Template talk:Periodic table/Archive 1

Archive 1

Element Color/Liquid Broken?

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)

Actinides

Where'd the Actinides go? (65.57.245.11)

...They decayed? (Reverted to last good version.) User:Dcljr, are you sure about the <br>? The closing slash is newer XHTML style, though both works fine since the Wikisoftware has no problem 'fixing' single tags. Do we have a technical guideline about this? Femto 14:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Periodic table

Archived talk of to-be-deleted template --Femto 11:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

It is done because this is a human encyclopedia if we ever find aliens then we will remove it. The fact is that most periodic tables list synthetic elements separate from naturally occuring ones. It is further funny that the IUPAC doesn't recognize anything to do with natural occurance. --metta, The Sunborn 19:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The elements are these all across the universe, since their building blocks (protons, neutrons, electrons) are few and all the same (if you find, say, an anti-matter galaxy, they would probably ). Complexity arises from combination of these. The synthetic elements are not important technologically, as they are 1-insanely expensive, and 2-often lasting no more than a fraction of a millisecond. --Orzetto 00:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

See further discussion at Talk:Periodic table#Faulty display of dotted borders. --Eddi (Talk) 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Iron triad, etc

Does anyone think we should group the iron triad, the noble metals, etc? Kr5t 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Layout

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)

The table as it currently appears on this page is incorrect and misleading. You don't need to go anywhere other than related articles right here on Wikipedia to see the inconsistency. For starters, take a look at Periodic table (wide) to see what the Periodic Table is supposed to look like. The form as shown on this page is an artifact of historical accident and attempts to fit the table within a "normal" aspect ratio. It has nothing to do with reality.

One of the defining characteristics of the Periodic Table is that it is in fact periodic. Although Mendeleev's work preceded the work of Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, and others in developing our modern understanding of the structure of the atom, it is now possible to understand the origin of the periodicity in terms of the electronic structure of the atom.

In any event, periodicity alone would suggest that Element 71, Lutetium, should appear directly below Element 39, Yttrium, since Lutetium has 32 more electrons than does Yttrium. As you know, there are 32 electrons in the fourth electron shell of the atom, which is what gives rise to the peridicity of the Periodic Table. Likewise, Element 103, Lawrencium, appears directly below Lutetium, as it properly should based again on the filling in of the 32 electrons in the fifth electron shell.

The problem, of course, is that if we put Lutetium below Yttrium, then there is no room in the table for the 14 other elements of the Lanthanide series, Elements 57 to 70. In Row 6, the table would skip from Element 56 Barium directly to Element 71 Lutetium. Likewise, there wouldn't be any room for the first 14 elements of the Actinide series, Elements 89 to 102. So in Row 7, the table would skip from Element 88 Radium directly to Element 103 Lawrencium.

By the way, it is no accident that the number of "missing" elements is 14, and not the current list of 15 elements in each of the two series, the Lanthanides and Actinides. The number 14 is in fact the number of electrons in the f subshell in levels 4 and 5, and it is the filling in the f subshell electrons that gives rise the the Lanthanide and Actinide series. So perhaps it would make sense to exclude Lutetium from the Lanthanide series and Lawrencium from the Actinide series, as some scientists have suggested, so that these two elements could take their "rightful" place in Column 3 directly below Yttrium.

That still leaves the question of where to put the 14 Lanthanide elements in Row 6 and the 14 Actinide elements in Row 7. Well, there is really only one place to put them, and that is in ascending order of atomic number. So that would place 14 additional columns right smack between Column 2 and Column 3. And if you look at the Wikipeida article Periodic table (wide), lo and behold, that is exactly where they show up!

The only remaining issue, then, is how to fit the table into a reasonable aspect ratio so that human beings can see the whole thing in a convenient layout. The current layout is almost correct. The only change that is required is to open up a gap between Columns 2 and 3 to allow reference markers to be placed in Rows 6 and 7 pointing out the location of the Lanthanides and Actinides.

It is really a pretty minor revision, but it makes a huge difference in explanatory power.

-- Metacomet 22:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why we have different articles is that different layouts exist. This article is called Periodic table (standard) and shows the standard layout – perhaps historical and not up to current scientific standards. However, other articles show other layouts to your heart's content. All of them don't need to look the same. For an overview of the various articles see the {{PeriodicTablesFooter}} at the bottom of each article. --Eddi (Talk) 01:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You present an interesting argument. It does not, however, change the fact that the table as presented here is incorrect and misleading. Moreover, neither you nor Femto has presented any reason why the changes I made should not be adopted. -- Metacomet 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Chemical and electronic reasons for and against these layouts are presented at Group number of lanthanides and actinides and Group 3 element. Please move this discussion to their talk pages or alter those articles if the reasons presented there do not address your concern. The layout you suggested with a marker and an empty space should not be adopted in my opinion because an empty element cell is simply a lack of information. Perhaps you meant to have a white space between groups 2 and 3 and to put Lu and Lr up there, so your table looked like the one at webelements.com? This was the wikipedia table before last summer, but it was changed because IUPAC reflects common practice by calling lutetium a lanthanide and lawrencium an actinide. See the second-to-last-page here showing the IUPAC recommendations for the names of chemical series of elements. Wikipedia should reflect current practice on this in my view and an encyclopedia should not advocate moving elements in and out of chemical series when an international organization for nomenclature has placed them there. Flying Jazz 15:32, 12 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	Lanthanides	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	Actinides	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

