File talk:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG/Archive 1

Comments
update C to GA and Br to B-class.Nergaal (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

C class
I have updated a provisional version with the C class. If somebody feels like the colors are not well chosen, go ahead and change them. Also, I forgot Radon is a GA now. Nergaal (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Periods?
Should tabs be added down the left, for the 7 periods (all start-class)? rst20xx (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to do that, but I thought it add anything as long as all periods are Start-class articles. But if you do want to add them, then go ahead. Nergaal (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You should add them and note that period 1 is a GA now. Nergaal (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add those in the next update. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Redraw image?
Can somebody redraw the table with all cells having the same width? Also, put the lanthanides and actinides one cell to the left. Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll move the f-block over in the next update. I'm not going to resize the cells, though. I spent a long time cutting them down to fit the text as tightly as possible. There's no need for this image to be pretty, so I made it as small a file as I could. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It all makes sense now! Nergaal (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be smaller still to just use something like Periodic table (standard) appropriately coloured? And also much, much easier to update... rst20xx (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and not really. Having an image is easier to use, especially for the WP:Elements userbox. Also, I am not sure how easy is it to zoom into a template. On the otehr hand, having a template allows for easy linking. I guess we could have a duplicate template and we will see which one helps more. Nergaal (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The duplicate template is at Template:Periodic table by article quality. Double sharp (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Group 10
Is still start-class... rst20xx (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

and group 3 and 12 are C-class. Nergaal (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Updated. The chemistry bot keeps changing the format of its lists, so sometimes it can be difficult to accurately track changes. I appreciate your help. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

tantalum
is C-class. Nergaal (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you change it to C-class today? You must have changed that rating just after the WP 1.0 Bot update. If you made any other changes besides the ones I updated, I'll change it now. But if tantalum is the only one that got skipped, I'll just wait until the next bot update. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it was an older rating that waws somehow missed. Check the log for July 2. Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Astatine
Astatine is now rated a C-Class so can that be updated both on the image and in the to-do list on the main project page? Bonzostar (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool. Just so you know, I wait until Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chemistry articles by quality/1 is updated, then I go through the diff to see all of the articles whose qualities have changed. That way, I can update the table/report for several articles all at once. As for the project page, feel free to update it yourself! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ununpentium
Ununpentium is now a C-class. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Group 5 element
Group 5 element is now a Start-class.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ready for GA
Okay, so there is Good article reviewing going for Rubidium and Fluorine so I prepared for that the 2 are GAs. Awsome EBE123  talkContribs 22:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Bplus-class
Since the Bplus-class has been implemented, doesn't this have to be updated along the lines of WP:ELEM/PTQ? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just adding a + while using the same B color should be enough here; an intermediate shade of green will likely make it harder to distinguish things. --mav (reviews needed) 22:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ (finally). Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)