Talk:Periodic table/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

FA status

User:EdChem recently posted elsewhere: I'm sorry to say that I wouldn't class the periodic table article as FA or even GA... the ongoing disputes on categories have certainly adversely impacted the quality of that article, and it has other problems. This seems to be quite a significant issue as we should not be telling readers that it's top quality if it is so flawed. Please could EdChem outline the key issues which need addressing and whether, like the current dispute, they are intractable or not. I have no strong views about this myself but feel we should "strike while the iron is hot". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is a diff of all the changes since the end of 2019. It was 111,480 bytes when last at TFA on 11 January 2018, 130,548 bytes on 30 December 2019, and 162,819 bytes as at 14 November 2020. The page statistics show that about 50% of the text is due to Sandbh and Double sharp, who are both named in the current ArbCom request. There was a discussion at WT:ELEM recently that generally agreed that the Overview section was problematic. The other major problem, IMO, is the large coverage of categories, which has also been a topic of recent dispute. I don't want to cause an FAR and I think working on the Overview can be a valuable exercise in collaboration for the WT:ELEM members. I did not intend to raise article quality on this FA directly in connection with the RfAr, hoping to just get it quietly improved, but when I say your comment, Andrew, I thought it was worth letting the Arbitrators know that edits here were not an example of letting perfection be the enemy of good or (as you suggested) gilding pure gold (which is a relevant observation for the categories dispute, however). There is agreement that parts of this article need fixing. I haven't canvassed opinion on the categories bit, though it would have been hotly disputed a week ago. How it will be viewed now, I don't know... but I hope we can fix the parts that are agreed and then look at what is left. EdChem (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem, Andrew Davidson, and Double sharp: Since the article was last at TFA on 1 Jan 2018, DS and I made a few edits in 2018, and a few in 2019. Nothing to write home about. 2020 has been a bumper year. 43 edits by me; 209 by DS.

By my reckoning, major additions have been:

• the Categories section by me = 785 words out of a ~12,675 word article = 6% (I'm not sure how is this is "large"); and
• the 719 word Kainosymmetry section, added IGF by DS, which I unfortunately don't understand. In the West it is referred to as "Primogenic symmetry"; "Kainosymmetry" is the Eastern term . This section needs some love and attention!

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

re Andrew, EdChem. Edchem wrote a fine report (again), on the situation and current FA-related issues. The ArbCom case by itself is not an issue against improvements of course, but the reason why it is there is. WP:ELEMENTS is having difficulty in making any discussion productive into articles. So, having to overhaul the flagship article might be not the easiest ambition to get ELEM going again (as Double sharp noted elswhere: ELEM-editors are asked to change attitude and start making things together). This will be a difficult process, especially with this complicated topic to "make it encyclopaedical". Worst (arbcom) case situation is that only other editors are available. Meanwhile this article might get a FAR – so be it.

I note that the early comments by EdChem, on the article's omissions in section Overview (later extended to the lede), predate/don't_relate_to the current troubles. That is: they were in there at FA promotion. Then, say 2020, more problematic edits were made.

In total, an overhaul is needed, meanwhile a FAR might be negative, and takes a huge, open cooperation to succeed. In this, ELEM-editors (me included) can prove a new productive working discipline, or loose status and more. -DePiep (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, Sandbh, Double sharp, R8R, and YBG: I think working together on an article / article section where the science is not in dispute gives us an opportunity to collaborate on something we all value – quality content – and to explore policy issues in a context that does not include specific disagreements from the recent past. The Overview of the PT article struck me as a good example because it was relatively contained, non-controversial, and got broad agreement that the content needed review. However, I have no attachment to where that is done – any WP:ELEM-related page which is broadly agreed needs work and which is not the basis of controversy / disagreement would be suitable. If this FA is seen you you as a less-than-ideal choice, I'm fine with that.

Steps have already been taken on this article and I don't see that it needs to be the immediate priority. I also don't think that the timing of additions or their author is the central point. If a section of text is good, keep it. If it is a problem, it needs work irrespective of who added it or when. Who did what and potentially laying blame is not helpful unless it has a productive purpose – self-reflection and identifying personal weaknesses, perhaps, or maybe helping others to see editing practices that are effective / desirable / whatever – but that is not easy and not the first step, IMO.

If we want to work here, great... if we want to work somewhere else, great... but I ask that we try to work together rather than each going in a different direction. EdChem (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: At least Sandbh, YBG, and I seem to have no objection with working here, since we already started and talked about it at WT:ELEM. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes, the fresh energy experiment in ready-fire-aim editing seems to be working. I hope to spend a pleasant hour+ on the PT article later today. Sandbh (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Nonmetal categories

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

There are two questions to consider:

1. Should the WP periodic table show two, or three nonmetal categories, as set out in Table 1?
2. If you support three nonmetal categories, what name/s do you support for the third category, as set out in Table 2? If you like, you can pick more than one name.

Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) ​​​​​​​​​

Pinging a few more editors. Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

TABLE 1
Two or three nonmetal categories?

Two	Three
Noble gases: He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn Reactive nonmetals: H,C,N,O,F,P,S,Cl,Se,Br,I (existing category)	Noble gases: He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn Halogen nonmetals: F,Cl,Br,I Your pick/s from Table 2 nonmetals: H,C,N,O,P,S,Se

TABLE 2
Category names applied to nonmetals in this part of the periodic table
(inc. H), as recorded in the literature, with voting item number for each name

---

1. Basic nonmetals
2. Bioelements
3. Biogens
4. Biological framework elements
5. Carbon & other nonmetals
6. Central nonmetals
7. CHNOPS nonmetals
8. Core elements
9. Core nonmetals
10. Covalent nonmetals
11. Essential elements
12. Intermediate nonmetals
13. Interstitial nonmetals
14. Light nonmetals
15. Nonmetals
16. Moderately active nonmetals
17. Organogens
18. Orphan nonmetals
19. Other nonmetals
20. Primary bio-essential elements
21. Primordial nonmetals
22. Redox nonmetals
23. SPONCH nonmetals

---

The above names are elaborated in Table 3

TABLE 3: Explanatory notes for names (1) to (23)

Table 3: Category names found in the literature for nonmetals other than halogen nonmetals and noble gases Name Comment Name Comment 1. Basic nonmetals Bulk basic nonmetals are H,C,N,O,P,S[1] Basic nonmetals are H,C,N,O,P,Se,F,Cl,Br,I,At with group 17 = halogens (juvenile nonfiction)[2] Basic nonmetals include S and C[3] Potential confusion with metals ~ basic; nonmetals ~ acidic 14. Light nonmetals Overlap with He, Ne, (Ar); and F, Cl, (Br) 2. Bioelements 3. Biogens 4. Biological frame-work elements 3. H,C,N,O,P,S,Se[4] 3. H,O,N,C (1873) or H,C,N,O,P,S 4. H,C,N,O 15. Nonmetals Implies or suggests that halogens and noble gases are not nonmetals Can include Se e.g.[5] 5. Carbon & other nonmetals Excludes H, which is in its own category 16. Moderately active nonmetals Suggested by Peter Nelson, from the University of Hull, a chemist who was written on descriptive chemistry and nomenclature matters in e.g. the Journal of Chemical Education; Education in Chemistry;and Foundations of Chemistry. [6] Elaborated here Probably the most easily understood category name for the average chemist 6. Central nonmetals [7]; a little confusing? Presumes H is in the PT vicinity of carbon[8] It's been known for > 120 years that metalloids have a weak nonmetallic chemistry, hence: metalloids (weak)–HCNOPSSe (moderate)–halogens (strong) 17. Organogens Overlap into some halogens 7. CHNOPS Also CHONPS; predecessor “CHON” dates from 1865 In the literature, "CHONPS" appears to refer only to H, C, N, O, P, S The S could be read as S and Se, being in the same group and sharing many properties[9] Optionally "CHONPSSe"? 18. Orphan nonmetals C[10] (juvenile nonfiction) Counts boron as an orphan nonmetal too, alongside SeSPONCH 8. Core elements 9. "Core" nonmetals C(H)NOPS[11] H is a hanger on, "whenever there is a spare electron going". (p. 212) Se is on the fringe (p. 260); it occurs in selenocysteine, the 21st amino acid of life (p. 210) CHONSP = the "core" of nonmetals to the L of the halogens, when H is located at the centre of the PT, thus "core nonmetals"; H2S may've formed the chemical cradle of life.[12] 19. Other nonmetals “Other” means “existing besides, or distinct from that already mentioned"; "auxiliary", "ancillary, secondary" (2nd ed. OED; thesaurus entries for "other") 10. Covalent nonmetals CHNPOSSe + halogens; in contrast to monatomic nonmetals (noble gases)[13][14] There is also a sense of ionic nonmetals e.g. KCl v covalent nonmetals e.g. GaAs.[15] 20. Primary bio-essential elements C,N,O,S,P 11. Essential elements Depending on the source,[16][17][18][19][20] essential (nonmetal) elements include from 5 to 9 of P; HCNOSCl; F(?)SeI; Si. 21. Primordial nonmetals SPONCH[21] Inaccurate since, SeSPONCH were first used in biological systems[22] 12. Intermediate nonmetals Excludes O[23] Implies metalloids are treated as chemically weak nonmetals 22. Redox nonmetals H,C,N,O,S,Se although in text this class of nonmetals is given as H,C,N,O,P,S. The halogens F,Cl,Br,I are "extreme nonmetals". [24] (2001, pp. 10–11) Elsewhere, S, Se and the halogens are referred to as redox nonmetals (p. 489) 13. Interstitial nonmetals Overlaps with the metalloids B and Si;[25] Se is borderline interstitial[26] 23. SPONCH Listed in descending order of Z In the literature, "SPONCH" appears to refer only to H, C, N, O, P, S The S could be read as Se and S, being in the same group and sharing many properties[27] Optionally "SeSPONCH"?

Table 4: METALLOID AND NONMETAL PROPERTIES

	Ionisation energy (kJ/mol)	Electron affinity (eV)	Electro-negativity
Metalloids
B	897	27	2.04
Si	793	134	1.9
Ge	768	119	2.01
As	953	79	2.18
Sb	840	101	2.05
Te	879	190	2.1
No standout category name nonmetals
H	1,318	73	2.2
C	1,093	122	2.55
N	1,407	−0.07	3.04
P	1,018	72	2.19
S	1,006	200	2.58
Se	947	195	2.55
O	1,320	141	3.44
Halogen nonmetals
F	1,687	328	3.98
Cl	1,257	349	3.16
Br	1,146	324	2.96
I	1,015	295	2.66
Only the halogen nonmetals have consistently high values of IE, EA, EN
Noble gases
He	2,372	−50	5.5
Ne	2,088	−120	4.84
Ar	1,521	−96	3.2
Kr	1,351	−60	2.94
Xe	1,170	−80	2.4
Rn	1,037	−70	2.06

Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Background

• Since the WP periodic table was posted in 2003, concerns have been raised about how to colour categorise the nonmetals, apart from the noble gases.
• At various times, the subject nonmetals have been categorised as other nonmetals + halogens (2003–2013); then polyatomic nonmetals + diatomic nonmetals + noble gases (2013–2018); then, as a catch-all, reactive nonmetals (2018 to date).
• The "reactive nonmetals" category name overlaps with the noble gases category. For example, xenon reacts with F, Cl, C, N, and Au, among others, and is capable of bonding to itself; krypton is less reactive; and radon would be expected to be more reactive.
• After the sharply delimited halogens and noble gases, there is no standout category name in the literature for the remaining nonmetals: H, C, N, O, P, S, Se. A similar situation occurs with the post transition metal category, with at least 17 alternative category names found in the literature.
• Chemistry has all sorts of fuzzy definitions^[28][29]. Category boundaries can be fuzzy, and overlap in some cases. Other fuzzy concepts include e.g. acid-amphoteric-base; ionic-polymeric-covalent; and metal-metalloid-nonmetal.
• A list of the unique and shared properties of H, C, N, O, P, S, Se can be found here. Table 4 shows the delineations between the sets of nonmetals, in terms of ionisation energy, electron affinity, and electronegativity. The metalloids, which have a predominately weak nonmetallic chemistry, are included for comparison.

Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey instructions

1. Anything other than a simple !vote for either two categories, or three categories (and your Table 2 pick/s); and no more than 100 words of accompanying comments, is to be placed in the "Discussion" sub-thread, following.
2. If you support three nonmetal categories, please include the number/s of the Table 2 name/s you support.
3. The survey will be closed after 30 days by an admin, unless it is reasonably apparent that consensus has been established before then.
4. If the "three categories" option achieves consensus, then the name having the most votes, for the third category of nonmetals (H,C,N,O,P,S,Se) "wins". In the event of a tie, there would be a follow-on run-off, after a due period of discussion.

Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey votes

TWO categories

• Two categories of non-metals. The multiplicity of choices for the second category illustrates that the division of the non-metals into further categories is further confusing. We don't need a lot of categories. The different non-metallic elements have such as variety of different chemical properties that it isn't useful to put them into bins. Wikipedia has an article on each of the elements, including non-metallic elements, and an article says more than a category does. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Two categories. As when we go to three there is no simple non-overlapping category. For some of these elements it is a bit unknown what they are (eg Astatine). And what is biological depends on the kind of organism, and may also change given further knowledge. So these other categories when we have more than two become ill defined or too long to define. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

THREE categories

• Three categories. Either 6: Central nonmetals, or 9: Core nonmetals, or 13: Interstitial nonmetals, or 16: Moderately active nonmetals, or 18: Orphan nonmetals, or 19: Other nonmetals, or 21: Primordial nonmetals.

Most sources use three. Reactive non-metals isn’t widely recognised. It overlaps into Xe, less so Kr, likely more so Rn. Halogens is popular yet unused by us. Astatine isn’t subject to this RFC, which covers the most stable forms of elements at NTP. The seven leftover non-metals are united in their diversity and numerous shared properties. They’re easily defined as reactive, tricoloured (sub-metallic, coloured, colourless) pre-halogen nonmetals.