Any correct table is fine with me as long as it does not have the potential to confuse the typical reader. The table above, like the current version in Wikipedia is factually correct, but the elements in rows above labelled "lanthanide/actinide" do not match the elements in colors indicating "lanthanide/actinide." Lu and Lr are colored as belonging to the series, but are not located in the series spatially. I think this will be more confusing to the typical reader than the current Wikipedia version. There are simply many tables that are correct and "IUPAC approved" and there is a lot of flexibility in the world. Some tables that strongly emphasize ground state electron configurations place the Lanthanides/Actinides as you have them and place He above Be and away from the other noble gases because He is s2. Even though many tables are OK, one is used over and over by IUPAC (see here and here and compare to Periodic table (block)) The current Wikipedia version puts the 15 lanthanides/actinides together and the noble gases together because it emphasizes chemical series over electron configurations, and La/Lr are exceptions (a d-block lanthanide) just as He is an exception (an s-block noble gas). Also see previous discussions here and here. This really isn't obstinancy on my part. I would certainly agree to changing Wikipedia to this version if there is support from the community for this, but considering all the issues and also what is on the IUPAC pages (for now), I don't think that will happen. Please contribute your quantum mechanics knowledge about this issue to the Group number of lanthanides and actinides and Group 3 element articles where you will find more complete reasoning about the chemistry and physics of this issue. Flying Jazz 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

See 3.6.2 here. According to IUPAC, not just lanthanum and actinum, but all the lanthanoids and actinoids are transition elements. However, there might be some ambiguity about whether they are inner transition elements. As for where lanthanum and actinium should be placed on the table, see Group number of lanthanides and actinides, and I hope you contribute there. Flying Jazz 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lutetium and Lawrencium are d-block elements by location, and their highest-energy electrons are in d orbitals. Lutetium is easily more similar to the Transition Metals than to the Lanthanides, while the Periodic Law dictates that the same should hold true for Lawrencium (which is unobserved in any significant amounts). What POSSIBLE rationalization could there be for associating Lutetium and Lawrencium with the Lanthanides and Actinides, or putting the f-block under Group 3, other than "IUPAC sez so"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.156.164 (talk • contribs) .

Per WP:V, Wikipedia will prefer the recommendations of an international body of chemists. Ask IUPAC for their rationalization, until then, "because an IP address sez so" isn't exactly the better alternative either. With substantial changes to conventions like these, consensus should be established first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements in any case. Femto 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dotted vs. Dashed

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)

Me neither. Dotted and dashed look the same in Internet Explorer 6 --Kevin McManus 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See further discussion at Talk:Periodic table#Faulty display of dotted borders. --Eddi (Talk) 23:44, 30 January 2006

(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)

"Metalloids" according to the American Chemical Society

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)

Contradiction and Cleanup

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)

It's now contradict-other, which formats and categorizes correctly.-- Randall Bart <[email protected]> 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Elements 71 and 103 are d-block, whereas Lanthanides and Actinides are f-block. Ergo, elements 71 and 103 should not be included in the Lanthanides/Actinides box. --TiroAethra 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Element 71 is a d-block lanthanide. Element 103 is a d-block actinide. Element 2 is an s-block noble gas. No contradictions. Just human categorizations that aren't as cut-and-dried as they're taught in 7th grade. I cleaned up Lanthanide and Actinide and added the IUPAC reference there. Flying Jazz 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

more uses for the periodic table

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)

Expand

Can we expand this periodic table to include info from the Expanded table? Superjustinbros. 13:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Coloring by series

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)

Actually, the current series set-up was started in February 2002 by using the LANL periodic table and environmentalchemistry table as a guide via this edit. Nobody involved was in high school at the time but that was the audience I at least was thinking about (Wikipedia had lower goals and reference standards back then). We were simply trying to find something that was both visually pleasing and had informative coloring. If a different color organization would be more informative while not making the table too busy, then please let's discuss that. --mav 21:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see! Well, the simplest colour coding is to divide the table into s, p, d and f blocks? Or metals, non-metals and metalloids? The current colouring (and legend) gives undue weight to something like "poor metals", and is just plain wrong in its "non metals" label, while other common trivial groupings such as "noble metals" or "platinum metals" are left off. The pretty colours probably make the undue weight worse, as they're the first thing the novice eye will see. If they will fit, I think it would be nice to put the IUPAC-approved trivial names for groups at the top of the relevant columns.--feline1 09:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, Periodic table (block) shows the table divided into blocks by color. I'd be against doing that here as a standard table for the Periodic table article because it would place less emphasis on chemical similarities, and the perfect alignment of color and column would look trivial to me visually and convey less information. Periodic table (metals and non-metals) exists already. Using that in the Periodic table article would also convey less information which I think would be a mistake. The "Nonmetals" label isn't wrong when the third footnote is taken into account. I agree that "Poor metals" is given undue weight. Maybe we could change that by just calling them "metals" like they do at environmentalchemistry and rewording the second footnote. A "Noble metals" color might be a good thing, but that would necessitate a fourth footnote to confirm that these are also transition metals. That would create 11 colors though, and putting that number into a legend like the one we have now would look ugly. But this could become 12 colors if we add a Transactinide element series. The Environmental Chemistry table does that and it seems like a very smart thing to do chemistry-wise. Now that I'm taking a closer look at it, I really like the legend on the environmentalchemistry site too. Using a legend like that at Wikipedia that divides up the colors visually would eliminate the need for those footnotes. They did a good job over there except for the fact that the colors look the same on my screen. Flying Jazz 15:59, 14 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)

