Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Progress Eh, Tillie, Copper

There are a million ways an article can fail FARs. There is only one way an article can pass FARs.

Finally. I decided to come back to this project, and see what's to do, even though I have quite a lot of real-life workload to handle. I've been considering the article I myself improved (copper) a lot recently, and maybe we could get it to FA. How's that? Princess Parcly Taxel 08:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes please, we should get it to FA. Currently it is a bit of a disappointment in the sense that it is a vital article and therefore is more of a priority to reach FA: but since it is GA, people would tend to just leave it as it is, thinking "it's good enough!". Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oooohhh! Pick me! Pick me! The metalloid article has been supported for promotion to FAC but, sadly, has been waiting for a month for some kind passing editor (hint, hint) to do a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; see here. I'm reasonably confident it will pass but will once again attempt an assault on Mt Million if it doesn't. PS: Fluorine, IMO, is one copy-edit away from FAC candidature, too. Sandbh (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

By what you said, Sandbh, I presume you mean that I do a full-scale copyedit of the article? That I'll do. And we may want to get other metals up too. Princess Parcly Taxel 03:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please save yourself a whole lot of effort for now, Parcly Taxel, much as I appreciate the offer! The article has been comprehensively copy-edited by John whose copy editing skills I have learnt much from. The only thing it needs now is a "spot" check for accuracy and close paraphrasing. I gather this involves looking at some samples of prose and cross-checking for accuracy against sources and at the same time being satisfied that close para-phrasing is not an issue. There is no easy to find source that I could find that sets out spot check standards but the checks I have seen have involved only about five prose samples. Oh, on other metals, I've been too caught up recently on the metalloid article, and being distracted with fluorine and, more recently a reboot of heavy metal (chemistry) to be thinking much about other article improvement efforts. The amount of work involved in getting one of our kind of articles up to FAC seems to be formidable and I feel I may need a rest if metalloid gets up. Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sandbh: You should be willing to let me copyedit fluorine first, right? Then I myself may nominate it for FA status – my first FA nomination. Call up everyone to help in spot-checking the metalloid article, while I (and possibly another editor) will wipe fluorine clean of Dutch diseases. You should also note that I was once part of the GOCE. Princess Parcly Taxel 07:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's wonderful. R8R Gtrs would be very pleased. He and TCO did so much work on fluorine. No, I wasn't aware of your prior membership of the guild. I'll check out their page. I will look fwd very much to seeing fluorine nominated. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox hydrogen at TFD again

Resolved

: a keep. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox hydrogen}} is up for deletion again. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 28#Template:Infobox hydrogen. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. -DePiep (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table (with pictures)

Resolved

: a keep. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Periodic table (with pictures) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. (Ricky81682 (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) :(copy-pasted -DePiep (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table templates

Resolved

: a keep. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Periodic table templates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Gmelin's Handbuch der theoretischen Chemie (1817)

If you've ever looked up one of the Gmelin element handbooks, there's a nice article about him here. He was apparently the first author in the history of chemistry to use citations. He would've liked Wikipedia. Sandbh (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The other metal debate

Notice: A WP:ANI intervention concluded that the status quo of April 30 be maintained (so Other metal has content), until a discussion concludes otherwise. My words. -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Nergaal did this move, and nothing else. Unacceptable. Here at Nergall talk I asked questions, but to no avail (Nergaal bases on personal opinion). -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what was the base of that title, but when was the last time you saw a title of a non-ficion composition (i.e. a scientific book, article, etc) containing the qualifier "other" next to the object of the title? Nergaal (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Davies P 1982, Other Worlds: A Portrait of Nature in Rebellion: Space, Superspace and the Quantum Universe, JM Dent, London, ISBN 0460044001 Sandbh (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious to any person of at least 5 years of age that other is in reference to the only world that average folks use, well, for lack of any other word, the World. There is no single metal or list of metals that any average folk knows as the Metal or the Metals. Furthermore, proving my point, you can see that the title has a clear descriptor after the use of the word "other" (in fact the title is not 2 words as the article in discussion but 14 words, I am perfectly happy to have a 14 word title that starts with "other metals"). Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You should have asked before, as you know. So: 1. revert and 2. ask & discuss. (btw, of course the whole PT area is a mess now, and I will not clean it up for your hiccup edit. btw2, did you have to use admin priviliges for the history issue things?). -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted the move. Double sharp (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Good. -DePiep (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How long does a revert of this kind take to show up? It is still showing as PTM when I search for other metals. Sandbh (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean "OM"? Oh, sorry, I forgot that OM does not stand for anything to any normal chemist. Nergaal (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but there does not seem to be any real consensus among chemists as to which specific term they use for these metals, or even which metals are included. Thus "other metals", as a descriptive and deliberately somewhat vague (other in relation only to the other categories used on WP) phrase, would be the most neutral option.

Also, at 07:08 today (UTC) the article was at "Post-transition metal" [sic], and not at "Other metal", just as Sandbh states. Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Nergaal has re-reverted. I'm going to try to get it back, but WP is being very slow for me today... Double sharp (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me try one more last time to still be friendly. Webster says "other: adjective \ˈə-thər\—used to refer to all the members of a group except the person or thing that has already been mentioned; in addition to the person or thing that has already been mentioned; different or separate from the person or thing that has already been mentioned." In addition, if you need to educate yourself, please take a glance to the titles listed by google scholar when you search "other metal". I really hope I don't have to repeat myself. Nergaal (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

re Nergaal: Let me try one more last time to still be friendly. Bullshit. Liar. A 'last time'? What was you first time you were friendly? You are editwarring and movewarring (going for a 3RR block, see WP:ANI). You are disruptive & bullying & deaf-on-occasion, evading responsibility. You have not started a talk in any place or in any way. Better say: Let me try once to be friendly -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition, please take a look at Talk:Post-transitional metal#Other is an undefined word here. for the opinion of somebody who seems to have nothing to do with this project. Nergaal (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And I cannot believe that the humongous amount of energy spent in discussing on this page various subjects that seem to have produce a single result: "lets rename a page that has been sitting there for years to a name that only us, the people who write on this page have a remote understanding where it comes from, but a random reader wonders "other than what"?". Nergaal (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Except that with the compact periodic table legend at the bottom of almost every single page related to the elements, containing the category "other metals", it becomes quite clear precisely what the "other" in the title relates to. Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

DS, lets try again: how many people reading the article start with the pt legend at the bottom of the page? Or better said, how many people read the bottom of the page of the article???? Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well this is certainly a special case. As you mention, you're probably not going to see "other metal" elsewhere: instead you'll see one of many different terms. As a result readers are probably not going to search for this article title outright, but could find it through the PT legend.

As for how many people read the bottom of the page of the article: I do (and did even before registering). It's a quick way to see what is related and navigate to those articles. Isn't that the purpose of navboxes, after all? Double sharp (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Nergaal

The change to "other metals" represented the culmination of a discussion that started 21 months ago. During this time you made, as I recall, some sporadic observations that I responded to. All project members were informed of the change at the time it happened; no objections were subsequently received.

I will repeat what led up to the change to "other metals":

1. There is no agreement in the literature as to what to call the metals between the transition metals and the metalloids.

So? use one of the already in use titles and discuss why it is incorrect. Europe is not a continent from a geologic standpoint of view, but people still call it a continent. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Europe doesn't have "continent" in its title, and its lead says that it is only a continent by convention. It doesn't need to use an incorrect title. Likewise, neither do we. Calling this category something else may cause confusion for readers who just look at our categories and don't actually click on the article. Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Never mind what we as individual editors may personally prefer, Wikipedia should reflect the state of the literature.

Show me any piece of literature using "other metal" to define the scope of the article in question. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1. In these cases, WP:NEO allows us to use a descriptive term.

EXACTLY!!! DESCRIPTIVE' other is not by any means a descriptive term. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1. "Other metals" works, in the sense of a category of metals, "Existing besides, or distinct from that already mentioned"; "auxiliary", "ancillary, secondary" (quotes from 2nd OED, and Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus entries for "other")—with the "other metal" article listing all the cited alternative category names.

"Existing besides, or distinct from that already mentioned": and where in the 2-word title do you see the already mentioned ones? Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Some readers will still go "WTF are "other metals?", as you note. However what's going on will become clear upon reading the article, with readers free to choose any of the more specific category names listed therein, for non-Wikipedia use, should they decide that "other metals" won't cut the mustard.

The point of an article, especially its title is not to be WTF. This is not fiction or a piece of art. This is an encyclopedia. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1. I personally don't think that much of the name "other metals"—I doubt anybody likes it—but the jumbled category name situation for these metals, as found in the literature, is what it is. And the word "other" IMO near-perfectly covers off on this situation as in the metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals.

Let me try again: technically, I am 100% happy with a title such as "Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals" it has the necessary "distinct from that already mentioned" part. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Post-transition metals won't work as Al is not a post-transition metal.

So don't put it in the article! Or name the article poor metal, or whatever is DESCRIPTIVE. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1. P-block metals is problematic since (a) element 113, which is a p-block metal, is expected to have some transition metal chemistry; (b) it relegates the group 12 metals to transition metal status, a categorisation which is disputed; and (c) usage of the term "p-block metals" in the literature is not common.

So don't put it inside the article. Have it as a footnote. Don't just shit on the title of the article because of an element which is not even officially recognized. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Either of these two specific terms or any other term, e.g. "poor metals" will run into problems with lending undue weight to that term.

So choose the best one and discuss why is it not 100% correct. Between two choices don't choose to go and choose the 9th one. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I intend to revert your change, back to the "Other metals" version. I ask you as a respected editor, to not re-revert without prior discussion.

I haven't been blocked for 3RR in many years, but this topic is so idiotic that I have no issue doing it. Nergaal (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

sincerely, Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sandbh, as you can see, Nergaal is not sincere.

I restate: as long as Nergaal gets his way (disruption), discussion is useless. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sandbh, please put all that information into the title of the article in discussion and I will be happy. Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, PTM is assuredly not an acronym for "Post-transitional metal": it stands for "Post-transition metal". So the position of the article is wrong. I have moved the article back again, referencing your recap in my e.s. Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I note that Nergaal in the original move [[1]] used an other argument that in this whole thread. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, guys, a funny talk you've got in here.

But seriously, I think Nergaal is right. His proof is correct, I couldn't add more. Whatever we choose, it's better that what we have now. Because, yeah, what does the title "Other metals" mean? You have to read the article now matter how acknowledged you are. Imagine a book with the title like "Transition metals" in a bookstore. That is imaginable. Now try with a book titled "Other metals." No way. Uh, let's just choose whatever else.

"Post-transition metals" won't work :( Because of aluminum. We can use "PTMs and aluminium," though. (Why is Wiki stuck to "aluminium," btw? Same question over "sulfur." It's okay to write "aluminum" when you're writing in AmE and to write "sulphur" when you write in BrE, isn't it?)

p-block metals is okay. Even if 113 is a TM metal, it's a p-block metal anyway. No contradiction. It can belong to two overlapping categories. Okay. Not great, but okay. And the title is not turning zinc into a TM. Why is it? Think of this: gallium is a p-block metal no matter what, whether Zn is a TM or not. So why saying gallium is a p-block metal make Zn a TM? No idea. (The name is rare, yes, but is still better than "Other metals," which alone rarely (if ever) refers to p-block metals)

Other options are maybe available as well. I can't come up with any, though.

Let's just make the change.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If p-block metals then we need to change the discussion of group 12 to something like "metals related to the p-block metals". But honestly I still think group 12 as not transition metal is chemically more accurate (the diagram makes it quite clear that they fit better among the "poor metals"). I'm not going to push for that now, though – we really ought to get back to article-writing instead. Double sharp (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

If Nergaal is so very much many right as you say, why can't he achieve that here? Why not win the argument beforehand? So far, Nergaal only disrupts the whole PT structure. And I am not gonna clean that up. Talk, or shut up, but don't disrupt. -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

IUPAC is the reason why we use the BrE spelling for Al and Cs and the AmE spelling for S, and I think we should follow IUPAC except in the occasional case where it is really not the common use among chemists (e.g. the systematic element names). Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. The current title of Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals has given a good laugh :) (probably an edit by R8R? -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC))

For a long time I did not follow the endless discussions on what is written in the legend of the periodic table shown in Wikipedia. For what I see and hear here is that I should have interfered with that discussion a little more. In a legend of an table the wording other metals might make sense, there you compare it to the non others. To make the article "other metals" is for me make an article "other humans" or "other birds". Several points come to my mind:

• The first line of the article says that it follows non IUPAC naming convention, which makes it hard for me to argue with the people with the aluminum and sulphur renaming agenda. I always thought we follow IUPAC to make it a common language.
• Is there a book or printed periodic table or written text using the "other metals" convention? We should not invent something like this without having a good source to cite from.
• If post transition metals is wrong wording because aluminium is not one, why is there no large complaint about this?
• Other metals is neither a common term nor is it very descriptive

One very important point this project has a very long tradition and for all the time I am here there was never a 3RR within the project. So please lets stay on the civil grounds of the tradition of the project and after a discussion there will be a decision all people will be equally unhappy with it and we will call it a compromise.--Stone (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate this contribution, Stone, and I do learn from it. But the current issue is that Nergaal is forcing upon WP an opinion. That I do not accept. If Nergaal has sooo much rightness in his arguments, why force it? -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh. Stone: And you say "I did not follow the endless discussions...". I can understand. But is that a Wikipedia problem, or could it be by IUPAC? I think, none of these discussions were needed had IUPAC done & concluded them. Wikipedia is nothing to blame. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a pure Wikipedia problem. What I observe here is the good old trench fighting of WW1. Is nobody willing to deescalate the situation?--Stone (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat my comment of March 14 at what was then Talk:Other metals.

