Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

 Main
talk Templates
RELC Articles
RELC
Stats Periodic Table by Quality
other PTQs Pictures Isotopes Periodic Table Graphics (PTG) Participants
WikiChem IRC Links
 

Article alerts

Featured article candidates

• 02 Jul 2024 – Lise Meitner (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Hawkeye7 (t · c); see discussion
• 27 May 2024 – Nonmetal (talk · edit · hist) FA nominated by Sandbh (t · c) was not promoted; see discussion

Featured article reviews

• 16 Jun 2024 – Helium (talk · edit · hist) was put up for FA review by Real4jyy (t · c); see discussion

Good article reassessments

• 23 Jul 2024 – Zirconium (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion

Requests for comments

• 23 Jul 2024 – Nonmetal (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Sandbh (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

• 12 Jun 2024 – Nonmetal (talk · edit · hist) move request to Nonmetal (chemistry) by Ldm1954 (t · c) was not moved; see discussion

Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

TrophyBox

FLNR news

• A recent talk by Oganessian.
• FLNR will cooperate with Lanzhou (China) for synthesis and researching properties of SHE's.
• New isotope ²⁷⁶Ds in the ²³²Th+⁴⁸Ca reaction. About now they should be doing experiments on Cn and Fl chemistry.
• More Cn and Fl decay chains.

I added a note about ²⁷⁶Ds to isotopes of darmstadtium. Not many details were released, so I couldn't add more. It probably decayed by SF (otherwise they'd announce ²⁷²Hs as a new isotope too), but as that was not stated, I have not added that. Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The spontaneous fission of ²⁷⁶Ds seems like the logical conclusion, though indeed it wasn't stated explicitly, so time to just wait until more detailed results are published. This discovery also pretty much rules out ²⁷⁶Ds as a candidate for chemical investigations (though I would have been thoroughly surprised if it had a long enough half-life), so I updated that part. Nice to not hear crickets in this field for one day :) ^Complex/_Rational 15:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Based on this news from FLNR it probably alpha decayed twice to ²⁶⁸Sg before SF: Представлены результаты экспериментов по исследованию реакций полного слияния 48Са+243Am, 48Ca+242Pu, 48Ca+238U и 232Ca+Th, в которых синтезированы новые изотопы 264Lr, 268Sg, 272Hs, 276Ds, более детально изучены свойства 33 изотопов сверхтяжелых элементов, измерены функции возбуждения реакций. So I've added these Sg and Hs isotopes as having been discovered, but with no other info (as nothing else was released).

(How I wish they would try ^242–244Cm+⁴⁸Ca, ²⁴¹Am+⁴⁸Ca, and ²³¹Pa+⁴⁸Ca. Then we might be able to fill in some of ^285–289Lv, ^284–285Mc, ^281–283Fl, ^280–281Nh, ^278–280Cn, and ^275–277Rg. Actually, some of the 5n channels from these suggestions of mine will connect to the cold-fusion isotopes ²⁷⁷Cn and ²⁷⁴Rg. But I am just an amateur speaking about this stuff.) Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it be okay to at least add the discovery reactions and decay modes (albeit without possible branching ratios, of course)? From this report, I think we can safely infer the ⁠$^{276}{\text{Ds}}\xrightarrow {\alpha } ~^{272}{\text{Hs}}\xrightarrow {\alpha } ~^{268}{\text{Sg}}~({\text{SF}})$⁠ decay sequence (as WP:CALC), seeing as the lightest element that could be directly synthesized in the named reactions is Ds and I think it rather unlikely that the first successful αxn reaction beyond Rf/Db would occur without a mention. We already know that ²⁷⁶Ds was directly synthesized from the October report.

As for more complete data and additional reactions, we can add them to our letters to Santa this year. :) ^Complex/_Rational 16:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@ComplexRational:  Done

(I also notice that these nuclides would've been in the decay chain of ²⁸⁴Fl, if that had ever been seen to alpha decay. Maybe it's worth trying ^233–236U+⁴⁸Ca.) Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

(P.S. As for extending the proton-rich side of superheavies, in principle one could try the cold-fusion reaction ²⁰⁸Pb+⁶⁸Zn.) Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Double sharp: More data is out [1]! It's been tentatively added to the articles (and RIP to the early predictions that ²⁶⁸Sg would be relatively long-lived). Something in the literature would be better still, but for that we'll have to wait a bit longer. ^Complex/_Rational 13:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Nice, thanks!

Interesting that they mention that ²⁷⁶Ds would be in the decay chain from 120 (so, I guess ²⁹⁶120 is being thought of, presumably in ²⁴⁹Cf+⁵⁰Ti – though wouldn't there be a significant chance of the chain stopping early at ²⁸⁴Fl?). Anyway, I see they plan to investigate ²³²Th+⁴⁸Ca some more and hopefully find ²⁷⁵Ds and ²⁷⁴Ds. It's certainly one way to fill in the gap between hot-fusion and cold-fusion isotopes. Double sharp (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

These are just my own guesses, but I could see two scenarios that support that.

For one, it could be a similar scenario to the sought-after anchor for the ²⁷⁸Nh chain, whose confirmation waited on alpha decay of ²⁶²Db rather than fission. However, as you mention alpha decay of ²⁸⁴Fl has not been observed in a sample of five (?) events, was expected to have an alpha decay branch of ≤20% [2] – already less than the known branching ratio of ²⁶²Db (~30%) – and taking n = 5 we can tentatively rule out an alpha decay branch of ≥45% at significance level 0.05. Additionally, the intermediate ²⁸⁰Cn (any takers for ²³⁵U + ⁴⁸Ca?) is predicted to undergo SF, perhaps with an even shorter half-life. These together make this possibility of cross-checking seem rather unlikely, unless the sample size is large enough for unlikely branches to occur within detection parameters or there are other details yet to be published.

Another possibility, but poorly reflected in the wording of the text, is that ²⁷⁵Ds could be an additional reference point for ²⁹⁵120, since SF is generally hindered by the odd neutron and complete data for ²⁷¹Hs is also unavailable. Let's see what else gets published. ^Complex/_Rational 18:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Updating the Commons categorisations

DePiep, I just noticed that commons:Category:Periodic tables using the enwiki classifications still describes the old pre-2021 scheme, even though we have since switched to blocks (as just codified at MOS:PERIODICTABLE; the reasons for this change are of course there too). Should we do some updates? Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

sure DePiep (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A lot of old-style images are used elsewhere. Hard to keep up the documetnations (clarifications). DePiep (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Same at enwiki's Help:Periodic table classifications in the English Wikipedia. DePiep (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: It seems to me that Help:Periodic table classifications in the English Wikipedia covers about the same topics as the new MOS:PERIODICTABLE and could be redirected there. The exception I guess is material about the extended periodic table, which only applies to a few articles anyway. Perhaps I should've codified what to do with new element discoveries, but that isn't happening very often anymore, so anything I write based on practice up to 2016 may be a bit out of date. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Instead of redirecting, the HELP page could be useful for describing the MOS more informally and widely. Also by explaining the [same] backgrounds for lay-editors (could be me). I have good experiences with such an intermediate, eg {{Convert}} has /documentation, Help:Convert, Help:Convert units. And {{convert}} may be considered of same complicatedness here. OTOH, this year is booked full. DePiep (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: I made an attempt to rewrite and update Help:Periodic table classifications in the English Wikipedia. It also occurred to me when doing that that I should've codified period 1 in MOS:PERIODICTABLE as well (because I forgot about that), so I did that. Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

still todo, but lower priority. -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This fall Group 3 discussions

For archival & search purposes, I note here:

• Originated at Talk:Periodic_table, a discussion on Group 3-composition has taken place, ca. 14 October – 14 December 2022:

Talk:Periodic table § Updated Periodic Table template (Archive#: tbd)

Usertalk Sandbh: here (permalink)

• Result:

No major change in our presentation of Group 3 composition

New MOS section MOS:PERIODICTABLE in MOS:Naming conventions (chemistry)

-DePiep (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• See also settlings at MOS:PERIODICTABLE § Group 3. -DePiep (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Width of PT templates

DePiep: I use desktop view on my mobile (it's easier to edit for me), and I've noticed that the PT templates often appear very squashed (e.g. linebreaks within symbols) in order to fit. It affects for example {{Periodic table (navbox)}}, {{Periodic table (by discovery periods)}}, {{Periodic table (simple substance bonding)}}, and probably a lot more. I think it'd be better if the cells took a readable amount of space, so that the tables would be readable with scrolling. Could you please look into it? Thanks. :) Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Will take a look. But first I'll hae to finish other tasks here, to get my desk clean. DePiep (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I added {{nowrap}} to the table cells (really, linebreak within the symbol?!). For all three. Does it help?

For the scroll-not-break issue, I'll have to take a deeper look. DePiep (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What is a "Main isotope"?

The question is asked at Template talk:Infobox element § Main isotopes. Please join there (and follow that talkpage). -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Into MOS criteria

The talk has delivered some fruitful results. From here, we'll develop these five into good MOS criteria. Proposal, kickoff:

• Original proposed text (see § Developing MOS text for latest, evoluting proposals)

MOS:MAINISOTOPE

Isotopes that are considered a Main Isotope of an element, for example to be included in listing "Main isotopes of <element>" (Main isotopes of lead), that fulfil at least one of these:

1. Primordial nuclide (stable or nearly stable)
2. Cosmogenic (these are generally fairly long-lived, and also include disputed primordial isotopes such as ²⁴⁴Pu)
3. Has medical uses
4. Common nuclear fuel sources and medium/long-lived fission products
5. Confirmed to be an extinct ... of geologic interest [?]

pinging @ComplexRational, DePiep, Double sharp, Nucleus hydro elemon, and TheÆtherPlayer: participants.

-DePiep (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Developing MOS text

This text reflects latest proposals. Following discussion below. It is volatile and editable by intention.

MOS:MAINISOTOPE

[will be renumbered in this order before going MOS]

Isotopes that are considered a Main Isotope of an element, for example to be included in listing "Main isotopes of <element>" (Main isotopes of lead), that fulfil at least one of these:

1. Primordial nuclide (stable or nearly stable)

2. Cosmogenic (these are generally fairly long-lived, and also include disputed primordial isotopes such as ²⁴⁴Pu)

3. Has medical uses

3.5 Has industrial uses

4. Common nuclear fuel sources and [their] medium/long-lived fission products

5. Confirmed to be an extinct ... of geologic interest [?]

6. [DS] Most stable isotope(s) of non-primordial elements

7. [DS] Most commonly produced isotope(s) of synthetic elements

99. [DP] Isotope of exceptional interest (WP:IAR by discussion)

Discussion

• Propose to add: "DP 6 Isotopes of rare cause interest (WP:IAR, discussed)", catch-all. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Okay, makes sense for isotopes where significance is real but quite unique e.g. ^229mTh. Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
• Propose to add: "DP 7 First observed isotope(s) of a new element". Though we don't do theoretical isotopes here then. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I like the idea behind 7 but would like to refine it. In many cases, the first observed isotope stopped being the usual isotope to produce for investigations some time ago. For example, Cn chemistry experiments today are done using ²⁸³Cn mostly, not ²⁷⁷Cn. I would say that for synthetic elements, it should be the most often produced isotopes plus the longest-lived (which becomes relevant here because those determine the mass number one writes on the PT). Longest-lived can include more than one when we have overlapping error bounds, as is the case for hassium. And of course, don't include theoretical isotopes. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

    Fine with me. Plural can be kept here, I guess. And of course, for a while the 1st created one will be that "most created" one ;-) In the early years listing all=one or two seems fine.

    btw, theoretical ones of major interest can qualify by #7, IAR & convince. Add a note-option to the table? Or easify footnoting?

    Pls do phrase it. DePiep (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

    I propose "DS 7 Most stable isotope(s) of non-primordial elements" plus "DS 8 Most commonly produced isotope(s) of synthetic elements".

    I still would not support including theoretical isotopes, because we don't know how long they are actually going to live, and their usefulness varies tremendously based on that. ²⁷⁶Ds was once suggested as a good isotope to investigate Ds chemistry, but last year it was finally made, and it turned out to be short-lived. Double sharp (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

    Added both to the developing list. "Most" need not to be quantified? Copernicium#Isotopes now lists 8 in-article. DePiep (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

    re Theoreticals: No need to mention them indeed, could be added through "99 IAR" (discussion) anyway.

    Listing an isotope temporarily (years?) is no problem IMO. For example, "longest h-l" may change and so be removed. DePiep (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

    For copernicium, those 8 are the only 8 known (the last two are even unconfirmed). This is a detailed section about the isotopes, so I think it's a different case from the main infobox. In any case, for the heaviest elements when there are few known isotopes, we may well end up showing them all (e.g. only five known isotopes of Mc). Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Question about #1 "primordial", a DAB: do we use Primordial nuclide, Primordial element, other? And, does it say Observationally stable or other? -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Use primordial nuclide; no opinion about observational stability. (ComplexRational?) Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

    Point #1 would encompass all stable nuclides and primordial radionuclides. "Observationally stable" need not be mentioned in the isobox; the article text can explain that.

