Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
29	0	97	103	120	96	34	0	172	305	3	3	116	1	22	3,893	227	9	0	5,230

Vote: Group 3 metals; group 12 as poor metals

Please indicate your support or otherwise, for the following proposals:

A To show the group 3 elements as comprising Sc-Y-Lu-Lr

Support. Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. I've tried to knock down the case for it in an effort to prove it's the best. I think I've convinced myself. Also, IUPAC nearly-official recognition. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. per reasons 4 & 6, especially Scerri's article. YBG (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose any modifications to the existing PT, which seems to be the most common one. Instead of deciding what table is right or wrong, we should simply go with whatever table is the most commonly used.--Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, if we adopted that categorization, we would be still colouring Po as a metalloid, At as a halogen, and keeping the halogen and other nonmetals categories. But isn't that really terrible (and not just for the meaningless "other nonmetals" category)? If you look at detailed studies on the chemistries of the elements involved, you will see that Po is really very much more of a metal, and At is very much more of a metalloid. Would you rather believe them or popularized intro-to-the-elements sites for children? (Not that they're bad; it's just that we're not one of them, and can afford to look at the facts of chemistry, rather than parrot what other not-so-reliable sources say.)

In these cases, we have based the arguments on very strong chemical arguments from academic papers (quite a reliable source, no?) Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Re Jacob Kjc: the google list you provided shows five different periodic tables on its the first page of six, all differeces exactly in this topic: categorization. It does not show a "common" one. -DePiep (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Furthermore (and quite amusingly), the first PT shown on the page already uses C (group 12 as poor metals). Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. An elegant and well-based option (out of more valid options). Alternatives can be spun out in topical articles. -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Lu is the smallest lanthanide- with similar/higher CN than Sc. Axiosaurus (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What's CN short for here? (Too used to seeing it mean "compound nucleus": I need to back away from the superheavy element articles for a while.) And why does Lu being the smallest lanthanide speak against such a placement? Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Axiosaurus, could you clarify what confusion? Which nouns (or verbs) are confused? -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry this is a vote not a debate.Axiosaurus (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Who is debating? I see questions. Four five question marks for you. Why don't you use the space below, like others do? (six). -DePiep (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Other voters are more polite than I am! You obviously disagree with my opinions, that is your right. If you only wanted positive responses you should have said so. I read the arguments, I voted, I gave my reason, and for me that is the end of story. Axiosaurus (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I ask questions even for those who agree with me. ;-) (Still wondering what "CN" referred to in this context, though.) Double sharp (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to state your reason? (It's fine if you don't; just wondering.) Double sharp (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is heuristically useful to group the blocks together. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutral. I actually love the idea, but not sure if that's right to use it here. I mean, Jakob has a point of having the most heavily used version, not the "right" one (a thing that can't exist in principle). Of course, Google Images search doesn't count as a research, for obvious reasons (it doesn't represent the whole picture. Even if you manage to look thru all of these images, the ratios would be much different when you try it in the real world. Would maybe be. In either case, Google Images is not enough). Colors are sure a thing an editor can choose as he wishes, no matter what other think (do I need to prove this?),

but structure... I'm not 100% sure.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Poorly framed proposal. What exactly will be changed in the encyclopedia, how is it now, and how will the proposal change it? IUPAC takes no position. Why should Wikipedia? Some chemists did it that way in the '20s and '30s. So what? Scerri and Jensen and others may convince IUPAC to change. When IUPAC changes, we'll change the encyclopedia. Until then, we reflect the reality of the current ambiguity of categorization because encyclopedias usually do that sort of thing. They reflect the opinions of international organizations of nomenclature instead of creating their own opinions. Duh. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

One of my reasons for supporting this originally was because we currently use the 32-column table pretty widely, which all but forces you to take a stand on whether La or Lu is in group 3. Hence putting Lu in group 3 generates consistency with the 32-column table format we are using – a format in which it is pretty hard to replicate IUPAC's neutral table. But I'm increasingly thinking that this is more of an argument to move to the much more common 18-column format instead.

If IUPAC's Sc/Y/*/** format is recommended by them, then I would oppose changing it, unless (of course) IUPAC ever alters this recommendation.

I am not sure, though, if IUPAC's neutral table is actually their position. It's also plausible that they don't actually recommend a particular version of the table and simply show this format as a compromise between Sc/Y/La/Ac and Sc/Y/Lu/Lr: this is the case AFAIK (if it's not, correct me, and I'll change my vote to oppose). In this case, the argument from IUPAC becomes a lot weaker, and we can resort to debating about the science. In this case, I think Sc/Y/Lu/Lr is superior, and that we should use it.

One thing IUPAC does make clear in its definitions, though, is that the group 3 elements are transition metals. It's true that not all authors support this: while this is more than a fringe view, and deserves some recognition and explanation in the articles on the group 3 elements and transition metals, it absolutely should not be used as default on Wikipedia. (And while this is arguably better placed in the next section, "rare earth metals" isn't really that great a category even if you ignore IUPAC, as it ignores Ac.) Double sharp (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I've mafe my views known elswher on this talk page. Here I just wanted to point out another ambiguity. B and Al are conventionally placed in group 13. They would be equally well-placed in group 3, but no-one is suggesting that, except me ;-). Petergans (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

B: To colour Sc-Y-Lu, and the lanthanide series, as rare earth metals. (Lr would be shown as an actinide).

Support. Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. (Isn't Lu still a lanthanide?) Double sharp (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Changed vote to Oppose. IUPAC classifies the group 3 elements as transition metals: there would have to be a really strong reason to do otherwise. In my opinion, this isn't strong enough. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. per reasons 4 & 5. YBG (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose any modifications to the existing PT, which seems to be the most common one. Instead of deciding what table is right or wrong, we should simply go with whatever table is the most commonly used.--Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. REM makes it all less-disputed categories. Mixing categories (colors) somehow, or adding details does not fit periodic tables in this scale. -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I cannot see any benefit in lumping these all together- it will just cause confusion Axiosaurus (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? Sc and Y are much more similar to the lanthanides than the transition metals. This classification shows that. How will this create confusion? Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to state your reason? (It's fine if you don't; just wondering.) Double sharp (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

They are commonly associated with other lanthanide minerals. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Please give me some time to write down heat I think about this. Am I allowed to add points to reasonings below or should I mark it as Sandbh's opinion?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe start a new section on 'rare earths as a category' or something like that, and cross reference it to this vote. Sandbh (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Rare earth metals is an officially recognized IUPAC collective name. So what? So are lanthanides. IUPAC may have self-contradictory definitions of transition elements because it reflects ambiguities in the way chemists use the term worldwide. So what? Actinides in some contexts can be considered transition metals because they're inner transition metals. Is "inner transition" a phrase in-and-of-itself or does it describe a type of transition metal? That semantic discussion is debatable. The main table on the IUPAC website, http://goldbook.iupac.org/highlights/periodic-table-of-the-elements.html , uses the layout we have and colors the lanthanides and actinides like we do here. It's been that way at IUPAC and Wikipedia for years and years. Sure, we could color things another way and still be correct, not wrong, and OK. But I haven't been convinced about any good reason to make the change. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

C: To categorise the group 12 metals as poor metals.

Support. Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Strong Support. In my opinion, the most important one. Double sharp (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. per reasons 3 & 6. YBG (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral. Although this is only for categorization purposes, this is still a quite informal designation. I'd rather call those "base metals" or simply "metals".--AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment "Base metals" won't work: Fe, Ni, and Cu would also fall here under the Wikipedia definition. Neither would "metals", because that also includes the elements of groups 1 to 11. Double sharp (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose any modifications to the existing PT, which seems to be the most common one. Instead of deciding what table is right or wrong, we should simply go with whatever table is the most commonly used.--Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. A categorisation that leaves least scientific disputes to be shown; and anyway these can be noted in full in respective articles. -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to state your reason? (It's fine if you don't; just wondering.) Double sharp (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Under certain conditions, they do behave as transition metals. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. So do K, Rb, and Cs, taking a d¹ electron configuration at high pressure. Do you think they should count as transition metals too? Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I was considering chemical conditions, not physical (temperature, pressure, etc.) Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Humorously False Dichotomy Group 12 elements are classified as transition metals in some perfectly sound educational and non-educational resources but not others. Wikipedia could go either way in terms of calling group 12 elements transition metals or not with sound reasoning and ample support for either choice. I imagine that this might be what you're discussing, but it's a bit difficult to tell because of the prior decision by editors in this Project to recreate the "Poor Metals" category as a color in Wikipedia's table, a viewpoint that was appropriately mocked and disparaged by Wikipedia editors years ago. Back then, alas, there was more hope that scientific matters could be covered at Wikipedia in a reasonable way. The very question "should group 12 metals be categorized as Poor Metals?" indicates that several key editors in this Project have departed from consideration for the reader to the extent they don't even know how to ask useful questions any longer. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

While I'm neutral here, DS and Sandbh, I have seen you Poor metal article draft (it's decent), but you are marginalizing one thing. Group 12 is categorized among poor metals in 50% cases. The opposite categorization has fifty as well. You should have an explicit accent about this in the lead, even though you are allowed to stick to one version later on. See group 3 element for example (note the lead with no -Lu-Lr preference over -La-Ac, and the note in the infobox.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Will add something to the draft about this. Sandbh (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose

Minus hydration enthalpy for (octahedral) divalent transition metal M²⁺ ions

1. This is not a commonly used designation
2. There is nothing “poor” about these metallic elements
3. As correctly pointed out above, the chemical properties overlap with both the transition elements and the main group and elements in column 13 onward of the Periodic Table. They should be called “Group 12 elements”. This is accurate, concise, descriptive and unambiguous, leaving open their inclusion ,for example, with the transition metals in crystal field theory where they, together with the elements Ca and Sr provide baseline points against which to measure crystal field stabilization energy and its effects for divalent ions, and with Sc and Y for trivalent ions. Petergans (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Agree. In the absence of a commonly used term for the group 12 to 16 metals there has been some subsequent discussion (earlier in this page) about referring to these elements by the descriptive term, 'weak main group metals.'
2. Really? They are 'poor' in the sense of wanting in metallic character, as manifested by a marked reduction in metallic character on proceeding from group 11 to group 12. A 'poor' metal in this sense is similar in meaning to the expression, 'a poor gentleman'.
3. Overlap with TMs lacks substance. Any overlap in properties between the group 12 metals, and either the transition metals or the main group 12 to 16 metals, is heavily weighted towards the main group metals. Supporting citations can be found here. The group 12 elements are not that unique that they need their own category. Whether or not they are shown as poor metals or weak main group metals or junior metals (only kidding on that last one), they can just as easily be included with the transition metals for crystal field theory purposes, in the same way that the alkaline earth metals Ca and Sr are included with the transition metals for these purposes. Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasoning and considerations

A. Sc-Y-Lu-Lr

1. IUPAC doesn't have a position on the composition of group 3.
2. A number of chemists in the 1920's and 30's assigned Lu rather than La to group 3 on the basis that the chemical properties of Y, and Sc to a lesser extent, were closer to Lu.
3. That La and Ac are sometimes shown as group 3 members appears to have originated in the 1940s based on electronic configurations and the concept of the differentiating electron.
4. Arguments as to the composition of group 3 should turn upon more than the single concept of a differentiating electron.
5. There remains a reasonable body of physics and chemistry-based evidence favouring the assignment of Lu and Lr to group 3.
6. Eric Scerri has recently presented arguments [1], including those based on the construction of the long-form of the periodic table, supporting the assignment of Lu and Lr to group 3. IUPAC have since asked him to form a working group with a view to making this change official.

