![]() | 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 |
I'm seeing the liquids in black instead of green, including the sample in the legend. Anyone else seeing this? 72.128.16.232 17:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Where'd the Actinides go? (65.57.245.11)
it's pretty big assumption that we're so special to be the only ones with these elements. Even the synthetic ones could easily be well below extraterrestrial technology. This is all speculation so it doesn't belong in an incyclopedia. At any rate I'm not a chemist so I don't know an unbiased way to correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.163.253 ( talk • contribs) 8 August 2005
The "dotted borders" and "dashed borders" look the same under IE6.0, WinXPPro. Is there a better way to distinguish these?
Chuck
23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Never mind--I see that this template is likely to be deleted, and the issue has already been brought up on Talk:Periodic table (standard) Chuck 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone think we should group the iron triad, the noble metals, etc? Kr5t 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Can of worms! I've reverted User:Metacomet. The layout has been quite stable and should not be changed without extensive discussion. See related topics at Talk:Periodic table and archives, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, Talk:Group 3 element, Talk:Group number of lanthanides and actinides, User:Flying Jazz, etc. Femto 19:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what I really meant to do was to move Lutetium and Lawrencium out of the auxilliary lists below the table and to the main table in Column 3 (as shown below). The placeholders between Columns 2 and 3 would then represent only the 14 elements in each auxilliary series that represent the 14 electrons in the f sub-shell. Note that I have left the color-coding for Lu and Lr alone, indicating that chemically, they still belong to the Lanthanides and Actinides respectively. But by changing the physical arrangement in the layout, it now more accurately reflects the electronic configurations.
I realize, of course, that you will probably never agree to make these changes, although I am not entirely sure why. This specific aspect of the periodic table has always confused me, ever since I first took high-school Chemistry. I never really understood the issue fully until I took a course recently in Quantum Mechanics. It is very clear to me now that the table below makes far more sense than any other version, and would go a long way to clearing up the confusion surrounding the Lanthanides and Actinides.
-- Metacomet 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Group → | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
↓ Period | ||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1 H |
2 He | ||||||||||||||||||
2 | 3 Li |
4 Be |
5 B |
6 C |
7 N |
8 O |
9 F |
10 Ne | ||||||||||||
3 | 11 Na |
12 Mg |
13 Al |
14 Si |
15 P |
16 S |
17 Cl |
18 Ar | ||||||||||||
4 | 19 K |
20 Ca |
21 Sc |
22 Ti |
23 V |
24 Cr |
25 Mn |
26 Fe |
27 Co |
28 Ni |
29 Cu |
30 Zn |
31 Ga |
32 Ge |
33 As |
34 Se |
35 Br |
36 Kr | ||
5 | 37 Rb |
38 Sr |
39 Y |
40 Zr |
41 Nb |
42 Mo |
43 Tc |
44 Ru |
45 Rh |
46 Pd |
47 Ag |
48 Cd |
49 In |
50 Sn |
51 Sb |
52 Te |
53 I |
54 Xe | ||
6 | 55 Cs |
56 Ba |
71 Lu |
72 Hf |
73 Ta |
74 W |
75 Re |
76 Os |
77 Ir |
78 Pt |
79 Au |
80 Hg |
81 Tl |
82 Pb |
83 Bi |
84 Po |
85 At |
86 Rn | ||
7 | 87 Fr |
88 Ra |
103 Lr |
104 Rf |
105 Db |
106 Sg |
107 Bh |
108 Hs |
109 Mt |
110 Ds |
111 Rg |
112 Uub |
113 Uut |
114 Uuq |
115 Uup |
116 Uuh |
117 Uus |
118 Uuo | ||
* Lanthanides | 57 La |
58 Ce |
59 Pr |
60 Nd |
61 Pm |
62 Sm |
63 Eu |
64 Gd |
65 Tb |
66 Dy |
67 Ho |
68 Er |
69 Tm |
70 Yb | ||||||
** Actinides | 89 Ac |
90 Th |
91 Pa |
92 U |
93 Np |
94 Pu |
95 Am |
96 Cm |
97 Bk |
98 Cf |
99 Es |
100 Fm |
101 Md |
102 No |
I can see your point. Perhaps it is to a large degree a matter of emphasis and taste, which are primarily subjective, as opposed to a matter of factual correctness, which is objective. Certainly there is room for different versions of the Periodic Table that emphasize different aspects of the chemical elements.
My own interests are more related to semiconductor physics and electronic devices. For my purposes, the electronic structure of the atoms is much more important in general than classification into chemical families. But obviously, people with interests different from mine may prefer to emphasize other factors.
BTW, thank you for your willingness to discuss these issues in a thoughtful, polite, and respectful manner.
-- Metacomet 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, guys, lanthanum and actinium are transition metals. Kr5t 17:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see the difference between "dotted" and "dashed" borders here. I tried changing the dotted ones to "double" but that looked just like the solid. Any suggestions? Maybe colored borders? -- Brian Z 02:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
(UTC)
Technetium should be dashed, not dotted, as it occurs naturally in pitchblende as a product of radioactive decay. In fact, all elements from 1-94 are either 'natural' or 'natural in minute quantitities' on Earth. → R Young { yakł talk} 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Check out the periodic table ACS provides at [1]. I don't know what the original source of their data is, but they give B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po as metalloids, Be, Al, Ga, Sn, Bi as metals, and C, P, Se, I, At as nonmetals. Uuh has no designation; after Lr, they stop labelling the element as a metal/nonmetal (they stop specifying it as a solid/liquid/gas after Sg). youngvalter 02:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone thourght that a reason should be specified after since in the {{cleanup template. Anyway, it should be a date, because if it's not, it will be categorized wierd.
The reason for cleanup is: it contains contradiction to Lanthanide and Actinide. -- Ysangkok 14:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to select colors and classes of your own design? I want to use the periodic table in other articles like organic reaction (see also persistent carbene bottom section) and I am stuck with colors assigned through types like red for alkali metal when the cell I want to have in red may not be a alkali metal. I think a periodic table could also be placed in the oxide article as a nice way to redirect to all the oxides but i need to be able to customize the template
Thanks in advance for your reply V8rik 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we expand this periodic table to include info from the Expanded table? Superjustinbros. 13:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
split from above
To be honest, I think a far more important consideration is this silly colour coding on the basis of "chemical series", which is ad hoc and inconsistent and seems to have gotten set up that way years ago on the basis of the overenthusiasm of some high school students somewhere. For instance, terms like "Poor metals" should not be placed on the same footing as IUPAC-approved groupings such as 'halogens', and having "non-metals" as a seperate series (which doesn't include halogens and noble gases) is daft and misleading.-- feline1 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Changing the coloring is a huge undertaking at this point. So whatever we decide must be supported by wide consensus since all the table images would need to be changed. -- mav 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
My degree is in biology, not chemistry so this might sound silly. If so, please say so. But are the characteristics of the transition metals similar in the same way as say, all the elements in the carbon group are similar, all the alkali metals are similar or all the halogens are similar? If so, then I propose this organization; lump all the transition metals into one color group, have individual colors for each of the groups in groups 1-2, 13-18 and then separate colors for the lanthanides and actinides (assuming that the actinides and lanthanides are as chemically distinct as the other color groupings). That would yield 11 color groupings. -- mav 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been a slow-motion revert war for months…let's consense and then get on with our lives. In the "Notes" under the table:
Halogens and noble gases are also non-metals.
vs.