    Also, +1 to #6 and #7. For Np–Fm, this would include all reasonably long-lived isotopes produced in macroscopic quantities by neutron capture, plus a few other longest-lived isotopes which are not. In a case like Cn, I don't think mentioning all (eight) reported isotopes is necessary – I'd be satisfied with the three currently shown. I also am strongly against including undiscovered isotopes, because of considerable variation in predictions (no reason to cherry-pick or favor a single source; even for island of stability, the focus is on consistent predictions among different models plus a few specific examples), and the many times predictions were too optimistic by several orders of magnitude (e.g., ²⁷⁷Mt once had a predicted half-life of five minutes, compared to the experimentally observed five milliseconds). ^Complex/_Rational 14:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• FYI: I crosschecked used in medicine with Main isotopes lists. Source list: as found in {{Diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals}}, {{Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals}}, no further backchecks done there; they total 20+11=31 (29 unique) isotopes.

Of these, catched Re-186, Dy-165, Tl-201, Kr-81m, O-15 missing in their Main list. Added, with (|main=medicine (V09, V10); some data missing. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• There are also some lists of commonly-used or important radioisotopes such as [3] that might serve as useful reference points. Of course, discretion is still necessary, but if there's information pertaining to safety or cost (for instance), there's a higher chance that one of the above criteria are satisfied. ^Complex/_Rational 02:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I also started compiling a list of main isotopes per this discussion at User:ComplexRational/sandbox, which I should be able to finish tomorrow. It's intended to be an outline (so minimal effort formatting); feedback is of course welcome before we change which isotopes are listed in the isoboxes. ^Complex/_Rational 03:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Nice. I do propose to add |main=reason extensively, mopre so when obscure (not needed for stable isotopes obviously). Back to our forefathers' hunter-gathering then, for isotope applications. Also, we have time before mass deleting. DePiep (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Also, the |main= may later / elsewhere be used for readers (long time desire: add those to Big Table, Infobox isotope, ..). So a good place to document & communicate. DePiep (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  You mean like, 'If costs or safety of an isotope is reseached/published, likely somewhere else an application will be published'? DePiep (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I was thinking. This goes for useful isotopes and more commonly encountered hazardous isotopes (e.g., ⁹⁰Sr, ¹³⁷Cs, ²²²Rn). I almost feel these guidelines are a lower bar for an isotopes SNG (were one to exist), in the sense that "main isotopes" of most elements draw significant interest outside pure nuclear physics research, and usually there's enough to sustain a standalone article when an isotope meets several of these criteria. ^Complex/_Rational 15:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Here's another very detailed list, from IUPAC: [4] ^Complex/_Rational 16:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• @DePiep and Double sharp: While compiling a list of main isotopes, I've encountered a few isotopes that have "industrial" applications outside of medicine/radiotracing, such as ^110mAg and ²⁴¹Am. Merge into DS7 (commonly produced synthetic isotopes [not among the other categories]) or new criterion? ^Complex/_Rational 02:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Nice catch! From DS at 07:26, I understood that those "longest living produced" are nicely in the research area—and better keep that one single-base. My pref: simply & clearly add new "[3.5] has industrial uses" + renumber. Less ideal: add as "[3] has medical or industrial uses". DePiep (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with DePiep. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• I note: As it stands, half-life by itself is not a criteria, nor is half-life by its relative position (in order of all instable element isotopes). With an 'interesting' half-life, there is always a consequential reason (required) to include (like, cosmogenetic relevance). Fine with me, looks like good set. -DePiep (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Oops, I forgot "#6 Most stable isotope(s) of non-primordial". Double sharp, is there some number limit for "most"? Kickoff: max 3 under this criterium; i.e. not 3 extra. DePiep (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say 2 or 3 at most. The longest half-life is usually interesting just because it's normal to mark the most stable isotope in lieu of the atomic weight for non-primordials. But often multiple isotopes are close enough that the longest half-life could conceivably change (e.g. we don't really know the half-life of ²⁴⁸Bk well, but it's long), so it's worth expanding to 2 or just maybe 3. Double sharp (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (continued)

"CR-list" of Main Isotopes: User:ComplexRational/Isotopes. -DePiep (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• The CR list @Double sharp and DePiep: The list in my sandbox is complete. Open to revising the list and criteria; there were some edge cases (also a few noted in HTML comments) for which I tried not to be strongly biased. ^Complex/_Rational 18:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Great! You think that current criteria will cause discussions, or are they usefully decisive?

  FYI, I crosschecked with Category:Isotope content page (65). Missing in your list (no claim from me): beryllium-8, which has that interesting "extinct" note. DePiep (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's User:ComplexRational/sandbox User:ComplexRational/Isotopes. DePiep (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Crosschecked med V09, med V10: none missing. (Instead, column #3 has many more, eg industrial). DePiep (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm completely happy with this list.

  Regarding ⁸Be: its half-life is extremely short, but I suppose its importance in nucleosynthesis may make it worth including as an extremely exceptional case. Double sharp (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

How to proceed? We best stabilise the rule set (fix numbers). For data integrity reasons, I'd very much prefer "medicine" and "industrial" to be split from the start.

It is OK to have multiple criteria (like "Tc-99m fits #2, #3, #5"); merge those when needed is easy.

-DePiep (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Pls consider coding or lettering the criteria list: ""A, B C"or "C1, C2, C3". Will be easier to grasp.

Once the CR list is stable, I'll automate the list (like Tc-99m=C2, C4) & errorlist rejected isotopes in {{Infobox <element> isotopes}} for cleanup (remoaval). HTH. Multi-criteria fitting van be added any time. Footnotes maitained. Do we need more support hooks? -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Per this thread, I would agree that beryllium-8 warrants an exception, so I added it.

Separating medical and industrial applications seems reasonable; we could also merge industrial into #5 and rephrase it to "industrial/geological/astrophysical interest", which includes all extinct radioisotopes – as they are inherently interesting to geologists – and catches a few IAR cases for astrophysics.

How do you propose coding/lettering/automating? I also assume that this involves moving the list to its own page? ^Complex/_Rational 22:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest "M1, M2, M3, ..." (best so far): no confusion, easy for the eye. When published, their reason will can be shown (no bare code).

List to be maintained in a data set similar to {{Infobox element/symbol-to ...}}. Allowing {{efn}} footnote per isotope. Full overview in its /doc. Editable.

I also see useful need for a second list, "doubt" (like the ones now <!-- commented out -->) for development & discussion; also keep that info (rejections).

I'd say just keep developing your sandbox list, once I have time you'll know. Start multi-column if you like, not required. Pls split med/industr/3rd(?) at least initially, (or by some minor wikicode?); IMO easier now.

STATS: The CR List as of now: 651 isotopes (unique I assume); including 24 m-isotopes (all m0), 59 {{efn}} notes. DePiep (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of splitting: Here's why I think splitting "medical" and "industrial" is useful: because it is more informative for the Reader when used in articles (Infoboxes (3), Big Isotopetable, in-article overview SHEs). Therefor, also split nuclear energy vs. nuclear arms?

Idea: Internal code list (CR List) does not have to copy our projected MOS list numbering. So, more detailed split only needed & usdeful in the automated list. (Even: keep #3 as Med and Industrial", later add numbers #7 #8 for split w/o breaking existing #3).

As said, automated list will ~look like Tc-99m=M2, M4, {{efn|Foo bar}}, so easy to edit, accepts multiples. Great List to work with, CR! DePiep (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: re your question "How automated?" (My latest thoughts, evolved thinking:)

The sandbox CR List page won't change for automation. (We will use a copy/paste to new page + add templatecode). So you can keep developing as you think best.

In the CR List, no need split (no column split) nor repeat massnumber in multiple columns. A stable & complete yes/no list is most important now. Splits can be done later.

For future use and Talkpage reference, doubts in there will be listed too as doubts (different list of rejected iso's + their possible talks: building background documentation). So those comments in that list will be used.

BTW, when you research an "m"-isotope, could you check if it is the "m1"-isotope? (write "m1" in list = good). DePiep (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can check over the isomers, and later work on reorganizing with slightly modified criteria. I already included an endnote for cases where it's not -m1. ^Complex/_Rational 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR: for me, no need to change columns/classification now. When automated refinements easily possible (Feb?). I can & will handle all comments & notes in your CR List. Unambiguous m-number-identification requested (bare "m" only acceptable when no "m2" exists for that element). HTH DePiep (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's normal in the literature to omit the number when it is 1. But it's always included AFAIK when it is not 1. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That would leave ambiguity. For identification reasons, we must apply as mentioned. DePiep (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

OK I have to correct myself: m2 for ^178m2Hf is also sometimes omitted. But omitting the 1 for ^180m1Ta is so common in the literature that I think it should be allowed: it doesn't make sense if the common usage is forbidden. Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Only if ^180m2Ta does not exist. No ambiguity nor doubt. Literature should take care of itself. -DePiep (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Double sharp: your approach is getting problematic. There is no gain in arguing "I have seen ...", or "In microsituation A with B while C doing X is OK". You are invited to go along with: 'first and foremost no ambiguity or doubr can be allowed'. -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with -m instead of -m1 when it's the commonly used name in the literature and thus the most recognizable. If each isomer had its own article, WP:COMMONNAME would, as I understand it, favor tantalum-180m as opposed to tantalum-180m1 (for example) and clarify this ambiguity later in the article. In fact, in this specific case, I can't find anything in the literature outside of nuclear data compilations that use the -m1 notation. For a case such as iridium-192, where the "main" isomer is -m2, a distinction is definitely warranted (e.g., as described in [5]), but these are the exceptions among the isomers in the list I compiled.

Moreover, all the isomers in the list are the only isomers of each nuclide that would qualify as main; there's plenty of context with a statement such as "long-lived isomer" to know which is being discussed. ^Complex/_Rational 15:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are starting about exceptions to a rule without establishing that rule first. So: what is the simple rule you recognise? DePiep (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Such a rule would be this, as substantiated by terminology/notation in RS: If an isomer is by far the longest-lived of several isomers of the same nuclide, and is the lowest-energy isomer, the notation -m (as opposed to -m1) is sufficient for its unambiguous identification, as reflected in the scientific literature. ^Complex/_Rational 17:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) NUBASE2020 does not state or claim that its first, plain ⟨^m⟩ suffixed isotope is the longest living. Not identifying then. (2) Still written as some secondary rule, ie an exception/refinement of some primary rule omitted here. -DePiep (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's already clear that ⟨^m⟩ in NUBASE refers to the lowest-energy isomer. I wrote and is the lowest-energy isomer in light of this. Most often in the literature, ⟨^m⟩ in the literature refers to the main isomer, which happens to usually be both the longest-lived and lowest-energy excited state. I'm unsure which primary rule you're alluding to.

As a very crude and anecdotal measure (this should not alone govern anything), there are about 20 times as many hits on Google (Wikipedia and mirrors excluded) for ⟨^m⟩ vs. ⟨^m1⟩ for some examples cited by myself and Double sharp. ^Complex/_Rational 18:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

(3) longer term: when a certain notation is used in source, isolated from that source the identification must be unambiguous. For example, context in the source can specify a notation, but that is lost when quoted incomplete (and verbose completion of the ID, eg by includiung that context, is insufficient either). -DePiep (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's already clear that .. is your injection—at best. So now you're not even relying on exterior context (bad enough), you are even synthesising. You are still mudding in the secondary (tertiary, ..) level of rules. You have not stated (admitted to) the primary rule you are referring to. Is not working towards identification, writing MOS.

One more time: what is the full set of rules you propose as MOS? DePiep (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

When composing the Rules, I can note that some checks are to be done.

(4) I doubt whether half-life is primarily defining m-isotopes at all. Or distinguishing. AFAIK, excitation energy is.

(5) In identification, mixing up ID-schemes is intolerable and bad data handling (and amateuristic). So it's either ⟨^{m1, m2, m3, m4}⟩ or NUBASE2020 ⟨^{m, n, p, q}⟩.

(6) When invoking common name, as you did above, one must keep in mind that this is aimed at article titles. Then again, when a common name is established, disambiguation may be required. Common name choice may not be used to DAB. So we might end up with "^{123m(the isotope with excitation energy 7×106 eV)}Xx" naming.

But first and foremost: the full rule set. @Double sharp and ComplexRational:. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

My proposal is (1) always use "m1, m2, m3, ..." naming, except that (2) when the "m1" is by far the longest-lived isomer (e.g. ^180m1Ta) it can be shortened to "m" (so, ^180mTa is OK). No ambiguity is created with the NUBASE naming, because their "m" is always the "m1". In other words, what CR wrote as a refinement to the "m1, m2, ..." scheme. Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. One refinement required, to wipe out circumstantial sourcing/naming (i.e., identifiers be autonomous):

(2new) ⟨^m1⟩ can be written as ⟨^m⟩ (a) when and only when it defines the same element isotope as ⟨^m⟩ in NUBASE2020, and (b) when no confusion can occur (for example, when multiple m-isotopes are discussed in article, e.g. first-mentioning-clarification be applied).

IOW: ⟨^m⟩ can and may only be used when it is the NUBASE2020 ⟨^m⟩ isotope. Non-⟨^m1⟩ isotopes (ie, non NUBASE-⟨^m⟩ isotopes) never may be named bare ⟨^m⟩.