Supplementary note: See also Jensen's 2009 commentary on this question, here. Sandbh (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

B. Rare earth metals

1. 'Rare earth metals' is an officially recognised IUPAC collective name for Sc, Y and the lanthanides.
2. A failing of the IUPAC definition of a transition element ('An element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations with an incomplete d sub-shell.') is that La, Gd, and Lu should all be counted as transition metals. However they are instead routinely recognised as lanthanides or rare earths, on the basis of their common properties. Same thing happens with Ac, Th, Pa, U, Np and Cm. They meet the IUPAC definition of TMs but are instead recognised as actinides, again on the basis of common properties.
3. A majority of UK-based chemistry syllabi according to Jim Clark of chemguide.com, don't treat Sc and Y as transition metals because they don't form transition metal ions (i.e. those having incompletely filled d orbitals).
4. References that treat Sc and Y as transition metals usually include words to the effect that, or which imply that, the group 3 metals are "atypical" TMs as they demonstrate very few TM properties. Often the group 3 metals are included in the chapter or section dealing with the lanthanides or rare earths, on account of their related properties.
5. By colouring Sc, Y and the lanthanides as rare earth metals we sidestep the 'are-group-3-elements-TMs-or-not debate', and associated differences in periodic table representations, whilst remaining IUPAC observant. The debate can be noted, for example, in the group 3 article (e.g. in terms of the differentiating electron, they could be regarded as TMs however in terms of their overall properties they are closer to the lanthanides). We also avoid the need for mixed categories.
6. Most of the rare earth metals are not particularly rare however deposits that are large and concentrated enough to be worth mining are rare, hence the continuing relevance of the name. The near-ubiquity of the rare earth metals in modern technology, combined with supply concerns, has also raised popular interest in this previously lesser known category of metals. Related quotes: 1. 'Basic rare-earth science has not been a focus of most U.S. research centers for quite a long time, "but suddenly it has come roaring back…"; 2. 'The rare earths are very much…of strategic importance to the defense industry…'; 3. 'During the past twenty years there has been an explosion in demand for many items that require rare earth metals…global demand for automobiles, consumer electronics, energy efficient lighting and catalysts is expected to rise rapidly in the future. Rare earth elements are heavily used in all of these industries and their use is expected to rise.'

C. Group 12 as poor metals

1. The status of the group 12 metals, from an IUPAC perspective, is ambiguous. They (the group 12 metals) don't meet the IUPAC Gold Book definition of a transition element ('An element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations with an incomplete d sub-shell.'). The IUPAC Red Book, however, notes that the group 3–12 elements are commonly referred to as transition elements albeit the group 12 elements are not always included.
2. Writing in 1971 in the Journal of Chemical Education about how periodic table groups and subgroups should be designated, Fernelius, Loening & Adams (p. 595) said, 'The situation for Zn, Cd, and Hg is different. They form no compounds having incomplete d orbitals and hence have no transition metal character. Still one wishes to distinguish these from Ca, Sr, Ba in some manner. No one has suggested a good term for this.' The situation hasn't changed much since they wrote this. I'm not sure they knew that Zn, Cd and Hg were sometimes referred to as the volatile metals. HgF₄ has also since been synthesized at conditions close to absolute zero, so in this sense Hg could be regarded as a transition metal however this can give rise to the proposition that, for example, K, Rb and Cs are transition metals on the basis that they adopt a d¹ configurations, at high pressure. Based on current understanding, it is reasonable to conclude that Hg is not a transition metal at, or near, ambient conditions.
3. Smith (1990. p. 113) observed that, '…the triad Zn , Cd and Hg have more in common with their immediate neighbours in the p block then they do with their neighbours on the other side, in the d block. Textbook writers have always found difficulty in dealing with these elements.' [Smith then said that, 'In this book, they will be placed with either the transition elements or the Main Group elements, as the occasion demands.']
4. Jensen, in his article (2003) on the place of the group 12 metals in the periodic table, noted a roughly 50-50 split between texts that included them in the transition metals and texts that didn't. As noted by him in his examples, 'The inorganic textbook by Cotton and Wilkinson,which has served as the American standard for nearly 40 years, has always been firm in its treatment of the members of the Zn group as main-block elements, whereas the text by Holleman and Wiberg, which has served as the German standard in this field for nearly a century,has always classified them as outer-transition metals.'
5. There is no widely used category name for these metals.
6. They are closest in properties to the group 13-16 metals.
7. 'Poor metals' seems to be the most apt collective name for the group 12-16 metals, given their weak physical characteristics combined with significant nonmetallic characteristics, and the menagerie of alternative names by which they have been called, as surveyed here.

• Smith DW 1990, Inorganic substances: A prelude to the study of descriptive inorganic chemistry, Cambridge University, Cambridge, ISBN 0521337380

Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Discuss

See also section #Base metals or poor metals?. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Aluminium and post-transition metals

Ping @R8R Gtrs: just to note that their contribution has moved to this place and is growing some fruit. -DePiep (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So, why don't we use the name "post-transition metals and aluminium" for what we now call "poor metals"? Quite unusual for us, but lets group them alltogether under a technically right name (also hopefully understandable). If anyone is afraid of the compound name, well, people deal with such situations (Western European and Others Group is the first example to come to my mind, albeit not the best one around)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Fresh thinking that lights up my Xmas tree from several perspectives. Indisputably a factually correct descriptive term. Appropriate stage presence for both Al and the PTMs yet still keeps them together. Accommodates the group 12 metals in the article, even if only for comparative purposes. I can imagine a book with a chapter name called this. Conveys an interesting association as well as the intriguing implications of the phrase "post-transition". Accommodates copernicium either way. WP guideline acceptable; and a neutral descriptive phrase but with information content. Suggest "Aluminium and the post-transition metals" as a more visually congruent order, and also to enable a more concise short form = APT metals. Will now ponder some more to see if all angles have been covered, and at this stage it looks superb, thanks to R8R's insight. Sandbh (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually like this one. It's a good way to split those elements into categories. But since you don't have a singular category name, it kinda leaves open the question "why did you force Al into this group where it doesn't quite fit?" I mean, I can see why you want to do it, and also get rid of poor metals (I'll never understand why everyone seems to hate it), but this sort of compound name to include only one other element feels like cheating and not really being representative of the fudged-in element Al. E.g. Something like "hydrogen and typical nonmetals"; hydrogen isn't a typical nonmetal, so why do that? For "aluminium and post-transition metals", aluminium isn't a post-transition metal, so why do that? IMO it is better and more informative about the elements if a single category name can be used. Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

VG to hear you like this one. It doesn't seem like cheating to me. Showing Al as the 'lead' in the compound name conveys to me that Al is a little bit special, and yet it's still a part of the 'aluminium and the transition metals' category. That strikes me as interesting and worthy of further inquiry. And clicking through to the article (using the extant 'poor metals' title) would hopefully show the homogeneity of the category and that Al is a little bit 'tougher' than some of the rest of the poor metals, but still a worthy poor metal in comparison to the rest of the metals. It's somewhat analogous to sources that use the expression 'hydrogen and the alkali metals', except that here the separation between H and the alkali metals is more, yet no one fusses (to my knowledge) about this phrasing. Or including Be and Mg in the alkaline earth metals, despite the differences in properties compared with Ca-Ra. Or 'scandium, yttrium and the lanthanides' despite the differences in electron configurations. Al isn't a post-transition metal but at least it's a metal, unlike H. I don't think the the difference in Al's core electron configuration outweighs the many similarities in physical and chemical properties with the rest of the poor metals, kind of in the same way that Jensen and Scerri say these kinds of things should be determined by more than differentiating electrons (albeit the interesting difference in electron config between Al and the other poor metals could be noted in the article). A single category name is better, I agree. However, there's no such singular name in the literature. And probably, 'aluminium and the post-transition metals' has more good things going for it than any of the (nearly 20?) options we've considered to date, even if it is a compound name. Those are my thoughts for now. Sandbh (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the wording in this categorization (not about the grouping concept of "Al+PTM" itself). So we create a category name "Aluminium and post-transition metals". Right after that, aluminium is an aluminium and post-transition metal. Also zinc is an aluminium and post-transition metal. Lead is in the category aluminium and post-transition metals. (all as chromium is a transition metal). Somewhere we'll have to write: the aluminium and post-transition metals are: aluminium, zinc, .... Clearly, we don't use any quotes in regular category prose, and we will not for this one. I think flipping the sequence doesn't actually reduce the awkwardness: aluminium is a post-transition metal and aluminium. There is also the seduction of editors leaving out "aluminium and" asap whenever possible, simply writing "post-transition metal(s)" (without being wrong). This is just chewing on it, I don't suggest we cannot use that term.

One more simple question. Do I understand that using the word "post-transition metal(s)" is virtually without problems (of habits & occurrence & definition & science)? (a short yes/no could do). -DePiep (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The lack of a nice adjectival form for the APT metals (although that could work) requires more careful writing. Perhaps:

• Aluminium and the post transition metals are generally characterised by weak physical and chemical properties.
• Consistent with their position between the true metals and the metalloids, aluminium and the post transition metals are...
• Aluminium and the post transition metals, a category that is sometimes referred to as the 'poor metals'...
• Aluminium, together with the post transition metals, makes up a category of metals that are characterised by diminished metallic character. Sometimes referred to as 'poor metals', they have melting points less than those of the transition metals, above average electronegativity values for metals, and a marked tendency to form covalent compounds with nonmetals.
• Aluminium is included in this category together with the group 12 volatile metals, and the other p-block metals, in light of their commonalities of physical and chemical temperament.
• Aluminium and the post-transition metals occupy frontier territory on the periodic table and this can be seen in the form of crystalline structures characterised by directional bonding and a marked incidence of amphoteric chemistry. Indeed, aluminium has sometimes been classified as a metalloid in light of its position next to the metal-nonmetal dividing line and its significant nonmetallic properties.

No, the PTMs are not without problems of definition. Same as the situation with where the TMs start and finish. Having said that I understand there are appreciably more references to group 12 as PTMs or main group metals than poor metals. Ditto group 13-16 metals. Sandbh (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

minor: If any abbreviation would end up in articles, it should be like "A&PTM(s)" or maybe "A&PT metal(s)" (or "Al&PTs"). If we introduce a descriptive name for the category, we cannot use much more jargon. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree, try and avoid abbreviations. Doesn't generally make for particularly good writing. Sandbh (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, Sandbh, you appear to imply that the article will be titled "poor metals" despite the category being referred to as "Al & PTMs" in the legend. Why? Isn't it better to be consistent? It feels a bit like covering up the term "poor metals". And your arguments for this are based on the poor metal logic, that Al is a little on the tough side but still needs help (Be is like this too, though not needing quite as much help as Al does). And I don't know about you, but "Al & PTMs" just feels weird as a page title, because it breaks so readily into two subarticles, "Al" andd "PTMs", where the close relationship of Al to the PTMs would be discussed in both. Kinda like how I discussed the relationship of H, Tl, and NH⁺
₄ to the alkali metals in the alkali metal article (for another example see pseudohalogen). Double sharp (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no! The article would be called Aluminium and the post-transition metals. LOL re Al still needing some help. 'Let me introduce Al, a poor cousin of Be' :) Hey, about the abbreviation in the periodic table legend. I like 'APT metals'. De Piep, I gather you would prefer something longer? You too Double sharp? Anyone else? Sandbh (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Something longer eh. What's wrong with Ds's "poor aluminium"? Then there is this word image, reading "Ai, PTMs!" (making us all periodical table dyslectic). Hm.

The legend should be correct & clear, whatever the consequences. It should absolutely link to the exact name, Aluminium and post-transition metals. That page can Redirect (choose any target page; use the #section trick). This also makes a good title (= mousehover text) right away.