Actually, I tried that and didn't like the result; too vertical with all those different colored columns right next to each other. Perhaps we can tweak the wording as Flying Jazz suggests to make the current configuration less wrong... --mav 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Or we could extend the non-metal coloring to also include the halogens and the noble gases. At least that would make things correct. --mav 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's tricky because the elements in reality don't behave as tidily as we'd like! :) The best examples of homologous series are the alkali metals, the halogens, and the lanthanides, and probably the noble gases, with the alkaline earth metals and chalcogens close runners up. The actinides aren't nearly as homologous as the lanthanides, which led to them initially being confused as being new d-block elements. The pnictides, carbon and boron groups are a bit of a car-crash, with diagonal trends being much more important... in d-block, the Cu-Ag-Au (noble metals) and Zn-Cd-Hg form quite nice groups, with the platinum metal triads (the old "Group VIII") having a lot of similarities too. Oh, and hydrogen is always an anomaly. In the d-block, particularly on the left hand side, the top row is a fair bit different from the next two rows (which are extremely close in behaviours)... and so it goes. Ultimately, this is why I have always been uncomfortable with this jazzy colour coding: to the novice student, it is probably the most immediately visible thing on the table, and thus lends undue weight to the rather colloquial and ad hoc notion of "chemical series" - it gives the impression that there are a fixed number of "chemical series", and that each element belongs to one of them (and one only). This is not the case - eg the degree to which the alkali metals exhibit similarities is in a whole different league to the degree to which, say, "non metals" (in the current groupings) display similarities.--feline1 10:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Also" a noble gas?

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)

Gah! Yes, the "also" was clearly put there because of the egregious "chemical series: non-metals" colouring, which doesn't include halogens and noble gases, and might make someone think that these weren't non-metals too. If we must persist in this "chemical series" malarky, the "also" needs to be there. However I have complained on numerous occasions that the "chemical series" thing is giving undue weight to a non-rigorous rule-of-thumb concept and is almost guarenteed to confuse the uninitiated.--feline1 12:15, 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)

There is only ONE sense of "non-metal", and that's in a broad-brush dichotomy with metal (and "metalloid" handwaving around the grey areas). Putting "non-metal" as a "chemical series" (which doesn't even include half the actual non-metals) is totally confusing different strata of classification, mixing up metal/non-metal, Groups, diagonal relationships, periodic trends, ...--feline1 13:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing explanation of color codes red=gas, green=liquid, black=solid

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)

Good point. I'll change the legend. Flying Jazz 02:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove animated flags from elements?

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)

Should the inline table be the Wikipedia standard?

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)

What's the purpose of this template, anyway? It's essentially the same as Template:Periodic table which was deleted. The same reasoning seems to apply here, there's no need to keep another template with another version of the table. Someone probably should undo the templatization of periodic table (standard) and WP:TFD this page.

By definition, "standard" and "wide" version are not the same (that's why two different pages exist in the first place). Periodic table (standard) was made transcludable like a template. If consensus arises that Periodic table should include the wide version instead, Periodic table (wide) could easily be adapted as well, and get used directly. Until then I see absolutely no reason to change anything. Femto 15:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I completely forgot that this used to be transcluded sanely instead of transcluded to a template. Good point. I don't know why this template was created and it should be deleted. I reverted Periodic table (standard), so this template is now orphaned. I'm moving the discussion to Talk:Periodic table (standard) Flying Jazz 17:29, 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)

If we should take advantage of the shape of computer monitors for links below the nav images then why not also take advantage of the shape of computer monitors for the periodic table article? I don't think people print out Wikipedia articles often enough for us to base editing decisions on that possibility, but maybe you mean that the page width issue that people have offline should force us to continue using a form in the Periodic table article that you view as less correct? Flying Jazz 17:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've always been fond of the wide-form periodic table, rather than placing the lanthanides and actinides as a footnote... and I take the point that, free of the restrictions of paper, there's even less reason to do it that way anymore. --feline1 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the wide table to be the Wikipedia standard as well. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Group" and "Period" labels

See Talk:Periodic table#error in periodic table and Talk:Periodic table#Groups and Periods DMacks (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Element 117

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

Done.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Undiscovered status is indicated by a lack of an outline. 117 was once thought to be discovered, so it is perfectly valid to have here. Undid change. If you want this to be changed, then visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements to argue your case. --mav (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Uus, "Ununseptium has not yet been discovered. As of 2007, no attempt has been made to synthesise this element." Can you give a reference to your opposite claim? --129.70.14.128 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Quixy

There was a report of its discovery (as decay-product of Uuo that was later retracted. I put the refs on Talk:Uus. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Dmacks. Still, this doesn't convince me to leave Uus in the table. As requested by mav, I'll continue the debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Quixy

If the IUPAC is going to be all bent out of shape concerning about the validity of location of element no 117, what are they going to do when a discussion starts (as it will) about elements 119 and 120? They will have to start a new series, I guess, which is wrong, because element numbers 119 and 120 are not the beginning of a new series of elements but rather the end of the series of post actinide elements as shown in the Janet periodic table.WFPM (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC) At this point I'd like to post a direct link to the Janet periodic table but I cant because the link to the Janet periodic table is very cunningly hidden inside the article on Alternative periodic tables.WFPM (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC). Maybe somebody will help me make a direct link to the Janet Table. I hope so.

