Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
28	0	98	101	125	96	34	0	172	307	3	1	116	1	22	8,905	228	10	0	10,247

Why do we use weird names like "unbiseptium"?

Since we don't use those symbols in the extended PT anymore, it seems reasonable that the same should be implemented for element infoboxes.

Instead

  Os
  ↑
  Hs
  ↓
(Uhn)

we get this:

  Os
  ↑
  Hs
  ↓
(160)

(with or without parentheses)

Anyone against the idea?

Also, why do we use those IUPAC names in first place? It seems they are used only by IUPAC and non-expert fans. Not to mention "unbiseptium" and "element 127" mean the same things, that is, element 127. The former just pretends to be fancy and to find out the number behind the name, you need to know a key (un=1, etc), and even if you know it, you still have to take to a second first to decipher it. Which is why the latter is used among those who work with them, and (not always, but often) the news.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

How did you get more drunk than I am?

You mean to say we get rid of IUPAC names? (I get the examples are from the Hs infobox).

1. weird names like "unbiseptium": unbiseptium is not a weird name. It is the IUPAC systematic element name.
2. Since we don't use those symbols in the extended PT anymore. Que? No 'Ubs' any more? Since when? Enjoy our current best and greatest: {{tl|Periodic table (Pyykkö model, large}.
3. Please study the diff between 'symbol' and 'Z'. I had to.
4. But ah, there is this one point you can win: what do these (...) brackets mean, so unexplained?

Other current topics, today,are visible in: {{NavPeriodicTable/sandbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Now back to my 1st question please. I could use something ;-). -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What I intend to say was, even if they're IUPAC systematic element names, they're still weird. Re symbols, I meant the three letters symbols formed from those names, twist of the tongue has always been my worst curse. Re we switched from them, I meant the compact extended PT (see ununennium, for example, in the bottom of the page).

Uhn is the symbol for "unhexnilium," element 160, the element directly under hassium in the PT as expected from complicated relativistic computations. 160 is the proposed symbol. Parentheses show it is expected to be there, but we haven't synthesized it, so we don't know for sure yet. Yes, this is from the Hs infobox.

P.S. I've been to a museum today ;)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with R8R...(113) or just 113 is really the symbol you will usually find in science, not Uut: e.g. (113)F⁻
₆ and not UutF⁻
₆. Change it. And you will have plenty of sources agreeing (off the top of my head: Haire, Fricke, Pyykkö). The symbol only becomes usual once you have a permanent name like flerovium or livermorium.

Do you intend to change the article titles too for complete consistency? (e.g. Ununtrium → Element 113). Can see justification for that too. The systematic name may be official, but in practice nobody really uses it. Quite different from aluminium spelling etc. when people do listen to IUPAC. I would support this, personally. Double sharp (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to change the titles.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This would imply (if I understand it well), we use "element 119" as a name every where, and "119" as its symbol

Move page Ununennium to Element 119

All other pages like Template:Infobox ununennium, isotopes of ununennium, etc.

In {{Infobox ununennium}}, |name=element 119 (lowercase) and |symbol=119

Basically the systematic name & symbol are not used any more here. Maybe a minor mentioning in the lead.

-DePiep (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But we have to wait, for maybe a week to see if opposition arises.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Just trying to get a grip on the consequences. For templates (automatic text manipulation) I hope there never will remain a diff between page name and element name! (Mercury (element) vs mercury is bad enough). I've made made a change to the infobox: |systematic name= and |systematic symbol=. See {{Infobox ununoctium/sandbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

While this may be reasonable do not under any circumstances eliminate all mention of the systemic names or symbols, especially on periodic tables (where they are highly standardised) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Why?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Because suppressing information is really unhelpful? Particularly when every periodic table I've ever seen printed off-Wikipedia uses the systemic names and symbols. It's being confusing for no reason whatsoever. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think we suppress info by that (we'll discuss that later if you want), but anyway, what do you suggest? (And why do you embolden your writing?)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The terms are used. It's pointless to not include terms in use, thus unnecessarily making people looking for those terms land on an article without any mention of them, causing confusion. It's fine to say that the article on the element (and most cuses elsewhere) should use "Element 126". It's ridiculous to say it shouldn't include any mention of the official name of the element. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding. I intend to mention the unun- names in the lead section as well as in the infobox (just name them per IUPAC) and discuss the name a little bit in the Naming sections of each article. However, the elements will be referred to as "element 117," in this article and elsewhere. Is it okay for you?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine. Although the periodic tables should use the systematic name symbols, which it currently does not, making up a new convention I've never seen in a periodic table. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have seen that before - can't remember where exactly: will post a link when I find it. Even the IUPAC official periodic table doesn't have any unun- elements on it (those being not officially recognized by them). Bottom line: I cannot think of a single serious scientific paper or source where the unun- symbols or names are used, except when systematic names are themselves the topic. One presentation by Cody Folden (it's a ref on alkali metal) even states outright something like: "Note that we use (element?) 115 instead of ununpentium. Nobody uses that nonsense (or was it "Everyone hates that nonsense"?)." Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I do question. That would make ₁₁₉119 formal. Has there been any wp article been forced to write "Uun" for "119"? -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@DePiep I believe this would not occur outside out of the ununennium article. In the article, ³⁰²₁₁₉Uue is hardcoded.

@Adam First, just to give a different perspective on things, in my home country, the cells for elements like 113 (synthesized, but not yet recognized) normally don't have any symbol nor name in. Just atomic number and square-bracketed atomic masses (actually, everything that is present in cells of elements like hydrogen or selenium minus mame and symbol). Maybe they use the proposed nomenclature somewhere.

(disclaimer: I try to use what I call "common sense." It won't probably be a strict proof, but give it a try) Normally, those who deal with the matter (using the widest definition including people like us, who just sit @home and talk about it, occasionally writing WP articles (optional) are common with both nomenclatures. For them, 113 would be better than Uut, since it's easier to find. Just think of it, 154 is easier than Upq on a table, esp. given it's not where you would look for it (d block in normal thinking and f block in relativistic, which probably is the real one).

When introducing these names to students or whoever need to be able to repeat them in future (students, etc), this naming is normally explained. regardless, they maybe will be frustrated for the first time if they hadn't been introduced the "element 113" system, but they'll get used to quickly and then use the advantage (for example, just to think of the name for element 154, I had to recall that, while "element 154" is much more natural).

To those who won't ever deal with the system, the "element 113" system will be simply easier. For example, one can relatively easily memorize a three digit number, but never heard before names, many people memorize just approximately. So, when looking at a table, some people may be like, "unun-- there are more than one such name? aha! ununpentium! or wait, was it ununseptium?"

I believe that these reasons are why they are abandoned in real science. Also note news normally use both names, but (from my reader experience) the "element 113" system either is the only system used, sometimes with variations ("113th element"), or the main one, with the IUPAC name also mentioned, but no more than that. Maybe it is mainly used because you (and the readers!) don't have to operate with unknown unun words, they at least recognize words "113" and "element."

Note: The unun names are not official. They are IUPAC official. Wikipedia does not recognize IUPAC authority over itself and when it uses IUPAC nomenclature on anything, it's been decided in each case. Wiki doesn't follow IUPAC rules when there's a better (according to editors) system.

tl;dr The non-IUPAC system is much easier to use for (almost) everyone.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We should really change that to ³⁰²119. Then we don't need the atomic number listed. Except in equations, when Uue probably has to stay. Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Even chemists and related science professionals don't necessarily follow all IUPAC standards. The1970 IUPAC recommendation to use the term semimetal instead of metalloid, for example, was widely ignored and usage in the literature actually increased, dramatically. Sandbh (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say the only reason the weird names were invented AFAIK was to enable the symbols (and names if there was enough room) to be shown on periodic tables, post discovery of the element in question and pre-official acceptance and formal naming. And we all seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. Sandbh (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, if these symbols are not used in professional literature (papers), they should not be used for the article names on WP or as symbols on the various tables around (although we should certainly mention the systematic name prominently in the lead of the articles, and have redirects). StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The element 118 lead already says, bold in source: "Ununoctium is [...]. It is also known as eka-radon or element 118, and ...". -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason this is so weird and unnatural, is that it is another product of Dweebs from Planet Fubar. You know-- the guys who brought you Windows Vista and (even more recently) Windows 8? These people aren't like you and me. Some of them are aliens, and not aliens from India. Others are programmers who live in the basement, and stay there, due to the chain around their ankles. They all talk like Sheldon Cooper and have glasses like Leonard Hofstadter. They play MMRPGs and speak Klingon and Latin. They do not believe in beta testing, except on each other. IUPAC has a big infestation of them, and have not been able to fumigate with methyl bromide due to ozone issues, and (alas) some of these people have rebreathers and others (mostly the space aliens) can actually tolerate sulfuryl fluoride for short periods of time.

So what happened at IUPAC, while these people infested the naming committees? There was really no problem in referring to elements by temporary names like "element-118." The problem came in coming up with a symbol for these temporary element names. Rather than follow the natural idea of resorting to E118 as the symbol for element-118, and then having isotopes follow in the natural manner of C-12, for example E118-302, or perhaps even ³⁰²E118, the Dweebish Monks at IUPAC resorted to Latin, and came up with some Jesuitical numerical stuff for the full names, that then could be turned into fully-alphabetic symbols. You know the rest.

It's sad, and the real beta-testers said so, but since IUPAC isn't a business and doesn't actually NEED to sell their ideas like Microsoft does, they haven't been listening. Ha! And then, they wonder why I don't put anything in the donation plate, at IUPAC mass.... SBHarris 23:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I nearly fell off of my chair, but my wrists are firmly chained to the keyboard down here in my dungeon. This sounds like it has the makings of a good April Fools article, except that only dweebs like us would understand. Sigh. One caveat: while I appreciate the sarcasm and find it hilarious, unfortunately, I think it is highly unlikely that it would convince anyone who wasn't already convinced that Uub and the like are weird. YBG (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Great description, to the point indeed, Sbharris. Now I understand this more. But still, but still. I remember with horror when, some six months ago, I tried to add the element names to our basic PT. No microsoft or big bang people involved, but editors you and I know. Arguing about: habits & I'm-used-to. And they are all better physicist/chemicists than I am. This is to say: without microsoft we need a check too. That is what made & makes science great. I am still not happy with stating Symbol=119. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I don't like the symbol "118" either, but it's better than the present IUPAC Lovecraftian Latin abbreviation horror (yes, there are people who wear sleeved T-shirts that say Cthulhu Rules, and even know how to pronounce Cthulhu...). The problem is that the natural fixes, the generic Exxx, or Elxxx or El-xxx or (Elxxx) were never officially suggested, and all are better solutions for the temporary name symbols (we've already using the natural fix for the temporary name, which is "element xxx"). As with the case of nuclear power plants, we froze the design too early. But hope remains in my heart. Did we not decide the symbol for torr should be Torr? We swallowed, and we did. We renamed the muon and neutrino from their original names, did we not? Pluto (gulp) is now a dwarf planet. So there is some plasticity left. I'm always reminded of Rutherford's remark that scientists can be divided between physicists and stamp collectors (how he would have rolled his eyes at rutherfordium). Here, we have a perfect stamp collecting issue. Or comic book collecting issue....  ;) SBHarris 23:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, defining Symbol=E118 would be great an could happen in the future. What I object to is defining the symbol to be 118. So far, there is no restriction or problem: on can use the atomic number in formulae. Write 118, all fine. But don't make that number the symbol. Use it as a number, even in symbol places. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Would E118 be a better symbol? That is at least used, and isn't completely a number.

(Based on Lovecraft's description, I would pronounce Cthulhu as IPA [ˈχɬʊl.ɬuː] or IPA [ˈχθʊl.ɬuː]). Double sharp (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

E118 would be one more format. I say: Using and writing 118 is OK already (and done in sources). But don't declare it to be the symbol (It's still the Z number, without confusion). So there is a deviation in formal vs. writing here. We could keep both (formal: name=IUPAC, symbol = Uuo, Z=118. Writing: "element 118", in today's ²⁹⁴Uuo, would be ²⁹⁴118). About page names: if very common usage already says so, we could move pagenames into "Element 118" indeed. All this would be in a projected WT:MOSELEM style. Do the WP:CHEMs agree? -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You have my vote. Have the articles at least "Element xxx". If somebody can figure out how to spell unbiseptium, it will redirect. And of course all the alternate names will be in the lede. As elements are formally named, we'll move the page numbers to their formal names, as with flerovium for element 114.

'Doofus!' said I, `thing of evil! - Doofus still, if trick or devil! -

Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee unnunhexium,

Desolate yet, all with no label, on this periodic table -

With these names by horror haunted-tell me truly, I implore y'um

Is there-is there balm in Gilead?-some term to buy in an emporium?'

Quoth IUPAC: livermorium.

SBHarris 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The IUPAC's decision may be bad. It doesn't, however, mean that Wikipedia should violate the conventions for periodic tables, or suppress the IUPAC names.

As I said, show me a periodic table anywhere that isn't Wikipedia that 1. includes one or more elements without non-systemic names, 2. Does not use the IUPAC symbols for these elements.

If you can't, the whole argument is original research, and forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Now, this is for periodic tables. In discussion of fission and fusion, it's not uncommon to use the atomic number as the main way of identifying an element, and, as such, there's an actual, good convention that can be cited for using the numbers outside of periodic tables. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, this only really affects Template:Compact extended periodic table at the moment. Now, it may well be that including both the number and systemic name will help there. Also, elements 113, 115, 117, and 118 are presented inconsistently with all other periodic tables on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The topic is about unnamed elements only (113 and up, excluding Lv and Fl): use atomic number or symbol? That issue also present in PTs: {{Compact periodic table}}, {{Left Step periodic table}}, {{Janet left-step periodic table (with shell filling sequence)}}, {{Janet periodic table (compact)}}. We also need to be clear about running text and formulae. This is even more pressing, since in text we can only use one form (symbol or number). That form, once decided here, should be consistently used over all articles & PTs. -DePiep (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's one: [1] (slide 9). And I have no doubt that there are many more. (This is from 2011, when the systematic names had long been existent). Here's another (from 2009). This one even has this statement on slide 14: 'Note that we just use "115" rather than "ununpentium". (Everyone hates that nonsense).' Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There are several different environments in which unnamed elements may be mentioned in WP, and the WP:Elements style could conceptually have use a different style for each one. The environments in which a style decision should be made are:

•  
• (1) article titles
• (2) lead paragraph
• (3) paragraph text
• (4) chemical formulas
• (5) navboxes & other tables
• (6) periodic tables
•  

The possible style choices for each environment (using 127 as the canonical example) are:

•  
• (a) Element 127
• (b) Unbiseptium
• (c) UBS
• (d) E127
• (e) 127
• (f) (127) (added later by Double sharp)
•  

Here is a list of the proposals gleaned from the discussion below:

(1:a), (2:a+b), (3:a), (4:d), (5:d), (6:e) First try at summarizing discussion YBG (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(1:a), (2:a+b), (3:a), (4:f), (5:f), (6:f) per DoubleSharp below YBG (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of what has been suggested is (1:a), (2:a+b), (3:a) (4:d), (5:d), (6:e), but if I've misunderstood, please feel free to correct me. Also, if the list of environments or list of choices needs to be modified, please just go ahead and add items to the list. By the way, once a decision is made, perhaps we should formalize it someplace in the WP style guides. Anybody know where the correct place would be? YBG (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of making 4, 5 and 6 be different. To my mind, what you give as the symbol and how you identify an element in the PT should be the same thing. Otherwise there is needless confusion ("does the E mean anything? Is it an element??" quoth the general reader). Would use yours, but with 4 and 5 modified. Just plain 113 is even more common than E113 in actual science. It may be a number, but I don't really see how that's a problem: At, Be and No are also words, and we have no confusion. Is there some sort of bias against non-Latin-alphabet symbols? (Has anyone decreed that all symbols for officially named elements should be in the Latin alphabet, I wonder? Not that people are going to do otherwise, but it still would be interesting to know.) 113F⁻
₆ (without the space) could be confused with 113 F⁻
₆ (with the space), so option d is out for our purposes; thus I suggest using (113) with the parentheses (make that option f), where even that is not possible (e.g. (113)F⁻
₆; (164)(CN)²⁻
₂). Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I have listed above my understanding of what you are proposing. By the way, I'm not advocating that 4, 5, and 6 be different -- just suggesting that they are separate decisions. I agree that it would be ideal if they could all be the same, but still want to have a system that can capture all possible ideas. YBG (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A bit too complicated. Will recap below. -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. Your recap is much clearer. Thanks YBG (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also; we do not even need to use the systematic names in any periodic tables. Just give the name as "Element 118" (for example) and the symbol as (118). We can relegate the systematic names (which frankly nobody in serious science uses) to the real article on the element. To my mind, if an official convention is being rejected actively by those in the field it was made for, I do not think we should be following it. Let's reflect the full breadth of the serious scientific sources we have. The vast majority (99.99999%) use the atomic number alone primarily. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

More simple. IMO, these are the topics so far:

1. About all elements without formal name (113 and over except Fl and Lv).

2. Name to use: "element 113" or "ununtrium" (lowercase in itself, in text; uppercase only when title or sentence spelling requires so).

