Talk:Periodic table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Periodic table is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 28, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Elements (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Science & education (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


The first picture in the "History" section[edit]

Why isn't fluorine coloured as having been known in 1869? It was certainly known (Mendeleev put it in his 1869 table); it just hadn't been isolated (which Moissan did in 1886: this seems to be the date the article is using). This looks very odd, especially as the pictures of Newlands' and Mendeleev's periodic tables given below have F. Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Changed the image, now F = known in 1869. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Issues in the Bohr model[edit]

The article states: in the Bohr model, atoms with a higher number than 137 are problematic because their outermost electrons would have to travel faster than light.

The Bohr model, now obsolete, was so successful that you can still find it in school books, at least around 2000 when I was in secondary school. However, one book also mentioned the concept of the electron orbiting its nucleus to be outdated. Does that mean that the problems with atoms with numbers above 137 are no longer expected to occur? Steinbach (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not that simple, because the theories that have replaced the Bohr model, such as non-relativistic Schrodinger quantum mechanics, also have problems above 137. Dirac66 (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the article actually mentions the relativistic Dirac equation. But to be sure, problems with newer models don't include electrons having to run faster than light? Steinbach (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
No, but other relativistic effects occur as the electron velocity approaches the speed of light. For one thing the electron mass increases as v → c. Dirac66 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014[edit]

The text "Elements are presented in order of increasing atomic number" is ambiguous. It should say something like, "Elements are presented in order of increasing atomic number (by row starting at the top, within each row starting on the left). The atomic number is listed at the top of each element box. " BenjaminGSlade (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that too specific? It follows English writing & reading direction: start top-left, at end of line (right) continu at next line, left side, and continue reading &tc. A note could be needed in the Arabic site, but not here imo. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the second suggested sentence would be more useful than the first. A beginner might not realize that those integers are the atomic numbers. Once that is made clear, any reader can follow the sequence of numbers. And in any case the words by row starting at the top are misleading when we arrive at the rare earths, whose location will be mysterious without still further explanation.Dirac66 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
'Second sentence'? I don't understand. Please quote something. -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@BenjaminGSlade: Agree with Dirac66 That would fulfill all the concerns it seems, and explain enough but not too much to confuse the novice reader. Add / change to "The atomic number is listed at the top of each element box" Mlpearc (open channel) 11:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the second sentence, which I would add, is "The atomic number is listed at the top of each element box." The first sentence, which I would not add, is ""Elements are presented in order of increasing atomic number (by row starting at the top, within each row starting on the left)." Dirac66 (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not essential that the atomic number be listed at the top of each box (eg), though it happens to be that way in our examples. How about this version, which also moves the explanation of "atomic number" to the first use of that term? I'm not sure whether "chemical symbol" is the best term for the standard elemental abbreviations. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The easiest point: they are not abbreviations, they are symbols ;-). I remember a discussion that "chemical symbol" was the best (non-ambiguous in enwiki) term we could find.
- Repositioning the atomic number in the cell can be done, of course. Note that this shold be applied to all our PT cells where applicable, all larger ones (For unity of PT presentation over enwiki). And I like the this-link Adrian J. Hunter gives, because it puts the number near left-below the symbol, where it formally is written: 9F. OTOH, that would make the OP moot, isn't it? I mean to say, when the number is in line with other letters&numbers (the symbols), the ascending pattern is not presented to the eye by glancing (it takes a mental search to separate: by reading).
- For now, my opposition to the OP proposal is maintained for reasons mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: No consensus for change --Mdann52talk to me! 08:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger with Periodic table (large version)[edit]

Not merged. Only two editors ever supported this merge and the submitter, User:Neelix, has since withdrawn his nomination. Any continuing discussion about the best presentation of this material may continue elsewhere, for instance at WP:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (large version) or on appropriate talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