Halogens and noble gases are non-metals.
I like "also" or some similar wording ("also considered" perhaps) because it clarifies that the elements belong to multiple groups (not just their classifications per the color-coding) as opposed to the appearance of strictly contradicting that color info. I don't strongly care, but 'tis a silly battle. DMacks 11:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
---
I fess up to being the remover of "also" on a few occasions, although a couple were after reversions of clear poorer edits and I simply suspected it was inadvertent (I believe I called it "collateral damage" or somesuch in the edit summary).
My motivation was that in the two notes immediately above that one, there is no mention of non-metals, so there seemed no first reference to a non-metal for these groups to be "also". However, I now see the point about the coloring: those are non-metals, and the next two groups to the right are also. Thus I can understand desiring its inclusion, and agree perhaps the best line of action is to rethink the whole chemical series thing. The core cause seems to be "non-metal" can be used in two ways: a strict albeit arbitrary sense and a descriptive sense.
So, no objections now to reverting "also" back. I apologize for any disruption. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 13:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It took me some time to understand these codes - then I found out that it is used as colors for the atomic numbers ! I think, this should be explained in the article - please make suggestions to where & how-- UKe-CH 19:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Same in article Periodic table-- UKe-CH 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If no one objects, I will remove the animated flags from the chemical elements which have them. First, only a minority of the elements have these flags which takes away from standardization which is one of the basic platforms of Wikipedia entries. Second, the fact that they are animated takes away from the "professional" aspect of this encyclopedia. There are no other flags over other discoveries--much less wavy, cartoonish, and unprofessional looking ones. (I wasn't going to write this in every entry that used a flag so I wrote it here instead. If anyone has a better place for me to write this please tell me) -- Mbenzdabest ( talk) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I copied the first few posts below from Template_talk:PeriodicTable which will most likely be deleted Flying Jazz 17:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
User:에멜무지로 recently changed this template to look like
Periodic table (wide) with the lanthanides and actinides incorporated into the table instead of being set apart. Here's what I know (or believe I know) about this. The nice wide table makes the most sense in terms of the physics and chemistry involved, it's the table that Glenn Seaborg liked best, and the main justification for the table with lanthanides and actinides set off like footnotes is that it looks better that way on the printed page and this isn't a printed page. Those are all outside-Wikipedia arguments favoring the wide table. Also, the folk who have been making those cool table images for each element like
have been mostly using the wide table for years and a wide table would prevent somewhat silly arguments like
Talk:Periodic_table_(standard)#Layout from occurring. Those are inside-Wikipedia arguments favoring the wide table.
But I still reverted User:에멜무지로 in spite of all that. I just don't think the inline table is the one used the most often outside Wikipedia, it doesn't have the ever-loving IUPAC seal of approval (or disapproval for that matter, but IUPAC uses the set-apart version), and it completely fails any kind of google search image test. I'm also not objective because, as seen in User:Flying_Jazz#Starting_in_June.2C_2005:_Periodic_Table_and_other_chemical_matters, I kind of like silly arguments. User:에멜무지로? Is the wide table in your textbook? Why did you make the change? What do other people think? Flying Jazz 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I created the layout for the nav images. The reason I used the wide table in those images, was to ensure sane navigation and to enforce the true shape of the table (which in itself, conveys a good deal of information). Splitting off the Lanthanides and Actinides is an artificial hack used so the table can be printed on a portrait oriented standard piece of paper with cell sizes that are large enough to place readable info. I've never liked that version of the table because it misrepresents what periods a bunch of elements are located in. That said, the page width issue does prevent us from having the wide version of the table on the periodic table article, but I'm slightly in favor of linking to the wide version from the link below the nav images since that is not part of an article and thus not likely to be printed on its own in portrait. Computer monitors are in landscape and I think we should take advantage of that by displaying the correct form of the table from links that are below images of the correct form of the table. I would even like to have a transcluded version of the wide table on each nav image description pages. -- mav 15:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Periodic table#error in periodic table and Talk:Periodic table#Groups and Periods DMacks ( talk) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
If no-one objects, I will remove Uus from the table (leaving a clear space so that Uuo is at the right position). Reason: Uus has not yet been discovered, and the periodic table should only show discovered elements. (One might even think of removing all elements above roentgenium, since their discoveries have not yet been acknowledged by the IUPAC - but I will not do that unless requested.) -- 129.70.14.128 ( talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Quixy
As suggested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements , I deleted the background color of the Uus box since it is pure speculation if it will turn out to be a halogen when it is discovered. (Note that a halogen is by definition a non-metal in group 17).-- 129.70.14.128 ( talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the Technetium article, it's only found in nature "as a spontaneous fission product in uranium ore or by neutron capture in molybdenum ores". It's not therefore a _decay_ product, and should therefore (in my opinion) have a dotted border - all technetium actually _used_ is synthetic, as well. If there are no objections, I'll make the change. Tevildo ( talk) 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The different types of borders have apparently been given colours by User:58.187.48.135. To me they are a real eyesore. I suggest reverting to the previous state. -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 15:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Although the currently used names for all elements are their latin denomination (from which the symbol derives aswell), there are yet two very common metals under their common domestic names: lead and tin. Might be other examples, I admit I haven't looked further, as I tried at once to remedy the 'error' for plumbum. Helas, after saving the edits, the page would keep its ancient presentation.
I thought of speaking of the logic of the change therefore: it is most accurate to use plumbum instead of lead and stannum instead of tin if only for the Periodical Table page in encyclopedia. The advised readers would understand of course, but could be confusing for younger readers. Why 'Pb' for lead, indeed?
And it would be a logical correction - if only for the sake of continuity if not rigurosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.90.68 ( talk) 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do you constantly consider elements 109-111 to be uncolored and yet color element 112? By your saying, none of the elements after the actinoid series are in a group and should be uncolored. Raistuumum ( talk) 06:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Chemical Characterization of Element 112". doi: 10.1038/nature05761. PMID 17476264.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
( help).
Shouldn't this page define and explain the periodic table, in addition to showing it? For the novice, some explanation is in order, IMO. -asx- 00:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Heh, what about
unobtanium? ;-) —
Mulad
go find it in extended table
202.156.2.35
There seems to be a inconsistancy with the element La: http://owl1.thomsonlearning.com/appendix/Chemistry/Fall2002/PeriodicTable.jpg This costed me a quiz question! -- 24.51.239.89 16:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't plutonium be a "decay product"? As far as I know it's only found naturally in uranium deposits in trace quantities because Uranium neutrons get absorbed and convented by beta-decay in just the right way to make plutonium. The half life of plutonium is so fast that it can't possbily be natural??