Referring to any WP:COMMONNAME base by itself is useless (defeating the MOS point), as that my introduce disambiguation issues or requirements. DePiep (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I add: When accepted this strict, we can step ahead:

"(2c) ⟨^m1⟩ is always equivalent to ⟨^m⟩, so ⟨^m1⟩ is not used at enwiki (except in quoting sources & clarifying)". A series then will appear as ^123mXx, ^123m2Xx, ^132m3Xx, never ^123m1Xx.

But: only when MOSsified strict, including full mutual NB2020-^m-correspondence. -DePiep (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem + solution: new isotopes. When after NUBASE2020 a new isotope is discovered or theorised, it has no NUBASE ⟨^{m, n, p, q}⟩ identifier, and by definition thus no corresponding enwiki ⟨^{m/m1, m2, m3, m4}⟩. In this situation, the ordering shall not be reordered by inserting the new isotope by its properties. Instead, it shall be given the first free (unused) identifier, ie added to the end of the elements m-list. This way, enwiki & NUBASE identifying is unbroken. Will require updateing with new NUBASE2024(?). -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just noting here, MOS refinement: we name m-isotopes as described, but also passively mention alternative names. For example, in content article technetium-99m, the infobox could/should mention fair synonyms like "aka ^99m1Tc"; and elsewhere the NB2020 synonym form "aka ¹⁰¹Xxⁿ". All dismambiguous. (Also ask Ds if we should do so with regular isotopes "Xx-101" synonyms. More time in Feb). -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Leaving this here to process later.

Seen notation "^258–260Fm" for plural. "13C" is used in RL (NUBASE2020); Saw ²⁹⁹128 for theoreticals (RL, passively). Is ²⁹⁹E128 used? When OK: mention passively (eg as -legal- "synonym: .." in Infoboxes), todo more specific for notrations we use in body text. DePiep (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Leaving this here to process later: Category:Radionuclides used in radiometric dating (16) DePiep (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Leaving this here for completeness Category:Medical isotopes (34). Compiled manually from ATC V09 V10 navboxes some weeks ago. (Already crosschecked with CR's Main list; but at last there is the category for systematic checks). -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Found & added to this category, per articles: Actinium-225#Applications, bismuth-213. -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Where of all places would they discover REEs?

@BBC: Huge rare earth metals discovery in Sweden. This made me smile. DePiep (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Also found this Rare Earth. Happily noting that it was not engaged in metal, nor proposing names for heavy metal elements. DePiep (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS for naming isotopes

It occurred to me that this is an omission in the current MOS, so since we're working out what an "main" isotope is, I thought we should explain how to name isotopes on WP. So, I have added it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Isotopes.

@ComplexRational: Your comments particularly welcome, as I'm uncertain about whether we should allow "radon" to be used for the isotope as well as the element when it is being contrasted with thoron and/or actinon. I eventually wrote that it was permissible, because even today papers do it, but I wonder if we should disallow it as potentially confusing. Ionium is borderline gone these days, but we still have an article on ionium-thorium dating: I can still find thoron, actinon, and radiocarbon in the literature from 2019 onwards, though. Like I said, maybe I've been a bit too permissive, so I'm interested in your view. Double sharp (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Good, contributing now while it's fluid.

Technically, I claim the internal notation to be acceptable: Te-123m2. That is, as input & identifier for templates, infoboxes etc. Internatinal(!), simple, non-confusing, and automatable. DePiep (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have a problem with using it as an input and identifier. I just think that it should not be displayed to the reader, because it is not really used in that way in the literature. Double sharp (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• About old isotope names.

Regarding old isotope names, I believe there's too much potential for confusion and would not encourage using them outside of self-references in historical context. I believe most contemporary sources just use ordinary isotope notation; in addition to radon, there's also radium (once exclusively ²²⁶Ra), thorium (once exclusively ²³²Th), and radium C, C', C'', along with other possible sources of confusion. ^Complex/_Rational 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Disallowed all but the hydrogen isotopes, then. (Left a note about thoron, because it's still used in the contemporary literature, but disallowed it as creating the radon element-isotope confusion.) Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

That's, "only mention in historical reference" then (H exceptions). Includes mentioning in BigTable Isotopes of radon § List of isotopes for completeness, I assume. Require to add "historical" in appropriate places, to prevent reintroduction &tc? DePiep (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• About excited isomers NUBASE2020:

EXPLANATION OF TABLE I Nuclide name: mass number A = N + Z and element symbol. The superscript suffixes ‘m’, ‘n’, ‘p’, ‘q’, ‘r’ and ‘x’ indicate assignments to excited isomeric states with a half-life greater than 100 ns. Suffixes ‘p’ and ‘q’ can also indicate non-isomeric levels, which are used in AME2020. Suffix ‘r’ can also indicate a state from a proton resonance occurring in (p,γ) reactions (e.g. ²⁸Si^r). Suffix ‘x’ can also indicate a mixture of levels with a relative ratio, R, given in the ‘Half-life’ column. They occur in spallation reactions or fission and are labeled as ‘spmix’ or ‘fsmix’ in the ‘J^π’ column, respectively. Suffixes ‘i’ and ‘j’ indicate Isobaric Analog States.
— NUBASE2020 p.17

Noting: Superscripts are in italics, greek letters too. Isomer letter like ⟨^r⟩ is suffixed (not prefixed with mass number). Superscript letter ⟨^o⟩ is skipped (not used).

See also "Isomer assignment" in that Explanation (p.18): ⟨*⟩ (no info to determine "which one is determine ground state and which one is excited isomer", uncertainty ΔE, eg ¹⁰²Y, ^102mY), ⟨&⟩ (ordering isomers is changed wrt ENSDF eg ¹⁰⁰Y, ^100mY).

-DePiep (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

NUBASE2020 (p.17) uses "‘m’, ‘n’, ‘p’, ‘q’, ‘r’ and ‘x’", in italics, and postfixed: ¹⁶O^p. Also says: "Suffixes ‘p’ and ‘q’ can also indicate non-isomeric levels, .. AME ...", etc etc. While our notation ^99m2Tc (I perefer) has the number issue. SI says: do not italicise sup/sup latin letters, numbers. DePiep (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Could we have your opinion? :) Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

For isomers, I'm unsure if there's a clear answer. I searched a couple of examples where such a distinction would be important (¹⁷⁸Hf, ^192mIr isomers), and it appears that numbers are used more frequently than letters after m. In addition to what is mentioned above about p and q, NUBASE also labels resonances, "normal" isomers, and fission isomers differently, whereas these are fundamentally the same phenomenon – nuclei in an excited state that survive longer than the average de-excitation time, so I'm not as keen on following something that's not entirely self-consistent or reflected as widely in other RS. ^Complex/_Rational 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That's ^178m1Hf, ^178m2Hf, ^178m3Hf (Hf § List of isotopes). In NUBASE2020: ¹⁷⁸Hf^m, ¹⁷⁸Hfⁿ, ¹⁷⁸Hf^p. DePiep (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The isomer rules then be (phrasing tb refined):

Rule 1: "Isomer isotopes are identified as ^178m1Hf, ^178m2Hf, ^178m3Hf, or equivalent "hafnium-178m2". m-numbering must correspond with letters found elsewhere: ¹⁷⁸Hf^m, ¹⁷⁸Hfⁿ, ¹⁷⁸Hf^p (letter ⟨^o⟩ is skipped). Superscripts are upright (roman, non-italic). Letter-notation is only used when this notation is the topic.

Rule 2: "If only "^m1Xx" exists, and no other isomers ("^m2Xx") the number ⟨¹⟩ may be omitted: ^26mP.

Rule 3: "Except for rule 2, an m-number must be used always for unambivalent identification."

Other isomer identification & description: to be decided. I note that whatever scheme we perescribe here it may never conflict or confuse above m-rules (m-rule clarity prevails). (todo: digest CR's note above wrt this).

Note: m-notation is already practice in enwiki, albeit not this strict. -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• About shortening names.

See the lede (1st sentence) of Isotopes of neodymium. A horror to the eye, and not inviting to read/decypher. For this, I'd like to use in-sentence the next construction, for legibility:

"Naturally occurring neodymium (₆₀Nd) is composed of 5 stable isotopes, ¹⁴²Nd, ¹⁴³Nd, ¹⁴⁵Nd, ¹⁴⁶Nd and ¹⁴⁸Nd, with ¹⁴²Nd being the most abundant (27.2% natural abundance), and 2 long-lived radioisotopes, ¹⁴⁴Nd and ¹⁵⁰Nd."

into

"Naturally occurring neodymium (₆₀Nd) is composed of 5 stable isotopes, neodynium-142, -143, -145, -146, -148, and 2 long-lived radioisotopes, neodynium-144 and -150." [elsewhere: ... "with ¹⁴²Nd being the most abundant (27.2% natural abundance)"].

I dislike hyphens being used before bare numbers because they look like badly done negative signs. It probably falls afoul of some rule, but I'd rather see "neodymium-142, 143, 145, 146, 148, and 2 long-lived radioisotopes, 144 and 150". Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In general, I prefer to spell out the name at the first occurrence (neodymium-142) and use the symbol (¹⁴²Nd) thereafter, except at the beginning of sentences in accordance with MOS:NUM. If there are too many isotopes to comfortably spell out all of them, I would recommend something like Neodymium has five stable isotopes, with mass numbers 142, 143, 145, 146, and 148, and two primordial radioisotopes, with mass numbers 144 and 150 if symbols are not inviting to read. ^Complex/_Rational 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Solved then (& drop the hyphen as I used it). IMO a MOS does not need too many language constructs prescribing, just allowed/forbidden notations. DePiep (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• overlap in talk: see above, § Discussion (continued), about the same topic (m-isotopes). -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

References

• Noting here for future consideration: seen notation "^32,34Si" (here). Looks like plausible and useful. Use comma-space? -DePiep (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Boilerplate old FA-review text

Restoring older Featured articles to standard: year-end 2022 summary Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort. Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review: 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR). 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews. FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022. Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured. Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity. Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA All received a Million Award But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio): Biology Physics and astronomy Warfare Video gaming and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs: Literature and theatre Engineering and technology Religion, mysticism and mythology Media Geology and geophysics ... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs ! FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222. But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023. Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article. Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section. Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page. Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page. Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR. Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it. More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Joan of Arc at WT:ELEMENTS? This post is ineffective, and does not invite to dissect for relevance. Does not even wikilink to the say xenon-somediscussion-page. I will fold the boilerplate. DePiep (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Enzyme kinetics
2. Francium
3. Joseph Priestley
4. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
5. Oxidative phosphorylation
6. Uranium
7. Xenon

GAR Notice

Neon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Argon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Krypton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Neon/1

Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Argon/1

Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Krypton/1

-DePiep (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Uranium

I have nominated Uranium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bismuth

Bismuth has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ¹⁴¹Pr 19:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Antimony

Antimony has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ¹⁴¹Pr 20:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

ISOTOPES: to a stable set of decay modes

For isotopes we use a set of {{decay modes}}, looking like β⁺ and linked like β⁺. I am working to define, stabilise and automate the set we use. The set needs improvement & refinements wrt the definitions. ("Where should εε link to?"). Then, it can be used for ease in the infoboxes (like {{Infobox plutonium isotopes}}).

Please take a look at this talk with {{Decay modes}}. DePiep (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tellurium

Tellurium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ¹⁴¹Pr 16:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we go back to coloring elements by metallicity?

We changed to coloring elements by block because there is much disagreement in sources over which elements are metals, metalloids, and nonmetals, but I feel that's throwing all the information away due to one problem; it would be more helpful to readers to see which elements are metals, metalloids and nonmetals on the periodic table. It's probably not worth losing all that information just because there might be some NPOV issues. Thank you. 123957a (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And not only that, the old system also showed which metals are alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, lanthanides, actinides, transition metals or post-transition metals, and which nonmetals were reactive nonmetals or noble gases! 123957a (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the old (say 2018) coloring was not the 3-way metal-metalloid-nonmetal coloring, but a circa 10-class classification. So, there is no "going back" to what not was. BTW, the 3-way classification you mention of course is available in dedicated articles like metal, nonmetal, metalloid.

The removal of colors is addressed in MOS:PERIODICTABLE, and mentions more than just a "POV". The problem is, that there is no classify alle elements exactly once scheme nearby. That is: the problem is inside the classification quest itself (it is part of whatever classes one wants to use for this purpose). There is no single classification ground that can be applied (as in, half are sorted by color, the other 67% by weight). Back in 2018 already half of the the elements were involved in "border issues", i.e., actually "class definition" issues.

