Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 19

Ununtrium → element 113 etc.

 * This used to be its own section, but I moved it to become a subsection of "On our noticeboard proposals" as point 5 to keep all the noticeboard proposal discussion together. Double sharp (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We should get back to article work
For too much time now we have been debating endlessly over our element categorization scheme instead of achieving 2011 productivity levels. I guess I could start by finishing the half-finished (or more; often only a few subsections are missing) GA's I was working on – Np, Bh, Fl... Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I resumed work on Np at User:Thingg/neptunium (I was collaborating with Thingg on it in October and November 2013, and stopped with six sections remaining.) Now two sections are left. Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what we're doing! I'm bulldozing through fluorine, there are other monkeys at their typewriters, we're getting things done, finally! Princess   Parcly   Taxel  02:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * great! (F has been sitting there for too long.) After that I think we could get your copper to FA? (I was thinking for a long time about an iron FA too.) Double sharp (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha, aha. The reference infrastructure for fluorine is pretty much done, I'm just copyediting, but copper may have a few holes here and there. The 29th element will thus be a multi-editor project. Princess   Parcly   Taxel  02:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We finished Np, put it in mainspace, and GAN'd it. Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The GAN has passed (reviewed by Parcly Taxel). Double sharp (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now get up and call everyone to gang up on the fluorine FAC – it is even more precious than gold! Parcly   Taxel  01:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alkali metal is getting there too, and was started around the same time (2011). Double sharp (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Elements that should be GA or FA but are not of that quality
Just some names of very important elements that I'm throwing out, in case anyone is interested.


 * Carbon – a weak GA.
 * Nitrogen
 * All the period 3 elements (except argon). I think R8R has plans for Al.
 * Calcium
 * Iron – I have wanted to do this one for a long time
 * Copper – this is already a GA, but should be an FA IMHO
 * Arsenic – not that far off
 * Bromine
 * Silver
 * Iodine
 * Tungsten – same as copper
 * Gold
 * Thorium – what a mess. Mav said he would do it some years ago: I could do it later.

There's also these two actinides:


 * Uranium – an FA, but what a mess slightly choppy and perhaps messy at points.
 * Californium – if it's an FA, how can it be shorter than all the GAs for the actinides around it? (This is of debatable importance, but I couldn't let this go.) The existing content is good, but I keep feeling that there could be a lot more. In general maybe Np is too detailed and Cf is not detailed enough, I think.

Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Bromine and iodine have always been the thorn in our roses. It's a huge mess with these two: even their names are abused to mean other things. OK, let's fix both of these, but after we get fluorine to the peak. Parcly   Taxel  08:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Chlorine gets more views per unit time on average, I think, and this makes up for it being B instead of C (the last time I checked, I would have thought it was rather on the low side of B). So I think Cl, Br, and I are about as equally important. By this measure N, Na, Mg, Ca, Fe, Ag, and Au are also very high priorities. These are all among the most important elements, so there will be a lot to write about, unlike in the actinides and transactinides when many sections (first biological role, then occurrence, then applications, etc.) get atrophied as the atomic number increases. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, when you have a lot to write about there'll be a lot of references. But I would disagree on chlorine to do after Project Fluorine flops (if you know what I mean): let's have some variety, we'll come back to that after we do one or two articles elsewhere in the periodic table. Without loss of generality we can take sulfur. This one I think you left out when you catalogued the articles lacking in quality, and it also has some real history we can write about. From the Bible to wars in Sicily and the contact process to methionine – it's everywhere. It's like a sulfur gold mine. Parcly   Taxel  02:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't leave S out: it's under "All the period 3 elements (except argon)".
 * But the fact is, just sitting here and talking about each goal won't get anything done. I gave a list to stimulate article development, and if you think I left out something deserving, you can add it and work on it yourself. If I had to pick one now, it would be Th, simply because I've had the experience of working with an actinide article (Np, and to a lesser extent Bk).
 * BTW, halogen isn't an element, but really should be an FA due to its importance. But I can understand that after F, At, and E117, one would tend to feel jaded about doing Cl, Br, and I for the moment. If you want to do groups, Sr seems a good quick choice, because Ba is a good model and is old enough that the memories of the work don't come back.
 * If you're keen on GTs, though, Na GA will immediately create one (alkali metal). Double sharp (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. You can write a good history section on every element. See for example neptunium (thanks Thingg!) and ununseptium (thanks R8R!). But I do agree that for an ancient element you will have lots and lots to write about. Thus I could again throw out the names of the elements known to the ancients: Cu, Pb, Au, Ag, Fe, C, Sn, S, Hg, Zn, As, Sb, perhaps Cr. Double sharp (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Started giving some talkpage comments for Cf at Talk:Californium. I looked at relevant sections Haire and then checked to see if the cool and easily understandable info was in the article. Mostly it wasn't. Double sharp (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The new chemistry of the elements
A Royal Society of Chemistry page to keep on an eye on, noting that, "Recorded audio of the presentations will be available on this page after the event and the papers will be published in a future issue of Philosophical Transactions A." Topics include: "Evolution of the modern Periodic Table"; "On the occurence of metallic character in the Periodic Table of the elements"; "Chemistry of the superheavy elements"; "The alkali metals: 200 years of discovery" ('An interesting feature is that a single compound can contain both M+ and M-'); "Chemistry of Ag(2+): a cornucopia of pecularities"; "A Periodic Table of metal oxides". Sandbh (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to the audio being put up online! Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * From the Scerri abstract: "If time permits I will also touch on the question of the placement of certain elements (H, He, La, Ac, Lu, Lr) and the question of whether it is meaningful to seek an optimal periodic table". DePiep (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Takes a lot of time to rewind the tape. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't see where the recorded audio is. Am I missing something?
 * (I see Professor Martyn Poliakoff CBE of The Periodic Table of Videos spoke at the event on 12 April!) Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

1-Tridecanol
This article came through AFC. Please can someone tidy up the infobox? It scares me. Alternatively AFD it if it's not notable.--Coin945 (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I think this is more for WikiProject Chemicals. I'll try to see what I can do, though. Double sharp (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed the chembox. Originals from de:1-Tridecanol. Pharmacology not yet OK. -DePiep (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That was quick! Thanks DePiep. Double sharp (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merci. :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Declaration 995
I have talked with, and he's had enough of the discussions happening here. Indeed, even I am getting tired of it all. So to resolve all our debates here (and on our noticeboard), let me put forth Declaration 995: Endless discussion here has not moved the position closer to a consensus, but farther away from it. So let us not discuss here. Just accept the points here, which were the status quo before the "war" began, and move on with article improvement. Parcly  Taxel  00:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lutetium and lawrencium under scandium and yttrium, without the "rare earth metals" category.
 * Leave the IUPAC systematic names (ununtrium, ununpentium, etc.) as they are.
 * Post-transition metals for the metals after group 12; they will not include zinc, cadmium, mercury or copernicium.
 * Individual periods to get their own articles, rather than getting merged into one article about periods.
 * An "endless discussion" about your #4: individual period articles? Where? Discussion ran 12:59, 10 July 2014 –13:33, 12 July 2014; was implemented 20 July following. No outcome for #2 systematic names vs 'element xxx' names? Please take another look. And notice that many talks actually did produce a change by consensus, but they are in the archives. Visible are current talks, consensus within eyesight: this, this, this.
 * Could it be that because the outcome did not satisfy you, you want throw out all disucussion? You want !voting in a scientific topic? Well, there might be a reason why even IUPAC & the RL scientific community is not unisono in such topics. So far, so good, no problem in this. Though forking discussions, as you initiated here, does not improve any outcome quality, and usually is a drowner. The red flag word is that you 'talked with Nergaal'. Is that the communication process you propose? Nergaal is free not to talk, but that is no excuse for edit-warring or for disrupting discussions by proxy. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that even you don't follow the consensus you made, so in effect there still is no consensus. I'll be waiting on sulfur; I'll see you there when you finally realise that constructive editing is better than any debate. Parcly   Taxel  11:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re your opening line "The problem is ...", why did not you say anything like that in your OP? Actually, you said the opposite (namely there being no consensus). And if you want to press me on something, first provide some quote & diff please. Next question, what exactly are you waiting for? Did you or anyone else ask me for some consensus implementation, I have missed? This comment is vague, you leave me confused. Note that you are invited to base you opening remark, first and foremost. And please specify which comments are your own and Nergaal's, respectively. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First let me recommend the Double sharp post below seriously for reading. After that, re, I can say sure "some editors" are getting moody (that includes yourself, right?). FAs for this side that is because you, Parcly Taxel, insinuate and don't come clear, even after being asked. And you keep parotting Nergaal. Are you a puppet editor then? Speak for yourself, and Nergaal can speak for themselves. Next, I repeat: prove (by quote & diff) or withdraw your 11:04 negative suggestion, as I asked for. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is firmly against you for #2. It's just that it has not been pushed through, because it requires an RM and that would need an MOS ruling. It took years to get pnictogen where it currently is: it took months to get the metalloid discussion complete. Now, you are free to write this. In fact, so is anyone else. And there is no war here, just discussion. No need to rush. We will have an improved periodic table this way. When you rush, you tend to miss stuff. If you don't want to read the discussion, I cannot force you to, nor can anyone else. But it does mean that you will not know the context, and you will not know the current state of the discussion: you will just see any change that is not in mainspace yet as having a lack of consensus for it.

And what to make of the period articles? I implemented that, and I was somewhat unwilling to do so quickly because not everyone had commented – though naturally everyone was implicitly invited to – but I felt that the overwhelming arguments against having such articles were enough. And yet now you call it a war, as though I was fighting against you. No, I am not. I simply do what I think is best for the project. If you think I did something wrong, you can revert it, and discuss. Then we can come to a consensus. That is just the WP:BRD cycle. But if we ignore discussion, how do we get a consensus? How do we get anything done?

You are right about article work, and I agree that this discussion takes up time. But some of it is article-related, and even more has to do with the presentation of our PT, which naturally has a big impact on articles. Do you think that nonmetal would be a GA without all this discussion? That metalloid would be an FA? That other metal (soon to be moved) would be a B-class article? Even some of the content of alkali metal, chalcogen, and neptunium is indebted to this long discussion through many steps. If nothing else, reading it will teach you a lot about some elements: and is that not necessary to contribute to articles? That is why I can give comments and write good articles: I have done some reading and discussing, the latter of which helps me understand things.

When I have done reading, propose something, and not much discussion occurs, like for Fl's categorization, there is no opportunity for improvement, and we cannot know whether we have done what is best for our readers. Double sharp (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Your #1 was not the status quo ante !bellum. That would have been Sc/Y/*/**, with Sc/Y/Lu/Lr in the long form only. Double sharp (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you will see Nergaal's talk page you'll find that I was discussing about the FTRC for the period 1 elements. Nergaal said he was frustrated at how you handled the controversies: "debate a lot and then ignore the fragile consensus that was reached". That includes the FTRC at hand: you already reached a consensus not to merge or move any article, including the individual period articles, but you merged anyway.
 * Never mind about that though; I know where you're coming from. I can already tell that some editors here are getting a little moody, which severely hinders discussion. So please calm down and state the current consensus on our noticeboard issues (where the position lies). In fact, I think it'd be a wonderful idea to have weekly summaries of the debates posted in a dedicated section of the talk. Parcly   Taxel  23:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to be for Sc-Y-Lu-Lr (marginally), without REM: strongly for PTM (we need to rerun group 12, as most opposes were against "poor metal"): strongly against using IUPAC systematic names (but still fixing details for MOS). Double sharp (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Actually, I think Nergaal's talking about PTM/other metal when they claim we ignored consensus. Actually, we didn't: we were waiting for Sandbh to get the PTM article ready. It is done now: PTM is now live. And we did indeed reach a consensus among those who participated in the discussion (3 supporting, none against) for the period articles to be merged. Double sharp (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of Ununtrium to Element 113
Please see Talk:Ununtrium. This was proposed as a technical move by User:R8R Gtrs at WP:Requested moves/Technical requests but due to possible controversy it probably needs a full discussion. The original request also included elements 115, 117, 118, 119 and 120. By a notice here I am hoping to get the attention of those interested in these elements without having to post on the talk pages of all the affected articles. The current names of those other elements are Ununpentium, Ununseptium, Ununoctium, Ununennium and Unbinillium. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Planning for the vote on the noticeboard proposals
I suggest that for the first question, we have the following choices that can all be voted for:
 * 1) Status quo (half Lu/Lr): 18-col Sc/Y/*/**, 32-col Sc/Y/Lu/Lr
 * 2) Full Lu/Lr: 18-col and 32-col Sc/Y/Lu/Lr
 * 3) Half La/Ac: 18-col Sc/Y/*/**, 32-col Sc/Y/La/Ac
 * 4) Full La/Ac: 18-col and 32-col Sc/Y/La/Ac

For the second question, we should have these choices:
 * 1) Status quo (strict IUPAC 1): Zn, Cd, Hg, Cn as TMs
 * 2) Strict IUPAC 2: Zn and Cd are PTMs, while Hg and Cn are TMs. This would make E113, Fl, E165, E166 predicted TMs.
 * 3) Jensen-style: Zn, Cd, Hg are PTMs. Cn is a PTM (no known Cn(IV) compounds yet), but predicted TM.

There are some problems here with Cn, which is known to be a metal but not a TM in the IUPAC 2 sense (can use d electrons). It is expected to be a TM in the IUPAC 2 sense. Sandbh has argued that for E113 we should call it a PTM because E113(V) is not known yet: so I propose the same for Cn. Fl would thus be a PTM. (Here I use "1" and "2" for the two IUPAC-allowed definitions: for the non-superheavy elements, they basically boil down to "group 3-12 = TM" and "group 3-11 + Hg = TM".

For the third question, we already had a consensus: we just need an MOS proposal and then an RM. Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't discuss your own vote here: that should be done when the final vote thread starts. However, if you can think of an option that I did not cover, please mention it below and add it. I tried above to accommodate every possible option that has been seen in the literature for the first two noticeboard proposals. The third has already been discussed and voted on, as I understand: part one, part two. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Four independent topics, so four independent votes/sections/discussions. (sigh). Also, can you add what the post-decision procedure is? Retraction of vote option? (OR: simply write four proposals). -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and let us not forget. This invites the Nergaal-route: after any conclusion, Nergaal disrupts (soft wording) and then even self-thinking editors like R8R and Double sharp revert their own facts. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I imagine the post-decision procedure would be much like what we did for option 10: we implement it. We do need to state exactly how long the duration of the vote is, so that we can minimize the number of latecomers. It should be quite long (maybe a week to a month), so that everyone can participate and there will be a strong enough consensus one way or the other so that any after-closure comments won't affect the result (like they did for the periods). We also should probably have two separate sections for vote/discussion, or maybe just make it a !vote like AfD. Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Article reassessment
I've done this again. I've tried to be as nasty as possible with the ratings, so very many B-class articles suffered.

On the GAs (FAs are surely OK), some of them are indeed below the line, but fixing that would require a full-fledged series of GARs. Some are very close to FA and need only the implementation of a single review to hit FA (many actinides, Hs) and so I made them A. But it takes more work to downgrade above GA, and those can kind of stagnate. For the superheavies, Mt to E113 need better history sections, and Cn also needs more chem to consider A. Double sharp (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I worked on alkali metal, Np, and Hs, which are articles that I raised the class rating of. Nevertheless (1) I didn't do this for all my articles and (2) this is mostly because I ask for reviews a lot, which often give comments about how FA- or GA-ready an article is and (3) alkali metal is like this because, ever since its C-ish beginnings, my conceptions of the classes have kept on rising non-stop. I still do not believe it is FA-ready, though I think it is within A territory now. Double sharp (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you disagree with any rating, even one I did not change, please change it, and preferably write in the edit summary or the talk page some reasons for the rerating. Double sharp (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. But StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC) ? -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nergaal has done mass article reassessments before, and I don't think this is relevant to this section. It's not as if I've precluded the possibility of reversion for anything. If you disagree, fine: revert and we'll discuss. Double sharp (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Chalcogen article - GA ?
This article has not changed since I wrote some helpful ctriticisms last year ( during and post thee GA process)- I assigned the article to chemistry project and asked for comment there. Here is the talk page extract "I have added the article chalcogen to the Chemistry project, currently it is marked up as Project Elements and an enthusiastic group of editors is pushing it on. It has been rated as GA. The chemical compounds section lets it down. IMHO it requires either drastic improvement and enlargement in terms of detail or a complete rethink and rewite to highlight chemical trends. Of all the groups this must be one of the most difficult to tackle as O is so different from S, Se and Te and Po is different again, which is of course why most text books treat oxygen as a separate topic from the rest of the group.Axiosaurus (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is very difficult to write a decent article mixing O and S/Se/Te. Enthusiasm often trumps competence, unwittingly and with good intentions. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the page Chalcogen contains too much informations, because these elements do not show so much similarities, so it make no sense for example to write a section about the history or about the compounds of chalcogens putting into it the informations of each element and try to mixing everything together in an heterogeneous way. It looks to me like a patchwork! --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering that this is an article about group 16 elements, there is a glaring deficiency - the absence of any discussion of trends withing the group (periodic trends). I'm too busy at the moment to address this issue. A good starting point might be Greenwood & Earnshaw, p784 "Chemical reactivity and trends"[in group 16]].Petergans (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This article is now up for FA review. OMG! It has not been changed since I highlighted it here. You might like to comment, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chalcogen/archive1. How this ever got to GA defeats me.Axiosaurus (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Kids will be kids. One needs to anticipate emerging or missing articles and write them in a way that orients future editors and aims to inform readers. Otherwise these topics get misoriented. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC) "


 * I have also long wanted to rerate this, but didn't dare to do it without a formal GAR. I agree that in its current state it would need a near-total rewrite to truly reach GA. Currently reading in Greenwood & Earnshaw about this group. I note that they, too, split it into chapters on O, S, and Se/Te/Po, showing how difficult it is (they split groups 13 to 16 as follows – group 13: B + Al/Ga/In/Tl; group 14: C + Si + Ge/Sn/Pb; group 15: N + P + As/Sb/Bi; group 16: O + S + Se/Te/Po) to cover the chalcogens as a whole. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disturb your IUPAC talkstyle, but the real stuff is at Talk:Chalcogen. (You all did not give a single link??). -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops! I'm sorry. The article is Chalcogen, and the GAR is at Good_article_reassessment/Chalcogen/1. Double sharp (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a process. In the GA-A-FA steps we better be serious, self-critical and patient. -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Superheavy element chemical investigations
Cool. E113 has been found to not be very volatile in the elemental state. Future experiments will try to add more water to the carrier gas (because getting E113 to where it needs to be has been problematic due to low volatility), to form a hopefully more volatile hydroxide (113)OH.

Also, E115 and Lv are going to receive chemical investigation soon, probably using the hydrides (115)H3 and LvH2. If all goes well, we can colour in four more elements on the PT (E113 to Lv).

They don't mention anything about Mt, Ds, or Rg. The first two are kind of hard to examine chemically because of a lack of volatile compounds. The omission of Rg is probably because it seems further from the island of stability (Cn onwards seem the main goals now). A while back its chemistry was considered really interesting and worthy of an investigation. Now it seems to be otherwise. Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's another link for synthesis methods. Double sharp (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * p.9: planned experiments for forming Cn and Fl sulfides! Double sharp (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Option 10 - First annual
Today, August 17, marks the anniversary of our huge Option 10 decision to change categorization scheme of non-metals (400k talk, 15 months). Those who were there will remember.

Categories were dropped altogether ("halogens is a group but not a category", "other non-metals"), and new, quite exotic categories were introduced (I had never heard of "diatomic" or "polyatomic nonmetals" before). It was not just a category name change (boring, peanuts, we know), or changing colors (though very interesting in itself, I say). It was: new categories in the metal–nonmetal trend. In a sound categorizing frame at that.