The first half of this talk seems to show consensus on "element 113".

3. Symbol or atomic number to use where named elements use their symbol: "Uut" or "113". That would be in formulae, like "²⁸⁴Uut" or "²⁸⁴113", and anywhere else where regularly the symbol is used. Whichever one we use, it should be done everywhere (no difference between a compact periodic table and text)

3a. ( ) brackets: the number is bracketed: so (113)F⁻
₆, except in particle descriptions like isotope ²⁸⁴113.

3b. Refined: current usage is: (see page Uut). Would that be: "²⁸⁴
₁₁₃113
" or "²⁸⁴
113
"?

3c. Consider this a proposal to use atomic number as described (even though it says neutral "or").

4. When name, symbol or atomic number itself is the topic, we should use both (e.g., element page lead, its infobox, explaining Systematic element name). Also in large PTs (there is space for the information), we can use both. For clarity: so in large PTs the systematic name "Ununtrium" is used for name, "113" is there big, and the word "element 113" does not appear (as is today).

Note that 2 and 3 (name and symbol/number) are mostly independent decisions. -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I refined the text (esp. 3a, 3b). -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 2, and 4. (Please add my proposal for 3: "(113)" with parentheses. Thus (148)O₆.) Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 2, and 4. Re symbol, I would expect it to be (113) in chemical formulas and everywhere, except for isotope writing, where it should be 113 (so (113)F⁻
₆ and ²⁸⁴113). I'm not sure how to code this.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 2, and 4 completely. For 3, the choices are either

(w) always use bare numerals, or

(x) generally use bare numerals but add parens certain specific situations, or

(y) generally use parenthesized numerals, but omit them in certain specific situations, or

(z) always use parenthesized numerals.

I think the key has to do with the relative importance placed on cleanness (w or x), or on consistency (w or z), or on avoidance of ambiguity (anything but w). I lean toward x or y. An is there any point in considering the use of square brackets like this [113]? YBG (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I refined 3: added the R8R bracket remark as proposal, and the Z effect in the isotope demo. No 3 was an "or" statement, but we read it to be a proposal to use the number. -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Question 5: What do we name the isotopes? Isotopes of ununtrium (today) would become Isotopes of element 113?, and the individuals like Ununtrium-278 would become Element 113-278? -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes to the first one. The second one is ugly. Nobody writes it out in full, so here is another point you win! :-) I suppose we can use "element 113-278", and just avoid spelling it out completely?! Or we can use a name like "278 isotope of element 113", which is probably closer to what someone would say? Double sharp (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

re YBG. I think (x) and (z) are too rigid. Ds and R8R already gave examples where brackets are welcome/not welcome. We have found one exception, so we could use (y) "brackets unless...". If we find more exceptions needed, we can add them. Is outside world any guide? And we do use them for both saying "predicted" and to prevent ambiguity, right? (If for "prediction", Fl and Lv would have to follow this rule too).

About [ ] square brackets. What is common practice in real world? I cannot browse the paywall sources. Note that in electron shells we use like [Xe], with a meaning. I hope we do not have to make a split using both () and [] brackets. -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no square brackets anywhere AFAIK. Those tend to be just used to enclosethe formula of an entire polyatomic ion, so you might see [(113)F⁻
₆], but that's not inconsistent.

Yup, good catch, R8R: I was thinking of this from a chemical perspective. Would agree that parentheses should only be used in the chemical formulae. (There it can even be explained as being the same sort of parentheses usage as you find in compounds like (NH₄)₂Cr₂O₇; to delimit areas of a formula so that ambiguity does not arise.) Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Question for Double sharp about this above: you still think "Uut" should stay in equations, as an exception? -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Only if our highest priority is consistency, because (a) ²⁸⁶
₁₁₃113 looks weird and (b) ²⁸⁶113 is inconsistent as all the other nuclides involved in the equation would have the atomic numbers listed. But I suspect you will find (b) in most scientific contexts, even if it would be inconsistent with the presence of the atomic numbers in their usual place in the other elements, probably because the atomic number is treated as being the only symbol for the element, and thus it doesn't need to be stated again. Or at least, that is my attempt to explain that line of reasoning. So I would support option (b): When the element has no trivial name, the atomic number shall take the place where the symbol normally goes, and the slot usually left for the atomic number will be left blank. That at least reflects what actual scientists tend to do.

P.S. And let's define option (c) as what we currently have, ²⁸⁶
₁₁₃Uut. Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A very interesting discussion. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Even IUPAC is accepting the reality of some of this usage: "Prior to and during the naming process, the element may be referred to by its atomic number, as in 'element 118' or by its provisional systematic name, 'ununoctium'." They still recommend only the systematic symbol, but in practice nobody in real science uses that – and besides, saying "element 118" but using symbol "Uuo" is quite inconsistent. You should either use "Uuo" and "ununoctium" together (what we currently do), or use "E118" (possibly "118", "(118)") and "element 118" together (what we are proposing we should switch to doing). So the argument that the systematic names are IUPAC-recommended is quite weak. Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

As IUPAC recommend, we should continue to go with "If a symbol is needed, the systematic, provisional three-letter symbol should be used". --John (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. IMHO we should reflect common usage. Double sharp (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Make the group 12 elements poor metals?

(@DePiep: my excuse for this new Big Issue™ is that we are now debating on the science. Nothing will be changed yet, if at all.) Double sharp. ;-) for local joke - ok. DePiep.

I still feel that we should rethink our position on group 12 as transition metals. Chemically they are really not very close to the other transition metals and are far closer to the poor metals in their chemical properties. Even IUPAC offers us the choice to exclude group 12 from the transition metals (whereas they say nothing on issues like Sc/Y/Lu/Lr vs. Sc/Y/La/Ac), etc.

Here is how it looks (extended):

Periodic tablebase: PT basic, PT extended

	1	2																3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	Template:Element cell-1																																Template:Element cell-1
2	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																										Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
3	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																										Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
4	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
5	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
6	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
7	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
8	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
9	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																										Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
10			**
			*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
			**	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1

Technical edits: 1. Use short, simple & fast {{element cell-1}}. [2]-DePiep (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Demonstrate proposed changes: [3]

3. Voila. Simple & fast for talkpage examples. -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Eye candy smorgasbord. Fine piece of work. Sandbh (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It should be very practical & easy to use. I hope no one comes by to say: "hey, why not this one in article space ...". -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated to reflect agreement to classify group 3 as rare earth metals. For the "lanthanides" category above, read "rare earth metals". Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Legend /sandbox now shows "rare earth metal" for the same pink lanthanides color. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Issue: For Hg, HgF₄ is definitely not a representative compound. Copernicium is described by the experimenters as a typical group 12 element based on physical properties only, right? Should this then be marked as predicted? (Even if we don't implement this, it's still worth considering.) On element 164, it's predicted to show the +4 and +6 oxidation states as well as +2 readily, which would make it irrefutably a transition metal.

As always, feel free to argue. Jensen's paper is here. Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, based on physical, spectroscopic, chemical and theoretical grounds, as comprehensively and eloquently argued by Jensen and as reemphasized or further illustrated by the following:

1. '…the triad Zn, Cd and Hg have more in common with their immediate neighbours in the p block than they do with their neighbours on the other side, in the d block. (Smith 1990, p. 113)

2. '…one of the most conspicuous features in passing from Group IB elements (Cu, Ag and Au) to Group IIB elements (Zn, Cd, and Hg) is the abrupt and considerable reduction in metallic nature from Group IB to Group IIB. Group IIB elements have lower melting points, heats of fusion, boiling points, heats of atomization, and electrical and thermal conductivity than Group IB elements. The availability of d orbital electrons of IB, but not IIB, elements accounts for the difference.' (Sorensen 1991, p. 3)

3. 'The chemistry of zinc, cadmium and mercury is conveniently treated with that of the main group elements because their filled d shells are retained in all stable derivatives.' (King 1995, p. 273)

4. 'In view of the stability of the filled d shell, these elements [Zn, Cd Hg] show few of the characteristic properties of transition metals despite their position in the d block of the periodic table.' (Greenwood & Earnshaw 1998, p. 1206)

5. '…while Cu, Ag and Au are classified as transition elements, Zn, Cd and Hg are not.' (Cotton & Wilkinson et al. 1999, p. 598)

6. Zinc, cadmium and mercury are included in Massey's Main group chemistry (2000, pp. 159–176).

7. 'The zinc group does not fit the general picture of the transition Groups as developed in the last two chapters…In this case, the three elements of this Group resemble the three heavy elements of the boron Group. (MacKay, Mackay & Henderson 2002, p. 385)

8. 'The Group 12 elements have filled d orbitals in all their compounds, so they are better considered as main group metals. Consistent with this assignment, most of the compounds of the Group 12 metals are white, expect when the anion is colored…The only real similarity between the Group 12 elements and the transition metals is complex formation, particularly with ligands such as ammonia, cyanide ions, and halide ions. All of the metals, but especially mercury, tend to form covalent rather than ionic compounds. (Rayner-Canham G & Overton T 2006, p. 567)

9. '…[the] practical consequences [of the presumed preparation of HgF₄] for how we view and use the periodic table are essentially negligible.' (Jensen 2008, p. 1183)

• Cotton FA, Wilkinson G, Murillo CA & Bochmann 1999, Advanced inorganic chemistry, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York
• Greenwood NN & Earnshaw A 1998, Chemistry of the elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford
• Jensen WB 2008, 'Is mercury now a transition element?', Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 1182–83
• King RB 1995, Inorganic chemistry of the main group elements, VCH, New York
• Massey AG 2000, Main group chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester
• MacKay KM, MacKay RA & Henderson W 2002, Introduction to main group chemistry, 6th ed., Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham
• Rayner-Canham G & Overton T 2006, Descriptive inorganic chemistry, 4th ed., WH Freeman and Company, New York
• Smith DW 1990, Inorganic substances: A prelude to the study of descriptive inorganic chemistry, Cambridge University, Cambridge
• Sorensen EMB 1991, Metal poisoning in fish, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida

What to do about copernicium. Physically, probably a poor metal; chemically probably a transition metal. Seems to point to the limitations of our current practice of placing each element in only one category, rather than showing a few elements as belonging to two categories. Sandbh (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hg is a transition metal. 03:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Nergaal: is Au a nonmetal because it can form an anion? Could you please also let us know what you think about reference 9? Sandbh (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Entertaining read, but by the guys rationale, the transactinide elements are not actual elements since they are observed under atypical, non-equilibrium conditions. If we are not going to respect the rules set by the appropriate body, then this is nothing else than a forum where people throw around their personal choices. Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting argument. However, I submit that the comparison isn't valid. Transactindes are elements (and vice-versa) based on what evidence there is. This is vastly different from suggesting that because Hg can behave like a transition element for a 1000th of its chemistry (more like a 1,000,000th or less) it is therefore best regarded as a transition metal, discounting the fact that for the other 999,999 millionths of its chemistry it behaves as main group (poor) metal. IUPAC 'rules' have their place but not when their application produces non-sensical (IMO) outcomes. Sandbh (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, HgF₄ is irrefutably atypical chemistry. We have HArF; is anyone going to suggest that Ar is not a noble gas because it can form compounds? (Off topic: were there any proposals to redefine the scope of the noble gas category, or even rename it, after the Bartlett "XePtF₆" experiment? Sandbh??) Only in 118 where cationic behaviour becomes the norm do you actually have people questioning its noble gas status. On IUPAC: (sorry for bringing this up, R8R) there was some chaos at {{Periodic table (valence)}} a while back based on the phrasing of a IUPAC definition (A has valence x if there's a compound AF_x or AH_x, was it not?) And also, I would say we should not follow them dogmatically, but actually look at common usage. You will find some authors putting the whole of group 12 into the transition metals and some other authors leaving all of them as poor metals (post-transition metals). Have you ever seen a serious book that covers group 12 chemistry that treats Zn and Cd as poor metals and Hg as a transition metal?

Yes, Cn is a problem! My defense is that these colours are for chemical properties of the elements (as evidenced by the "Unknown" label reading "Unknown chemical properties"), and so we should not take physical properties into account when we do this. Indeed, a periodic table organized solely by physical properties would be an absolute nightmare in the p-block! :-) (164 is expected to have similar physical properties to Hg as well.) Double sharp (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

K is a transition metal, in accordance with IUPAC rules.

Seriously, this underscores the folly of applying IUPAC rules on the basis of extraordinarily atypical situations. Sandbh (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

About Cn, I think the categorisation of the elements is based on considering both their physical and chemical properties, and trying to work out a best fit categorisation as indicated by the literature. Our chemical properties label I interpreted a bit more generically as a chemical element with such and such physical and chemical properties, rather than confining things purely to chemical properties, although for sure these are important. This is all a bit moot in any event. If Cn is predicted to have a predominance of its chemistry in the +4 state then I think that would be enough to justify transition metal status. Same principle applies for mercury which is a liquid but nobody holds that against counting it as a metal; gold with some of its peculiar properties yet still regarded as a transition metal; manganese with its highly brittle comportment, very low electrical conductivity, bizarrely directional crystalline structure, relatively low packing efficiency and e.g. its capacity to form an acid (permanganic), yet still regarded as a transition metal; ditto gallium with its weird Ga₂ molecular structure, melt in your hand behaviour, and amphoteric chemistry, yet still regarded as a metal. So, yes, Cn as a transition metal although it may be somewhat of the runt of the TMs. Sandbh (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2013‎ (UTC)

I think noble gases used to be referred as inert gases before their actual chemistry was discovered. Nergaal (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I forgot all about that. Oops. Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Errata: Element 113 Actually, surely by this definition 113 is also a transition metal, as 6d electrons are predicted to be chemically active in 113(II), 113(III) (both with 6d⁹), and 113(V) (the last from unstable (113)F₅ and more stable (113)F⁻
₆). So I changed its colouring here. Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

For some reason the Inert pair effect article was changed to say it refers to poor metals where it previously said post transition metals. The inert pair effect does not apply to aluminium and only applies to post transition metals. A revert I have made has already been reverted by user DePiep and he suggests that I come here- although what the inert pair effect has to do with the group 12 metals escapes me! I hope someone with a knowledge of chemistry gets involved, I do not have the time or inclination to get involved in a wikipedia edit war but it would be nice if the inert pair article could be corrected. Axiosaurus (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed back to your version.

@DePiep: Thanks a lot for your edits, but do keep in mind that "post-transition metal" and "poor metal" are not exactly synonymous: the former does not include aluminium, while the latter does. In fact our previous periodic table was WRONG because it labelled Al as a post-transition metal!!!

All fine. Anyone here may revert me in these things without spending much time explaining. (Your time better spend, and I can stand such a revert -- or should be able to do so. smiley here). -DePiep (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

On group 12: indeed, the inert pair effect is only expected to extend to group 12 in the 7th period with copernicium. Ref: [4], p. 82. Hence the predictions about noble-gas Cn. (Cn is expected now to be a metal, but a rather unreactive one, because the 7s electrons are less involved chemically than the 6s ones due to relativistic effects. (It's expected to extend to all the transition metals in the 8th period, so that the group oxidation state is possible, but the group oxidation state minus 2 is much more common!) Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, the low reactivity of Hg has, at least in part, been attributed to the inert pair effect. And, as I recall, the effect isn't confined to either the poor metals or the post-transition metals: it goes as far as into As, a metalloid, and at least Br, a nonmetal. Cooper (1968) includes a periodic table with an inert pair dotted line starting halfway through Hg and extending all the way up to halfway through Cl. OK, that's an old ref which may be in need of supplementation by more recent thinking but for sure our current article doesn't tell the full story. Sandbh (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cooper HG 1968, The periodic table, 4th ed., Plenum Press, New York

To clarify, Cooper (pp. 15–16) said the inert pair effect occured in: Group IIb: Hg ("unreactivity, effective valency 0"); Group IIIb: Ga (partly), In, and Tl; Group IVb: Ge (partly), Sn and Pb; Group Vb: As (partly), Sb and Bi; Group VIb: S (partly), Se, Te and Po; and Group VIIb: Cl (partly), Br, I and At. He says, "Sulphur and chlorine are considered to show inert pair behaviour; in their case the pair of electrons is additional to the complete octet (the rather rare 4-covalent sulphur, 8 shared and 2 unshared; 3-covalent chlorine, as in ClF₃, 6 shared and 4 unshared).' Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Expansion really is needed, it seems, for that article! I suppose I now have to change my comment to read that Cn will be much more affected by the inert pair effect than Hg.

So, do we think it's OK to make this change? Double sharp (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(spammed all the talk pages for the active project members, except those who have already commented) Double sharp (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Intermediate check: current proposed changes are: Zn, Cd, Hg → poor metal; Cn → only predicted transistion metal (not proven); 113 → predicted transition metal. -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a good book with the sentence:"Zinc is a poor metal." Not with the sentence :"Zinc is a post-transition metal."? Stone (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"The Group 13 elements are often designated as poor metals, except boron that is considered as a nonmetal metalloid". And, well, I didn't look that hard. But we can see from this that "poor metals" is alive and in use as a term, it seems, so I think it's OK to start going around calling Zn, Cd, and Hg poor metals too. Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking around, I found:

1. 'Chalcophile elements (e.g. Ag, As, Bi, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn). Those metals (sometimes called "poor metals") and heavier nonmetals that have a low affinity for oxygen and prefer to bond with sulfur as highly insoluble sulfides.' (Yousif 2007, p. 11).

The only good reference I see. This is Geochemistry and not a Chemistry text book.--Stone (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

2. 'Adding…more of the poor metal zinc will degrade score resistance.' (Booser 1992, p. 2) Note however that Booser refers to lead as a 'good element' for increasing score resistance in a copper alloy.

This might work too, but this is material science with good and poor metals.--Stone (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

3. 'Among the other metals, while some have excellent technical qualities, the price is prohibitive. The most advantageous combination is, apparently, steel-zinc. It has often been employed; but zinc is a poor metal, very oxidizable and liable to change of dimensions in the course of years.' (The Jewelers Circular 1922, p. 141)

A Jewlers journal for basic chemistry, vey questionable.--Stone (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

4. 'Pure zinc is a soft metal, but contrary to the general rule, is a poor metal to work…' (Industrial Press 1912, p. 33)

What's the rest of the quote? It seems like 'poor' is being used in its normal, non-technical use. YBG (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

'...in this [extrusion] process.' Sandbh (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A poor metal to work is nort a poor metal.--Stone (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And the following related quotes:

5. 'Aluminium is one of the borderline or weak metals. These metals, other examples being zinc and tin, have chemical properties of both metals and nonmetals.' (Rayner-Canham & Overton 2006, p. 193)

6. '…a relatively weak metal such as zinc…' (Zahner 1996)

7. 'Zinc is a…metal with a relatively low melting point…and boiling point…When unalloyed, its strength and hardness is greater than that of tin or lead, but appreciably less than that of aluminium or copper. The pure metal cannot be used in stressed applications due to low creep-resistance.' (Porter 1991, p. 36)

8. 'Zinc is weak, costs over twice as much per pound as pig iron or low carbon steel, and even with good corrosion resistance usually needs plating for good appearance.' (Moore & Kibbey 1982, p. 102).

9. '…metals which one would call weak, such aluminium and zinc, have the physical properties of good metals [e.g. ductility, conductivity], but some of their chemical properties are those of non-metals.' (Stott 1956, p. 100)

10. '… any metal which "can be easily cut with a knife" is not particularly good for structural purposes as a metal…It is very much such a metal as zinc or tin.' (Brown 1891, p. 152)

None of those is worth mentioning. --Stone (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Booser ER 1992, 'Bearing naterials,' Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, vol. 4
• Brown AB 1891, 'Electricity in the production of aluminum,' Transactions of the American Institite of Electrical Engineers, vol. VIII
• Industrial Press 1912, Machinery's Reference Series, vol. 101-110
• Moore HD & Kibbey DR 1982, Manufacturing, materials and processes, 3rd ed., Grid Publications, Columbus, Ohio
• Porter F L 1991, Zinc handbook: Properties, processing, and use in design, 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker, New York
• Rayner-Canham G & Overton T 2006, Descriptive inorganic chemistry, 4th ed., W. H. Freeman and Company, New York
• Sott RW 1956, A companion to physical and inorganic chemistry, Longmans, Green and Co., London
• The Jewelers Circular 1922, vol. 85, no. 1
• Yousif N 2007, Geochemistry of stream sediment from the state of Colorado using NURE data, ETD Collection for the University of Texas, El Paso, paper AAI3273991
• Zahner LW 1996, 'The selection, specification, and performance of metals in architecture,' JOM, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 14–15

Sandbh (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just as Sandbh prepared the new poor metals article, would it be helpful to prepare the new Cn and element 113 text with references, somewhere? -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• So, no changes in group 9 then (167?). -DePiep (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (I think you mean period 9. Period = horizontal, group = vertical.)
  • Period 9 is expected to be like periods 2 and 3. "Reading between the lines" of Fricke's paper, the 9s electrons should be chemically active in the 9th period and hence 167 should not be a transition metal, having +3 as its main oxidation state. Same goes for 168–170, if you're wondering.
  • Errata: Elements 165 and 166 165 and 166 are trickier. Fricke's more detailed paper says that "From this side E165 and E166 will be members of the groups Ia and IIa. From a more chemical point of view, they will be likely more members of the Ib and IIb groups because of the 7d shell which is more comparable to the elements Au and Hg (but also to the elements E119 and E120) as can be seen from Fig. 14. Therefore, higher oxidation states than 1 and 2 might readily occur.)" Whereas his more overview-like paper softens this to just being a possibility that "might" happen. But I'm more inclined to trust this one. So I have changed them to predicted transition metals here. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Sandbh, what do you think of this choice? I think it's defensible and reasonable (isn't Tl(I) similar to K(I) due to similar ionic radii, whereas Tl(III) behaves more like Al(III)? This is just a more extreme version, and involving alkali metal—transition metal, not alkali metal—poor metal.)
    • It's a pity that I can't reflect the fact that 119 and 120 should also form +3 and +4 oxidation states respectively, because those use 7p_3/2 electrons and hence don't fit our "transition metal" definition! Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Yet another problem is that while by this definition 165 and 166 become transition metals, it appears that the 7d electron involvement makes them not have transition metal character, but rather group 13 and group 14 metal character. In light of this I am thoroughly confused on what to call these elements. They seem to fit about as well above 167 and 168 as below 119 and 120. Sandbh, please save me. Double sharp (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a borderline case: Haire (I know very well that he didn't write that chapter of the book, but it seems to be the most readily understood way of referring to that book here) states that the early 7p elements (may be referring to 113–115? He does not make this very clear) may have transition metal character due to 6d destabilization. I have not reflected this because it is a maybe, and is not further treated in any of the following separate sections on the 7p transactinides, save for 113 (which I have duly marked as a predicted transition metal above). Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: I want the 165, 166 situation to be clear and reasoned and sourced before we conclude. It needs to be fleshed out. No squeezing in. -DePiep (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Same for ₁₁₂Cn and 113. Other than the sandbh sandbox proposal for measured elements (Zn Cd Hg), we do not have a coherent discussion & outcome for these. There is no encyclopedic text. For these predicted properties, I do not see consensus. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

some new topic

• There is one guy, a geochemist (Yousif N 2007, Geochemistry of stream sediment from the state of Colorado using NURE data, ETD Collection for the University of Texas, El Paso,) calling zinc a poor metal. No good chemistry text book does so. No discussion in any chemical education journal, nowhere I look. For me this is pure construction without reference. If we change this I seriously doubt that this will stand a closer look for original research. To change a few colours in a periodic table which is used to guide people in wikipedia is our business, but to state that some metal is a poor metal without the overwhelming number of text books on our side is assumption of authority. --Stone (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So? By this IUPAC definition, Zn, Cd and Hg are post-transition. None will take issue with that. Much of the categories you see here for the superheavies are "reading between the lines" too. Yet they are all we have, and no one complains about that, because obviously no colouring is less informative than some colouring.

On "poor metals", these are often used to mean "main-group metals that aren't in the s-block" (citation needed, but readily available). We already have a source that Zn, Cd, and Hg are sometimes treated as main group metals. So they can be poor metals. We cannot use "post-transition metals" anywhere in this categorization scheme as it leaves Al colourless. Neither should we use such terms as "B group metals" (that's dependent on whether you use the ACS or old IUPAC scheme). I do not see any viable alternative that does not cause even more problems. ("Other metals" is terrible and information-poor.)

"Assumption of authority"? This is really the sort of thing IAR was made for. We may not have an explicit mention that Zn is a poor metal. We have definitions of poor metal from sources that, coupled with our new transition metal definition, have to include Zn. (The same applies to Cd and Hg.) Thus we must really put them as poor metals. Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor idea I admit to not following the discussion closely, but I teach inorganic for decades and publish in the area. I never hear the term "poor metal." Possibly it is used in some metallurgical context. Editors need to be cautious about giving undue weight to obscure jargon, although I am sure this is all well intentioned. I just call them the zinc triad. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got a nice pun there. :-) But is there any other term that would work here? "Post-transition metal" doesn't work because of Al, which isn't after any transition metals. "B group metals" is based on outdated and ambiguous terminology. "p-block metals" not only isn't right here (the Zn group are in the d-block) and is not informative. It tells you what you already can see (if you know what blocks are) or gives you no clue as to their more significant common properties. Same for the related "s-block metals", "d-block metals", "f-block metals". Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No useful insights from me into the naming issue aside from "zinc triad" Colleagues on this page argue through these things pretty carefully, so if you end up with poor metal, so be it. I might be out of it, only a few years ago did I hear the term "tetrel" (which now redirects to carbon group]]). --Smokefoot (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The literature is tangled. There is no widely accepted term for the well-established concept of a bunch of second-string metals between the transition metals and the metalloids. The closest is possibly 'B-subgroup metals'. But that would compound the situation given, as Double sharp has noted: (a) American/European differences in the use of the A/B nomenclature; (b) the fact that it's a redundant term within IUPAC's Group 1‒18 labelling scheme; and (c) it clashes with the type a/borderline/type b classification scheme for the behaviour of metal ions.

The next best label, given the problems with the alternatives (chemically weak metals; metametals; post-transition metals; semimetals) would probably be poor metals. Here's an example from the chemistry literature (Rosca et al. 2009):

'De Vooys et al. studied ammonia oxidation on a series of transition and coinage metals. The coinage metals copper, silver, and gold showed no activity for ammonia oxidation, due to their low dehydrogenation capacity (p. 2235).

'Besides transition and coinage metals, there have been a few studies of nitrate reduction in acidic media on “poor metals” such as mercury, indium, cadmium, and tin (p. 2236).'

Now, usage of the term poor metals in the chemistry literature isn't consistent either. For example (Hill and Holman 2000, p. 40):

'The term poor metals is not widely used, but it is a useful description for several metals including tin, lead and bismuth. These metals fall in a triangular block of the periodic table to the right of the transition metals.'

In this case, Hill and Holman treat the transition metals as being Groups 3–12, hence the Group 12 metals are treated as TMs rather than PMs.

But at least the term is used in chemistry, it is usefully descriptive, and there are good materials science and chemistry grounds, as pretty consistently recorded in the literature, for collectively distinguishing between the Group 11 metals as e.g. transition metals, or coinage metals, or noble metals, and the rest of the metals in question as poor metals.

• Hill G & Holman J 2000, Chemistry in context, 5th ed., Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham, ISBN 0174483074
• Rosca V, Duca M, de Groot MT, Koper MT 2009, 'Nitrogen cycle electrocatalysis, Chemical Reviews, vol. 109, pp. 2209‒2244, doi:10.1021/cr8003696

Sandbh (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Supplementary example, for future reference: 'On poor metals such as Zn, Cd, and In, glucose enhances DHMF [2,5-dihydroxymethylfuran] formation; however, its contribution in the presence of Bi, Pb, Sn, and Sb is limited.'

• Kwon Y, de Jong E, Raoufmoghaddam S & Koper MT 2013, 'Electrocatalytic hydrogenation of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural in the absence and presence of glucose', ChemSusChem, vol. 6, no. 9, doi:10.1002/cssc.201300443

Sandbh (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor metal article 2.0

I've drafted a proposed version 2.0 of the poor metal article, including Zn, Cd and Hg, in my sandbox. Things to note:

• commonality of properties
• aluminium is the most complete entry and includes its 'good' qualities (an approach I intend to take with the other element sketches, where possible)
• many citations still to follow, including tidying the ones in the notes
• no pics yet. Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sandbh (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I note: User:Ds (Ds means Doublesharpium) has made the essential PT template {{Periodic table (poor metal)/sandbox}} into a shining clear thing. E.g., it is great in clarifying the "(predicted)" lighter colors (period 7), even without legend. And it is great in showing the environmental elements. -DePiep (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that symbol is taken. :-( Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased to advise that the draft of poor metal 2.0 looks to be launch-ready. Sandbh (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be great. So the some new topic is resolved, and my 165, 166 quest will be answered & sourced in the articles. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

165 and 166 seems to be being dealt with by me currently, since Sandbh has not yet answered me. :-( But given that they seem to behave as Au and Hg's "big brothers" (well, not so much Hg as what Hg would be if it were hypothetically a true transition metal; I would say Cn except that we don't actually know its chemistry), based on Fricke, transition metal is OK. I inserted explanations into alkali metal and period 9 element. I did not put it in alkaline earth metal at this moment because it would result in the unknown elements in the group being described in greater detail than the known ones! Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sandbh, are the statements (promises?) by Double sharp OK to go ahead? They are about predicted elements. I must be tough with respected elementary user:Ds. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the classifications of the predicted elements now. Hope to post something shorty. Sandbh (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Option 1: I had a brief look through Türler and Pershina (2013). Towards the end of their article they say, 'It was shown that the heaviest elements are basically [italics added] homologs of their lighter congeners in the chemical groups, though their properties may be rather different due to very large relativistic effects on their electron shells.'

Their reference to these elements being 'basically homlogs of their ligher congenors' makes me think we should classify them the same as their lighter congenors, unless we are satisfied that the preponderance of their predicted properties falls into a different category. Their reference to 'though their properties may be rather different' made me think about thallium which, despite its similarities to silver and to the alkali metals, we still show as a poor metal.

E113, for example, would probably have the physical and chemical properties of a poor metal, plus some transition metal chemistry. The preponderance of properties would lie in the poor metals category. I know this is at variance with the IUPAC definition of transition metal but that definition was never framed with the complications of the super heavy elements in mind.

The above represents my early thoughts in this matter. Please free to present more arguments. Sandbh (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Türler A & Pershina V 2013, 'Advances in the production and chemistry of the heaviest elements', Chemical Reviews, vol. 113, pp. 1237−1312, doi:10.1021/cr3002438

re Double sharp, this is my point: Now that Sandbh has made article 2.0 stable (about existing group 12 elements), these predicted elements still creep in as a topic -- but without a stable conclusion. For example, even you write "seems to be ..." above, yesterday. I myself cannot conclude in this, but I just do not want a discussion afterwards. Because that could imply reversals, or partial reversals, or continued disputes, in dozens of pages & graphics. That would be a disaster. So this is why I keep asking for article text (=the sourced base) for the changes w.r.t. predicted elements. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Option 2: We've discussed this option before. It was to allow for two-category elements. Nobody who commented on this proposal, apart from me, liked it. It may be worth revisting. A lot of the drama associated with classifying the atypical elements might go away. E113, for example, could be shown as poor metal/transition metal. That would seem to be a concise way of summarising the (predicted-to-be) atypical nature of these elements.

Option 3: Hybrid of option 1 and 2. Colour the elements as per option 1. Show more than one category, as per option 2, only in the element's article category box. Sandbh (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Vote for option 3. (@DePiep: Yes, I share your desire to have all this sorted out first.)

Now here's my detailed Sandbh-style analysis on E113. Fricke's first paper directly compares E113 with Tl and implies that it follows the trend down the boron group: "In the chemical group III the oxidation state is 3, only the valency of T1 is mostly 1 so that Z = 113 is expected to have only the oxidation state 1." His second paper goes into much greater detail: "The chemistry of El13 is expected to be similar to that of the thallous ion although E113+ being a soft Lewis acid should form complexes more easily. The predicted radius of 113⁺ is 1.48Å, the same as Rb⁺, and is not much larger than Tl⁺ itself (1.40Å). The large polarizability and moderately large negative oxidation potential of −0.6V will increase the binding of anions to E113⁺, but the large radius and the associated electronic repulsion may counteract these effects. Since H₂O is a hard solvent, salts of E113 should have low solubilities whereas the nitrate andfluoride should be quite soluble. The E113⁺ ion may, however, form only a slightly soluble oxide whose solution will be alkaline;(considerable polymerization could be anticipated) and this solution will readily absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Like argentous and aurous oxides, the oxide of E113⁺ may be soluble in ammonia." But then his first paper goes on to say that Fl(IV) may use d electrons but still act like main group. Based on all this (similarities Tl and alkali metals and transition metals), I think a poor metal classification is warranted, though with an explanatory note in the infobox. (TL;DR: Retracts statement that E113 is transition, except as IUPAC demands, because by IUPAC definition Fl is also a transition metal despite chemical properties not tallying.)