For the general reader, a third category is beneficial to economy of description, given these non-metals aren’t halogens or noble gases; provides a tool for structuring knowledge; and can lead to deeper understanding. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• I support halogens as a category, therefore three. For the descriptor of non-metals I don't see how any of those proposed add value. So none (15): Nonmetals --Oldboltonian (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Limited to one contribution per editor of no more than 250 words

Sandbh: In the literature, the main focus on H,C,N,O,P,S,Se is on their bio(geo)chemical aspects, with a lesser focus on their formation of interstitial compounds with transition metals, some of these compounds being refractory.

H,C,N,O are found in all 21 amino acids; S in two; Se in one. P enters the picture by being incorporated into proteins via phosphorylation.

Per Google Ngram, CHNOPS is the most popular term for {H,C,N,O,P,S}, on par with s-block elements, which is not a WP PT colour category. For comparison, metalloids is ~25 times more common, and post-transition metals is about half as common, both being WP PT colour categories. Other options for {H,C,N,O,P,S,Se} are at least ten times less common than CHNOPS.

As RFC originator, I used to worry whether e.g. biogen nonmetals or moderately active nonmetals were compatible with our other category names. Frex none of our other categories are "active" or "moderate". But that's also applies for "alkali", "earth" and "transition". I now realise it doesn't matter; the terminology used in the literature is what it is.

Nearly all hits (98%+) for other nonmetals are from vague, irrelevant expressions like “plastics and other nonmetals”.

IUPAC provides no guidance here. Even transition metals isn't IUPAC-approved!
--- Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp, OK tx. It's odd our PT has no halogen category of some kind. If so, what'd we call {H,C,N,O,P,S,Se}? Plenty of options.

(221 words) --- Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett: I still like halides, chalcogenides, and pnictides, whether or not these are subsets of non-metals. Triel and tetrel are much rarer terms, so not great for categorisation. Many non-metals can also be turned into metals under pressure, and there are the metalloids or semimetals so even non-metal is not very clearly bounded on the table. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp: I feel like I have to abstain on this one. It is true that most sources use three categories, and that reactive nonmetals is an uncommon category; but it is also true that most generalist science-education sources (e.g. RSC, ACS, LANL, Britannica, chemicalelements.com, many periodic table posters) use halogens rather than the suggested halogen nonmetals as one of those three. That thus also includes At and usually Ts. On the one hand this is likely a bit misleading since At and Ts are probably not nonmetals, but on the other hand only specialists care about that. On the grounds that WP ought to follow the generalists for a general-purpose scheme, I feel I have to sit this one out as no option totally appeals. If this RFC does not get a consensus in favour of change, I plan to submit an RFC after this one is done suggesting the LANL scheme as a compromise one, as it is similar to what we previously had in 2010, is pretty close to the median of what most generalist source colourings are like, and lastly is explicitly meant as a resource for students. Double sharp (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Since Sandbh has asked above; I would not consider halogen nonmetal a type of halogen category because of excluding At. Apart from "nonmetal" (15) and "other nonmetal" (19) none of the nonmetal options appear common, and 19 seems more accurate. Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

YBG: IMO Double sharp has an opinion that should be recorded in the !voting, but cannot be represented in the choices presented. Perhaps there should be a None of these choices option? The crux, IMO, is that DS argues for three categories with one of them bleeding outside the nonmetals. His case is (1) The relevant literature is generalist literature, ie, science education sources; and (2) these sources do not agree, his suggestion is close to their "mean". YBG (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I won't directly participate(don't see a big deal, though I do kind of support 2 tables over 3). Pinging Destroyeraa LightandDark2000 for their inputs. Don't know anyone else to ping. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn

As proposer I have withdrawn this RFC due to insufficient interest. Sandbh (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• According to a current annotation displayed to me, the proposal was closed by the colleague 19 hours ago. I dunno whether the lack of timestamp was intended or accidental, but at worst, filling that gap seems on one hand essentially harmless and probably marginally useful. “So shoot me.”——2601:199:C201:FD70:11A7:97FF:F10F:72CE (talk) (ex-User:Jerzy/ex-User:JerzyA, —23:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  

Style and thoroughness matters

   More to the point than my comment above, I intend to start some comments directed toward the content, than to the abandoned rename initiative which FWIW seemed named, at the very least, in a good direction; my own priorities focus more strongly on what IIRC is called body copy in some contexts. As, currently, an IP-editor^off-topic, I see a strong need to be clear than recognized as an alleged legend in one’s own mind; I’ll probably follow up with comments on this talk page, well before edits to the accompanying article. ——2601:199:C201:FD70:11A7:97FF:F10F:72CE (talk) (ex-User:Jerzy/ex-User:JerzyA, —23:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

3D interactive visualization

..is available on GitHub. Wiki programmers could create an Open Source version suitable for Wikipedia, to help readers understand the table better. TGCP (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert to 14 Nov 2020 version

I have reverted the article to the version of Nov 14, 2020. See WT:ELEM talk. -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes on the lede graphic

In the lede graphic, I suggest using just two note markers: † before group numbers and ‡ before atomic numbers, and then the notes can be as follows:

†3: Differing scientific views about this group cause variations in placing and displaying lanthanides and actinides. The last two group 3 elements are also known as transition metals.

†12: Elements 30 (Zn), 48 (Cd), and 80 (Hg) are sometimes considered other metals rather than transition metals.

†17: The term halogen is commonly applied to all members of group 17.

†18: The term noble gas is commonly applied to all members of group 18.

‡85 (At) is predicted to be a solid metal

‡112 (Cn) is predicted to be a relatively non-reactive solid non-metals

‡117 (Ts) is predicted to be a solid metal

‡118 (Og) is predicted to be a metallic-looking reactive solid nonmetal

Putting the note marker immediately before a number makes it easy to move to the note and back again – actually much easier that using multiple markers. [30] User:YBG

That's not the idea of a lede including top image. These notes (adding eight!) should be described in the article body, as with the existing dagger notes, if relevant at all. When very important (I don't think so at all -- e.g. element specific exceptions does not belong here), they could be added in a section ==Overview==; a section which has disappeared [31] without perspective of returning (I'd expect, especially since the issue was '(not) being encyclopdic', that the plan is the section be improved not deleted). -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: I don't disagree. But notice that the content of my 8 notes is included in the existing 4 footnotes, though because some notes include multiple factoids it is difficult to find the part of the note that pertains to a particular group or element. By separating the multi-factoid-notes into multiple single-factoid notes, it improves the ease with which the reader can navigate between table and footnote and back again. It may be that the existing four footnotes are too much detail for a lede graphic; if so, they should be removed. But if the content of the notes remains, I think it should be reformatted into something that helps the reader navigate between table and footnote and between footnote and table. I say, remove the notes or improve their formatting; I have no strong leaning either way; I am just saying that the current scheme should go. YBG (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Way too much detail if you ask me. Why exactly should the things about At, Cn, Ts, and Og be here? You know, the exact prediction for Cn varies a lot between sources, this is just the latest one. Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks moot now; the footnoted-PT no longer in top. (REversal to 14 Nov effect).

20 Jan 2021: First Image is File:Simple Periodic Table Chart-en.svg -- old medieval Category colors ;-)

Shall we open the question: Which Image To Be In Top?