At present, Periodic table (large version) consists almost entirely in a short interactive table in the form of the periodic table. It attained featured list status back in 2005, but standards for what constitutes a featured list have risen significantly since then. I doubt that the list would pass a featured list review in 2014, and I don't see a way of improving the article so that it would pass. Furthermore, "Periodic table (large version)" doesn't seem like an appropriate subject for an entire article to me; it's more an infographic than an article. This entire "large" version of the periodic table is so short that it would fit comfortably at the bottom of the "Layout" section of this article. For these reasons, I recommend that Periodic table (large version) be merged here. Neelix (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Notified WP:ELEMENTS [1]. -DePiep (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The same page is proposed for deletion at this AfD. Procedural confusion to me. -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree that the separate existence of Periodic table (large version) is absolutely useless. Perhaps that is why I never noticed it before. Dirac66 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I Object, it's not that simple. The quest in itself is OK.
First some questions. What would that merge look like? The huge large P.T. into article periodic table, really? That P.T. is unlimited by intention (There are even more of these with reason).
Let me speak about the large table page (I have worked on a lot). I don't mind its FA-status being re-evaluated (though the table has improved greatly last years, I can say myself ;;-) ). As for the existence and the need for this article
1 A "large periodic table", read: having cells large enough to cover the major information, unrestricted by webpage screen size. So the table format & layout serves a purpose for this reason. Like one that covers the wall in a science-classroom. I say this is an encyclopedic need.
2 - OK then, but why an article? That is because WP does not allow a page to be solely a template (however useful that template in itself is). So, if we cut out the surrounding article text, there would be left a sole template - oops, speedy deletion of the article. Next day: the template itself is gone for being unused. That's the domino fall by WP logic.
The good news is that this is a 2005 logic (as was the FL award). I sketch: if we can find a reason to keep large cell periodic tables in mainspace, I'll go with that. I don't want to depend on IAR (IA2005R that is) exceptions. I expect wikilawyering. -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate you engaging with this discussion, DePiep. I have read through your comments, but I don't see your reasoning behind opposing the merger. If I am understanding you correctly, you want the large periodic table to be kept, and you provide reasons for keeping it. I agree that it should be kept, and am arguing that it be relocated to a subsection of the main Periodic table article. You asked what the merger would look like. What I have proposed is to include it at the end of the "Layout" section. Perhaps the confusion between us would be clarified if you explained what you mean by the statement that "it's not that simple". As far as I understand, the "large" periodic table, which is already a template, could easily be moved to this article by transcluding it here rather than on its own article. What are your thoughts? Neelix (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I want it to be kept, main point. And available to the reader (so in content space). Your detail of having the this big, out-of-pagesize template in the article I did not yet address. Some notes first: when it is in the article, it usually shows up with a horizontal slider bar. And it is quite high, so there might be a hide/show botton added (not advisable in content space). Then there is also the 32-column bit table 32 columns, large cells, another worthy variant. So the variance is in the graphic (18 vs. 32 columns) and in the detailing (info per element).
In short, I don't see how the big table could survive in article periodic table. The graphic 18/32 variants by big cells is way too fringe for this page. For content, it may be seen as mostly a repetition of the more compact in-screen P.T already there (twice?). Just with some more detail per cell. So, when the big table is in this article, I fear some generally interested editor (or a learning/wikilawyering one; as is happening today in a nearby area) will come along and say: "too much repetition, remove it or hand in your FA star". From that moment, I am not sure what will happen. I've been having to defend sound encyclopedic and wikiapedic situations way too often to trust the outcome. So I first want to hear a strong conclusion that by wikipedia guidelines & intention such a merge is to stay. About the encyclopedic base for large tables in itself, I have less fear. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I object as well.
The merger would be not great. Suppose we had a table just like the one we discuss, but it was written in Chinese hieroglyphs. Then someone stumbles upon it, thinks it should not be a separate page anymore, and suggests so. It would be clear why it would not be okay to move that table to this article: it is not relevant. Same applies for the discussed table: this is certainly not the place to keep it. On the periodic table page, there is no need to keep the detailed page, the article is just an overview one, and the table we have is just enough. Details belong elsewhere. So, whether the periodic table (large version) page will be deleted/redirected or not, this is not where the large table should end up.
Keep it or delete it? As for me, I lean towards keep (would not die if we deleted it, though) for the reason DePiep mentioned, I couldn't add any more.--R8R (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: The same page is proposed for deletion at this AfD. -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: This merger discussion appears to have ended having established that consensus is against the merger. If you are interested in discussing the potential deletion of the Periodic table (large version) article, you are welcome to participate in the AfD linked by DePiep above. Neelix (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand. "appears to have ended"? What happened with the arguments & ideas & questions then? I maintain my point that the process is broken. -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I was the nominator of the merger. Surely I can withdraw my nomination. Neelix (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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


Large periodic tables - overview[edit]

This is an overview only, and may be refined over time. In itself it is not up for discussion. -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A reduced version of the periodic tables documentation overview: