Template talk:Navbox periodic table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elements (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Merge lists proposal[edit]

Merge List of elements by name, List of elements by symbol, List of elements by atomic number, List of elements by atomic mass, List of elements by melting point, List of elements by density, List of elements by boiling point to List of elements.

There are lots of tables duplicating the same information, but sorted on different fields. Since all the tables are sortable anyway, this is redundant duplication. The combined table would have between 10 and 13 columns, which does not qualify as too much information.

Z Name Symbol Period Group Category Atomic mass
(g/mol)
Melting
Point (K)
Boiling
Point (K)
Density
(g/cm³)
jnestorius(talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments

Weak oppose: I notice that the sort feature doesn't work properly, it thinks 118 should come before 12 (try sorting by atomic mass). Until that is resolved we can't reliably use it. Still, that's a very nice feature, I wasn't familiar with it! I think we need to be careful about this, though, because it is not obvious (many ordinary WP users I talk to didn't even know you could edit a page, never mind sort a table on the fly!). FYI, here are the no. of hits on each page for a 20 day period last month, from this site:

  • List of elements by name, 2937
  • List of elements by symbol, 8843
  • List of elements by atomic number, 2973
  • List of elements by atomic mass, 2252
  • List of elements by melting point, 3283
  • List of elements by boiling point, 2600
  • List of elements by density, 3880

Since each one of these pages are probably getting over 50,000 pages views per year, and collectively perhaps half a million, I'd say that they are all "notable" enough to stay in existence as they are. Could you write a new List of elements article with a fully sortable table, and if these existing pages lose their traffic we could merge them then? We don't want to upset those half million users. Walkerma (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.
  • Incorrect numeric sorting: this is because the default is alphabetic. This can be overridden, though it's a bit clunky (Help:Sorting and Category:Sorting templates); it might be a few days before I have time to do so myself. Silly me, assuming a featured list would have this implemented properly :)
  • User unfamiliarity: perhaps a message would suffice? A boilerplate something like "The rows in this table can be sorted by clicking on the arrows at the top of any column" in a new {{sort-msg}}. Ideally it would be a built-in feature of class="wikitable sortable". That's really the kind of issue that needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:When to use tables or even meta:Help talk:Sorting.
  • I think the hitcounts are a spurious argument. For example, suppose there were separate identical pages "List of elements" and "List of Elements". Even if each got a million hits a day, that would not be a reason to keep them separate: a redirect from one to the other would accommodate all readers.
jnestorius(talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
They were featured before lists were sortable. This is a good idea; my main concern is that there will be too much information going across for low resolutions (not everyone is at 1024x768 yet), and furthermore, some have supplementary information—for example, "List of elements by name" has lots of historical element names included in it below the main table. This could be moved to a separate article (like List of historical element names), potentially. --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, well, it used to anyway. Forget everything after "furthermore". --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support Excellent idea for the long run, if there are minor problems with sorting they can be dealt with. --RucasHost (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Slight support I think it is a good idea, but before actually implementing it, I would prefer to have a longer debate and a testing period. Furthermore, once the merged page is ready, do not delete the old pages (yet) but instead keep them as subpages of the main page (at least for a while). Nergaal (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Slight support: I agree with Nergaal's testing period idea. I also think the idea is basically a good one, but the individual pages as they stand now contain different information relating to their different foci. Moh's hardness, for example in List of elements by density, and symbol etymology in List of elements by symbol. I think that if they were all merged into one entry then the topics specific to each original entry should at least be included as subtopics of the merged entry. It also seems to me that specifically with List of elements by symbol it makes more sense to merge List of chemical element name etymologies into it rather than the other way around considering that List of elements by symbol is a featured list and List of chemical element name etymologies isn't.Thibbs (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Conditional Support and agree with Nergaal about testing period. We have to make sure that the numbers sort correctly and I'd like to see this in action and suggest improvements before this is combined list replaces the individual ones. We also need to make sure we don't combine too many lists. --mav (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Stong Support Excellent idea. Since they can all be sorted, they can be kept to one page. --Russoc4 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support I believe this is a great idea. It will be very useful for reference and schoolwork, and also to satisfy curiosity. This will be much easier than having to go from page to page, trying to find description about an element in a list that is organized by boiling points or melting points instead of atomic number or alphabetically.Wyatt915 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Random walker think that mediawiki is as mature as to allow merging fat tables while keeping good overview. Mergem! Said: Rursus 12:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Strong Support That sounds like a great idea, I have been studying the elements a little bit and the new list would accommodate me much better. Tavix (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I am currently studying Chemistry, and I find this series of pages the way it is easier to work with than one page. Most of the current pages link to each other, and it is nice having different pages that have the elements sorted different ways. We could simply improve the current system by making all of them link to each other and maybe by making a List of elements (disambiguation) page.some page -- TurtleBoy0 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But combining them as sortable tables would mean you could switch between sorting styles ina second, instead of going between pages.Yobmod (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong support for all those that can be reasonable merged without losing data. Maybe leave entymology and density if the info doesn't fit well.Yobmod (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Strong support We got to merge into one article just like most listing articles that have only one article regardless of being sorted by properties, such as list of extrasolar planets and list of stars by constellation. Now sorting is available, and these are listing articles sorted by properties got to be merged into list of elements. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong support A sortable table would be ideal over a series of pages like this with essentially all the same information. Best, epicAdam(talk) 18:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak Oppose I think this table is excellent for those just looking for density data without the clutter that a larger table would provide. I understand that Wiki is a knowledge database, but it also has to cater for the needs of those seeking the data. Remember that most people have a middle high school level of reading and education. If they are looking for density data, let them find it easily. I know this works for me.Rvanderlely (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)rvanderlely