Other is an undefined word here.

My dictionary defines the word other as meaning Not the same as one or more of some already mentioned or implied .... Here the word is used as the first word of an article title, so nothing has been already mentioned or implied, and the word is meaningless in this context. Wikipedia does not have articles entitled Other molecules, Other reactions, Other countries, Other presidents etc. etc.

If I understand correctly, this name was chosen because it was felt that none of the other synonyms considered is entirely satisfactory. My solution would be to choose the least unsatisfactory synonym and to mention its shortcomings. My own choice would be P-block metals, which also means Groups 13-16 of the periodic table. [Originally posted 20:14, 14 March 2014 at Talk:Other metals]

I will add now a reason why P-block metals is less unsatisfactory than post-transition metals. Post-transition metals fails to describe aluminium, which is a very important metal present in all our lives. The only objection raised to p-block metals is that it may fail to describe element 113, which is a synthetic element so rare that none of us is likely to ever see any. So just call the article p-block metals and add a small footnote to say that the name may not be appropriate for element 113.

With thanks to Sandbh for pointing me to this discussion today. Dirac66 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, arguments are fine. So why did Nergaal not use them? -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• To be clear: as long as Nergaal gets his way (disruption), discussion is useless. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Lay off the hostile rhetoric, DePiep, and assume good faith. Nergaal is not trying to be disruptive; do not make that argument. The move war has been disruptive, but that wasn't intended; it happened because editors didn't try to be collaborative. You (DePiep) have already been cautioned at WP:ANI for tendentious editing. Remember the boomerang principle. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Duh. Read the ANI. Nergaal is blocked. -DePiep (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Duh. I have read the WP:ANI. I see that Nergaal is blocked for move-warring. It doesn't change the fact that his or her objective does not appear to have been disruption, but only that he or she was being stubborn and failing to be collaborative. It doesn't change the fact that you, DePiep, should assume good faith. You have been warned in the WP:ANI thread for tendentious editing, which isn't collaborative. Lay off the hostile rhetoric. Let's discuss the name for the article rather than engage in attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss the name for the article rather than ... -- exactly. Is what Nergaal should have done. I think your barking up the wrong tree. For your information: move warring and promising a 3RR trespassing, how much AGF does that need? -DePiep (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

First restore the prior (April 30) situation, then discuss here.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Move edit warring the metals. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice: A WP:ANI intervention concluded that the status quo of April 30 be maintained (so Other metal has content), until a discussion concludes otherwise. My words. -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

The talk page for Other metals is now broken to a messy redirect.

Was consensus achieved on what the name should be? If so, why change it? If not, is a Request for Comments in order? I agree with Dirac66 that P-block metals is preferred to either Other Metals or Post-Transition Metals. There is no transition in the period including aluminum. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If I understand it well, this was solved at 23:53 [2]. talk:Other metal should be OK. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

OK because you say so? You have never answered the objections voiced by several editors to Other metal. You just keep repeating that Nergaal is supposedly disruptive for moving the article to a more intelligent title. Reading over the above section makes it clear that Nergaal's action was not unilateral (or singular as your section title has it), but reflects a consensus of several editors. Once again, other raises the question for readers of other than what?, a point which you have never answered. Please accept the consensus of others. Or do we need a numerical vote? Dirac66 (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Nergaal is disruptive, and is blocked from editing. Now we can start a talk. But not in this thread. -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Dirac66, I am not interested in your attack. Did not even read all of it. -DePiep (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC) (-DePiep (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

@Nergaal: @DePiep: @Double sharp: @R8R Gtrs: @Stone: @Dirac66: @Robert McClenon: I'll respond to the latest set of comments as soon as I can but there may be a short delay due to my RL obligations. There is extra history to the "other metals" category that should be considered, including a signed picture of Glenn T Seaborg in front of a PT with the other metals category in it. Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Wait, what just happened? I want a summary. Princess Parcly Taxel 05:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Parcly Taxel: Nergaal changed the other metal article to post-transitional metal, without discussion. His change was reverted; he re-reverted and then a revert war ensued, resulting in, from what I can gather, Nergaal being blocked for 48 hours. Now the heavens have opened and other uses have dropped in with their views on the other metal title/category. Sandbh (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Parcly Taxel: I can add: Nergaal could have (should have) started a talk about this, e.g. at talk:Other metal or here at WT:ELEM. Especially since the title was discussed extensively earlier. When the moves were undone (reverted), Nergaal continued moving then ("move warring", a form of WP:Edit warring). In the ANI mentioned, I asked for a reverse to pre-war situation (May 1), and prevent further disruption (as the editor had announced here). It was honored, and Nergaal was blocked to prevent more moves.

A discussion did start here, Nergaal participated, but it was late and when a move war is going on, discussion is useless. -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Other main group metal

Could work as a title/category. More descriptive. Even if 113 shows some transition metal chemistry it's still likely to show mostly main group chemistry (@Double sharp: correct me if I'm wrong about this). Doesn't slam the door on the group 12 metals. Sandbh (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess then we have to link main group metal as the main article to avoid accusations of silliness (e.g. how can you write a homogeneous article on a category called "other", which implies a non-category? If you can, then is the "other" title really the best?), which would also include the alkali and alkaline earth metals. Best to keep them separate in my opinion, as they're quite different from the post-transition metals (excepting Be, Al, and to a lesser extent Mg and perhaps Li).

113 would probably use 6d electrons for everything above the +1 state. Whether that makes it behave as a transition metal outside 113(V) compounds (e.g. hexafluoro-113-ate): probably not.

As for group 12, I think we should keep that discussion separate for now. Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

History

Here's how the other metals title originally came to be adopted. This is a 2013 post from Flying Jazz, in DePiep's archive 6:

• "About five years ago a large group of Wikipedia editors (including me) with a wide range of backgrounds in academia and industry reached consensus about element classifications that ought to be used in Wikipedia's periodic table. IUPAC categories were consulted along with relevant articles from the Journal of Chemical Education (JCE), and an image from Lawrence Livermore of a table signed by Seaborg. From this careful consideration of evidence, the category name "Poor Metals" was dropped from the table used at Wikipedia, and the ambiguity of categorization was acknowledged by using the non-category "other metals" and "other non-metals" when appropriate."

And earlier (2007) posts from Flying Jazz:

• "I think inclusion of the phrases "other metals" and "other nonmetals" in the legend should indicate a good amount of realistic complexity without misleading anyone."

• "Seaborg used a similar color scheme in "Evolution of the modern periodic table," J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. (1996):3899-3907" which isn't online, but there's a signed table that he used in that article here attributed to Lawrence Berkeley National Labs [link now broken]. Of course, that table calls hydrogen an alkali metal and there's a few of other things about it that could be better in my opinion, but it does use the phrase "Other metals" in its legend instead of "Poor metals" and that's a good thing."

Sandbh (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice history for the coming to existence of the other metals in a periodic table legend. But where is the source for the other metals deserving an article of its own in Wikipedia? --Stone (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources are given in the other metal article noting there is no consistent category name for metals in this part of the periodic table, hence there are at least fourteen different names. Before IUPAC adopted the 1–18 group numbering system the most popular name would probably have been B subgroup metals, or variations on that title. I didn't pay particular attention to sources for the other metal terminology when I was developing what was originally the rebooted poor metal article, which subsequently became the other metal article. Note 5 of that article gives three examples of sources that use the other metal terminology (Taylor et al; Rankin; and Gray). There is also The DK Visual Encyclopedia of Science (1998), as noted in the closed discussion earlier in this page, although their usage is highly unconventional. Sandbh (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, move warring solves nothing and will not be tolerated. As to the substance of the issue, I agree with Stone in that there really is no need for the Other metal article in the first place since it is collection of elements that do not fit into a recognized element category and not a category in its own right; the term "Other metal" is merely a label used in a table and it is not a thing in itself. Per research done by Sandbh and my recollection, there is a consensus to continue using the term in the table but the dispute is what to name the article. The reason why this dispute exists is because "Other metal" is poorly defined and not a real thing. So I propose that the content of the article be merged into other articles and the empty page redirected to a section of another article that has a sentence or two that educates the reader to this fact and/or a note on all tables that use the term. We are literally fighting over something that should not exist. --mav (reviews needed) 14:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Welp, seems stuff is getting a little testy here, so I'll pop my head back in for one comment. I think that mav's suggestion hits the nail on the head. Sure, there is a periodic table category for "other metals", but it's really just a catch-all for the metals that don't fit the other classifications and an article on them is not necessary. An AfD sounds like the right course of action here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is a hole in this classification. That hole exists. Now what we need is a name or title for that hole. (IUPAC is silent). -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC) (Added for clarification: 'That hole exists'; name or title. -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC))

Per what mav said, keep using the other metal term in the table but change the name of the article to the detached and descriptive "Metals between the transition metals and metalloids". Nergaal would be happy. Sandbh (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this seems a reasonable solution. Dirac66 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I get your line, Sandbh. But mav also says: So I propose that the content of the article be merged into other articles &tc. That is: not a content page for these metals. (an empty hole ...) - DePiep (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I presumed mav' s merge suggestion would not need to be actioned, if the article is renamed Metals between the TMs etc. That would allow the article to cover off on all the alternative names mentioned in the literature that I could find, including other metals, whilst supporting NPOV, and being consistent with WP:NEO. Sandbh (talk)

Hooray! An article called "Metals Between the TMs etc." is just what Wikipedia needs to save the day! It's another win for a definition of "reasonable" that exists in some alternate universe away from encyclopedia-building. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

How about an article called "Those Elements Over There To the Left of the Halogens, No, Not Those, a Little Lower and More to the Right, Ahhhh...That Hits the Spot" Flying Jazz (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Science does not always have labels to represent gaps in classification systems. One way to build an encyclopedia is to imagine a delusional fantasy world where science actually does name everything. With this position, an encyclopedia-maker would find some name like Poor Metals that very few scientists use. A second way to build an encyclopedia is for the encyclopedia-makers to delusionally think that they assist the reader by creating labels that science does not have. With this position, an encyclopedia-maker would create an article called "Other Metals" and pretend it has significance. For some reason that I just can't imagine, a small number of editors keep insisting on doing one or the other of those two delusional things. I don't understand it, but it's been hilarious to watch when I've had time to pop in! Keep it up, guys! Of course, a third way to build an encyclopedia is to reflect the reality that science does not always label everything in a pretty, non-overlapping way. An encyclopedia-maker with this third position would create a periodic table with "Other Metals" as a non-category without creating an article called "Other Metals" to write about something silly. I do not recommend that Wikipedia take this rational third course because it would provide less mirth than watching what the delusional folks will do next. There may be another crazy thing they'll come up with, and I'm all for mirth. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Mav is right. He's also less of a jerk when discussing these types of topic than I am, and he doesn't disappear for months at a time like I do. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Post-transition metals says the same thing as mav's term (clearly the metals run out where metalioids start) and has the virtue of being a literature term, and shorter. See [3]. I certainly agree that an article called "Other metals" (as we have now) is ridiculous! SBHarris 00:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So aluminium is post-transition too. Interesting, but not new to recent WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can either take Al out, or give the cite above and explain that some authors include it anomalously. It's better than having to deal with Al, Pb, In, and Ga as "poor metals". In biology we'd call the good metals "eumetals" and the heterogenous p-block denizens "heterometals". But the latter term is already co-opted, so p-block metals and p-block metalloids (As, Sb, Ge, perhaps Bi) is what it must be. SBHarris 01:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Post-transition metals, much as it is a cool name, has the same attributes as all the other category names mentioned in the literature—it hasn't achieved wide-spread acceptance. The one UK chemistry professor I asked about this term, as he used it in a journal article I read in reference to Al, apologised for being sloppy as he agreed it wasn't appropriate to call Al a post-transition metal. PTM would be in widespread use by now but for it tripping up on Al, and in cases where it is used "correctly," it leaves Al in category limbo or results in Al being called a pre-transition metal, along with groups 1 and 2—and pre-transition metal as a category name is not common either. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

If we exclude other metals from consideration:

Currently I'm leaning towards post-transition metal, with a note regarding Al. This sort of sloppy usage is not unheard of. The downside is that we have to keep explaining it. Maybe aluminium and post-transition metals for the category in our periodic tables, with the article at PTM and mentioning Al's relationship to them?

P-block metals could work if we decide to keep the status quo ante magna disputatio (probably bad Latin; can someone correct me?) regarding group 12. (Did we ever resolve that? My personal opinion regarding that would be to follow chemical arguments, as put forward by e.g. Jensen, since sources are nearly evenly split and we must pick one option: but this is kind of off topic to this discussion.) Double sharp (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Let's look at this from a different perspective, shall we? Is it not true that the very fact a certain series of elements in the periodic table are so ordinary they are left over after the rest have been chopped up into arbitrary sections, notable in its own right? Is there no information regarding why these were left over? To be honest (and I'm sure this is explained in various articles but im in a TL;DR kind of mood atm), I'm quite interested to know if the other divisions (lanthenides/metalloids etc.) are very useful subdivions at all. Every element is so unique, what is the actual point of splitting them up like that? I think going into the very nature of element categories & its history will demonstrate why these poor guys have been the ones left over after the metaphorical high school jock elements have been chosen for their soccer teams. "Transition metal" seems even more arbitrary and useless than "other metal" due to encompassing so many elements. So I ask again: Is the fact that they are the miscellaneous bits and bobs of the periodic table notable in its own right?--Coin945 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you're in a TLDR mood, here's the short answer to your final question: No. If you'd like to change your mood, I'd be glad to write a more comprehensive detailed answer. But first, a question: Why is it that the same people who claim to be "in a TLDR mood" usually write the most long-winded gibberish for others to attempt to wade through? Instead of starting a sentence with "Is it not true that the very fact..." just write what you want to write and have some stinking consideration for the reader for God's sake. Instead of starting a sentence with "To be honest (and I'm sure this is explained in various articles but im in a TL;DR kind of mood atm), I'm quite interested to know..." just ask your damned question. Sheesh. It's no wonder I leave this place for months at a time. Flying Jazz (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing leftover about the other metals: they form a reasonably close category, and I daresay they're more homogeneous than the elements of the carbon group, for example. The trouble is the name. Sources use different names for this group of elements, and the compromise "other metals" suggests that these are the leftovers without any similarities to each other. This then leads to suggestions that there should not be an article covering them as a category.

My proposal (after R8R Gtrs'): call the category "aluminium and the post-transition metals", and move the article to "post-transition metal". Al can then be discussed as a related element, just like Zn, Cd, and Hg (since we're currently following the convention where group 12 is a transition metal group). This makes our categorization not wrong, while enabling us to use the term "post-transition metals" which is better than "poor metals" or "other metals" (indeed, our main reasons for avoiding it was that it strictly didn't cover Al, although it may sometimes be sloppily used to include Al). Double sharp (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Labeling and coloring a group of elements as "aluminum and the post-transition metals" would be a very bad editorial choice in my view. I hope you stop arguing for it. I'm against your proposal for reasons of audience and for esthetic reasons. In recent years, many editors writing about science in Wikipedia have done grave damage to this place in my view. They've lost their focus on service to a hypothetical, typical general-purpose reader, and they've been driven instead by a type of editor-focused, internal-Wikipedia, perfect self-consistency. "Post-transition Metals" is a categorization that's used by a relatively small population of specialists in graduate school and beyond, but the other categories that are currently in Wikipedia's table are typically taught to the general population in high schools worldwide. Generations of curriculum designers and chemistry educators have already made their decisions. The esthetic reasons against a category consisting of a single element and a subcategory seem obvious to me. If Wikipedia did decide to use "Post-Transition Metal" as a periodic table coloring, we could decide to call Aluminum a post-transition metal as LANL did at http://periodic.lanl.gov/metal.shtml. Because this term is specialized, there's still probably some wiggle room in its definition. I'd be against doing that, but that choice would remove my esthetic objection to your proposal. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...I guess we could do that (just plain PTMs), with the appropriate caveats (Al is not strictly PTM but is sometimes considered as one etc.). All right, I'll stop arguing for Al + PTMs.

Another alternative could be just "p-block metals" – what do you think of that? It is correct, and we can still discuss group 12 as related elements. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The electron structure of elements that results in the blocks of the periodic table is a separate conceptual area in my view, and that concept is best represented in totality like it's done at Template:Periodic_table_(blocks). I wrote "Mav is right" above to express my opinion in a succinct way. That was shorthand for: "I think one of Mav's suggestions, if implemented well--which will be quite difficult to do--is the best editorial option." Of course, the truth is that this is not a "get it right" or "correct or wrong" sort of issue. It's about editorial opinion. In some ways, this type of debate is the Wikipedia equivalent of people trying to convince each other that a certain wine tastes best at a certain temperature. Different levels of knowledge can make one person sound more authoritative than another. Opinions can be mocked, and living and dead individuals and groups of authorities can be cited. But the end result is that it's still a matter of taste. As long as a large group of knowledgeable editors assesses their taste in a user-directed way and not in an editor-directed way, their choice will be a good one. Their choice might also change over time if preferences change over time. And, if a large group of knowledgeable editors isn't possible, a good shortcut is to recognize that mav is usually right. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately whichever names or categories get chosen, there will always be alternatives. Wikipedians will have to use editorial judgement (which is generally prohibited) to synthetise terminology to make sense of the entire periodic table, when that terminology simply doesnt exist in science. Perhaps when making categories, chemists didn't intend to segment the entire periodic table, but merely highlight certain similarities among certain elements. So they never intended to nicely and neatly have a name for every little bit. Metal and nonmetal became metal, nonmetal, metalloid. And it became more and more specific from there. Is this not correct? So again I ask, what is the point of segmenting the P.T. in such a way? Is it all just arbitrary and kept for historical reasons?--Coin945 (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If I had time and the inclination, I'd answer your particular question with a cogent and exacting essay that explains why chemists and chemistry educators have categorized elements differently for different audiences and have liked to argue about the categories they choose stretching all the way back to Lavoisier's Traité Élémentaire de Chimie in 1789 to the present day. The essay would be written right here in this talk page just for you! It would involve how billions of people were allowed to live due to the Green Revolution instead of never having being born because of the ability of chemists to think about categorization in multiple, rational, logical ways simultaneously for different situations. Wouldn't my writing that essay make you feel special? But I'm unlikely to do that because I think you're behaving like a clueless troll. I see no way that answering your moronic questions can help the reader of this encyclopedia, so the best I can hope for is to keep making fun of you and to keep calling you names until you grow tired of it and go away. Why are you behaving like a clueless troll? Only you know. How are you behaving like a clueless troll? Because your questions are based on false premises. Which of your premises are false? I would inform you about that, but that would lead me into an argument with a clueless troll. What Wikipedia may actually need are more people like you who remind experts about why they shouldn't waste their time trying to engage editors here. But if you'd like me to agree with you then I will. The editors of this encyclopedia who work with elements, philosophers, nation-states, historical periods, the timeline of the big bang, and every other graphical and tabular method of categorizing information should all be pestered by some nitwit like you who asks "What's the point? Isn't it all just arbitrary? Is this not correct? Why isn't anyone helping me wipe off the crap that's stuck to my brain instead of my ass?" Flying Jazz (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response @Flying Jazz:. I don't appreciate the ad hominems. In any case, I am asking the simple question because often in heated discussions like this, a back-to-basic approach helps to make things clearer. In my experience, asking an "obvious" question, often yields a not-to-obvious answer. In this case an investigation into why/how categories are chosen in the first place and why/why not Wikipedia should have a category name for this set of elements. So I think this sort of approach might provide some valid insight into this complex and controversial issue. But because you are being rather rude I will leave this conversation. I have watched from afar for many months now and am saddened that the conversation rages on. Hopefully you guys come to some sort of resolution soon enough.--Coin945 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We should all remember your approach to conflict resolution at Wikipedia. Obviously, the best way to resolve a dispute among knowledgeable editors is for a new editor lacking knowledge of the subject to create a half dozen new articles about the subject with instructions for the knowledgeable editors to fill in the stubs for articles that should have never existed in the first place. That completely non-disruptive method is something I'll be considering in the future on topics where I lack knowledge. Thank you for helping, wise Wikipedia editor! Flying Jazz (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Back at the kindergarden level. --Stone (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Flying Jazz writes: "I think you're behaving like a clueless troll", "your moronic questions", "behaving like a clueless troll", "How are you behaving like a clueless troll?" [4]. I have yet to see a discussion with Flying Jazz involved that did not turn nasty. Bad faith too: "the best I can hope for is to keep making fun of you and to keep calling you names until you grow tired of it and go away". FJ: don't expect from me to clean up your writings to find some sense in it. Better is to refrain from the dirt from the start. -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Why on Earth would I ever expect you to ever alter anything I write on the Talk Page space? You're confused about the meaning of bad faith, you're confused about me, you don't even seem to know what "finding sense" means, and you cannot use the English language correctly to make statements that others understand. Editors here in the Talk Page space should have a reader-focused, service orientation about the Article space at all times, and all goals should be reader-directed. With regard to Coin945, it seems obvious to me that an editor who is unfamiliar with a topic does not serve the reader by creating a half dozen new articles that shouldn't exist for other editors to delete, redirect, or otherwise waste time thinking about. With regard to my prior discussions with you and Sandbh about "Poor Metals," the best way for me to serve the reader as quickly as possible was by changing your minds and encouraging you to change the Periodic Table labeling here. Persistent logic and reference checking are the best tools we have. But in a Project as poorly run as this one, those tools alone aren't enough. They must be combined with snark, satire, and mirth for an editor to accomplish a reader-directed goal. In a better run project, I could have done the same thing with less snark or even none at all, Coin945 would have never dropped in to "help" in the first place, and Nergaal would not have kept reverting. Serving the reader is not dirt. That's what we're here to do. Instead of wandering off to write to administrators, I hope you read what I write carefully, try to understand what I do/did and why, and try to learn from it. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Although I don't particularly want to be verbally abused again, (and understand that in the scheme of thing this is a distraction to the main issue being discussed) I feel the need to defend myself against hurtful slander by Flying Jazz. S/he has stated it seems obvious to me that an editor who is unfamiliar with a topic does not serve the reader by creating a half dozen new articles that shouldn't exist for other editors to delete). I would like to direct you to a conversation that took place on this talk page called "Placement of hydrogen in the periodic table", in which I brought up the idea of diffusing conversations (generally based on the argument "but if we do it your way, then my way will not be on Wikipedia at all!"), but creating articles that explained the diffreent arguments put forward by different chemists and explaining that there is not one clearcut answer. The main example I used was regarding the place Hydrogen is located on the periodic table. As a side note, I added that if possible a footnote should be added that for the sake of simplicity/clarity/whatever, a certain alternative has been chosen for Wikipedia although this is by no means the "correct" option. ("Wikipedia is not the place for original research. We must acknowledge the arbitrariness of many of the names applied in chemistry to chop up and divide things into nice neat rows and columns.. when nature is just a tad more complicated than that, and it won't always be merry and rosy". So anyway this conversation continued for a bit, and then after fixing up a grammatical error I make to the title, DePiep wrote "Changed section title, no big deal. Now you make it blue!", "Why not start that as a section title in Hydrogen?", and "As for starting: go ahead! It's easy to start with just a section, and let it grow". And so despite rationalising that I was not the man for the job (being able to identify a problem doesn't necessarily mean you are able to fix it), I decided to give it a shot. I created an article rather than adding to a section in an FA'd article because that can cause major issues (especially if it is done by a self-professed amateur). Besides, I figured it was notable in its own right. And from there I created the articles on the other article ideas I had and posted them clearly above, encouraging members of this project to take part to improve them, or delete them etc. Whatever was best for Wikipedia. But the point is that your assertion above is misguided and with a better understanding of the context behind the articles' creation, you wouldn't state false claims.--Coin945 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to accuse you of not wanting to help the reader. I'm sure that you wanted to. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, a person can be as correct, logical, and proficient of a Wikipedia editor as they like. But if they are simultaneously as rude, obnoxious, and vile as they like, I want them out of my life asap regardless. Knowledge in its own right is not an excuse to take a moral highground. It's how you use and share said knowledge. Make of that what you will.--Coin945 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous Wikipedia editors are not in my life other than as text on a screen. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Glenn Seaborg's and Flying Jazz's roles in Wikipedia's Element Colorings

Flying Jazz created a subheading where he referred to himself in the third person together with Seaborg. Be afraid! Be very afraid! Obviously, editorial decisions should be like science itself. They should not be "a respecter of persons." Just because brilliant and honorable men like Seaborg and my anonymous self chose to color the periodic table a certain way, our sound decision, in and of itself, is, of course, no reason for lesser mortals to follow in our esteemed footsteps. But for those who make the mistake of doing this anyway, here are some updated links. The periodic table published by Seaborg in "Evolution of the modern periodic table," J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. (1996):3899-3907 with the hydrogen error and the "Other Metals" category and the Hoyvin-Glavin is currently at http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Seaborg/assets/tablePDF.gif . A wee version of an authentic signed copy showing Seaborg's support for hydrogen's identity as an alkali metal is at http://cso.lbl.gov/photo/gallery/Seaborg/Images/t_XBD9603-01001_BIM.jpg in the same gallery as an authentic photograph at http://cso.lbl.gov/photo/gallery/Seaborg/Images/t_XBD9611-05581_TIF.jpg of the great man with his contemporary admirer. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

? Good to know that we progress to get a solution. --Stone (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no single solution to this matter because of the nature of the questions involved and because chemistry education, chemistry itself, and the editorial choices of others outside Wikipedia are always in flux. The idea that a discussion like this one must or even should culminate in a final, permanent, answer is in philosophical opposition to chemistry and chemical education in my view. It's easy (for me, at least) to tell which choices are very bad and to attack them with logic and sound references and even ridicule. Nergaal's editorial choice was not a ridiculous one, and maintaining "Other Metals" (as an element color, not as an article name) is also not ridiculous. My hope is that future debates, when they occur, will focus on actual academic/industrial/governmental literature from chemistry and from chemistry education instead of on google searches, web sites that don't have strong affiliations, and silly trade books for kids like the DK Visual Encyclopedia of Science. There might be some movement among curriculum designers or professors of chemical education to change the prevalence and context of the term "Post-Transition Metal." I honestly don't know. If someone like Nergaal wants to change Wikipedia's table, I hope they feel strongly enough about it to find evidence of that movement to help me change my mind. Flying Jazz (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is no single solution. Unfortunately we can't easily display more than one at a time. So the obvious response is to choose one, and it would be nice to choose one that not only fits the chemistry and physics well, but also uses categories which are actually widely used. (PTM might not be as widely used as the others, but at least it's quite clear what it means: metals that come after the transition metals in the periodic table.) It would also be nice to look at the plausible alternatives and see which fit the physics, chemistry, and most importantly actual usage better, and then choose that one. After all, if you can only pick one, you may as well pick a good one, right?