The periodic table is one of the most important things in life. We wouldnt have lived if it wasnt for the periodic table of elements! —This unsigned comment was added by 213.220.223.77 ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
With the formula, Lu, and Lr are Lanthanides and Actinides.
And La, Ce, Ac, and Th are Transition Metals.
This is simple: The s-block, the d-block, the f-block, and the p-block describe the Aufbau rule's formulas.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.81.5 ( talk) 30 November 2010
Listen, Urhixidur, the current wording you have done allows for all elements with a z value of less than 95 (i.e. Pu and lighter) to be marked solid border. Americium would also probably count if found in the Gabon natural reactor. As they are all naturally occuring, on Earth no less. Cf doesn't even occur naturally on Earth. So unless you change the wording of the solid border back we would have to just remove the dashed border category. -- metta, The Sunborn 18:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Either way, the page for astatine says that it hasn't been found in nature at all. So why is it dashed and not dotted?
Also, you could always use colored borders to distinguish between observed terrestrial occurence and observed extraterrestrial occurence.
Greg Kuperberg 06:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Tc, Pm, Np, and Pu are synthetic, but it lists them as natural radio (from decay), except Pu, which is listed as Primordial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.81.5 ( talk) 23:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that the design of this table is under discussion, please consider getting rid of the term "chemical series". I don't think it has any well-defined meaning or legitimate use, and it hasn't had it for the last hundred years or more. In fact, I hate it with a passion. :P Please see Talk:Chemical series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical series for more background. -- Itub 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Google scholar shows a large number of articles that use the term "post-transition metal" to describe what we've been talking about, and someone added the term to the "Poor metal" article. It's descriptive and succinct and I think it's better than the alternatives. I'm changing the template and requesting that the "Poor metal" article be moved. Flying Jazz 08:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why can't we use ordinary metals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptable ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is there an element with an atomic number "0" that is abbreviated as "Du" on some periodic tables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptable ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the speedy delete on the redirect Periodic table (standard) as I can't see how it falls under R3, but even if it did this redirect has too many incoming links to be deleted, or at least not without a discussion and careful consideration on how to deal with incoming links. It's a template that was moved from mainspace two months ago, hence the redirect at its original location and why there are so many incoming links.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 01:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC) hahahahahahah
The article's title is Periodic table (standard), but the periodic table shown is not IUPAC standard periodic table. New IUPAC standard Periodic Table does not show La and Ac below Sc and Y. Those two cells were left blank and all of 30 elements, that are called Actinides and Lanthanides, are placed in a little footnote table at the bottom, which is ridiculous. In most recent standard-like non-IUPAC periodic table Lu and Lr are correctly placed under Sc and Y. Drova ( talk) 12:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is one: IUPAC STandard PT. Drova ( talk) 13:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I corrected it. Drova ( talk) 16:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If the table is not standard, atleast it is partially standard.
They named it (periodic table [standard]), because it separates the lanthanides, and actinides from the rest of the elements.
WGroup (
talk) 23:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
User:WGroup is a
WP:SOCK of
User:Wd930, who has participated else where in periodic-table discussions.
DMacks (
talk)
14:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
For a long time I thought that
astatine is a
metalloid.
But recently I've seen an article saying that it is a
nonmetal.
And I've seen an article saying that
polonium is a
metal.
I would request someone to change
polonium to a poor
metal. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wd930 (
talk •
contribs)
01:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I did
The Wiki article for polonium provides a sourced statement that it is a metalloid. If you have credible sources indicating polonium is not a metalloid, then the controversy as to its status should be addressed on the polonium page. Should that occur, we should discuss how to represent an element whose category is debated. Until such time, I am reverting to polonium as a metalloid for consistency. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I found an article saying that it is a metal, and I've looked at it in the theodore gray book, and in there I've seen that it is pretty obvious that it is a metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the lack of any citation for the article to which you refer, I would readily agree there are discoverable sources that indeed make a case for polonium as a non-metal. To wit: I've done a little more checking around Wiki, and the various pages for poor metal and metalloid (as well as that for polonium itself) all suggest polonium should be grouped with the metalloids. The group pages note that polonium, along with astatine and germanium, are occasionally grouped with the poor metals or non-metals, but I think that just underscores that those three elements are usually grouped with the metalloids. Again, I would say that since other pages on Wiki treat these as metalloids per the prevailing usage, the periodic table should do the same. If you think we should revise across Wiki as a whole -- and I suspect there are far more pages than the few I surveyed that would be implicated -- then we need a larger forum than this page to discuss a far-ranging revision of our treatment of polonium, along with astatine and germanium. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 17:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As of right now, there only appear to be two elements designated as liquid phase at STP on the table: bromine and mercury. However, I recently noticed on the article for francium the following statement regarding its phase, following discussion of its physical properties, specifically its melting point: "Because radioactive elements give off heat, francium would almost certainly be a liquid if enough were to be produced." I would therefore think that francium's atomic number should be colored green to reflect it being liquid phase at STP. Does anyone have more specific information on this subject? If not, I will source the statement both in Francium and this page and change the color for francium's atomic number accordingly. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a bit of a knotty situation -- francium is estimated to melt at about 300 K, while the STP at which the state is measured for purposes of the period table is 273.15 K. However, in an ambient environment of 273.15 K, francium would apparently nonetheless be liquid, since its internal radioactivity would provide the necessary additional heat. It's really more a question of what exactly "STP" means -- the environmental conditions, or the internal state of the element? But seeing as how nobody has ever actually produced enough francium to demonstrate its state empirically, I'm comfortable with leaving it noted as a solid and avoiding the definitional considerations until a credible scientific source establishes it more concretely. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 17:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the disagreement between Roentgenium111 and Raistuumum can be resolved in a way that will serve the encyclopedia. Maybe it's kinda cool to keep track of which of the newest elements have been chemically characterized and which haven't and then change colors on Wikipedia's periodic table from "Unknown" to something else according to this newest information, but from the perspective of the general reader, I think the transactinides have more in common with each other due to the fact that they are all synthetic, they all have short half-lives, and they're all "super-heavy" than they have in common with other elements above them in the same group. In other words, what's more interesting or important about Bohrium: the fact that a few atoms have been characterized as having chemistry typical of a transition element in group 7 or the fact that humans made the stuff and it's really really big and unstable? In the past, I've defended having a table that emphasizes chemical similarities over other things like electron configuration, but now I think we're performing a disservice to the reader by overemphasizing chemistry in these elements when the main big deal is the fact that they exist at all. This will also eliminate the need for an "(Unknown)" category which I believe seems odd to the general reader because anything that exists can be categorized somehow. When it comes to atoms, eventually they get big enough so size is the most important thing.
