![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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) |
---|
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:
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)
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.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)
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 -- Turtle Boy 0 00:42, 11 September 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 (<!- ->). Reywas92 Talk 16:14, 16 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)
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 {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
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 ( talk • contribs)
Goldschmidt classification to add? - DePiep ( talk) 03:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the name change into {{
Periodic table navigation}}
. Clearly this needs talk & consensus. Two aspects are involved:
I suggest that name change. (Formally: I propose to start a move, later on}. - DePiep ( talk)
[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)
I propose:
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:
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)
Currently, the links Aufbau~, Fricke and Pyykkö link to a template (template space). I don't think that should be done in a navbox. Better: to a section somewhere. - DePiep ( talk) 17:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The Transhumanist I'm not happy with the recent move [2]. I think is is useful to have "navbox" in the name, and I don't see how alphabetic ordering would be an argument. - DePiep ( talk) 07:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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) |
---|
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:
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)
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.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)
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 -- Turtle Boy 0 00:42, 11 September 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 (<!- ->). Reywas92 Talk 16:14, 16 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)
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 {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
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 ( talk • contribs)
Goldschmidt classification to add? - DePiep ( talk) 03:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the name change into {{
Periodic table navigation}}
. Clearly this needs talk & consensus. Two aspects are involved:
I suggest that name change. (Formally: I propose to start a move, later on}. - DePiep ( talk)
[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)
I propose:
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:
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)
Currently, the links Aufbau~, Fricke and Pyykkö link to a template (template space). I don't think that should be done in a navbox. Better: to a section somewhere. - DePiep ( talk) 17:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
The Transhumanist I'm not happy with the recent move [2]. I think is is useful to have "navbox" in the name, and I don't see how alphabetic ordering would be an argument. - DePiep ( talk) 07:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)