Meanwhile, non-classify-alle-elements-exactly-once sets are usefully available, like post-transition metals, coinage metals, rare earth metals. DePiep (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Because:

1. There is no agreement among sources on "which elements are metals, metalloids and nonmetals on the periodic table". Actually, there's not even a generally accepted definition of what a "metal" is.
2. It's not at all clear how to colour elements that belong to more than one class. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

But it would still be better to put each element in one category than to get rid of the categorization entirely. It's more easily visible to the readers. 123957a (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And that's precisely why not to do it: to not give the readers a wrong impression of how these categories are actually used. We didn't throw away information, we threw away a misleading simplification. And the problem about disagreement between sources actually applies to pretty much everything that you might want to call a "metalloid", almost by definition. Double sharp (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

But most periodic tables use the 10 categories I mentioned. 123957a (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy on the classification of group 3 and group 12 elements, in addition to the nonmetals. Some periodic tables class different elements differently. ¹⁴¹Pr 18:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

My argument is that that shouldn't be a reason to stop using the categories, just as how we don't name the articles Element 13, Element 16, and Element 55 instead of Aluminium, Sulfur, and Caesium just because they have multiple spellings. And besides, we decided to outright say Group 3 consists of scandium, yttrium, lutetium, and lawrencium. 123957a (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Three people have answered, you have connected to not a single answer. You just keep repeating your point from scratch without using a single word of the answers. Please come back after you have studied & digested the answers and have a related argument (as in: building a conversation). DePiep (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I did use words from the answer. Praseodymium-141 said "There is a lot of controversy on the classification of group 3 [...] elements", to which I replied "[...] we decided to outright say Group 3 consists of scandium, yttrium, lutetium, and lawrencium". 123957a (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

most periodic tables use the 10 categories I mentioned – false. Just look at the variation on whether halogens are a category or not. Or whether polonium is a metalloid or not. For the spelling of Al, S, and Cs, we have IUPAC to refer to as an arbitrator. Similarly for group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr (as in reports from 1988 and 2021 and the 1990 Red Book), or group 12 as transition metals (in the Principles of Chemical Nomenclature of 2011). There is no such IUPAC definition of what a "metal" is, nor any recognition of whole set of categories. The only scheme IUPAC mentions in the Red Book to divide up the elements, with every element belonging to one and only one subset, is by blocks.

Seriously, things are not so simple. A category scheme doesn't work very well because there is a shortage of clear breaks in periodicity (unless we talk about moving from each noble gas to the following alkali metal, or some cases of first-row anomaly). Metallicity rather just gets weaker as we go along Cu-Zn-Ga-Ge-As-Se-Br, and it is a matter of what properties you look at that will determine where you think you should stop calling them "metals". (And yes, even at bromine it's not zero.) So, of course people put the break in different locations. I realise that trying to put everything in neat little boxes is irresistible for beginners, but it simply doesn't reflect the vast tapestry of chemistry all that well. At least blocks are acknowledged by IUPAC and are inherent in the quantum mechanical model that the PT is based on. Double sharp (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't always have to follow one specific ruleset, right?

Also, why did we only change the classification of elements in 2020 and not earlier? 123957a (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There have been discussions here about how to classify specific elements since 2012, when I noticed that polonium was being called a metalloid even though its nonmetallic credentials are actually quite weak (I would go so far as to say bismuth is a weaker metal than polonium in some ways). But then the astatine problem surfaced. Some category schemes were tried to solve the problem, but ultimately after a lot of discussion some of us came to the conclusion that it's simply insoluble. The fact of the matter is that there's no standard name for "nonmetals without halogens or noble gases" or "halogens but stopping at iodine" (because the heavier halogens are really not well-described as nonmetals, from what we know), but because the category scheme mixes groups (e.g. alkaline earth metals, noble gases) and metallicity (e.g. post-transition metals vs metalloids), there is no way to get around it and not say something false or uncommon. And that's not even getting into the problem of whether or not to colour the superheavy elements. For example, by IUPAC statements Ts is a halogen and Og a noble gas by definition. Does one colour them in even though Og likely is neither noble nor a gas? And what does one do about Nh through Lv, since IUPAC has not defined what a "post-transition metal" is?

IUPAC is the relevant standards organisation for chemistry, so their statements carry a significant amount of weight. Double sharp (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Then we could try to find a way to assign an element to more than one category. 123957a (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

In which case colouring becomes difficult, and it becomes difficult to justify why halogens are a category but chalcogens aren't, for example. And it still doesn't solve the problem that different authors don't agree about the categories' boundaries: it's not just a matter of overlapping. Not to mention that there is not even agreement on what to call the category of metals between the transition metals and metalloids. (If you call it "post-transition metal", you raise questions about aluminium.) Double sharp (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a disclaimer that the categories are not rigid boxes. 123957a (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

If one is going to have such a disclaimer, then why use them for colour, which is the most salient thing people will notice about our periodic tables? I think that if you're going to use something for a colour scheme, rather than just describe it in text, it should be so clear-cut that it doesn't need a footnote. Double sharp (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ComplexRational, because I want more people's input on this. 123957a (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I strongly advise CR to be catreful before engaging here. No doubt you could add a new interesting angle, and also no doubt it will disappear in space. DePiep (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@123957a: This is a perennial topic here at WT:ELEMENTS. A block-based color scheme is implemented because it derives from fundamental properties at the atomic level for which no (substantial) disagreement exists: whether an element is classified as a metal or metalloid, metalloid or nonmetal, halogen or "other nonmetal", nobody disagrees on which elements belong to which block, and some could even arguably belong to multiple categories (e.g., astatine has properties of both metalloids and halogens – do we blend or superimpose colors?). Additionally, there isn't consistency in the literature with other color schemes: for instance, the group 17 elements can either be separately colored as halogens or (at least F, Cl, Br, and I) be combined with other nonmetals, and often elements whose properties have not been investigated (in this example, element 117) are still colored. Accordingly, coloring by block best satisfies WP:NPOV, and doesn't require explanatory footnotes at every occurrence.

Other color schemes could be construed as being biased, as a significant enough disagreement regarding classification exists to justify further explanation, and it may not be possible with space limitations or to explain nuances in every article where a periodic table appears. Given how many alternatives exist, a periodic table would be essentially unreadable with so many footnotes, and the micro periodic table used in {{infobox element}} certainly could not address this possible bias. Those details are better left to article prose.

I agree with the points raised by Double sharp, DePiep, and Praseodymium-141. There are also plenty of details in the archives for this page leading up to the 2020 decision. ^Complex/_Rational 22:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Another question: why did we only change the classification of elements in 2020 and not earlier? 123957a (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This question has already been answered above. ^Complex/_Rational 22:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, while I thank you for the notification, I advise you not to ping individual editors in hopes of finding one who will reaffirm your argument, as it can reasonably be construed as canvassing. Interested project members have this page watchlisted, and were any proposal here to gain traction (which I doubt this will, seeing as myself and three other editors have expressed disagreement along similar lines), the next step to gain outside input would be a request for comment. ^Complex/_Rational 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't trying to canvas. 123957a (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I think I explained the situation well enough in mainspace at Metal#Periodic table distribution and Periodic table#Metallicity. Here the colouring is okay, because it's stated that this is specifically about one criterion: bonding in the most stable allotrope. Double sharp (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

By single criterion: excellent. That's what the orthographer philosopher likes. Even fuzzy borders (border elements) can be accomodated.

I've always wondered what the reason was lanthanides and actinides were separated. Only explanation: historical, discovery, uncommonness, probably would have been considered REE's anyway: carelessness. Remember that old PT's had those two class names, and only those two, always present? Glad we removed them. DePiep (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Brauner already wrote "Ce etc." in the cell even before the first 18-column table of Pfeiffer. I suspect it came from people just not understanding how the rare earths fit into the structure, because the valency pattern doesn't work there. A similar problem happened with the old "group VIII" with Fe, Co, and Ni all together. I also think there is indeed a tendency to sideline the f-block elements.

I think that your best bet for fixing the problem with a time-machine would be to somehow get quantum mechanics discovered as pure mathematics before periodicity, just like Riemannian geometry was discovered before general relativity. If I read Scott Aaronson correctly, this may not have been impossible. In that case people would understand that it's about electron filling, that there's not a difference between the f-elements and the others, and we wouldn't have the group 3 problem (which in a way is the last gasp of this historical lack of understanding of what the rare earths actually are). I guess in this timeline Mendeleev invents the Janet table! :) Double sharp (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Decay energy for isotope lists

So, I've been an occasional visitor to the "Isotopes of [element]" pages for a while. for radioisotopes, the tables list half-life, decay mode(s), and daughter isotopes, but not decay energy (I've done that calculation manually from these lists a few times). Is there a reason the decay energies aren't listed? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I have also thought some time ago that it would be a good addition. However, I never actually did it because it would have been a lot of work. As you say it can also be calculated manually from the existing data. If someone else wants to add it, though, I certainly don't object. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Would it fall under WP:CALC since it's just a matter of the mass difference and E=MC² or would a source be needed? TornadoLGS (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Well, yes if it's done correctly. See Talk:Isotopes of promethium#How does the decay of Promethium-147 "work"? for a potential pitfall. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Would that require an extra column?

Actually, I have this (long term) plan to make those Big Tables ...

1. by template row (1 isotope=1 row) (a smarter form of {{Infobox element isotopes/isotopes decay1}},like here and using like this)
2. read dat from a nubase datafile
3. add/update all isotopes in Wikidata
4. automate isotope rows (behind the screens, use the templated row)

But alas, that's a lot of work. (I really need that extra hour of DST in October).

You could concsider to add that data for the (ca. 600) Main Isotopes first.

btw what is the calculation? (ok, saw 147Pm)-DePiep (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational and TornadoLGS: Come to think of it, though: when decay happens the resulting daughter is often in an excited state and needs to de-excite through gamma emission. These excited states typically aren't metastable, so they won't show up in the list of nuclides. Should we take that into account for the decay energy, or are we considering the subsequent gamma as part of the decay? Double sharp (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Following this on omitting decay-modes: In § A formal proposal to exclude rare decay modes from isoboxes, adding decay-mode-percentage is proposed, which virtually makes it impossible (space reasons) to add eV. That is, for the Infobox Main Isotopes tables. Possibly in-article tables can be more expanded, like Copernicium § Isotopes. -DePiep (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Decay mode definitions

• Related question: for e.g., uranium, {{NUBASE2020}} p.20 lists decay modes like "24Ne". I updated that U Main Isotopes table, but I have no decay products. Would someone like to do that calculation (I think it is) into products, and also inform me where to link to for decay mode 24Ne? Very rewarding! -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@DePiep: The only appropriate article to link to that I can think of would be Cluster decay. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no need to show such rare decay modes (less than a billionth of a percent!) in the "main isotopes" table. They're not exactly main decay modes, so putting them in seems to violate the spirit of having only "main" data.

That said, indeed cluster decay is the right article to link to. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

First aim is to be complete & correct: they are listed as decay modes full stop. I've seen the "<<%"-argument not used elsewhere (we list trace abundance, we add say all other decays irrepective of %); needs more base if applied. And anyway, for the Big Table and in dedicated single-isotope articles (main!), we must be able to handle them, with consistency. I'm working to get all modes in control. In general, saying "is not important" does not help for this. DePiep (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Your thoughts?

My proposal: for the "main isotopes" table, ignore all decay modes listed as less than 0.01% branches. (Perhaps overly generous.) Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think any cutoff between 0.01% and 0.1% is reasonable. When I compiled File:Superheavy_decay_modes_predicted_(KTUY).svg, I used 0.1% as a cutoff because smaller branches would hardly be visible. However, an explanatory note such as "branching ratios less than 0.01% are not shown" ought to be included for clarity, as for instance, SF of ²³⁸U has a low branching ratio but is often discussed in the literature.

Cluster decay, which (as said) is the correct mode, does not have a significant branch in any known nuclide, though I'm content with how it's represented in the big table. ^Complex/_Rational 13:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant for my question. As described, I am working to grasp & handle (automate) the isotopes & decay modes. I am working for weeks on this already, and if it is not possible for me to get it, the question is: then how do we think a Reader is supposed to get it from this wiki? So asked again: what is the definition, effect, presentation, ... for these? DePiep (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

More, similar questions (decay mode definitions, NUBASE2020) at Template talk:Decay modes § Stable set of decay modes.

btw, the %-question answers (or is it about "24Ne" desinterest?) belong in What_is_a_"Main_isotope"?. DePiep (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The reader who is seeking a complete overview of all the minor decay modes can be directed to isotopes of uranium, just like the reader who is seeking a complete overview of all the minor isotopes can be directed there. So, again, I reiterate: any branches that are listed as less than 0.01% should be left out of the "main isotopes" table. They are too specialised for that. We similarly don't consider natural trace occurrence to be sufficient for being a "main isotope" either. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not the question. DePiep (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI, "24Ne" is not in that U table BTW. None of these are. Serious, how do you think we can handle 5000 isotopes if each and every part, clearly asked about, is ignored? DePiep (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

FYI2, "a complete overview of all the minor decay modes"?: § List of decay modes is incomplete. For example, "24Ne" is not defined there. Is, not coincidentally, the reason I am asking about it. DePiep (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you write out your specific questions? It seems like neither myself nor DS are grasping them. ^Complex/_Rational 15:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

When an isotope like ²⁴Ne is listed as a "decay mode", then it means cluster decay emitting that nuclide. Simple as that. Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for talking down DS. If you want me to stop working on this, please say so directly. Also, one could consider apologising for pointed-out mistakes made. How on Earth do you expect me to ask a question here, as in: to not have it notread? DePiep (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it's literally explained on page 030001-19 of NUBASE2020: heavy cluster emission. Finding the product is simply subtraction, as emission simply means it got taken out of the nucleus. If ²²³Ra emits ¹⁴C, then it has lost six protons and eight neutrons (which is what makes up ¹⁴C), so it becomes isotope 223 − 14 = 209 of element 88 − 6 = 82, i.e. ²⁰⁹Pb. Does this answer your question, or not? Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

P.S. It's also clearly stated in Radioactive decay#Decay modes in table form, and the products were already explicitly listed e.g. in isotopes of uranium. Double sharp (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Not "explained" at p. ..-19, only mentioned ("24Ne=heavy cluster decay"). Is where I come from. Page Radioactive decay does not have the text "heavy cluster decay" at all.

