Template talk:Periodic table (32 columns, compact)

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


Just a note to say this is a really cool periodic table, even better than an image map! Compliments to User:Remember --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise. I cheated off the Germans (so a good deal of praise should go to whomever set up the table on their wikipedia), but I still did my own tweaking to it. Remember (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

please reduce the width of the border. the white thing. the older version looks better.--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Why are Scandium and Yttrium separate from all the other transition elements? They're in the d-block with them; shouldn't they go directly over lutetium and lawrencium? Simplebutpowerful 03:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sc3+, Y3+, La3+ and Ac3+ all have the electronic configuration of a noble gas. 23191Pa (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nay. Ti4+, Zr4+, Ce4+ and Th4+ all have the electronic configuration of a noble gas, too. But we don't place titanium and zirconium above cerium and thorium. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, great... so the question is still open. We need a definitive answer. Now, would someone care to explain why Sc and Y are (that's ARE) placed over La and Ac ? --and PLEASE, don't explain why they aren't placed over Hydrogen, aren't placed under my house, aren't on the Moon, etc.

I finally placed Scandium and Yttrium above Lu. Block configuration gives Sc and Y d-block membership. La and Ac are f-block members - see extended table. Calling La and Ac d-elements is same thing calling Sc and Y (and also those two) p-elements. I mean, if you say Sc3+, Y3+, La3+ and Ac3+ all have the electronic configuration of a noble gas and must be placed in the third leftmost cells of the period ('cause they're following s-block elements), then boron, aluminium, scandium and yttrium must be placed above lanthanum. But none's to touch B and Al, right? But why?

Another way to prove correctness of placing Sc and Y under Lu in English Wikipedia is geografic. See German Wikipedia and their extended table - Sc, Y, La and Ac are 3 group member (all - first transition metals of their periods), making Ce and Th first inner transition metals in their ones. After Sc and Y (first 2 first TMs), there's empty space before next element of same period. After Ce and Th (first 2 ITMs), there also space, if it was 11 periods long (forgetting about fact table breaks before it reaches period 10), after 123Ubt and 173Ust (first inner inner transition metals) there'd be some space, so on, making all blocks (somewhy, except for p-block) broken. Same thing on Polish Wikipedia, on French Wikipedia 'til not so long ago there was also same thing. In English and Russian Wikipedias Scandium and Yttrium are as d-elements, as Lu and Lr, so these 4 are placed together in extended tables. Although in Russian Wikipedia lanthanum isn't a lanthanoid (despite f-membership) (and Ac isn't an actinoid), they don't have ANY problems in their periodic table template, 'cause lanthanoids (incl. both La and Lu) and actinoids (incl. both Ac and Lr) (30 in total) ripped out of table, like in official table seen in article Periodic Table. If edit war begins, it'll be a good compromise.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But see [1], which uses the exact layout you mentioned (which has broken blocks). It even explains it: [2]. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely a delicate issue. Currently Sc/Y/Lu/Lr and Sc/Y/*/** are both found on Wikipedia, while Sc/Y/La/Ac is not on Wikipedia anymore, but once was. However, the two layouts are inconsistent. I'll bring this up at WT:ELEM... Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Uue, Ubn, Ubu, Ubb[edit]

Uue and Ubn were added, so I added Ubu and Ubb. ;-) 4 T C 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

All hypothetical elements on periods not known to exist removed. That made the table way too wide for very little benefit. Let's wait until at least the first period 8 element is synthesized before we add another period. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)

I also got rid of all the background colors for each of the UU elements still in the table. It is Original Research to say what element category any of those elements are. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"geographic" (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 29 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

The term Transition Metal in the table of contents is technically incorrect. It should be transition element. A transition metal has an incomplete d-orbital (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done because that only links to a Wikipedia article of the same which mentions that it is called transition element. Baseball Watcher 22:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Grey colours for all the systematically named elements[edit]

For ununtrium, ununquadium, ununpentium, ununhexium, ununseptium and ununoctium, the boxes are coloured light grey, but light grey is not on the colour legend...how do you fix this without breaking anything? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting, I've fixed the legend. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Small font[edit]

re [3] by Double sharp. Well, reintroducing an abbreviation for formatting reason? (with smaller print at that). And, since this is a {{navbox}}, why not let navbox decide (CSS) on format, including font size? Illegibele print for no good reason I say. -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"Unknown" chemical properties[edit]

This is a question spawned from a debate on the corresponding Chinese Template talkpage regarding the chemical properties of elements from Meitnerium onwards. The debate resulted from some guy changing the colours of all these elements to match the pattern above. This template on the English side may be old enough to contain outdated info about "unknown" properties of heavy elements. Please review the validity of the current light-grey colouring of certain elements, so we can follow suit on the Chinese side. (The request is due to the majority of related papers being written in English.) Yinweichen (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If I read your question well: no problem. In English the pattern is the same: Mt (109) and higher (except Cn 112) are "unknown". The Chinesese link shows it OK. One other minor point: over here at english wp Polonium (Po, 84) is grey (post-transition metal), not brown (metalloid) any more. -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected the template on the Chinese side just after I posted the comment here. That's why it was fine when you went over to see it. I revamped the compact periodic table there as well. A newbie vandalism many months ago caused it to look absolutely horrendous. (There is a general realllly scarce re-edit or correction rate for any article in the Chinese Wikipedia. )Yinweichen (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Polonium, Astatine, Ununseptium[edit]

There is some discussion of whether to include Polonium, Astatine, and Ununseptium with the metalloids group here. Bcharles (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


Apparently now using this template on an element page shows the cell in question not only with its symbol highlighted, but also with a border around it. I'm not exactly sure when or how this change occurred, but I really like it a lot! It now fits nicely and consistently with the navbox table at the top of the article! Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

:-) I made this a week+6 d
−1 d
ago. I also solved that bad effect that the F for flourine showed red in this PT (at their F homepage). We know why of course, but it did confuse not clarify. -DePiep (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Both changes were made in {{element cell-compact}}. -DePiep (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


@YBG: Do not remove the halogens. See http://sciencenotes.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PeriodicTableMuted.png.Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh: I removed it to restore this template to the coloring that was decided by consensus at WT:ELEMENTS. If you would like to propose a change from the current consensus, please discuss it over at that talk page. The lengthy discussion that resulted in that consensus has been archived; if you are unable to locate it, ask a question over there and one of the active editors in WP:ELEMENTS will be able to assist you. Thank you for your desire to improve this on-line encyclopedia! YBG (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion is in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_15. -DePiep (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in a similar manner we do not colour group 15 as pnictogens, not group 16 as chalcogens, although both of these group names, as well as halogens, are used in our showcase Template:Periodic table. Sandbh (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, labelling astatine as a halogen does not really do justice to its chemistry. It is not so much a metalloidish halogen as a "metal that is very much in touch with its halogenic side". Labelling it as you do encourages it to be swept under the rug as "oh, it'll be similar to its four younger sisters". Colouring it as a metalloid should intrigue people and encourage them to learn more about the chemistry of this exciting, though admittedly rather suicidal, element. (Oh, and looking at your link: polonium is not a metalloid but a metal, the elements Mt–Rg, Uut, and Uup–Uuo have not been chemically characterised, and it feels very weird to call amphoteric Al a "basic metal".) Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Also see http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/034/144/original/periodic-table-elements-121206c.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:1000 and http://www.apppicker.com/upload/template/8988-img-3.jpg.Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)