E165 and E166: Fricke says "From this side [periodic trends] E165 and E166 will be members of the groups Ia and IIa. From a more chemical point of view, they will be likely more members of the Ib and IIb groups because of the 7d shell which is more comparable to the elements Au and Hg (but also to the elements El19 and E120) as can be seen from Fig. 14. Therefore, higher oxidation states than 1 and 2 might readily occur." But surely periodic trends of ionization potentials have an impact on chemistry! And E119 and E120 can also form higher oxidation states. Changing the classification smacks of over-applying of IUPAC's definition. The similarities to Au and Hg I don't see from his paper; but if we assume he means that E165⁺ acts like K⁺ and E165³⁺ acts like Au³⁺ or Tl³⁺, well, I think they could safely be called alkali and alkaline earth metals based on physical properties. Chemically we have a dispute; physical properties are firmly on the side of alkali and alkaline earth metals. (TL;DR: Retracts statement that they are transition.)

OK, from looking over this again, I now think the main categories for E113, E165, and E166 should be reverted back to what periodic trends would expect. We can mention other things in the infoboxes or their articles. (Now I think that some of the superheavies should be re-articleized.) For the record, Cn and E164, I think, should stay as transition metals. Double sharp (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Option 4. This is the pragmatic IUPAC option. Consistent with the IUPAC definition of a transition metal, silver is a TM as it has (significant) TM chemistry. It is classified as a TM, even though the chemistry of silver in its most common oxidation state of +1 is that of a main-group element. Copper and gold, transition metals both, also have significant MG chemistries. Yet, unless you go with option 2, copper, silver and gold are routinely shown as TMs, and references to their MG chemistry are only given in any accompanying text. So, under this option E113 is a TM, E119 is an alkali metal and E120 is an alkaline earth metal. (Yes, E119 and E120 may have chemistries in higher oxidation states than their group numbers but there is no IUPAC definition that obligates them being classified as anything other than (atypical, admitedly) MG metals. E165 and E 166 = TM, as long as we are satisfed that they are predicted to have significant TM chemistry, and would meet the IUPAC definition: 'An element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations [italics added] with an incomplete d sub-shell.'

The only element whose proposed classification I'm not comfortable with is that of E171. I'm not sure how an element with such a high atomic number would be anything other than a metal, at least in terms of its crystalline structure, consistent with the Goldhammer-Herzfield metallicity criterion. The GHMC is a ratio that compares the force holding an individual atom's valence electrons in place with the forces, acting on the same electrons, arising from interactions between the atoms in the solid or liquid element. When the interatomic forces are greater than or equal to the atomic force, valence electron itinerancy is indicated. Metallic behaviour is then predicted. Otherwise nonmetallic behaviour is anticipated. Goldhammer-Herzfield is non-relativistic but I'm not sure what kind of relativistic effect would prevent the onset of metallization in an element with such a high atomic number.

E171 (predicted IE 10.2 eV; predicted EA 3.0 eV) may be something like gold (IE 9.22 eV; EA 2.3 eV) which, despite its high IE and EA, has a common oxdiation state of +3 and forms, despite its high EA, very few compounds with an oxidation state of −1. Haire says, 'The common oxidation states of elements 167 to 179 will be 3+ to 6+. Element 171 is expected to have many states from 1− to 7+, as do halogens.' E171 might be a bit like gold, having a common oxidation state somewhere in the range of +3 to +6, and forming some compounds with an oxidation state of −1. I think, given what I would expect would be its metallic structure, this would qualify E171 as a poor metal. If we were proposing to classify E171 as a predicted nonmetal then I think, perhaps, we would need more supporting material. Sandbh (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this is what I was originally thinking. Now E113 would have significant transition metal character in at least the +5 state, though I suppose that the +3 state may well have main group character (cf. Fl having sd hybridization possibly for the +4 state, but no one calls it a transition metal, strengthening my speculation that the d electrons are behaving like the s electrons of the lighter main group elements). Yet the only predicted stable compound where it is in the +5 state is the polyfluoride ion (E113)F⁻
₆, so I'm not sure if this warrants such a classification. Though it is predicted to have complex (noun) chemistry like Ag so I'm divided on this issue. In addition E165 and E166 are expected to behave as group 13 and 14 metals when they are in the higher +3 and +4 oxidation states, per Haire, and I can reasonably see E119 and E120 acting similarly; Fricke expects a similarity to Au and Hg, though I don't really see it from his diagram of predicted ionization potentials.

You make good points regarding E171. My last line of defence is that Fricke predicts H171 to be a hydrogen halide (thus implying that 171 is a halogen), and that 171⁻ would be about as hard a base as Cl⁻ (though, looking at the EA he gives, I have to wonder if he doesn't mean I⁻). Does H⁺Au⁻ even form as a stable compound? Is Au⁻ a hard base?

As for relativistic effects, I can just about imagine the fact that 8p_3/2 and 9p_1/2 forming one shell wouldn't act like a split 7p_1/2—7p_3/2 shell. It is still hard to believe, though, that (as Fricke implies), E167 to E170 are all poor metals but E171 is somehow magically a halogen and hence a diatomic nonmetal! (As you can see, I was unsure of this in the beginning, and not much is required to sway me one way or the other!) Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have to wonder though if the "179" in the Haire quote is not a typo for "170", which would make more sense per the Fricke papers. If that is the case, then the case for a halogenic E171 is strengthened. Double sharp (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor idea. The argument for poor metals as a major categorisation of elements that deserves to sit alongside the more widely used, accepted and taught categories of non- metals, metalloids etc. is not made, yet alone the argument to include the grouo 12 metals as well. A much improved version of the poor metal article is in draft and as such will be the most comprehensive literature survey of the previously obscure term "poor metals". The periodic table can be sliced and diced in many ways, often ending up with fuzzy sets of elements where there will be debate and disagreement about the members at the set boundaries. Poor metals is one of these fuzzy groups, and it was hardly known until wikipedia stepped in. In fact reading the poor metals draft has convinced me that "poor metals" actually sits alongside coinage metals and the platinum group etc. fairly comfortably, and that is a good reason to include it in a "metal categories" version of the periodic table. I would prefer to remove the poor metals category completely from the "standard" periodic table, on the basis that the category is ill-defined and inclusion is confusing to the target audience. It is already there in the current wikipedia standard table , and that is bad enough, but taking in group 12? For me that is one step too far. Axiosaurus (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

But what do we replace it with? Post-transition doesn't make sense because of Al, B-subgroup metals doesn't make sense because of group 11, chemically weak metals doesn't make sense because it leaves out everything that isn't right next to the metalloid line, p-block metals doesn't make sense because group 12 isn't in the p-block, etc. Poor metal is not the best term, but the fact is that there really isn't a good name for these metals that is reasonably descriptive and used at all in chemistry. The notion that there is distinct category of elements between the transition metals and the metalloids isn't disputed; the dispute is what to call it. Given the problems with the alternatives, "poor metals" seems to me to be the best solution, though it is of course not ideal.

(Also, we do call it a loose category, and note that the terminology used varies greatly. But at least "poor metal" is descriptive in that these are actually physically and chemically poor metals, and have reasonably well-defined distinguishing properties of having high electronegativities and low melting and boiling points.)

As for group 12, that is only because they can hardly be called transition metals, and this is the only category that makes sense in our current scheme. Double sharp (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly once you color in the boxes the definition ceases to be loose, typical readers won't go and look at the definition- only sad old gits like me do that. Poor metals is a wikipedia construct, its verging on OR. Secondly the group 12 are transition metals on the edge of their set, they are just more atypical than a lot of the others. My advice, although I expect no-one to take it is leave the group 12 in transition metals, and call the others p block, making the wikipedia "standard" look more like the versions in text books and published by IUPAC. Make a new version if you want of the periodic table to highlight the different categories of metals- showing coinage, platinum - that would be useful.Axiosaurus (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they don't know what "poor metals" are, they will certainly check the definition! (And if they do know what we are using it for, then they don't need to check it.)

Group 12 is physically and chemically overwhelmingly not akin to the transition metals. They have far more in common with the metals of the p-block than the metals of the d-block. The availability of d electrons in group 11 but not group 12 for bonding makes a great deal of difference, such as heavily reducing metallic character (e.g. all of them tend to form covalent rather than ionic compounds, especially Hg) – this transition metal–poor metal divide is the main basis for the use of the adjective "poor" in the category "poor metals". The only real similarity is complex formation. These points have all been noted in reliable sources, per Sandbh's first comment in this thread. It is also quite telling, in my opinion, that the supposed "edge, but still transition metal" area group 12 is in doesn't seem to exist on the left side of the transition metals if we take the groups 3–12 definition. On the whole, I think putting group 12 with the transition metals, while giving rise to an aesthetically pleasing and symmetrical periodic table, is undesirable because it gives an inaccurate impression of their behaviour. Textbooks are split approximately 50–50 on the issue anyway. (Does the official IUPAC table actually colour any groups other than the lanthanides and actinides?) Double sharp (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Group 12 elements into poor metals: consensus roundup

This is the situation as of 7 Oct 2013, 14:00 UCT. Following discussion above, statements may change.
Individual edits are not signed (see page history)

This is a description of the proposed statements, as of this moment. Before consensus is concluded above, this section is not to be used. It is provided here to check and to prepare necessary edits. This section does not discuss or reason the scientific background. it just describes outcomes. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Group 12 elements into poor metals

It is just a title. Not a factual description. It does not describe exactly all conclusions (for example, elements in period 7, 8 change otherwise).

Desription and references

• The new situation is described in the concept new poor metal article: see User:Sandbh/sandbox.
• Copernicium is described in its article.

Elements changing into poor metal

• Zinc, cadmium and mercury are poor metals (not post-transition metals).

Period 7 changes

• Category of ₁₁₂Cn (group 12!) will be changed into "transition metal (predicted)".

Period 8 changes

• No changes in period 8. Element 164, in group 12, stays "transition metal (predicted)", pale pink.

Period 9 changes

• No changes in period 9.

Not changed

• Element 164 is not changed. Stays "transition metal (predicted)".

Post-transition metals

• Post-transition metals will include Zn, Cd, and Hg. Still will not include aluminium.

Elements that change

The two categories names and colors (changed to) are: "poor metal" (the grey) and "transition metal (predicted)" (the light pink).

Periodic table

	12
4	Template:Element cell-1
5	Template:Element cell-1
6	Template:Element cell-1
7	Template:Element cell-1
8	Template:Element cell-1

Edits todo

• See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Group 12 elements into poor metals: edits todo

If not poor, what then?

Writing in the Journal of Chemical Education about how periodic table groups and subgroups should be designated, Fernelius, Loening & Adams said, 'The situation for Zn, Cd, and Hg is different. They form no compounds having incomplete d orbitals and hence have no transition metal character. Still one wishes to distinguish these from Ca, Sr, Ba in some manner. No one has suggested a good term for this.' (p. 595) [underline added]

They wrote this in 1971 and the situation hasn't changed much (I'm not sure if they knew that Zn, Cd and Hg were sometimes referred to as the volatile metals.)

It seems to me that we either use an existing term such as poor metals (perhaps the front runner in a relatively mediocre field of 15) or, since the concept is well established but there's no widely used short-hand term for it, we use a descriptive phrase, in accordance with WP:NAD:

'In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.'

The shortest descriptive phrase I can think of is low-melting electronegative metals or, in abbreviated form, LME metals. The low melting part is a no-brainer and has been used previously to refer to to metals in this part of the periodic table. The phrase 'electronegative metals' is reasonably common in the literature, for example:

'On the other hand, polar intermetallics, e.g., BaAl₄, involve combinations of active, electropositive metals (Ba) with electronegative metals (Al), which form complex two- or three-dimensional networks that indicate some degree of covalent bonding.' (Miller, Lee & Choe 2002, p. 39)

'…the deposition of electronegative metals such as Cr and Zn is hindered by poor current efficiencies…' (Silvester at al. 2008, p. 310)

I like 'low-melting electronegative metals' as a reasonably objective descriptive phrase. The lede for the LME metal article would say:

Low-melting electronegative metals is a descriptive phrase for the metallic elements in Groups 12 to 16 of the periodic table. These metals are physically and chemically weak, consistent with their location between the 'true metals'^[n1] (to their left) and the metalloids (to their right). Among the metals they are distinguished by having a combination of relatively low melting points (all less than 950 K) and relatively high electronegativity values (all more than 1.6, revised Pauling).'

I could see if could work in the quote by Fernelius, Loening and Adams, and I could add poor metals to the 'Related groups' section, and a footnote reference re 'volatile metals'.

• Miller GJ, Lee C & Choe W 2002, 'Structure and bonding around the Zintl border', in G Meyer, D Naumann & L Wesemann (eds), Inorganic chemistry highlights, vol. 1, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, pp. 21‒54 (39)
• Silvester at al. 2008, 'Technical aspects', in F Endres, ‎D MacFarlane & A Abbott (eds), Electrodeposition from ionic liquids, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, pp. 287‒352

Sandbh (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The only problem with this (as noted below) is that it falls flat for Cn, classifying it as an LMEM, despite conflicting chemical properties... Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

On the question of group 3

@Sandbh: after thinking about the edges of the d-block a little, I now have a question for you. :-) In what ways would you say group 3 is transition metal–like, and in what ways are they not? They don't form ions with d electrons in them, so transition metal character could, to my mind, be weakened. (If it is weakened enough to warrant a classification of group 3 as not being transition metals, we could again consider your proposal to group Sc, Y, and Ln as the rare earth metals and An as the actinides!) Double sharp (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(P.S. To my mind they are still transition metals, still having a fair number of the characteristic properties.) Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(P.P.S. Have not completely made up my mind on this issue, and would like to hear your comments. Here is an extended PT example – read "rare earth metal" for "lanthanide".) Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Periodic tablebase: PT basic, PT extended

	1	2																3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	Template:Element cell-1																																Template:Element cell-1
2	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																										Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
3	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																										Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
4	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
5	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
6	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
7	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
8	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
9	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																										Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
10			**
			*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
			**	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1

Sc, Y and Lu are physically transition metals. Their chemistry is largely (but not exclusively) not that of transition metals. Physical and chemical properties together would make them (marginal) transition metals. So, I agree with your initial assessment. Lr depends on its electron config. 'Should' be [Rn]7s²5f¹⁴6d¹; but quantum mechanical research suggests [Rn]7s²5f¹⁴7p¹. That would make Lr a poor metal. Sandbh (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(After some thinking about this...) What I am not completely at ease with is that the colouring suggests that Sc and Y are transition metals, but Lu is not, despite considerable homology of Sc and Y to the lanthanides (including Lu!). That is what makes me think it might be better to include them into our current pink-coloured region and change the "lanthanides" category into "REMs". Furthermore, due to the lanthanide contraction, Y tends to act in terms of physical properties and chemical reactivity as though it were actually a lanthanide between Tb and Dy! These are very close similarities – Y is closer to the lanthanides than to its immediate left and right neighbours on the periodic table, even correcting for different valences – that this colouring obscures. As for Sc, its being slightly larger than the other transition metals results in it behaving significantly differently from them: its complexes have higher coordination numbers (e.g. 7 in [Sc(H₂O)₇]³⁺) and it tends to act like a smaller version of Lu. Even the coordinate chemistry of Sc and Y – the very property that the Zn group share with the transition metals – is often discussed in relation to that of the lanthanides rather than to that of the transition metals. I'd submit that labelling group 3 as rare earth metals with the lanthanides reflects their chemical and physical properties far better than labelling them transition metals: they may qualify as "marginal" transition metals, but surely that's not their main category. (Here's my source for this.)

I'm not sure that just having p valence electrons makes an element a poor metal. Element 113 should have valence electron configuration 6d¹⁰ 7p¹
_1/2, and is expected to act like a group 13 element except when it's in the +5 state (which is really just in one fluorine compound and its analogous polyfluoride ion), not a transition metal. So Lr could conceivably be an actinide. Also, the 7p¹ configuration is just a suggestion. Lr (s²p) should be less volatile than Lr (s²d), and have comparable volatility to Pb, and indeed experiments suggest that Lr is non-volatile; on the other hand, its enthalpy of absorption is much higher than what theoretical calculations predict for Lr (s²p). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.) gives Lr's electron configuration as 5f¹⁴ 6d¹ (7p¹) 7s¹, so I would submit that there is still a fair amount of doubt surrounding the actual ground-state electron configuration of Lr. (I do also note that the s²p configuration is supported by Eliav et al's 1995 CCSD calculations, which gave s²d² for Rf after some doubt, so while the jury is still out there, I personally bet on s²p.) Chemically Lr behaves like your average trivalent actinide, forming a trivalent ion in aqueous solution and extracting into the organic phase over the pH range of 3+ ions with Cf and Fm. I don't think the (admittedly limited) evidence is strong enough to justify labelling it as a poor metal. Double sharp (talk) 08:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Still thinking about all of this. Difficult question. Rare earth metals is attractive in some ways however I need to think through all of the options/do more reading etc. Sandbh (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I support your suggestion to categorise Sc, Y and lanthanides as rare earths. First two are currently shown as TM but chemistry is largely atypical of TM. Sc is said to be intermediate in properties between Al and Y. Yttrium plus the lanthanides are regularly called the rare earths. Sc, due to its intemediate position, sometimes is or isn't included with the rare earths. It's smaller than the other rare earths so it's the least basic, and atypical in some other respects. What to to? Ignoring electron configurations, I had a look at 25 physio-chemical properties that I could find data for, on Al, Sc, Y, La and Lu. These properties were: density; hardness (Brinell); ductility; electrical conductivity; thermal conductivity; superconductivity at normal pressure; thermal expansion; crystalline structure; heat of atomization; solubility of H₂; ionic radius; nature of hydride; melting point; boiling point; ultimate tensile strength; electronegativity (revised Pauling); electronegativity (Allred-Rochow); 1^st ionization energy; sum of 2^nd and 3^rd ionization energies; electrode potential; composition of aqua-cation; oxide melting point; oxide structure; chloride melting point; and chloride structure. I assigned from 1 to 4 points to one of Al, Y, La and Lu, with 4 points going to the metal that scandium was closest to in that property, 3 points to the next closest , and so on. Results were: Al (42.5); Y (80); La (48); Lu (79.5). This supports the notion that Sc is closer to Y than Al, and hence merits the inclusion of Sc with the rare earths. In doing my reading I found it odd that some authors would call attention to the atypical behaviour of Sc as a reason to question its membership of the rare earths whereas none quibbled about e.g. amphoteric and covalent-compound-forming Be being an alkaline earth metal, or the other first-row elements being members of their respective groups, despite their anomalies. Sc seems to have gotten the short-end of the stick, for no good reason that I could discern from the literature apart from a suggestion that its chemistry is the least studied of the 3d-block elements.

Next question: Which camp does Lr fall into (actinide or rare earth, if not poor) and why? Sandbh (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems we have two questions here: whether the actinides are rare earth elements, and how to classify Lr, the last actinide, in particular.

On the first question, I would say that the actinides are not rare earth elements. The (at least early) actinides' ability to reach much higher oxidation states than the lanthanides causes them to behave more like the transition metals than your average rare earth element. There also seems to be 5f/6d/7s/7p overlapping, especially in the U–Am region; this is not something the lanthanides have to the same extent. Actinides form covalent complexes more readily than lanthanides, including with π-bonding ligands. And their electronic structures are usually unclear – their atomic spectra are very difficult to interpret, their electron configurations can vary depending on whether you are considering the pure element or a compound, and it is very hard – often impossible – to say precisely what orbitals are being used in bonding. Now I do realize that most of this really applies mostly to the early actinides (until about Am or Cm), but they behave so little like their corresponding lanthanides that I feel a separate classification is warranted and necessitated. And for the late actinides, they are divalent metals from Es onwards, except Lr (whereas I think only Eu and Yb are divalent in the metallic state among the lanthanides).

Lr seems to be very closely related to Lu, as expected from group relationships (so are Sc and Y), but it also continues the elution sequence of the trivalent actinides, appearing just after Md (No is divalent). So I think an actinide classification should be given, but much mention should be made of its close kinship with Lu, visible in the metallic state (similar enthalpy of sublimation and atomic volume) and its having +3 as its only stable state in aqueous solution and solids. So I would say actinide. Also, IUPAC has all but defined the actinides as elements 89–103 on its official periodic table (one of the only two categories they choose to explicitly define there, the other naturally being the lanthanides), so I would not be comfortable with calling Lr a non-actinide. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Group 3 in periodic table

I've mentioned this before (in 2011), but there seems to be an inconsistency between the ways we present our 18-column and 32-column periodic tables. For the 18-column periodic table places all the lanthanides and actinides under Sc and Y, whereas the 32-column one (correctly IMHO) places only Lu and Lr in that position.

So I propose we return to the old (pre-2005 or thereabouts?) version of the PT on WP, with Lu and Lr in the main body of the periodic table. As usual, read "rare earth metals" for "lanthanides":

Periodic table base: PT standard, PT basic, PT extended

	1	2		3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	Template:Element cell-1																		Template:Element cell-1
2	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1												Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
3	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1												Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
4	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
5	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
6	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
7	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	**	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
			*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
			**	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1

• See also: {{periodic table/sandbox}}, as it would look. -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Potential objections:

• (1) Confusing: "lanthanide" and "actinide" labels before the pulled-out rows (57–70 and 89–102) do not correspond precisely to the real meaning of these terms. Response: True; this is a real issue. (Ideas for solutions?)
• (2) Original research: IUPAC recommends no particular placement for group 3, so we should not take sides. Response: The depth of the sources – and the chemical properties of the elements in question, as seen in reliable sources – is firmly on the side of Lu and Lr. (See Jensen especially.)

What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Tech note: introduced the adjusted legend {{Periodic table legend/Category/sandbox}}. That sandbox can be edited. -DePiep (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

re (1): We can not let these imprecisions stand. (same with "inner transition metal" in the legend). Solution step one: remove the words Lanthanide and Actinide. Simple and correct. Step 2: Do Lans and Acts need to be pointed out? We have another partially overlapping categories: poor metals and post-transition metals (partially, so not interchangeable names). If we need to mark them indeed, we can add another group marking for this (not using any bg color). e.g. box outline. Or move write the links in the two asterisk-boxes. I'll do this in my next edit (so it's easy to revert). -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Step 1 was a good call (the original was fraught with too many dangers), and what I thought of myself as an "emergency" first solution to make it correct. Step 2: I personally do not think the lanthanides and actinides (standard abbreviations: Ln and An respectively) need special marking – after all, we don't have special marking for any other groups in the PT, and I suspect they only had them because it was easy to show (not a good rationale).

On "inner transition metals", now that we have changed Ln to REMs (rare earth metals), it is technically not correct anymore as REM includes Sc and Y but inner transition metals does not (only including Ln and An). So we can get rid of it now. Hooray. (It was the only non-coloured top-level category.) Double sharp (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"inner transition metal" is gone. Consider this: we will remove the words & links Lanthanides and Actinides everywhere (all PT templates and images and category overviews). Only in dedicated locations they can stay. That is: when they are topical in text.

About re-using the lanthanide (pink) bg color for REM I have my doubts. We do not want any confusion or mixup between the Ln and REM category identifications. The reader better be informed by a serious color change (into say something green). Also it could send a confusing message to other wikis. It's a hell of a change then. First we'll see how the content proposals here settle down (element category groupings). -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but it does show the close relation to violet actinides. Maybe a noticeably different shade of a pinkish or purplish colour, to keep this relationship but remove confusion? Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not use or promise associations by color (with reasons). To tear us away from this suggestion, I'll use green here for REM, next edit. -DePiep (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice shade of green, also suggestive of the f-block WebElements colour. I like it. And it's also quite distinguishable from the lighter "Polyatomic nonmetals" colour (although as a precaution we might want to make that even lighter.) Double sharp (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. on your edit summary: all the lanthanides are rare earth metals. The former is a subset of the latter. Kind of like the poor metals vs its subset post-transition metals. (And shouldn't we really change the colour for that too for option 17?) Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand the overlap, but I think we should not keep referring to that except in specialized topics (like lanthanide). It would be very confusing to the reader to mix them before separating them. If we want to mark the lanthanides too in a PT, we need an extra graphic form (e.g, a box line around them).

The green is not the definitive proposed color per se, I just needed a color that brutally breaks us away from lanthanide thinking. (btw it is simply "G" in the talkpage-simplified PT; I think it is a bit too bright). -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Then again when we redrew the boundaries in the p-block ("other nonmetals" and "halogens" becoming our new polyatomic/diatomic classification) we didn't change the colours, just the shades of the colours. And it could be argued that (1) if you've seen our PT before, you'll notice our change in colouring Sc and Y and will look in the legend and (2) if you haven't seen it before, of course you will read the legend. And our classification would be mentioned in text, even if we just used another shade of pink.

Green tends to collide with either polyatomic nonmetals if it is bright or eka-superactinides if it is too dark. We could change the latter far more easily. One problem is that we are almost exhausting the entire space of easily distinguished colour categories (black and white are disallowed: then we have red, two greens(!), yellow, blue, brown, orange, pink, purple, grey, and cyan). One of option 17's virtues is that it frees up one colour category... Double sharp (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

About colors (not about cat definitions)

Main point: a differently defined category must have a different color (please read this again, or --threat-- I'll make it bold).

Therefor, for example, the diatomic/polyatomic cats may be a green and a yellow again indeed, but they are different colors (to me at least, and by number). We have a 1:1 relation between cat-id and color-id. That's good (this is why we changed the wiki-commons name for these elements: "polyatomic" green is not "other nonmetal" green).

Interestingly, if a cat changes content, the color can stay the same. This happens in the group 12 changes above: elements switch color from TM (pink) to PM (grey). But no cat definition changed --> same colors used! (this is why the group 12 change is relatively simple in edits-to-do).

Note that we better not start using "associations" with the colors. That will tie us up even more, reducing out freedom of choice into impossibles (too many contradicting requirements).

This about: differently defined categories must have a different colors (here, I made you read it again without bolding).

Now up to the next step. That is: our color scheme is not fit for the purpose. The ten colors we use are not the best chosen set. Today we use five reds, a grey and a brown, and the three other distinctive ones once (green, yellow, blue). We better redesign the whole palette from scratch - tacitly. Actually this is what I intend to do. But this cannot be done as long as cat definitions are discussed (as is happening now for REM, Ln, AM, AEM). So once the new cats are stable, I will start that talk ("propose change cat-x=color-3 to cat-x=color-5; times ten").

This means any color change is temporally. Change 20 elements to green for a few months?

Now this consequence: since we cannot change the color from lanthanide-pink to REM-green easily, I propose to use the old lanthanide-pink for the REM category (as it was some days ago). Once stabilized after the content edits, we can overhaul the whole cat color spread. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I like this suggestion. So we resolve all this content, come up with a fixed categorization (still using existing colours), and then completely overhaul the colours we use for those categories. Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wait, wait. This has nothing to do with the group 12 topic. It should be a separate section (like == group 3 == top level, or so. Not four ==== deep). We better reorganize this first. -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and I have now responded to your call. Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Point solved. -DePiep (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the current 18-column version, for the reason that it has no 'annoying' gap between the s- and d-blocks. Sandbh (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

But it's still inconsistent with the long table. The long table shows Sc/Y/Lu/Lr as one group, whereas the medium one shows Sc/Y/*/**. The only way you can translate that directly to a long table is putting super-stretched Sc and Y cells above all the lanthanides and actinides, and that looks odd. Besides the Sc-Y-Lu choice makes more sense as it follows the trends in the rest of the early and middle transition metal groups (Ti-Zr-Hf, V-Nb-Ta, Cr-Mo-W, Mn-Tc-Re, Fe-Ru-Os, Co-Rh-Ir, Ni-Pd-Pt). (And we can make the gap narrower. DePiep?) Double sharp (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Group 1, 2 and Al revisited

Option 17

This option covers some old ground, re groups 1 and 2, which I know at least R8R Gtrs, Double sharp and Nergaal may be familiar with. I'm posting this time partially in light of the comments by Axiosaurus and mainly because option 17 seems like a natural evolution from what has been covered so far. Feel free to use my own arguments against me.

(a) Let groups 1, 2 and Al be pre-transition metals. [Al will be in good company with Be, as will Li with Mg.]

(b) Let Sc, Y and the lanthanides be rare earth metals [Nice progression from pre-transition metals to rare earths]

(c) Let Zn, Cd, Hg; Ga, In, Tl; Sn, Pb; Bi and Po be post-transition metals [Nice progression from transition metals to post-TMs]

All these category names are found in the literature:

'Aluminium and the elements of groups 1 and 2 are classed as pre-transition metals…' (Cox 2012, p. 188). Cox also discusses the properties of the pre-transition metals as a whole, as did Deming (1940, pp. 650‒672), the guy who popularized the medium-long form of the periodic table (except he called them light metals). Deming wrestled with Al too. Originally (1923, p. 163), he grouped Al with the heavy metals (= transition metals + post-transition metals).

'Pre-transition-metal oxides (e.g. MgO, Al₂O₃, etc.) usually are good insulators and inert to redox gas molecules.' (Wang & Gouma 2012, p. 169)

'In this scheme, the alkaline-earth metals, Ca, Sr, and Ba, may be regarded as "pre-transition metals", and the noble metals, Cu, Ag, and Au, as "post-transition metals".' (Collings 1984, p. 46)

'Hopefully, these four volumes, and any which may follow will make a major contribution to our progress in understanding these exotic and fascinating elements. In writing these chapters the authors have been asked to use the term "rare earhs" to include Sc, Y and the elements La through Lu, and the tern "lanthanides" when referring to only the elements La through Lu.' (Gschneidner & Eyring 1979, p. vi)

'This concept will be considered in Chapter 2, but suffice it to say here that complexes of the pretransition metals (Na⁺, K⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Ba²⁺, Al³⁺) are held together by electrostatic forces…' (Eichorn 1973, p. 4)

'It is convenient to deal with the subject by considering the derivatives in turn of the three main types of metal: (a) Light and Pre-transition Metals (Li, Mg, Al etc.); (b) The Post-transition Metals (Zn, Sn, Pb etc.); (c) The Transition Metals (Ni, Pd etc... ' (Nyholm 1970, p. 35)

This option addresses a number of discussion points and would also reduce the number of categories by one. Of course, we would still have articles about the alkali metals, and the alkaline earth metals, and the group names would still be shown on DePiep's showcase periodic table. We would need a new article for the pre-transition metals, however.

• Collings EW 1984, The physical metallurgy of titanium alloys, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, Ohio
• Cox PA 2004, Inorganic chemistry, 2nd ed., Instant notes series, Bios Scientific, London
• Deming HG 1923, General chemistry: An elementary survey, John Wiley & Sons, New York
• —— 1940, Fundamental chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, New York
• Eichorn GL 1973, Inorganic biochemistry, vol. 1, Elsevier, Amsterdam
• Gschneidner KA & Eyring L (eds) 1979, Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths: Nonmetallic compounds II", North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam
• Nyholm R 1970, ‘Some advances in organo-metallic chemistry and their industrial application, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, vol. 119, no. 5173, pp. 28–43
• Wang L & Gouma P 2012, 'Selective crystal structure syntheseis and sensing dependencies', in MA Carpenter, S Mathur & A Kolmakov (eds) 2012, Metal oxide nanomaterials for chemical sensors, Springer Science+Business Media, New York, pp. 167‒188

Sandbh (talk)

I have re-thought about this in my process of reconsidering your older ideas. (Why the jump from 10 to 17, by the way? Were there previous versions of this?)

On pre-transition metals: characteristic properties please? If we have reasonable ones like we already have for the poor metals I may be convinced. I trust an article is possible without always breaking them into groups.

Your graphic in your sandbox with EN and m.p. values shows considerable kinship of Al with the post-transition metals (now I can't use the acronym PTM anymore...); are we considering the wrong properties here? (Be and Mg don't show up with Ca, Sr, Ba, and Ra on this graph either.)

The diagonal relationships are more major only for the first few periods, aren't they? But are there significant differences between group 1 and group 2 aside from typical oxidation state? Correcting for that, don't they behave quite similarly, with some exceptions like Li, Be, Mg, Al (diagonal relationship territory, but they don't fit anywhere else and fit reasonably where they are?)