(My tip: iconic not details: 1) -DePiep (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Problems with images

In this article, I see quite a lot of WP:SANDWICH violations. They are specifically in Electron configuration (not that big of a deal), Mendeleev's table (multiple images violating WP:SANDWICH) and Second version and further development (small image on the right). I did not want to remove any images as they might be important but this issue has to be fixed. There could also be the problem of WP:TEXTASIMAGES where the images might contain information that isn't in the body of the article already (which is not allowed). If that is the case, would any kind soul who is competent about the Periodic table fix this issue? Thanks! Wretchskull (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep:, @Double sharp:. Because both of you are active (and I assume also knowledgable) about this topic, it would be appreciated if you fixed the aforementioned issues. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Acknowlegded. At the moment, Double sharp is actively working (think weeks not months) on a rewrite of the article, I'm sure they will keep this in mind. Also, I'll keep this in mind, but short-term edits in current article are difficult because we want to be careful wrt consensus & readibility. Thanks for the heads-up. -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

First Image of the Periodic Table

For now, I propose to use as First Image (=top image in article Periodic table) a form that uses Block colors. It is for reasons of consistency in mainspace (i.e., for the Reader). For now & for this reason, I defer here the choice for going blocks.

Candidates: (asking Double sharp for images?) -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This being the lede image, there should be no details, not even in the caption (no caption=OK). As the PT does: the image speaks for itself. The lede cells can have: 1. Z-number, and maybe 2. symbol. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, use black/white PT right away!?

Since the lede (-image) is not the place for details of the PT, I propose to use an iconic periodic table image. One in b/w (because: the Table is strong by itself). The body of the article, and using TOC subsections etc, can and will and does articulate every fit angle: group, block, period. All fine.

-DePiep (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Now that people are working on a redesign of this article, I want to repeat and stress:

 The First Image of the periodic table should be the iconic one 

That is: we should use the simple, black-and-white image. It is immediately recognisable for its breached-wall image. And also, there is no need to have details in this introduction. Not even colors. (Really, all details like groups/periods/blocks should be dealt with, and can better be dealt with, in their own section).

This also pleads for the 32-column form, not 18, because there is no gain in introducing the PT with a mental puzzle. Be assured: once a pupil sees the 32-column PT, they will be able to recognise the 18-column form easily. The other way around: not so.

​​​ -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Full PT is introduced in 32-column form in my draft User:Double sharp/Periodic table when the orbital-filling is given as an explanation. (Rows do appear two at a time though to build it up step by step.) 18-column follows immediately after. Lede may be relooked at. Double sharp (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Great plan, to derive the lede from actual article body content. (Still interested how a plain b/w PT would not be the outcome for First PT Shown ;-) ;) )-DePiep (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

table in history section

In the table in the history section, there are two elements, 57 and 89, which have a color that I don't see in the legend. (I am using Chrome on a laptop).Kdammers (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Which do you mean? I don't see any colors for La and Ac that aren't in the table's legend, but I might be missing something. ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Those white spaces are not for elements 57 and 89, but rather placeholders where supposedly the whole 15-element footnotes fit. It is an old compromise form that is however pretty confusing and doesn't make much quantum mechanical sense; the image presumably ought to be updated. Double sharp (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The legend should be amended to include that explanation for the whitish squares. Kdammers (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Overhaul (15 August 2021)

Complete rewrite: [32]. Some early introduction to the changes is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § PT redraft: comments requested and § Periodic table redraft. -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Tidy-up needed

I note that Ajrocke recently added text in this diff that brought material over from a related article but without the relevant definition for all the citations: I think I've fixed that today. Also Voyajer incorporated more in this diff that seems to have created a citation error by defining the referenced "Jensen" in multiple ways. I'm not sure about fixing that. Finally, it appears that the 2020 edition of Scerri's book is now mainly being used for multiple references but the 2006 edition (quoted as a whole without page numbers) was part of Ajrocke's addition and probably needs bringing in line with the rest of the article. I assume that DePiep might be the most experienced editor here to tidy this up? Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the issue with the multiple Jensens. I can't find the story about Lothar Meyer's December 1869 paper in either the 2006 or the 2020 editions of Scerri's book, but maybe I'm being a doofus and overlooking it. The part about the 1868 table is on pages 98–99 of the 2006 edition and pages 106–108 of the 2020 edition. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguity regarding the positioning of Lanthanum (La) and Actinum (Ac) in the Periodic Table.

Hello! I believe that though we study La and Ac along with the F-block elements, they should be placed in the D-block as they have none and full 4f orbitals respectively. This makes them unfit for being in the F-block. Please do help me with this. Thanks, SSG123 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

That is the so-called "Group 3" problem, discussed at Periodic table#Group 3 and endlessly on these Talk Pages and archives. It will be very difficult to undo the present consensus unless and until IUPAC make a ruling (and many will continue to disagree even then). Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank You! SSG123 (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There are a couple of things to consider.

1. In 1960, Sanderson (p. 8) wrote:

“If a d electron, for example, can easily behave like an f electron, or vice versa, the argument as to the exact ground state configuration becomes relatively unimportant.”

That is to say, given La is the progenitor of the lanthanides it seems to be the case that it can relatively easily behave as if it were an f element (as is the case with Lu) never mind its electron configuration of 5d¹6s² rather than the expected 4f¹6s².

• Sanderson RT 1960, Chemical Periodicity, Reinhold, New York

2. In any event, if the 4f row is shown as La to Yb, the number of f electrons in each atom corresponds to its position in the row, in all bar three cases (La, Ce and Gd). Whereas if the 4f row is instead shown as Ce to Lu, the number of f electrons in each atom corresponds to its position in the row in only three of 14 cases (Ce, Gd, Yb).

The situation in the 5f row, for Ac to No, is a little more complex, bearing in mind the earlier members show a decreasing resemblance to their transition metal congeners until the group 3 resemblance sets in.

If the actinide series is shown as Ac-No, it can be divided into three relatively cohesive sets:

• Ac and Th, which each have a number of d electrons equal to their position;
• Pa, U and Np, which have a mix of d and f electrons; and
• Pu to No, in which the number of f electrons in each atom corresponds to its position in the row in all cases except for Cm.

The position number and either d or f electron count matches in 10 of 14 cases.

If the actinide series is instead shown as Th–Lr, the three sets become discombobulated:

• Th, the first member, with two d electrons;
• Pa, U, and Np with a number of f electrons corresponding to their position in the row;
• Pu to Lr, in which only Cm and Lr have a corresponding number of f electrons.

The position number and either d or f electron count matches in 5 of 14 cases.