Then, first thinking, the visible text must be all "Aluminium and post-transition metals". But maybe we can derive from that. For now, I end up with "Al & post-transition metals". (brings back the plurals in there, for all categories then. Makes good reading. OK with me). Any suggestion for the bad word "Al"? (if & when this thing is stable, I'll put it in a demo). But hey, don't let me distract you. Is the core content discussion done? -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"Aluminium and PTMs", maybe, if "Al" is deemed unacceptable? Double sharp (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, re title. Do whatever you want to (will agree with whatever you think is the best), but since "aluminium and PTMs" is not a very widely known term (albeit easy to understand), and "PTMs" is, I would do the linking the following way: "Aluminium and post-transition metals." They are waaaay better known apart from each other (for now), so this makes more sense to me. In a book, I would write a chapter "Aluminium and PTMs," but I'm afraid this doesn't work that way for Wiki.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with you on this one. The PTM article would discuss the close relationship of aluminium with them, then. Double sharp (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes to both. I am still pondering the language things. We are introducing a new description (an identifier even, or a name if you like). How to be correct and convey what we want to (any taxonomy linguists around)?

Let's restart thinking, from concept. Abbreviations are for simplicity, not proposed.

Step 1: First we see them as two separately defined, independent categories: "Al" and "PTMs" (alike "TMs", and "M'oids").

In the legend, they'd be sequenced left-to-right as appearing in the PT. That would be "PTM, Al" then, not "Al, PTM", as a logical outcome from the legend scheme.

Categories Al, PTMs into the legend: structure & sequence
metals							metalloids	nonmetals			unk
AMs	AEMs	REMs	ANs	TMs	PTMs	Al	M'oids	DiaNMs	PolyaNMs	NGs
Sequence by left-to-right appearance. So group 12 makes PTM be to the left of Al.

We do not use the wording "poor metal" at all (except in topical pages & sections).

We use singular & plural s correctly ("Fe is a TM, the TMs are: ...," category: "TMs" --> this will be change in the legends then). No problem that Al is single in there. Page titles are singular (Post-transition metal).

Step 2: Then we merge the two into one category, called "PTMs & Al".

Questions left: legend sequence is PTMs, Al then. Allow flip in prose? What to put in the infobox "Element category:" for Al, for a PTM?

-DePiep (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the concept of linking "Aluminium and post-transition metals". As I understand it, the element colour category would be "aluminium and the post-transition metals", abbreviation e.g. "A & PT metals". The article title would be "aluminium and the post-transition metals". It's a descriptive phrase, in the absence of a commonly used formal or semi-formal title, so obviously it wouldn't be a widely known term---descriptive phrases are like that. So the sequence of metals would go AMs--AEMs--REMs--ANs--TMs--A&PTMs. Am I missing something? Sandbh (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, no separate links (didn't know I was typing that when thinking); Please keep it "aluminium and the post-transition metals" (not the upcoming Disney movie); and some were thinking about where the category would be described. And for the sequence: I described how the sequence is when "Al" would have its own category. In that case it would have to be to the right of PTM in the category legend bar. From there, the descriptive name would be "PTMs & Al". That's all. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My first (relatively uneducated) reaction is why are people objecting using the simpler PTM and including Al without mentioning it. After some thought, it occurs to me that the reason is because people are reading PTM as P(TM), that is to say, elements that come after TMs. However, if you read the category name as (PT)M, that is to say, metals that come after a transition, then I think it would be legitimate to include Al in the group. That is to say, the "transition" includes not only the real estate devoted to the TMs but also the gaps between groups 2 and 13 that occur in periods 3 and below. Now, admittedly this is a bit obscure and may not fly. But what if some suitable synonymn could be found for "Transition" that would be viewed as a cover term for the TMs and the gap? Of course, there is always the problem of using an unfamiliar term. But I'm just trying to think outside the box in hopes it might prove helpful or might trigger some more thought. YBG (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe post-transition metals have a strict definition that excludes or includes aluminum and/or excludes or includes group 12. Maybe they don't. I don't favor this idea because it seems silly on two accounts. First, it overemphasizes that aluminum can't be categorized according to accepted IUPAC groupings as anything but a metal when, of course, the relevant fact is that what the table currently calls Poor Metals can't be categorized according to accepted IUPAC groupings as anything but a metal. It's an editor-thing, not a reader-thing. Second, it's editorially clunky. Find one, single periodic table anywhere with that label for a color. It would be better to mislabel and or define or redefine Al as a post-transition metal as is done at http://periodic.lanl.gov/index.shtml . Flying Jazz (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Count me in favor of replacing "poor metals" with (in order) "post-transition metals", "p-block metals", "aluminium and the post-transition metals". Any of those would be better than "poor metals". (Perhaps chemists use "poor metals", but my Ph.D is in Metallurgy, I've never heard it used.) The only reference on the page in that supports use of "poor metals" says "The term 'poor metals' is not widely used, but it is a useful description for several metals including tin, lead and bismuth.". That is not strong support for use of the term. Re: calling out aluminum for special treatment, I agree with Flying Jazz that this isn't necessary, hence my preference for "post-transition metals", but if strict technical accuracy is required, it's hard to find fault with descriptive if unmelodious "p-block metals".Rcalhoun (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"p-block metals" doesn't quite work if you exclude group 12 from the transition metals. What I find most interesting though is @Axiosaurus:' comment that [we are] confused by the idea of "post-" meaning "after" in "post-transition metals" – if the word is not defined etymologically, then we can use it and include Al and still be correct. (And put a note down to avoid confusing future readers.) Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What I actually said was "Post transition was a well defined group of metals (unless of course you get confused by the idea of post being after!)". I meant "Post transition was a well defined group of metals (unless of course one does not understand the meaning of the word post)". I should avoid oblique sarcasm. For your information, the "post transition" label was meant to highlight the differences in the chemistry of the p block metals that could be attributed to the fact they came after the transition metals, e.g. they are subject to d-block contraction that makes e.g. Ga³⁺ only a little bigger than Al³⁺. Axiosaurus (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case it makes a lot more sense to not classify Al as a post-transition metal, simply because it doesn't come after any transition metals (and isn't subject to d-block contraction, etc.).

I'm beginning to think that the pre-transition metals solution is better (pre-transition = groups 1 and 2 + Al). Al & PTMs could work but isn't really an elegant construction to use in prose. Double sharp (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no definition of post-transition metals that I'm aware of. My impression of the literature is that 'post-transition metals' is more often used in the sense that Axiosaurus mentioned i.e. excluding aluminium. P-block metals won't work since element 113, which is a p-block metal, is expected to have some transition metal chemistry.

I agree with Flying Jazz, wherever he said it, that Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) should be reflective of the literature. I also agree with his comments about it’s an editor thing v it’s a reader thing.

The literature is all over the place with respect to category names for the elements between the transition metals and the metalloids.

Given all of this, I lean towards thinking that the former category name 'other metals'—in the sense of a category of metals, 'Existing besides, or distinct from that already mentioned'; 'auxiliary', 'ancillary, secondary' (quotes from 2nd OED, and Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus entries for 'other')—may be more appropriate, with the 'other metal' article listing all the cited alternative category names. Some readers will still go "WTF are 'other metals'?", however what's going on will become clear upon reading the article, with readers free to choose any of the more specific category names listed therein, for non-Wikipedia use, should they decide that 'other metals' won't cut the mustard. I personally don't think that much of the name 'other metals' but the jumbled category name situation for these metals, as found in the literature, is what it is.

There's an other metal article in my sandbox that includes commentary on the rationale for, and meaning of, the 'other metal' expression. Previously there was no specific article on the other metals, which was part of the problem; now there can be. The only part of the article I haven't updated yet is the scatter plot chart, which still shows the other metals as 'weak main group metals' (an earlier proposed descriptive phrase which I no longer favour).

Re group 12 as transition metals, I'm OK either way. There's a modicum of teaching value in treating them as transition metals and noting their atypical features, rather than treating them as main-group metals and overlooking their transition metal connections. If they remain as transition metals they can still be referred to in the other metals article, with some very careful wording, for comparative purposes.

On group 3 membership, I'm inclined to leave it in its current ambiguous state. The question of La-Ac or Lu-Lr can be discussed in the group 3 article. Sandbh (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Return of the other metals

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

---

Close as 'proceed with implementation'. Reasons given for the change from poor metals to other metals remain sound. No substantial objections raised.

@Stone: @R8R Gtrs: @Double sharp: @Sbharris: @Materialscientist: @DePiep: @King jakob c 2: @StringTheory11: @TCO: @Axiosaurus: @AlchemistOfJoy: @Sinrh0816:

I propose calling the metals in groups 13-17 'other metals' rather than (as we do now) 'poor metals', for the reasons I listed just above, with no change to the group 12 TMs. There is a corresponding draft 'other metals' article here, in my sandbox. If interested, could you please indicate your views about this proposal? Personally, I would rather record all of the alternatives in the other metals article, than spend more time on a quest for the snark 'right' category label. Sandbh (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OK with me. I like "other metals" – remaining neutral. Still thinking about group 12; will respond about that soon. Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Me too. It is time to throw in the towel even though I am disappointed that there isn't a term that is commonly accepted and more descriptive. Listing all of the alternative terms seems a good idea, and the list could also include alternate definitions, that is to say, mention that the list of elements sometimes omits some or includes others. I will say that 'Other Metals' does have one redeeming feature ... at least in the periodic table, as you read from left-to-right, the 'other' category comes at the end. The 'other nonmetals' category that was successfully banished some time ago did not have that advantage. It felt rather clumsy, but that probably is a cultural pre-disposition from years of multiple choice answer sets that ended '(e) none of the above'. I suppose if I lived in some sort of an alternate reality and had been exposed all my life to '(a) none of the below', then I might think rather differently. YBG (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I can agree with the proposal (See my follow-up below), given the need-for-compromise in this area (Let's note that this situation is chemistry-born, not Wikpedia-born). I am enthousiastic about the way all alternatives are covered: mention & describe them in the article (now in the sandbox). As YBG describes nicely, there is no square circle solution in this.