Support, though asking for further info and a definition by physical and chemical characteristics of the pre-transition metals. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Am still working on this. Trying to compare Be and Al to see which falls better into which camp (pre- or post-). Tricky. Option 17 came after the fifteen titles set out in my sandbox, plus option 16 above (LME metals). Oh, LME metals won't work, since copernicium, which we agree would be transition metal, would also likely meet the LME criteria (unless its predicted electronegativity is less than 1.6). Sandbh (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Argh, Cn, why do you have to be so difficult and throw alphas in the works? :-( Hg's high EN is (at least partially) a relativistic effect, isn't it? If so then yes, since relativistic effects in the 7th period are predicted to be at a maximum at Cn (at least on 7s, which are half the valence electrons anyway), Cn would probably have an even higher electronegativity (though I've never actually seen a value). Rg(−1) is predicted to be possible like Au(−1), which in my mind strengthens the case for an electronegative Cn.

Cn: OK that kills LME metals. Sandbh (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Be and Al are tricky. Japanese Wikipedia classifies Be, Mg, and our poor metals (current + zinc group) without Po as "base metals" or "other metals" (they're inconsistent). What is interesting there is their treatment of Be and Mg with the poor metals. I can understand this for Be, given its brittleness, formation of an amphoteric oxide and hydroxide, a strong tendency to bond covalently (because the Be²⁺ ion would be extremely polarizing), its chloride reacting with water instead of just dissolving (typical of nonmetal oxides; MgCl₂ exhibits this very weakly too) and an anomalously high electronegativity (just below the 1.6 cutoff). OTOH it has a high melting point that is quite close to those Mn and the yttrium and terbium group metals actually, and it has a pretty ideal hcp crystal structure (among the poor metals, only Tl has that ideal too). But I sympathize with calling Be a post-transition metal. Mg has far fewer credentials; save for its low melting point, I don't see any strong reasons to follow the Japanese Wikipedia here. (There is a gap between it and Ca–Ra, but in general it's quite an OK simplification to consider Mg–Ra one typical happy group family. Be, on the other hand, is a problem child.)

(The Japanese Wikipedia also has Cn as a poor metal; a very generous interpretation is that they are basing it on the expected physical properties, but their article seems to just cover Cn's initial discovery and little else...and to my mind, +4 and 0 being the most stable states and not +2 is the main dealbreaker here.)

Japanese Wikipedia: Base metals won't work; other metals is as bad as other nonmetals; agree Be has a bit of "poor" in it but also has reasonable metallic qualities, as you note (also very high strength-to-density ratio, and high specific modulus = aerospace applications). Mg is no poor, although it melts at around the same temperature as Al, and chemically shows a wiff of poor, as you note. Mg is otherwise, however, a chemically strong metal. Sandbh (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, "base metals" is a bad choice given its historical meanings. "Other metals" and "other nonmetals", as we've discussed last year, are not even worthy of consideration. Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You've explained very well in your sandbox all of Al's poor-metallish properties, so I'll refrain from doing a quick roundup of the main ones here. :-) I'm not going to do pre-transition properties roundups of Be, Mg, and Al until you write up a quick lede paragraph. :-) (Mg got dragged in because of the whole group II bifurcation issue, splitting as it does into groups IIA and IIB. I'm using the old IUPAC nomenclature here because it eliminates the homophony of "II" and "2".)

The main issue for me here is that it seems to me that you cannot logically call Be or Al post-transition metals, because they don't succeed any transition metals. Yet if we consider them to pattern with these respective groups, then I think we should classify them as such. (You've already searched for so much alternative nomenclature, and I don't think any of these will work well, because of annoying superheavies like Cn...) Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Pre-transition metals: Summary of Cox and Deming follows. Pre-transition metals are 'typical metals', very electropositive in character, invariably found in oxidation states expected for ions in noble-gas configuration (Na⁺, Mg²⁺, Al³⁺ etc). Occur in nature widely as silicate minerals, although weathering gives rise to deposits of other compounds: halides, carbonates and hydroxides e.g. AlO(OH). The cations of the pre-transition metals are resistant to oxidation and reduction hence remained undiscovered for many centuries as ancient civilizations made use of Au, Ag, Cu and Fe, and later peoples became familiar with other heavy metals. Post-transition metals are less electropositive; typically found as sulfides. Form compounds with oxidation state = d¹⁰ ions (e.g. Cd²⁺, In³⁺, Sn⁴⁺) but these are less ionic in character than pre-TMs. In solution, post-transition metals form stronger complexes than pre-transition metals; lower oxidation states also common (e.g. Tl⁺, Sn²⁺). Post-transition metals often have lower coordination numbers than expected by comparing to pre-TM ions of similar size, and appreciable covalency.

Inside the pre-transition metals, three sub-categories can be discerned: (1) Alkali metals; (2) Be, Mg, Al; (3) Rest of Group 2 metals:

• (1) Alkali metals are completely basic (no amphoterism). They have no structural uses. Their densities, melting and boiling points, and enthalpies of atomization are all lower than the alkaline earths. They all have BCC structures (I assume Fr too), unlike the alkaline earths with HCP (Be, Mg), FCC (Ca, Sr) and BCC (Ba, Ra).
• (2) Be and Mg are distinct from other alkaline earths as seen in, per your comments, the bifurification phenomenon. The chemistry of Al is very close to the chemistry of Be; one author (House 2013, Inorganic chemistry, p. 351) after discussing the chemistry of Group I and 2 elements, then discusses Be and Al together, due to 'numerous similarities in their properties and reactions.' Be, Mg and Al would be the only pre-transition metals with structural applications.
• (3) Rest of Group 2 metals (Ca, Sr, Ba; and I presume Ra) are closer to the Group I metals (Greenwood & Earnshaw 1998, p. 113), than Be and Mg. Historically, Be and Mg were not classed as alkaline earth metals (Steele 1977, The metallic elements, p. 34).Sandbh (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Fr and Ra are kind of weird, not following the trend down to the 6th period. Their electronegativities are slightly greater than those of the elements above them, and they have some covalent character (e.g. in FrO₂ and RaF₂). Sadly RaO is uncharacterized for some reason.

Francium: Commonly painted by explosion-loving students as a stereotypical temperamental alkali metal, a close investigation shows this not to be the whole story of francium. The 7s electron is relativistically destabilized, and the 6p electrons actually are involved in the bonding in francium superoxide. While it is still a group 1 metal at heart, this bucking of the trend sets the stage for the outright anomalous behaviour expected of E119 and E165, behaving like their 5th and 4th period congeners respectively; E119 should have EA around 0.66 eV, higher than any known alkali metal. Fr seems to behave as if it were intermediate between Cs and Rb, rather than below Cs. (And yes, Fr is predicted to crystallize in bcc.)

Radium: Ra's chemistry is much better developed than Fr's. Some properties transfer down from the lighter alkaline earth metals, such as an incredibly insoluble sulfate (RaSO₄, even less water-soluble than the stereotypical insoluble salt BaSO₄). The behaviour of the Ra²⁺ and Ba²⁺ ions is very similar. Like the group 2 elements (and Li, thanks to its diagonal relationship with Mg), it reacts with the nitrogen in the air to form a black nitride Ra₃N₂. The ion is highly basic and does not form complexes readily. The reaction with water is violent, as expected. Yet it is more volatile than Ba, and 6s and 6p electron involvement gives covalent character to RaF₂ and RaAt₂. In conclusion, these two elements, while not going too far off the stereotypical group 1 and group 2 moulds respectively, set the stage for the anomalous properties one is expected to encounter in the eighth and ninth periods. Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Be, Al: Cutting to the chase. Place both in pre-transition metals. Call poor metals 'post-transition metals'. Post-transition metals then have no elements with structural applications, appropriately enough for the second string metals located between the TMs and the metalloids. Al is a bit borderline being so close to the metal-nonmetal dividing line. Yes, it does have some poor metal/post-transition character but, upon reflection, has enough structural uses and is sufficiently active chemically, to warrant falling over the line into the pre-transition metals, noting many similarities with Be. The latter is close to the metal-nonmetal dividing line too, so also has some 'poor' in it but is strong enough as metal to not be categorised with the poor metals/post-transition metals.

The graphic in the poor metal article cld be adjusted, by moving the MP line down and the EN line to the right, so that Al shows as a moderately fusible electropositive metal, but still close to the poor-metals/post-transition metals. Mg and Be are already distinct from the cluster of the remaining alkaline earth metals, in any event (Be more so then Mg). Poor metals/post-transition metals than all have EN 1.65 or more (or > 1.5 on the Alfred-Rochow scale). PS. I am also thinking about adding a dotted boundary line to delineate the alkaline earth metals (Ca, Sr, Ba, Ra) from the rest of the moderately fusible electropositve metals, and to add an explanatory note about the historical distinction between these elements as the original alkaline earth metals, and the latecomers Mg and Be. Sandbh (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Be as post-transition metal/poor metal is largely motivated by its generally covalent character. If we consider physical properties too, as we certainly ought to, we should definitely consider it along with the pre-transition metals. I suspect it could technically be used structurally, and the only reason why we don't is because of toxicity concerns – witness how much structural usage its bigger brother Al has! Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. on IUPAC nomenclature: My main issue with the typical beginner's-chemistry numbering (old IUPAC minus A's and B's) is that it fails to show the group II bifurcation, and the proper place of Zn, Cd, and Hg as main group elements, IMO. (Cotton & Wilkinson's opinion also, but not Holleman & Wiberg's.) So we have 2A and 2B because of this, making it nicer and simpler. (Of course the simplest solution is to just pretend that the group 12 elements are transition metals. But I find this overly distorting the facts.) But then we also have similar analogies between groups IIIA and IIIB (and also IVA and IVB, and so on). So each group really bifurcates, but only in the case of group II are both the A and B group main group. (I'm not totally convinced that IB is right anyhow. These elements do not have +1 as their maximum valence and it may be more prudent, if less symmetrical, to classify them under group VIII, as Mendeleev did.) But of course this is confusing again for beginners...still not sure what to do here. Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Graphic below. Read "pre-transition metals" for "alkaline earth metals" (and remove "alkali metals", and have "poor metals" become "post-transition metals" again). Also read, as now usual, "rare earth metals" for "lanthanides".

Periodic tablebase: PT basic, PT extended

	1	2																3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1	Template:Element cell-1																																Template:Element cell-1
2	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																										Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
3	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																										Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
4	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
5	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
6	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
7	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
8	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
9	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1																										Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
10			**
			*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
			**	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1

Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Tech question: Shall I create a color + legend for pre-transition metal (s)? Can do. There better be a page then. -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Tech note: please fellow editors, do not feel restrained by any color issue. Above the "alkaline earth metal" color, soft orange, is (ab)used to illustrate a proposal. Great. A definite color we can choose later on, if and when this matures. We can make a new legend color (for talk purposes) easily. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• IMO, this has nothing to do with the group 12 topic. We should keep it separate. Why not create another thread (instead of this subthreead)? -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and I have now responded to your call. Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Point is solved. -DePiep (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The placement of hydrogen in the periodic table

Are we still going to keep it above a group of elements it shares very little with? :-P

Given that we probably don't want to show elements twice because it's confusing and breaks Scerri's "periodic law" that elements appear in increasing atomic number (otherwise you get into all sorts of issues as showing the main groups twice above the transition metals with C/Si/Ti and C/Si/Ge etc.), I can see four choices:

1. Status quo: keep H above group 1 (alkali metals). Pro: Has one electron in its valence shell, just like the alkali metals. Can behave like the alkali metals in metallic hydrogen. Quite commonly encountered. Con: At STP, H is very different from the alkali metals. Its first ionization energy is very much higher than those of the metals. Hydrogen always bonds covalently and unlike the alkali metals, is never found as a free H⁺ ion (hydron) except in a vacuum. The first "pro" argument listed makes as much sense as putting helium with the alkaline earth metals due to its having two electrons in its valence shell.
2. Move H to above group 17 (halogens). Pro: Has one electron missing from its valence shell, just like the halogens. Hydrides behave similarly to halides. Con: H does not fit the trends down from F very well. It also does not share the behaviour of the heavier halogens past F (forming oxoanions), never being in an oxidation state that isn't −1, 0, or +1. In contrast to F its +1 state is stable.
3. Move H to above group 14 (crystallogens). Pro: Has half-filled valence shell, just like the crystallogens. H–H, C–H, and Si–H bonds show clear familial relationships. Hydrides show strong links to the methides. H and C form oxonium ions. Makes smooth trends in electronegativity, electron affinity, and first ionization energies. Con: H has many other distinctive properties that this placement cannot explain (hence the arguments for group 1 and group 17 placement).
4. Leave H floating in the middle. Pro: H's properties are very anomalous and it does not fit very well in any group. Also commonly encountered. Con: The periodic law should apply to all elements. This placement seems to exempt H from it.

What do you think? (I like #3, personally.) Double sharp (talk) 04:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Cronyn's paper Double sharp (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I vote (1) and you've left out a benefit. Readers are used to it that way.208.44.87.91 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Added. (It does apply to (4) also, though to a lesser extent.) Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. There are many arguments in the literature for either group 1 or 17. I marginally favour group 1 over group 17. For a while, having done a fair a bit of research on this question, I favoured group 17 however (as I recall) I went back to group 1 when I read that hydrogen can form metallic alloys with some metals, hence behaving as a metal. Does it have some properties that are different from the alkali metals? For sure, but that is a "super" first-row-element-anomaly, hydrogen being not only the first element in its row but the first element in the whole PT. Hydrogen over lithium is a bit like boron over aluminium except more pronounced. I can understand helium over beryllium from the pov of esoteric electron configuration arguments (which I tend not to support the validity of) however, in any event, I think this is a step too far---pragmatically speaking---and that helium over neon is a better fit. Sandbh (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

on electron configuration images for SHEs

Bad U electronic config graphic

I've been having an interesting discussion with DePiep at his talk page (User talk:DePiep) on how to best represent electronic configuration for superheavy elements. Please go there and take a look. :-) Or maybe move it here, since it's quite relevant to the whole project... Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Will move the discussion here. -DePiep (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quantum graphics

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Quantum graphics

The subpage discusses how to represent electron shells bin a better way (not just circles). Latest suggestions are:

Quantum graphics, my original vision. Double sharp, September 2013.

Moved to subpage. -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Polonium.jpg and Radon.jpg

file:Polonium.jpg and File:Radon.jpg are up for non-free content review. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

They were up since last month, but thanks for reminding us (I've popped back in and commented further). Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Our goals

I have a problem with that page.

Specifically, it's that they are too easy.

Take the short-term goals. They basically tell us to get B+ to GA and complete some GTs with boilerplate group articles. And they tell us to get some stuff to C (which should never really be an end IMO. A passing place, sure.). The only actually reasonably important and wide-reaching thing they ask us to do is to GA sodium and arsenic. And even then, for elements as important as this (Na for body function, As for history), I'm not sure this is a good thing to do instead of take it all the way to FA.

So, what is to be done?

I suggest we start aiming much higher and always keeping one hard and good-for-the-reader goal on the short-term list. Something like FA'ing something massive like iron. Few might dare to take it on alone otherwise.* As a collaboration, it may not seem so threatening.

Why not have a short-term goal list like "FA iron", a mid-term one like "FA all VAs", "FA all actinides" or some other group like that with similar properties (for VAs, it's mostly great commercial importance or great history), and then long-term goals like "FA everything in sight". (Seriously, that's our ultimate goal, isn't it?) Ambitious? Certainly. But our current goals – B+ really sticks out, nearly-complete GTs and FTs really stick out. Our current goals will get done even if there is no concerted effort or official goal to get us to do it.

Just some thoughts. Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

*I've been intending to do it since 2012, about since I started thinking that this was a problem, really. This is obviously getting nowhere. Ah! the siren call of the seventh and eighth periods of elements that are so beautiful and interesting to contemplate but nobody else really could care less about! It is long since I have left you to do something more useful, perhaps finish up alkali metal :-P, full of more fun elements (starts raining on and on about that article. Explosions happen.). Well, maybe after FA'ing Hs and Fl and actually rewriting Lv and 115 (115 is like the most viewed SHE article now, largely due to Lazar's nonsense. WP shall step in.). Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

To change the wording does not change anything. If you write: Only goal is to make sodium a FA. Sodium will not be a FA in 2020. Get people together and start working. Ask somebody for help personally. Ask a few questions at the talk page. The most important thing is that a few do change the goals page and wait for others to do what they think should be done. A few months ago there was a short discussion on the fact that nitrogen should be improved. I started with a few edits and nobody from the discussion joined, so this makes working less fun. We had also a few discussions on the steering of the project, but most people do not want to be steered in their leisure time. I do it because it is fun and being steered is for me not fun. If somebody wants to steer it has to be done with fun and cooperation and good words for good work. So if --Stone (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Naturally. I agree with all this. That is how one gets things to happen. What I am asking for is a change not in how we get things to happen, but in the things themselves that we get to happen.