And of course, NUBASE does not describe how differences in enwiki must be connected.

My question was, apart from being literal, simple for support on what and how we do at our pages. Having to reasearch that myself alone will introce OR, synthesis, and drain more than all available time. Completely useless. Me having to think "cluster decay probably is the same as heavy cluster decay"? ouch. And this is just one of the dozen of questions, as linked to.

So, whether my Q is answered: as descibed. DePiep (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes CR. My questions are: see the very bullet you are replying under and its follow up posts. Warning: skip distractions. DePiep (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Double sharp and ComplexRational: Note that this/sucha rule should be fleshed out at the already present "Main isotopes" thread (instead of off-topic here); that it is not stable nor well-fleshed out; and to be careful to not edit randomly or premature (removal of sourced info), IOW let's find some strategy in the 5000-isotopes topic. I see not reason to shortcut, burial, or compromise on the consensus concept. DePiep (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Once again, first establish a rule to apply, & in the right place. We cannopt edit elements at random. Does anyone read other persons posts here? -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Double sharp and ComplexRational: I am very disappointed in the flow of this thread.

First of all, I came to this WikiProject talkpage to ask support & cooperation for a specific topic. Is exactly what this page is for.

What I got as reply on my initial bare question was talkdowns, three ref pointings that did not have the quote/claim at all, and repeated replies to the tone of "everybody knows", "why don't you didn't find this yourself" [+a source that did not have it].

Also, no engagement in the wider question of the topic: getting definitions, fleshing out differences/unclarities within enwiki and between enwiki/Wikidata/NUBASE.

Then, totally off-topic some new content rule is mentioned, off-topic while a dedicated, known discussion is available, and no well-established rule has resulted. For the record: as it stands, the "rule" is not well established and not accepted. (See also my todays 09:12, 7 February 2023 post above)

...while still sloppy random reverts are made based on a non-rule, incidental & without followup or consistency wrt other pages.

Given the already running longer term taksforce (ie, 'Reuse Infobox main isotopes'), incidental offtrack edits are disruptive. Cooperation cannot be enforced, so here we are.

Roundup. All this does not help the articles forward, nor help the encyclopedy Reader. Already the 5000-isotopes (600 main ones) have a bad update, accuracy and verification level. I expect support for (automating; time consuming) improvement herein—at least, no contra-consensus incidents. Reasonable talk posts I expect include keep-to-single-topic, flesh-out-rules-in-appropriate-places, do-not-incidentally-edit in a 5000-item-issue, and of course in general: search actively for consensus. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Concluding re the (offtopic) posts for omitting decay modes by small % (eg SF & heavy cluster decays "24Ne" for uranium): no change; no consensus hasd been build, so no omission rule is added. iow all decay modes to be listed. Changes can be proposed in appropriate ways & places. -DePiep (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

One thing I found, List of nuclides lists decay energies for nuclides with half-lives longer than 100 million years. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on the classification of chemical elements

Should the classification scheme used for the chemical elements on the periodic table be changed from the current block-based 4-color scheme (s-block, p-block, d-block, f-block) to the former 10-color scheme (alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, lanthanides, actinides, transition metals, post-transition metals, metalloids, reactive nonmetals, noble gases, and elements with unknown properties)? 123957a (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC) 19:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This RfC ended in the past and has since been restarted by me. 123957a (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought it would've been closed by now; no matter.

Following the eventual close of this RfC, and after a break in proceedings, I intend to start a new RfC proposing essentially the same as this one, at the Periodic Table talk page. But first I'll increase the size of the COPTIC survey of periodic tables from 62 to about 200, as mentioned later in this thread. I'll post the results in a new article called "List of categories appearing in Periodic Tables". For now it is worth noting, once again, that a block-based periodic table is not representative of what appears in chemistry textbooks. Sandbh (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Straight WP:FORUMSHOP announcement, not acceptable. If you think you have additional, new contributions, this RfC is still open & you're supposed to discuss. FORUMSHOP can lead to early procedural closure.

Meanwhile, you are not discharged from explicitly withdrawing personal attacks in here, as requested. IOW, "discussing" while casting aspersions may have consequences. DePiep (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC !Voting

Sub-section added to make it easier for new editors to add their !Vote. To add your !Vote, you can either edit the top-level section and scroll to the middle where the last !Vote has been added, or you can edit this sub-section and scroll to the bottom. YBG (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Retain blocks, as they are mentioned in the IUPAC Red Book, are generally agreed by chemists and physicists, and relate directly to the atomic properties of the elements and the mathematical and physical bases of the periodic table. Strongly oppose the former 10-color scheme, because it fails to classify elements unambiguously: (1) authors differ on which elements belong to which category (see lists of metalloids for example for just how far "metalloid" can stretch; is As one? is Sb one? is Bi one?), (2) IUPAC has not made a ruling on the matter, (3) the proposed categories can overlap (Lu can be both a lanthanide and a transition metal; Og is a noble gas according to IUPAC just by being in group 18, but has unknown chemical properties), and (4) the set is arbitrary and not agreed on even among sources who use such schemes (is it post-transition metals or poor metals or other metals? are halogens a category or not? indeed, are metalloids a category or not?). Therefore, any use of such a scheme runs straight into WP:NPOV concerns (because of the variation) and means feeding our readers oversimplifications (because of the overlaps); and judging by history in past years, all it really ends up leading to is extremely long discussions that tend to veer into OR to deal with problems like how to name the nonmetals that aren't noble gases (or aren't noble gases or halogens), e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 15. Much of this has already been explained directly above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Should we go back to coloring elements by metallicity? and is already codified in WP:NCCHEM#Categorising elements. The current block scheme neatly avoids wasting time fishing in such murky waters and preserves some colouring. Double sharp (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, maybe there shouldn't be any coloring then. 123957a (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would indeed find it preferable to remove all the colouring than to reinstate the old 10-colour scheme, yes. However, it would probably end up attracting people trying to restore the categories that are supposedly missing. Using blocks as a colour scheme is not too uncommon, e.g. WebElements, some (especially Russian) tables, and makes it clear that the current situation is deliberate. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  people trying to restore the categories that are supposedly missing shouldn't be a problem or reason not to do it, because we can just revert the edits, block the users, or protect the pages. 123957a (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  true DePiep (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  re Ds (slightly as side-topic): Of course "to prevent other coloring" is not to compromise this way, but there are sound reasons :-). Both by RL and by be-the-encyclopedia reasons 10-colors are not likely, and I'm happy to read all about this below. Looks like this topic itself is in transition for a decade or so (longer/earlier in specialist areas).

  However, I want to note a different reason to prefer black/white: current colors put way too much stress on the blocks, shading the tabular principles of period and groups! This, while the blocks are perfectly present already in the table structure (i.e., as rectangles). The ideal presentation is Janets Left Step: all three main principles spring to the observer, uncomplicated. Even and better so in black and white. DePiep (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  If helium were standardly in group 2, I would agree, because then the blocks (as important they are for the mathematics behind the whole thing) are completely obvious. However, as long as helium is in group 18 (which it should be on WP, as most sources have it that way), its block assignment is not obvious to the average reader without a colouring. Double sharp (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Issue acknowledged, but this way (add colors) a detail takes over the major point, which defeats the job of conveying The Periodic Table. Information presentation, not perfecticise individual issues. (Also: more support for Janets Left Step then :-) BTW, is thoughts only, not a variant proposal. DePiep (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

  I already think Janet's left-step is the correct form of the table. See my userpage. Of course, correctness and whether or not it belongs as the main WP table yet are two different things. Acknowledged that this is just thoughts. :) Double sharp (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Double sharp says above, including #linked talks.

I can add (5): about the aim to classify all in one scheme, that is: put each element in one and exactly one class.

This cannot be based on the 10 (or anywhere between 5 and 12) classes. Because the classes are based on different, independent grounds. (As if one tries to classify a group of people by age and by length—at the same time). For example, where does the distinction between lanthanides and actinides come from? What are the distincting properties for metalloids, compared to those for halogens, alkali metals? Now check the answers for same-property or not.

Note that this issue is not about border issues for individual elements (which could be handled acceptably by themselves, by noting a "grey status" but still in-between-two-values-of-the-same-property).

More background: User:YBG wrote these requirements (2013–2016), in the same question: classification_rules_(by User:YBG), Attribute–value system. -DePiep (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, restore (updated) 10-colour scheme. A survey of 62 chemistry textbooks that I undertook in September 2020 found just 15% of them had 4-colour, block-based colour schemes. Our current PT colour category scheme is non-representative. It is crashingly boring. The WP PT article used to be the second most popular hit on Google, behind (ptable.com). Now it's in 4th position. The top three tables, PubChem, RSC, and ptable.com, have multi-colour schemes. Even the American Chemical Society PT, which is conveniently printed on the back of their membership cards, is 10-coloured. Worse, even the Encyclopedia Britannica PT has a multi-colour scheme. For metalloids, it's well-known that the most popular of these are B, Si, Ge, As, Sb and Te. Probably the following scheme, with DePiep's colours, would work:

Periodic table categories

Alkali metal	Alkaline earth metal	Lanthanoid	Transition metal	p-block metal	Metalloid	Unclassified nonmetal	Halogen	Noble gas
		Actinoid

The bluish-green (?) for the noble gases works well; as does the yellow for the halogens; and the green for the biogenic unclassified nonmetals. The red for the alkali metals is nice, too, as is the earthy colour for the AEM. The pinks relate all the outer and inner transition metals.

Halogen = all group 17 elements. Yes, astatine may well turn out to be a metal but until we have more reliable evidence it remains categorised as a halogen. On the day it changes colour to a p-block metal that is the day we can worry about whether to change "halogen" to "halogen nonmetal".

Noble gas = all group 18 elements. It won't matter if Og turns out to be a solid. The name refers to which group the noble gases occur in and does not necessarily rule out Og being solid. Equally, Be and Mg are not really alkaline earth metals, but that it where they've ended up. Nor is helium a p-block element but that's where it's located.

p-block metals = metals in group 13 onwards. Whatever you call them they are unambiguously p-block metals.

The concerns about overlapping categories and ambiguity can, and should be addressed in the article. Certainly, as DePiep observed, the aim is to assign each element to one class, and it is a worthy aim, but this is usually not achievable. Indeed, such fuzziness extends to the 4-colour block scheme, too. The best example is probably Ca, Sr, Ba which are known to have some d-involvement in some of their compounds. Going further, p-hybridisation is know to occur in in Be-Mg and Group 12.

As Jones wrote:

"Though classification is an essential feature of all branches of science, there are always hard cases at the boundaries. The boundary of a class is rarely sharp…Scientists should not lose sleep over the hard cases. As long as a classification system is beneficial to economy of description, to structuring knowledge and to our understanding, and hard cases constitute a small minority, then keep it. If the system becomes less than useful, then scrap it and replace it with a system based on different shared characteristics."

— Jones BW 2010, Pluto: Sentinel of the outer Solar System, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 169–171

As far as concerns go about "classes are based on different, independent grounds" we can only go by the approaches taken in the literature. If the literature bases classes on "different, independent grounds" so be it. As an encyclopedia we can only reflect what is in the literature (acknowledging there can be some wriggle room in the pursuit of a better article). In any event, the 10-colour scheme does a pretty good job of showing the progression in metallic character from left to right across the periodic table.

YBG's rules are excellent as something to aspire to, noting they are usually not achievable in the real world, per Jones' observation.

--- Sandbh (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

In this long post Sandbh refers to PubChem, RSC, ptable.com, and Encyclopedia Britannica. But they all use different schemes, proving exactly my point about WP:NPOV. We cannot reflect what is in the literature with a category colouring when there is no consensus within it. Double sharp (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"boring" nor "popularity" is an argument in scinece, and our encyclopedia. Tallying this way is meaningless: they are different schemes (as Double sharp noted), and also obviously "colors because of colors" (this alone is enough a rejection of your argument). It also is a non-scientific method. You might as well propose to have an animation of colorfully dressed dancers around the table. So far for the presentation.

Then, you misread me wrt "aim" (I say about the proposal: [is an] aim to classify all in one scheme). That creates your easy way and incorrect way out by saying "so be it". But it's not a nice-to-have, it's a principle. And once chosen, you'll have to make it truth. The question for you is: now, what is the one-scheme classifying ground?

Minor notes, more illustrations:

- It occurs to me that Scerri, with philosophical background, never mentions this question.

- Yes, halogens & noble gases are a fine "class" each. That is, because they are a fine set already by themselves (as groups, incidentally), not in relation to, say, actinides. They are not a class horizontally next to eg post metals. So you picked the easy examples, meanwhile evading the point. Sure "metalloids" exist as a set, but only opposed to the class or two of "non-metalloids". But have nothing to do with alkalis. REE's are a set too—by themselves, distinguished only from the class of non-REEs. As are coinage metals, platinum group.