What I find most unacceptable, though (and this is solely my personal opinion and I will be happy to accept whatever the majority consensus is), is that it seems to me that it is being proposed that there shouldn't be an article covering the p-block metals at all if it is linked from "other metal". (I'm not sure exactly what is being proposed, but I think it's somewhat similar: maybe it would be OK to these editors to have such an article if it is not linked from "other metal", or maybe it is just the name "other metal" that is the problem. I don't exactly know.) The very fact that PTM is a term at all, and that Al is sometimes sloppily included into it, is a precedent to me that scientists have found these elements similar enough that they can be grouped together as a category. And they are indeed similar chemically and physically. We should discuss their similarity somewhere, as well as talk about the lack of agreement of a name for this category. And what better place is there to do this than an article about them? It does not even need to be called "other metal".

P.S. I don't think Sandbh was mentioning the DK Visual Encyclopedia categorization as a serious alternative, but rather as an interesting choice that WP probably shouldn't use.) Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Options

Could I please have some feedback on the following four five options? In each case I'm proposing to retain "other metals" as a colour and a periodic table label, and to keep a linked article, however the question is what to call the article:

1. Other metal (aluminium and congeners; tin, lead; bismuth; polonium)
2. Post-transition metal. In the accompanying periodic table extract I would propose to show Ga, In, Tl; Sn, Pb; Bi; and Po as PTMs; and to show Al; and Zn, Cd and Hg as "sometimes classified as PTMs" or "classification as PTMs disputed", or something like that.
3. Post-transition metal (aka other metal). Periodic table extract as above.
4. P-block metal. Never mind that E113 may show some transition metal chemistry; its predicted electron configuration is still that of a p-block element. As per R8R's observation this proposal won't affect the categorisation of the group 12 metals.
5. Metals between the transition metals and metalloids. This option: seemed reasonable to Dirac66; was not supported by Flying Jazz; and appeals to De Piep.

Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So in the periodic table legends can be the "other metal" label (text), because there "other" is not isolated nor unclear. And that label links to a content page (an article). Good plan.

Now about the name of that article. What happened to Metals between the transition metals and metalloids? Appealing to me. Sandbh If not wrong, please add this as option 5. -DePiep (talk) 05:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I stopped thinking about that one after Flying Jazz's response. Have reinstated. Sandbh (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As often seems to happen with this project, a bunch of options are proposed that completely ignore the key points raised by multiple editors. It still is amusing. I'll try to show some restraint, but I will proceed slowly and methodically to write my feedback. This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's have articles with names that make sense in the context of enclycopedia-article-names. Encyclopedias also have charts and tables that make sense in the context of encyclopedia-charts-and-tables. As pointed out by Stone, mav, me, and others, the premise that there must be a complete article for every element color in Wikipedia's periodic table is flawed because "things that should have an encyclopedia article name" is a different set of things than "things that should appear in a table in an encyclopedia." The existence of "Other Metals" as an element color does not require a separate, complete, linked article for that element color, regardless of the name of that linked article. Other web sites or even books may do this because they aren't encyclopedias, so they have the luxury of overemphasizing silly things for the sake of a foolish consistency. (See the first entry for Emerson at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Consistency .) A reader from an English-speaking country will not be confused, upset, or misguided by an encyclopedia that does not have a separate, pretty article for every colored group of elements. But editors who really, really want buttons and links to lead to a uniformly consistent set of articles do seem to be confused, upset, or misguided by this. There are a separate set of options for how to move forward based on mav's post. I'll be giving those options later today or over the weekend. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)+

Comment withdrawn

Well, to me it looks like this. That set of elements exists, as a set. The scientific community is not unisono about exactly which elements are included, nor on what base to define its borders, and clearly not on how to name it if at all. But that does not nullify the fact that that set exists (1). From this, it is encyclopedically sound to describe that set. Describe it, with importantly including a description of those border, inclusion, and naming issues (2). Omitting this encyclopedic description of that existing set, we'd leave the reader wondering in a vacuum. So we have (1) a set, (2) a reason and a need to describe it. Since in science there is no universally accepted name for that set, we are free and obliged to chose one ourselves. That is to be the title (or article page name) for the description of that set (3). The question Sandbh poses is, which one would be preferable for (3). -DePiep (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC) As for your first point, there are 332,306,998,946,228,968,225,951,765,070,086,024 (332 decillion) subsets that contain from 2 to 117 elements ( http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sum+of+118+choose+x+for+x%3D2+to+117 ). All of those 332 decillion exist. The existence of a set is of no relevance for whether the set should have an encyclopedia article about it. Your first point is nonsensical, irrelevant, ridiculous, and par for the course in this project. Your second point, that there is a reason to describe this set or the categorization process itself, is not ridiculous. The way to not leave the reader "wondering in a vacuum" and to accomplish this goal is to implement mav's proposal to direct the reader to "a section of another article that has a sentence or two that educates the reader." I wouldn't be in favor of the second part of mav's proposal about adding a note to the table. Your third point seems to be that an encyclopedia has some kind of obligation to make some name up for an article just because we've decided to categorize things a certain way. Creating an article to describe a term that is almost never used or is downright silly isn't what's needed to fulfill your second point. Mav's proposal accomplishes the goal of your second point for the reader without making up nonsense. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC) I struck my comment. -DePiep (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC) To help future historians, by not having to read all this too often: 'nonsensical', 'irrelevant', 'ridiculous', 'downright silly', 'nonsense' is no entry for a discussion in any sense. [5]. -DePiep (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Among these, I'd support #2, and more distantly #4. But maybe we do not have to link "other metal" to this article, and just have PTMs as one of the unofficial element categories like the pnictogens? Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• My preferences, ordered:  #4 , #2, #5: all nice readable titles, being Recognizable, Natural, Precise, Concise and Consistent within the situation (the criteria). #1 and #3 are too constructed. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point by Double Sharp, below: don't introduce blocks in this (remember the halogens). No #4 for me. -DePiep (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If the only options available in this Project are to ignore the recommendations of mav, Stone, myself, and others by requiring that elements colored "Other Metals" must link to an entire dedicated article about those metals and nothing else then I support the sixth option below:

6. Those Elements Over There To the Left of the Halogens, No, Not Those, a Little Lower and More to the Right, Ahhhh...That Hits the Spot I know I wrote that once before, but it gave me a silly giggle last time, I think it will work its magic again if I repeat it in boldface with an option number next to it.
Flying Jazz (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with consistency, in my view. Whether authors call them post-transition metals, p-block metals or b-group metals, or the like, the elements occupying this part of the periodic table are identified and discussed as such in the literature. The only question is whether the other metal label is linked to an article summarising the state of affairs in this part of the periodic table. Arguments suggesting an article is not warranted or that a link can be made to a sentence or two in another article strike me as being antithetical to the construction of an encyclopaedia. No advantage is gained by ignoring, trivialising or obscuring information in this way. I await enlightenment. Sandbh (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the best option is #2. It links to a related article, doesn't force us to introduce blocks, and doesn't hide the fact that these elements have notable and widely remarked upon common properties, even if there is no one category name universally used for them. Double sharp (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• As a general member of the public, AI think I have value to add to this discussion about whether an article ont he 'other metals' filled a void that would otherwise be filled with confusion and the unknown. Now throughout my chemistry classes in school, i saw as the periodic table was slowly divided up into categories before my very eyes. But something always struck me as odd. Though we never went much further than metals, metalloids, and nonmetals regarding chemical equations and organic chem (oh and also a bit of orbitals), i was aware of the transitions, metalloids, lanthenides, actinides etc. (thoguh didn't really understand why they were all lumped together but tahts kinda beside the point). And then there were these leftover elements. the rogue elements. And they always fascinated me. Which is probably why this discussion here has caught my attention - the elusive mysterious collection in the periodic table is genuinely unclassified. So yeah long story short without this "other metals" (or whatever it's called) article, my life would not be better off. I would be wondering my whole life what those weird random elements were doing floating around in a table full of neat categories. And I'd want to know why they are left over. And this article explains clear as day that yes. They are the "others" and yes there are various definitions (like metalloids i might add), and yes there are various reasons why this is the case. But I firmly believe that an article stating that something doesn't exist is better than the article not existing at all. For example when... i think it was... excavation sites in [US state] became a massive DYK, with there being links to all 50 articles, many of those articles just said in various words tat "no. there are not any excavation sites in this state". And yes, i think this type of article should exist. A No is much better than a ?.--Coin945 (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Coin945 from this, do you conclude in any of the five title options proposed here? -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest what came immediately to mind was merging the "Other metals", "Diatomic nonmetal", and "Polyatomic nonmetal" into an Unclassified elements of the periodic table page or something like that.--Coin945 (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much that they're unclassified, but that there are many possible classification schemes for these elements and most of them have been used. So it's not clear which to use as there isn't a clear majority position. Arguments based on chemical and physical properties of the elements in question also don't really provide an answer as to which classification schemes are better. So there are many possible ways to group those elements, and by all means we should (otherwise we face the situation of having fluorine and lead in the same category, which doesn't make sense). The difficulty is, which categorization scheme do we choose? Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case, I perosnally did find the term "Other metals" rather confusing when I first clicked on the article. Perhaps Other metals of the periodic table? Or otherwise Post-transition metal sounds good, with Al being an exception.--Coin945 (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

yeah, PTM seems to be the best option. After all it has been (sloppily? YMMV) used by chemists to include Al. Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Elements At Wikimania 2014

Periodic small snub icosicosidodecahedron by quality

Periodic small retrosnub icosicosidodecahedron by quality

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This looks interesting. I suppose our logo is the PTQ?

(off-topic P.S.: since they said "no matter how small", maybe I could do some stealth advertising to my other main activity area on Wikipedia currently, WP:WikiProject Polyhedra/WP:WikiProject Uniform Polytopes. :-P I think the former's logo has been fairly well established as the small snub icosicosidodecahedron?) Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That gave me an idea. ;-) (These pictures generated by Stella 4.4's "Load Image" feature.) Double sharp (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And wow. I zoomed in and I saw you globe has predicting features ;-) [6]. -DePiep (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already posted to the talk pages for Uniform Polytopes and Polyhedra.
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Adikhajuria: can you please check out the WP:TAFI project? I think we would very much apppreciate the chance to take part in the conference in this capacity.--Coin945 (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already seen people discussing ideas for the leaflet over at WP:TAFI
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So, is there interest in this here? If so, we can discuss content for the leaflet in this section. Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll probably submit an entry by the end of this week. Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...how about something like...

Your contact details	WT:ELEM
Project name	WikiProject Elements
Short Description	We are a group of editors interested in the chemical elements, and have the ultimate goal of making every element-related article featured.
Longer description	A chemical element is a pure chemical substance consisting of a single type of atom. Currently, 118 chemical elements are known, and all known chemical matter is made up of these 118 chemical elements. We have created articles on all of them. Anyone can help by adding anything relevant to them and their groupings, be it information, citations, pictures, or anything else. You can read more at our two Signpost interviews, from 2011 and 2013 respectively.
Logo
Primary webpage URL	Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements
Mailing List	—
Email contact	—
IRC channel	(irc://chat.freenode.net:8001/wikichem may well be more for chemistry in general, so maybe not)
Facebook page	—
Twitter handle	—

Double sharp (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Double sharp, please be advised that the deadline for submissions is 1st July. Thanks, Adikhajuria (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, if there are no objections I'll probably submit leaflet contents over this weekend (28–29 June). Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm under the impression the words "longer description" stand for a longer description of our project, not what it is about. Also, I thought our main goal is making the world better by giving out free knowledge for everyone, and the FA status only confirms we're doing good (it will sound more appealing if we say both).--R8R (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Besides, a logo that changes every time an article is re-rated? Is that okay? (Not like I have a better idea with my current lack of time, though.)--R8R (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
All,
As you know, the original deadline to submit your leaflet(1st July), has passed. However, if you submit your leaflet on or before 3rd July, then we will still accept your submission.
Kind regards,
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Since no one else seemed to be interested, I decided not to submit it. Double sharp (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

I want to propose a move of the other metals article back to the post-transition metals. I know that aluminium has no transition metals before it, but in the periodic table it looks very much like it is located in the block after the transition metals. This can be accounted by one sentence in the lead. --Stone (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you see #Options above? Sandbh has described a setup that also covers related issues. The actual page name (replacing "other metal") is the "option" survey. -DePiep (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Support. Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

??? Please and better do not splice the discussion over multiple threads. That could make every outcome worthless (as in: "discussion technically corrupted, may not be implemented"). -DePiep (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the preliminary solution to all the discussion not happening in the above threads. I want a name which is 98% right before others talk ages to find a real good name.--Stone (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned, under Options #2. This thread does not resolve the neighbouring issues. Ages? The last proposal in this #Return of the other metals ran 9 February - 1 March (you were pinged); that's three weeks. Anyway, knowingly forking a discussion for impatience does not make any outcome stronger. -DePiep (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Tip: I skip all FJ contributions, and all threads are clear & constructive for me. -DePiep (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Support post-transition metals. Dirac66 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Forked discussion, denies valuable earlier contributions, omits related issues. Clearly started from impatience. -DePiep (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I do support Option #2 in awhole as described clear & complete there. (I predict each and every supporter here will come back to object & rehash details that are missing in this thread). -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Support The discussion from 9 February - 1 March yielded nothing like a clear support for the first move to other metals.--Stone (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

One further point: I read the thing and I thought it was for the text at the bottom of the periodic table to call the group the other metals which would have been acceptable, but afterwards the whole article was renamed.--Stone (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

My point is: it was three weeks, not "ages". -DePiep (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Support post-transition metals. I have no problem calling them "other metals" in tables and places where the term "other" is clear in context. But when you do it, make sure that term "other metals" pipe-links to the post-transition metals article. And there can also be a post-transition metal metalloid article, too. In the post transition metal article, you can talk about aluminum not really being post transition metal all you like, and mention that p-block metals is a perfectly good name, too, and includes aluminum. Aluminum is sort of "post transition" because it occurs in the p-block which is to the right of the transition metals, giving it a post-transition look. It's really a "right of transition" group thing. So you can see how it happened. SBHarris 03:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Does this support include the earlier # option Sandbh described? -DePiep (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is the same as Sandbh's #2. Double sharp (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You have to "think" what Sbharris means to say on what you think this proposal means? I don't blame you. It is this sort of ill founded shortcut talk that makes this topic come back every x months. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Options #2 and #5 are really the same. When you say "post transition metals" you don't have to add "but before post transition metalloids" because when you get to the metalloids, you obviously have left the metals. We don't say "infrared but supramicrowave". You may also have to have post transition metalloids, like arsenic, or at least germanium. SBHarris 23:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

We are not discussing or !voting any # option here, at all. You started a different topic. -DePiep (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Seems the best out of all the alternatives. Double sharp (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment q Stone: now what do we have? What's next? -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Post-transition metal as a legend category

Am I a duck or a post-transition metal?