And afterwards, few or none corrections had to be made to the decision. Even better, the fork-enwiki image File:Periodic table (polyatomic).svg today is used in a dozen other iw wikis, including it, ar, da, cs, ja. -DePiep (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Boron allotropes
Can someone talk to about thier behaviour wrt boron, template:infobox boron and allotropes of boron? After a few edits back-and-fro, I started a talk at talk:Boron (how smart), but MatSci does not read or communicate. Of course, no talk=no quality. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Explaining the lanthanides
If I had to describe the elements making up the periodic table to a complete non-scientist I would explain that most of the alkali and alkaline earth metals are reactive metals; the actinides are radioactive metals; the transition metals are typical metals; and the post-transition metals are weak metals. Now, how does one explain the lanthanides using a two or three word descriptive phrase? Nearly identical metals? True, but doesn't tell anything of their character. Less reactive metals? Sandbh (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Moderately reactive metals"? The early ones do tarnish in air and react, though the later ones don't: but they all react with water. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Mav
Our founder has retired on 17 July, and it occurs to me that it may be a good idea to get an FA done to thank him for the whole thing. How about Be or Th, both of which he said he wanted to do, but never got around to? (Be would be very good, being the article that started the whole project...) Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have started work on Th at User:Double sharp/Thorium. Staying off working on the parts related to Th as a nuclear fuel, though, until I learn more about that. I can write on the metal itself and its chemistry first. Think the experience of writing Np would be helpful, although Th has more natural occurrence to speak of. Double sharp (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like Th will have to do without . Anyway, I've seen fine edits (and nothing else) by Mav 'recently' (that is last few years, by their clock). But hey, a 2002 contributor! What are their edits that even today shape this WP:ELEMENTS? I want to see them 200x edits! Good links & diffs please! -DePiep (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He's changed his userpage to use instead. Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is what I saw.
 * re . I appreciate the contributions by, allways a good read (including any history diff). But I can not give that laural of honour just because of 'starting' this WP:ELEMENTS project. Last months, we have experienced too much old-horse editors who came along claiming some authority (not mav). I like mav, I don't like "old editor so is great". -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. But an FA would be good, and since he may not have the time to do what he planned (Th/Be FA), it occurs to me that it would be good for it to be done regardless. After all, FAs are good to have, and if this motivates someone, all the better. :-) Double sharp (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

In an additional attempt to motivate people to work with me on Th, I'm working on the last actinides (Md, No, and Lr) to get them to GA, so that Th GA/FA would complete a GT/FT of actinide. Currently I am halfway through Md at User:Double sharp/Mendelevium. Double sharp (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Md is now at GAN. Double sharp (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And done. Parcly   Taxel  01:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GAN says that a nomination should be judged by an uninvolved editor ... -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Parcly did point out the only issues he seemed to have, but then fixed them himself. It seems borderline. On the one hand, assuming his opinion wouldn't have changed in the meantime anyway (which seems probable), it would have passed regardless of whether or not he did it. On the other hand, this kind of violates procedure. Not completely sure which way to go here. Double sharp (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No is now at GAN. Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lr is now at GAN. Double sharp (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I keep running into this ref: Magnetic susceptibility of the elements and inorganic compounds, in Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 81st edition, CRC press. (e.g. in infobox thorium). It's a dead link, and some similar page that popped up only listed numeric values, but not a "Magnetic ordering = paramagnetic" fact (it is supposed to reference). A good link?-DePiep (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Try this. Negative χm values = diamagnetic; positive χm values = paramagnetic; ferromagnetic marked as "Ferro.". Double sharp (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Language problems
I always had the impression that a civilized language was state of the art in this project. I learned from one of my fellow elements projects members how to work in heated debate and I liked the very cool way the discussion ended. I know that it is not easy to take a step back and reach over to the other person and help each other to get allong but we have to do this. --Stone (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I second this. Needless sniping at people does no good for anybody. Can we please try to get along here? StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. I am surprised that experienced editors do not channel to basic talk page behaviour. -DePiep (talk)
 * Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me take this opportunity to criticise Wikipedia Zero (read the 13 August 2014 Signpost for more details about it). Anyway, I need to take a little break (i.e. I won't be completely off here but will have reduced activity) after all that work I put in to push fluorine to FA. Parcly   Taxel  01:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me also take this opportunity to criticize the WMF for the MediaViewer fiasco and the whole superprotect right that is essentially a way to force the community to abide by their dictates, which you can also find in the Signpost. Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ?, OK, if this is what people make of real problems ......... --Stone (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The WMF thing: I seriously doubt anything we do will make any difference at this point, and now I'm just grateful that there actually is an off switch. In the meantime, we should uphold WP:CIVIL. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I need to make an apology – somehow I succeeded in not noticing Stone's opening statement, just Parcly's rather off-topic comment, and then responded to that. Sorry! I agree completely with Stone's statement, as I made clear a few hours ago with the. Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What's that  thing you keep using? -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a reference to Google+. Double sharp (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Another distraction asking attention to be ignored, then. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh? What's wrong with that? It's no different from a Symbol_support_vote.svg Support, is it? Double sharp (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it? How should I know? While it does not look & react like that? Why not use the local dialect? (even the documentation is horrible) -DePiep (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Allotropes - definition
In some allotrope and element articles high temperature molecular or atomic forms are described as allotropes. Examples are atomic carbon, singlet oxygen (excited state), disulfur, trisulfur, tetrasulfur. If we include excited states, such as singlet oxygen then it seems to me we have opened a very wide door. If we include high temperature forms, then there are many missing e.g. disodium, dipotassium, trisodium. What is the definition that we adopt? Where do we draw the line? Axiosaurus (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * IUPAC defines "allotropes" simply as "Different structural modifications of an element." Of course, this may not be the most widely used definition, and I suspect the scope of the term may differ according to different subfields' needs. Double sharp (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Atomic/excited forms don't count as allotropes. Nor do high (or low) temperature forms in a different phase e.g. disulfur, disodium, solid oxygen etc. Trisulfur counts since it is known in cryogenic conditions. On sulfur, Donohoe, in his classic The structures of the elements (1974 original; 1982 reprint) first discusses molecular forms that have been observed in the crystalline state, followed by provisional, doubtful, and insufficiently characterized forms, with the more credible of these coming first. Not included by him were "…molecular species observed only in mass spectrometry or in matrices at low temperatures after having being trapped from sulfur vapour at very high temperatures. Such noncrystalline allotropes lie outside of the scope of this article." Sandbh (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But if he calls them "noncrystalline allotropes", then doesn't that mean they count as allotropes? If so then they certainly count, although all caveats should be added to mention that they are usually not discussed alongside more traditional crystalline allotropes. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Remaining fluorine to-do$
Now that fluorine has been promoted, there still are some issues with the references, particularly WP:$ (which we have no standard for). Shall we get on with polishing it up for a TFA? Parcly  Taxel  01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The nicest possible date would be an anniversary of Moissan's isolation of F2, but annoyingly it seems he did not state when that was.
 * So, what's our next target going to be after F? Think we should do something even more fundamental. It's kind of weird to see how our coverage of metals is much better than that of nonmetals (N, P, S, Cl, Br, I all present themselves). If we do a metal now, though, we still have Fe, Ag, and Au. Some transition metal GAs should also be brought to FA (Cu seems the most important to me, with perhaps Co, Ni, Mo, Pd, W, etc.). Double sharp (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember I once thought what date would be the best for the TFA. If my memory serves me right, there was a date worth celebrating: June 26, 1886, the day when either the paper on synthsis was accepted by a publisher, or it was published (or maybe that was when the synthesis took place, I don't remember exactly and need to check that)
 * The last FAC reviewer to have checked the dollar thing seems to be right. I would now make the first dollar sign in the article "US$", and same for the first sign after the lead, and make all the rest just "$".
 * I plan to go to a FAC with ununseptium during this fall/winter, the article was not promoted in 2012 (?) only because of the weak prose. (A GOCE copyedit has been performed since then, no need to worry about that; it would be nice if you checked, but there's no need to be picky). I will check other issues during this fall.--R8R (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I put F down in Today's featured article/requests/pending. Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no plans or promises. But my top interests are (in coincidental sequence): a. improve color scheme for categories, b. bring a MOS:UNNAMEDELEMENTS through RfC (and honor R8R then), and c. make a big Lua module that covers all periodic tables. So no promotable articles in here, but I feel fine without promises or targets. That's my all, see you again in September. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess our next target is not copper but gold. Once that gets to GA, we'll have a long string of GAs and FAs all the way from 69 to 87 (and also we'll have the sixth period of the 18-column table all fill--R8R (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)ed with these kinds of articles). gave me the elemental references, we can do this.  Parcly   Taxel  01:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Au should work. Then I could pitch in and help with Ra and Th to connect that string to the 91++ string and create an absurdly long string. (My goal is to have that string extending from Xe all the way to E118! For that we need several lanthanides, actinides, and transactinides. I'm trying to finish the latter two now, hence the work on Md, No, and Lr.) Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then please leave dubnium to me, I hope to find time for it at some point (not yet saying when, but one day...). Dubna is two hours away from my home, it would be nice to get to the element named after it.--R8R (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Once you start, though, I'm not ruling out a collaboration like we did on E117. ;-) Rf would be a pretty good model. After a short while I got the feeling I didn't really want to do it just yet, as there is a lot to talk about chemistry. I think I'll do transactinide element and extended periodic table instead, because it would help create GTs, and these can be our intro articles for the SHEs. I'm unsure what to do with transuranic element, though.
 * ( Do you want any of the other still undone transactinides – Sg, E115, Lv? Not counting Bh or Fl, I've already done most of those two. If you do I'll try to save them for you.)
 * It's not like I have too much time to edit many elements at once, whether it's a good thing or not.--R8R (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What I would love is a period 7 GT. The toughies in period 7 are Ra and Th, which are not GAs and are actually important in the real world, unlike the transactinides. The Chemistry of the Actinides and Transactinides will make Th an easier target, where U is honestly the best available model. Ra is a sub-actinide and hence we must look elsewhere for a detailed review. Po is perhaps the best model out there. Maybe Pm would also be a good model.
 * Maybe Ra will be first, to give myself some variety from the actinides. Maybe the transactinides or extended PT, because there are so many cool refs (and the latter is getting there, I just need history). Double sharp (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, here's reviews for Ra and Th. There aren't any for the transactinides, but you can find a review for pretty much every element you could think of below Lr here. Note though that the focus is on radiochemistry, so while this is very good for Tc, Pm, and elements above Bi, it may not be so complete for stable elements. Double sharp (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This (covering Po to Ac) would also be very good, if only it were more accessible. :-( Double sharp (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting the natural occurrence of berkelium and californium
While researching for List of elements I realized something that makes Emsley's claim that Bk and Cf (and implying Es) occur naturally somewhat suspect – see Talk:List of elements for a discussion. (You can safely ignore the first paragraph: it's not about the transplutoniums.)

AFAIK Emsley is our only source for natural Bk and Cf (there are other independent sources for natural Am and Cm, although the ones I've found are not journal articles). So if this is right we have to revise our "98 natural elements" claim down to "96" (lax, allowing Am and Cm), "95" (strict, allowing Cm as decay product of natural Pu but not Am), or even "94" (because I can find no paper detecting the Cm that must be there). Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And here comes my first stable element project
In order to make the first-row transition metals happy, I'm finally starting to work on Fe in my sandbox. This is going to be a long journey, I think... Double sharp (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Group 3 conclusions
About Group 3: which elements does it contain, and how should it look? I followed up on earlier talks, and propose:
 * Conclude:
 * Consequence: : PT has a gap column (2-3)

Please talk in the links, not here. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Change flerovium to PTM?
Given the discussion at Talk:Flerovium, there seems to be small majority (2–1) in favour of changing the classification of Fl to a PTM. Now that chemical experiments have been performed, it is wrong to say "unknown chemical properties". R8R Gtrs' chief argument otherwise is that there might be FlF6 (Fricke 1974), making Fl a transition metal by the group 3–11 definition of TMs. However, we are not using that definition of TMs. We colour Cn as a TM because it is known to be a typical group 12 element, so it's a TM by our definition. So we should colour Fl as a PTM beceause it is known to be a typical group 14 metal, so it's a PTM by our definition because it falls in the p-block.

Illustration: 
 * Recolouring of Fl in progress: Roentgenium111's argument re our definition of TM/PTM at the moment was the clincher, for me. Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. IMHO, Roentgenium111's interpretation of our PTM definition (for now, though I don't want to change it anymore) is that a PTM is a metal to the right of the transition metals in the periodic table, i.e. a metal in group 13–18. This includes Al geometrically and thus conforms to our current definition and is exactly the same as the sometimes-proposed "p-block metals": it would also include Fl, just because it is in group 14 after the transition metals. It is nice that that's also my interpretation. :-P R8R seems to consider d-orbital involvement a factor (as it would have to be if we changed our PTM definition to the other one implied by IUPAC), so that if FlF6 were formed it would be prohibitive; but I think that is a moot point because (A) this is predicted to happen for E113, but is not expected to substantially change its chemical character to TM and (B) AFAICS, the most recent predictions that I know of (2006) do not expect any d-electron involvement for Fl, although they do for E113, so that FlF6 would not even be possible. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. IMHO, Roentgenium111's interpretation of our PTM definition (for now, though I don't want to change it anymore) is that a PTM is a metal to the right of the transition metals in the periodic table, i.e. a metal in group 13–18. This includes Al geometrically and thus conforms to our current definition and is exactly the same as the sometimes-proposed "p-block metals": it would also include Fl, just because it is in group 14 after the transition metals. It is nice that that's also my interpretation. :-P R8R seems to consider d-orbital involvement a factor (as it would have to be if we changed our PTM definition to the other one implied by IUPAC), so that if FlF6 were formed it would be prohibitive; but I think that is a moot point because (A) this is predicted to happen for E113, but is not expected to substantially change its chemical character to TM and (B) AFAICS, the most recent predictions that I know of (2006) do not expect any d-electron involvement for Fl, although they do for E113, so that FlF6 would not even be possible. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reconsidered. Dark gray is fine by me.--R8R (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. Now we need to change the pictures like File:Periodic table (polyatomic).svg, etc., to show Fl as a PTM (dark grey). Double sharp (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is done. Any other pics to do? -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I haven't checked what they are. That was the most visible and urgent one. Any others can wait, I think. Double sharp (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Chemical element groups
I propose to rename Category:Chemical element groups into Category:Sets of chemical elements. The reason is that the word "group", of course, already has a different meaning definition in the topic of chemical elements.

It appears that there is no specific type for these, eh, groupings in that category. We see subcategories like periodic table groups, coinage metals, synthetic element, etcetera. So anything serious goes. For this reason, I propose to use a neutral & universal wording: Category:Sets of chemical elements. To be clear: this only changes the name of this parent template category.

Any remarks? -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal: it makes a lot of sense. Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ see Category:Sets of chemical elements. -DePiep (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Periodic table edits
I have made a bunch of edits to this (FA) article. Some notes I have left at Talk:Periodic table and at Talk:Periodic table. Consider this a ping for all WP:ELEM members ;-) . -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"per shell"questions
Take, for example, iron. Today it says, in the infobox:
 * Electron config: [Ar] 3d6 4s2
 * per shell: 2, 8, 14, 2

I can assume that argon (a noble gas) first adds:
 * 2, 8, 8
 * So, the bracket is inside the number:
 * per shell: [2, 8, 8], 6, 2

I don't get it. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The so-called shells relate to the principal quantum number, Argon electron config is  1s2, 2s2, 2p6, 3s2, 3p6, iron is argon with 3d6 and 4s2. Argon has an incomplete "3" shell, Iron also has an incomplete "3" shell (only 14 rather than 18) and "4" shell. Axiosaurus (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So the noble gas can have an incomplete shell. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Content changes in {Infobox element}
This section is for content changes to Infobox element (ideas & proposals). To simplify the process, these are separated from the major #Changes in {Infobox element}, which are layout, format & show only. -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Add metallic radius and ionic radius (Atomic properties)
 * Oh, and one more thing: under "atomic properties", could we also have metallic radius and ionic radius? We have this info for most elements. Double sharp (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC) (moved to this section -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Any suggestion for params, fixed unit, ordering position in the infobox, specials? And I don't know if "most have this values" is a good reason to include. Something with notablility. (I discovered there is band width band gap, only used by Si and Ge -- but to the point). -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * About stp, Standard conditions for temperature and pressure. As it is now, we assume it silently, and the data page mentions it (scrolls and clicks away). We only have a first mentioning like (in future layout)


 * Nowhere we say that this is for all similar values. Shouldn't we add a footnote that says like: "at stp=0 °C, 101.325 kPa, unless stated otherwise" (I cut it short). Chembox has it by default: Ammonia, Carbon monoxide. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Pronounciation audio. See Template:Infobox rutherfordium. It has IPA . The audio link opens another page. We could make that an on-page soundbutton. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Crystal structure. See #Crystal_structure_checks below. IMO does not hinder or delay the layout change. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ in new version. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Allotropes. The element infobox show have a label+data that says: this element has allotropes a/b/c etc (as descriptive as needed). -DePiep (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added: allotropes. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ in new version. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Alternative name(s) that can say 'aluminum', 'element 118'. -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added: alt name, alt names. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ in new version. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also love to have "standard electrode potential", "band gap", "heat of sublimation" (first two under "miscellaneous", last one under "physical properties"). The first would need to specify oxidation state, e.g. Cf4+/Cf3+. Maybe some of these are better discussed in the article as standalone additional data, but generally I would think that if you can fill a data page (like for the first one), it should be a field in the infobox. Double sharp (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please use a bullet per topic, or another entry form (like subsection). It is impossible to discuss two parameters simultaneously. One place-one topic.
 * As for the general line (which to add or not), I'll open a subthread to discuss our policy. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My replies:


 * standard electrode potential (Misc). "Need to specify oxidation state, e.g. Cf4+/Cf3+." await policy? -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * band gap (Misc)
 * Already in. band gap (lc). See Si, Ge. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ in new version. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * heat of sublimation (Phys props) - await policy? -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy for data to include in {Infobox element}
Now that we have the improved Infobox element, we can refine and improve the data entered. There could be dozens of facts to add, so we need a general line on which facts/values/properties to add, or not. (For individual data rows such as: "heat of sublimation", please use the section above).

This section is to discuss and establish those general rules for inclusion/exclusion.

 *  To keep this discussion clear, I impose and maintain edit rules. Main rule is, that you cut yourself to one topic per paragraph. OK? Any topic is defined by its opening bullet+bolding, or subsection (=a section 4 deep then). I won't delete you post, but it might split or repositioned. -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Spectral lines image. Should we keep them? (Nice illustration, but not that factual). Exception: Caesium requires this one for its name history. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So do rubidium, indium, thallium... I think we should delete them from the infobox, because it is hard to extract useful information from (e.g. Fe has so many spectral lines!), and stating "Line #X at Y nm" over and over results in a CRC-sized infobox. Exceptions should be in discovery/naming sections of relevant elements. Double sharp (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * : if you can fill a data page (like for 'standard electrode potential'), it should be a field in the infobox (copied from above, -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC))
 * re: This could cause an enormous infobox size. For example, compared to the chemical composites, we already leave out a lot of facts. Chembox has hundreds of facts one can add, including hazards, chemical id's besides CAS Number, and more. See for example ammonia, carbon monoxide. So my question is: what is the upper limit? CRC is big. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Actinide GT: thorium collaboration?
Since No and Lr are basically complete and are just awaiting review and promotion, only one article needs to be promoted to GA/FA to make actinide a GT (U, Pu, Cf are FAs; An, Ac, Pa, Np, Am, Cm, Bk, Es, Fm, Md, No, Lr are GAs or will soon be). That article is thorium. I think uranium is the best model we have for this, as it's the only other quantity natural actinide. It's also important enough that it deserves an FA, like U and Pu already have. So, anyone up for it? (Volunteers self for a possible collaboration.) Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A few points for thorium we should make clear before we start to tame the monster.


 * What to do about the occurrence section and the who thinks which country has how much of which grade in the ground.
 * Suggestion: Reduce the section and make a separate wiki article not to lose the information.


 * The use as nuclear fuel.
 * Suggestion: It is not used as nuclear fuel and the Indian reactor will not come online before 2016 so this is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Most of the material should go to the appropriate sub article.

--Stone (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed on both counts. I am currently working in my sandbox at User:Double sharp/Thorium and do not plan to include both sections into the rewrite, but only as subarticles.
 * Specifically on the second point, I'm thinking about cutting everything out of the main article except the Th fuel cycle and its reaction 232Th(n,γ) and (in brief) its advantages and disadvantages. As you say, WP is not a crystal ball and I don't think future uses should be reported yet. Double sharp (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps use of thorium as a nuclear fuel is warranted. The Indian Point power station in NY used a thorium-based fuel in 1962, noting this did not live up to expectations. There was an an operational thorium reactor at Oak Ridge in the 1960s. China plans to fire up a prototype thorium reactor in 2015. Liquid fluoride thorium reactor notes that such reactors have recently been the subject of a renewed interest worldwide and that Japan, China, the UK and private US, Czech, Canadian and Australian companies have expressed intent to develop and commercialize the technology. I am not advocating crystal ball gazing only noting actual historical applications and renewed interest in use as a nuclear fuel material. Sandbh (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, we can include that in applications.
 * So far I've rewritten only the "Characteristics" section, and the opening paragraph of "Occurrence" in my sandbox. How is it now? Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Now also written "History", "Occurrence", and "Production" (the latter a copy of content from actinide: Wickleder goes into more specialist detail that I wasn't all comfortable including). Double sharp (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Now everything is done except "Applications". Double sharp (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Trying to storm through applications. So far I have radiometric dating (234U/230Th and 232Th/230Th) and the gas mantle. Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay.

It may not be totally tamed yet, but I feel it is now ready to be in mainspace, so I put it there. Feel free to look at it in thorium.

Comments for future GA and FA welcome, to get us our actinide GT. (I mention FA because U and Pu are FAs too, so I think Th deserves it too, honestly more than Np.) Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * GA passed (though I'd have preferred more grappling with the content). Oh well, on to FA. GA reviews for No and Lr requested... Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * GA passed for those two. Actinide GT nomination at Featured topic candidates/Actinides/archive1. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid listed as current TFA, for October 4
See here. Sandbh (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hooray! And F is gonna run next year! Now back to alkali metal, Fe, Th, and Np for me. (I'm aware I'm not making it easy for myself with the first three XD.) Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, F just got nom'd. Parcly   Taxel  03:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And supported by me. I can see the TFA stadium at the end of the FA marathon. Sandbh (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something or did you miss this reservation of the date of the anniversary of the element's discovery Double sharp applied for? That nom was announced on this page.  (Feel free to google smith like "june 26 1886 fluorine," and a lot of sources, both reliable and not too reliable will confirm that is the date of the discovery.) I just think the date of discovery is important, and we should feature fluorine on that day. I suggest we a) rmv the non-date-specific nom (but keep the text to be displayed somewhere), then b) wait for May 27 to come, then c) remominate fluorine (a nomination must occur  within 30 days of the date planned, the rules say).--R8R (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they did miss it, and that R8R's suggestion should be followed and the current nomination withdrawn. Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If I am correct, points are deducted if similar articles have appeared on the main page recently (more points=higher likelyness to become TFA). This makes sense, because WP should not have two ELEM pages TFA within weeks or months. This would mean that when keeping two nominations for the short term, outside (the TFA selector) will reject one of these for sure. If we maintain both nominations, we (at WP:ELEM) loose the choice. -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact,, you are no longer correct - the points system for TFA disappeared some months ago. It is now left to a combination of common sense, the views of the community as expressed at TFAR, and my final decision as TFA coordinator. In fact, even under the old points system, both articles would have scored highly as Level 4 vital articles in an under-represented area, and that would have easily outweighed any small points penalty for fluorine running a couple of weeks earlier than metalloid. See further my comments at Today's featured article/requests/Metalloid. BencherliteTalk 10:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, but that left the issue exisiting of not too close together in time. For that, I read from the link how you handled it. All fine then, thanks for taking care. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the blurb text for Parcly's nomination: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fluorine Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, but turned into a link. Unless I am missing something, there is no need to copy-paste a version here. And is there a remark that goes with it, DS? -DePiep (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes: I was afraid because it would get removed from the page, and I never figured out how to search the archives of WP:TFA/R; but I now realize that the link will work OK, though. Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow! And now Parcly is opposing metalloid on Oct 4 (despite the date significance) because he got F to run this year on Sep 23! Sigh...my patience is now also on the verge of the abyss. Double sharp (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. See my reply at Bencherlite's talk page (in short: they handled it very well, everything is fine, no objections.) Double sharp (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bencherlite handled & solved it with grace. Still not a useful contribution from Parcly in this, though. Or it must be the FAN-judgement, wasn't it "No"? (Glad someone with authority judged: "No edit warring? - FA"). -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

New proposal
Let us, at least informally, accept a new guideline, which reads as follows:

No GAN review of an article this Project is related to should be completed by a Project member.

I think the reason is pretty obvious: there would otherwise be a conflict of interest. A project member may not review an article as thoroughly, as he probably does want an article to be GA, and he may "miss" (or even think, "Well, that's, uh, fine, I won't stop from another article of ours from getting a plus, yay"), and the review won't be as good as it could be (thus won't lead to improvement it could lead to). A typical GA candidate is good enough to stand up against a serious review, a review which will lead to further improvements. We may get the plus a few days earlier, but will lose a chance for a serious review. If we don't accept that, we may get another series of articles some of which will not stand up to then-current GA criteria or just be good enough (see many transition metal articles (that series didn't have insiders-led reviews, but the result nonetheless stands)). Again, conflict of interest is a thing.--R8R (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Historically I've been the one who reviewed the actinide GA wannabes. And after completing all that long string of GAs and FAs, I do need a break. Parcly   Taxel  00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * re PT: which does not answer the R8R question at all. If you can not even follow a simple (as in: single topic) talk, how can you be qualified to judge on FAN? -DePiep (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * R8R did not ask a question, he just proposed a guideline which I am happy to accept. (Trigger discipline required here.) Parcly   Taxel  02:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it "historical", the last ones were just a few weeks ago. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weird. When I review our own work i spend more time on it to ensure it passes muster in order to minimise the risk of any conflict of interest allegations. Which is the opposite of what R8R is concerned about. Sandbh (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be true for you, but not everyone – and it should honestly be true for everyone IMHO. So I think that if you want to review an article by members of your own project, then you should be willing to spend more time on it and deeply grapple with the content: otherwise, I think reviewers outside the project can do a better job. As well, outside-project reviewers can help very much because if they're not experts in the subject, they will look from the bottom up and not miss anything that we might miss! Double sharp (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because articles in this project seem to go to review with unseemly haste following a spate of edits, the quality checking is dependant almost completely on the reviewer. Is this reasonable? For example with chalcogen the reviewer required a breadth of knowledge of chemistry to spot the mistakes and notice that the breadth of coverage was totally inadequate. If outside non-expert reviewers are to be used then how is the technical/scientific quality of the article assessed? Axiosaurus (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Axiosaurus's questions look rhetorical to me. Professional-level fact checking, copy editing, and general editing (for issues such as appropriate depth and breadth for a general audience) are more challenging and time-consuming for science content than in any other broad discipline of human thought. That's why talented and knowledgeable people are more likely to earn a good living through interesting science writing and editing than in history, pop-culture, or anything else. At Wikipedia, featured status for science content is a meaningless internal bureaucratic hurdle because the editors here can only do the best they can with the people and the time available. Why should the articles covered in this project be different from the rest of Wikipedia? I have some previous rants about first-principles factual correctness in featured content at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_elements_by_stability_of_isotopes and https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Translational_Motion . Flying Jazz (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, guilty! A thinly disguised (non-ranting) attempt to slow down the rush to status that leads to poor quality articles with wikipedia gold stars. Axiosaurus (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hydrogen and helium
Is it just me or do the articles for these two – the most abundant elements in the universe – have serious problems with referencing at points? Yes the info may be correct but the refs should be clearly stated for an FA. Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wanna help make the superlong GA/FA string from Xe to E118?
Because here's what's needed:
 * Some lanthanides (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Gd, Tb, Ho, Er)
 * Gold
 * Radium
 * Some transactinides (Db, Sg, Bh, Fl, E115, Lv)

We are actually almost done with periods 6 and 7! The lanthanides are so similar that work is easier, because you keep using the same refs. Same with the transactinides: refs mostly cover all of them.

The difficult individual ones without good models are Au and Ra. Can we collaborate on Au? (Ra is not so big.) Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For cooperation, best ask . He can cooperate even on their own. -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Undecided about this. There was a consensus there, and editors outside WP:ELEM supported running now. OTOH, Parcly did this after we, well, specifically said to reserve it for later...I find he does have this tendency to rush through things too quickly? (Including the GARs: I usually don't see him talking about the content, just on grammatical minutiae which, while important, shouldn't really be pretty much ALL there is in the review...)
 * I found a PDF about gold chemistry, though: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228039844_The_Chemistry_of_Gold/links/00b7d51992dc7c86db000000 Double sharp (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On radium, chemistry reviews are hard to find. I suspect this is partly because its chemistry is pretty much that of Ra2+, which is pretty close to that of Ba2+, and radiohazards are, well, not unique to Ra. The Thayer ref on E117 says "There exists a substantial literature on radium, almost all dealing with its radioactivity, environmental occurrence or use in medical treatment." And I want to talk about how Ra is coming out of the half-life trough centered at Rn but I can't because irritatingly people tend to talk more about the cooler island of SHEs instead of the currently more useful island of Th. And Ra and Rn are only present in the environment because they are decay products of Th and U. So now I can easily fill up "Occurrence", "Precautions", and "Applications", but not the most important section for an element, "Characteristics". This is slightly disconcerting. Double sharp (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Radium is mostly a historic element, so most of the application and production details come from the time of radium between it's discovery and the end of second world war. The bad thing is that most of the research on radium was done in the time it was available. So melting and boiling points come from the 1920s and 1950s the chemistry was mostly done in the same time frame. Although the chemistry and physics part should be not that different to barium the rest will be a lot of fun.--Stone (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, the historical applications of Ra will be fun. It was after all the most famous radioactive element at the time (U and Th weren't thought of that way as much, weren't they?) Double sharp (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm nearly done with the preliminary Googling and finding sources for Ra. I will probably (re)start soon.

Additionally, flerovium is now at GAN (I finished the last section). I could thus also finish up the period 7 main group elements by, in addition to Ra, rewriting element 115 and livermorium similarly. (E115 will be first: it is one of the most highly viewed of these elements, probably due to Bob Lazar's nonsense. So let's, ahem, attempt to properly inform people. :-D) Double sharp (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Element 115 is at GAN. Going to do Lv tomorrow. Then I'll restart Ra and then go to Au. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Lv is done. Going to do some preliminary drafting for radium in my sandbox as per my usual practice for elements with Z < 104. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I would strongly advice against GAing all articles in periods 6 and 7 now or within a few years. When I first came to this project, I was wondering which article I should choose (and ended up with fluorine, as you know), but I was sorry there wasn't an available article on a transition metal, since we only had (and still have) left only the ones on super important TMs, not something I wanted to start with. Now the variety of choice for a possible newcomer is tighter still, since we have no discovered unnamed elements left. Leave space for possible newcomers. That is, working on any article is fine, and groups of non-GA elements will eventually become smaller and smaller, but don't leave a field cleared as long as possible.

And even an established member may appreciate that once he or she completed their current goals.--R8R (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your viewpoints. My main reason for starting this section is that (1) through sheer random working we have somehow completed a lot of these elements, (2) this motivates editors interested in featured and good topics, and (3) the nice long string and potential GT/FT might be the only way to make us brave enough to tackle something like Au. ;-)
 * There were available transition metal articles when you started working on F: Fe, Co, Pd, Cu, Ag, Au, Cd. Of these, I wouldn't call Co, Pd, and Cd "super important" in the same sense as the other four. Granted many were GAs, but certainly not finished articles: and some of them, as you've previously noted, aren't really complete and more additions are quite possible (e.g. Sc, Hf). If a newcomer wants to write on just one element and no other, they can always find something more to add. (But you're right, it is scary for a newcomer to add to a GA...)
 * I paused the period 7 thing in 2012, partially because you asked me to, and partially because I'd done half the transactinides and felt that this would be quite good to give newcomers a model. In the next two years, nobody else came and did them. So eventually I got a bit frustrated and wrote some of the 7p ones according to my old models, and worked on the last important actinides as well. Of the latter, Np seems to have been terrible since time immemorial, and Th looked cobbled together and focused on the wrong things. And I didn't do the whole of Np. I'm pretty sure all of us would love to collaborate – it makes for a better article (there's questions going back and forth between authors), and it makes the work not so scary. But then Th and Np are important, the transactinide really aren't.
 * The transactinides are still not completely done: Db, Sg, and Bh are still open, and Rf and Hs are good models. I'm tired of spamming them at the moment. Maybe Bh because I started it and have one section left, but Db and Sg can be left for later: they're not important elements. Maybe this is because of their obscurity, but then now there seems to be a shortage of non-GAs among middle-importance elements (let me see...Sr? Ra? Ga? In? La? Ce? Maybe some other lanthanides, but that is pushing it?) So we already have a problem, and it wasn't totally caused by coordinated work.
 * Once I complete my current goals I'd probably search the PTQ, find an element, read about it, write about it, etc. That's what I do when I get burned out with synthetic elements. ;-) When I was a newcomer here I had this grandiose plan to rewrite every article on a group. I started group 1 and have not yet finished it. :-O
 * In the end we will get all GAs. But by that time the standards will have climbed high enough that the old GAs need to be fixed. And then we need to get them all to FA. And then keep them from degrading, and update for new info whenever needed. I think there will always be something for any newcomers to do, but it will get scarier and scarier. But I find that in general, simply leaving one or two articles in a series undone doesn't tend to attract people. And it is easier and faster to work on all articles in a very homologous series like the lanthanides or transactinides (OK, chemically not so similar, but discussed in the same sources). I know stuff about the actinides and transactinides and I write about them a lot: great! Perhaps we will get someone who knows a lot of stuff about the lanthanides and proceeds to work on all of them in a row: great! If so, I wouldn't feel bad that I didn't get a lanthanide; I would feel good that our present readers are getting better content! Of course for more individual ones this isn't true: but of those the only real cases in the final two periods are gold and radium (I want radium, as I've done the research: gold will be a huge collaboration).
 * But I feel that the elements are some of the most important topics on WP. They are among our highest-viewed articles. And we are taking care of them. I just don't feel comfortable with deliberately not doing some specific categories (Ln, transactinide) in a series just because of their position in the periodic table, when it breaks the way the elements are usually organized in reference books, and above all, when they are easy to do for someone and otherwise may lie waiting for many years before getting rewritten, leaving that many more readers wanting more. But then the most popular lanthanide is Nd, and that's viewed about as much as Sr, E118(!), and Tl. So maybe it is a non-issue.
 * You are right that one class of elements (unnamed, but discovered) is locked out for new editors now. But then so are the noble gases, the transition metals, and the actinides (the last is partially my fault). Eventually it will happen, and I don't think we should delay it: topics are helpful for readers. But if they're not complete, then some might turn into editors. Seems to me to be a conflict between (1) serving the readers, but making them feel they have nothing more useful to add and (2) not serving the readers, and making them feel annoyed enough about it that they add stuff and join.
 * But eventually we must get all GA/FAs, and this goes against the newcomers the longer they don't join. But I don't see any actively improving articles like Ga even though it's been like that since four years ago! And doesn't merely working on an article lock out a potential newcomer who loves that element?
 * Sigh. I think we should just let our members do whatever element article they take an interest in and know enough to write a good article on. I dislike locking out newbies, but I dislike specifically refraining from doing stuff. As you can see, I am somewhat conflicted about the whole thing, but still leaning towards supporting my original proposal. Double sharp (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC) (expanded 13:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC))


 * In the end, I still want to do Ra and Au; the other elements only if most people like the GT/FT idea and get motivated by it. For transactinides, actinides, or lanthanides I think there is a case for continued spamming one after another, simply because they are usually covered together. But I do not (yet) feel that I am the right person to do the lanthanides, only that I can do a good job for the transactinides, and that if I don't cover them I doubt many people will want to because they simply have zero importance in the real world (and apparently some periodic tables distributed even today STILL don't have the names for Z > 103...). Now, this is not a good argument for pretty much any other elements we have left. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I have thought about it. I still don't really agree with you, because the topics motivate some editors. Maybe not you, but some. I know: I like them and I want to get them. So I feel uncomfortable abandoning a set. And I think letting people work on what they want to do is the nicest, because then it doesn't feel like work. If you like moving around randomly, great! If you like working in a series, great! And newcomers can contribute insights on anything. Even if the elements are too scary (I felt that way when I was new), many of the groups are in terrible shape and they can easily help. There will be something at every difficulty level for some time, I think, especially because the perceived difficulty depends a lot on what the newcomer knows most about. Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents: No newbie is going to edit these articles. On first glance they are already too long and scary to even touch (it is much easier to add than copyedit/completely revamp). If they do a bit of research behind the scenes, they will see there are already experts who could write a much better article than they could ever dream of doing. A newbie who wanted to get involved should also start with something less vital and scrutinised and work their way up. I can't actually believe the notion that saving a couple of famous elements will attract readers to become editors has even been brought up. Such silliness. You guys are the absolute best (after all, you have had intense discussions over relatively minor issues of categorisation in templates, so just imagine how important the element articles themselves are to you), and you guys will do them more justice than any newbie to come alone. I say forget the what-ifs and just do your best to make these articles awesome. A non-Wikiproject:Elements enthusiast, I love seeing the quality template slowly turn to green and blue. It's wonderful knowing that such amazing work has been done. Don't for one second put the potential over your own talents and skills.--Coin945 (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Double sharp: The thing that matters to me most is, don't do work you won't be too happy to do (I know you would prefer iron over silver, for example). If you really really want to do it, then do it. I see you would really want to work on transuraniums, but don't feel so excited about lanthanides; then go work on transuraniums, but at least leave a few lanthanides (say, Nd seems a very interesting pick for me, which I would love to FA sometime, plus I am thankful to that very element, but I'm not sure if I can find time any time soon for that.). What I'm saying is how I feel about that.


 * Also, I will say one more thing on this topic, just express my POV. Unlike some other projects, ours is finite; there is a clear point where there would be no articles left, so no later improvement, and things will stay as they are at that moment. And it seems quite natural to me we should come at our best to that point and convert a few GAs to FA level, as I don't expect anyone would do it, or at least set our FA/GA production ratio as high as we can. From that perspective, creating many GAs doesn't seem an idea too good either. As an editor, I would want you to write a superheavy element FA rather than building arrays of GAs in that area, which would be a better thing from a long-term perspective.


 * Coin945: I disagree with the statement "no newbie is going to edit these articles." When I was a newbie, what I did not want was an element too trivial (Cd seemed so to me at that point), too complicated (Pd and its preciousness shift accents), or any combination of those (which was what I thought of cobalt, partially thanks to its history, and other point are easy to see -- that also answers the question of "there were three ones left," yes, there were, I forgot, but that's why not them). If, say, there was a superactinide article left and I was new, I would be pretty fine with taking it. Also, I should say leaving a couple left was intended not to bring someone's attention, but as a thing for those who already make their mind to join to start with, so they get a greater chance to start off from where they want to start (which helps build ties, and eventually make them FA writers). Again, if there is a great desire to work on some specific article, then I would welcome any work on that, just leave those article you don't feel desire to edit.--R8R (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'd rather do Fe than Ag. Marginally I would also rather do Fe than Au – Fe seems more down-to-earth. But Au will be better for our readers. I might do both. Also Au is C, while Fe and Ag are B, and so it needs help more urgently.
 * You're also right that I'm not too keen on the lanthanides: I just wanted to see if someone was. If I were to do one, it would probably be Ce. Double sharp (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As you said, this sub-project of Wikiproject:Chemistry only consists of a finite group of 118 article plus a few extras here and there. If you have the resources to finish it off, you really should. There are many terrible articles on famous chemical compounds that a newbie can edit. There's no reason they can't be guided there instead. Once the core of this project is complete, I assume you'll all start to work on other chemistry-related articles. So that's the natural progression of this project's users after it becomes obsolete. There's no reason to be afraid of this.--Coin945 (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Famous chemical compounds? Now that you mention it – here's some famous chemical compound articles that are not in good shape! Sodium chloride, hydrogen cyanide, ethanol, benzene, acetone, ammonia, water and properties of water(!!), sulfuric acid, nitric acid, ferrocene, carbon dioxide, methane... Double sharp (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not sure an important point was clear enough (just saying that and leaving this discussion unless invited back): I think it is profitable not just to leave some articles, but rather spend time that could be spent for promoting them to GA on making FAs instead. Should be interesting enough for anyone. Plus I still say making two GAs is great from a short-term perspective, but making one FA is better from a long-time perspective, because the second article will also be featured/promoted to GA eventually, and then sometime support for this project will fade away. Then my point will be clearer. (Also, by creating FA we created models for future works.)--R8R (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and agree with it. One possible method I can think of to counter your point about support fading, is to deliberately get an old GA to FA status. (Tungsten, anyone? It's definitely a worthy target!)
 * I still feel though that for the reader, two GAs is better than one FA and one C. At C-class and below the article is kind of a patchwork and may be missing important points and overaccent unimportant ones (e.g. Th before I rewrote it). B-class is better and can give a reader a rough idea, but it's still not so good for the researcher and citations are often lacking. I know that the C-class one will also eventually get to GA, but I think GA does more for the reader in the short term. So I think GA is the way to go, at least for the moment. This I think applies unless you are talking about the very highest-viewed articles, where nothing but an FA will probably satisfy readers (the top ten non-FAs are Au, Al, Cu, Fe, Hg, C, N, K, S, Ag: Cu, Hg, C, K are GA and so are slightly lower priority than the others). Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Radium is now at GAN. Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Markup for stable or nearly stable isotopes
Looking at our isotope tables (e.g. isotopes of polonium), why don't we use the same formatting convention for element infoboxes like : all stable isotopes bolded, while all primordial radioisotopes in bold italics?

(The latter is for now actually "half-life longer than age of universe"; I don't like this as much because it arbitrarily draws a line between thorium and uranium, when both are quantity primordial radioelements. But I could support either.) Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good plan. Nice stable formatting, I love this kind of uber-page consistency. Any habit in the literatire? The criteria (borders) are undisputed? Somehow I think these code formats should be explained somewhere to the Reader (like, me). Still, that should not prevent this standard. -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Borders should be undisputed at present. They could change in the future if experimental sensitivity increases, though. We can explain them just below the isotopes table in the infobox, like we already do about the parentheses: see for example infobox samarium. Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Test for samarium (62Sm): Double sharp (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Test for tellurium (52Te): Double sharp (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In case any of you want to do this systematically, stable isotope has a list of all the stable isotopes (which should be bolded whenever seen). The primordial radioisotopes are listed at primordial nuclide.

