Template talk:Periodic table (32 columns, micro)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template origin[edit]

Forgot to mention in edit history that this is based on de:Vorlage:Periodensystem. All I did was translate it. --mav (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Elements 109–111[edit]

The infoboxes for these respective elements (Meitnerium, Darmstadtium, Roentgenium), as well as the main periodic table article, have these color-coded as transition metals. Even if that color-coding is not yet based on conclusive research, given the properties of elements 108 and 112, it's a fairly reasonable prediction. I've changed this navigational aid to match the actual articles on the subject. If anyone has a problem with that, take it up on the main articles first. Gordon P. Hemsley 18:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the definition of the transitions is based on group membership, I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with, is OR on what element category elements 113 and above are in. --mav (reviews needed) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
And I am most definitely not fine with that, as was Roentgenium111, and since last year Mt–Rg have been uncoloured correctly. @Mav: transitions are not completely based on group memberships. They're called transition metals, so they have got to be metals, and it isn't known yet whether Mt, Ds, and Rg are also chemically metals. (It's a reasonable prediction, but it's still a prediction.) Remember the Cn and Fl noble gas property experiments? Funnily enough, Cn isn't even a noble gas, and is even known to be a transition metal, despite this experiment. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Astatine/polonium[edit]

I raised a question at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metalloid/archive3#Comment from Designate regarding the assignment of At/Po on this chart. It seems to contradict the main chart at Metalloid (which lists both as "Inconsistently classified as metalloids") and the individual pages for Astatine and Polonium. I don't have a chemistry degree so I'm just throwing this out there. I know these designations are fuzzy. It just seems like the four pages could be synchronized a little better. —Designate (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Padding for cells[edit]

@TheDJ: Could you replace padding:0;" | {{ with padding:0.04em;" | {{ (118×) in order to have padding between cells? After the last edit (that was for normalizing infobox width) padding disappeared even in Chrome (before this edit it was not present only on mobile view in all browsers and in IE both on desktop and mobile; if we add explicit 0.04em it will be present in all cases; I don't know even how it appeared before, maybe cellspacing was making it). --5.43.78.13 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So the biggest problem is solved: removing all the extra whitespace in mobile view. (Who could have thought that m.v. adds 7+7px per cell).
But now the cells are glued together in m.v., a lesser issue IMO, which leads to this proposal (minor padding). However, this template has multiple requirements to keep in mind:
Bad: Now unwanted whitespace (a column) is added in m.v. between cols 1 and 2,
Bad: In {{infobox element}}, its hor scrolling is diasabled through the neighbour-additiond setup.
Table also serves element 119 and up (see ununennium E119),
Mark a cell with a black border (as visible in desktop view),
Mark set of cells with border (see usage in metaloid),
Allow clicking (wikilink) per cell,
IOW, further improvements ask for a sandbox testing (unless TheDJ indeed knows the fast track). Sure instead of "padding:0.04em" I'd first try "border:1px solid transparent" to save the marking borders. (I'm short in time now). -DePiep (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Some of that is fixed now, but half of the problems I didn't undestand, as there were no links to examples etc. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
My list has 3 problems, and 4 features. I was just responding to the bugreport + immature solutoin by IP here, noting other issues to keep in mind. I don't feel obliged to repeat the documentation here, nor to 'prove' my suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DJ, now it's good. --5.43.78.13 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@TheDJ: However, navigation got uncentered relative to main block + rows after element 119 got moved right a bit... When you find time, please try to find some other solution; also, if you can – please center whole table on mobile ({{Infobox element/periodic table}}), now it is to the left and not spanning whole infobox width + I don't see need for horizontal scroll as it does not activate even when zooming 500% in Chrome on mobile (maybe whole infobox for element would get scroll if it's needed, and periodic table inside it should never get wider than the infobox itself). --5.43.78.13 (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
feature requsts, to be proposed first. I note that this already is a topic at WT:ELEM, so keep in one place. -DePiep (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)