Here is what I posted in those Wikipedia template pages' talk pages.
About the atomic-volume template:
I have labeled the diagrams in this page "Original Research" because their presentation of the Periodic Table of the Elements is highly non-standard and presented without justification.
That's not original research. It appears you're unfamiliar with the
"Left Step Periodic Table".
Major alternative structures[edit]
Left step periodic table (Janet, 1928)[edit]
Charles Janet's Left step periodic table (1928)[3] is considered to be the most significant alternative to the traditional depiction of the periodic system. It organizes elements according to orbital filling (instead of valence) and is widely used by physicists.[4]
(
Source: Wikipedia)
In particular,
The vertical order of rows is flipped.
Seriously?
The alkali metals and alkali earths have been moved from the left end to the right end.
Funny story about the periodic table. Turns out it's periodic. As you run through the elements you find their properties periodically coming back to where they started, as though you were going around in a circle. The natural way to lay them out is therefore spiraling along the surface of a cylinder. We don't draw it that way because book pages are flat. So we take the cylinder and flatten it out, which means we have to cut it somewhere. Point being, where we cut it in order to create a flat layout is arbitrary. The traditional periodic table and the left step periodic table are simply cutting the same cylinder at slightly different positions.
Helium is in the alkali-earth column instead of in the noble-gas column, despite being a noble gas.
One could equally well say of the traditional layout, "Helium is in the 8-outer-electron column, despite having only two electrons in its outer shell.". That's exactly what people would have said about it if Janet's version had been invented before Mendeleev's.
The lanthanides and actinides are inlined instead of below the rest of the table, the usual place for them. This makes the table rather hard to read.
Putting them in the usual place for the sake of making them conveniently fit on a normal-aspect-ratio page is a regrettable practice, because, especially in conjunction with the practice of cutting the cylinder between the noble gases and the alkali metals, it completely obscures the simple underlying mathematics of the periodicity of the elements' properties. Just look at the thing -- there's no obvious pattern or reason for all the steps. The usual layout makes it look like nature just wanted a 7x18 matrix for no apparent reason, but didn't have enough elements to fill it, so took some random bites out of the matrix, leaving three rows incompletely filled, but accidentally bit out too many elements, so threw those back in as an extra 2x13 matrix. The usual layout makes chemistry look like just a mass of arbitrary facts to be memorized. It makes chemistry look like biology.
Here's a puzzle for your consideration. The conventional table runs out of room at element 118. At some point we'll no doubt synthesize elements 119, etc. Where in the conventional periodic table should they be placed? Well, of course we'll start a new row with 119 to 121; but then what? Does 122 go after 121, or under 90 in the extra 2x13 matrix, or starting its own new side matrix, or somewhere else? There probably isn't one chemistry student in a hundred who could look at the conventional periodic table and figure out the sensible place to put element 122.
The layout in the left step periodic table is perfectly simple and predictable. All elements are placed in 2x2 squares, for example, Boron-Carbon-Aluminum-Silicon. These 2x2 squares are laid out in rows, with different numbers of 2x2 squares in each row, with the rows lined up so as to all end at the same point, lined up under the Hydrogen-Helium-Lithium-Beryllium square, and with the number of 2x2 squares in each successive row as follows: 1, 4, 9, 16.
A 12-year-old could look at the left step periodic table and correctly figure out where element 122 will go.
The calculation of atomic size ignores ...
I have no quarrel with the rest of your comments.