About Stone's opening comment, above, that aluminium has no transition metals before it, the implication being it's not a post-transition metal. Doesn't matter. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. Same thing applies to He (s-block element located in the p-block) and La (a lanthanide, even though only cerium onwards can etymologically be regarded as lanthanides); and Th (an actinide or f-block element with no differentiating f electron). That is to say, categorization turns upon more than just electron configuration. The commonalities of Al with Ga, In, Tl, Sn, Pb, Sb, Bi and Po are sufficient to justify categorising it as a PTM. I'm tempted to go so far as to invoke WP:IAR re the WP:UNDUE issue, and advocate changing our periodic table legend to post-transition metal, too. See also this post from December 2007 that nearly produced the same outcome. I agree with Stone that Al is positioned after the transition metal "Isthmus" (nomenclature per Atkins, The Periodic Kingdom, 2001) in the "standard" form of periodic table, so is "post-" in that sense. I'll go and lie down now and recover my senses. Sandbh (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Above, under #Options #2, you noted that some elements could be marked in the periodic table (graph) for detailed notes. Are you saying here that that would not be needed? I understand I prefer that all such relevant details can be dealt with in the article body, with due weight. We also could add a separate PT, that is dedicated to such details (separate legend &tc; there are nice recent examples). -DePiep (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarify my position. (By the way, this says yours is a diatomic nonmetal duck. A ptm duck should look like this going by the right name ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DePiep, including for your contributions to our periodic table of mallards. Let me first draft, in my sandbox, a PTM article as per option 2 before anybody else waddles further into this pond. Sandbh (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And henceforth we shall use the Sandbh taxonomy: mallards, mallardoids, and non-mallards, perhaps with Cow city's addition of near mallardoids. Entry into the Anatidae group family category will be determined by appearance as well as acoustic and locomotion-related properties, as previously stated in the duck test. Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Post-transition metal article

Three-week sandbox update: The two main images have now been redone: 1. "Which elements are PTMs"; and 2: "Scatter plot of EN and MP". When I looked at where Ge landed in the scatter plot—in the middle of the coinage metals—I had an 'ooh-ahh' moment, as germanium has a reputation (dating from the 1950s) for its capacity to form alloys with the coinage metals. Very cool. Looking at the plot I can also see why some chemists in those days regarded the TMs as finishing at group 10. Overall, not that much left to do: lede; mini-bios for Ge, As, Sb, At; some copy-editing and link-adding. Sandbh (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem 193

Pinkie Pie is not smiling right now. (but prince Harvard will be very soon)

So I'm blazing through the fluorine article and I've encountered a little snag. Source 193 (of the current revision) is the only one in the reference list which is not a Harvard citation and it looks like it's not reliable (it's an RSC general public page with no citations visible). Should I remove it? Princess Parcly Taxel 05:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like an out of date reference to a something mentioned in Emsley's Nature's Building Blocks 2nd edition (p. 180), since that is what the text of the RSC page is built on. I'd replace the reference with a reference to halon extinguishers generally being phased out. Hanging out for when your copy-editing will be done. Sandbh (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sandbh:  Done 21721 bytes have been shaved off the fluorine article. Now let's get this thing going! Parcly Taxel 06:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Okie-dokie: will cast an eye over it. @R8R Gtrs: Can I hear the sound of an FAC nomination? 08:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Wait, what? Let me nominate the article, but first you must fix the ref I singled out. Parcly Taxel 08:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you guys (and/or anyone else) are able and willing to spend time for things like adding info which could be useful, telling not everything asked at a FAC is needed/the best option, fixing refs, getting rid of typos, copyediting, all of that and maybe more, then sure, why not. I won't be able to spend much time for Wiki before it's mid-July (if the FAC is already open when I finally have some spare time, I'll dive in). If needed, I can share a few books that were useful for writing this article (they may be useful for the FAC).

(I must notice, I want to re-read the article before the FAC and make sure it's still written in AmE after the copyedit. The article was written in AmE. Fluorine is an international thing, so the article must still be written in AmE per MOS:RETAIN. Will do during the weekend.)--R8R (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs:  Done the "Americanization" already. All other editors who may be reading this reply, any further errors or omissions in the article you'd like to point out? Parcly Taxel 01:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Sandbh (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. I suspect that the citations and indexed references will need to be checked for orphaned references such as Agricola et al. This one is in the list of references but not cited anywhere that I can see. Sandbh (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Put a hatnote at the top of Other metal?

'Other' in the title means 'other than alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide, and transition metals'.

This page is about the metals in groups 13-15. Not to be confused with alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide, and transition metals.

This page is about the metals not otherwise classified as alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide, or transition metals

This page is about metals other than alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide, or transition metals

Putting a {{hatnote}} like one of these at the top of the article gives an opportunity to explain a rather clumsy and ambiguous article title. This is a very nonstandard use of hatnotes, but the need for something like this has been noted in category space using {{distinguish}}. All in all, I think something like this might be a helpful as an interim band-aid until a consensus is built to use some other term (pun intended) for this group. YBG (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:HATNOTE says that hatnotes are to help the reader answering Am I on the right page?. That is disambiguation & detailing. That is not about explaining the article topic again, or other information from the lead. Btw, there is no building of consensus at the moment. -DePiep (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't our use of "other metal" already covered in the first sentence of the article? I note however that Sandbh's sandbox contains a draft for a "post-transition metal" article: I think this should replace our current article once it is finished. (Much of the content is common to both articles.) Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

re Double sharp: Sort of in there indeed, and I think whatever the hatnote here purports could or should be in there, not above. My understanding too is that the general line is clear (a move to do; agreement on this a few sections up), and that Sandbh is working on a proposal. -DePiep (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. As always, you've given a sound, reasoned and winsome response to an off-the-wall suggestion. I look forward to the promotion of S&bh's sandbox. YBG (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

For me this? Thanks! Makes it worth spending care & patience on talkpages. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm also looking forward to when Sandbh's sandbox goes live – it'll probably finally put to rest all the complaints about the names we've previously used for this element category, such as "poor metals" and now "other metals". Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

32- vs. 18-column: placement of La or Lu under Y

Given previous discussions, some of us may be interested in participating in this thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Wiki Interactive Periodic Table needs to be consistent with standard periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox element}} checks

At the moment I an running some checks on template:Infobox element (our glorious, unbeatable and everlasting one).

I am triangular checking the parameters: those known in {{infobox element}} vs those used in Category:Periodic table infobox templates vs those in infobox element/doc. We expect all those are in agreement.

Infobox pages of interest (that is: with questions arising) are listed at Category:Element infobox templates that need attention, but no guarantee is given on any logic for categorising, at any time (ask me or trust me).

So far, I have no urgent questions to WP:ELEMENT members. But this is why your watchlist is so crowded with my name. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No devastating changes. Removed some unused parameters (like "work function="). Maybe check your favorite element infobox history. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am removing input values like this from a few dozen infoboxes:

|Van der Waals radius=[[1 E-10 m|210]]

They produced this:

Van der Waals radius	210 pm

Writing a value this way is confusion (at best). Don't know what that unit link(!) actually says, related to the picometre already present. If we want to show the metre factor, it should be something like "210 pm (1 × 10^-12 m)" "210 pm (210 × 10^-12 m)"?). For now: not. -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Block legend colors

{{Periodic table (blocks)}} uses block legend colors (for s p d f), of course. But I removed the phase colors, now it's black for all (the font color for the atomic number that tells state of matter/phase). These font colors were very bad in contrast (readability; think red-on-red). And also, I think the connection between block and phase is not that important. -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Change the whole block color set

Both the image and the clickable periodic table (for blocks) have new bg colors for the blocks, and at last they share the same legend colors. I applied some basic contrast-check for these colors (w3c & accessibiltiy).

I also put this table at commons:Periodic table blocks, because the images and color numbers are used wiki-world wide. Sort of central color/legend repository for these blocks. Trying to introduce stability (but not by overwriting the previous iw image; I made a new one. @32 columns).

The table now shows the improved colors 25 July 2014. Per outcome of this discussion -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Periodic table: block legend colors (enwiki, 25 July 2014) (The earlier set had the colors yellow-green swapped. That was during July 12–July 25 2014 only)
s	p	d	f	g
s-block Main Page #ff9999 HSV=0-40-100 red	p-block Main Page #fdff8c HSV=17-45-100 yellow	d-block Main Page #99ccff HSV=58-40-100 blue	f-block Main Page #9bff99 HSV=33-40-100 green	g-block* Main Page #fd99ff HSV=83-40-100 purple
Element is in block, theoretically or predicted:
s-block (predicted) Main Page #ffcccc	p-block (predicted) Main Page #ffffbf	d-block (predicted) Main Page #c7eeff	f-block (predicted) Main Page #cdffcc	g-block (predicted) Main Page #febfff
* Elements "in g-block" exist theoretically (predicted) only (this g-block darker color is not used, but here for color calculations)
Colors determined in HSV color space, numbers in %. Per column, Hue (the "H" in HSV) is kept; "S" is ~halved from 40%→20%, "V"=100%
Contrast is checked against black font and blue font (#0b0080, wiki bluelink color). All are: AA=OK, AAA=OK. Not checked against other font colors.
Version: introduced on enwiki 25 July 2014 (before, other color schemes were used on enwiki)
See also: en:Block (periodic table) en:Template:Periodic table (blocks) en:Template:Periodic table legend#Block en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility on accessibility, like colors. Also links to W3C guidelines. commons:File:Periodic table blocks spdf (32 column).svg commons:File:Periodic_Table_2.svg These colors are not used any more on enwiki, because: g-block is missing, and the need for "predicted" (lighter) shades, and the desire to make them as different & distinguishable as possible (because it is a legend/key color). So this scheme of 5×2 was redesigned from scratch (well, the blue survived).

-DePiep (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC) -The table now has the adjusted colors (July 25, 2014), the outcome of this discussion. -22:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be OK if we switched colors for p and f? It may be just me, but in the world around me, periodic tables are always colored red-yellow-blue-green (for s-p-d-f). If there is a specific reason not to do the switch, okay, let's see what it is, but if not, let's make this change. (BTW, even the current scheme is a lot better than the previous one)--R8R (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Never thought if this. webelements has. But is this common? Any confirmation for other sites / sources / editors? google. If this is main habit, I'll swap them. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me show this R8R Gtrs proposal graphically.

As they appear in a PT graph (L-to-R)

Current situation (recent new setting):
s-block	f-block	d-block	p-block
R8R proposal (color swap)
s-block	f-block	d-block	p-block

e.g. in webelements. Responses anyone? (ping @Double sharp: because you triggered this, sort of ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

We should follow what is actually used in the real world. R8R says his proposal is commonly used, so we should follow it. Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. So I looked at that real world, through my googles by "periodic table block" (images). That did *not* confirm R8R's statement directly. So then I asked other WP:ELEM editors for some confirmation (not confirmation of R8R, but of the color scheme). Because I did not want to encounter another such post within 48h. And let me note I put this at commons myself. Facing the real world. -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait wait. Not even webelements uses the R8R color scheme.

#Color schemes
As they appear in a PT graph (L-to-R)

enwiki-old
enwiki-new Recent new setting:
s-block	f-block	d-block	p-block
R8R proposal (color swap)
s-block	f-block	d-block	p-block
WebElements
s-block	f-block	d-block	p-block
JINR [7] [8]
s-block	f-block	d-block	p-block
Australian PT (Taxel)
s-block	f-block	d-block	p-block
Novisibirsk StU (Russian) [9] (R8R)
s-block rd	f-block gr	d-block bl	p-block ye

I won't change anything. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Trouble in what I tried to make paradise. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

R8R Gtrs, which color scheme do you see most often, and can you provide a link? -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You interpreted what I said about I see correctly (see what you labeled as "R8R proposal (color swap)" -- exactly that); as for links, I don't have any (other than this: Google Images hits for "таблица менделеева" (Russian for "Mendeleev's table")), but this is a common thing in real life in here. I'm not any place close to my home right now, but when I'm back, I can make a few photos, if you want me to.