- As long as you have not given a classification ground, classes are basically unrelated.

- Al ready just within nonmetals the problem shows: squeezing and dealing to get complete "categories" scheme, compromising along the way. Tellingly, the only stable "classes" in there are those already existing before, from elsewhere: metalloids, halogens and noble gases. Leaves the (artificially created) need to "classify" a never-named set of the "leftover nonmetals".

- You mention astatine as example for "border" issues, and "hard cases". But it is not about border-element-dangling-between-classes. The "border" issue is: conflicting and nonmatching class definitions. "people born on a Monday go stand left, people born on an uneven day stand to the right; now lets solve the border issues".

- So, what's the classifying ground?. DePiep (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey of element distributions in the literature

Comment: The classifying ground is a 2019 machine-based analysis of the proximity of names of the elements occurring in academic journals. The journal article in question, which was published in no less than Nature, has 653 citations. The analysis was based on 3.3 million abstracts published between 1922 and 2018 in more than 1,000 journals. The authors used our now deprecated WP 10-category scheme, which had polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals. You can see the ten categories below the map. I have added dashed borderlines to the map, and proposed category names, to show how the map relates to the current proposal. The proposed categories, across "merely" 3.3 million abstracts, are clustered nicely. You can see a few oddities such as At, Fr and Tc which are radioactive and hence tend to cluster with the other radioactive elements. Be is another anomaly due to its symbol being the same as the word "be". Hidden pinging all voters to request a review of their position​​​​​​​. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarifications needed (I cannot access the paper now). So you, Sandbh, added the dashed lines, and the English names in the legend. Who added the symbols (pink triangle, purple hex, etc.)? I assume, results must have been indiscriminate dots only. What are the axises defined (named)?, this must describe/define the "word vector".

Then, about the methodology: The authors used our ... 10-category scheme. "used" as in some selection set beforehand? I do not understand. The abstract says "information-dense word embeddings (vector representations of words) without human labelling or supervision", and "Without any explicit insertion of chemical knowledge". I.e., no category filtering/handling beforehand. BTW, I note that this is an early application of AI :-) DePiep (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, why is Cn included in the survey if Rf-Rg not? ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 07:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The proposed categories are supposedly "clustered nicely", except when they're not (aluminium far away from other metals in the p-block, mercury almost with nonmetals). The dashed borderlines and category names are OR going against the source's actual classification (which prefers to split as polyatomic/diatomic instead of unclassified/halogen), and how this is supposed to deal with radioactives is unclear. And none of this changes the fact that authors still do not agree on the exact boundaries of each category, noting in particular the quite borderline position of boron and phosphorus. Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

True. Take home: except when they're not, OR going against the sources.

I add my hobbyhorse boilerplates. Not just the category borders, but the category definitions are incompatible. That is, by "classification" design. Note how Sandbh draws exceptional lines to grab away Sc, Y from the rare elements (independently defined category). Similar for radioactive elements: all together beaming "I am an independent category". Default boilerplate argument: most "classes", both by OR-symbol and by OR-dotlines, are already classes from before & outside: group, block/period selection. And try not to laugh: the survey could not distinguish between "Be" and "be", really? DePiep (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

This image is interesting, but if our readers can figure out the properties of elements on their own, we might not need to use such classification on our periodic table. 123957a (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@123957a: So why do PubChem and RSC, use colour-categories on their periodic tables given most of their members/readers are chemists? Even the ACS issues a membership card with a nine colour-category PT on the back. How about the general reader whom Wikipedia is aimed at? May as well refer them to the Encyclopedia Britannica colour-category coded periodic table. Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Another popularity poll, another tallying, another OR, another falsified methodology, another i-did-not-hear-your-argument post. Stop it, Sandbh, just stop it. -DePiep (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@DePiep: I added the dashed lines. The category names are those used in the article with the exception of polyatomic metals and diatomic metals, which I replaced with unclassified nonmetals and halogens. The symbols are those used in the article. The axes are unnamed. The authors ran their survey, then looked at the resulting map, then selected the WP colour category scheme. There was no category filtering/handling beforehand as the survey was based on the proximity of mentions of elements in the abstracts of the 3.3 million articles.

@Praseodymium-141: I don't yet know why Cn was included in the survey if Rf-Rg were not.

@Double sharp: As noted, a 4-colour, block-based colour scheme is not representative of the literature, and therefore un-encyclopedic. The Encyclopedia Britannica nine-color-category PT is, OTOH, encyclopedic.

Please now excuse a short moment of abruptness: So what about Al and Hg? There is no need for anyone to lose sleep over the hard cases. There is no OR here. A map is just a pictorial representation of so many words. That the authors choose to use the Wikipedia categories of polyatomic nonmetal and diatomic nonmetal is not representative of the literature. Effectively all the literature refers to F, Cl, Br, I (and At) as halogens. What does that leave? The "Here be Dragons" nonmetals, which have no widely agreed collective name. They are effectively "unclassified nonmetals" IOW. The radioactives are dealt with using common sense, as guided by the literature. P is effectively an unclassified metal. Yes, B is on the boundary and nothing to lose any sleep over. If there is a metalloid category, which the authors chose to include, then that is consistent with the situation in the literature whereby B, Si, Ge, As, Sb and Te are the elements most commonly classified as metalloids. As far as the block categorisation scheme goes, authors do not agree on the exact boundaries of each category, noting the arguments about where the f-block starts and finishes, and whether the f-block has 14 or 15 members. If we can say no need to lose sleep about the boundaries of the f-block, then we can say no need to lose sleep about the proposed colour categories, and provide the general reader with a more informative presentation of the PT at the same time. Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The classification do not follow from the study/graph.

None of the "outliers", "border issues", "concluded(!) class definitions" can be explained in support. That's not "hard cases", that's falsifying cases. Then, using the grouping by old enwiki definition to base a claim is WP:SELFREF. Whether the authors did it or you (Sandbh) bring it forward as an argument: WP:SYNTHESIS too. If anything, it proves to itself that our old color scheme is faulty: Sc and Y have no reason to be pink in a panhandle. (Obviously they are related here to the REEs. Why not?). How are we supposed to work with unnamed axes? WP:NOTRS. DePiep (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@123957a: What is your "vote"? Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Effectively all the literature" refers to F, Cl, Br, I, and At as halogens, indeed. They also refer to O, S, Se, Te, and Po as chalcogens (maybe some would exclude O, so let's stick to the heavy four). So why are halogens a category and not chalcogens, especially when it's common for inorganic textbooks to split their chapters by groups? The RSC table even has both, whereas the polyatomic/diatomic scheme the article you refer to recognises neither, proving once again the point that the literature is clearly not unified behind any particular categorisation scheme. What literature provides the "common sense" for the radioactives, noting that the diagonal line between metals and nonmetals meets the halogens and noble gases at At, Ts, and Og? In the literature, B and Sb are noticeably less commonly classed as metalloids than Si, Ge, As, and Te. And again, where does the name "unclassified nonmetals" come from?

Placeholder. Sandbh (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, IUPAC has twice issued reports (1988 and 2021) indicating that group 3 is better as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, has illustrated this format of the periodic table in the 1990 Red Book and in Chemistry International, and that is the conclusion of the clear majority of the literature that explicitly addresses the matter. Whereas for categorisation, IUPAC has not stepped in and does not appear to have any plans to. The two situations do not appear to be that similar. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I don't know enough about this subject matter to say, which is why I asked questions and started an RfC. 123957a (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Retain blocks as per Double sharp and DePiep. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 12:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Retain blocks due to WP:NPOV concerns; there is not enough consistency across publications to justify one firm classification scheme. It also happens that some elements can correctly fit into more than one category (e.g., At = halogen or metalloid, notwithstanding that the set of metalloids is also not universally agreed upon), which would be rather difficult to depict in smaller-scale graphics. We would also open a can of worms with explanatory footnotes to fairly explain differences, as not doing so might appear to favor certain sources over others. Conversely, although electron configurations can deviate from the pattern, nobody really disagrees on which elements belong to which block. Double sharp and DePiep raise similar points above with which I agree. ^Complex/_Rational 13:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. As soon as there is a consensus in the literature on a particular category scheme, I will support going to a category-based color scheme. Until then, let’s stick with blocks. YBG (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Retain blocks as per ComplexRational, agree 100%. Also agree with YBG that this could be revisited someday, but there is no consensus in the teaching or primary literature. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Alright everyone, to raise a third option: should there be no classification of elements at all (that is, all elements have the same color)? 123957a (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC) For this thread, I have withdrawn this third option. 123957a (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I think blocks are actually an important and fundamental aspect of the periodic table. Without them you can't understand why the breaks open up in the top rows between Be/Mg and B/Al. A periodic table that wasn't based on the quantum atom (which inherently includes blocks from the azimuthal quantum number) would be like Mendeleev's and have only eight groups to match the valences. Now, it is true that the rectangular structure makes them almost completely obvious. But helium still sticks out, and I would argue that that one case makes it necessary to clarify that it is really an s-block element that is moved for the sake of something else. (Incorrectly in my view, but the issue is still debated, so we stick to the status quo and IUPAC.) Double sharp (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  What a horrible fork, 123957a. Procedural objection. Why couldn't you just wait/help to close the RfC (your own RfC), and write independent questions in an independent thread? This forked process is now broken, and no well-performed discussion or result can be called from it. (Besides, 123957a, you are asking a lot of extra time and studies from serious editors. Instead of asking a question by RfC you could have read and probed the existing routes and replies—replies already made to you).

  What & how, do others think, to proceed? DePiep (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  This option is not on the table for the purposes of the present discussion. After this one gets resolved, feel free to start this particular discussion. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Totally agree. Can the submitter 123957a please withdraw this RFC? Alternately could an uninvolved editor please close this as either Retain blocks or No consensus, perhaps under WP:SNOW? Any of the these would allow someone to submit another RFC if they like. YBG (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose closure of RFC, on the grounds of its short duration and insufficient awareness of the RFC outside of WP :ELEM. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

  Moot. "closure" was asked for the "to raise a third option: .." (bullet) to not complicate the discussion. Third option now withdrawn / struck by OP. OP RfC can continue. All fine AFAIK. DePiep (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Hey everyone, how can I give this RfC more publicity? This RfC hasn't been getting as much attention as I would have hoped for, so I would like to know how I can get more people's input. Thank you. 123957a (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

I feel it may be helpful to have more data on the taxonomical structure of periodic tables in the literature. I did this a while ago with the COPTIC survey in Archive 50. But that was limited to 62 chemistry textbooks. I'd like to increase this to around 200, if possible. The results could at least inform a sub-article of the PT article, in the same way that we have a Lists of metalloids article. Sandbh (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Object. No reason to pause this RfC, no reason to wait for more such data.

@Sandbh: already in this very thread, and multiple times in the past, in replies to you yourself and others, it has been pointed out that your methodology of polling is flawed and is not acceptable as sourcing for statements in the encyclopedia. You have been informed it is WP:OR. Your resonse The authors ran their survey, then looked at the resulting map, then selected the WP colour category scheme" is WP:SELFREF so unacceptable, and SELFREF is also polluting their result for usage in this question. You are arguing like 'This survey that uses enwiki classification shows that enwiki classification is used throughout in RL' (iow, your conclusion is the input of the graph). Falsifications already are mentioned above.

Incidentally: invoking Lists of metalloids is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS i.e., a different situation is not to c/p on this situation.

You are invited to grasp and understand the problems mentioned with such pollings. Instead of proposing here 'Let's do the exactly same once more with an other dataset'. DePiep (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@DePiep: This is a fine example of not knowing what it going on; losing the plot of building a better encyclopedia; wikilayering; a failure to understand the subject matter; and a failure to understand the historical background.

This is not my poll. What is or is not WP:OR is a matter of opinion. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with you. Speaking personally I have seen WP:OR used unreasonably in this forum to strangle the life out any improvement efforts. No, the authors did not effectively select the WP colour scheme although it might've looked as if they had. Instead, as I understand it, it so happens that their clusters of like elements happened to correspond to categories found in the literature. Indeed, the original colour category scheme for the Wikipedia periodic table originated out of literature research. There is simply no WP:SELFREF here. There are no falsifications only overlapping boundaries, a phenomenon well known in classification science and in the regions of the periodic table. No, the Lists of metalloids article is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All entries on the lists of metalloids are cited. The list of lists has been cited in the literature, and the article in which it has been cited (Which elements are metalloids?) has itself been cited 50 times. Ill-considered posts such as the one I am responding to here are aggravating and needless time-wasters. Given an evident lack of technical background I would prefer future posts engage the brain first and do the necessary homework including, if needs be, asking questions.

Further, accusations of: "misleading polling" being flawed; being informed of WP:OR; falsifications; and doing the exactly same once more with an other dataset, are equally aggravating and annoying. In future I would prefer it if such accusations are accompanied by the corroborating evidence. I will treat further recurrences of this kind as breaches of Wikipedia:Civility.