It sounds like you're proposing to solve a problem that only might happen in the future based on your disagreement with what you think the official solution/response might be. That's well beyond scope of WP:V. And it doesn't make sense to use that as a reason to put links to non-standard things in the standard article rather than in a separate article explicitly and fully devoted to alternate solutions. DMacks (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because I consider the problem with the location of Element 117 to be a triviality and irrelevant to the problem of the difference between the 2 periodic tables. However the format for the chart location of elements 119 and 120 will be more significant as far as series indications go. And I thought it would be helpful to facilitate the ability for readers to make a comparison between the comparitive indications of both tables; and I am biased because I think the representation in the Janet periodic table is the more correct. Is that wrong?.WFPM (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC) SeeUser:WFPM/Alternate periodic tables.WFPM (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)WFPM (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Technetium - dotted border?

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)

I would consider fission a kind of decay.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Formating with *Bold*, and _Italic_ does not work here, plese use "It's not therefore a ''decay'' product ... all technetium ''used'' is synthetic," if you were trying to format, and not a double quote, but two single quotes.

Border colours

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)

Lead and Tin

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)

The element isn't called "plumbum" at this time in standard usage in English. It was and/or in another language and/or that's the origin of the symbol regardless of its name. But Wikipedia's role is to document how it is, not how it was/could/should-be. DMacks (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And ferrum for iron, aurum for gold, argentum for silver? :-) ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 16:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Roentgenium111

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)

I never said that "none of the elements after the actinoid series are in a group". I replied to this on your talk page already two months ago: 112 has been determined to be a metal (or at least, there is very strong evidence for it), while there is no such evidence for 109-111. This is because element 112's longest-living isotope has a longer half-life than those of 109-111, allowing for chemical studies. See the reference [3] given in copernicium:

"Chemical Characterization of Element 112". doi:10.1038/nature05761. PMID 17476264. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help).

It also explicitly says that the heaviest element chemically characterised until then was element 108, which means that elements 109-111 are NOT yet characterised.

So why do YOU constantly claim the opposite without giving even an argument? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition & Explanation

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)

Seems that you linked to another article that defines/explains on the top of the page; good idea.--Brian Z 02:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Heh, what about unobtanium? ;-) —Mulad go find it in extended table202.156.2.35

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)

See my reply at [[2]], I basically explain why I think we have decided to place La and Ac into the F block (though, I didn't make the page so this is only my interpretation). This convention has been adopted by most respectable sources (the most notable of which is [[3]] which is pretty much the most reliable source for elements on the internet). However, I do see the other method (like the one you linked to), most often in educational materials whose creators didn't bother to think about what they were writing. Silly thing that is, that thinking.

You should bring this point up to your Chemistry teacher (if you feel comfortable about it), and explain how La and Ac end up in the F block. Maybe she/he'll will even give you extra credit for thinking about how the periodic table is constructed. --Ctachme 02:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I cannot say for sure, but I believe that La and Ac are, in fact, transition metals, grouped by properties, not theory. Using the standard 1s², 2s², etc, you'd get La and Ac as lanthinides and and actinides, and Lu and Lr as transition, but thats not the way it works. It's the same way Cr is [Ar]4s¹3d⁵, as opposed to [Ar]4s²3d⁴.

I'm totally guessing here, but I bet that this is because electrons in the d block can ionize better, so it's more stable there...or something...go study Schrodinger's wave equation. And quantum mechanics. In any case, I think La and Ac are transition metals, not part of the f-block.Kr5t 17:29, 20 May 2006 (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 Pu article states:

« Some traces of 244Pu remain from the birth of the solar system from waste of supernovae, because its half-life (80 million yrs) is so long. »

So it is primordial (there just isn't much of it around).

Urhixidur 01:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Agree; plutonium's status as a primordial element was apparently accidentally erased in a recent revert of the table; I am restoring the border indicating primordial status. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Natural occurrence

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)

Well, we need some kind of workable categorisation. Stable elements, fine; long-lived radio-active ones, present on Earth since its creation, fine; short-lived radio-active ones, present on Earth because they are in the decay chain of the previous ones, fine; synthesised only ones, fine. But where do we put Cf, then? It does not occur naturally on Earth, but it does occur naturally elsewhere in the Universe. The real problem is that we have only three line styles to work with: solid, dashed, dotted (four styles, if you count 'none').

Any suggestions how to fix this?

Urhixidur 01:49, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it another whirl. Let me know what you think.

Urhixidur 01:57, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

The fact is that what are we talking about when we say natural occurance? Are we talking atmospheric? Crust? Mantle? Average earth? Universe as a whole? On wikiproject elements we decided that the most useful data should be used in table overviews. I.e data on Earth only. Variations are for the article proper. I would rather say "Natural Occurance on Earth" and remove the cf note. But it is better than it was. --metta, The Sunborn 03:53, 19 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)

Chemical series

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)

