. As he has not got a round toit, I'll now do so. Sandbh (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Sandbh... I just came to do it, and now have time to comment instead.  :) EdChem (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: To rearrange the Periodic trends and patterns section of the periodic table article, as follows:

3	Periodic trends and patterns  
        Current                       Proposed
3.1	Electron configuration        Metallic character
3.2	Atomic radii                  Atomic radii
3.3	Ionization energy             Ionization energy
3.4	Electronegativity             Electron affinity
3.5	Electron affinity             Electronegativity
3.6	Metallic character            Electron configuration

Rationale: My reasoning is that vertical and horizontal trends are the most important trends and they are explained in the Metallic character section. Mingos (1998) thus allocates 185 pages to the modern use of vertical, horizontal and diagonal trends originally highlighted by Mendeleev.

I'll address diagonal trends in my next consensus request.

After that, Atomic radii is the most important trend. As Atkins (2019) wrote:

"The periodic table and the concept of the elements of education inspires all manner of other thoughts. One is the desert-island thought: if you were asked to identify the central elemental concept summarized by the periodic table which, with you isolated on a conceptual desert island and asked to set about rationalizing chemistry, what would it be? My choice would be atomic radius. In molecular biology a common precept is that shape determines function, with shape interpreted as including size, I think that the same maxim applies in the less elaborate region of chemistry. Atomic radius correlates with ionization energy and electron affinity, and thus it correlates with much of the energetics of bond formation. Atomic radius controls perhaps even more than simple energetics the numbers and arrangements of bonds that an element can form, and so is central to considerations of bonding and the formation and stereochemistry of compounds.

"Atomic radius plays a crucial role in the mechanisms of reactions, both in organic and inorganic chemistry, especially in the formation of intermediates and transition complexes. Atomic radius plays a role in the arrangement of electrons around nuclei, as well as that arrangement affecting the radius. When the elements form compounds, the sizes of the constituent atoms affect the size of the molecules and through that size (and the underlying aspects of the energetics of electron excitation, itself size-dependent) the intermolecular forces that determine the physical properties of the compounds. It is hard, in fact, to identify a property that cannot, with sufficiently deep probing, correlate in some way with atomic radius."

Then come ionization energy, electron affinity, and electronegativity, as these are correlated with metallic or nonmetallic character (Yoder et al. 1975). Electronegativity is the third property in this triad as it is a unit-less property.

Electron configuration is last as there is no clear line of sight between the properties of an element and its electron configuration. As Jensen (2015) brilliantly wrote:

"Though there are many misconceptions concerning the nature and function of the periodic law and table, perhaps the most prevalent among modern chemists is the belief that the periodic table is nothing more than an electron configuration table. While there is certainly a significant correlation between electron configurations and chemical periodicity, the correlation is, as already noted, far from perfect. The increasing prevalence of irregular configurations among the d- and f-block elements, the increasing lack of correlation between minor irregularities in these configurations and actual chemical behavior, and the ever present empirical question of how to properly divide an atom’s configuration into the chemically relevant categories of valence versus core, all require a careful balancing of both chemical and physical evidence rather than an appeal to authority and a naive, and apparently arbitrary, freshman [sic] chemistry application of spectroscopic atomic ground states."

References

• Atkins P 2019, "Elements of education," Chemistry International, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 4–7, doi:10.1515/ci-2019-0404
• Jensen WB 2015, "The positions of lanthanum (actinium) and lutetium (lawrencium) in the periodic table: an update", Foundations of Chemistry, vol. 17, pp. 23–31, doi:10.1007/s10698-015-9216-1
• Mingos DMP 1998, Essential trends in inorganic chemistry, Oxford University Press, Oxford
• Yoder CH, Suydam FH & Snavely FA 1975, Chemistry, 2^nd ed., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, p. 78

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

• No, not now. For example: how is this #3 section conceived? As we know, the overal reconstruction of periodic table is under wider consideration. It also might loose it's FA   status. By the way, Sandbh, since you have time to edit could you reply to my serious request, here: [17]? -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

DePiep: I explained how #3 section is conceived, above. This proposal will have no impact on the overall reconstruction of the article. Yes, the longer it takes to fix the PT article the more likely it is to lose its star. It has lost its star before, and regained it, a process in which I played a part (a key part according to either StringTheory11, or Nergaal, I forget which one). Sandbh (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: To reinstate a short Diagonal relationships section to the Periodic trends and patterns section of the periodic table article, just after the Metallicity section, as follows:

Diagonal relationships

Diagonal relationships in the periodic table are seen between elements including lithium and magnesium; beryllium and aluminium; and boron and silicon. Such relationships were recognized by both Mendeleev and Newlands, from as early as 1860.^[1] They are, in some ways:

"…a general attribute of the properties of the chemical elements. For example, the metal-nonmetal divide forms an almost diagonal demarcation."^[2]

Mingos counts diagonal relationships as one of the three patterns that characterise the periodic table, along with vertical and horizontal trends.^[3]

References

Notes

Rationale: In revising this sub-section I have taken into account concerns previously expressed by Double sharp. Thus, 1. Al is shown in two places: shaded over Sc and non-shaded over Ga. The caption text explains what is going on. 2. The most common diagonal relationships are in bold, the rest of them are in ordinary font. 3. I moved some of the caption text into a footnote, in order to reduce the size of the caption. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

• No, not convinced, not fit for the article. Sure, "the metal-nonmetal divide forms an almost diagonal demarcation" exists, but that is only the easiest diagonal, the metalloids. And even then this diagonal is not scientifically clarified (not in the source's intro). I say: fringe. Better be not in this article, possibly in a detailing article (like PT detail issues). By the way, Sandbh, since you have time to edit could you reply to my serious request, here: [18]? -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: As reverted by DePiep[19], I propose to reinstate a short summary, in the History section, of what happened between the popularity of Deming's 1923 18-column table and the rise of the modern form, as follows:

Deming's table had B-Al over Sc in group 3, rather than over Ga in group 13. This configuration, which dates back to 1893,^[1] was also adopted by Rydberg (1913) and Pauling (1970, 1988).^[2] Seaborg (1945) published a periodic table with Al over Sc and Ga. With the further development of quantum theory, (B)-Al over Sc came to be deprecated.^{[3][n 1]}

Notes

References

Rationale: To fill in a missing piece of history. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

The external links in this proposal (such as to a meta-synthesis.com PT) should be notes or references. Was Pauling really using a B - Al - Sc table in 1988, 45 years after it was deprecated? Or was this just for a single purpose in the book and a more typical table elsewhere? EdChem (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: To reinstate a short Oxidation number trends section to the Periodic trends and patterns section of the periodic table article, just before the Metallicity section, as follows:

Mendeleev compared the chemical properties of the elements by comparing their oxides and hydrides. He selected hydrogen and oxygen for this purpose due to their reactivity and their capacity to form compounds with most of elements. ^[1]

The accompanying image shows the pattern of oxides going from left to right across the periodic table (R = reactant) and the trends going down each column.^[2][3]

References

Rationale: In terms of relevance, oxidation number trends are Chemistry 101.

In making this proposal I have simplified the accompany text. The image has been improved, and streamlined.

--- Sandbh (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

I really don't understand this PT. Iron, for example, has its common oxides as FeO, Fe
₂O
₃, and Fe
₃O
₄. Ferrate(VI) is not its most stable form yet the text for the yellow suggests to me that it is. Similarly in the halogens, F does not form compounds in a +7 state. Isn't gold most stable in oxidation state 0, being a noble metal and found typically in elemental form or as Au / Ag alloys? Oxidation number trends certainly are basic chemistry but this presentation of them is confusing me. Also, Zn, most stable ON is its group number (12)? And 13 for Al, B? EdChem (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: to improve the Metallic character section of the article, from what it is now, to this:

Metallic to nonmetallic progression

Going across the periodic table there is a progression from active to less active metals, and from less active to more active nonmetals, concluding with the noble gases.^[1]

"Active" metals then, which include the alkali metals, are mostly strongly electropositive metals, with a few of the actinoids being only moderately electropositive.^[2] The transition metals are, for the most part, moderately to weakly electropositive in nature.^[3] Several other transition metals are chemically very weak (or noble), like platinum, with these representing the noble metals. Most of the other metals such as tin and bismuth, are chemically weak.^{[4][n 1]}

It has been know for over 120 years that the metalloids behave predominately like chemically weak nonmetals.^[5] The other nonmetals are neither as reactive as the halogens nor as chemically restrained as the weakly nonmetallic metalloids.^[6] For the noble gases, they have their counterparts in the noble metals.^[7]

The metallic to metallic progression is seen in values of ionization energy, electron affinity and electronegativity. The lower the values, the more metallic character the element has; conversely the higher the values the more nonmetallic character an element has.^[8]

Metallic character further tends to increase going down a group (or column or family), with some irregularities (mostly) due to poor screening of the nucleus by d and f electrons, and relativistic effects^[9]. Thus, the most metallic elements (such as caesium) are found at the bottom left of traditional periodic tables and the most nonmetallic elements (such as neon) at the top right. The combination of horizontal and vertical trends in metallic character explains the stair-shaped dividing line between metals and nonmetals found on some periodic tables, and the practice of sometimes categorizing several elements adjacent to that line, or elements adjacent to those elements, as metalloids.^[10][11]

Notes

References

Rationale: Basic chemistry and literacy. Sandbh (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Proposal: To reinstate a short Groups that bridge blocks section to the Periodic trends and patterns section of the periodic table article, as follows:

Groups that bridge blocks

On the group 12 metals (zinc, cadmium and mercury), Smith^[1] observed that, "Textbook writers have always found difficulty in dealing with these elements." A 2003 survey of chemistry books showed that they were treated as either transition metals or main group elements on about a 50/50 basis.^[2] They are sometimes regarded as linking the d block to the p block. Notionally they are d block elements but they have few transition metal properties and are more like their p block neighbours in group 13.^[3][4] In a like manner, the relatively inert noble gases, in group 18, bridge the most reactive groups of elements in the periodic table—the halogens in group 17 and the alkali metals in group 1.^[4]

Chemically, the group 3 elements, lanthanides, and heavy group 4 and 5 elements show some behaviour similar to the alkaline earth metals^[5] or, more generally, s block metals^[6][7][8] but have some of the physical properties of d block transition metals.^[9]

Meanwhile, lutetium (at the end of the f-block) behaves chemically as a lanthanide (with which it is often classified) but shows a mix of lanthanide and transition metal physical properties (as does yttrium).^[10][11] Lawrencium, as the heavier congener of lutetium, would presumably display like characteristics.^{[n 1]} The coinage metals in group 11 (copper, silver, and gold) are chemically capable of acting as either transition metals or main group metals.^[14]

Notes

References

• Smith DW 1990, Inorganic substances: A prelude to the study of descriptive inorganic chemistry, Cambridge University, Cambridge, ISBN 0-521-33738-0

Rationale:

1. The difficulties presented by Group 12 are commonly mentioned.
2. That the noble gases "bridge" the halogens and the alkali metals is a long-standing theme.
3. The proposed section is structured so that most basic information is presented first, followed by the more advanced content.
4. Content is supported by RS, including introductory textbooks.

--- Sandbh (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

Proposal: To reinstate Theodor Benfey's spiral periodic table to the Alternative tables section of the periodic table article. The colour scheme to be updated to reflect the current scheme.

Rationale:

1. Probably the best known alternative table.
2. The updated eight-column DIM periodic table which is there now, is not really an alternative periodic table.
3. It can go back (in a smaller form) into the History section, which is where R8R originally asked for it to be.

--- Sandbh (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion:

Proposal: To restore the following sub-section headings to the periodic table article:

• First systemisation attempts
• Mendeleev's table
• Second version and further development

Rationale:

1. The history section is now too long to digest in one sweep
2. Sub-section breaks improved readability and comprehension

--- Sandbh (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Discussion:

Proposal: To change the last sentence in this paragraph…

Helium is an unreactive noble gas at standard conditions, and has a full outer shell: these properties are like the noble gases in group 18, but not at all like the reactive alkaline earth metals of group 2. However, helium only has two outer electrons in its outer shell, whereas the other noble gases have eight; and it does not have electrons in p-orbitals, whereas the other noble gases do. In these ways helium better matches the alkaline earth metals.[91][100] Therefore, while helium is nearly universally placed in group 18[101][102] which its properties best match,[100] helium outside all groups may rarely be encountered.[99][100]

…to this:

While helium is nearly universally placed in group 18[101][102] which its properties best match[100] it may rarely be encountered above beryllium^[1][2] or outside of all groups, floating above them.[99][100]

References

Rationale:

1. To provide a more complete account of where helium can be found.
2. Only the last sentence gets changed

--- Sandbh (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Discussion:

• I wonder what ELEM project members and interested parties, etc, see as important / desirable in the next little while? I would like to see progress made on the periodic table article, including the overview (or whatever we call it) for the first section after the lede. I think we also need to decide about some of the many threads here, though ideally without more reorganising that has been problematic – and I note YBG's comments in the ANI thread and DePiep's recent helpful post on that topic. I would also like to try to encourage more participation in the project, which will hopefully be helped by increased collegiality. EdChem (talk) 02:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was myself going to ask about what we should do with periodic table... we need to essentially rewrite the article. But before we start outlining any plans on it, I was wondering, who could improve the article now? If I recall correctly (which is, as it often goes, quite an if), you mentioned yourself that the article is either improved or demoted. My understanding is—and I’d like to stand corrected very much—there is nobody left to do the improving.

Speaking for myself, I was going to aid the collective effort to rewrite the article that included Double sharp and Sandbh, but that effort is no longer on the table, and when I figured that effort had failed, I was going to take over the article in order to at the very least diffuse the tension and, in the end of the day, help both them, both of whom I know and like, and the project as a whole... and I didn’t even want to do it all that much, it just seemed like the best thing for them and for the project. I don’t see a point in investing time in doing that now, especially given that we once had a featured article... why would we write it anew, especially if it may deteriorate again, as it has done twice by now?

If my understanding is correct that nobody will be doing it, too, then I really see two ways to proceed from here: one, we can pick a previous version of the article from long enough ago, and revert the article to it. It would certainly have to predate the group 3 dispute from early to mid-2020. We could, for example, pick the revision just before the TFA in 2018, as the article probably wouldn’t have been picked had it been in a bad shape. If that idea doesn’t work, we could do the obvious. We’re talking about a supposedly featured article which needs a lot of work... if it needs that much work, we could recognize that by stripping it off its bronze star. Either of these will at the very least be more fair to the reader who sees some value in that bronze star.

EdChem, I’m sorry if my post comes out as pessimistic despite all the effort you’ve made over the last few months (before I saw your post, I was going to leave everyone the same choice, revert or FAR, and title that section, “We failed”, as in “we failed to save the article”). I’d feel bad if nobody had offered nothing to your post, and to make sure there is at least some reply, I give a reply that fatalistic...I’m sorry. If there is something I’m missing, I’d like to stand corrected very much, it’s just that I genuinely don’t see how that could be.

After the GAN for aluminium is successful, I’ll start a peer review. I don’t think this offers a lot of room for collaboration—I think the article is in a good shape already—but that’s at least something.—R8R (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• WP:ELEM organisation I propose to move all this, from EdChem's "I wonder .." bullet, into new ==-section below: "ELEM future plans" (or equivalent title), to contain both (1) these talks about PT-article and (2) about handling & reorganising this WT:ELEM page. -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Better: two different ==-sections: about article PT and about page WT:ELEM. I will start the latter one right away. Can be done without disrupting this subthread, I understand, as that topic is not mentioned here. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EdChem:: thanks for section adding. I'd strongly prefer to refine:

Limit topic to "Article periodic table", and so retitle;

Move to ==level thread. Should stand on itself, & should not refer to ANI (ANI gives no help in this).

Of other ELEM future plans, I already had created § WT:ELEMENTS: winding down (to clean up this talkpage). -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• About Periodic table: I see no path to bring current article version through FAC (or GAN for that matter) within 6 months, even with a theoretically repleted ELEM-company. Meanwhile it would loose FA anyway (as we are admitting it ourselves, IMO). Given the ani conclusions that the recent (re)writing process was flawed, and therefor so are the published results I can say, best to do is revert. At least to "Nov 14, 2020" (pre massive unevoluted edits), or early 2020 (before Group 3-discussions leaked into it), or 2018 (FAC version). Easiest: early 2020, check each 2018-2020 edit for degrading. Then: asap rewrite to use new chemical categorisation scheme (version: 30 Nov 2020, today's). Then: start overhaul discussion, (using EdChem's Oct 2020 comments first and foremost), keep talks structured and systematic. Likely meta-issues first: general TOC, consensus as a goal, agreement on critiques, aim to keep each version FA-level.

TL;DR: Revert to version early 2020; Keep current Category version; Meta-discuss handling critique; Discuss improvements systematically. -DePiep (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I have added the "ELEM future plans" sub-heading that DePiep suggested.
• R8R, thanks for responding. I am not as pessimistic, though I do feel that the ELEM group will take time to recover from recent events – both the conflict and the issuing of a tban. I am willing to help with article editing. My unofficial role in recent times has prevented much actual editing, and others can evaluate how effective things have been, but I do actually enjoy article work. I tried to move in the editing direction on the PT article, without much success, but I still hope that article work can help with ELEM team building. I do hope that you will choose to contribute as time and interests allow, R8R. I hope that Double sharp and YBG feel refreshed from time away and choose to re-engage with time. I also hope that Sandbh's time away will lead him to return to collaborate with a team that is more cohesive and productive. I'm even hoping it will have grown with new participants! (Wow, am I optimistic or what!?!)
• I have been avoiding expressing opinions in trying to remain neutral or out of uncertainty. Several of the proposals have left me wondering about due weight. Taking He over Be, for example, it is historically true that this was used and it is appropriate to note this in a historical context. Whether it warrants mention in the main PT article is unclear to me, however.
• My suggestion is thus to work on the PT article in the areas that are widely agreed to be weaker. For some (many?) of Sandbh's suggestions, I think working them into more specialised articles will help to make it clear whether they are also due mention in the main article.
• As for reverting PT to an older version, I can see arguments in both ways – and ultimately, it is for a consensus decision rather than there being a policy-based reasoning for a single "right" answer. However, one factor that I do think we should consider if a reversion occurs is this: when changes that subsequently occurred are resurrected, whoever makes the change is being attributed as author of the addition, and I think it would be appropriate / desirable to include in edit summaries a note mentioning the original author, as a matter of polite consideration. EdChem (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you retain some positivity, and I'm particularly glad that you said you'd help improve the article (if I interpreted your words correctly, that is), because I'd otherwise be feeling that this is a nice but empty sentiment, at least for the time being. Last year already we only delivered one featured article, and so far it looks like we won't beat that this year, but I'm eager to be proven wrong. I hope your prediction will prove correct rather than mine.

My own time here is already sparse as it is, although I'm somewhat glad there's less discussion now, which seemingly never ended, which in turn means less distraction from article writing. I like writing: being able to write concisely is a useful skill, and this is a great way of practicing it, and it's also nice to actually produce something, and learn interesting things along the way. Not to mention that this is a nice way to practice English, which is a useful skill worldwide nowadays, but some people have a natural advantage of living in an English-speaking environment, something I don't have, and I have to compensate for that somehow.

If there really is going to be some actual work, I think reverting is not necessary... is there?--R8R (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Note on page organisation: I have changed "ELEM future plans" to a level 2 header so ANI section can be archived, in line with DePiep's comments in the § Per section status thread below. EdChem (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted article Periodic table to the version of 14 Nov 2020. That is, the one before numerous "bold" edits were made that probably would have cost the FA star. It is well poissible that more edits (before Nov 14) are to be reverted, maybe even an complete earlier version is required.

Anyway, given the edit history one must assume that each non-trivial edit is controversioal and so has to be discussed beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• We need to decide where Talks should happen: here or at Talk:Periodic table? I'd say with the article. -DePiep (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I agree that they should happen on the article talk page. That is the most visible and appropriate venue for anyone interested in the article. And regarding other edits, do you think a PR or FAR would be appropriate (for assessment by uninvolved editors)? ComplexRational (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Reading the introduction of WP:FAR, I understand it is about "raising & discussing concerns", not !voting (which happens in a next phase, FARC). So with or without formal FAR, we ourselves could raise those concerns, and work to improve them. A good starter is this initiative by EdChem, 17 Oct 2020.

Such a review discussion will be hard to do well, since it touches complicated and abstract issues. On top of this is that recent times our discussion performances have become less than optimal. (Even today R8R (talk · contribs) started mass-editing the main content of the PT without even a hint of an explanation or rationale). Still, cooperative and well-performed discussions are the only way forward. -DePiep (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: I am hurt by your words, I really am.

To be clear, the edits I have made today were a consequence of this thread. Moreover, I mentioned this thread in a personal discussion with you on my talk page a few days ago. I don't know why you weren't able to find "even a hint of an explanation or rationale" given that not only this issue had been discussed publicly prior to the edits in question, but also given that you had been personally notified of that discussion.

I am also hurt by how you chose the particular words you said, "without even a hint of an explanation or rationale," you even emphasized those words. Do you really consider that suitable for a "cooperative and well-performed discussion" that constitutes "the only way forward"? If the only way forward includes belittling my actions based on false assumptions, then I don't want to walk this path. You seem to enjoy EdChem's presence (so do I). I'd like to ask you, how do you think he would phrase this? Also, do you think the way EdChem picks his wordings has any effect on the way he is perceived by other editors, including you and me? Do you think you could learn anything from him in order to improve your phrasing?

(If I ever said something about you myself like this myself, which is certainly possible, this event will be something for me to learn from...but then again, if I ever did that, I'm left wondering why you didn't learn from my failures.)

As for the edit you undid, I made it because the existing colors didn't pass the color contrast test. My colors pass it. You can reinstate my colors or you can keep the ones in place right now that don't. I am under the impression that an edit that concerns colors in the periodic table is impossible without your approval, so I'll leave it to you, and I'm sorry for entering the forbidden area without asking first.

Finally, as for the periodic table revert. The November 14 version is in several ways worse than the one we had yesterday, and the problems with the article had emerged way before November 14; in fact, some edits starting with November 15 actually improved the article. I will quote you from above: "TL;DR: Revert to version early 2020", signed DePiep, January 5, 2021. I'll do that.--R8R (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted R8R's edit of the PT article [20] (which installed a March 21, 2020 version). Not because the edit might be wrong per se, but because it did not have any support whereever by whomever. Again. Per my es: "Undid revision 1000989719 by R8R: R8R Please STOP making undiscussed edits & reverts. Just because you *mention* a projected edit, does not say it was 'discussed'; let alone it has consensus. I note you did not engage in the recent 'ELEM future plans (re PT article)' talks) reve[rts]". -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

And please be sure, R8R, I have had a horrible day too, since waking up and looking at my Watchlist. Seeing not a single Talk: link. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you had a bad day. I can't really say my yesterday was bad until I saw that mean and factually incorrect comment about my supposed failure to explain my actions. Maybe you could reconsider the need to comment when you're having a bad day. Maybe you could consider the need to mitigate the impact of your comments if you nonetheless chose to comment.

"Not because the edit might be wrong per se, but because it did not have any support whereever by whomever." This comment leaves me puzzled. I did mention the need to revert way beyond November 14 above, and I had the support of nobody other than yourself. I see no point in discussion any further, since you keep ignoring what arguments I bring up. This was the impression I got long before this event. I hoped that my escalation in November at the ArbCom case, as misguided as it was, could change the tone of discussion in this project. It worked, it looked like, but only for a brief while. Now we're back at square one, and I don't know how I should put an argument in order to be heard by you, again. At this point, I don't know why I should return to Wikipedia tomorrow, and I won't.

I did consider that my inability to get through might lead to this, and I was in peace with the idea that I could be banned in November when I initiated that escalation. That seemed better still than staying in a placed where my arguments were continuously neglected (rather than contested). But in December already, you used words like "I object" and "unacceptable" to a proposal that you were not a part of and that in no way affected you (so your opinion, one way or another, was not of any real consequence), and at the same time when you mentioned that proposal of mine to EdChem, you used the words "I understand, but my impression is that"; I suppose the difference in phrasing is explained by saying you wanted to be heard by EdChem. I knew at that moment that my departure was a matter of time rather than principle. This incident merely seals it.

I have applied for a GAN for aluminium, although the actual review will probably start in a few months only. Those who remain in this project, please think who could support the nomination without me. If nobody can do that, it might be wise to withdraw it.

Farewell, everybody. Thank you all for all nice times. I learned a lot from you over these years, and being a part of this project has been a great experience. I hope that I was able to keep you a good company and that the articles I wrote will be useful for many more readers. I probably owe some of you apologies, some of which I meant to say but never said and some of which I probably didn't even realize I needed to say; I'm sorry for it all, and I hope you can forgive me. It's been fun... well, it used to be.--R8R (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is very bad news... Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bad news indeed... here goes another productive editor for nothing... I hope you return some day when things settle. ComplexRational (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I also don't know what to say about aluminium because I have not written the bulk of the article and am not familiar with its sources. Should the GAN proceed, probably it's best that Double sharp addresses the review (some article work is better than none). For that matter, will the WikiProject even survive if most of its productive content creators have quit or gone on wikibreak, or are its days numbered as well? Will I have to see out my Wikipedia career elsewhere on the site? ComplexRational (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ComplexRational: I can probably handle Al when the GAN comes, so that's one worry less. Still. Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've been doing some reading about He over Be, as shown in the left step periodic table, and the supposed helium compound, disodium helide.

Some folks have argued that since He (1s²) has only two electrons in its outer shell that it should or could go over Be (1s²2s²) which also has two outer electrons, rather than over neon, which has eight electrons in its outer shell (1s²2s²2p⁶).

Now, as I understand it, He has a full shell, period, with a large energy gap between the 1s² and empty 2s sub shell. Whereas Be is more like (1s²2sp²). And Be²⁺ is (1s²)⁺⁺. In each case, He is nothing like Be. Further, in sodium dihelide, helium does not participate in any chemical bonding.

Experimentally, there is no Be-He attraction. Computationally there is strong Be-He repulsion.

The big similarity He has is with Ne, as noble gases. Equally, H has significantly more similarities to Li than it does to F.

I don't know yet if any of this has relevance to the article space. We mention He over Be in periodic table, and in helium. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, putting helium over beryllium is just silly. Helium is an inert gas, and counting electrons accurately doesn't change the fact that helium is an inert gas. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

"silly" is not a convincing argument. Anyway, OP Sandbh already notes the arguments and their weight. Obviously there are the valid theories & claims, but they are not important enough to mention these in main articles like (the general) Periodic table. As with most or all minor theories & proofs, these should be dealt with in dedicated places like article sections. If I understand the He link right, that is dealt with; in PT article I did not find the linked-to text, and anyway it should be removed from there (being too much a detail). Of course, in Janet's Left Step it is a main feature. -DePiep (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Robert McClenon: Firstly, thanks for stopping by WT:ELEM. We can certainly use new contributors!
Secondly, (and speaking only for myself), one of the problems that came with some of Sandbh's comments / ideas was OR and SYNTH, and another was DUE weight. His comment about being unsure about article-space relevance in this case was a positive development as it does show the due weight issue that is important in this case. Sandbh's actions and contributions were problematic at times, but I would not dismiss his comments out of hand. Yes, the ANI thread brought the issues to a head and the outcome became inevitable, but I still hope that he will be able to return to this project as a better editor. So, while arguing that the modern PT should place He over Be on WP would be unsupported by RS, and while my personal view is that He belongs over Ne for the chemical reasons to which you refer, I am uncomfortable with the term "silly" being used to describe Sandbh's post. I am particularly uncomfortable with it given Sandbh is unable to respond.
Thirdly, I am not certain how I would evaluate the weight issue. I agree with DePiep that it is a feature of the Left Step PT and deserves discussion there. I would need to consider sources carefully to express an informed opinion on its inclusion in articles on helium or beryllium. My impression is that it is likely too niche for the main PT article, but I would certainly be open to evidence from RS etc that is otherwise, and that would likely involve looking at how much this arrangement appeared in historical tables during the evolution of the modern PT. The material on disodium helide was new to me (or I don't recall having read about it previously, at least), and does add some interesting bonding questions.
TL;DR: Please do not reflect on Sandbh (even indirectly) when he is unable to respond. I do not think that Sandbh was suggesting that the WP presentation of the PT be changed to put He over Be (which would be unjustifiable in light of RS). Whether the historic use of this arrangement is adequately covered in article space in appropriate places is a reasonable question, however, IMO. EdChem (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Apparently I missed a lot.