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sandbh: .. not knowing what it going on .. losing the plot .. wikilayering .. a failure to understand .. a failure to understand the historical background, WP:CIVILITY: you are responsing to content-related posts with WP:PERSONALATTACKS. ("the editor not the edit"). Unless you redact these attacks out unambiguously, I will not and can not reply to your input. Nor can one consider your "arguments" hidden in here as substantial. I am free to pursue other routes. I note that you recently have initiated similar deviations. DePiep (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So what is worth "engag[ing] the brain" over and what is not worth "los[ing] sleep" over? Double sharp (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Double sharp:, did you notice that the accusations along being informed of OR and OR is a matter of opinion are aimed at an other editor that the editor who originally linked to the very searchable "OR" guideline? Strange. DePiep (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@DePiep: A very good point indeed. Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Having put forward my views, I do not intend the provide any further comments. Sandbh (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sandbh, you were not asked for "views", you were asked to redact your personal attacks. Walking away is not that. This is an RfC. DePiep (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Google Ngram search

Bearing in mind that the periodic table is used by more than chemists, a Google Ngram search conducted in September 2020 found that the following categories were the most frequent: Alkali metals; Alkaline earth metals; Ln; An; Transition metals; Metalloids; Halogens; Noble gases. The categories of Chalcogens and Pnictogens have low frequencies and cut across the more popular Metalloid category and are impractical for that reason.

That just leaves the metals in the p-block and other nonmetals. The most common names for these are p-block metals or Post-transition metals, and Other nonmetals.

Of course there are some other popular category names such as Heavy metals; Precious metals; and Noble metals, but these overlap the top-level categories, and are ostensibly impractical for that reason. Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2023 [6]

@Sandbh: in this thread you have casted personal attacks. You have been asked to unambiguously remove them e.g., by redacting. As long as you persist to keep your PAs up this frivolously, you are not supposed to continue "discussing", as you have disrupted the flow. Disrupting a discussion might be casuse to have all of you contributions scrubbed. -DePiep (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say about these matters. Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

You were not asked to say, your were asked for action re your own behaviour. DePiep (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Post-transition metals raises questions about aluminium. And somehow, the fact that halogens cut across the metallicity categories as well is not considered. I also note that in the link from September 2020 you are instead using the Ngram data to argue for merging alkali and alkaline earth metals, which rather confirms my opinion that the literature is in enough flux about this that you can probably cherry-pick some of it to find arguments to support just about anything that isn't complete nonsense. That, however, is not our business on WP. Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. "Post-transition metals" is as popular (or unpopular) as "p block metals". I agree with you(!) that the former term is problematic; that is why I used the term "p-block metals". The fact that "halogens" cuts across metallicity is a reflection of how the term us used. There is not enough yet known, with sufficient confidence, about At and Ts, to prompt them being commonly referred to as any anything else than halogens. I no longer argue for merging alkali and alkaline earth metals nor did I raise that possibility in this thread. There is insufficient support in the literature to support such a change. Equally, you once supported La in group 3; now you support Lu. We are in agreement(!) that the business of WP is to reflect popular usage. Between the survey of 3,300,000 abstracts and however big Google Ngram is, there is no support in the literature to confirm your opinion that there is too much flux to support the proposed categories. Quite the opposite in fact. AM, AEM, Ln, An and TM are shoe-ins, as are metalloids, halogens and noble gases. That there are metals in the p-block is universally recognised, That there are nonmetals between the metalloids and the halogens is universally recognised. Sandbh (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

1. So you pick "p-block metals" over "post-transition metals" just to avoid a problem over aluminium, never mind that both are equally unpopular. That already illustrates the problem with making colour categories: the point of all these categories was not to classify all elements on the table once and once only, but to just have names for a roughly similar set of elements that are under the author's scrutiny for the moment. That is why people are fine with "post-transition metals", because Al is not a problem unless you want such a category scheme, and it is why people have no problem with the massive overlap between "transition metals", "rare earth metals", "refractory metals", "noble metals", "coinage metals", and "platinum group metals" and use all these terms (but of course a category scheme with colours cannot deal with this). By turning them into a category scheme with colours, you are going against what sources actually use them for!
2. It's literally been known almost since its discovery that astatine does not behave quite like the four more familiar halogens. And why is this argument not allowed for chalcogens, when again it's polonium that's the most ambiguous (well, among natural elements)? Seems to be another arbitrary decision to create a classify-everybody-once scheme, that does not follow from the literature.
3. When I supported La in group 3 it was based on a mistaken understanding of the chemistry and the state of the literature. So I was using different data from what I know of now, and the old data turned out to be wrong. It happens, there is no shame in changing one's mind for that reason. On the other hand, it appears that you are using exactly the same data (the Ngram results) as you did in 2020, but argue for something different. If the same dataset can support two different schemes it must not have supported either one very clearly.
4. The surveys would be more convincing if there were not so many hard cases. The boundaries you draw between not losing sleep about them (e.g. Al, Hg, B, and P) and drawing panhandles (Sc and Y) do not seem to have any clear reasoning behind them.
5. The question is not whether or not there are metals in the p-block. That is indeed obvious. Neither is it whether or not there are nonmetals between the metalloids and halogens. That is also obvious. The question is: which elements are they? Note in passing that it is not even unheard of for the same author to refer to the same element both as a metal and as a nonmetal, e.g. Sherwin and Weston's 1966 Chemistry of the Non-Metallic Elements has Sb as a metal on p. 7 and as a nonmetal on p. 115. Double sharp (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

   Great post, thanks DS. Sums up this thread, into fine conclusions (I underwrite). No need for me to check out details then. DePiep (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Flaws.

About polling & popularity. Search is by ngram, which is only about (1) word counting ("frequency"), and (2) in search string (ie, not in the sources being searched). This can conclude "popularity for that word": (3) liked or accorded status only then; this being a search, we need (4) interested to be added to the definition of 'popularity' to make sense—but that's ~OR/SYNTH already. And that word search is done (5) by the searching population of internet which is not the, say, science community. So, (1–5): google searches is not a citation index.

About data selection (cherry picking). Given the list as provided from outside, here Sandbh is selective in its results. More 'popular' names like heavy metals, transition metals, precious metals, noble metals, base metals, ferrous metals (these #six are the in top eight no less) are (6) not used in the conclusions, (7) nor is their absence comprehensively explained ("impractical" is not enough—maybe even exposing an other intention). In addition, the set rare earths (REM) is (8) not mentioned at all in the conclusions (a #seven missing from the top-eigth; see more on REM below). Data thrown out. Further, pre-exisiting (9) classification as group is used as "category", also without comprehensive clarification why an existing group would be an argument in categorisation (this is #eight of the top-eight list—now all eight are flaw-listed then). (6–9): cherry-picking and data disappearing.

Then, the need for causality. The conclusions by Sandbh also do (10) not solve at all the grand question of: What Is The Classification Ground? In these statistics, a causality is required: what is the cause for being in that class/set/category? As this is missing for each and every category introduced (except for the pre-existing ones ;-), (11) no meta-claim can be made about Classification-Of-All-Elements-Exactly-Once. This not about border cases between categories (not even hard or difficult ones). This is about category-definition by itself. This is proven & illustrated by, for example, REM/REE: a workable definition all right, but not vis-a-vis the other categories like halogens. (12) The REM has a stand-alone definition: "this element is yes-or-no an REM". Same for coinage metals, metalloids as we treat them, radioactive elements. Check: all judgements for these on a one-dimensional scale. All this includes bordercases btw: they to are not about some meta-ground. Thats why they are workable & useful: in-or-out is a good enough set definition to work with; no question "but how do the REM relate to halogens" is on the table. (10–12): no causality.

So, no ground for classifying all elements-exactly-once. -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hereafter, I intend to not respond to this sub-thread which I regard as lacking merit. Sandbh (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

"lacking merit". DePiep (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Response to Double sharp's concerns 1–5

1. p block metals. I picked "p-block metals" over "post-transition metals" since both are equally popular, and the 4-block distinction is maintained. The point of the colour categories is to convey a sense of the left-right transition in metallic to nonmetallic character. As noted, our current PT colour category scheme is non-representative. From my survey of 62 books, just 15% of them had 4-colour, block-based colour schemes. The top three tables, PubChem, RSC, and ptable.com, have multi-colour schemes. Even the American Chemical Society PT, which is conveniently printed on the back of their membership cards, is 10-coloured. Worse, even the Encyclopedia Britannica PT has a multi-colour scheme. Yes, there are minor variations in these five schemes which is why I quoted the Nature article, and Ngram in order to shed light on the most representative categories. In popular media, PT representations are more often shown with a rainbow colour scheme since people like the colours. Of course, there are uber-categories such as rare earth metals, and sub-categories like refractory metals, noble metals, platinum group metals, and coinage metals, but their depiction is impractical in our main PT and they are instead discussed in the names for sets of chemical elements article or individual articles.

2. At and Po. Astatine is most likely a p-block metal. When it was first synthesized it was suspected of being a metal. This categorisation is not yet popularly reflected in the literature due the rarity of At, the fact of its likely metallicity being obscure, and the overwhelming notion of At being a halogen. The metalloid category cuts across four groups including chalcogens, so use of the chalcogen category is excluded on that basis.

What is known about polonium? When the Curies announced in 1898 that they had synthesised polonium they wrote of it as a metal.

It has a silvery, metallic appearance; it conducts electricity like a metal; it has the electronic band structure of a metal; its enthalpy of fusion is near the average for close-packed metals; it is soluble in acids, forming the rose-coloured Po⁺⁺ cation and displacing hydrogen; many polonium salts are known; and the oxide (PoO₂), which assumes the fluorite structure more typical of ionic compounds/metallic oxides, is predominately basic in nature.

Whether polonium is ductile or brittle is unclear. It is predicted to be ductile based on its calculated elastic constants.[1] It has a simple cubic crystalline structure. Such a structure has few slip systems and "leads to very low ductility and hence low fracture resistance".[2]

Polonium also has some intermediate or nonmetallic properties. It has an intermediate coordination number, electronegativity, ionisation energy and metallicity ratio; and it can form anionic polonides; volatile and easily hydrolysed halides (which are soluble in organic solvents); and a volatile and unstable hydride (PoH₂). Most of the latter properties are characteristic of the heavier noble metals or post-transition metals.

The elements commonly recognised as metalloids (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te) are semiconductors (B, Si, Ge, Te) or exist in less stable semiconducting forms (As, Sb). Polonium is not known to have a semiconducting form. The commonly recognised metalloids have crystalline packing efficiencies of between 34% and 41%; cf polonium at 52%.

If the elements are categorised on the basis of whether they are judged to exhibit a preponderance of metallic or nonmetallic properties (or neither, in which case you may have a metalloid) then I suggest the weight of evidence, in the case of polonium, falls on the metal side of the line. A parallel may be drawn with gold, which exhibits several nonmetallic properties, including auride (Au^–) formation, yet is universally categorised as a metal on account of its distinctive metallic properties.

[1] Legit D, Friák M & Šob M 2010, Phase stability, elasticity, and theoretical strength of polonium from first principles, Physical Review B, vol. 81, pp. 214118–1–19, doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.81.214118

[2] Manson SS & Halford GR 2006, Fatigue and Durability of Structural Materials, ASM International, Materials Park, OH, pp. 378; 410

3. Ngram. I used the Ngram results from 2020 since I don't expect anything has changed. And the Ngram results are consistent with the colour category proposal. The proposed categorisation scheme is consistent with the Nature report. Sure, there are a few borderline cases but the broad contours are there. And the fact of the existence of some borderline cases is nicely acknowledged in the periodic table article, hence, "A periodic table colour-coded to show some commonly used sets of similar elements. The categories and their boundaries differ somewhat between sources." Well put.

4. and 5. Hard cases. There are only a few hard cases, rather than "many". Even here, that there are hard cases at the boundaries is nothing unusual. Al, and Hg are non-starters given Al is a p-block metal, and Hg is a transition metal. It is 50/50 whether Hg is a transition metal or a post-transition metal. Calling it a transition metal is easier. B is counted as one of the elements most commonly recognised as metalloids. P is indisputably a nonmetal albeit black P, the most stable form, has been referred to as a near metalloid. Sc and Y are where they are (i.e. in the pan handle) due to their two-hatted association with the Ln or rare-earth metals, and the TM. Which elements are metals in the p-block is easily resolved. Starting with the six elements most commonly recognised as metalloids, that leaves Al, Ga, In, Tl, Sn, Pb, Bi and Po as metals. On the other side of the metalloids, between the halogens and the noble gases, are C, N, O, P, S, Se nonmetals all. That leaves H, which is nonmetal.
— Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel the response given here to #2 says it all: instead of recounting what authors actually do, Sandbh instead apparently relies on his own OR judgement. Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I subscribe the notion Double sharp makes here (@15:34). OR is serious.

I also note that Sandbh has conveniently dismissed this @10:32 post beforehand, evading 12 numbered points raised re their "polling & popularity" (≠ citation index), data cherry picking, and lacking causality.

That dismissal btw [7] I consider as another WP:PA.

