Group 12 element has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
Group 12 element is the main article in the Group 12 elements series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I've been auditing the nav images in element articles to fix wrong neutron counts and giving Lu and Lr the lanthanoid and actinoid coloring, respectively. Part way through, I started to review our definitions for
element categories to check them against IUPAC's provisional recommendations. See
IUPAC Red Book IR-3.6 GROUPS OF ELEMENTS. Turns out that their specific definition for
transition metal deviates from ours in a somewhat embarrassing way:
ED NOTE: Turns out, that IUPAC's approved recommendations define transition metals as either the set of elements in groups 3 to 12 (our current set-up) or the set of elements from 3 to 11 (the set-up in the below table).
Fixing this results in somewhat modified periodic tables (Note, that the expanded 'Other metal' category includes all the post-transition metals plus aluminium):
So, before I finish my audit and fix of the nav images, I'd like to know if I should fix group 12 to be consistent with the provisional IUPAC definition of transition metals. OR should we wait for IUPAC to come out with the final-updated Red Book (comment period ends at the end of 2008)? I'm putting my audit and update of the nav images on hold until we figure this out. --
mav (
talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The elements (except hydrogen) of groups 1, 2 and 13–18 are designated as main group elements and, except in group 18, the first two elements of each main group are termed typical elements. Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included; the f-block elements are sometimes referred to as the inner transition elements.
I've always thought that our periodic tables have too many colors and that we could save ourselves a lot of trouble if we got rid of most of them. But I'm afraid I'm in the minority. -- Itub ( talk) 10:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Great feedback - thanks for finding the the current recommendations. Looks like IUPAC is giving us some leeway in the definition of transition metals in the approved recommendations. That means that our current table does not conflict with IUPAC. That is all I was worried about. We should therefore leave well-enough alone. We can revisit this if/when IUPAC comes up with a more rigorous definition. But I welcome anybody else to comment just in case we have missed anything. Again - Thank you everybody! -- mav ( talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I may be getting in here a little late, but I just wanted to note that in post-transition metal, it claims that the IUPAC definition for transition metals is in conflict with it self. Based upon what I've read here, that doesn't seem to be the case any more. I think it needs to be cleaned up to match the above conclusions. -- Wizard191 ( talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a note: first time we get the chance, we should try to get rid of the color differenciation between actinoids and lanthanoids. Nergaal ( talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Mercury is considered a transition element under both IUPAC definitions now, because the compound HgF4 has been synthesized in 2007, giving Hg a d8 electron configuration. Should this be incorporated in the table and the article? Kumorifox ( talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I showed up 3 months too late for the fun, but I based on what I read, I am removing the suggestion to merge these two articles. No change in IUPAC recommendations will ever alter Periodic table (by blocks). The blocks must have a number of columns corresponding to the number of electrons that a full subshell can hold. So the d-block must occupy groups 3-12. This is a man-made oversimplification because the chemistry and even the ground state electrons in Periodic_table_(electron_configurations) are messier than the blockiness, but that's ok. Oversimplifications are important because they make reality interesting. "Transition metal" on the other hand, is a convention, not an oversimplification. One bunch of folks call some elements "Transition metals" and another bunch of folks don't, and IUPAC says that's ok. When the most recent IUPAC book says "the elements of group 12 are not always included," they mean not always included in the transition metals. Group 12 has to be in the d-block because if it weren't, then the d-block would only hold 9 columns, meaning 9 electrons maximum in the d-subshell and Kimmie, the cute new 22-year old high-school chemistry teacher, would cry because even the oversimplifications would be too complex to teach, and angry mobs of high school boys who love Kimmie would grab torches and pitchforks and attack IUPAC folks and Wikipedia editors for making Kimmie cry. So that's why d-block and Transition metal should not be merged even though IUPAC says they -can- contain the same elements. By the way, Inner transition element and f-block should also be separate articles for the same reason. Conventions and oversimplifications are very, very different. Flying Jazz ( talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
There may be more, that's what I found after reading this once. All of the above is only my opinion-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 10:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Titodutta ( talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I am starting review. Additional comments are welcome! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Basic problems | Comment |
---|---|
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability | No problem! |
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, {{ POV}} | No major problem! |
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars | No! |
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. | No problem |
First look assessment: Ok! There is not any "basic problem" in the article, and we can start the review in detail now.
There are three dead refs in the article. That means, the pages used in reference don't exist now and resulting an HTTP 404 error (page not found). Fix these three references: reference 14, 54, 106! Let me know if you have any question!-- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | This is one of best written articles I have ever read in Wikipedia. The prose is completely clear and concise. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The article follows MoS guidelines! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | There is no problem with sources. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s). -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | True! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | True, there is not any original research! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes, the article addresses main aspects of the topic! | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Absolutely! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 21:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes, no problem in WP:NPOV. It represents viewpoints fairly! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I have not seen any recent edit war problem. Pass here too! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are properly tagged.. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | True! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC) | |
7. Overall assessment. | I have read this article multiple times, and I feel currently this is a good article based on Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Congratulations editors! You have done a great team work! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
The elements 30Zn, 48Cd. 80Hg, and and 112Cn all have the common feature of being the last element of a 10 element (2 + 4 + 4 = 10) so called transition metal series which then is extended by a 6 element (2 + 4 = 6) series to the end of the IUPAC table. This implies the end of the creation of a 10 element structural feature of the atomic nucleus. And this structural feature is related to the fact that it is concerned with the minimum addition of 10 deuterons plus some extra neutrons to the nucleus, with each of the incremental elements being changed by the addition of a single deuteron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WFPM ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 22 November 2012 UTC
The range of the number of excess neutrons required for the stability of the elements of this group is from 4 to 10 for 30Zn, from 10 to 20 for 48Cd, and from 36 to 44 for 80Hg, with the central stability isotope of 80Hg lying on the isotope stability line with the formula A = 3Z - 40 = EE80Hg200, with 23% constituency. There are no stable isotopes of 112Cn, probably due to a high probability of alpha particle emission instability. However a trend line related to a minimum of instability would probably be that involving the existence of a 4n number of extra neutrons and thus being in the range of A = 3Z -40 (at EE112Cn288 with 64 extra neutrons) or A = 3Z - 44 (at EE112Cn292 with 68 extra neutrons). The reported data is only for isotopes up to EO112Cn285 with 61 extra neutrons, and may indicate the inability of the structure to accumulate extra neutrons beyond a maximum number. WFPM ( talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Group 3 element which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Group 12 element. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Group 12 element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I am seeking comments on a proposal to color code the group 12 elements as post-transition metals in the Wikipedia periodic table, rather than transition metals as they are currently color coded.
The RfC can be found here. Sandbh ( talk) 23:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Group 12 element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Fr also is, since its melting point is only 297K (about 300K). — xayahrainie43, 2018. 09.01 10:59
If we know so much about Cp, then why are all these tables for Cp blank? Porygon-Z 15:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 ( talk • contribs)
Why zink is included in d block transition metal group? 103.113.172.5 ( talk) 05:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)