1. I am still on Wikibreak. Both because I lack time, and because I have been a bit frustrated by the recent goings-on. I had a bit of time today and wanted to see what had happened, so I post this. That said, I still think more time will be needed till I am both refreshed enough to really come back and have time to do so.
2. As the resident He-Be aficionado, I can assure you that it is not silly, and has modern bluelinked partisans (Henry Bent, Eric Scerri). That said, He-Ne has mostly dominated historically, with He-Be coming just from people who wanted to emphasis electronic configurations. He-Be also has some surprising-at-first-glance support from noble gas chemists such as Wojciech Grochala and Felice Grandinetti. The reasoning behind it comes from a number of sources:
   • If you are a noble gas chemist (like Grochala and Grandinetti), then what will interest you about the chemistry of He, Ne, and Ar is not the most salient feature to everybody else (the fact that they don't want to have any chemistry), but how they act when they are forced into having chemistry. But helium forced into chemistry seems to be more like beryllium than neon; those "forced" He compounds tend to have Be analogues while lacking Ne analogues! So, it is actually not all that surprising that some noble gas chemists would support He-Be.
   • There is also some feeling that electron configurations are a more consistent basis than chemical and physical properties. (Not put in exactly this form by the sources, but: otherwise, why exactly is hydrogen the diatomic gas over lithium the reactive alkali metal? And why nitrogen the very inert diatomic gas over bismuth the brittle metal? And are we considering diamond or graphite for carbon, which have different physical properties?) Obviously electron configurations point to He-Be.
   • Finally there is the "global consistency of trends" argument. As is pretty well-known, the first member of each group is often anomalous. The 2p elements are not like the heavier p elements; they are so much smaller, more electronegative, prefer forming multiple bonds, etc. Something similar happens for the 3d and 4f elements (although in a slightly different way), as explained in this paper: basically, this is the trend Shchukarev called "kainosymmetry". All this, combined with hydrogen over lithium, suggests a first-row anomaly trend that carries on throughout all the blocks, with the size of the anomaly proceeding as s >> p > d > f. Helium over beryllium definitely fits this trend, because the two are so different at normal conditions. Helium over neon does not, because helium looks normal. So while He-Be is definitely worse than He-Ne for the local trend, it actually better fits the global trend.
3. The above arguments (and a few others) are from a bunch of primary sources: Grochala (in the references are also links to his earlier articles which discuss this too), Bent Weberg (her father was Henry Bent, who discusses and supports He-Be in his self-published book New Ideas in Chemistry from Fresh Energy for the Periodic Law), Bent (admittedly a blog post by him only), Grandinetti, Kurushkin. And also in a secondary source: Eric Scerri's The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance (2020 edition, pp. 389–390). (Which is a secondary source for Grochala's argument which appears there, albeit not for his own.) Some on the other hand have written in support of the standard He-Ne: Novaro, Petruševski and Cvetković. As always, the references in the articles are worth following up too.
4. However, it is also completely obvious to everybody (I hope) that He above Ne utterly dominates in standard texts. So either most chemists are not convinced by the He-Be arguments or they just don't know of them. I rather suspect the latter given how recently this seems to have started to appear in the primary literature (and only just broken into the secondary); if so, then since awareness of this seems to be slowly increasing thanks to its very recent secondary-source appearance, it would be interesting to see what chemists think when they do know (but that is for the future). Therefore, although I personally am convinced (mostly by Grochala TBH) that helium really does belong above beryllium, I also think that it obviously should not be placed that way in the PT as we generally display it on WP. A very few textbooks do separate He from Ne even if they do not go so far as placing it over Be. I only know two: Greenwood and Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements (it would have been interesting to know why, but they didn't say), as well as by Keeler and Wothers' Chemical Structure and Reactivity: An Integrated Approach (link is to their PT and where the problem is discussed). These both "float" helium like you sometimes see done to hydrogen. Even if G&E is very well-known I am not quite convinced that this is really major enough to mention in periodic table. Discussion about placing He is nevertheless in a footnote at helium, as well as in the main text of period 1 element.
5. Whether He over Be should be discussed on WP, and where, is a valid question. I think this will have to be left for more active editors to sort out since I am busy IRL. Hopefully, the sources I have given help EdChem express an opinion. ;)
6. As for Sandbh's post. Well, I understand he has been topic-banned for 6 months, so I agree with EdChem not to comment while he cannot reply. Double sharp (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good to hear from you :-) Isn't everything with "emphasis on electronic configurations" screaming to use This One? Might even simplify "group 3" question (at least by reducing importsance of (more chemical) 'groups'), and simplify PT extension clarification. -DePiep (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: Not group 3 again! (x_x) It seems no one is taking my proposal to stop discussing it till the IUPAC project publishes something seriously. So, very well, executive summary about how "emphasis on electron configurations" relates to those issues according to RS.

1. You are correct, by electronic configurations group 3 should be Sc-Y-Lu-Lr. IUPAC in a 1988 report wrote:

2. The Jensen paper referred to makes it clear that Sc-Y-La-Ac was a historical misunderstanding based on wrongly measured electron configurations. However, because of the commonness of Sc-Y-La-Ac that IUPAC referred to, in this report they speak of a "compromise" which turned out to be Sc-Y-*-**. In the next 1990 Red Book, the 18 column table is given as Sc-Y-*-**, but the 32 column one as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr (so inconsistent). In the 2005 Red Book the 32 column table was dropped. (Yes, that means we show the one variant that, while common in textbooks, has not been used by IUPAC for decades.) It seems nobody was satisfied by the compromise, so the arguing continued. Hence the new IUPAC project that started in 2015, this time without Sc-Y-* as an option. ;)
3. According to Sandbh here, we should hear something from the IUPAC project in January-February this year when Scerri (project chair) publishes an article in Chemistry International. Since Scerri (project leader) outright said in his recent Zoom workshop "My money's on number two [Sc-Y-Lu-Lr] and I certainly will be arguing to IUPAC that they should adopt number two", I think it is not a great stretch to suspect that Sc-Y-Lu-Lr will be the conclusion. However, I think it is more WP-legitimate to wait until February to have a source to cite. I also suspect that R8R, while not currently convinced we should do the change for WP, would be more convinced by such a statement from the IUPAC project. He may correct this if I am mistaken.
4. Scerri and the late Henry Bent both think Janet is the ideal table, helium over beryllium included. But it is not common to actually use, so for WP we cannot follow. As I wrote: He over Be is gaining some converts, though not in textbooks yet, so I think that in a few decades we may be able to revisit this. Double sharp (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, is not what I talk about. It's: Why not use Janet's Left Step instead of trying to square the circle in the Mendeleevian PT? -DePiep (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: For WP: because everyone uses Mendeleevian format, as I said. Don't have sources to mind on the scientific reasons, I suspect because Janet is too much of a fringe thing for most sources to explain why they don't use it. Off the top of my head I would think He-Be has a lot to do with it though. Double sharp (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I remain somewhat skeptical about what weight a decision by IUPAC carries. Think about their definition of transition elements: first of all, nobody says, "transition elements," it's "transition metals," and second, their definition includes thorium as a transition metal, and nobody does that, either. Everybody knows what a transition metal is and they don't need to be told that by IUPAC, so nobody cares. It could be, even though it's far from given, that the definition of group 3 will suffer the same fate. That being said, I see room for a different opinion.--R8R (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@R8R: Thanks for your view. Well, I think it makes more sense to talk about it in February when we actually have something from IUPAC, so let's leave it for then if you're agreeable. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Of course. We'll discuss it later.--R8R (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The provisional report has appeared in the latest issue of Chemistry International here (read pages 31-34).

I quote the interesting bits.

The report also refers to "how the periodic table is presented to the general chemical and scientific community".

The last time we ran this was in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 52, after which we had an agreement to not raise the issue again until the IUPAC project responds. Now they have, albeit as a provisional report (presumably, a real one is forthcoming). Group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr appears to be supported by their wording, albeit not that firmly (perhaps this will be made clearer in the real report).

What views do we have on whether we should change to Sc-Y-Lu-Lr now? Double sharp (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• My notes on this report:

Nicely describes that a resolution by convention is needed (as oppose to a schientific result), and that too specialised options are possible (such as a 15-column f-block, with group 3 being solely Sc, Y) but not to be used in general application.

So, for the "widest possible audience", the WG advises to use the Sc,Y,Lu,Lr as it more conveniently handles the graphic effects (single d-block).

However, the graphics in the article need some comment.

1. Mendeleev did not present a PT with "eight columns". There were eight Gruppen (numbered I-VIII), in ten columns. The triple-column single Group VIII has existed as such until IUPAC introduced the one-column-one-group numbering; not coincidentally renaming Group VIII into group 8-9-10.

2. Figures 1–3, the 18-column PTs, do not use placeholders (like asterisks) to position the detached f-block. This is unforgivable, because it will lead inevitably to unnecessary mistakes and learning hurdles. This way, it is impossible to insert the f-block in the main table without outside knowledge. This is also true when atomic numbers were present.

3. (Possibly related to #2): Figure 3 purports to show "group 3 consists of Sc,Y only". However, it leaves wide open the invitation to insert the f-block .... right below Sc,Y. Which is: in group 3. Extra confusing is, that this misguided form (f-block under=in group 3) is the one published most often, even by IUPAC. Could it be that, by trying to illustrate the "Sc,Y only" statement, the WG had to remove inconvenient pesky asterisks that would expose an inconsistency?

Incidentally, this consitution (Sc,Y only) was not included in the original 2015 question; good though that the WG added it to illustrate a niche science (15-column f-block).

4. The WG proposes "figure 2", as it "achieves three desiderata": increasing Z, no split d-block, and 14-column f-block. (As noted, this can only be so when correct placeholders like asterisks are added; likely adding an empty column could be used—as this Wiki has done for years). The remaining question is: why does the WG not label Figure 4 equally useful? Or even: more useful, since without smoke and mirrors, and without requiring mental tricks, it naturally shows the three desiderata.

-DePiep (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you to Double sharp for the notification and to DePiep for his comments, plus those made in the !voting below. WP is still hampered, in my opinion, by a preliminary report with recommendations / suggestions inconsistent with RS, that does not yet have the imprimatur of IUPAC itself. RS like textbooks will act on this (or not) in future editions, so any new consensus on a convention will take time to evolve. I personally am also torn between what I will do as an educator and what policy supports as a Wikipedian. For example, I have never liked the 15 column f-block depiction that implies the entire block belongs in group 3, but I can't deny that its use is widespread and I'll teach it as the temporary compromise that was suggested for use while a new convention was being developed and that the process of adoption has now begun (while recognising that does not mean the new convention is inevitable). So, I think this article assists in us choosing a WP default but issues like the widespread use of alternatives in RS need appropriate article-space recognition.

