This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
That origin of the term noble gas seems rather far-fetched to me. Far more logical is that they're named analagously to noble metals, which were so named because they were expensive/rare/pretty. -- fvw * 13:56, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
The nobles gases were originally called inert gases because they were believed to be completely unreactive. After realizing they could form compounds, the name was changed to noble gases, implying that reactivity amongst them is very rare. Just as people of the nobility did not associate with lower classes, the noble gases did not readily react with any of the other elements. -- Mjp797 14:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
On the same topic as above, the article implies that the term rare gas isn't used anymore. Many chemists still say rare gases or RG for short. Like the Rare Earth Metals, this originates from an from a mistaken preception that they weren't that common. However, the use of the term rare gas can be justified today by the definition of "rare" as "marked by unusual quality or appeal". Afn 11:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Was looking for the origin of the term noble. Enjoyed the discussion. Could we put a consensus best guess back in the main article ? e.g. the term "noble" was probably used to mirror the previous use of the adjective in relation to unreactive precious metals (e.g. gold). ( Diggers2004 02:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC))
I'd have to say that noble gasses are called such because they have a full outer shell, thus being essentially "happy". And seeing as atoms want to aquire a full shell and become noble. Doesn't everyone want to become noble? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.29.58.69 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
this box seems a bit over the top considering that the periodic table peice in question covers only noble gasses and only one undiscovered atom. I'd say remove it and just add a note with the image that UUO isn't discovered yet. What do others think? Plugwash 00:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Element Number | 118 |
Element Name | Ununoctium |
Normal Density | N/A |
Atomic Mass | (314) |
Boiling Pt. (°C) | (-22.6) |
Melting Pt. (°C) | (-30.3) |
I wonder if Uuo will turn out to be a semi-metal or noble gas, or both, if they would be able to find out. Antononio 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the Noble Gases are pretty much unreactive but I've read about some experiments done in which the nobles did react. has anyone seen this?
the two examples i have of these experiments are
here and
here.
-- Aslaveofaudio 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
At the moment the article suggests that the noble gases were discovered first twice : as argon in the air and helium in the sun. Which one is it? Cheers, -- Plumbago 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There are non-Noble monatomic gases. For example most gases at high temperatures and some exist as monatomic gases at lower temperatures albeit temporarily.
This periodic table from 1891 ( Image:Mendeleev Table 5th II.jpg) does not list helium, nor does it leave an empty slot for element number 2. The result is that all elements beyond hydrogen are given an "atomic number" one less than the number of protons. -- Petri Krohn 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact the table is missing all noble gases, so there are other gaps in the table. Question number #2 is thus:
-- Petri Krohn 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
From the introduction:
A thorough explanation requires an understanding of electronic configuration, with references to quantum mechanics.
Is that line really necessary/appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.158.198 ( talk) 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The entire introductory § occurs once more in the § "Etymology" (except for bold type words and wiki links) - may-be this stuff was copied from the 2nd place to the intro with the intention to delete it at the orig. place to result in a move, and the deletion was forgotten. Does someone object this deletion?-- UKe-CH 18:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, after looking at older versions, it seems to be the other way round - with the idea that the intro § is too long ?-- UKe-CH 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Find at least one significant characteristic of each gas. Why do the noble gases emit light when stimulated by electricity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.117.74 ( talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to change the first sentence of the introduction (definition of a noble gas) from
>The noble gases are the elements in group 18 (also sometimes Group 0 IUPAC Style, or Group 8) of the periodic table.
to
>The noble gases are the non-metal, chemically inert elements in group 18 of the periodic table.
and thus to change the status of Ununoctium from "noble gas" to "possibly a noble gas".
Reason: The present version defines Ununoctium to be a noble gas independent of its chemical properties(!). This collides with the statements made in the rest of the article, if Uuo turns out to have different chemical properties from the other six "period 18" elements. What if it turns out to be a solid, easily corroding metal, for example?