I did consider having italics as well for non-primordial natural radionuclides, but all of these are already marked as "trace" in the abundance column, so I don't think there's a need. Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, so barring any major complaints, I will probably do this within a few days. Double sharp (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Island of stability image
As part of reviewing the livermorium GAN, I edited the island of stability image to remove some graphics -- File:Island of stability (Zagrebaev).png is the original image, File:Island of Stablity derived from Zagrebaev.png is the edited version. I wasn't able to tell if the area behind the removed graphics should contain any more grey squares. I see the new image is now being used in three GAs and an FA, and I'd like to be sure it's accurate. Can anyone confirm what should be there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters so much, as that region contains exclusively predicted data. There probably shouldn't be more gray squares there, anyway: Zagrebaev says in his paper that synthesizable isotopes of elements above 120 (the area behind the removed graphics) would probably not even last a microsecond (which is how long it needs to live to be detected). Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So long as Zagrabaev's paper gives information that lets us deduce that there shouldn't be any more grey squares there, I think we're fine. Thanks for the update.  Would you mind adding a note to the file description explaining why we can be confident it's accurate?  I'd do it, but I don't have access to the paper.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The A, B pattern in older group numbers
See Alkali metals for example. I have added the patterns "A-B" vs. "A-B-A" in the older group numbers, say US-EUR. Quite simply: this way I understand it myself (instead of having to look up). Expect more such additions. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also in group (periodic table) (the table). -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Added Mendeleev's I–VIII originals. For me, it helps & clarifies. -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! It seems a common misapprehension that the A and B labels were present in Mendeleev's periodic table. But I just checked, and they're not there in 1871! They're only suggested by the alignment of the elements (you'll notice Be and Mg are not quite aligned, for instance). Thank you so much for adding this and making me check! Also he seems to have noticed the first-row anomaly by drawing a line between periods 2 and 3, which is not often mentioned!
 * As a present for correcting my initially flawed understanding of the PT's history, here's a link to this paper fully describing Mendeleev's discovery of the periodic law (which I only just found a few minutes ago). Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL it teached you. In some PT articles, I plan to describe the I–VIII background (because they do have a meaning of course, by R2O RxOy pattern). There also is in there: group 18/noble gases were unknown then, and he had to group 3 elements into one single group VIII. (long term plan is to explain - by animation? - how M's double rows turned into on period row 100 yrs ago. Really, the original PT by M I never understood/recognised because it has the periods split. And that's me: imagine how many uninitiated students can find). -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 0/18 is borderline, but Mendeleev included it in 1902–3 (link: https://archive.org/details/principlesofchem00menduoft), with He and Ar as members. It's not in his original PT, but he accepted the evidence for it and included it himself later. So I reinstated it.
 * The group numbers were meant to represent maximum oxidation states, according to Jensen. History of the periodic table should include info, as should periodic table itself (Deming 1923, IIRC, with the 18-column format. Not sure what the reasons for that were: I really do have to go check!) Double sharp (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In 1902 then, so it is not wrong to put the "0" there. But that does not help explaining the 1871 version (where that group is absent). The Mendeleev groups I–VIII are part of the iconic discovery. (And so for educational reasons I'd leave the 0 out). In 1902, weren't some of his predicted elements discovered too? PS in our History PT I already worked towards this PT-layout change (1 row/2 rows per period). -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not today, but expect that we get rid of that non-Mendeleev zero ;-). That is not what he wrote, and not the way I understand his 1871 table. So how could I explain that to others (here, or in private)? -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Could we put it in brackets as (0), or add an explanatory note? Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? It was not in his 1871 image, and not so by coincidence. That is what we are illustrating. Just as we want to illustrate and describe the triple elements in his group VIII. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To my mind it is a different case from group VIII: he knew all the elements in group VIII already, and he felt that the quadruple (look at his table: modern group 11 is both in group VIII and group I) classification was appropriate as a "transition series". In fact even now we still adopt this to some degree, because these elements have chemical similarities as the iron triad and platinum group metals. Whereas in 1871 the noble gases were all undiscovered and so of course he didn't put them in. Once he accepted their existence he put them in as group 0, and it still satisfies his intent. Without the 0 it looks as though the noble gases could not be dealt with by his PT – but they could. Likewise the discovery of some of his predicted elements did not change the substance of the table, aside from changing names like "eka-silicon" to "germanium" and so forth, just like what happens even today when a new element is named. The significant change from his table I think is increasing the number of columns to 18 and then 32, and not the addition of the noble gases. May be just my opinion, though. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding group number "0" to a 1871 table is simply anachronistic. Of course his table did not forbid it (that would have changed everything). The group just was not there. Also, it is not a prediction (as Ge was). We can think it this way: would we be in error when we leave it out? No. To me, adding the zero there smells like OR, in the variant of WP:SYNTHESIS (esp. because if the years difference). -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check what Mendeleev writes in 1902 again. Does he use the A and B groups? If he does, then I agree: leave out the zero, his conception has changed enough. But if he doesn't, then I think it is OK (since we don't give a year), if only as a bracketed zero with a note. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

More info in large-cell PTs


In our large periodic tables (PTs), we use large cells that can contain more information than the basic cell (see tin, right). For this, we accepted that the PT runs off the basic screen; a slider is added below. My question is: shouldn't we add more information to these cells, like electron configuration? (secondary: if yes, how do we add that?)

Background. In the old days, with hardcopy wallpaper PTs, extra information was there in abundance. Recently, has made a commendable version with a lot of such extra info per element and per table: Periodic Table of the Elements with Oxidation States. (This PT image is currently not used for reasons outside of this topic. It did trigger my post here, I have actually stolen been inspired by Dancojocari's PT).

Proposals. Below we can mention & discuss information to be added. Please discuss per individual topic (bullet & bolded). Examples are, randomly, from tin, 50Sn. Note that the layout (how we add it) is of secondary order, and will be answered separately & later. -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Electron configuration:
 * -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. This is one of the most important things you need to know to begin to understand what makes the element in question tick, so to speak. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Electrons per shell:
 * -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems redundant with electron configuration, and tends to obscure what is really going on for the transition metals, lanthanides and actinides. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oxidation states:
 * -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, but probably only for common oxidation states (the ones bolded in the infobox). (Is it possible to stack these in the right-hand side of the cell? That would eliminate the need for commas.) Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Shells (per period/row):
 * -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is that important: it's sort of duplicated in electron configuration. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * References - should we allow references and comments per individual cell fact (as in the infobox: )
 * -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * References should be OK; not sure about comments, primarily because I'm not sure how it would show up. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Cell and table layout
This is about if we add some info, how & where we add it.


 * Image (file) or wikitable?
 * Pros of image (example):
 * Scalable (even into big print: our wiki PT up that classroom wall!)
 * Fine typography & graphic effects (arrows, ...)
 * Cons of image
 * Code and script for to create the svg is offline (today), so non-editable.
 * wikilinks difficult or impossible; hard to maintain. Explained: we can make the cells clickable (link to the element article). This can even be more detailed (eg isotopes text links to another page). But this is a precise job, esp. the detail-linking, and surely requires the image layout to be stable.
 * -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Cell layout
 * To follow. First decide which info to add. -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC) ping -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

On our noticeboard proposals
My viewpoints, some months later:


 * 1) (Sc-Y-Lu-Lr): Neutral, could go either way. IMHO following IUPAC and being ambiguous is the best solution for now. If IUPAC starts to explicitly recommend Sc-Y-Lu-Lr then we should change it. Support. For 32-column, IUPAC's solution cannot be followed, and so we have to use chemical and physical arguments, which favour Sc-Y-Lu-Lr. 18-column should follow this so as to be consistnet.
 * 2) (Rare earth metals): Oppose. Sc isn't that close, and while Y is close to the lanthanides in behaviour, so is Ac. So maybe it is not the best.
 * 3) (Group 12 as PTMs): Support: chemically they are overwhelmingly not transition metals, and IUPAC doesn't take sides. It's evenly split in published texts (what's the figure for the composition of group 3? Sandbh might know), so we have to take sides based on chemical and physical arguments (but naturally mentioning the controversy).
 * 4) (What to call the otherwise uncategorized metals): Post-transition metals: I believe this has been resolved some time ago. Al comes after the block of transition metals and thus in some sense is a PTM, and the term has been used this way. Other categorizations (pre-transition metals / post-transition metals) perhaps overemphasize the metallicity of Be and Al, leave Al stranded, use not-very-widely-supported names (poor metals), or use names that don't mean anything out of context (other metals).
 * 5) (Uut vs. 113): 113, definitely: it's more often used by scientists, thus satisfying WP:COMMONNAME, and IUPAC doesn't use its systematic names in its own periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * On Group 3: The only figure I know for the composition Group 3 is given by Clark and White (2008), who show that after 1984 (up to 2008), based on a random selection of 35 chemistry texts, there was a roughly 50/50 split between Sc|Y|Lu|Lr and Sc|Y|La|Ac. Pre-1984, back to about 1947, it was roughly 50/50 between Sc|Y|La|Ac and Sc|Y|*|**. The authors note that Jensen’s "definitive" arguments settled this once and for all i.e. Sc|Y|Lu|Lr. However they add that in 2005 the IUPAC had decided this question with Sc|Y|*|**. Whereas, as we know, IUAPC has not endorsed any form of periodic table, nor ruled on the composition of Group 3.
 * Sc|Y|Lu|Lr is a no-brainer for me, on the basis of strong physical and chemical arguments. Authors who show La in group 3 have done so either explicitly on the basis of the electron configuration argument; or by rote, based on how other authors have depicted their PTs. Both types of Sc|Y|La sources are not strong enough to support their arguments, as per WP:RELIABLE ("Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim.") Sandbh (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (topic discussed subthread below). -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Point 1: about group 3 and Sc-Y-Lu-Lr

 * re 1. (Sc-Y-Lu-Lr) You run into the sore point. Indeed a 32-column PT must take a side. Then, folding it into an 18-column ambiguously by intention is unsound. A check is: how does any particular 18-column PT re-integrate into a 32-column? (when ambiguous, in cannot be done! It is locked). That is why I want the 18-column PT to correspond 1:1 with the 32-column PT. Out current 18-column does not do so yet (graphically, could introduce a gap column). btw, all variants can be mentioned in a side (like is done for the placement of H). -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have always drawn periodic tables with Lu and Lr under Sc and Y. So we can, indeed, put in a gap column after Ba and Ra (Ca and Sr's cells will fill the gap). And this is not an important issue now. Fluorine is. Parcly   Taxel  04:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no reason why both can't be done. :-)
 * Your consistency argument tends to win me over, so I've changed my view on 1 to Support.
 * As seems traditional, here's a mockup:


 * (Read "post-transition metal" in place of "other metal".) Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need to win over some scientific arguments first. Those advocating 32-column variants like here in de:Fluor. Since this has not a cut & dried outcome (in science), I guess we end up with a 'preferred' PT setup for enwiki and describing variants in a section somewhere. Only after that and with that, the graph department can come in and use the word "18-column". My personal preference for the structure presented is from reading earlier sources on this. But to make that in a consensus outcome is a step tougher for me. (lol @ extending the PT. Must be to simplify matters ;-). I hope the discussion does not get distracted & diverted to period 8+ intricacies and E155). -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe we resolved all the issues with regard to period 8+. E155 would follow Lu and Lr: the issue is really whether Y is placed over La, over Lu, or over a phantom cell whose contents are somewhat ill-defined. To seek a somewhat more official definition of the contents of this phantom cell (sometimes labelled "*"; sometimes helpfully labelled "57–71", clearing up the matter) we need to go again to IUPAC.
 * An important point I should note that the lanthanides from Ce to Yb, and the actinides from Th to No, can never appear under Sc and Y, unless you interpret the * and ** in Sc/Y/*/** as meaning "Ln" and "An" respectively. (For reference: Ln is an unofficial symbol for any lanthanide; An likewise refers to any actinide. You can also define the range yourself of these symbols, overriding the usual endpoints, if you want to include only some of the lanthanides and actinides, e.g. in a construction like "An2O5 (An = Pa, U, Np)". If you want to use other elements, typically M (metal), X, Y, or Z are used.)
 * Even using the Sc/Y/Ln/An interpretation, though, I have to wonder if any of these are ever considered to be group 3 elements. If I talk about the group 1–12 elements, I must be including scandium and yttrium. But do I include lanthanum? Do I include lutetium? Do I include gadolinium? The only lanthanides and actinides I think could be reasonably said to have a IUPAC group number are either La and Ac or Lu and Lr (but not both).
 * Indeed the 2005 Red Book explicitly says on p.51 (p.63 of the .pdf I linked): "Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements." This clearly shows to me that IUPAC does not support Sc/Y/*/** as the composition of group 3, despite using a periodic table that shows group 3 like this! It must therefore either be Sc/Y/La/Ac or Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, depending on whether you think La and Ac are d-block elements or f-block elements. I tend to think that they are f-block elements with an anomalous s2d1 valence electron configuration, just like Th has electron configuration [Rn]6d27s2. Since nobody wants to put Th in the d-block, putting Ac in the d-block seems inadvisable. So it must be that Lu and Lr are the d-block elements and should be in group 3. (I am using the electron configuration argument here, as IUPAC here invokes electron configurations by naming the d-block explicitly.) So, to answer the question I asked last paragraph: either I include lanthanum or lutetium, but not both, and I include no other lanthanides. (The same holds for the homologous actinides.)
 * Of course, this IUPAC definition does not forbid placing only Sc and Y in group 3, and leaving all the lanthanides and actinides outside it. But this is impossible to express in a 32-column table, and is impossible to unambiguously express in an 18-column table: hence I believe we should ignore this possibility. Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Nevertheless...if IUPAC rejects the Sc/Y/Ln/An definition of group 3, then why does the "IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements" on p.2 of that linked .pdf show "57–71" and "89–103" below Sc and Y? It's not just a 2005 thing: they do that in their 2013 version as well, together with the explicit colouring of only the lanthanides and actinides. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The least displeasing manner of having Lu and Lr in group 3 while acknowledging the lanthaans and the actaans would be something like as below:

(Demo B) And seriously, the FAC for fluorine looks stalled now. Get everyone you possibly can to review the article so all opposition can be squashed. Parcly  Taxel  01:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * re Double sharp. "IUPAC definition does not forbid placing only Sc and Y in group 3, and leaving all the lanthanides and actinides outside it." (OK) "But this is impossible to express in a 32-column table"? (I understand & hope & prey you do not mean to say "... left out of the main graph and drawn below"). But having only Sc/Y defined in group 3, isn't that:


 * {| class="wikitable" style="table-layout:fixed; text-align:center; background:; width:100%; font-size:85%; ;"

! ! 2 ! colspan="15" | ! 3 ! 4 ! 1 ! 2 ! 3 ! 4 ! 5 ! 6 ! 7
 * + style="background:#d8d8d8; " |  base: PT 18-col,  32-col, extended
 * rowspan=8 style="vertical-align:top" | (gr 1)
 * colspan=2 | (gr 5–18)
 * colspan="18" |
 * title="4" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Be
 * colspan="17" |
 * title="12" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Mg
 * colspan="17" |
 * title="20" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Ca
 * colspan="15" |
 * title="21" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Sc
 * title="22" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Ti
 * title="38" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Sr
 * colspan="15" |
 * title="39" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Y
 * title="40" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Zr
 * title="56" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Ba
 * title="57" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|La
 * title="58" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Ce
 * title="59" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Pr
 * title="60" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Nd
 * title="61" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Pm
 * title="62" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Sm
 * title="63" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Eu
 * title="64" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Gd
 * title="65" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Tb
 * title="66" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Dy
 * title="67" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Ho
 * title="68" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Er
 * title="69" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Tm
 * title="70" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Yb
 * title="71" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Lu
 * title="72" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Hf
 * title="72" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Hf
 * title="88" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Ra
 * title="89" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Ac
 * title="90" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Th
 * title="91" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Pa
 * title="92" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|U
 * title="93" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Np
 * title="94" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Pu
 * title="95" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Am
 * title="96" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Cm
 * title="97" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Bk
 * title="98" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Cf
 * title="99" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Es
 * title="100" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Fm
 * title="101" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Md
 * title="102" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|No
 * title="103" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Lr
 * title="104" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Rf
 * }
 * Demo C: Cutout of relevant area in a 32-column PT. It shown "Sc/Y in group 3, none of the Ln/An". (see Double sharp at 14:33, final paragraphs).
 * This is an illustration of a point only, I am not supporting this (not even understanding its background). -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . You wrote "And seriously, ..." (at 01:03). Does this mean that what you wrote before that, does not need attention? And anyway, please stop the F-ing spamming. It distracts, and most editors here are well capable of setting their own priorities. ping added -DePiep (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I indeed neglected to consider that. Note, however, that if you do that, not only is it uncertain whether Sc and Y appear before the lanthanides and actinides or after them, it also bloats the periodic table to 33 columns (and the column from Sc and Y don't really contrast as much in chemical properties with Ln and An as all other group boundaries do) and leaves oddly empty cells when there is no need to do so (unlike in periods 8, 9, and 10, when we do have to leave gaps to preserve both periodicity and the ascending atomic number sequence). Double sharp (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the before/after issue. Sources are mixed about this then? Or could we conclude to draw in one way, as an explicit preferred choice (cf., positioning H)? -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a source that does it this way, and only raised it to make the point that IUPAC doesn't forbid it, and it is a sometimes encountered use of language (or misuse: YMMV) to mean only Sc and Y when one says "group 3" (I think this was their motivation here, instead of for the PT). But I have not seen a PT like this, where none of the lanthanides are placed under Sc and Y in group 3. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a source that does it this way, and only raised it to make the point that IUPAC doesn't forbid it, and it is a sometimes encountered use of language (or misuse: YMMV) to mean only Sc and Y when one says "group 3" (I think this was their motivation here, instead of for the PT). But I have not seen a PT like this, where none of the lanthanides are placed under Sc and Y in group 3. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a contending variant, discussed in earlier on this page (these discussion have multiple sources, like Scerri).
 * A contending variant
 * {| class="wikitable" style="table-layout:fixed; text-align:center; background:; width:100%; font-size:85%; ;"

