Talk:Chemical series

Gallium states that its chemical series is the True metals: should this have an entry here?

I do not believe that the trivial/informal term "poor metals" should be given such prominence as a "chemical series".--feline1 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
This article has no sources and borders on opinion/original research. The term "chemical series" to refer to the elements is an informal one, not used much in print in modern chemistry (there is some use of the same term in medicinal chemistry and chemoinformatics, but to refer to series of organic molecules). It was used more in the 19th century, even before the periodic table, as the article rightly says. The biggest problem, however, is that this article gives the mistaken impression that the list of "series" given is definitive and mutually exclusive. The colors are nice, but meaningless here (they are apparently the same colors used in Periodic table, where they are a bit more useful).

In fact, there are many different ways of dividing elements into overlapping subsets, and in general they are not mutually exclusive. For example, why are the chalcogens, pnictogens, etc. relegated to "see also" and not considered "chemical series" according to this article? Other subsets of elements that might be worth mentioning include the heavy metals and the earth metals, but those don't even get a "see also".

Another problem worth mentioning is that, in a strict sense, one can hardly call the transition metals or the "poor metals" (another archaic term) a "series". The same can be said of the whole of metals and nonmetals for that matter). This is because a series has to be ordered, and the definition according to this article is "A chemical series is a group of chemical elements whose physical and chemical characteristics vary progressively from one end of the series to another." Thus, one can have a nice series such as the halogens, ordered F, Cl, Br, I (called "the perfect chemical series" in an old book I found in google books); but how does one order all the metals into a single series? However, I have not been able to confirm whether or not the term "chemical series" has been used in print to refer to the transition of metals or the metals as a whole, so this paragraph is a bit speculative.

I wouldn't worry too much about this, because I consider this a very minor topic, only of historic interest when compared to the subdivision of the periodic table into groups, periods, and blocks, as is more systematically done today, except that someone at Wikipedia Commons has misinterpreted this article as "evidence" that halogens are not nonmetals. The very least that should be done is to amend this article to state that "series" (I would prefer to call them subsets of elements) can overlap and are somewhat arbitrary, that halogens and noble gases are nonmetals, etc. The same should be clarified in related articles. I'm happy to see that Periodic table already has a footnote stating precisely this, but maybe the color scheme contributed to the confusion. I'd make this changes myself, but given that this is already a revert war in Commons about this, I'll rather do the discussion first and place a disputed tag on the article for now. Itub 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would broadly agree with Itub's complaints. My guess is that this article was originally started by one or more high-school kids who have taken the over-simplified generalities which tend to be common in high-school textbooks, and presented them in a way that puts too much set-in-stone systematic emphasis on the concept. Obviously some elements make a good series for comparitive study (halogens, alkali metals, lanthanides), others verge on colloquial hand-waving ("poor metals").--feline1 18:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This article illustrates the kind of cruft that is inevitable in Wikipedia. The names of "series" could be put into Periodic table, and then article itself could be converted to a redirect.--Smokefoot 19:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree to convert this article in a redirection. There are lot of things to say about the numberous ways to divide the current periodic table in groups, and this article will be a natural complement to history of the periodic table.
 * If “chemical series” is not an usual term in chemistry, rename it. Groups in the periodic table? --Juiced lemon 20:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Group (Periodic table) already exists, and luckily that is a well-defined term, unlike "chemical series". There are exactly 18 groups, numbered from 1 to 18, and some of them do have IUPAC-recommended names. Itub 21:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone might try to search for the term, so I think a re-direct is better than a deletion. But, basically, I don't think the "term" 'chemical series' merits an article - it is not a proper scientific term, it is just a turn of phrase, a use figure of speech in chemistry. At most, if we must have an article, it should discuss the phenomenon of periodicity of chemical properties, of homologous series and chemical trends - I suppose, to the novice, it's well worth pointing out that a lot of chemical behaviour can be rationalised in that way, it's not all just completely random - but having an article as at present, where it lists "these are the chemical series, here are their names" is daft and misleading.--feline1 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this: A chemical series is any element series that starts with 2 elements, and any multiple of 4 additional elements in addition. Thus we can have series (plural) with 2, 6, 10 and 14 elements in the present table. And will you bet against the proposition that the next series will have 18 elements? I dont think so.WFPM (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Incidently I suggest that you note that all of these series element content numbers can be broken down in the following manner: 1(2= 2), 2(6= 2+4), 3(10= 2+4+4), 4(14= 2+4+4+4), and 5(18= 2+4+4+4+4). Sounds like what happens when you increase the perimeter of a 4 sided structure? SeeTalk:Nuclear model.WFPM (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)