Meanwhile, Sandbh still has not answered these major flaws. Instead, they keep repeating them. DePiep (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been preoccupied with RL obligations. Thanks for the ping DePiep. I intend to respond shortly. Sandbh (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

For #2 there is no issue about At since my proposal was to categorise it as a halogen, which is still the common practice in the literature. Likewise there is no issue about polonium as our article counts it as a metal, consistent with its properties mentioned in the literature. Sandbh (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you explicitly stated that you wouldn't reply (with a personal jab). DePiep (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In the literature Po is also a chalcogen. Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It certainly is and that would not make any difference to the original proposal to refer to it as p-block metal. DePiep, I said I would not respond to the sub-thread "Flaws". This is not that sub-thread. Sandbh (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The literature calls Po both a metal and a chalcogen: you propose to call it a metal. The literature calls both At both a metal (or at least the actually reliable part of it that based itself on the properties of At or serious calculations, which is the part we should be looking at anyway) and a halogen: you propose to call it a halogen. Seems like both OR and a double standard. Double sharp (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

A formal proposal to exclude rare decay modes from isoboxes

Carrying on a discussion from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Decay_mode_definitions, I would like to propose the following criterion for including decay modes in the isoboxes (the ones where only main isotopes are listed):

• Decay modes with branching ratio less than 0.01% should not be shown. A standard note should be added to the bottom of the isoboxes that specifically says so.

The reasoning behind this proposal is that a decay mode that happens less often than in one in ten thousand decays is clearly not "main" in any reasonable sense, and so excluding such modes is consistent with the idea of including only the main isotopes.

Of course, this is not meant to apply to the main "isotopes of X" pages, where just as all isotopes are shown, so should all decay modes (no matter how rare). This is about the isoboxes.

@DePiep, ComplexRational, and TornadoLGS: Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Clarification: this is about isotopes listed as "Main Isotopes of <element>", like in table {{Infobox uranium isotopes}} (aka "Isobox"; see Category:Infobox element isotopes templates (119)). That same table also shows in Infobox <element> (like in {{Infobox uranium}}).

Which isotopes are "Main" is being specified at § What is a "Main isotope"?; currenly some 663 isotopes qualify (out of some 5541 isotopes identified). This filter is to be implemented on these Main Isotopes tables (add/remove a single isotope row).

-DePiep (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose

"Main" does not apply to decay mode, and by good reason. There is no intention to state that decay modes are "not main". The decaying isotope itself has the selection for being Main (all right), that does not extend to its decay modes. Criteria for being "Main" do not and cannot be applied to decay modes.

Also, percentage is not decisive by itself (it's a dumb criteria). It does not take in count that there may be other reasons for relevance. Completeness for starters. What if the decay is relevant? Say, as part of the isotope being Main?

Heavy cluster decays (CD, "24Ne" in NUBASE) only occur in low percentages; they would all be removed. How or why is such a decay mode not-ever-relevant? We'll end up having no CD modes mentioned at all (there are few dozen in total, of which circa a dozen in Main Isotopes).

Footnote requirement says: no gain. Requiring a footnote to be added (as proposed) is an indicator that something relevant is going on. But what does this solve? Noting "exception hidden here" instead of the point itself, so why the complication? How is the Reader helped by this? I can't see an advantage in "information design", quite the opposite. A list with simply "more of the same" would do, instead of adding sideway footnotes.

Low curation quality level. Independently, there is the info quality. Already current curation of the 5000 isotopes to cover is worrysome outdated or updated at great manual labour costs. That is, over all properties including half-lives, not just 10.000 decay mode data (three or more data points per mode).

Tough illustration: Current taksforce § ISOBOX_reuse_in_Infobox (Pu example). That task is: reuse the Main Isotopes information (=isotopes table) in Main Isobox and in Infobox Element. That's a simple(!) comparing check between two existing Main Isotopes tables, to get them the same or updated. 118 elements, 660 isotopes. Even this simple-&-once task is taking many weeks & many edits to complete, all manual. This is without the <element> § List of isotopes updating (all 5000 isotopes): no guarantee for data quality, on which this proposal depends btw. In there, not even the 660 Main Isotopes are updated wrt this decay info. And will not be done in foreseeable future. (Another curation hell here).

So, this extra curation requirement won't happen. Only viable route could be if and when this data is applied (curated) automatically & continuously. Note: I repeat "independent reason", that is: both arguments do not cancel each other out when one would be solved.

I assume this proposal is not born from visual thoughts ("table doesn't look nice"), though some indications I mentioned here might suggest so. Anyway, that would not be a good approach to How To Convey Information. -DePiep (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

But look at {{Infobox curium}}: the cluster decay is presented alongside the alpha with no clue as to just how much rarer it is. Such exclusions are, as CR already mentioned, also completely normal in illustrations because decay modes below a certain percentage simply are not visible.

Then, as an alternative, could we at least add decay mode percentages to the isoboxes? Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: In {{Infobox plutonium}} ²⁴⁴Pu is given a double-beta branch. Has anyone ever actually experimentally verified this? Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I did a bit of research and couldn't find any conclusive reports for ββ of ²⁴⁴Pu – only lower limits on the partial half-life. Looks like more corrections are in order. :D

Regarding decay percentages, I've noticed some inconsistency across isoboxes, and it would definitely be helpful and informative to add them throughout. I will note that if we do choose to include rare decay modes, it is inevitable that percentages won't add up exactly to 100, which might beg for explanation. Some are significant in practice, such as SF of ²³⁸U and ²⁴⁰Pu, but to elaborate on above, File:Superheavy decay modes predicted.png (for instance) won't depict one-in-a-million decays. Nonetheless, I believe our first priority should be consistency, and what that includes can be refined with further discussion. ^Complex/_Rational 22:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Quick reply: yes, decay-% in the Main Isotopes table is very nice. Later more thoughts.

re 244Pu: later on will ask advice on if&how to list theoretical & border isotopes, consistently. Both in Main Isotopes table and in the big List of Isotopes. NUBASE2020 mentions codes "IT=?", "IT ?", "TNN", ..., has ~260 such isotopes. DePiep (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

In a subthread, I will explore the idea to add dm-% to the table. -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Main Isotopes: add decay-mode-% to table

• See these sandboxes for demos: {{Infobox uranium isotopes/sandbox}}, {{Infobox plutonium isotopes/sandbox}} -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• From the OP thread, the idea to add "for each decay mode, add its percentage".

Pertains to Main Isotopes-table, not Isotopes of uranium § List of Isotopes (which aims to be complete by itself).

I support. I am very happy to have them shown this way: gives simple, comparing and complete overview or the decay modes! Good information & infobox handling.

• demo & conventions. [demo table to add here] OK, it could look like this:

Note on space: this is stretching the table to its (spatial) limits. six columns of data in an infobox, all margins (padding) squeezed to a minimum. Number of digits (characters) all-important now. No space for say energy any more.

Conventions (proposal, developing):

dm-% only as flat number of % "20.5%", "100%", not "percentages must add up to 100%"

Numbers 'rounded' boldly, no uncertainty(), no ".. ×10⁻⁶", no "{{val}}"

Three or four? sigfigs max ?

Acceptable "<0.01%" only (this border, from OP) ?

Per isotopes, order dm's by this % ("100%"in top)

Percentage not required (do not break presentation)

References

Deciding on the number format would help me most now, to implement. -DePiep (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the rounding, though would like ComplexRational's opinion as well. Double sharp (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Implementation: now active (see demo). 3 sigfig. Chosen two tresholds: <0.001 → add sign "≪", <0.01 add sign "<". Note that actual value can be entred ;-)

When not recognised (eg, {{val}}, shown unedited (+tracking category).

Will do demo abundance-% too, 4 sigfig. -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

More tests/demo dm's in {{Infobox plutonium isotopes/sandbox}} (incl. extremes testing). -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

See these sandboxes for demos: {{Infobox uranium isotopes/sandbox}}, {{Infobox plutonium isotopes/sandbox}} -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Sidenote: In this table, natural abundance |na= uses percentage too. These Conventions do not apply to n.a., but thoughts are welcome. (for example, I have removed uncertainties in na, but longer numbers acceptable (e.g. He, ). -DePiep (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Limit n.a. to 4 digits (4 sigfig), eg 233U?

• Sidenote Every § List of Isotopes has exact percentages by itself (in the table, product will link to). -DePiep (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
• Sidenote: I noted: α decay is 100% in all cases, so anytreshold "remove when <0.01%" would remove all non-alpha. -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Also useful to also check the result in mobile view. DePiep (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Now added to {{Infobox isotopes (meta)}} (talk). See for example Isotopes_of_darmstadtium. DePiep (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Should the state-of-matter indicators on the periodic table be restored?

I noticed DePiep removed the state-of-matter colour indicators on the periodic table due to poor contrast with the background colours (see here). But what if the colours were changed? Then maybe they can be restored. 123957a (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this one. On the one hand, adding states of matter conflates elements as classes of atoms defined by atomic number with the simple substances they form. Strictly speaking the periodic table classifies the former (otherwise it is hard to explain how group 15 is not broken apart), in which case "state of matter" is meaningless: it only makes sense for the latter. On the other hand, in the English-speaking world, this is a pretty normal conflation. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an important distinction (and one very hard to get correct): the difference between an atom of gold, and the substance gold (or, just H vs. H₂). Over at Wikidata, where such identifications matter fundamentaly (because: structured data), there this same discussion is going on long term. DePiep (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

To test one interest: Wikidata discussions go like this. (Side research is in this table, with a c/p copy at enwiki {{here}}). DePiep (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

On a dedicated article mabe, not in our general presentation (for example, what does it say? How are the two 'random' liquids explained wrt the PT?). Also, for WP:ACCESS better use symbol not 2nd colors, or maybe even forbidden. DePiep (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

But exactly what do you want, 123957a? More colors whatever whyever? Why do you ask this? DePiep (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Another point is that the precise choice of standard temperature and pressure to define state-of-matter colouring is a bit arbitrary. Sigma-Aldrich sells periodic table posters that evidently pick a rather hot one, because they colour Ga, Cs, and Fr as three more liquids. This should be taken into account in addition to what I said above: that this is not really what the classification provided by the PT is about. Double sharp (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

All this said, there is a viable issue with the PT. Even more illustrative than just SoM. Like, periodicity in melting point: enjoy and wonder.

Of course, this would fit in a dedicated article. Then, only one quantity (=m.p.) showing could & would satisfy WP:ACCESSABILITY with good reason. Simple: it shows the information, and in a correct way. DePiep (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should graph it at Melting points of the elements (data page), then. Double sharp (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the articles for groups and periods of elements (e.g., Group 3 element, Period 7 element) be moved to their plurals (e.g., Group 3 elements, Period 7 elements)?

These articles are about the collective sets of elements rather than a specific element within the set (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)), so it might be more appropriate to name them with plurals than with singulars. It can also be used as a form of natural disambiguation to avoid naming them Group 3 (periodic table), Period 7 (periodic table), etc. See s-block, p-block, d-block and f-block for examples of article sections named after collective nouns. 123957a (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the name should be without "element(s)". The group is the object. We do not name FC Barcelona "The Barcelona players". DePiep (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

So, "group 3" then. See also here (2013). DePiep (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

New paper on the arXiv predicting period 8 electron configurations

Here.

@ComplexRational and Droog Andrey: This would probably interest both of you. :D Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I'll take a look :) Droog Andrey (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Too soon. It's not peer-reviewed yet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I did not propose it to be put in mainspace just yet. I just noted that it was interesting (and I did that so I wouldn't forget about it by the time it got through peer review). Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox isotopes: template switchover

Talk central: Template talk:Infobox isotopes (meta) § IB ISOTOPES (meta) switchover

In the coming days, existing templates by {{Infobox element isotopes}} (meta, old) are switched over to use

new {{Infobox isotopes (meta)}}.

Also, new {{Isotopes/main/isotope}} will be used (single isotope row), replacing all variants like "{{Infobox element isotopes/isotopes decay1}}", "{{.. decay4}}", "{{.. stable}}". No disruption of articles expected. Minor format effects (plus: new column-wise percentage, see below)

New:

• |perc1–4= added, percentage per decay mode (column); formatted and "<" and "≪" when applicable.
• |na=trace, synth, |hl=stable, obs stable simple code recognised.

Also, |na=synth_link will wikilink → synth.

• |dm1–4= recognise simplified keyboard input:

|dm1=b+b+ will show → β⁺β⁺. (No need to type |dm1=&beta;⁺&beta;⁺).

To wikilink, add _link: |dm1=b+b+ _link → β⁺β⁺.

Example: {{Infobox actinium isotopes}} (actinium, isotopes of actinium).

Please discuss at Template talk:Infobox isotopes (meta) § IB ISOTOPES (meta) switchover DePiep (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Issues: ("error messages") Category:Isotope template issues (9) -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Errors fixed by standardising target article for decay modes (eg, IT): § previous decay wikilinks

Note: current standard target always up for improvement. -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Looks stable. Check you favourite element :-) -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

CIAAW g, m, r footnotes

See ..§ g, m, r footnote

To consider: we could add the g, m and r footnotes CIAAW uses. Adds basic info for the terrestrial sample spread. Best to add to {{Infobox isotopes (meta)}}, s.a.w. data row. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea. I assume the plan is to include the footnotes to explain what the letters mean? Double sharp (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as a footnote^[note] -- not a reference. Eg Se.

The three CIAAW texts can use a TL;DR mini-intro. Everyone is invited to propose/compose a mini-title (6–8 words?), at g, m, r footnote. (No delivery time promised.) DePiep (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

How about:

• g = not applicable for exceptional natural samples
• m = not applicable for exceptional man-made samples (undisclosed enrichment)
• r = natural variation too large to give single value

Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)