Also, I am not going to insist things should be the way I want them to be; but I am under the impression that there is no other color scheme used really commonly elsewhere, so the change would be slightly beneficial. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, and the talk is over.--R8R (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

IMO, all colors should be common (not just the f and p you mentioned). What I did was a random set.

I don't mind changing the colors (also in the image; expect that to spread world-wiki-wide). But I'd like to hear & see what that "common" usage is. As I found (the third, webelements usage), it varies.

I don't expect a "reliable source" quality of proof. Just some site images (from serious sites) will do. Of the source (book title?) of the picture you can provide. The only hurry we have is, that if we want to spread this www, a change better be early (days not months). -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Gee, my chaotic reasoning. I restart below

• From scratch.

The new colors I used (see 20:45, 12 July 2014) were associated at random by me. That is, for the hue ("yellow=f-block" decision, and so all five of them). The tone and softness is decided from contrast reasons, and is not for discussion here.

R8R says that there is a commonly used scheme (like: "yellow=p-block").

I can agree with that without much ado, but I found other "common" color schemes as well. For example, [www.webelements.com webelements] (a serious site) has another scheme for the four blocks.

My Google search, and the Russian/Cyrillic link provided by R8R, does not show a common scheme. That is, before eliminating the less-relevant sites.

So I ask R8R, or anyone else: is there a good example of some commonly used color scheme? We do not need "Reliable source" quality, but some serious sources will do. If there is one, I will change the color scheme for blocks (including the commons image; the one that might spread over iw).

Until now, I have not met a common color scheme. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's one from the JINR, using yellow-green-blue-red for s-p-d-f. This makes me think that maybe there might not be one common colour scheme, except that everyone seems to use some combination of red, green, blue, and yellow. Here's an 8-column form, also from them: they use the same colour set, although now leaving Db onwards greyed out (which makes sense: their ground state electron configurations are unknown, so block assignments would be tentative). Double sharp (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Added JINR to the #Color schemes table (a new set). You want me to think extra about 'grey' colored blocks? -DePiep (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be the block equivalent of "unknown chemical properties", I think. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. You need that one? "G-block (predicted)" doesn't serve there? -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the predicted g-block colour, but the predicted d-block and p-block colours would do the job. So we may not need it. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I found the colour scheme I've contributed above on a poster periodic table from Australia. It seems to fit the elements in their blocks better: s-block is reactive, p-block is found in the air, f-block is "earthy", d-block occupies the remaining common colour. As for the noble gases which are coloured differently there, that colour could be used somehow for the g-block. But in all honesty, I think R8R's solution is the best compromise – all other schemes (excluding JINR) are one swap away. Parcly Taxel 01:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Another interesting catch. But what do they say about E113--E118 down under, d-block/yellow then? And the noble gases separated? Could it be that these are more like category colors, with a only a shading diff between group 1-2, and Ln-An (quite understandable)? And the predictions E113+ more by an assumption? -DePiep (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I also see a shading gradient over groups 13 to 17. I suspect that these are not block colours per se, but rather category colours meant to also suggest the blocks. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a very old table. Back then 113 wasn't even discovered and 110 hadn't been named. The legend below 7p says "113, 115, 117 are not known; their expected positions are shown here." So nothing of interest there. Parcly Taxel 15:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I wasn't talking about E113–E118. Regardless, DePiep's point still stands for Fl, Lv, and E118. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's relax. Even Parcly Taxel mentioned in their OP, about this variant, that this was not a proposal, just a note. I was triggered by the variety of schemes we meet, even in serious places. To me this signals that a lot of different legends (color keys) are around, and that we are right in researching/making/using them straightened. -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(Arbitrary break to make editing easier)

• Enough. R8R Gtrs, if you can give me one serious source for a color set (whichever one) within seven days, I'll make it that one. If not, it stays as random as I made it - and as it clearly is (undecided, randomly). -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  Here's a chemistry textbook by Novosibirsk State University (in Russian), which was the first Google hit for "таблица менделеева цвета" ("Mendeleev's table colors"). It says (I'll translate):

  In many editions of the Periodic table s, p, d, and f elements are highlighted differently. Cells of the elements with s orbitals being filled are usually colored red. Cells of the elements with p orbitals being filled are colored yellow. Therefore, red cells contain s elements, yellow ones contain p elements.

  Blue denotes d elements, and green denotes f elements. Colors are auxiliary and may be different in different editions of the table. Nevertheless, you should be able to navigate in a back-and-white table as well.

  (English is not brilliant here; however, I can assure you the language is not brilliant in the original book as well)

  (By the way, the next hit containing a table differing elements by blocks only is this, it uses the same color scheme; there were no more tables differing elements by blocks alone among first 15 hits. Google Images hits show this scheme most commonly)

  Is that convincing? (I remind you I see this scheme around me, in real world; if you're not satisfied with this book, I can go make photos, they'll be using the scheme (although, I would prefer you believing I can and not asking me to go make photos :))--R8R (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No. What the fun are you saying? Your Novisibirsk link shows pink and yellow (for s and p; really, red-yellow is my original thing for s-p). Do you actually understand my question?: please provide some serious source. A next post from Vladivostiok I won't even open. If your block colors are so much "all around", then you can make something of this. Actually where do you see these colors "all around" then? -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. Text says red and yellow, I suggest red and yellow (we currently have red and green), picture near the text shows pink and yellow, pink is a shade of red (pink: Pink is a pale red color, which takes its name from the flower of the same name.[2][3]), what's the problem? The book is from the Novosibirsk State University; isn't a state university a serious source?

Regarding your second question, I can see them in the Faculty of Chemistry in my uni, had three tables in my school with this color scheme, pocket-sized PTs sold in bookstores, etc.--R8R (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I admit, it says: s-block=red(/pink) ₄Be, p-block=yellow ₅B. And nothing more. Is this your source then? But may we expect four colors? I only ask for serious. See you in a week. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: There are no serious sources out there for any of the schemes. We must compromise. R8R's solution is the best based on Lev-distance: as I said above all other schemes presented thus far are one swap away. Parcly Taxel 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote in italics I added is written there, you can Google Translate-check it (note the translations are imperfect, but still understandable). Under the last table, read the para starting with "In many editions of the Periodic Table," and the next one.--R8R (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't your first quote still say "Colors are auxiliary and may be different in different editions of the table."? If so I don't see this as a strong argument. And what to make of the JINR's table? Nevertheless, the fact that they say "usually" for the respective colours (e.g. the f-block elements being usually coloured green) makes me wonder if perhaps this is the most common scheme, though naturally not the only one? Double sharp (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, it does; but this is natural, given we're talking about a scheme usually used. From the last fact, you can conclude other schemes are possible (including the JINR's one), but are not too common.--R8R (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the "usually" qualifier, I think I can support your scheme. It is apparently the most common, although you will see other schemes as well. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Here it is in s-p-d-f sequence (Novisibirsk/R8R set):

Novisibirsk chemistry textbook by Novosibirsk State University (Ru) [10]
s-block rd	p-block ye	d-block bl	f-block gr

 Done R8R Gtrs See Block (periodic table) (for clickable periodic table and the commons:image). -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, indeed; thank you!--R8R (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

R8R Gtrs does this include permission from Nergaal? You seem to be able to read substance in their off-topic off-content contributions. Or can I expect another undiscussed chaotic reversal in this? -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be interesting for him. Besides, I believe that what he does is based on good intentions (even if it's not obvious for you), but I would not discuss that here. Write to me if you want.--R8R (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't you understand? For every letter you type: why does not Nergaal speak for themselves? -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't understand. I sincerely don't, but if you want to discuss this, email me or write it on my talk page.--R8R (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Rule 1: Stop using the name of Nergaal. Speak for yourself, or shut up.

Rule 2: Nergaal should talk for themselves. Or shut up.

-DePiep (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. You did ping me in a message above and asked me there if Nergaal would be okay with that. I told you I didn't think he would care too much about that and tried to make you not to hate him so much. To which you exploded. Please calm down. If you don't want me helping you to get cool about a person you boil about, say that properly so that you would be correctly understood and left alone. Easy, right? Also, if a person you're speaking to doesn't understand you, it doesn't mean you should say what you said before once again. I'm out.

(If I didn't understand you still, explain in a normal language what you refer to.)--R8R (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That ping about Nergaal by me was cynical. We drop Nergaal. Drop Nergaal. You just speak for yourself, and we'll be OK. When you use Nergaal's arguments, I stop reading. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I close this thread. Will Archive-18 it tomorrow. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes in {Infobox element}

We have some 125 element infoboxes (see Category:Periodic table infobox templates). I have prepared changes to change the box into a wiki-standard {{Infobox}}. See Change_Infobox_element_to_use_{Infobox} for an overview and comments. Some questions are open.

You can check your favorite element for changes (e.g., fluorine). An all-parameter demo is here. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC) See page {{Index to chemical element infoboxes}}

Absolutely brilliant! Just one thing needed before it gets deployed PT-wide: there needs to be a switch for British spelling so that it remains consistent with the article text. Parcly Taxel 01:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I like this a lot, especially the way refs are handled. Only thing is, is it possible have the horizontal cell borders back? As it stands I'm slightly worried the reader's eye might shift and get to the wrong data, especially because neighbouring data often has the same units. Maybe I'm being overly concerned, though. Double sharp (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(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)

I've swapped the new version of the element infobox on fluorine as a live trial. See what you think. Parcly Taxel 01:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it. It's still a trial, and when it is deployed, it should be deployed on every element page, not just F. Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The sandbox might still get some changes and could easily show disruption (in article fluorine then), or even British English ;-). What you can do now, is edit {{Infobox fluorine/sandbox}} (especially splice ref's, into the new e.g. |melting point ref=. The _ref additions are likely to stay). And the F compare page helps checking. When we switch the layout, this F sandbox can be copied too - tadaa. -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this initial support.

Engvar re PT about British spelling (colour, vapour, ionisation): corrected, US spelling is default. Infobox spelling must follow article engvar spelling, which is en-US usually. We have one exception: phosphorus is written in en-UK, so the infobox follows saying "vapour" (by having set |engvar=en-uk). No changes should happen. (compare) Y -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

horizontal cell borders back (re Double sharp). I think technically it can be done, but I hesitate to go that route. {{Infobox}}, the super-meta-template, is set up this way, without these cellborders. Of course, since we are used to these lines here for the elements, it is a change of habit for us. But how about the reader?

People who designed this infobox layout must have thought about it, with a very keen eye for readability and page overview (the look). I remember they are very into font-selection and whitespace (default for our pages, headers, &tc.) including font-size, line-height and what you have. And they also tend to rely on whitespace (by pixel, letter-spacing, margins) to support readability from each and every angle, both running text, page overview from a distance, and boxes & tables.

I can understand that basic infobox formatting (no cell borders, use whitespace & regularity to show any structure), and I trust them to follow them. Even with our scientific numbers and units and super/subscripts and brackets, the regularity per row and per column is maintained, and the human eye is very sensitive to that regularity. It recognizes vertical & horizontal invisible 'lines' extremely well. And of course our readers appreciate (unknowingly) that all infoboxes have this similar look (building, station, religion).

If you see specific unclarities (when a label or an element fact turns out a mess indeed), please notify.

In short, I think we must have strong arguments to overrule this default, and I don't see them yet. -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

From here, some more details.

(illustration: I ran into them page designers recently when they wanted to increase article page margin: more whitespace left & right of the article body, for text & images alike - at the cost of text & image width. I had to oppose that because it would break our basic periodic table, which has the element names so is critical in width by the pixel. That proposal was stopped. But it illustrates how they think about page view)

I also noted this subtlety: when data is over two lines (by <br> or by wrapping at a space), these lines are closer to each other then when a new label/data row is opened. Barely visible, but it helps. See for example the list of values for Young--Mohs--Brinell in infoboxes C.

Related: I removed repetition of labels (e.g., Thermal conductivity in C). In one situation this regularity I found broken: when two crystal structures are present (C). With the small images added, the regularity was gone. For that case I decided to repeat the label "crystal structure".

I'll try to find some more links on this. -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Add new data rows for metallic radius and ionic radius (re Double sharp): into separate process. Moved to section #Content changes in {Infobox_element} below. I prefer keeping content changes separate, to be able manage 200 parameters (and after the layout change, a lot of edits are needed in all boxes). Once the new layout is a bit stable, content changes are piece of cake. One can flesh them out beforehand btw (units? at state? prefix?) -- there. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• "(predicted)" into a _comment (note to myself) The heavier elements often have properties "predicted" or "extrapolated". (Fr, Rf, E118, E119). I plan to give these properties a _comment option (a _comment is added end-of-line, after a wrapping space. Always unedited. It can have its own reference in the parameter). (note on Rt: the comment in crystal structure should wrap or break). -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This should also resolve & remove the weird question marks as used in Fr: "m.p. ? 300 K, ? 27 °C, ? 80 °F". -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(Jee, why not simply indent & reply, and keep a topic together?)

• Standard atomic weight: OK in General properties section, or better into Periodic Table section? -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Think it works better in the Periodic Table section, as it's one of the pieces of information most commonly included in periodic tables. Also, it doesn't fit well with the non-numerical properties in "General properties", IMHO.