I also support the "group 12 unchanged" part, as meaning that the discussion & changes (or not) with regard to group 12 should be kept separate from this proposal. Once this single topic proposal has a stable outcome (implemented, and after-change discussions are concluded), we could revisit the group 12 topic as a separate, independent discussion. Until then, no changes in column 12. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up Sandbh: I have to withdraw my support for now. I want to research this situation (e.g., read related discussions), primarily to see how the flow of arguing passed. I want to check whether there really is no explicit phrase that covers the set of elements ('explicit', as opposed to 'none of the above'-construct proposed). I am aware that the long discussions also involve other topics (group 3, group 12) and non-decisive details (such as word sequence; some of which I myself introduced). These sideways should not matter, I still think the best way to get an outcome its to keep it single-topic (that is, say, get a category name & article name). -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandbh, you put 113 as a transition metal. Are we transitioning back to the IUPAC definition for this? (If so 165 and 166 have to also become transition metals, rather than alkali and alkaline earth metals, and I'm not so sure about that, given that they're still expected to behave as main group elements where d-electrons fill the role of p-electrons. I'll grant that this is not exactly a great objection, largely because these elements have not even been synthesized.) Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Upon reflection, leave 113 as an other metal until someone synthesizes a compound of it in which it uses its d electrons, such as 113F_{5. So, yes 165 and 166 = alkali and alkaline earth metals. Discuss categorization possibilities in the applicable article. Sandbox article adjusted accordingly. Sandbh (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)}

I got that wrong. The colour for 113 is based on its predicted properties. Therefore, it should show as a predicted transition metal. With 165 and 166 I don't understand why they shouldn't be shown as predicted transition metals, based on the IUPAC concept of a transition metal. Applies even if 165 and 166 largely have a main group chemistries. Same thing happens with silver: predominately main group chemistry yet still categorised as a TM. An out with 165 and 166 would that their capacity to use d electrons in bonding is more speculative or 'may also'-caveated, qualifications which strike me as being a notch or two less than 'predicted' or 'is expected to be'. So you could leave them as A and AE metals on that basis. Sandbh (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I did not follow this discussion but honestly, I think it would be quite stupid to call a group of elements as "other" when we have the adequate, NON-AMBIGUOUS qualifier "poor". Nergaal (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree "poor" is adequate, and NON-AMBIGUOUS. It isn't in common usage however, and neither is anything else. This is quite shabby but that's chemistry for you. "Other", as in 'Existing besides, or distinct from, that already mentioned'; 'auxiliary', 'ancillary, secondary', provides a suitably generic yet meaningfully appropriate label under which the associated article can list all of the alternative names found in the literature for these forgotten metals, including e.g. b-subgroup metals; junior metals (my favourite); poor metals; post-transition metals; p-block metals; polyvalent non-transition metals etc. In RL, individual authors and teachers can choose their pet name; Wikipedia should simply reflect the—shambolic in this case—state of the literature. This represents the culmination of the poor metals thread-saga and is what I've tried to do in my sandbox. I also intend to add a note to the 'poor metals' i.e. 'other metals' talk page, re-iterating the rationale for the (currently proposed) change. Sandbh (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A hopefully engaging postscript. The DK Visual Encyclopedia of Science (1998) has a periodic table (pp. 36−37). It shows, among other categories, transition metals, poor metals, and semimetals. The transition metals are described as 'typical metals' (p. 42). The poor metals, 'are softer and weaker than other metals, [italics added] and melt more easily. Despite their name, they are very useful, especially in making alloys' (p. 41). That's misleading, I thought: many of the alkali metals and alkaline earth metals are softer, weaker and melt more easily than the poor metals. I read on. After the book summarized the transition metals (including inner TMs), the poor metals, and the semimetals, I arrived at a section called 'Other metals' (pp. 44−45). And this is where the alkali metals and alkaline earth metals are discussed! I'm not bagging the book; I just found its uses of the expression 'other metals' to be intellectually amusing. User talk:Sandbh 06:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Scerri about group 3

About Scerri figures 5, 6 (not proposed here). How is the group 3 exactly defined for those? Same column as top figure 4, with Sc/Y out of group 3 then? This comes into play when we create a PT illustrating thoese non-chosen options. -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

no 5: I don't know. I suspect it would follow the suit for no 4 (it goes 1 2 <14 unnumbered columns"> 3 4 5 ...) I've never seen them. On reading this, I got the impression Scerri invented it for the very narrative.

no 6: Sc-Y-La-Ac. (1 2 3 <14 unnumbered columns"> 4 5 ...)

But should we really have these PTs too?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, not exactly Scerri inventing it, but maybe he had to recreate the 32-column PT from an 18-column one. That 18-column PT then showed Sc/Y/La/Ac in one column, had a continuous, glued group 2-3-4 (no gap), and below were the 14 remaining columns. To make something out of that... These are still quite common (google). We can't blame Eric Scerri for the ambivalence built in into those 18-columns.(Remind me to I tell you some time that I don't like such 18-column PTs, for this ambivalence reason). I heard a gossip that the enwiki will get rid of them shortly. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Do we need them? I thought we are supposed to describe & illustrate them in topical sections, in a projected group 3 element#alternative definitions. A bit like Janet's left step is in Periodic table#alternative forms. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, I've never seen an 18-column PT that implies Scerri's figure 5 (that would be Sc/Y/La/Ac with the asterisks before group 3). I think his mentioning it is based on his argument: he assumes that the blocks need to be kept together, and so the only way you can keep the d-block together with Sc/Y/La/Ac is this ludicrous periodic table where the atomic numbers don't increase in an orderly fashion. I don't see how this argument is valid: we all break the s-block anyway the moment we place He with the noble gases, so why can't we break the d-block into group 3 and groups 4–12? Not that I think Sc/Y/La/Ac is a good idea; I just think that it is not so easily refuted.

Now, mention the Sc/Y/La/Ac (figure 6) and Sc/Y/Lu/Lr (figure 4) difference, certainly. I just think we should not show his figure 5, because nobody uses it. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"that would be Sc/Y/La/Ac with the asterisks before group 3" -- or no asterisks at all. Leaving it to the reader to figure it out (with those ambiguous outcomes). Also, these badly formed tables tend to leave out the group numbers. From google's images, and lbl.gov: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Berkeley and Seaborg compromised?. Just to illustrate: badly formed 18-column PTs. Out with them, all of them.

But no Scerri figure 5 then as it is obscure, including his reasoning the reasoning it represents. -DePiep (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC) m, struck -DePiep (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusion but I am still very interested in the group 3 question. I see a good deal of discussion concerning my view on this above but am having trouble understanding whether you have a genuine objection to what I have proposed or whether it is a matter of representation and whether to display a 32-column table on Wiki pages. Please, by all means get in touch with me directly by E-mail if you would like to discuss this further. signed, Eric Scerri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.156.120 (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Eric, past threads are here: 28 nov 2008; 1 oct 2013; 28 nov 2013 Sandbh (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You're intrusion is welcome, mr Scerri. Now it's just that the discussion has taken a rest for some months. (I myself have been made shy for a while, since recently a Wikipedia process decided that period 1 element is the better name over period 1 -- accompanied by accusations of me being dishonest and writing lies).

Surely and luckily there is no conclusion against your proposal being: group 3 = Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr. I for myself think it is the best representation (though I lack scientific background for all the details; I'm reading & learning here).

We can very well decide on a preferred group 3 definition for our PT's. Variant options could be and should be described best in a Group 3 element section. Just as variant classifications ("groupings") are described in metalloids and other metals. This way of describing PT issues only since a few months here. And already we all know this from the positioning of H: make a choice, describe the alternatives.

Once group 3 is decided in a 32-column PT, the 18-column PT can be derived. Today the problem is that most 18-column layouts hide or obfuscate the group 3 issue. That evades the choice, conveniently! This is a force against change (against choose & clarify), showing up in various reasonings. The problem comes in the open when re-creating a 32-column from that one. It is like assembling an IKEA cupboard.

So in my opinion these are the nuts to be cracked. I'll pick it up when the ship with inspiration has arrived. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As noted earlier, on the 18-column PT: I propose a graphical gap column between groups 2 and 3 to cast in concrete the fact that one can not squeeze 14 or 15 elements in one cell (below Sc/Y). I learned from Mendeleev in this; Seaborg is pictured compromised but knows more that we do. Once the 18-column PT has that gap, no discussion is left. -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Legend color of rare earth metals

The proposal includes using the element category "rare earth metal" (REM) in our common PTs. This category being used is new in the PT. We need to pick a color for the REM categorization. At the same time, the Lanthanides (Ln) category would go from the generic PT ("Lanthanide" as such will not appear in out general PTs). The current Ln color is   #ffbfff.

REM in color as proposed

Sandbox table (version correct as of 2013-12-15):

Rare earth metals in the periodic table (proposal)

Hydrogen Helium Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon Sodium Magnesium Aluminium Silicon Phosphorus Sulfur Chlorine Argon Potassium Calcium Scandium Titanium Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Nickel Copper Zinc Gallium Germanium Arsenic Selenium Bromine Krypton Rubidium Strontium Yttrium Zirconium Niobium Molybdenum Technetium Ruthenium Rhodium Palladium Silver Cadmium Indium Tin Antimony Tellurium Iodine Xenon Caesium Barium Lanthanum Cerium Praseodymium Neodymium Promethium Samarium Europium Gadolinium Terbium Dysprosium Holmium Erbium Thulium Ytterbium Lutetium Hafnium Tantalum Tungsten Rhenium Osmium Iridium Platinum Gold Mercury (element) Thallium Lead Bismuth Polonium Astatine Radon Francium Radium Actinium Thorium Protactinium Uranium Neptunium Plutonium Americium Curium Berkelium Californium Einsteinium Fermium Mendelevium Nobelium Lawrencium Rutherfordium Dubnium Seaborgium Bohrium Hassium Meitnerium Darmstadtium Roentgenium Copernicium Nihonium Flerovium Moscovium Livermorium Tennessine Oganesson

Proposed legend color REM

• The proposed color for the REMs is   #ffbffe. The final digit is differs one with the Ln pink (e vs. f), invisible to the eye.

Earlier talks

Group_3_in_periodic_table, or search for: About re-using the lanthanide (pink) bg color for REM -- 14:00, 8 October 2013.

I will repeat the background here. -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Requirements for legend background colors

1. the color must be a background color, giving enough contrast with text color for legibility (WP:ACCESS, w3c access). This contrast can be calculated into a quality level. In the PT, the text color can be black/red/green/grey (atomic number indicating the State of matter). In general the background should be light.
2. The background should be discernable in the range used. That is, it should differ from other colors used (the reader must find the connection cell color<-->legend without mistake).
3. The colors should allow for lighter shades for a "predicted" elements property.

• Current problems with colors

1. Of the 11 colors, five are red. There is no new red available that shows different (already the "alkali metal (predicted) color", a dirty red, is a out of regularity construction).
2. Some colors are too dark for contrast with the text: AM red, PM (aka PTM) grey, Metalloids brown.
3. Greys are used for a category (PM/PTM), for "Unknown", and for table structure (like title background). This an overload of uses.

In short, there is no color readily available any more. Sure the reds are depleted (where the REMs are). Any green/yellow/blue would be close to other colors. To get a good legend, the whole palette must be redesigned, starting from W3C accessibility and PT structure. That is not a sinecure. It takes time & good thinking. This process is projected to start next year.
For this reason, we choose to defer picking a new color for REM. Picking a new color now, like some green or blue, would be temporal while shaking the view for these months (?). Also, 15/17 REM elements are the before-pink lanthanides; Only Sc and Y change color. So keeping the pink is in tune with the minor change in the PT, it is following. After the proposed change, there is time to build the new color scheme.
Some notes. The lanthanides, and "their" pink legend definition, will disappear from our common PTs completely. The color will have only one category associated: REM, wiki-wide.Technically, the REM has a color number that differs one (final hex "f" to "e"). This is not visible for the eye, but helps identifying which cells are transformed to the new REM color. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Consequences

Let me test my understanding of the issues, by describing some consequences.

Earlier discussions on this: (2013, archive, Make the group 12 elements poor metals? (archive) and On the question of group 3

See also the proposal's 32-column periodic table (archive).

• Cn in group 12 will be marked "unknown chemical properties" in a regular PT (a change). When periods 8-9-10 are shown, in an extended PT, Cn takes the grouping of "transition metal metal (predicted)".
• Articles Rare earth metal, Poor metal, Group 3 elements, Group 12 elements, ..., must contain the encyclopedic definitions of terms used here.
• Astatine a poor metal? What is the conclusion in #Astatine and element 117 above? I don't think there will be another 200 page&image edit just two weeks later.
  • Astatine and element 117 should stay as metalloids. Fricke's statement that oxyanions would still be readily formed for element 117, perhaps even going to an unstable +7 state, is good enough for me to call it a metalloid. As for astatine, I submit that its chemistry is still within metalloid territory. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So no changes here, fine with me. Please close that thread, and maybe adjust article texts. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is a presentation decision only, but a nice one. The proposals do not decide in scientific debates. They decide on which primary presentation we follow. Using "REM" for the PTs does not state that there exist no lanthanides, nor do we make a decision on which elements are the REMs. We only choose to color the REMs not the lanthanides. Now, while we are free to choose a presentation form, we will apply a choice consistently over all articles and PTs, in wordings and graphics.
• In-topic, everything goes. To be clear, in-topic texts and PTs can have any coloring & description needed to illustrate and describe whatever needed. See for example metalloid border issue markings. So while not present in our PTs & legends, all can be described (including scientific positions) in topical places: lanthanide, post-transition metal, f-block, base metal, ... .
• Group 3 is glued to group 4, leaving a gap with group 2 in periods 4, 5 (=the f-block position in group 6, 7). This is different from the dewiki presentation, see de:Lanthanide. There shall be no suggestion that "group 3" would include the (usually unnumbered) f-block columns. See also about the Gap, below.