This is another case where I like the environmental chemistry table here better than what Wikipedia is doing. So I'm proposing the following change in Template:Element_color_legend from:
Metals | Metalloids | Nonmetals | (Unknown) | |||||||
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Inner transition elements | Transition elements | Other metals | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases | |||
Lanthanides | Actinides |
to:
Metals | Metalloids | Nonmetals | |||||||
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Inner transition elements | Transition elements | Other metals | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases | ||
Lanthanides | Actinides | Transactinides |
I'm temporarily proposing the color "violet" for transactinides because it seems to be close to the next color step in the progression from transition metals to actinides, but maybe it's a little too dark. What do other editors think? Flying Jazz ( talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This just shows again that our periodic table has too many colors, and that however we color it we'll end up doing something wrong. While I don't like transactinide as a category because it based neither on chemistry nor on theory but on an arbitrary cutoff (why not color transuranium or transfermium?), I can see some merit to the proposal because of the ambiguity in some of the latter elements of the seventh period. So I'm a bit undecided. -- Itub ( talk) 05:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with comments by Physchim62, Itub and mav: the classification of "trans-actinide" is non-commensurate with the other categories (which is a fancy way of saying "the rest are all to do with chemical behaviour, whereas 'trans-actinide' is to do with how the elements were obtained/discovered"). And the label "unknown" is too easy to misinterpret as that the elements themselves are unknown. Plus the entire thing falls under the shadow of the wrath of WP:OR. So, much as I tend to be a bit wary of claims for the chemical behavior of an element when we barely have a few atoms of it to play with, I feel we ought to just glean as much from the literature regarding their known chemistries as we can, and fit them into the existing family groups as we are currently doing. feline1 ( talk) 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I coloured the transactinides as #dadada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your opinion, but it's at odds with actual science, where the properties of "metallic" and "melting point" are not parallel or inter-related ideas. We say what reliable sources say (Nature doesn't wait for your understanding to catch up). DMacks ( talk) 15:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I am Wd930 replying back, but you thought that there was a catch all, and, yet, I was just saying that no gas is metallic. 71.217.85.118 ( talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Imagine my shock when I found that two cells marked "undiscovered" in the main body of the periodic table! The mouseover text on those two cells clearly said "Undiscovered." I changed it to "(See below)." This was not easy: the hovertext uses the name of the subpage name of the appropriate Template:Element frame/subpage, so i was forced to create Template:Element frame/(See below). - Arch dude ( talk) 16:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
re [4], replacing "boron group" with "Icosagens". IUPAC red book, p.51 (=pdf p.63) (bold added DePiep): "If appropriate for a particular purpose, the various groups may be named from the first element in each, for example elements of the boron group (B, Al, Ga, In, Tl), elements of the titanium group (Ti, Zr, Hf, Rf),"
So this naming is IUPAC approved up to a level, the current name "Icosagens" is not. I can add that this gives a way to specifically point to an f-block group (column), not numbered or named otherwise. - DePiep ( talk) 14:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
DePiep=selfnote. When I zoom out with my browser (control minus), the box "57-71 *" shows the asterisk in the same line as the numbers. That could be better. - DePiep ( talk) 22:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
We should remove links to this site, once upon a time a prized reference endeavour, now a COMMERCIAL enterprise completely eaten by obtrusive advertizing. (fake sign to help archive bot:) - DePiep ( talk) 00:36, 18 November 1999 (UTC)
Sometimes groups are reffered to missing out the transition metals (i.e. 1-0/8). Perhaps a compromise could be adopted? (fake sign to help archive bot:) - DePiep ( talk) 00:36, 18 November 1999 (UTC)
Is Boron really considered a Metaloid? Thought it was fairly obviously a non metal. (fake sign to help archive bot:) - DePiep ( talk) 00:36, 18 November 1999 (UTC)
Feline1 is right that there is one definition of nonmetal. And he's right that forcing every element into one-and-only-one "chemical series" is malarky. But any simple visual representation is going to have some malarky in it, and other alternatives are worse malarky. Forcing elements into s-p-d-f blocks would separate He from the other noble gases as in Periodic table (block). That's worse malarky. Making an exception for He like at http://www.webelements.com/ will raise questions about the location vs color of the lanthanides and actinides as we discussed at http://www.webelements.com/nexus/node/615 . Anyway, do you really want noble gases, oxygen, and lead to have the same color backgrounds in their element boxes just because they're all in the p-block together? The status quo minimizes malarky just about everywhere with the two exceptions we've been slowly discussing: Metals in the p-block (an overemphasis on "poor metals") and nonmetals that are neither halogens nor noble gases (an overemphasis on elements that are all the same color just because they shouldn't be any other color). Using the legend in http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/ as a good example, I came up with a simpler version that's a possible alternative legend. Right now, we have:
Chemical series of the periodic table
This could become:
Metals | Metalloids | Nonmetals | |||||||
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Lanthanides | Actinides | Transition metals | Poor metals | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases |
which would remove the need for the 2nd and 3rd note in the current version of Periodic table (standard). Or we could use "Other metals" instead of "Poor metals." Or we could think of a better phrase than "other nonmetals" like "nonmetals other than halogens and noble gases" or "nonmetals to the left of group 17" or something else. What do you think feline? Maybe picking a different color than white for all metals and all non-metals would make sense too. That way we could keep the same colors everywhere in wikipedia except in Periodic table (metals and non-metals) where the new colors would be used. Thanks to User:Woohookitty for creating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chemical_element_color_templates and thanks to Eddi, Femto, Mav, and everyone else who's worked on the templates that have made it so easy to try to make these silly kinds of things a little bit better. If nobody complains about the new legend then I hope someone who knows what they're doing will change Template:Element_color_legend in a couple weeks and then remove the last two notes in Periodic table (standard) because I made the font smaller and then made it larger again in that example in some weird way, and "div"s, transclusions, and onlyincludes are things that fall out of my brain like...like...like the things that I can't remember because they fell out of my brain. Flying Jazz 08:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that Rf-rg, Uut-Uuo are solids; Cn is liquid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.48.135 ( talk) 10:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I think scince then copernicium has been classified as a liquid, and I changed it to a liquid. 71.217.85.118 ( talk) 19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Why did my edits get reverted, I think that element 112 is a LLLIIIQQQUUUIIIDD.
Almost every source says that it is a liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.85.118 ( talk) 06:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I am seeking comments on a proposal to color code the group 12 elements as post-transition metals in the Wikipedia periodic table, rather than transition metals as they are currently color coded.
The RfC can be found here. Sandbh ( talk) 23:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I am seeking comments on a proposal to change the name and composition of two of the colour categories appearing on our periodic table, as follows:
From | Polyatomic nonmetal C, P, S, Se |
Diatomic nonmetal H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I |
To | Less active nonmetal H, C, N, P, S, Se |
Active nonmetal O, F, Cl, Br, I |
The RfC can be found here. Sandbh ( talk) 23:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The colors used for "solid" and "unknown"—black and gray, respectively—are confusingly similar, especially on small screens. Could we change one of them to be more visually distinct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.170.165 ( talk) 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
I'm seeing the liquids in black instead of green, including the sample in the legend. Anyone else seeing this? 72.128.16.232 17:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Where'd the Actinides go? (65.57.245.11)
it's pretty big assumption that we're so special to be the only ones with these elements. Even the synthetic ones could easily be well below extraterrestrial technology. This is all speculation so it doesn't belong in an incyclopedia. At any rate I'm not a chemist so I don't know an unbiased way to correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.160.163.253 ( talk • contribs) 8 August 2005
The "dotted borders" and "dashed borders" look the same under IE6.0, WinXPPro. Is there a better way to distinguish these?
