![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I've added several sections to block (periodic table): §§ S-block, D-block, F-block, and G-block. The information is mostly gleaned from other WP articles with a bit of interpolation and extrapolation, so there are no external references and certainly one or more major inaccuracy. I would greatly appreciate having other sets of eyes take a look at it. Many thanks! YBG ( talk) 08:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
An article from the Smithsonian Magazine. Note the 15LaAc (type 3) periodic table. Sandbh ( talk) 05:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The new chemistry of the elements Sandbh ( talk) 09:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Google honors Dmitri Mendeleev's 182nd birthday with a special doodle YBG ( talk) 04:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
A major visual change is coming for our PT. As such, it is a great time to either state the current categories are okay or change the set of categories.
Two possible issues coming to my head are a) combining group 1 and 2 into a single category and b) combining di- and polyatomic metals together. (Although any other issues are also worth a discussion, if there is one I haven't mentioned.-- R8R ( talk) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe this would be a logical step. The set of the eleven reactive nonmetals is very diverse, that is true. However, I believe there is no use in breaking it in two (or more), because there is hardly a line all eleven could fall into either side of it. The current divide isn't one as well; one example showing that is iodine. It does fit into the C-P-Se-I diagonal trend; moreover, it is quite similar chemically to sulfur (for an element from a different group), and there is hardly a reason to keep the two apart.
Science aside, it is an even more questionable decision. One might ask, what's so different between C and Si, for example, and how does that differ from this case. The difference is in that "metalloid" is a long-established concept, and it is kept in out PT as such. "Diatomic nonmetal" and "Polyatomic nonmetal," being existing categories, are not nearly as often mentioned as a part of a standalone categorization; more often (and more obviously) they may be used as a part of a one-criterion categorization, with the criterion being structure of the substance formed by the element. All of our categories are well-known except for these two, which are "some nonmetal" and "some other nonmetal" (of other similar cases, the TMs and the PTMs clearly won't be combined, and the same is true for the TMs and the s-block metals. The s-block metals themselves are a different issue, but similarly, I only mentioned it for the sake of objectiveness, I think they should similarly be kept apart, since the individual names are better known than the collective name, and we are targeted at a wide audience), the the differing criterion being particular and not general. As it does not provide an unquestionable partition, we will be better off dropping it.-- R8R ( talk) 12:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
R8R, I see you are having a good Russian winter. There was a picture in our weekend paper of two icebreakers moving along the Moskva River, with the Kremlin in the background, during snowfall in Moscow. Apparently temperatures up there fell to as low as –20° C in the city. I hope you are rugged up.
This proposal would not result in better categorisation scheme. It would reduce the sense of wonderment associated with the current arrangement and dimish knowledge and understanding of the nonmetals.
The distinction between polyatomic and diatomic metals is easy to grasp, factually based and provides engaging insights. Briefly, the 'poly-' (Greek ‘’polys’’ = "many, much") refers to their multi-atomic molecular structures, their many allotropes, and their tendency to catenate or form compounds with multiple homoatomic links. The polyatomic nonmetals are thus 'poly-like' in at least three ways. On the sulfur and iodine question, the ability to catentate easily distinguishes the versatile chemistry of sulfur from that of iodine. Other differences in the properties of the polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals are set out in the nonmetal article.
The existence of diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals arises out of the interaction of atomic and electronic properties. Diatomic nonmetals form diatomic molecules due to either needing just one electron to attain a noble gas configuration or because they are small enough (N, O) to be able to form triple or double bonds to attain noble gas configurations. Conventional wisdom is that triple bonding is the limit for main-group elements. Since C needs four electrons to complete its octet, but is still a relatively small atom, it gets around this problem by forming three single sigma bonds and one delocalised pi bond (pi bonding being more characteristic of small atoms), resulting in graphite. The larger size of the remaining non-noble nonmetals weakens their capacity to form multiple bonds, via pi bonding, and they instead form polyatomic structures, featuring two or more single bonds, in order to achieve completed octets. So, the distinction between polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals, as well as being simple, is more fundamental than artificial.
More broadly, the taxonomic thread that runs through the three nonmetal categories is beautifully anchored in, and echoed across the remainder of the periodic table. Specifically, from left to right across an 18-column periodic table, as metallic character decreases, nonmetals adopt structures that show a gradual reduction in the numbers of nearest neighbours—three or two for the polyatomic nonmetals, through one for the diatomic nonmetals, to zero for the monatomic noble gases. A similar pattern occurs more generally, at the level of the entire periodic table, in comparing metals and nonmetals. There is a transition from metallic bonding among the metals on the left of the table through to covalent or Van der Waals (electrostatic) bonding among the nonmetals on the right of the table. Metallic bonding tends to involve close-packed centrosymmetric structures with a high number of nearest neighbours. Post-transition metals and metalloids, sandwiched between the true metals and the nonmetals, tend to have more complex structures with an intermediate number of nearest neighbours. Nonmetallic bonding, towards the right of the table, features open-packed directional (or disordered) structures with fewer or zero nearest neighbours. As noted, this steady reduction in the number of nearest neighbours, as metallic character decreases and nonmetallic character increases, is mirrored among the nonmetals, the structures of which gradually change from polyatomic, to diatomic, to monatomic.
As is the case with the major categories of metals, metalloids and nonmetals, there is some variation and overlapping of properties within and across each category of nonmetal. Among the polyatomic nonmetals, carbon, phosphorus and selenium—which border the metalloids—begin to show some metallic character. Sulfur (which borders the diatomic nonmetals), is the least metallic of the polyatomic nonmetals but even here shows some discernible metal-like character (discussed below). Of the diatomic nonmetals, iodine is the most metallic. Its number of nearest neighbours is sometimes described as 1+2 hence it is almost a polyatomic nonmetal. Within the iodine molecule, significant electronic interactions occur with the two next nearest neighbours of each atom, and these interactions give rise, in bulk iodine, to a shiny appearance and semiconducting properties. Of the monatomic nonmetals, radon is the most metallic and begins to show some cationic behaviour, which is unusual for a nonmetal.
That the terms "polyatomic" and "diatomic" will sound far fetched for the general reader is natural. This will be the case for all of our categories, with the exception of the "metal" super-category name. "Alkaline earth metal?" "Lanthanide?" "Metalloid"? What are these? I don't think this is necessarily an issue—it comes with the territory of classification science—as long as the terms are explained in more general language e.g. in the lede of each relevant article.
The html periodic table (HPT) does a fine job of categorising the nonmetals. In the literature the nonmetals are commonly explored in their vertical groups, which results in five or six "categories" depending on how boron is treated (either as a metalloid or a nonmetal). This is too many to be practical for colour category purposes and it overlooks cross-cutting patterns. Our HPT incorporates both features. It includes the named vertical groups, and the three nonmetal colour categories. Two of the latter traverse vertical groups; all three follow tangible lines of demarcation. I think the result is a "just so" mapping, with something in it for everyone: the general reader, the knowledgeable reader, and the expert reader.
In conclusion, I’m not seeing the advantages of merging polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals into a single category. Sandbh ( talk) 06:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about this interesting and difficult topic. In the meantime, I have some questions about your comments.
Thanks for those answers. Could you elaborate your WP:OR and/or WP:V concerns? Sandbh ( talk) 10:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I haven't seen such a non-web table.
Some authors that come more or less close, in terms of concept or boundary lines, follow.
Fernelius and Robey (1935, p. 62) include a periodic table that divides the elements into four main classes, on the basis of crystal structure: I. The true metals (Groups 1 to 11); II. Metals with modified structures (Zn, Cd, Hg | B, Al, In, Tl | Pb); III. Elements with 8–N structures (Ga | C, Si, Ge, Sn | As, Sb, Bi | Se, Te, Po | I, …); and IV. the rest of the elements (N | O, S | H, F, Cl, Br | the noble gases). P is shown as belonging to both class III and class IV.
Wulfsberg (1987, p. 159) divides the non-noble nonmetals into "very electronegative nonmetals" (N | O | F, Cl, Br) and "electronegative nonmetals" (H | Si, Ge* | P, As,* Sb,* Bi | S, Se,* Te,* Po | I, At). [He refers elsewhere to the asterisked elements as metalloids, and to Ge, Bi and Po as "electronegative metals".]
DeKock & Gray (1989, p. 426) have a periodic table that categorises the elements into "metals only"; "intermediate structures" (B | C, Si, Ge, Sn | P, As, Sb, Bi | S, Se, Te); and "monatomic or diatomic molecules" (H | N | O |F, Cl, Br, I, At | noble gases). Just below this table there is an extract of groups 10—18 that has been disassembled into segments according to bulk coordination numbers. The segments from left to right are: metallic packing; three-dimensional networks (B | diamond, Si, Ge, gray tin); sheets or layers; tetrahedra; chains; rings; diatomic; atoms.
Birk (2005, p. 234) says in words, rather than a table: "The nonmetals typically exist as diatomic or polyatomic molecules, with the exception of the noble gases, which are monatomic. Bell and Garafalo (2005, p. 131) write, "This might be a good time to introduce the idea of diatomic elements (formulas containing a subscript greater than 2) and polyatomic elements (formulas containing a subscript greater than 2). Only seven elements are considered diatomic…and only a few are…polyatomic (such as S, P and C). Students might notice that the diatomic and polyatomic elements are located…above the stair-step line."
Silberberg (2006, p. 550) has a periodic table extract showing the structures of the representative elements. C is shown as "solid, covalent network"; P | S, Se | I as "solid, covalent molecule (diatomic or polyatomic)"; H | N | O | F, Cl as "gas, covalent molecule (diatomic or polyatomic)"; Br the same, but a liquid; and the noble gases as "single atoms"
It doesn't matter if you or I haven't been able to find a non-web periodic table using precisely this division. A periodic table is simply a graphic representation of what is written. Everything about our periodic table has been written before; it's just that no one (as far as we know) has shown it as a table. That's probably the same with many Wikipedia pages and other kinds of tables or pictures—they are mostly original, and simply draw together and represent what is said in the literature or seen in the world.
I haven't been able to find a non-web version of any of the iterations of our colour categorised table that predates when these first appeared (c. 2002) in Wikipedia. The closest I've been able to get to is in 1981 (Breck, Brown and McCowan, p. 149) and 1968 (Crawford, pp. 542–543). The Breck et al. table uses the following colour categories: metals | lanthanides and actinides | transition metals | semiconductors | life elements | halogens | noble gases. The earlier Crawford table uses black, light grey, vertical hatching, horizontal hatching, dark grey and mottled shading to distinguish: alkalis | metals | biogens | halogens | rare gases. Text labels appearing along the top and bottom-left of the table are "light metals"; "lanthanide series"; "actinide series"; "nonmetals"; and "rare gases".
After 2002 the closest non-web versions I've seen are "other nonmetal (or nonmetal) | halogen | noble-gas" type tables.
It would be a sorry day for Wikipedia if we were unable to show in tabular form what is written in the literature. But I don’t think that is what you intended to imply.
[I have not made up my mind yet. The discussion is helping.] Sandbh ( talk) 05:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Property | More metallic | Less metallic |
Physical | • Melting point is marginally higher (115.21 v 113.7 °C); boiling point is substantially higher (444.6 v 184.36) • Ductility is better (as plastic sulfur) • Higher bulk coordination number (2 v 1+) |
• Band gap is bigger (~2.5 v ~1.2 eV) hence iodine has a metallic appearance, partially delocalised bonding, is a semiconductor in the direction of its planes, and has better electrical and thermal conductivity • Liquid iodine is an ionic conductor; S only becomes a liquid semiconductor at 900 °C i.e. some 455 degrees above its boiling point |
Chemical | • Electron affinity lower (200 v 295 kj/mol) • EN lower (2.58 v 2.66) • Ionisation energy lower (10.36 v 10.45 V) • Most stable oxidation state is +6, versus –1 for iodine • Standard reduction potential is lower (+0.14 v +0.54 V) • The S2- sulfide ion, to be present in aqueous solution, requires highly alkaline conditions (> ~pH 13) whereas the I– cation is common in aqueous solution across pH 1–14 |
— — |
Analysis: In its physical properties iodine is marginally(?) more metallic than sulfur whereas sulfur is appreciably more metallic in its chemical properties. Sandbh ( talk) 01:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Property | More metallic | Less metallic |
Physical | — — | • Melting point (−259.16 v 115.21 °C) and boiling point (−252.88 v 444.6) are lower, hence gaseous • Nil ductility • Smaller bulk coordination number (1 v 2) • Greater band gap (15 v 2.2 eV) hence colourless, and less electrical and thermal conductivity |
Chemical | • Electron affinity lower (73 v 200 kJ/mol) • Electronegativity lower (2.2 v 2.58) • Standard reduction potential lower (0.0 v +0.14 V) |
• Ionisation energy higher 13.6 v 10.36 V • Homoatomic hydrogen cations not capable of independent existence(?), other than in the gas phase |
Analysis: S is appreciably more metallic than H physically; H is somewhat(?) more metallic than S chemically
I think Nergaal also suggested a while ago combining the lanthanides and actinides, but I would again not support this as there is not really a clear term for what they are together because of Lu and Lr spoiling everything by being d-block elements. "Inner transition metals" would the best if that word had ever actually been well-defined. Double sharp ( talk) 03:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
sidetalk
|
---|
|
Re collapsing the side discussion: no problem with me.
I think "inner transition metal" should not be dismissed simply because of its under-definiteness: What is "lanthanide"? (15 elements? 14, and if so, which ones?) "Transition metal"? (Sc/Y in or out? La/Ac? Lu/Lr? Zn/Cd? Hg?) A much more serious problem for me is that "lanthanide" and "actinide" are much better-known than "inner transition metals." Names are crucially important for our categorization. Most people who know the very basics of chemistry have at least heard the word "lanthanide" (or seen it in the PT hanging on the classroom wall). "Inner transition metal" is fine, I think, as a term, but much fewer people heard it before.-- R8R ( talk) 06:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I have revisited the extended periodic table article. It does suggest, unlike our current extended PT, that the elements 169--172 will belong to the period 8, and not 9.
Template:Extended periodic table (by Pyykkö, 50 columns, periods 8–9)
The two major sources, Fricke and Pyykko, both suggest the differentiating electron will be 8p, not 9p. As such, I propose we follow Pyykko's representation (see Pyykko), keeping the 8p3/2 elements in period 8, even if they come after the 9p1/2 elements.-- R8R ( talk) 22:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Another question: are we sure that E167–170 are all going to be metals? If this is going to be like period 3, then maybe it would not be so. The group oxidation state being among the most important is not absolutely prohibitive – +5 and +6 are important for phosphorus and sulfur respectively too. So maybe since Fricke says that period 9 would be like period 3, we should simply copy over the classifications from period 3 (167 PTM; 168 metalloid; 169 and 170 polyatomic nonmetals; 171 diatomic nonmetal; 172 noble gas), along with huge caveats. Double sharp ( talk) 03:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's my attempt at gathering every little scrap of information Fricke gives us:
Now what about 171, which Fricke proudly proclaims will be a halogen similar to iodine? I think the answer lies in the fact that he specifically says iodine and not, say, chlorine. Iodine is close to the metalloid strip and has incipient metallic properties. Thus we could reasonably expect the formation H(171) and the soft base 171−, but we do not know how stable these would be. We could argue for metalloid, since the EA is within the range of variation of the known value for At; but the Goldhammer-Hertzfeld criterion would push it over the line (already it is predicted that At may act as a metal anyway, so 171 may well do so too). So maybe 171 could be simply a metal that is stable in the −1 state. We do not know how stable the 171− anion is going to be (only that it will be part of its chemistry, according to Fricke), and crucially, Fricke abstains from calling it a halogen, only similar to the halogens in the −1 state. That would be very odd if it was expected to be almost a carbon copy of iodine, so I think he is hinting that the EA does not tell the full story, because 171 is so much further down the periodic table (two more rows!).
Hence I to my surprise have come full circle to Sandbh's original position on 171; that it would be a metal with a significant chemistry in the −1 oxidation state (certainly stable enough to be reduced there by H+, but this is possible for the perhaps-even-metallic At as well). Furthermore, given 117's much lower EA and the fact that −1 is expected to be the least common part of its chemistry, I find myself to my surprise wondering if we could plausibly colour it as a post-transition metal. Fricke expects it to be semimetallic, but the fact that he uses this term makes me wonder if he means the physics definition, in which case 117 could be a semimetal and a PTM. It's not unheard of: α-Sn and Bi are like that.
My initial assignment of diatomic nonmetal to 171 was made on the basis of Fricke's first paper, which predicts chlorine-like behaviour (171− being a hard base, for example). He dials back this prediction to iodine-like behaviour in his next paper, so I think metalloid is a more reasonable description.
I think it's safest to assign them the most metallic plausible description, as it's difficult to imagine what could possibly prevent the onset of metallisation. At this high density and this far down the periodic table, the extrapolated Goldhammer-Hertzfeld criterion seems quite unable to stop the onset of metallisation for any of these elements save 172. Even in 1971, Fricke et al. refuse to call 117 and 171 halogens, only members of the halogen group (i.e. VIIA), while they do not dare to do likewise for 118 and 172 as noble gases. I think that by this point, it means that any remnants of nonmetallishness have vanished.
Now what about 118 and 172, the last two noble gases? 118 would be funny: it would be neither noble nor a gas. In 1974 Fricke dares to say that it would behave more like a "normal element", continuing the trend towards increasing reactivity down from Xe. Rn already shows cationic behaviour. The difficulty is that it would still probably be monoatomic, and so there is no way to recolour it now (there would have been if we reunified the other nonmetals into "reactive nonmetals" or "typical nonmetals", the latter excluding hydrogen). Already its fluorides would probably be ionic and non-volatile (reminds me of At and Rn), and it would be tremendously polarizable. Which means that an argument for reunifying the nonmetals would be to allow a more accurate characterisation of 118. Maybe we should change its colour!
172 would be a better noble gas, but for the fact that it would almost certainly be a solid. Fricke also calls 172 in 1974 a strong Lewis acid, so that it can donate a lone pair of electrons (and thus its IE must not be that high – in fact, the predicted value is closer to Rn than Xe). Thus fluorides and oxides are certainly possible (they are already possible in Xe). Thus we have 172 dialing back the trend towards Xe and Rn, so that we could still colour it as a noble gas. (The issue is a little moot using the current colour scheme.) Except that the category name is annoying.
BTW, I read Pyykkö and found an explanation of why he puts 165 and 166 in groups IA and IIA (not the d-block groups IB and IIB); because despite being d10s1 and d10s2, Cn2+ is expected to be d8s2 (implying 6d < 7s), while 1662+ is expected to be d10s0 (implying 7d > 9s). But is this not true for Zn, Cd, and Hg as well? OTOH he does neatly explain why the 7d elements are in those groups; because while 8s is inactive, 8p1/2 is not, and stands in its place! Thus 9s, which fills up at 165 and 166, is a new s-shell and a new period can start. (If not for this, I'd seriously consider a table with four extra superactinides that crams 119–172 all into period 8, that eliminates the blank spaces in Fricke's table.) Double sharp ( talk) 14:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Another nice tidbit from Pyykkö: it seems the current consensus is that the PT is going to end at 172 or 173.
This 2011 paper explicitly says that the last element with a 1s shell outside the negative energy continuum is 173, and that this "yields the end of the periodic table". They cite Greiner on the negative energy continuum and resulting effects, but they appear to regard that anything beyond this will behave pathologically weirdly. I expect that the situation would quickly get out of hand, such that you wouldn't have your shiny new period 10 element for long enough even for the nucleons to arrange themselves into nuclear shells. They anyway expect that something will happen and that it will be prohibitive to the existence of the atom. They also give a predicted electron configuration for 173: [Usb] 9p1
3/2. Pyykkö also calls 165–172 the last main group elements. So I think we should cut 173–184 off our periodic table. It appears to be the consensus outside
one Philip Ball article – who still admits that the exact details of what happens past 173 are unresolved (and they don't look good). Nobody's placed 173 on a PT, and judging from what I've read so far it's not sure if 173 is going to be a thing or not, but 172 will be. The limit (calculated as 173.17) is fairly close to 173.
Double sharp (
talk)
14:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It has been proposed before, so I figure it deserves a mention. Double sharp ( talk) 12:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly what the title says (perhaps even including Cn till we get the experimental evidence otherwise). Both this and the group 3 issue are related to Sandbh's topic on the group 4–11 focus. Double sharp ( talk) 16:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
|isotope ref=
. (eg, applied in {{
Infobox californium}}).http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4398364.htm on battery-powered homes, at 05:05. Sandbh ( talk) 11:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Almost right, here. Sandbh ( talk) 05:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
http://www.iupac.org/news/news-detail/article/discovery-and-assignment-of-elements-with-atomic-numbers-113-115-117-and-118.html (it's not 1 Jan yet for me, but it's already night). Double sharp ( talk) 13:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
“ | The chemistry community is eager to see its most cherished table finally being completed down to the seventh row. | ” |
— http://www.iupac.org/news/news-detail/article/discovery-and-assignment-of-elements-with-atomic-numbers-113-115-117-and-118.html |
Quarkonium
News from Eric Scerri
Regarding {{ Sidebar periodic table}}, after DePiep changed it to:
• Periodic table blocks s, p, d, f, ... Atomic orbitals · Aufbau principle
I restored the extra level of 'indentation', changing it back to:
• Periodic table blocks s, p, d, f, ... (Atomic orbitals · Aufbau principle)
My idea here was to use the parentheses provided by the extra level of indentation to contrast the PT blocks entries with the PT periods (whose subsidiary items are the periods) and PT groups entries (whose subsidiary entries are the groups). Since the subsidiary items under PT blocks are not the blocks (which are currently just redirects to the same general page), I thought it best to somehow visually indicate this difference. I did a similar thing to contrast the Metalloid section, where "(dividing metals & nonmetals)" is a completely different sort of subsidiary from the Metals and Nonmetals sections, where the subsidiaries are the subcategories of metals and nonmetals respectively. I hope this explains the thought process behind why I had the extra level of 'indentation'. If my explanation is not clear, let me know and I'll try again. If my explanation is clear but you still disagree, let's let's discuss it here first, per WP:BRD. YBG ( talk) 22:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
More re {{ Sidebar periodic table}}
Having browsed {{ Infobox element}} and {{ Infobox isotope}}, it is not obvious to me how to gracefully include the many physical properties of the light, rare but stable, and technically important isotopes such as 2H and 3He, which differ substantially from those presently provided by {{ Infobox element}} for the natural mixture dominated by another stable isotope. This information seems to be missing from deuterium and helium-3, and hence from WP. I would welcome suggestions about how to incorporate this missing information, which amounts to more than half of the entries in each {{ Infobox element}}. Thanks. Layzeeboi ( talk) 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
https://ia601605.us.archive.org/32/items/surveyofproperti641rode/surveyofproperti641rode.pdf
Cryogens and their properties RL Mills, FJ Edeskuty - in Liquid Cryogens, Vol. 2? Vol. 2: ISBN-10: 0849357284 ISBN-13: 978-0849357282 Publisher: Boca Raton: CRC (1983) Vol. 1 is ISBN-10: 0849357276 ISBN-13: 978-0849357275 (Vol. 2 is $12 from Ama20n)
ESTIMATED D,-DT-T PHASE DIAGRAM IN THE THREE-PHASE REGION (1975) http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/07/234/7234944.pdf
http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471238961.0825041803262116.a01.pub2/abstract DOI = 10.1002/0471238961.0825041803262116.a01.pub2
The article is not new but needs alook from a person with more experience on isotope articles. -- Stone ( talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The current set of Category legend colors we use in periodic tables at this wiki (enwiki) has some serious flaws, especially with regard to good webpage design. For example, background colors may have too little contrast with regular font color (like the red (alkaline metals) in group 1).
This topic is opened to review and improve the set. Starting point is the set as defined and used, labeled the 2015 category color set. This set is used throughout the enwiki consistently in all periodic table graphs (dozens).
Category is the name used on enwiki for these groupings (classes). There is no distinctive word for it (sometime "series" is used, but that can also refer to other classifications of elements). The definitions and compositions of the categories themselves is a scientific topic, and is not up for discussion here. There is no overall setup for this discussion. Section structure is our friend. - DePiep ( talk) 12:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Known issues
Useful links
|
---|
|
This is a brainstorm of potential principles or considerations. Others are welcome to add more. Ideally, items should be stated in such a way that people can vote them up or down. However, our goal at this point should be to collect as many different principles as possible, without taking the time to judge them or comment on them at this point. There is no need to sign individual suggestions -- adding an item to this list doesn't mean that you agree with it -- in fact, you may actually disagree with it. Consequently, there is no need to sign individual additions to this list.
Please do not comment on the merits of the items in this list at this point. Let us delay that discussion until we can all agree that this list is complete and includes all possible considerations - or at least all of them that we can think of at that point. YBG ( talk) 05:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
While all of these were not a part of the initial design specification, these are the principles I have discovered while doing the work. Feel free to agree/disagree on each.
-- R8R ( talk) 13:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Continuing as per more work with colors:
Not sure if this is the right place to put this comment, but I trust you'll excuse me if I missed finding the right place. Anyway, I recall that one of the things that is done to help with color blindness is to avoid using hue as the sole distinction, especially with certain problematic colors. This idea could be helpful to us if we used some other method of distinguishing 'known' from 'predicted'. This would free us up to use more than just hue in creating distinction. Some alternatives:
I've listed all the ideas I could think of, even ones I don't think have much possibility, in hopes that it might help stimulate other out-of-the-box thinking. YBG ( talk) 09:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- DePiep ( talk) 09:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Some early notes on color calculations. About HSV HSL color spaces (=3D definitions, as RGB is)
This S,V workings is difficult to grasp for me to, I only play around with their settings ;-).
@ DePiep: I have written the templates for conversion from HSV to RGB: {{ HSVtoRGB.R}}, {{ HSVtoRGB.G}}, {{ HSVtoRGB.B}}, and {{ HSVtoHEX}} for getting a hexadecimal 6-digit code for a color as expressed in the RGB color space. Feel free to use them if you need to.-- R8R ( talk) 08:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The task is more difficult than it seems to be. I have established a sandbox, and if anyone wants to use it, please feel free. The preview table, the page with the colors. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait some time (10 minutes or possibly even more, I think) for the colors to take effect. (But then there's also the draft. The server asks for an email address to send a download link to; I could've found a simpler thing, just didn't bother to spend the time.)-- R8R ( talk) 01:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I find this gorgeous. Thank you, R8R! Finally I can see the difference between "unknown chemical properties" and "post-transition metals". Even if the colours are hard to distinguish for some people, they can hover over the cells to get the tooltips. I love how the softer shades take up the bulk of the table, making it easier on the eye than it is now. (Although maybe there are too many greens?)
Here's a list of colours that have been taken in your scheme:
Double sharp ( talk) 04:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! My initial fear was that the scheme had too many blue shades, from which I tried to move, and never thought green could be a problem. We have 39 green cells now (15 Ln + 15 An + 9 PTM), and 41 blue ones (35 TM + 6 NG). So I still don't think it's a problem, is it?
Right now, I want Sandbh to help me determine whether all colors in the regular PT are easily distinguishable (by the way, please give it a look now, I have a little reworked the colors for groups 1 and 2), and I can look for predicted colors after that. We practically need AM(p), AEM(p), San(p), San, Eka-San(p), TM(p), PTM(p), metalloid(p), diatomic(p), and NG(p). We already have the predicted color for the NGs, and my initial feeling is that the other colors should be easy enough to find; I already have two more shades of green for the superactinides, and if more green is undesirable, then there's also beige, which I have originally planned for the eka-San, but finding three shades of beige and/or brown is also doable. However, these predicted colors are secondary to our regular colors, so I'll finish them first.-- R8R ( talk) 13:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Updating the legend is possible, but I yet don't know how. I'll figure it out soon, though.-- R8R ( talk) 14:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I have stuck to the general idea of spectrum coloring, improving it with small modifications, having further adjusted the colors over time, including the font colors for states of matter and the frame colors for occurrence, and I have resulted in a scheme that I consider to be a major improvement to the previous one. But now, of course, I need your comments to know if I'm right and if it's good; comments would be very welcome.
I have described the principles the scheme is built on above, where you can find both old and new principles. I've had the colors tested for contrast, for both the font/cell background contrast and the frame/cell background contrast.-- R8R ( talk) 07:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
With regard to metallishness/metallicity and the color spectrum, it seems to me there are two ways to spread the spectrum across the PT
0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8
: In one series from left-to-right in the PT,8-6-4-2-0-1-3-5-7
: In two series from center-to-edge in the PT,The second means that adjacent colors are further apart in the spectrum (except for 0-1). Have I explained this enough that you can understand the general idea? If so, does it merit further thought? YBG ( talk) 04:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I have read a number of guidelines earlier today, and I think it's been a great change with the sandbox I've made. The colors have calmed down and the color order is finally straight rainbow.
@ Sandbh: I've been tinkering around with the colours. I think the trouble with purely going mathematically, equally spacing the hue values, is problematic as the categories of English are not equally spaced. I think yellow is a pretty clear category around 60°, but it seems like almost anything from 90°–150° can be taken for green, and thus you do not see a difference between TM and PTM even though it is bigger than between metalloids and TM, because English distinguishes the latter (yellow/green) but usually not the former (chartreuse/green). I've tried to exaggerate the differences in the pairs you mention, although it drives the noble gases into a wall. Right now I can see the difference (to me, group 2 is a bright magenta while group 18 is now a dim rose, that can be told apart from the nearby dull red), but I'm not sure if you can. Double sharp ( talk) 14:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this about right(?):
Alkali metal Lavender blue
Alkaline earth Lilac
Lanthanide Aqua
Actinide Pale blue
Transition metal Light green
Post transition metal Dark green
Metalloid Yellow
Polyatomic nonmetal Red
Diatomic metal Orange
Noble gas Pink
Unknown White
---
Sandbh (
talk)
09:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Issues considered resolved
|
---|
|
Now how does this work with predicted shades? Can we have a Fricke extended table? Double sharp ( talk) 04:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
We practically need AM(p), AEM(p), San(p), San, Eka-San(p), TM(p), PTM(p), metalloid(p), diatomic(p), and NG(p). We already have the predicted color for the NGs, and my initial feeling is that the other colors should be easy enough to find; I already have two more shades of green for the superactinides, and if more green is undesirable, then there's also beige, which I have originally planned for the eka-San, but finding three shades of beige and/or brown is also doable. However, these predicted colors are secondary to our regular colors, so I'll finish them first.--
R8R (
talk)
13:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Redefine categories: better as separate topic, separate thread
|
---|
Since we do the recoloring, it may be a great time to reconsider which categories we need to show. For example, the issue of combining the s block metals together has been raised before. As a personal preference, I would love to finally reunify reactive nonmetals, now divided into five diatomic and five polyatomic ones, a rare division these days, quite arbitrarily dividing a small diverse group of nonmetals into smaller groups that are still very diverse for their size!-- R8R ( talk) 01:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
|
For a fresh look at a different colouring approach see here.
Good mapping examples from elsewhere:
Is there no use for a white colour category? White is a colour too. Sandbh 09:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think there is a use for a colour that merges with the table background. For quite a while (four years from 2006 to 2010 IIRC), element 117 was not discovered (though everything else in the first 7 periods was), and so it had no border, being simply undiscovered. I would argue that in such a case (which could happen today if, say, element 120 was discovered before element 119), the cell concerned should appear, but it should receive a blank background, defined in the legend as "undiscovered". It shouldn't have a border for the same reason. (We'd have this today for elements 119 and 120 if we magically all converted to left-step tables.)
Incidentally, while we're on the subject of how to handle discoveries of future elements, I think that when E119 and E120 are discovered, we can simply take the old table and add them in their places below Fr and Ra (8s). The addition of the superactinides will royally mess up all the 18-column tables, so that will be our grand opportunity to turn 32-column once and for all (since reliable sources are not going to have a choice). At that point, I'm not sure how much to show. It seems odd to have only elements till 122 discovered, for example, and show 50 more blank-background elements. So maybe we would only show up to the highest number we know (filling in only gaps), or maybe we would show up to the end of the series (thus 155, then 164, then 172). But we can worry about it once the first superactinide is discovered. Double sharp ( talk) 14:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
One thing that the interruption of the spectral sequence creates is that we don't have a large patch of the table (TMs plus Ln/An below and PTMs after) the same colour. If we are going to match a spectral sequence, then
I think the argument for a spectral sequence is pretty convincing, and matches electronegativity, first ionisation energy and electron affinity (as well as reactivity!) pretty well (with a few bumps and dips that we can probably smooth out). The slight problem is that the huge dip in reactivity at the noble gases (and the unique combination of high ionisation energy and high electron affinity that leads to it) is perhaps compelling enough to break the trend just for them.
So if I were to edit R8R's scheme to be more in accordance with the spectrum, I'd have a spectrum running from the alkali metals to the halogens, with the noble gases abruptly muted in colour, and then the trend can start again in the next row. The trend is about chemical properties, so it makes sense to mute the colours for elements with limited chemistry at standard conditions (the noble gases).
So I'd choose something like (forgive me for not making my own scheme, since I can't really choose colours well):
This puts the cool colours on the metallic side, and the warm colours on the nonmetallic side. Since yellow is clearly differentiated from green and red, it stands as a reasonable midpoint. The sequence can easily wrap around from diatomic nonmetals (with the halogens as a subset) to alkali metals, with the noble gases standing in between these infamously reactive elements as a bastion of calm. Double sharp ( talk) 13:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the next levels in the g- and f-blocks: since actinides are darker than lanthanides, superactinides should be darker still. I think, like R8R, that we should seriously consider eliminating period 10 from the extended table, since the idea of element 184 is treated with caveats by Fricke himself, and does not appear in recent studies (e.g. Pyykkö), and it appears that the second island of relative stability would probably appear earlier, at Z ~ 164 instead. We're not really sure what happens beyond Z ~ 172 with weird things happening with the nucleus. Double sharp ( talk) 13:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I like that noble gas colour. It follows the spectral sequence, but it's not actually a spectral colour. Nice touch. ^_^
Current colour scheme:
Could we see the superactinide colour in a mockup? It won't be a basic colour, but should probably continue the trend from Ln to An to San. The white looks good. I don't think the colours are attacking each other anymore, although we should probably test this (especially for colour-blind viewers – I accept that 11 shades for them is going to be difficult, but at least neighbouring shades should look appreciably different). Double sharp ( talk) 08:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
See here. Members look good. For more information contact the Task Group Chair: Eric Scerri <scerri@chem.ucla.edu>. Sandbh ( talk) 05:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion if we should state that there are two values for the melting point given in the literature and that a very thorough radium review states a that there is a certain mismatch or that we go for the most quoted one is back on the radium page is back. I tried years ago to find sources for the melting point but I always come to one measurement of the curies back in 1910.
Two quotes showing that the 960°C value is also out there:
The reported melting point of radium (960°C) is higher than that of barium (717°C). We observed a similar anomaly for actinium(1,050°C) and lanthanum (887°C). [2]
Metallic radium has a melting point of 700°C1 or 960”C3 and a boiling point of 1140”c. [3]
Old discussions:
Please coment on the radium talk page. -- Stone ( talk) 20:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It might be nice to go through the articles in our project and decide which articles have an already established national variety of English and make sure that all of them are properly tagged. As near as I can figure it, there are two sorts of tags, one that goes on the talk page to merely declare the correct WP:ENGVAR and another one that administrators need to add to a special subpage to generate an edit mesage. YBG ( talk) 06:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The image for template:Infobox oxygen has been deleted from Commons. I cant find a new "liquid oxygen" image at commons, but I think we should have some kind of image in the infobox. Any ideas? Christian75 ( talk) 05:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Here. Sandbh ( talk) 03:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
It was decided a long time ago that all new elements should have names ending with "-ium," even if element 117 is a halogen and 118 is a noble gas. There also was a proposal submitted to the IUPAC for discussion in 2015 suggesting the name for 117 should end with "-ine," and that of 118 should end with "-on." Now the proposals by the discoverers include the names "tennessine" and "oganesson". Could anyone help me verify that this proposal was actually approved at some point? The closest I could find so far is this: https://www.webelements.com/nexus/how-to-name-new-elements/ The site says the recommendations were "provisional," and now they're not available on the IUPAC's website (at least, I can't find them).-- R8R ( talk) 18:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Now comes the name-changing deluge from people who jump to conclusions from the news articles. Pardon me while I walk away from my computer and bang my head several times against the wall. Double sharp ( talk) 15:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and now the JWP reports are available: part one, part two. Double sharp ( talk) 02:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the original copy seems to have disappeared behind a paywall, but it's now here as well. Double sharp ( talk) 08:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Since for once a significant number of us seem to actually be around, I wonder if we could (after R8R and I finish Pb) do something with N? It is currently absolutely terrible. Double sharp ( talk) 15:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
We had a really nice mockup; is it going to happen? It is a lot easier on the eyes, with a big patch of green (okay, mostly chartreuse) instead of our current big patch of red and dull gray! Double sharp ( talk) 15:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
And apparently, the main reason for this article's existence was the way we talked about the systematic names! (^_^) (This is from IUPAC.) Double sharp ( talk) 11:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion over at Talk:List of places used in the names of chemical elements § Not yet approved names. Editors in this project may wish to contribute to the discussion. And we may wish to have a more global discussion here. YBG ( talk) 15:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A few questions
|rowspan=2
so as to subdivide the Name and Symbol columns only
I'm rather inclined to implement (1b) or (1c) and then opting for (2c). I'm also leaning toward (3b) and (4b). My main motivator is to reach a consensus now before having to react some IP editor. Comments? YBG ( talk) 04:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So, R8R Gtrs has once again brought to my attention that some of our older GAs (e.g. C, Sc, Hf, Tl, chalcogen) do not really live up to current standards, but since they have the plus sign, nobody is going to think anything is wrong, and they will for the most part not improve.
My suggestion: WP:CHEMS refuses to recognise GA and FA in its banners. Why don't we do the same? We can note that an article is a GA, yes, but in terms of referencing and/or chemistry it needs help. So we can have on the PTQ a yellow cell (C-class) with a plus sign, showing that it's not all right, and preventing us from looking at the green PTQ and thinking everything is fine. Double sharp ( talk) 14:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
After the recent triumphs regarding elements 113, 115, 117, and 118, I imagine that efforts to synthesise the first period 8 elements will be redoubled. Since there do not yet seem to be guidelines about this, I propose the following:
Furthermore, when compounds of an element are first synthesized, the oxidation state formatting must change, as not all will be predicted anymore. The oxidation state that has been found should be left alone; the others will be parenthesised. Meitnerium gives the format before compounds are synthesized and hassium gives the format after. Double sharp ( talk) 16:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the creation of articles for elements 121 and above: a "normal" transactinide article has the sections "history" (including synthesis attempts) and "predicted properties" (chemical, physical, and atomic). If you can summarise all of this in two paragraphs (one for history and one for predicted properties), don't create the article yet. If it balloons to the current size of the ununennium article, go right ahead and create the article. Another guideline would be to ask: how full is your infobox? If you can only fill in a few items, forget it. If you can fill many items and even have some that don't have fields in the infobox, you can probably go right ahead and create the article. Double sharp ( talk) 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
1. When element first synthesized, standard atomic weight = [mass number] of most stable isotope
2. discovery field in the infobox filled
3. not "predicted" shading for the infobox, but "unknown chemical properties" shade
4. Nothing else in the infobox changes
5. No gaps should be left
6. When elements 119 and 120 are synthesized, we should simply add them under Fr and Ra. no need to add the g-block extensions until element 121 is synthesized.
(Yes, yes, I know the header presupposes an 18-column table. In my defense I find that the lanthanides and actinides, except blockbuster Th, U and Pu, get hilariously few views and so are not worth the trouble.)
For this purpose I have gotten In and La to GAN. (La because my mental periodic table will always be Sc/Y/La/Ac through force of habit, and because it is so in most textbooks, and because La would have higher views than already-GA-but-honestly-B-sorry-R8R-I-couldn't-help-it Lu.) After returning to active work Ga will be next. No promises about Sr because I find it very difficult to get worked up about and it is further away.
After that are the scary ones (period 3, Ca, As, Sn, halogens). Sn could mostly follow Pb in structure, actually. Similarly Na can easily follow the K structure and the heavier halogens can follow the F structure. (Tempted to do iodine because it is pretty and I like purple. That's not a good reason at all, of course, but it is a popular element.)
(PS to R8R Gtrs: one other reason to do this is because you mentioned that perhaps people don't stay here and pick elements because the project looks from the announcements and achievements as though it's been half-dead since 2014. Now I am creating the impression of activity, since FA work takes a long time and doesn't look so impressive to people who are just passing by!) Double sharp ( talk) 13:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Biological Chemistry of Arsenic, Antimony and Bismuth (I'll post this on the links page too). Double sharp ( talk) 11:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to combine {{ Chemical elements named after scientists}} and {{ Chemical elements named after places}} into {{ Chemical element etymoligies}}? YBG ( talk) 07:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of making it a full-fledged article and not just a list. But I think we should still have sortable table. Here's some general ideas:
You are welcome to disagree with any of these despite my having expressed it as though there were no alternatives. This is just a starting point. YBG ( talk) 07:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
|rowspan=2
and so it belongs on the left.You are invited to participate in a discussion at talk:Dietary element § Article should be Dietary mineral. Only four editors have been involved so far, and while they agree the article should be renamed, they disagree about the best new name. YBG ( talk) 04:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
In German Wikipedia, americium, argon, arsenic, berkelium, caesium, californium, curium, europium, gallium, helium, hydrogen, indium, krypton, lead, lithium, lutetium, manganese, osmium, ruthenium, technetium, tellurium, vanadium, xenon, ytterbium, and zirconium are featured articles. Now I realise that their requirements on sourcing are less strict, so most of these would only lead to GA here. Nevertheless, of these, arsenic, gallium, and indium are not at least good articles here already (although gallium and indium have been nominated, so it's really just arsenic), and so a translation would help.
Their good articles are chlorine, einsteinium, fermium, fluorine, gold, hafnium, neon, plutonium, sodium, rhenium, rhodium, sulfur, and strontium. These could only plausibly help on the worst articles that are only C-class (chlorine, gold, sodium, sulfur, and strontium), and are still somewhat weak on citations from what I saw of their chlorine article. Double sharp ( talk) 07:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I created ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:WikiProject Elements pages using ENGVAR. Hidden, maintenance, etc. Any content page should be in there (article, category). The category must be added manually. There is no automated template. - DePiep ( talk) 00:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
CRC 94th edition says "Minute amounts of curium probably exist in natural deposits of uranium, as a result of a sequence of neutron captures and β decays sustained by the very low flux of neutrons naturally present in uranium ores. The presence of natural curium, however, has never been detected." It does not say this for Am, Bk, or Cf, despite Emsley. Indeed, 247Cm is certainly an extinct radionuclide (and while it was still live, it would have meant that there were 96 naturally occurring elements on Earth, as it decays to 243Pu, 243Am, 239Np, 239Pu, and then rejoins the actinium series at 235U), and 244Cm should be found as the double-beta decay product of primordial 244Pu. But given that it has not been detected ( though natural 247Cm has been looked for), I would not change Cm to "from decay".
With regard to the first few nuclides on the list of nuclides that are just too short-lived to be primordial: 92Nb along with 94Nb has been found in nature from muon capture (presumably of natural molybdenum). Similarly, 205Pb is produced by muon capture of natural 209Bi. 236U is of course known from neutron capture by 235U and as a daughter of 244Pu, while 129I is a cosmogenic nuclide from spallation of Xe. 247Cm alas would be extinct because there isn't really a way to produce it anymore (except by really slow s-process capture with 238U as the starting material as Emsley claims, but there are no corroborating sources for his claim). 182Hf is also an extinct radionuclide, but it would rise once more far into the future when 186W has appreciably alpha decayed. 107Pd is an extinct radionuclide: I suppose you could say it exists on Earth thanks to meteorites.
But even 247Cm produced at Oklo would have been slashed in half at least sixty-four times, so I am not hopeful. Double sharp ( talk) 12:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
In the spirit of creating the impression that more work is being done than actually is, and to do some star-collecting, why not get rid of the five B-class articles (that aren't already at GAN) and get them up to GA? Of them only iron and silver really badly need to improve past that.
Comments:
The other B-class articles (indium, lanthanum, bohrium, element 120) are already at GAN, after I worked on them to that level (though for indium it was more a case of minor work on the excellent base that was already present). Double sharp ( talk) 08:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hard to decide which one to do next. Since I was there when arsenic and radium failed and do not have any new sources they will fail again unless I go looking. Hmm...silver or gallium? The former demands more responsibility and taking it to FA later, and the latter will be a retread of indium. Double sharp ( talk) 15:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I did gallium.
I have an idea to do sodium, following the potassium model, and get the alkali metal GT. Double sharp ( talk) 15:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
In Refractory metals, we have: Definition::Most definitions of the term 'refractory metals' list the extraordinarily high melting point as a key requirement for inclusion. By one definition, a melting point above 4,000 °F (2,200 °C) is necessary to qualify.[2] The five elements niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten and rhenium are included in all definitions,[3] while the wider definition, including all elements with a melting point above 2,123 K (1,850 °C), includes a varying number of nine additional elements, titanium, vanadium, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, ruthenium, rhodium, osmium and iridium. Transuranium elements (those above uranium, which are all unstable and not found naturally on earth; rutherfordium is predicted to have melting point 2400 K or 2100 °C) and technetium (melting point 2430 K or 2157 °C), being radioactive, are never considered to be part of the refractory metals.[4]"
I would like to change this to: Definition::Most definitions of the term 'refractory metals' list the extraordinarily high melting point as a key requirement for inclusion. By one definition, a melting point above 4,000 °F (2,200 °C) is necessary to qualify.[2] The five elements niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten and rhenium are included in all definitions,[3] while the wider definition, including all elements with a melting point above 2,123 K (1,850 °C), includes a varying number of nine additional elements: titanium, vanadium, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, ruthenium, rhodium, osmium and iridium. Transuranium elements (those above uranium, which are all unstable and not found naturally on earth), being radioactive, are never considered to be part of the refractory metals[4], although rutherfordium is predicted to have melting point 2400 K or 2100 °C) and technetium a melting point of 2430 K or 2157 °C.
New version okay?
Thanks -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 01:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Because, we are really not as close as it looks like we are. The elements from fermium onwards have easily-written cookie-cutter articles that are easy to collect stars for, but do not actually matter to the average reader. (Astatine and francium are also somewhat in this category of "nobody cares", but they're somewhat grandfathered in because of their appearance on the hallowed list of 94 natural elements.) We have been concentrating almost exclusively on such elements for the last few years, and very little has changed with the elements you can actually see, work with, and hold.
I just looked again at the archives of 2011 and 2012 and I remember how much I miss that time when everyone was here! Look at the December 2012 PTQ! Out of the first 99 elements that people care about and can actually see, what have we got to a satisfactory level (GA or above) that wasn't there before? Lanthanum? Okay, but not that important. Thulium? Even less important. Polonium? Cool, but the article isn't really quite GA-class (it's really a B now): we need to fix polonium and radium especially among the secondary radioelements. Neptunium? Okay, but again not that important. Seriously, the only important thing we actually got to GA (and now approaching FA) is thorium. I suppose the superheavy spamming would have been necessary eventually, but...
At least I have nominated the important iron, gallium, and indium, that are awaiting a reviewer, so things do not look quite as terrible. But really, while the table looks good because of the template-ish synthetic "virtual elements" no one cares about, the important elements are just being neglected. Is it that no one dares to do things like arsenic outside a collaboration? That is so sad, but so understandable given the amount of time we all have! (Already thorium takes up so much of my WP time, working alone and following R8R's wonderful suggestions.)
It really makes me sad that every day we don't work on sodium, in the hope that someone can take it to FA later, to leave an alkali metal to have one missing representative of each group for future editors, is a day when readers are stuck with a lame article. Look at all the elements and groups people learn the chemistry of in high school: those would be the first 30 elements, all of the s-block (except Fr and Ra), all of the halogens (except At), silver, and all of group 14. To this we have to add the king of metals, gold, and the arsenic that everyone's heard of. Look how many of them we fail to deliver on! Boron, carbon, nitrogen, sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, calcium, arsenic, bromine, strontium, silver, tin, iodine, and gold all await a helping hand. And apart from some lanthanides (which would be almost as cookie-cutter as the superheavies, and be just as useful to the average reader), and the radioactive polonium and radium (which, outside history, aren't very important), these eighteen make up all the natural elements that are not of satisfactory quality.
Yes, I know I have complained a lot about things like hafnium and ruthenium (at least, not till I fixed the latter) having lame chemistry sections. But you know what? The average reader isn't looking for that. I would add it of course, but the fixing of our current GAs is not so urgent a priority, except in cases of clearly undeserved GA status (boron, carbon, thallium, polonium). (I consider it "undeserved status" when you can't get it to actual GA status in one day. Selenium and tellurium have some problems, but nothing you couldn't fix very quickly.)
I'm sorry, R8R, but I just can't be convinced by you about this while nitrogen remains a terrible article. I can't look at this without feeling that I have a WP duty to do as much as I can about this, and to maximise the WP time I have for it.
Look how long it took to get fluorine to FA. I can't possibly live to do that for every element at our current rates. But all-GA is possible. Once there is a precedent (Pb, Th) of bringing old GAs to FA after a long break, when you are not the sole author (or perhaps not even an author – for that I'd get my dear tungsten, or beautiful, white palladium) – once all of the table is satisfactory for the general reader – then we can start thinking about making all of it satisfactory for the advanced, in-the-field reader as well.
At least, that's what I think.
But I can't possibly do all of it myself within a reasonable span of time. Double sharp ( talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I realise, also, that the idea of getting a set of articles done is a good motivator. This is how the actinides got finished, as well as many of the transition metals (although that stopped before the last few important ones). Now consider: there are 31 transition metals in the table that people care about, from group 3 of scandium, yttrium, lanthanum, and actinium to group 12 of zinc, cadmium, and mercury. (I use lanthanum here because it gets more views than lutetium.) How many of them are satisfactory now? Almost all of them! The exceptions are iron (which is at GAN, so I won't count it), silver, and gold. That's 29 out of 31 in 2016, while in 2007 we had four. Not bad for a decade! Now let's try something that will be even more useful.
Consider the p-block, minus the noble gases (which chemically are not so interesting and anyway are a featured topic already). This is one of the weakest regions in the table. Since many of them are important nonmetals, they need a quite different style of writing from the metals which we have so many good articles for. (The exceptions – sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium – are in the s-block, and have reasonably good models to follow in potassium and barium. Radium needs to be thought of from a history-first perspective, instead of a properties-first perspective.)
Why don't we fix them all, in the same sort of drive that the transition metals were? There are slightly fewer articles to worry about here (25), and many are done already. It's just the most important ones that are left:
Element | Quality | Element | Quality | Element | Quality | Element | Quality | Element | Quality | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boron | needs work | Carbon | needs work | Nitrogen | needs work | Oxygen | OK | Fluorine | OK | ||||
Aluminium | needs work | Silicon | needs work | Phosphorus | needs work | Sulfur | needs work | Chlorine | needs work | ||||
Gallium | OK | Germanium | OK | Arsenic | needs work | Selenium | OK | Bromine | needs work | ||||
Indium | OK | Tin | needs work | Antimony | OK | Tellurium | OK | Iodine | needs work | ||||
Thallium | OK | Lead | OK | Bismuth | OK | Polonium | needs work | Astatine | OK |
We are now at 11/25, or almost halfway. Maybe in less than a decade we can be at 25/25! (And regarding polonium, it has to be done at some point, but I wouldn't make it a priority.) And even though these are mostly scary elements, they have the advantage that Greenwood and Earnshaw usually devote a whole chapter to them. Already there are single chapters on B, C, N, Si, P, and S that can be mined for information.
I'm not saying that the okay articles like selenium and tellurium don't need work. There are still things that could be improved there. But it would help the reader more to fix the ones that are not okay. I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't FA lead now and tin later, being among the seven metals of antiquity. That is great, of course! I'm quite happy to be contributing to the Pb FA. We need some featured articles to be happening. But we also should have a torrent of good articles flowing through like we had in 2011 and 2012. It will be more difficult to build it up this way with fewer people around, but I hope it can still work.
I would not prefer to see this table responded to with "oh, okay, I'll reserve iodine, and you can do something else". No, I'd prefer something like "hello, I'm trying iodine, but I ran into a few problems, could you help?" That's how potassium and barium got done, after all. Why would it not work again? Double sharp ( talk) 06:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I would still suggest, finally, that while we should ideally have one or two FA pushes going on at any time (we have Th for now, to be followed immediately by a return to Pb), we should also try to have a reasonably steady flow of stable-element non-lanthanide GAs pushing through (hopefully at least one at a time; lanthanides and superheavies are nice-to-have extras), to have the best of both worlds. And for now, we are actually somewhat succeeding in doing that, with two in progress-FAs and three GAs awaiting review. We just need to continue having it like that; instead of the blankness of 2015, instead of the hyperactivity of 2011 and 2012, we can just keep going slowly at a constant rate towards progress. Double sharp ( talk) 08:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Really final post: I'm not opposed to doing lanthanides, of course. It's just that they for the most part are uninteresting and not in the public eye (okay, Ce and Nd may be exceptions; I planned to do the first four, getting these and Pr as well, finishing the early cerium-group lanthanides). But let's not only do that. Double sharp ( talk) 05:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Chemical elements named after places and
Template:Chemical elements named after scientists have been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion about merging Periodic Law and Periodic trends. I just now started the discussion, but the articles were tagged User:Suruena by back in February.
As an aside, I wondered whether I should start the discussion on one of the article talk pages or here. If you have any suggestions that might guide future decisions, please let me know.
YBG ( talk) 08:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It so happens that we have some articles on them: see Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements. Included are Na, Mg, K, Ca, Fe, Cu, As, Se, and I. Double sharp ( talk) 07:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I mention this is that it's the biological role thing that makes me afraid of doing most of the first few rows, because they are so important. I only dared to do Fe because Greenwood has a large section (25.3.5) about it, talking about haemoglobin and myoglobin, cytochromes, and iron-sulfur proteins. (And even now I think the current biology section is inadequate and I should edit it. The chemistry is okay, but at this point I'm expecting that as a non-negotiable matter of course for anything I do here.) I don't feel so scared about things like Pb or Th because they poison you. They're not meant to be there. I also don't feel so scared about N because it is everywhere. But if we talk about the ones in the middle – I get frightened away from doing them. I know I talk a lot about how we should work on the most important elements, but I can perfectly see why we don't. Just like all over Wikipedia, the easier ones tend to be done first, and they are unfortunately also the ones readers are not so interested in. So, if you like, you can think of these resources as ways to help yourself see the all-blue table without needing to achieve immortality. And this is why I still explicitly said that the actinide-and-transactinide-spamming (almost done) and lanthanide-spamming (halfway-through) initiatives were useful – relegated to the end of Greenwood and Earnshaw, they nevertheless, step by little step, make the table easier to look at, and highlight how the important ones are left, and cannot be run away from. And as the choices whittle down, I hope that there is some way to get them done – especially for the big ones that Greenwood and Earnshaw devotes whole chapters to: H (FA), B (GA), C (GA), N, O (FA), Si, P, S (basically, CHNOPS + B and Si). Double sharp ( talk) 08:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It is a little silly IMHO now. It is on the level of GA and FA, where you need reviewers, but we don't really have a reviewing system for it anymore. Double sharp ( talk) 04:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ideally yes, many views would be great and a formal procedure would be great. As a small project, however, we seemingly can't sustain such a procedure. We're left with the best thing we can do but not necessarily abandon the ehole idea. For example, fluorine has been an A-class article for a long time and that rating was great (I don't remember if there was a sort of A-class review). That article alone provides a great reason to have that rating.-- R8R ( talk) 09:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Lanthanum-138 (talk | contribs) . . (5,604 bytes) (-1) . . (I realise I am not supposed to do an A-class rating myself, but this has been pulled through 2 FACs, 1 GAN and 2 PRs, and there were a lot of support votes, and expert knowledge is indeed now needed to tweak the article)
-- Stone ( talk) 11:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
As the headline says, I've nominated this article again. Thanks to User:YBG for thought-provoking commentary, following the first unsuccessful nomination. Sandbh ( talk) 02:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Today I saw a book in my local bookstore called The Periodic Table in Minutes (2016, Dan Green). Page 169 shows the Benfey periodic table as per User:DePiep's image, here. The last page of the book has the picture credits and the second to last entry says, "169: DePiep/Wikimedia". Sandbh ( talk) 11:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
In the PtO42+ oxide cation, here. Sandbh ( talk) 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
In Hydrogen § Discovery and use, it says:
(emphasis added) Flux should be linked. Is the proper target Flux (metallurgy)? YBG ( talk) 01:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I missed this one. Sandbh ( talk) 05:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Shamelessly appropriated from feline1 ( here): a colour scheme that reflected the actual colours of the elements. We'd have a gradient of greyness, a colour-fiesta on the right, and some heartbreakingly beautiful treasures like Au, Cu, Os, Ta, Cs, Eu, Yb, Ca, Sr, Ba...although what to do with elements like At, Fr, and Fm++ which have never been seen? ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 06:12, 30 August 2016 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I've added several sections to block (periodic table): §§ S-block, D-block, F-block, and G-block. The information is mostly gleaned from other WP articles with a bit of interpolation and extrapolation, so there are no external references and certainly one or more major inaccuracy. I would greatly appreciate having other sets of eyes take a look at it. Many thanks! YBG ( talk) 08:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
An article from the Smithsonian Magazine. Note the 15LaAc (type 3) periodic table. Sandbh ( talk) 05:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The new chemistry of the elements Sandbh ( talk) 09:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Google honors Dmitri Mendeleev's 182nd birthday with a special doodle YBG ( talk) 04:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
A major visual change is coming for our PT. As such, it is a great time to either state the current categories are okay or change the set of categories.
Two possible issues coming to my head are a) combining group 1 and 2 into a single category and b) combining di- and polyatomic metals together. (Although any other issues are also worth a discussion, if there is one I haven't mentioned.-- R8R ( talk) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe this would be a logical step. The set of the eleven reactive nonmetals is very diverse, that is true. However, I believe there is no use in breaking it in two (or more), because there is hardly a line all eleven could fall into either side of it. The current divide isn't one as well; one example showing that is iodine. It does fit into the C-P-Se-I diagonal trend; moreover, it is quite similar chemically to sulfur (for an element from a different group), and there is hardly a reason to keep the two apart.
Science aside, it is an even more questionable decision. One might ask, what's so different between C and Si, for example, and how does that differ from this case. The difference is in that "metalloid" is a long-established concept, and it is kept in out PT as such. "Diatomic nonmetal" and "Polyatomic nonmetal," being existing categories, are not nearly as often mentioned as a part of a standalone categorization; more often (and more obviously) they may be used as a part of a one-criterion categorization, with the criterion being structure of the substance formed by the element. All of our categories are well-known except for these two, which are "some nonmetal" and "some other nonmetal" (of other similar cases, the TMs and the PTMs clearly won't be combined, and the same is true for the TMs and the s-block metals. The s-block metals themselves are a different issue, but similarly, I only mentioned it for the sake of objectiveness, I think they should similarly be kept apart, since the individual names are better known than the collective name, and we are targeted at a wide audience), the the differing criterion being particular and not general. As it does not provide an unquestionable partition, we will be better off dropping it.-- R8R ( talk) 12:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
R8R, I see you are having a good Russian winter. There was a picture in our weekend paper of two icebreakers moving along the Moskva River, with the Kremlin in the background, during snowfall in Moscow. Apparently temperatures up there fell to as low as –20° C in the city. I hope you are rugged up.
This proposal would not result in better categorisation scheme. It would reduce the sense of wonderment associated with the current arrangement and dimish knowledge and understanding of the nonmetals.
The distinction between polyatomic and diatomic metals is easy to grasp, factually based and provides engaging insights. Briefly, the 'poly-' (Greek ‘’polys’’ = "many, much") refers to their multi-atomic molecular structures, their many allotropes, and their tendency to catenate or form compounds with multiple homoatomic links. The polyatomic nonmetals are thus 'poly-like' in at least three ways. On the sulfur and iodine question, the ability to catentate easily distinguishes the versatile chemistry of sulfur from that of iodine. Other differences in the properties of the polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals are set out in the nonmetal article.
The existence of diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals arises out of the interaction of atomic and electronic properties. Diatomic nonmetals form diatomic molecules due to either needing just one electron to attain a noble gas configuration or because they are small enough (N, O) to be able to form triple or double bonds to attain noble gas configurations. Conventional wisdom is that triple bonding is the limit for main-group elements. Since C needs four electrons to complete its octet, but is still a relatively small atom, it gets around this problem by forming three single sigma bonds and one delocalised pi bond (pi bonding being more characteristic of small atoms), resulting in graphite. The larger size of the remaining non-noble nonmetals weakens their capacity to form multiple bonds, via pi bonding, and they instead form polyatomic structures, featuring two or more single bonds, in order to achieve completed octets. So, the distinction between polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals, as well as being simple, is more fundamental than artificial.
More broadly, the taxonomic thread that runs through the three nonmetal categories is beautifully anchored in, and echoed across the remainder of the periodic table. Specifically, from left to right across an 18-column periodic table, as metallic character decreases, nonmetals adopt structures that show a gradual reduction in the numbers of nearest neighbours—three or two for the polyatomic nonmetals, through one for the diatomic nonmetals, to zero for the monatomic noble gases. A similar pattern occurs more generally, at the level of the entire periodic table, in comparing metals and nonmetals. There is a transition from metallic bonding among the metals on the left of the table through to covalent or Van der Waals (electrostatic) bonding among the nonmetals on the right of the table. Metallic bonding tends to involve close-packed centrosymmetric structures with a high number of nearest neighbours. Post-transition metals and metalloids, sandwiched between the true metals and the nonmetals, tend to have more complex structures with an intermediate number of nearest neighbours. Nonmetallic bonding, towards the right of the table, features open-packed directional (or disordered) structures with fewer or zero nearest neighbours. As noted, this steady reduction in the number of nearest neighbours, as metallic character decreases and nonmetallic character increases, is mirrored among the nonmetals, the structures of which gradually change from polyatomic, to diatomic, to monatomic.
As is the case with the major categories of metals, metalloids and nonmetals, there is some variation and overlapping of properties within and across each category of nonmetal. Among the polyatomic nonmetals, carbon, phosphorus and selenium—which border the metalloids—begin to show some metallic character. Sulfur (which borders the diatomic nonmetals), is the least metallic of the polyatomic nonmetals but even here shows some discernible metal-like character (discussed below). Of the diatomic nonmetals, iodine is the most metallic. Its number of nearest neighbours is sometimes described as 1+2 hence it is almost a polyatomic nonmetal. Within the iodine molecule, significant electronic interactions occur with the two next nearest neighbours of each atom, and these interactions give rise, in bulk iodine, to a shiny appearance and semiconducting properties. Of the monatomic nonmetals, radon is the most metallic and begins to show some cationic behaviour, which is unusual for a nonmetal.
That the terms "polyatomic" and "diatomic" will sound far fetched for the general reader is natural. This will be the case for all of our categories, with the exception of the "metal" super-category name. "Alkaline earth metal?" "Lanthanide?" "Metalloid"? What are these? I don't think this is necessarily an issue—it comes with the territory of classification science—as long as the terms are explained in more general language e.g. in the lede of each relevant article.
The html periodic table (HPT) does a fine job of categorising the nonmetals. In the literature the nonmetals are commonly explored in their vertical groups, which results in five or six "categories" depending on how boron is treated (either as a metalloid or a nonmetal). This is too many to be practical for colour category purposes and it overlooks cross-cutting patterns. Our HPT incorporates both features. It includes the named vertical groups, and the three nonmetal colour categories. Two of the latter traverse vertical groups; all three follow tangible lines of demarcation. I think the result is a "just so" mapping, with something in it for everyone: the general reader, the knowledgeable reader, and the expert reader.
In conclusion, I’m not seeing the advantages of merging polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals into a single category. Sandbh ( talk) 06:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about this interesting and difficult topic. In the meantime, I have some questions about your comments.
Thanks for those answers. Could you elaborate your WP:OR and/or WP:V concerns? Sandbh ( talk) 10:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I haven't seen such a non-web table.
Some authors that come more or less close, in terms of concept or boundary lines, follow.
Fernelius and Robey (1935, p. 62) include a periodic table that divides the elements into four main classes, on the basis of crystal structure: I. The true metals (Groups 1 to 11); II. Metals with modified structures (Zn, Cd, Hg | B, Al, In, Tl | Pb); III. Elements with 8–N structures (Ga | C, Si, Ge, Sn | As, Sb, Bi | Se, Te, Po | I, …); and IV. the rest of the elements (N | O, S | H, F, Cl, Br | the noble gases). P is shown as belonging to both class III and class IV.
Wulfsberg (1987, p. 159) divides the non-noble nonmetals into "very electronegative nonmetals" (N | O | F, Cl, Br) and "electronegative nonmetals" (H | Si, Ge* | P, As,* Sb,* Bi | S, Se,* Te,* Po | I, At). [He refers elsewhere to the asterisked elements as metalloids, and to Ge, Bi and Po as "electronegative metals".]
DeKock & Gray (1989, p. 426) have a periodic table that categorises the elements into "metals only"; "intermediate structures" (B | C, Si, Ge, Sn | P, As, Sb, Bi | S, Se, Te); and "monatomic or diatomic molecules" (H | N | O |F, Cl, Br, I, At | noble gases). Just below this table there is an extract of groups 10—18 that has been disassembled into segments according to bulk coordination numbers. The segments from left to right are: metallic packing; three-dimensional networks (B | diamond, Si, Ge, gray tin); sheets or layers; tetrahedra; chains; rings; diatomic; atoms.
Birk (2005, p. 234) says in words, rather than a table: "The nonmetals typically exist as diatomic or polyatomic molecules, with the exception of the noble gases, which are monatomic. Bell and Garafalo (2005, p. 131) write, "This might be a good time to introduce the idea of diatomic elements (formulas containing a subscript greater than 2) and polyatomic elements (formulas containing a subscript greater than 2). Only seven elements are considered diatomic…and only a few are…polyatomic (such as S, P and C). Students might notice that the diatomic and polyatomic elements are located…above the stair-step line."
Silberberg (2006, p. 550) has a periodic table extract showing the structures of the representative elements. C is shown as "solid, covalent network"; P | S, Se | I as "solid, covalent molecule (diatomic or polyatomic)"; H | N | O | F, Cl as "gas, covalent molecule (diatomic or polyatomic)"; Br the same, but a liquid; and the noble gases as "single atoms"
It doesn't matter if you or I haven't been able to find a non-web periodic table using precisely this division. A periodic table is simply a graphic representation of what is written. Everything about our periodic table has been written before; it's just that no one (as far as we know) has shown it as a table. That's probably the same with many Wikipedia pages and other kinds of tables or pictures—they are mostly original, and simply draw together and represent what is said in the literature or seen in the world.
I haven't been able to find a non-web version of any of the iterations of our colour categorised table that predates when these first appeared (c. 2002) in Wikipedia. The closest I've been able to get to is in 1981 (Breck, Brown and McCowan, p. 149) and 1968 (Crawford, pp. 542–543). The Breck et al. table uses the following colour categories: metals | lanthanides and actinides | transition metals | semiconductors | life elements | halogens | noble gases. The earlier Crawford table uses black, light grey, vertical hatching, horizontal hatching, dark grey and mottled shading to distinguish: alkalis | metals | biogens | halogens | rare gases. Text labels appearing along the top and bottom-left of the table are "light metals"; "lanthanide series"; "actinide series"; "nonmetals"; and "rare gases".
After 2002 the closest non-web versions I've seen are "other nonmetal (or nonmetal) | halogen | noble-gas" type tables.
It would be a sorry day for Wikipedia if we were unable to show in tabular form what is written in the literature. But I don’t think that is what you intended to imply.
[I have not made up my mind yet. The discussion is helping.] Sandbh ( talk) 05:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Property | More metallic | Less metallic |
Physical | • Melting point is marginally higher (115.21 v 113.7 °C); boiling point is substantially higher (444.6 v 184.36) • Ductility is better (as plastic sulfur) • Higher bulk coordination number (2 v 1+) |
• Band gap is bigger (~2.5 v ~1.2 eV) hence iodine has a metallic appearance, partially delocalised bonding, is a semiconductor in the direction of its planes, and has better electrical and thermal conductivity • Liquid iodine is an ionic conductor; S only becomes a liquid semiconductor at 900 °C i.e. some 455 degrees above its boiling point |
Chemical | • Electron affinity lower (200 v 295 kj/mol) • EN lower (2.58 v 2.66) • Ionisation energy lower (10.36 v 10.45 V) • Most stable oxidation state is +6, versus –1 for iodine • Standard reduction potential is lower (+0.14 v +0.54 V) • The S2- sulfide ion, to be present in aqueous solution, requires highly alkaline conditions (> ~pH 13) whereas the I– cation is common in aqueous solution across pH 1–14 |
— — |
Analysis: In its physical properties iodine is marginally(?) more metallic than sulfur whereas sulfur is appreciably more metallic in its chemical properties. Sandbh ( talk) 01:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Property | More metallic | Less metallic |
Physical | — — | • Melting point (−259.16 v 115.21 °C) and boiling point (−252.88 v 444.6) are lower, hence gaseous • Nil ductility • Smaller bulk coordination number (1 v 2) • Greater band gap (15 v 2.2 eV) hence colourless, and less electrical and thermal conductivity |
Chemical | • Electron affinity lower (73 v 200 kJ/mol) • Electronegativity lower (2.2 v 2.58) • Standard reduction potential lower (0.0 v +0.14 V) |
• Ionisation energy higher 13.6 v 10.36 V • Homoatomic hydrogen cations not capable of independent existence(?), other than in the gas phase |
Analysis: S is appreciably more metallic than H physically; H is somewhat(?) more metallic than S chemically
I think Nergaal also suggested a while ago combining the lanthanides and actinides, but I would again not support this as there is not really a clear term for what they are together because of Lu and Lr spoiling everything by being d-block elements. "Inner transition metals" would the best if that word had ever actually been well-defined. Double sharp ( talk) 03:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
sidetalk
|
---|
|
Re collapsing the side discussion: no problem with me.
I think "inner transition metal" should not be dismissed simply because of its under-definiteness: What is "lanthanide"? (15 elements? 14, and if so, which ones?) "Transition metal"? (Sc/Y in or out? La/Ac? Lu/Lr? Zn/Cd? Hg?) A much more serious problem for me is that "lanthanide" and "actinide" are much better-known than "inner transition metals." Names are crucially important for our categorization. Most people who know the very basics of chemistry have at least heard the word "lanthanide" (or seen it in the PT hanging on the classroom wall). "Inner transition metal" is fine, I think, as a term, but much fewer people heard it before.-- R8R ( talk) 06:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I have revisited the extended periodic table article. It does suggest, unlike our current extended PT, that the elements 169--172 will belong to the period 8, and not 9.
Template:Extended periodic table (by Pyykkö, 50 columns, periods 8–9)
The two major sources, Fricke and Pyykko, both suggest the differentiating electron will be 8p, not 9p. As such, I propose we follow Pyykko's representation (see Pyykko), keeping the 8p3/2 elements in period 8, even if they come after the 9p1/2 elements.-- R8R ( talk) 22:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Another question: are we sure that E167–170 are all going to be metals? If this is going to be like period 3, then maybe it would not be so. The group oxidation state being among the most important is not absolutely prohibitive – +5 and +6 are important for phosphorus and sulfur respectively too. So maybe since Fricke says that period 9 would be like period 3, we should simply copy over the classifications from period 3 (167 PTM; 168 metalloid; 169 and 170 polyatomic nonmetals; 171 diatomic nonmetal; 172 noble gas), along with huge caveats. Double sharp ( talk) 03:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's my attempt at gathering every little scrap of information Fricke gives us:
Now what about 171, which Fricke proudly proclaims will be a halogen similar to iodine? I think the answer lies in the fact that he specifically says iodine and not, say, chlorine. Iodine is close to the metalloid strip and has incipient metallic properties. Thus we could reasonably expect the formation H(171) and the soft base 171−, but we do not know how stable these would be. We could argue for metalloid, since the EA is within the range of variation of the known value for At; but the Goldhammer-Hertzfeld criterion would push it over the line (already it is predicted that At may act as a metal anyway, so 171 may well do so too). So maybe 171 could be simply a metal that is stable in the −1 state. We do not know how stable the 171− anion is going to be (only that it will be part of its chemistry, according to Fricke), and crucially, Fricke abstains from calling it a halogen, only similar to the halogens in the −1 state. That would be very odd if it was expected to be almost a carbon copy of iodine, so I think he is hinting that the EA does not tell the full story, because 171 is so much further down the periodic table (two more rows!).
Hence I to my surprise have come full circle to Sandbh's original position on 171; that it would be a metal with a significant chemistry in the −1 oxidation state (certainly stable enough to be reduced there by H+, but this is possible for the perhaps-even-metallic At as well). Furthermore, given 117's much lower EA and the fact that −1 is expected to be the least common part of its chemistry, I find myself to my surprise wondering if we could plausibly colour it as a post-transition metal. Fricke expects it to be semimetallic, but the fact that he uses this term makes me wonder if he means the physics definition, in which case 117 could be a semimetal and a PTM. It's not unheard of: α-Sn and Bi are like that.
My initial assignment of diatomic nonmetal to 171 was made on the basis of Fricke's first paper, which predicts chlorine-like behaviour (171− being a hard base, for example). He dials back this prediction to iodine-like behaviour in his next paper, so I think metalloid is a more reasonable description.
I think it's safest to assign them the most metallic plausible description, as it's difficult to imagine what could possibly prevent the onset of metallisation. At this high density and this far down the periodic table, the extrapolated Goldhammer-Hertzfeld criterion seems quite unable to stop the onset of metallisation for any of these elements save 172. Even in 1971, Fricke et al. refuse to call 117 and 171 halogens, only members of the halogen group (i.e. VIIA), while they do not dare to do likewise for 118 and 172 as noble gases. I think that by this point, it means that any remnants of nonmetallishness have vanished.
Now what about 118 and 172, the last two noble gases? 118 would be funny: it would be neither noble nor a gas. In 1974 Fricke dares to say that it would behave more like a "normal element", continuing the trend towards increasing reactivity down from Xe. Rn already shows cationic behaviour. The difficulty is that it would still probably be monoatomic, and so there is no way to recolour it now (there would have been if we reunified the other nonmetals into "reactive nonmetals" or "typical nonmetals", the latter excluding hydrogen). Already its fluorides would probably be ionic and non-volatile (reminds me of At and Rn), and it would be tremendously polarizable. Which means that an argument for reunifying the nonmetals would be to allow a more accurate characterisation of 118. Maybe we should change its colour!
172 would be a better noble gas, but for the fact that it would almost certainly be a solid. Fricke also calls 172 in 1974 a strong Lewis acid, so that it can donate a lone pair of electrons (and thus its IE must not be that high – in fact, the predicted value is closer to Rn than Xe). Thus fluorides and oxides are certainly possible (they are already possible in Xe). Thus we have 172 dialing back the trend towards Xe and Rn, so that we could still colour it as a noble gas. (The issue is a little moot using the current colour scheme.) Except that the category name is annoying.
BTW, I read Pyykkö and found an explanation of why he puts 165 and 166 in groups IA and IIA (not the d-block groups IB and IIB); because despite being d10s1 and d10s2, Cn2+ is expected to be d8s2 (implying 6d < 7s), while 1662+ is expected to be d10s0 (implying 7d > 9s). But is this not true for Zn, Cd, and Hg as well? OTOH he does neatly explain why the 7d elements are in those groups; because while 8s is inactive, 8p1/2 is not, and stands in its place! Thus 9s, which fills up at 165 and 166, is a new s-shell and a new period can start. (If not for this, I'd seriously consider a table with four extra superactinides that crams 119–172 all into period 8, that eliminates the blank spaces in Fricke's table.) Double sharp ( talk) 14:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Another nice tidbit from Pyykkö: it seems the current consensus is that the PT is going to end at 172 or 173.
This 2011 paper explicitly says that the last element with a 1s shell outside the negative energy continuum is 173, and that this "yields the end of the periodic table". They cite Greiner on the negative energy continuum and resulting effects, but they appear to regard that anything beyond this will behave pathologically weirdly. I expect that the situation would quickly get out of hand, such that you wouldn't have your shiny new period 10 element for long enough even for the nucleons to arrange themselves into nuclear shells. They anyway expect that something will happen and that it will be prohibitive to the existence of the atom. They also give a predicted electron configuration for 173: [Usb] 9p1
3/2. Pyykkö also calls 165–172 the last main group elements. So I think we should cut 173–184 off our periodic table. It appears to be the consensus outside
one Philip Ball article – who still admits that the exact details of what happens past 173 are unresolved (and they don't look good). Nobody's placed 173 on a PT, and judging from what I've read so far it's not sure if 173 is going to be a thing or not, but 172 will be. The limit (calculated as 173.17) is fairly close to 173.
Double sharp (
talk)
14:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It has been proposed before, so I figure it deserves a mention. Double sharp ( talk) 12:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly what the title says (perhaps even including Cn till we get the experimental evidence otherwise). Both this and the group 3 issue are related to Sandbh's topic on the group 4–11 focus. Double sharp ( talk) 16:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
|isotope ref=
. (eg, applied in {{
Infobox californium}}).http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4398364.htm on battery-powered homes, at 05:05. Sandbh ( talk) 11:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Almost right, here. Sandbh ( talk) 05:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
http://www.iupac.org/news/news-detail/article/discovery-and-assignment-of-elements-with-atomic-numbers-113-115-117-and-118.html (it's not 1 Jan yet for me, but it's already night). Double sharp ( talk) 13:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
“ | The chemistry community is eager to see its most cherished table finally being completed down to the seventh row. | ” |
— http://www.iupac.org/news/news-detail/article/discovery-and-assignment-of-elements-with-atomic-numbers-113-115-117-and-118.html |
Quarkonium
News from Eric Scerri
Regarding {{ Sidebar periodic table}}, after DePiep changed it to:
• Periodic table blocks s, p, d, f, ... Atomic orbitals · Aufbau principle
I restored the extra level of 'indentation', changing it back to:
• Periodic table blocks s, p, d, f, ... (Atomic orbitals · Aufbau principle)
My idea here was to use the parentheses provided by the extra level of indentation to contrast the PT blocks entries with the PT periods (whose subsidiary items are the periods) and PT groups entries (whose subsidiary entries are the groups). Since the subsidiary items under PT blocks are not the blocks (which are currently just redirects to the same general page), I thought it best to somehow visually indicate this difference. I did a similar thing to contrast the Metalloid section, where "(dividing metals & nonmetals)" is a completely different sort of subsidiary from the Metals and Nonmetals sections, where the subsidiaries are the subcategories of metals and nonmetals respectively. I hope this explains the thought process behind why I had the extra level of 'indentation'. If my explanation is not clear, let me know and I'll try again. If my explanation is clear but you still disagree, let's let's discuss it here first, per WP:BRD. YBG ( talk) 22:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
More re {{ Sidebar periodic table}}
Having browsed {{ Infobox element}} and {{ Infobox isotope}}, it is not obvious to me how to gracefully include the many physical properties of the light, rare but stable, and technically important isotopes such as 2H and 3He, which differ substantially from those presently provided by {{ Infobox element}} for the natural mixture dominated by another stable isotope. This information seems to be missing from deuterium and helium-3, and hence from WP. I would welcome suggestions about how to incorporate this missing information, which amounts to more than half of the entries in each {{ Infobox element}}. Thanks. Layzeeboi ( talk) 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
https://ia601605.us.archive.org/32/items/surveyofproperti641rode/surveyofproperti641rode.pdf
Cryogens and their properties RL Mills, FJ Edeskuty - in Liquid Cryogens, Vol. 2? Vol. 2: ISBN-10: 0849357284 ISBN-13: 978-0849357282 Publisher: Boca Raton: CRC (1983) Vol. 1 is ISBN-10: 0849357276 ISBN-13: 978-0849357275 (Vol. 2 is $12 from Ama20n)
ESTIMATED D,-DT-T PHASE DIAGRAM IN THE THREE-PHASE REGION (1975) http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/07/234/7234944.pdf
http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471238961.0825041803262116.a01.pub2/abstract DOI = 10.1002/0471238961.0825041803262116.a01.pub2
The article is not new but needs alook from a person with more experience on isotope articles. -- Stone ( talk) 22:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The current set of Category legend colors we use in periodic tables at this wiki (enwiki) has some serious flaws, especially with regard to good webpage design. For example, background colors may have too little contrast with regular font color (like the red (alkaline metals) in group 1).
This topic is opened to review and improve the set. Starting point is the set as defined and used, labeled the 2015 category color set. This set is used throughout the enwiki consistently in all periodic table graphs (dozens).
Category is the name used on enwiki for these groupings (classes). There is no distinctive word for it (sometime "series" is used, but that can also refer to other classifications of elements). The definitions and compositions of the categories themselves is a scientific topic, and is not up for discussion here. There is no overall setup for this discussion. Section structure is our friend. - DePiep ( talk) 12:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Known issues
Useful links
|
---|
|
This is a brainstorm of potential principles or considerations. Others are welcome to add more. Ideally, items should be stated in such a way that people can vote them up or down. However, our goal at this point should be to collect as many different principles as possible, without taking the time to judge them or comment on them at this point. There is no need to sign individual suggestions -- adding an item to this list doesn't mean that you agree with it -- in fact, you may actually disagree with it. Consequently, there is no need to sign individual additions to this list.
Please do not comment on the merits of the items in this list at this point. Let us delay that discussion until we can all agree that this list is complete and includes all possible considerations - or at least all of them that we can think of at that point. YBG ( talk) 05:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
While all of these were not a part of the initial design specification, these are the principles I have discovered while doing the work. Feel free to agree/disagree on each.
-- R8R ( talk) 13:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Continuing as per more work with colors:
Not sure if this is the right place to put this comment, but I trust you'll excuse me if I missed finding the right place. Anyway, I recall that one of the things that is done to help with color blindness is to avoid using hue as the sole distinction, especially with certain problematic colors. This idea could be helpful to us if we used some other method of distinguishing 'known' from 'predicted'. This would free us up to use more than just hue in creating distinction. Some alternatives:
I've listed all the ideas I could think of, even ones I don't think have much possibility, in hopes that it might help stimulate other out-of-the-box thinking. YBG ( talk) 09:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- DePiep ( talk) 09:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Some early notes on color calculations. About HSV HSL color spaces (=3D definitions, as RGB is)
This S,V workings is difficult to grasp for me to, I only play around with their settings ;-).
@ DePiep: I have written the templates for conversion from HSV to RGB: {{ HSVtoRGB.R}}, {{ HSVtoRGB.G}}, {{ HSVtoRGB.B}}, and {{ HSVtoHEX}} for getting a hexadecimal 6-digit code for a color as expressed in the RGB color space. Feel free to use them if you need to.-- R8R ( talk) 08:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The task is more difficult than it seems to be. I have established a sandbox, and if anyone wants to use it, please feel free. The preview table, the page with the colors. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait some time (10 minutes or possibly even more, I think) for the colors to take effect. (But then there's also the draft. The server asks for an email address to send a download link to; I could've found a simpler thing, just didn't bother to spend the time.)-- R8R ( talk) 01:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I find this gorgeous. Thank you, R8R! Finally I can see the difference between "unknown chemical properties" and "post-transition metals". Even if the colours are hard to distinguish for some people, they can hover over the cells to get the tooltips. I love how the softer shades take up the bulk of the table, making it easier on the eye than it is now. (Although maybe there are too many greens?)
Here's a list of colours that have been taken in your scheme:
Double sharp ( talk) 04:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! My initial fear was that the scheme had too many blue shades, from which I tried to move, and never thought green could be a problem. We have 39 green cells now (15 Ln + 15 An + 9 PTM), and 41 blue ones (35 TM + 6 NG). So I still don't think it's a problem, is it?
Right now, I want Sandbh to help me determine whether all colors in the regular PT are easily distinguishable (by the way, please give it a look now, I have a little reworked the colors for groups 1 and 2), and I can look for predicted colors after that. We practically need AM(p), AEM(p), San(p), San, Eka-San(p), TM(p), PTM(p), metalloid(p), diatomic(p), and NG(p). We already have the predicted color for the NGs, and my initial feeling is that the other colors should be easy enough to find; I already have two more shades of green for the superactinides, and if more green is undesirable, then there's also beige, which I have originally planned for the eka-San, but finding three shades of beige and/or brown is also doable. However, these predicted colors are secondary to our regular colors, so I'll finish them first.-- R8R ( talk) 13:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Updating the legend is possible, but I yet don't know how. I'll figure it out soon, though.-- R8R ( talk) 14:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I have stuck to the general idea of spectrum coloring, improving it with small modifications, having further adjusted the colors over time, including the font colors for states of matter and the frame colors for occurrence, and I have resulted in a scheme that I consider to be a major improvement to the previous one. But now, of course, I need your comments to know if I'm right and if it's good; comments would be very welcome.
I have described the principles the scheme is built on above, where you can find both old and new principles. I've had the colors tested for contrast, for both the font/cell background contrast and the frame/cell background contrast.-- R8R ( talk) 07:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
With regard to metallishness/metallicity and the color spectrum, it seems to me there are two ways to spread the spectrum across the PT
0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8
: In one series from left-to-right in the PT,8-6-4-2-0-1-3-5-7
: In two series from center-to-edge in the PT,The second means that adjacent colors are further apart in the spectrum (except for 0-1). Have I explained this enough that you can understand the general idea? If so, does it merit further thought? YBG ( talk) 04:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I have read a number of guidelines earlier today, and I think it's been a great change with the sandbox I've made. The colors have calmed down and the color order is finally straight rainbow.
@ Sandbh: I've been tinkering around with the colours. I think the trouble with purely going mathematically, equally spacing the hue values, is problematic as the categories of English are not equally spaced. I think yellow is a pretty clear category around 60°, but it seems like almost anything from 90°–150° can be taken for green, and thus you do not see a difference between TM and PTM even though it is bigger than between metalloids and TM, because English distinguishes the latter (yellow/green) but usually not the former (chartreuse/green). I've tried to exaggerate the differences in the pairs you mention, although it drives the noble gases into a wall. Right now I can see the difference (to me, group 2 is a bright magenta while group 18 is now a dim rose, that can be told apart from the nearby dull red), but I'm not sure if you can. Double sharp ( talk) 14:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this about right(?):
Alkali metal Lavender blue
Alkaline earth Lilac
Lanthanide Aqua
Actinide Pale blue
Transition metal Light green
Post transition metal Dark green
Metalloid Yellow
Polyatomic nonmetal Red
Diatomic metal Orange
Noble gas Pink
Unknown White
---
Sandbh (
talk)
09:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Issues considered resolved
|
---|
|
Now how does this work with predicted shades? Can we have a Fricke extended table? Double sharp ( talk) 04:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
We practically need AM(p), AEM(p), San(p), San, Eka-San(p), TM(p), PTM(p), metalloid(p), diatomic(p), and NG(p). We already have the predicted color for the NGs, and my initial feeling is that the other colors should be easy enough to find; I already have two more shades of green for the superactinides, and if more green is undesirable, then there's also beige, which I have originally planned for the eka-San, but finding three shades of beige and/or brown is also doable. However, these predicted colors are secondary to our regular colors, so I'll finish them first.--
R8R (
talk)
13:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Redefine categories: better as separate topic, separate thread
|
---|
Since we do the recoloring, it may be a great time to reconsider which categories we need to show. For example, the issue of combining the s block metals together has been raised before. As a personal preference, I would love to finally reunify reactive nonmetals, now divided into five diatomic and five polyatomic ones, a rare division these days, quite arbitrarily dividing a small diverse group of nonmetals into smaller groups that are still very diverse for their size!-- R8R ( talk) 01:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
|
For a fresh look at a different colouring approach see here.
Good mapping examples from elsewhere:
Is there no use for a white colour category? White is a colour too. Sandbh 09:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think there is a use for a colour that merges with the table background. For quite a while (four years from 2006 to 2010 IIRC), element 117 was not discovered (though everything else in the first 7 periods was), and so it had no border, being simply undiscovered. I would argue that in such a case (which could happen today if, say, element 120 was discovered before element 119), the cell concerned should appear, but it should receive a blank background, defined in the legend as "undiscovered". It shouldn't have a border for the same reason. (We'd have this today for elements 119 and 120 if we magically all converted to left-step tables.)
Incidentally, while we're on the subject of how to handle discoveries of future elements, I think that when E119 and E120 are discovered, we can simply take the old table and add them in their places below Fr and Ra (8s). The addition of the superactinides will royally mess up all the 18-column tables, so that will be our grand opportunity to turn 32-column once and for all (since reliable sources are not going to have a choice). At that point, I'm not sure how much to show. It seems odd to have only elements till 122 discovered, for example, and show 50 more blank-background elements. So maybe we would only show up to the highest number we know (filling in only gaps), or maybe we would show up to the end of the series (thus 155, then 164, then 172). But we can worry about it once the first superactinide is discovered. Double sharp ( talk) 14:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
One thing that the interruption of the spectral sequence creates is that we don't have a large patch of the table (TMs plus Ln/An below and PTMs after) the same colour. If we are going to match a spectral sequence, then
I think the argument for a spectral sequence is pretty convincing, and matches electronegativity, first ionisation energy and electron affinity (as well as reactivity!) pretty well (with a few bumps and dips that we can probably smooth out). The slight problem is that the huge dip in reactivity at the noble gases (and the unique combination of high ionisation energy and high electron affinity that leads to it) is perhaps compelling enough to break the trend just for them.
So if I were to edit R8R's scheme to be more in accordance with the spectrum, I'd have a spectrum running from the alkali metals to the halogens, with the noble gases abruptly muted in colour, and then the trend can start again in the next row. The trend is about chemical properties, so it makes sense to mute the colours for elements with limited chemistry at standard conditions (the noble gases).
So I'd choose something like (forgive me for not making my own scheme, since I can't really choose colours well):
This puts the cool colours on the metallic side, and the warm colours on the nonmetallic side. Since yellow is clearly differentiated from green and red, it stands as a reasonable midpoint. The sequence can easily wrap around from diatomic nonmetals (with the halogens as a subset) to alkali metals, with the noble gases standing in between these infamously reactive elements as a bastion of calm. Double sharp ( talk) 13:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the next levels in the g- and f-blocks: since actinides are darker than lanthanides, superactinides should be darker still. I think, like R8R, that we should seriously consider eliminating period 10 from the extended table, since the idea of element 184 is treated with caveats by Fricke himself, and does not appear in recent studies (e.g. Pyykkö), and it appears that the second island of relative stability would probably appear earlier, at Z ~ 164 instead. We're not really sure what happens beyond Z ~ 172 with weird things happening with the nucleus. Double sharp ( talk) 13:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I like that noble gas colour. It follows the spectral sequence, but it's not actually a spectral colour. Nice touch. ^_^
Current colour scheme:
Could we see the superactinide colour in a mockup? It won't be a basic colour, but should probably continue the trend from Ln to An to San. The white looks good. I don't think the colours are attacking each other anymore, although we should probably test this (especially for colour-blind viewers – I accept that 11 shades for them is going to be difficult, but at least neighbouring shades should look appreciably different). Double sharp ( talk) 08:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
See here. Members look good. For more information contact the Task Group Chair: Eric Scerri <scerri@chem.ucla.edu>. Sandbh ( talk) 05:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " Mercury" is under discussion, see Talk:Mercury (planet) -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion if we should state that there are two values for the melting point given in the literature and that a very thorough radium review states a that there is a certain mismatch or that we go for the most quoted one is back on the radium page is back. I tried years ago to find sources for the melting point but I always come to one measurement of the curies back in 1910.
Two quotes showing that the 960°C value is also out there:
The reported melting point of radium (960°C) is higher than that of barium (717°C). We observed a similar anomaly for actinium(1,050°C) and lanthanum (887°C). [2]
Metallic radium has a melting point of 700°C1 or 960”C3 and a boiling point of 1140”c. [3]
Old discussions:
Please coment on the radium talk page. -- Stone ( talk) 20:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It might be nice to go through the articles in our project and decide which articles have an already established national variety of English and make sure that all of them are properly tagged. As near as I can figure it, there are two sorts of tags, one that goes on the talk page to merely declare the correct WP:ENGVAR and another one that administrators need to add to a special subpage to generate an edit mesage. YBG ( talk) 06:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The image for template:Infobox oxygen has been deleted from Commons. I cant find a new "liquid oxygen" image at commons, but I think we should have some kind of image in the infobox. Any ideas? Christian75 ( talk) 05:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Here. Sandbh ( talk) 03:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
It was decided a long time ago that all new elements should have names ending with "-ium," even if element 117 is a halogen and 118 is a noble gas. There also was a proposal submitted to the IUPAC for discussion in 2015 suggesting the name for 117 should end with "-ine," and that of 118 should end with "-on." Now the proposals by the discoverers include the names "tennessine" and "oganesson". Could anyone help me verify that this proposal was actually approved at some point? The closest I could find so far is this: https://www.webelements.com/nexus/how-to-name-new-elements/ The site says the recommendations were "provisional," and now they're not available on the IUPAC's website (at least, I can't find them).-- R8R ( talk) 18:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Now comes the name-changing deluge from people who jump to conclusions from the news articles. Pardon me while I walk away from my computer and bang my head several times against the wall. Double sharp ( talk) 15:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and now the JWP reports are available: part one, part two. Double sharp ( talk) 02:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the original copy seems to have disappeared behind a paywall, but it's now here as well. Double sharp ( talk) 08:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Since for once a significant number of us seem to actually be around, I wonder if we could (after R8R and I finish Pb) do something with N? It is currently absolutely terrible. Double sharp ( talk) 15:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
We had a really nice mockup; is it going to happen? It is a lot easier on the eyes, with a big patch of green (okay, mostly chartreuse) instead of our current big patch of red and dull gray! Double sharp ( talk) 15:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
And apparently, the main reason for this article's existence was the way we talked about the systematic names! (^_^) (This is from IUPAC.) Double sharp ( talk) 11:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've started a discussion over at Talk:List of places used in the names of chemical elements § Not yet approved names. Editors in this project may wish to contribute to the discussion. And we may wish to have a more global discussion here. YBG ( talk) 15:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A few questions
|rowspan=2
so as to subdivide the Name and Symbol columns only
I'm rather inclined to implement (1b) or (1c) and then opting for (2c). I'm also leaning toward (3b) and (4b). My main motivator is to reach a consensus now before having to react some IP editor. Comments? YBG ( talk) 04:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So, R8R Gtrs has once again brought to my attention that some of our older GAs (e.g. C, Sc, Hf, Tl, chalcogen) do not really live up to current standards, but since they have the plus sign, nobody is going to think anything is wrong, and they will for the most part not improve.
My suggestion: WP:CHEMS refuses to recognise GA and FA in its banners. Why don't we do the same? We can note that an article is a GA, yes, but in terms of referencing and/or chemistry it needs help. So we can have on the PTQ a yellow cell (C-class) with a plus sign, showing that it's not all right, and preventing us from looking at the green PTQ and thinking everything is fine. Double sharp ( talk) 14:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
After the recent triumphs regarding elements 113, 115, 117, and 118, I imagine that efforts to synthesise the first period 8 elements will be redoubled. Since there do not yet seem to be guidelines about this, I propose the following:
Furthermore, when compounds of an element are first synthesized, the oxidation state formatting must change, as not all will be predicted anymore. The oxidation state that has been found should be left alone; the others will be parenthesised. Meitnerium gives the format before compounds are synthesized and hassium gives the format after. Double sharp ( talk) 16:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the creation of articles for elements 121 and above: a "normal" transactinide article has the sections "history" (including synthesis attempts) and "predicted properties" (chemical, physical, and atomic). If you can summarise all of this in two paragraphs (one for history and one for predicted properties), don't create the article yet. If it balloons to the current size of the ununennium article, go right ahead and create the article. Another guideline would be to ask: how full is your infobox? If you can only fill in a few items, forget it. If you can fill many items and even have some that don't have fields in the infobox, you can probably go right ahead and create the article. Double sharp ( talk) 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
1. When element first synthesized, standard atomic weight = [mass number] of most stable isotope
2. discovery field in the infobox filled
3. not "predicted" shading for the infobox, but "unknown chemical properties" shade
4. Nothing else in the infobox changes
5. No gaps should be left
6. When elements 119 and 120 are synthesized, we should simply add them under Fr and Ra. no need to add the g-block extensions until element 121 is synthesized.
(Yes, yes, I know the header presupposes an 18-column table. In my defense I find that the lanthanides and actinides, except blockbuster Th, U and Pu, get hilariously few views and so are not worth the trouble.)
For this purpose I have gotten In and La to GAN. (La because my mental periodic table will always be Sc/Y/La/Ac through force of habit, and because it is so in most textbooks, and because La would have higher views than already-GA-but-honestly-B-sorry-R8R-I-couldn't-help-it Lu.) After returning to active work Ga will be next. No promises about Sr because I find it very difficult to get worked up about and it is further away.
After that are the scary ones (period 3, Ca, As, Sn, halogens). Sn could mostly follow Pb in structure, actually. Similarly Na can easily follow the K structure and the heavier halogens can follow the F structure. (Tempted to do iodine because it is pretty and I like purple. That's not a good reason at all, of course, but it is a popular element.)
(PS to R8R Gtrs: one other reason to do this is because you mentioned that perhaps people don't stay here and pick elements because the project looks from the announcements and achievements as though it's been half-dead since 2014. Now I am creating the impression of activity, since FA work takes a long time and doesn't look so impressive to people who are just passing by!) Double sharp ( talk) 13:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Biological Chemistry of Arsenic, Antimony and Bismuth (I'll post this on the links page too). Double sharp ( talk) 11:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to combine {{ Chemical elements named after scientists}} and {{ Chemical elements named after places}} into {{ Chemical element etymoligies}}? YBG ( talk) 07:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of making it a full-fledged article and not just a list. But I think we should still have sortable table. Here's some general ideas:
You are welcome to disagree with any of these despite my having expressed it as though there were no alternatives. This is just a starting point. YBG ( talk) 07:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
|rowspan=2
and so it belongs on the left.You are invited to participate in a discussion at talk:Dietary element § Article should be Dietary mineral. Only four editors have been involved so far, and while they agree the article should be renamed, they disagree about the best new name. YBG ( talk) 04:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
In German Wikipedia, americium, argon, arsenic, berkelium, caesium, californium, curium, europium, gallium, helium, hydrogen, indium, krypton, lead, lithium, lutetium, manganese, osmium, ruthenium, technetium, tellurium, vanadium, xenon, ytterbium, and zirconium are featured articles. Now I realise that their requirements on sourcing are less strict, so most of these would only lead to GA here. Nevertheless, of these, arsenic, gallium, and indium are not at least good articles here already (although gallium and indium have been nominated, so it's really just arsenic), and so a translation would help.
Their good articles are chlorine, einsteinium, fermium, fluorine, gold, hafnium, neon, plutonium, sodium, rhenium, rhodium, sulfur, and strontium. These could only plausibly help on the worst articles that are only C-class (chlorine, gold, sodium, sulfur, and strontium), and are still somewhat weak on citations from what I saw of their chlorine article. Double sharp ( talk) 07:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I created ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:WikiProject Elements pages using ENGVAR. Hidden, maintenance, etc. Any content page should be in there (article, category). The category must be added manually. There is no automated template. - DePiep ( talk) 00:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
CRC 94th edition says "Minute amounts of curium probably exist in natural deposits of uranium, as a result of a sequence of neutron captures and β decays sustained by the very low flux of neutrons naturally present in uranium ores. The presence of natural curium, however, has never been detected." It does not say this for Am, Bk, or Cf, despite Emsley. Indeed, 247Cm is certainly an extinct radionuclide (and while it was still live, it would have meant that there were 96 naturally occurring elements on Earth, as it decays to 243Pu, 243Am, 239Np, 239Pu, and then rejoins the actinium series at 235U), and 244Cm should be found as the double-beta decay product of primordial 244Pu. But given that it has not been detected ( though natural 247Cm has been looked for), I would not change Cm to "from decay".
With regard to the first few nuclides on the list of nuclides that are just too short-lived to be primordial: 92Nb along with 94Nb has been found in nature from muon capture (presumably of natural molybdenum). Similarly, 205Pb is produced by muon capture of natural 209Bi. 236U is of course known from neutron capture by 235U and as a daughter of 244Pu, while 129I is a cosmogenic nuclide from spallation of Xe. 247Cm alas would be extinct because there isn't really a way to produce it anymore (except by really slow s-process capture with 238U as the starting material as Emsley claims, but there are no corroborating sources for his claim). 182Hf is also an extinct radionuclide, but it would rise once more far into the future when 186W has appreciably alpha decayed. 107Pd is an extinct radionuclide: I suppose you could say it exists on Earth thanks to meteorites.
But even 247Cm produced at Oklo would have been slashed in half at least sixty-four times, so I am not hopeful. Double sharp ( talk) 12:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
In the spirit of creating the impression that more work is being done than actually is, and to do some star-collecting, why not get rid of the five B-class articles (that aren't already at GAN) and get them up to GA? Of them only iron and silver really badly need to improve past that.
Comments:
The other B-class articles (indium, lanthanum, bohrium, element 120) are already at GAN, after I worked on them to that level (though for indium it was more a case of minor work on the excellent base that was already present). Double sharp ( talk) 08:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hard to decide which one to do next. Since I was there when arsenic and radium failed and do not have any new sources they will fail again unless I go looking. Hmm...silver or gallium? The former demands more responsibility and taking it to FA later, and the latter will be a retread of indium. Double sharp ( talk) 15:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I did gallium.
I have an idea to do sodium, following the potassium model, and get the alkali metal GT. Double sharp ( talk) 15:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
In Refractory metals, we have: Definition::Most definitions of the term 'refractory metals' list the extraordinarily high melting point as a key requirement for inclusion. By one definition, a melting point above 4,000 °F (2,200 °C) is necessary to qualify.[2] The five elements niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten and rhenium are included in all definitions,[3] while the wider definition, including all elements with a melting point above 2,123 K (1,850 °C), includes a varying number of nine additional elements, titanium, vanadium, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, ruthenium, rhodium, osmium and iridium. Transuranium elements (those above uranium, which are all unstable and not found naturally on earth; rutherfordium is predicted to have melting point 2400 K or 2100 °C) and technetium (melting point 2430 K or 2157 °C), being radioactive, are never considered to be part of the refractory metals.[4]"
I would like to change this to: Definition::Most definitions of the term 'refractory metals' list the extraordinarily high melting point as a key requirement for inclusion. By one definition, a melting point above 4,000 °F (2,200 °C) is necessary to qualify.[2] The five elements niobium, molybdenum, tantalum, tungsten and rhenium are included in all definitions,[3] while the wider definition, including all elements with a melting point above 2,123 K (1,850 °C), includes a varying number of nine additional elements: titanium, vanadium, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, ruthenium, rhodium, osmium and iridium. Transuranium elements (those above uranium, which are all unstable and not found naturally on earth), being radioactive, are never considered to be part of the refractory metals[4], although rutherfordium is predicted to have melting point 2400 K or 2100 °C) and technetium a melting point of 2430 K or 2157 °C.
New version okay?
Thanks -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 01:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Because, we are really not as close as it looks like we are. The elements from fermium onwards have easily-written cookie-cutter articles that are easy to collect stars for, but do not actually matter to the average reader. (Astatine and francium are also somewhat in this category of "nobody cares", but they're somewhat grandfathered in because of their appearance on the hallowed list of 94 natural elements.) We have been concentrating almost exclusively on such elements for the last few years, and very little has changed with the elements you can actually see, work with, and hold.
I just looked again at the archives of 2011 and 2012 and I remember how much I miss that time when everyone was here! Look at the December 2012 PTQ! Out of the first 99 elements that people care about and can actually see, what have we got to a satisfactory level (GA or above) that wasn't there before? Lanthanum? Okay, but not that important. Thulium? Even less important. Polonium? Cool, but the article isn't really quite GA-class (it's really a B now): we need to fix polonium and radium especially among the secondary radioelements. Neptunium? Okay, but again not that important. Seriously, the only important thing we actually got to GA (and now approaching FA) is thorium. I suppose the superheavy spamming would have been necessary eventually, but...
At least I have nominated the important iron, gallium, and indium, that are awaiting a reviewer, so things do not look quite as terrible. But really, while the table looks good because of the template-ish synthetic "virtual elements" no one cares about, the important elements are just being neglected. Is it that no one dares to do things like arsenic outside a collaboration? That is so sad, but so understandable given the amount of time we all have! (Already thorium takes up so much of my WP time, working alone and following R8R's wonderful suggestions.)
It really makes me sad that every day we don't work on sodium, in the hope that someone can take it to FA later, to leave an alkali metal to have one missing representative of each group for future editors, is a day when readers are stuck with a lame article. Look at all the elements and groups people learn the chemistry of in high school: those would be the first 30 elements, all of the s-block (except Fr and Ra), all of the halogens (except At), silver, and all of group 14. To this we have to add the king of metals, gold, and the arsenic that everyone's heard of. Look how many of them we fail to deliver on! Boron, carbon, nitrogen, sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, calcium, arsenic, bromine, strontium, silver, tin, iodine, and gold all await a helping hand. And apart from some lanthanides (which would be almost as cookie-cutter as the superheavies, and be just as useful to the average reader), and the radioactive polonium and radium (which, outside history, aren't very important), these eighteen make up all the natural elements that are not of satisfactory quality.
Yes, I know I have complained a lot about things like hafnium and ruthenium (at least, not till I fixed the latter) having lame chemistry sections. But you know what? The average reader isn't looking for that. I would add it of course, but the fixing of our current GAs is not so urgent a priority, except in cases of clearly undeserved GA status (boron, carbon, thallium, polonium). (I consider it "undeserved status" when you can't get it to actual GA status in one day. Selenium and tellurium have some problems, but nothing you couldn't fix very quickly.)
I'm sorry, R8R, but I just can't be convinced by you about this while nitrogen remains a terrible article. I can't look at this without feeling that I have a WP duty to do as much as I can about this, and to maximise the WP time I have for it.
Look how long it took to get fluorine to FA. I can't possibly live to do that for every element at our current rates. But all-GA is possible. Once there is a precedent (Pb, Th) of bringing old GAs to FA after a long break, when you are not the sole author (or perhaps not even an author – for that I'd get my dear tungsten, or beautiful, white palladium) – once all of the table is satisfactory for the general reader – then we can start thinking about making all of it satisfactory for the advanced, in-the-field reader as well.
At least, that's what I think.
But I can't possibly do all of it myself within a reasonable span of time. Double sharp ( talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I realise, also, that the idea of getting a set of articles done is a good motivator. This is how the actinides got finished, as well as many of the transition metals (although that stopped before the last few important ones). Now consider: there are 31 transition metals in the table that people care about, from group 3 of scandium, yttrium, lanthanum, and actinium to group 12 of zinc, cadmium, and mercury. (I use lanthanum here because it gets more views than lutetium.) How many of them are satisfactory now? Almost all of them! The exceptions are iron (which is at GAN, so I won't count it), silver, and gold. That's 29 out of 31 in 2016, while in 2007 we had four. Not bad for a decade! Now let's try something that will be even more useful.
Consider the p-block, minus the noble gases (which chemically are not so interesting and anyway are a featured topic already). This is one of the weakest regions in the table. Since many of them are important nonmetals, they need a quite different style of writing from the metals which we have so many good articles for. (The exceptions – sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium – are in the s-block, and have reasonably good models to follow in potassium and barium. Radium needs to be thought of from a history-first perspective, instead of a properties-first perspective.)
Why don't we fix them all, in the same sort of drive that the transition metals were? There are slightly fewer articles to worry about here (25), and many are done already. It's just the most important ones that are left:
Element | Quality | Element | Quality | Element | Quality | Element | Quality | Element | Quality | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boron | needs work | Carbon | needs work | Nitrogen | needs work | Oxygen | OK | Fluorine | OK | ||||
Aluminium | needs work | Silicon | needs work | Phosphorus | needs work | Sulfur | needs work | Chlorine | needs work | ||||
Gallium | OK | Germanium | OK | Arsenic | needs work | Selenium | OK | Bromine | needs work | ||||
Indium | OK | Tin | needs work | Antimony | OK | Tellurium | OK | Iodine | needs work | ||||
Thallium | OK | Lead | OK | Bismuth | OK | Polonium | needs work | Astatine | OK |
We are now at 11/25, or almost halfway. Maybe in less than a decade we can be at 25/25! (And regarding polonium, it has to be done at some point, but I wouldn't make it a priority.) And even though these are mostly scary elements, they have the advantage that Greenwood and Earnshaw usually devote a whole chapter to them. Already there are single chapters on B, C, N, Si, P, and S that can be mined for information.
I'm not saying that the okay articles like selenium and tellurium don't need work. There are still things that could be improved there. But it would help the reader more to fix the ones that are not okay. I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't FA lead now and tin later, being among the seven metals of antiquity. That is great, of course! I'm quite happy to be contributing to the Pb FA. We need some featured articles to be happening. But we also should have a torrent of good articles flowing through like we had in 2011 and 2012. It will be more difficult to build it up this way with fewer people around, but I hope it can still work.
I would not prefer to see this table responded to with "oh, okay, I'll reserve iodine, and you can do something else". No, I'd prefer something like "hello, I'm trying iodine, but I ran into a few problems, could you help?" That's how potassium and barium got done, after all. Why would it not work again? Double sharp ( talk) 06:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I would still suggest, finally, that while we should ideally have one or two FA pushes going on at any time (we have Th for now, to be followed immediately by a return to Pb), we should also try to have a reasonably steady flow of stable-element non-lanthanide GAs pushing through (hopefully at least one at a time; lanthanides and superheavies are nice-to-have extras), to have the best of both worlds. And for now, we are actually somewhat succeeding in doing that, with two in progress-FAs and three GAs awaiting review. We just need to continue having it like that; instead of the blankness of 2015, instead of the hyperactivity of 2011 and 2012, we can just keep going slowly at a constant rate towards progress. Double sharp ( talk) 08:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Really final post: I'm not opposed to doing lanthanides, of course. It's just that they for the most part are uninteresting and not in the public eye (okay, Ce and Nd may be exceptions; I planned to do the first four, getting these and Pr as well, finishing the early cerium-group lanthanides). But let's not only do that. Double sharp ( talk) 05:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Template:Chemical elements named after places and
Template:Chemical elements named after scientists have been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Please contribute to the discussion about merging Periodic Law and Periodic trends. I just now started the discussion, but the articles were tagged User:Suruena by back in February.
As an aside, I wondered whether I should start the discussion on one of the article talk pages or here. If you have any suggestions that might guide future decisions, please let me know.
YBG ( talk) 08:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It so happens that we have some articles on them: see Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements. Included are Na, Mg, K, Ca, Fe, Cu, As, Se, and I. Double sharp ( talk) 07:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I mention this is that it's the biological role thing that makes me afraid of doing most of the first few rows, because they are so important. I only dared to do Fe because Greenwood has a large section (25.3.5) about it, talking about haemoglobin and myoglobin, cytochromes, and iron-sulfur proteins. (And even now I think the current biology section is inadequate and I should edit it. The chemistry is okay, but at this point I'm expecting that as a non-negotiable matter of course for anything I do here.) I don't feel so scared about things like Pb or Th because they poison you. They're not meant to be there. I also don't feel so scared about N because it is everywhere. But if we talk about the ones in the middle – I get frightened away from doing them. I know I talk a lot about how we should work on the most important elements, but I can perfectly see why we don't. Just like all over Wikipedia, the easier ones tend to be done first, and they are unfortunately also the ones readers are not so interested in. So, if you like, you can think of these resources as ways to help yourself see the all-blue table without needing to achieve immortality. And this is why I still explicitly said that the actinide-and-transactinide-spamming (almost done) and lanthanide-spamming (halfway-through) initiatives were useful – relegated to the end of Greenwood and Earnshaw, they nevertheless, step by little step, make the table easier to look at, and highlight how the important ones are left, and cannot be run away from. And as the choices whittle down, I hope that there is some way to get them done – especially for the big ones that Greenwood and Earnshaw devotes whole chapters to: H (FA), B (GA), C (GA), N, O (FA), Si, P, S (basically, CHNOPS + B and Si). Double sharp ( talk) 08:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
It is a little silly IMHO now. It is on the level of GA and FA, where you need reviewers, but we don't really have a reviewing system for it anymore. Double sharp ( talk) 04:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ideally yes, many views would be great and a formal procedure would be great. As a small project, however, we seemingly can't sustain such a procedure. We're left with the best thing we can do but not necessarily abandon the ehole idea. For example, fluorine has been an A-class article for a long time and that rating was great (I don't remember if there was a sort of A-class review). That article alone provides a great reason to have that rating.-- R8R ( talk) 09:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Lanthanum-138 (talk | contribs) . . (5,604 bytes) (-1) . . (I realise I am not supposed to do an A-class rating myself, but this has been pulled through 2 FACs, 1 GAN and 2 PRs, and there were a lot of support votes, and expert knowledge is indeed now needed to tweak the article)
-- Stone ( talk) 11:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
As the headline says, I've nominated this article again. Thanks to User:YBG for thought-provoking commentary, following the first unsuccessful nomination. Sandbh ( talk) 02:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Today I saw a book in my local bookstore called The Periodic Table in Minutes (2016, Dan Green). Page 169 shows the Benfey periodic table as per User:DePiep's image, here. The last page of the book has the picture credits and the second to last entry says, "169: DePiep/Wikimedia". Sandbh ( talk) 11:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
In the PtO42+ oxide cation, here. Sandbh ( talk) 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
In Hydrogen § Discovery and use, it says:
(emphasis added) Flux should be linked. Is the proper target Flux (metallurgy)? YBG ( talk) 01:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I missed this one. Sandbh ( talk) 05:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Shamelessly appropriated from feline1 ( here): a colour scheme that reflected the actual colours of the elements. We'd have a gradient of greyness, a colour-fiesta on the right, and some heartbreakingly beautiful treasures like Au, Cu, Os, Ta, Cs, Eu, Yb, Ca, Sr, Ba...although what to do with elements like At, Fr, and Fm++ which have never been seen? ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 06:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)