Yeah, I have always been a bit non-plussed with this term. The problem with having it in there is that it may easily confuse students into thinking it is an important well-defined term.--feline1 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK. I'm of two minds about this but leaning towards a slightly improved status quo which means I'm going to ramble. The term "chemical series" is still very commonly used today for groupings of related chemicals. This phrase has countless legitimate uses today in many branches of chemistry (some uses by IUPAC in chromatography and metabolism). With my background, I've heard it used mostly in drug discovery (like in the caption of this August 2007 figure from Nature). I don't think it's ever a well-defined term and it's always open to argument and alternative categorizations, but I think that flexibility is part of what makes it a useful term. I think that pharmaceutical companies use the term now with regard to millions of chemicals in a very similar sense that chemists in the 1800s used it with respect to the elements. Of course, when it's used with the elements today, it does seem archaic. But what are the other alternatives? IUPAC's provisional redbook calls the numbered vertical columns "Groups of elements" as expected and calls some of the things we're showing with colors (like "transition elements" "actinoids" "halogens") "Collective names of groups of like elements." This seems unwieldy, and I don't like using the word "group" again. The environmental chemistry site (whose table legend I really like) just calls them "Series" similar to what Wikipedia does. Other possibilities are "Classes of Elements" or "Classifications of Elements" or something else. This guy's table legend just has the title "Legend" which would seem OK for the legend in Wikipedia except that whatever is done needs to be done in many, many places in Wikipedia for consistency. In addition to the legend title, there's the word "Series" in Template:PeriodicTablesFooter, and then there's the infoboxes and elementboxes for each element and other templates I'm probably forgetting about. Now that the "Chemical Series" link redirects to "Group," it's a self-contradictory set of articles that (I think) really has to be corrected somehow. I think that an ideal wikipedia would have a "Chemical Series" article back in place that traces the historical use of the term all the way to the present, including "radioactive series" and other similar things. I think an article like that could be done in a useful encyclopedic way and also have a section on the elements that maintains the reality of uncertainty and complexity in the world (like what was done for Group_number_of_lanthanides_and_actinides except on a grander scale). So I think that using an ambiguous term to reflect an ambiguous reality is a good thing. Instead of just writing, "Get rid of it," please write what you want to see in its place in all of wikipedia. Think about alternatives for the entire encyclopedia. Do you think the Uranium article shouldn't have "actinides" in its infobox"? Do you think the Ruthenium article shouldn't have "transition metals" in its infobox? I think keeping those terms in there is a good idea. Do you think the terms should just exist without a heading? What heading should be used there instead of "Chemical Series"? Flying Jazz 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that the term is used in medicinal chemistry and some other fields to refer to compounds, and certainly wouldn't object to an article dealing with the history and actual use of the term. But I do object to the somewhat sui generis meaning that has been adopted in Wikipedia with no basis on any reliable source. Really, I'd rather have nothing than having misleading information in the infoboxes and templates, but I could be happy with a general-purpose, non-technical-looking word such as "category", especially if it is used correctly by making very clear that these so-called chemical series are non-exclusive. For example, why is bismuth in the "poor metal" chemical series only? First, the use of this archaic term is poorly sourced (excuse the pun), as the only reference in its article is a self-published book. But second, and more importantly, it seems to be excluding the pnictogen "series" which, unlike poor metal, is a IUPAC recommended "collective name of a group of like elements".

The word "series" is used in many other places in chemistry (although usually not as "chemical series"). Something you'll notice is that most of these usages stick to the dictionary meaning of the word as something that can be ordered in a natural sequence. Examples include homologous series, electrochemical series, spectrochemical series, radioactive decay series, and even some series of elements: the lanthanide series, the first transition metal series, etc. But how on Earth can you justify calling the nonmetals as a whole a "series"? Or the transition metals, the poor metals, etc.?

A more general objection is that the current selection of "chemical series" in the Wikipedia periodic table is arbitrary and incomplete. Why are there no series for the chalcogens, pnictogens, earth metals, rare earth metals, "noble metals", "coinage metals", "heavy metals", transuranic metals, transactinde metals, etc.? I imagine that the answer is that it would be impossible to display so many overlapping categories in a clear way. One has to stop somewhere. But where does one stop? I suggest stopping at the metal/nonmetal/metalloid level, as many periodic tables do. That's the only logical stopping point I can find. Furthermore, it has the advantage of not confusing the general reader with the idea that categories such as "poor metals" are important to remember.

Finally, on a slightly unrelated note, all authoritative sources exclude the zinc group from the transition metals, unlike what the current version of this periodic table implies. I know that in "popular use" zinc is commonly called a transition metal, despite the advice of the authorities, which probably explains why it is colored as a transition metal here. But if the table were colored only as metal/nonmetal/metalloid as I suggest, the whole issue could be sidestepped and relegated to the relevant articles that can devote more space to explain the subtleties in detail (such as transition metal and group 12 element). --Itub 08:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I find myself broadly agreeing with Itub, particularly the point about the arbitrariness of not also listing "coinage metals', 'noble metals', etc. Moreover, many of the counter-arguments boil down to: (1) it would be a big job to bring a new consistency to all the wikipedia articles - answer: that's what bots are for! It is actually easy to identify occurances, then put them on a project noticeboard for getting fixed. (2) It's gonna be difficult to put these all neatly on one table. Answer: I agree, but the fact that nature is more complicated than we'd like it to be must not be allowed to result in inaccurate or misleading wikipedia articles, don't you think? We just gotta work harder! :)--feline1 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Itub that a reliable source should be found or the phrase "chemical series" should be discarded and another term should be used. I just got back from the library and did a little search on webofscience and other places for a reliable source, and I had a helluva time finding one. Itub seems right that the word "series" in the table is used for elements that are a subset of one period and placed in sequential order, like the examples he gave. If someone called these "chemical series" I wouldn't argue. But we're talking about something different with those colors.