DePiep's point that the 32-column Figure 4 achieves the stated goals even more clearly than do the 18-column Figures is well-made. The article does not address this (unless I missed it in an admittedly quick read), which is unfortunate. Without placeholders in the 18-column version, the case for a 32-column PT is strengthened. My problem with this, from a WP perspective, is the relative abundance of 18- and 32- column PTs in RS. I am unconvinced that RS support a 32-column default, though I will not be surprised if this also changes over time. Further, I don't see this article providing a basis for choosing between these options like it does for choosing a group 3 composition. EdChem (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

There shall be no content diff between 18- vs. 32-column presentation. Just editorial, like: write "Hg" or "Hg" in fonts. That is: both must and can and shall represent the same PT. I find it an astonishing lack of professionality, think science communication, that an IUPAC/WC introduces this, ehm, confusion. enwiki maintains this non-difference for some years. -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

both must and can and shall represent the same PT – I agree. The problem is that WP follows RS and RS strongly favour one over the other. It is not unprofessionalism that keeps en.WP using the form that is most prevalent in RS, it is respect for policy and the purpose of an encyclopaedia as a reflection of human knowledge rather than as an advocate for the beliefs of Wikipedians about what choices RS should make. EdChem (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Off-topic. Start a new thread please. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not that far off, so I stroke my post. I'm sorry for blocking your post this way, EdChem. I might have been a bit restless for the can of worms this group 3 thing is. May post a response later on. -DePiep (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I add a subsection for this clarification.

18 vs 32 was explicitly not on the project's agenda. They write so on their page: "The task group does not intend to recommend the use of a 32-column periodic table or an 18-column. This choice which is a matter of convention, rather than a scientific one, should be left to individual authors and educators. The task group will only concern itselve [sic] with the constitution of group 3. Once this is established, one is free to represent the periodic table in an 18 or 32 column format."

I would agree this supports DePiep's statement both must and can and shall represent the same PT: one should not have an 18 column table showing one thing together with a 32 column table showing another. So, I thought it was pretty clear that whatever change we make ought to be applied equally to both forms, but thank you DePiep for explicitly saying it. But I do not think it serves as a rationale to use 32 column PTs as the default for now when the 18 column format is widespread. After all: the task force did not intend to recommend on that question, and they did not. I would, FWIW, consider that question off-topic for this thread. Double sharp (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Comment. Please note that the traditional 18-column table makes it look like cerium is really element 57A, praseodymium element 57B, neodymium element 57C, then 57D, all the way to 57P (skipping I and O because they can can be mis-read) and then hafnium is element 58, tantalum 59, tungsten 60, and so on. I would support the 32-column table because it resolves this mis-interpretation. Georgia guy (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, the 18 vs 32 column thing was explicitly not the concern of the IUPAC project. Therefore, if people want to discuss it, I would prefer that it be done in another section. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Double sharp, please note the title of this sub-section. Georgia guy (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I started it and called it that precisely to make it clear that 18 vs 32 was not the project's agenda. Maybe in hindsight it was a bad choice. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Pinging active/semi-active project participants + those who participated last time around: @YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert: This is in view of the recent publication of the IUPAC provisional report on group 3 (linked above).

Should we change our default depiction of the periodic table to show group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr now, or not?

• Support, just like last time. Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support – like last time, especially if we use a block coloring scheme, so as not to awkwardly split the d-block. ComplexRational (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support There's a reason why support for this has been building up. In the extended periodic table, Ubu also should not be placed under Ac, but should rather be part of the g-block. Instead, the former spot should belong to element 143. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:LaundryPizza03, could you write this change proposal in a separate thread? -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Support Adding that this can equally be achieved & done in 18- and in 32-column format. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support I agree with User:DePiep. Droog Andrey (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support I agree with User:ComplexRational. -³²²UbnBr₂ (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 18:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Support the use of an 18-column table with Sc to Lr as group 3. As an educator, I agree strongly with DePiep that the use placeholders of some sort to indicate the location the f-block is necessary and their omission (whether a deliberate choice or an accidental oversight) from in the CI article is very unfortunate. I even more strongly agree that Figure 3, with a 15 column f-block, is a pedagogical disaster. However, DePiep is also correct that this representation is widely used at present, which means that Wikipedian EdChem is cautious about leading the way to a preferred outcome ahead of the (inevitably delayed) response of RS to this preliminary report. It is also for this reason that I think the default should be 18- columns rather than 32. We clearly can add a gap between columns 2 and 3 for placemarkers for the f-block, but that doesn't mean that we should. I suggest a separate consideration before a lot of graphics get changed. The existence of RS with 15 column f-blocks needs recognition in article space for the sake of readers and noting that the choice of representation is ultimately one of convention and that WP is following IUPAC's preliminary advice while consensus for it (or a different convention) develops in RS. EdChem (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is explicitly not describing what Double sharp proposes, and so your "support" is conflicting with your own writing.

Ds proposes: "our default depiction of the periodic table to show group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-L", which is what this poll is about full stop. If you want to add extra requirements, please start a new, dedicated thread. (I think your post is confusing the simple poll, and therefor not helpful this way). -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how my comments are inconsistent with supporting Double sharp's proposal. However, in the hope of avoiding both confusion and conflict, allow me to clarify:

Should we change our default depiction of the periodic table to show group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr now, or not? – Yes, we should

But also

Should the default be 18- or 32-columns? – 18-columns, in my opinion.

If 18-columns, should a placeholder of some sort be included to locate the f-block? – Yes, again in my opinion.

I see these as relevant issues to consider before graphics are updated, but if ELEM (or other) editors want to make the change to group 3 without addressing these, I have no ability to prevent it. I am a single editor, with a single !vote, expressing an opinion that will be taken as relevant (or not) by others. I also do not see suggesting article-space including appropriate recognition of the existence of other representations, such as the 15-column f-block PTs found in many RS, as either hampering of implementing Double sharp's proposal or being a controversial inclusion in article space. EdChem (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

EdChem: if you want to promote secondary regulations to this proposal, I'd strongly suggest you start a separate thread. Main thread here better stay a black/white vote on the exact proposal. Editors responded to the proposal, not to your side-notes. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Comment. It looks like all the votes are to support. What do we have to wait for before we can close this discussion?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, that seems to be a surprisingly quick and near-universal acclamation, as Georgia guy noted. Two of those pinged have not responded: Narky Blert has been quite active since the ping, and YBG (semi-active now) supported the Sc-Y-Lu-Lr already the last time.

Therefore, I plan to start formally making the changes tomorrow, if no one objects to that before then.

A few notes based on what has been discussed:

• Since our current Sc-Y-La-Ac graphics already have a placeholder between groups 3 and 4 to locate the f block (e.g. File:Simple Periodic Table Chart-en.svg), I plan to reproduce such a placeholder for the new Sc-Y-Lu-Lr ones between groups 2 and 3. We did not discuss that particular aspect of graphic presentation, and therefore it seems to me that it should stay the same in the absence of such a discussion.
• 18 vs 32 column was neither the main subject of discussion here nor recommended by the IUPAC project. Therefore, I plan to retain the status quo in that respect, i.e.: tables that are currently 18 column will remain 18 column, and tables that are currently 32 column will remain 32 column. Same idea as the above: if it wasn't discussed to change it, let's not.
• The extended periodic table, brought up by LaundryPizza03. It is true, the IUPAC project does not mention anything about it, because the elements concerned have not been discovered. That being said, if you want to follow the spirit of the IUPAC project's desiderata (no split blocks and increasing atomic number order), and keep the old conclusions about what exactly to show for the post-138 elements when chemists do not agree, there is only one way to do it, which is what LaundryPizza03 suggested. In fact, this would revive exactly what was decided in Talk:Extended periodic table/Archive 3 based on some literature review (the form of Kulsha because it is closest to what everybody else says about the expected chemistry, basically): note that at the time of that discussion we had Sc-Y-Lu-Lr.

Since it is a preliminary report, I plan to only change the graphics: text discussing the group 3 problem should probably be edited and discussed on a more case-by-case basis.

@YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert: Double sharp (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I stayed out because even though I can dredge up from memory a mnemonic for the lanthanides (a variant of the second one at List of chemistry mnemonics#Lanthanides and actinides: "Lascivious centaurs, prancing nude, pimp [for] some European goddesses, [while] tubby dinosaurs hover erratically thrumming yellow lutes"), I don't consider this my field. Narky Blert (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

A nice walk, Ds. I understand this makes Lu, Lr in the d-block? I think there could be a textual description in article Group 3 element. Ping me if I can help. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: Correct, this makes Lu, Lr in the d-block, and La, Ac in the f-block. For extended periodic table: 119–120 s-block, 121–142 g-block, 143–156 f-block, 157–166 d-block, 167–172 p-block. 119–120 are in groups 1 and 2 (should be homologues of Rb and Sr), 143–156 align under Ac–No, and 157–172 are in groups 3–18 as homologues as Y–Xe.

Group 3 element: yes, this article does need an update. Firstly I guess the 2021 IUPAC provisional report ought to be mentioned (it currently is not at all). But also something else may need to change. Because for now the Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-Lu-Lr options are treated with equal weightage: the infobox gives both La and Lu, both Ac and Lr, so do all the tables. That made sense before the 2021 IUPAC provisional report. But now that that report exists, perhaps instead Sc-Y-Lu-Lr should be the pictured version while acknowledging the older common alternatives (Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-*-**) in their own section discussing the dispute. Well, what do you think? Probably some rewriting is required anyhow. (I note the article has GA status, so presumably it should be updated in such a way to keep it.) Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd say: we can fully go by the Report's line of reasoning & conclusion. We do not need to build in the "2-option group 3" anywhere (which is a horror to graph & decribe anyway). So the top PT & infobox has the new, single-form structure, and in ~section 3 we can open with: "There are three sound possiblities to define group 3: ... None is definitive. For reasons xyz, IUPAC has proposed to present option x as most useful for the audience. options Y and Z are niche science." (or maybe, better use your wording). Section titles can easily be changed into text-supporintg ones. All in all, I'm saying, the Report gives us a nice structure for this section, no need or gain in finding our own text structure (though the philosophical part can be left out, I guess). Existing texts about group 3 can be discarded, or reused to describe the three options (give them their scientific base). Check rest of article for references to this issue. Once the new text is stable, we can check for GA again. Being GAN is no reason to defer this change.