About Standard atomic weight then. I have put it in the PT section, right below atomic number. So for C is hints to the 6 but not 12 fact. -DePiep (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• • OK about cell borders, then.

(Jee, why not simply indent & reply, and keep a topic together?)

• • Do you think the (comment) section could also include references? Currently refs must be sandwiched between the values and the hardcoded units, which is somewhat unaesthetic and also looks like an exponent. Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

(Jee, why not simply indent & reply, and keep a topic together?)

There is no comment section (as there are sections "Physical properties" and "Isotopes", with their colored header bar). I'll reply for xyz_comment parameters, like |vapor pressure comment=, |covalent radius comment=. Any |xyz_comment= value will be added at the end of the data line. It is preceded by a regular space, so it can wrap a line there. The whole |xyz_comment= value you enter is reproduced, without changes. So no brackets are added, no italics -- If needed, you add them to the parameter input. Same for the reference: just add it, it will show. Because there is no unit there to handle (while for units like 'K' we must split the value-reference).

Intended future behaviour of the infobox:

{{infobox wikipedium

|melting point K=200

|melting point ref=<ref>{{cite|author=DePiep|...}}</ref>

|melting point comment=''(This is disputed)''<ref>{{cite|author=Double sharp|...}}</ref>

}}

(I hope the example does not distract too much. Can't resist creating an OR hoax, too much fun).

Shows:

Melting point	200_K[1]_(This is disputed)[2]	Y
Boiling point	350[3] (disputed)[4] K	N

_ = NBSP, _ = regular space (can wrap).

So ref ^[1] after the unit (separate input), and ref ^[2] stays with the comment as inputted. Both show correct.

Gone/not needed will be the results as in the second row, all bad for obvious reasons. -DePiep (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. All the element infoboxes should use the first row's format for predictions/extrapolations/etc.. Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Will add those xyz_comment params (few dozen) then.

-DePiep (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC) (m distraction removed 21:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC))

Y Added. -DePiep (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Image sizes. re Christian75. And it looks like you invalidated |image size= (see ₁₅P). -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes up for comparision

To compare: (page Template:Infobox <element>/testcases):

• H
• He
• Li
• B
• C
• N
• O
• F
• Al
• P
• Ti
• Fe
• Zn
• Ge
• Y
• Nb
• Tc
• Ag
• Xe
• Cs
• Lu
• Ir
• Au
• Hg
• Pb
• Po
• At
• Fr
• U
• Pu
• Bk
• Cf
• Rf
• Cn
• E117
• E118
• E119
• E120
• all up test
• full index by PT
• This list: []

After the layout-switchover, individual infoboxes (like {infobox fluorine}) need edits to show all desired outcome. "Pilot edits" are made in the sandbox (infobox fluorine/sandbox), and now show the text in target form.

If you have another element you'd like to check & pilot-edit, I can create the compare-page. -DePiep (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Last call for checks.

@Double sharp, Parcly Taxel, Sandbh, R8R Gtrs, Stone, Sbharris, Dirac66, Axiosaurus, and YBG:

I ask you all to do some checking on the new layout for our {{Infobox element}}. You can compare an element from the list given (there are 34/124 elements), or ask me to add one.

You can check the new writing of labels, values, references and comments. You can try and edit any element sandbox into the new situation (they will be copied into live together with the switch). Expect that after a switchover, there won't be much time for changes to the main template. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Did a quick bracket edit of the F sandbox; besides that it's all fine. Parcly Taxel 11:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made a couple of edits to Template:Infobox element/group/sandbox to add two exceptions: 117 should be a member of "group 17," not "group 17 (halogens)," and the same for 118 (and updated the doc), which can be undone in case of anything (see the edits to the template: [11]]. Other than that, the new infobox is perfect. I mean it.--R8R (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Smart. So you know about templates then. Next time I might have a job for you ;-). -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The new layout for the properties is a definite improvement. Another eventual improvement might be to actually show the element in the periodic table. The figure at the top says (for example) Phosphorus in the periodic table but it is not very obvious where Phosphorus actually is found in the table. Perhaps the square for phosphorus could be marked by a P with a circle around it, or a bright red P, or a star ... I realize this would take some time to implement for all elements, which is why I said eventual. Dirac66 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Will work. The marking only will show in the article phosphorus, same as it does now. It's a square. I would like to change that indeed, but for now that PT is a sideshow only. -DePiep (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I've made a check. The square will still be highlighted in the aluminium article if you add the proposed infobox aluminum to it, and will not if the template is elsewhere. Like the template used now. Same for lutetium, and surely any other element. In principle, that was expected, given it's the same table as used now, and that's how it works now. So no action is required, when released, this template will show that.--R8R (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Phosphorus was only an example. I meant that the table for each element should show (if possible) the position of that element. Dirac66 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand, and I am sure it will work for each and every element. I checked two: Al and Lu, and it works or them as you want. The table which is supposed to show the location is exactly the same as currently used now (which does what you want, if I understand you correctly), and the current table shows the element's location if placed on that element's page. (Both future and current tables are {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)}}.) So if it will be a part of another template, that shouldn't change, and, as I've seen, it doesn't. You can check yourself: copy a testcase template of an element into the article of that element and click Show preview.--R8R (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I now completely understand how it works; that should work, there's no reason why it shouldn't.--R8R (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

re Dirac66 and R8R, sorry I left you in doubt here. I checked that it would work. This is the background, in the micro-PT: when {PAGENAME} = cell's element name, then the black square is added. This is always for the end pagename, the one you read, not a pre-transclusion template page. So it works for aluminium. It also works for Template:Infobox aluminium (by additional code). But not for Aluminium-lithium alloy or Template:Infobox aluminium/sandbox; that is what you see/not-see in the sandboxes. This is unchanged in the new layout. You can see & check for element by adding {{infobox iron/sandbox}} to the element article Iron, and preview. (It can be made to show OK always, but that micro-PT takes a lot of time in page-load already, so I kept it simple). -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see that the square around the element is visible at phosphorus, aluminum, etc., which is presumably where a reader will go if s/he doesn't know where the element is in the periodic table. It is not necessary to put that information in other articles like Aluminium-lithium alloy or the testcases list where I had looked before. So all is fine on this point. Dirac66 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It works as promised. Making it work in Aluminium-lithium alloy can be done (see this), but is not the topic here. For me, end of subtopic. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite an improvement, overall. Polished work. I love the 32-column PT in this layout. Sandbh (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Crystal structure checks

Please take a look at .../crystal_structure#Examples. These are new presentations of crystal structures, for the element's infoboxes (text & image). -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Background. Our {Infobox element} shows an image of the crystal structure. In every individual element's infobox, one can add a |crystal structure= name. Then this name produces both a wikilink and an image. There is also a second option (|crystal structure 2=). Best see the carbon example. All very nice.

I made a new setup for all these links and images: see these .../crystal_structure#Examples. To me it looks like our infoboxes and also article Periodic table (crystal structure), can use a quality boost. My request is to check those crystal names & links & labels & images. I myself can't find my way in a maze of lattices & crystals & 'diamond cubic'. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Image size in the new infobox

I added a suggestion not to force the size of the images in the new infobox (but use the user preference size, and otherwise the default MediaWiki thumbnail size). see - do anybody like the idea? Christian75 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As Christian75 knows, I am working with this very sandbox while they are injection trials, without communication. It is not serious to "propose" this here only as a mean to evade cooperation explicitly. -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested it before (for template:Chembox), see - nothing happend. This time I did it myself, and you didnt like it? An example is Template:Infobox_hydrogen/sandbox2 - the size of the image has the size thumnailsize which logged in users can change in Special:Preferences/appearance/thumbnail size (and defailt size if not logged in) Christian75 (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What I didn't like I have written. How come you did not read that? -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As for the Chembox suggestion: you had a mistake in your assumptions, and then there was an answer. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

From here, a restart. {od}

• I like the hydrogen/sandbox2. And after some studying & testing, I understand most of it. So |image size= can be used to set (override) the default size. IP-users have a size set too (the image does not explose into pagewide). Empty parameter |image size= does not disrupt. All very nice.

Christian75, if you find your code is stable, I'd ask you to move it into {{Infobox element/sandbox}}. Then it is part of the upcoming format change, and we can see the sandboxes tested. If you need some more test with variables or params, maybe you like to do that in /sandbox4.

After the changes, I'll check all infoboxes for unwanted setting of image sizes 1 & 2 (to be removed). -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Christian75. I copy-pasted your code from {{Infobox element/sandbox4}} into {{Infobox element/sandbox}} [12]. So now in testcases for live. I removed any superfluous settings from the infoboxes (like |image size=249px) using AWB. Some stayed for being useful, as in oxygen. (Pls understand that during your previous edits, I was juggling over 200 parameters: delete, rename, add or change effect). I thank you for this contribution. -DePiep (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done

•  Done [13] -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No article may be disrupted, so report asap if you see something weird. But minor issues, like spacing, do not need firebrigade interruption.

I'll edit (copy-paste from their /sandbox) the 35 prepared {infobox <element>} /sandboxes into live (give me an hour). -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The others (that is 85/120 then) or {infobox <element>} I will not edit systematically. There are A-class articles n there. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Soy happy. Look at silver. -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

And gold. Makes me happy. -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

nickel, calcium, zinc, lanthanum. Whichever element I click: looks great. -DePiep (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Y Edited all 120 infoboxes to use & fit the new options. -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: space removal from aluminium

Hi. I plan to remove a space (U+0020   SPACE) from the article aluminium. To be sure, I ask for an RfC confirmation. I especially invite those who can communicate with User:Nergaal to inject theirs opinions here. Better safe that sorry. -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed all the wp:elem pages from my watchlist and I only noticed this my accident. Please try to understand my point: try to work/spend your energy on improving articles not on technicalities (such as wether a blank space should be there or not). Nergaal (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes Nergaal, we get your point: you don't want to talk. Sorry we even thought of you. -DePiep (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Umh, yeah... What a [[User:DePiep|sad lost cause]]... Sometimes I wonder why am I even trying. Nergaal (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose its a joke? Like the edit summary of the new element template was a joke too. Christian75 (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither. -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done [14] - DePiep (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal (note): large PT into regular PT article

A merge talk started over at the periodic table article: Talk:Periodic_table#Merger_with_Periodic_table_(large_version). It is to merge article Periodic_table_(large_version) into periodic table.

I have added this overview:

AfD notice

Somehow, it has turned into an AfD by now:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (large version)

I have objected to the process/procedure. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Our featured list is at AfD

Is everyone aware that Periodic table (large version) is at AfD? It would be nice if you came there and commented.--R8R (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I already noted above [15]. The issue is that the Merge proposal had not even finished. It is a procedural wreck. -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This list article is seen nearly a quarter of a million times a year. There is no value in relegation to template space. Sandbh (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Firing on all cylinders now

@Sandbh: Guys and gals! Fluorine is now at FAC for the fourth time! We need all hands on deck so it doesn't stall! Parcly Taxel 12:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I will review this weekend, RL permitting (it doesn't rain, it pours) Sandbh (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sandbh's post-transition metal sandbox

Change 'other metal(s)' into 'post-transition metal(s)', 26 July 2014. Alternative section name, for easy & meaningful linking. Some earlier talks: Archive_17#Discuss (Dec 2013–April 2014) (Includes #Return_of_the_other_metals (March 2014)), Archive_18#The_other_metal_debate (May 2014), Archive_18#Requested_move (May/June 2014). -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems complete, minus a few refs. What do you think, is it OK to put in mainspace already and change the "other metals" category back to "post-transition metals" now? Double sharp (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at the sandbox - no mention in for example Ga chemistry of the effects of d-block contraction where in that case Ga³⁺ chemistry and Al³⁺ chemistry are similar due to, inter alia, their similar ionic radii. The draft also exhibits the difficulty presented by Al - a good metal whereas Ga and In are not ansd B is a non-metal. It is a reactive metal forming the Al³⁺ ion see Henderson- he even quotes the strucure of corundum as containing Al³⁺- so I don't think that using that reference to justify the covalent statement is justified. Overall my impression of the draft article is that it is focussed on the properties of the bulk metals (and their alloys- (why?)) rather than on their chemistry. For me its also muddied by mixing in the interesting historical description of the coinage metals as post-transition (Demings book was pretty elementary as I recall and went to later editions), which then leads to a large section on them, rather than a focus on the main story, groups 13 and 14. Axiosaurus (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I meant that it looked complete enough to put into mainspace as it is and then remove the other metals category, because now every section had content in it. As you say, there are several important omissions that would have to be rectified, but IMHO we should get rid of "other metals" ASAP, given that we have a better alternative in the form of PTMs. Yes, the main story is groups 13 and 14, and not so much groups 11 and 12 (which are in any case not always called PTMs). The latter should definitely be mentioned, but the article should go a lot more into the elements' chemical properties.