Chuck
23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Never mind--I see that this template is likely to be deleted, and the issue has already been brought up on Talk:Periodic table (standard) Chuck 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone think we should group the iron triad, the noble metals, etc? Kr5t 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Can of worms! I've reverted User:Metacomet. The layout has been quite stable and should not be changed without extensive discussion. See related topics at Talk:Periodic table and archives, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, Talk:Group 3 element, Talk:Group number of lanthanides and actinides, User:Flying Jazz, etc. Femto 19:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what I really meant to do was to move Lutetium and Lawrencium out of the auxilliary lists below the table and to the main table in Column 3 (as shown below). The placeholders between Columns 2 and 3 would then represent only the 14 elements in each auxilliary series that represent the 14 electrons in the f sub-shell. Note that I have left the color-coding for Lu and Lr alone, indicating that chemically, they still belong to the Lanthanides and Actinides respectively. But by changing the physical arrangement in the layout, it now more accurately reflects the electronic configurations.
I realize, of course, that you will probably never agree to make these changes, although I am not entirely sure why. This specific aspect of the periodic table has always confused me, ever since I first took high-school Chemistry. I never really understood the issue fully until I took a course recently in Quantum Mechanics. It is very clear to me now that the table below makes far more sense than any other version, and would go a long way to clearing up the confusion surrounding the Lanthanides and Actinides.
-- Metacomet 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Group → | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
↓ Period | ||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1 H |
2 He | ||||||||||||||||||
2 | 3 Li |
4 Be |
5 B |
6 C |
7 N |
8 O |
9 F |
10 Ne | ||||||||||||
3 | 11 Na |
12 Mg |
13 Al |
14 Si |
15 P |
16 S |
17 Cl |
18 Ar | ||||||||||||
4 | 19 K |
20 Ca |
21 Sc |
22 Ti |
23 V |
24 Cr |
25 Mn |
26 Fe |
27 Co |
28 Ni |
29 Cu |
30 Zn |
31 Ga |
32 Ge |
33 As |
34 Se |
35 Br |
36 Kr | ||
5 | 37 Rb |
38 Sr |
39 Y |
40 Zr |
41 Nb |
42 Mo |
43 Tc |
44 Ru |
45 Rh |
46 Pd |
47 Ag |
48 Cd |
49 In |
50 Sn |
51 Sb |
52 Te |
53 I |
54 Xe | ||
6 | 55 Cs |
56 Ba |
71 Lu |
72 Hf |
73 Ta |
74 W |
75 Re |
76 Os |
77 Ir |
78 Pt |
79 Au |
80 Hg |
81 Tl |
82 Pb |
83 Bi |
84 Po |
85 At |
86 Rn | ||
7 | 87 Fr |
88 Ra |
103 Lr |
104 Rf |
105 Db |
106 Sg |
107 Bh |
108 Hs |
109 Mt |
110 Ds |
111 Rg |
112 Uub |
113 Uut |
114 Uuq |
115 Uup |
116 Uuh |
117 Uus |
118 Uuo | ||
* Lanthanides | 57 La |
58 Ce |
59 Pr |
60 Nd |
61 Pm |
62 Sm |
63 Eu |
64 Gd |
65 Tb |
66 Dy |
67 Ho |
68 Er |
69 Tm |
70 Yb | ||||||
** Actinides | 89 Ac |
90 Th |
91 Pa |
92 U |
93 Np |
94 Pu |
95 Am |
96 Cm |
97 Bk |
98 Cf |
99 Es |
100 Fm |
101 Md |
102 No |
I can see your point. Perhaps it is to a large degree a matter of emphasis and taste, which are primarily subjective, as opposed to a matter of factual correctness, which is objective. Certainly there is room for different versions of the Periodic Table that emphasize different aspects of the chemical elements.
My own interests are more related to semiconductor physics and electronic devices. For my purposes, the electronic structure of the atoms is much more important in general than classification into chemical families. But obviously, people with interests different from mine may prefer to emphasize other factors.
BTW, thank you for your willingness to discuss these issues in a thoughtful, polite, and respectful manner.
-- Metacomet 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, guys, lanthanum and actinium are transition metals. Kr5t 17:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see the difference between "dotted" and "dashed" borders here. I tried changing the dotted ones to "double" but that looked just like the solid. Any suggestions? Maybe colored borders? -- Brian Z 02:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
(UTC)
Technetium should be dashed, not dotted, as it occurs naturally in pitchblende as a product of radioactive decay. In fact, all elements from 1-94 are either 'natural' or 'natural in minute quantitities' on Earth. → R Young { yakł talk} 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Check out the periodic table ACS provides at [1]. I don't know what the original source of their data is, but they give B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po as metalloids, Be, Al, Ga, Sn, Bi as metals, and C, P, Se, I, At as nonmetals. Uuh has no designation; after Lr, they stop labelling the element as a metal/nonmetal (they stop specifying it as a solid/liquid/gas after Sg). youngvalter 02:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone thourght that a reason should be specified after since in the {{cleanup template. Anyway, it should be a date, because if it's not, it will be categorized wierd.
The reason for cleanup is: it contains contradiction to Lanthanide and Actinide. -- Ysangkok 14:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to select colors and classes of your own design? I want to use the periodic table in other articles like organic reaction (see also persistent carbene bottom section) and I am stuck with colors assigned through types like red for alkali metal when the cell I want to have in red may not be a alkali metal. I think a periodic table could also be placed in the oxide article as a nice way to redirect to all the oxides but i need to be able to customize the template
Thanks in advance for your reply V8rik 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Can we expand this periodic table to include info from the Expanded table? Superjustinbros. 13:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
split from above
To be honest, I think a far more important consideration is this silly colour coding on the basis of "chemical series", which is ad hoc and inconsistent and seems to have gotten set up that way years ago on the basis of the overenthusiasm of some high school students somewhere. For instance, terms like "Poor metals" should not be placed on the same footing as IUPAC-approved groupings such as 'halogens', and having "non-metals" as a seperate series (which doesn't include halogens and noble gases) is daft and misleading.-- feline1 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Changing the coloring is a huge undertaking at this point. So whatever we decide must be supported by wide consensus since all the table images would need to be changed. -- mav 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
My degree is in biology, not chemistry so this might sound silly. If so, please say so. But are the characteristics of the transition metals similar in the same way as say, all the elements in the carbon group are similar, all the alkali metals are similar or all the halogens are similar? If so, then I propose this organization; lump all the transition metals into one color group, have individual colors for each of the groups in groups 1-2, 13-18 and then separate colors for the lanthanides and actinides (assuming that the actinides and lanthanides are as chemically distinct as the other color groupings). That would yield 11 color groupings. -- mav 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This has been a slow-motion revert war for months…let's consense and then get on with our lives. In the "Notes" under the table:
Halogens and noble gases are also non-metals.
vs.