On the other hand, I disagree 100% with Itub that Periodic table (standard) should look just like Periodic table (metals and non-metals). I think it's visually boring and shows less information than it can show. Just because there are many ways that we can show additional information, that doesn't mean we should avoid showing that information. The answer to the question "where does one stop?" is "at the point that is best for the reader" and that's the arguable point for editors here. Not showing the noble gases or the alkali metals etc would be bad for the reader I think. Similarly, there's a perfectly good reason to avoid showing the pnictogens as their own color even though IUPAC gives them the OK as a collective name. The reason is that it would obscure our ability to show the metal/metalloid/nonmetal division using colors on the same table and that would be bad for the reader. Seaborg used a similar color scheme in "Evolution of the modern periodic table," J. Chem. Soc., Dalton Trans. (1996):3899-3907" which isn't online, but there's a signed table that he used in that article here attributed to Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. Of course, that table calls hydrogen an alkali metal and there's a few of other things about it that could be better in my opinion, but it does use the phrase "Other metals" in its legend instead of "Poor metals" and that's a good thing. Lawrence Berkeley has another table with a similar color scheme here where hydrogen is a category unto itself. These are nice color schemes because they show some horizontals, some verticals, and some diagonals. It's pretty. Seaborg used it. LBNL uses it. Wikipedia has used it for awhile, and I'd still prefer to just tweak it instead of discarding it. Here are some specific proposals:

1) Replace the legend title "Chemical series of the periodic table" with "Element categories in the periodic table," (maybe "Some element categories in the periodic table"?) replace the word "Series" or "Chemical Series" with "Category" elsewhere in wikipedia except when referring to sequential elements in a row.

2) Direct the phrase "Element Categories" or "Category" every time it's used to an article called Collective names of groups of like elements (an article which someone could start...maybe me in a little while) which will have the IUPAC approved collective names and every other damn trivial name we can come up with. This article could also link to some selected examples outside and inside of wikipedia of how different people use those names, the metal/nonmetal division, and blocks to color their tables in different ways, like what was done in Group number of lanthanides and actinides.

3) Switch to the IUPAC approved list of transition metals, removing group 12 from that color.

4) Switch to the new legend. Also...

5) Color group 12 grey along with what is currently grey, call this category "Other metals" in the legend, and "metals" in their element infoboxes, thus eliminating the "poor metal" category from the wikipedia table legend, infoboxes, and most other places.

I think inclusion of the phrases "other metals" and "other nonmetals" in the legend should indicate a good amount of realistic complexity without misleading anyone. Unfortunately, I just realized that the legend above gives the impression that lanthanides and actinides are not transition metals. So now I'm proposing this legend or something similar that looks nicer:

Some element categories in the periodic table

Metals						Metalloids	Nonmetals
Alkali metals	Alkaline earth metals	Inner transition elements		Transition elements	Other metals		Other nonmetals	Halogens	Noble gases
		Lanthanides	Actinides

Flying Jazz 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I also think the first footnote is both unneeded and wrong because it has nothing to do with the table we show and IUPAC indicates that "rare earth metal" is an OK term for Sc+Y+lanthanides. So with this legend, no notes would be needed. Flying Jazz 01:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, I agree with all of your proposals! I'm sorry to say that I hadn't noticed that there was a Periodic table (metals and non-metals) already. --Itub 08:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Post-transition metals" instead of "Poor metals" or "Other metals"

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)

Oops. Aluminum couldn't be called a post-transition metal, so it would still need to be called an "other metal." Nevermind. Flying Jazz 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we use "Ordinary metals" if that is a name for "Poor metals"

Why can't we use ordinary metals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptable (talk • contribs) 06:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Zero atomic number element

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)

Atomic number for normal matter is defined as the number of protons in the nucleus (the "mass in the middle" of the atom). One could hypothesize an atom with no protons, so it would have an atomic number of zero. Now...what to call it? What symbol to use for it? The probable answer for the first appears to be "neutronium", but I can't find a reliable sources for any formally-approved or widely-accepted/use symbol for it. DMacks (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete?

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 table depicted in the article IS NOT standard.

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)

Where do you find an "IUPAC standard table"? I haven't found one on their site. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is one: IUPAC STandard PT.Drova (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. After long arguments for a long time, some of which are mocked on my User page and some of which are discussed above in the Layout section, this was the agreed-upon format which is also the most common format used at IUPAC, and it was the Wikipedia format for years. The edit history shows the change to this was made by an anonymous IP address in February, and since then people have been editing things back and forth. I would change it back myself, but I'm still on a self-imposed Wikipedia editing boycott at the moment due to a bunch of jerks acting like jerks in the fall, and it gives me pleasure and feeds an over-inflated sense of my own self-importance to think that even something as simple as the Periodic Table will keep getting arbitrarily changed unless I'm around to keep an eye on it. And, by the way, if you want to convince editors here of something about IUPAC then post a link to the IUPAC site that shows what you want to show. Posting a link to a publishing house that says what they believe IUPAC says won't convince anyone of anything, even if the information is correct. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I corrected it. Drova (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the link you gave seems to be a private website, not the IUPAC - just naming a table "iupac.jpg" does not make it IUPAC-approved. So a proper reference for the change would be nice. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.iupac.org/general/FAQs/elements.html#pt is an IUPAC web page that contains an IUPAC link that refers to "the [their italics] IUPAC table." That link will direct you to another IUPAC web page that actually does seem to contain the IUPAC table, according to IUPAC. Or you could refer to the Layout section of this talk page where the same link is referenced. Flying Jazz (talk) 21:19, 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)

I changed my mind

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)

Francium phase of matter designator

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)

According to PTable, francium has to be heated to 301 degrees kelvin or higher to be liquid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 December 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)

Should the transactinide category be included as an additional color on the Wikipedia table?