All very well argumented by Eric Scerri (argument A6, above). Deserves a section in group 3 element. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The word lanthanide disappears from our ubiquitous PTs (demos below). We do not do secondary group names (as we also do not mark Post-transition metals as such). The categorization is one-dimensional. If this discussion would lead to use some mixed categories/groups (coloring or marking), it would have to be a superposition on this categorization. In other words, these proposals reduce the need for multi-colors by logic of the chosen categories; while any future needs for mixing share not forbidden (but will require arguments).

Warning: "Lanthanide(s)" also disappears from infoboxes text & mousehover titles like from {{infobox cerium}}. Reader's shock response team needed.

Actinide: same. Also, the word "actinide(s)" will be removed from inside PTs. It is just for presentations reason (it could be factually correct to mention it). It's just we do not name categories within the PT at all.

To be clear: "Actinide" will be still mentioned & linked in the legend (not "Lanthanide). -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• The REM color: new REM color is postponed. For the introduced REM category should be different from old lanthanide pink. Because the category is defined differently, the color must be different. But, for practical reasons, this new color is postponed. (A new color should fit in the whole scheme, which occupies a lot of red-tinted colors already. At the moment, REM is numbered off by just 1 (=invisibly), to show conversion technically: #ffbffF=Ln versus #ffbffE=REM). Bad: this will leave a confusion for the reader with old lanthanide color meaning. Even worse, the page lanthanide will use the confusing color (ideally, lanthanides should use a secondary marking, not a primary category-color). If editors think this confusion is too serious to have existing, please say so. REMs could be   some green in the future.
  • I don't think it's that much of an issue because there would be a legend below clearly showing that the pink colour now means REMs. I think we should reconsider our entire colour scheme (too many reds!), but IMO we should do it all at once, and not change it one colour at a time. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We'll use   #ffbffe for rare earth metal(s). -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we won't. If even we choose to have REM (which would be a fatal error and should never happen), we shouldn't use pink again (but again, the should be no need for that.) (we can actually discuss this, just don't say "we'll use." before a discussion occurs)-R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually this is just stating the outcome of a discussion already. It implies too that on enwiki pink-for-lanthanides will be deprecated and removed. Actual introduction of REM is to be discussed elsewhere, not here in "consequences". -DePiep (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Where did the discussion take place? Could you add a link for that decision here?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, will open a thread in Discuss section to clear things up. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• The 18-column periodic table. In the 18-column PT two sets of elements are repositioned below the PT. These are the f-block with or without Lu, Lr (group 3, from the d-block). There is no major logical rule that defines whether Lu, Lr should be positioned above (in PT) or below (repositioned).

Still, there are consequences from a choice.

When Lu is above in the PT (not below), the set below can not be called "lanthanides", because that would be factually wrong (or require extreme detailing). Similar for Lr and actinides. There only would be an asterisk-marking.

• A gap, and no squeezing. When the f-block is present, there must be a gap between group 2 and group 3. This is irrespective on whether Lu, Lr are above or below. Because without a gap, the squeezing back in of the block would be ambiguous at best (These 14 or 15 elements all go into one cell? Group 3 stays with group 2 or with group 4? Or is group 3 spanning 15 elements?). In this too, we should be consistent over all PTs. For example, the gap will be present in this PT. My preference is: Lu and Lr above, because it makes it easier to imagine where the below-block should go. See below. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Also support having Lu and Lr above. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

... and thereby accepting the gap. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Mind the gap

This is a detailing of #Consequences in 18-column periodic table, I described above. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• PTs below should show regular cells (no text mess up or so).
• These are simplified talk-PTs. In articles, the PTs don't have lines. Later: position of * / ** bars (left-right) and gap width; layout can be done after structure outcome.
• Recap:

Word "Lanthanides" removed because possibly wrong (when Lu is above), and we don't mention category in PTs at all

Word "Actinides" removed because we don't mention these groupings within the PT.

Gap is needed to unambiguously show how & where the below-block should go.

If we go ahead, I still (currently) like the NS periodic table (see p.4/39). Reasons: (a) no gap; (b) La and Ac still line up under group 3 (c) there is no column number for the 57-70 and 89-102 boxes, which is IUPAC consistent; (d) the 'quasi-gap' between Ca-Sc and Sr-Y is a natural one; (e) the overall layout, to my eye, is engaging; and (f) it seems to incorporate good features of most options. Does anybody else think much of this layout? Is it feasible? Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I can agree. (I can call this a "gap" too for not gluing group 3 to group 2). The numbering like 75–70 is a better association than just asterisks. I guess you expect these two boxes be category colored. Little space in compact PTs, may become a wider column then, is acceptable to me. One addition: I'll do a demo with the asterisks in there too, because the below-block should have some associating handle. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

First demos: we already have this in {{Periodic table (large version)}}. After vote it will look like {{Periodic table (large version)/sandbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In the second demo, could the 57-70 box and the 89-102 box etc have the same width as the rest of the columns? Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

{{ec}}More recent demo's below at #Range numbers in the gap. (re the ec: cell size to be discussed below too) -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I like it also. It might be instructive also to have an even more (horizontally) compact table that pulled out the transition metals in the same way. And you could go the whole hog and pull the p-block out, so that you have a 2-column s-block table with a 6-column p-block insert below it, a 10-column d-block insert below that and a 14-column f-block below that. Not very useful (in fact very impractical), but if it could be animated to show the continuum from a fully-dropped-down PT to the totally-wide PT, in might be very pretty indeed.

Another thing @Sandbh: - what does NS stand for in "NS Periodic table?

And while we're at it, the article cited above is titled 'unsung elements'. We already have had a discussion of base metals, so it is only natural to suggest expanding the categorization to include Sopranos, Altos and Tenors? Of course, we will no doubt get into a multi-month, multi-megabyte discussion about what to do with those pesky Baritones! YBG (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"New Scientist", I think. Nice puns! Double sharp (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Most baritones are simply post-sopranos, but there are those baritonoïds and even confusing polysonic basses or inert altos. -DePiep (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Lu, Lr above or below: undecided (my preference: above, stronger structure by color recognition ie, easier to imagine the block being in above).

Victoria station, London

current: NO GAP 18-col Periodic table base: PT 18-col

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11-18
1	Template:Element cell-1		N
2	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
3	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
4	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
5	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
6	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
7	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	**	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
Lanthinides				*	Template:Element cell-1	58–69 12x		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
Actinides				**	Template:Element cell-1	90–101 12x		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1

GAP, Lu Lr below (sandbox)

	1	2		3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11-18
1	Template:Element cell-1		Y
2	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
3	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
4	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
5	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
6	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	*		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
7	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	**		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
				*	Template:Element cell-1	58–69 12x		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
				**	Template:Element cell-1	90–101 12x		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1

GAP, Lu Lr above

	1	2		3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11-18
1	Template:Element cell-1		Y
2	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
3	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
4	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
5	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
6	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	*	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
7	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	**	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
				*	Template:Element cell-1	58–69 12x		Template:Element cell-1
				**	Template:Element cell-1	90–101 12x		Template:Element cell-1

Added demo

Range numbers in the gap

As suggested by Sandbh 10:03 4 Dec, above.

RANGE NUMBERS in the GAP, Lu Lr above

	1	2			3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11-18
1	Template:Element cell-1		Y
2	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
3	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
4	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1			Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
5	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1			Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
6	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	57–70		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
7	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	89–102		Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1	Template:Element cell-1
			57–70		Template:Element cell-1	58–69 12x		Template:Element cell-1
			89–102		Template:Element cell-1	90–101 12x		Template:Element cell-1

• See also current sandbox demos: PT (standard), PT (large version).

This is just a talkpage-simplified scheme, with essence only. Undecided yet: the range-boxes could be colored or uncolored.

• Other demos: PT image, demo|right|50px, PT image, current version

Please discuss this below in the thread, not right here. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Discuss graphical issues

As I stated in 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Periodic_table, I would be against elements in the footnote and in the bulk of the table having the same color as a purely editorial matter. Using an asterisk and double-asterisk as typographical devices directing the reader to footnotes has historically meant that material within the footnotes is very unique and distinct from what occurs above. In the case of the periodic table, the chemical reality of course is that this aint so. Elements is elements and the long table is best. But for the 18-column table, the general-purpose reader of Wikipedia is best served (at least for now) by continuing to maintain historical editorial conventions. If Wikipedia chose for some reason to color the d-block separately from the f-block in its standard 18-column table (which I don't recommend), then I would be in favor of delivering Lu and Lr up out of the footnote and nicely placing them below Sc and Y as Scerri has done. If IUPAC does follow the lead of Scerri and others to take a definitive stand on exactly what constitutes a Group 3 element, then the international consensus would trump editorial conventions, and color-sharing between the footnote and the bulk would be required. Until then, I favor the current version. I also do not recommend adding a red X to the table. Red Xs are bad. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If it ain't so, why force it? Is it just because of our colour scheme? Sc and Y have closer links to the lanthanides than to their neighbours the transition metals, so in any case there'd be colour mixing (rare earth metals). In the periodic table, the asterisks were always just for convenience, pulling out the f-block for a nicer aspect ratio. Lu is also not so very different from Hf (both behave quite d-block-element-like, similarly to Y and Zr), as is La from Ba (La has close ties to the main group elements). Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This is and was merely an editorial preference and opinion about color schemes and footnotes that do or do not match. None of the decisions being considered about this matter would be particularly mockable or fun if they're implemented correctly. So it's not as if the editors here were overemphasizing a little-used, historically-ambiguous, and unsound element category. If the editors here do decide to spatially separate the f-block from the d-block without further textual explanation in the layout beyond an asterisk or two then a reader may form the opinion that some elements of the same color belong in one location while other elements of that color belong in another place. If that's what's best for the reader, have at it. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Why yes, they do: La–Yb belong in the f-block and Lu belongs in the d-block. Isn't that correct? Then of course they belong in a different place in the table, right? So is your argument just "the lanthanides should be kept together because we colour them as a category"? Doesn't look like a very strong argument to me, certainly not strong enough to override more pertinent physical and chemical concerns.

And yes, I see what you did there with your little-supported, historically-on-Wikipedia-found-invalid, and completely uncalled for unsound scornful reference to "poor metals" as a category. Double sharp (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

re Flying Jazz: None of the decisions [...] would be particularly mockable or fun if they're implemented correctly. Nonsense argument. "Fun" does not define correctness/incorrectness. Unscientific arguing. -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

re Flying Jazz: overemphasizing a little-used, historically-ambiguous, and unsound element category. Off-topic, distracting. This section is about how to implement the Vote-proposals A and B in an 18-column table. Easy self check: if an argument also applies to a 32-column PT, is does not belong in this section. -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

re Flying Jazz. ::Unfortunately, the links in the 2006 link (IUPAC) appear dead by now.

The asterisk–footnote association you mention I find not to the point in this situation. The "footnote" you describe is used in print with inline text, and then also for mere details and references. However, in a table an asterisk is commonly used as marker/legend/key, together with other typographic symbols. Both in print and digitally. Same for the specific periodic tabel. And being digital, we could also add a hyperlink to the asterisk(s) to anything useful, though that doesn't seem useful in the PT situation. Used as it is current way in a PT, the asterisks nicely associate their PT-position with an element set below (that we mention 'footnote' sometimes for lack of a better word). I do not see how that would be confusing or misleading. Al together, in that historical usage of the asterisk I find no argument to limit our PT to just that usage and meaning.

Historical editorial conventions for the 18-column table do not occur uniform to me. Given that it is an editorial freedom (just as long as the facts are represented correctly), the argument of history I give little weight, because it does not solve the question. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

And yes, if IUPAC would ... then we'll have to revisit this PT. Today, that is not the case.

I fully agree that first and foremost we should use the 32-column periodic table. Only when forced by circumstances we hesitantly look at an 18-column one. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• About #Range numbers in the gap: I have added a demo PT above, from Sandbh's suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The range numbers seem a bit bulky to me, drawing far too much attention to the gap. Whereas to my mind, the asterisks make the gap obvious and obviously important but not too large and obtrusive. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the sandboxes. The demos here on this page are just content examples (with structure), not a typographical presentation at all. And to reduce that attention, we can consider de-coloring those two range boxes. Also, there is room & argument to use both asterisk & range (note that we do not use an "18-column compact PT" now -- we do, see group names (sandbox)). -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. They make a big outstanding block (two) that is not even en element. Not coloring them stays an option. -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: I created bigger asterisks in the sandboxes (sizeable), not those inline-superscripts any more. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandbh asked "could the 57-70 box and the 89-102 box etc have the same width as the rest of the columns?". See the actual linked sandboxes, they are equal (in my screen). -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Boxes on the medium-long version look equal width to me. The 89-102 numbers look like they encroach onto the left and right boundaries of the box. Would it be possible to use a smaller font size? Also, I know this is only proof of concept but could the box borders also be made the same as all the other box borders? Sandbh (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A border (any border) would make it look more like a single element box, not 14. (For this, some extra cell width would good too). Exactly that is what I want to prevent at all costs, because it is one of the PT basics (one cell - one element). It also prevents the question: which border? These 14 have mixed occurrences, and a "neutral" border is difficult/is what we have. - DePiep (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In this layout, all-columns-equal-width, no text will overflow cell border, ever (would be bad browser/erroneous). The setting enforces long text to continue under the next cell. (In my screen I see a small example in the hyphen of Lawren-cium, 103). So, the range should not show border crossing. And since we do have a 1px border, there is no overflow. So I conclude/suggest: since no text overflows, we don't need to go to a smaller fontsize. -DePiep (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Webelements mainly shows block colors (isn't that a bit like cheating on us?), categories not even mentioned (?). They do use a gap. This is how they do the asterisks: [7]. Note the Lu Lr / Ln An error. -DePiep (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

I took a look at Amazons periodic table posters. It sure looks like we're gonna make waves with that gap: most or all have groups 2-3-4 glued in various ways (leaving the group 3-situation obscure and ambiguous). In general, they are variants all over. This is what Scerri and we are up to. (A nice way to put ourselves in one line with Scerri ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Graphical issues

• Image: PT image, current version, PT image, demo 1 (talkpage image, may evolve). →
• See also: {{Periodic table/sandbox}} for {{Periodic table}}
• See also: {{Periodic table (large version)/sandbox}} for {{Periodic table (large version)}}

Note: in the svg image, there is no space for range numbers (like 57–70) (now in demo to check this -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)). I choose to remove the gap coloring, because it makes distracting attention (Double sharp) and that it is not an element cell at all (I say). Where to position the cells below, horizontally? -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Would personally say to have La and Ac line up under group 3, because it nicely shows the actinide pseudohomologues of the early transition metal groups. (It also looks neat and symmetrical.) Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Personally, I would remove the six asterisks and reinstate the gap colouring but not put borders around the gap colour boxes. Sandbh (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, La and Ac should be above, good structural clarification as Ds says. I add (pet topic) that it leaves even less confusion on where the below-block should go.

The asterisks I'd prefer to keep for the structural and educational purposes. The gap position is not an element, while colors would atrract double attention for their irregularity. Also, keeping them gives a not to be misunderstood solution on where the below-block should go. The longer I work with PTs here, the stranger I find it that this mental 18-to-32-column transformation was overlooked so long.

Were there width, we sure should add the range numbers too (like 57–70) in the gap, because it is very clarifying to the row-reading reader (that is in detail; the asterisks work for the glances). But as we use it today, the image only may use half a page width. So, no changes from me. -DePiep (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Might there be room enough to put 57-70 and 89-102, using hyphens and not em dashes? Oh, and in a smaller font? Sandbh (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thought about that. Note that we use this image in primarily thePeriodic table lede, at 375px width (about half a page width, with me). That is about the max width or over it, for good page layout. So, if we use smaller font the default size is not enough. That was my background reasoning. Widening the gap for these numbers I disapprove because it pulls attention to the void (as mentioned earlier). As we know omitting the numbers does not make the PT wrong.

Come time, I'll change the demo as asked, to prove my point ;-). -DePiep (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Numbers in the gap added to demonstrate (request by sandbh). The demo is labeled "2013-12-30". Notes:

This image is used in width 375px in top of Periodic table, which is a maximum for page layout reason. One should not assume a larger picture to prove legiblity.

The gap range still is uncolored.

Other issues from this discussion (like poor metal colors). -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

R8R: We should probably keep lanthanides

(actually empty for now, but I will fill in this section sometime soon. Saving to show I intend to, to you and myself. Also have an IP to talk about nonmetals with)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

R8R here. Over time, I did some considerations and I don't think REE is a horrible idea; still, I would like lanthanides better. Before giving my thoughts, let's analyze Sandbh's arguments.

1.'Rare earth metals' is an officially recognised IUPAC collective name for Sc, Y and the lanthanides.

As is "lanthanides" (okay, "lanthanoids," it doesn't seem to matter)

Agree. My argument here was only to note that in terms of IUPAC officially approved terms, rare earth metals had equal weight. Ditto chalcogens, pnictogens etc. Sandbh (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

2. A failing of the IUPAC definition of a transition element ('An element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations with an incomplete d sub-shell.') is that La, Gd, and Lu should all be counted as transition metals. However they are instead routinely recognised as lanthanides or rare earths, on the basis of their common properties. Same thing happens with Ac, Th, Pa, U, Np and Cm. They meet the IUPAC definition of TMs but are instead recognised as actinides, again on the basis of common properties.

This one, I don't get. How does it say REE is a better (or worse) idea?

Oh, that one was to just say that if Sc and Y were coloured as rare earth metals there would be no particular IUPAC-transgression given the current state of affairs, as described above. REE would result in a cleaner outcome, more reflective of the actual characteristics of the elements involved. Related to arguments 3, 4, 5 and 6.

3. A majority of UK-based chemistry syllabi according to Jim Clark of chemguide.com, don't treat Sc and Y as transition metals because they don't form transition metal ions (i.e. those having incompletely filled d orbitals).

That, while being a questionable argument, is true. But why care only UK (I ask about using this as a pro-REE argument)? What about the rest of the world? I believe Jim did no calculations, and tells everything from his experience. (I still believe it's true anyway.) But from my experience (Google Books and stuff), I can tell the opposite thing (for real). Not sure which books I encounter most often. I guess, American ones. Whatever. Again. I can tell most books I've seen (which is not a geographically bounded view) do treat Sc and Y as TMs. Does it annul this argument?

Yes, it wasn't my intention to ignore the rest of the world. The line about the majority of UK-based syllabi was more of an observation adding weight to the argument. As per your experience, most books I’ve seen, most of which would be American, count Sc and Y as transition metals. Largely, this is because these authors rely on the single (physics-based) differentiating electron argument at the expense of stronger chemistry-based considerations (which is odd, given most of the authors in question are chemists). So, no, I reckon that the 'most books observation' doesn't annul argument #3 or, expressed another way, 'Never mind the width, feel the quality'.

Cotton & Wilkinson, the American standard according to Jensen, lean towards Sc and Y as rare earth elements. I say 'lean' as they first describe Sc and Y as 'main transition group or d bock elements' and then treat them in their chapter on 'The group 3 elements and the lanthanides' for the reason that 'the properties of Y are extremely similar to, and those of Sc mainly like, those of the lanthanide elements proper, and quite different [italics added] from those of the regular d-block elements.' They also comment that since 'both La and Lu have partially filled d shells…it might be argued that both of these should be considered d-block elements. However, for chemical reasons, it would be unwise to classify them in this way, since all the 15 elements La…Lu have very similar chemical and physical properties…' It's interesting that they say an argument could be made for treating La and Lu as d-block elements (which they are, strictly speaking) but that this would be 'unwise’ for chemo-physical reasons. Same argument applies to, as I see it, treating Sc and Y as rare earths rather than transition metals.

Wiberg, the German standard (again according to Jensen), treats the Group 3 elements as transition metals but notes in respect of their limited capacity to exhibit formal oxidation states < +3, that they are not typical [their italics, not mine] transition elements.

I don't know what the Russian standard is.

Overall, the strength of sources that don't classify group 3 elements as transition metals is stronger than those that do. Sandbh (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

4. References that treat Sc and Y as transition metals usually include words to the effect that, or which imply that, the group 3 metals are "atypical" TMs as they demonstrate very few TM properties. Often the group 3 metals are included in the chapter or section dealing with the lanthanides or rare earths, on account of their related properties.

Re Sc&Y are TMs. Not sure if "usually" is the word, but this does occur, at least often. True.

Re together w/ group 3. Also true.

5. By colouring Sc, Y and the lanthanides as rare earth metals we sidestep the 'are-group-3-elements-TMs-or-not debate', and associated differences in periodic table representations, whilst remaining IUPAC observant. The debate can be noted, for example, in the group 3 article (e.g. in terms of the differentiating electron, they could be regarded as TMs however in terms of their overall properties they are closer to the lanthanides). We also avoid the need for mixed categories.

No, we don't. There's no way to drop the debate, except for the cowardly misinterpretable stripes (sadly). In this case, we switch to the "group 3 is not TMs" view. Seriously, if I weren't familiar with these discussions and stuff, and saw this for the first time, I would go complain on the talkpage of... well, anything. Also see below. By the way (don't consider this an argument, just an observation), the debate has never been so hot here in Wiki as the "La/Lu/both is a lanthanide" debate. Maybe because people are satisfied with things the way they are today. (OTOH, maybe just fewer people care. I don't know.)

I had in mind side-stepping the debate about whether they were or weren't TMs by colouring them as rare earth metals, thereby side-stepping the singular differentiating electron argument and focusing instead on more informative and chemistry-meaningful shared properties. Sandbh (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the La/Lu/lanthanide debate is hotter because it's immediately obvious from periodic tables. You don't see the group-3-as-transition-metals debate quite as often because not all tables have element category colouring. Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

6. Most of the rare earth metals are not particularly rare however deposits that are large and concentrated enough to be worth mining are rare, hence the continuing relevance of the name. The near-ubiquity of the rare earth metals in modern technology, combined with supply concerns, has also raised popular interest in this previously lesser known category of metals. Related quotes: 1. 'Basic rare-earth science has not been a focus of most U.S. research centers for quite a long time, "but suddenly it has come roaring back…"; 2. 'The rare earths are very much…of strategic importance to the defense industry…'; 3. 'During the past twenty years there has been an explosion in demand for many items that require rare earth metals…global demand for automobiles, consumer electronics, energy efficient lighting and catalysts is expected to rise rapidly in the future. Rare earth elements are heavily used in all of these industries and their use is expected to rise.'

Okay, REE is an industry term, but we're talking about chemistry here (which are different things for Wiki: you can write "aluminum" when writing about industry, but not about chemistry, in which case you have to spell it "aluminium" even if you write in AmE.) We're discussing chemistry. Industry can have REE whatever the outcome. (if that isn't an answer to what you wrote, then I don't understand the relevance of this to the discussion.)

I was attempting to demonstrate the continuing relevance of the meaning of the name, and its cross-over into more general use within industry, mining and stock markets. I agree and disagree that our periodic table is just about chemistry. Agree in that, in chemistry terms, Sc and Y are more like rare earths than transition metals. Disagree in that chemistry is also about applied chemistry and it is here that the rare earths have a stronger profile (or at least that is my impression). Sandbh (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So if we color Sc and Y same color as lanthanides, then what?

1. We'll lose the lanthanides--actinides parallel. It's definitely not the end of the world, but I'd love to notice my brain would try to (it always does when I think about this issue) build one at the expense of group 4, and that is distracting. (Maybe it's just me, so don't consider this as an argument.)

2. We will make group 3 look like not being TM, which is a wrong thing to do, because it's not what most people expect to see (I think, see above.) Also some thoughts about how we color cells today in that region:

• It doesn't come naturally why Y is a TM and Lu isn't.
• Given this and the fact Lu has to be (in current paradigm) be a lanthanide, so in my head it's like "We would color you as a TM, little Lu, but you're also cursed to be a lanthanide, and thus entitled to ruin the TM set structure. It's clear just from the table you're a TM anyway, because Y is, and there's no reason you wouldn't be, except for the lanthanide curse."
• That is bad and unclear, but there are no better options (I can't come up with one (given ambiguous stripes are bad). Anyone?).
• (However, if we color Sc and Y as REE, the brain would have no clue they're also TMs. Al least mine wouldn't.)

(I had some more thoughts in my mind. I'll let you know if I recall those. Also, thanks for your patience.)

In short: I believe the pro-REE arguments, while mostly having a point, do not outweigh the counter-REE (pro-lanthanides) arguments, and it is thus better to keep lanthanides.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking ahead before having completed all of my responses to your other comments above.

1. If we keep the lanthanides then we colour Sc, Y, Lu and Lr as TMs?
2. If 2 is OK, then we could include Lu and Lr with the lanthanides and the actinides in their respective articles, but still show them coloured as TMs?
3. If Lr turns out to have a p differentiating electron rather than a d differentiating electron then we treat Lr as a TM with an anomalous electronic configuration, in the same way that La is treated as a lanthanide with an anomalous electronic configuration? Sandbh (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

On 3, your friendly superheavy-element-obsessed-editor (me) says yes.

If we're going to colour Sc and Y as TMs (honestly I'm thinking now that it is the best idea, because it is what many will expect to see; although they are atypical chemically they do share the physical properties and have a much stronger claim that group 12), it would make sense to colour Lu and Lr so as well. Although their relationship with the lanthanide and actinide series is also important. I need some time to think about this... Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep, Double sharp, and R8R Gtrs:: Thinking more about this difficult question at some length, I'm now inclined to think that we (a) keep the lanthanides; (b) show Sc and Y as transition metals; and (c) position Lu and Lr below Y and colour them as, respectively, a lanthanide and an actinide. Other options I've thought about have their own internal logic inconsistencies or become too hard to explain. This would mean that group 3 would be comprised of two transition metals—even if they're only marginal TMs—and a lanthanide and an actinide. Lutetium and lawrencium have too many Ln and An friends, respectively, to warrant doing otherwise. The result would be a least bad solution rather than an ideal solution: I'm not sure there is one of these. Sandbh (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem with this one. Though I find the "friends of Ln" and "people expect" arguments here shallow, or even unacceptable. As I see this: REM will not be present in our vanilla PT. The gap (between groups 2 and 3) will stay. Topical articles will be written accordingly then (e.g., REM as a secondary grouping). Busy IRL though. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with this. Not completely okay, but I wouldn't be with whatever else as well. Just I want to note Lu should be not just a lanthanide, but both lanthanide and a TM. So we color it as a lanthanide, and write in the infobox, in front of "Element category": "lanthanide, transition metal," with just a comma between the two categories. (For lanthanum, we write "lanthanide, sometimes also (note this also) considered a transition metal.) Same with Lr and Ac. Objections?

Also, I just noticed that if I place the cursor over a lanthanide in the infobox mimni PT, it displays "cerium (lanthanoid)." Why do we use the IUPAC's "lanthanoid" term?--R8R (talk 10:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a rare case where common usage (lanthanide) should trump IUPAC. So yeah, it should be changed to "lanthanide". Double sharp (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Perspectives from the literature

Comments to follow. Sandbh (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A. Seaborg 1949:

'It is not proposed that this particular form of the periodic table has any more merit than any of a number of others which place these elements in positions homologous to the rare-earth elements, since it is obvious that they can be analogously placed in a number of other types of tables or charts. The elements 90 to 96 inclusive or the first few of them could in addition be listed separately below the 5d elements in recognition of the resemblance of the first of these to 5d elements. This appears to be undesirable, however, since the last members of this group bear no such resemblance and it is probably impossible to draw a line as to just where the resemblance ends.'

• Seaborg GT 1949, 'Place in periodic system and electronic structure of the heaviest elements', Nucleonics, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 16–36 (32)

B. Moeller 1963:

'The over-all properties of the lanthanides suggest that they are members of a subgroup within Periodic Group III (i.e., family IIIb). The ground-state electronic configurations [of Sc, Y, La and Ac] indicate clearly that the elements usually listed in this family are the first members of the four d-type transition series.

Whether the fundamental configuration is 4fⁿ/5d¹/6s² or 4fⁿ⁺¹/6s² is of far less chemical than physical significance, since the energy differences are too small to alter many chemical properties. To some extent, lanthanum and lutetium are cases in point, since their observed chemical characteristics are nearly the same as those of the adjacent lanthanides.

That such similar electronic configurations should result in striking similarities among the chemical properties of the lanthanides is both reasonable and in keeping with experimental observation. The 4f electrons differentiating the several elements from one another are sufficiently well shielded by intervening electron shells as to be largely unavailable for chemical interaction, and this feature distinguishes the lanthanides from the d-type transition elements, in which the d electrons are the "outermost" or valence electrons and are involved when chemical reactions occur.

The fundamental similarity in "outer" electronic configuration between the lanthanides and scandium, yttrium, and actinium favors classification of all these elements together in the same periodic family. The physical limitations of the Periodic Table as it is usually drawn, however, result in our placing the lanthanides (and actinides) apart from the remaining elements. Neither scandium nor yttrium is properly a lanthanide, as far as electronic configuration is concerned, nor properly is lanthanum since it has no 4f electrons. Property-wise, as has been indicated and will be shown further in the next section, yttrium and lanthanum are better discussed with the lanthanides than with any other elements. Scandium, on the other hand, is markedly different {p, 24). Even though scandium was first isolated from yttria sources (Table 1.2), its primary mode of natural occurrence is not with the lanthanides.'

• Moeller T 1963, The chemistry of the lanthanides, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 13–16

C. Cotton 1999:

'Although not a rare element, scandium is expensive to study because its even distribition in the earth means that there are no rich ores. Another factor that has tended to restrict its study is that in its inorganic chemistry scandium exhibits exclusively the +3 oxidation state, so that it is not classed as a transition metal and is not amenable to study by most of the usual spectroscopic tools of the coordination chemist.'

• Cotton SA 1999, 'Recent advances in the chemistry of scandium,' Polyhedron, vol. 18, pp. 1691–1715 (1691), doi:10.1016/S0277-5387(99)00039-X

D. MMH 2002:

'The chemistry of the scandium Group links strongly…with that of the f elements. Indeed, the general chemistry of the lanthanides in the III state is almost identical with that of yttrium and lanthanum. There are bigger differences between the chemistry of actinium and the actinide elements. It is convenient to treat scandium, yttrium, lanthanium, actinium and the lanthanides all together, and to treat the actinides independently.'

• MacKay KM, MacKay RA & Henderson W 2002, Introduction to modern inorganic chemistry, 6th ed., Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham, p. 196

E. Kirby & Morss 2010:

'The chemistry of actinium closely follows that of lanthanum. There are no qualitative differences between them; the only quantitative differences are those attributable to the differences in their ion ionic radii (1.12 Å for Ac³⁺ and 1.032 Å for La³⁺ in six-fold coordination)…Because of this similarity, lanthanum is nearly ideal surrogate [sic] for actinium in the development of preparative or analytical procedures. As a carrier for trace amounts of actinium, lanthanum suffers from only one disadvantage: Once mixed, the two elements behave like any pair of adjacent rare earths and can only be separated by ion-exhange chromatography, solvent extraction, or fractional crystallization.'

• Kirby HW and Morss LR 2010, 'Actium', in LR Morss, NM Edelstein & J Fuger (eds), The chemistry of the actinide and transactinide elements, vol. 1, 4th ed., Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 18–51 (18)

F. Fernandez & Ripka 2013:

'The idea that there might exist a new family of elements, which have very similar chemical properties, as the rare earth elements do, was not really new. As early as 1921, Bohr had explained the similarity of chemical properties of lanthanides by the fact that their outer electron orbit, with "six quanta" and responsible for most of their chemical properties, contained two electrons, whereas the inner orbits, with 4 or 5 quanta, were filled progressively as one went from lanthanum to lutetium. In the table of elements which he presented at the famous Bohr Festival in Göttingen in 1922, Bohr had drawn a (dotted line) frame indicating the possible existence of a new family of very similar substances, without however insisting. In his Nobel speech on November 11, 1922, he restated this possibility, adding that nothing could be claimed with certainty, because too few elements in that region were known at the time. In 1935, the German chemist Aristid von Grosse, who had emigrated to the United States, mentioned explicitly this possibility. The results obtained by McMillan, Abelson, and Seaborg certainly pointed in the direction. One should also mention the theoretical calculation of the German physicist Marie Goeppert-Mayer, who also emigrated to the United States. In a paper published in 1941, she showed the existence of another series of "rare earth" elements (as McMillan and Abelson called them) was theoretically not only possible but also very likely. According to her calculations, this series of new elements could even begin before uranium, starting with the element 91 (praseodymium). In a secret document sent to the uranium committee in 1942 and published only in 1948, Seaborg gives a detailed list of the chemical properties of neptunium and plutonium. He concludes, as McMillan and Abelson did, that there could well exist a new family of "rare earths," the first element of which could be uranium, thorium, or even actinium. In 1945, he became convinced that the family started with actinium, and he proposed to call the elements actinides, as had been done for lanthanides.'

• Fernandez B & Ripka G 2013, Unraveling the mystery of the atomic nucleus: A sixty year journey 1896 — 1956, Springer Science+Business Media, New York, p. 428

Well, after all this, I've come 'round again to the arrangement set out above: (a) keep the lanthanides; (b) show Sc and Y as (marginal) transition metals; and (c) position Lu and Lr below Y and colour them as, respectively, a lanthanide and an actinide. I do like the fact, as noted below in my vote re Element Infobox, that this will enable Sc-Y-Lu-Lr...La-Ac, which is about as close as we'll probably be able to get to attempting to depict what's going in group 3. I'll think about all of this some more, one last time. Sandbh (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Double sharp: That's it for me. No better ideas. I'll await your deliberations, as you flagged previously. Sandbh (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The large difference between Ac and the other actinides from Th onwards is the clincher for me. Because it doesn't really make sense to remove it from the actinides category to show its close relationship with La, I feel it also isn't sensible to put Sc and Y with the lanthanides because it misses Ac from the area of lanthanide-like elements. So I think we should keep lanthanides.

Like I've mentioned before, I like using Sc/Y/Lu/Lr while also aligning La and Ac to be just below group 3, just like what you suggest. This shows the Sc/Y/La/Ac relationship as well as the pseudohomology between the early actinides and the corresponding transition metals (e.g. Zr/Hf/Th, Nb/Ta/Pa, Mo/W/U, Tc/Re/Np, Ru/Os/Pu). Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Vote sitrep

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) votes 1 and 2 don't get up, for want of consensus. This would mean that we continue to show 15 lanthanide boxes under our 18-column table. It would also mean that we would keep the lanthanides category. As for Group 12, I believe FJ doesn't mind if we do or don't show them as TMs, as long as we don't call them poor metals. That's fine, we cld colour them as part of the proposed 'aluminium and the post-transition metals' category. However, both @Plasmic Physics: and @King jakob c 2: are opposed, the former on the basis that the group 12 metals exhibit some TM properties; the latter on the basis of what they regard as established convention. I intend to ask Plasmic Physics and King Jakob if they might be prepared to change their votes to Neutral, on essentially the grounds that, as FJ has noted, Wikipedia cld go either way wrt to Group 12. Failing that, Group 12 will remain as transition metals and the best we could do would be to mention their similarity in properties to the poor metals, in the poor metals article. Sandbh (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't have to be unanimous (neither does it have to come from a vote). But we do need to incorporate all legitimate concerns (so I'd still wait for R8R to write on his reasons for preferring Ln to REM; I'm really curious about it). So I think they could still go through, but since R8R wants to say something we'll certainly wait for him to do so. Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess its "A, B" you mean to say (not 1, 2). "A" (gourp 3). Jakob says that "A" is "not common" in the world, but with not much base. Axiosaurus simply opposes without much clarification (contrary). User:Petergans talked at WT:CHEM obviously, and at his talk I had a long overview of this issue. I urged him to vote here & start the argument (for Scerri figure 6, not this A), but to no avail. I conclude that no oppose vote is blocking this choice.

"B" (REMs). Opposition is because "use most common", and "lumping ... will add confusion". I'm sorry, I can not weigh this as arguments. Also the suggestion that the proposal is a rejection of other forms (Jacob) is incorrect (& that would be valid for every version). Anxious to hear from R8R though.

"C" group 12. FJ has not elaborated any remarks into arguments. Their vote here reads being void of argument, and can be discarded for being off-topic. FJ's contributions outside of the vote did not help to focus on the topic either. Plus, what Sandbh reads from it.

Overall, I can see a decision consensus in A, B and C. Arguments "I am not used to it" and "there is another correct possibility" are valid, but should not keep us at WP to decide anything. What is missing is: the same can be said of eavery earlier version; but how is this not an imporovement?. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Naming in C is detail, and could not block the higher outcome (group 12 change). -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Having now read Consensus properly, I see where you (and DS) are coming from, and agree with your better stated summary of the situation.Sandbh (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. If we at WP were not allowed to choose and change a PT presentation (scientifically sourced, alternatives noted), only because it is different from the current one (how was that a consensus? FJ gave us a taste -- not that sweet), one rejected for "is not the common one", than we better leave the lab and go do something else. Let's not forget to delete Janet's left step, Pyykkö's variants (how dare he), 699 of Mendeleevs 700 variants (and take back his nobel prize), and write an angry lecturing letter to the Seaborgia empire. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No changes. This entire set of choices reflects a busybody mentality that I just don't understand. Arguments are framed in this project in the most biased way imaginable.

A) For the physical location of the elements Lu, Lr, La, and Ac in Wikipedia's main periodic table, http://goldbook.iupac.org/fileadmin/user_upload/news/IUPAC_Periodic_Table-1May13.html (referred to in http://goldbook.iupac.org/highlights/periodic-table-of-the-elements.html looks just about the same as it did in 2005 when it was at a different URL. Wikipedia's arrangement is the same as it was in 2005 with respect to these 4 elements. I know about Scerri. I know IUPAC doesn't have a formal position. I wrote at Wikipedia about Jensen's paper eight years ago. When both Wikipedia's table and the table referred to most often at the IUPAC web site have remained unchanged for eight years, maybe that's the best time for arguing because everything has just been too quiet?

B) See the URL above from IUPAC. Feeling lazy? OK. I'll repeat it again: http://goldbook.iupac.org/fileadmin/user_upload/news/IUPAC_Periodic_Table-1May13.html . Because they only color Lanthanides and Actinides on their table and it's critical that our editorial choices reflect a superior intellect to IUPAC, perhaps we must color rare earth metals. Or maybe someone wants Wikipedia to take a position about group 3, so we need to emphasize that position. Lord knows why this was proposed. It's a busybody mentality. I don't understand it. All changes are represented as being good for their own sake. I'm expected to take a Wikipedia editor seriously when a sentence begins with "A failing of the IUPAC definition..." Here's a simple question: Are inner transition elements also transition elements? This is word-play.

C) When things could go either way, keep 'em as they are. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Stubs of brand new articles!

Well I went ahead and made stubs for those articles I was talking about before. As I said, I totally don't have the qualifications to work on any of these (considering I didnt take part in any of those intense discussions you guys were having). But hopefully you can use these skeletons as the templates for really great articles.--Coin945 (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation of the periodic table

Discuss what needs to be done to improve this article below.--Coin945 (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Placement of hydrogen in the periodic table

Discuss what needs to be done to improve this article below.--Coin945 (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Placement of lanthanides and actinides in the periodic table

Discuss what needs to be done to improve this article below.--Coin945 (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Naming of elements

Discuss what needs to be done to improve this article below.--Coin945 (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And look at how much energy was spent building content after those humongous discussions! And those discussions had humongous lists of refs also!!!! Nergaal (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm working on polytopes for the moment (I do need a vacation after that discussion megacluster), but I feel an urge to get to this brought on by your comment. Some time this week, perhaps? Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There surely are better processes to get that content, but Coin945 is expressing good faith only. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, all i ever wanted to do was provide a solution to those horrifically long discussions that probably deterred many people from contributing to this WikiPeoject (and certainly slowed down the number of GAs/FAs). It was never my intention to do anything more. Improve the articles, or delete them. Either way I offered them as a constructive alternative that would solve everybody's problems and hopefully bring some order to the project. But as I explained, I will not improve them myself.--Coin945 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case & cause, we can be more rigorous with these stubs. Delete them, and develop them as a section in an appropriate article. No one has prevented you from doing so in the first place. And of course, discussions here are horrifically long for a reason. Or did you have a shortcut solution for one of the issues in p-block? -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In case you didnt read the discussion above, ill sum it up here. In a nutshell, my reasoning was that there were no easy answers to any of these issues and teher would always be conflicting opinions, so rather than having a situation where one side will inevitably lose and probably be really angry.annoyed, by creating an article that explains alt he different alternatives, and then adds a note saying that Wikipedia has arbitrarily chosen one of them for convenience, it is a much healthier way of going about the problem. So that is why I thgouht these articles should exist. It is out of my hands now.--Coin945 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course I read this page. While I know you are workig in good faith (and to improve the Elements), I do not support this route. Had a stub you made been filled by now, you'd have a point for that one. Now there is none. -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: Actually, the naming of elements stub has been filled in. --Jakob (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is acceptable, one less to delete. Fine with me. I still don't see how these new article stubs clarify the Elements and their Relations. (Where is the love, for example. Or their chemistry? ;-) )-DePiep (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sulfur (pharmacy)

I wonder what this community thinks about this recent article specifically aimed at the medical apps of sulfur. Although the creation of this article is well intentioned, my recommendation is against its creation separate from sulfur. One could imagine that similar articles could be written for all the elements. Examples: Lithium (reducing agent), Oxygen (health benefits), Uranium (as nuclear fuel), etc. So I encourage editors to comment on this precedent. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it should be merged, but to octasulfur, not sulfur as Sulfur (pharmacy) appears to be S₈ not S. --Jakob (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sulfur is 99% octasulfur. Octasulfur should probably be part of Allotropes of sulfur. These articles are being created etc by editors who are inexpert on sulfur chem. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think a merge to Sulpha might be better. (I wonder if in-fact the article was supposed to be about those drugs?) Project Osprey (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

We have Lithium (medication), and if someone had time it would be easy to make a long article about lithium as reduction agent too. We have uranium mining, and in matter of fact we have Uranium (as nuclear fuel), its called Nuclear fission, we have the opposite of oxygen (heath benefits), named Oxygen toxicity. I think we should look at the article and if its not notable it should be merge or deleted. Christian75 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

PT basic footnote could be better

• See Talk:Periodic_table#The_basic_PT_note. The footnote could be better, I think. It's an FA. -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Progress Eh, Tillie, Copper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today's singular Other metal/Post-transition metal move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Nergaal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I note that Nergaal in the original move [[8]] used an other argument that in this whole thread. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other is an undefined word here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI notice

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

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

Comments

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

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

If I understand it well, this was solved at 23:53 [9]. talk:Other metal should be OK. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other main group metal

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

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

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

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

History

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

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

And earlier (2007) posts from Flying Jazz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post-transition metals says the same thing as mav's term (clearly the metals run out where metalioids start) and has the virtue of being a literature term, and shorter. See [10]. I certainly agree that an article called "Other metals" (as we have now) is ridiculous! SBHarris 00:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

If we exclude other metals from consideration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flying Jazz writes: "I think you're behaving like a clueless troll", "your moronic questions", "behaving like a clueless troll", "How are you behaving like a clueless troll?" [11]. I have yet to see a discussion with Flying Jazz involved that did not turn nasty. Bad faith too: "the best I can hope for is to keep making fun of you and to keep calling you names until you grow tired of it and go away". FJ: don't expect from me to clean up your writings to find some sense in it. Better is to refrain from the dirt from the start. -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, to me it looks like this. That set of elements exists, as a set. The scientific community is not unisono about exactly which elements are included, nor on what base to define its borders, and clearly not on how to name it if at all. But that does not nullify the fact that that set exists (1). From this, it is encyclopedically sound to describe that set. Describe it, with importantly including a description of those border, inclusion, and naming issues (2). Omitting this encyclopedic description of that existing set, we'd leave the reader wondering in a vacuum. So we have (1) a set, (2) a reason and a need to describe it. Since in science there is no universally accepted name for that set, we are free and obliged to chose one ourselves. That is to be the title (or article page name) for the description of that set (3). The question Sandbh poses is, which one would be preferable for (3). -DePiep (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As for your first point, there are 332,306,998,946,228,968,225,951,765,070,086,024 (332 decillion) subsets that contain from 2 to 117 elements ( http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sum+of+118+choose+x+for+x%3D2+to+117 ). All of those 332 decillion exist. The existence of a set is of no relevance for whether the set should have an encyclopedia article about it. Your first point is nonsensical, irrelevant, ridiculous, and par for the course in this project. Your second point, that there is a reason to describe this set or the categorization process itself, is not ridiculous. The way to not leave the reader "wondering in a vacuum" and to accomplish this goal is to implement mav's proposal to direct the reader to "a section of another article that has a sentence or two that educates the reader." I wouldn't be in favor of the second part of mav's proposal about adding a note to the table. Your third point seems to be that an encyclopedia has some kind of obligation to make some name up for an article just because we've decided to categorize things a certain way. Creating an article to describe a term that is almost never used or is downright silly isn't what's needed to fulfill your second point. Mav's proposal accomplishes the goal of your second point for the reader without making up nonsense. Flying Jazz (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

we should get back to article work

For too much time now we have been debating endlessly over our element categorization scheme instead of achieving 2011 productivity levels. I guess I could start by finishing the half-finished (or more; often only a few subsections are missing) GA's I was working on – Np, Bh, Fl... Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)