Conclusion: With Lu-Lr in group 3, the electron configuration “filling pattern” becomes easier to explain, and more consistent with quantum mechanics (QM) acknowledging electron configurations do not explain everything and that chemistry is not fully reducible to QM. Sandbh (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Above notes updated. Sandbh (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Error in ionization energy

I spotted a mistake in the section about ionization energy. Ionization energy increases “left to right and down to up”, and not “left to right and up to down” as in the current text 71.232.97.135 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Yes indeed. I've made the change. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Periodic table of the elements

I’d like to be able to come to this site and be able to see a color coordinated list of the names of them. 135.134.173.151 (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

There are many way to color-coordinate the elements and one commonly-used way is shown at Periodic table#Classification of elements. Was there something else you had in mind? Many of the other tables in the article either explicitly name the elements or have links to them which show full names if you hover over them with the cursor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A black-and-white periodic table image shows its main features best: columns=groups, rows=periods, rectangular units=blocks. Immediately recognisable! Any color coding would distract from this main setup. And after all, this is the introductionary image, no details have to be explained. However, when going into details and analysis, coloring can be very helpful. So there is: 1, 2, 3. -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

18-column form needed as the lede table

Consistent with what DePiep noted above about a black and white v. coloured table, I suggest the periodic table in the lede should be an 18-column form rather than a 32-column form. The 18-column form is by far and away the iconic form widely recognisable around the world. In comparison, the 32-column form is obscure, non-representative of the literature, and in this context, undue. It should not be featured in the lede although it certainly warrants a mention later on in the article. An 18-column form would also be more legible. Sandbh (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Sandbh: no, this is not "Consistent with what DePiep noted above". For starters, I invoke "... would distract from this main setup", "introductionary image, no details have to be explained", "shows its main features best" and "immediately recognisable!". And concluding, I say "[for] details and analysis, coloring can be very helpful" (italics added). -DePiep (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• No. The 18-column format is a deformation, by non-scientific grounds even. We don't need an "iconic" form, we need the informative form. 18-column has a needeless complication: it is deconstructed, a deviation from the proper scientific periodic table. The icon is only helpful for initiated people like scholars (who immediately, intuitively and by excecise, understand and overlook the complications). But tallying published forms is not a sound base to reach a good encyclopedic result: you are polling the in-crowd. Those people are used to it. It started with Seaborg no less 80 years ago, when he needed to fork out the new discoveries as a block (and again, writing for high-end scolars). Scholars more easily could accept the books page-ratio limits (at the cost of extra studies, for example the exact border cases wrt group 3). By the way, since say 2000, webpages are available, overcoming such hard limits.

We are creating a general encyclopedia, and we do not require such proir knowledge, training or intuition. It's easy: After you've seen/grasped/recognised/learned the single-graph version, one can quite easily recognise & understand the forked graph. The opposite route, start by learning the scattered blocks, then reconstruct the full form in mind, is not obvious and requires extra mental steps to get the essence.

As an encyclopedia: there is no advantage in presenting a deconstructed form. -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: Oh, what I meant by being consistent with you was where you wrote, “And after all, this is the introductionary image.”

Thus, the 18-column form is universally the introductory form in the literature. It matters not at all what your personal views are about how “bad” the 18-column form is. Not only that, the 18-column form has achieved the status of an icon in the Western world. As an encylopedia we are obliged to reflect the literature. Hence the periodic table in the lede should by an 18-column form, as adopted by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry[33], the American Chemical Society[34], the Royal Society of Chemistry[35], PubChem[36], and ptable.com[37]. Sandbh (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote about being an introductionary image in relation to the coloring of details (ie, not useful in this introduction). As one can read. I did not write that being an introduction means there are no encyclopedic requirements. Agree with you that personal opinions don't matter, so it fits that I wrote that for encyclopedic reasons we should use the most helpful one. (Sandbh, next time please leave out the personal jab and the out-of-context misreading—esp when orig quote is nearby so easily to point out. iow: speak for yourself). -DePiep (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m not a regular on this article but do have an interest. The main reason the 18 column version is published in so many locations is it’s easier to publish on 8.5x11” or A4 dimensions. It’s a matter of convenience, not preference, in other words. (Let’s just hope we don’t have to make room for the next row, which would likely be 50 columns, anytime soon!) Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Mental states with the periodic table

• Understanding and appreciation of the Periodic Table should not require IKEA assembly manuals & skills

Mendeleev, 1871

1871–

Wikipedia reader trying to understand an 18-column periodic table

Early XXI century

Showroom Wikipedia: Featured Article

Periodic Table, 10k visitors per day

DePiep (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

change "this its only valence electron" to "this is its only valence electron" Jesbus (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, good catch. Thanks,  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 00:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Rfc about the periodic table in the lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the periodic table in the lede be an 18-column table or a 32-column table? Sandbh (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

!Votes

• 18: Reasons: (1) The 18-column form is by far and away the most common form appearing in the literature, including books as their lede table (often found on the inside cover); (2) The 18-column form has achieved the status of an icon in the Western world; (3) As an encylopedia we are obliged to reflect the literature; (4) The 18-column form is used by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry[38], the American Chemical Society[39], the Royal Society of Chemistry[40], PubChem[41], ptable.com[42] and WebElements[43]. Sandbh (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  // Reformated with Sandbh's permission. YBG (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

One editor's unhelpful insertion of his own comments into the middle of another editor's unhelpfully long comment

@Sandbh: "most common appearing in books" – by editorial choice and limits such as print page ratio, not by scientific or educational base. No one should have(!) to discover the Periodic table from a crippled form. Today, this being a website we are not limited/forced by bookpage ratio any more, and of course tallying books is no substitute for sound educational approach. My reason (1) now says "by far and away the most common form appearing in the literature, including books as their lede table." Sandbh (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "status of an icon": this is not a museum for old icons. Nor are we tallying preferences (made in another time and context). This is an encyclopedia, aimed to inform. To convey the essence of the Periodic table, for example eh periodicity, the deconstructed 18-column form breaks good encyclopedic presentation. Nice for those in the know, needlessly complicating for those who are here to learn. "Icon" means, "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol" which is the case for the 18-column form. You like citing Eric Scerri, a world authority on the periodic table. Here is what he says at the very start of the introduction to the 2nd edition of his book, The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance: The periodic table of the elements is one of the most powerful icons in science: a single document that captures the essence of chemistry in an elegant pattern. Indeed, nothing quite like it exists in biology or physics, or any other branch of science, for that matter. One sees periodic tables everywhere: in industrial labs, workshops, academic labs, and of course, lecture halls. And he wasn't referring to the 32-column form. Sandbh (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "obliged to reflect literature"—but not by copying their editorial choices. Not their page size, not their font type. 18- or 32 column is not a scientific distinction. To be clear: by definition both forms do and should present exactly the same scientific claims. Please see the Discussion subsection, below, for the scientific difference between the 18-column form and the 32-column form. Sandbh (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC) "IUPAC uses ..."—As we know, IUPAC/Scerri have published recently that IUPAC has not and does not declare preference for any of those two forms. IUPAC uses the 18-column form on their web site, and in their Red Book on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (p. 2). That said, they do not recommend any particular form of periodic table. Sandbh (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC) All in all: we should choose the image that is best for the encyclopedia, in presenting & conveying & education the Periodic table. Tallying old books and non-context situations are not a proper base for this. See also my # !vote for 32 below. -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC) There are no "non-context" situations. IUPAC recently surveyed 192 university text books (1970s to 2010s) and found six examples of a 32-column table, which represents a 3% hit rate. For the scientific difference between the 18-column form and the 32-column form, please see the Discussion section, below. Sandbh (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• 18 the 32-column table is too wide to have in the header on a mobile phone. The 18 wide form is fine though I do wish it was made more obvious where the Lantanides and Actinides fitted in rather than people having to look for the gap in the atomic numbers. The presentation forms in the article would be fine with details chopped out. Colours should be used too. NadVolum (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• 18 – appearance on mobi matters to me as NadVolum mentions, and I also think it a better presentation plus better tutorial approach to begin with a simpler colourised version. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• 32 — Our policy means that we base our content on reliable sources, but we don't have to copy their choices of graphic design. The current 32-column version looks fine on my mobile device; if a reader isn't willing to expend the effort necessary to turn their phone sideways and/or pinch-to-zoom, they won't be getting much out of a science article regardless of its header image. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• 19 (=18 w/ f block) The 32 collumn version needlessly complicates readability, and conveys very little additional information to compensate for this. The 18 column version is frequently used even in scientific coursebooks and the like for this very reason, albeit usually with something to indicate where the two excluded groups belong. I strongly disagree with Easter above that needing to pinch and zoom is an acceptable compromise. Wikipedia needs to be accessible and useable by pretty much anyone. I don't think forcing people to pinch and zoom is an acceptable compromise for being technically slightly more accurate. The 19 column solution suggested below by sandbh would be the best of both worlds. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• 19 per Sandbh Easiest readability of all designs and allows a much cleaner presentation than the needlessly stretched 32 column version. BSMRD (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• 18 and combine all rare earth elements in the column 3. Just listing Lu or La is not a good idea. Same problem with actinides. Putting a 32 column table there gives undue prominence to rare earths. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• 32 columns, and in black-and-white I add. Per the first of the five Wikipedia pillars: we are writing an encyclopedia. We are to present the infomation accessible for everyone, preventing hindrances in understanding whenever possible. For this, introduction of the Period table by the 32-column graph is ideal. Immediately recognisable and most easy to read, understand and appreciate. Conveys the principles at glance (graph table overview) and when zooming in (element location & context).

Lengthy comment by DiPiep

TL;DR: being an encyclopedia, we must convey the information as accessible as possible. Nicely, the 32-column graph shows the essence right away from its introduction, both in detail and in glance. And immediately recognisable both as structure and as icon. Then, later on, a Reader more easily recognises or remembers the main structure, further down the road or outside of WP, when a graph shows details/non-primary properties/colors/deformations including 18-columns: all superimposed on the one basic structure, and recognised as such in the mind's background. On the other hand: for readers not familiar with the basic Periodic table structure, the 18-column graph requires mental excercise to replace the cellar-stored elements into their right place, before grasping, understanding and appreciating the Peridic table, while we cannot assume that every reader can do or even understands this requirement. Even worse: the cellar storage distracts from the essence (so gently present in the Right Table: periodicity-with-holes first and foremost). Of course, those already(!) familiar with the Periodic Table like scolars, scientists and editors like us, have studied and internalised the structure beforehand and outside of Wikipedia. Good for them, but not a guide for our encyclopedic presentation. Anyway, 32-column form does no encyclopedic harm to these people: the form serves both groups of readers. - Longer: We are supposed to clarify matter, and make it understandable. As for the Periodic table, the task of the top image is to convey its principles. All other is distraction, confusion, mis-aiming. That core is: the plain flat 2-dimensional Table. Principal features: rows/periods, columns/groups, blanks/blocks full stop. Not by accident, these are present and immediately recognisable in a b/w 32-column form. Even better: this without distractions. - Shifting parts to the cellar makes the table's essences hard if not impossible to grasp. It would require(!) a mental excercise to reposition the cellar-stored parts back in their right place. It is as if an uninitiated reader has to apply an IKEA montage manual each time(!) one meets a deconstructed 18-column Periodic table. That is: each and every time before being able to get to whatever aspect the reader is looking for. Seaborg in his lab Hubbard Periodic table (1924–..) - For the initiated reader, those who already have internalised the main structure, there is no loss or harm (unless one counts "I am not used to it", but allow me to discharge this as not an argument). Like scolars, scientists, interested readers. There is no reason to cater only just for those (with a complicated graph) while the broader all-reader inclusive approach is available. Even worse: it would be counterproductive to take those readers as leading for the encyclopedic presentation. Our encyclopedia job is to write for people who do not (yet) know. - Now once the basic, 2-dimensional straight Table is introduced and recognised (that is, in 32-column graph), a reader can dive into detail graphs such as those presenting electron configuration, classifications, a metalloid staircase, physics, without loosing the big picture = structure. Which is the perfect way to present complicated information: unfold, zoom in, invite to details; all from the Big Picture. This fits with how the human mind works in learning. - Coming from a straight Periodic table, other graphs are more easily understood (again, for not having to bother with the mental mis-image): presentation forms (like earlier Mendeleevian tables, spirals) and different structure by science (Janet's Left Step, ADOMAH's quantum based) - Illustration. Seaborg was scientist who, in the period 1930–1960, made huge contributions to the science of elements & the Periodic table. He was the one who discovered the f-block elements structure, and they were conveniently put below the then-known Periodic table (introducing placeholder notation like * asterisks). While doing so, Seaborg did not need an introduction to the Periodic table: he rewrote the Table himself, and from an already internalisation into intuition. On his laboratory wall was Hubbard's Periodic table wallplate. Hubbard's Table was complete, but not an invitation to study the topic. For the initiated Seaborg this was no issue. For readers of an encyclopedia, looking for an inviting introduction, this would be prohibitive in appreciating the Periodic table.

-DePiep (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• 19. This is what appears in most sources. Yes it requires a little bit of mental effort to put the footnote back in, but the reader is going to have to do that when reading the literature anyway, so we should not hide that. I note that the first section already builds up the PT first with 32 columns and then explains the footnote, so if you read the whole article, you'll figure out what's going on too. Double sharp (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• 19. For a number of reasons, mostly already given by other commenters – no groups for the lanthanides and actinides, clearer graphic design, and making clear the correspondences between the bottom rows and the lanthanides/actinides. And the fact that the 18/19 column version is VASTLY more common out in the textbook world means that for WP to choose otherwise would be unnecessarily contrary to standard practice. PianoDan (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• 18 so that the reader initially encounters the image that they remember from childhood chemistry lessons, that is familiar from umpteen sources, and that you can even download from the royal society of chemistry [44] Alternative versions can appear later in the article. Elemimele (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• 19 for pragmatism and convention as detailed above, and because the 18-col version makes better use of screen space for communication. In particular it allows the full names of the elements to appear legibly, something that most non-experts will benefit from in order to learn the meaning, notice the patterns, and put it to use.

  I empathize with DePiep's distress at breaking up the 32-column form, which is so elegant and unified that it's easy to think of it as a perfect form. Ultimately it's a heuristic aid to organize and understand, not a fundamental construct, and some necessary compromises will always make us itch. For example, we allow helium to crash the p-block party because of historical practice and useful compromise. The wide space between s and p blocks for light elements is disruptive in its own way, making an artificial empty gap that is hard to scan across; retaining the f-block just makes the gap worse. Deconstructing the table by banishing the f-block to the cellar might seem painfully disruptive, but it is important to note that the column order is intrinsically interrupted by a speed bump after the s-block, because all higher blocks are slotted in there, independent of whether the 8, 18, or 32 column form is used. An f-block detour sign is clear enough (much easier to follow than an IKEA floor plan route). If the day comes that a g-block element is observed, I hope we wouldn't feel obliged to include it in its natural place, and would instead move the block to its own sub-cellar most of the time. The question now is whether to park the f-block limousine in the middle of the living room, or move it to the well-lit garage below, which I favor for the lede form. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, if a g-block element was discovered, then I think I would have more sympathy for having it be 32-column. Because otherwise element 121 would require a footnote to the footnote, which is actually getting IKEA-like. I could see the 32-column form getting more popular in response. Or maybe the 8th row would generally be excluded and a footnote added saying "hey, there are a few elements beyond 118, but they fall apart so quickly that people usually don't care", and 18-column would retain dominance. However, I don't expect element 121 to be discovered this decade, given likely cross-sections, so this is purely hypothetical. Whatever the sources do in that situation, we'll follow it then; right now I agree with you and support following what they actually do now. :D Double sharp (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• 18 (or 19). The lede image should illustrate the most common, recognisable and familiar format. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 01:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• 18. The by far more recognized form. Other versions can be added later in the article, and shortcomings of each version can be discussed. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In fact they already are discussed, under Periodic table#Presentation forms: For reasons of space, the periodic table is commonly presented with the f-block elements cut out and placed as a footnote below the main body of the table, as below. Both forms represent the same periodic table. The form with the f-block included in the main body is sometimes called the 32-column or long form; the form with the f-block cut out is sometimes called the 18-column or medium-long form. The 32-column form has the advantage of showing all elements in their correct sequence, but it has the disadvantage of requiring more space. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• 18 – As I have said elsewhere about this debate, the issue is one of formatting, not of substance, and the periodic table is used by chemists for teaching and exposition, not for research. If the issue is the table at the top of the article, the 18-column format is both more commonly used and more consistent with orderly viewing of the table. The 32-column format should be and is discussed in the article body. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• 19 (or 18). In the context of this long and detailed article which covers the topic well, the main purpose of the lead image should be to reassure readers they have reached the correct place: so the well-known form is perfectly appropriate, even if the 32-column form is superior in some respects. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• 19 (or 18) for reasons mostly already stated. The 18/19 column format is clearer both in communication and graphic design. The 32 column version doesn't add enough value to choose it over the 18/19 format. -- Mike 🗩 18:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• 18 with f-block as given in {{Periodic table}}. Just by looking at results from image searching I conclude that 18 column with f-group is more popular than lengthy 32 one. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk, notes, questions, suggestions

@NadVolum: The location of the lanthanides and actinides could be be made obvious by adding a column for them, as seem in the image. I feel that colors is something that should be the topic of a separate RFC, after this one. Sandbh (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Conventional periodic table showing where the Ln and An fit in

I certainly much prefer that! Thanks. NadVolum (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is pretty much how the WebElements periodic table looks. Double sharp (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Graphic design

I feel that 18 or 32 is not primarily a graphic design question. Rather, it has more to do with the fact that there are only 18 numbered groups, not 32.

Another consideration is that the early actinides show some similarities to their transition metal congeners:

Lu +3, Hf +4, Ta +5, W +6, Re +7, Os +8
Ac +3, Th +4, Pa +5, U +6, Np +7, Pu +8

This secondary alignment is not apparent in the 32-column form.

Further, there is a corollary between the lanthanides and d block metals extending to the similarities of La with Lu; Ce with Zr/Th [45]; and the recent preparation of Pr(V) cf. Ta(V).[46][47] Sandbh (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Prerequisite for this RfC question is, that there is no scientific difference between those two graphical (editorial, presentational) forms. And I don't see how one could wiggle in these scientific differences (in an RfC you wrote yourself btw). So no, this is *not* part of the discussion or proposals.

Already Eric Scerri et al. (2020) for IUPAC have declared that the presentation form between these 18/32 is a free choice, i.e., has no scientific meaning.

Preceding unsigned comment was posted by DePiep.[48] Sandbh (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a small thing, but the font used in that 19 column form above could be made a bit larger to fit the cells more like they are in the current 32 bit form. Then the actual contents would be quite easily readable on a mobile without enlarging I think. NadVolum (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

For consistency with the 89-102 cell below it, I think the 57-70 cell should have "La-Yb" instead of "La to Yb". Double sharp (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Done and Done, I believe! Sandbh (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone here know how to make animations? This would be a really great way to show the relationship between the 32 and 18/19 column forms. Not sure it would be a good idea for the led graphic, but somewhere in the article. YBG (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Scientific meaning?

DePiep, above, suggests the choice between 18 or 32 columns has no scientific meaning, citing a Provisional Report.

A careful reading of the report shows that it makes no such statement. It is well known that when the switch occurred from the old short 8-column form to the 18-column, from the late 1920s onwards, many of the similarities between the old main group elements in columns I to VIII and their transitional metal counterparts became forgotten. While nobody is advocating for a return to the 8-column form it is a fact that lining up the f-block under the d-block, as occurs in the 18-column form, is profitable in terms of bringing out and maintaining the secondary relationships between e.g. the early actinides and their transition metal congeners, as I explained earlier. These secondary relationships become disconnected in the 32 column form. Sandbh (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The report doesn't make such a statement, but the project's page does: The task group does not intend to recommend the use of a 32-column periodic table or an 18-column. This choice which is a matter of convention, rather than a scientific one, should be left to individual authors and educators. Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder why they felt the need to say what they were not going to recommend, given the scope of their work was to deliver a recommendation on the composition of group 3 as either Sc, Y, La and Ac; or Sc, Y, Lu and Lr? Sandbh (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

g-block layout

Extended PT layout, with g block

Should we ever reach it.

For those who prefer footnote markers, that would be an opportunity to break out:

• an asterisk *
• two asterisks aligned vertically ⁑
• a fabled asterism ^⁂
• and four asterisks aligned vertically ⁑⁑

An swagger of asterisks IOW. Sandbh (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

My objection to this is that the column between groups 2 and 3 makes it look like 121-138 go directly under Ac-No. Quite how 18 elements are supposed to fit under 14 is not quite explained.

That said, I think a layout like this would be clearer (taking the Aufbau extrapolation for now):

K   Ca                  Sc  Ti  V
Rb  Sr                  Y   Zr  Nb
Cs  Ba          La-Yb   Lu  Hf  Ta
Fr  Ra          Ac-No   Lr  Rf  Db
119 120 121-138 139-152 153 154 155 ...

Of course this is just theoretical at the moment. Also, it's not too clear to me how a hypothetical 50-column form of the table ought to look if some but not all of the g-block row is actually discovered. If 121 is discovered, but 122-138 aren't, then how do you connect the left and right sides? Ah well, this will presumably only be a problem in a decade or so... Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the image is OK now. Sandbh (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, except that 139 should be Ute rather than Utn. :) But that's hardly important.