! ! 2 ! 3 ! colspan="14" | ! 4 ! 1 ! 2 ! 3 ! 4 ! 5 ! 6 ! 7
 * + style="background:#d8d8d8; " | base: PT 18-col,  32-col, extended
 * rowspan=8 style="vertical-align:top" | (gr 1)
 * colspan=2 | (gr 5–18)
 * colspan="17" |
 * title="4" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Be
 * colspan="16" |
 * title="12" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Mg
 * colspan="16" |
 * title="20" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Ca
 * title="21" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Sc
 * colspan="14" |
 * title="22" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Ti
 * title="38" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Sr
 * title="39" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Y
 * colspan="14" |
 * title="40" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Zr
 * title="56" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Ba
 * title="57" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|La
 * title="58" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Ce
 * title="59" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Pr
 * title="60" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Nd
 * title="61" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Pm
 * title="62" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Sm
 * title="63" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Eu
 * title="64" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Gd
 * title="65" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Tb
 * title="66" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Dy
 * title="67" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Ho
 * title="68" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Er
 * title="69" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Tm
 * title="70" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Yb
 * title="71" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffbfff;"|Lu
 * title="72" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Hf
 * title="88" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffdead;"|Ra
 * title="89" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Ac
 * title="90" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Th
 * title="91" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Pa
 * title="92" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|U
 * title="93" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Np
 * title="94" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Pu
 * title="95" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Am
 * title="96" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Cm
 * title="97" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Bk
 * title="98" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Cf
 * title="99" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Es
 * title="100" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Fm
 * title="101" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Md
 * title="102" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|No
 * title="103" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ff99cc;"|Lr
 * title="104" style="width:2em; text-align:center; background: #ffc0c0;"|Rf
 * }
 * Demo D: Cutout of relevant area in a 32-column PT. Sc/Y/La/Ac in group 3.
 * As used in dewiki de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste_Periodensystem navbox in de:Fluor (but not consistently everywhere in there). -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You made a brilliant pun against me above, de Piep. And what other proposals could be out there? Parcly   Taxel  10:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thx, me ;-) too. Do you want me to expand on your remarks? Some questions arose here, but let's not spend time on sidetracks. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe. Regarding the four proposals we have now: C doesn't "look" right (all the lanthanides/actinides have +3 oxidation states, so some must go into group 3), D breaks the 2-6-10-14 step pattern of the periodic table (which has a solid base in atomic physics). A and B are the two leading contenders now, so we may have to compromise on this. Parcly   Taxel  10:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see anything wrong with breaking the 2-6-10-14 step pattern, when periods 8 and beyond are probably going to do this anyway. If La was much more chemically similar to Y than Lu, I would choose D and ignore the step pattern. I also do not place much faith in "does it look right?" arguments, because this is subjective and depends on what you are used to. Did you find the 8-column periodic table to look "right" when you first saw it?
 * Sc acts like an early lanthanide (La to Sm), while Y acts more like a late lanthanide (Dy to Lu). (If you're wondering, Eu, Gd, and Tb fall somewhere in the middle, with Eu more on the "early" side and Gd and Tb more on the "late" side.) So this alone does not distinguish between D and A/B.
 * I am in favour of A as opposed to B (assuming A means leaving a gap "57–70"/"89–102" between group 2 and group 3), because it doesn't crowd the Ba and Ra (or Lu and Lr) cells with asterisks. So I think that the best are A and D. Double sharp (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * re Parcly Taxel. May sound a bit tough, but that should help clarify what I think.
 * I refuse to go into any 18-column graphics here. First we must know how to show it in a 32-column PT. For every asterisk or element range (like "57–71") or placeholder, I ask: how does that work out in a 32-column PT? Expand it! Also, any 32-col PT must have all group numbers present. No hiding of issues. (check your Demo B the "displeasing manner"; and your link to nl:Lanthaan).
 * You wrote "put in a gap column after Ba and Ra (Ca and Sr's cells will fill the gap)". A "gap" for me is a column without elements. Then having Ca/Sr in there undoes it being a "gap". Also, I don't understand what it's supposed to say or show. But ... a 32-col PT does not need gaps, because there are no asterisks or placeholders needed (nor allowed by me).
 * Exception: for PT extensions, as shows, gaps may reappear as do placeholders (asterisks, ouch) but I skip that because it confuses again -- that is about a 52-column PT. I refuse talking about extended PT here too (unless someone can show that these theroticals affect & change the known PT).
 * I want the core discussion here only to be about scientific arguments (from sources). I'd like to have a consensus on how we present the 32-col PT. And keeping it this single issue is the best way to go. Now these sources are mentioned in earlier talks here: Scerri, Jensen (1982), Scerri_about_group_3 (by me), Talk:Periodic_table (Scerri responded), and more. Any more variants should be from there, not by ourselves. Our personal likes could be too much OR/POV for a decision (declaring one PT version preferred at enwiki). Would we do that, there will be havoc later as with the "other metal" chaos.
 * So what we need, IMO, is that single-topic proposal + discussion from these source, reopened actually from earlier talks. Sources first. It now better end in a conclusion. (I have no time now nor chemical clout to pull this off, I think). -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. (I'm already giving 32-column examples.)
 * I think what Parcly Taxel means is having a gap between Ba and Lu, as well as between Ra and Lr; but the cells for Ca and Sr would extend into this gap column and connect with the Sc and Y cells. (But then why only Ca and Sr and not Be and Mg?) I find this somewhat distasteful, as then (1) it is no longer a gap and (2) if you expand this out into a 32-column table, Ca and Sr do not touch Sc and Y: so why should we make them do so in an 18-column table?
 * Yes, you don't need gaps for an extended table if you make it a 52-column periodic table, but (1) that is awfully wide and (2) the extensions are not relevant to this discussion, which focuses on only the following six elements: scandium, yttrium, lanthanum, lutetium, actinium, and lawrencium.
 * This means that C must be stricken from any consideration, as it is never used AFAIK. So the choice is between A, B, and D. Sandbh posted a link (now in one of the archives) to an 18-column table done like A: it has a gap column between Ba and Lu, so that this can be considered. (Figure posted below.)
 * I'll get to that after searching and reading through the relevant archived threads. As you say, these issues had better be resolved instead of left hanging. Double sharp (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. What that thing below?
 * 2. Why verbose? Is there not a single link on internet or demo to be made?
 * 3. Sigh. Injecting the extensions muddles the discussion, leading us into a swamp.
 * 4. You mean we discussed a non-used version ? Hm.
 * 4. 18-column variants are muddling the topic. Too often this discussion has been rendered useless exactly because people mix up scientific base with graphic 18-col 'solutions' (solutions for what?). -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Double sharp (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Remove the &lt;nowiki> &lt;/nowiki> tag pair to reactivate the table. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Double sharp (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am only interested in the 32 col variant for consensus. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The 18 col table I posted below was to illustrate how I thought the folding into 18 col should be accomplished, which is the only reason why we would use 18 col illustrations at all. This is because Parcly Taxel wanted to have * and ** in the same cell as Lu and Lr, and I felt that perhaps the 32 col version I put above (fig. A) did not show this clearly enough. Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Just hold on here. What I meant with Proposal B was: The table seen in some PTOV videos is of this format. That should clarify my points. Parcly  Taxel  11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC) (moved to this thread) -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Group 3 is to contain Sc, Y, Lu and Lr.
 * The lanthanides and actinides are to be represented in the main body as a little slit before Lu and Lr, in the same column as Lu and Lr.
 * One element per cell. Once we have that, someone can fold it and cut it and and inscribe it on a grain of rice. But only then. does not say how it shows in 32 col format, and does not number groups. -DePiep (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree: one element per cell is the way to go. The gap doesn't have to be the same width as the other cells – it can be a lot thinner – but it must be present.
 * In 32 col format, demo B is exactly the same as demo A. In 18 col format, I gather it should show as Sc/Y/*Lu/**Lr, viz.:


 * Remove the &lt;nowiki>&lt;/nowiki> tags to reactivate the table. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ,, . I leave this thread. I spend dozens of posts to bring focus to the topic, and the only responses are editors following every red herring off topic like an ADHD child after a month without Ritalin let loose in a circus candyshop with a loud television. -DePiep (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry! You wanted the physical/chemical arguments, didn't you? I'm just trying to reply to everyone. I will draft something in userspace that states only the arguments you wanted. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to leave this thread/reject the null hypothesis. You "abandoned" the discussion on Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, and I was totally devastated. A ton of physical and chemical arguments support my Demo B idea (Sc/Y/*Lu/**Lr). The IUPAC actually places all lanthanides/actinides outside for the reason that all of them show +3 oxidation states, yet it'd be unwieldy to have 32 elements in a group that normally would have only four – we have to consider that. They have a point.
 * Indeed, what I'm seeing with the controversy is that periodic trends change from group-wise to period-wise with increasing atomic number. For example, we have the halogens and alkali metals forming well-defined groups, and the period 2/period 3 elements have wild variations, but as we go down to 4 and 5 (the transition metals from scandium to cadmium) there's less variation, and finally when we get to the lanthanides and actinides it's almost like the run from lanthanum to lutetium is a period by itself, sempiternal in nature. Groups (columns) then make little sense. According to my previous points here, we should thus place Lu and Lr in group 3. Parcly   Taxel  02:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that for the lanthanides: not so much for the early actinides, who behave more like they were in the d-block groups (which are still quite important, unlike the f-block ones) until about Am or Cm.
 * Did IUPAC say explicitly that their choice of Sc/Y/*/** was because all show the +3 oxidation state? While this is true, +3 is not the most common oxidation state for some actinides (Th, Pa, U, Np, Pu, No). All the transition metals in periods 4 to 6 show the +2 oxidation state: it's just that for many of them, this is not one of the more stable states.
 * Yes, I agree with you that Sc/Y/Lu/Lr is supported by physical and chemical arguments. But I think it is a closer call, because Sc/Y/La/Ac is also quite well-supported by other physical and chemical arguments. I will expound on this in the summary I told DePiep I would write soon: in the meantime, I'm quite sure all this has been covered already in longer form in the archives.
 * I do not oppose placing Lu and Lr in group 3: I will later explain my reasons. But what I oppose is putting the asterisks in the Lu and Lr cells, making your proposed Sc/Y/*Lu/**Lr: in my opinion, there should only be one element in a cell, and this suggests that the cell is split into two, one sliver for 57–70, and the bulk for 71. This, I think, is confusing and should be avoided, and needlessly obfuscates the placement of the lanthanides and actinides. Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Demo E (or B2, if you like):

This should clarify, once and for all, that the rest of Ln/An are not in group 3. Parcly  Taxel  03:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the same as Demo A (though B2 is in an 18-column format), and I support this one. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't look at it carefully enough! No, this form is unclear because of Sc and Y stretching. It looks like those two are both in group 3 and out of it. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I apologise for my lack of wikitable skills. The column left of group 3 should be thinner, much thinner, and the * and ** could maybe creep a little bit into Ba and Ra. Parcly   Taxel  10:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But that makes it look as though the Ln and An belong in group 2, which I think is even less desirable. Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Having carefully re-read Lavell, Scerri and Jensen, and concluding that Scerri-Jensen did a demolition job on Lavelle's argument for La | Ac, I look forward to reading about what other physical and chemical arguments support La | Ac. Sandbh (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, I'll come up with something more convincing than just reiteration of the tired and easily refuted electron configuration argument. ;-) I think I posted some things on R8R Gtrs' talkpage on the matter. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (...though for completeness, I did include that one as well.) Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By wishing everybody a happy upcoming equinox here (both Australians and Canadians alike), I prevent a bot archiving this. That's two birds with one rare-earths containing stone. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguments
This is the first in the series of posts I will make on these issues, summarizing the arguments on both sides.


 * Sc/Y/Lu/Lr
 * 1) Electron configurations The anomalous [Rn] 6d2 7s2 electron configuration of Th, as well as the general valence electron configuration (with a few exceptions) of the f-block elements (n−2)fxns2 (instead of (n−2)fx−1(n−1)d1ns2), supports the idea that La and Ac are f-block elements with anomalous electron configurations. The differentiating electron for Lu enters the 5d orbital, and follows the Madelung rule exactly. Lr is thus also a d-block element with an anomalous [Rn] 5f14 7s2 7p1 electron configuration. (The configuration for the ground state of Lr was still in doubt in 2006, and I do not know if it has been cleared up yet. It may yet have the expected [Rn] 5f14 6d1 7s2 configuration. Details may be found in The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements, 3rd ed. (p.1643–4). I have not seen the 2011 4th edition.)
 * 2) d-block splitting Taking Sc/Y/Lu/Lr keeps the d-block together, while Sc/Y/La/Ac tears it apart. Taking Sc/Y/La/Ac is thus predicting that the 5d electron should mostly be kept from Ce to Lu with a few exceptions; but in fact it is the opposite, where keeping the 5d electron is the exception. (The same happens for the 6d electron from Th to Lr.)
 * 3) Period analogies Taking Sc/Y/Lu/Lr means that passing from a period 5 transition element to a period 6 transition element always adds a filled f orbital. Lu to Hg have a [Xe] 4f14 core, while La only has a [Xe] core.
 * 4) Group trends Trends for atomic radii, (1st+2nd) ionization energy, and Allred–Rochow electronegativity for Sc-Y-Lu show the same trend as for the other transition metal groups, whereas Sc–Y–La shows a straight trend because of the lack of the insertion of the 4f subshell. But see below for a counterargument.
 * 5) Physical and chemical behaviour Sc and Y act a lot like Lu. Some sample properties may be seen in Jensen's famous paper. But see below for a counterargument.


 * Sc/Y/La/Ac
 * 1) Lutetium as a transition metal Sc, Y, and Lu are physically transition metals, but chemically they are largely not (viz. the +3 oxidation state). (Much the same is true of group 4 in the +4 oxidation state, though.) This would make them marginal transition metals, and therefore Sc/Y/Lu/Lr argument 4 may have a weak premise. And if Sc, Y, and Lu are marginal transition metals, why take Lu out of the TMs and not Sc or Y?
 * Does this argument not also apply to La? Suggesting we take out Sc or Y seems like a spurious argument. Shall we take Be out the alkaline earths given some of its peculiar behaviour compared to its heavier congeners; or shall we take Tl out of group 13 given it behaves more like an alkali metal or silver in some of its chemistry? Or why do we call silver a transition metal given most of its chemistry is like that of a main group element? Aiee! How do we preserve the paragraph numbers? Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is how you can preserve the paragraph numbers (see the wikicode). :-) But haven't all your examples been done by one author or another? And isn't La physically also not a very good transition metal? La has a low density, as do Sc and Y, its melting point isn't all that high (irs boiling point seems quite high, though), and it's quite a soft metal (Mohs hardness 2.5, although I'm aware that fractional values on the Mohs scale aren't all that meaningful). Ac also has a rather low melting point and a higher density of about 10 g·cm−3, as one would expect (it's about as dense as Ag, and getting close to the Pb value). Both have oxide layers that are only somewhat effective at stopping further corrosion: e.g. La will start corroding within about two days of exposure to air (the order among the lanthanides is Eu, La, Ce, Pr, Nd...), the oxide layer will start spalling off within two weeks, the white oxide will be clearly visible within two months, and corrosion will be complete within the year (ref: REM Long Term Air Exposure Test).
 * My argument was actually supposed to be that it seemed rare to put Lu primarily as a TM instead of a lanthanide, and taking Lu out of the TMs and not Sc and Y seems inconsistent. This categorization is a lot more common for La, as I recall, although there it makes even less sense IMHO: e.g. Greenwood & Earnshaw, in a series of chapters on the d-block groups, cover La and Ac with Sc and Y, while IIRC all the other lanthanides and actinides (and transactinides) are covered separately. But you are right in that it is a weak argument, and its main purpose is to just question whether we should really take "group 3 are TMs" as an unquestioned premise when arguing over La vs. Lu. Double sharp (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Rare earth elements Sc and Y behave more like the lanthanides than like the transition metals in coordination chemistry (and this is the property Zn, Cd, and Hg share with the group 4–11 elements!)  Sc is larger than the other transition metals, so that it typically takes on higher coordination numbers and acts like a smaller version of Lu, although this means that it is somewhat out of place with the rare earths too, being highly basic. But its closest relation among the elements is Y, which is closely related to the lanthanides: Y acts physically and chemically as if it were the lanthanide between Tb and Dy. While I agree with Jensen that Sc, Y, and Lu are very similar, this says nothing about whether they should be treated with the transition metals.
 * 2) Group trends The d-block insertions in group 12 cause kinks in the density trend, while the absence of them in group 2 cause a smooth m.p. trend like in group 1. Similarly, the f-block insertions in Sc/Y/Lu/Lr cause kinks in the density trend: the m.p. trend is inconclusive (both Sc/Y/La and Sc/Y/Lu look odd).
 * 3) Group 3 as a main group Sc, Y, La, and Ac are all soft and reactive metals with typically high melting points (that continue the in-period trend up from groups 1 and 2 pretty well, and also fall going down the group like groups 1 and 2). They all have electrons relatively far from the nucleus like groups 1 and 2. Lu and Lr have electrons held closer and thus Lu behaves more like a transition metal physically (Lr is predicted to be like Lu). Sc, Y, and Lu are reactive but form stable oxide layers like Mg and Al; La and Ac's oxide layers are only somewhat effective in preventing corrosion temporarily, but this is similar to the trend in increasing reactivity going down group 2. OTOH Ti, Zr, and Hf are all hard and refactory with high melting points and the oxide layers are all stable and they are all similar (no clear trend going down them). La continues the trend from Sc and Y like a main group, whereas Lu continues it like a transition metal group. The choice depends on whether you think Sc and Y are transition metals or not.
 * 4) Jensen's compared properties (counterargument to point 5 for Sc/Y/Lu/Lr) Many of these can be explained by group trends. Highest common oxidation state is inconclusive (+3 for Sc, Y, La, and Lu): Y group (Sc, Y, Lu) vs Ce group (La) is simply because La is larger than Sc, Y, and Lu, due to the period difference (Sc and Y) and the lanthanide contraction (Lu); the crystal structures aren't always the same going up and down s- and d-block groups, so it doesn't seem that important that La's crystal structure differs from Sc and Y's: different structures of homologous ionic compounds are not really the most important factor for group assignment, viz. CsCl vs. NaCl (and this is in the alkali metals, the model example of great group trends); Lu is superconductive at atmospheric pressure and low temperature, although Jensen does not list it. The properties I cannot yet explain by group trends or refute are "Presence of low-lying nonhydrogenic f-orbitals" and "d-Block-like structure for conduction band", where La is stated to differ from Sc, Y, and Lu. Can anyone help me understand those?
 * 5) Electron configuration The Madelung rule, while helpful, sometimes goes against reality. If a theory predicts that La should have electron configuration [Xe] 4f1 6s2 in the ground state, though it doesn't, why should so much trust be placed in what the theory predicts? Why should it be used to create the idea of blocks (and aren't blocks also an artificial concept?) Shouldn't more trust be placed in the fact that La and Ac have the d electron for some reason, and this d electron makes them act more like transition metals than one would expect? The early actinides also act this way, but moving them would tread dangerously into abandoning the principle that elements should appear in increasing atomic number.
 * Spurious argument I reckon. Madelung rule is only an idealized construct. Blocks are more than artificial construct. They fall out of ordering the elements periodically according to their electron configurations---irregularities notwithstanding. Placing more trust in the d electron is the fallacious distinguishing electron argument, which has been dismissed by Jensen and Scerri. The placement of an element in the PT rests on more than that. Th for example should be a transition metal. Sandbh (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My placing an argument here doesn't mean I endorse it as valid. :-) The d-electron argument, though fallacious, has been advanced as an argument for Sc/Y/La/Ac, and I felt it proper to not suppress it (even though I don't believe in it), but try to rationalize it for this post. Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. I was quite impressed by your work in setting out the arguments. And more impressed that you had attempted to build a house, shabby as they are, of La | Ac arguments. First time I've seen this anywhere apart from what Lavelle wrote. Sandbh (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! It's nice to know that this is appreciated and useful. After all, we can't really prove one alternative is the best if we don't examine the cases for all the others, can we? :-) (Though yes, the La | Ac arguments feel somewhat forced to me. I don't deny there is something going on there, but I reckon the similarity between Y and La is really second-order, the sort you will find between A groups and B groups with the same Roman numeral: they are isodonors and isovalent. Third-order I reckon would be something like Au with the halogens, being isoacceptors: to my mind no one seriously advocates any of these.) Double sharp (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. About the blocks, how much do they mean for chemical properties? If they truly mean a lot, then why does the d-block go from group 3 to group 12, but the sharp reduction of metallic character occurs instead from group 11 to group 12, with the associated completion of the s subshell? Whereas the filled d-subshell at group 11 does make some difference for properties, while their idealized d9s2 configuration does nothing except be an excited state and influence their colour because of s→d transitions. Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. About Th, I think the situation is a little different from Ac. For Ac you have Ac ([Rn]6d17s2), Ac+ ([Rn]7s2), Ac2+ ([Rn]7s1), and finally Ac3+ ([Rn]). But for Th 5f becomes a contributing and stable orbital, increasingly stabilized with increased ionic charge, thus Th ([Rn]6d27s2), Th+ ([Rn]6d27s1), Th2+ ([Rn]5f16d1, with [Rn]6d2 as the very low-lying first excited state), Th3+ ([Rn]5f1), and finally Th4+ ([Rn]). Sources are divided about whether Th3+ (aq) exists; Wickleder et al. (cited on the Th article) is skeptical, while Greenwood and Earnshaw is not. If it exists then it shows clearly that the 5f stabilization has become important at Th, not at Ac, in which case the claim that Th's ideal electron configuration involves 5f orbitals seems to be stronger than the analogous one for Ac.
 * Also, aren't these electron configurations all for the gas phase and not the metallic phase? In the metallic phase, don't all the lanthanides have an electron in a d-orbital except Eu and Yb, which are divalent as one would expect from a naïve application of the fxs2 configuration? (Obviously this is because the 4f→5d promotion energy is low for most of the lanthanides. In fact, isn't that why they're mostly trivalent? As in, the promotion energy is low in the hypothetical M2+ ion and hence it can be easily oxidized to M3+?)
 * P.S. While researching for this post, I wanted to think about what is happening for cerium (reminder to self: rewrite that article, it's a mess and it's the most important lanthanide). Obviously there the promotion energy is also low in Ce3+, and gets increasingly higher through the early lanthanides until you have no +4 state at Pm. Meanwhile as we carry on through the lanthanides at Sm the nearly half-filled 4f subshell stabilizes Sm2+ and then Eu2+ considerably. At Gd3+ we are at the late-lanthanide homolog of La3+ and the cycle restarts. Now the +4 state disappears one element earlier – I'd imagine this is the lanthanide contraction coming into play and increasing the ionization energy, and the full-filled 4f subshell stabilizes Tm2+ and then Yb2+. Then we come out of the lanthanides with Lu3+. Or you could say that the insertion is Ce–Lu, because the chemistry starts differing considerably from what you'd expect for a d-block element at Ce, not La – but that results in putting B and Al over Sc as well, because Sc acts very main-groupish...
 * Sigh. My usual response to my devil's advocate arguments in favour of Sc/Y/La/Ac is: you can think of it either way, starting at 0 f-electrons at La3+, or 1 at Ce3+. Maybe funny things start happening at Ce/Th instead of La/Ac, but Lu behaves more like Y because of the comparable ionic size, and I think that is a small but real plus over La. Now for Sc this maybe isn't so true because Sc is so small, but that would tend to make it closer to Lu than La. Double sharp (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. When I'm not in devil's-advocate mode, I'd still say that some funky things have started at La/Ac instead of Ce/Th. It's just that at Ce/Th they explode in your face and you cannot deny it anymore, whereas at La/Ac they are stirring. For instance, the 4f and 5f orbitals, while not occupied yet, are now low-lying enough to have some effect, and don't act like the idealized 4f/5f orbitals in H anymore. Also we need to look at what happens when the electrons delocalize as well – correct me if I am wrong about this, but here doesn't La behave like the f-block lanthanides and Lu behave like the d-block transition metals? (Yes I finally think I get some of the gist of what Jensen's last two properties are about.) Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For convenience, here is the link to the Jensen paper I keep referring to. Double sharp (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(P.S. Some of this content is adapted from earlier posts by me in other venues on Wikipedia.) Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

P.P.S. If I have missed anything, write it below and I'll add it. I did not consider Sc/Y/*/**, whose only virtue seems to be that it doesn't take sides, at the expense of making a ridiculous 32-column periodic table where you have Sc and Y cells spanning 15 columns from La to Lu. Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good start. Let me ponder. Sandbh (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This post covers points 1 (La vs. Lu below Y) and 2 (whether to use the REM category). Next post will be on point 3 (group 12 and their relationship with the TMs). Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By wishing everybody a happy upcoming equinox here (both Australians and Canadians alike), I prevent a bot archiving this. That's two birds with one rare-earths containing stone. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Group 3: this into content
Now let us bring this to content pages. Which elements are in group 3? What does group 3 look like?

