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 |
Just a note to say this is a really cool periodic table, even better than an image map! Compliments to User:Remember -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
please reduce the width of the border. the white thing. the older version looks better.-- Abhishek Jacob ( talk) 05:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Uue and Ubn were added, so I added Ubu and Ubb. ;-) 4 T C 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
All hypothetical elements on periods not known to exist removed. That made the table way too wide for very little benefit. Let's wait until at least the first period 8 element is synthesized before we add another period. -- mav ( Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
I also got rid of all the background colors for each of the UU elements still in the table. It is Original Research to say what element category any of those elements are. -- mav ( Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"geographic"
124.187.233.181 (
talk) 07:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The term Transition Metal in the table of contents is technically incorrect. It should be transition element. A transition metal has an incomplete d-orbital 98.235.84.232 ( talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
For ununtrium, ununquadium, ununpentium, ununhexium, ununseptium and ununoctium, the boxes are coloured light grey, but light grey is not on the colour legend...how do you fix this without breaking anything? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Why are Scandium and Yttrium separate from all the other transition elements? They're in the d-block with them; shouldn't they go directly over lutetium and lawrencium? Simple but powerful 03:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Nay. Ti4+, Zr4+, Ce4+ and Th4+ all have the electronic configuration of a noble gas, too. But we don't place titanium and zirconium above cerium and thorium. -- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 09:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, great... so the question is still open. We need a definitive answer. Now, would someone care to explain why Sc and Y are (that's ARE) placed over La and Ac ? --and PLEASE, don't explain why they aren't placed over Hydrogen, aren't placed under my house, aren't on the Moon, etc.
I finally placed Scandium and Yttrium above Lu. Block configuration gives Sc and Y d-block membership. La and Ac are f-block members - see extended table. Calling La and Ac d-elements is same thing calling Sc and Y (and also those two) p-elements. I mean, if you say Sc3+, Y3+, La3+ and Ac3+ all have the electronic configuration of a noble gas and must be placed in the third leftmost cells of the period ('cause they're following s-block elements), then boron, aluminium, scandium and yttrium must be placed above lanthanum. But none's to touch B and Al, right? But why?
Another way to prove correctness of placing Sc and Y under Lu in English Wikipedia is geografic. See German Wikipedia and their extended table - Sc, Y, La and Ac are 3 group member (all - first transition metals of their periods), making Ce and Th first inner transition metals in their ones. After Sc and Y (first 2 first TMs), there's empty space before next element of same period. After Ce and Th (first 2 ITMs), there also space, if it was 11 periods long (forgetting about fact table breaks before it reaches period 10), after 123Ubt and 173Ust (first inner inner transition metals) there'd be some space, so on, making all blocks (somewhy, except for p-block) broken. Same thing on Polish Wikipedia, on French Wikipedia 'til not so long ago there was also same thing. In English and Russian Wikipedias Scandium and Yttrium are as d-elements, as Lu and Lr, so these 4 are placed together in extended tables. Although in Russian Wikipedia lanthanum isn't a lanthanoid (despite f-membership) (and Ac isn't an actinoid), they don't have ANY problems in their periodic table template, 'cause lanthanoids (incl. both La and Lu) and actinoids (incl. both Ac and Lr) (30 in total) ripped out of table, like in official table seen in article Periodic Table. If edit war begins, it'll be a good compromise.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 08:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
re
[3] by Double sharp. Well, reintroducing an abbreviation for formatting reason? (with smaller print at that). And, since this is a {{
navbox}}
, why not let navbox decide (CSS) on format, including font size? Illegibele print for no good reason I say. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a question spawned from a debate on the corresponding Chinese Template talkpage regarding the chemical properties of elements from Meitnerium onwards. The debate resulted from some guy changing the colours of all these elements to match the pattern above. This template on the English side may be old enough to contain outdated info about "unknown" properties of heavy elements. Please review the validity of the current light-grey colouring of certain elements, so we can follow suit on the Chinese side. (The request is due to the majority of related papers being written in English.) Yinweichen ( talk) 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I corrected the template on the Chinese side just after I posted the comment here. That's why it was fine when you went over to see it. I revamped the compact periodic table there as well. A newbie vandalism many months ago caused it to look absolutely horrendous. (There is a general realllly scarce re-edit or correction rate for any article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ) Yinweichen ( talk) 07:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
There is some discussion of whether to include Polonium, Astatine, and Ununseptium with the metalloids group here. Bcharles ( talk) 19:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently now using this template on an element page shows the cell in question not only with its symbol highlighted, but also with a border around it. I'm not exactly sure when or how this change occurred, but I really like it a lot! It now fits nicely and consistently with the navbox table at the top of the article! Double sharp ( talk) 16:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@ YBG: Do not remove the halogens. See http://sciencenotes.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PeriodicTableMuted.png. Neel.arunabh ( talk) 19:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
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 |
Just a note to say this is a really cool periodic table, even better than an image map! Compliments to User:Remember -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
please reduce the width of the border. the white thing. the older version looks better.-- Abhishek Jacob ( talk) 05:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Uue and Ubn were added, so I added Ubu and Ubb. ;-) 4 T C 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
All hypothetical elements on periods not known to exist removed. That made the table way too wide for very little benefit. Let's wait until at least the first period 8 element is synthesized before we add another period. -- mav ( Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
I also got rid of all the background colors for each of the UU elements still in the table. It is Original Research to say what element category any of those elements are. -- mav ( Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 17:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
"geographic"
124.187.233.181 (
talk) 07:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
The term Transition Metal in the table of contents is technically incorrect. It should be transition element. A transition metal has an incomplete d-orbital 98.235.84.232 ( talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
For ununtrium, ununquadium, ununpentium, ununhexium, ununseptium and ununoctium, the boxes are coloured light grey, but light grey is not on the colour legend...how do you fix this without breaking anything? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Why are Scandium and Yttrium separate from all the other transition elements? They're in the d-block with them; shouldn't they go directly over lutetium and lawrencium? Simple but powerful 03:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Nay. Ti4+, Zr4+, Ce4+ and Th4+ all have the electronic configuration of a noble gas, too. But we don't place titanium and zirconium above cerium and thorium. -- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 09:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, great... so the question is still open. We need a definitive answer. Now, would someone care to explain why Sc and Y are (that's ARE) placed over La and Ac ? --and PLEASE, don't explain why they aren't placed over Hydrogen, aren't placed under my house, aren't on the Moon, etc.
I finally placed Scandium and Yttrium above Lu. Block configuration gives Sc and Y d-block membership. La and Ac are f-block members - see extended table. Calling La and Ac d-elements is same thing calling Sc and Y (and also those two) p-elements. I mean, if you say Sc3+, Y3+, La3+ and Ac3+ all have the electronic configuration of a noble gas and must be placed in the third leftmost cells of the period ('cause they're following s-block elements), then boron, aluminium, scandium and yttrium must be placed above lanthanum. But none's to touch B and Al, right? But why?
Another way to prove correctness of placing Sc and Y under Lu in English Wikipedia is geografic. See German Wikipedia and their extended table - Sc, Y, La and Ac are 3 group member (all - first transition metals of their periods), making Ce and Th first inner transition metals in their ones. After Sc and Y (first 2 first TMs), there's empty space before next element of same period. After Ce and Th (first 2 ITMs), there also space, if it was 11 periods long (forgetting about fact table breaks before it reaches period 10), after 123Ubt and 173Ust (first inner inner transition metals) there'd be some space, so on, making all blocks (somewhy, except for p-block) broken. Same thing on Polish Wikipedia, on French Wikipedia 'til not so long ago there was also same thing. In English and Russian Wikipedias Scandium and Yttrium are as d-elements, as Lu and Lr, so these 4 are placed together in extended tables. Although in Russian Wikipedia lanthanum isn't a lanthanoid (despite f-membership) (and Ac isn't an actinoid), they don't have ANY problems in their periodic table template, 'cause lanthanoids (incl. both La and Lu) and actinoids (incl. both Ac and Lr) (30 in total) ripped out of table, like in official table seen in article Periodic Table. If edit war begins, it'll be a good compromise.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 08:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
re
[3] by Double sharp. Well, reintroducing an abbreviation for formatting reason? (with smaller print at that). And, since this is a {{
navbox}}
, why not let navbox decide (CSS) on format, including font size? Illegibele print for no good reason I say. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a question spawned from a debate on the corresponding Chinese Template talkpage regarding the chemical properties of elements from Meitnerium onwards. The debate resulted from some guy changing the colours of all these elements to match the pattern above. This template on the English side may be old enough to contain outdated info about "unknown" properties of heavy elements. Please review the validity of the current light-grey colouring of certain elements, so we can follow suit on the Chinese side. (The request is due to the majority of related papers being written in English.) Yinweichen ( talk) 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I corrected the template on the Chinese side just after I posted the comment here. That's why it was fine when you went over to see it. I revamped the compact periodic table there as well. A newbie vandalism many months ago caused it to look absolutely horrendous. (There is a general realllly scarce re-edit or correction rate for any article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ) Yinweichen ( talk) 07:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
There is some discussion of whether to include Polonium, Astatine, and Ununseptium with the metalloids group here. Bcharles ( talk) 19:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently now using this template on an element page shows the cell in question not only with its symbol highlighted, but also with a border around it. I'm not exactly sure when or how this change occurred, but I really like it a lot! It now fits nicely and consistently with the navbox table at the top of the article! Double sharp ( talk) 16:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@ YBG: Do not remove the halogens. See http://sciencenotes.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PeriodicTableMuted.png. Neel.arunabh ( talk) 19:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)