Halogens and noble gases are non-metals.
I like "also" or some similar wording ("also considered" perhaps) because it clarifies that the elements belong to multiple groups (not just their classifications per the color-coding) as opposed to the appearance of strictly contradicting that color info. I don't strongly care, but 'tis a silly battle. DMacks 11:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
---
I fess up to being the remover of "also" on a few occasions, although a couple were after reversions of clear poorer edits and I simply suspected it was inadvertent (I believe I called it "collateral damage" or somesuch in the edit summary).
My motivation was that in the two notes immediately above that one, there is no mention of non-metals, so there seemed no first reference to a non-metal for these groups to be "also". However, I now see the point about the coloring: those are non-metals, and the next two groups to the right are also. Thus I can understand desiring its inclusion, and agree perhaps the best line of action is to rethink the whole chemical series thing. The core cause seems to be "non-metal" can be used in two ways: a strict albeit arbitrary sense and a descriptive sense.
So, no objections now to reverting "also" back. I apologize for any disruption. Baccyak4H ( Yak!) 13:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It took me some time to understand these codes - then I found out that it is used as colors for the atomic numbers ! I think, this should be explained in the article - please make suggestions to where & how-- UKe-CH 19:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Same in article Periodic table-- UKe-CH 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
If no one objects, I will remove the animated flags from the chemical elements which have them. First, only a minority of the elements have these flags which takes away from standardization which is one of the basic platforms of Wikipedia entries. Second, the fact that they are animated takes away from the "professional" aspect of this encyclopedia. There are no other flags over other discoveries--much less wavy, cartoonish, and unprofessional looking ones. (I wasn't going to write this in every entry that used a flag so I wrote it here instead. If anyone has a better place for me to write this please tell me) -- Mbenzdabest ( talk) 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I copied the first few posts below from Template_talk:PeriodicTable which will most likely be deleted Flying Jazz 17:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
User:에멜무지로 recently changed this template to look like
Periodic table (wide) with the lanthanides and actinides incorporated into the table instead of being set apart. Here's what I know (or believe I know) about this. The nice wide table makes the most sense in terms of the physics and chemistry involved, it's the table that Glenn Seaborg liked best, and the main justification for the table with lanthanides and actinides set off like footnotes is that it looks better that way on the printed page and this isn't a printed page. Those are all outside-Wikipedia arguments favoring the wide table. Also, the folk who have been making those cool table images for each element like
have been mostly using the wide table for years and a wide table would prevent somewhat silly arguments like
Talk:Periodic_table_(standard)#Layout from occurring. Those are inside-Wikipedia arguments favoring the wide table.
But I still reverted User:에멜무지로 in spite of all that. I just don't think the inline table is the one used the most often outside Wikipedia, it doesn't have the ever-loving IUPAC seal of approval (or disapproval for that matter, but IUPAC uses the set-apart version), and it completely fails any kind of google search image test. I'm also not objective because, as seen in User:Flying_Jazz#Starting_in_June.2C_2005:_Periodic_Table_and_other_chemical_matters, I kind of like silly arguments. User:에멜무지로? Is the wide table in your textbook? Why did you make the change? What do other people think? Flying Jazz 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I created the layout for the nav images. The reason I used the wide table in those images, was to ensure sane navigation and to enforce the true shape of the table (which in itself, conveys a good deal of information). Splitting off the Lanthanides and Actinides is an artificial hack used so the table can be printed on a portrait oriented standard piece of paper with cell sizes that are large enough to place readable info. I've never liked that version of the table because it misrepresents what periods a bunch of elements are located in. That said, the page width issue does prevent us from having the wide version of the table on the periodic table article, but I'm slightly in favor of linking to the wide version from the link below the nav images since that is not part of an article and thus not likely to be printed on its own in portrait. Computer monitors are in landscape and I think we should take advantage of that by displaying the correct form of the table from links that are below images of the correct form of the table. I would even like to have a transcluded version of the wide table on each nav image description pages. -- mav 15:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Periodic table#error in periodic table and Talk:Periodic table#Groups and Periods DMacks ( talk) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
If no-one objects, I will remove Uus from the table (leaving a clear space so that Uuo is at the right position). Reason: Uus has not yet been discovered, and the periodic table should only show discovered elements. (One might even think of removing all elements above roentgenium, since their discoveries have not yet been acknowledged by the IUPAC - but I will not do that unless requested.) -- 129.70.14.128 ( talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Quixy
As suggested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements , I deleted the background color of the Uus box since it is pure speculation if it will turn out to be a halogen when it is discovered. (Note that a halogen is by definition a non-metal in group 17).-- 129.70.14.128 ( talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the Technetium article, it's only found in nature "as a spontaneous fission product in uranium ore or by neutron capture in molybdenum ores". It's not therefore a _decay_ product, and should therefore (in my opinion) have a dotted border - all technetium actually _used_ is synthetic, as well. If there are no objections, I'll make the change. Tevildo ( talk) 19:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The different types of borders have apparently been given colours by User:58.187.48.135. To me they are a real eyesore. I suggest reverting to the previous state. -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 15:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Although the currently used names for all elements are their latin denomination (from which the symbol derives aswell), there are yet two very common metals under their common domestic names: lead and tin. Might be other examples, I admit I haven't looked further, as I tried at once to remedy the 'error' for plumbum. Helas, after saving the edits, the page would keep its ancient presentation.
I thought of speaking of the logic of the change therefore: it is most accurate to use plumbum instead of lead and stannum instead of tin if only for the Periodical Table page in encyclopedia. The advised readers would understand of course, but could be confusing for younger readers. Why 'Pb' for lead, indeed?
And it would be a logical correction - if only for the sake of continuity if not rigurosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.90.68 ( talk) 09:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do you constantly consider elements 109-111 to be uncolored and yet color element 112? By your saying, none of the elements after the actinoid series are in a group and should be uncolored. Raistuumum ( talk) 06:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Chemical Characterization of Element 112". doi: 10.1038/nature05761. PMID 17476264.
{{ cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
( help).
Shouldn't this page define and explain the periodic table, in addition to showing it? For the novice, some explanation is in order, IMO. -asx- 00:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Heh, what about
unobtanium? ;-) —
Mulad
go find it in extended table
202.156.2.35
There seems to be a inconsistancy with the element La: http://owl1.thomsonlearning.com/appendix/Chemistry/Fall2002/PeriodicTable.jpg This costed me a quiz question! -- 24.51.239.89 16:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't plutonium be a "decay product"? As far as I know it's only found naturally in uranium deposits in trace quantities because Uranium neutrons get absorbed and convented by beta-decay in just the right way to make plutonium. The half life of plutonium is so fast that it can't possbily be natural??
