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 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Paneth suggested that if an old claim turned out to be unsupported, the element should be renamed. Now, I cannot possibly apply this completely because we would get symbol collisions, and discoverers changed their minds about names often, but if I tried to apply this as much as possible, I would get this table:
(Large cells) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Cb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Cp | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Nt |
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og |
|
As you can see, I haven't changed Re to "nipponium" following Ogawa (it would collide with the symbol for Np, and also render nonsense the naming of 113 as "nihonium"), and I haven't changed cases where the real discoverer acquiesed to the old name (e.g. nobelium, bohrium, or actinium). Neither have I changed "vanadium" (since it wasn't del Río himself who asked for the reinstatement of his name). Hatchett discovered Nb first and so it appears here as "columbium", but since Bergman discovered W first it remains "tungsten". It is quite striking how little has changed... Double sharp ( talk) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
An RfC (not started by me) has started on the composition of group 3 at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?. It seems relevant to us, especially since we had been discussing this earlier on my talk page. I've already weighed in. Double sharp ( talk) 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox hydrogen}}
is up for deletion again. Please discuss at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 30#Template:Infobox hydrogen. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
In navbox {{ Periodic table (32 columns, compact)}} I have enlarged the click-sensistive area for " I". Now the whole cell reacts, not just the symbol text :-). So, in {{ Periodic table (32 columns, compact)/sandbox}} I have prepared this effect for all cells. Please check & report if anything looks wrong in your browser. PS it's a navbox, so won't show in mobile view. - DePiep ( talk) 14:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
So element 117 changed from metalloid (predicted) into post-transition metal (predicted).
In case this is not clear, the current situation for the classification is:
Similarly, element 171 has also changed colour with its lighter congener element 117 to "post-transition metal (predicted)", but it does not occur in non-extended tables (since it hasn't been discovered, and I have grave doubts that any of us will see it). Double sharp ( talk) 14:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do these exist, exactly? They're single transclusion and I see no reason why they shouldn't be merged into the parent articles. ~ Rob13 Talk 01:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Double sharp, I think List of oxidation states of the elements may need to be amended to show which elements can form compounds in a zero oxidation state. See: Neutral zero-valent s-block complexes with strong multiple bonding.
Here. Sandbh ( talk) 23:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It strikes me that we also probably should kill reports of primordial 244Pu and 146Sm: the former has been disputed, and the latter has never actually been detected AFAIK. (It was added because its half-life was then thought to be longer than that of 244Pu. Now even that half-baked rationale doesn't work ever since its half-life was more accurately determined.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a review of a couple of edits I just made to HSAB theory:
Thanks! YBG ( talk) 06:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Even now, I still think they ought to follow the pattern started at group 3 element, and that the article names should be group 13 element and group 14 element instead of boron group and carbon group. (They don't have IUPAC-approved names, although I admit that "icosagens" and "crystallogens" are beautiful.) Double sharp ( talk) 05:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Chalcogen, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Double sharp ( talk) 05:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
After I made this edit to the subpage about article alerts, I noticed a bot doing a lot of work and so I'm left wondering if my exhuberance about heavy metals being promoted, I messed up the automated processes. YBG ( talk) 05:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Just a few thoughts:
Double sharp ( talk) 16:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm having way too much fun doing the halogens, so I'm going to shamelessly reserve Cl for myself (Br is almost done). And maybe one day I'll make everyone happy by completing the transition metal rows with Ag and Au... (actually the former is in progress in my sandbox too). I have way too many offline notes! ...I admit, I do not have many other dreams at the moment, apart from N. (Pb and Th are not dreams: they are concrete things that are being written!) Double sharp ( talk) 16:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
A more chemical classification of the not-GAs, ignoring Cl (which I'm taking care of) and Db (which R8R is):
An RfC (not started by me) has started on the composition of group 3 at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?. It seems relevant to us, especially since we had been discussing this earlier on my talk page. I've already weighed in. Double sharp ( talk) 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages header, I've compiled a hitcount for the elements for October 23-29, 2016.
Rank | Views | %-Mobi | %-Zero | Z | Element | Quality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1870 | 43,844 | 33.85% | 0.90% | 1 | Hydrogen | FA |
2141 | 40,711 | 39.77% | 2.65% | 79 | Gold | C |
2204 | 40,063 | 33.39% | 0.75% | 13 | Aluminium | C |
2213 | 39,910 | 31.36% | 0.83% | 8 | Oxygen | FA |
2413 | 37,959 | 31.54% | 0.68% | 6 | Carbon | GA |
2732 | 35,357 | 38.31% | 0.87% | 80 | Mercury | GA |
2744 | 35,277 | 33.42% | 1.26% | 26 | Iron | GA |
2754 | 35,224 | 33.53% | 0.95% | 29 | Copper | GA |
3027 | 33,298 | 34.79% | 0.68% | 16 | Sulfur | C |
3443 | 31,103 | 32.29% | 0.61% | 7 | Nitrogen | C |
3584 | 30,332 | 34.79% | 0.42% | 3 | Lithium | GA |
3769 | 29,400 | 32.10% | 0.73% | 11 | Sodium | GA |
4053 | 28,343 | 28.81% | 0.44% | 2 | Helium | FA |
4145 | 27,951 | 34.59% | 0.51% | 12 | Magnesium | C |
4290 | 27,441 | 35.47% | 0.56% | 15 | Phosphorus | C |
4511 | 26,699 | 37.48% | 0.70% | 19 | Potassium | GA |
4603 | 26,427 | 29.15% | 0.62% | 14 | Silicon | B |
4651 | 26,277 | 33.93% | 0.62% | 22 | Titanium | FA |
4740 | 26,045 | 31.11% | 0.68% | 17 | Chlorine | C |
I'd like to use a longer time frame and a source that would list all the element articles, but I haven't found it yet. YBG ( talk) 07:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Apparently no longer predicted, according to NIST? Double sharp ( talk) 14:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Back from a holiday. You did not break the periodic table, did you? That would be bad. - DePiep ( talk) 13:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I want the solid chlorine and bromine ones!! Double sharp ( talk) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The current ununtrium article only goes into the 2010–2 experiments. Now we have a paper detailing 2014 experiments from Dubna.
The predictions are: element 113 should be weakly adsorbed on inert surfaces like Teflon or polyethylene, but be strongly adsorbed on gold. If water is present, UutOH should form and be much more weakly adsorbed on gold. These predictions are based on the behaviour expected for a typical group 13 element (such as Tl), with relativistic corrections.
They write to describe their observations: "Therefore, we conclude that the element 113 species observed in our experiment is generally confirming theoretically predicted properties listed for atomic element 113. It is a volatile (gas-jet transportation at 70 °C) and does not strongly adsorb on surfaces like Teflon. Its final deposition occurred on the surfaces of detectors covered with gold and held at ambient temperature. The observed deposition pattern of the five events does not allow for the absolute quantification of an adsorption enthalpy on gold surface. However, the observation of its deposition at room temperature rather than in the temperature gradient makes it possible to estimate a lower limit adsorption enthalpy of the observed element 113 species on gold as −ΔHads > 60 kJ mol−1." (The predictions indeed expect a higher value than this.) They continue: "The chemical species of element 113 observed here for the first time was found volatile; it weakly interacts with Teflon surfaces but reacts much more strongly with gold surfaces. Its adsorption behaviour is comparable to the adsorption properties of mercury and astatine in our experiment. Based on an analogous behaviour to the next lighter homologue thallium, we tentatively attribute the observed species to either atomic element 113 or its hydroxide 113(OH)."
Given the clear confirmation on the predictions for a typical member of group 13 (Tl acts in about the same way), I think a colour change is reasonable.
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments? (Preemptively using the new names, since knowing our typical speed of discussions they'll be in force by the time the colour change goes live.) Now I am hoping for the next advances – chemical investigations of Mt, Ds, Rg, and Mc. (Lv, Ts, and Og are too short-lived for chemistry for now.) There are already plans for meitnerium chemistry with carbonyls! (10.1515/ract-2013-2198) Double sharp ( talk) 15:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
A recent move request ( Talk:Ununtrium § Requested move 15 October 2016) has just been speedy closed as "Not yet".
Over the next few weeks, such moves and related edits are likely to become more frequent. On June 8, the IUPAC stated (on their website):
The IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division has reviewed and considered these proposals and recommends these for acceptance. A five-month public review is now set, expiring 8 November 2016, prior to the formal approval by the IUPAC Council.
As I read this, what happens on 8 November is the close of the public review period, which does not make the names official. Rather, the names become official upon "formal approval by the IUPAC Council."
With this in mind, I have some questions:
Thanks! YBG ( talk) 00:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy with 1(b)+2(no) unless and until the situation worsens. Anyone else want to chime in? YBG ( talk) 07:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H | He | ||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr |
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe |
Cs | Ba | La* | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn |
Fr | Ra | Ac† | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og |
* Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | ||||
† Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr |
Look, I know we have had strong proponents of the 32-column table here. Yet the fact of the matter is that it's impossible to get any info out of our navbox tables. You can't really see where you are on Internet Explorer; you can't see the symbols of the elements in the same group or column (to the extent that we have to ad-hoc add those direction markers); and by the time you can, you're at the bottom of the page, when you should have gotten this info at the beginning.
Would it really kill us to switch to 18-column, since we are so pressed for space there? And do something like this, hopefully with links?
P.S. I stole this from one of my sandbox projects, which is why it is a Sc-Y-La-Ac table. What group 3 and 12 are shown as don't matter; they can be as they are on Wikipedia now. The main issue is that the current navbox table is not doing its job. Double sharp ( talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
infobox mercury}}
and the rest (where it says 'Mercury in the periodic table'). The problem is that in IE the cells run into each other and the border around the cell is incomplete. And no, the table is not too big – in fact I daresay it is too small. I think it would be more useful if it was big enough that you could squeeze in the element symbols (perhaps by imagemap, since text won't make the symbols big enough). That would force an 18-column table to avoid a sprawlingly wide infobox, but I don't think there will be many objections to that as long as we make it clearly Sc-Y-La-Ac or Sc-Y-Lu-Lr (preferably the former). ^_^
Double sharp (
talk)
13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I have found some technical improvements: better view (esp in mobile view), and more robust code. Needs more tweaking.
Sure this does not address the main quest for better overview vs. detail (PT vs. element), eg adding symbols and going from 32-co to 18-col. However, these tech changes are long overdue and do not limit any future choice. - DePiep ( talk) 14:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per the IUPAC website, from way back in June:
Ultimately, and after the lapse of the public review, the final Recommendations will be published in the IUPAC journal Pure and Applied Chemistry. The Provisional Recommendation regarding the naming of the four new elements can be found on the IUPAC website at www.iupac.org/recommendations/under-review-by-the-public/. Finally, laboratories are already working on searches for the elements in the 8th row of the periodic table, and they are also working to consolidate the identification of copernicium and heavier elements. To be able to evaluate this work, IUPAC and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) are currently reviewing the selection principle and operations of a future Joint Working Party (JWP) and as soon as these principles have been decided a new group will be formed. This new JWP will review new claims and the consistency of new results with those already evaluated by earlier JWPs.
So, we know what to wait for: the journal article. Double sharp ( talk) 06:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added or expanded the hidden comments (asking not to make he change) by adding a note indicating that we should be waiting for a journal article. It looks like some of the protection has recently expired, so I hope some administrators will be watching in case they need to be re-protected.
Element & links | Date of protection | Performer | Edit protection expires | Move protection expires | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
113 ununtrium | log | history | 2016-06-23T19:52:23 | EdJohnston | 2016-09-23T19:52:23 | 2016-11-11T02:47:43 | |
2016-11-12T04:39:40 | EdJohnston | indefinite | indefinite | ||||
115 ununpentium | log | history | 2016-06-10T02:15:12 | DMacks | 2016-11-10T02:15:12 | ||
117 ununseptium | log | history | 2016-06-11T02:48:01 | DMacks | 2016-11-11T02:48:01 | ||
118 ununoctium | log | history | 2016-06-25T15:32:19 | Ymblanter | 2016-12-25T15:32:19 | 2016-11-10T02:15:03 | |
2016-11-12T04:48:09 | EdJohnston | 2016-12-25T15:32:19 | indefinite | ||||
|
YBG ( talk) 04:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Lately I've been thinking of two classes of chemical elements. I notice that when I work on Pb with R8R, I feel the need to simplify things for the average reader much more than I do for the time I worked on Np with Thingg, or Th by myself, and I think it has a lot to do with how much the element is in the consciousness of people, and when you learn its chemistry in the long track from your first chemistry course onwards. (Some truly ubiquitous elements, like H, C, N, and O, need really special simplification, mostly because their subtopics are already articles in themselves; for C I do not even need to say why.)
The only problem is: which elements are important in this way?
My tentative list is H; Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs; Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba; B, Al; C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb; N, P, As, Sb, Bi; O, S; F, Cl, Br, I; He, Ne, Ar; Sc; Ti; V; Cr, Mo, W; Mn; Fe; Co; Ni, Pd, Pt; Cu, Ag, Au; Zn, Cd, Hg; U, Pu. Now, you may not agree with all of it, but it's currently a sort of "mental list" I use as a guideline. I think the idea is sound, but I'm now bracing myself for being unrealistically optimistic (Be? Sc? Ge?). Double sharp ( talk) 16:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Breadth of information available |
Technical expectation Depth of information expected Do typical readers expect to see lots of technical detail? | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Most want non-technical info (probably high-readership articles) |
Most expect technical details (probably low-readership articles) | |||
Single encyclopedia article |
||||
Many related articles |
The raw data for this would be a table like the following:
Then we'd need to decide where the appropriate cut point(s) are in each dimension. This schema could no doubt be improved. YBG ( talk) 07:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Just a lighthearted note. While working with carbon, I noticed that Wikidata puts C in category "polyatomic nonmetals" [1]. And not in that awkward non-category misnamed "other nonmetals" (still in use in other lang-wikis). Similar for F (WD puts F also correctly in the halogen group). So, our categorization (color) scheme has gotten acceptance in high ranks of Wikidata. Feels better than eh pushing that scheme through the PT images into other wikis...
Then, with the risk of spoiling this fun, I went to check La and Lu about this group 3 thing. Well, La nor Lu have a group number added. Wikidata is waiting.
Anyway, this is nice to encounter. (Warn me if I'm getting too religiously proselytic about colors ;-) ). Speaking about colors: for months, Double sharp is changing Template:Periodic table by article quality colors. What a great development. DePiep ( talk) 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
IP 108... is jumping IP's, and using a lot of time from our editors. I plan to follow IPs with similar behaviour (and/or expressed familiarity).
I plan to add to the {{Infobox <element name>}} bottom line this link (demo: iridium):
|wdQID=
for gold (a "Q....." number).Recently, our ~120 element infoboxes are being edited without sourcing: [2]. By Squee3. Materialscientist and I have reverted, but it does not seem to help. What to do? - DePiep ( talk) 22:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
IUPAC is quite unambiguous in the Gold Book, which defines "transition element" as follows: "An element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations with an incomplete d sub-shell."
Note that there is no caveat here, like how the Red Book at least says "lanthanoid and actinoid are preferred to lanthanide and actinide" (but clearly, allowing the latter). The Red Book also makes it clear that this exclusion is about the group 12 elements.
Now, the last time we proposed this colour change for group 12, it got steamrolled by the fact that "poor metals" is a name that nobody uses outside PT fans. Now that we use "post-transition metals", this should not be a problem.
Furthermore, the evidence for HgF4 has recently been questioned. Granted, Hg is expected to still act as a transition metal under high pressure, but we do not call K, Rb, and Cs transition metals just because they have a d1 configuration at such pressures too, and we do not call Br a metal even though it becomes one at about 100 GPa. I think the qualification "at standard conditions" is rather implicit in the IUPAC definition.
I realise it seems to be a shame to uncolour Cn and Fl, since the only things we know about their behaviour are from their physical properties (to date we still have no chemistry). But I think Zn, Cd, and Hg are much greater priorities than Cn and Fl.
I would also suggest labelling Rf–Og on our periodic table as simply "transactinides", as that is the most important thing about them. Greenwood & Earnshaw relegates Rf–Cn to the very end of the book, as what is known about them (primarily nuclear properties) is not very similar to what is known about the transition metals. Even Holleman & Wiberg, which keeps every group in one chapter, always splits the transactinide member away to cover in a page detailing its history (and even covers the transactinides separately after Rf). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements covers them all in one chapter (despite the fact that this would be silly for such chemically diverse elements for Hf–Rn, it makes sense for Rf—Og since so little is known). Cotton's Lanthanide and Actinide Chemistry does likewise, after Sc, Y, La–Lu, and Ac–Lr have gotten so many chapters to themselves. I realise that Rf–Hs at least are certainly also transition metals, but that's not the main point. Technically many of the lanthanides and actinides are also transition metals since they have a d-electron or two in their electron configuration, but that's not the main point either. Besides, to be a metal according to IUPAC an element needs to have itinerant electrons, which is not something that you can really test yet for Rf onwards. (Fm–Lr get a free pass on this because "actinide" doesn't have "metal" in the name, and that term is already defined by IUPAC.)
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(This is very nearly my "ideal periodic table", except that mine would have Sc and Y over La and Ac, and label the latter two as transition metals, since after all IUPAC says the transition metals are group 3–11 and occasionally used to include 12 in the Red Book. But let's argue about one thing in one place.)
Regarding the extended periodic table, I am considering abolishing "predicted" colours altogether. They are a stretch for things like E165–172 after all. Instead we could have them all white as "undiscovered", just placed in the table following Fricke or Pyykkö, and then the article would expound a bit on their chemical properties. Once E119 and E120 become discovered, they become transactinides: once E121–E155 get discovered, they become superactinides. Beyond that, scientists will have come up with something: I don't think we'll get even to E155 within any of our lifetimes.
Comments? Double sharp ( talk) 07:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
How it would look like if we changed the colours like we previously suggested in 2016 (not important here)
Double sharp (
talk)
16:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Now with DePiep's colours:
(Alkali metals, violet; alkaline earth metals, pink; lanthanides, cyan; actinides, blue; transition metals, chartreuse; post-transition metals, green; metalloids, yellow; polyatomic nonmetals, red; diatomic nonmetals, orange; noble gases, rose; transactinides, white [I'd change this to something else, personally].) Double sharp ( talk) 07:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
I like it, mostly because it eliminates the "unknown chemical properties" category, which IMHO is somewhat objectionable though considerably less obnoxious than "other metals". I see this as a recognition that while lighter elements can easily be categorized based on chemical properties, it makes sense to categorize heavier elements based on atomic properties, which can be known even when macroscopic quantities are not available. YBG ( talk) 13:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll skip the discussion on group 12 and move straight to the superactinides. I do not want this category to be introduced. These books are right, in their own way, to split transactinides off the rest of their groups. That is because they're all telling a long story each, and facts on element 105 (say) will dissolve in the variety of facts on group 5. This fact isn't prohibitive, of course, but that's how they're telling the story and you can see why.
But just because the books do something doesn't mean we should too. I assume all these books, for example, group hydrogen separately from anything? Should we establish a separate color for H? G&E treats carbon separately from silicon and from Ge, Sn, and Pb? Should we get colors to match that? Of course, that would intervene with our current coloring system, but why not just follow the books?
The books group elements per their needs and we should group them per ours. We currently group them per chemical properties. We even invented the polyatomic--diatomic nonmetals break, which I hadn't seen anywhere to support that, so I assume this reasoning of grouping per chemical properties is strong. The "transactinides" term is not related to chemistry and thus doesn't fit our table.
Strength through consistency.-- R8R ( talk) 20:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
How about leaving the transactinides as they currently are, but still moving all of group 12 (Zn, Cd, Hg, and Cn) into the post-transition metals category?
(In case you think this is a bad idea because of Cn, I will note that the most recent calculations from 2013 – after the 2008 debunking of HgF4, which was re-confirmed in 2016 – do not expect CnF4 to exist. See p. 348.) Double sharp ( talk) 02:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cn keeps the grey colour since it acts as a good member of group 12 and is no longer expected to form the +4 oxidation state. Similarly Fl is no longer expected to form the +6 oxidation state. Yes, we probably need to rewrite the copernicium article. Double sharp ( talk) 02:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it might be useful to consider these rules:
|
---|
|
As far as the TM/PTM dividing line, I agree that our focus was getting rid of the "other nonmetals" category, but also, that we kept TM/PTM discussion relatively small in order to avoid derailing hope of consensus on mon-/di-/poly-atomic nonmetals. So following the same logic, I think it would be good to first deal with the TM/PTM issue, and once that is resolved, then we can proceed to discuss the best way to classify and color the postactinides. YBG ( talk) 06:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Transactinides are OK under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. They are not OK under 6 because Rf–Hs are both transition metals and transactinides. Then again, La is both a lanthanide and a transition metal (feel free to say Lu instead, but the bottom line is that one of them is double-category), so already we have problems under 6.
Polyatomic/diatomic nonmetals are OK under 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. They are more questionably OK under 3 and 4. Double sharp ( talk) 11:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The [four] series of elements arising from the filling of the 3d, 4d, [5d, and 6d] shells, and situated in the periodic table following the alkaline earth metals, are commonly described as "transition elements", though this term is sometimes also extended to include the lanthanide and actinide (or inner transition) elements. They exhibit a number of characteristic properties which together distinguish them from other groups of elements:
(i) They are all metals and as such are lustrous and deformable and have high electrical and thermal conductivities. In addition, their melting and boiling points tend to be high and they are generally hard and strong.
(ii) Most of them display numerous oxidation states which vary by steps of 1 rather than 2 as is usually the case with those main-group elements which exhibit more than one oxidation state.
(iii) They have an unparalleled propensity for forming coordination complexes with Lewis bases.
(They forget to mention 6d in the opening chapter, but then include Ac along with Sc, Y, and La, so clearly they must have meant it. Much later they call Ac, along with Rf–Cn, a fourth transition series.) I think that's not a bad set of criteria.
The elements considered transition metals, according to them, are thus Sc–Zn; Y–Cd; La, Hf–Hg; Ac, Rf–Cn. (Admittedly, we do not yet know if Mt–Rg are metals, but no one seriously thinks otherwise.) They note that group 3 and 12 are in some ways anomalous, since they do not fulfil all three criteria; but they at least fulfil some of them. Double sharp ( talk) 09:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm dropping the "transactinide" colouring proposal, mostly because I think R8R makes good arguments against it.
I am still in favour of moving Zn, Cd, Hg, and Cn to the post-transition metals category, as is Sandbh. Note that this does not create any new categories; it simply moves these four elements from one category (TM) to another (PTM). The reason is simple. I have often said here that an element's electron configuration acts like the genetic code that fixes its nature and personality. Transition-metal physical properties are guaranteed by having unpaired d-electrons in the atom (groups 3–10); and the chemistry is guaranteed by having unpaired d-electrons in the ions (groups 4–11). Thus groups 3–11 show TM properties with group 3 a prelude from the s-block and group 11 a postlude into the p-block. Group 12 does not show TM physical or chemical properties to any significant extent, at least no more than any other average main-group element like Pb, and thus should be considered PTM. Finally, it helps that the simple group 3–11 definition is stated by reliable sources such as Cotton. Double sharp ( talk) 10:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, since E166 is not really expected to give up its 7d10 electrons readily if at all, the extended PT would look like this:
(Large version) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |
8 | 119 | 120 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 |
Double sharp ( talk) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
If we do go ahead with the recategorisation of group 12, I would request that it take place simultaneously with the mass renaming of elements 113, 115, 117, and 118. This way, it actually has a chance of propagating throughout. I am afraid I will not be able to find everything within a reasonable amount of time for our readers. Double sharp ( talk) 02:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The complete filling of 6d at Cn has a drastic effect, incidentally: there is a sudden increase of volatility expected from Rg to Cn (and Cn–Og should all be very volatile elements). Source. Of course, all the elements from Hs to Lv inclusive should all be very noble metals (though Cn may be semiconducting), while Ts should be semimetallic. (Though given that it falls below At, I would be inclined to deny Ts membership to the Royal Halogen Club unless it can form salts like NaTs – if otherwise, I'd call it a metal.) Double sharp ( talk) 16:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that we don't have data on occurrences in infoboxes and we probably should have some. We even have a data page for this: Abundances of the elements (data page). Does everyone agree we should have this?-- R8R ( talk) 13:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
|abundance=
. Should it be free text, or add unit "
ppm", or "kg/kg" as the linked article does? Or use three parameters |abundance earth=
, |abundance seawater=
, |abundance solar system=
? Positioning at bottom of "General properties" section? -
DePiep (
talk)
15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
|abundance=
to get this going. I don't think an extra header is useful, for 3 similar data rows (and History was more difficult to catch under an existing header, while abundance is one of a bunch properties). Which names are ok: |abundance earth/crust=
, |abundance seawater/oceans=
, |abundance solar system=
?{{infobox element/sandbox2 |abundance=some abu text<sup>[1]</sup> <!--|ppb=y--> |abundance in earth's crust=14 [[parts per million|ppm]] |abundance in oceans=9 ppm |abundance in solar system=0.1% |name=carbon |number=6 |symbol=C |category=polyatomic nonmetal |category comment=sometimes considered a [[metalloid]] |group=14 |period=2 |block=p |allotropes=graphite, diamond |appearance=graphite: black<br/>diamond: clear }}
| abundance=some abu text<ref>some reference</ref> | abundance in earth's crust=14 [[parts per million|ppm]] | abundance in oceans=9 ppm | abundance in solar system=0.1%
Please comment: parameter names, fixed prefix text in the infobox, freetext entry effect. - DePiep ( talk) 21:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
|ppm=yes
option: automated adding the unit is too complicated to do it right (first unit should be linked; other units used). Now: what you type is what you get. We can scan the 120 infoboxes afterwards for formatting. -
DePiep (
talk)
12:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Greetings WikiProject Elements/Archive 24 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Recently, Drbogdan has added {{ PeriodicTable-ImageMap}} to all element articles (section title "Interactive Periodic Table"). I'm not sure if we want that Table in the article. As a navigation help, we already have one in the navbox below. Otherwise, it is not that related to the element, I guess. Technically, the interaction does not work in mobile view. And the positioning is wrong (off-page). Opinions? - DePiep ( talk) 11:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@ DePiep, R8R Gtrs, Sandbh, Alchemist-hp, Kbrose, and Graeme Bartlett: FWIW - Thank you for inviting me to discuss my newly created interactive " {{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}" - yes - added the template to the " chemical elements" for the reasons posted below - however, the additions were reverted, without any apparent discussion that I'm aware, by " User:Kbrose" - for my part - the template was added in good faith as a possible improvement to the articles - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there's " WP:CONSENSUS" of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for inviting me to this discussion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Copied from " Talk:Thorium#3 periodic tables":
-- 3 periodic tables --We don't need three period tables in this article. At the bottom there already was Template:Periodic_table_(32_columns,_compact) but template:PeriodicTable-ImageMap was just added by User:Drbogdan. So one of these two should be cut. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- @ Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for your comments - yes - the newly created " {{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}", an " interactive image map" updated to include the latest officially named elements, was added to the chemical element articles - this version seems to be in the more familiar " Periodic Table" form and, as such, may be more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => " Readability of Wikipedia Articles" ( BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) [1] - (also - somewhat related discussions at => " Template talk:Nature timeline#BestWording" and " Template talk:Life timeline#Class Aves as a subset of Dinosaur?") - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lucassen, Teun; Dijkstra, Roald; Schraagen, Jan Maarten (September 3, 2012). "Readability of Wikipedia". First Monday (journal). 17 (9). Retrieved September 28, 2016.
I wonder if that is possible?: in webpage styling (css), sure! eg,
style="float"
for starters. CSS only needs page size etc. Not the QM numbers.Any way I do like the 18 column form better than the 32 column table.I can guess your age range. You are used to the 18-col format, right? Really, that footnote-thing is an extra mental lap before understanding the PT. But why teach that to young people? My statement is: everybody born in this century should learn the PT by 32-col format. - DePiep ( talk) 00:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree with the comments of " User:Double sharp" above, although simplifying is *entirely* ok with me re " Wikipedia" - goal seems to be to reach a "9th grade/14yo" average reader as noted in my " comments/refs above" - a less simplifying treatment may be ok with a more specialized encyclopedia (even " Citizendium" perhaps?) but not for Wikipedia afaik at the moment - in any regards - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 19:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Mmmmm. I was explained both in the 9th grade. In fact, I don't think it's something you couldn't handle. As for me, what it would take to get me convinced is probably a comment or two by actual laypeople saying it does make a difference. I was taught the 8-column table and I accepted the 18-column layout alright, though this change is bigger than a change from 18 to 32. Think it's no biggie to worry about unless proven wrong.-- R8R ( talk) 15:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey I just joined the project, I've made a page for Unseptbium and Unquadtrium in my userspace. I was wondering if the project operated under a "until a good article can be made the redirect to Extended periodic table is fine" system or if I should move it to mainspace, even though they would both be stubs. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Magnetic suspectibility, TerpeneOtto has asked to add this parameter to the {{infobox element}}.
|magnetic susceptibility=
to the sandbox, see
Template:Infobox aluminium/sandbox. At the moment, it is anytext-input (input will show unformatted). Position OK?Think it fits well in, because it is known for many elements; now I'm editing from my phone and can't easily add them, but I can and will when I get back on Christmas Eve or so. Unit is always cm3/mol. Position below magnetic ordering is good. Why I think it is a good idea to add it is because our reference for magnetic ordering actually gives the magnetic susceptbility, and we are just taking the sign to give magnetic ordering. So I think we can afford to take a little more. Double sharp ( talk) 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
| magnetic susceptibility = | magnetic susceptibility ref =
Needs number only, unit _cm3/mol will be added. @ TerpeneOtto: - DePiep ( talk) 17:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Thanks for the time you put into magnetic susceptibility! I'm having a problem entering magnetic susceptibility on the aluminum page still. Magnetic Susceptibility doesn't appear on the template page and it doesn't show up as something I can add to the aluminum info box. If I can't change the pages, I can post a table of the magnetic susceptibilities of all the elements here for someone else to input.
|magnetic susceptibility = |magnetic susceptibility ref =
|magnetic susceptibility = +16.5·10<sup>−6</sup> |magnetic susceptibility ref =
- DePiep ( talk) 02:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
DePiep Magnetic susceptibility is a number that describes how much a compound can move a magnetic field. To measure a compound it is placed in a container similar to a test tube. Then it is placed in a magnetic susceptibility balance and the reading is recorded. The number the machine displays describes how much the sample in a certain volume moves the magnetic field. Typically, someone will calculate the grams of sample per volume. This number is known Xmass. Its units are cm^3/g. If Xmass is multiplied by its molar mass you get Xmol. Xmass and Xmol are both acceptable standard units for magnetic susceptibility. Most tables prefer Xmol.
I chose to publish 500+ organic compounds in Xmol and I'm going to start on inorganic compounds soon. The only ones I don't have access to are the elements. The only downside to Xmol is that someone attempting to identify a compound without the molar mass of the compound could have complications. Xmass numbers appear low and similar although the minute differences are truly significant.
The magnetic susceptibility does not appear on the aluminum page now. If I were to place the magnetic susceptibility it would go under magnetic ordering in the miscellanea section or in the physical properties section at the bottom. The new message under the chem. box is perfect. I'm not sure who placed it there but its awesome. Magnetic susceptibility is constant for a certain temperature. In rare cases users might need publish a magnetic susceptibility of compound at an unusual temperature so I would recommend a comment option. A comment option is also important because wiki doesn't always have a page for amine salt versions of certain compounds and they could be placed on the compounds page with a comment section.
Magnetic susceptibility is an important tool for identifying isomers. Branched carbon chains with the same molar mass and chemical formula can be identified with just a simple magnetic susceptibility reading. I understand it's a complicated idea but, its a simple test that provide valuable information in terms of identification and doesn't destroy the sample in the process. TerpeneOtto ( talk) 17:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
|MagSus=
, recently.So if I create a table of magnetic susceptibility of the elements can someone with the power post them on the pages they belong? TerpeneOtto ( talk) 16:30, 17 December 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 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Paneth suggested that if an old claim turned out to be unsupported, the element should be renamed. Now, I cannot possibly apply this completely because we would get symbol collisions, and discoverers changed their minds about names often, but if I tried to apply this as much as possible, I would get this table:
(Large cells) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Cb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Cp | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Nt |
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og |
|
As you can see, I haven't changed Re to "nipponium" following Ogawa (it would collide with the symbol for Np, and also render nonsense the naming of 113 as "nihonium"), and I haven't changed cases where the real discoverer acquiesed to the old name (e.g. nobelium, bohrium, or actinium). Neither have I changed "vanadium" (since it wasn't del Río himself who asked for the reinstatement of his name). Hatchett discovered Nb first and so it appears here as "columbium", but since Bergman discovered W first it remains "tungsten". It is quite striking how little has changed... Double sharp ( talk) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
An RfC (not started by me) has started on the composition of group 3 at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?. It seems relevant to us, especially since we had been discussing this earlier on my talk page. I've already weighed in. Double sharp ( talk) 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
Infobox hydrogen}}
is up for deletion again. Please discuss at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 30#Template:Infobox hydrogen. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
In navbox {{ Periodic table (32 columns, compact)}} I have enlarged the click-sensistive area for " I". Now the whole cell reacts, not just the symbol text :-). So, in {{ Periodic table (32 columns, compact)/sandbox}} I have prepared this effect for all cells. Please check & report if anything looks wrong in your browser. PS it's a navbox, so won't show in mobile view. - DePiep ( talk) 14:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
So element 117 changed from metalloid (predicted) into post-transition metal (predicted).
In case this is not clear, the current situation for the classification is:
Similarly, element 171 has also changed colour with its lighter congener element 117 to "post-transition metal (predicted)", but it does not occur in non-extended tables (since it hasn't been discovered, and I have grave doubts that any of us will see it). Double sharp ( talk) 14:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do these exist, exactly? They're single transclusion and I see no reason why they shouldn't be merged into the parent articles. ~ Rob13 Talk 01:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Double sharp, I think List of oxidation states of the elements may need to be amended to show which elements can form compounds in a zero oxidation state. See: Neutral zero-valent s-block complexes with strong multiple bonding.
Here. Sandbh ( talk) 23:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It strikes me that we also probably should kill reports of primordial 244Pu and 146Sm: the former has been disputed, and the latter has never actually been detected AFAIK. (It was added because its half-life was then thought to be longer than that of 244Pu. Now even that half-baked rationale doesn't work ever since its half-life was more accurately determined.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a review of a couple of edits I just made to HSAB theory:
Thanks! YBG ( talk) 06:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Even now, I still think they ought to follow the pattern started at group 3 element, and that the article names should be group 13 element and group 14 element instead of boron group and carbon group. (They don't have IUPAC-approved names, although I admit that "icosagens" and "crystallogens" are beautiful.) Double sharp ( talk) 05:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Chalcogen, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Double sharp ( talk) 05:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
After I made this edit to the subpage about article alerts, I noticed a bot doing a lot of work and so I'm left wondering if my exhuberance about heavy metals being promoted, I messed up the automated processes. YBG ( talk) 05:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Just a few thoughts:
Double sharp ( talk) 16:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm having way too much fun doing the halogens, so I'm going to shamelessly reserve Cl for myself (Br is almost done). And maybe one day I'll make everyone happy by completing the transition metal rows with Ag and Au... (actually the former is in progress in my sandbox too). I have way too many offline notes! ...I admit, I do not have many other dreams at the moment, apart from N. (Pb and Th are not dreams: they are concrete things that are being written!) Double sharp ( talk) 16:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
A more chemical classification of the not-GAs, ignoring Cl (which I'm taking care of) and Db (which R8R is):
An RfC (not started by me) has started on the composition of group 3 at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?. It seems relevant to us, especially since we had been discussing this earlier on my talk page. I've already weighed in. Double sharp ( talk) 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
From User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages header, I've compiled a hitcount for the elements for October 23-29, 2016.
Rank | Views | %-Mobi | %-Zero | Z | Element | Quality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1870 | 43,844 | 33.85% | 0.90% | 1 | Hydrogen | FA |
2141 | 40,711 | 39.77% | 2.65% | 79 | Gold | C |
2204 | 40,063 | 33.39% | 0.75% | 13 | Aluminium | C |
2213 | 39,910 | 31.36% | 0.83% | 8 | Oxygen | FA |
2413 | 37,959 | 31.54% | 0.68% | 6 | Carbon | GA |
2732 | 35,357 | 38.31% | 0.87% | 80 | Mercury | GA |
2744 | 35,277 | 33.42% | 1.26% | 26 | Iron | GA |
2754 | 35,224 | 33.53% | 0.95% | 29 | Copper | GA |
3027 | 33,298 | 34.79% | 0.68% | 16 | Sulfur | C |
3443 | 31,103 | 32.29% | 0.61% | 7 | Nitrogen | C |
3584 | 30,332 | 34.79% | 0.42% | 3 | Lithium | GA |
3769 | 29,400 | 32.10% | 0.73% | 11 | Sodium | GA |
4053 | 28,343 | 28.81% | 0.44% | 2 | Helium | FA |
4145 | 27,951 | 34.59% | 0.51% | 12 | Magnesium | C |
4290 | 27,441 | 35.47% | 0.56% | 15 | Phosphorus | C |
4511 | 26,699 | 37.48% | 0.70% | 19 | Potassium | GA |
4603 | 26,427 | 29.15% | 0.62% | 14 | Silicon | B |
4651 | 26,277 | 33.93% | 0.62% | 22 | Titanium | FA |
4740 | 26,045 | 31.11% | 0.68% | 17 | Chlorine | C |
I'd like to use a longer time frame and a source that would list all the element articles, but I haven't found it yet. YBG ( talk) 07:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Apparently no longer predicted, according to NIST? Double sharp ( talk) 14:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Back from a holiday. You did not break the periodic table, did you? That would be bad. - DePiep ( talk) 13:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I want the solid chlorine and bromine ones!! Double sharp ( talk) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The current ununtrium article only goes into the 2010–2 experiments. Now we have a paper detailing 2014 experiments from Dubna.
The predictions are: element 113 should be weakly adsorbed on inert surfaces like Teflon or polyethylene, but be strongly adsorbed on gold. If water is present, UutOH should form and be much more weakly adsorbed on gold. These predictions are based on the behaviour expected for a typical group 13 element (such as Tl), with relativistic corrections.
They write to describe their observations: "Therefore, we conclude that the element 113 species observed in our experiment is generally confirming theoretically predicted properties listed for atomic element 113. It is a volatile (gas-jet transportation at 70 °C) and does not strongly adsorb on surfaces like Teflon. Its final deposition occurred on the surfaces of detectors covered with gold and held at ambient temperature. The observed deposition pattern of the five events does not allow for the absolute quantification of an adsorption enthalpy on gold surface. However, the observation of its deposition at room temperature rather than in the temperature gradient makes it possible to estimate a lower limit adsorption enthalpy of the observed element 113 species on gold as −ΔHads > 60 kJ mol−1." (The predictions indeed expect a higher value than this.) They continue: "The chemical species of element 113 observed here for the first time was found volatile; it weakly interacts with Teflon surfaces but reacts much more strongly with gold surfaces. Its adsorption behaviour is comparable to the adsorption properties of mercury and astatine in our experiment. Based on an analogous behaviour to the next lighter homologue thallium, we tentatively attribute the observed species to either atomic element 113 or its hydroxide 113(OH)."
Given the clear confirmation on the predictions for a typical member of group 13 (Tl acts in about the same way), I think a colour change is reasonable.
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments? (Preemptively using the new names, since knowing our typical speed of discussions they'll be in force by the time the colour change goes live.) Now I am hoping for the next advances – chemical investigations of Mt, Ds, Rg, and Mc. (Lv, Ts, and Og are too short-lived for chemistry for now.) There are already plans for meitnerium chemistry with carbonyls! (10.1515/ract-2013-2198) Double sharp ( talk) 15:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
A recent move request ( Talk:Ununtrium § Requested move 15 October 2016) has just been speedy closed as "Not yet".
Over the next few weeks, such moves and related edits are likely to become more frequent. On June 8, the IUPAC stated (on their website):
The IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division has reviewed and considered these proposals and recommends these for acceptance. A five-month public review is now set, expiring 8 November 2016, prior to the formal approval by the IUPAC Council.
As I read this, what happens on 8 November is the close of the public review period, which does not make the names official. Rather, the names become official upon "formal approval by the IUPAC Council."
With this in mind, I have some questions:
Thanks! YBG ( talk) 00:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy with 1(b)+2(no) unless and until the situation worsens. Anyone else want to chime in? YBG ( talk) 07:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H | He | ||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr |
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe |
Cs | Ba | La* | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn |
Fr | Ra | Ac† | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og |
* Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | ||||
† Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr |
Look, I know we have had strong proponents of the 32-column table here. Yet the fact of the matter is that it's impossible to get any info out of our navbox tables. You can't really see where you are on Internet Explorer; you can't see the symbols of the elements in the same group or column (to the extent that we have to ad-hoc add those direction markers); and by the time you can, you're at the bottom of the page, when you should have gotten this info at the beginning.
Would it really kill us to switch to 18-column, since we are so pressed for space there? And do something like this, hopefully with links?
P.S. I stole this from one of my sandbox projects, which is why it is a Sc-Y-La-Ac table. What group 3 and 12 are shown as don't matter; they can be as they are on Wikipedia now. The main issue is that the current navbox table is not doing its job. Double sharp ( talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
{{
infobox mercury}}
and the rest (where it says 'Mercury in the periodic table'). The problem is that in IE the cells run into each other and the border around the cell is incomplete. And no, the table is not too big – in fact I daresay it is too small. I think it would be more useful if it was big enough that you could squeeze in the element symbols (perhaps by imagemap, since text won't make the symbols big enough). That would force an 18-column table to avoid a sprawlingly wide infobox, but I don't think there will be many objections to that as long as we make it clearly Sc-Y-La-Ac or Sc-Y-Lu-Lr (preferably the former). ^_^
Double sharp (
talk)
13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I have found some technical improvements: better view (esp in mobile view), and more robust code. Needs more tweaking.
Sure this does not address the main quest for better overview vs. detail (PT vs. element), eg adding symbols and going from 32-co to 18-col. However, these tech changes are long overdue and do not limit any future choice. - DePiep ( talk) 14:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Per the IUPAC website, from way back in June:
Ultimately, and after the lapse of the public review, the final Recommendations will be published in the IUPAC journal Pure and Applied Chemistry. The Provisional Recommendation regarding the naming of the four new elements can be found on the IUPAC website at www.iupac.org/recommendations/under-review-by-the-public/. Finally, laboratories are already working on searches for the elements in the 8th row of the periodic table, and they are also working to consolidate the identification of copernicium and heavier elements. To be able to evaluate this work, IUPAC and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) are currently reviewing the selection principle and operations of a future Joint Working Party (JWP) and as soon as these principles have been decided a new group will be formed. This new JWP will review new claims and the consistency of new results with those already evaluated by earlier JWPs.
So, we know what to wait for: the journal article. Double sharp ( talk) 06:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added or expanded the hidden comments (asking not to make he change) by adding a note indicating that we should be waiting for a journal article. It looks like some of the protection has recently expired, so I hope some administrators will be watching in case they need to be re-protected.
Element & links | Date of protection | Performer | Edit protection expires | Move protection expires | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
113 ununtrium | log | history | 2016-06-23T19:52:23 | EdJohnston | 2016-09-23T19:52:23 | 2016-11-11T02:47:43 | |
2016-11-12T04:39:40 | EdJohnston | indefinite | indefinite | ||||
115 ununpentium | log | history | 2016-06-10T02:15:12 | DMacks | 2016-11-10T02:15:12 | ||
117 ununseptium | log | history | 2016-06-11T02:48:01 | DMacks | 2016-11-11T02:48:01 | ||
118 ununoctium | log | history | 2016-06-25T15:32:19 | Ymblanter | 2016-12-25T15:32:19 | 2016-11-10T02:15:03 | |
2016-11-12T04:48:09 | EdJohnston | 2016-12-25T15:32:19 | indefinite | ||||
|
YBG ( talk) 04:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Lately I've been thinking of two classes of chemical elements. I notice that when I work on Pb with R8R, I feel the need to simplify things for the average reader much more than I do for the time I worked on Np with Thingg, or Th by myself, and I think it has a lot to do with how much the element is in the consciousness of people, and when you learn its chemistry in the long track from your first chemistry course onwards. (Some truly ubiquitous elements, like H, C, N, and O, need really special simplification, mostly because their subtopics are already articles in themselves; for C I do not even need to say why.)
The only problem is: which elements are important in this way?
My tentative list is H; Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs; Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba; B, Al; C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb; N, P, As, Sb, Bi; O, S; F, Cl, Br, I; He, Ne, Ar; Sc; Ti; V; Cr, Mo, W; Mn; Fe; Co; Ni, Pd, Pt; Cu, Ag, Au; Zn, Cd, Hg; U, Pu. Now, you may not agree with all of it, but it's currently a sort of "mental list" I use as a guideline. I think the idea is sound, but I'm now bracing myself for being unrealistically optimistic (Be? Sc? Ge?). Double sharp ( talk) 16:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Breadth of information available |
Technical expectation Depth of information expected Do typical readers expect to see lots of technical detail? | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Most want non-technical info (probably high-readership articles) |
Most expect technical details (probably low-readership articles) | |||
Single encyclopedia article |
||||
Many related articles |
The raw data for this would be a table like the following:
Then we'd need to decide where the appropriate cut point(s) are in each dimension. This schema could no doubt be improved. YBG ( talk) 07:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Just a lighthearted note. While working with carbon, I noticed that Wikidata puts C in category "polyatomic nonmetals" [1]. And not in that awkward non-category misnamed "other nonmetals" (still in use in other lang-wikis). Similar for F (WD puts F also correctly in the halogen group). So, our categorization (color) scheme has gotten acceptance in high ranks of Wikidata. Feels better than eh pushing that scheme through the PT images into other wikis...
Then, with the risk of spoiling this fun, I went to check La and Lu about this group 3 thing. Well, La nor Lu have a group number added. Wikidata is waiting.
Anyway, this is nice to encounter. (Warn me if I'm getting too religiously proselytic about colors ;-) ). Speaking about colors: for months, Double sharp is changing Template:Periodic table by article quality colors. What a great development. DePiep ( talk) 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
IP 108... is jumping IP's, and using a lot of time from our editors. I plan to follow IPs with similar behaviour (and/or expressed familiarity).
I plan to add to the {{Infobox <element name>}} bottom line this link (demo: iridium):
|wdQID=
for gold (a "Q....." number).Recently, our ~120 element infoboxes are being edited without sourcing: [2]. By Squee3. Materialscientist and I have reverted, but it does not seem to help. What to do? - DePiep ( talk) 22:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
IUPAC is quite unambiguous in the Gold Book, which defines "transition element" as follows: "An element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations with an incomplete d sub-shell."
Note that there is no caveat here, like how the Red Book at least says "lanthanoid and actinoid are preferred to lanthanide and actinide" (but clearly, allowing the latter). The Red Book also makes it clear that this exclusion is about the group 12 elements.
Now, the last time we proposed this colour change for group 12, it got steamrolled by the fact that "poor metals" is a name that nobody uses outside PT fans. Now that we use "post-transition metals", this should not be a problem.
Furthermore, the evidence for HgF4 has recently been questioned. Granted, Hg is expected to still act as a transition metal under high pressure, but we do not call K, Rb, and Cs transition metals just because they have a d1 configuration at such pressures too, and we do not call Br a metal even though it becomes one at about 100 GPa. I think the qualification "at standard conditions" is rather implicit in the IUPAC definition.
I realise it seems to be a shame to uncolour Cn and Fl, since the only things we know about their behaviour are from their physical properties (to date we still have no chemistry). But I think Zn, Cd, and Hg are much greater priorities than Cn and Fl.
I would also suggest labelling Rf–Og on our periodic table as simply "transactinides", as that is the most important thing about them. Greenwood & Earnshaw relegates Rf–Cn to the very end of the book, as what is known about them (primarily nuclear properties) is not very similar to what is known about the transition metals. Even Holleman & Wiberg, which keeps every group in one chapter, always splits the transactinide member away to cover in a page detailing its history (and even covers the transactinides separately after Rf). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements covers them all in one chapter (despite the fact that this would be silly for such chemically diverse elements for Hf–Rn, it makes sense for Rf—Og since so little is known). Cotton's Lanthanide and Actinide Chemistry does likewise, after Sc, Y, La–Lu, and Ac–Lr have gotten so many chapters to themselves. I realise that Rf–Hs at least are certainly also transition metals, but that's not the main point. Technically many of the lanthanides and actinides are also transition metals since they have a d-electron or two in their electron configuration, but that's not the main point either. Besides, to be a metal according to IUPAC an element needs to have itinerant electrons, which is not something that you can really test yet for Rf onwards. (Fm–Lr get a free pass on this because "actinide" doesn't have "metal" in the name, and that term is already defined by IUPAC.)
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(This is very nearly my "ideal periodic table", except that mine would have Sc and Y over La and Ac, and label the latter two as transition metals, since after all IUPAC says the transition metals are group 3–11 and occasionally used to include 12 in the Red Book. But let's argue about one thing in one place.)
Regarding the extended periodic table, I am considering abolishing "predicted" colours altogether. They are a stretch for things like E165–172 after all. Instead we could have them all white as "undiscovered", just placed in the table following Fricke or Pyykkö, and then the article would expound a bit on their chemical properties. Once E119 and E120 become discovered, they become transactinides: once E121–E155 get discovered, they become superactinides. Beyond that, scientists will have come up with something: I don't think we'll get even to E155 within any of our lifetimes.
Comments? Double sharp ( talk) 07:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
How it would look like if we changed the colours like we previously suggested in 2016 (not important here)
Double sharp (
talk)
16:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Now with DePiep's colours:
(Alkali metals, violet; alkaline earth metals, pink; lanthanides, cyan; actinides, blue; transition metals, chartreuse; post-transition metals, green; metalloids, yellow; polyatomic nonmetals, red; diatomic nonmetals, orange; noble gases, rose; transactinides, white [I'd change this to something else, personally].) Double sharp ( talk) 07:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC) |
I like it, mostly because it eliminates the "unknown chemical properties" category, which IMHO is somewhat objectionable though considerably less obnoxious than "other metals". I see this as a recognition that while lighter elements can easily be categorized based on chemical properties, it makes sense to categorize heavier elements based on atomic properties, which can be known even when macroscopic quantities are not available. YBG ( talk) 13:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll skip the discussion on group 12 and move straight to the superactinides. I do not want this category to be introduced. These books are right, in their own way, to split transactinides off the rest of their groups. That is because they're all telling a long story each, and facts on element 105 (say) will dissolve in the variety of facts on group 5. This fact isn't prohibitive, of course, but that's how they're telling the story and you can see why.
But just because the books do something doesn't mean we should too. I assume all these books, for example, group hydrogen separately from anything? Should we establish a separate color for H? G&E treats carbon separately from silicon and from Ge, Sn, and Pb? Should we get colors to match that? Of course, that would intervene with our current coloring system, but why not just follow the books?
The books group elements per their needs and we should group them per ours. We currently group them per chemical properties. We even invented the polyatomic--diatomic nonmetals break, which I hadn't seen anywhere to support that, so I assume this reasoning of grouping per chemical properties is strong. The "transactinides" term is not related to chemistry and thus doesn't fit our table.
Strength through consistency.-- R8R ( talk) 20:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
How about leaving the transactinides as they currently are, but still moving all of group 12 (Zn, Cd, Hg, and Cn) into the post-transition metals category?
(In case you think this is a bad idea because of Cn, I will note that the most recent calculations from 2013 – after the 2008 debunking of HgF4, which was re-confirmed in 2016 – do not expect CnF4 to exist. See p. 348.) Double sharp ( talk) 02:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cn keeps the grey colour since it acts as a good member of group 12 and is no longer expected to form the +4 oxidation state. Similarly Fl is no longer expected to form the +6 oxidation state. Yes, we probably need to rewrite the copernicium article. Double sharp ( talk) 02:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it might be useful to consider these rules:
|
---|
|
As far as the TM/PTM dividing line, I agree that our focus was getting rid of the "other nonmetals" category, but also, that we kept TM/PTM discussion relatively small in order to avoid derailing hope of consensus on mon-/di-/poly-atomic nonmetals. So following the same logic, I think it would be good to first deal with the TM/PTM issue, and once that is resolved, then we can proceed to discuss the best way to classify and color the postactinides. YBG ( talk) 06:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Transactinides are OK under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. They are not OK under 6 because Rf–Hs are both transition metals and transactinides. Then again, La is both a lanthanide and a transition metal (feel free to say Lu instead, but the bottom line is that one of them is double-category), so already we have problems under 6.
Polyatomic/diatomic nonmetals are OK under 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. They are more questionably OK under 3 and 4. Double sharp ( talk) 11:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The [four] series of elements arising from the filling of the 3d, 4d, [5d, and 6d] shells, and situated in the periodic table following the alkaline earth metals, are commonly described as "transition elements", though this term is sometimes also extended to include the lanthanide and actinide (or inner transition) elements. They exhibit a number of characteristic properties which together distinguish them from other groups of elements:
(i) They are all metals and as such are lustrous and deformable and have high electrical and thermal conductivities. In addition, their melting and boiling points tend to be high and they are generally hard and strong.
(ii) Most of them display numerous oxidation states which vary by steps of 1 rather than 2 as is usually the case with those main-group elements which exhibit more than one oxidation state.
(iii) They have an unparalleled propensity for forming coordination complexes with Lewis bases.
(They forget to mention 6d in the opening chapter, but then include Ac along with Sc, Y, and La, so clearly they must have meant it. Much later they call Ac, along with Rf–Cn, a fourth transition series.) I think that's not a bad set of criteria.
The elements considered transition metals, according to them, are thus Sc–Zn; Y–Cd; La, Hf–Hg; Ac, Rf–Cn. (Admittedly, we do not yet know if Mt–Rg are metals, but no one seriously thinks otherwise.) They note that group 3 and 12 are in some ways anomalous, since they do not fulfil all three criteria; but they at least fulfil some of them. Double sharp ( talk) 09:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm dropping the "transactinide" colouring proposal, mostly because I think R8R makes good arguments against it.
I am still in favour of moving Zn, Cd, Hg, and Cn to the post-transition metals category, as is Sandbh. Note that this does not create any new categories; it simply moves these four elements from one category (TM) to another (PTM). The reason is simple. I have often said here that an element's electron configuration acts like the genetic code that fixes its nature and personality. Transition-metal physical properties are guaranteed by having unpaired d-electrons in the atom (groups 3–10); and the chemistry is guaranteed by having unpaired d-electrons in the ions (groups 4–11). Thus groups 3–11 show TM properties with group 3 a prelude from the s-block and group 11 a postlude into the p-block. Group 12 does not show TM physical or chemical properties to any significant extent, at least no more than any other average main-group element like Pb, and thus should be considered PTM. Finally, it helps that the simple group 3–11 definition is stated by reliable sources such as Cotton. Double sharp ( talk) 10:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, since E166 is not really expected to give up its 7d10 electrons readily if at all, the extended PT would look like this:
(Large version) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |
8 | 119 | 120 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 |
Double sharp ( talk) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
If we do go ahead with the recategorisation of group 12, I would request that it take place simultaneously with the mass renaming of elements 113, 115, 117, and 118. This way, it actually has a chance of propagating throughout. I am afraid I will not be able to find everything within a reasonable amount of time for our readers. Double sharp ( talk) 02:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The complete filling of 6d at Cn has a drastic effect, incidentally: there is a sudden increase of volatility expected from Rg to Cn (and Cn–Og should all be very volatile elements). Source. Of course, all the elements from Hs to Lv inclusive should all be very noble metals (though Cn may be semiconducting), while Ts should be semimetallic. (Though given that it falls below At, I would be inclined to deny Ts membership to the Royal Halogen Club unless it can form salts like NaTs – if otherwise, I'd call it a metal.) Double sharp ( talk) 16:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that we don't have data on occurrences in infoboxes and we probably should have some. We even have a data page for this: Abundances of the elements (data page). Does everyone agree we should have this?-- R8R ( talk) 13:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
|abundance=
. Should it be free text, or add unit "
ppm", or "kg/kg" as the linked article does? Or use three parameters |abundance earth=
, |abundance seawater=
, |abundance solar system=
? Positioning at bottom of "General properties" section? -
DePiep (
talk)
15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
|abundance=
to get this going. I don't think an extra header is useful, for 3 similar data rows (and History was more difficult to catch under an existing header, while abundance is one of a bunch properties). Which names are ok: |abundance earth/crust=
, |abundance seawater/oceans=
, |abundance solar system=
?{{infobox element/sandbox2 |abundance=some abu text<sup>[1]</sup> <!--|ppb=y--> |abundance in earth's crust=14 [[parts per million|ppm]] |abundance in oceans=9 ppm |abundance in solar system=0.1% |name=carbon |number=6 |symbol=C |category=polyatomic nonmetal |category comment=sometimes considered a [[metalloid]] |group=14 |period=2 |block=p |allotropes=graphite, diamond |appearance=graphite: black<br/>diamond: clear }}
| abundance=some abu text<ref>some reference</ref> | abundance in earth's crust=14 [[parts per million|ppm]] | abundance in oceans=9 ppm | abundance in solar system=0.1%
Please comment: parameter names, fixed prefix text in the infobox, freetext entry effect. - DePiep ( talk) 21:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
|ppm=yes
option: automated adding the unit is too complicated to do it right (first unit should be linked; other units used). Now: what you type is what you get. We can scan the 120 infoboxes afterwards for formatting. -
DePiep (
talk)
12:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Greetings WikiProject Elements/Archive 24 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Recently, Drbogdan has added {{ PeriodicTable-ImageMap}} to all element articles (section title "Interactive Periodic Table"). I'm not sure if we want that Table in the article. As a navigation help, we already have one in the navbox below. Otherwise, it is not that related to the element, I guess. Technically, the interaction does not work in mobile view. And the positioning is wrong (off-page). Opinions? - DePiep ( talk) 11:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@ DePiep, R8R Gtrs, Sandbh, Alchemist-hp, Kbrose, and Graeme Bartlett: FWIW - Thank you for inviting me to discuss my newly created interactive " {{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}" - yes - added the template to the " chemical elements" for the reasons posted below - however, the additions were reverted, without any apparent discussion that I'm aware, by " User:Kbrose" - for my part - the template was added in good faith as a possible improvement to the articles - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there's " WP:CONSENSUS" of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for inviting me to this discussion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Copied from " Talk:Thorium#3 periodic tables":
-- 3 periodic tables --We don't need three period tables in this article. At the bottom there already was Template:Periodic_table_(32_columns,_compact) but template:PeriodicTable-ImageMap was just added by User:Drbogdan. So one of these two should be cut. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- @ Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for your comments - yes - the newly created " {{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}", an " interactive image map" updated to include the latest officially named elements, was added to the chemical element articles - this version seems to be in the more familiar " Periodic Table" form and, as such, may be more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => " Readability of Wikipedia Articles" ( BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level) [1] - (also - somewhat related discussions at => " Template talk:Nature timeline#BestWording" and " Template talk:Life timeline#Class Aves as a subset of Dinosaur?") - Comments Welcome from other editors of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 00:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lucassen, Teun; Dijkstra, Roald; Schraagen, Jan Maarten (September 3, 2012). "Readability of Wikipedia". First Monday (journal). 17 (9). Retrieved September 28, 2016.
I wonder if that is possible?: in webpage styling (css), sure! eg,
style="float"
for starters. CSS only needs page size etc. Not the QM numbers.Any way I do like the 18 column form better than the 32 column table.I can guess your age range. You are used to the 18-col format, right? Really, that footnote-thing is an extra mental lap before understanding the PT. But why teach that to young people? My statement is: everybody born in this century should learn the PT by 32-col format. - DePiep ( talk) 00:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree with the comments of " User:Double sharp" above, although simplifying is *entirely* ok with me re " Wikipedia" - goal seems to be to reach a "9th grade/14yo" average reader as noted in my " comments/refs above" - a less simplifying treatment may be ok with a more specialized encyclopedia (even " Citizendium" perhaps?) but not for Wikipedia afaik at the moment - in any regards - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 19:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Mmmmm. I was explained both in the 9th grade. In fact, I don't think it's something you couldn't handle. As for me, what it would take to get me convinced is probably a comment or two by actual laypeople saying it does make a difference. I was taught the 8-column table and I accepted the 18-column layout alright, though this change is bigger than a change from 18 to 32. Think it's no biggie to worry about unless proven wrong.-- R8R ( talk) 15:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey I just joined the project, I've made a page for Unseptbium and Unquadtrium in my userspace. I was wondering if the project operated under a "until a good article can be made the redirect to Extended periodic table is fine" system or if I should move it to mainspace, even though they would both be stubs. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Magnetic suspectibility, TerpeneOtto has asked to add this parameter to the {{infobox element}}.
|magnetic susceptibility=
to the sandbox, see
Template:Infobox aluminium/sandbox. At the moment, it is anytext-input (input will show unformatted). Position OK?Think it fits well in, because it is known for many elements; now I'm editing from my phone and can't easily add them, but I can and will when I get back on Christmas Eve or so. Unit is always cm3/mol. Position below magnetic ordering is good. Why I think it is a good idea to add it is because our reference for magnetic ordering actually gives the magnetic susceptbility, and we are just taking the sign to give magnetic ordering. So I think we can afford to take a little more. Double sharp ( talk) 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
| magnetic susceptibility = | magnetic susceptibility ref =
Needs number only, unit _cm3/mol will be added. @ TerpeneOtto: - DePiep ( talk) 17:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Thanks for the time you put into magnetic susceptibility! I'm having a problem entering magnetic susceptibility on the aluminum page still. Magnetic Susceptibility doesn't appear on the template page and it doesn't show up as something I can add to the aluminum info box. If I can't change the pages, I can post a table of the magnetic susceptibilities of all the elements here for someone else to input.
|magnetic susceptibility = |magnetic susceptibility ref =
|magnetic susceptibility = +16.5·10<sup>−6</sup> |magnetic susceptibility ref =
- DePiep ( talk) 02:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
DePiep Magnetic susceptibility is a number that describes how much a compound can move a magnetic field. To measure a compound it is placed in a container similar to a test tube. Then it is placed in a magnetic susceptibility balance and the reading is recorded. The number the machine displays describes how much the sample in a certain volume moves the magnetic field. Typically, someone will calculate the grams of sample per volume. This number is known Xmass. Its units are cm^3/g. If Xmass is multiplied by its molar mass you get Xmol. Xmass and Xmol are both acceptable standard units for magnetic susceptibility. Most tables prefer Xmol.
I chose to publish 500+ organic compounds in Xmol and I'm going to start on inorganic compounds soon. The only ones I don't have access to are the elements. The only downside to Xmol is that someone attempting to identify a compound without the molar mass of the compound could have complications. Xmass numbers appear low and similar although the minute differences are truly significant.
The magnetic susceptibility does not appear on the aluminum page now. If I were to place the magnetic susceptibility it would go under magnetic ordering in the miscellanea section or in the physical properties section at the bottom. The new message under the chem. box is perfect. I'm not sure who placed it there but its awesome. Magnetic susceptibility is constant for a certain temperature. In rare cases users might need publish a magnetic susceptibility of compound at an unusual temperature so I would recommend a comment option. A comment option is also important because wiki doesn't always have a page for amine salt versions of certain compounds and they could be placed on the compounds page with a comment section.
Magnetic susceptibility is an important tool for identifying isomers. Branched carbon chains with the same molar mass and chemical formula can be identified with just a simple magnetic susceptibility reading. I understand it's a complicated idea but, its a simple test that provide valuable information in terms of identification and doesn't destroy the sample in the process. TerpeneOtto ( talk) 17:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
|MagSus=
, recently.So if I create a table of magnetic susceptibility of the elements can someone with the power post them on the pages they belong? TerpeneOtto ( talk) 16:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)