![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 |
I've been doing some reading about He over Be, as shown in the left step periodic table, and the supposed helium compound, disodium helide.
Some folks have argued that since He (1s2) has only two electrons in its outer shell that it should or could go over Be (1s22s2) which also has two outer electrons, rather than over neon, which has eight electrons in its outer shell (1s22s22p6).
Now, as I understand it, He has a full shell, period, with a large energy gap between the 1s2 and empty 2s sub shell. Whereas Be is more like (1s22sp2). And Be2+ is (1s2)++. In each case, He is nothing like Be. Further, in sodium dihelide, helium does not participate in any chemical bonding.
Experimentally, there is no Be-He attraction. Computationally there is strong Be-He repulsion.
The big similarity He has is with Ne, as noble gases. Equally, H has significantly more similarities to Li than it does to F.
I don't know yet if any of this has relevance to the article space. We mention He over Be in periodic table, and in helium. --- Sandbh ( talk) 06:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Apparently I missed a lot.
“ | According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements
This was pointed out as early as 1959 by L.D. Landau (ref. 20) and later by other authors (ref. 13, 14, 20 to 25). Most periodic tables in textbooks and classrooms, however, list Sc, Y, La, and Ac as elements of the scandium group and designate the elements Ce to Lu and Th to Lr as lanthanides and actinides, respectively. The historical background for this arrangement is given in a paper by W.B. Jensen (ref. 21). Based upon their electronic configurations and their chemical and physical properties , the elements La to Yb and Ac to No should be inserted between barium and lutetium and between radium and lawrencium or for practical reasons be listed at the bottom of the table. |
” |
Table of nuclides (segmented, narrow) hasn't been updated since 2019, until I added a number of neutron-rich nuclei from Sr to Ru. It has even fallen behind the lists in Category:Lists of isotopes by element. The data in the table is contained within Template:Isotones. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox unhexquadium has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Double sharp (
talk)
03:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
See the current category representations:
We consider the 3-category set as a aggregation of the 10-category set. However, since the 2020 introduction of the halogens category, At is altering between metalloid (M-M-NonM set) and halogen (10-category set). How to handle this? Is the altering to be kept?
As a sidenote, a similar question can be asked about the "unknown M-M-NonM elements"; does the removal of 'unknown' classification apply here too? - DePiep ( talk) 21:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know whom I could ask about this now, but it seems I finally remembered why I didn't like categories named "other metal" and "other nonmetal."
In the infobox for aluminium, the category field now says, "other metal, yada yada". We never learned by that point other than what. "Post-transition metal" had some meaning in it, "other metal" has nothing. This is not so much a problem when other categories are present, but without them, this name is meaningless, and it seems nobody (including me) has thought this through and meaning cannot be easily obtained from the context in some cases. Would it make sense to return to any previous coloring scheme that doesn't have these meaningless names?-- R8R ( talk) 19:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A week has passed, and no comments, let alone objections, have been raised on this issue. I will therefore change the coloring scheme to blocks only.
We'll need six colors: red for the s-block, yellow for the p-block, blue for the d-block, green for the f-block, purple for the g-block, and light gray for the unknown category. We already use the first four of these, and we'll need the other two just in case rather than because I can envision a use for them at the moment.
I'll change the infobox. Hopefully images will follow later.-- R8R ( talk) 10:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
|categories=
to {{
Infobox element}}. It is also meant to supersede the existing parameter |category comment=
.--
R8R (
talk)
11:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Based on what appears to be a total lack of opposition, and some strong arguments from myself, R8R, and DePiep that the 2020 compromise scheme had problems, R8R seems to have resolved the discussion into a change to a blocks-only scheme. This is shown to the right: red = s-block, yellow = p-block, blue = d-block, green = f-block. As already expressed, this avoids any sign of overlapping subcategories: every element is unambiguously assigned to exactly one block.
One note.
Group 3. The block assignment of four elements is contingent on the group 3 dispute in sources: La, Ac, Lu, and Lr. Currently we show a La-Ac group 3, so the first two are d-block but the last two are f-block. When the IUPAC thing comes out in a month, this may change. (In a Lu-Lr group 3 it would be of course the other way round.) So I have been a bit lazy about getting things completely consistent now because there is a significant possibility we will need to change things again shortly. And also because I have a lot of RL stuff to do, to be fair.
R8R and I have done some changes of pictures and templates; anyone should be welcome to do any we have missed. If you think that we should not have changed some particular one, then by all means, revert and inform us, and we can discuss. I am saddened to see below that R8R appears to have left, but I am contactable here still and should respond within a week.
Unless anyone has anything else to say, I think this discussion can be archived as finished. Remaining WP:A11Y issues should probably be discussed in another thread; I guess they will be fewer now that there are only four colours. Double sharp ( talk) 09:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
... categories named "other metal" and "other nonmetal.". That is: (chemical) categorisation. The then thread deviating to a totally different topic, in a 700k page, is part of the lack of talkpage discipline/discussion management in this Wikiproject I have mentioned before. - DePiep ( talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I want to introduce the task force "Periodic Table Graphics", WP:PTG ( talk), a workshop where we can develop graphical enhancements for the Element articles.
The workshop can provide tools & experiment-space to try & check improvements. Changes that are mainspace-ready then can be proposed (or discussed) here at WT:ELEM or at a appropriate talkpage. A current active job is /PTG/Group 3 ( talk).
The setup and workings of the task force is to be developed too. You are invited to develop the PTG into a productive, cooperative lab. Step 1: sign in at the Members list. - DePiep ( talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The fontcolors of State-of-Matter (SoM) for liquid, gas and unknown, are resulting in extremely bad Accessability issues. See the PTG/Contrast check table: 5 out of 18 color contrasts score a negative (not conforming w3c contrast requirements). - DePiep ( talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea of pictograms. I would suggest something like this:
YBG ( talk) 22:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I just learned, Phase and State Of Matter are different things:
How does this effect WP:ELEMENTS? How do we accomodate "plasm"? (@ Double sharp:) - DePiep ( talk) 23:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The provisional report has appeared in the latest issue of Chemistry International here (read pages 31-34).
I quote the interesting bits.
“ | In the course of many discussions held by the task group we have concluded that there is no objective means to adjudicate between group 3 consisting of Sc, Y, La and Ac or as Sc, Y, Lu and Lr. This situation makes it more important that IUPAC should make a ruling on the question which in the final analysis is one of convention rather than one that can be decided on objective scientific grounds.
... The only 18-column table that appears to avoid the drawback in the split of the d-block while also maintaining a 14-element-wide f-block is the one shown in figure 2 [Sc-Y-Lu-Lr]. Needless to say, the assignment of elements to these blocks is approximate, just as the assignment of electron configurations to atoms also represents an approximation. Moreover, one may readily concede that an element such as thorium does not actually possess any f-orbital electrons and yet it is classified as being among the f-block elements in all five of the periodic table representations shown in figures 1 to 5 [Sc-Y-La-Ac, Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, and Sc-Y-*-**, the former two expanded as 32- as well as 18-column]. ... Perhaps a compromise could be reached on the table depicted as figure 2 [Sc-Y-Lu-Lr] since it achieves three desiderata. First, it displays all the elements in order of increasing atomic number. Secondly, it avoids splitting the d-block into two highly uneven portions, and thirdly, it depicts all the blocks of the periodic table in accordance with the underlying quantum mechanical account of the periodic table which calls for 2, 6, 10 and 14 orbitals to occur in the extra-nuclear electron-shells. |
” |
The report also refers to "how the periodic table is presented to the general chemical and scientific community".
The last time we ran this was in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 52, after which we had an agreement to not raise the issue again until the IUPAC project responds. Now they have, albeit as a provisional report (presumably, a real one is forthcoming). Group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr appears to be supported by their wording, albeit not that firmly (perhaps this will be made clearer in the real report).
What views do we have on whether we should change to Sc-Y-Lu-Lr now? Double sharp ( talk) 13:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
both must and can and shall represent the same PT– I agree. The problem is that WP follows RS and RS strongly favour one over the other. It is not unprofessionalism that keeps en.WP using the form that is most prevalent in RS, it is respect for policy and the purpose of an encyclopaedia as a reflection of human knowledge rather than as an advocate for the beliefs of Wikipedians about what choices RS should make. EdChem ( talk) 00:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I add a subsection for this clarification.
18 vs 32 was explicitly not on the project's agenda. They write so on their page: "The task group does not intend to recommend the use of a 32-column periodic table or an 18-column. This choice which is a matter of convention, rather than a scientific one, should be left to individual authors and educators. The task group will only concern itselve [sic] with the constitution of group 3. Once this is established, one is free to represent the periodic table in an 18 or 32 column format."
I would agree this supports
DePiep's statement both must and can and shall represent the same PT
: one should not have an 18 column table showing one thing together with a 32 column table showing another. So, I thought it was pretty clear that whatever change we make ought to be applied equally to both forms, but thank you DePiep for explicitly saying it. But I do not think it serves as a rationale to use 32 column PTs as the default for now when the 18 column format is widespread. After all: the task force did not intend to recommend on that question, and they did not. I would, FWIW, consider that question off-topic for this thread.
Double sharp (
talk)
02:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging active/semi-active project participants + those who participated last time around: @ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert: This is in view of the recent publication of the IUPAC provisional report on group 3 (linked above).
Should we change our default depiction of the periodic table to show group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr now, or not?
our default depiction of the periodic table to show group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-L", which is what this poll is about full stop. If you want to add extra requirements, please start a new, dedicated thread. (I think your post is confusing the simple poll, and therefor not helpful this way). - DePiep ( talk) 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, that seems to be a surprisingly quick and near-universal acclamation, as Georgia guy noted. Two of those pinged have not responded: Narky Blert has been quite active since the ping, and YBG (semi-active now) supported the Sc-Y-Lu-Lr already the last time.
Therefore, I plan to start formally making the changes tomorrow, if no one objects to that before then.
A few notes based on what has been discussed:
Since it is a preliminary report, I plan to only change the graphics: text discussing the group 3 problem should probably be edited and discussed on a more case-by-case basis.
@ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert: Double sharp ( talk) 05:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Thanks to some IRL procrastination (LOL) I have written up a proposed redraft of the group 3 element article at User:Double sharp/Group 3 element. All sections describing individual elements and trends take the group as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr for granted, as described (I didn't edit them much, just cut out the parts describing La and Ac). The main section on the dispute is redrafted as a section in "History" and significantly shortened (I mean, I think we don't need to spam all the arguments). Now it simply states the history of the dispute, just enough to explain where each form came from, and finally the IUPAC attempts to resolve it. I guess it would be significantly better with your magic: there should probably be some illustrations showing each in 18 column and 32 column form, something like the IUPAC report. Of course, open to your (or anyone else's) critiques and suggestions. Double sharp ( talk) 07:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I am working to make the micro PT supporting the three WG options, to be used in the Group 3 article. ({{ /testcases}}, {{ /PTG/group-3}}). Will notify you on its progress. - DePiep ( talk) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
|form=Sc, Y, La, Ac
shows the previous presentation form. See
/documentation. Can be used, for example, to describe the IUPAC considerations (non-chosen forms) in
Group 3 element. @
Double sharp:. -
DePiep (
talk)
14:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)About block allocations. From section above, by Double sharp:
Correct, this makes Lu, Lr in the d-block, and La, Ac in the f-block. For extended periodic table: 119–120 s-block, 121–142 g-block, 143–156 f-block, 157–166 d-block, 167–172 p-block. 119–120 are in groups 1 and 2 (should be homologues of Rb and Sr), 143–156 align under Ac–No, and 157–172 are in groups 3–18 as homologues as Y–Xe.
However, I find other block allocations:
@ Double sharp: continue with your list? Would have a block change in column La/Ac/... I think. Or apply one of the three theories throughout (as our default extended PT)? - DePiep ( talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
Extended periodic table (by Nefedov, 54 columns, detailed cells)}}
.
Double sharp (
talk)
13:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)P.S. The block-only category legend should probably "expand" in the extended version to have a "g-block" between s and f, not an extra "undiscovered". Double sharp ( talk) 14:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I find myself with more time than usual today, and, thanks to some last-minute RL stuff, less time than usual tomorrow. So, despite what I wrote above, I will do some replacement of templates and images today instead. I hope that is all right, since {[u|DePiep}} has started doing some work here.
Bigger changes like an appropriate rewrite for group 3 element will have to wait, I'm afraid... Double sharp ( talk) 13:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've done what I can stand doing in one day. ;) I should've gotten most of the obvious and high-visibility ones. The rest (low-visibility + those that require some thought as to rewording) hopefully may wait. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 14:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Of interest might be the earlier 1988 report on this matter. Although this is where the compromise apparently came from, it then spends a funnily large amount of time detailing how Sc-Y-Lu-Lr works, and the subsequent 1990 IUPAC Red Book appeared inconsistently with a Sc-Y-*-** 18-column table and a Sc-Y-Lu-Lr 32-column table.
“ | According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements
This was pointed out as early as 1959 by L.D. Landau (ref. 20) and later by other authors (ref. 13, 14, 20 to 25). Most periodic tables in textbooks and classrooms, however, list Sc, Y, La, and Ac as elements of the scandium group and designate the elements Ce to Lu and Th to Lr as lanthanides and actinides, respectively. The historical background for this arrangement is given in a paper by W.B. Jensen (ref. 21). Based upon their electronic configurations and their chemical and physical properties, the elements La to Yb and Ac to No should be inserted between barium and lutetium and between radium and lawrencium or for practical reasons be listed at the bottom of the table. The series La to Yb and Ac to No then, however, cannot be named correctly as lanthanides and actinides since they contain the elements lanthanum and actinium and not only elements similar to lanthanum and actinium as is purported by the ending -ide (or -oid according to an earlier IUPAC recommendation). |
” |
Therefore I would say that having asterisks to show where exactly La–Yb and Ac–No belong (between groups 2 and 3), although not explicitly recommended, is surely within the spirit of what is stated given the pains that were taken to explain where exactly they should be inserted. Double sharp ( talk) 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In the 1988 IUPAC report, objective scientific reasoning is used to justify Sc-Y-Lu-Lr: for we see there written "According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements Sc, Y, Lu, Lr." That's a pretty objective scientific criterion. Yet in the 2021 IUPAC report it is instead stated that this does not "provide a clear-cut resolution of the question", and that the group 3 conundrum "is one of convention rather than one that can be decided on objective scientific grounds".
The 2021 statement is interesting because electron configurations have indeed been given as a way to clearly resolve the problem by authorities on the matter – including by Jensen who is one of the project members.
“ | To tip the scales in favor of one pair of elements or the other requires instead a consideration of the additional chemical and physical properties discussed in my original paper of 1982 and, above all, a consideration of their available excited-state configurations (2, 4, 12). This reveals that both La and Ac have low-lying empty f-orbitals and that these are implicated in several low-lying excited configurations, whereas Lu and Lr have no available empty f-orbitals. This implies, in turn, that both La and Ac – like 25% of the other d- and f-block elements (including their nearest neighbor Th) – are best viewed as having anomalous ground-state valence configurations, which, in their case, take the place of an idealized (n-2)f1ns2 valence configuration. Since such an interpretation is not possible for Lu/Lr, it pretty much determines that this pair should be assigned to the d-block whereas the La/Ac pair should be assigned to the beginning of the f-block. | ” |
Perhaps something more will be heard about this when we have a less preliminary report (such reports usually appear in PAC rather than CI). Double sharp ( talk) 08:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It has been mentioned recently. I'd like to aks it straight here:
Recently, Double sharp has this and did edited them out in places. I think the fact that g-block only exists theoretically so far is a different topic, and needs no change re this.
If we want the option out, we will formally deprecate it & remove it from mainspace graciously. Or, define situations when to keep it (and check legend colors used). - DePiep ( talk) 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I have moved my draft into the mainspace, since it seems presentable already. Thanks in particular to DePiep for his very valuable graphic improvements. :) Naturally it can be improved yet further. So, we now have a section covering the dispute's history and where it came from (mostly, arguing over electron configurations); having done that and mentioned the IUPAC ruling, the rest of the article discusses Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr as its scope. The lede gives a summary: "Although some controversy exists regarding the composition and placement of this group, it is generally agreed among those who study the matter that this group contains the four elements scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), lutetium (Lu), and lawrencium (Lr). ... Historically, sometimes lanthanum (La) and actinium (Ac) were included in the group instead of lutetium and lawrencium, and this option is still commonly found in textbooks. Some compromises between the two major options have been proposed and used, involving either the shrinking of the group to scandium and yttrium only, or the inclusion of all 30 lanthanides and actinides in the group as well."
DePiep has written above, in response to one of my queries: I'd say: we can fully go by the Report's line of reasoning & conclusion. We do not need to build in the "2-option group 3" anywhere (which is a horror to graph & decribe anyway). So the top PT & infobox has the new, single-form structuree, and in ~section 3 we can open with: "There are three sound possiblities to define group 3: ... None is definitive. For reasons xyz, IUPAC has proposed to present option x as most useful for the audience. options Y and Z are niche science." (or maybe, better use your wording).
So, I would like to propose that as our general line: when we are just giving data, we can say things like "Lr: group 3", and when we say it in text, we briefly describe it. Say, along the lines of "Lawrencium is the final member of the actinide series. Some controversy exists regarding its group placement, but according to most who study the matter and a recent IUPAC provisional report, it may be regarded as the heaviest element of group 3 and the first of the 6d transition metals. This makes it a heavier homologue of scandium, yttrium, and lutetium." Or for the other one: "Actinium is the first member and eponym of the actinide series. It is the heavier homologue of lanthanum. Some controversy exists regarding its group placement, but according to most who study the matter and a recent IUPAC provisional report, it may be regarded as the first of the 5f elements." And then carry on. It seems consistent with the idea to use one form as a default, at least.
Comments on such wordings? And feel free to comment on the new group 3 element revision too. As always, feel free to revert/discuss/etc.
@ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, and EdChem:
Double sharp ( talk) 09:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I've made a few changes of this kind. I think the source list at User:Double sharp/Group 3 sources (not really that organised right now, sorry) clearly justifies the formulaic statement I have used that Sc-Y-Lu-Lr is the format favoured by most who study the matter: if even this is OR (I can see arguments for that), note that Jensen (one of the IUPAC project members) says something very similar in his 2015 paper, published some months before the IUPAC project started. (That the evidence since his 1982 paper has tended to support Lu in group 3.) That said, we can discuss, and I in particular eagerly await what Droog Andrey thinks of. ;)
Of course, we will carry on describing the dispute when it matters, along with all forms. We can revisit this if/when the Lu form makes it to the IUPAC periodic table, as there are some processes that remain till that can happen. Double sharp ( talk) 05:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I have redirected my draft User:Double sharp/Group 3 element to Group 3 element, since it has served its purpose (now in mainspace). Since not very much extra work was needed to do it, I also gave group 4 element a similar lift-off for chemistry + physics + history (the stuff I have good sources on).
I suppose it would not take too much effort to give the remaining transition metal groups the same sort of love. I may do it if I have time. A little bonus is that it would immediately make a bunch of easy good topics since the d-block is already almost totally a sea of green on our PTQ. ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 14:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
As we know, recently ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Conclusion) it was finally decided to use blocks instead of categories as the means for a colouring scheme, on the grounds that categories were never meant to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive and making them so is basically OR. (The closure was not done in the best possible way, but it seems to be at least settled by now.)
Now, we do still have a "category" field in the infobox, but it looks to be only populated for {{
infobox lutetium}}
(Lu) and {{
infobox hafnium}}
(Hf). We also do still have the group names in infoboxes like {{
infobox antimony}}
(Sb) which says "group 15: pnictogens", but of course that is something separate. (Alas, by IUPAC 2016 it seems "halogen" and "noble gas" mean the whole group officially.)
However, to accurately give a category field would require quite some difficulty. I have previously suggested it, but actually it seems worse than I thought. Lu is a lanthanide, people are pretty sure about that – for now. (It seems quite possible that if/when IUPAC updates its showcase periodic table to Sc-Y-Lu it will stop being one. For instance on WebElements, which has as far as I can remember always been Sc-Y-Lu, Lu is apparently not a lanthanide.) On the other hand, people are not sure whether to spell it "lanthanide" (common usage) or "lanthanoid" (IUPAC Red Book, less ambiguous with La anions). But now that we have a group 3 containing Sc-Y-Lu, Lu is also d-block, and by IUPAC's definition it is also a transition element. Which many people call "transition metal" because they're all probably metals (I reserve judgement for copernicium). And it is also pretty unambiguously one of the rare earth elements / rare earth metals.
Or take arsenic. Yes, it's a pnictogen, everyone agrees on that. But is it a metal, nonmetal, or metalloid? You can find people saying all three. Well, what weight should we give each? In different contexts things may differ, e.g. organic compounds with As are usually called organometallics even if As is quite lame as a metal. If it is a metal, then what name are we using for p-block metals anyway? "P-block metals"? "Other metals"? "Post-transition metals" (then what about aluminium)?