The periodic table is one of the most important things in life. We wouldnt have lived if it wasnt for the periodic table of elements! —This unsigned comment was added by 213.220.223.77 ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
With the formula, Lu, and Lr are Lanthanides and Actinides.
And La, Ce, Ac, and Th are Transition Metals.
This is simple: The s-block, the d-block, the f-block, and the p-block describe the Aufbau rule's formulas.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.81.5 ( talk) 30 November 2010
Listen, Urhixidur, the current wording you have done allows for all elements with a z value of less than 95 (i.e. Pu and lighter) to be marked solid border. Americium would also probably count if found in the Gabon natural reactor. As they are all naturally occuring, on Earth no less. Cf doesn't even occur naturally on Earth. So unless you change the wording of the solid border back we would have to just remove the dashed border category. -- metta, The Sunborn 18:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Either way, the page for astatine says that it hasn't been found in nature at all. So why is it dashed and not dotted?
Also, you could always use colored borders to distinguish between observed terrestrial occurence and observed extraterrestrial occurence.
Greg Kuperberg 06:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Tc, Pm, Np, and Pu are synthetic, but it lists them as natural radio (from decay), except Pu, which is listed as Primordial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.81.5 ( talk) 23:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that the design of this table is under discussion, please consider getting rid of the term "chemical series". I don't think it has any well-defined meaning or legitimate use, and it hasn't had it for the last hundred years or more. In fact, I hate it with a passion. :P Please see Talk:Chemical series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical series for more background. -- Itub 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Google scholar shows a large number of articles that use the term "post-transition metal" to describe what we've been talking about, and someone added the term to the "Poor metal" article. It's descriptive and succinct and I think it's better than the alternatives. I'm changing the template and requesting that the "Poor metal" article be moved. Flying Jazz 08:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why can't we use ordinary metals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptable ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is there an element with an atomic number "0" that is abbreviated as "Du" on some periodic tables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptable ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the speedy delete on the redirect Periodic table (standard) as I can't see how it falls under R3, but even if it did this redirect has too many incoming links to be deleted, or at least not without a discussion and careful consideration on how to deal with incoming links. It's a template that was moved from mainspace two months ago, hence the redirect at its original location and why there are so many incoming links.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 01:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC) hahahahahahah
The article's title is Periodic table (standard), but the periodic table shown is not IUPAC standard periodic table. New IUPAC standard Periodic Table does not show La and Ac below Sc and Y. Those two cells were left blank and all of 30 elements, that are called Actinides and Lanthanides, are placed in a little footnote table at the bottom, which is ridiculous. In most recent standard-like non-IUPAC periodic table Lu and Lr are correctly placed under Sc and Y. Drova ( talk) 12:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is one: IUPAC STandard PT. Drova ( talk) 13:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I corrected it. Drova ( talk) 16:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If the table is not standard, atleast it is partially standard.
They named it (periodic table [standard]), because it separates the lanthanides, and actinides from the rest of the elements.
WGroup (
talk) 23:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
User:WGroup is a
WP:SOCK of
User:Wd930, who has participated else where in periodic-table discussions.
DMacks (
talk)
14:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
For a long time I thought that
astatine is a
metalloid.
But recently I've seen an article saying that it is a
nonmetal.
And I've seen an article saying that
polonium is a
metal.
I would request someone to change
polonium to a poor
metal. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wd930 (
talk •
contribs)
01:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I did
The Wiki article for polonium provides a sourced statement that it is a metalloid. If you have credible sources indicating polonium is not a metalloid, then the controversy as to its status should be addressed on the polonium page. Should that occur, we should discuss how to represent an element whose category is debated. Until such time, I am reverting to polonium as a metalloid for consistency. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 16:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I found an article saying that it is a metal, and I've looked at it in the theodore gray book, and in there I've seen that it is pretty obvious that it is a metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the lack of any citation for the article to which you refer, I would readily agree there are discoverable sources that indeed make a case for polonium as a non-metal. To wit: I've done a little more checking around Wiki, and the various pages for poor metal and metalloid (as well as that for polonium itself) all suggest polonium should be grouped with the metalloids. The group pages note that polonium, along with astatine and germanium, are occasionally grouped with the poor metals or non-metals, but I think that just underscores that those three elements are usually grouped with the metalloids. Again, I would say that since other pages on Wiki treat these as metalloids per the prevailing usage, the periodic table should do the same. If you think we should revise across Wiki as a whole -- and I suspect there are far more pages than the few I surveyed that would be implicated -- then we need a larger forum than this page to discuss a far-ranging revision of our treatment of polonium, along with astatine and germanium. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 17:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As of right now, there only appear to be two elements designated as liquid phase at STP on the table: bromine and mercury. However, I recently noticed on the article for francium the following statement regarding its phase, following discussion of its physical properties, specifically its melting point: "Because radioactive elements give off heat, francium would almost certainly be a liquid if enough were to be produced." I would therefore think that francium's atomic number should be colored green to reflect it being liquid phase at STP. Does anyone have more specific information on this subject? If not, I will source the statement both in Francium and this page and change the color for francium's atomic number accordingly. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a bit of a knotty situation -- francium is estimated to melt at about 300 K, while the STP at which the state is measured for purposes of the period table is 273.15 K. However, in an ambient environment of 273.15 K, francium would apparently nonetheless be liquid, since its internal radioactivity would provide the necessary additional heat. It's really more a question of what exactly "STP" means -- the environmental conditions, or the internal state of the element? But seeing as how nobody has ever actually produced enough francium to demonstrate its state empirically, I'm comfortable with leaving it noted as a solid and avoiding the definitional considerations until a credible scientific source establishes it more concretely. Citizen Sunshine ( talk) 17:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the disagreement between Roentgenium111 and Raistuumum can be resolved in a way that will serve the encyclopedia. Maybe it's kinda cool to keep track of which of the newest elements have been chemically characterized and which haven't and then change colors on Wikipedia's periodic table from "Unknown" to something else according to this newest information, but from the perspective of the general reader, I think the transactinides have more in common with each other due to the fact that they are all synthetic, they all have short half-lives, and they're all "super-heavy" than they have in common with other elements above them in the same group. In other words, what's more interesting or important about Bohrium: the fact that a few atoms have been characterized as having chemistry typical of a transition element in group 7 or the fact that humans made the stuff and it's really really big and unstable? In the past, I've defended having a table that emphasizes chemical similarities over other things like electron configuration, but now I think we're performing a disservice to the reader by overemphasizing chemistry in these elements when the main big deal is the fact that they exist at all. This will also eliminate the need for an "(Unknown)" category which I believe seems odd to the general reader because anything that exists can be categorized somehow. When it comes to atoms, eventually they get big enough so size is the most important thing.
This is another case where I like the environmental chemistry table here better than what Wikipedia is doing. So I'm proposing the following change in Template:Element_color_legend from:
Metals | Metalloids | Nonmetals | (Unknown) | |||||||
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Inner transition elements | Transition elements | Other metals | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases | |||
Lanthanides | Actinides |
to:
Metals | Metalloids | Nonmetals | |||||||
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Inner transition elements | Transition elements | Other metals | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases | ||
Lanthanides | Actinides | Transactinides |
I'm temporarily proposing the color "violet" for transactinides because it seems to be close to the next color step in the progression from transition metals to actinides, but maybe it's a little too dark. What do other editors think? Flying Jazz ( talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This just shows again that our periodic table has too many colors, and that however we color it we'll end up doing something wrong. While I don't like transactinide as a category because it based neither on chemistry nor on theory but on an arbitrary cutoff (why not color transuranium or transfermium?), I can see some merit to the proposal because of the ambiguity in some of the latter elements of the seventh period. So I'm a bit undecided. -- Itub ( talk) 05:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with comments by Physchim62, Itub and mav: the classification of "trans-actinide" is non-commensurate with the other categories (which is a fancy way of saying "the rest are all to do with chemical behaviour, whereas 'trans-actinide' is to do with how the elements were obtained/discovered"). And the label "unknown" is too easy to misinterpret as that the elements themselves are unknown. Plus the entire thing falls under the shadow of the wrath of WP:OR. So, much as I tend to be a bit wary of claims for the chemical behavior of an element when we barely have a few atoms of it to play with, I feel we ought to just glean as much from the literature regarding their known chemistries as we can, and fit them into the existing family groups as we are currently doing. feline1 ( talk) 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I coloured the transactinides as #dadada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your opinion, but it's at odds with actual science, where the properties of "metallic" and "melting point" are not parallel or inter-related ideas. We say what reliable sources say (Nature doesn't wait for your understanding to catch up). DMacks ( talk) 15:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I am Wd930 replying back, but you thought that there was a catch all, and, yet, I was just saying that no gas is metallic. 71.217.85.118 ( talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Imagine my shock when I found that two cells marked "undiscovered" in the main body of the periodic table! The mouseover text on those two cells clearly said "Undiscovered." I changed it to "(See below)." This was not easy: the hovertext uses the name of the subpage name of the appropriate Template:Element frame/subpage, so i was forced to create Template:Element frame/(See below). - Arch dude ( talk) 16:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
re [4], replacing "boron group" with "Icosagens". IUPAC red book, p.51 (=pdf p.63) (bold added DePiep): "If appropriate for a particular purpose, the various groups may be named from the first element in each, for example elements of the boron group (B, Al, Ga, In, Tl), elements of the titanium group (Ti, Zr, Hf, Rf),"
So this naming is IUPAC approved up to a level, the current name "Icosagens" is not. I can add that this gives a way to specifically point to an f-block group (column), not numbered or named otherwise. - DePiep ( talk) 14:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
DePiep=selfnote. When I zoom out with my browser (control minus), the box "57-71 *" shows the asterisk in the same line as the numbers. That could be better. - DePiep ( talk) 22:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
We should remove links to this site, once upon a time a prized reference endeavour, now a COMMERCIAL enterprise completely eaten by obtrusive advertizing. (fake sign to help archive bot:) - DePiep ( talk) 00:36, 18 November 1999 (UTC)
Sometimes groups are reffered to missing out the transition metals (i.e. 1-0/8). Perhaps a compromise could be adopted? (fake sign to help archive bot:) - DePiep ( talk) 00:36, 18 November 1999 (UTC)
Is Boron really considered a Metaloid? Thought it was fairly obviously a non metal. (fake sign to help archive bot:) - DePiep ( talk) 00:36, 18 November 1999 (UTC)
Feline1 is right that there is one definition of nonmetal. And he's right that forcing every element into one-and-only-one "chemical series" is malarky. But any simple visual representation is going to have some malarky in it, and other alternatives are worse malarky. Forcing elements into s-p-d-f blocks would separate He from the other noble gases as in Periodic table (block). That's worse malarky. Making an exception for He like at http://www.webelements.com/ will raise questions about the location vs color of the lanthanides and actinides as we discussed at http://www.webelements.com/nexus/node/615 . Anyway, do you really want noble gases, oxygen, and lead to have the same color backgrounds in their element boxes just because they're all in the p-block together? The status quo minimizes malarky just about everywhere with the two exceptions we've been slowly discussing: Metals in the p-block (an overemphasis on "poor metals") and nonmetals that are neither halogens nor noble gases (an overemphasis on elements that are all the same color just because they shouldn't be any other color). Using the legend in http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/ as a good example, I came up with a simpler version that's a possible alternative legend. Right now, we have:
Chemical series of the periodic table
This could become:
Metals | Metalloids | Nonmetals | |||||||
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Lanthanides | Actinides | Transition metals | Poor metals | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases |
which would remove the need for the 2nd and 3rd note in the current version of Periodic table (standard). Or we could use "Other metals" instead of "Poor metals." Or we could think of a better phrase than "other nonmetals" like "nonmetals other than halogens and noble gases" or "nonmetals to the left of group 17" or something else. What do you think feline? Maybe picking a different color than white for all metals and all non-metals would make sense too. That way we could keep the same colors everywhere in wikipedia except in Periodic table (metals and non-metals) where the new colors would be used. Thanks to User:Woohookitty for creating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chemical_element_color_templates and thanks to Eddi, Femto, Mav, and everyone else who's worked on the templates that have made it so easy to try to make these silly kinds of things a little bit better. If nobody complains about the new legend then I hope someone who knows what they're doing will change Template:Element_color_legend in a couple weeks and then remove the last two notes in Periodic table (standard) because I made the font smaller and then made it larger again in that example in some weird way, and "div"s, transclusions, and onlyincludes are things that fall out of my brain like...like...like the things that I can't remember because they fell out of my brain. Flying Jazz 08:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that Rf-rg, Uut-Uuo are solids; Cn is liquid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.48.135 ( talk) 10:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I think scince then copernicium has been classified as a liquid, and I changed it to a liquid. 71.217.85.118 ( talk) 19:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Why did my edits get reverted, I think that element 112 is a LLLIIIQQQUUUIIIDD.
Almost every source says that it is a liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.85.118 ( talk) 06:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I am seeking comments on a proposal to color code the group 12 elements as post-transition metals in the Wikipedia periodic table, rather than transition metals as they are currently color coded.
The RfC can be found here. Sandbh ( talk) 23:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I am seeking comments on a proposal to change the name and composition of two of the colour categories appearing on our periodic table, as follows:
From | Polyatomic nonmetal C, P, S, Se |
Diatomic nonmetal H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I |
To | Less active nonmetal H, C, N, P, S, Se |
Active nonmetal O, F, Cl, Br, I |
The RfC can be found here. Sandbh ( talk) 23:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The colors used for "solid" and "unknown"—black and gray, respectively—are confusingly similar, especially on small screens. Could we change one of them to be more visually distinct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.170.165 ( talk) 03:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)