As for the images: I prefer not using the graphs presented in the WG Report, as I explained above. I think our enwiki presentation forms can do the job well (as you noted). -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: Thanks to some IRL procrastination (LOL) I have written up a proposed redraft of the group 3 element article at User:Double sharp/Group 3 element. All sections describing individual elements and trends take the group as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr for granted, as described (I didn't edit them much, just cut out the parts describing La and Ac). The main section on the dispute is redrafted as a section in "History" and significantly shortened (I mean, I think we don't need to spam all the arguments). Now it simply states the history of the dispute, just enough to explain where each form came from, and finally the IUPAC attempts to resolve it. I guess it would be significantly better with your magic: there should probably be some illustrations showing each in 18 column and 32 column form, something like the IUPAC report. Of course, open to your (or anyone else's) critiques and suggestions. Double sharp (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes I have (and do) suppord the So/Y/Lu/La form, largely for aesthetic reasons akin to the working group's disiderati. I had thought we were going to belay changes until seeing the response of the scientific community. But given the strength of the consensus, I believe you are doing the right thing. YBG (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Micro PT

I am working to make the micro PT supporting the three WG options, to be used in the Group 3 article. ({{/testcases}}, {{/PTG/group-3}}). Will notify you on its progress. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is now possible to use {{Periodic table (micro)}} in various group 3 forms. E.g., setting |form=Sc, Y, La, Ac shows the previous presentation form. See /documentation. Can be used, for example, to describe the IUPAC considerations (non-chosen forms) in Group 3 element. @Double sharp:. -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Extended PT

About block allocations. From section above, by Double sharp:

Correct, this makes Lu, Lr in the d-block, and La, Ac in the f-block. For extended periodic table: 119–120 s-block, 121–142 g-block, 143–156 f-block, 157–166 d-block, 167–172 p-block. 119–120 are in groups 1 and 2 (should be homologues of Rb and Sr), 143–156 align under Ac–No, and 157–172 are in groups 3–18 as homologues as Y–Xe.

However, I find other block allocations:

{{Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, compact)}} homologues La/Ac/E139

Extended periodic table § Aufbau model homologues La/Ac/E139

Extended periodic table § Pyykkö model homologues La/Ac/E141

Extended periodic table § Fricke model homologues La/Ac/E141

@Double sharp: continue with your list? Would have a block change in column La/Ac/... I think. Or apply one of the three theories throughout (as our default extended PT)? -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: La/Ac/E143 is Kulsha, following more or less Nefedov. The point is to align E157–166 with their chemical best homologues Y–Cd, which Fricke admits in his article despite placing them somewhere else. See {{Extended periodic table (by Nefedov, 54 columns, detailed cells)}}. Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Predicted" coloring?

• By the way, do we prefer using the "predicted block colors"? The subtlety might be hard to see in {{the micro Extended_periodic_table}}. We could keep those in the micro grey. -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I prefer to just use full colour. Block is equally predicted for Og as it is for next element E119; for neither do we actually know the electron configuration, it is just theory. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

P.S. The block-only category legend should probably "expand" in the extended version to have a "g-block" between s and f, not an extra "undiscovered". Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some template/image replacement

I find myself with more time than usual today, and, thanks to some last-minute RL stuff, less time than usual tomorrow. So, despite what I wrote above, I will do some replacement of templates and images today instead. I hope that is all right, since {[u|DePiep}} has started doing some work here.

Bigger changes like an appropriate rewrite for group 3 element will have to wait, I'm afraid... Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fine with me. I won't touch {{Nefedov's}}, in case we get editconflicts.

Question: do you like the third, Sc-Y form like {{here}}?

Pls look at the E121 cell marker in {{Infobox unbiunium}}. Repositioning of cell E121 mistake [21]?

Yes, mistake. Corrected (I hope). Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Will look at teh extended micor PT's later on. -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add a ping since you seem to be on a roll...@Double sharp:. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: Yes, that Sc-Y form is correct, see Scerri's 2019 article.

Sc-Y-*-** will be harder to show: per Thyssen & Binnemans it should have "stretchy Sc and Y" over all 15 cells of their f block. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've done what I can stand doing in one day. ;) I should've gotten most of the obvious and high-visibility ones. The rest (low-visibility + those that require some thought as to rewording) hopefully may wait. ;) Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• {{Periodic table (transuranium element)}} {{That one}} is to be updated too I think. Droog Andrey (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wow, this image looks too outdated and unfit for our PT standards. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Somehow I think this may be better done as a template (especially since the heaviest elements may conceivably change as more stable isotopes are discovered). Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• c:Category:Periodic tables using the enwiki classifications -- Commons: lots of other wikis use our scheme, translated or not. Two big changes to spread. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Block colors legends: Cleanup, correct name, check g-block color option. See /PTG/blocks. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Template:Periodic_table_(micro)/doc#Group_3_variants: fit for mainspace, including extended PT. Could use eyes, checking. Double sharp -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Of interest might be the earlier 1988 report on this matter. Although this is where the compromise apparently came from, it then spends a funnily large amount of time detailing how Sc-Y-Lu-Lr works, and the subsequent 1990 IUPAC Red Book appeared inconsistently with a Sc-Y-*-** 18-column table and a Sc-Y-Lu-Lr 32-column table.

Therefore I would say that having asterisks to show where exactly La–Yb and Ac–No belong (between groups 2 and 3), although not explicitly recommended, is surely within the spirit of what is stated given the pains that were taken to explain where exactly they should be inserted. Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Actually it was pointed out in 1948 (link is to 1st Russian edition of the Landau source, go to p. 286). 1959 must be the translation date. Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

In the 1988 IUPAC report, objective scientific reasoning is used to justify Sc-Y-Lu-Lr: for we see there written "According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements Sc, Y, Lu, Lr." That's a pretty objective scientific criterion. Yet in the 2021 IUPAC report it is instead stated that this does not "provide a clear-cut resolution of the question", and that the group 3 conundrum "is one of convention rather than one that can be decided on objective scientific grounds".

The 2021 statement is interesting because electron configurations have indeed been given as a way to clearly resolve the problem by authorities on the matter – including by Jensen who is one of the project members.

Perhaps something more will be heard about this when we have a less preliminary report (such reports usually appear in PAC rather than CI). Double sharp (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Red Book 1990 contains a 32-column periodic table with Sc-Y-Lu-Lr. Which is inconsistently facing an 18-column periodic table with Sc-Y-*-**. Go figure. Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It has been mentioned recently. I'd like to aks it straight here:

Do we keep using Block class:predicted (as in: "E121 is in g-bock (predicted)")?

Recently, Double sharp has this and did edited them out in places. I think the fact that g-block only exists theoretically so far is a different topic, and needs no change re this.

If we want the option out, we will formally deprecate it & remove it from mainspace graciously. Or, define situations when to keep it (and check legend colors used). -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I stand by what I said: it makes no sense to colour Og without "predicted" and 119 with "predicted". It might make sense to go for predicted past Hs, as electron configurations are unknown beyond there, but I cannot think of any textbook that actually does that. Double sharp (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

(I was not questioning your opinion, I just want to make this a formal and clear conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC))Reply

I have moved my draft into the mainspace, since it seems presentable already. Thanks in particular to DePiep for his very valuable graphic improvements. :) Naturally it can be improved yet further. So, we now have a section covering the dispute's history and where it came from (mostly, arguing over electron configurations); having done that and mentioned the IUPAC ruling, the rest of the article discusses Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr as its scope. The lede gives a summary: "Although some controversy exists regarding the composition and placement of this group, it is generally agreed among those who study the matter that this group contains the four elements scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), lutetium (Lu), and lawrencium (Lr). ... Historically, sometimes lanthanum (La) and actinium (Ac) were included in the group instead of lutetium and lawrencium, and this option is still commonly found in textbooks. Some compromises between the two major options have been proposed and used, involving either the shrinking of the group to scandium and yttrium only, or the inclusion of all 30 lanthanides and actinides in the group as well."

DePiep has written above, in response to one of my queries: I'd say: we can fully go by the Report's line of reasoning & conclusion. We do not need to build in the "2-option group 3" anywhere (which is a horror to graph & decribe anyway). So the top PT & infobox has the new, single-form structuree, and in ~section 3 we can open with: "There are three sound possiblities to define group 3: ... None is definitive. For reasons xyz, IUPAC has proposed to present option x as most useful for the audience. options Y and Z are niche science." (or maybe, better use your wording). So, I would like to propose that as our general line: when we are just giving data, we can say things like "Lr: group 3", and when we say it in text, we briefly describe it. Say, along the lines of "Lawrencium is the final member of the actinide series. Some controversy exists regarding its group placement, but according to most who study the matter and a recent IUPAC provisional report, it may be regarded as the heaviest element of group 3 and the first of the 6d transition metals. This makes it a heavier homologue of scandium, yttrium, and lutetium." Or for the other one: "Actinium is the first member and eponym of the actinide series. It is the heavier homologue of lanthanum. Some controversy exists regarding its group placement, but according to most who study the matter and a recent IUPAC provisional report, it may be regarded as the first of the 5f elements." And then carry on. It seems consistent with the idea to use one form as a default, at least.

Comments on such wordings? And feel free to comment on the new group 3 element revision too. As always, feel free to revert/discuss/etc.

@YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, and EdChem:

Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Generally agree. Droog Andrey (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Droog Andrey: Thanks for your support. ^_^ May I ask if you have anything specific in mind that could be improved? Double sharp (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll think of it :) Droog Andrey (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've made a few changes of this kind. I think the source list at User:Double sharp/Group 3 sources (not really that organised right now, sorry) clearly justifies the formulaic statement I have used that Sc-Y-Lu-Lr is the format favoured by most who study the matter: if even this is OR (I can see arguments for that), note that Jensen (one of the IUPAC project members) says something very similar in his 2015 paper, published some months before the IUPAC project started. (That the evidence since his 1982 paper has tended to support Lu in group 3.) That said, we can discuss, and I in particular eagerly await what Droog Andrey thinks of. ;)

Of course, we will carry on describing the dispute when it matters, along with all forms. We can revisit this if/when the Lu form makes it to the IUPAC periodic table, as there are some processes that remain till that can happen. Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I want to introduce the task force "Periodic Table Graphics", WP:PTG (talk), a workshop where we can develop graphical enhancements for the Element articles.

The workshop can provide tools & experiment-space to try & check improvements. Changes that are mainspace-ready then can be proposed (or discussed) here at WT:ELEM or at a appropriate talkpage. A current active job is /PTG/Group 3 (talk).

The setup and workings of the task force is to be developed too. You are invited to develop the PTG into a productive, cooperative lab. Step 1: sign in at the Members list. -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The fontcolors of State-of-Matter (SoM) for liquid, gas and unknown, are resulting in extremely bad Accessability issues. See the PTG/Contrast check table: 5 out of 18 color contrasts score a negative (not conforming w3c contrast requirements). -DePiep (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

See talk:PTG/state-of-matter#Emergency_edit. I have set the SoM fontcolors to "black" (#000000) in {{Element color}}, and blanked the legend {{Periodic table legend/State of matter}}. All (7) mainspace articles are checked for being broken (none is).

The problem: some fontcolor/backgroundcolor combinations do not have enough contrast to be accesssible (think: legible); see MOS:CONTRAST, PTG/Contrast check table. Extreme example: for H and He, a red font is on top of a red background. Since the SoM colors are not essential to the presentation of the PT (except where SoM is the topic), the coloring could be switched off without breaking the PT presentation.

The wikilink-color: The contrast check table also says this: a wikilink blue text on red background (s-block, H and He) is not contrast safe either. For this, we should find an other solution. Wikilink-blue was not switched off btw.

Other issues: there are also other considerations wrt the font coloring. In the PT, font coloring seems to interact with bg coloring. The reader easily gets the impression that the two colors in one cell are related, as if interacting re their meaning. This is caused by using two independent colorschemes in one graph. For example: see the blind PT that shows non-letters only (so one is not distracted by reading or recognising texts). In this blind PT, it is difficult to grasp the pattern, if any, of the SoM colors. (Hg and Br seem randomly, so there is not much help in coloring anyway). LaundryPizza03 already proposed to use black pictograms to indicate SoM.

Todo:

1. Find better bg red color to eliminate wikilink-issue (see /PTG/state-of-matter PTG/blocks),
2. Agree that (SoM) fontcoloring should not return this way,
3. Consider using pictograms or other solutions.

-DePiep (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea of pictograms. I would suggest something like this:

  - a cloud for gasses

  - a drop for liquids

  - a cube for solids

YBG (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

+1 I like this idea as well. I've seen a few PTs like this on walls and in books; it's visually appealing and unambiguous. ComplexRational (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

+1 Double sharp (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thoughts: (1) when being tiny (~font-size), 3d-effect not effective (cube). Square or rechtangle maybe? (2) a cloud is not a gas is it? I'll create a six-circle image. (3) Questions: what with the unknown ones? Blank, or some question mark? And: in which PT do we use them? -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Icons, my 1st concept:       -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea of symbols. Do we need a symbol for solid, or just say that symbols are added where the state at RTP is not solid? Could also add ? for unknown but expected solid, l/g symbol + ? for suspected l or g? Perhaps? EdChem (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EdChem: I worry that if you put solid as blank, then "?" looks more like "unknown" than "unknown but expected solid". Maybe it is an unfounded worry.

Predictions: the only ones in period 7 for which there has been any question are Fr, Cn, Fl, and Og (almost all the rest are kinda obviously solid by extrapolation and predictions back to the 1970s have been saying so). Fr has had various not-that-close values banded around, but CRC handbook says 27°C and we might as well follow that. (I do have many questions about exactly how any of those values were actually obtained and how accurate they really are thanks to all the decay heat coming out of whatever Fr sample may have been used, which is why I despairingly choose delegating responsibility to the Rubber Bible instead.) For Cn, Fl, and Og, Mewes, Schwerdtfeger et al. have been doing some theoretical work. Copernicium (eka-mercury) seems likely liquid, oganesson (eka-radon) seems likely solid. Unfortunately currently the calculations by their group on flerovium seem not published – unless you count what seems to be a 2013 sneak preview Schwerdtfeger wrote in Nature ("This suggests that flerovium would be a metallic liquid at room temperature, much like mercury.") So, if one is going to put up predictions, I guess the best would be to call the whole 7th period expected solid except Cn and Fl (expected liquids).

I do wonder if these tentative, not experimentally confirmed, things are best to put up for a general template though. They are cool but also not known to be the truth yet. On the other hand it would probably go some way to countering the lame division "Solid/Liquid/Gas/Synthetic" you find on some PT posters that gives the weird idea that synthetic elements fall outside the standard states, and it ties in well with when we have to mention relativistic effects as something that will likely mess with the PT at high Z (who would've thought eka-lead was probably a liquid metal?). And on the third slightly mutated hand I have suspicions that everyone is actually quoting predictions for elements like astatine and francium and is simply not admitting it (the one experimental result I know of for At actually contradicts the standard value, LOL), so perhaps showing predictions anyway avoids a double standard. Anyway, I'm prepared to be convinced either way. Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The initiating textbooks would be helped with simple notions (like three symbols only). And just as we did recently with categories and with the split d-block: we can throw complications out of the window for the general audience. (Highschool students expect to see Hg as liquid, and should be invited to discover that corner area with gases—to have them start wondering about "Why is it this way? Let me click". *That* moment we can call Success!). This would also mean that, in our general PTs, we can forego the predicted states, like synthetic and radioactive elements: no big deal, no clarifying/complicating footnote texts, just a blank icon.

And of course, in the dedicated articles (like m.p. and b.p.) this basic information can be expanded with State of the Art descriptions like "seems to" as Double sharp did here.

Interesting 3D graphs are at webelements, m.p., b.p.. Though the colors better be gradual not blocks; our 2D {{Periodic table (electronegativity by Pauling scale)}} does this better. If we can think of a r.t. level to change colort per vertical bar, that wqould be great. Result then 3 colors ranges, Hg's top showing the middle one.

TL;DR: In general PTs, for general audience: 3 statuses=icons only, blank for non-stable elements. In dedicated articles, add & show & tell the complicated situations. -DePiep (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: OK I'm convinced.

To avoid questions about whether the Fr and At values are actually real, I suggest we simply stick to the Rubber Bible line as in our data pages and as in WebElements. That will mean Fm through Lr have to get the solid icon even though I strongly suspect those values are not real, but let's also be honest: no one expects anything different, and for now it is just a suspicion. So H–Lr will get the icons, Rf–Og will be left blank. Any specialised periodic table with Rf–Og as predicted solids except Cn and Fl as predicted liquids can be used somewhere else, if I can think of exactly what dedicated article that would be useful for. Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Labeling H–Lr and leaving blank Rf–Og would accurately reflect everything we know from RS, though Fr still seems like a tricky case because we only have estimates or extrapolations. And despite the habits of many publishers, there is no need for synthetic elements to be treated any differently (except, of course, when no experimental data is available); natural occurrence is independent of state of matter. ComplexRational (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ComplexRational: According to melting points of the elements (data page), it seems the Rubber Bible gives Fr as an unqualified 27 °C. So, if it's good enough for them, I'd argue it's good enough for us. Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: Do we plan to consistently use the Rubber Bible as a reference? If so, we might also want to change the value in the Fr infobox (it gives an estimated 8 °C) so as to avoid having another noticeable discrepancy. ComplexRational (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@ComplexRational: Makes sense.   Done Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I just learned, Phase and State Of Matter are different things:

• phase (Q104837) en:Phase (matter)
• state of matter (Q11430): en:State of matter

How does this effect WP:ELEMENTS? How do we accomodate "plasm"? (@Double sharp:) -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's plasma (Q10251) en:Plasma (physics) -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: Not that important for us. It is the fourth state, but no element is in it at standard conditions. Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved — distinction 'phase (matter)' and 'state of matter' not relevant for WP:ELEMENTS. And we can use these two wordings alike. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

As we know, recently (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Conclusion) it was finally decided to use blocks instead of categories as the means for a colouring scheme, on the grounds that categories were never meant to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive and making them so is basically OR. (The closure was not done in the best possible way, but it seems to be at least settled by now.)

Now, we do still have a "category" field in the infobox, but it looks to be only populated for {{infobox lutetium}} (Lu) and {{infobox hafnium}} (Hf). We also do still have the group names in infoboxes like {{infobox antimony}} (Sb) which says "group 15: pnictogens", but of course that is something separate. (Alas, by IUPAC 2016 it seems "halogen" and "noble gas" mean the whole group officially.)

However, to accurately give a category field would require quite some difficulty. I have previously suggested it, but actually it seems worse than I thought. Lu is a lanthanide, people are pretty sure about that – for now. (It seems quite possible that if/when IUPAC updates its showcase periodic table to Sc-Y-Lu it will stop being one. For instance on WebElements, which has as far as I can remember always been Sc-Y-Lu, Lu is apparently not a lanthanide.) On the other hand, people are not sure whether to spell it "lanthanide" (common usage) or "lanthanoid" (IUPAC Red Book, less ambiguous with La anions). But now that we have a group 3 containing Sc-Y-Lu, Lu is also d-block, and by IUPAC's definition it is also a transition element. Which many people call "transition metal" because they're all probably metals (I reserve judgement for copernicium). And it is also pretty unambiguously one of the rare earth elements / rare earth metals.

Or take arsenic. Yes, it's a pnictogen, everyone agrees on that. But is it a metal, nonmetal, or metalloid? You can find people saying all three. Well, what weight should we give each? In different contexts things may differ, e.g. organic compounds with As are usually called organometallics even if As is quite lame as a metal. If it is a metal, then what name are we using for p-block metals anyway? "P-block metals"? "Other metals"? "Post-transition metals" (then what about aluminium)?

So I ask the question: should we have category fields in the infobox at all, or leave this stuff to article text? Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert:

Allow me to fix the ping: @YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert: Thank you ComplexRational! Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Leave it to text. I think it's far too complicated to be summarised in an infobox. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
• At least remove from infobox. Droog Andrey (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Leave it to text. What about the theoretically-predicted but dodgily-observed metallic hydrogen? What does that make H?

Organic chemists don't distinguish between metals and metalloids. AFAIC/IMAO, organoarsenicals and organostibenes (and I'll thank you to keep downwind of me) are organometallics. Which reminds me that around 1970, there was a communication in Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. entitled "Some Unusual Insertion Reactions of Arsoles". Check Chem. Abs. if you don't believe me. Narky Blert (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Off-topic? but anyhoo. I'm watching an old Periodic Videos in which Martyn Poliakoff says, "Noble is an old-fashioned word meaning it doesn't react. Posh way of saying chemically boring." YT link. Narky Blert (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've remembered a parallel example - WP:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes. You can drive round in futile circles arguing whether Beethoven was a Classical or an Early Romantic composer, or whether Schoenberg was Late Romantic or Early Modern. They were both; the labels are meaningless.

Popular music genre classification illustrates the kind of rabbit hole to avoid falling down. Heavy metal music sometimes seems to be one band = one genre. On the other hand, I've seen The Beatles mislabelled as a rock band - no they effing weren't, they were a beat group. Sigh.

Conclusion - don't try to force things into pigeonholes for tidiness, even (or especially) in science. (I'm planning to lobby IUPAC for placing Ar and K the wrong way round, an obvious mistake which has gone uncorrected for over a century - just look at their AWs!) Narky Blert (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• In infobox when telling. While the examples are confusing and leading to "too subtle for the infobox", there is also this: e.g. the Metalloids are an existing, respectable & relevant eh category. Just because we do not illustrate by category any more, does not say metalloid is irrelevant. It is a main, pivotal trend (periodicity!) in the PT, between metal-nonmetal. However difficult to delimit (only when zooming in btw), metalloids do exist and take their place in the PT. The "category" metalloid should be mentioned in the infobox. (Up to us, not RS, on how to handle At-like vagueness, still this does not allow us to remove the property "metalloid" from the infobox list completely). Same for alkali metal etc. (low fruit). BTW we still need a good wording & article for 'Category'. They exist, you know. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

(happy with my editsummary [22], so let me self-quote it here: so misty things are clear then. but what about the clear things? ;-) . -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Leave it to text. The simple cases can be explained in the lead section; more complicated ones can be briefly summarized there and expanded upon in the body. There are plenty of examples for which chemists (or physicists) do not agree on categorization. To name some of the many debated categorizations brought up at WP:ELEM at some point:
  • Metalloids: selenium (metalloid or nonmetal?), polonium (metal or metalloid?), astatine (metal, metalloid, or halogen?)
  • Groups: group 3 (transition metals or lanthanides/actinides?), group 12 (transition metals or post-transition metals?)
  • Phases: does metallic hydrogen affect its categorization?
  • Nonmetals: core nonmetals, moderately/highly active nonmetals, should halogens be labeled separately?
  • Superheavy elements: follow periodic trends or label as unknown?

ComplexRational (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: BTW, the ping didn't work because you added your signature later, so I was only notified of this thread by watchlist. You might want to resend the pings. ComplexRational (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

CR, my question is: why should the word "Metalloid" not be present in infobox silicon? -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

If there were a way to label every element unambiguously, and categorization remained stable and consistent, I would not be opposed to that. However, I imagine that labeling silicon as a metalloid would lead readers to expect other metalloids to be similarly identified, while there is disagreement on several (such as selenium, polonium, and astatine). Therefore, we either need a simple, reliable, indisputable solution for labels, or we have dozens of complicated or borderline cases that an infobox label alone will not adequately address. ComplexRational (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

My example of As applies to all the metalloids, actually. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

... and counting in scientists who do not recognise metalloids at all (including fringe denounciations). Do you actually want to erase the word "metaliod" from PT discourse? -DePiep (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@DePiep: It's not a "fringe denunciation" because it isn't "fringe". Droog Andrey already mentioned a couple of years ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 34#Dividing line between metals and nonmetals) that most Russian textbooks do not have a "metalloid" category; they only use metals and nonmetals. In Russian-language schoolbooks the term "metalloids" is rarely used; usually the whole set of elements is just divided into "metals" and "non-metals". So that's why my table has a single line. Astatine may go to metals in the next edition. Droog Andrey (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look at Lists of metalloids, you will see the massive spread. While it's true that {B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te} are definite majority inclusions among those who have a metalloid category, the majority of sources actually include others too. IUPAC doesn't seem to use the term either. It seems not very well-defined to me. I also somehow think that it would be better to illustrate the metal-to-nonmetal trend simply with the more standard diagonal stairstep and just say that elements near the stairstep line are sometimes considered metalloids or semimetals, except that the term isn't used very consistently. Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Leave it to text. I agree with Double sharp and Narky Blert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbinilium-322 Dibromide (talk • contribs) 04:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Keep in infobox, but expand to "other categories" (see discussion below)

Note: Above !vote posted and signed as "YBG (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)," who then moved the accompanying comment into the new sub-section, "Other categories" in infobox, started below. I (EdChem) have added this note so that it YBG's !vote is clear and separated from subsequent !votes, for whe it comes time to evaluate any consensus. EdChem (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Discussion separated out from YBG's response to poll above

There is no reason why the infobox needs to have one and only one category. The colorization pretty much required us to assign each element to one and only one category, but in the infobox we could list a number of the significant named sets of chemical elements to which it belongs. I think we'd need to figure out a way to keep the lists relatively short; for starters, there would be no need to repeat the already listed group name. I proposed this idea some time back and DePiep started working on a template to support this idea, but I can't find it now. YBG (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This might work as well; I had not previously thought of this. However, if we impose a label "other categories", we'd still need to accurately determine what the primary category should be for some case, unless we just present a list of all common categorizations for each element without identifying a main one (aside from blocks). ComplexRational (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@YBG: I have considered this, but my worry is it may lead to a whole load of difficulties: for something like arsenic, which can be classified as metal, metalloid, or nonmetal, and for which its status as a p-block element then lets the metal and nonmetal categories fracture into a whole lot of possibilities, I almost think it might end up as the longest field in the infobox. "Variously classified as a metal, metalloid, or nonmetal, but usually as a metalloid; if a metal, then a post-transition / poor / other / B subgroup metal; if a nonmetal, then a reactive polyatomic weakly electronegative nonmetal"? Plus the questions of weight. Should we really give non-standardised categories?

I guess that if one were to only put the IUPAC-named categories, then it might not be so bad. But that still has quite strong overlaps (La is simultaneously a lanthanoid and an inner transition element and a rare earth element), does not cover all elements and makes no claims as to which elements are metals. Which is probably another thing we should relook at, to be honest. Anyway, I still want to ask: if this is something that can only be adequately handled in a big string of text, and we are going to have such a text in the article anyway when describing the element's characteristics, then why burden the box? Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

For Arsenic, I would probably just say "metalloid (usually)" and leave it at that. For the rest, yes, we'd need to limit the list somehow, and IUPAC approved names seems as good a way as any. What is the largest number of non-group IUPAC categories an element would belong to? If the max was 5 or 6 and that only affected not much more than a dozen or so elements, I think I'd be OK with that. YBG (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@YBG: If you don't include group categories, then IUPAC approval leaves us with only transition and inner transition elements (which are really synonyms of d-block and f-block respectively), main group elements (which is basically s-block plus p-block minus hydrogen), lanthanoids, actinoids, and rare earth elements for sure. Biggest overlap seems to be the triple one for lanthanum and friends.

As for metallicity: IUPAC wrote in the Red Book: In Ref. 11, the formulae for intermetallic compounds were also subject to an exceptional rule although no guidance was given for naming such compounds, and the term ‘intermetallic compound’ was not defined. The problem is to define the term ‘metal’. Therefore, no attempt is now made to make a separate prescription for either the formulae or the names of intermetallic compounds. So it seems that chemistry has abdicated from defining "metal" and that there are multiple ideas going around there. In the end I think you'll find that "metalloid" is one of those ill-defined terms that people use despite having no really agreed meaning. Similar to "noble metal" or "heavy metal". I guess "metalloid (usually)" for arsenic is not inaccurate; I just kind of dislike putting up ill-defined terms in the infobox because I worry it might make people think they are more standardised than they really are. Maybe I worry too much. ;) Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the categorisations (whether single or several) both straight-forward and uncontroversial in the significant majority of elements? If so, those could be added to infoboxes as a useful summary for readers. For the complicated / unclear cases, some possibilities include:

• leave the category blank, perhaps with a hidden note in the edit field that the category parameter is being left blank as any categorisation provided would be problematic with some RS and so the concept is left to the text where there is space to explore it; or,
• put something like "reliable sources support different categorisations", perhaps with a convenience link or a footnote pointing to where the issues are presented in the article; or,
• put something like the above but with a footnote that explores the options, and is appropriately supported by references; or,
• simply exclude categories from the infoboxes; or,
• put whatever consensus that article talk page discussion supports as the most appropriate for that element, with a footnote noting the alternatives supported by references. This option comes with a bonus gigantic time sink every time someone suggests a different categorisation, the potential for a nice long and pointless fight, and that feeling of satisfaction that comes with moving your desk two inches in some direction after the massive casualties that inevitably come with trench warfare.

You will hopefully be unsurprised that I don't favour the last possibility. EdChem (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EdChem: Well it seems most of us are currently favouring your fourth bullet, FWIW. And indeed, save for Lu and Hf, they were all already not there when I started this polling; I just wanted it to be clear if this was what was generally wanted among project members.

My impression is that nearly all the old categories are either (1) group names that are clear and already in the infobox under "group", (2) close enough to blocks (transition metal = d-block; lanthanoid and actinoid are close enough to "f-block"), or (3) stuff that is not agreed in sources and gives what you aptly call a "bonus gigantic timesink" (the metal/metalloid/nonmetal area). Having been through the timesink on entirely too many occasions (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 15, I cringe somewhat thinking of it now) makes me likewise unenthusiastic about making it ever possible to go through again, whence my "leave it to text" !vote and those of others. ;) Double sharp (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Double sharp, the categories that I was thinking about as uncontroversial are mostly group or block references (as you pointed out), so I am persuaded that leaving out categories from the infobox seems wisest. EdChem (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply