Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 54

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sandbh in topic On the periodic table article more generally
Archive 50 ← Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 → Archive 60

Periodic table has an RFC

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Periodic table has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom filing

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

So as of yesterday, WP:ELEMENTS is up for Arbcom [1].

I won't (have to) reply to any talks, nor 'engage'. I consider all edits in this WP contested. For lack of discussion and lack of consensus. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I changed the name of this section, from WP:ELEMENTS, since the filing named five "involved editors", rather then the entire WP:ELEM project as such. Sandbh (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from EdChem

As all the current regular contributors to WT:ELEM are well aware, but for the sake of those unfamiliar with the project, there have been discussions at my user talk page that have led to me offering specific advice on Arbitration. ArbCom cases are never easy or pleasant and they can be brutal. It is a necessary process for intractable disputes that is something to avoid if that is possible, not least because outcomes may satisfy no one and can end disputes in ways that are wounding for many or even all of the editors involved. I advised that a path that may avoid a case being taken now, and hopefully avoid it ever being necessary, required those who have participated in reaching the present point providing ArbCom with a reason to delay taking a case or even declining it for now. I also said that this needed to come from the participants.

I am very encouraged to see the effect that my words have had. Discussions on user talk pages and in the section below have included many expressions of interest in rebuilding the collaborative spirit that WP:ELEM once had. I have been reading what I see but not commenting as I believe it is best that you can collaboratively decide what you want and how you want to do it. There are many 'right' ways to do this and I have not been asked to provide input, which I see as encouraging, and so am glad to see progress happening between you. When I wrote that I thought working together to give ArbCom an alternative was desirable or necessary, I do so without being certain what would happen. I knew there was a risk that a project-centred attempt for a settlement would degenerate and prove to ArbCom that their intervention was necessary. I am very pleased to see that the risk in my suggestion was worth taking. This project can emerge stronger (and with more participants) so long as the desire to rebuild remains strong.

I have also been watching to see which (if any) of the steps that I see as necessary in some form for this to work are happening. It is good to see that most have arisen in some form, though I believe that there are some difficulties that need to be faced for this to work ahead. These may not happen before ArbCom makes a decision, which I see as fine. One issue I have had concerns about since becoming involved is the way that efforts in multiple directions are pursued simultaneously. It is difficult to progress in many directions at once without a large team that will divide naturally into sub-groups based on interests, ideally with mutual respect and confidence between the groups. Sub-group membership is flexible and fluid, with outcomes returning to the whole project for ratification by acclamation or RfC. I see different issues coming up below, all of which are relevant / important, but which we might need to organise to approach sequentially rather than simultaneously. In no particular order, I think we need to consider:

  • placing some of the existing conflicts on hold – Double sharp has offered a path forward here that seems to be getting good support
  • clearing the air between editors – some excellent starts here, though I believe a frank and fearless discussion of ourselves and our concerns about others may be desirable. As an example, I was glad to see that R8R felt able to raise a concern about DePiep and did so in a reasonable way, and DePiep has undertaken to respond but wisely chose not to do so immediately and based on "first primitive reaction reflexes." This is certainly a step in the right direction, IMO.
  • discussion on how we want to handle disputes, both content-based and conduct-based, and those with overlaps – the ideas for project guidelines fit here.
  • contemplation of how we got here and what we have learned – in this regard, I suspect that binary thinking and dichotomies are one cause of issues. Double sharp writes below on categories that "(1) Refusing to use categories is in some sense undue weight because most sources use them, but (2) using any one particular set of categories may make things a little dicey around the boundaries where categorisations in the literature don't always agree (so, things like polonium or astatine). It seems to me that Sandbh has been more concerned about (1) while I have been more concerned about (2)." In this case, I have been wondering if the solution was not actually (π^2 − e) / 4.37 (and so between 1 and 2): using a set of categories that suit the particular application for the best support to our readers in the relevant context, and if a different set is more appropriate in another context, use that. Having a default for consistency need not mean that every circumstance uses the default. This also means that there are places where the La / Lu debate arises that showing PTs in both forms may best support our readers.
  • an objective look at what content problems there are in the project's articles – I pointed out issues with the early parts of the PT article, which produced general agreement that there was a problem. I had hoped that working together on a confined piece of text where the science is not disputed would allow us to not only make progress, but also hold discussions of policy issues where we should be able to find consensus. What references are needed for such information? Which RSs to choose, or are any ok? Are we using multiple references to SYNTH what we want, and if so, how do we fix it? What does a reader need to know (ie what is DUE), and who is our 'typical reader'? Is the presentation NPOV? Does the text meet the criteria in GA and FA? All these considerations and more are relevant for uncontested text and in areas where the answers are not clear, so making sure we are on the same page for non-controversial text can (a) help remind us of being a team working together to mutually-held goals and (b) help us to see what we have in common on policy and application. This can be extended later to more contentious areas.
  • I'm sure there are more.

Many will have noticed that brevity is not a strength of mine, though I do better in working on article space text.  :) My short message here is:

  1. Good job so far, keep it up – and I think that at least delaying an ArbCom case, and ultimately avoiding one, is increasingly likely
  2. This is the start, and it is most important that we keep going in the same general direction together
  3. Thank you for showing me that you do want end the conflicts (disagreements are inevitable at times, but they need not become wars) and strengthen this project, and thank you for doing so by showing everyone that you can work together and do want to work together

EdChem (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Another fine overview of the situation :-) but keeping track of the many locations you put them is getting difficult :-(
I replied at #Deciding_between_ourselves, though maybe not along the line you expected.
I feel the need for a freeze of those wide-ranging and TL;DR discussions currently at hand. And a status quo report for them. This may be hugely important, e.g. see this 25k removals today, by people who did not contribute to the talkpage yesterday. Nor did this editors adhere to the (your) principal issues & solutions with FA periodic table.
So far, Sandbh is the only one pingend who has not replied to Double sharps #Deciding_between_ourselves initiative; while still editing wide and rough. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: The discussion behind this was and is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Fresh_energy_for_the_periodic_table:_A_bold_start, in which EdChem's summary is indeed being referred to as a guide for a replacement section. As for Sandbh, I am personally completely satisfied with his response to me at his talk page. Double sharp (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC supporting information

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Relocated to my subpage. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

On the periodic table article more generally

Latest comment: 3 years ago77 comments6 people in discussion

I admit that I haven't read all of the above. I am aware of the La v Lu and related debates in the literature and here, and also on the style of colouring the PT on WP. I have also looked through our article on the periodic table, and I am wondering if the debates here are the most important, or whether they go to the issues from the perspective of encyclopaedic content. We are writing for the average of 30,000+ page viewers per day, most of whom will not be chemists with broad knowledge of the topic. Some examples:

Overview – the first section after the lede
I invite you all to stop for a moment and think about what a non-chemist needs to know in the overview of the PT at the start of our article. If you don't remember what is in our article, all the better. I suggest stopping to jot down a few points. If you were asked by someone about the PT, someone with little knowledge, what would you tell them?
Ok, here is the Overview we give. In sequence, it says:
  1. Below is a widely-used layout but there are others discussed later
  2. 18 column PT provided
  3. Every element has a Z giving the number of proton, followed by a note about Z = 0 for neutronium – which isn't on this PT and having mentioned only protons
  4. A section about differing neutrons and isotopes – which are not separated on the PT – and going on to atomic masses of of most stable of the non-stable isotopes in parentheses
  5. Listed in order of increasing Z. Rows/periods when a new electron shell has its first electron, columns / groups by electron configuration.
  6. "elements with the same number of electrons in a particular subshell fall into the same columns (e.g. oxygen and selenium are in the same column because they both have four electrons in the outermost p-subshell)"
  7. "Elements with similar chemical properties generally fall into the same group in the periodic table, although in the f-block, and to some respect in the d-block, the elements in the same period tend to have similar properties, as well"
  8. "Thus, it is relatively easy to predict the chemical properties of an element if one knows the properties of the elements around it"
  9. 118 confirmed elements, most recent discoveries confirmed in December 2015 and names / symbols in November 2016 (Nh, Mc, Ts, Og)
  10. first 94 elements occur naturally (83 are primordial and 11 occur only in decay chains of primordial elements); the remaining 24 synthesized in laboratories
  11. No element heavier than einsteinium (element 99) has ever been observed in macroscopic quantities in its pure form, nor has astatine (element 85); francium (element 87) has been only photographed in the form of light emitted from microscopic quantities (300,000 atoms)

Is this really what a reader needs? Just some points that occur to me, and a suggested sequence:
  • This is the periodic table of elements yet there is no explanation of what an element is or why they are tabularised. Maybe define atoms as the building blocks of normal matter and that the table has evolved throughout history and is still being modified based on additional research as a way to summarise the properties.
  • Stating that all elements are made of atoms, each consisting of a nucleus with protons and (usually) neutrons, surrounded by an electron cloud to provide charge balance
  • Then address that 94 occur naturally and others have been synthesised
  • Diagram of single PT cell, noting it provides name, symbol, atomic mass, atomic number = Z. Atomic mass the weighted average of naturally occurring isotopes
  • Chemical properties largely arise from electrons and their configuration. Neutral atom, electrons = Z but can gain or lose to become ions
  • Then offer PT, perhaps coloured just for shells / sub-shells to indicate that organisation occurs by preceding from previous element and looking to where the additional electron is placed – covering s-, p-, d-, and f- blocks and electronic configurations
  • The present statement (6) is not correct. If O and Se are in the same column because they have 4 electrons in p subshell, why aren't they in same column as Be (as all have 2 electrons in outermost s subshell). Further, Cr is in group 6 suggesting a d4 configuration but we all know it is actually s1d5, making positioning unclear under this statement. I know the answers, of course, but would a non-chemist understand from the statement made?
  • Statement (7) – perhaps more useful to say that arrangement historically placed chemically similar elements together and that the arrangement by electronic configuration retains this as the similarity in valence shell configuration explains the similarity in chemical properties
  • For heavier elements, and especially those in the f-block and to some extent the d-block, elements share similarities across periods. For this reason, the properties of elements can be predicted relatively easily in these parts of the PT if the properties of surrounding elements are known.
  • This arrangement led to gaps for missing elements being identified and predictions made about their properties, which proved useful in the search for missing elements. All such gaps have now been filled. All elements up to einsteinium (element 99) have been observed in macroscopic quantities in pure form, with two exceptions - astatine (element 85) and francium (element 87), though the light emitted due to radioactive decay of a microscopic quantity of francium (300,000 atoms) has been photographed. No element beyond einsteinium has been observed in macroscopic form.
  • Historically, alchemists sought elemental transmutation, changing one element into another – can only be achieved by changing the nucleus whereas chemical processes only rearrange electrons. However, by introducing radioactivity, we find that elements can spontaneously decay in which the nucleus is changed and element is transformed into another. The 94 naturally-occurring elements are divided into 83 primordial and 11 formed in the decay chains of some of the primordial elements
  • Fusion, the combining of smaller atoms into larger ones, is possible and is responsible for the energy coming from the sun, and for the formation of all elements heavier than H. Fission, the splitting of heavier elements, can also be achieved for some elements and occurred for uranium and plutonium in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, at the end of WW2.
  • Since WW2, scientists have investigated fusion processes to prepare new elements and in so doing have added 24 new elements to the PT, the latest being Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og that were confirmed in December 2015 and had their names / symbols assigned in November 2016. In each case, the new elements need evidence of their chemical properties to confirm that their anticipated position in the PT is correct. The mass shown is for the isotope of greatest stability, and given in parentheses to indicate that it is synthetic.
  • Arrangements and categorisations have been debated over time. The historical division of elements into metals and non-metals based on chemical properties has been expanded to include metalloids with similarities to each group. Metals within the s-block are sometimes subdivided into alkali metals (group 1) and alkaline earth metals (group 2), while the d- and f-block elements are sometimes called transition metals and inner transition metals, respectively. The non-metals are also sub-categorised by groups into the pnictogens, chalcogens, halogens, and noble gases, though this leaves hydrogen and boron uncategorised. 18 column periodic tables have varying placements of the f-block, reflecting different views of the appropriate location for elements like lanthanum and lutetium. The PT below presents one widely-used layout, with colourings to signify categorisations within the PT as a means to concisely summarise the wealth of knowledge of the elements.

Going on from there, the PT article goes into categories, metals v non-metals, etc, which seems more like the content for an article on the history of the elements than for an article on the PT. After outlining what the PT is, doesn't next come history (how it came to be that way) with element properties history that led to changes in the PT appearing at the appropriate point in the development of the PT?

Do others see that we have a problem with the structure of the PT article itself, and that we should discuss this first? For example, I can see how the debate about colouring and blocks v. categories in the PT in the overview arises. For me, the table given is too complex, though it is suited for the lede image and the article, but in reorganising the overview in some way (perhaps as I suggest off the top of my head), there becomes a natural presentation with the categories complicated one at the end and a blocks option preceding it.

Thoughts \ Comments \ Suggestions \ Criticisms \ etc? EdChem (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: The periodic table is a map. In an encyclopaedia, world maps are usually coloured by region. Your thoughts are refreshing albeit they don't address the substance of many of our discussions re how to colour the map. That is to say, a reorganising of the article, in order to improve its clarity, can be done by anyone who gives some thought to its presentation flow, as you have carefully done.
The debates about colouring are not that important in one sense but on the other hand we like to get things "right", so to speak, and doubts have been raised among us, as to wether this is in fact the case.
From a survey of 62 more recent chemistry textbooks, just 15% confine their lede periodic tables to showing just the blocks. Hence the interest, as an encyclopaedia, in showing more than this. Encyclopedia Britannica starts with nine categories (their table and its colour scheme predates ours); the most popular periodic table in the web emulates the WP table. Sandbh (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sandbh: Not quite, when it comes to https://ptable.com/ – you will notice that they colour the Zn group as transition metals even though we don't, that they talk about "lanthanoids" and "actinoids" following IUPAC even though we don't, that they show the table in 18-column form with a gap under yttrium even though we don't, and that when you click "Wide" or those placeholders the table expands to the Sc-Y-Lu form that we had in 2016 and that I still think we made a mistake in ever leaving. So even when the categories are this similar we can't expect agreement in other sources in quite the same way we can expect it (outside group 3) when it comes to the question "which element is in which block?". As for EB, they depart from ours even more strongly, by saying that group 3 are apparently not transition metals (although group 12 is – so much for IUPAC), accepting to use "halogens" as a category (with At and Ts coloured as halogens!), and refusing to use "metalloids" as a category. Categories are common indeed, but no one agrees on what they are and what elements go where. Why take a side, I ask? And are we even allowed to take a side by policy, I ask? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @EdChem: Good and well-written point, EdChem. The short explanation (not justification) is: in my experience, the term "overview" was primarily used to give a visual overview of the graphic table itself full stop. As you write, that is not enough, especially since there is only this one section (no subsections) for what is the encyclopedic essence. I'll think of a new setup, using your numbered bulleted list. -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

DS comment

@EdChem: I think you are almost totally right, both about what you suggest, and that the debates here are strictly speaking less important than how the lede and the overview are not doing their jobs. (In fact, there's at least one statement in the lede that is flat-out wrong. Six groups do not have accepted names, because IUPAC never said that the names applied to the whole group. Only for the alkaline earth metals did they name all the known elements in the group, and when element 120 is discovered that also goes out the window. ^_^)

In fact you remind me of my somewhat-naughty-for-WP user subpage when I tried to write as an example what I'd do if I had my pedagogical hat on rather than my encyclopaedic hat on: User:Double sharp/Teaching periodicity! That's certainly not OK for WP, but I now think it was worth doing as an exercise because even though the language changes a lot, it certainly sheds light on what the logical sequence is supposed to be.

I just have two little pet peeves with what you propose (albeit ones I can substantiate by reliable sources). Please don't take my expounding on this at length the wrong way; I love everything else about it. I just really really dislike especially the first one being gotten wrong when we actually have reliable sources getting it right. ^_^

Blocks, differentiating electrons, and electronic configurations.

This is something that I have had to complain about for ages, but no, the blocks do not come from the electron that differentiates an element from the previous one. I am sure of course that you know this, but I think we should not simplify this in such a way that the resulting statement is incorrect. Simplify yes, but we have to keep things correct; this is an encyclopaedia, we will get readers of every level, and we should probably not lie to children. To substantiate my case, I give some reliable sources below.

Yes, I know some books say that blocks come from differentiating electrons. But I think this is outweighed by the fact that reliable sources are in agreement that electrons are literally indistinguishable. (Not to mention that I have never seen any reliable source that succeeded in defining what a differentiating electron is in such a way that the definition actually applies to cases like vanadium d3s2 proceeding to chromium d5s1, or lawrencium d0s2p1 proceeding to rutherfordium d2s2p0, but that's a minor additional point.) Serious sources covering physics understand this. If you look at them, they may use the sloppy language, but they make it very clear and apologise that it is sloppy. Like Feynman's lectures on physics:

So we cannot single out the 2s electron in a lithium atom and call it the differentiating electron because we cannot even distinguish which electron is the 2s electron. Yes, he talks roughly about the "third electron", but he says it's a rough way of talking, and explains that in reality we cannot distinguish which is the third electron.

I realise that using the sloppy language is very tempting. I am often tempted to use it too. Some people who know better do it, like Eric Scerri who in 2009 made the point "electrons in any particular atom cannot be distinguished, which means that speaking of an atom as actually having this or that d electron for example is also strictly an approximation", but in 2019 still talked about differentiating electrons. But we're not a textbook and I don't think we should simplify things down to a level that is too likely to cause a misunderstanding. And, you know, we have a precedent for ignoring the textbooks when studies are clear that what they say isn't right. That would be hypervalence, where I'm sure you'll still find textbooks explaining SF6 and friends with expanded octets and d orbitals because it's apparently still in some syllabi. The only problem is that we've known for a while that that's not true at all and that there is no significant d involvement there. So, as an encyclopaedia, we in fact reflect that understanding in our article on hypervalence even if textbooks are being sluggish. And that would be because school-level textbooks have something else constraining them other than the facts: they need to simplify things to the reader who is only just encountering something new, and even if they want to do things right, they may have to conform to the official syllabus in their country.

Similarly, reliable sources understand that the situation with d and f block configurations is actually not too significant, whence I quote Feynman again:

So it's not really that important that the configurations don't match. What we have, and every periodic table poster shows, are gas-phase configurations. This is a situation that is about as far from chemistry as you can get: a single atom with nothing else around. As Feynman quite clearly states, for many d elements the configuration can change depending on exactly what elements are around. This is also stated for f elements in Christian Jørgensen's lecture-paper The Loose Connection between Electron Configuration and the Chemical Behavior of the Heavy Elements (Transuranics). In the same author's review Influence of Rare Earths on Chemical Understanding and Classification he writes:

So, finding reliable sources to refute the simplification is not a trouble. The only trouble is that this is mostly explained in textbooks near the beginning of a chemistry course when d and f elements are not on anyone's mind, and so I suspect many textbooks will be sloppy about it just because the oversimplified version works perfectly for main group elements and the rest of the table can be swept under the rug. I know there is someone who explains it properly, and that's William B. Jensen:

Now, it's true that Jensen very strongly supports the Lu option, and that his criteria were stated in the context of that support. On the other hand, Lavelle in his reply (on the next page of that article) is a strong La supporter, and he also wrote "I agree with Jensen’s four points on classifying elements in the periodic table". Not to mention that the La vs Lu dispute is basically related to the foundations of what the PT is all about: outside textbooks, I suspect this is one of the few places where those things will be talked about rather than disregarded as obvious stuff known since school. Therefore I think we can use this one. It accords with the generally accepted science rather than being a pedagogical simplification; since we do not have our pedagogy hat on here, I feel we should focus on the former

So I'd replace some of your points in the middle (italics for what I've changed) with:

  • Chemical properties largely arise from electrons and their configuration. Neutral atom, electrons = Z but can gain or lose to become ions
  • Then offer PT, perhaps coloured just for shells / sub-shells to indicate that organisation occurs by looking at how many electrons are available for chemical reactions and which subshells they appear in; covering s-, p-, d-, and f- blocks.
  • Statement (7) – perhaps more useful to say that arrangement historically placed elements with some chemical similarities together and that the arrangement by valence electrons and subshells retains this as the similarity in valence shell configuration explains the similarity in chemical properties.

This way, we avoid having to mention the electron configuration outright in the lede and need to explain exactly what needs to be fixed about that picture for the d and f elements; we cut straight to an easily explained version of the correct statement. A sentence on the problems with gas-phase configurations for d and f elements might be fine here only as a footnote. In the main body, of course, we can talk about this in a little bit more detail and promote it to the actual text.

And I say "elements with some chemical similarities" rather than "chemically similar elements" to avoid having wiseacres at the back of the classroom wonder how nitrogen and bismuth got into the same group even for Mendeleev. (I know, it's not a classroom, but probably the same personality type. ^_^) He was looking at the valence there, if I am not mistaken: for both elements maximum valence is +5. So that's a chemical property that matches even though many others don't, which is why I think my wording may be a bit better there. Again, it's just a fine line for me about being both simple and right.

Colourings to signify categories.

This thing at the very end segues into what I think is one of the two issues we are discussing. I don't even think we should colour to signify categories in the first place because nobody can agree on what categories to use and what their boundaries are. Yes, most textbooks show categories. But what categories? Anything we colour, like Se as a nonmetal rather than a metalloid (which one quarter of sources do!) or as a metal, picks a side. In the absence of a warning for just about any element near this borderline I feel that any colouring along a metallicity line gives undue weight to one side. Worse still, we outright put in places like {{infobox oxygen}} things like "Element category: Reactive nonmetal", as if the categories we had decided to use were the only ones that actually existed! No mention of chalcogens at all even though that is IUPAC-approved and "reactive nonmetals" is not! Meanwhile we cannot even get all the IUPAC-approved and common categories in there without overlaps (where did pnictogens and chalcogens go?)!

I think you are correct, EdChem, to prioritise pnictogens and chalcogens in the lede over those metallicity p block categories, because the former are actually IUPAC-approved and the latter are not. But I think that for the above reasons, what is best is to display nothing but blocks as a general thing for colouring our general PT images. Outside the group 3 issue (which is something else in itself), which elements belong in which block is at least something that is 100% agreed on by everybody. Many textbooks colour more than that indeed; but I find it likely that most of those textbooks also know what a block is and talk about it when explaining the structure of the periodic table.

Once that one almost-universally agreed thing is done, then we can talk about categories. And by talking about them, we eliminate the sticking point that many of them overlap and that chemists don't agree on the scope of each category. Sandbh has already given two sources that disagree with the WP colour scheme. The fact that the literature is split 50-50 on whether the Zn group should be considered transition elements or not should already caution us about any colour scheme in the first place! Those are hard to reflect in a picture where we have to colour each category clearly. But if we just want to describe where each category lives in the table with text, then everything is 100% fine!

So we can talk about the chalcogens category (O, S, Se, Te, Po), without in any way jeopardising other categories like metalloids that commonly includes Te and sometimes Po, or post-transition metals or the myriad of other similar categories that quite often include Po. And we can talk about the transition metals as a category while making it clear that there's disagreement in the literature about group 12, without having to pick a side when colouring. I feel that would reflect the large spread of what the sources do far better than any colouring choice would do. So I would prefer to replace your last sentence with: "The PT below presents one widely-used layout, with colourings to signify blocks; many tables also colour in specific categories, many of which are described below."

Looking forward to your comments. And sorry for spending so long on what amount to such minor proposed changes from what you've very kindly suggested when I love almost everything about what you've written; it's just that once you know that the first thing is not quite right, you get slightly annoyed whenever you see it wrong. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to find DS here saying what I wrote below (in an ec): for the first description of the PT, we could remove the categorisation and catogory colors. And to point to another suggestion DS made (in their userpage); from memory: "when discussing elements, we should talk about their concept as specimen [~gas-phase then? DP], and forget about their appearance in RL chemistry" (IIRC). In element pages, that would mean we should move to bottom of page: diatomic substances (O2), allotropes, std atomic mass even. Could also conceptually simplify the PT article. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: I don't remember exactly what I said, but from what you say it might have been the distinction between the chemical element as in atoms and as in simple substances. So, oxygen as in "the type of atom with eight protons in its nucleus", rather than as dioxygen the gas or ozone the gas, because oxygen the element is just as present in MgO or CO2 as it is in O2 or O3. Sure, that's an important concept too: Jensen talks about it here. The only trouble is that this distinction is, AFAIK, not clear enough often in English-language sources. So while I would dearly like to get rid of the conflation of the two notions, as French Wikipedia could do, I am not sure if we can. Maybe we have to do what Polish Wikipedia does and admit that in our language "chemical element" has two meanings. Remember, on my userpages I sometimes say things that are not standard yet, just significant minority viewpoints that I happen to agree with, and I try to keep that separate from the articles. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Glad to hear you're in agreement too about categorisation and category colours. ^_^ But I go a bit further and advocate removing them altogether from the infoboxes and PT templates. There are simply too many categories in the literature that overlap and have fuzzy boundaries for me to think that trying to interpret this as "there are a finite set of categories we use, some elements are disputed" is acceptable. To my taste anyway. It is a failing at following reliable sources, IMHO, that we mark out oxygen as just a reactive nonmetal but not also as a chalcogen. The latter category is IUPAC-approved when the former is not; it just fits badly in a scheme that tries to cover every element once and once only. I once again plead that we follow reliable sources, and noting that categories may differ very widely whereas blocks don't outside the group 3 dispute, suggest that the best way to do that is to not take sides on categories by not colouring them everywhere. Only describing them. I strongly support saying in the articles things like "Selenium is a chalcogen, and has been variously classified as a nonmetal, metal, or metalloid (most often the former)" (for the selenium article); I do not support trying to reduce this situation to colouring it only as one category everywhere. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Remove cat+colors altogether (except for dedicated articles + their PT graphs) better be discussed separately, to keep thread on topic. But indeed removing them when describing the PT in its main article is helpful (because: another non-essential detail; and a very attentionseeking distraction at that). Now let's look further on what more should be in/out of the Overview. -DePiep (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: OK, new top-level section coming at some point to keep that issue separate. I won't discuss it here anymore. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

DePiep comment

Following up EdChems post.

  • New Overview setup thoughts
As a first suggestion, we could overhaul the "Overview" section & intention like this.
In general: it should describe the PT's essence (structure, relations, resulting appearance). This also implies:
0. Leave out details that are irrelevant to the goal (advantage: makes it easier to build the descrition without sidetracking). So for the overview, do not mention: history (Mendeleev, intermediate PT forms), isotopes, discovery of elements (new, predicted, added noble gasses), open issues (He placement, group 3), difference between concept (specimen) of an element and its RL appearance: use the concept only (no allotropes, difference natural/synthetic, atomic mass vs. Z -- though A=Z+N might be needed), alternative structures (Janet's left step), alternative graphic layouts (18/32 column), categories and other secondary trends/patterns(!). However, is an extra, late subthread we can introduce a few of those, as being related to the PT.
Section: Overview (==-level). Subsections:
1. Section: Element. Note chemical and physical difference (we need later on). Mention valence (0, I-VIII). Add single cell graphic example+explanation.

2. Section: Build the PT yourself (as is has been build before). Step 1: Order all elements 1-118 in a single line, one cell each, by increasing Z. (This order shall not change!). Step 2: Add a linebreak and blank cells such that: in the second row, elements with similar chemical behaviour (same valence, by RxOy valence) are in the same column. Repeat this (you'll need six linebreaks, creating seven rows). +example maybe.
3. Section: PT graph (simplified into essentials only, add group valence, rm catcolors?)
4. Section: explain hiccups as simple as possible: A/B valence columns, no-valence for f-block, blank cells in upper part & blocks. Or write: "described and explained in [wl]".
5. Section: Physical background. Shell filling & valence, blocks, A=Z+N (but not isotopes).
6. Section: Other patterns and properties (could be new ==-level section, still overview only), e.g.: categories (metal-nonmetal, maybe subcategories?), isotopes, RL appearance as Ar, std and allotropes, m.p. b.p., discovery of elements.
7. Section: Related topics. Introducing like isotopes, graphical variants, structural variants, some historical problems now solved.
Below, existing sections on PT aspects can stay (though checked for consistency, and reordered by being essential and non-essential aspects).
This tries to make a buildup line for a complete description. The tough parts will be to leave out details as much as possible, then write the remaining stuff to the point. From here on, I'll leave it to you to write it :-) -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: I think you have a point: the overview should, to my taste, simply be about the theoretical justification for the PT where the PT comes from, how to read it, and the patterns that come from it. At the very least, I think the current organisation is simply not good: blocks and periods should come before categories, and Klechkovsky's / Madelung's rule should appear far earlier than it actually does. I am not so sure about some of the details you mention, but I think we are in agreement on the basic idea. I can try to write it, but I'm busy and it may take a while. ;) Double sharp (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Well, describe by theoretical justification is quite different from describe by the (historical, Mendeleevian) buildup. Looks like it is the approach from the opposite direction (explaining vs. discovering). If by theoretical justification you mean "Classification of an element in the periodic table is based on four steps" (per Jensen; you wrote above), with me the question raises: what 'classification' is that? Does it inevitable lead to the column/row structure, so essential to the PT? As opposed to, say, enwiki-like categories, or electron filling issues solved -- IMO not essential in this. A warning is that ascending Z has to be "verified" in step 4. As far as I, interested layman, understand it now, the theor'al.justif'ion, it would add a strong physical base (e.g., shell filling), but I do not recognise yet how it would describe periodicity encyclopedically. Alas, we'll see what others think. -DePiep (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: Yes, it's about the column/row structure. Jensen uses this to put elements in blocks, then in groups within blocks, and then verifies that the resulting placement may make sense. His approach is not everybody's, but the general idea that there's something about electronic structure that explains the PT structure is present across sources. The point of the periodic law is that the configurations of the atoms and hence the properties of the elements depend periodically on atomic number. So I'd describe periodicity as such (statements of the periodic law can be found in the literature) and then describe the subshell filling that justifies it. And I think this is already done in EdChem's proposal. Of course, historically that is not at all where it came from, but I think that is something that should be covered under "History".
As for the words "theoretical justification": yeah, in the literature this is apparently controversial, regarding the actual status of Klechkovsky's rule for one. I dislike that situation, but it is what it is and we have to reflect it. So, OK, I should have said basically where the PT comes from. So I've struck my words out and corrected it. ^_^ But let's work on the details later and focus on EdChem's proposal first. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I guess perhaps it might be better now that I briefly think about it again to first show the table, mention that periods are rows and groups are columns and the blocks are those rectangular areas, before stating where all of this comes from to explain what they mean. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

YBG comments

@EdChem: Thank you for giving a fresh review to our PT article; I agree largely with what you say, but I have a few questions.

Where to from here? Here are some ideas, in no particular order.

  1. Re #EdChem's PT article proposal @DePiep, Double sharp, and Sandbh: You have each expressed some agreement and some disagreements with EdChem's suggestions. Is there any subset of the suggestions that is generally agreed upon that could be implemented apart from the remainder? If so, I think a good first step would be to implement agreed upon aspects before deciding the areas where we have disagreement. But I don't know if those areas are in fact separable. Does anyone think this possible?
  2. Re DePiep's #Build the PT yourself idea. This sounds like an excellent idea for an animated graphic. I'm not sure if this is something for WP or an off-wiki project.
  3. Re Double sharp's #Colourings to signify categories, specifically Anything we colour ... picks a side. I have been struggling with how to do a better job of representing all names for sets of chemical elements and not just the "winners" from our past and future mega threads. I have come up with two ideas which I think can be and benefit our encyclopedia and could be implemented independently of any other efforts, and even more importantly, could remain in place even if we make substantial changes to our category coloring system. Here are my ideas:
    • (3a) For each named set of chemical elements, develop a page modeled after lists of metalloids. This represents a substantial amount of work, but I think it would have great benefit. If Sandbh were willing to take this on, we could depend on his research skills to make these lists complete and reflective of the literature.
    • (3b) Change our {{infobox element}} by replacing "Element category" with "Element categories" and including a list of all names for sets of chemical elements that generally include the given element, possibly distinguishing the sets an element is almost always included in from the sets that less frequently include it, but probably excluding sets that very rarely include the element. This also represents a substantial amount of work, and should eventually be coordinated with the previous work, but the first draft need not wait on that result. If DePiep were willing to take this on, we could depend on his template-building skill to fully integrate this information into our template system, maybe by adding {{Infobox element/symbol-to-category-list}}, something along the lines of {{Infobox element/symbol-to-valence-group}}

The common thread in these items is my desire to get the most reader-bang-for-the-editor-buck by finding changes that improve our corner of WP without waiting for some hard-to-reach consensus. By all means, we should tackle the more difficult issues, but at the same time we should intentionally find non-controversial efforts that provide us with significant improvement. This will maximize the benefit the readers receive from the effort we editors put in. YBG (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@YBG: my replies in ~short:
re 1. Looks like both EdChem, DS and me agree that the Periodic table#Overview section needs a complete redesign. Note that this section is the only one in article that handles the whole if it; other sections are just aspects. (Just showing a PT graph with some clarifications is not enough). This is the general agreement. Listing details, subtopics and incidental miswritings as issues does not help, once appreciated that we do need a redesign to rewrite this encyclopedically. For this, I'd definitely prefer to agree on a general line of approach (say section titles) to describe the PT.
re 2. When I wrote "Build a PT yourself", that's not a final text proposal TBH. But it does say the good part: being good science, the Reader can reproduce the original, Mendelevian 'experiment'. (Personally, when introducing the PT to people I learned that, after defining 'element' first, the Z-order is not to be skipped (having to smuggle with weight vs. Z). Only then the rhythm eh periodicity can be introduced (my 'line break' thing is useful in such a talk). So I build my proposal along this 'Mendeleevian' line.
OTOH, Double sharp gives an other approach: describe periodicity from the physical atom model. Our first task is to find a good overall line for the Overview. To keep in mind: needs an encyclopedic result for sure.
re 3a. We could treat each "category" (i.e., any set of elements, not just our enwiki nine) equally, at least create a good set of articles & overvierw lists. However, could be that categories are not part of the future redesigned PT#Overview section at all ;-) -DePiep (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
re 3b. Of course we can develop that categories-list-per-element. Let's get the articles right first ;-) -DePiep (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@YBG: about 'list of categories/sets an element is member of': here at #Element_membership_list I started that list for us to fill (to end up in new {{Infobox element/symbol-to-sets}} for automation). While in this thread here, better categories & coloring not be mentioned again without good reason (these are deemed futile to the new periodic table article's main overview). -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with pretty much everything in EdChem's list that I didn't comment on. ^_^ In other words, other than some peeving in the middle about the exact significance of electronic configurations and how there is no such thing as a differentiating electron as agreed by such an august reliable source as Feynman, I pretty much like everything he wrote as it stands. (The second disagreement is just that I don't think we should colour categories at all.) So if it went through with just that one minor thing amended it would be fine. It just looks like a bigger disagreement than it really is because I quoted a bunch of reliable sources to back up what I'm saying.

I am pretty sure that Lists of metalloids#Appearance frequency clusters falls under WP:NOR. Specifically because it's statistical analysis per Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH is not numerical summarization. Of course I would prefer User:EdChem to opine on that since he likely has a firmer grasp on policy than I do.

Personally, I don't understand why we have to give categories this much of a pride of place. As used in the literature, their names are mostly fuzzy, their existence can be fuzzy, their boundaries can be fuzzy. Everything is fuzzy! That's not a situation I think the infobox is worth using. And many of the category names that have been mentioned here are not even ones that would be widely recognisable. I still strongly suspect that "reactive nonmetal" is going to give chemists the question "reactive relative to what?" That's not so much a category in usage as it is a two-word phrase. And exactly which category name are we picking among the multitudes of names given for categories that are sort of like but possibly not quite the same as post-transition metals? Do we have to list all sixteen from Post-transition_metal#Related_groupings when listing the categories tin is in, or what?

Common names, that are in textbooks, that are approved by IUPAC, yes, those can be spared. We can still write in the articles things like "Sodium is an alkali metal", "Cobalt is a transition metal", "Holmium is a lanthanoid and one of the so-called rare earth metals". Those are all fine. And in the more problematic p block we can write things like "Arsenic is a pnictogen that has both metallic and nonmetallic properties; it has variously been classified as either a metal, a nonmetal, or a metalloid." Or maybe "Tennessine is a member of group 17 of the periodic table, but it is expected to behave quite differently from the halogens fluorine through astatine and should have predominating metallic properties". (Note how I avoid saying there if Ts is a halogen or not.) That is all fine with me. But let's not put them in the infobox as if such category assignments are fundamental to the element. They really are not. And they really are not agreed. Basically: I feel this is a way better job for article text than an infobox.

Yes, if you asked me to put on my pedagogy hat, then yes, I can very easily define for you clearly what a metal is. And I can very easily define for you some categories. And that can solve all those problems. But the literature isn't unified behind that, and it isn't even split up between a few options, and that isn't even a particularly common option. So, we can do that as we please in our own books, in our own articles, but not here on Wikipedia.

Now, the rest of it. Regarding "building up the PT": I am not sure how an animation would help. Because the way to build up the PT in reality depends on getting each element by itself, looking at its electron cloud structure. I am not sure how an animation really helps with that. Generally how it's done is to show the first few elements and then periodicity appears because Na-Ar match properties of Li-Ne (the first clear example), but for that it's easier to do if you see everything at once.

If we mostly agree that the section needs a redesign, I can dust off some of my mental drafts and produce something. Basically like a scientific description of how this whole thing was set up, i.e. not how it historically was discovered. But, now I need time again for RL. Later. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Drafting

Since the Inspiration Fairy has struck, here is a first draft of the lede section. Overview to come at her next visit. It is a rushed first draft, it is too long, and it does not read perfectly yet, but I think it does a better job at getting across the important stuff than what we have so far. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yess. I like the energy. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
DS, I understood EdChem was criticising the #Overview section for being eh nopt encyclopedic. Now your link shows a new lede and a new colorisation (by block). I wonder: a. the lede folows from the article body. Why start there? and b. you #Overview section is quite rudimentary. Why not start there, and later on derive the lede+top image from it? -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Because the lede is supposed to be shorter and doesn't need me to fill out citation templates, that's the lame reason. I plan to write an Overview similar to what EdChem states (although I may move some things around), but it would have taken more time, and I think it is better that I could make something come out now rather than have something perfect come out too late. ^_^
Not to mention that I still need to formally write up as a proposal why I feel we made a mistake in ever abandoning the Lu form as a default. With the sources. But that's for another section. Double sharp (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
DePiep, I did imagine working on the overview while looking at what else can be better structured / organised and coming back to the lede at the end, but a different sequence doesn't matter so long as Double sharp recognises that the lede will likely be re-visited once the body is sorted. Also, Double sharp, I know that citations are not required by policy for the lede but I generally prefer to have them in the lede as it is a good way to make sure the lede is tied to the article (is every citation in the lede also in the article) and is tied to RS. It is easy to write a lede about a topic that one knows well but that can also be influenced by your own views (OR risk) or priorities (not reflecting the coverage in the article). Say a lede has citations 1 to 15, I can see that they all appear in the article, that they are used in its major sections (so coverage of all big ideas / concepts), and that looked at together, they cover or at least sample from the major sources (review articles, books, etc). Of course, no one has to take that approach, but it is what I have found to be effective for me.  :) EdChem (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. A minor request about that lede PT: could you help me (1) remove the stray line below period 1, (2) if possible add atomic numbers, and (3) if possible deliberately misalign the f block rows so that there is no vertical alignment with the d block columns? I do not want to give the readers the impression that La belongs in group 3, Ce belongs in group 4, etc. They have similarities (secondary relationships) but I feel it just confuses the particular readers that are not super advanced yet (and anyway in the 32 column form this all disappears). Double sharp (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Did the graph things here. Fine tuning and Z's later on, now about the concepts you want to convey. -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: Thanks. I'd rather it misalign entirely by a fraction of a column, if you can do that, to make it clear that not only is there no Sc-Y-Lu-Lr-La, there is also no Sc-Y-Lu-Lr-Ce or anything else. ;) Double sharp (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes I know, but that is irrelevant now. Until it goes live, this is clear enough. I'd rather spend time on getting understanding your concepts. (to me, at this moment, it concernongly looks like you diverge from what EdChem intends to say). -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I have a few comments. May I edit your draft page per my likings and then undo my edits, so that nothing changes but you could see what I think could be improved in the article history? I'll leave my rationales in the edit summaries.
As a more general comment, I think it would be great to highlight how the PT is actually used. Periodic tables often include non-essential details such as standard atomic mass. It would also be important to include a brief mention of how the PT went from being a bold idea people were cautious of to becoming as popular as it is today. That is something that I have yet to learn myself (although this information will sooner or later appear in history of the periodic table, likely thanks to ComplexRational), but that is a very important detail. On the other hand, I think blocks are given too much attention, and I would leave the group 3 and He controversies out of the lead section altogether; one way or another, they're both pretty minor, and I feel that any discussion about them should follow after a proper introduction of these elements, i.e. the big table in the Overview section.--R8R (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: Please, please, go ahead! I started this just as a first draft so that we could get something started. If you want to change it, please do! Double sharp (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I've made a few changes. As promised, I undid them, but you can find them in the article history. Hopefully they will aid your future writing :)--R8R (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: And I undid it back because I liked your changes a lot. ^_^ It will definitely be inspirational for writing the Background and Overview according to User:EdChem's proposal, thank you! Double sharp (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow... that stimulated some discussion!

Thanks to everyone who has commented, and for having done so in a constructive and collegial manner. I was hoping to find support for the idea that the overview needs a re-write, but I guess after ANI was not expecting the idea to be enthusiastically embraced. I am grateful and encouraged, so thank you.

That having been said, I think some of the above is going in directions that I didn't expect. In no particular order:

  • I think the lede needs work, but it is a summary of a topic / article. If I write an article from scratch, I'll sketch a brief lede and come back to it once the article is fairly stable / complete. It is difficult to summarise an article that is not written. Worse (IMO), doing a lede first makes it much easier to write what I think or add OR rather than reflect the RS / DUE etc that is built into the article itself. Double sharp, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your draft (to be honest, I only glanced at it), but please think of it as a draft that likely would need revisiting after other changes.
  • I started with the overview for several reasons:
    • It is the first proper section and doesn't tell a reader what they need, IMO (and we appear to all agree on that point)
    • It was meant as an example of reflection on what is there that can be applied to other sections, and I think some need serious work. I was hoping others might take a look at the rest and suggest other parts that don't meet readers needs.
    • I would like a discussion of what is good and what needs change from a global perspective rather than diving into detail immediately, though those observations are valued too.
  • So, I was thinking of changing the overview section first, rather than the lede.
  • If I may sample from a few ideas above:
    • The idea of new separate articles is one I had a while back too. Certainly there is the material for an article on categorisation or clustering of elements (to avoid the double-meaning of "grouping"), so long as there are sufficient RS to write it. There are oodles of sources and perspectives but also a huge risk of OR. Many sources (like textbooks) adopt some categorisation system without explaining or justifying it, and talking about that without RS that do would be OR. Thus, this is an interesting idea and a good one for resolving disagreements but we'd need to consider carefully whether it is a good idea in a policy sense.
    • Related, are there other new articles that could be appropriate? I know WP once had an article on La v Lu, is that worth reconsidering – or even broadening based on other PT geography issues.
    • Double sharp, I note your comments about electron configurations and electrons being indistinguishable. I don't view it as seriously as you appear to because I don't mean (and this is an exaggeration) that we take a 4He atom, with its two nice blue electrons in the 1s shell, and make 7Li by adding a proton and two neutrons to the nucleus, and a nice red electron which will sit in the 2s subshell and be distinguishable from the two blue electrons that were already there... because that would be both scientific drivel and highly misleading. I do agree that indistinguishability is important – just yesterday I was talking with a student about coordinate covalency and used the example of formation of NH4+ in a Lowry-Bronsted acid-base reaction and pointing out that the reaction involves a proton transfer and thus the formation of a coordinate covalent bond, but then emphasised that this model of how the bond forms does not mean that the resulting bond is in any way different from the preexisting nitrgogen–hydrogen bonds. On electron configurations, what I meant was that the difference in configuration from [He]: 1s2 to [Li]:1s22s1 is that the change is the 3 electron configuration of Li has a 2s electron that the 2 electron configuration of He did not. Of course, that raises problems with cases like V to Cr, but we are also talking about an overview. I agree it should not be scientifically inaccurate but it does not have to canvass every issue. How it is presented ultimately is a matter for consensus decision, of course.
    • Sandbh, you are correct that I took no position on the colouring, and deliberately so. Firstly, it is contentious here so it needs to be discussed but other changes can be made while that continues. Secondly, I offered to help with policy and to hopefully foster collaboration and building to consensus, so starting with "I think X" would be either to take one side or to say both sides are wrong – hardly a good way to start given my goal to help resolve the dispute rather than inflaming it. Thirdly, I don't actually have a strong view on it beyond that the lens to examine it from is (IMO) how it assists / supports readers.
    • DePiep, your explanation of how the overview came to be sounds quite likely to me, and I agree that how it got there is much less important than the question of how useful it is. I wonder if the section should not begin as "Background" because what is an atom / element, etc, is necessary background to organising them into a table.
    • Double sharp, on Feynmann, one simple explanation of how to distribute 3 electrons and needing a new orbital is the Pauli exclusion principle – no two electrons in an atom may have the same set of quantum numbers. Since any orbital automatically has three the same, and there are only two values for spin, the maximum occupancy of an orbital is two. Once any two of the three electrons are assigned to 1s, the unassigned must be placed in shell 2 and energetics then dictates it will be in the 2s orbital. Of course, orbitals / subshells / shells and quantum numbers are required for this. How the configurations are arrived at is not relevant for an overview, nor are irregularities like Cr, nor are the issues of gas-phase single atoms rather than physical substances in macroscopic quantities. Like in so many other parts of chemistry, we are dealing with models to aid our understanding rather than with reality – (aside) how many times have I tried to get students to accept that for oxidation states, and dissuade them from permanganate having an Mn7+ ion rather than a MnVII centre covalently bound to four oxo moieties?
    • On my (7), if the term "valence electron(s)" is to appear, it too will need defining / explaining.
    • YBG, I like the approach of looking for areas of agreement to work on.
  • I am concerned about OR. Some of the posting on this page, IMO, have drifted into OR and/or looking at single sources that do not meet the requirements of DUE. Textbooks are certainly reliable sources and if virtually all of them say X, which we know from the literature is actually an inaccurate simplification, we need to be very careful if we try to say Y cited to literature (particularly to little-cited literature). DUE calls for sources to be weighted by their prominence and widely-used textbooks are awfully prominent. They are also flawed at times, which leaves us with a dilemma. Some such issues might best be discussed at a noticeboard where community input is sourced. If undergraduate texts say X but a more nuanced statement Y is given by advanced books (Cotton and Wilkinson, for example) then we have an easier situation. It's also easier if IUPAC have made a definitive statement. Unfortunately, some of these issues are cases where WP (as an encyclopaedia) needs to be behind and wait for the sources to support a change to be present.

Finally, which of my thoughts / suggestions ends up being used is always subject to consensus. I know that's obvious by policy but I want to be totally clear that I don't believe my thoughts should have any more weight than anyone else's, nor do I expect that they will. I do think deciding what in the article should be kept, what should be changed, and what is contentious is worth identifying fairly soon, in part as it avoids work being reverted, etc. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes, I understand. It's just that the whole differentiating-electron thing has become a particularly frustrating pet peeve for me since the massive group 3 discussion. I think we may be OK because we do seem to be in a situation where advanced textbooks give a correct statement: Greenwood and Earnshaw gets things right and carefully avoids mentioning differentiating electrons on pp. 22–3 where it discusses the building up, and I already quoted how Feynman deals with it (yes, it's a physics textbook, but the build-up of the PT is basically at the intersection of chemistry and physics). So I think we will be fine if we talk just about the configurations but somehow avoid saying that the block is actually given by the differentiating electron. Indeed perhaps it's best to simply waffle and follow Greenwood and Earnshaw's vague statement "there is a direct relation between the various blocks of elements in the periodic table and the electronic configuration of the atoms it contains; the s block is 2 elements wide, the p block 6 elements wide, the d block 10, and the f block 14, i.e. 2(2l + l), the factor 2 appearing because of the spins", without actually defining what the blocks are because nobody seems to agree on that. Yes, it kind of sucks, but policy is an important concern. If the literature needs to buckle up and define all this properly, that's not something we can do for them. ^_^
I agree that what is really needed first is some background on atomic structure. And yes, don't worry, I know what I've written is just a plain first draft. It can change a lot; I just thought getting something out would be better than just discussing in circles with nothing getting done. I will work on a draft of the Overview + Background more or less following your ideas. ^_^
The La vs Lu issue is mostly covered in Group 3 element; I think that's an OK place for it because you can't avoid it there. With regard to the textbook thing, this is quite split and La no longer has a majority. (Current split of textbooks in 2010s according to IUPAC survey is 48% La, 18% Lu, 33% compromise form with all lanthanoids under Y.) And I am not sure how many of the textbooks actually explain themselves here or focus on the issue or even talk a lot about the lanthanoids at all. So I still think we should in fact be looking at the articles specifically arguing about it. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

OR, SYNTH and DUE

@EdChem, Double sharp, and YBG: I have no concerns about any of these, as far as postings on this page go. The latter live or die according to their reception, here. I'll qualify that by saying our project is very small and sometimes, IMHO, good ideas get stuck due to personal, irrational dislikes (which have no place in an encyclopedia) rather than any basis in scientific merit, no matter how many supporting sources are provided. I've posted about this previously. But that's life; you have to manage it and learn from it, as best you can; it's likely no different in other forums; and how people feel or think can enrich your own perspective on whatever it is that is being discussed. There is WP:RFC in any event which I'd never chance my arm on without first testing the water, including here and with other chemists, physicists, scientists, and in other forums.

WP:IAR. I'm more interested in WP:IAR, in pursuit of a better encyclopedia. The quality of an encyclopedia doesn't rest on quoting WP policy to one another. Much more relevant is Wikipedia has no firm rules:

"Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles…".

This is particularly relevant, I feel, in chemistry, where there is much fuzziness not helped by the disinterest of the IUPAC, when it comes to terminology. Principles, spirit, and knowledge gathering and summarising are what count, rather than quoting WP policy.

Obfuscating knowledge. A particular peeve of mine is seeking to hide knowledge that exists in the literature on the grounds that explicit consensus is lacking in the literature. These are some of the most interesting aspects of chemistry IMO, and they deserve ventilation. If we'd still been hiding behind a say-nothing do-nothing see-nothing approach our metalloid article would still be subject to repeated back and forth editing as to which elements are metalloids. If there is no explicit consensus in the literature I seek to accomodate that fact in the best, most pragmatic way I can, consistent with the principles and spirit associated with improving Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia. That is the commendable approach the founders of our colour category periodic table took in 2003, in the absence of complete consensus in the literature, and in the best tradition of encyclopedia building.

Irony. In writing all of this I realise the irony of myself quoting WP policy. I plead making an exception in this case since the policies I refer to are antithetical to interpreting other WP policies in black letter law fashion.

Categories. On categories, we have some kernels of agreement. I support YBB in merging AM and AEM; Double sharp has expressed some support for this; R8R is not keen. On splitting the reactive nonmetals, I support this, Double sharp too, and R8R has expressed in principle support. YBG is not keen since he is interested in reducing the number of categories per 7±2. EdChem, I see you don't have a strong view on it beyond that the lens to examine it from is (IYO) how it assists / supports readers, which I agree with. So there is some reasonable support, with a few o/s concerns. Sandbh (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

R8R

I would like to clarify the part in which I am mentioned. What I said about the reactive nonmetal division was said three years ago, and I have not renewed my opinion on it since then. It could be that my opinion would be the same today and it could be that it would not if I were to look into it anew.
The more I think about the proposed division that's on the table right now, moderately active nonmetals+halogen nonmetals, the less appealing I find it. The most serious problem with it that I found is that "halogen nonmetals" can be confusing, especially in the way legend is construed now; it's not even clear that we're talking about halogen nonmetals, it seems we're talking about halogens, all of which fit into the set of nonmetals. That is confusing, and I've been thinking about it like that more and more; the final snap for me was the comment made by DePiep above, in which they ask when we agreed that astatine was not a halogen anymore. The present legend seems to imply precisely that. We didn't really agree on anything of the sort, and the legend doesn't want to imply that, but if DePiep, who's been watching this discussion since the very beginning, missed this point (DePiep is not to blame on this: it really is confusing), then what should we expect of a common reader who has not watched this discussion? I wouldn't expect anything other than thinking that astatine is not a halogen, period. Or maybe DePiep didn't actually miss anything and I am the one who missed something? One way or another, the proposed legend raises too many questions.
To wrap it up, I'm not sure if I think reactive nonmetals should be split (maybe so and maybe not), and I definitely don't think that the moderately active nonmetals+halogen nonmetals will work fine.--R8R (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: The common reader will have effectively no idea what e.g. AM, or AEM are, or halogen N, for that matter. There may be a few who have heard of older "halon" fire extinguishers, and perhaps read the label and noticed a reference to e.g. chlorine or bromine. There is effectively nothing to confuse the common reader. As for astatine, effectively none of them will have heard of it. I once again note the references in the literature to the less active, moderately active, and highly active nonmetals, and that a chemist, who has written about nomenclature, suggested the name moderately active nonmetals to me. Here are the examples again:

  • Timm (1950): "Oxygen is a moderately active nonmetal and will combine directly with nearly every other element to form an oxide.
  • Gelender at al. (1959): "This oxidation may be accomplished by: (a) The use of suitable oxidizing agents for moderately active nonmetals."
  • Perlman (1970): "Between Groups I and VII there are gradations from active metals (Col. I) to less active metals to moderately active nonmetals to volatile nonmetals (halogens Col. VII)."
  • Wulfsberg (2000): "Most of the moderately active metals and nonmetals (the electropositive metals and electronegative nonmetals) are reduced from their oxides…using carbon."
  • Welcher (2001): "The elements change from active metals to less active metals, to metalloids, to moderately active nonmetals, to very active nonmetals, and to a noble gas."
  • Sorokhtin at al. (2007): "Nitrogen is a moderately active element, reacting weakly with natural inorganic compounds."

The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Sandbh (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: And where are the indications that these are anything other than adverbs and adjectives modifying a noun? Are "moderately active nonmetals" in the indexes of these texts, if they have them? And where are the clearly stated definitions that these refer to {H, C, N, O, P, S, Se} only? And supposing that it is terminology, exactly how widespread it is in textbooks?
It's not about "avoiding or ignoring literature". It's simply a question: how major is this POV? What is the WP:DUE weight that should be accorded to it? Is this a major thing that most chemists would understand, or is it closer to the kind of support I can produce for putting helium over beryllium in the periodic table: a handful of journal articles that so far almost nobody listens to? What is the prevalence of this term in the literature? Out of a general sample of sources, how many of them use and define this term as a term? And how does that percentage compare with the percentage of sources drawing the periodic table as Sc-Y-Lu? Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: I believe User:R8R, User:Sandbh, and I are having a disagreement in this section that you could help with by providing a perspective. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Since the term moderately active nonmetals was suggested to me by a chemist, in preference to light nonmetals, I'd expect most chemists would understand it. Consider how the halogens are referred to in the literature:
"Young (1976) : …the strongest nonmetals, as we have seen, are the halogens."
Dorin (1982): "Because of relatively high nuclear charges and small atomic sizes, members of the halogen family, Group 7A, are the most active nonmetals."
Cotton & Wilkinson (1999): "With the exception of the Li–Cs group there are closer similarities within the [halogen] group than in any other in the Periodic Table."
Jaffe (2012) :"The extremely active non-metals, fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine, all appeared in the seventh group."
Powell (2013): "Chlorine, bromine, and iodine are far less reactive than fluorine but are still very active chemicals."
What about the metalloids?
It has been known for over 120 years that metalloids have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry (Newth 1894; Friend 1914).
"When atoms have their outer shells just over half filled, they are thought of as nonmetals, but they are so near the border line that they are weak nonmetals." (Eby et al. 1943, p. 404)
"The elements near the dividing line are only weakly metallic or nonmetallic." (McCue 1963, p. 264)
Brinkley (1945, p. 378) writes that boron has weakly nonmetallic properties.
"With weakly electronegative elements like boron and silicon…" (Hurd 1952, p. 62)
"…while the oxides of the metalloids will tend to be amphoteric or weakly acidic" (Swift 1957)
Glinka (1965, p. 88) describes silicon as a weak nonmetal.
Rochow (1966, p. 4) noted metalloid compounds are always less acidic than the corresponding compounds of the nonmetals.
Vernon (2020; that's me): "Setting aside the confusion surrounding the metalloids, they are here treated as chemically weak nonmetals, consistent with Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary (Larrañaga et al. 2016, p. 988); see also Dingle (2017) for a refreshing interpretation of the status of metalloids, as ‘poor non-metals’."
And what about still more on the strong-moderate-weak-moderate-strong progression across the periodic table(?);
Emerson (1944): "The table shows the continuous variation of properties from active metals to active nonmetals as electrons are added to the outer shell of the atoms "
Gregg (1961): The electropositive elements are on the left side of the chart and the electronegative elements on the right. In any given horizontal row of representative elements, the alkali metal element is the most electropositive element, and the halogen the most electronegative. Elements midway between these two extremes are relatively weakly electropositive and relatively weakly electronegative."
Beiser (1968): "Across each period is a more or less steady transition from an active metal through less active metals and weakly active non-metals to highly active nonmetals and finally to an inert gas."
Booth & Bloom (1972): "A period represents a stepwise change from elements strongly metallic to weakly metallic to weakly nonmetallic to strongly nonmetallic, and then, at the end, to an abrupt cessation of almost all chemical properties."
Etkin (2019): "This corresponds to the experience according to which in each period there is a transition from active metals to less active, and then from active non-metals to very active non-metals. Moreover, at the end of each period (with the transition to inert gases)…"
Like the lanthanides, actinides, transition metals, and metalloids there is no clear, universal definition of the nonmetals involved. There is however a default defintion: They are the nonmetals left over when the noble gases, halogens, and elements most commonly recognised as metalloids are set aside.
Same goes for the fuzzy PTM, they are the metals leftover after the AM, AEM, Ln and An (however defined), and transition metals (however defined, noting e.g. Rayner-Canham only counts groups 4 to 11, as such) are set aside.
In the literature, the PTM have 17 alternate names that I'm aware of. The nonmetals lying between the metalloids and the halogens have at least seven names by which they've been referred to and this number will soon go up to 12+. Possibly the most encompassing term, which has fuzzy boundaries, is life elements:
"The third lecture can be a breath of fresh air or a shaking of foundations for the biochemist, as Steiner discusses the life elements, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and sulphur in Nature's household." (Storl 1979)
"Life elements | Most matter in living cells is four of the lightest, simplest elements. In organisms, 95% of the atoms are, in order of amount: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. These four organic elements are most of life's physical substance. (Goreau et al. 2014).
"Unlike other essential life elements H, C, N, O, no appreciable amounts of gaseous phosphorus compounds are… (Corbridge 2016).
"Major forms of life elements For all organisms, the major chemical elements are H, C, N, O, P and S, forming the majority of the organic components in living organisms." (Zhu 2020).
Same goes for the "building blocks of life":
"…of carbon and on the interaction of macromolecules made of six biogenic elements (H, C, N, O, S, P ) which together…Great progress has been made in demonstrating that the building blocks of life can be synthesised in the laboratory. (British Interplanetary Society 1985)
"More than 90% of the known universe is made up of hydrogen, whereas the other four major molecular building blocks of life, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus…" (Piantadosi 2003)
"Building blocks of life | Life is based on complex chemistry yet only a few of all the available elements participate in most life-supporting reactions on Earth: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorous, and sulfur." (Schulze-Makuc 2006)
"Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) are the building blocks of life on earth." (Neider 2008)
" …possibly including the first chemical building blocks of life, exist in comets and may have been carried by them, like the wind ... One element of the six, crucial for the origins of life (H, C, N, O, S, and P), phosphorus (or a phosphor-containing…" (Thomas et al. 2013)
As noted many times, H, C, N, O, P, S, and Se are the only elements (on WP) each having their own biogeochemical cycle article.
Probably, I haven't looked too closely at this, references to these seven nonmetals, by way of their numerous collective terms are at least as popular as "alkaline earth metals".
I surmise the reason why there is no one standout collective name for them is that their properties of interest fall across so many disciplines, including general chemistry, biochemistry, metallurgy, cage compounds, crystallography, energetic, geochemistry, organic chemistry, hydrogen storage, materials science, mineralogy, nano-chemistry, spectroscopy, and X-ray imaging.
Meanwhile, here we are knocking ourselves out in a WP:POLICY cite festival; striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry; and doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia, never mind all the information is out there, anchored in the literature!
I'll include a little more about this, later on. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Sandbh, could you maybe stop attributing motives to other editors in a content discussion? Above you said to User:R8R The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. After that User:EdChem talked to us about this when it happened between us, but now immediately above you said we are...doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia. If you have behavioural grievances with me, or with R8R, then can we please follow EdChem's advice and bring it to an appropriate venue for that sort of thing, instead of mixing it in the middle of a content thread? Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Double sharp Thanks for asking. I'll probably decline your request although I'll keep it in mind. I say this in the context of DePiep's benchmark contribution to WP:ANI, no less, i.e. "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R." In that context, what I say is a whimper.
The issues I perceive and raise are pertinent to our content contributions, as a project team, so I'll continue to post that kind of thing whenever or where ever I deem it appropriate. Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. Another pet peeve is invoking a prefernce for symmetry, which is culturally-biased phenomenon, rather than having a basis in science, to guide one's decisions here. I'll keep calling out that one, whenever I see it.
As far as R8R is concerned, getting him to move an inch is like asking him to move a mile. For that matter, I can't recall R8R *ever* supporting a proposal for change raised within our project. If I'm wrong, I'll take it back. That's how it feels like to me, is all I'm saying.
I am calling out these behaviours since nothing else seems to work. I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. Essentially, I can only appeal to the middle ground, and hope there are enough "votes" to swing the balance. Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Just drawing your attention to this for your view.

@R8R: And yours too, since it relates to you. Double sharp (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. Sandbh, there is a difference you do not seem to get: the purpose of WP:ANI is to address behavioural issues, including pointing out self-serving hypocrisy. Talkpages OTOH, like article ones and this one are explicitly not open for behavioural problematic edits. Instead, they are for content-related discussions. And that is what POLICIES you are invited to follow, aim at. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sandbh: A few things that may need clarification:
I clarified my position on what I treat the common reader like not too long ago, but I may need to clarify it further to reflect my thoughts more accurately. In contexts that I believe to be interesting for people without any chemical knowledge (our most popular articles like iron or aluminium), I assume no knowledge on the part of a reader. In contexts that are plainly dull for such people (group 3 element being one obvious example), I assume some knowledge because I don't believe that those people who could read it will not know it. Generally, I assume as little knowledge as I believe a person who could read this article or part of an article could have. The part about classification of the elements obviously requires some basic knowledge of what elements are. Perhaps a few months into the school chemistry course is enough.
Here's a quote I just found online:
Ndlovu, Simate, Matinde (2017) "From the chemistry point of view, copper is a moderately active metal" -- why are we ignoring this category and not including "moderately active metals" into our fold? Let's say the concept of transition metals were not a factor, should we rely on quotes like this to include this name? My answer would be no, because this is not meant as a single term, but rather a term with a qualification. I view "moderately active nonmetals" similarly. In any event, it's not this part that is the problem, after all, "reactive nonmetals" does precisely the same. The confusing part about halogens, that's what's confusing here. I said it clearly already, but I hope it's clear now.
Another point that may need clarification is this: I am trying to build a better encyclopedia, and I'm sure Double sharp is, too. My (and Double sharp's) understanding of what helps achievement of this goal may differ from yours. That's fine, that's what discussions are for. In this beautiful language that you speak and I attempt to speak, there's the magnificent concept of "contest of ideas," something that does not have nearly as much currency as in my own mother tongue. I suggest embracing that. For that matter, that's how I view our discussions. I never expect anyone to move simply because I know better. I'm not entitled to that and neither is anybody else, but I could try to convince them with what wit I can master. It's either consciously trying to build a better encyclopedia or giving way to something you don't believe to fulfill this goal. Often, there can only be one, and in such cases, I pick the former (and I expect anyone else to do the same). For a while, I've been pondering whether it doesn't matter (in which case I wouldn't care much) or that it does because the halogen bit is confusing, and I've settled on the latter.
For that matter, during the last group 3 discussion I chose the version that I thought was better for the encyclopedia, even though I went against my personal preference. (The point about me not supporting a change is rather strange -- I've supported -Lu-Lr almost since the day I came to this project, even though it was -*-** (-La-Ac in our PTQ, which was an image back then) back then, and I was the one to propose "reactive nonmetals." I get it it may feel like it but that's why one normally need hard evidence to back up whatever you feel to ensure their feelings are justified; "selective perception" is an interesting phrase you brought up.)
I hope we can wrap it up at this point and get back to discussion on encyclopedic topics at hand.--R8R (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Thanks. My comments follow. Noting your closing comment, if I feel a need to continue discussing this interesting topic, as opposed to starting an RFC at the periodic table talk page, I’ll start a new thread.

1. Regarding the common reader, I make no assumptions about what they may or may not know, nor their motivation for looking up or reading any particular article. An encyclopaedia is an encyclopaedia. We are not in the business of second-guessing the nature of individual readers, nor their motivations. What one will find familiar another will find boring, and vice-versa. It’s none of our concern. A quality encyclopaedia focuses on consistency of its articles and a consistent reading level approach, that’s all.

2. We do not include a category of moderately active metals because the “transition metals” category is about 30,000 times more commonly encountered in the literature. If there was no such thing as a transition metals category I expect we would look at what terminology the literature uses to refer to the metals involved, and choose a category name on that basis. We took the same approach with the PTM category name.

3. There is nothing confusing about “halogen nonmetals”, given we chose to colour categorise astatine, having regard to the literature, as a PTM. Astatine is still a halogen according to IUPAC, of course. Cleary, some halogens are nonmetals, and at least one is a metal. So what? The confusion you are concerned about is a manifestation of what I wrote about before i.e., “…we are knocking ourselves out…striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry”, rather than focussing on what the science tell us, as per EdChem’s suggestion (and I include classification science here), even if we find the outcome to be unpalatable or ugly, according to our subjective personal experiences, which have nothing to do with science, per se, nor with an encyclopedia.

4. I agree that you and Double sharp, and I, are committed to developing a better encyclopedia.

5. It occurred to me that our encyclopaedia has > 6,000,000 articles. I presume there would be room in such an encyclopaedia for an article on halogen nonmetals, and another one on moderately active nonmetals or another equivalent from the dozen or so alternatives there are. Certainly there would be no shortage of literature to draw on; ditto metalloids, and noble gases. Oh, not forgetting that “moderately active nonmetals” was suggested to me by a non-WP editor chemist who has written on nomenclature matters. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

EdChem

Sandbh, IAR is both a valuable and a dangerous policy. As an example that applies to none of us, suppose editor X is topic banned from area Y... X is convinced that they are better at writing content in topic area Y and so ignore the topic ban and continue editing, invoking IAR as justification. How well do you think X's argument would stand up when it got to ANI? I would say the time taken for a block to be imposed would be measured in minutes, and not very many of them. Editors who try to use IAR to get around policy can run into trouble similarly quickly. Arguing to IAR-override DUE, for example, because one paper says A while every textbook says B is unlikely to fly, even if B is true and corrects a long-standing incorrect belief in A. Encyclopaedias are not supposed to be at the cutting edge of knowledge, they lag behind waiting for debates to resolve. You state that Principles, spirit, and knowledge gathering and summarising are what count, rather than quoting WP policy, but when IAR speaks of principles and spirit it means those that live in policy. Knowledge gathering and summarising are good, so long as they don't move into SYNTHesising conclusions not previously made or offering a summary that goes beyond extant knowledge into OR. The spirit and principles of those policies is about encyclopaedias summarising what is known and not including what is new, so IAR will not support going beyond that which is published in RS. I'm all for IAR to facilitate editing in line with spirit of policy, but not for avoiding policy. EdChem (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
EdChem I basically agree, with some observations. I don't regard IAR as dangerous. You do, that's fine. There is no rule or law that says, "Encyclopaedias are not supposed to be at the cutting edge of knowledge" although if that's a belief that works for you, that's fine too. As a living encyclopedia I see WP having the potential to be at the cutting edge of knowledge, where such knowledge refers to what is known, with a reasonable, plausible, context relevant, interesting, or potentially interesting degree of reliability. Anything short of that is un-encyclopedia, in the broadest sense of the meaning of encyclopedic, in my view. Too, policy is only ever supposed to be a guide to subjective decision-making, having regard to applicable circumstances, and higher contextual values, (the five pillars in the case of WP) rather than a set of rules, although many people interpret and apply policy as a set of rules. Sandbh (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp

I've shifted my support to blocks alone, actually. Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sandbh It is not about hiding knowledge. It is about policy. We are supposed to be following the literature. Not leading in it. If the literature is fuzzy, then we should say that it is fuzzy and not try to make it look less fuzzy than it is. If there is no standard term for something, then the right option for WP is not to pick out the one that looks nicest, it's admitting that there is no standard term. As WP:UNDUE puts it paraphrasing Jimbo:
Equally, it's not about "basis in scientific merit". It's about whether there is a genuine agreement in the relevant sources; if there is, then we can say it. And if there is not, then we should be focusing only on mentioning the major viewpoints, and weighting them according to the most relevant sources. And it's not about "personal, irrational dislikes" as you write. You can argue as much as you like. So can I, so can anyone else. We can all try our best to persuade others. That's just as in Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion. But if you can't persuade others, you can't force them to agree with you. That does not mean they are opposing just because of "personal, irrational dislikes". Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


Fresh energy for the periodic table: A bold start

@Double sharp, DePiep, YBG, R8R, ComplexRational, EdChem, and Andrew Davidson:

  • This is an experiment in cooperative continuous improvement editing (CCIE).
  • I've made a start on bringing the periodic table article back up to FA standard.
  • IMO, part of the issue was that the lede and overview sections overlapped.
  • So I removed the overview section!
  • The structure of the lede now matches the structure of the whole article, as it should.
  • If there's something you feel is missing, that I trimmed, that's OK: give some thought as to where it would be best postponed, then go ahead and add it back in.
  • This experiment in CCIE won't work if their is a mass revert, or mass reverts.
  • The aim is continuous improvement editing i.e. ready-fire-aim, rather than ready-aim-fire.
  • User:EdChem provided plenty of fresh energy for our PT article, here, which is ripe for harvesting.

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I have attempted to compliment the effort by reducing the part on the group 3 dispute to the size that subsection should have always featured. Everybody is welcome to check after me and see if I removed something of tremendous importance. I have removed the bifurcation option as it's not common yet; we can discuss it in group 3 element.--R8R (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
That looks not bad as an overview to me, R8R. Although maybe we should have just one extra sentence about approximately how long this has been going on? Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: maybe, but the way you're putting this question, I don't know the answer to it myself. If this has been going on for XX years, what event did it start with exactly? I suspect it hasn't really been going on all these years, so I'm not sure. But maybe you have a sentence in mind?--R8R (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: I wrote in what I had in mind; what do you think? I based it on what the IUPAC project says about it, with just a vague "decades" combined with a citation to Hamilton 1965 (it talks about the issue, argues in favour of one side, and it's from 1965, so that probably proves it's been going on for decades ^_^). Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Fix ping: R8R Double sharp (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I think the debating part is fine, I think it's good to stay. However, I have removed the mention of the first measurement of the 1st IE of Lr because it is an extremely marginal thing to mention.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: I wanted to include it because the IUPAC project mentions it as having provided the impetus for making the thing big again. But since it is indeed a minor part of the entire story, I think your approach also works. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

In the spirit of R8R's bold actions; maybe we should cut the section on period 1 similarly? I have not done so yet, but have copied the current content over to period 1 element as a preparation. Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we do just that, yes.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@R8R:   Done And maybe we should link the two somehow by mentioning that somehow this seems to be a conflict between exactly what decides placement of elements on the PT. Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: great. I don't think that's needed, that's not too hard to figure out, though if you think otherwise, I won't object, either. Another thing that appears overly inflated to me right now is Periodic_table#Categories; maybe I'll get to it tonight.--R8R (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: Looking forward to seeing what you do with it. If you ask me, the thing about sets of elements needs to be worked on to make it more clear that it's about the PT. As of now it maybe reads too much like an article about chemical elements. I think this is the material that EdChem's draft covers better, if you ask me.
Regarding categories, I also think that the group 12 in transition metals thing is not a periodic table controversy, despite where it is placed. The periodic table looks the same regardless of whether you think they are or not. I rather think it is something that should be mentioned in the overview when categories are briefly discussed as an example of how their boundaries are fuzzy, saying that while in basic literature they are often included, a significant portion (but not all) of the advanced literature excludes them based on them having different properties. Then maybe say that in general, the categories in use will depend on the situation, and we simply show a scheme that is generally close to most sources. I think that's all we really need to say about it there, with an aim to say much more about categories at chemical element whenever that article gets developed better. But we can think about it. Double sharp (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: this edit represents what I had in mind. I have established the relevance to the topic of the article and stayed loyal to the idea of having to write an overview article. The section is underreferenced now to say the least (something we should fix), but the idea behind the edit should be clear.--R8R (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: I like what you did and edited it a bit (some parts shrank, other parts grew, but mostly stayed the same size). I tried to stick to the idea of just giving a few examples.
Do you think, metals/metalloids/nonmetals should just be considered under this section as well rather than having its own? Because (1) many category schemes seem to be not too fussed about whether they are metallicity or group-based schemes (witness how At, Ts, Og got treated by LANL/RSC/ACS/Britannica/IUPAC etc.), and they are equally supercategories. I understand that currently we have the idea that we have subcategories of these three supercategories, but most people in the literature seem not too fussed about that. Double sharp (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I am starting to think that the organisation is problematic enough that we should rewrite the entire first two sections starting with EdChem's proposal as a base. For one thing, since so many categories match groups, and the group structure "comes first" in the sense that a PT is still a PT no matter how you categorise it (even if you randomly assign things, in which case it's silly but still a PT), but one can ask questions about which elements "belong" in which groups and just randomly placing anything anywhere will not give you a PT anymore, I feel that the whole business typical general chemistry textbooks go into about how the PT comes from electronic configurations and the Aufbau principle should come first. I don't know if I have time to do it today, but my feeling is that it should be done. Double sharp (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I like your edit very much.
Come to think of it, you're right; the discussion about metals and nonmetals we have now is more fit for chemical element than it is for periodic table.
I haven't been thinking of what I'm doing so far as of a part of the effort to rewrite the article, merely as a preparation for that. I find it important to lose the irrelevant bits first (this will help the readers who are going to read the article in the next few days before we finish our rewriting, and it will help the editors who will take part in this rewriting to remember what not to include), and then, a rewriting will follow.--R8R (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yay! ^_^
I agree with you, the discussion about metals and nonmetals belongs mostly in chemical elements. OTOH, the transition from metals to nonmetals is itself also a trend on the PT. So I guess it deserves a mention, just not a big one. In fact, the greatest difficulty I have had in thinking about how to even start writing the whole section is how to strike a balance between talking about chemical elements (a cool topic and all, but not the one of this article) and the periodic table. And in doing the latter you need to be careful about how much you devote to the periodic law (the statement about the chemical elements, saying the properties of the elements and the compounds they form are a periodic function of their atomic number) and the periodic table (which is a tool to organise the elements). So I feel like I have to go back to the really basic textbooks to see how they do it. Because the problem is that I have known this stuff for so long that I've forgotten how it was explained in the first place.
There is one other thing I have thought about that I feel I should run by you first. I am not really comfortable with the section on TMs and unknown chemical properties in the section on controversies. This is really a categorisation issue, we have already discussed it. Why single out TMs and superheavies when there are so many other disputes (e.g. which elements are metalloids?). I feel like we have already addressed this simply and should not do it again. I am also unsure about how the rest of this section should go actually, but at the very least I also get the feeling that we talk way too much about the extension. So I have made some drastic shortenings and removals over there, asking myself "have we already said this, and even if we haven't, is this something we need to tell the beginners?". Hope to hear your opinion. Double sharp (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Since IUPAC mentions both 18 vs 32 column on their homepage, since some 32 column tables appear even before the matter is discussed, and because explaining the 32 column form is literally a matter of explaining the asterisks like we will have to do anyway, I feel like we should not actually have a section about 18 vs 32. They are, after all, supposed to be the same, just whether or not the asterisk is in there or not. Rather I feel we should simply explain it in the overview: say that to fit on the page, the f block elements are usually cut out and placed at the bottom, though this practice is not universal. Honestly, as far as which tables get a section there, I feel like the Russian-style 8 column table has far more of a claim there than the 32 column one: it is unarguably different. 18 vs 32 is, rather, a question of whether to cut out Alaska and Hawaii from a map of the USA so that the map does not include a ton of ocean in between. But I haven't changed anything on that front yet. Double sharp (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

And the more I look at this article: the more I think we have been somewhat remiss in overusing primary sources. I think that we should really be following what is given mostly in textbooks and/or popular-science treatments, so I currently am iffy about sections like Periodic_table#Linking_or_bridging_groups and whether they should really be there or not. I advance this with hesitation because use-of-sources issues are what caused the latest flare-up, but to reach a shared vision of improving the article, it must be raised. I add that my section on Periodic table#Kainosymmetry has a similar problem, and the only reason I have not removed it yet is because IIRC the double-periodicity result is mentioned in Scerri's The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance. So, that seems to qualify for listing as one of the trends as that's a rather popular popular-science treatment, although the basis of it probably should be axed from this beginning article. (Besides, now I'd probably treat it in one sentence, something like "There are also other intragroup trends on the periodic table, such as the double periodicity in which certain properties tend to alternate between even and odd periods." I think that's more or less the level the beginner really needs anyway.) Double sharp (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I feel that you should be aware that, in the spirit of being WP:BOLD and trying to adhere to Jehochman's statement at User talk:YBG Imagine you are explaining chemistry to a first year high school student. What do they need to know? Any extra complexity an be explained in the article text (who say this alternative, who says that alternative), or footnotes, we have deleted some of the content that I remember you previously added. This includes some text supported by citations on the grounds that either of us feels that it does not adhere to Jehochman's statement that we find reasonable. I have also deleted some of my own old text, which should clarify that this is not and was not intended as a personal matter. If you object to any of the removals, then please feel free to revert and discuss. Double sharp (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp, All good. Being bold is what I intended. I'll catch up with it eventually. Sandbh (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Archive?