Na FA? N FA? All good starting points. (They both complete GTs, for all the collectors!) I only selected Fe because it is a really vital article. It describes a very useful metal (sorry Au! you're pretty and noble but that's about it. And Cu looks decent, it's harder to get people to work on something that already looks decent – that is another thing that has to change!) And Fe is apparently the metal with the most compounds known. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

request periodic table view

Could someone make me a table (for viewing, not edit warring on placement) with the following scheme:

Reviewed high quality: blue, GA/A/FA getting darker with betterness.

medium quality: green, C/B/B+ getting darker with better-ness

low quality: start and stub (maybe red/orange)

71.127.131.41 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

{Periodic table by article quality} Double sharp (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I want GA to be more visually differentiated. make it similar to A and FA, not to B and B+.71.127.131.41 (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? In my experience GA is by far closer to B and B+ than to FA. GA – see Hs, you can get away with shallowness, missing stuff, lots of technical terms that are never explained (just linked), etc. As long as what you have looks nice and isn't immediately suspect, you will get it. Really. (Not that Hs was that bad, it's just that it looks OK if you don't know the stuff in depth. I'm remedying that now.) So while GA is not bad (just as B and B+ are not bad), I tend to not take it as a good end goal.

Also, we don't actually review our A's. It's just like B's: formal criteria exist, reviews sometimes happen, but mostly it's based on what someone drives by and sees.

And if GA visual differentiation is what you don't like about that table: originally GA really used too close a shade of green to B and B+. Now we have a very dark green, showing that it tops the series of pretty medium-quality polished articles.

Basically, on the road from Stub to FA, once you get to B or B+, you have two choices: fix the style first (heading to GA), or fix the content first (heading to A). Both choices then lead to FA. In practice it's slightly more complicated in that the two goals get achieved at about the same time, so that you get both GA and A and you have a nearly FA-worthy article like At.

Finally, GA being green (not blue like A or FA) is a standard colour throughout Wiki-land. All we did is change the shade to make it visually distinct from B+. I think that's an argument to not change it for fear of misunderstandings. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(P.S. Examples: See the history for hassium and other superheavies, where I took the GA-first route, and alkali metal, where I took the A-first route. Neither of them are FAs quite yet, but they're getting there. Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC))

(P.P.S. Some incomplete GAs for elements that I know something about i.e. heavy metals: Tl and Pb.) Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious: are you TCO? (I ask because of your recent fluorine edits, which just made me wonder. No intention to harm through SPI or anything like that. If you aren't, or would rather not answer, please don't take offense.) Double sharp (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And I'm not hiding or pretending. You couldn't make me lie with a 1911 or torture. So fucking drop it with SPI. It will make me think of arb/admin/checkusers not turning in Geogre/Law/Ponderevo and other lying hypocritical shit from people who want to play tin god on the fucking Internet. And that shit is just a total downer. Just write the fucking articles. Or go get a workout.98.117.75.177 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Huge round of applause for you! You know I wouldn't do that (SPI), given my history till 2011 here. Just making sure you wouldn't suspect me! :-) Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I supposed to spend time on this? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Overenthousiastic archiving

Resolved

I disagree with the over enthousiastic (that is, too early) archiving by Doubele sharp, last week. For example, the Afd/TfD for {{Periodic table (wide)}} is not resolved yet. If the archive term really is to be "2 weeks" or so, we should change the bot setting here (btw I oppose that). And I do not want to argue about exactly which pieces I want back here. They just should be here still. -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? Oh, I see what you mean. But still I think those should be archived since they only have links to the AfDs. The TfDs seem not to have started for the wide and text-only periodic tables? Double sharp (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If someond sants discussion tk last nger please do. Much more a priority thN tidy talm page. People can scroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:B244:A93C:DB3A:77AB:2FB (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@anon: It was not so much a discussion as a link to a discussion (already over). The discussions DePiep mentions have not even started yet (no TfD notices on those two periodic table templates). That's why I chose not to restore them.

As for the discussions I archived – originally this talk page was about twice as large as you see it now and many of the top threads were pretty much dead (I had tried to revive them, but everyone scrolls to the bottom to check new stuff – I do that too sometimes), so I cleared them off. If I or anyone else feels the need to reopen the discussion, they can start a new section here and link to the archive. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The TfD notices were to be expected and announced. But they were archived within days not even weeks. If you think archiving is to be done earlier (much earlier even) than the set bot period, open a talk on that. This is not the metalloid thread. -DePiep (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

They were posted on 20 August and archived on 14 September. That's 3 weeks (and I think we should move the bot archiver down to 1 month, at most). But I've un-archived them (you can now see them at the very top of the page. That should be more visible than in the middle). Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Archieving is always based on the last edit time, not the op edit time (for logical reason). In this case, the AfDs were closed on 13 Sep. -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that once the AfDs were over they were no longer relevant. It now appears I am wrong. Sorry for the inconvenience caused: the sections are back! Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK so. Simply: it was very frustrating. Let's consider resolved. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"burning"

FYI, there's a discussion at WT:PHYSICS on the titles of stellar nucleosynthesis articles and the use of "burning" -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fricke again

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225672062_Superheavy_elements_a_prediction_of_their_chemical_and_physical_properties/file/3deec517f644db1bc2.pdf Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Isotopes in infobox updated again

Going through the remainder of the predicted-to-be-unstable stable isotopes. Is what I've done so far OK? (Affected infoboxes: Ar, Ca, Cr, Fe, Ni, Zn, Se, Kr, Sr, Zr–Mo, Ru–Nd, Sm–Pb. I may save SF until later, thus skipping Nb, Rh, Ag, In, Sb, I, Cs, La, Pr, Tb.) Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note to self: never...do...this...manually...again... Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I decided not to save SF until later, and am plowing through in atomic number order. Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I finished it! :-D To all those who have all the element infoboxes on their watchlists, sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused. Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hot articles bot

After several months of showing the same hot articles all the times on our project page, the hot article bot is up and running for us again.--Stone (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Adamantium

Or how to make metals 500 times stronger. Sandbh (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial trivial names for group 14

According to Jensen, "adamantogens" has been used as a "traditional name" for the carbon group. Though I haven't actually seen this used anywhere, this citation of a name is much better than the one we have for crystallogen: beautiful as this name is, it seems to be attested only in its French form cristallogène. (I wonder why.) Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The word is popular in dentistry, so I could only find teeth with that stuff, but as it is not used we should not start this trend. There is no credible source for this name except Jensen.--Stone (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that we move the article. It could be mentioned as a very rarely used alternative name, but no more than that. It absolutely should not become the primary name here. Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Jensen only says it is a "traditional name" (in table 2), anything from his sources? If it is traditional, there should be some more search hits. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

See also:

'The term merylide for the elements C, Si, Ge, Sn, and Pb has been proposed, but has not yet become widely used.'

• Fernelius WC, Loening K & Adams RM 1971, 'Names of groups and elements', Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 48, no. 11, p. 730

And over ten years later:

'For group 14 there is also merylides (origin obscure).'

• Fernelius WC 1983, Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 60, no. 2, p. 140.

No supporting citations given in either article: I haven't been able to find merylides anywhere else. There are no other unfamilar group names in either article. Sandbh (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

None of the names for group 14 seem to have caught on. (And I still think our article should really be at group 14 element instead of carbon group, for consistency, though I don't have as strong a view about it as nitrogen group vs. pnictogens where I am firmly in favour of the latter and finally got it moved last year.) Double sharp (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Signpost Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Elements for a Signpost article. This would be the second time. June 2011 was the first Signpost report.--Stone (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't posted here for a while, but I've been following some of the discussion, and would be willing to participate. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fluorine peer review

Please review and fix "Fluorine". If it's too long, just hit a section.-TCO

Sourcing data in the infobox

A reader was looking for a data source (boiling point of boron) and could not find it. As we know, data is linked via the ref link that points to the data overviews page, so there you have to look for "boiling point (data)" (not boiling point), then scroll to "boron" and understand that WEL is code for the source used (not the other codes CRC or LNG), which is specified -- without a ref link -- below the table. Maybe the user is right is asking for improvement.

To improve, I cannot escape the consequence that there will be more linked text in the infobox, one way or another. First proposal (note that the link is anchored to the boron row in the data page):

Boiling point[source]

... K C F

Example 2:

Boiling point

... K C F[source]

-DePiep (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC) add example 2 -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Added: square brackets around "source" -DePiep (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the system we use at superheavy elements (e.g. Template:Infobox ununtrium), where none of the info is in these data pages? Because then we can have a link to the direct source there, and if you really want a source comparison, the "ref" link still exists if you want one (at the data pages). Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

re About your 2nd half: I do not like the four-plus-step ref link we now provide (read my intro story above. Comical and true). It was a good setup in 2005, but we can do better sourcing & linking today. Below I describe a 2-ref solution that solves the general linking and the e113 incidental ref link. I think is does what you ask for. -DePiep (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. So there is also the need for a local, on-page reference (that will look like 4200 K[1]). These two refs are independent! They do not interfere, they don't know about one another. That makes it easier for us.

A. The ^[source] link will be added automatically by the template {{infobox element}}, and we'll have to add in code: "only do not show when atomic number >96". Can be done. This is a non-regular reference (it links to another page).

Then each individual infobox (like {{infobox ununtrium}}) should be able to show an individual reference on-page (it should look like 4200 K[1]). This is a regular reference, as we know it.

B. About the individual, regular refs we talked here some months ago Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_14#Reference_link_posititioning. I researched it back then, to position the reference from current "4200[1] K" to "4200 K[1]". Well, it is not possible to "take out the reference link code from |boiling point K= input, and paste it at the end (after the K)". Not in a stable way. So we should introduce an infobox parameter |boiling point ref=. Then {{infobox ununtrium}} can have |boiling point ref=<ref name=Haire/><ref name=BFricke>{{cite journal |last1=Fricke |first1=Burkhard |year=1975 |title=Superheavy elements: a prediction of their chemical and physical properties |journal=Recent Impact of Physics on Inorganic Chemistry |volume=21 |pages=89–144 |doi=10.1007/BFb0116498 |url=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225672062_Superheavy_elements_a_prediction_of_their_chemical_and_physical_properties |accessdate=4 October 2013}}</ref>. The parameter puts the ref nicely after the K unit, not before as is today.

Questions left:

1. Is the linktext ^[source] good enough? (shorter? there will be dozens in an infobox)

2. Can the local reference be once at the end (after all K, C, F values), or should it be after K? (so with extra options 2. after C, 3. after F). I propose one at the end.

3.While we are at it, what to do with the addition like "(predicted)"? Introduce |boiling point comment=? Or type that into the proposed new "ref" parameter?

Examples 3A - 3E:

Boiling point	4200 K, 3927 °C, 7101 °F	3A	boron, today
Boiling point	4200 K, 3927 °C, 7101 °F[1][source]	3B	boron, proposed
Boiling point	1430 K, 1130 °C, 2070 (predicted)[1][4] °F	3C	Template:Infobox ununtrium E113: today
Boiling point	1430 K, 1130 °C, 2070 °F (predicted)[1][4]	3D	E113, proposal
Boiling point	1430 K, 1130 °C, 2070 °F[1][4] (predicted)	3E	E113, proposal
Boiling point	4200 K, 3927 °C, 7101 °F[source][1]	3F	boron, alternative sequence
Boiling point	4200 K, 3927 °C,[source][1] 7101 °F	3G	X. Per separate data: won't happen

New parameters, proposed:

|boiling point ref=

|boiling point comment=

-DePiep (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC) refined -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Support 3B and 3D. Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. You think we should use the second parameter for the comment, or add the text to the new ref parameter? Of course this change will be added to all infobox entries. -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Up for improvement, but I plan to use ^[ref] not ^[source] for the wikilink (to the point, shorter, and it catches the plural too). Also, the on-page links like ^[1] will be placed after the general ref link. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Weird that none has come up with this:

Boiling point	4200 K, 3927 °C, 7101 °F	[1]	3H	Readability, people!
Boiling point	1430 K, 1130 °C, 2070 °F (predicted)	[2]	3I	(For superheavies, too)

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you proposal, but really why a basic reference like ^[1] in a separate column? -DePiep (talk)

Because infoboxes aren't text. They are made so people can easily scan information (figures) from it. [1] is a visual distraction, especially when not at the end of the line, but even when it is, it remains a distraction. Giving it a separate column allows faster info scanning. If you don't believe me, you draw a table of, say, 10 rows, in both version and see which one is easier to scan. Even the looks are still OK (maybe a bit unusual, but not too unusual). Most people don't need refs, they're okay with the fact they exist; and when someone needs a ref, it is still easy to find, in the same row (and way better than now).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My list of responses. Mostly these are independent issues (that is, topic A can be treated independently of topic B; that makes it easier for us)

infobox, not text: indeed. Though, in text the regular wiki ref^[1] is as distracting as in the infobox (in printed books footnotes do not distract me —o holy print world— but this is internet).

Scan a table. Tables scan better your way indeed, sure. My first thought was: better columnize the K/C/F values then! Just that is what readers scan (look for, are familiar with).

Wider. It will make the infobox wider. Maybe a wider box is justified, but for this reason? Deviate from standard ref rule ("ref right after the punctuation")? My preference is that regular wiki format should prevail. Exactly that is what helps readability. Ref link in an extra column is irregular. I say: no exception for elements of for an infobox.

X^[ref]: the original question was: how to ref to the true source page. This ref link is needed in most element infoboxes. It will wide the box always. I example:

Boiling point	1430 K, 1130 °C, 2070 °F (predicted)	[ref][2]	3J	show default link we intend to use, in separate column (from 3I)
Boiling point	1430 K, 1130 °C, 2070 °F[3][4]	[ref]	3K	show impossible refs (3, 4) when in refs are in separate col

-DePiep (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You read a text. You scan a table. That is why [1] is okay in a text... just for starters, it occurs where a text is supposed to break, near punctuation, which invented for that very reason, in 99.99% events. I guess we just have to handle those 0.01%. A table is not supposed to break, it is supposed to be as clear as possible.

You can't columnize temperatures. There are just two in a usual infobox (they also look columnized in most cases, if it matters).

Not having these refs at all is better for readability still, less distraction still. Again, most readers don't need sources, just the figures, so figures should have the no 1 priority, not refs. Note: I have seen this formatting in actual handbooks.

I would solve the problem with [ref] in first place by replacing the ref wikilink at the bottom of an infobox with a complete phrase. "Complete references list," for example, or whatever. I don't see why this shouldn't be done. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Separate column gets my vote. It encourages having sources, makes checking the sources easier, etc. It's still relatively mischief safe since we use the transcluded templates, but it shows better sourcing in article for the verifiability sticklers. It also reads better with all the numeric text. I'm sure there will be some very rare occasion when there are a huge number of refs, but that can be handled by bundling refs into a note. (Anticipating another kvetch), and yes you may have situations when there are two facts and ref A is not right next to fact A, but who cares...it's still verifiable and easily used. In the real world, I look up citations and then figure out what they apply to.71.127.137.171 (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

How would the sourcing be improved by using an extra column? Remember, today the source is not linked at all (see my introduction above: five clicks away, when knowingly thinking). Please explain why examples 3B versus 3I improves sourcing. The second half of your post I do not understand (kveth?). -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

TCO response

• If we don't go with a column, then I think the first proposal is better as less obtrusive. I just think columns look cleaner, but not a huge deal. See State reptile table for an example of ref column in a table. Yes, refs are slightly annoying in running text, but really only slightly. In a table, especially a chemical infobox, info density and number density much higher, so a separating column is more ergonomic. But the first proposal is an improvement over second in viewability.

• I think having the table will make it more likely to get refs in ("don't leave it empty"). As it is now, some articles (F, Cf) have refs in and others don't and even F and Cf are not perfect. A table would drive better practice. Like a kanban square.

• I'm not 100% clear your scheme, but would love it if the references show in article (how fluorine does now). With yours are they click through to another page or at bottom of element or both? I prefer if they are a bit more prominent in article as they will be more likely to be used (even for reasons other than verification, just usage). Also, they will get checked more if at least duplicated into article. And thus improved. We've had some mistakes in the 2005 stuff and more eyes drives better practice. I still think our scheme of the transcluded templates is enough to retard mischief.

• In any case, versus the status quo (off in Mat Sci's tables from 2005), I prefer either of yours.

• I'm not too bothered by a little wider infobox. If it makes the dagger go a little shallower (strip on the right not as long) that is good. In some cases, the squeezing down of text is beneficial. In a few others (images on left) it is not. But I usually do centered images if there is an infobox clash anyway. See Painted turtle for a little wider infobox.

In summary: columns>option1>option2>status quo.  ;-)

71.127.137.171 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC) (TCO)

Kohonen periodic table map

File:Kohonen periodic table B.png

This is a Kohonen neural network (KN) map of 59 of the elements, as published by Chen (2010), but with colours added by me; and thicker lines added around the ferromagnetic metals (at 3,2) and the coinage metals.. Chen's highly condensed 2-page article did his map a great disservice. I remember reading the article when it came out, and neither understanding nor learning anything from it. However, the complete manuscript (22 pages, double spaced) is available as supplementary information from the Journal of Chemical Education page for the article in question.

Chen (or rather the 'trained' Kohonen network) produced the map using 10 physiochemical properties (atomic mass; minimum and maximum oxidation states; atomic radius; EN; state of matter; MP; BP; heat of atomization; and IE). Chen says the map has three major clusters: metals (top half); nonmetals (lower part; with gases lower-right); and semimetals in-between. He notes the network correctly picked the diagonal relationships between Li, Mg and Be, Al; the first row anomaly in Be, B, N, O and F; and the special nature of H. He also talks about some sub-clusters: highly reactive metals; less reactive metals plus Ge; alkali metals; transition metals; the iron group metals (Fe, Co, Ni); the noble gases; and the other nonmetals and arsenic.

Reading all this prompted me to immediately colour his map using our colours. The result speaks for itself.

Chen says the advantages of a KN are that (unlike consensus trees and dendograms) the results are very easy to map and interpret and that (if I understand correctly) the results are not sensitive to properties having a high redundancy with respect to other properties.

He concludes by saying that the KN approach can help students gain a more sophisticated understanding of the relationships among and between the elements compared to what can be gleaned from building a traditional periodic table.

Anyway, I thought his table was pretty cool. I was particularly interested to see where Ge ended up, noting it is sometimes regarded as a metal, due to falling on the wrong side of the metal-nonmetal dividing line. I was also interested to see the coinage metal cluster; and the poor metals cluster (and a few other things). Starting with the alkali metals, and going anticlockwise, see how the alkaline earth metals go next, then the poor metals; and then the transition metals before the metalloids; polyatomic metals; diatomics and noble gases. It's like the metals progress from main group metals (inc. the poor metals) to TMs, before running into the metalloids, rather than what happens on the conventional periodic table (s-block metals -> TMs -> poor metals, then metalloids etc).

• Chen DZ 2010, 'A new method for studying the periodic system based on a Kohonen neural network', Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 87, no. 4, doi:10.1021/ed800125v

Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems as though we are doing something right! :-) Though I would have loved to see where the lanthanides (and maybe actinides) would end up. That would give us a good idea on what to do about group 3. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Think it should read "polyatomic nonmetals" and "diatomic nonmetals". YBG (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

new: Template:Navbox elements data

I just started Template:Navbox elements data. Base page is List of data references for chemical elements. Current live testpage is Boiling points of the elements (data page) (is not boiling point). The list in the navbox can use some ordering and grouping. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

These data pages need a lead, really, -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

For those interested: I am making a pilot page out of Boiling points of the elements (data page) (see also above, #Sourcing data in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered putting this information in Wikidata? That seems to be the natural home for this sort of data. YBG (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have. These were my thoughts. Even a simple data point like "boiling point of an element" has three sources here at enwiki, not always saying the same. OK. So this is a very simple topic. Then, I have read a page or two at & about wikidata. I have not read a single paragraph that explains how/why "b.p. of an element" should be in wikidata. Even though I understand the concept, I don't feel invited by wikidata to contribute. No one ever explained how & what I can contribute to wikidata. (compare: wiki commons). Wikidata makes me feel I'm stupid. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

And there is this. Say we put this fact in to wikidata. How to get it out? -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Good questions. I've inquired at d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Chemical_elements. YBG (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

size of non-element images in our infoboxes

I hope this does not bring the gnomes down on me. I don't want any Wiki wars or to make people sad or have them take it out on me. But here goes:

We get a lot of criticism on the size of our infoboxes. Now, having an upfront list of properties is great and I will go to war to defend an upfront tabular chemical almanac (as serving the reader, who say...just wants a melting point, not an essay). But the frills are a bad idea. They take up space and don't add much. For the scientist or searcher of a number, they're not helpful. And for the general reader, they're cryptic. Plus they might be better used in the context of discussion.

What I'm talking about:

1. The shell diagrams. They're HUGE for one thing, for the small atoms like F or N. For the big ones like U, who is going to really count all those electrons. Is it really that helpful to put them in the INFOBOX (very valuable real estate) as duplicative of the electron configuration itself. Why not within some discussion of the electron configuration in text? Or at least make them smaller (make them scale as needed) for stuff like F and N. But really, gone would be better.

2. The little icons for hexagonal and the like. (Wire diagrams.) All the same applies, duplicative, cryptic for the general person and not needed for the scientist. And the terms (hexagonal) are blue linked. In many cases, it's not even that relevant (solid form of a gas) or there are elements like oxygen that have a multitude of forms based on temperature. Makes the strip on the right, go that much further down the page.

3. Spectral lines: pretty, but not usable at the scale shown and really...who is going to use that? If important, can be shown and DISCUSSED in article body discussion of spectroscopy aspects.

4. (keep this, but make it better) Even the periodic table. On Internet Explorer on a big laptop, I can barely see which atom is the one in the article. I really want to show where the element is in the table, but there has to be a better way to display. I end up seeing 2 thin black lines (not even all the way around the square). Why not make it something that works better at the scale involved here (which is tiny). Make the whole table beige and the element (the whole square, not the outline) grey. I don't need/want all the other stuff about different element groupings in THIS table. Since this table is so small, all I want is to know where my element is and then the shape of the table is good enough. Oh...and the clickable feature is kind of pointless at this scale. Who has the muscle control/memory/eyes to pick a particular transition metal? Can indulge with the table down below for those features. But at this scale, let's think about ergonomics and simplify to communicate better. [More] And why the extended width table for a 180px image? Surely the reader is more familiar with the lanthanides and actinides "below" on his HS chemistry periodic table...and you have a tiny space but use a wide image??

71.127.137.171 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

4. "Who has the muscle control/memory/eyes to pick a particular transition metal?" Well, I seem to be able to do this for some reason! But can appreciate that it's very difficult (I was only able to do this from last month). Then again it is kinda convenient so that you do not need to bother scrolling down to the bottom.

3. Yes, kill that. It is better discussed separately if at all. Most articles do not even have it, despite the fact that spectrums are known for every element up to Es except At.

2. Agree. (BTW double hexagonal close packed seen in some lanthanides should be marked better; now it's merely shown by a change of image.)

1. I do want to be consistent about this. You are proposing we remove them all, right? From F and U alike? In that case, I could get behind this proposal. The pedagogical value is quite important too (it's been discussed before); nevertheless it is still misleading, sort of. Feel free to discuss; you're convincing me (as long as it applies to all the elements). Double sharp (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Yeah, get rid of them all (sorry). It's very valuable real estate and we should not duplicate information (written electron configuration) within that table and make it grow further down the page. Within text, a discussion of the electronic arrangement, might use a diagram. I find myself in agreement with that John fellow. (And nothing to do with who is first mover or BRD or AGF [I don't care], just on the content.)98.117.75.177 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• On the little Bohr diagrams, I dislike them because I think they overemphasize an oversimplified and outdated pictorial way to think of an atom. Beyond about sodium you can't use them to explain the properties of materials or their chemistry, so they should not be in the infoboxes. They would be fine in the body of the articles for the lighter elements, where they are useful. Carbon's should be tetrahedral, of course. --John (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Support except for the "remove links from the mini PT" part.

I (an editor) actually do use the mini PT in the infobox to get to other element articles. Keep the links. They certainly do no harm. Other ideas seems to be rational and fine, I support them, just keep wikilinks in the mini PT if you gray out other elements and if you don't.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Leaving the click links is fine. They do no harm.71.127.137.171 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Question: IP 71.127.137.171 are you the same contributor as IP 98.117.75.177? -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• OP (original post): We get a lot of criticism on the size of our infoboxes you say. Link and quote, or retract. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• re OP IP 71.127.137.171.

Welcome to the internet. Over here at internet, we have pages that you can read like a book. Above that you can click somewhere on a word or picture on that page, and that action will open for you another page -- exactly the detail of what you clicked on. For example, on page Germany you can click on Berlin (the capital) and then you arrive at the Berlin page. Bingo! Very important is: you don't have to click. Only click when and where you want to! -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I just found one link that talks about chemboxes too long at chembox template talk. I've seen the crit other places in discussions. It's not a huge thing and I'm happy to fight for having a prominent table with melting points and the like (serves the reader). But when you load it with icons, that's not good use of the imposition the box makes on the page.71.127.137.171 (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you stop fighting, even if it makes you happy. And my hexagonal is not an 'icon', it is a scientific graph/scheme/depiction/youchoose. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, share the link and stop using code like "crit". -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) re 1-2-3-4: I find not a single argument for any change. I read you only have issues with image size, basically (and you do not get the link-to-detail click). Apart from the bohr circles (already addressed as a WT:ELEM topic; please contribute here). For example, you even want to remove the spectral lines picture from the infobox. You want to remove an identification, really? And what is the problem with showing a hexagonal crystal? (disclosure: I handcrafted that hexagonal pic myself, geometrically correct. It is on my userpage ever since). -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fighting man. If anything I'm really holding back from going nit by nit through the points. Cause I really don't want to hurt your feelings. I appreciate your technical skills. It's great if they are harnessed in the interests of good. How can you say there are "no arguments" when I've clearly said the issue is how the table gets longer and longer (which interferes with layouts) and how the information is duplicative (a Bohr icon next to an electron config, but used in a place of very high prominence. I'm not trying to get rid of the Elements infoboxes. I just want them tighter. I've really made the point and will leave it as is. (I get this want of you to engage point by point on the details, but then I don't want to upset your sensitivity with a view of criticizing something you do. Let's let a few others engage, k?)

Sez ho? -DePiep (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, please get rid of the shell diagrams. Too big, hard to read, unphysical, ... --99of9 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Q IPs: 71.127.137.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.117.75.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 74.110.223.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), did you ever edit wikipedia under another name or id? Are you related to user:John? -DePiep (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm about 99.99999% sure he's the IPs are TCO. Not a problem with me. Double sharp (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC) (edited for clarity by Double sharp (talk) at 08:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC))
    • Yes, as an admin and long-term editor since 2006 I would definitely engage in sockpuppetry to influence this trivial, though irritating, formatting issue. </sarcasm> The Bohr diagrams are unnecessary and unsightly. No proper consensus was ever achieved to add them. They should be removed, or returned to their previous small size where they were less intrusive. --John (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am perfectly in place to ask whether three commenting IPs (one not signing) are three different persons. Also, for tone an attitude similarities, I can ask for John's connections. The fact that John points to his adminship is dubious and does not add to trustability. As he demonstrates in writing here, he cannot separate the tasks & responsabilities. My questions stands: are these four independent editors or not. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The IPs are all the same. (I don't know how to engage. Ignoring enrages you, but so do responses.) I've gone ahead and teed up a vote. Sorry, if you don't like my style. I like your demeanor actually.208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

re IPs; The IPs are all the same -- thanks. So my question into this was to the point. Different IPs make it difficult to follow your line of reasoning. It is sort of giving me the homework job to sort that out. That combined with the understructured setup, jargon/abbreviations used, a figthing attitude in a discussion: makes it even more difficult. On top of that, experienced user John started throwing personal attacks [5]. -DePiep (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Shell diagrams: never noticed them. Lighter ones seem quite big. With, for example, U would it be more economical to just show the Rn core in the centre and the residual electrons around that? Icons for crystal structures: like them. Adds information. Spectral lines: don't like these so much. Detract from the beautiful pictures. They don't add any information. Periodic table: like. Looks good on my ipad. Resonates with PT in PT article. Keep the links. I suppose the lanthanides/actinides cld go below the main body of the table: would leave more room for the element boxes. Sandbh (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Vote on options to improve the Elements infobox

(I will advertise at Chemicals and Chemistry also...they are our brothers.)

I object to this setup. The topics are only introduced half heartedly above. So far there is no substantial discussion that leads to these black-and-white statements; also the setup mixes votes and proposals -- which will make it difficult to conclude anything sensible. And of course there is WP:NOVOTE. -DePiep (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Shell diagrams in infobox

(pick one choice please)

Eliminate

1. TCO (IP)208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Weak support. Once we get the quantum graphics ready, we have a good replacement for these. Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Delete. Make articles look like they were designed by a primary school student, not the impression we want to give. --John (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
4. Ditto per Double sharp Sandbh (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Question for Double sharp and Sandbh: do you mean "weak support" for deletion or for the image (to stay)? -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Support for deletion given the proposed quantum graphics replacement. I like the fluorine picture but I also had a look at the E118 picture and that was too much, ditto U. So, I like graphic accompaniments in general that convey some useful information. Sandbh (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete, but only because our quantum graphics are coming. Double sharp (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Modify (make smaller, etc.)

Leave as is

Crystal structure type wire diagrams in infobox

(please pick one)

Eliminate

1. TCO (IP)208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC) (in particular, annoying in articles on gases)

Leave as is

1. Kinda useful in helping you understand the structure if you don't already know what the words mean. This way we don't have to lose our readers to another article. Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Ditto Sandbh (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
3. A wire scheme for a crystal structure, what could be more illustrating? They are iconic. And think of our allotropes (any reader who has not been told about the C ones?). Yes, use word and inage is sort of "duplicative", as in "picture and caption" is a duplication. We could link the image to the article, not to the image page. (Then we could even leave out the bluelinked word (e.g. hexagonal), to illustrate my point).

OP (first IP post) notes that these icons have the same issues as the electron config images. That would be, by the same post: huge, who counts electrons, make smaller, can be in article with the text. Well, first three clearly don't apply. Why mentioned at all? The fourth issue can be said of every item in the infobox, it even can be part of quality writing. So I don't see "same" issues at all. Then, if there are issues with individual elements, solve them per element. One is invited to propose a nicer presentation of the temperature-variants mentioned. Just saying it is "not relevant" is not quite an argument, except that I could write "it is relevant" as well. On what scale is relevance seen wrt this? I add this idea: We could remove the algebra from the icons this size, they were not made specifically for this usage.

Concluding, I think using the icon-like image is to the point as used here. Presentational improvements can be made (layout &tc.). -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Spectral lines in infobox

(please pick one)

Eliminate all

1. TCO 208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
2. I could make them all. But what's the point? What do they show? I mean, outside H, it's not like they are discussed in detail in the article – nor do I foresee this being done. Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
3. I agree with Double sharp's reasoning Sandbh (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Leave as is (infrequent usage)

1. I would keep them for the gaseous elements (I mean we have pictures of light bulbs not of the actual element for these). Nergaal (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Feature in all

Periodic table in infobox

(sorry, this is not exactly what we display, closest I could find)

(pick amongst various binary options)

1. A. Change to narrower version (actinides and lanthanides below)

1. TCO208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

1. B. Stay with wide version

1. I just think it's less confusing to the reader. Without labels, how does he tell at a glance if you're using the Sc/Y/La/Ac or Sc/Y/Lu/Lr convention? And it fits in the space well, filling the width but not having inappropriate length. An 18-column periodic table would either not fill the entire width or extend inappropriately long. Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Mild support for keeping wide because there is enough room (and it is good to be reminded of what the long version of the PT looks like). Sandbh (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

2. A. Make article's element more prominent (e.g. shade entire square)

1. TCO208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC) (hard to find the element of concern)

   #Support. I believe this was done some years ago, and I'm not sure what happened. We should bring the full shading back. Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Changed to 2B. Double sharp (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

2. Nergaal (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

2. B. Leave article's element shown as is (outline)

1. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose – it covers the colour category for the element if you shade the entire square. We should make that important information clear. Double sharp (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

3. A. Get rid of the different colors for elements other than the one of interest

1. TCO208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC) (a more iconic presentation works better at this size scale)

3. B. Leave colors as is (detailed colors)

1. I think it's more understandable to the reader if the small table is an exact mini-version of the large table. This way they can get oriented if they want to click somewhere. (There should be a way to keep the cells clearly distinct, so that you can easily pick out one specific transition metal, instead of the cells running into each other like they do now.) Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Sandbh (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone ever seen a picture of promethium?

Only promethium is missing. Has anyone ever found one or made one? Then that sector of our project can move towards the stage of getting better pictures for every element instead of completing the periodic table.

(P.S. I'd be interested in some more Pm compounds or Pm in aqueous solution also.) Double sharp (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

todo: d-block page title

d-block page title really should be lowercase. There is a wiki-trick for this (like for eBay)).

• s-block
• p-block
• d-block
• f-block
• g-block

-DePiep (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)