The Madelung rule probably doesn't work this well up in the 130s and 140s, but still, Scerri has suggested that perhaps the table could follow it anyway: Now even if elements with atomic numbers as high as 139 and 140 were ever to materialize, one can still ask whether such unexpected orderings or violations of the Madelung rule should be reflected in any modified periodic table. After all, there are many violations of the Madelung rule such as the 20 well-known anomalous configurations beginning with chromium and copper which do not lead us to modify the periodic table. So it seems at least possible that this is what we'd end up with, especially since I doubt anyone would care about species that wouldn't even survive a microsecond. Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Instead of asterisks, I wonder if "4f", "5f", "5g", "6f" would make better footnote markers, marking the exact subshell being filled in the respective footnotes. Double sharp (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I fixed Utn, err…Ute.

4f, 5f, 5 g etc are potentially contentious since 4f―in a semi-formal sense―does not start filling until Ce; 5f does not do so until Pa; and 5 g is not expected to make an appearance until perhaps 125. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Being explicit is probably better for the lede, then. Double sharp (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Broken Wikilinks in Infobox

The first two Wikilinks in the Infobox point to sections of the article that no longer exist. I considered updating them to point at Periodic table#Presentation forms, but then happened to follow the third Infobox Wikilink to Alternative periodic tables and found the same problem there. It could be that there may be many instances of this "internal link-rot" across Wikipedia, and maybe therefore a bot would be better suited to correcting it, but this is beyond my expertise. Clark42 (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the "series" {{Sidebar periodic table}} (or possibly {{Navbox periodic table}}). Indeed should be checked & improved. Don't have time now. -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Subsection Overview

I propose to subsection the Overview section into:

1. Atomic structure

Main article: Atom

1. Electron configuration

Main article: Electron configuration

1. 1. The order of shell filling

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov:  Done Thanks for the suggestion! Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

The Newly discovered element in the Actinide series which is Lawrencium (Le) is not included in the image. Kindly update tha image. Regards. 103.146.241.56 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Lawrencium, symbol Lr, is present at 103. It is shown as part of block d; actinides are not marked in this image. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

My request is that to make it a big in size actually it's clear but small making hard to read 124.253.247.251 (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead table image size increased. CraigP459 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Question: What do you want made bigger? The image of the periodic table? Of the universe (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

lede image size

I have changed size setting to use |upright= per WP:UPRIGHT (more responsive). My initial setting |..=2 mighty need adjustment. Should work OK for all UIs. HTH -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical assistance. Will continue trying to improve it; seems that spanning the full screen width would address reader visibility concerns while avoiding narrow vertical columns of text. CraigP459 (talk) 08:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Lede image size setting increased from 2 to 3.3 for readability, and image moved to between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs for text to still be first as an encyclopedic article; review, adjust, and/or discuss the edit[49] as needed. CraigP459 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

reverted, CraigP459. Not discussed, and not sure if that's te way to handle the lede. Especially strange while you agreed with my observation that one cannot expect to have a fully readible PT. -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, apologies if my lede image edits on this page are too fast, will pump the brakes a bit. Any ideas on the best way to edit the image to improve reader visibility while also being accepted by fellow editors from a technical/format standpoint? CraigP459 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Please feel free to address your lede text concerns here. CraigP459 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see this earlier; thanks for informing me. I like the current version, as it seems to me that the table is already readable, but not so large that the lede text falls off to the next screen as it did for me in this version. I would also like to point out that a full-size periodic table with more information is already present further down the article at Periodic table#Presentation forms; hence, perhaps another solution might be to make a visible link down there. Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Apart from tweaking the current size setting, there is one huge periodic table intrinsic feature to be considered. That is: essentially, it asks to be seen in overview, at a glance to get the grand tablular setup, and at the same time see the details, recognise the elements. That is contradictionary, when static. It is as if one sees a play, and meanwhile one wants to read the paper the actor is holding. (Applying some dynamics is a solution, like zooming in, or use binoculars, or walk closer -- don't try this in a theater). -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. CraigP459 (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to swap the positions of the Periodic table#Presentation forms image and the current lede image? CraigP459 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Not a good plan IMO. The lede (including lede image) is intended to introduce and give overview of the topic at hand. Too many detials is counter-intentional. OTOH, the dedicated 'standard' PT is sacy enough to give basic data (also per element) and links.

However, I do think it should be right below the lede as 1st subsection under ... "§ Overview". With "Groups, Periods" right below. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Evolution does not prove goal

re [50]: Petrucci swapping effect and cause. The "becasue" is not complete. Doesn't the acts of Seaborg have anything to say? Evolution does not prove goal. DePiep (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Double sharp: DePiep (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Some chemists already showed an f-block before Seaborg, e.g. Bassett (1892), Werner (1905), Janet (1928). The first 18-column table seems to be Pfeiffer (1920), and it seems to be based on Werner's. Pfeiffer wrote "Die große Cäsiumperiode umfaßt auch die seltenen Erdmetalle, von denen die zwischen Cer und Tantal stehenden (Ordnungszahlen 59 bis 72) nur deshalb ausgesondert und abseits geschrieben worden sind, um die Übersichtlichkeit des Systems, das sonst allzu sehr in die Breite wachsen würde, zu erleichtern. Dieses Vorgehen ist deshalb nicht weiter störend, weil die seltenen Erdmetalle von Neodym bis Celtium weder in der Kalium- und Rubidium-, noch in der Radiumreihe Verwandte haben. Ebenso wenig wie sich zwischen Zirkon und Niob seltene Erdmetalle oder verwandte Elemente befinden, existieren solche zwischen Thorium und Protaktinium; die zugehörigen Ordnungszahlen zeigen das ganz scharf." Which proves that it was indeed to avoid the table becoming too wide, and was done in fact even before Seaborg came around and convinced everybody that the f-blocks started in the same position in the 6th and 7th periods. Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. What IIRC is true is that showing an f-block was not a matter of near-universal agreement among chemists until Seaborg came along. Double sharp (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Periodic table template placement looks wrong in Vector 2022

This doesn't really look great. Is there any way we can fix this so that the navbox on the right doesn't collapse into the periodic table? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Must be the WP:SANDWICH 'solving' by V2022. If V2022, then not up to this page to solve it. DePiep (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know where the currently-preferred place to report V2022-related bugs is, but if you find one it should be reported. Worst case is someone helps us fix a long-standing bug or non-ideal layout in our own code that V2022 merely revealed. DMacks (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:VPT. DMacks (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's been fixed. A non-ideal layout is not 'a bug to be revealed'. (Could not find the VPT post). DePiep (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Elements up to atomic number 94 exist in nature...

"The periodic table continues to evolve with the progress of science. In nature, only elements up to atomic number 94 exist"

I believe that to be incorrect, it is actually 92, not 94. The statement is uncited, regardless. 2600:1700:7890:5A40:E8AA:CC55:C9E8:8F36 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE the lede does not need to be cited if its statements are contained in the body. The 94 figure is restated later in the article with an explanatory note, containing this citation. I've repeated it before the note to make it clear. Elements 93 and 94 occur in uranium-rich ores by neutron capture. (BTW, it's possible we'll eventually find more than 94. Curium is long-lived enough that it could still be being brought from supernovae.) Double sharp (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"n/a" group header usage (MOS)

About stabilising the "n/a" group header (for f-block columns), see the new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § "n/a"-groups specifier. DePiep (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)