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)

At first blush, I like the idea for its improved aesthetics and for its wikipolitical Jujutsu. But then, the trans-actinides are not a chemically-defined element category; but all the other element categories we use in the table are chemically defined. I disagree that the plan is at all better for the reader since leaving things uncolored tells the reader a very important piece of info; that the element has not been chemically characterized yet. Coloring the trans-actinides just gives the reader redundant information; anybody can already see that those elements are heavier than the actinides. I therefore propose that we clearly define the "Unknown" category as "not chemically characterized yet." We can have a party each time a trans-actinide gets chemically characterized and give it a color. --mav (reviews needed) 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dislike. The elements from rutherfordium to copernicium (Z = 104–112) are transition elements by definition: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005). Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK): RSC–IUPAC. ISBN 0-85404-438-8. p. 51. Electronic version.. Between Rf and Hs (Z = 108), there is experimental evidence that periodicity works and that the elements show the typical chemical properties of their groups. To colour the other transactinide elements as "unknown" is ambiguous, as the reader might interpret this as implying that the elements themselves are unknown, rather than their chemical properties. Indeed, it is debatable that their chemistry is "unknown": periodicity has served us well so far, as there is no reason to believe that periodicity shall not continue to hold. Use a lighter shade of the group colour when there is no experimental evidence, if we must and like we use to use for ununseptium, but both the proposed solution and the current situation are sub-optimal bordering on WP:OR. Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of giving the non-characterized transitions a muted transition metal color, but what about the p-block trans-actinides? Halogens and nobles seem fairly straight-forward, but what about ununhexium (116); is it predicted by a RS to be a metaloid or a p-block metal? The article says it is predicted to be a non-metal, but that is not cited. -- mav (reviews needed) 17:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the ununhexium article is that is extrapolated to be more metallic than polonium, which is what we would expect on the basis of simple periodicity. Even taking relativistic quantum chemistry into account, the 7p orbitals would be destabilized, which would tend to increase the metallic character rather than reduce it. Physchim62 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would dispute that polonium is a metalloid: it has no band gap and metallic electrical conductivity, as well as dissolving readily in dilute acids. Physchim62 (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

@Physchim62: The problem is that we give transition elements as a subset of metals in the above legend (I think the legend did call them "transition metals" sometime in the past; the wikilink transition element also redirects to "transition metal"), and we don't know if 109-111 are metals, though they're certainly transition elements in an abstract sense. - And there is even experimental evidence that periodicity breaks down in the 7th period: Ununquadium behaves like a noble gas, not a metal.

OTOH, I would agree with your suggestion of using a lighter shade of the group colour for the "Unknown"s, if only we can agree on their "expected" chemical properties. (And I've already reworded the "Unknown" in the legend to avoid ambiguity, thanks for noting.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I rather dislike the proposal, as per Mav's arguments. Also note that the current legend uses mutually exclusive categories for the colouring, which your proposal doesn't; so should we colour e.g. bohrium as a transition metal or as a transactinide, since it's both? And the "common qualities" of transactinides you quote are also shared by most actinides, so where should one draw the line? From a practical chemist's point of view, the periodic table could as well end at element 99 or even earlier. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:34, 23 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)

@feline1: Note that I changed the "Unknown" legend in the template recently (which is not yet reflected in the above copy of it). Now it should be unambiguous. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I coloured the transactinides as #dadada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wd930. I see that you're making edits to include a transactinide color and category in Wikipedia's periodic table. This is the change I began discussing with other editors earlier this year. I'm glad you agree with my suggestion, but if you read the discussion above, you'll see that a consensus of editors disagreed with my proposal and wanted to keep categories based strictly on chemistry instead of using an element category based on having a very large atomic number. If those other editors were all a bunch of bozos then you and I could team up and try to convince them about why having a transactinide category is a really great idea, but the truth is that a few of those other editors have made huge contributions to chemistry articles at Wikipedia over the past several years, I value their opinion a lot, and I liked that the discussion led to specifying the "Unknown" color into an "Unknown chemical properties" color. And I was kind of on the fence to begin with. So I've reverted your recent edits. Wikipedia works by building consensus among editors for changes you want to make. If you have any new ideas to add to the discussion above about why a transactinide category would be better for the reader then let us know about them here on the talk page, and maybe you can convince some editors to agree with you. Flying Jazz (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the transactinide thing was great because I thought that it was good to replace "Unknown chemical properties". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the elements Rutherfordium, dubnium, seaborgium through copernicium should not be metals untill they know that they are all solids, or liquids.--Wd930 (talk) 20:12, 2 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)

Fixed hovertext for Lanthanide and Actinids "Pointer" cells in the main table.

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)

Now see here, for therein lies the problem of misusing templates for functions other than they were intended, producing a result that works on one dimension and is ridiculous on the other. Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Boron group" is formal IUPAC option

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)

The problem is that if we're going to use "boron group", then there's no logical reason for not using "titanium group" and co. for the d-block groups, which we don't (not even in the article titles).

A second problem is that neither "coinage metal" nor "volatile metal" are IUPAC-approved, so we should logically get rid of them too if "icosagen" and "crystallogen" are considered unacceptable. (FWIW, both are referenced, the former by Greenwood & Earnshaw.) Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If this "icosagen" word is rarely used, then why have it? (see pt.wiki's main meaning of the term "icosagen".) We could argue that coinage metal has some usage, yes, we don't have to stick to IUPAC. But icosagen isn't. I wounder how many Google hits it could have w/o the company of the same name.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)+

re Double sharp if we're going to use "boron group", then there's no logical reason for not using "titanium group"

There is no such slippery slope. Whenever someone uses "titanium group", WP editors like us can check-ask: Why not use plain "Group 4"? A slippery slope ahead is not a serious reason for us.