There are two approaches: Group 3 is: Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, and Group 3 is: Sc/Y/La/Ac. No other variant exists in science sources, I understand. This also says: group 3 is a single column (one element per row; no other Ln or An elements are in). Also, this all says that there is a scientifically preferred fact:. The option  is the lesser one.

I propose. The notes from Double sharp here then can go nicely into content space, especially into article Group 3 element (oh how I despise this article name). They need source references, of course. But they could be here. -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup, there's no other variant that you can expand into a coherent 32-column table. It is either Sc/Y/Lu/Lr or Sc/Y/La/Ac. The former is preferred by scientific arguments and is gradually becoming the norm.
 * I agree, these notes deserve a place there, obviously when cited. Some of the ones for Sc/Y/La/Ac might be problematic, because some are my original synthesis of published material (and hence OR). But most should be OK.
 * Yes, I dislike that article name too. (Suggestion: call them all by their first group member, like IUPAC allows. Thus "scandium group", "titanium group", etc., just like we have "boron group" and "carbon group" today.) Double sharp (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (Let's do the name discussion elsewhere/elsetime ;-) ) -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Group 3: this into periodic table graphics
As a consequence.

Once we agree that Group 3 is: Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, I want to adjust our periodic tables (PTs) to this. Especially the 18-column ones, like Periodic table, are changed: there will be a gap column, next to group 2. Etcetera: all our general PT's will be consistent. (while specific PT's can be - well, different). The 32-column PT's will confirm, but these already are. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Arguably the best graphical way of showing the Scylular solution would be to have a little "chink" in the cells for Lu and Lr to show that the f-block precedes. This, however, is nigh-impossible to achieve in wikitext, so I'm fine with the gap proposal. Scylular does indeed have the better ground of support (for net neutrality as well – go sign the petition!) so I hereby support. Parcly   Taxel  09:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Parcly's: if the cells of Y (or Sr) run above the chink, then it gives the impression that the lanthanides/actinides are all in group 3 (or, even worse, 2). I think we must have the gap to make it clear that we treat group 3 primarily as Sc/Y/Lu/Lr on WP.
 * Parcly, do you have a demo link for that (a graphic example)?


 * Proposal
 * To be clear, this would result it this PT setup:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="table-layout:fixed; text-align:center;"


 * H || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || He
 * Li || Be || || || || || || || || || || || || B || C || N || O || F || Ne
 * Na || Mg || || || || || || || || || || || || Al || Si || P|| S || Cl || Ar
 * K || Ca || || Sc || Ti || V || Cr || Mn || Fe || Co || Ni || Cu || Zn || Ga || Ge || As || Se || Br || Kr
 * Rb || Sr || || Y || Zr || Nb || Mo || Tc || Ru || Rh || Pd || Ag || Cd || In || Sn || Sb || Te || I || Xe
 * Cs || Ba || * || Lu || Hf || Ta || W || Re || Os || Ir || Pt || Au || Hg || Tl || Pb || Bi || Po || At || Rn
 * Fr || Ra || **  || Lr || Rf || Db || Sg || Bh || Hs || Mt || Ds || Rg || Cn || 113 || Fl || 115 || Lv || 117 || 118
 * }
 * Rb || Sr || || Y || Zr || Nb || Mo || Tc || Ru || Rh || Pd || Ag || Cd || In || Sn || Sb || Te || I || Xe
 * Cs || Ba || * || Lu || Hf || Ta || W || Re || Os || Ir || Pt || Au || Hg || Tl || Pb || Bi || Po || At || Rn
 * Fr || Ra || **  || Lr || Rf || Db || Sg || Bh || Hs || Mt || Ds || Rg || Cn || 113 || Fl || 115 || Lv || 117 || 118
 * }
 * Fr || Ra || **  || Lr || Rf || Db || Sg || Bh || Hs || Mt || Ds || Rg || Cn || 113 || Fl || 115 || Lv || 117 || 118
 * }
 * }


 * {| class="wikitable" style="table-layout:fixed; text-align:center;"

Notes: WRT the group-3-like behaviour &tcetera in some aspects (discussed below), I note: here definitely no suggestion of extending column 3 & placing Ln, An in a sort of group 8, 9 suggestion. The asterisks here are explicitly used to allow place-holding. -DePiep (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * style="width:3.5em; text-align:right" | *
 * La || Ce || Pr || Nd || Pm || Sm || Eu || Gd || Tb || Dy || Ho || Er || Tm || Yb
 * style="width:3.5em; text-align:right" | **
 * Ac || Th || Pa || U || Np || Pu || Am || Cm || Bk || Cf || Es || Fm || Md || No
 * }
 * Ac || Th || Pa || U || Np || Pu || Am || Cm || Bk || Cf || Es || Fm || Md || No
 * }

Extending group 3 column into Ln, An below-rows

 * One further note for 18-column periodic tables: when the lanthanides and actinides are cut out of the main body of the table, lanthanum (La) and actinium (Ac) should still line up under group 3. The reason for this is that this accurately shows the secondary relationship between Y and La, and also those between Lu–Os and Ac–Pu. (Basically like our PTQ, but with a full gap between groups 2 and 3 instead of the chink.) Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Double sharp: how can La and Ac be in the group 3 column, when we just concluded that group 3 is Sc/Y/Lu/Lr? basically, when Ln and An are cut out (either 14 or 15), it is cut out from the 32-column situation. So exactly what is in group 3 in the 32-column format, in your statement? -DePiep (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I wrote "for 18-column periodic tables". In the 32-column format, La and Ac are just after Ba and Ra in group 2, and just before Ce and Th, just like we have in our compact table even today. In the 18-column format, here's an extremely low-tech graphic demo showing what I mean:


 * Proposal:
 * As you can see, La and Ac are in the same vertical column as group 3, but are not group 3 elements. It's the same as how, even currently, we have Tm and Md under the pnictogens, even though they aren't pnictogens. Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see what you mean - and I disagree. Because, once taken out, they are out. The two satellite rows might as well be shifted left, or be on another page: they are isolated. I maintain: once you put them back in 32-column form (cut & paste, use scissors), it must show the very same periodic table. The separation is a graphical thing, not a PT-structural thing. Your idea to give La and Ac some group3 association disappears in the equal 32-column presentation, so is wrong (to repeat: the 32-column, reconstructed PT does *not* associate these two with group 3). -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 32-column table doesn't show any secondary relationships (and this is why I sometimes feel that actually the 8-column table is the best one!) But that's not the only reason: I think my main reason for this one is that it's symmetrical and looks nice. I'm not suggesting giving La and Ac group 3 membership, nor am I suggesting making Nd and U group 6 elements (absurd in Nd's case), nor Tm and Md as pnictogens (absurd for both). The alignment just looks nice, and happens to neatly coincide with secondary relationships from Ac to Pu, which is a bonus. (I think Sandbh likes this one too, right? IIRC they mentioned it in an archive.) Double sharp (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Won't happen. 'looks nice' is not an argument.
 * 1. Having satellite, external rows means they are: a satellite. Even better: to prevent the false or half-associations you mention, we better shift that below-block half a column or more.
 * 2. Graphicaly, either one does show the connection you mention, or not at all. So if we want to convey the 'group 3, sort of' thing, we must do so explicitly in graphics (think footnote, asterisk/dagger).
 * 3. Whatever you say, this way LA is group 3-thing, but Ce is not groupy-4? Why is Tb not a groupy-11?
 * 4. Tell us what a 8-group PT does show extra. I'm sure we can put that in the 32-col one. Except when you argue it 'looks nice'. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ce is kind of groupy-4, I think. +4 is its maximum oxidation state and like Ti, it also has a reasonably common +3 state. For the lanthanides this stops at Ce though, and for the actinides at Pu.
 * The 8-column PT shows these secondary relationships between the A and the B groups. These are real and supported by the chemistry. For example we have similarities between Al3+ and Sc3+, and Mg2+ and Zn2+, which the 18- and 32-column table do not show. Each group (arguably except group I) bifurcates into a main group and a transition group (well, for group II they both act like main groups). The 18- and 32-column table tear these apart. (My proposal for 18-column at least keeps the lanthanide/actinide ones like Y3+/La3+ and Hf4+/Th4+ alive in a limited form.) Of course this is of no help for the relativistic ones like I−/Au− and Te2−/Pt2−. Double sharp (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer Double sharp's proposal for the layout of an 18-column table, as it is congruent with the secondary relationship between the early actinides and the early row 6 transition metals. It also harmonizes better with the rare earth metals grouping i.e. Scylu and the lanthanides. I know these things disappear in the 32-column version but that does not mean they have no substance. Different PT layouts are better at showing some relationships than others. If we have a choice with our 18-column PT then it seems sensible to optimise the placement of the lanthanides-actinides. Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the REM argument is also valid for Sc/Y/La/Ac, maybe even more so because Ac is so similar to La and we don't know very much about Lr. I agree with all the rest of Sandbh's post, though. Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. You really want me to show all the secondary relationships in a 32-column table? Really? It would look kind of like Rayner-Canham's Inorganic Chemist's Periodic Table. And that's not even complete. I'd also have to add little cells for Pt, Au, and Hg under Te, I, and Xe, add Ac, Np, and Pu under Lu, Re, and Os, La and Ce under Y and Zr, B and C over Al and Si, Be over Mg, the purple triangle onto P and As, put H over Li, C, and F, Tl and Pb under Cs and Ba, and even more stuff with the superheavy elements. Double sharp (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Two objections. First: why would we add just this piece of information to the PT? It's more like an exception (or irregularity), for periodicity, and as Sandbh describes it degrades/disappears after a number of elements in the Ln, An rows. I have not encountered it in their articles as a PT issue. (we do not even show the 2nd option for He in group 2 anywhere but in topical page; never both options in one). Or the irregular shell filling in the Ln and An stretch - which is quite more PT-relevant of course. And however unimportant it is, it is adding another dimension of facts to the PT. We do not have anything like that in the PTs.
 * Second: if ever the property were added to a PT, graphically is can not be done the way Ds proposes (continuing the group 3 column, a bit like suggesting, into the satellite rows). It is a different dimension of info, so it must be explained (use a footnote-marker with descriptive footnote, start using "(3)" group numbers again with a footnoote, whatever). BEcause: these two rows are set apart as a graphical solution, and not as a PT-structural property. The asterisks are in there as a placeholder. Exactly that is why we need a gap: no misunderstanding as to where the satellites belong. Now when they would be tied to the group 3 column, the reader cannot place them in period 6 and seven without breaking the structure that is added. So there is a mental and rational block: why do the asterisks suggest placeholdership, when I cannot do so by breaking. So graphically, the proposal graphically inconsistent, and a misconstruct. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You really didn't find it in the articles? (looks) If it's not, it should be in there! (Starts adding it.)
 * Of course you can't have both options, because usually we stick to putting elements once and once only.
 * 18-column and 32-column are a bit different to me – the former, by tearing the f-block out, suggests both their placement in the 32-column table (by the asterisks), and the pseudohomologs (this by the usual position of the f-block in 18-column, which is now free to suggest secondary associations). The latter cannot be shown by the 32-column table and is hence a strength of the 18-column one. Also, if we shift the f-block over, it suggests false associations. Since the f-block is always placed under everyone else in the 18-column table, it seems to me that we should put it where it gives somewhat correct suggestions (e.g. Y/La, Zr/Ce, Hf/Th – Os/Pu) instead of false suggestions (e.g. if you put it one cell to the right: Nb/Ce?? Zr/La?? and if you put it half a cell to the right: ???? not related ????) Just because this doesn't exist in the 32-column table doesn't mean it should be suppressed. Double sharp (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (P.S. Whenever you call me "Ds" I first think of the element before realizing who you meant. LOL!) Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First some preliminary notes. 1. I also thought of shortening it to ##, but that would not be clear to any outsider. 2. You're right about the revert re me 3. I split off this discussion (about group-3-alikes) because it is not part of the original proposal. It gives me an idea what a IUPAC meeting must be like: every distraction is embraced. -DePiep (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course we can add this to a 32-column table. You are mixing up your wish to add information with a graphic solution (they are to be treated separate). But first to answer: why add this at all? -DePiep (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Only because it is easy to show in the 18-column table, and not showing it shows less info (and could mislead). Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Final argument I have: there are many precedents in the literature for this (though mostly with Sc/Y/La/Ac, that I think is mostly because that form is usually used in the field of actinide and transactinide chem for some reason – The Chemistry of the Actinides and Transactinides does that, as do all the relevant articles I've read online so far...) Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Double sharp: "and could mislead"? How is omitting pseudo-group 3 behaviour misleading? After that, how is one to understand that the righthand elements (Yb and No and leftwardss) are not to be considered pseudo group 17 (16, ...) elements? Again, if we want to show it, we can (in a different, and responsible way). But doing so "because it is easy" (quod non) is the wrong reason. -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Because if you don't show it, and shift the f-block one cell to the right or left, you're implying different pseudo-relationships like Sc/Y/Ce?? or Hf/Pa?? My ideal solutions would be (first choice) my proposed one earlier, suggesting early relationships, and also because this is the most-used alignment in literature, with Th as groupy-4 etc. or (second choice) shift the f-block away from first choice by a fraction of a cell, not a whole cell: this removes all suggestions, though going against what seems to be the most common choice in the literature. Double sharp (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * shift the f-block away from first choice by a fraction of a cell, not a whole cell
 * Yes yes yes: let us not ever suggest that there is a vertical relationship; "suggest" is key here -key to wrong-. I already disconnected the columns as much as I could. -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Key to right-enough-for-chemists-to-pretty-much-always-do-this, actually. And I'm not too happy with the fractional shift, because AFAICS nobody in the field does this. Even IUPAC aligns it. Let's not create a variant that nobody uses. It is "fair" in a sense, but in the end it's just not used. Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Re ds: nobody in the field does this you say. Well, please show or link me a PT where group 3 is extended as you say into the Ln and An. From there, show how groups ...-15-16 are differentiated (excluded). I maintain: as long as we use the asterisk placeholders, these two satellite rows can be anywhere. (note: I'm loosing patience). -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Re ds: Even IUPAC aligns it you say. Sure. Please show us how IUPAC actually says your group-3 thing. (My opinion: on sets of elements, IUPAC is useless). -DePiep (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On certain questions regarding sets of elements and graphical placement of elements, IUPAC's table is useless. For other questions regarding those same issues, IUPAC's table is useful. Its international utility is the reason why professors like Scerri (who you and I both agree with in many ways) take the time to address IUPAC. An editor who advocates to maintain the current group 3 layout in Wikipedia's 18-column table because it is also IUPAC's layout in their tables is not required to "show us how IUPAC actually says your group-3 thing." There was a consensus opinion at Wikipedia to make our layout be like IUPAC's. How many times will you try to make Wikipedia's layout look different from IUPAC's layout before you finally realize that an encyclopedia serves the reader by reflecting international conventions? When they change theirs, we'll change ours. If losing patience means giving up on trying to convince other editors about this issue then please do lose your patience. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From 2005 to 2012, the lanthanide/actinide/group-3 layout of | Wikipedia's Large Table generally matched | Wikipedia's not-large table and both matched the layout generally used on the IUPAC website. There might be some general-reader-focused explanation for why these three tables (IUPAC's, Wikipedia's large table, and Wikipedia's not-large table) should disagree with each other about this particular layout issue. If there is such an explanation that is focused on the general reader, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll be altering the large template in a few days (assuming nobody else does it first). Flying Jazz (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right: we should be consistent among ourselves. Either all our WP periodic tables should look like the large table, or they should all look like the small one, of course when the composition of group 3 isn't an issue. Personally I'd like them all to look like the large one (Sc/Y/Lu/Lr), since IUPAC does not forbid it and this allows us to not contradict ourselves in the 32-column compact table. Double sharp (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are an infinite number of things that IUPAC does not forbid. Looking through the talk pages, I've reached the conclusion that the three of you may wish to discuss each of those infinite things one at a time. Flying Jazz (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree there is a need for consistency. Relevant considerations include 1. IUPAC does not have a preferred form of table; 2. The most common form of periodic table found in the literature, by a wide margin, is La|Ac (source: personal research based on 63 randomly selected texts from 1984 to 2014: counts were La|Ac 42; *|** 10; Lu|Lr 9; and Other 2)—so much for IUPAC; 3. The two wikipedia tables should be consistent with the "pure" 32 column table, which implies Lu|Lr, unless we split the d block, as per Scerri's figure 6, so as to be consistent with La|Ac sources ( but which aren't strong enough to support their arguments, as per WP:RELIABLE: "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim."); 4. I'm not aware of any periodic table "authorities" (like Scerri) who support La|Ac, as opposed to Lu|Lr. Time for a discussion at periodic table talk? Sandbh (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, IUPAC does not have a preferred form of the table in its capacity as an international body of nomenclature. However, they most certainly do have a preferred form of the table as an organization containing people who work there making editorial decisions based on preferences like we try to do here. Until the formal, nomenclature-making capacity of IUPAC reaches a decision about group 3 and until textbooks reach a consensus, the table used by IUPAC is editorially sound in my view. As for your personal research, after a previous exchange between us about the periodic table in the end papers of Hill and Holman's "Chemistry in Context," I obtained the exact book in question to add to my collection, and discovered that your personal research in that matter was verifiably false. My experience has been that editors who misrepresent the literature do not usually do so only once. I do not trust your personal research. Flying Jazz (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I said earlier (here) that Hill and Holman (2000) use the term poor metals in the 'main table' at the back of their book. I made this statement in response to your question "Did Hill and Holman use the term Poor Metals in their "main table" at the endpapers of their text?" The actual situation is that Hill and Holman use the term poor metals in the main table located in the "appendices" at the back of their book (p. 536), between their (last) chapter called "Synthetic Routes for Organic Chemicals" and their Index. Now, appendices don't count as end papers, so yes (as I said) Hill and Holman use the term Poor Metals in the "main table" at the back of their book. However, as you noted, no, they do not use it in the endpapers of their book. As far as I can see, there was nothing verifiably false in my statement that Hill and Holman (2000) use the term poor metals in the 'main table' at the back of their book. Sandbh (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hill G & Holman J 2000, Chemistry in Context, 5th ed., Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham, ISBN 0174482760
 * Maybe you don't trust Sandbh's personal research. That's fine. However independent researchers have come to the same conclusion: Clark and White's The Flyleaf Periodic Table shows that Sc/Y/La/Ac is the most common format in textbooks, followed by Sc/Y/*/** (which seems to be dying out!) and then Sc/Y/Lu/Lr (which only started to pick up after Jensen's 1982 article), from a sample size of 35 textbooks. There is one odd case which uses both Sc/Y/La/Ac and Sc/Y/*/**. Unfortunately this article claims that IUPAC made Sc/Y/*/** the standard table in 2005 when we all know that they in fact did no such thing, but otherwise it seems to be a reliable survey. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RE Ds: As for the composition of group 3 (which is not the topic of this third subthread, but the two above): that is what these discussion are about, in the subthreads above. To me and to Sandbh they read like "show group 3 as Sc/Y/Lu/Lr", so we could conclude that. It is this third, recently added topic that is undecided or -if you like- opposed. (And the threat "I will edit as I want" is not an argument). -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RE FJ: Our older graphs and IUPAC were ambiguous or even wrong as to "what constitutes group 3?". That ambiguity shows when a general reader tries to position the two satellite rows into the table (18-column into 32-column): what with SC and Y? That is why 1. we concluded here (as Sandbh repeated, e.g. reading Scerri) that group 3 is primarily shows as Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, and 2. we introduce a gap column in the 18-col table to disconnect group 2 from group 3. The ambiguity in IUPAC we do not reduce. -DePiep (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And to be complete: the IUPAC table is wrong because it suggests states that all Ln and An (15+15) are in group 3. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've stated many times before, editorial decisions are matters of preference, so now I'm attempting to talk about those preferences with the three editors (yourself, Sandbh, and Double sharp) who together have made over 700 of the past 1000 posts on this talk page because I want to understand why the three of you have a preference that is different from what appears at IUPAC at the moment. Unfortunately, in your reply, I could not discern what you mean by "The ambiguity in IUPAC we do not reduce." However, I do understand that you think IUPAC is wrong and Sandbh writes, "so much for IUPAC." Both of you associate chemical groups too strictly with editorial layouts. I also certainly understand your immediate implementation of the change at before discussing the change with anyone here. Flying Jazz (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "editorial decisions are matters of preference". Not so. This is an outcome from RS. For starters, you can read the Scerri link provided above and anything written by Sandbh on this. Next. In my response to you, I have written in a few lines the core points. If there are things in there that are not clear, then please say so. Counting edits does not do that. Next. I do not think IUPAC is wrong, I concluded that IUPAC is wrong. Next. "implementation of the change before discussing the change with anyone here". Nonsense. Just read the main thread you are writing in. -DePiep (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously, as has been stated multiple times in the past, editorial decisions based on fact result from reliable sources, and editorial decisions about opinion or preference instead of fact result from editors expressing a preference after consulting reliable sources. Sandbh's and my sources tell us that IUPAC (as a source of nomenclature) does not have a preferred form of the table, so neither IUPAC's choice of table (as a source of information) nor Wikipedia's table can be right or wrong on this particular matter at this moment in history. You seem to believe that those same sources tell you that IUPAC's table and Wikipedia's table (before your recent edit) are wrong. Not only do you disagree with the consensus opinion and stable table at Wikipedia, but you disagree in a disagreeable way by instructing me to read content that I've already discussed and referred to on multiple occasions. I think that making the change at at this moment in time while this particular discussion was taking place was a tendentious decision intended to create drama among editors rather than serve the reader. After seeing that over 30% of the posts in this project are yours and over 70% are from the three of you, I look at edit summaries like the one at  in combination with your recent change to the main table and recent comments from R8R and Axiosaurus about the quality checking procedure in this project, and I've reached the conclusion that you wish to be left alone here. I will comply. This is my final post in WikiProject Elements. Goodbye. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: To follow is the top image in periodic table. Working on that one. -DePiep (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a discussion in periodic table talk before there is any move to Lu|Lr, if that was what you had in mind? Sandbh (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That discussion is already above, in #Arguments. Why redo it at another talkpage (or Talk:Group 3 element for that matter)? It only needs to be nailed (concluded). As I wrote below at 10:19, after and with that conclusion we can accept or reject the graph representation (I propose the gap column with asterisks in #this into periodic table graphics). Quite independently, Double sharps proposal to align group 3 into the Ln/An rows below (actually this subthread) can be discussed & decided. -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been reading about the background to the current Wikipedia PT layout here and here and will respond to your question about why redo the discussion, soon. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as you pick the right subsection here (I don't think this is the right one). -12:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why say that keeping the alignment is "not the outcome of the talk", when my proposal was supported by a majority of the editors here (granted low numbers, but I can't really expect many more) and is also supported by the literature (IUPAC; The Chemistry of the Actinides and Transactinides (2006 ed.; see the PT on p.1654), and also countless articles from the labs synthesizing transactinides when they show their periodic table). In fact, some of these PTs from the experts' articles even specifically show the actinides above the lanthanides, falling away from the d-block and to the f-block over Th–Pu while the pseudohomology diminishes (BTW, that's the response to your question about how to make Th groupy-4 but Cm not groupy-10). In my opinion, just because one person (in this case you) thinks an arrangement is bad doesn't mean that consensus and a survey of the most relevant literature can be ignored.

P.S. Just in case someone thinks that argument is valid for Sc/Y/Lu/Lr-pushing: in this case the most relevant literature is surely those who publish papers primarily about this subject, thus the periodic table "authorities" like Scerri and Jensen – IUPAC in effect excludes itself by not taking a stand. In fact, as Jensen states, Sc/Y/*/**, while attractive, contains many erroneous suggestions, such as that the lanthanides and actinides are just degenerate members of group 3 of the d-block and not f-block elements – a viewpoint that is surely nonsense, as unlike the true group 3 elements, many lanthanides and actinides can show oxidation states over +3. Also, it means that the 32-column table has to have Sc and Y stretched to the width of fifteen cells, which goes against the entire idea of having one element per cell. I know some people claim that Sc/Y/*/** really means Sc/Y/La*/Ac** but (1) that is a non-obvious interpretation, requiring a lot of reinterpreting to make sense and (2) I could claim just as convincingly that it really means Sc/Y/*Lu/**Lr. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume the arrangement you point to are the same as the PT you added to the top of this subthread. Well, it is not my "thinking", but it is thew graphic fact that there is no difference between the group 3-column (your aim) and the group 4 to 16 columns that share exactly the same graphic effect but must have a different meaning. If you propose another layout (actinides above lanthanides) go ahead, but do not mix them up as you do.
 * Then you still have not answered my earlier questions, like: Why put this information in there at all, going by importance, how should a reader understand that intention, how to differentiate between the grphs for the columns involved. (in short, 1. should we add this and 2. how should we add this). As for vote counting: good luck, but I can't find an argument in that. I take offense to you painting me having a "thinking" something is "bad" while I argued repeatedly here. -DePiep (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case then there wasn't really an outcome to the talk, was there? I know you have arguments, and that you argued for it; and yes, "thinking" was not the right word. Apologies.
 * Why put this information in: because it can be done easily and because most people writing primarily about these elements do it. That's basically all I have, but I think we should give the latter some weight. After all, they probably know what they are doing.
 * As I said earlier: if you must banish all signs of the alignment, the way I would like to do it is to shift them by a fraction (half would be good) of a cell, not a full one. Right now, with the shift one cell left from my proposal, we are implying alignments like Ce under Y which don't make sense. If you shift them by a fraction of a cell (I'd prefer right, but that's just a like: Greenwood and Earnshaw does that, albeit with Sc/Y/La/Ac), then we wouldn't have any suggestions. Double sharp (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * re thanks for this reply. I recognise the general line of arguments. Before I did read it, I planned to write an overview/summary of this subsubthread because the argumentation is scattered.
 * About this talk flow. We should keep in mind that this subthread (4-'=' deep) is only about your proposal to align column 3 into the Ln/An rows. Before, whether group 3 should be Lu/Lr or La/Ac or other is argumented by science & source in #Arguments. The outcome there (assumed Lu/Lr, so far) is used in my proposed PT graphic in another thread #Group _3: this  into periodic table graphics (introducing the gap column with asterisks only). This way, we can discuss three different decisions without unneeded interaction (in other words, e.g., irrespective of the outcome of this thread, we can or can not add the gap as a sound decision). Keeping the threads independent is Good. -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My recap.
 * The topic of this subsection is the horizontal placement of the separated f-block rows with the 14+14 Ln/An elements. Presumptions are that (1) group 3 is decided to be Sc/Y/Lu/Lr and (2) the periodic table has a gap column with the asterisks placeholders.
 * Double sharp proposed to align cells La, Ac (the frist cells in the rows below) to align with column 3 (=group 3) because they show some group-3 behavior (see this PT, above).
 * I do not dispute the group-3 behavior statements. This behavior also occurs in the Ln/An elements rightwards (Ce, Pr, ...) for group 4, 5, ... but less strong and fading out. I take this for RS-based scientific facts.
 * A. I do question whether we should show that in our general periodic table. Because, it is very much a detailed fact. Also, it is not a strong periodicity. Given this low level of detail & unimportance by periodicity, I ask why we would not add more important & more periodic relevant information (for example, add valence values by Mendeleev's group numbering). Sure the fact is shown in sources (duh), but I have not seen it in common or half-common PT graphs, in whichever graphical way it may be marked. Also, so far it has had little or no mentioning in the articles involved. Of course it can or should be mentioned in specific articles, maybe even a specific (detailed) PT can be made & added.
 * B. I do object that we would show it graphically by aligning group/column 3, as is proposed. Because:
 * 1: the rows below were cut out of the PT structure and replaced there by asterisks, full stop. That is where the rows came from. Their position is to be unrelated to the table as structure: the asterisks as placeholders are doing the connecting job. They could be on any other place or page without error. Even stronger: not even a distraction from the asterisks-connection should be allowed (the one and only goal is: make the -mental- placement-association, going from 18-column into 32-column and back). Maybe the alignment is even better when aligned one column to the left (= below the gap column), making a strong suggestion that is is glued to group 2.
 * 2: Showing La/Ac this way means showing the whole of both rows this way. That way, we have elements in groups 3 to 16 extended. But there is no indication present that it is intended for group 3 while not intended for group 16. Double sharp's earlier argument mentioning "looking nice" has no weight for me (because we're supposed to show substance &tc), and the argument of more symmetry is objectionable, for misleading the mental eye: that symmetry is not a PT feature.
 * 3: Argument dropped: I can agree with Sandbh that there can be a meaningful difference between 8-, 18- and 32-column PT (they are not always and fully interchangeable, as I previously stated). However, this does not alter my other objections.
 * C. Alternative graph. If we were to conclude that the facts should be added, then the graphic solution can be using markers like footnote[n] or &dagger;, an extra "like group-3" column header right above cells La/Ac, ... However, this only requires discussion after the decision is made to include the facts.
 * -DePiep (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Point 5: Descriptive vs. systematic names for 7p and beyond
As I understand it, our previous proposal of this sort (click the link) ended with what seems like a consensus for 2.2e? So maybe we should implement this now, with associated page moves and WP:ELEM MOS editing, or should we go through an WP:RM first to get more comments from outside the project? Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As for me, I would advise trying it out now (i.e., renaming article and such), but not going into MOS for a while. At least initially, there should be protests over this, because we are going to change something that's been in place for a few years, to which we should respond with our main points (IUPAC is important but per our rules isn't the ideal for Wiki, element 11x is used often than unun-, etc.). If the protests are limited or successfully resolved, it makes sense to try to get this through MOS. Is everyone okay with this?--R8R (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fine. So RM first, and then MOS codification, if I understand you correctly? Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, according to the 2005 Red Book, the proposed usage is OK with IUPAC: "Newly discovered elements may be referred to in the scientific literature but until they have received permanent names and symbols from IUPAC, temporary designators are required. Such elements may be referred to by their atomic numbers, as in "element 120" for example, but IUPAC has approved a systematic nomenclature and series of three-letter symbols..." (p.47; p.59 of the .pdf). The rest of that section is a short description of the systematic element names. Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise against this route. An RM without a crisp & clear consensus we can link to won't stand, maybe even fail the first RM one proposes (trust me, you can't control these. See this and this, which concluded negative based on ill-informed drive by editors --both in language, WP:title and in WP:elem-- and by closing admins who read a bit careless. And once closed, we're stuck with it). This way, we must expect many months to many, many months of disputed variant forms (E118 to loose its FA star?). Remember the "I don't like 'other metals'" havoc lately, about just one word.
 * And IMO the talk was sound enough to write into a MOS. We better cover everything, as we did in the talk: text (handle article title, lede, variant names, formulae, exceptions or confusing symbol/name/systematic name, ...). And in tables (all PT presentations, infobox changes, ...). It affects hundreds of pages in these many ways. If we invite & receive ELEM-interested editors here on this talkpage for a MOS proposal, we know quality floats and nonsense fades out. As for time to spend, I'd like this beforehand controlled instead of reverts afterwards. That said, at the moment I don't have time=energy to pull this one up ;-) ;-) -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to your choice. As you say, we need to cover all the arguments first. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean when stating the RM way is not a clear one, we can't rely on it, yes. That bugs me. But else can we do? If I understand you correctly (I'm not sure about this, so please check) you propose to hold a talk on whether this should become a MOS rule here, on the WT:ELEM page. I'm afraid that won't work because we can't attract many people here. I tried once when we had an important talk; I don't remember what the talk was on, but I do remember not a single person came here.
 * Plus, I decided to check the rules on that. It turns out we have to write a proposal (I can do some work with that) and the following MOS talk has to take place as a RfC discussion (if I read this correctly).--R8R (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So okay, we'll have to start a RfC, fine. I wrote a draft for the proposition, here. Would you give it a look, (check its grammar,) and see if it's fine, if I've missed anything, and if it can be released?--R8R (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, does anyone know what is the policy saying "reliable sources should be respected, but their content should not become our default versions for anything just because found in reliable sources?" It does exist, I simply forgot its name--R8R (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim." Is that the one? Sandbh (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The recent chaos in discussing & reverting the period 1's shows that every edit must be supported by and RfC at least. Before we know, any editor can start a disruption somewhere off-side to success. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Before applying to the RfC to establish a new element naming policy, we (that is, I) can use the WP:Requested moves/Technical requests to rename the articles in question, referring to the previous discussions, which resolved in a clear consensus for the change. I plan to do that in a few days, unless anyone names a reason why this shouldn't be done. After the article are renamed, we can proceed to the RfC.--R8R (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me be straight, : I don't trust your reasoning any more. You fly in with non-talking Nergaal. I can talk and edit blisters on my fingers, but in the end your come along and use hidden user Nergaal arguments to make a point (on whichever page). Not me any more. Now R8R, do you want talk & discuss by yourself, or am I supposed to 'read' Nergaal in your edits? -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait. Let me clear things up: I do not contact with Nergaal per Wiki, per e-mail, or per whatever else (or IRL). What even made you think so?--R8R (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you, R8R, trail Nergaals points. While Nergaal themselves does not come to any talkpage at all. Better speak for yourself (I like that), or shut up. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Arguments
And here's the long-awaited second member of my series of posts!

I may have missed some things, because I had to write this quickly.


 * Group 12 should be transition metals
 * 1) Pedagogical value: this makes the transition metals conform to the d-block, so that when you add the last electron from Cu to Zn it is the end of the transition and not the start of another series. It also means that you can cut them out and still get a reasonable story (e.g. K, Ca, Ga, Ge, As, Se, Br, Kr). (Counter: but the d-shell is already filled at the Cu group!)
 * 2) IUPAC definition: A strict application of either IUPAC definition comes to the conclusion that Hg is a transition metal. (Counter: but it also results in the conclusion that K, Rb, and Cs are transition metals, as are some lanthanides and actinides.)
 * 3) Help for the superheavy elements: Using the IUPAC definition forces Cn, E113, and Fl as transition metals, even though it's predicted that for the latter two they should behave more like main-group elements, because they are using d-electrons as valence electrons instead of s-electrons. And the lack of usage of d electrons in the Zn group may be mirrored by the lack of usage of s electrons in the eighth period transition metals, thus removing some characteristic transition metal behaviour because all the valence electrons are coming from the same subshell.
 * 4) Trends in group IIA vs. group IIB: The trends in group IIB (12) resemble those of transition elements because of the d- and f-block insertions, whereas those in group IIA (2) resemble those of a main group like IA and IIIA (3), so that the main group classification perhaps should not be treated as primary. (Counter: but IIB's trends look like those of the p-block groups as well for the exact same reason.) Also, Zn, Cd, and Hg are more similar to Be and Mg than the other IIA metals, but this is kind of an artifact of Be and Mg's small size.
 * 5) Problems with Jensen's definition: I like it myself, but the problem is that it's not exactly clear where to draw the line between "transition chemistry representative" and "transition chemistry not representative".
 * 6) Spectroscopy: The break here comes at group 11, not group 12, where it fails to coincide with a clear change in chemical properties. (But then why are we ignoring the change in chemical properties at group 12?)
 * 7) Chemistry: Like the other transition metals, the group 12 elements have a good coordination chemistry, and they are similar to the neighbouring group 11 elements when in the same oxidation state (compare Cu(II) and Zn(II); Au(I) and Hg(I)).

Basically everything Jensen said.
 * Group 12 shouldn't be transition metals
 * 1) Pedagogical value: This doesn't require as much forcing the facts.
 * 2) Superheavy elements: A non-issue at the moment, because Cn(IV), E113(V), and Fl(VI) compounds remain unsynthesized.
 * 3) Spectra Group 12 spectra resemble main group ones. (The same is true for group 11, though.)
 * 4) Chemistry Their chemistry is mostly main-group, and it is very hard to get them to use their d electrons. (But the first part of this is true also for Ag, although it's easier to get that to use its d electrons...)
 * 5) Trends in group IIA vs. group IIB: The kinks in IIB's trends are because of the d- and f-block insertions.
 * 6) Ions: Unlike group 11, group 12 elements do not form coloured or paramagnetic ions.

Yes, I'm aware that some of the arguments for the former are somewhat lame. Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

a possible goal
The first 20 or so elements are among the most fundamental. I have not yet seen any popular book that excludes even one of them from consideration. And they are among the first elements you learn about in chemistry (because the transition elements haven't yet come to mess things up).

Why not try FA-ing another of them? They are so important that even GA isn't quite satisfactory. It will be a huge task – witness the almost 4 years R8R Gtrs had to take to get fluorine to FA – but wouldn't it be really worth it?

I'm thinking of trying lithium or beryllium (maybe even both). They're both GAs, and would set a precedent for getting old GAs to FAs (an outcome we really want). They would also continue the initial string of FAs past helium (and can we take a look at that and hydrogen? Their standards are getting a little on the low side for FAs now). And they have such a beautiful story leading back to the Big Bang itself!

(P.S. It's not lost on me that my previous suggestion was heavy element GA spam, and this suggestion is now taking a light element and sticking with it to FA.) Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just taking a quick look at Be: something our article never seems to cover in detail is the exact mechanism by which Be causes berylliosis. All we get is a brief sentence saying that it replaces Mg, but can't do everything Mg can do, thus messing with enzymes. Can we have more details? Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well. Sorry for spamming this talk page, if it is perceived that way (I hope this info does help anyone who's interested in working on a very light element). This ref states that "The mechanism for [beryllium]'s biological activity is only partly understood, but it apparently combines with a protein [maybe replacing Mg, per Emsley] and then deposits itself primarily in lung tissue, triggering an overreaction by the body's immune system – a response called hypersensitivity that leads to destructive inflammation of the lungs." (p.158). So apparently it is still not well understood. This state of affairs should probably be documented in the article, then. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The problems with beryllium allergic disease (a.k.a. berylliosis, a.k.a. chronic beryllium (lung) disease), dates from April, 25, 2010 when user:Arcadian decided without discussion to carve a big chunk of the well-referenced material that had been recently added to beryllium on "chronic beryllium disease", should be split out. He failed badly at WP:SS and left an inadequate summary in beryllium, which is why it all looks very mysterious there. Moreover, he didn't notice that there had been from 2008 already an article on berylliosis, so he moved the article material (including a lot of material much better on the topic of berylliosis than that already in berylliosis!) to a new article called beryllium poisoning, which now hides the best berylliosis info. This, even though berylliosis is NOT poisoning per se (chemical toxicity or poisoning), but rather the chronic allergic reaction. In March, 2011 the berylliosis talk page had a merge discussion in which a lot of people made various suggestions, but nothing happened. Most people working on beryllium don't even know there exists a beryllium poisoning article, and that this is where the info they are looking for on beryllium allergy, is hiding (some of it is even on the TALK page). All this due to very ham-handed editing. If you-all want, I'll be WP:BOLD and fix it by moving the allergy info to berylliosis, and putting some summary of it back into beryllium. Or, do it yourselves. I had a lot of arguments at the time with some editor who had decided beryllium wasn't really an antigen, and prevented me from doing anything. User:Sbharris 00:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see; that's really bad. Yes, please be bold and fix it yourself if you want to. The current situation is really not as it should be for a good article. Double sharp (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah – it appears that the Big Bang is predicted to have produced elements at least up to fluorine. For example, the relative abundance of oxygen relative to hydrogen should have been around 10−18 in standard BBN. However, the quantities of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and fluorine produced in the Big Bang are way too small to be detectable. Beryllium and boron seem to be on the cusp of being possibly detectable. That makes the produced isotopes in BBN expand to: n, 1,2,3H, 3,4He, 6,7Li, 7,9Be, 10,11B, 12,13,14C, 14,15N, 16,17,18O, 18F (OK perhaps 18F should not count, along with 3H, 7Be, and 14C, as they are radioactive). Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The citation trick has stopped working
The citation trick used to connect citations to  callouts has stopped working. I have updated Fluorine to wrap the citations in span containers instead. In case other articles need updating, the relevant perl substitution is:

which you should also be able to use with the wikimedia regex editor. --Mirokado (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is because cite doi is deprecated. However, then breaking the {sfn} behaviour to enfore the deprecation is wrong, it should be done in the deprecation process (likely a bot). I asked for reversion (into working) at the talkpage of cite doi. -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The citation hack consists of stuffing cite doi into the title parameter of citation and adding markup to undo the italic markup. Currently the apostrophes are added to the title in the COinS metadata.
 * Module:Citation/CS1 was updated to prevent apostrophe markup from being passed into the COinS metadata. A bug was found and this update was reverted.
 * And the change to Fluorine is a real hack. Lets come up with a better solution before proliferatiing this. --  Gadget850talk 12:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest we centralise talk over at Module_talk:Citation/CS1. (I'm sorry for multi-forum posting this). -DePiep (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Position of He in block-showing PTs
After thisd edit by. Should we adjust the relevant PT's accordingly, He into column 2 from 18? That is, in block-colored PT's like this. Template:Periodic table (blocks) already has. -DePiep (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that the final outcome is He in group 2, or He in group 18? Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He in group 2. Todo: change File:Periodic table blocks spdf (32 column).svg. OK this way: Template:Periodic table (blocks). -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. As long as showing the blocks is the primary intent of a table, then I think He should certainly go to group 2, to be with its fellow s-block members. Double sharp (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is continued at Talk:Block_(periodic_table). -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Flying Jazz had the courtesy to even inform us? – nope. Ah well, I can't say I'm surprised. As for the bad faith paragraphs and open invitation to complete anarchy (and, I'm sure, what will result in most of their proposals being ignored because the pages aren't on everyone's watchlist), I'll do my best to ignore that for the moment and comment on the topic at hand. I hoped to be able to get a discussion here (and no, FJ, before you suspect otherwise, I should add: with people in addition to DePiep and Sandbh, and preferably not formally listed as a part of the project). Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did receive the ping, I expect you did too (Feline1 responded, so probably did too). But this thread was forked and without notice. A sort of heads up for talkpage/project quality can be good, though I'm very sensitive wrt behaviour this time. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I should have, but somehow I didn't. Maybe I inadvertently unchecked the box I needed some time ago. OK then; I retract the first two sentences of my post. (Though I wouldn't have minded being put in their initial list of pings, instead of being indirectly pinged through the link...) Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * While I'm here: is it correct that "s-block" for E119 and E120 is a fact, not "predicted"? -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the blocks relate to the electron configurations of the elements, I think that it is really predicted from Db (Z = 105) onwards. So Lr and Rf are d-block, Db to Cn are d-block (predicted), E113 to E118 are p-block (predicted), and E119 and E120 are s-block (predicted). Above that it gets confusing. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So we should change these colors into "(predicted)" that is the lighter shades, in the Bolock PT templates. E120 is the highest one shown in Janet's Left Step. (beyound E120 it's extended PT area anyway).
 * However, I think it's better to wait what the current He-block discussion leads to. This change would be very/too confusion in there. -DePiep (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Element news