Still, it looks good enough to go into mainspace and replace "other metal". Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone pings me at switchover time, I'll do the template sweep. Is Sandbh themselves in for it too? -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: We're all in it. Better to have stability than pure chaos. Parcly Taxel 01:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree it's good enough to go into the main space, noting some fine-tuning is required. If I move it will I lose the talk page stuff, given the the history of previous moves? Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

re Sandbh, about these moves & histories: you can copy-paste your text into the article (do take credit in the editsummary, maybe with a link to your sandbox for history). Then the essential page moves (OM into PTM article+talk of course) within mainspace will simply keep their histories available (the history of your sandbox edits however are not in sight). Since this is a technical move (consensus decided before), you can ask admin assistance without re-invoking a discussion. Is this an answer to your point? -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Sandbh. I just read through the page history of OM/PTM&... I say: you very better ask WP:RM/TR for tech assistance for this (uncontroversial!) move. Even old "poor metal" history may be involved. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you DePiep. Request submitted at WP:RM/TR. Sandbh (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: are we going as far as changing the category name in our periodic table templates to PTM too? Or are we keeping "other metal" and linking that to PTM? Sandbh (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we're changing the category name to PTM, given that Al has sometimes been described as one and hence doesn't constitute a problem. As for the talk page stuff, it is definitely very complicated, but I think it is solvable. Hopefully we won't need to change the page title again. :-) Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep the wording "other metals" somewhere in article space? I thought that was the issue: use the name PTM. I guess the new text describes all the border issues ("which are (the) PTMs?"), and so no secondary naming is needed. The periodic table legend names & links will be "PTM" I understand. Or do I need some more reading & understanding (that says: use "other metal")? (Outside of User:Sandbh/sandbox#Other_metals). -DePiep (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we would always use PTM, except in the section of Sandbh's sandbox which talks about the name "other metal". Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This confirms what I meant to say. OK then. -DePiep (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Axiosaurus: thank you for the feedback, which I appreciate was based on a quick look. My aim was to have a balance of information about relevant physical properties and chemical properties. On alloys, that is to show that Al can be become more of a good metal and that, even so, these alloys retain certain weaknesses. For Sn this was to contrast "tin as a weak metal" with its curious role as a hardening agent. When I describe elements I mostly start with their outward properties and then look at their chemical properties. Many chemists wouldn't often work with many of the elements in their pure forms (see first asterisk note, here) however to me the stories of the elements are about more than their chemical properties. About Henderson, I'll look again at him. Deming went to a 2nd edition in 1947, in which he continued to treat the group 11 metals as post-transition metals. Some later authors have treated group 11 as post-transition metals. I'll see if I can find some citations. The extra content about group 11 is there to explain why they are sometimes described as post-transition metals. Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

To put the coinage metals into perspective- read Greenwood where he says that they are transition metals and counters the historical parallels drawn between these metals and the alkali metals. Perhaps this historical detail about group 11 and its placement should be put in the article group 11 element. And as for references, "Wikipedia:citation overkill" perhaps. Anyway I have no problem with this draft replacing poor metals, (you know my views about including Al in the post transition metals, it jars, like saying different to rather than different from, but I guess that is a function of my classical education!), after all any problems and shortcomings can be changed in mainspace. Axiosaurus (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've replaced the content of the other metal article article with the post-transition metal article that was in my sandbox, and added a hatnote re changing the name of the article to post-transition metal. Sandbh (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Y

Page move Other metal into Post-transition metal has been done.

I'm changing the templates links. -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. [16].

Also: proposed category name change Category:Poor metals to Category:Post-transition metal. See here. Will be done after 48 hrs, no need to interfere manually.

To check for "other metal(s)" in text, one can use Special:WLH for page other metal. And Special:Search for the word(s), sp sensitive. Search results may have a delay.

I note that in general, we have 8 elements as post-transition metal. The subtleties as described in the new article (e.g., wrt Al) are not reflected in our general PTs. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of places still use 'poor metal' (our pre March 2014 category name). When I meet it, I clean it (into PTM). -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a list of 19 articles I found by typing "poor metal" into the search box and typing Go (Not search). Note that the quotes are necessary, or else the search finds more than 8000 articles with "poor" and also "metal". Some judgment will be needed to decide which of the 19 need to be changed. Dirac66 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The nineteen articles in the results:

• Post-transition metal
• List of elements ←
• Orion VII (Toronto Transit Commission bus)
• Z-mill
• Aluminium
• Lead
• Metalloid
• Bismuth
• Indium
• Gallium
• Tin
• Thallium
• Polonium
• High-temperature superconductivity
• Green–Davies–Mingos rules
• Protactinium ←
• Berlin U-Bahn rolling stock
• Nuragic civilization
• Skyfall (song)

The ones in bold are the real post-transition metals; they are all in Category:Poor metals and that last name needs to be moved to Category:Post-transition metals. The ones in italic use "poor metal" with a meaning completely different from what we now call "post-transition metals"; these don't need changing. The ones with arrows pointing to them have been changed already while the first one is… well… a redirect from "poor metal"! Parcly Taxel 02:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Other metals" should also be searched for, although that will require more thought as to when it is referring to the PTMs and when it just means "metals other than the ones previously listed". Double sharp (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The search may be delayed (eg, aluminium is clean). The cat namechange I have announced in my previous "done" post (do not embark changing manually). -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Finished, I'd say [17]. Up for archive. -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability of as yet unsynthesized superactinides

DePiep's above post brings to my mind a possible test for the notability of undiscovered elements: if you can actually fill up the infobox with predictions from cited sources to as much of an extent as you can for known transactinides, the element could be notable enough for an article. (Although perhaps a section in another article would do the job just as well, so you'd have to decide on a case-by-case basis.) Double sharp (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it can be done for E125 (see this paper), E164 (Penneman, Fricke, etc.), E165, E166, E171 and E172 (Fricke, Hoffman et al.), E184 (Penneman, Fricke). If E125 can be recreated, maybe there is an argument for E123 simply for the unbroken series to E127, and then some scattered notable elements in the late eighth period, ninth period, and tenth period. Double sharp (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a case could be made though for not having any synthetic predicted element articles at all (maybe E119 and E120 could be spared as having synthesis experiments in progress), and keeping all the content in articles like period 8 element, period 9 element, period 10 element, electron configurations of the elements (data page) (and I think the post-118 content of that should be duplicated in the period articles). In particular, the tables in those articles successfully summarize nearly all the info we have on these elements, with a few exceptions: E119, E120, and E121 (and for the latter it is just the first ionization energy, which I could easily include in running text). After all, the island of stability and proposed primordial SHEs aren't specific to any one element (such as the poster child, E126); primordial Lv, E124, E126, and E127 were all proposed at some point. Especially since we don't actually know exactly where the island is yet (although we have made multiple mutually contradicting guesses), it seems better not to keep the info on articles on individual elements.

Thus I would propose here that only elements 1 to 120 should have articles for now, and heavier elements should redirect to their respective period articles (like unhexquadium currently does to Period 8 element#Transition metals). Articles would then be created for heavier elements when synthesis experiments restart and they become better characterized (ideally as well-characterized as the as yet undiscovered E119 or E120). Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps all of the periods may not need to have their own individual articles for similar reasons. Double sharp (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have now mentioned this to Kwamikagami, who had proposed a something similar for the periods before. Double sharp (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having half-baked articles on the periods. I suppose if someone wants to put in the work, it doesn't hurt anything, but last I checked only period 1 was developed into an actual article. All the rest said we don't care enough about chemical elements to bother.

IMO the article on predicted elements is probably a more informative way of presenting the info than individual articles. Articles on predicted elements should IMO only be split off when they reach the level where we have enough for an informative article, based on WP's basic notability and article guidelines. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Q for Double sharp. Here, first you say E121 and up should be in their period articles (say, OK), then you say these periods don't need an article (say, OK). But where will they go then? Any suggestions for a super-article then? My simplest view for this is there is a "PT extension" article that covers the lot, and E119, E120 have their own article too. That? (Let me repeat that the naming pattern "period 8 element" is a horror, and plain wrong class naming. The "Brasil football team" is not "Brasil football team players"). -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I was thinking off. E121 and up should probably be in extended periodic table, which would merge the contents of period 8 element, period 9 element, and period 10 element. (I'm using these names only because this is where the articles currently are at: I agree with you that "period 8" is the subject and not "period 8 element", since we are discussing the period as a whole and not just each individual element.)

I think that the period articles are pointless. None of them cover anything that is most relevant to the period and nothing else. I've included details on my thoughts of the period 1 element and period 2 element articles below.

Period 1 is a strange article, only covering H and He. This means that there are no horizontal trends to speak of, and therefore the whole article becomes just a summary of H followed by a summary of He, saying nothing about the period itself other that there are no horizontal trends to speak of. The duet rule already is covered in the article on the octet rule, and isn't even solely for period 1: it also holds for Li, which always loses an electron to form the stable Li⁺ ion with the stable 1s² electron configuration of He. The article then goes on to talk about the placements of H and He in the periodic table: but while H is indeed a chemical oddball, He is so similar to the noble gases that you're going to have a lot of explaining to do if you put it elsewhere. So this is really only about H, and should be in the hydrogen article. I don't get the point of this: it may be a GA, but it doesn't really say anything.

Period 2 indeed has conclusive trends, but these trends hold across every period. It being the least metallic period is rather trivial: and the fact that some of the period 2 elements have the most extreme properties of their groups are because they are the first elements in their respective groups. And Ne being the most inert noble gas instead of He is really a subject for the noble gas article. And then the article provides a blurb on each element, neglecting the period as a whole. What is the point? I'm seriously doubting if an article can really be written about an entire period. I think periods 1 to 7 should all redirect to period (periodic table) (which BTW needs to be updated to our current "option 10" colour scheme).

Even period 8 element had to be subdivided into three regions: 8s, 5g+6f+8p_1/2, and 7d, to create a coherent article. The problem is that each section of the period is too individualistic in character, so that the article reads like it is a cobbled-together merge of three others. And it abruptly pauses the story, as 9s, 9p_1/2, and 8p_3/2 must wait until period 9, and that means that the story of the alkali metal–noble gas range from E119 to E172 is abruptly curtailed. Also, this division of period 8 and period 9 uses the Fricke–Greiner–Waber model of the extended periodic table, instead of Pyykkö's which divides the periods up differently. Keeping all the content together neatly sidesteps the issue. Articles can be split off when they have enough info, just as Kwamikagami suggests: at the moment I think only E119 and E120 would qualify.

Another set of articles I'd be happy to see go are the articles on the blocks (I think I've mentioned before how I dislike the block concept, but that's not the point here). The s-block splits cleanly into groups 1 and 2, and suffers the exact same problem as the period articles. The f-block splits cleanly into the lanthanides and actinides; the d-block splits cleanly into its constituent groups. The p-block is perhaps interesting in the trend from metals through metalloids to nonmetals, but this is more of a subject for the metalloid article.

I almost think a good test for deciding whether or not an article is a good idea is to ask "Does [insert your favourite chemistry text, e.g. Holleman & Wiberg, Greenwood & Earnshaw, etc.] group these elements together in one chapter or section?" (I think this allows all the s-, p-, and d-block groups, but none of the periods.) If they could write a chapter covering those elements coherently, so can Wikipedia. If they couldn't, Wikipedia probably can't either.

P.S. An interesting situation comes with pnictogen and chalcogen. WP treats them as synonymous with "group 15" and "group 16", but many chemistry texts exclude N and O respectively, as they are too different from the elements under them to be treated well together. But I think it can work this way, especially if you continually contrast nitrogen with the other pnictogens, or oxygen with the other chalcogens. The strongest argument, I think, is that IUPAC states that N is a pnictogen and that O is a chalcogen. But I would not oppose deviating from this and following general usage instead. Double sharp (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the above, I have redirected the blocks to block (periodic table). Anyone who feels that I am mistaken and that the articles may be further developed may of course revert these edits. Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Merged period 8 element, period 9 element, and period 10 element to extended periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)re 06:31. About removing the 121+ element pages & redirect them to one page, as mentioned, I can understand and I trust judgements here on non-notability of these elements. (Comes to mind, the existing redirects from all these Un-* elements could use a check. Their target page(s?) have been unclear a long time). That suprepage on SHE's then better have good stuff. 13:14, 12 July 2014‎ DePiep (signed late: DePiep (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC))

How is extended periodic table now? (This is the current superpage I'm using.) Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't blame you for using the name "period 8 element", it is correctly in-pattern. I meant to say that back them, at RM proposal time, there was little support from WP:ELEM inhabitants. These even did not involve IUPAC ;-).

About redirecting "period 1" topic: not convinced yet. Other than the 120+ elements, this is an existing feature, and a reader might well ask: what is that period actually? Today the article might be filled with wrong info (the element descriptions), but that content could be changed. I myself am still to learn more of these shell peculiarities, and I better not start with say period 6. (About the recent block-redirect, no opinion now). -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not wrong info: it's just not relevant. It's more about H and He than it is about period 1 as a whole. It's like having an article on "lead and bismuth".

Redirected the elements past 120. I will hold off on periods 1–7 for the moment. Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the above, periods 1–7 have been redirected. Double sharp (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Clears the neighborhood, and invites & concentrates editergy to make that period article a good/better one. Now there is to answer: for all the links to e.g. "period 4" (especially in PT templates), what to do:

1. use [[Period (periodic table)#Period 4|period 4]] = period 4 (the #section link now functions)
2. unlink them, just say "4"
3. keep old link to Period 4 element (redirect then)
4. link to plain Period (periodic table)

I prefer #1. -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree: #1 is the best. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to conclude this section, just to close this (multi-topic) thread. It says, sort of:

1: Merge all articles about the extended PT into a more simple set (done)

2: Keep E119, E121 individual articles, but remove those of higher elements (done)

3: Merge all period 1 element (7×) into period (periodic table) (not done, reverted)

I understand Double sharp and others have added all texts of weight to these articles. This resume is meant to bring this section to archive. -DePiep (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)