So I ask the question: should we have category fields in the infobox at all, or leave this stuff to article text? Double sharp ( talk) 09:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert:
so misty things are clear then. but what about the clear things?;-) . - DePiep ( talk) 00:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In Russian-language schoolbooks the term "metalloids" is rarely used; usually the whole set of elements is just divided into "metals" and "non-metals". So that's why my table has a single line. Astatine may go to metals in the next edition. Droog Andrey (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason why the infobox needs to have one and only one category. The colorization pretty much required us to assign each element to one and only one category, but in the infobox we could list a number of the significant named sets of chemical elements to which it belongs. I think we'd need to figure out a way to keep the lists relatively short; for starters, there would be no need to repeat the already listed group name. I proposed this idea some time back and DePiep started working on a template to support this idea, but I can't find it now. YBG ( talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In Ref. 11, the formulae for intermetallic compounds were also subject to an exceptional rule although no guidance was given for naming such compounds, and the term ‘intermetallic compound’ was not defined. The problem is to define the term ‘metal’. Therefore, no attempt is now made to make a separate prescription for either the formulae or the names of intermetallic compounds. So it seems that chemistry has abdicated from defining "metal" and that there are multiple ideas going around there. In the end I think you'll find that "metalloid" is one of those ill-defined terms that people use despite having no really agreed meaning. Similar to "noble metal" or "heavy metal". I guess "metalloid (usually)" for arsenic is not inaccurate; I just kind of dislike putting up ill-defined terms in the infobox because I worry it might make people think they are more standardised than they really are. Maybe I worry too much. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 08:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the categorisations (whether single or several) both straight-forward and uncontroversial in the significant majority of elements? If so, those could be added to infoboxes as a useful summary for readers. For the complicated / unclear cases, some possibilities include:
You will hopefully be unsurprised that I don't favour the last possibility. EdChem ( talk) 07:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, this has been running for a while, and it's now gone a few days with no further comments. Since YBG appears convinced in the discussion above, and the !vote tally definitely shows a majority in favour of removing these, I have gone ahead and removed the category mentions from Lu and Hf (the only ones that had them). Double sharp ( talk) 09:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
infobox carbon}}
). Have removed them now, since they created weird sentence fragments.
Double sharp (
talk)
03:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)I have reverted article Periodic table to the version of 14 Nov 2020. That is, the one before numerous "bold" edits were made that probably would have cost the FA star. It is well poissible that more edits (before Nov 14) are to be reverted, maybe even an complete earlier version is required.
Anyway, given the edit history one must assume that each non-trivial edit is controversioal and so has to be discussed beforehand. - DePiep ( talk) 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
doi: 10.2533/chimia.2020.924 Probably should update articles for the 6d noble metals (may have prospects now). Double sharp ( talk) 04:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
It still seems illogical to me that the naming convention we use for groups changes from group 12 to group 13. We have:
but then
This is a different convention, that which allows groups to be named by the first element, rather than by the number. It seems to me inconsistent. Surely either boron group and carbon group should become group 13 element and group 14 element, or the ten transition groups should become scandium group through zinc group.
What do others think about this? Double sharp ( talk) 04:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
And some new decay paths: http://flerovlab.jinr.ru/index.php/2020/12/25/she-factory-first-experiment/
Should we add this to Isotopes of lawrencium at least? Droog Andrey ( talk) 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Have added. I think the values are life-times, so I multiplied by log 2 to give the half-life. Double sharp ( talk) 05:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding stuff only in reports: the initial discovery of 118 was only published in an internal JINR report and had to wait some years before it got published formally. However at this point WP was quite young (2002 to 2006), so I haven't checked what we did then on the grounds that it's not clear if we should do the same thing again if it happens. And also on the grounds that this can probably be decided case-by-case. But FWIW, I would advise accepting it on the grounds that IUPAC and IUPAP considered such internal reports when evaluating 101 through 109. Double sharp ( talk) 16:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good idea for how to title a section about the current procedures for the PT? (As I'm redrafting the article in my sandbox.)
The IUPAC doesn't recommend any kind of PT, but that doesn't stop them from proudly displaying a IUPAC PT anyway on their website. And they do seem to be the de facto custodians of the PT, judging by its prominent appearance under "What We Do" on their site:
“ | In particular, IUPAC is directly involved in the following:
|
” |
This all seems to belong in the article, but what to call it?
@ Droog Andrey, DePiep, ComplexRational, and LaundryPizza03: Double sharp ( talk) 14:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ YBG: Double sharp ( talk) 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Why do unbiquadium and unbihexium have articles, but unbitrium and unbipentium do not? It doesn't seem fair. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I am giving it a try, in my sandbox: User:Double sharp/Periodic table. Not exactly fully presentable yet, also not finished. Long live RL procrastination. ;)
Inspired by what EdChem wrote at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_54#On_the_periodic_table_article_more_generally. And also what textbooks generally do (I went to The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry even, to make sure I was sticking to the basics).
Tried to avoid primary sources when possible. Because this is so basic in chemistry and physics that if you cannot find secondary sources, you probably are out on your own fringe limb. One is there though, sorry (just for that useful ≪ notation). To that end, referred often to Feynman's lectures on physics just because it's a standard textbook that is freely accessible online. Not to mention that it helpfully makes the point that ground-state configurations must be treated with a grain of salt for d and f block elements and can be easily influenced by the chemical surroundings, which is why no serious chemist will ever care that Ni, Pd, and Pt all have a slightly different configuration when it comes to non-specialised topics. (Because, alas, most of the easy textbooks that this is the level at handwave once they get to the transition elements.)
Sorry I have not cited everything yet. This is mostly because this is so basic that I can more or less write it by channeling memories of school chemistry. I did however base the structure on the aforementioned cartoon guide to make sure things were presented in a logical order; first what chemical elements are, then how they are arranged.
Maybe the presentation is too textbooky given its parentage. I am open to rearrangements.
Presentation follows the Madelung rule, since it is common to refer to (and doesn't pretty much everybody teach it for writing electron configurations?). So, yes, Sc-Y-Lu-Lr is treated as the default table as was decided above, as it is the only Madelung-consistent version. That's what almost all the sources that think about this problem say, and now that IUPAC has spoken (though not yet finally), we have a valid reason to disregard the older textbooks anyway. (Which often are not exactly the most consistent in the world when it comes to this question.) Don't worry, the whole saga and the old alternates will be somehow mentioned in history when I get around to writing it, as it relates strongly to how the rare earths always gave a headache.
Categories and all that will be mentioned in accordance with how they are used in reality, when the metal-to-nonmetal trend bit gets rewritten. That is, there will be no attempt to pretend there is any consistency between sources, nor will there be any attempt to pretend that the categories are actually mutually exclusive or jointly exhaustive. Double sharp ( talk) 06:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I decided to use YBG's figures (suitably edited) for the history section: see User:Double sharp/Periodic table#Chronology of element discovery. A few changes:
I added the alchemical elements to the ancient ones, since it is not that different a tradition. Therefore As, Sb, Bi, and Zn are there from the start. Of course this is a little bit anachronistic because the ancients did not think these were quite like the seven planetary metals. (No, they had not discovered anything earth-shatteringly important from our perspective about the amphoteric character of these metals. For one thing, if that had been the case, they should've excluded Sn too.) But this whole business is in some way anachronistic, so I don't think it matters too much.
There is some iffiness with Lavoisier's elements. That radical boracique should be identified with later boron is probably hard to deny, but the fact remains that he didn't really have it. But if that was the standard, then fluorine was unknown when Mendeleev made his periodic table, which is silly. Still, since Lavoisier himself wrote inconnu beside it (also for later F and Cl), I have elected to throw it out. And the same thing for his "earths" (which were the oxides of Mg, Al, Si, Ca, and Ba, which he could not reduce to the metals). Strontium and uranium had been discovered before 1789, but they are not on Lavoisier's list.
After that things are not too bad, because the notion of element rapidly converges with ours. Terbium was discovered before 1869, but Mendeleev was uncertain of its elementary status, so it is not on his periodic table.
I chose Moseley and Siegbahn as a more important moment for the history of the PT than Deming's 18-column form, especially since acceptance of that came a bit slowly (the short 8-column PT is still not hard to find in Russia). Rhenium was known by then, but only as Masataka Ogawa's nipponium, a claim that wasn't universally accepted, but has only been rehabilitated in retrospect. (And also, he thought it was element 43, when he had actually element 75.) So it is not coloured yet.
The last milestone shown is 2010, with the synthesis of element 117 and the completion of the seventh row. Nothing in between, because although the Transfermium Wars were a big thing with warring names (so the periodic table depended on where you lived; was it rutherfordium and hahnium, or kurchatovium and nielsbohrium?), they also make it impossible to neutrally pick a date to say if the element had been discovered or not, especially because the best that even IUPAC and IUPAP could say about lawrencium was that confidence had been built up slowly over ten years from 1961 to 1971.
Presumably, the next milestone to be shown would be whenever IUPAC comes up with a formal report for the group 3 thing. This has, however, not happened yet; there is only at present a preliminary report. When it does happen, we should probably move the stuff about group 3 from "Open questions and controversies" to "History".
Perhaps the cells should be bigger, for symbols to be present. Actually, I think the coolest would be a way to step through six images. But I don't know how you'd do that. Double sharp ( talk) 14:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Also. Sorry Droog Andrey. I still think your table's definition of metallicity is the best one, but after looking through some sources, I think I'll have to stick with drawing a simple diagonal and waffling about some elements near it being often called metalloids. Just for this overview at least. Double sharp ( talk) 06:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: it's far better not to draw anything than to draw a straight diagonal. Droog Andrey ( talk) 08:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Droog Andrey: Well, maybe just your line will do? ;) Yellow for more metallic, blue for more covalent, grey for "nobody made enough".
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group → | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
↓ Period | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og |
Arsenic is blue because of a line in Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry: "whereas in the various forms of arsenic each atom interacts strongly with three neighbours, in antimony and bismuth interactions are spread more evenly over a larger number of neighbours." But maybe I misunderstand this or the descriptions for group 16 too. I admit to not being too clear about what's going on for Se and Te... ;) Double sharp ( talk) 09:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: That looks good :) Droog Andrey ( talk) 10:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Large portions have been done; only the history section is mostly unwritten. I don't know for sure when I'll have time to write it; maybe soon, maybe not quite so soon. ;) Some more sourcing is required at some places. Feel free to help along by adding them if you can easily find them. ;)
I am not sure where the "Controversies" section (period 1 and group 3) should stand. Currently it is near the end of the article, after history. I suppose a case could be made that it should be earlier, since variation on these points in published periodic tables is not hard to find.
Perhaps the periodic table itself should come earlier, but logically the stuff in Basis does rather need to be there to explain where everything came from (otherwise, explaining what a block is becomes problematic). To some extent there is already a problem with the section about classifying the elements, but I presume people at least have an idea of what a metal should be.
Since this is shaping up pretty different from the existing article, perhaps an FAR should be done once it mainspaces... Double sharp ( talk) 14:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to one exhilarating week of procrastination, most of the actual writing work is done. Still need to fix some citation neededs and give what I have here a closer read through. But because RL beckons, maybe later. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 13:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.172101 for Lr–Rg. They also did a study on Cn, which I quote here since it likewise predicts metallic copernicium. (Of course newer predictions give 14.0 as already detailed at copernicium, but those studies conclude insulating copernicium like radon.) I quote the 3d, 4d, 5d values for comparison.
Element | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Density (g/cm3) | 14.4 | 17.9 | 21.6 | 24.2 | 26.0 | 26.9 | 27.3 | 25.7 | 22.4 | 19.14 |
Older value | 16.6 | 23.2 | 29.3 | 35.0 | 37.1 | 40.7 | 37.4 | 34.8 | 28.7 | 23.7 |
Element | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg |
Density (g/cm3) | 9.841 | 13.31 | 16.69 | 19.25 | 21.02 | 22.59 | 22.56 | 21.45 | 19.3 | 13.534 |
Element | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd |
Density (g/cm3) | 4.472 | 6.52 | 8.57 | 10.28 | 11 | 12.45 | 12.41 | 12.023 | 10.49 | 8.65 |
Element | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn |
Density (g/cm3) | 2.985 | 4.506 | 6.11 | 7.15 | 7.21 | 7.86 | 8.90 | 8.908 | 8.96 | 7.14 |
In many cases the most stable isotope has changed since this 2011 study, but it does not have a really big effect, and besides for many of these elements there should be even more stable isotopes hovering out of reach. So I feel free to quote it as it stands.
So it seems that the 6d metals are not actually that much denser than the 5d ones. The old predictions (from Fricke era) seem to have assumed that atomic radii of 6d elements should shrink beyond 5d elements; most of the 5d metals are already close-packed, there is no room to get any higher density by any other means. (See Talk:Hassium/Archive 1#chemical and physical properties.) But, calculations on covalent radii seem to indicate that this is not the case, and that in fact radii of 6d elements are modestly higher than 5d elements (see covalent radius for the table). So, although indeed we surpass osmium density, we don't do it by much. I wouldn't shout from the rooftops that meitnerium is going to be the heaviest metal now, because this is very isotope-dependent again (too close to hassium and friends).
We'll have to make some changes, I think. Now I wish someone would finally address 7p and maybe 8s elements. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 06:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Nuclear and Radiochemistry: Fundamentals and Applications (2013, 3rd ed., p. 631) by Kratz and Lieser has newer but pretty similar values:
Element | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | 119 | 120 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preferred oxidation state | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Ionisation energy (eV) | 5.1 | 6.2 | 7.1 | 6.5 | 7.4 | 8.2 | 9.4 | 10.3 | 11.1 | 7.5 | 8.5 | 5.9 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 9.0 | 4.1 | 5.3 |
Ionic radius, metallic state (Å) | 1.66 | 1.53 | 1.47 | 1.45 | 1.43 | 1.44 | 1.46 | 1.52 | 1.60 | 1.69 | 1.76 | 1.78 | 1.77 | — | — | 2.6 | 2.0 |
Density (g/cm3) | 17.0 | 21.6 | 23.2 | 27.2 | 28.6 | 28.2 | 27.4 | 24.4 | 16.8 | 14.7 | 15.1 | 14.7 | 13.6 | — | — | 4.6 | 7.2 |
So the point stands: while the 6d metals should be a bit more dense than the 5d ones, ideas of them being almost twice as dense seem to be dead in the water. Double sharp ( talk) 08:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, now there are two similar but different predictions from about the same time, and there isn't an obvious reason to choose one over the other.
Perhaps we should relook at how we handle predictions and keep them in the article body instead of the infobox? It is starting to look kind of like the situation with the isotopes, e.g. {{
Infobox ununennium isotopes}}
. There's many different predictions and it seems
WP:UNDUE to take a side. In an infobox we are more or less stuck with either taking a side (bad) or not saying anything at all (less bad); in article text we can have more nuances and say "so-and-so predicts this, so-and-so predicts that, blah blah".
Double sharp (
talk)
08:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ ComplexRational, DePiep, Droog Andrey, LaundryPizza03, and YBG: Comments, please? Double sharp ( talk) 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
https://21colloqueganil.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/03_Gall_Benoit_Colloque_GANIL_2019.pdf
Seems projections till 2030 only go up to E122. But now this gives at least a source for the obvious reactions (Ti+Cm = Og, Ti+Bk = 119, Ti+Cf = 120, V+Cm = 119, V+Cf = 121, Cr+Cm = 120, Cr+Cf = 122).
Other ideas with transfer reactions are also there. Then some considerations of making beams of Ti, V, Cr, and U(!). Double sharp ( talk) 09:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Link. Not a research paper, but cool and quotes the investigators. Main points:
The original Dubna 114 chain (with the very long-lived nuclides) was mentioned as never having been replicated, which is true. This said, Hofmann et al. have elsewhere suggested that it might be from EC of 290Fl (2n channel) to neutron-rich 290Nh. Hopefully SHE-Factory can shed some more light on this reaction.
Double sharp ( talk) 08:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Taking into account recent udQM research, one could expect a continental shelf of transition nuclei instead of stability island, where nucleon shells are smeared out, and nucleons themselves become as virtual as mesons between them. That reminds gradual change from dispersion forces to metallic bonding in chemistry (cf. radon vs. mercury, or iodine vs. gallium). Clear deviation from A/Z = 2 + (A/555)2/3 trend after nobelium looks like a first warning. Droog Andrey ( talk) 20:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
More news. Looks like this year, SHE Factory will focus on studying Fl, Mc, and Og some more. Eighth row elements will have to wait till 2022, unless RIKEN gets lucky with its 119 campaign. Double sharp ( talk) 03:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
News in Russian. Double sharp ( talk) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I realise that this is something currently topic-banned Sandbh mentioned (over at de.wp where he is not topic-banned), but it seems to be a reasonable point, so I raise it myself instead.
He mentioned that we took the preliminary report above as good enough for changing group 3, but always waited for the final IUPAC approval for new elements, and that he found this strange. I have to admit that there is a good point here, although I draw an opposite conclusion since the consensus in favour of changing group 3 now was so clear. So instead of questioning that, I question if maybe we should be changing the names early for consistency.
(For reference: what happens when a new element is claimed to be discovered is that first the discoverers publish the discovery, and submit it to the IUPAC/IUPAP JWP as a claim. The JWP then analyses the claim and gives its conclusions. Then the discoverers are invited to propose the name. Then they do. Then after a comment period of a few months, IUPAC makes it official.)
The reasoning: we have never waited for the JWP to approve the discovery. We always considered the element discovered once it was in peer-reviewed journals. For example: moscovium (then ununpentium) was only approved by the JWP in 2015. Before that, in 2011 it was considered that the evidence was insufficient to approve it. That did not stop us from already treating it as having been discovered already before 2015. In fact we already had a GA on it back in 2014. Because: that's what pretty much everybody was doing. That's even what NIST was doing: in 2001, they added elements 114, 116, and 118 to the table, based on the Dubna and LBNL experiments. Of course, they then had to remove 118 the next year (that was the case of fakery by Victor Ninov), but that is not likely to happen again. And by 2010, the elements up to 118 were all there. Greenwood and Earnshaw already mention in 1997 that the discoveries of 110, 111, and 112 were generally accepted then already, even though in the case of 112 it took till 2009 for IUPAC to approve it.
But if we don't wait for IUPAC for the discoveries, and we're content with preliminary reports for the group 3 thing that IUPAC mentions as one of the things they're doing on their page, then it seems indeed a bit inconsistent to wait for the names to become official. Especially because by the time the names are released to the public, IUPAC has already reviewed and considered them and recommended them for acceptance.
So perhaps we should change what we do in these cases. Instead of move-protecting for months, when everyone already knows what the name will soon be already, perhaps we should just move the articles and add notes saying that the names and symbols are only proposed for now. Ever since the great Transfermium War debacle, the names have never changed anyway, and only once did the symbol change (copernicium, where Cp became Cn).
So I start some polling. Double sharp ( talk) 15:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
1. bitte keine internen Streitigkeiten aus der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hierher tragenand more (by de:User:Orci [10] [11]). The dewiki thread also introduces similarities to problematische discussion setups we had here.
not likely to happen again)? The period when IUPAC has invited discoverers to propose a name?, the period when the name is put up for scrutiny in the scientific world? And why refer to the transfermium wars (now this is a situation that quite likely will not happen again).
When IUPAC announces the discoverers' choices of names and symbols, should we:
@ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, and Unbinilium-322 Dibromide:
So far, only nine elements got named after WP was founded, in five batches: Ds (2003), Rg (2004), Cn (2010), Fl and Lv (2012), Nh and Mc and Ts and Og (2016).
Mostly we waited for the final moment where it became official. See the discussions at Talk:Copernicium/Archive 1, Talk:Flerovium/Archive 1#Requested move, Talk:Tennessine/Archive 1#Requested move 10 June 2016. For Rg, it seems that the name was installed early and then reverted the next day as only the proposed name.
For Ds, we did do it early. Ds was renamed in March 2003 (the announcement was January), whereas the final approval happened on 16 August.
So, out of the nine cases: for eight we apparently waited, and only for the first one did we do it early.
I suppose there will be time to sort it out when it happens. Cross-sections for 119+ look awful, so maybe there is no point in legislating right now for something that will likely be a real rarity. Double sharp ( talk) 12:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, it is blatantly obvious that what we have here is not a consensus for anything. Therefore, I suppose we can just treat it as DePiep suggested: "Close without conclusion. Come back when there is an actual case."
That is, we will not discuss this until (1) a new element gets synthesised, (2) IUPAC and IUPAP decide it meets the criteria of a discovery, (3) the discoverers propose the name, and (4) IUPAC releases the name for the 5-month public review. That should be a long way away. Double sharp ( talk) 09:41, 26 March 2021 (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 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 |
I've been doing some reading about He over Be, as shown in the left step periodic table, and the supposed helium compound, disodium helide.
Some folks have argued that since He (1s2) has only two electrons in its outer shell that it should or could go over Be (1s22s2) which also has two outer electrons, rather than over neon, which has eight electrons in its outer shell (1s22s22p6).
Now, as I understand it, He has a full shell, period, with a large energy gap between the 1s2 and empty 2s sub shell. Whereas Be is more like (1s22sp2). And Be2+ is (1s2)++. In each case, He is nothing like Be. Further, in sodium dihelide, helium does not participate in any chemical bonding.
Experimentally, there is no Be-He attraction. Computationally there is strong Be-He repulsion.
The big similarity He has is with Ne, as noble gases. Equally, H has significantly more similarities to Li than it does to F.
I don't know yet if any of this has relevance to the article space. We mention He over Be in periodic table, and in helium. --- Sandbh ( talk) 06:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Apparently I missed a lot.
“ | According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements
This was pointed out as early as 1959 by L.D. Landau (ref. 20) and later by other authors (ref. 13, 14, 20 to 25). Most periodic tables in textbooks and classrooms, however, list Sc, Y, La, and Ac as elements of the scandium group and designate the elements Ce to Lu and Th to Lr as lanthanides and actinides, respectively. The historical background for this arrangement is given in a paper by W.B. Jensen (ref. 21). Based upon their electronic configurations and their chemical and physical properties , the elements La to Yb and Ac to No should be inserted between barium and lutetium and between radium and lawrencium or for practical reasons be listed at the bottom of the table. |
” |
Table of nuclides (segmented, narrow) hasn't been updated since 2019, until I added a number of neutron-rich nuclei from Sr to Ru. It has even fallen behind the lists in Category:Lists of isotopes by element. The data in the table is contained within Template:Isotones. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox unhexquadium has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Double sharp (
talk)
03:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
See the current category representations:
We consider the 3-category set as a aggregation of the 10-category set. However, since the 2020 introduction of the halogens category, At is altering between metalloid (M-M-NonM set) and halogen (10-category set). How to handle this? Is the altering to be kept?
As a sidenote, a similar question can be asked about the "unknown M-M-NonM elements"; does the removal of 'unknown' classification apply here too? - DePiep ( talk) 21:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know whom I could ask about this now, but it seems I finally remembered why I didn't like categories named "other metal" and "other nonmetal."
In the infobox for aluminium, the category field now says, "other metal, yada yada". We never learned by that point other than what. "Post-transition metal" had some meaning in it, "other metal" has nothing. This is not so much a problem when other categories are present, but without them, this name is meaningless, and it seems nobody (including me) has thought this through and meaning cannot be easily obtained from the context in some cases. Would it make sense to return to any previous coloring scheme that doesn't have these meaningless names?-- R8R ( talk) 19:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A week has passed, and no comments, let alone objections, have been raised on this issue. I will therefore change the coloring scheme to blocks only.
We'll need six colors: red for the s-block, yellow for the p-block, blue for the d-block, green for the f-block, purple for the g-block, and light gray for the unknown category. We already use the first four of these, and we'll need the other two just in case rather than because I can envision a use for them at the moment.
I'll change the infobox. Hopefully images will follow later.-- R8R ( talk) 10:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
|categories=
to {{
Infobox element}}. It is also meant to supersede the existing parameter |category comment=
.--
R8R (
talk)
11:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Based on what appears to be a total lack of opposition, and some strong arguments from myself, R8R, and DePiep that the 2020 compromise scheme had problems, R8R seems to have resolved the discussion into a change to a blocks-only scheme. This is shown to the right: red = s-block, yellow = p-block, blue = d-block, green = f-block. As already expressed, this avoids any sign of overlapping subcategories: every element is unambiguously assigned to exactly one block.
One note.
Group 3. The block assignment of four elements is contingent on the group 3 dispute in sources: La, Ac, Lu, and Lr. Currently we show a La-Ac group 3, so the first two are d-block but the last two are f-block. When the IUPAC thing comes out in a month, this may change. (In a Lu-Lr group 3 it would be of course the other way round.) So I have been a bit lazy about getting things completely consistent now because there is a significant possibility we will need to change things again shortly. And also because I have a lot of RL stuff to do, to be fair.
R8R and I have done some changes of pictures and templates; anyone should be welcome to do any we have missed. If you think that we should not have changed some particular one, then by all means, revert and inform us, and we can discuss. I am saddened to see below that R8R appears to have left, but I am contactable here still and should respond within a week.
Unless anyone has anything else to say, I think this discussion can be archived as finished. Remaining WP:A11Y issues should probably be discussed in another thread; I guess they will be fewer now that there are only four colours. Double sharp ( talk) 09:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
... categories named "other metal" and "other nonmetal.". That is: (chemical) categorisation. The then thread deviating to a totally different topic, in a 700k page, is part of the lack of talkpage discipline/discussion management in this Wikiproject I have mentioned before. - DePiep ( talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I want to introduce the task force "Periodic Table Graphics", WP:PTG ( talk), a workshop where we can develop graphical enhancements for the Element articles.
The workshop can provide tools & experiment-space to try & check improvements. Changes that are mainspace-ready then can be proposed (or discussed) here at WT:ELEM or at a appropriate talkpage. A current active job is /PTG/Group 3 ( talk).
The setup and workings of the task force is to be developed too. You are invited to develop the PTG into a productive, cooperative lab. Step 1: sign in at the Members list. - DePiep ( talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The fontcolors of State-of-Matter (SoM) for liquid, gas and unknown, are resulting in extremely bad Accessability issues. See the PTG/Contrast check table: 5 out of 18 color contrasts score a negative (not conforming w3c contrast requirements). - DePiep ( talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea of pictograms. I would suggest something like this:
YBG ( talk) 22:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I just learned, Phase and State Of Matter are different things:
How does this effect WP:ELEMENTS? How do we accomodate "plasm"? (@ Double sharp:) - DePiep ( talk) 23:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The provisional report has appeared in the latest issue of Chemistry International here (read pages 31-34).
I quote the interesting bits.
“ | In the course of many discussions held by the task group we have concluded that there is no objective means to adjudicate between group 3 consisting of Sc, Y, La and Ac or as Sc, Y, Lu and Lr. This situation makes it more important that IUPAC should make a ruling on the question which in the final analysis is one of convention rather than one that can be decided on objective scientific grounds.
... The only 18-column table that appears to avoid the drawback in the split of the d-block while also maintaining a 14-element-wide f-block is the one shown in figure 2 [Sc-Y-Lu-Lr]. Needless to say, the assignment of elements to these blocks is approximate, just as the assignment of electron configurations to atoms also represents an approximation. Moreover, one may readily concede that an element such as thorium does not actually possess any f-orbital electrons and yet it is classified as being among the f-block elements in all five of the periodic table representations shown in figures 1 to 5 [Sc-Y-La-Ac, Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, and Sc-Y-*-**, the former two expanded as 32- as well as 18-column]. ... Perhaps a compromise could be reached on the table depicted as figure 2 [Sc-Y-Lu-Lr] since it achieves three desiderata. First, it displays all the elements in order of increasing atomic number. Secondly, it avoids splitting the d-block into two highly uneven portions, and thirdly, it depicts all the blocks of the periodic table in accordance with the underlying quantum mechanical account of the periodic table which calls for 2, 6, 10 and 14 orbitals to occur in the extra-nuclear electron-shells. |
” |
The report also refers to "how the periodic table is presented to the general chemical and scientific community".
The last time we ran this was in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 52, after which we had an agreement to not raise the issue again until the IUPAC project responds. Now they have, albeit as a provisional report (presumably, a real one is forthcoming). Group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr appears to be supported by their wording, albeit not that firmly (perhaps this will be made clearer in the real report).
What views do we have on whether we should change to Sc-Y-Lu-Lr now? Double sharp ( talk) 13:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
both must and can and shall represent the same PT– I agree. The problem is that WP follows RS and RS strongly favour one over the other. It is not unprofessionalism that keeps en.WP using the form that is most prevalent in RS, it is respect for policy and the purpose of an encyclopaedia as a reflection of human knowledge rather than as an advocate for the beliefs of Wikipedians about what choices RS should make. EdChem ( talk) 00:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I add a subsection for this clarification.
18 vs 32 was explicitly not on the project's agenda. They write so on their page: "The task group does not intend to recommend the use of a 32-column periodic table or an 18-column. This choice which is a matter of convention, rather than a scientific one, should be left to individual authors and educators. The task group will only concern itselve [sic] with the constitution of group 3. Once this is established, one is free to represent the periodic table in an 18 or 32 column format."
I would agree this supports
DePiep's statement both must and can and shall represent the same PT
: one should not have an 18 column table showing one thing together with a 32 column table showing another. So, I thought it was pretty clear that whatever change we make ought to be applied equally to both forms, but thank you DePiep for explicitly saying it. But I do not think it serves as a rationale to use 32 column PTs as the default for now when the 18 column format is widespread. After all: the task force did not intend to recommend on that question, and they did not. I would, FWIW, consider that question off-topic for this thread.
Double sharp (
talk)
02:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging active/semi-active project participants + those who participated last time around: @ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert: This is in view of the recent publication of the IUPAC provisional report on group 3 (linked above).
Should we change our default depiction of the periodic table to show group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr now, or not?
our default depiction of the periodic table to show group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-L", which is what this poll is about full stop. If you want to add extra requirements, please start a new, dedicated thread. (I think your post is confusing the simple poll, and therefor not helpful this way). - DePiep ( talk) 23:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, that seems to be a surprisingly quick and near-universal acclamation, as Georgia guy noted. Two of those pinged have not responded: Narky Blert has been quite active since the ping, and YBG (semi-active now) supported the Sc-Y-Lu-Lr already the last time.
Therefore, I plan to start formally making the changes tomorrow, if no one objects to that before then.
A few notes based on what has been discussed:
Since it is a preliminary report, I plan to only change the graphics: text discussing the group 3 problem should probably be edited and discussed on a more case-by-case basis.
@ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert: Double sharp ( talk) 05:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Thanks to some IRL procrastination (LOL) I have written up a proposed redraft of the group 3 element article at User:Double sharp/Group 3 element. All sections describing individual elements and trends take the group as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr for granted, as described (I didn't edit them much, just cut out the parts describing La and Ac). The main section on the dispute is redrafted as a section in "History" and significantly shortened (I mean, I think we don't need to spam all the arguments). Now it simply states the history of the dispute, just enough to explain where each form came from, and finally the IUPAC attempts to resolve it. I guess it would be significantly better with your magic: there should probably be some illustrations showing each in 18 column and 32 column form, something like the IUPAC report. Of course, open to your (or anyone else's) critiques and suggestions. Double sharp ( talk) 07:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I am working to make the micro PT supporting the three WG options, to be used in the Group 3 article. ({{ /testcases}}, {{ /PTG/group-3}}). Will notify you on its progress. - DePiep ( talk) 12:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
|form=Sc, Y, La, Ac
shows the previous presentation form. See
/documentation. Can be used, for example, to describe the IUPAC considerations (non-chosen forms) in
Group 3 element. @
Double sharp:. -
DePiep (
talk)
14:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)About block allocations. From section above, by Double sharp:
Correct, this makes Lu, Lr in the d-block, and La, Ac in the f-block. For extended periodic table: 119–120 s-block, 121–142 g-block, 143–156 f-block, 157–166 d-block, 167–172 p-block. 119–120 are in groups 1 and 2 (should be homologues of Rb and Sr), 143–156 align under Ac–No, and 157–172 are in groups 3–18 as homologues as Y–Xe.
However, I find other block allocations:
@ Double sharp: continue with your list? Would have a block change in column La/Ac/... I think. Or apply one of the three theories throughout (as our default extended PT)? - DePiep ( talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
Extended periodic table (by Nefedov, 54 columns, detailed cells)}}
.
Double sharp (
talk)
13:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)P.S. The block-only category legend should probably "expand" in the extended version to have a "g-block" between s and f, not an extra "undiscovered". Double sharp ( talk) 14:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I find myself with more time than usual today, and, thanks to some last-minute RL stuff, less time than usual tomorrow. So, despite what I wrote above, I will do some replacement of templates and images today instead. I hope that is all right, since {[u|DePiep}} has started doing some work here.
Bigger changes like an appropriate rewrite for group 3 element will have to wait, I'm afraid... Double sharp ( talk) 13:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've done what I can stand doing in one day. ;) I should've gotten most of the obvious and high-visibility ones. The rest (low-visibility + those that require some thought as to rewording) hopefully may wait. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 14:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Of interest might be the earlier 1988 report on this matter. Although this is where the compromise apparently came from, it then spends a funnily large amount of time detailing how Sc-Y-Lu-Lr works, and the subsequent 1990 IUPAC Red Book appeared inconsistently with a Sc-Y-*-** 18-column table and a Sc-Y-Lu-Lr 32-column table.
“ | According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements
This was pointed out as early as 1959 by L.D. Landau (ref. 20) and later by other authors (ref. 13, 14, 20 to 25). Most periodic tables in textbooks and classrooms, however, list Sc, Y, La, and Ac as elements of the scandium group and designate the elements Ce to Lu and Th to Lr as lanthanides and actinides, respectively. The historical background for this arrangement is given in a paper by W.B. Jensen (ref. 21). Based upon their electronic configurations and their chemical and physical properties, the elements La to Yb and Ac to No should be inserted between barium and lutetium and between radium and lawrencium or for practical reasons be listed at the bottom of the table. The series La to Yb and Ac to No then, however, cannot be named correctly as lanthanides and actinides since they contain the elements lanthanum and actinium and not only elements similar to lanthanum and actinium as is purported by the ending -ide (or -oid according to an earlier IUPAC recommendation). |
” |
Therefore I would say that having asterisks to show where exactly La–Yb and Ac–No belong (between groups 2 and 3), although not explicitly recommended, is surely within the spirit of what is stated given the pains that were taken to explain where exactly they should be inserted. Double sharp ( talk) 05:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In the 1988 IUPAC report, objective scientific reasoning is used to justify Sc-Y-Lu-Lr: for we see there written "According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements Sc, Y, Lu, Lr." That's a pretty objective scientific criterion. Yet in the 2021 IUPAC report it is instead stated that this does not "provide a clear-cut resolution of the question", and that the group 3 conundrum "is one of convention rather than one that can be decided on objective scientific grounds".
The 2021 statement is interesting because electron configurations have indeed been given as a way to clearly resolve the problem by authorities on the matter – including by Jensen who is one of the project members.
“ | To tip the scales in favor of one pair of elements or the other requires instead a consideration of the additional chemical and physical properties discussed in my original paper of 1982 and, above all, a consideration of their available excited-state configurations (2, 4, 12). This reveals that both La and Ac have low-lying empty f-orbitals and that these are implicated in several low-lying excited configurations, whereas Lu and Lr have no available empty f-orbitals. This implies, in turn, that both La and Ac – like 25% of the other d- and f-block elements (including their nearest neighbor Th) – are best viewed as having anomalous ground-state valence configurations, which, in their case, take the place of an idealized (n-2)f1ns2 valence configuration. Since such an interpretation is not possible for Lu/Lr, it pretty much determines that this pair should be assigned to the d-block whereas the La/Ac pair should be assigned to the beginning of the f-block. | ” |
Perhaps something more will be heard about this when we have a less preliminary report (such reports usually appear in PAC rather than CI). Double sharp ( talk) 08:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It has been mentioned recently. I'd like to aks it straight here:
Recently, Double sharp has this and did edited them out in places. I think the fact that g-block only exists theoretically so far is a different topic, and needs no change re this.
If we want the option out, we will formally deprecate it & remove it from mainspace graciously. Or, define situations when to keep it (and check legend colors used). - DePiep ( talk) 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I have moved my draft into the mainspace, since it seems presentable already. Thanks in particular to DePiep for his very valuable graphic improvements. :) Naturally it can be improved yet further. So, we now have a section covering the dispute's history and where it came from (mostly, arguing over electron configurations); having done that and mentioned the IUPAC ruling, the rest of the article discusses Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr as its scope. The lede gives a summary: "Although some controversy exists regarding the composition and placement of this group, it is generally agreed among those who study the matter that this group contains the four elements scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), lutetium (Lu), and lawrencium (Lr). ... Historically, sometimes lanthanum (La) and actinium (Ac) were included in the group instead of lutetium and lawrencium, and this option is still commonly found in textbooks. Some compromises between the two major options have been proposed and used, involving either the shrinking of the group to scandium and yttrium only, or the inclusion of all 30 lanthanides and actinides in the group as well."
DePiep has written above, in response to one of my queries: I'd say: we can fully go by the Report's line of reasoning & conclusion. We do not need to build in the "2-option group 3" anywhere (which is a horror to graph & decribe anyway). So the top PT & infobox has the new, single-form structuree, and in ~section 3 we can open with: "There are three sound possiblities to define group 3: ... None is definitive. For reasons xyz, IUPAC has proposed to present option x as most useful for the audience. options Y and Z are niche science." (or maybe, better use your wording).
So, I would like to propose that as our general line: when we are just giving data, we can say things like "Lr: group 3", and when we say it in text, we briefly describe it. Say, along the lines of "Lawrencium is the final member of the actinide series. Some controversy exists regarding its group placement, but according to most who study the matter and a recent IUPAC provisional report, it may be regarded as the heaviest element of group 3 and the first of the 6d transition metals. This makes it a heavier homologue of scandium, yttrium, and lutetium." Or for the other one: "Actinium is the first member and eponym of the actinide series. It is the heavier homologue of lanthanum. Some controversy exists regarding its group placement, but according to most who study the matter and a recent IUPAC provisional report, it may be regarded as the first of the 5f elements." And then carry on. It seems consistent with the idea to use one form as a default, at least.
Comments on such wordings? And feel free to comment on the new group 3 element revision too. As always, feel free to revert/discuss/etc.
@ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, and EdChem:
Double sharp ( talk) 09:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I've made a few changes of this kind. I think the source list at User:Double sharp/Group 3 sources (not really that organised right now, sorry) clearly justifies the formulaic statement I have used that Sc-Y-Lu-Lr is the format favoured by most who study the matter: if even this is OR (I can see arguments for that), note that Jensen (one of the IUPAC project members) says something very similar in his 2015 paper, published some months before the IUPAC project started. (That the evidence since his 1982 paper has tended to support Lu in group 3.) That said, we can discuss, and I in particular eagerly await what Droog Andrey thinks of. ;)
Of course, we will carry on describing the dispute when it matters, along with all forms. We can revisit this if/when the Lu form makes it to the IUPAC periodic table, as there are some processes that remain till that can happen. Double sharp ( talk) 05:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I have redirected my draft User:Double sharp/Group 3 element to Group 3 element, since it has served its purpose (now in mainspace). Since not very much extra work was needed to do it, I also gave group 4 element a similar lift-off for chemistry + physics + history (the stuff I have good sources on).
I suppose it would not take too much effort to give the remaining transition metal groups the same sort of love. I may do it if I have time. A little bonus is that it would immediately make a bunch of easy good topics since the d-block is already almost totally a sea of green on our PTQ. ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 14:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
As we know, recently ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Conclusion) it was finally decided to use blocks instead of categories as the means for a colouring scheme, on the grounds that categories were never meant to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive and making them so is basically OR. (The closure was not done in the best possible way, but it seems to be at least settled by now.)
Now, we do still have a "category" field in the infobox, but it looks to be only populated for {{
infobox lutetium}}
(Lu) and {{
infobox hafnium}}
(Hf). We also do still have the group names in infoboxes like {{
infobox antimony}}
(Sb) which says "group 15: pnictogens", but of course that is something separate. (Alas, by IUPAC 2016 it seems "halogen" and "noble gas" mean the whole group officially.)
However, to accurately give a category field would require quite some difficulty. I have previously suggested it, but actually it seems worse than I thought. Lu is a lanthanide, people are pretty sure about that – for now. (It seems quite possible that if/when IUPAC updates its showcase periodic table to Sc-Y-Lu it will stop being one. For instance on WebElements, which has as far as I can remember always been Sc-Y-Lu, Lu is apparently not a lanthanide.) On the other hand, people are not sure whether to spell it "lanthanide" (common usage) or "lanthanoid" (IUPAC Red Book, less ambiguous with La anions). But now that we have a group 3 containing Sc-Y-Lu, Lu is also d-block, and by IUPAC's definition it is also a transition element. Which many people call "transition metal" because they're all probably metals (I reserve judgement for copernicium). And it is also pretty unambiguously one of the rare earth elements / rare earth metals.
Or take arsenic. Yes, it's a pnictogen, everyone agrees on that. But is it a metal, nonmetal, or metalloid? You can find people saying all three. Well, what weight should we give each? In different contexts things may differ, e.g. organic compounds with As are usually called organometallics even if As is quite lame as a metal. If it is a metal, then what name are we using for p-block metals anyway? "P-block metals"? "Other metals"? "Post-transition metals" (then what about aluminium)?