 * FBNCO: all the 2p-block elements in one molecule


 * New oxidation state of uranium discovered
 * Although List of oxidation states of the elements shows the +2 state as being known since 1966?
 * From that article: "The new +2 oxidation state, sought for over 30 years, has been seen fleetingly in the gas phase but until now it has not been observed in molecular species in solution." Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Any chance we can get a level Langmuir figure? The one that's there at the moment slopes up to the right. Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Iridium forms compound in +9 oxidation state
 * But only a cation, so far
 * Added to list of oxidation states of the elements and iridium. Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sandbh (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

List of metalloid lists maintenance
In the list, I noticed an repetition of authors (interesting: did they change their list?). And the list has stopped after 2011. See Talk:List_of_metalloid_lists. "We" can take a few months to check & improve the list, and then do the recalculations once. Please continue overthere, and enjoy this. -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal of two large-cell PT articles
Articles Periodic table (large version) and Wide periodic table (large version) are proposed for a merge. Proposal and discussion is here. -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. See periodic table (large cells) (moved). -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Your input is requested
There seems to be what could easily turn into an edit war over at Periodic table (large cells). I've asked the two editors involved to list their differences here so that others can weigh in. YBG (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's no big deal. -DePiep (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Chinese periodic tables
These templates have been nominated for deletion. See Templates for discussion for the discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

TfD for Infobox_elements 121, 124, 126
Three unused element infoboxes are up for deletion. See this TfD. -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Same for infobox element 127 #Template:Infobox_unbiseptium. -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Polonium and astatine as metalloids or as ptm's?
At the moment, we have two articles periodic table and metalloids conflicting about the categorization of polonium and astatine. They are variously in 'post-transition metal' or 'metalloid'. Maybe we can put these elements in the same category (both post-transition metal or both metalloid), well reasoned.

In our general periodic table graphs, Po is post-transition metal/grey and At is metalloid/brown. Polonium: was part of the wide discussion in 2012: WT:ELEMENTS, Archive 15. Astatine: in 2013, we decided to remove "halogen" category (which, before, forced At to be categorized halogen because of the halogen group). This allowed us to mark astatine 'metalloid/brown'.
 * Background

In the 2014 article metalloid, polonium and astatine are classified together (strongly together I can say) as "Irregularly [named as metalloid] (44% [light blue]): Po, At", based on the 194-sources frequency. I remember that the periodic table graph was removed from the metalloid article content in FAR process, because this discrepancy could not be addressed (it still is there in the footer navbox, which is non-content btw).

I think we could reconsider the situation, and bring both categorizations in line. The graphs then follow.
 * Quest
 * Set Po and At, both, in category & coloring into "metalloid/brown" or
 * Set Po and At, both, in category & coloring into "post-transition metal/grey"

Notes: -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) As always with these category-border issues, in the individual articles (like polonium, astatine, metalloid, post-transition metal) the peculiarities and exceptions can be described in detail.
 * 2) Prevent a complexity: the three leapfrogging discussions in the histories can introduce complexities (in hindsight, arguments & conclusions are interacting between years). I strongly suggest to start thinking forward only, starting with the situation as it is today. Older arguments can be repeated here of course, but the old conclusions would create a headache.
 * I think Po is too much like a metal to be called a metalloid at all. Its behaviour is normal for a metal: perhaps its anions are more stable than most metals, but this is because it is so close to the right end of the periodic table. But At's metalloid properties are strong enough that I think it's not so good to call it a metal. It still has the narrow liquid range and nonmetallish band gap, likes to form anions in aqueous solution, and its closest relative is iodine, a nonmetal (with incipient metallic properties, for sure, but I wouldn't even call iodine a metalloid). So I think in general, it's best to call Po a metal and At a metalloid, and talk about the category border issues in the individual articles.
 * Remember, the figure at the top of the metalloid article is about how common it is for the relevant elements to be called metalloids. Our own categorization does not have to follow that. Nevertheless, I think that figure should remain at the top of the metalloid article – because it brings the point home that the category is fuzzy and is demarcated differently by different texts. Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The periodic table illustration categorizes elements into metal/metaloid/nonmetal, but the metaloid illustration does quite a different thing, showing the frequency which various sources list elements as metaloids. If that frequency data were all we had, it might make sense for us to consider the top cluster or two to be metaloids.  But as Double Sharp mentions, this is not our only data.  But even if it were our only data, I still think it would be suspect to include the second cluster (Po+At), as the references are rather consistent.  In fact, the correlation coefficient is only about 20%.  So although the scores for Po and At (48% and 40%) are relatively close to each other and relatively distant from the next higher (B, 86%) and next lower (Se, 24%) scores, the internal inconsistency between the references leads me to disagree with DePiep's statement that Po and At are clustered 'strongly' together in List of metalloid lists.  Here is a tabular representation of the non-correlation between attestations of Po's metaloidicity and At's metaloidicity.


 * In short, I think the status quo is just fine. YBG (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some quick notes first.
 * When I said 'strongly together', I meant exactly the statistics you describe: close together, far away from the others. For now, no comment on the more detailed tables you added.
 * Indeed these are not the only data we have, and then we only use their numbers, not their quality of argument. My question rose from this: when the sources mention them in ~equal numbers, why are they split so definitively in our PT graph? It is wqhat I'm trying to get my head around. Clearly, I am not trying to prove one 'wrong'.
 * re Double Sharp: the first half reads like the #195th source in that List of metalloid Lists. FWIW, 30/194 sources too mention At not Po as metalloid; but the non-correlation tables by YBG say more I don't understand yet. -DePiep (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be "69.25 (36%)"? And then, doesn't that say that the diagonal to pair them (both are/none are) is more convincing? -DePiep (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"When the sources mention them in ~equal numbers, why are they split so definitively in our PT graph?"

Well, the sources are roughly 50:50 on Po and At, as to whether either of them are metalloids. We had to make a decision which way to go in our periodic table graph. Given what the literature says about the properties of Po and At (which is mostly summarized in the metalloid article, we decided Po = post-transition metal; At = metalloid. Astatine might conceivably be a post-transition metal, on the basis of the 2014 relativistic modelling article, but few people would be brave enough to make that call without corroboration. Given the incipient metallic character of iodine, it seems reasonable to at least classify astatine as a metalloid on the basis of periodic trends. Sandbh (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, DePiep for catching my error! I have corrected the chart above.  The point is that 60% are on the diagonal and 40% are off the diagonal, which may be a correlation, but a fairly weak one: almost as many sources disagree about Po+At (40%) as agree about them (60%). By the way, if there were absolutely no correlation between what the sources think about At and what they think about Po, this is what you would expect


 * My point is that the sources opinions about At and their opinions about Po are very weakly correlated. The on-diagonal values are only slightly more (and the off-diagonal values only slightly less) than one would expect with no correlation at all.  Based on this, it doesn't surprise me that we would wind up classifying Po and At differently.  YBG (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All I did was showing (off) that I have read your post, and now you punish me with more statistics? ;-) Later more. -DePiep (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No good deed goes unpunished ;-) YBG (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Chemistry for Dummies" states that Po is a metal- that settles it.Axiosaurus (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's my go at attempting to confirm the wisdom of Dummies with some observations from the literature. 1. All elements that unambiguously form simple cations in aqueous solution are classified as metals. 2. Polonium does this too, forming the pink Po+2 ion in dilute hydrochloric. 3. Polonium doesn't exhibit much nonmetallic chemistry. 4. There are no arguments in the literature, that I'm aware of or can recall, making a case for classifying polonium as a metalloid. These four observations warrant classifying polonium as a metal.


 * A potential wrinkle in the above is that astatine is thought to be able to form an At+ cation in strongly acidic aqueous solution, noting its chemistry is clouded by the uncertainties of trace level experiments. It has also been predicted to have a metallic band structure---a genuine one, not that of a semi-metal, like As, Sb and Bi. If both of these statements turn out to be true, then astatine ought to be classified as a post-transition metal, i.e. a metal characterized by significant non-metallic character. Until more data is in, classifying astatine as a metalloid---as per Dummies---seems appropriate.


 * Incidentally, there is a review of Chemistry for Dummies, in Chemistry in Australia, here (p. 37). Sandbh (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

PT Navbox
I've recently edited Template : Navbox periodic table, primarily adding a middle layer to the hierarchy. In addition to general comments about this change, I'm also wondering about combining blocks and groups in the structure section which currently is something like this: Instead, I'm wondering about this: What do you folks think? I may just make the changes, if only just to see what it would look like. YBG (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Groups: 1, 2, 3, ... 18
 * Periods: 1, 2, 3, ... 7
 * Blocks: s, p, d, ...
 * Blocks & Groups
 * s block: groups 1, 2
 * p block: groups 13, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18
 * d block: groups 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
 * Others: f block (Lanthanides, Actinides), g block, Afbau principle
 * Periods: 1, 2, 3, ... 7
 * I'd say better not do this. A simple-dimensional listing is most easily recognisable & searchable (at a glance even). When looking for a group, why have to search blocks first? Of course we both know that block--group relationship, but there is no need to convey that in the navigation (would you use it yourself?). Or put this way: the navboxes basically show a hierarchical structure, in the horizontal way. But block + group mentioning this way breaks that, and is going matrix structure or so halfway. In general: the navbox PT does not have to 'explain' the PT. Also: you already encountered the fringe problems to solve, needing a class named 'other'. (minor: I think we want the named groups mentioned too: pnictogens &tc). PS I like the other changes. Improvements indeed. -DePiep (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (In the back of my mind is this sleeping idea: we could add a PT to the navbox itself, instead of adding it separately on a page. That could be Periodic table (compact). There are also parameter options to hide/show initially, or switch to the extended PT. But as I said: it's sleeping, no time for me to wake that on up). -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I really like this idea of adding a compact PT to the template. YBG (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have implemented and then reverted so that you can see what I had in mind and make comments. YBG (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, I see no benefit in merging the group and block rows. Is not what we need to show for navigation. -DePiep (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've put your version in Navbox periodic table/sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ln and An should not be under f-block this way. f-block is breaking your setup already. Needing "other" subsection header better be prevented. Is Aufbau principle a group-issue at all? The group numbers now jump forth & back. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Metallicity merge
It was once proposed to merge Periodic table (metals and nonmetals) into Metal and Nonmetal; the discussion was not formally closed but it rotated off onto Archive 14. I have removed the dangling merge notices.

However, I am thinking about a different merge proposal -- merging the content of Periodic table (metals and nonmetals) into Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals. What say? YBG (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead. Sandbh (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, here is a list of the facts from the source article YBG (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lead section
 * ✔️ (in lead) Elements by periodic table be up into metal, nonmetal, and metalloids (in between) based on their properties.
 * ❌ Everything from the left to the metalloid "stairstep" is a metal, and everything to the right is a nonmetal.
 * H is not a metal. But this is already covered in the new lede image caption. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ The periodic table shows most elements are metals very often.
 * This can be seen from the lede image. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Metals section
 * ✔️ (in lead) Shiny
 * ✔️ (in lead) Good conductor of heat and electricity
 * ✔️ (in shared) High melting point
 * ✔️ Malleable (this means that they can be hammered or distorted)
 * ✔️ Ductile (this means that they can be drawn into wires)
 * Most metals are ductile and malleable, at least to some degree. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Usually solid at room temperature. An exception to this is mercury, which is liquid in nature.
 * ✔️ (in shared) Generally have low electronegativities for example : aluminium, gold, copper, silver, sodium, potassium, mercury, etc.
 * ❌ The structure and bonding of metals is also unique. A metallic substance has atoms that are close packed to their neighboring atoms. There are two common arrangements for metals, one of which is the body-centered cubic. In this arrangement each atom is at the center of eight other atoms. The other arrangement is called the face-centered cubic, and this is the same as the body-centered cubic except the atom is the center of six other atoms. These arrangements cause a crystal structure.
 * A little misleading. Ga, Mn, Bi do not have close-packed structures. Solid noble gases have close packed structures. Largely covered in existing article although this might be able to be elaborated with reference to BCC and HCP being most common. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ As far as bonding goes, metals easily lose their outer shell electrons, or valence electrons. This property is what gives them their ability to easily conduct heat and electricity.
 * ✅ There are sub-groups of metals called the alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, and transition metals


 * Non-metals section
 * ❌ Non-metals generally have the opposite character
 * Really not much content here, no need to state it outright.
 * ✔️ Usually poor conductors of heat and electricity
 * ✔️ May be solids, liquid s, or gas[es] at room temperature
 * ✔️ Generally have high electronegativities
 * ✔️ Non-ductile and brittle solids
 * ✅ Nonmetal atoms are generally small and contain relatively large numbers of electrons in their outer shell.
 * ✅ The noble gas nonmetals have completely filled outer electron shells, and most nonmetals have almost filled outer shells. This is contrasted to the metals, which have a small number of electrons in their outer shell.
 * Above two may or could be done by (a) adding an atomic radius property (I think; need to check the numbers again; looked at B4 and there may be a problem with choosing which set of atomic radii figures to use); and b) adding a "number of outer s and p electrons" row: metals low; metalloids medium; nonmetals high, noting overlaps with H, He, Bi, Po, and possibly At if it turns out to be a metal, and weirdness with Pd. Sandbh (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ Nonmetals are also divided into sub-groups ... halogens and the noble gases.
 * ❌ Nonmetals are very broad and encompass many types of behaviors.
 * ❌ Nonmetals make up most of the crust, atmosphere, and oceans of the Earth.
 * Above three items covered in the nonmetal article. Sandbh (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Additionally, most of what comprises any living organism is made of nonmetals such as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and phosphorus.
 * Added abundance in human body Sandbh (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope to gradually work through these and categorize each fact. Possible statuses include I've started, but it may take a while to work through this list. Others are welcome to help. YBG (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow! We're almost there!  Thanks so much  for your help!
 * Yes, all done. Appreciate the interest and contributions. More work to be done on citations but VG progress to date. Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, everything has been either merged or explicitly rejected. I will convert Periodic table (metals and nonmetals) into a redirect.  YBG (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Illustratives
 * . I see that the three background key colors (yellow, brown, blue) are used in the compare tables. So far two of these colors have had little attention, because little used ( brown=metalloid is obiquous at enwiki). If there is any reason to re-choose these colors I'd like to hear. I myself find the big areas in the table making a too strong effect (too much attention seeking). They might have a lighter shade. -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See YBG talk, here. Sandbh (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Free 'RSC Gold' accounts
I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics. Please visit RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oxygen bubbles
I opened: Oxygen#Caption of the infobox image. ('these bubbles, are they steam or cola?'). -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ralph A. James
I've created a stub for Ralph A. James. Of curium and americum fame. Can use some translation (Spanish, German). -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

An idea for a new template
While working on editing Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals, it occurred to me that it would be really neat to have a template that would create a small PT with atomic number, symbol, and one selected property -- say electronegativity, atomic radius, enthalpy of fusion, density, you name it. An added bonus would be if the cells could be colored sort of like Excel > Conditional Formatting > Color Scales. For melting point, it would look something like this: There is an open quesion of how to handle allotropes -- e.g., diamonds vs graphite. (Notice that my example stopped at B?) I came upon this idea while trying to figure out what was going on with enthalpy of fusion in Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals. I finally grabbed the data from Heats of fusion of the elements (data page) and used MS-Word to piece it into a table presentation. In a few minutes (ok, it was closer to a quarter of an hour ...) I had a picture that was truly worth 103 words. Converting it to wikitable format gives this: The anomalies of C and many metalloids jump right off the page even in black and white text. And if it the cells could be coded using a color scale, it would really look stupendous. YBG (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comes to mind: color shading like in Sydney_weatherbox, using Weather box. We have Periodic table (electronegativity by Pauling scale) and Periodic table (crystal structure). These have a single property-value option. Colors are picked and added manulally, so cumbersome.:Basically: we could use a color calculator (|color-low= |color-high= |value= |no_of_steps= ). More ideas than time at the moment.  -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Be careful with using the enthalpy values for diatomic or polyatomic nonmetals. The values given are per mole of molecules whereas for metals it's per mole of atoms. For example, the value given for N is for a mole of N2 molecules, not a mole of N atoms. When comparing values I think you need to, in the case of N as an example, use half the quoted value. Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I put in a value for At (admittedly a lame one from WebElements). I found some sources giving 23.8 (e.g. ), but frustratingly nothing really reliable. Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Found reasonably reliable values for Cm and Bk and added them. Nothing for the later elements (unless you count the predictions, which I don't think we should). Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Should the data page be modified also? YBG (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so: those are for standard sources that give almost all the elements. The Cm and Bk entries I found separately in a different book. Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume we are all familiar with periodictable.com (except that they don't show the actual values in each PT cell)?
 * This is very cool! YBG (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Astatine last minute pre-FAC check
There is a chance I will be able to set astatine to the FAC procedure on late Feb (actually, I'm not sure when, could be earlier or later). I think this article is a "go," at least it was one in late 2012 (I planned a FAC then, but it was delayed) and hasn't changed much since. Still looks good to me now in early 2015. But that might be just me.

I would love you to have a look. If there's something wrong/you're not sure about, please write it in the article's Talk page (or elsewhere) and we'll see. If you check but find nothing wrong, please let me know that as well. Your input, however small, would be much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be awesome if there was a list of elements by origin (fusing of H in stars, super nova, etc)
I was thinking the other day that it would be really cool if Wikipedia had an article listing the chemical elements by their origins. Something like:

H- Condensed energy from the big bang.

He- Fusion of H in stars

Li- Fusion of H and He

Au- Fusion of ? and ? during a supernova.

Lv- Artificially created in a laboratory by such and such process.

I'm sure some elements form by more than one process. This is just a sketchy example to show the concept. I don't know enough about chemistry to give you guys a better idea of what I mean. Hopefully the article wouldn't be so bare bones, but you are all better equipped to know what else would be relevant to include, I just wanted to get the general idea out there. Abyssal (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool, (although for elements above Fe it'd be more like just links to r-, s-, p-, or rp-processes, because everything happens so fast...) and this is something I'd wanted for a while – a list of nuclides by how they were created. Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No natural occurrence
It occurred to me, only today, that the infobox does not list natural occurrence of the element. While most of out larger PT's do have that as a keyed cell border. To add? Where? -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)