Shall we Archive this thread? -DePiep (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what the answer should be, but here is my idea of how to reach the answer: Look through the suggestions here and if all have been either actually implemented or implicitly rejected in the periodic table improvement project, then hit the archive button post haste. YBG (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Someone not me has collapsed the thread, so that's why I am asking. I think collapsing=archiving, what's the inbetween? Also, minor note, I don't think it should be up to others to check all Q's raised; especially not at WT:ELEM these times. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't recall collapsing this thread. I collapse them when I think they've largely become inactive, along YBG's line. I don't archive them at that time because I feel it's nice for somebody visiting our talk page to get a feel for what we're been recently talking about. Sandbh (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Deciding between ourselves

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

I have read EdChem's excellent comment at his talk page, and I think he has an excellent point. Therefore I would like to start the discussion that he suggests.

Firstly: I think we should put aside existing differences. We have been squabbling over how the sources should be reflected for the layout and colouring of the periodic table. And while I can see why we did it, since this appears on every element page, we have allowed our sometimes strong views there to vastly overbake the importance of this issue. As EdChem has correctly noted at the top of the talk page: the periodic table article lede still isn't succeeding at giving the reader the needed information. I think we should seriously think first about the important things from the reader, instead of turning the issue into a WP:BIKESHED.

Secondly: I think we should make an utmost attempt to solve the issues between ourselves. EdChem has already told us that going to ArbCom has no good outcome for us. At best it just extends hostilities, and at worst there is also the risk that everyone involved gets banned from chemistry topics. I don't think anyone wants that, because all of us are enthusiastic about the topic area and have a good deal of knowledge. To that end, therefore, I feel that we have to somehow get the content and behavioural disputes separated.

Therefore, I would like to put aside all existing differences. We sometimes have very different views on the matter, but at the core, we all want to improve Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia works by consensus, we have to let go of any residual desires to "win" the debate. That should not be our goal. Our goal should be high-quality encyclopaedic content. Everyone here is aware of RS, and we just have different viewpoints about what exactly is DUE or SYNTH or OR.

To that end also, I would like to let go of any strong feelings about the issue when it comes to what Wikipedia shows. For example, yes, it's true that outside WP I do strongly feel that the Lu form is somehow "correct". But I recognise that this is not a universally held view. It is no longer important to me that I "win" this and manage to install the Lu form as the standard situation – because regardless of how many RS I throw at the issue, the point is not to "win". Wikipedia is indeed not a place to right great wrongs, as EdChem helpfully linked. The point is simply that Wikipedia should describe the dispute in a neutral way that serves the reader – which may be quite short. Whether that means Lu or La is shown is not in any sense the important thing. I would like to make it clear that from now on, I make no claims to OWNership of any of the articles. Let's think first about the reader instead of trying to "win".

Additionally, I would like to ask that we all reflect on our own problematic behaviours while doing so. While I did have concerns about the behaviour of User:Sandbh in particular, I do feel that I have gone too far into being "against" him. I would like to end that. From now on, let's agree to end all hostilities, and not to restart them again. Let's not squabble about who was "right" in the behavioural dispute just as we shouldn't squabble about who was "right" in the content dispute. Let's instead work together. And I would like to say the same for myself towards everyone else here. I may disagree with you sometimes, but I respect you and what you bring here, and I will not see anyone as an opponent. Let's draw a black line and say: that's all over and we'll work together now.

So far, we have mostly confined ourselves to the talk page instead of the article, which is a good start. But we have allowed the talk page discussions to spiral endlessly and degenerate, which is not good. Therefore I would like to suggest that we resolve things together and not fight.

To that end I would like to invite User:R8R, User:DePiep, User:Sandbh, and User:YBG to join in this discussion. I have behaved badly here and failed to consider the readers first, but EdChem has explained it to me and I pledge to follow and change. I hope everyone also does so. I am confident that this can succeed.

Now, let me explain how I propose to solve this by compromise.

First of all, let's leave the La vs Lu thing aside. Sandbh has presented to us information to the effect that progress is happening on IUPAC's end and that the preliminary results of their discussion will soon appear in Chemistry International, so my previous concerns that we may be stuck in a "limbo" with no good answer have proven unfounded. In any case, reactions here suggest that this issue is only polarising for no good reason, and also that it will probably only result in a no consensus to change. Therefore I feel it makes sense to wait for Scerri's article to come out, because that can alter the situation, and then decide briefly what to do next. After all: anything IUPAC says will certainly clarify the situation. I will not pursue it till then and we may consider the case of changing the table closed. Since Sandbh has recently published an article supporting La, I also think that not trying to change it until something new happens from IUPAC may also be appreciated as a goodwill gesture. We will probably have to visit how to describe the situation in the periodic table article, but hopefully this will not cause too much of a problem (EdChem has already given us an idea).

Second, I think the main issue about the categories thing is because of a somewhat unfortunate complicated situation in the sources. (1) Many more sources provide categories than stick to blocks alone, but (2) the precise categories they use change between sources whereas the precise boundaries of blocks don't. So it seems to me that the issue is really about conflicting interpretations of WP:UNDUE. (1) Refusing to use categories is in some sense undue weight because most sources use them, but (2) using any one particular set of categories may make things a little dicey around the boundaries where categorisations in the literature don't always agree (so, things like polonium or astatine). It seems to me that Sandbh has been more concerned about (1) while I have been more concerned about (2).

We could possibly discuss this with mediators like EdChem. But let me try to resolve it between ourselves first. I would agree to a compromise situation in which the categories remain, but it's made clear in the article text of periodic table that this is just one way of doing things and that sources sometimes don't agree on things. We could even keep the entire current classification this way. It would seem to me then that everything would be fine: we could continue to give major categories, and for problematic elements (are group 12 elements transition metals, for example) we could simply have something like we already do at the infobox {{infobox zinc}} where it's mentioned. Same thing would happen for something like astatine, for which we could appeal to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS about the relevant sources to justify why we call it a metal (since the relevant sources are probably the ones who focused on its chemistry and physics itself, since it is so hard to actually investigate). I think this would address my concern about (2), while simultaneously not go so far as to result in reopening Sandbh's concern about (1). I propose this in the spirit of compromise and hope it could be accepted. In fact, this would mean doing nothing but mentioning on periodic table that the category boundaries are a bit fuzzy and some other possibilities are around. There wouldn't even need to be any perennial disclaimer on every PT in this proposed compromise of mine.

As for the proposed nonmetal splits: this may be discussed between ourselves. I think that it may be a similar issue: it's indeed common to call out the halogens as a category, but what happens when the halogens hit the metalloids and metals for relatively unexplored At and Ts is not quite agreed. So I would say that a similar compromise like "halogen nonmetals" would be acceptable to me. Hopefully these compromises get somewhere at resolving this issue.

Since this basically completely wipes out all the disagreements I had with Sandbh's approach to the colouring, and freezes the group 3 dispute until a new situation comes, it seems to me that this can likely totally solve the situation. The only thing left would be Sandbh's nonmetal RFC. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I am glad with EdChem's descriptions ('about ArbCom'), and this initiative by Double sharp. I think I can sign up for this. One question though: could we say something about discussion-discipline, like preventing TL;DR and unstrtuctured threads? Without checking for some WP:... guideline, there is some common approach needed to make then productive; I think it is about attitude now. -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: Glad to hear you like it. I am mostly waiting for Sandbh's reaction, but I think he will like it. I think the TL;DR syndrome is partly a result of the policy-interpretations issue; when you have one thing that is interpreted in two different ways by people, the usual result is that they talk past each other. So, I think it will be fine as long as we make it clear that the first step we take is to ask if in any doubt for how the editor sees policy applying to the case, and if still in doubt to ask an external third opinion. Double sharp (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. We should try to settle this amongst ourselves. As I commented at ArbCom, I think it would be a great misfortune if our 3rd appearance at WP:Signpost turned out to be an ArbCom case. YBG (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
(ec) I'm with this. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: this sort of discussion was the thing I had in mind when I proposed we discuss an internal guideline, so naturally, I welcome it.
I like one particular phrase you said: "I would like to ask that we all reflect on our own problematic behaviours while doing so." While I have seen some self-reflection from both Sandbh and yourself, as well as expressed some of it myself, I particularly want to see some self-reflection from DePiep, but that remains yet to be seen. As far as I can recall, you were not told to grow up; didn't have a disparaging post written about yourself on a TFA talk page; were not a subject of a series of very serious but baseless accusations, for which you could not find any base even when you pushed for it, and the one time you cornered the accuser, you learned that your words "Please read my words more carefully" were the basis for the accusation that you had personally attacked them (not the whole basis, granted, but the rest of it was "attacks" of similar caliber); after the end of the ANI, you did not have yet another personal attack against yourself commence, this time on your own talk page. That would be a lot of behavior to reflect on. However, all of this happened to me.
@DePiep: I am not looking for a satisfaction of any kind, but I am looking for your acknowledgement that this behavior of yours was not appropriate and for a commitment that you would not do any of this again. I am genuinely worried that whatever the evidence is, you do not see yourself guilty of anything; therefore, you don't feel the need to correct your behavior and therefore, there is no guarantee from something of this sort ever happening again. I would like it very much that you prove me wrong and dispel whatever doubts I may have about this. You said it yourself, you could sign up to Double sharp's words. The best proof of that would be the acknowledgement of your misdeeds and a commitment to not repeat them. I will not forget all of this, as you suggested in one of the sections above, but I will be very glad to leave it all aside, consider the matter settled, and act as if it hadn't happened as soon as I hear that. Can I expect to hear it?--R8R (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Will reply, but not by first primitive reaction reflexes. -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: I think that's a good idea. I slept on one of these issues last night and I think it did a lot of good. Double sharp (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@R8R:. I have come to the conclusion that I will not fulfil your request. The core reason is that when I wrote "I think I can sign up for this" I did not add reservations. The statement by Double sharp includes the topic of "problematic behaviours": "end ... and not to restart". I am very well aware that this is part of the proposal, and that the "self reflection" is included. However, it is not required or proposed to do so publicly — on the contrary: it says not to "squabble about who was 'right'". I read this to mean: be open to (self-)criticism into improvement, and that is what I can sign up to.
There is an other reason. Your question raises the possibility that this thread too becomes a sort of ANI complaint-solving (or, more likely, -not-solving). That would take out all effectivity of the proposal, because that route is what has failed. And anyway, issues you mention already have been brought to ANI, and obviously no trespassing was concluded; it was even allowed to be brought to ANI again (I am still wondering how that was allowed but alas), and again no consequences were concluded. So I say no to a third time. Maybe you could consider to drop the stick of ANI-style questioning (here and on other talkpages), following the spirit expressed by Double sharp.
And, a third and final thought. Please keep in mind that WP:ELEMENTS has left the ani-level of dispute resolution; as EdChem described the Project now is in more serious danger wrt (our) future editing options. This proposal requires a change of attitude of us all, and will take lots of energy, aimed upward, to make it work. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
As for myself, in the spirit of my OP, I am happy enough with this statement by DePiep. If asking for public statements runs the risk of jeopardising this quick resolution, then I feel we should not insist on it. Hopefully, after a couple of weeks of no problems, we will not need them for any proof anyway. It is up to R8R of course on whether he's fine with it or not. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Waiting for Sandbh to reply here. This is serious, I'd strongly ask you to consider this proposal. -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep, Double sharp, and R8R:

  1. Faced with a choice of affirming R8R or DePeip, I affirm R8R.
  2. Faced with a choice of ArbCom or sorting out things here, I'd choose the latter.
  3. DePiep, you bring gifts to our project as well as aspects I find unwelcome, as reflected in your lengthy block record.
  4. With such a block record, including the prospect of an indefinite ban for another occurrence of misconduct, I'd expect to be walking on egg shells, yet you go about things, as I see it, as if nothing happened.
  5. For example, you reverted me here,[2] and provided no other comment than "No", in breach of WP:BRD.
  6. You reverted me at WP:ANI no less,[3] along with the comment: "rv for now. a clerck etc may deem this allowable and so confirm/reinstate (very inconveniant to me)".
  7. You have previously reverted me on the grounds of no consensus having being established, when no such consensus was required.
  8. After several years of inaction on our colouring the PT proposal you undertake to do something about it within a week and then advise our project that you were not able to do so "due to distractions".[4]
  9. Softlavender mentioned you at WP:ANI saying, "(I think at this point, DePiep is going to end up at ArbCom and/or or long-term blocked if he continues in the behavior patterns he has demonstrated all over Wikipedia". 07:18, 10 October 2020
  10. Four other editors at ARBCOM have mentioned you; one asked: "Is User:DePiep a net negative to the encyclopedia?".[5][6]. See also this essay on users with long block logs.
  11. My impression is that you are involved in so many aspects of WP that you are unable to keep track of things within our project and consequently ask for summaries or complain about e.g. unfocused threads etc., for example this edit [7] in which your edit summary is "basically senseless".
  12. My impression of your general role is that of a "blocker." For example, there is this post[8] in which you write: "I feel the need for a freeze of those wide-ranging and TL;DR discussions currently at hand." And you felt the need to add, that I am "still editing wide and rough" [9]even though, as DS posted,[10] I explained the my rationale for so doing [11].
  13. Here is another example of your combative attitude: "I consider all edits in this WP contested. For lack of discussion and lack of consensus. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC) [12]
  14. I have previously posted about some of these concerns wrt to your conduct; nothing changes.
  15. As I see it, your attitude needs to change, permanently.
  16. I support Double sharp in his preference for a quick resolution.

DePiep, you have ignored multiple, repeated warnings, over several years. You have shown no interest in changing.

You now find yourself, through your own actions and inaction, at ten seconds to midnight.

I ask you to reflect on the above, and consider the way forward.

You may decline to do so, of course. Sandbh (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep, Sandbh, Double sharp, EdChem, and YBG: My objective has been making sure that the behavior DePiep has demonstrated is not repeated. This goal is hardly unreasonable or undesirable. I directly asked for such a commitment---hardly an unreasonable request---and my request was declined. Since DePiep does not acknowledge their behavior as inappropriate and does not commit to not repeating it, there is nothing stopping DePiep from doing this again.
I don’t see what part DePiep intends to play in that change of attitude they’re citing if they’re not recognizing any of their past behavior as bad and are not committing to not repeating it as bad behavior.
If I’ve been too inquisitive, the whole reason of it was so that I don’t mistakenly assume the worst of you when you didn’t mean it, in the spirit of WP:GF. The inquisition is over now; there is no room for misinterpretation. I asked for a commitment and the response was, “I will not fulfil your request.”
I will be bringing this over to ArbCom. I did not initiate it, and I thought the mere possibility of an ArbCom action should have had an effect to do as little as recognition of old bad actions and a commitment not to repeat this ever again. This would’ve been enough. It wasn’t done. I have heeded to EdChem’s warning that this could backfire horribly. I still think that accepting that this behavior has not been even admitted, let alone been promised to not occur again, is the worse option. I’m sorry this didn’t end well if though it was looking like it could.
DePiep, I want to be absolutely clear. I don’t identify you as a problem, despite you suggesting that previously. I identify your behavior as a problem. I am still open to admission that your behavior was wrong and a commitment you wouldn’t repeat this kind of behavior; if I get it, I’ll strike my ArbCom post and consider the matter solved if the case hasn’t been taken by then.

I’ll leave a near-exhaustive list of your misdeeds over the last couple of months here for future reference. To the best of my knowledge, not a single one in the list has been admitted as such.
I have been told to grow up. (WT:ELEM/Archive 50, DePiep, 2020-09-27) My edits have been reverted in what is strongly suggesting, and has been called out by other editors, to be ownership edits. (WT:ELEM/Archive 50#Alkali metal color; Talk:TFA 2020-09-09; ANI #2, EdChem, 2020-10-06) I have had a plain disparaging on a TFA talk page. (Talk:TFA 2020-09-09/R8R) I have had a baseless accusation that I had responded to good faith edits by personal attacks. (ANI #1, DePiep, 2020-09-27) I have been accused of a personal attack (ANI #2, DePiep, 2020-10-04) following my explanation (WT:ELEM/Archive 50, R8R, 2020-10-03) that you, by your own admission, hadn’t even processed (WT:ELEM/Archive 50, DePiep, 2020-10-04) by the time of the accusation. DePiep has demanded other editors seek approval for their edits in this free encyclopedia. (ANI #2, Sandbh, 2020-10-03) DePiep demonstratively refused to acknowledge my motivation to perform an edit (ANI #2, R8R, 2020-10-06), following which I had another baseless personal accusation (ANI #2, DePiep, 2020-10-06).
Following the end of that ANI, there was yet another baseless accusation (T:R8R, DePiep, 2020-11-01).
In the end, when I asked DePiep to admit their behavior was not appropriate and to commit not to do this again, and make it the end of the story, my request was turned down (WT:ELEM#Deciding between ourselves, DePiep, 2020-11-15).
(A baseless accusation is, by definition, a personal attack. That was the thing DePiep has done a number of times (see diffs above, each of which features either the described action or a reference to it) but never recognized it, not to say make up for it somehow; however, that was a thing they kept insisting I was doing to them, something for which you never provided any serious proof even though I asked you to do so a couple of times.)--R8R (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
R8R You are treating the ArbCom case as another ANI report. Even worse, this is another repetition of earlier ANI reports. I can inform you: the ANI threads were closed, and you are invited to read and accept their conclusions. That an ANI (twice) does not return the result you want is saying something. Now this is about a WP:ARC, EdChem has described its setup which is different. Double sharp has made an initiative to respond to the Case. A pity you cannot agree with that. -DePiep (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I just posted a statement at Arbcom:

START OF QUOTE

Statement by Guy Macon

R8R's statement concerns me:

"I asked DePiep to acknowledge past misdeeds and commit not to repeat them. This request was declined. The list of DePiep's misdeeds over the last couple of months alone is extensive, and DePiep refuses to even acknowledge them as such. This means there's nothing stopping them from happening again."

We have no requirement that anyone admit guilt. In fact, doing something that is unambiguously not allowed, followed by "I never did that" or "doing that was allowed", followed by them never doing it again is a perfectly acceptable result.

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Deciding between ourselves Double sharp proposed " I would like to put aside all existing differences. We sometimes have very different views on the matter, but at the core, we all want to improve Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia works by consensus, we have to let go of any residual desires to 'win' the debate. That should not be our goal. Our goal should be high-quality encyclopaedic content."

Double sharp, DePiep and YBG all agreed to this, and as far as I can tell have stuck to it. Alas, R8R and Sandbh did not agree and instead have continued posting complaints about past behavior. So I think Arbcom should accept this case. If Double sharp, DePiep and YBG continue to put aside all existing differences they should be marked as "resolved: no arbcom action needed" and Arbcom should examine the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of R8R and Sandbh. (248 words) --Guy Macon

END OF QUOTE

I have some advice:

Double sharp, DePiep and YBG, I advise that you completely stop responding to any comments about anyone's behavior. Lots of eyes are on this, and what is happening is blindingly obvious without any of you commenting on it. I realize that this will be really hard to do, so if you slip just strike your response and go back to disengaging with no further comments.

R8R and Sandbh, I advise that you stop this behavior immediately. Don't even reply to this post. Just stop. If I see that you have stopped I will says so in my arbcom statement and advise that the arbs drop the case.

I have been watching arbcom for over ten years. They love it when everyone disengages and put aside the past. Burt if they see WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior after a case is requested, they tend to start blocking the editors who are still fighting from the entire encyclopedia in cases where ANI would have blocked the editor from certain pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC register

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Current

Proposal Sponsor Notes
Should there be two or three nonmetal colour categories? Sandbh Here
Should the lede PT graphic include a notation noting the fuzziness of its categories? Sandbh
Should the ACS/LANL/2010 categorisation scheme be adopted? DS Here

Frozen

Proposal Sponsor Notes
Should group 3 be La or Lu? Double sharp
  • Previous RFC abandoned
  • Sponsor intends to "freeze" at least until Scerri's article in Chemistry International discussing the IUPAC project's preliminary conclusions appears (and quite possibly until the entire IUPAC process finishes)

Withdrawn

Proposal Sponsor Notes
Should we have colour categories on our PT or just blocks? Double sharp Withdrawn
Does the current scheme of coloring the WP periodic table, prominently displayed in 150+ articles, violate WP policies such as WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTH, and/or WP:OR? YBG More focused wording than what I suggested here.
WithdrawnYBG (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we adopt R8R's PT colour scheme from 4 to 5 years ago? Sandbh As per discussion

Discussion

General

I believe the table sets out where things are up to.

If anybody would like to take over as sponsor for any one of these proposals, please speak up.

I suggest a current sponsor may choose to decline a take over request.

IMO, the best place to host these RFCs is at Talk:Periodic table. Our project is too small, insufficiently representative, and does not represent an NPOV "venue". Since the RFCs are about the periodic table, they ought to take place at that talk page. Sandbh (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That said, anyone can put an RFC at any time. Sandbh (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, I believe this list is accurate as well, and I do not object to putting up the RFC's at Talk:Periodic table. Since you have given us information that suggests that some preliminary information about the IUPAC conclusion may come out soon, I feel that we can put the La vs Lu one on hold at least until Scerri's article appears in Chemistry International. (That doesn't mean I intend to bring it out immediately once that appears; rather it means that his article, when it appears, will be an important point to be considered as to where to proceed next.) I was previously going for it because we didn't have informationI a about a timescale for IUPAC to make its decision and very little progress was being publicly displayed, so I was worried that we might be in a permanent "limbo" of sorts; however, since it seems that progress has indeed happened, I feel it makes sense to wait now. As for the categories one – as stated in my section below I think this is simply an issue regarding two conflicting interpretations of WP:UNDUE. Since I can now see a policy-based argument for keeping the categories, and in all honesty I wasn't so much against them because I didn't like them as because I was worried about the policy-based thing, I think that we can withdraw this issue as well. Hopefully it was just a good interesting icebreaker that let us reexamine the situation and conclude that indeed, policy lets us keep on with what we're doing.
That being said, however, I think EdChem is right that there are other issues with the article that are not covered by this, that would be more useful to solve first for the benefit of the average reader. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of adding a note to your table saying that I intend to "freeze" the La vs Lu one at least until Scerri's article appears. Please revert if you think this addition was inappropriate. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp, Sandbh, DePiep, EdChem, ComplexRational, and R8R: I have added a re-worded RfC about WP policy issues related to our current color scheme. I recall years ago thinking that our color scheme was an acceptable violation of WP:OR, but I have become increasingly uncomfortable with that. But I don't like the abvious consequences of that POV, the elimination of the beautiful colors on our PT. I would welcome any policy-based effort to convince me otherwise, ideally at User talk:YBG. I will gladly mark this RfC proposal as withdrawn under either of two conditions (a) someone convinces me that it does not violate WP policies; or (b) a clear majority of WP:ELEM members support retaining the colors. But apart from those two conditions, I think we should get WP-wide input on this one. If we go down that path, it should IMO be before the nonmetal question. Also, I think it should be decided on policy based considerations alone, not preferences, and so the question of what to replace it with should be a separate issue to be considered only after a definite decision of the policy issue. But I would much prefer a scenario that allows us to retain our color scheme. YBG (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Noteworthy post. Standing out, to me, is "acceptable violation of WP:OR". I think this is the discussion plan (or one of them) we need. -DePiep (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@YBG: I've tried at your talk page. I thought it might be good for me to try, because as you know I agreed with the view that it's problematic till today. Double sharp (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sandbh: I suggest not holding the recoloring RfC. There are two major reasons for this: 1) this is not an RfC question, and 2) we have already established a way forward (that I am quite content with).
1) This is not the sort of question that should be resolved via an RfC. An RfC can be useful if we find ourselves in a procedural deadlock and seek more comments to establish a way forward, but there already is a way forward. Another situation when an RfC could be useful is when we don't know what should be done, and we seek a solution, but I fear what opinions we may attract will be based on personal preferences, and this will likely not be very helpful for this goal. One more case is that we seek more legitimacy for a desired solution, but I think that we as a project should take agency for our decisions unless there's a reason why we can't.
2) There already is a way forward that we have established, and I am quite content with it. First of all, we hold the RfCs that may change the structure of our PT. If that happens, my old scheme becomes irrelevant, so we have to find out first whether it will. Then we know what kind of a PT we want to have, and we hold a contest open for everyone that will last two months (unless we agree that the submission period should be longer). When two months have passed, we as a project decide whether we want to replace our current PT for any suggestion, and if we do, for which one. And if we decide for having a new scheme, it goes live. DePiep may present their own scheme at a later date, and upon presentation we will decide whether we want to replace the scheme we will have at that point for DePiep's scheme; if we decide we do, it goes live.--R8R (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ACS/LANL/2010 categorisation scheme

Intersting. I'll post some comments. Sandbh (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_54&oldid=993506661"