The reason that "boron group" is/was there, is because Sandbh was enthousiastic about these secundary names (below group number), in the option 10 talk (and Template:Periodic table (nonmetals variant)). So I copied that serious suggestion to this major PT template recently. The Sandbh option 10 learned me: there is a diff to be made between group name and category name. I am in for improvements.

re group names: I propose to use the order of preference: 1. Group number, 2. Accepted IUPAC name ("halogens"), 3. By element name ("boron group", not that common, but IUPAC accepted), 4. IUPAC non-accepted names (other trivial names, "icosa­gens", "triels"), 5. CAS and old IUPAC name ("IIIA", "IIIB" for group 13)

btw I think this talk better move this wider topic into WT:ELEM when there are future developments. Topic could be: "Second row for group names: which names to use, if at all"?

Consequences for now: You are right, "boron group" no need to mention. OTOH I say, "icosagens" way too odd and not IUPAC. So, in this PT template, I'll make the 2nd name cells for groups 13 and 14 blank (so no "boron", no "icosagen").

-DePiep (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait wait. Looks like we know boron group without redirect. Did you realize? Shoud be WP:ELEM really. -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I raised that before, but didn't get replies (I think). IMO it really ought to be at Group 13 or Group 13 element. Same for the carbon group (Group 14 or Group 14 element). Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I get "boron group" is commonly used in science, IUPAC aproved, and our article title. I don't see why we cannot put it here, below "13". If say "titanium group" were common (out of scientific need probably), we would add that one to. I propose to re-aadd "boron group". All m.m. for "carbon group". -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[5] Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Google. Your point is? -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That "boron group" and "carbon group" aren't really very common? ("Iron group" is so common because of its other meaning of Fe, Co, and Ni, as opposed to group 8's Fe, Ru, Os, and Hs.) Double sharp (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

note to self: todo

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)

www.webelements.com

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)

Groups

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)

Boron

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)

Alternative legend

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

  Alkali metals

  Alkaline earth metals

  Lanthanides

  Actinides

  Transition metals

  Poor metals

  Metalloids

  Nonmetals

  Halogens

  Noble gases

This could become:

Chemical series of the periodic table

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)

Cheers for the continuing work on this conundrum! Here's a suggestion: why not try and make the colours for "noble gasses", "halogens" and "(other non-metals)" all to be different shades of (say) blue or (say) different shades of green? (with halogens the most intense hue, and noble gases the palest). This would provide a strong visual cue that they all belonged to the same parent "non-metal" group. Similarly, all the vaeious types of metals could be in some kind of pink/purple/red/orange spectrum? And the metalloids can be a munged-up brown in between?--feline1 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Making all the non-metals different shades of the same color might make an element like selenium look more similar to helium than to tellurium, and you wouldn't want that, would you? Also, the metalloids are already a munged-up brown in between the grey poor metals and the green "other nonmetals" in the current version. The table at http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/ uses continuous spectrum shading similar to what you're talking about, but I think it looks a little drab compared to wikipedia's table. Iodine and xenon are right next to each other on the table and both are nonmetals but they're extremely different chemically, as you know. Wikipedia captures this with extremely different colors, but environmental chemistry's table doesn't. The rationale for the current colors is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements#Color_standard. From the visual perspective of using different bold, primary colors, wikipedia's table has done a good job for a long time. It would be a huge pain in the butt to mess with it and (most importantly) some good editors who contributed to the archives on that WikiProject's talk pages 5 years ago have had the chance to mess with it since then and they've restrained themselves! What do you think of the term "Other nonmetals"? Have you ever seen a name for this collection of most-important elements? Personally, I'd like to invent a category called "poor nonmetals." Who's with me? *silence* *crickets chirping* Flying Jazz 15:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... nothing better than "other nonmetals" springs to mind. Certainly neologisms are not allowed :) I do find the colours a little dubious still, but I won't grumble. It might be nice to see a colour scheme which actually reflected the colours of the elements themselves! I know it would be mostly grey ;-) but it would immediately highlight those treasures like Caesium and Europium (that's the golden yellow lanthanide, right? or did I misremember) and show trends in greyness ;-)--feline1 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's the one! Also ytterbium and the heavy alkaline earths! That's a fun idea... Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Another idea that might help is the use of two colors in the situation when there is overlap/shared characteristics. I would suggest a diagonal border between colors from upper left to lower right. Psychologically little explanation would be needed. Ah it's both. Just an idea.--Nick Y. 20:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not the only one to have thought of this idea, though not everyone thinks that it is obvious psychologically what is intended. Or perhaps we are just reading too much into it... Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Phase of elements 104-118

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)

No, the phases of these elements are not known. This is because there has never been a macroscopic quantity produced of any of them. Most of them are produced on a one-atom-at-a-time basis. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 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.

What you think is irrelevant in Wikipedia, if you don't have any reliable sources for it. And please sign.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Still waiting for actual bibliographic citation from specific ones. Can't trust "some user on the internet says he saw it a few places" as a reliable source reference. DMacks (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cn and Fl may well be gases; see their articles. Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Colour group 12 as post-transition metals

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)

RfC: Replace categories of poly/diatomic nonmetal with less active/active nonmetal

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)

Element state colors

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)

Will list this as a todo check for next color changes. Problem is, we cannot make the grey too light (because of readability on the light-grey background), and varying the black into some other color (e.g., blue-ish) is bad for readibility too (against multiple background colors). Still, to the point. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)