This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
@ Double sharp and Sandbh: I have a few suggested refactoring of your exchange in WT:ELEM § Opinions
1. I think Double sharp's narrative would be better presented by changing his {{
cquote}} to include |width=80%
. It would make the flow between point 5 and point 5 (cont.) clearer.
2. I think it would be better if the bulk of the discussion between you two were moved to WT:ELEM § Moved from Opinions to Supplements. I think the best way would be to retain Sandbh's initial points 1-4, and follow them by
Cheers! YBG ( talk) 07:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, here is what I've done
rev numbers & diff | time stamps | Changes made |
---|---|---|
special:diff/984808102 /984941123 | [a] 2020-10-22 06:43:04 to [b] 2020-10-23 00:44:19 | Changes made by Sandbh & Double sharp, including eliminating the # numbering |
special:diff/984941123 /984946494 | [b] 2020-10-23 00:44:19 to [c] 2020-10-23 01:30:57 | Changes I made to restore the original # numbering |
special:diff/984808102 /984946494 | [a] 2020-10-22 06:43:04 to [c] 2020-10-23 01:30:57 | Comparison to before numbering was changed |
special:diff/984946494 /984947422 | [c] 2020-10-23 01:30:57 to [d] 2020-10-23 01:39:59 | The actual move |
special:diff/984947422 /984964950 | [d] 2020-10-23 01:39:59 to [e] 2020-10-23 04:20:53 | Changes I made after the move |
YBG ( talk) 04:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you take a good look are the proposal text in User:DePiep/sandbox2? Should be convincingly strong, but it's long too. Edit if you want to.- DePiep ( talk) 05:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Asking the test question ...left me wondering what is the "test question" that one would ask? It sounds like you're talking about something like "Does ____ have hair?" as a test question to determine whether something is a mammal, or "Does it make sense to say 'Here are 33 _____s" to determine whether a thing is a count noun or a mass noun
The proposed text may be too long, but I'm not sure what all is included in "the proposed text".
And is also used in Wikidata to describe a data structure (for example: a "chemical element" is a class of isotopes or a "material appearance"? -- gold book says both BTW). That is what these difficult discussions are about. (I left them too, as you did). I mention this, because it is the Wikidata-philosophers way to check "is it a class or an object?". And: "Sodium is an instance of [class] alkali metal(s)"? (or: "Sodium is an alkali metal?")
An orthography is a set of conventions for writing a language. It includes norms of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation.
The study of correct spelling according to established usage.
The aspect of language study concerned with letters and their sequences in words.
Spelling; the method of representing a language or the sounds of language by written symbols.
(architecture) Orthographic projection; especially its use to draw an elevation, vertical projection etc. of a building.
our nine metallishness setsYBG ( talk) 16:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Why did my account get randomly blocked with no warning? I had to make this account to see what happened. I have no affiliation with that sock puppet account. All of my work has been deleted. I spent hours on that. :( LR.2004 ( talk) 10:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Partnership, president, and vice president | Older | Age difference | Time span years, days days starting – ending |
Starting & ending events | days2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P/V | years, days | ±d | ||||||||
1 | George Washington | 1John Adams | 1POTUS | 3 years, 250 days | 1346 | 7 years, 317 days | 2,874 | 1789-04-21 – 1797-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 3868404 |
2 | John Adams | 2Thomas Jefferson | 2POTUS | 7 years, 165 days | 2722 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,460 | 1797-03-04 – 1801-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 3974120 |
3 | Thomas Jefferson | 3Aaron Burr | 3POTUS | 12 years, 299 days | 4682 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1801-03-04 – 1805-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 6840402 |
4 | George Clinton | 4VEEP | 3 years, 261 days | -1357 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1805-03-04 – 1809-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1982577 | |
5 | James Madison | 4VEEP | 11 years, 233 days | -4251 | 3 years, 47 days | 1,143 | 1809-03-04 – 1812-04-20 | inauguration – death of VP | -4858893 | |
6 | Elbridge Gerry | 5VEEP | 6 years, 242 days | -2433 | 1 year, 264 days | 629 | 1813-03-04 – 1814-11-23 | inauguration – death of VP | -1530357 | |
7 | James Monroe | 5Daniel D. Tompkins | 6POTUS | 16 years, 54 days | 5898 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1817-03-04 – 1825-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 17233956 |
8 | John Quincy Adams | 6John C. Calhoun | 7POTUS | 14 years, 250 days | 5364 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1825-03-04 – 1829-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 7836804 |
9 | Andrew Jackson | 7POTUS | 15 years, 3 days | 5482 | 3 years, 299 days | 1,395 | 1829-03-04 – 1832-12-28 | inauguration – resignation of VP | 7647390 | |
10 | Martin Van Buren | 8POTUS | 15 years, 265 days | 5744 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1833-03-04 – 1837-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 8391984 | |
11 | Martin Van Buren | 8Richard M. Johnson | 9VEEP | 2 years, 49 days | -779 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1837-03-04 – 1841-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1138119 |
12 | William Henry Harrison | 910 John Tyler | POTUS | 17 years, 48 days | 6257 | 31 days | 31 | 1841-03-04 – 1841-04-04 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 193967 |
13 | 11 James K. Polk | 11 George M. Dallas | VEEP | 3 years, 115 days | -1210 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1845-03-04 – 1849-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1767810 |
14 | 12 Zachary Taylor | 12 Millard Fillmore | POTUS | 15 years, 44 days | 5522 | 1 year, 127 days | 492 | 1849-03-04 – 1850-07-09 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 2716824 |
15 | 14 Franklin Pierce | 13 William R. King | VEEP | 18 years, 230 days | -6804 | 45 days | 45 | 1853-03-04 – 1853-04-18 | inauguration – death of VP | -306180 |
16 | 15 James Buchanan | 14 John C. Breckinridge | POTUS | 29 years, 268 days | 10860 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1857-03-04 – 1861-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 15866460 |
17 | 16 Abraham Lincoln | 15 Hannibal Hamlin | POTUS | 196 days | 196 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1861-03-04 – 1865-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 286356 |
18 | 16 Andrew Johnson | VEEP | 45 days | -45 | 42 days | 42 | 1865-03-04 – 1865-04-15 | inauguration – assassination | -1890 | |
19 | 18 Ulysses S. Grant | 17 Schuyler Colfax | POTUS | 330 days | 330 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1869-03-04 – 1873-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 482130 |
20 | 18 Henry Wilson | VEEP | 10 years, 70 days | -3723 | 2 years, 263 days | 993 | 1873-03-04 – 1875-11-22 | inauguration – death of VP | -3696939 | |
21 | 19 Rutherford B. Hayes | 19 William A. Wheeler | VEEP | 3 years, 96 days | -1192 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1877-03-04 – 1881-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1741512 |
22 | 20 James A. Garfield | 20 Chester A. Arthur | VEEP | 2 years, 45 days | -775 | 199 days | 199 | 1881-03-04 – 1881-09-19 | inauguration – assassination | -154225 |
23 | 22 Grover Cleveland | 21 Thomas A. Hendricks | VEEP | 17 years, 192 days | -6402 | 266 days | 266 | 1885-03-04 – 1885-11-25 | inauguration – death of VP | -1702932 |
24 | 23 Benjamin Harrison | 22 Levi P. Morton | VEEP | 9 years, 96 days | -3383 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1889-03-04 – 1893-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -4942563 |
25 | 24 Grover Cleveland | 23 Adlai Stevenson I | VEEP | 1 year, 146 days | -512 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1893-03-04 – 1897-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -748032 |
26 | 25 William McKinley | 24 Garret Hobart | POTUS | 1 year, 126 days | 491 | 2 years, 262 days | 992 | 1897-03-04 – 1899-11-21 | inauguration – death of VP | 487072 |
27 | 25 Theodore Roosevelt | POTUS | 15 years, 271 days | 5750 | 194 days | 194 | 1901-03-04 – 1901-09-14 | inauguration – assassination | 1115500 | |
28 | 26 Theodore Roosevelt | 26 Charles W. Fairbanks | VEEP | 6 years, 169 days | -2360 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1905-03-04 – 1909-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -3447960 |
29 | 27 William Howard Taft | 27 James S. Sherman | VEEP | 1 year, 326 days | -692 | 3 years, 240 days | 1,336 | 1909-03-04 – 1912-10-30 | inauguration – death of VP | -924512 |
30 | 28 Woodrow Wilson | 28 Thomas R. Marshall | VEEP | 2 years, 289 days | -1020 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1913-03-04 – 1921-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -2980440 |
31 | 29 Warren G. Harding | 29 Calvin Coolidge | POTUS | 6 years, 245 days | 2436 | 2 years, 151 days | 881 | 1921-03-04 – 1923-08-02 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 2146116 |
32 | 30 Calvin Coolidge | 30 Charles G. Dawes | VEEP | 6 years, 312 days | -2503 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1925-03-04 – 1929-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -3656883 |
33 | 31 Herbert Hoover | 31 Charles Curtis | VEEP | 14 years, 197 days | -5311 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1929-03-04 – 1933-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -7759371 |
34 | 32 Franklin D. Roosevelt | 32 John N. Garner | VEEP | 13 years, 69 days | -4817 | 7 years, 322 days | 2,879 | 1933-03-04 – 1941-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -13868143 |
35 | 33 Henry A. Wallace | POTUS | 6 years, 251 days | 2442 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1941-01-20 – 1945-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 3567762 | |
36 | 34 Harry S. Truman | POTUS | 2 years, 99 days | 829 | 82 days | 82 | 1945-01-20 – 1945-04-12 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 67978 | |
37 | 33 Harry S. Truman | 35 Alben W. Barkley | VEEP | 6 years, 166 days | -2357 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1949-01-20 – 1953-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -3443577 |
38 | 34 Dwight D. Eisenhower | 36 Richard Nixon | POTUS | 22 years, 87 days | 8122 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1953-01-20 – 1961-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 23732484 |
39 | 35 John F. Kennedy | 37 Lyndon B. Johnson | VEEP | 8 years, 275 days | -3197 | 2 years, 306 days | 1,036 | 1961-01-20 – 1963-11-22 | inauguration – assassination | -3312092 |
40 | 36 Lyndon B. Johnson | 38 Hubert Humphrey | POTUS | 2 years, 273 days | 1003 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1965-01-20 – 1969-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 1465383 |
41 | 37 Richard Nixon | 39 Spiro Agnew | POTUS | 5 years, 304 days | 2130 | 4 years, 320 days | 1,781 | 1969-01-20 – 1973-12-06 | inauguration – resignation of VP | 3793530 |
42 | 40 Gerald Ford | POTUS | 186 days | 186 | 1 year, 13 days | 378 | 1973-12-06 – 1974-12-19 | confirmation of VP – resignation of POTUS | 70308 | |
43 | 38 Gerald Ford | 41 Nelson Rockefeller | VEEP | 5 years, 6 days | -1832 | 2 years, 32 days | 763 | 1974-12-19 – 1977-01-20 | confirmation of VP – inauguration | -1397816 |
44 | 39 Jimmy Carter | 42 Walter Mondale | POTUS | 3 years, 96 days | 1191 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1977-01-20 – 1981-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 1740051 |
45 | 40 Ronald Reagan | 43 George H. W. Bush | POTUS | 13 years, 127 days | 4875 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1981-01-20 – 1989-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 14244750 |
46 | 41 George H. W. Bush | 44 Dan Quayle | POTUS | 22 years, 237 days | 8272 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1989-01-20 – 1993-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 12085392 |
47 | 42 Bill Clinton | 45 Al Gore | POTUS | 1 year, 225 days | 590 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1993-01-20 – 2001-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 1723980 |
48 | 43 George W. Bush | 46 Dick Cheney | VEEP | 5 years, 157 days | -1983 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 2001-01-20 – 2009-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -5794326 |
49 | 44 Barack Obama | 47 Joe Biden | VEEP | 18 years, 257 days | -6832 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 2009-01-20 – 2017-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -19963104 |
50 | 45 Donald Trump | 48 Mike Pence | POTUS | 12 years, 358 days | 4741 | 7 years, 190 days | 2,746 | 2017-01-20 – (present) | inauguration – (present) | 13018786 |
25 older presidents (thru Obama) | POTUS | Total age difference | 97461 | Total time span | 36858 | 141579103 | ||||
24 older vice presidents | VEEP | Total age difference | -65770 | Total time span | 32707 | -91120253 | ||||
49 total partnerships (thru Obama) | ALL | Total age difference | 31691 | Total time span | 69565 | 50458850 | ||||
26 older presidents | POTUS | Total age difference | 97461 | Total time span | 39604 | 154597889 | ||||
50 total partnerships | ALL | Total age difference | 31691 | Total time span | 72311 | 63477636 | ||||
I made this primarily for my own benefit, to validate my gut reaction that the President is usually older than the VP - Obama/Biden notwithstanding. But the data actually shows the 50 "partnerships" are split almost exactly evenly: 26 presidents are older than their VP and 24 are younger. Omitted from the above chart are instances when the vice-presidency was vacant. YBG ( talk) 05:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's the data presented tabularly:
Count | Average difference | Weighted average difference | ||||
n | ∑ [POTUS BD]–[VP BD] n |
∑ ([POTUS BD]–[VP BD]) × ([End Day]–[Start Day]) ∑ [End Day]–[Start Day] | ||||
Presidents older than VP | 26 | 3748.5 | 97461 26 |
3903.59 | 154597889 39604 |
141579103 + 2746×4741 36858 + 2746 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VPs older than president | 24 | -2740.42 | -65770 24 |
-2785.96 | -91120253 32707 |
32707 + 0 | -91120253 + 0×4741
All partnerships | 50 | 633.82 | 31691 50 |
877.84 | 63477636 72311 |
2746×4741 69565 + 2746 | 50458850 +
YBG ( talk) 06:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The Vice President is not "ex officio" the President of the Senate. The Vice President is the President of the Senate. No modifier is necessary. Best, JTRH ( talk) 00:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Hard to select namespaces suggestion at MediaWiki. YBG ( talk) 07:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi! A while ago, yourself, ComplexRational, and I agreed we would work on History of the periodic table to bring it to the FA status. I'm trying to write my ideas on that article's talk page from time to time to make sure ComplexRational understands what I'm doing, and I generally have similar expectations from him. You also wanted to take it on, so you could voice your comments on our little topics of discussion, read some interesting literature on the topic (I could give you a few pointers if you're interested), or write with us. ComplexRational wrote a good basis article; I'm now trying to fill it with details on some aspects, and ComplexRational will probably join me in filling in those details soon. So if you want to join, now's a great time!-- R8R ( talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
...you may like User:Double sharp/Teaching periodicity. It also has a periodic table colouring electronegativity as a gradient from red to violet (hopefully pretty) as well as one dividing only by blocks and metallicity (with an explanation as to why I prefer that). Not proposing it for WP, just thought you might be interested. ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 11:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Sandbh: I am discussing this in user space so that you can correct what is apparently a misunderstanding on my part without bothering the rest of the world.
My understanding of the Aufbau principle or Madelung rule is that it predicts that the shells will be filled in this order:
and that each subshell is filled completely before the next one is started.
Given that s, p, d, and f subshells hold 2, 6, 10, and 14 electrons respectively, this means that the subshells are filled in this way:
1122222222333333334433333333334444445544444444445555556644444444444444555555555566666677555555555555556666666666777777 ssssppppppssppppppssddddddddddppppppssddddddddddppppppssffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp
Or when laid out in two dimensions, we get:
ss ss pppppp ss pppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp
Or this:
ss ss ppppppss ppppppss ddddddddddppppppss ddddddddddppppppss ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss
This is what I meant by being more consistent with Aufbau.
Have I missed something? I know that Aufbau does not represent what is observed expirementally. But what I said was that Sc/Y/Lu is more consistent with Aufbau, not that it is more consistent with expiremental results. YBG ( talk) 09:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hat note of convenience 1
|
---|
I am not YBG, but I watch this talk page, and would be interested in getting a few things clarified from User:Sandbh about this latest reply of his. So I would like to ask him first if he is agreeable to that, and also to ask YBG if he is agreeable to me doing so here. Double sharp ( talk) 18:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
|
@ Double sharp and EdChem: Wow, it's been a busy morning between WP:ANI (Softlavdner reverted my revert, so now I have that to deal with as well); R8R's talk page; and now here. BTW it is good to see you here, EdChem. And it is nice to be able to talk about hard-core content. ^_^ So, addressing Double sharp's interesting question first. 1. Here is an idealised Lu table: ss ss pppppp ss pppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp The Lu form corresponds to the aufbau rule. 2. Here is an idealised La table: ss ss pppppp ss pppppp ssd dddddddddpppppp ssd dddddddddpppppp ssdffffffffffffffdddddddddpppppp ssdffffffffffffffdddddddddpppppp The La form does not correspond to the aufbau rule, since it features a split d-block. That said, the correspondence of the Lu form to aufbau does not meaning anything, since aufbau is simply a pattern, lacking any accepted ab initio derivation. Several authors claim to have achieved such a derivation; none of these claims have been accepted. Now, let us set aside concerns about the basis of aufabu, and look at how it used in the literature, which is to predict the gas phase configurations of atoms. The first thing about aufbau is that whenever it fails, it always resumes course sooner or later. So it is a curious kind of approximation. The second thing about aufbau is that it's not a very good approximation since it yields about 20 errors up to the first 100 or so elements. The third thing about aufbau is that if you look at its predictions for differnentiaing electrons (de), it is more accurate at predicting these for the La form than the Lu form. How bizarre is that?! But there you go. A caveat with regard to de is that DS has raised an objection as to how these are worked out, in a few cases. I addressed this in my article, at note 1:
So, yes, as per my first paragraph, aufbau does not mean anything. That has not stopped some muggles (by which I mean non WP-editors) saying Lu must be "it" since it corresponds with aufabu. And if we counter-factually assume it does mean something, it works better (as per my third paragraph) for the La form in any event! Muggles respond to the latter via perceptual filtering. Since it does not correspond to their world-view, they adopt the see no-evil, speak no-evil, hear no-evil approach. Very, very few muggles understand or aware of their subconscious perceptual filters nor that these are on auto-pilot. DS, I hope this clarifies the sitation. Sandbh ( talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Placeholder re EdChem's thoughts. Sandbh ( talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
Hat note of convenience 2
|
---|
@ Double sharp and Sandbh: Please take this conversation elsewhere. Apparently I was not clear enough. I wanted this thread to be reserved, only about my trying to understand Sandbh, and was hoping that until that was accomplished, it would not be cluttered with other things that distracted from that purpose. Apparently I was not clear enough for either of you to understand that. YBG ( talk) 04:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) @ Double sharp and Sandbh: ... Unless you are willing to wait until I have reached an understanding of Sandbh's point of view. YBG ( talk) 05:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|
This is just a preliminary proposal I'm hosting here on my talk page so that pagewatches and others can chime in. I am open to all comments, including suggestions that this RfC would be a total waste of time.
I am conflicted on this issue. Although currently leaning toward eliminate, I love the categories and their colors; they are what piqued my interest in WP:ELEM and solidified me as a confirmed wp-a-holic.
I will look at this again in a few hours, but after that I'm taking a short wikibreak. In the event that incivility erupts, I hereby authorize any one of EdChem, Sandbh or Double sharp to declare a moratorium on this thread until I am back on line. YBG ( talk) 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we eliminate the system of chemical element categories based on the metal-to-nonmetal trend used to color elements in the WP periodic table?
YBG ( talk) 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the RFC question should just be the question. Arguments, as I understand it, should go below with !votes, so that the statement is neutral.
That being said, I think your arguments for eliminating are very consistent with my case, so I feel good that I was understood well. I just think that they should be a part of our !votes instead. ^_^ I might take your statement if it's all right with you (and probably expand it with sources), and then add one sentence to 1 saying "The literature does not always organise categories into a system at all". BTW, my replies to points #2 and #4 for retention would be:
I also think it needs to be stressed to avoid misunderstandings that the proposal is only about colouring. No one, AFAIK, is proposing to eliminate all mention of categories. I don't have a problem with discussing categorisation in articles and in infoboxes so long as each category is given its WP:DUE weight. So it would look less like what we have currently where each element is shoehorned into just one category, but something more like the "minor planet category" entry in an article like 90482 Orcus. Notice also that all three categories mentioned for Orcus in that infobox (TNO, plutino, possible dwarf planet) are also mentioned in the lede. That should address concerns about hiding knowledge. (Although it indeed should be questioned if they should be called "categories" or something else.) ^_^
As for an RFC: I am iffy about RFCs for this in general, simply because I suspect the majority of editors are not going to be in a good position to comment. To get it, you need to probably also have some general knowledge of the literature situation. Over at WT:ELEM, we already have a base of editors familiar with those issues, and anyone else if interested can always come if a little note is placed at Talk:Periodic table mentioning that something's going on at our pages. A discussion at WT:ELEM is not and has never been limited to project participants.
I think it makes more sense if the group 3 thing comes first, because it makes a difference on whether La or Lu gets the d block colour by default. And I think it makes more sense if this comes before the proposed nonmetal recategorisation question, because if the "blocks alone" proposal passes, then it makes that question moot. I think that's consistent with what I've said before at ELEM. Double sharp ( talk) 22:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Ditto YBG: I love the categories and their colors; they are what piqued my interest in WP:ELEM and solidified me as a confirmed wp-a-holic.
RFC text. I suspect the proposed text of the RFC ought to say what you would replace it with. I doubt people would be comfortable with voting for the unknown.
RFC host page. The best place to host the RFC is at Talk:Periodic table. Our project is too small, insufficiently representative, and does not represent an NPOV "venue". Since the RFC is about the periodic table, it ought to take place at that talk page.
What to display. A periodic table is like a map. [1] A map of the world could e.g. display climate zones; crop types; elevations; or political territories, with overlaps at the boundaries according to disputed claims; etc. A periodic table could display e.g. blocks; dates of discovery; elements only; groups i.e. 18 of them, plus the Ln and An; metal-metalloid-nonmetal; or phases i.e. solid, liquid, gas; etc. Perhaps the question is what is the most generally useful information to display, given it's not possible to display everything concurrently.
Colour categories. 1. The Encyclopaedia Britannic PT, which predates the WP PT, features nine colour categories; 2. the most popular Google PT, which postdates the WP PT, features nine colour categories. Atkins, in his book The Periodic Kingdom (1995) surveyed the periodic table as if it was a continent, comprised of regions and territories. Gonick & Criddle, in The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry (2005, p. 38) refer the reader to 3. the LANL PT which they describe as "a wonderfully information-rich" PT. This has ten colour categories. 4. The ACS PT has ten colour categories. [2] 5. The RSC PT has eight main group colour categories; one TM colour category; and one each for the Ln and An. [3] 6. The World Book encyclopaedia of science: Chemistry today (1986, p. 23) has a PT with 20 colour categories. In the text, they "group: the following elements: H; AM, AEM; coinage metals; AEM; group 12; group 13; C; Si–Pb; Ti–Ni; Zr–Tc and Hf–Re; PGM; N; P–Bi; O; S–Po; halogens; rare gases; Sc group and the Ln; An.
Category boundaries. Such boundaries are rarely sharp (Atkins 1995, p. 4). We could note this in the lede periodic table graphic, although none of the above six sources felt the need to do this. In any event, we elaborate this in the main body of the periodic table article, and note that " Categorisation as described here can vary among authors".
No RS consensus in literature. That's not quite right. The creators of the WP:PT and its colour categories did so on the basis of what they understood to be the consensus in the literature, noting unanimity is not a requirement for consensus. See: archive 1 of the periodic table talk page, and some related commentary here: Template talk:Periodic table/Archive 1.
Which goes first?. Group 3 was put to
an RFC on 20 Jul and closed, without success, on 6 Aug 2020. In this light, I submit the non-metal RFC should now be afforded the opportunity to be put.
---
Sandbh (
talk)
07:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I have now withdrawn this proposed RfC. YBG ( talk) 02:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Please comment here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case if you wish, as a witness. Jehochman Talk 02:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'll try, since I'm the one who was convinced about that view till today when Jehochman suggested on EdChem's talk page about a style guide, maybe it'll help.
You can sort of rationalise it this way. The problem is that (1) sources in English tend to prefer using categories to blocks-only, but (2) sources in English also cannot exactly agree on what categories to use. We also can often find the situation that sources not focusing on an element often take a different view from sources that do for radioactives: At is often called a halogen by those who don't know much about it and called a metal by those who do. In this situation I suspect you're more or less forced to have UNDUE either way. Because if you don't show any categories it's UNDUE weight towards that no-categories approach as most sources show some categories, but if you show any one particular set of categories it's UNDUE weight because of the problem: why that approach and not another one?
So, is our category scheme OR? One can make the case that it's UNDUE and partly synthesis, and I still have doubts about it, but since a more experienced Wikipedian Jehochman has suggested arbitrarily choosing one common way, I guess it may well be the best of all options. If we interpret policies strictly, pretty much every solution has UNDUE lurking behind it. But if we take it as "well, most sources seem to show something like this, even if it's not exactly this" – then, I guess you can make the argument that some form of categories are better than none. Because many sources do colour in a table like that. Even if they are fuzzy about what exactly "halogen" means, what exactly "transition metal" is, it's still common to colour somehow.
We can argue about some things, maybe; I think there is some general support for reinstating halogen nonmetals as a category just because most people do it for F-Cl-Br-I-(At); the problem is just At. I guess, for such cases, one can sort of make case-by-case justifications. Is it SYNTH? Maybe, but the alternative might just be worse UNDUE.
So maybe this is the sort of issue where a strict application of policy is just impossible because of the state of the literature. Double sharp ( talk) 19:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: WRT to my perception of what is a happening to Po and to At, there is a risk that my perceptual filters are turned up too high. For example, when I brought a new car, I suddenly started seeing lots of the same kind of cars on the road.
Anyway, At, like Po, seems to be becoming more widely regarded as a PTM.
I say this in the context of the 35 citations for the condensed At is expected to be a metal paper. Now, At stills seems to still be able to behave like halogen sometimes, but we see that kind of behaviour in Au, too.
Oh, I happened upon this 2019 paper arguing for Cn as a relativistic noble liquid with a band gap of ~6.5 eV, which I see we already cite in our article. That's nonmetal (insulator) territory. It already has nine citations. Sandbh ( talk) 01:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
On items such as these I intend to post them to WP:ELEM as, "Speculation: …" in the same way that I did with "Philosophy: …" so folks with no interest in either can skip them. As you say, it may take quite a while for "Speculation: …" to turn into "Proposal …". I recall e.g. we waited several years e.g. before flipping At from a metalloid to a PTM. Sandbh ( talk) 01:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Why are you so much better at explaining my logic than I am? (Tongue-in-cheek question, obviously.) ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 10:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
LANL says | What's wrong |
---|---|
…aluminum and tin are included characterized [sic] as Metalloids or poor metals | Say no more (note erroneous spelling of Al) |
Alkaline earth metals. The alkaline earth metals have very high melting points and oxides that have basic alkaline solutions. Their characteristics are well described and consistent down the group. | In fact, the AEM do not have very high melting points; beryllium oxide does not have a basic alkaline solution; and Be and Mg are quite distinct from the rest of the AEM. |
Transition metals. The transition elements are metals that have a partially filled d subshell (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics) and comprise groups 3 through 12 and the lanthanides and actinides (see below). | In fact, group 12 do not have a partially filled d subshell. |
Post-transition metals. …are Al, Ga, In, Tl, Sn, Pb and Bi. As their name implies, they have some of the characteristics of the transition elements. | Whoever wrote that had no clue. |
Metalloid (or "semi-metal" or "poor metal"). The metalloids are B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, and Po. They sometimes behave as semiconductors (B, Si, Ge) rather than as conductors. | Er, no, metalloids are not poor metals. And Te is a semiconductor, too. |
Lanthanides. …comprise elements 57 (La, hence the name of the set) through 71. They are grouped together because they have similar chemical properties. They, along with the actinides, are often called "the f-elements" because they have valence electrons in the f shell. | In fact, La and Lu do not have "valence" electrons in the f shell. |
Actinides. The actinides comprise elements 89 through 103. They, along with the lanthanides, are often called "the f-elements" because they have valence electrons in the f shell. | In fact, Ac, Th and Lr do not have "valence" electrons in the f shell. |
Halogens. [a]…They generally [sic] very chemically reactive…[b] are present in the environment as compounds rather than as pure elements | [a] eh? [b] A 2012 study (19 citations) reported the presence of 0.04% F2 by weight in antozonite, attributing these inclusions to radiation from the presence of tiny amounts of uranium |
1999 | In CHEM 13 News, a magazine published for teachers of introductory chemistry and mostly written by high school chemistry teachers, Stephen Hawkes argued Po was a metal. |
2007 | Holt, Rinehart and Winston, who publish chemistry textbooks, published a note for teachers on Why polonium and astatine arenot metalloids in HRW texts. |
2010 | In the Journal of Chemical Education, Hawkes made the same argument, that Po was not a metalloid. doi: 10.1021/ed100308w |
2011 | Pamela Fujinaka, a high school teacher in Honolulu, uses the mnemonic, " Up, up-down, up-down, up…are the metalloids" i.e. B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te in 'Faculty profile: Elements of Great Teaching', The Iolani School Bulletin, Winter. |
2013 | In JChemEd, I cited Hawkes' argument, confirming the status of Po as a metal. doi: 10.1021/ed3008457 |
Has become pretty conservative since they were folded into the ACS stable. They focus a lot more on technique than content.
He's not a good example due to the perceived selectivity of his arguments, and the fact that his proposal did not gain traction although, of late, there's been more interest in Lu in group 3. For polonium, OTOH, I'm not aware of any comparable sources in the literature arguing for its treatment as a metalloid. That's understandable given polonium's fully metallic band structure; metallic electrical conductivity; absence of a semiconducting form; and relatively straightforward cation formation.
I like to think the question of which elements are metalloids is no longer controversial following the publication of my 2013 article in JChemEd addressing this question (31 citations).
Even before then there was hardly any controversy as to the six elements commonly recognised as metalloids, per Goldsmith 1982, p. 526; Kotz, Treichel & Weaver 2009, p. 62; Bettelheim et al. 2010, p. 46; and Mann et al. 2000, p. 2783.
I don't regard the LANL PT as a necessarily reliable source.
I distinguish here between LANL the organisation, in contrast to the LANL PT which was devised by someone in LANL who thought it would be a good idea to have such a PT, which it was. Unfortunately, the execution of that good idea was poor. For example, a simple search of the literature would've revealed quite a bit had been written about the status of polonium.
I follow what you are saying about what is taught rather than what is truth. But WP is not based on what is taught. It is based on (may we recall?) RS. Not just generalist sources but all sources, having regard to varying degrees of reliability e.g. less so; reliable: and top tier. Indeed. a theme of distinguishing RS based on e.g. publisher reputation, author reputation, age of publication, etc pervades WP:RS. When it comes to textbooks, some judgement is required in recognition of the textbook errors phenomenon extensively written about in JChemEd, for over ten years.
The antozonite example is notable since it was reported along the lines of textbooks needing to be rewritten. This kind of thing is what makes chemistry interesting. Rayner-Canham wrote along the same lines:
Here again, Rayner-Canham was speaking in a teaching context. And he treats Po as a metal (a chemically weak one).
No doubt students and teachers, if they felt so inclined, could Google polonium and at the top of the page they would see the WP extract referring to it as a metal.
I forgot to mention Hawke's 2001 article in JChemEd in which he wrote, "…polonium is unambiguously a silvery-white metal" citing sources from 1990 and 1957.
The LANL PT represents an example of needless sloppiness.
---
Sandbh (
talk)
10:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. That seems to be rather exactly the situation we are in in drawing the PT and colouring it in. The policy WP:NC on article titles also reads
The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.I think that principle is probably relevant here too. Comments at the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case page from Beyond My Ken and SMcCandlish also suggests it.
All that generality said, I have no idea specifically how to arrive at what PT to use (and where – everywhere? by subfield?) on Wikipedia, nor whether it should attempt (on the basis of previously published attempts, not OR) to marry any different PT approaches. Given sufficiently complex template code, one could probably switch between alternative PT models (at least if the user has JavaScript turned on), but that would be a lot of Lua work, and we still need to know what the default view should be (whether that's universal or categorically varying).
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
13:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
compact periodic table}}
does. Although I am not really sure there is an actual name for them in the literature: we just started calling them "categories" for talkpage-discussions to make it clear what we were talking about.
Double sharp (
talk)
22:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I just logged in a short time ago and was astounded at the alert count. I've never had 36 alerts before. YBG ( talk) 04:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Double sharp, I think our thread has gone somewhat off topic, which was about the LANL table and polonium. On a scientific evidence basis, as presented, polonium is a metal.
A simple literature search produces some easy to read findings:
Unusually for a halogen, no solid evidence for the existence of diatomic astatine has been reported.
People look at the colour trend going down F-Cl-Br-I and think At would therefore be black. This is is simple textbook error given iodine is not the violet colour of its vapour but instead looks like a metal under white light.
Iodine has a band gap of 1.3 eV (hence it has a sub-metallic appearance) so it’d be reasonable to expect astatine to have a smaller band gap, and a sub-metallic or metallic appearance.
Date | Event |
---|---|
1898 | In announcing the discovery of Po, the Curies write: "We believe that the substance we recovered from pitchblende contains a heretofore unknown metal, similar to bismuth in its analytical properties. If the existence of this new metal is confirmed, we propose that it be named polonium in honour of the native land of one of us." |
1917, 1923 | Photoconductivity was observed in iodine (cf. selenium, another metallic-looking semiconductor). |
1927 | Herzfeld recognised a simple way of linking atomic properties, density, and the metallic state. Goldhammer probably recognised the idea in 1913. The result was the Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion for establishing metallic character, based on classical physics. All this was noted by Edwards & Sienko in their 1981 JChemEd article on the occurrence of metallic character in the elements. |
1940 | The investigators who synthesised astatine said it was a metal. |
1971 | Based on periodic trends, Batsanov gave a calculated band gap for diatomic astatine of 0.7 eV. |
1981 | Edwards & Sienko, in their aforementioned JChemEd article speculated, on the basis of the G-H criterion for metallicity, that astatine is probably a metalloid. |
1982 | In JChemEd, Goldsmith wrote, "Describing the intermediate elements as metalloids is clearly in fashion today." |
2002 | In their concise book on the chemistry of the elements, Siekierski and Burgess presumed astatine would be a metal if it could form a condensed phase. |
2005 | In JChemEd, Thayer reported that the +1 state appeared to be the most common for At, occurring in At+, AtI, polyhalides, and a large number of monovalent organoastatine compounds. Of course, the astatide ion, At−, is found in salts. OTOH, +1 as the most common oxidation state looks unusual, given −1 is the most common for F to I. OTOH, it isn't unusual—it's inline with periodic trends of increasing metallic character going down each main group. |
2006 | Restrepo et al., reported that astatine appeared to share more in common with polonium (a metal) than it did with the established halogens. They did so on the basis of detailed comparative studies of the known and interpolated properties of 72 elements. |
2007 | Legut, Friák and Sob reported that the extremely rare cubic structure of Po is due to relativistic effects (54 citations). |
2013 | On the basis of relativistic modelling, Hermann, Hoffmann, and Ashcroft, predicted condensed astatine would be a monatomic metal, with a face centred cubic structure. Their work has been cited 35 times. They start with scalar-relativistic calculations which predict At will be a molecular solid with a band gap of 0.68 eV (cf. Batsanov, 1971). Then they add spin-order effects (approximated), since such effects scale roughly with nuclear charge. That changes the prediction to a monatomic metal with a body-centred tetragonal structure. They then finish by correcting for dispersion interactions. That changes the crystalline structure to face-centred cubic. They mention, but don't model, screening effects of the eventual metallic environment, and higher-order terms such as 'the three-body interactions of the Axilrod-Teller type'. Later, they refer to studying the viability of some alternative structures based on a 4-atom unit cell, with no dispersion corrections, but do not explain why they chose this cell size or the impact of excluding dispersion corrections. I'm a little wary, however, that their prediction of astatine as a metal is based on spin-order effects that scale 'roughly' with nuclear charge, and which are evaluated only in an 'approximation'. The authors do speculate however that, with active cooling to offset radiocative heating, it should be possible to synthesize enough astatine to test some of their predictions experimentally. |
2013 | The above was summarised, sans Legut et al., in my JChemEd article, Which elements are metalloids, cited 31 times. |
Here we are 80 years after astatine was predicted to be a metal, now confirmed via relativtisic modelling.
And that is what the WP PT shows At as.
Re, "So don't you think that this implies that if we all went for a scientific discussion, and attempted to assess scientific correctness of all the sources, we'd get nowhere?" I say good luck to anyone attempting to argue that At is a nonmetal, period.
I suspect it would be more doable to reach agreement that At ought to at least be regarded as a metalloid. That would be a reasonable position to take.
i asked a chemistry professor today about At and he said, "I checked the periodic table on the inside cover of a number of general chemistry textbooks. All the ones that use color coding for metals, metalloids and nonmetals show At as a metalloid."
I guess, I don’t know, that he is talking about modern textbooks. That is consistent with what we know about At i.e. that, "In reactions, it sometimes acts like a halogen, sometimes like a metal."
The foregoing description is however clouded by the extremely low concentrations at which astatine experiments have been conducted, and the possibility of reactions with impurities, walls and filters, or radioactivity by-products, and other unwanted nano-scale interactions. Equally, as Kirby (1985) noted, “since the trace chemistry of I sometimes differs significantly from its own macroscopic chemistry, analogies drawn between At and I are likely to be questionable, at best.”
So what to about astatine? There are no reliable RS supporting its categorisation as a nonmetal
There are lots of RS pointing to increased metallic character compared to iodine. There are about three dozen secondary sources citing At as metal, based on relativistic modelling.
Its tough. If’s safe to call it as "not a metal". But is it a metalloid or a metal? The lack of any substantive evidence for diatomic astatine is almost a smoking gun.
Judging from my sample size of one chemistry professor, it may be safe to call it a metalloid. Whether or not it's a fully fledged monatomic FCC metal in condensed form is something we can address in, say, the different periodic tables section of our periodic table article.
Of course, this leaves the problem of what to call F to I. We could call them halogens (which they are) and leave them under the nonmetal super-category, without explicitly labelling them as "halogen nonmetals". That would be joint compromise solution incorporating your suggestion and my suggestion.
Then we’d be left with HCNOPSSe. The worst acceptable solution would be to call them other nonmetals, for the time being, in the hope that we can eventually settle on a better name. Judging from the RFC I think nobody cares, as long as whatever it is, appears in RS (in the same way that we picked PTM):
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | |||||||||||
|
Metal | Metalloid | Nonmetal | |||||||
Alkali metal | Alkaline earth metal | Lanthanide | Actinide | Transition metal | Post-transition metal | Other nonmetal | Halogen | Noble gas |
At first glance, I suppose the specialist reader would say, "Hey! Isn't At a halogen?" Well, yes it is as a group 17 halogen. Upon seeing the legend, the specialist reader might twig that our PT is not a groupic table (hence we do not show the pnictogens or chalcogens). Rather, it is a metallicity-based table. Equally for the IUPAC-approved names, pnictogen, chalcogen, halogen, and noble gas, IUPAC has nothing to say about the nonmetallic, metalloidal, or metallic status of the elements of these sets of elements.
PS: I suspect the calibre and reputation of WP derives from expectations that WP editors doing their research, and weighing up RS, as we strive to do, and continuous improvement. The outcome of this process may not necessarily be what is taught since it seems to me we do have a responsibility to discount textbook errors we know to be such, based on more reliable RS. --- Sandbh ( talk) 06:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Double sharp, yes, literature support for Sb as a metalloid is strong.
Yes, Sb chemistry is mainly that of a weak nonmetal, as is the case for the metalloids, generally, which is why I considered referring to them as (chemically) weak nonmetals. The chemically weak nature of the metalloids has been known for over 120 years.
Yes, we do have to exercise some judgment as to how reliable a RS is. Like PTST says:
The categorisation issue can easily be resolved by taking the best parts of our two ideas.
Could I check that you do not agree to categorising F to I as halogens, and At as a metalloid? Sandbh ( talk) 00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
@ Double sharp and Sandbh: I have a few suggested refactoring of your exchange in WT:ELEM § Opinions
1. I think Double sharp's narrative would be better presented by changing his {{
cquote}} to include |width=80%
. It would make the flow between point 5 and point 5 (cont.) clearer.
2. I think it would be better if the bulk of the discussion between you two were moved to WT:ELEM § Moved from Opinions to Supplements. I think the best way would be to retain Sandbh's initial points 1-4, and follow them by
Cheers! YBG ( talk) 07:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, here is what I've done
rev numbers & diff | time stamps | Changes made |
---|---|---|
special:diff/984808102 /984941123 | [a] 2020-10-22 06:43:04 to [b] 2020-10-23 00:44:19 | Changes made by Sandbh & Double sharp, including eliminating the # numbering |
special:diff/984941123 /984946494 | [b] 2020-10-23 00:44:19 to [c] 2020-10-23 01:30:57 | Changes I made to restore the original # numbering |
special:diff/984808102 /984946494 | [a] 2020-10-22 06:43:04 to [c] 2020-10-23 01:30:57 | Comparison to before numbering was changed |
special:diff/984946494 /984947422 | [c] 2020-10-23 01:30:57 to [d] 2020-10-23 01:39:59 | The actual move |
special:diff/984947422 /984964950 | [d] 2020-10-23 01:39:59 to [e] 2020-10-23 04:20:53 | Changes I made after the move |
YBG ( talk) 04:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you take a good look are the proposal text in User:DePiep/sandbox2? Should be convincingly strong, but it's long too. Edit if you want to.- DePiep ( talk) 05:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Asking the test question ...left me wondering what is the "test question" that one would ask? It sounds like you're talking about something like "Does ____ have hair?" as a test question to determine whether something is a mammal, or "Does it make sense to say 'Here are 33 _____s" to determine whether a thing is a count noun or a mass noun
The proposed text may be too long, but I'm not sure what all is included in "the proposed text".
And is also used in Wikidata to describe a data structure (for example: a "chemical element" is a class of isotopes or a "material appearance"? -- gold book says both BTW). That is what these difficult discussions are about. (I left them too, as you did). I mention this, because it is the Wikidata-philosophers way to check "is it a class or an object?". And: "Sodium is an instance of [class] alkali metal(s)"? (or: "Sodium is an alkali metal?")
An orthography is a set of conventions for writing a language. It includes norms of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation.
The study of correct spelling according to established usage.
The aspect of language study concerned with letters and their sequences in words.
Spelling; the method of representing a language or the sounds of language by written symbols.
(architecture) Orthographic projection; especially its use to draw an elevation, vertical projection etc. of a building.
our nine metallishness setsYBG ( talk) 16:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Why did my account get randomly blocked with no warning? I had to make this account to see what happened. I have no affiliation with that sock puppet account. All of my work has been deleted. I spent hours on that. :( LR.2004 ( talk) 10:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Partnership, president, and vice president | Older | Age difference | Time span years, days days starting – ending |
Starting & ending events | days2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P/V | years, days | ±d | ||||||||
1 | George Washington | 1John Adams | 1POTUS | 3 years, 250 days | 1346 | 7 years, 317 days | 2,874 | 1789-04-21 – 1797-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 3868404 |
2 | John Adams | 2Thomas Jefferson | 2POTUS | 7 years, 165 days | 2722 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,460 | 1797-03-04 – 1801-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 3974120 |
3 | Thomas Jefferson | 3Aaron Burr | 3POTUS | 12 years, 299 days | 4682 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1801-03-04 – 1805-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 6840402 |
4 | George Clinton | 4VEEP | 3 years, 261 days | -1357 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1805-03-04 – 1809-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1982577 | |
5 | James Madison | 4VEEP | 11 years, 233 days | -4251 | 3 years, 47 days | 1,143 | 1809-03-04 – 1812-04-20 | inauguration – death of VP | -4858893 | |
6 | Elbridge Gerry | 5VEEP | 6 years, 242 days | -2433 | 1 year, 264 days | 629 | 1813-03-04 – 1814-11-23 | inauguration – death of VP | -1530357 | |
7 | James Monroe | 5Daniel D. Tompkins | 6POTUS | 16 years, 54 days | 5898 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1817-03-04 – 1825-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 17233956 |
8 | John Quincy Adams | 6John C. Calhoun | 7POTUS | 14 years, 250 days | 5364 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1825-03-04 – 1829-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 7836804 |
9 | Andrew Jackson | 7POTUS | 15 years, 3 days | 5482 | 3 years, 299 days | 1,395 | 1829-03-04 – 1832-12-28 | inauguration – resignation of VP | 7647390 | |
10 | Martin Van Buren | 8POTUS | 15 years, 265 days | 5744 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1833-03-04 – 1837-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 8391984 | |
11 | Martin Van Buren | 8Richard M. Johnson | 9VEEP | 2 years, 49 days | -779 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1837-03-04 – 1841-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1138119 |
12 | William Henry Harrison | 910 John Tyler | POTUS | 17 years, 48 days | 6257 | 31 days | 31 | 1841-03-04 – 1841-04-04 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 193967 |
13 | 11 James K. Polk | 11 George M. Dallas | VEEP | 3 years, 115 days | -1210 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1845-03-04 – 1849-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1767810 |
14 | 12 Zachary Taylor | 12 Millard Fillmore | POTUS | 15 years, 44 days | 5522 | 1 year, 127 days | 492 | 1849-03-04 – 1850-07-09 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 2716824 |
15 | 14 Franklin Pierce | 13 William R. King | VEEP | 18 years, 230 days | -6804 | 45 days | 45 | 1853-03-04 – 1853-04-18 | inauguration – death of VP | -306180 |
16 | 15 James Buchanan | 14 John C. Breckinridge | POTUS | 29 years, 268 days | 10860 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1857-03-04 – 1861-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 15866460 |
17 | 16 Abraham Lincoln | 15 Hannibal Hamlin | POTUS | 196 days | 196 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1861-03-04 – 1865-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 286356 |
18 | 16 Andrew Johnson | VEEP | 45 days | -45 | 42 days | 42 | 1865-03-04 – 1865-04-15 | inauguration – assassination | -1890 | |
19 | 18 Ulysses S. Grant | 17 Schuyler Colfax | POTUS | 330 days | 330 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1869-03-04 – 1873-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 482130 |
20 | 18 Henry Wilson | VEEP | 10 years, 70 days | -3723 | 2 years, 263 days | 993 | 1873-03-04 – 1875-11-22 | inauguration – death of VP | -3696939 | |
21 | 19 Rutherford B. Hayes | 19 William A. Wheeler | VEEP | 3 years, 96 days | -1192 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1877-03-04 – 1881-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1741512 |
22 | 20 James A. Garfield | 20 Chester A. Arthur | VEEP | 2 years, 45 days | -775 | 199 days | 199 | 1881-03-04 – 1881-09-19 | inauguration – assassination | -154225 |
23 | 22 Grover Cleveland | 21 Thomas A. Hendricks | VEEP | 17 years, 192 days | -6402 | 266 days | 266 | 1885-03-04 – 1885-11-25 | inauguration – death of VP | -1702932 |
24 | 23 Benjamin Harrison | 22 Levi P. Morton | VEEP | 9 years, 96 days | -3383 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1889-03-04 – 1893-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -4942563 |
25 | 24 Grover Cleveland | 23 Adlai Stevenson I | VEEP | 1 year, 146 days | -512 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1893-03-04 – 1897-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -748032 |
26 | 25 William McKinley | 24 Garret Hobart | POTUS | 1 year, 126 days | 491 | 2 years, 262 days | 992 | 1897-03-04 – 1899-11-21 | inauguration – death of VP | 487072 |
27 | 25 Theodore Roosevelt | POTUS | 15 years, 271 days | 5750 | 194 days | 194 | 1901-03-04 – 1901-09-14 | inauguration – assassination | 1115500 | |
28 | 26 Theodore Roosevelt | 26 Charles W. Fairbanks | VEEP | 6 years, 169 days | -2360 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1905-03-04 – 1909-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -3447960 |
29 | 27 William Howard Taft | 27 James S. Sherman | VEEP | 1 year, 326 days | -692 | 3 years, 240 days | 1,336 | 1909-03-04 – 1912-10-30 | inauguration – death of VP | -924512 |
30 | 28 Woodrow Wilson | 28 Thomas R. Marshall | VEEP | 2 years, 289 days | -1020 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1913-03-04 – 1921-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -2980440 |
31 | 29 Warren G. Harding | 29 Calvin Coolidge | POTUS | 6 years, 245 days | 2436 | 2 years, 151 days | 881 | 1921-03-04 – 1923-08-02 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 2146116 |
32 | 30 Calvin Coolidge | 30 Charles G. Dawes | VEEP | 6 years, 312 days | -2503 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1925-03-04 – 1929-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -3656883 |
33 | 31 Herbert Hoover | 31 Charles Curtis | VEEP | 14 years, 197 days | -5311 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1929-03-04 – 1933-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -7759371 |
34 | 32 Franklin D. Roosevelt | 32 John N. Garner | VEEP | 13 years, 69 days | -4817 | 7 years, 322 days | 2,879 | 1933-03-04 – 1941-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -13868143 |
35 | 33 Henry A. Wallace | POTUS | 6 years, 251 days | 2442 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1941-01-20 – 1945-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 3567762 | |
36 | 34 Harry S. Truman | POTUS | 2 years, 99 days | 829 | 82 days | 82 | 1945-01-20 – 1945-04-12 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 67978 | |
37 | 33 Harry S. Truman | 35 Alben W. Barkley | VEEP | 6 years, 166 days | -2357 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1949-01-20 – 1953-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -3443577 |
38 | 34 Dwight D. Eisenhower | 36 Richard Nixon | POTUS | 22 years, 87 days | 8122 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1953-01-20 – 1961-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 23732484 |
39 | 35 John F. Kennedy | 37 Lyndon B. Johnson | VEEP | 8 years, 275 days | -3197 | 2 years, 306 days | 1,036 | 1961-01-20 – 1963-11-22 | inauguration – assassination | -3312092 |
40 | 36 Lyndon B. Johnson | 38 Hubert Humphrey | POTUS | 2 years, 273 days | 1003 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1965-01-20 – 1969-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 1465383 |
41 | 37 Richard Nixon | 39 Spiro Agnew | POTUS | 5 years, 304 days | 2130 | 4 years, 320 days | 1,781 | 1969-01-20 – 1973-12-06 | inauguration – resignation of VP | 3793530 |
42 | 40 Gerald Ford | POTUS | 186 days | 186 | 1 year, 13 days | 378 | 1973-12-06 – 1974-12-19 | confirmation of VP – resignation of POTUS | 70308 | |
43 | 38 Gerald Ford | 41 Nelson Rockefeller | VEEP | 5 years, 6 days | -1832 | 2 years, 32 days | 763 | 1974-12-19 – 1977-01-20 | confirmation of VP – inauguration | -1397816 |
44 | 39 Jimmy Carter | 42 Walter Mondale | POTUS | 3 years, 96 days | 1191 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1977-01-20 – 1981-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 1740051 |
45 | 40 Ronald Reagan | 43 George H. W. Bush | POTUS | 13 years, 127 days | 4875 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1981-01-20 – 1989-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 14244750 |
46 | 41 George H. W. Bush | 44 Dan Quayle | POTUS | 22 years, 237 days | 8272 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1989-01-20 – 1993-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 12085392 |
47 | 42 Bill Clinton | 45 Al Gore | POTUS | 1 year, 225 days | 590 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1993-01-20 – 2001-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 1723980 |
48 | 43 George W. Bush | 46 Dick Cheney | VEEP | 5 years, 157 days | -1983 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 2001-01-20 – 2009-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -5794326 |
49 | 44 Barack Obama | 47 Joe Biden | VEEP | 18 years, 257 days | -6832 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 2009-01-20 – 2017-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -19963104 |
50 | 45 Donald Trump | 48 Mike Pence | POTUS | 12 years, 358 days | 4741 | 7 years, 190 days | 2,746 | 2017-01-20 – (present) | inauguration – (present) | 13018786 |
25 older presidents (thru Obama) | POTUS | Total age difference | 97461 | Total time span | 36858 | 141579103 | ||||
24 older vice presidents | VEEP | Total age difference | -65770 | Total time span | 32707 | -91120253 | ||||
49 total partnerships (thru Obama) | ALL | Total age difference | 31691 | Total time span | 69565 | 50458850 | ||||
26 older presidents | POTUS | Total age difference | 97461 | Total time span | 39604 | 154597889 | ||||
50 total partnerships | ALL | Total age difference | 31691 | Total time span | 72311 | 63477636 | ||||
I made this primarily for my own benefit, to validate my gut reaction that the President is usually older than the VP - Obama/Biden notwithstanding. But the data actually shows the 50 "partnerships" are split almost exactly evenly: 26 presidents are older than their VP and 24 are younger. Omitted from the above chart are instances when the vice-presidency was vacant. YBG ( talk) 05:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's the data presented tabularly:
Count | Average difference | Weighted average difference | ||||
n | ∑ [POTUS BD]–[VP BD] n |
∑ ([POTUS BD]–[VP BD]) × ([End Day]–[Start Day]) ∑ [End Day]–[Start Day] | ||||
Presidents older than VP | 26 | 3748.5 | 97461 26 |
3903.59 | 154597889 39604 |
141579103 + 2746×4741 36858 + 2746 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VPs older than president | 24 | -2740.42 | -65770 24 |
-2785.96 | -91120253 32707 |
32707 + 0 | -91120253 + 0×4741
All partnerships | 50 | 633.82 | 31691 50 |
877.84 | 63477636 72311 |
2746×4741 69565 + 2746 | 50458850 +
YBG ( talk) 06:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The Vice President is not "ex officio" the President of the Senate. The Vice President is the President of the Senate. No modifier is necessary. Best, JTRH ( talk) 00:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Hard to select namespaces suggestion at MediaWiki. YBG ( talk) 07:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi! A while ago, yourself, ComplexRational, and I agreed we would work on History of the periodic table to bring it to the FA status. I'm trying to write my ideas on that article's talk page from time to time to make sure ComplexRational understands what I'm doing, and I generally have similar expectations from him. You also wanted to take it on, so you could voice your comments on our little topics of discussion, read some interesting literature on the topic (I could give you a few pointers if you're interested), or write with us. ComplexRational wrote a good basis article; I'm now trying to fill it with details on some aspects, and ComplexRational will probably join me in filling in those details soon. So if you want to join, now's a great time!-- R8R ( talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
...you may like User:Double sharp/Teaching periodicity. It also has a periodic table colouring electronegativity as a gradient from red to violet (hopefully pretty) as well as one dividing only by blocks and metallicity (with an explanation as to why I prefer that). Not proposing it for WP, just thought you might be interested. ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 11:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Sandbh: I am discussing this in user space so that you can correct what is apparently a misunderstanding on my part without bothering the rest of the world.
My understanding of the Aufbau principle or Madelung rule is that it predicts that the shells will be filled in this order:
and that each subshell is filled completely before the next one is started.
Given that s, p, d, and f subshells hold 2, 6, 10, and 14 electrons respectively, this means that the subshells are filled in this way:
1122222222333333334433333333334444445544444444445555556644444444444444555555555566666677555555555555556666666666777777 ssssppppppssppppppssddddddddddppppppssddddddddddppppppssffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp
Or when laid out in two dimensions, we get:
ss ss pppppp ss pppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp
Or this:
ss ss ppppppss ppppppss ddddddddddppppppss ddddddddddppppppss ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss
This is what I meant by being more consistent with Aufbau.
Have I missed something? I know that Aufbau does not represent what is observed expirementally. But what I said was that Sc/Y/Lu is more consistent with Aufbau, not that it is more consistent with expiremental results. YBG ( talk) 09:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Hat note of convenience 1
|
---|
I am not YBG, but I watch this talk page, and would be interested in getting a few things clarified from User:Sandbh about this latest reply of his. So I would like to ask him first if he is agreeable to that, and also to ask YBG if he is agreeable to me doing so here. Double sharp ( talk) 18:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
|
@ Double sharp and EdChem: Wow, it's been a busy morning between WP:ANI (Softlavdner reverted my revert, so now I have that to deal with as well); R8R's talk page; and now here. BTW it is good to see you here, EdChem. And it is nice to be able to talk about hard-core content. ^_^ So, addressing Double sharp's interesting question first. 1. Here is an idealised Lu table: ss ss pppppp ss pppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp The Lu form corresponds to the aufbau rule. 2. Here is an idealised La table: ss ss pppppp ss pppppp ssd dddddddddpppppp ssd dddddddddpppppp ssdffffffffffffffdddddddddpppppp ssdffffffffffffffdddddddddpppppp The La form does not correspond to the aufbau rule, since it features a split d-block. That said, the correspondence of the Lu form to aufbau does not meaning anything, since aufbau is simply a pattern, lacking any accepted ab initio derivation. Several authors claim to have achieved such a derivation; none of these claims have been accepted. Now, let us set aside concerns about the basis of aufabu, and look at how it used in the literature, which is to predict the gas phase configurations of atoms. The first thing about aufbau is that whenever it fails, it always resumes course sooner or later. So it is a curious kind of approximation. The second thing about aufbau is that it's not a very good approximation since it yields about 20 errors up to the first 100 or so elements. The third thing about aufbau is that if you look at its predictions for differnentiaing electrons (de), it is more accurate at predicting these for the La form than the Lu form. How bizarre is that?! But there you go. A caveat with regard to de is that DS has raised an objection as to how these are worked out, in a few cases. I addressed this in my article, at note 1:
So, yes, as per my first paragraph, aufbau does not mean anything. That has not stopped some muggles (by which I mean non WP-editors) saying Lu must be "it" since it corresponds with aufabu. And if we counter-factually assume it does mean something, it works better (as per my third paragraph) for the La form in any event! Muggles respond to the latter via perceptual filtering. Since it does not correspond to their world-view, they adopt the see no-evil, speak no-evil, hear no-evil approach. Very, very few muggles understand or aware of their subconscious perceptual filters nor that these are on auto-pilot. DS, I hope this clarifies the sitation. Sandbh ( talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Placeholder re EdChem's thoughts. Sandbh ( talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
Hat note of convenience 2
|
---|
@ Double sharp and Sandbh: Please take this conversation elsewhere. Apparently I was not clear enough. I wanted this thread to be reserved, only about my trying to understand Sandbh, and was hoping that until that was accomplished, it would not be cluttered with other things that distracted from that purpose. Apparently I was not clear enough for either of you to understand that. YBG ( talk) 04:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) @ Double sharp and Sandbh: ... Unless you are willing to wait until I have reached an understanding of Sandbh's point of view. YBG ( talk) 05:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
|
This is just a preliminary proposal I'm hosting here on my talk page so that pagewatches and others can chime in. I am open to all comments, including suggestions that this RfC would be a total waste of time.
I am conflicted on this issue. Although currently leaning toward eliminate, I love the categories and their colors; they are what piqued my interest in WP:ELEM and solidified me as a confirmed wp-a-holic.
I will look at this again in a few hours, but after that I'm taking a short wikibreak. In the event that incivility erupts, I hereby authorize any one of EdChem, Sandbh or Double sharp to declare a moratorium on this thread until I am back on line. YBG ( talk) 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we eliminate the system of chemical element categories based on the metal-to-nonmetal trend used to color elements in the WP periodic table?
YBG ( talk) 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the RFC question should just be the question. Arguments, as I understand it, should go below with !votes, so that the statement is neutral.
That being said, I think your arguments for eliminating are very consistent with my case, so I feel good that I was understood well. I just think that they should be a part of our !votes instead. ^_^ I might take your statement if it's all right with you (and probably expand it with sources), and then add one sentence to 1 saying "The literature does not always organise categories into a system at all". BTW, my replies to points #2 and #4 for retention would be:
I also think it needs to be stressed to avoid misunderstandings that the proposal is only about colouring. No one, AFAIK, is proposing to eliminate all mention of categories. I don't have a problem with discussing categorisation in articles and in infoboxes so long as each category is given its WP:DUE weight. So it would look less like what we have currently where each element is shoehorned into just one category, but something more like the "minor planet category" entry in an article like 90482 Orcus. Notice also that all three categories mentioned for Orcus in that infobox (TNO, plutino, possible dwarf planet) are also mentioned in the lede. That should address concerns about hiding knowledge. (Although it indeed should be questioned if they should be called "categories" or something else.) ^_^
As for an RFC: I am iffy about RFCs for this in general, simply because I suspect the majority of editors are not going to be in a good position to comment. To get it, you need to probably also have some general knowledge of the literature situation. Over at WT:ELEM, we already have a base of editors familiar with those issues, and anyone else if interested can always come if a little note is placed at Talk:Periodic table mentioning that something's going on at our pages. A discussion at WT:ELEM is not and has never been limited to project participants.
I think it makes more sense if the group 3 thing comes first, because it makes a difference on whether La or Lu gets the d block colour by default. And I think it makes more sense if this comes before the proposed nonmetal recategorisation question, because if the "blocks alone" proposal passes, then it makes that question moot. I think that's consistent with what I've said before at ELEM. Double sharp ( talk) 22:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Ditto YBG: I love the categories and their colors; they are what piqued my interest in WP:ELEM and solidified me as a confirmed wp-a-holic.
RFC text. I suspect the proposed text of the RFC ought to say what you would replace it with. I doubt people would be comfortable with voting for the unknown.
RFC host page. The best place to host the RFC is at Talk:Periodic table. Our project is too small, insufficiently representative, and does not represent an NPOV "venue". Since the RFC is about the periodic table, it ought to take place at that talk page.
What to display. A periodic table is like a map. [1] A map of the world could e.g. display climate zones; crop types; elevations; or political territories, with overlaps at the boundaries according to disputed claims; etc. A periodic table could display e.g. blocks; dates of discovery; elements only; groups i.e. 18 of them, plus the Ln and An; metal-metalloid-nonmetal; or phases i.e. solid, liquid, gas; etc. Perhaps the question is what is the most generally useful information to display, given it's not possible to display everything concurrently.
Colour categories. 1. The Encyclopaedia Britannic PT, which predates the WP PT, features nine colour categories; 2. the most popular Google PT, which postdates the WP PT, features nine colour categories. Atkins, in his book The Periodic Kingdom (1995) surveyed the periodic table as if it was a continent, comprised of regions and territories. Gonick & Criddle, in The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry (2005, p. 38) refer the reader to 3. the LANL PT which they describe as "a wonderfully information-rich" PT. This has ten colour categories. 4. The ACS PT has ten colour categories. [2] 5. The RSC PT has eight main group colour categories; one TM colour category; and one each for the Ln and An. [3] 6. The World Book encyclopaedia of science: Chemistry today (1986, p. 23) has a PT with 20 colour categories. In the text, they "group: the following elements: H; AM, AEM; coinage metals; AEM; group 12; group 13; C; Si–Pb; Ti–Ni; Zr–Tc and Hf–Re; PGM; N; P–Bi; O; S–Po; halogens; rare gases; Sc group and the Ln; An.
Category boundaries. Such boundaries are rarely sharp (Atkins 1995, p. 4). We could note this in the lede periodic table graphic, although none of the above six sources felt the need to do this. In any event, we elaborate this in the main body of the periodic table article, and note that " Categorisation as described here can vary among authors".
No RS consensus in literature. That's not quite right. The creators of the WP:PT and its colour categories did so on the basis of what they understood to be the consensus in the literature, noting unanimity is not a requirement for consensus. See: archive 1 of the periodic table talk page, and some related commentary here: Template talk:Periodic table/Archive 1.
Which goes first?. Group 3 was put to
an RFC on 20 Jul and closed, without success, on 6 Aug 2020. In this light, I submit the non-metal RFC should now be afforded the opportunity to be put.
---
Sandbh (
talk)
07:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I have now withdrawn this proposed RfC. YBG ( talk) 02:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Please comment here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case if you wish, as a witness. Jehochman Talk 02:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I'll try, since I'm the one who was convinced about that view till today when Jehochman suggested on EdChem's talk page about a style guide, maybe it'll help.
You can sort of rationalise it this way. The problem is that (1) sources in English tend to prefer using categories to blocks-only, but (2) sources in English also cannot exactly agree on what categories to use. We also can often find the situation that sources not focusing on an element often take a different view from sources that do for radioactives: At is often called a halogen by those who don't know much about it and called a metal by those who do. In this situation I suspect you're more or less forced to have UNDUE either way. Because if you don't show any categories it's UNDUE weight towards that no-categories approach as most sources show some categories, but if you show any one particular set of categories it's UNDUE weight because of the problem: why that approach and not another one?
So, is our category scheme OR? One can make the case that it's UNDUE and partly synthesis, and I still have doubts about it, but since a more experienced Wikipedian Jehochman has suggested arbitrarily choosing one common way, I guess it may well be the best of all options. If we interpret policies strictly, pretty much every solution has UNDUE lurking behind it. But if we take it as "well, most sources seem to show something like this, even if it's not exactly this" – then, I guess you can make the argument that some form of categories are better than none. Because many sources do colour in a table like that. Even if they are fuzzy about what exactly "halogen" means, what exactly "transition metal" is, it's still common to colour somehow.
We can argue about some things, maybe; I think there is some general support for reinstating halogen nonmetals as a category just because most people do it for F-Cl-Br-I-(At); the problem is just At. I guess, for such cases, one can sort of make case-by-case justifications. Is it SYNTH? Maybe, but the alternative might just be worse UNDUE.
So maybe this is the sort of issue where a strict application of policy is just impossible because of the state of the literature. Double sharp ( talk) 19:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: WRT to my perception of what is a happening to Po and to At, there is a risk that my perceptual filters are turned up too high. For example, when I brought a new car, I suddenly started seeing lots of the same kind of cars on the road.
Anyway, At, like Po, seems to be becoming more widely regarded as a PTM.
I say this in the context of the 35 citations for the condensed At is expected to be a metal paper. Now, At stills seems to still be able to behave like halogen sometimes, but we see that kind of behaviour in Au, too.
Oh, I happened upon this 2019 paper arguing for Cn as a relativistic noble liquid with a band gap of ~6.5 eV, which I see we already cite in our article. That's nonmetal (insulator) territory. It already has nine citations. Sandbh ( talk) 01:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
On items such as these I intend to post them to WP:ELEM as, "Speculation: …" in the same way that I did with "Philosophy: …" so folks with no interest in either can skip them. As you say, it may take quite a while for "Speculation: …" to turn into "Proposal …". I recall e.g. we waited several years e.g. before flipping At from a metalloid to a PTM. Sandbh ( talk) 01:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Why are you so much better at explaining my logic than I am? (Tongue-in-cheek question, obviously.) ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 10:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
LANL says | What's wrong |
---|---|
…aluminum and tin are included characterized [sic] as Metalloids or poor metals | Say no more (note erroneous spelling of Al) |
Alkaline earth metals. The alkaline earth metals have very high melting points and oxides that have basic alkaline solutions. Their characteristics are well described and consistent down the group. | In fact, the AEM do not have very high melting points; beryllium oxide does not have a basic alkaline solution; and Be and Mg are quite distinct from the rest of the AEM. |
Transition metals. The transition elements are metals that have a partially filled d subshell (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics) and comprise groups 3 through 12 and the lanthanides and actinides (see below). | In fact, group 12 do not have a partially filled d subshell. |
Post-transition metals. …are Al, Ga, In, Tl, Sn, Pb and Bi. As their name implies, they have some of the characteristics of the transition elements. | Whoever wrote that had no clue. |
Metalloid (or "semi-metal" or "poor metal"). The metalloids are B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, and Po. They sometimes behave as semiconductors (B, Si, Ge) rather than as conductors. | Er, no, metalloids are not poor metals. And Te is a semiconductor, too. |
Lanthanides. …comprise elements 57 (La, hence the name of the set) through 71. They are grouped together because they have similar chemical properties. They, along with the actinides, are often called "the f-elements" because they have valence electrons in the f shell. | In fact, La and Lu do not have "valence" electrons in the f shell. |
Actinides. The actinides comprise elements 89 through 103. They, along with the lanthanides, are often called "the f-elements" because they have valence electrons in the f shell. | In fact, Ac, Th and Lr do not have "valence" electrons in the f shell. |
Halogens. [a]…They generally [sic] very chemically reactive…[b] are present in the environment as compounds rather than as pure elements | [a] eh? [b] A 2012 study (19 citations) reported the presence of 0.04% F2 by weight in antozonite, attributing these inclusions to radiation from the presence of tiny amounts of uranium |
1999 | In CHEM 13 News, a magazine published for teachers of introductory chemistry and mostly written by high school chemistry teachers, Stephen Hawkes argued Po was a metal. |
2007 | Holt, Rinehart and Winston, who publish chemistry textbooks, published a note for teachers on Why polonium and astatine arenot metalloids in HRW texts. |
2010 | In the Journal of Chemical Education, Hawkes made the same argument, that Po was not a metalloid. doi: 10.1021/ed100308w |
2011 | Pamela Fujinaka, a high school teacher in Honolulu, uses the mnemonic, " Up, up-down, up-down, up…are the metalloids" i.e. B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te in 'Faculty profile: Elements of Great Teaching', The Iolani School Bulletin, Winter. |
2013 | In JChemEd, I cited Hawkes' argument, confirming the status of Po as a metal. doi: 10.1021/ed3008457 |
Has become pretty conservative since they were folded into the ACS stable. They focus a lot more on technique than content.
He's not a good example due to the perceived selectivity of his arguments, and the fact that his proposal did not gain traction although, of late, there's been more interest in Lu in group 3. For polonium, OTOH, I'm not aware of any comparable sources in the literature arguing for its treatment as a metalloid. That's understandable given polonium's fully metallic band structure; metallic electrical conductivity; absence of a semiconducting form; and relatively straightforward cation formation.
I like to think the question of which elements are metalloids is no longer controversial following the publication of my 2013 article in JChemEd addressing this question (31 citations).
Even before then there was hardly any controversy as to the six elements commonly recognised as metalloids, per Goldsmith 1982, p. 526; Kotz, Treichel & Weaver 2009, p. 62; Bettelheim et al. 2010, p. 46; and Mann et al. 2000, p. 2783.
I don't regard the LANL PT as a necessarily reliable source.
I distinguish here between LANL the organisation, in contrast to the LANL PT which was devised by someone in LANL who thought it would be a good idea to have such a PT, which it was. Unfortunately, the execution of that good idea was poor. For example, a simple search of the literature would've revealed quite a bit had been written about the status of polonium.
I follow what you are saying about what is taught rather than what is truth. But WP is not based on what is taught. It is based on (may we recall?) RS. Not just generalist sources but all sources, having regard to varying degrees of reliability e.g. less so; reliable: and top tier. Indeed. a theme of distinguishing RS based on e.g. publisher reputation, author reputation, age of publication, etc pervades WP:RS. When it comes to textbooks, some judgement is required in recognition of the textbook errors phenomenon extensively written about in JChemEd, for over ten years.
The antozonite example is notable since it was reported along the lines of textbooks needing to be rewritten. This kind of thing is what makes chemistry interesting. Rayner-Canham wrote along the same lines:
Here again, Rayner-Canham was speaking in a teaching context. And he treats Po as a metal (a chemically weak one).
No doubt students and teachers, if they felt so inclined, could Google polonium and at the top of the page they would see the WP extract referring to it as a metal.
I forgot to mention Hawke's 2001 article in JChemEd in which he wrote, "…polonium is unambiguously a silvery-white metal" citing sources from 1990 and 1957.
The LANL PT represents an example of needless sloppiness.
---
Sandbh (
talk)
10:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. That seems to be rather exactly the situation we are in in drawing the PT and colouring it in. The policy WP:NC on article titles also reads
The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.I think that principle is probably relevant here too. Comments at the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case page from Beyond My Ken and SMcCandlish also suggests it.
All that generality said, I have no idea specifically how to arrive at what PT to use (and where – everywhere? by subfield?) on Wikipedia, nor whether it should attempt (on the basis of previously published attempts, not OR) to marry any different PT approaches. Given sufficiently complex template code, one could probably switch between alternative PT models (at least if the user has JavaScript turned on), but that would be a lot of Lua work, and we still need to know what the default view should be (whether that's universal or categorically varying).
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
13:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
{{
compact periodic table}}
does. Although I am not really sure there is an actual name for them in the literature: we just started calling them "categories" for talkpage-discussions to make it clear what we were talking about.
Double sharp (
talk)
22:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I just logged in a short time ago and was astounded at the alert count. I've never had 36 alerts before. YBG ( talk) 04:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Double sharp, I think our thread has gone somewhat off topic, which was about the LANL table and polonium. On a scientific evidence basis, as presented, polonium is a metal.
A simple literature search produces some easy to read findings:
Unusually for a halogen, no solid evidence for the existence of diatomic astatine has been reported.
People look at the colour trend going down F-Cl-Br-I and think At would therefore be black. This is is simple textbook error given iodine is not the violet colour of its vapour but instead looks like a metal under white light.
Iodine has a band gap of 1.3 eV (hence it has a sub-metallic appearance) so it’d be reasonable to expect astatine to have a smaller band gap, and a sub-metallic or metallic appearance.
Date | Event |
---|---|
1898 | In announcing the discovery of Po, the Curies write: "We believe that the substance we recovered from pitchblende contains a heretofore unknown metal, similar to bismuth in its analytical properties. If the existence of this new metal is confirmed, we propose that it be named polonium in honour of the native land of one of us." |
1917, 1923 | Photoconductivity was observed in iodine (cf. selenium, another metallic-looking semiconductor). |
1927 | Herzfeld recognised a simple way of linking atomic properties, density, and the metallic state. Goldhammer probably recognised the idea in 1913. The result was the Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion for establishing metallic character, based on classical physics. All this was noted by Edwards & Sienko in their 1981 JChemEd article on the occurrence of metallic character in the elements. |
1940 | The investigators who synthesised astatine said it was a metal. |
1971 | Based on periodic trends, Batsanov gave a calculated band gap for diatomic astatine of 0.7 eV. |
1981 | Edwards & Sienko, in their aforementioned JChemEd article speculated, on the basis of the G-H criterion for metallicity, that astatine is probably a metalloid. |
1982 | In JChemEd, Goldsmith wrote, "Describing the intermediate elements as metalloids is clearly in fashion today." |
2002 | In their concise book on the chemistry of the elements, Siekierski and Burgess presumed astatine would be a metal if it could form a condensed phase. |
2005 | In JChemEd, Thayer reported that the +1 state appeared to be the most common for At, occurring in At+, AtI, polyhalides, and a large number of monovalent organoastatine compounds. Of course, the astatide ion, At−, is found in salts. OTOH, +1 as the most common oxidation state looks unusual, given −1 is the most common for F to I. OTOH, it isn't unusual—it's inline with periodic trends of increasing metallic character going down each main group. |
2006 | Restrepo et al., reported that astatine appeared to share more in common with polonium (a metal) than it did with the established halogens. They did so on the basis of detailed comparative studies of the known and interpolated properties of 72 elements. |
2007 | Legut, Friák and Sob reported that the extremely rare cubic structure of Po is due to relativistic effects (54 citations). |
2013 | On the basis of relativistic modelling, Hermann, Hoffmann, and Ashcroft, predicted condensed astatine would be a monatomic metal, with a face centred cubic structure. Their work has been cited 35 times. They start with scalar-relativistic calculations which predict At will be a molecular solid with a band gap of 0.68 eV (cf. Batsanov, 1971). Then they add spin-order effects (approximated), since such effects scale roughly with nuclear charge. That changes the prediction to a monatomic metal with a body-centred tetragonal structure. They then finish by correcting for dispersion interactions. That changes the crystalline structure to face-centred cubic. They mention, but don't model, screening effects of the eventual metallic environment, and higher-order terms such as 'the three-body interactions of the Axilrod-Teller type'. Later, they refer to studying the viability of some alternative structures based on a 4-atom unit cell, with no dispersion corrections, but do not explain why they chose this cell size or the impact of excluding dispersion corrections. I'm a little wary, however, that their prediction of astatine as a metal is based on spin-order effects that scale 'roughly' with nuclear charge, and which are evaluated only in an 'approximation'. The authors do speculate however that, with active cooling to offset radiocative heating, it should be possible to synthesize enough astatine to test some of their predictions experimentally. |
2013 | The above was summarised, sans Legut et al., in my JChemEd article, Which elements are metalloids, cited 31 times. |
Here we are 80 years after astatine was predicted to be a metal, now confirmed via relativtisic modelling.
And that is what the WP PT shows At as.
Re, "So don't you think that this implies that if we all went for a scientific discussion, and attempted to assess scientific correctness of all the sources, we'd get nowhere?" I say good luck to anyone attempting to argue that At is a nonmetal, period.
I suspect it would be more doable to reach agreement that At ought to at least be regarded as a metalloid. That would be a reasonable position to take.
i asked a chemistry professor today about At and he said, "I checked the periodic table on the inside cover of a number of general chemistry textbooks. All the ones that use color coding for metals, metalloids and nonmetals show At as a metalloid."
I guess, I don’t know, that he is talking about modern textbooks. That is consistent with what we know about At i.e. that, "In reactions, it sometimes acts like a halogen, sometimes like a metal."
The foregoing description is however clouded by the extremely low concentrations at which astatine experiments have been conducted, and the possibility of reactions with impurities, walls and filters, or radioactivity by-products, and other unwanted nano-scale interactions. Equally, as Kirby (1985) noted, “since the trace chemistry of I sometimes differs significantly from its own macroscopic chemistry, analogies drawn between At and I are likely to be questionable, at best.”
So what to about astatine? There are no reliable RS supporting its categorisation as a nonmetal
There are lots of RS pointing to increased metallic character compared to iodine. There are about three dozen secondary sources citing At as metal, based on relativistic modelling.
Its tough. If’s safe to call it as "not a metal". But is it a metalloid or a metal? The lack of any substantive evidence for diatomic astatine is almost a smoking gun.
Judging from my sample size of one chemistry professor, it may be safe to call it a metalloid. Whether or not it's a fully fledged monatomic FCC metal in condensed form is something we can address in, say, the different periodic tables section of our periodic table article.
Of course, this leaves the problem of what to call F to I. We could call them halogens (which they are) and leave them under the nonmetal super-category, without explicitly labelling them as "halogen nonmetals". That would be joint compromise solution incorporating your suggestion and my suggestion.
Then we’d be left with HCNOPSSe. The worst acceptable solution would be to call them other nonmetals, for the time being, in the hope that we can eventually settle on a better name. Judging from the RFC I think nobody cares, as long as whatever it is, appears in RS (in the same way that we picked PTM):
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | |||||||||||
|
Metal | Metalloid | Nonmetal | |||||||
Alkali metal | Alkaline earth metal | Lanthanide | Actinide | Transition metal | Post-transition metal | Other nonmetal | Halogen | Noble gas |
At first glance, I suppose the specialist reader would say, "Hey! Isn't At a halogen?" Well, yes it is as a group 17 halogen. Upon seeing the legend, the specialist reader might twig that our PT is not a groupic table (hence we do not show the pnictogens or chalcogens). Rather, it is a metallicity-based table. Equally for the IUPAC-approved names, pnictogen, chalcogen, halogen, and noble gas, IUPAC has nothing to say about the nonmetallic, metalloidal, or metallic status of the elements of these sets of elements.
PS: I suspect the calibre and reputation of WP derives from expectations that WP editors doing their research, and weighing up RS, as we strive to do, and continuous improvement. The outcome of this process may not necessarily be what is taught since it seems to me we do have a responsibility to discount textbook errors we know to be such, based on more reliable RS. --- Sandbh ( talk) 06:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Double sharp, yes, literature support for Sb as a metalloid is strong.
Yes, Sb chemistry is mainly that of a weak nonmetal, as is the case for the metalloids, generally, which is why I considered referring to them as (chemically) weak nonmetals. The chemically weak nature of the metalloids has been known for over 120 years.
Yes, we do have to exercise some judgment as to how reliable a RS is. Like PTST says:
The categorisation issue can easily be resolved by taking the best parts of our two ideas.
Could I check that you do not agree to categorising F to I as halogens, and At as a metalloid? Sandbh ( talk) 00:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)