So I ask the question: should we have category fields in the infobox at all, or leave this stuff to article text? Double sharp ( talk) 09:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, Unbinilium-322 Dibromide, EdChem, and Narky Blert:
so misty things are clear then. but what about the clear things?;-) . - DePiep ( talk) 00:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In Russian-language schoolbooks the term "metalloids" is rarely used; usually the whole set of elements is just divided into "metals" and "non-metals". So that's why my table has a single line. Astatine may go to metals in the next edition. Droog Andrey (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason why the infobox needs to have one and only one category. The colorization pretty much required us to assign each element to one and only one category, but in the infobox we could list a number of the significant named sets of chemical elements to which it belongs. I think we'd need to figure out a way to keep the lists relatively short; for starters, there would be no need to repeat the already listed group name. I proposed this idea some time back and DePiep started working on a template to support this idea, but I can't find it now. YBG ( talk) 16:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In Ref. 11, the formulae for intermetallic compounds were also subject to an exceptional rule although no guidance was given for naming such compounds, and the term ‘intermetallic compound’ was not defined. The problem is to define the term ‘metal’. Therefore, no attempt is now made to make a separate prescription for either the formulae or the names of intermetallic compounds. So it seems that chemistry has abdicated from defining "metal" and that there are multiple ideas going around there. In the end I think you'll find that "metalloid" is one of those ill-defined terms that people use despite having no really agreed meaning. Similar to "noble metal" or "heavy metal". I guess "metalloid (usually)" for arsenic is not inaccurate; I just kind of dislike putting up ill-defined terms in the infobox because I worry it might make people think they are more standardised than they really are. Maybe I worry too much. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 08:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the categorisations (whether single or several) both straight-forward and uncontroversial in the significant majority of elements? If so, those could be added to infoboxes as a useful summary for readers. For the complicated / unclear cases, some possibilities include:
You will hopefully be unsurprised that I don't favour the last possibility. EdChem ( talk) 07:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, this has been running for a while, and it's now gone a few days with no further comments. Since YBG appears convinced in the discussion above, and the !vote tally definitely shows a majority in favour of removing these, I have gone ahead and removed the category mentions from Lu and Hf (the only ones that had them). Double sharp ( talk) 09:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
infobox carbon}}
). Have removed them now, since they created weird sentence fragments.
Double sharp (
talk)
03:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)I have reverted article Periodic table to the version of 14 Nov 2020. That is, the one before numerous "bold" edits were made that probably would have cost the FA star. It is well poissible that more edits (before Nov 14) are to be reverted, maybe even an complete earlier version is required.
Anyway, given the edit history one must assume that each non-trivial edit is controversioal and so has to be discussed beforehand. - DePiep ( talk) 14:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
doi: 10.2533/chimia.2020.924 Probably should update articles for the 6d noble metals (may have prospects now). Double sharp ( talk) 04:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
It still seems illogical to me that the naming convention we use for groups changes from group 12 to group 13. We have:
but then
This is a different convention, that which allows groups to be named by the first element, rather than by the number. It seems to me inconsistent. Surely either boron group and carbon group should become group 13 element and group 14 element, or the ten transition groups should become scandium group through zinc group.
What do others think about this? Double sharp ( talk) 04:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
And some new decay paths: http://flerovlab.jinr.ru/index.php/2020/12/25/she-factory-first-experiment/
Should we add this to Isotopes of lawrencium at least? Droog Andrey ( talk) 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Have added. I think the values are life-times, so I multiplied by log 2 to give the half-life. Double sharp ( talk) 05:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding stuff only in reports: the initial discovery of 118 was only published in an internal JINR report and had to wait some years before it got published formally. However at this point WP was quite young (2002 to 2006), so I haven't checked what we did then on the grounds that it's not clear if we should do the same thing again if it happens. And also on the grounds that this can probably be decided case-by-case. But FWIW, I would advise accepting it on the grounds that IUPAC and IUPAP considered such internal reports when evaluating 101 through 109. Double sharp ( talk) 16:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have a good idea for how to title a section about the current procedures for the PT? (As I'm redrafting the article in my sandbox.)
The IUPAC doesn't recommend any kind of PT, but that doesn't stop them from proudly displaying a IUPAC PT anyway on their website. And they do seem to be the de facto custodians of the PT, judging by its prominent appearance under "What We Do" on their site:
“ | In particular, IUPAC is directly involved in the following:
|
” |
This all seems to belong in the article, but what to call it?
@ Droog Andrey, DePiep, ComplexRational, and LaundryPizza03: Double sharp ( talk) 14:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ YBG: Double sharp ( talk) 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Why do unbiquadium and unbihexium have articles, but unbitrium and unbipentium do not? It doesn't seem fair. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I am giving it a try, in my sandbox: User:Double sharp/Periodic table. Not exactly fully presentable yet, also not finished. Long live RL procrastination. ;)
Inspired by what EdChem wrote at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_54#On_the_periodic_table_article_more_generally. And also what textbooks generally do (I went to The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry even, to make sure I was sticking to the basics).
Tried to avoid primary sources when possible. Because this is so basic in chemistry and physics that if you cannot find secondary sources, you probably are out on your own fringe limb. One is there though, sorry (just for that useful ≪ notation). To that end, referred often to Feynman's lectures on physics just because it's a standard textbook that is freely accessible online. Not to mention that it helpfully makes the point that ground-state configurations must be treated with a grain of salt for d and f block elements and can be easily influenced by the chemical surroundings, which is why no serious chemist will ever care that Ni, Pd, and Pt all have a slightly different configuration when it comes to non-specialised topics. (Because, alas, most of the easy textbooks that this is the level at handwave once they get to the transition elements.)
Sorry I have not cited everything yet. This is mostly because this is so basic that I can more or less write it by channeling memories of school chemistry. I did however base the structure on the aforementioned cartoon guide to make sure things were presented in a logical order; first what chemical elements are, then how they are arranged.
Maybe the presentation is too textbooky given its parentage. I am open to rearrangements.
Presentation follows the Madelung rule, since it is common to refer to (and doesn't pretty much everybody teach it for writing electron configurations?). So, yes, Sc-Y-Lu-Lr is treated as the default table as was decided above, as it is the only Madelung-consistent version. That's what almost all the sources that think about this problem say, and now that IUPAC has spoken (though not yet finally), we have a valid reason to disregard the older textbooks anyway. (Which often are not exactly the most consistent in the world when it comes to this question.) Don't worry, the whole saga and the old alternates will be somehow mentioned in history when I get around to writing it, as it relates strongly to how the rare earths always gave a headache.
Categories and all that will be mentioned in accordance with how they are used in reality, when the metal-to-nonmetal trend bit gets rewritten. That is, there will be no attempt to pretend there is any consistency between sources, nor will there be any attempt to pretend that the categories are actually mutually exclusive or jointly exhaustive. Double sharp ( talk) 06:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I decided to use YBG's figures (suitably edited) for the history section: see User:Double sharp/Periodic table#Chronology of element discovery. A few changes:
I added the alchemical elements to the ancient ones, since it is not that different a tradition. Therefore As, Sb, Bi, and Zn are there from the start. Of course this is a little bit anachronistic because the ancients did not think these were quite like the seven planetary metals. (No, they had not discovered anything earth-shatteringly important from our perspective about the amphoteric character of these metals. For one thing, if that had been the case, they should've excluded Sn too.) But this whole business is in some way anachronistic, so I don't think it matters too much.
There is some iffiness with Lavoisier's elements. That radical boracique should be identified with later boron is probably hard to deny, but the fact remains that he didn't really have it. But if that was the standard, then fluorine was unknown when Mendeleev made his periodic table, which is silly. Still, since Lavoisier himself wrote inconnu beside it (also for later F and Cl), I have elected to throw it out. And the same thing for his "earths" (which were the oxides of Mg, Al, Si, Ca, and Ba, which he could not reduce to the metals). Strontium and uranium had been discovered before 1789, but they are not on Lavoisier's list.
After that things are not too bad, because the notion of element rapidly converges with ours. Terbium was discovered before 1869, but Mendeleev was uncertain of its elementary status, so it is not on his periodic table.
I chose Moseley and Siegbahn as a more important moment for the history of the PT than Deming's 18-column form, especially since acceptance of that came a bit slowly (the short 8-column PT is still not hard to find in Russia). Rhenium was known by then, but only as Masataka Ogawa's nipponium, a claim that wasn't universally accepted, but has only been rehabilitated in retrospect. (And also, he thought it was element 43, when he had actually element 75.) So it is not coloured yet.
The last milestone shown is 2010, with the synthesis of element 117 and the completion of the seventh row. Nothing in between, because although the Transfermium Wars were a big thing with warring names (so the periodic table depended on where you lived; was it rutherfordium and hahnium, or kurchatovium and nielsbohrium?), they also make it impossible to neutrally pick a date to say if the element had been discovered or not, especially because the best that even IUPAC and IUPAP could say about lawrencium was that confidence had been built up slowly over ten years from 1961 to 1971.
Presumably, the next milestone to be shown would be whenever IUPAC comes up with a formal report for the group 3 thing. This has, however, not happened yet; there is only at present a preliminary report. When it does happen, we should probably move the stuff about group 3 from "Open questions and controversies" to "History".
Perhaps the cells should be bigger, for symbols to be present. Actually, I think the coolest would be a way to step through six images. But I don't know how you'd do that. Double sharp ( talk) 14:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Also. Sorry Droog Andrey. I still think your table's definition of metallicity is the best one, but after looking through some sources, I think I'll have to stick with drawing a simple diagonal and waffling about some elements near it being often called metalloids. Just for this overview at least. Double sharp ( talk) 06:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: it's far better not to draw anything than to draw a straight diagonal. Droog Andrey ( talk) 08:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Droog Andrey: Well, maybe just your line will do? ;) Yellow for more metallic, blue for more covalent, grey for "nobody made enough".
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group → | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
↓ Period | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og |
Arsenic is blue because of a line in Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry: "whereas in the various forms of arsenic each atom interacts strongly with three neighbours, in antimony and bismuth interactions are spread more evenly over a larger number of neighbours." But maybe I misunderstand this or the descriptions for group 16 too. I admit to not being too clear about what's going on for Se and Te... ;) Double sharp ( talk) 09:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Double sharp: That looks good :) Droog Andrey ( talk) 10:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Large portions have been done; only the history section is mostly unwritten. I don't know for sure when I'll have time to write it; maybe soon, maybe not quite so soon. ;) Some more sourcing is required at some places. Feel free to help along by adding them if you can easily find them. ;)
I am not sure where the "Controversies" section (period 1 and group 3) should stand. Currently it is near the end of the article, after history. I suppose a case could be made that it should be earlier, since variation on these points in published periodic tables is not hard to find.
Perhaps the periodic table itself should come earlier, but logically the stuff in Basis does rather need to be there to explain where everything came from (otherwise, explaining what a block is becomes problematic). To some extent there is already a problem with the section about classifying the elements, but I presume people at least have an idea of what a metal should be.
Since this is shaping up pretty different from the existing article, perhaps an FAR should be done once it mainspaces... Double sharp ( talk) 14:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to one exhilarating week of procrastination, most of the actual writing work is done. Still need to fix some citation neededs and give what I have here a closer read through. But because RL beckons, maybe later. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 13:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.172101 for Lr–Rg. They also did a study on Cn, which I quote here since it likewise predicts metallic copernicium. (Of course newer predictions give 14.0 as already detailed at copernicium, but those studies conclude insulating copernicium like radon.) I quote the 3d, 4d, 5d values for comparison.
Element | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Density (g/cm3) | 14.4 | 17.9 | 21.6 | 24.2 | 26.0 | 26.9 | 27.3 | 25.7 | 22.4 | 19.14 |
Older value | 16.6 | 23.2 | 29.3 | 35.0 | 37.1 | 40.7 | 37.4 | 34.8 | 28.7 | 23.7 |
Element | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg |
Density (g/cm3) | 9.841 | 13.31 | 16.69 | 19.25 | 21.02 | 22.59 | 22.56 | 21.45 | 19.3 | 13.534 |
Element | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd |
Density (g/cm3) | 4.472 | 6.52 | 8.57 | 10.28 | 11 | 12.45 | 12.41 | 12.023 | 10.49 | 8.65 |
Element | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn |
Density (g/cm3) | 2.985 | 4.506 | 6.11 | 7.15 | 7.21 | 7.86 | 8.90 | 8.908 | 8.96 | 7.14 |
In many cases the most stable isotope has changed since this 2011 study, but it does not have a really big effect, and besides for many of these elements there should be even more stable isotopes hovering out of reach. So I feel free to quote it as it stands.
So it seems that the 6d metals are not actually that much denser than the 5d ones. The old predictions (from Fricke era) seem to have assumed that atomic radii of 6d elements should shrink beyond 5d elements; most of the 5d metals are already close-packed, there is no room to get any higher density by any other means. (See Talk:Hassium/Archive 1#chemical and physical properties.) But, calculations on covalent radii seem to indicate that this is not the case, and that in fact radii of 6d elements are modestly higher than 5d elements (see covalent radius for the table). So, although indeed we surpass osmium density, we don't do it by much. I wouldn't shout from the rooftops that meitnerium is going to be the heaviest metal now, because this is very isotope-dependent again (too close to hassium and friends).
We'll have to make some changes, I think. Now I wish someone would finally address 7p and maybe 8s elements. ;) Double sharp ( talk) 06:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Nuclear and Radiochemistry: Fundamentals and Applications (2013, 3rd ed., p. 631) by Kratz and Lieser has newer but pretty similar values:
Element | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | 119 | 120 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Preferred oxidation state | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Ionisation energy (eV) | 5.1 | 6.2 | 7.1 | 6.5 | 7.4 | 8.2 | 9.4 | 10.3 | 11.1 | 7.5 | 8.5 | 5.9 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 9.0 | 4.1 | 5.3 |
Ionic radius, metallic state (Å) | 1.66 | 1.53 | 1.47 | 1.45 | 1.43 | 1.44 | 1.46 | 1.52 | 1.60 | 1.69 | 1.76 | 1.78 | 1.77 | — | — | 2.6 | 2.0 |
Density (g/cm3) | 17.0 | 21.6 | 23.2 | 27.2 | 28.6 | 28.2 | 27.4 | 24.4 | 16.8 | 14.7 | 15.1 | 14.7 | 13.6 | — | — | 4.6 | 7.2 |
So the point stands: while the 6d metals should be a bit more dense than the 5d ones, ideas of them being almost twice as dense seem to be dead in the water. Double sharp ( talk) 08:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, now there are two similar but different predictions from about the same time, and there isn't an obvious reason to choose one over the other.
Perhaps we should relook at how we handle predictions and keep them in the article body instead of the infobox? It is starting to look kind of like the situation with the isotopes, e.g. {{
Infobox ununennium isotopes}}
. There's many different predictions and it seems
WP:UNDUE to take a side. In an infobox we are more or less stuck with either taking a side (bad) or not saying anything at all (less bad); in article text we can have more nuances and say "so-and-so predicts this, so-and-so predicts that, blah blah".
Double sharp (
talk)
08:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ ComplexRational, DePiep, Droog Andrey, LaundryPizza03, and YBG: Comments, please? Double sharp ( talk) 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
https://21colloqueganil.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/03_Gall_Benoit_Colloque_GANIL_2019.pdf
Seems projections till 2030 only go up to E122. But now this gives at least a source for the obvious reactions (Ti+Cm = Og, Ti+Bk = 119, Ti+Cf = 120, V+Cm = 119, V+Cf = 121, Cr+Cm = 120, Cr+Cf = 122).
Other ideas with transfer reactions are also there. Then some considerations of making beams of Ti, V, Cr, and U(!). Double sharp ( talk) 09:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Link. Not a research paper, but cool and quotes the investigators. Main points:
The original Dubna 114 chain (with the very long-lived nuclides) was mentioned as never having been replicated, which is true. This said, Hofmann et al. have elsewhere suggested that it might be from EC of 290Fl (2n channel) to neutron-rich 290Nh. Hopefully SHE-Factory can shed some more light on this reaction.
Double sharp ( talk) 08:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Taking into account recent udQM research, one could expect a continental shelf of transition nuclei instead of stability island, where nucleon shells are smeared out, and nucleons themselves become as virtual as mesons between them. That reminds gradual change from dispersion forces to metallic bonding in chemistry (cf. radon vs. mercury, or iodine vs. gallium). Clear deviation from A/Z = 2 + (A/555)2/3 trend after nobelium looks like a first warning. Droog Andrey ( talk) 20:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
More news. Looks like this year, SHE Factory will focus on studying Fl, Mc, and Og some more. Eighth row elements will have to wait till 2022, unless RIKEN gets lucky with its 119 campaign. Double sharp ( talk) 03:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
News in Russian. Double sharp ( talk) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I realise that this is something currently topic-banned Sandbh mentioned (over at de.wp where he is not topic-banned), but it seems to be a reasonable point, so I raise it myself instead.
He mentioned that we took the preliminary report above as good enough for changing group 3, but always waited for the final IUPAC approval for new elements, and that he found this strange. I have to admit that there is a good point here, although I draw an opposite conclusion since the consensus in favour of changing group 3 now was so clear. So instead of questioning that, I question if maybe we should be changing the names early for consistency.
(For reference: what happens when a new element is claimed to be discovered is that first the discoverers publish the discovery, and submit it to the IUPAC/IUPAP JWP as a claim. The JWP then analyses the claim and gives its conclusions. Then the discoverers are invited to propose the name. Then they do. Then after a comment period of a few months, IUPAC makes it official.)
The reasoning: we have never waited for the JWP to approve the discovery. We always considered the element discovered once it was in peer-reviewed journals. For example: moscovium (then ununpentium) was only approved by the JWP in 2015. Before that, in 2011 it was considered that the evidence was insufficient to approve it. That did not stop us from already treating it as having been discovered already before 2015. In fact we already had a GA on it back in 2014. Because: that's what pretty much everybody was doing. That's even what NIST was doing: in 2001, they added elements 114, 116, and 118 to the table, based on the Dubna and LBNL experiments. Of course, they then had to remove 118 the next year (that was the case of fakery by Victor Ninov), but that is not likely to happen again. And by 2010, the elements up to 118 were all there. Greenwood and Earnshaw already mention in 1997 that the discoveries of 110, 111, and 112 were generally accepted then already, even though in the case of 112 it took till 2009 for IUPAC to approve it.
But if we don't wait for IUPAC for the discoveries, and we're content with preliminary reports for the group 3 thing that IUPAC mentions as one of the things they're doing on their page, then it seems indeed a bit inconsistent to wait for the names to become official. Especially because by the time the names are released to the public, IUPAC has already reviewed and considered them and recommended them for acceptance.
So perhaps we should change what we do in these cases. Instead of move-protecting for months, when everyone already knows what the name will soon be already, perhaps we should just move the articles and add notes saying that the names and symbols are only proposed for now. Ever since the great Transfermium War debacle, the names have never changed anyway, and only once did the symbol change (copernicium, where Cp became Cn).
So I start some polling. Double sharp ( talk) 15:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
1. bitte keine internen Streitigkeiten aus der englischsprachigen Wikipedia hierher tragenand more (by de:User:Orci [10] [11]). The dewiki thread also introduces similarities to problematische discussion setups we had here.
not likely to happen again)? The period when IUPAC has invited discoverers to propose a name?, the period when the name is put up for scrutiny in the scientific world? And why refer to the transfermium wars (now this is a situation that quite likely will not happen again).
When IUPAC announces the discoverers' choices of names and symbols, should we:
@ YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, LaundryPizza03, and Unbinilium-322 Dibromide:
So far, only nine elements got named after WP was founded, in five batches: Ds (2003), Rg (2004), Cn (2010), Fl and Lv (2012), Nh and Mc and Ts and Og (2016).
Mostly we waited for the final moment where it became official. See the discussions at Talk:Copernicium/Archive 1, Talk:Flerovium/Archive 1#Requested move, Talk:Tennessine/Archive 1#Requested move 10 June 2016. For Rg, it seems that the name was installed early and then reverted the next day as only the proposed name.
For Ds, we did do it early. Ds was renamed in March 2003 (the announcement was January), whereas the final approval happened on 16 August.
So, out of the nine cases: for eight we apparently waited, and only for the first one did we do it early.
I suppose there will be time to sort it out when it happens. Cross-sections for 119+ look awful, so maybe there is no point in legislating right now for something that will likely be a real rarity. Double sharp ( talk) 12:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, it is blatantly obvious that what we have here is not a consensus for anything. Therefore, I suppose we can just treat it as DePiep suggested: "Close without conclusion. Come back when there is an actual case."
That is, we will not discuss this until (1) a new element gets synthesised, (2) IUPAC and IUPAP decide it meets the criteria of a discovery, (3) the discoverers propose the name, and (4) IUPAC releases the name for the 5-month public review. That should be a long way away. Double sharp ( talk) 09:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)