User:Double sharp/Periodic table issues

Ever since some smart people had the idea that the chemical elements had some similarities, the great concept of the periodic table started.

And ever since the same smart people have realized that the chemical elements don't exactly fall into neat patterns, there has never been an end to the onslaught of alternative periodic tables.

This is intended to be my covering of the main issues that seem to be being disputed on the WikiProject Elements talk page, and the arguments involved, in the hope that this will prove easier reading than the entire monster discussion that has never really stopped since I raised the topic of whether Po and At are metalloids one fine day in 2012. (I write in early 2014.)

(And come to think of it, I would kinda like it to stop pretty soon, so that I can get back to writing articles instead of moonlighting at the project page all day.)

18- or 32-column periodic table?
One thing is clear: despite the 32-column periodic table being arguably better reflective of the periodicity of the elements, the 18-column table has become the standard. (In the West; Mendeleev's short 8-column table is still quite popular in the CIS, I think.) Why is this an issue for us? Because we use the 32-column table in the infobox, and in our compact navigation template.

Reflecting periodicity of the elements
[DePiep's circle]

Popularity
Now, aspect ratio really isn't an issue here, because on the Internet we are not constrained by paper's standard aspect ratios, but because the Internet has been around for far shorter a period of time than paper, the 18-column table has retained its popularity that it gained throughout paper's dominance.

Many people will be surprised to see the 32-column table being displayed so prominently here. Indeed some may be hostile to it at first sight, or use it as evidence that Wikipedia is not of professional quality, because pretty much all the standard texts use the 18-column table.
 * The assertion in sentence 1 is questionable. See periodic table. I don't know what Deming's reasons were, but they were certainly based on chemistry and not just a matter of printing convenience. Petergans (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I always heard aspect ratio as being one of the reasons. I'm looking for the other one now. For now I changed the assertion to reflect that it is not the only reason (though it's probably one of them). Double sharp (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Deming liked the 18-column table (for chemistry based reasons) over the 8-column Mendeleev style table. He didn't say anything, as far as I can see, about the 32-column version. Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, my brain unwittingly conflated two pieces of information. :-) I don't think he would have used 32-column, as the lanthanides were still being puzzled out. I've removed that sentence. Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Loss of information
There isn't any loss of information in converting from the 32-column table to the 18-column table, or vice versa. I submit that this is not an argument for either.

Resolving the group 3 dispute
This is really a topic for the next section, but one important point about the 32-column table is that it all but forces its users to take a definite stand on the composition of group 3. There is no opportunity to stuff all the lanthanides and actinides under scandium and yttrium.

The assessment of this depends greatly on the assessment of the whole group 3 issue, so I'll consider this in the group 3 section.

Layout reasons
We've already covered aspect ratios as a reason why the 18-column table is popular. Can one find reasons for the 32-column table?

Well, not really for the infobox: using an 18-column table there makes the cells big enough to click on safely, and also permits the use of element symbols. This is a very good move. (Assuming you keep the width constant, of course. Keeping the cell size constant gives room at the side to put in a picture of the element, but our current pictures don't seem to harmonize all that well with such an arrangement.)

But for the compact periodic table we place at the bottom of our articles, it could be argued that the 32-column table is good, because now you have the entire width of the page available, and splitting that large width into only 18 columns provokes a desire to add information to the cells. But once you do that, it stops being a navigation template, and starts becoming an information template.

Elements beyond 118
Once you pass element 118, the g-block is added. We have some articles giving referenced speculation about the properties of such elements.

If you use an 18-column table navigator for these elements, you'll get footnotes within footnotes. This is much more confusing than a single pair of footnotes, and so I think that the 32-column table is the best for this specialized case.

All the issues on group 3
This will cover the dispute over the composition of group 3, and whether it is a better overall compromise to put La under Y or to put Lu under Y. It will also cover the recent offshoot of this proposal to use "rare earth metals" to classify Sc, Y, and the lanthanides, as well as whether group 3 would be better classified as a transition metal group or a main group.

All the issues on group 12
This will cover the issue of the transition metal status of the group 12 elements. Is it a better compromise to label them as transition metals, or not to do so?

How to name the region of metals beyond the transition metals
List the alternatives below:

The following are debates that have since been concluded here, and are mentioned for historical interest as well as completeness.

The placement of hydrogen
(Yes indeed, it has been raised, and you can blame me for it.)