Suppport As an aside, tables can never qualify to have too much information.174.3.101.61 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


I have begun creating a merged table at List of elements. It is currently hidden (<!- ->). Reywas92Talk 16:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good start! But I think the element lines should not be coloured according to the chemical series, it makes it much harder to read the lines (this annoyed me with the old tables as well). The element category is clear from the corresponding column entry. (I would be fine with colouring the "chemical series" box for each element, but the whole line is too much.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll remove the colors when I work on the article, but don't expect that to be soon. I want to have a merged list, but I'm busy in real life and have other articles in my queue. Reywas92Talk 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

According to wp:When_to_use_tables#Content_forking, these tables should not be split across multiple articles as doing so would be in violation of wp:content forking.174.3.106.27 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Boldly merged I have decided to complete the merge (that is, redirect the 7 articles to List of elements). I have also started a discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Merging_different_versions_of_the_periodic_table.3F. Yoenit (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW[edit]

To sort things properly, use {{sort}}, for example {{sort|012|12}} will make 12 sort before 118, as the table will treat it as 012. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To make this merged table more useful for those who are not scientists or science students, melting & boiling points should be in Celsius and Fahrenheit as well as Kelvin. Without that, searchers like me will be forced to use a conversion table. Irritating. Luke Line 09:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Line (talkcontribs)

Goldschmidt classification[edit]

Goldschmidt classification to add? -DePiep (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing?[edit]

Move (name change) - preliminary[edit]

I'd like to propose the name change into {{Periodic table navigation}}. Clearly this needs talk & consensus. Two aspects are involved:

  • Singular: The concept of "Periodic table" is singular (as is the main article title:Periodic table (that is by WP:MOS). PT is singular. Maybe there are variant presentations, but that should lead to, like: "Periodic table presentations"
  • Navigation box: It is a WP:navigation box, and so should have all its properties.

I suggest that name change. (Formally: I propose to start a move, later on}. -DePiep (talk)

Group 1 and alkali metals[edit]

[1]: your es says exactly why I edited it this way. Since it is the "Groups" row, we should include "1", and since Group 1 is not the same as Alkali metals (no dispute), my phrasing described that well. As you edited it, it states wrongly "Group 1 = alkali metals". -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

I propose:

  • Remove "period, group, block" from top row. They are OK below, and linked.Done YBG (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Write the second level singular too ("group" not "groups"). That is a class name in the navbox hierarchy all right (it says how the PT is structured). Sort of warning: such plurality habit might creep up upwards, into the title having to be "Periodic tables". Ouch. -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the idea has promise, but I'm not sure whether to apply it everywhere. Here is the template group name hierarchy with the plurals struck out:

  • Forms
  • Structure
    • Groups: ***
    • Periods
    • Blocks
  • Metallicity (propertiesy)
    • Metals: ***
    • Metalloids: ***
    • Nonmetals: ***
  • Elements
    • Propertiesy: ***
    • Lists
    • Data pages: ***
  • History: ***
  • See also: ***

Also, I have noted by '***' those places where the detail template list items have plurals also, e.g., ___metals, . Do you propose to singularize these also? In some cases, the singular seems an obvious improvement, and I may just change them. YBG (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions can be plural indeed, but not for the reason you mention. These rowheaders are not to state what they contain, but what they stand for. It's a class name, not a list announcement. For example, about the PT groups: The topic is group: topic singular, the object, thing, noun is a "group". (WP:TITLE has this same issue. A very natural inclination is to title a page in plural, eg our (PT) [[groups]], but we should resist that. By the way, WP:Title does list exception criteria, when plurals are OK). I won't start about the exceptions here. My aim is that you look at this with the "it must be singular" glasses (what a self-destructive pun ;-) ). Once you can use that singular without aversion, you can reason about exceptions too. A starting point: shouldn't the title "PT" be "PTs"?, it is about PTs right? (I promise: thinking this issue is rewarding for a scientist. It is higher math thinking about definition/thing stuff. It's "group 3 element" vs. "group 3". Glad I can follow it, hanging by my nails). One giveaway: I think "lists" is a plurality exception. -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have edited the lowest-level to change some of the most obvious ones from plural to singular. However, I'm still wondering about your statement that the rowheaders should be class names not list headers. I decided to check some un-related navboxes, and the following is the result of my non-scientific pseudo-random stream-of-consciousness survey:
in this admittedly non-random sample, it actually appears that the preference is for a row label to be a list announcement rather than a class name. YBG (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, lots of work to be done.The chemistry one looks good. -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Follow-on discussion[edit]

  • YBG, as I explained before, I do not agree with the structures you added. It's a navbox. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I made several changes; I'm not sure which you are referring to
(1) Both metallicity links now resolve to the same article (a result of the recently completed merge)
(2) Separate misc. sets from properties (Misc. named subsets of elements are very different from complete lists highlighting one or more properties, so I broke them apart)
(3) Group all named sets of elements together (I added a new top-level item to the hierarchy to include all of the parts of the nav box which drill down to named lists of elements)
(4) Add more misc (I found a bunch of named subsets of elements which hadn't been mentioned in this template befoew)
I'm not sure which one(s) of these you are referring to. I hadn't thought any were directly related to what had been discussed before, but then all these ideas came out of the same little grey cells, so I suppose they must be related. At any rate, please let me know whether you are talking about all of these changes or only some of them. Then we can continue trying to improve the navbox. YBG (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I do excuse & strike. I was judging on my glancing only (looked like bad other ones), while the current nav structures are very to the point. Sorry to have troubled you this way. I owe you 2hrs of slavish editing support. -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
No worries. As to the debt, I think you've already paid in full. No worries at all. YBG (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)