IMO "noble gas" should be a term for describing elements with similar chemical properties (that happen to be in the same group) rather than a synonym for "group 18 element" (though at our present state of knowledge, the two terms may indeed coincide). (Cf. the definition of Halogen as a non-metal element from group 17.)-- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The legend link doesn't go anywhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.72.56 ( talk) 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The article does not meet the Good Article criteria at this time, and will not be listed. There are some significant issues with the completeness (broad) criterion, as well as some manual of style issues. Quite simply, there's just too many short sections, and the material than there looks like it was 'cherry picked' from some of the articles on individual noble gases as random samples, so I would call the comprehensiveness of the article into question.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
That origin of the term noble gas seems rather far-fetched to me. Far more logical is that they're named analagously to noble metals, which were so named because they were expensive/rare/pretty. -- fvw * 13:56, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
The nobles gases were originally called inert gases because they were believed to be completely unreactive. After realizing they could form compounds, the name was changed to noble gases, implying that reactivity amongst them is very rare. Just as people of the nobility did not associate with lower classes, the noble gases did not readily react with any of the other elements. -- Mjp797 14:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
On the same topic as above, the article implies that the term rare gas isn't used anymore. Many chemists still say rare gases or RG for short. Like the Rare Earth Metals, this originates from an from a mistaken preception that they weren't that common. However, the use of the term rare gas can be justified today by the definition of "rare" as "marked by unusual quality or appeal". Afn 11:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Was looking for the origin of the term noble. Enjoyed the discussion. Could we put a consensus best guess back in the main article ? e.g. the term "noble" was probably used to mirror the previous use of the adjective in relation to unreactive precious metals (e.g. gold). ( Diggers2004 02:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC))
I'd have to say that noble gasses are called such because they have a full outer shell, thus being essentially "happy". And seeing as atoms want to aquire a full shell and become noble. Doesn't everyone want to become noble? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.29.58.69 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
this box seems a bit over the top considering that the periodic table peice in question covers only noble gasses and only one undiscovered atom. I'd say remove it and just add a note with the image that UUO isn't discovered yet. What do others think? Plugwash 00:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Element Number | 118 |
Element Name | Ununoctium |
Normal Density | N/A |
Atomic Mass | (314) |
Boiling Pt. (°C) | (-22.6) |
Melting Pt. (°C) | (-30.3) |
I wonder if Uuo will turn out to be a semi-metal or noble gas, or both, if they would be able to find out. Antononio 02:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the Noble Gases are pretty much unreactive but I've read about some experiments done in which the nobles did react. has anyone seen this?
the two examples i have of these experiments are
here and
here.
-- Aslaveofaudio 16:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
At the moment the article suggests that the noble gases were discovered first twice : as argon in the air and helium in the sun. Which one is it? Cheers, -- Plumbago 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There are non-Noble monatomic gases. For example most gases at high temperatures and some exist as monatomic gases at lower temperatures albeit temporarily.
This periodic table from 1891 ( Image:Mendeleev Table 5th II.jpg) does not list helium, nor does it leave an empty slot for element number 2. The result is that all elements beyond hydrogen are given an "atomic number" one less than the number of protons. -- Petri Krohn 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact the table is missing all noble gases, so there are other gaps in the table. Question number #2 is thus:
-- Petri Krohn 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
From the introduction:
A thorough explanation requires an understanding of electronic configuration, with references to quantum mechanics.
Is that line really necessary/appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.158.198 ( talk) 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The entire introductory § occurs once more in the § "Etymology" (except for bold type words and wiki links) - may-be this stuff was copied from the 2nd place to the intro with the intention to delete it at the orig. place to result in a move, and the deletion was forgotten. Does someone object this deletion?-- UKe-CH 18:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, after looking at older versions, it seems to be the other way round - with the idea that the intro § is too long ?-- UKe-CH 18:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Find at least one significant characteristic of each gas. Why do the noble gases emit light when stimulated by electricity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.117.74 ( talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest to change the first sentence of the introduction (definition of a noble gas) from
>The noble gases are the elements in group 18 (also sometimes Group 0 IUPAC Style, or Group 8) of the periodic table.
to
>The noble gases are the non-metal, chemically inert elements in group 18 of the periodic table.
and thus to change the status of Ununoctium from "noble gas" to "possibly a noble gas".
Reason: The present version defines Ununoctium to be a noble gas independent of its chemical properties(!). This collides with the statements made in the rest of the article, if Uuo turns out to have different chemical properties from the other six "period 18" elements. What if it turns out to be a solid, easily corroding metal, for example?
IMO "noble gas" should be a term for describing elements with similar chemical properties (that happen to be in the same group) rather than a synonym for "group 18 element" (though at our present state of knowledge, the two terms may indeed coincide). (Cf. the definition of Halogen as a non-metal element from group 17.)-- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 22:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The legend link doesn't go anywhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.72.56 ( talk) 22:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The article does not meet the Good Article criteria at this time, and will not be listed. There are some significant issues with the completeness (broad) criterion, as well as some manual of style issues. Quite simply, there's just too many short sections, and the material than there looks like it was 'cherry picked' from some of the articles on individual noble gases as random samples, so I would call the comprehensiveness of the article into question.