Talk:Periodic table/Archive 1

Could we establish a practice of listing, for each chemical element, the basic information from the periodic table (atom weight, symbol, ...), a pointer to the entry periodic table, some information about the element, and information about its commercial use (e.g. a pointer to an article on the uranium industry, if there is an industry for this element).

I think a standard form is good but is easily stifling if followed too carefully, depending on the element. For instance for hydrogen it makes more sense to discuss the pure form first, but for carbon second (because its structure makes more sense when compared to hydrocarbons). Some elements need some things that other should lack. So we could, but I think we should be careful.

(diatomic fluorine gas may be, too, though I'm not sure how many people have seen it--it's pretty nasty stuff I hear).

Just came across a USGS made periodic table which has good public domain information on isotopes of about 40 elements. I will try to incorporate these as I find time. http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/isoig/period/ --User:maveric149
 * Done -- source exhausted. --mav

Okay, here's some discussion about the colors I put into the table (some of which were preexisting). I'm not entirely happy with what I did, but I'm no chemist so I'll largely leave it to others to fix. :)


 * Aesthetics - some of the colors I used aren't very pretty. I think I should have been more daring with darkening the colors, making everything pastel makes it all look a little weak. I did that to make sure the text stood out, but in exchange I think I made the backgrounds fade rather a lot.
 * "Standard" colors - no idea whether there are any standards for this sort of thing. http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/default.htm has complex colorings which probably indicate all kinds of interesting groupings I don't know about. http://www.webelements.com/ has a clean and simple coloring which doesn't reveal as much structure, and which has completely different colors to boot. http://www.chemicalelements.com/ has a table with coloring similar to the lanl one in pattern, but again with completely different colors. http://www.dayah.com/periodic/ has even uglier colors than the ones I picked. :) http://students.washington.edu/manteca/ is interesting, it uses colors to divide up the table quite differently than the others. http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Chemistry/Periodic_Table/ has links to all of these tables and more.

Whatever else, these tables give a good idea for how to color the remaining uncolored chunk of the table; it looks like the metals should be colored one thing and the nonmetals something else, producing a diagonal division. Seems like a very reasonable distinction to make.


 * Or, as I see has just been added while I was writing this, the remaining columns can be grouped like the others too. :)

Anyone have suggestions for a better pallette? I'll do the hard work of implementing it in the table, if someone provides a good one but doesn't want to do all the search and replacing. Bryan Derksen


 * I realy like the idea of adding fill colors to the table. From my search (assisted by your provided links), it appears that most perio tables have fill colors that depict the different periodic series not periodic familes. The colors as they are now already conform to this convention. Just need to add fill colors for the true-Metals, Metalloids, and Nonmetals -- which forms a kinda stepped structure. Also need to take out the special coloration for the Chalcogens -- since this is not a series (it is only a group and family). The best example that I found to show which element belongs to which series, is at EnvironmentalChemistry.com. --User:maveric149


 * As for the colors - There seemed to be very little consistancy in coloration in the tables I saw. So I think this area can be left to creativity on our part.
 * Below are my ideas: (got the codes from here)

--User:maveric149

I like this; I'll get to work updating the table coloration right now. I'll also make the legend table at least two columns, to waste less space. Bryan Derksen

Now that I look at it, I think my choice for colors for the alkali metals and alkali earths, were a bit on the bright side. I am looking for softer versions of the same colors right now. --User:maveric149

Like the colours, but I really think it would be helpful to display it on this main page like Periodic table/Alternate+table i.e., periods as rows and groups as columns. I have never seen it displayed in this way before, and the current form could lead to confusion, for example it is very common to say 'across the period' or 'down the group' when referring to trends (this is what I did in transition metal). user:sodium (maveric149: sorry that it looks like I'm trying to change all the pages that you work on! :-) )


 * As I stated in comment 8b in Talk:Beryllium, I couldn't agree more about the oddness of this table(it is not only on its side, it is also backwards). The one displayed on the "Alternate" subpage is far better. We could place the current table in the "Alternate" subpage (where it belongs). My only guess was that someone choose the current table as the main one because of some idiosyncratic view on how the table "should" be displayed. However, the color scheme is still under active development, so I suggest we hold off on moving the table until at least Feb. 20th. so that enough time will have passed for everyone to review the new color scheme, and I or Bryan (or anyone else for that matter) have enough time to convert the fill colors of the other perio tables (of course, if you want to do the work, you can swap the two tables and change the colors of the standard table to match the current one -- we could then continue testing color schemes on the standard table). --User:maveric149


 * I've been slowly but surely adding links to the alternate tables over the past few months (whenever I get sufficiently bored I'll do a row :), so next time I'm in there puttering around I'll start about inserting colors too. The final switch-over should be pretty easy, just a cut and paste job. Bryan Derksen

I just noticed the nonmetal/halogen color swap, and I don't agree with it; not only was the original justification sound IMO (chlorine is green and many nonmetal compounds are yellow) but it doesn't look as good either with the greyish-yellow metalloids and the grey metals. I guess it's a pretty minor thing, but I'd like to make sure it's settled before I do more coloring on those alternate tables. :) Bryan Derksen
 * I switched the fill colors of Halogens and Nonmetals because green is more appropriate for non-metals since they are the most important to life (CNOH). And also I recently found out that Florine gas is yellow along with many precipitates of the Halogens. Even though Chlorine gas is green, I think the color of Florines gas is more important because it is the first element in that series. This color scheme just seemed more logical after I gave it a bit of thought. Hold off on transfering the colors -- I still am not totally jazzed about the color of the metaloids and the transition metals. --User:maveric149

maveric149


 * I have only one beef with this new setup with all the colors. The terms "metals" and "nonmetals" are more inclusive than what is implied. Alkali metals and Alkaline Earth metals are certainly among the metals. Halogens and Noble Gases are certainly among the nonmetals. Either the blocks should be relabeled (perhaps "miscellaneous metals" and "miscellaneous nonmetals") or the blocks labeled "metals" and "nonmetals" should be multi-colored (though I don't know how to do this in HTML!) I'm not doing the editing myself because I don't know which is the better way to go. --BRG


 * The problem is with the original nomenclature of the the Chemical Series - not with the particular table presented. It is unfortunate the term "metals" has two meanings in the same article. There is a very specific meaning that deals with a certain group of elements that are in the Metal Series. There is also a more generalized definition of the term 'metals' that includes several other series, however. And it is also true that the term "non-metals" in a broad sense does include halogens and noble gases. But in the sense of the terminology presented (i.e. "Series") the term has a more specific meaning. I have been looking for better nomenclature or for a way to explain this in the main article. Do not change the table due to this fact. maveric149

I am thinking about moving elements 71 and 103 back from the bottom of the table (at the end of the Actinides and Lanthanides) to where they where before. Previously, the table was set up to showcase the atomic orbital filling blocks -- which was fine, but a bit boring and over the top for most visitors. In the previous table, it made sense to place elements 71 and 103 next to the Transition metals -- because they all belong to the d-block (all the other actinides and lanthanides are in the f-block). However, I think that we should preseve the atomic orbital filling block layout even though the coloration no longer makes this totally obvious. BTW it would nice to somehow label each of the blocks -- however, I don't know how to do this. The fill colors of 71 and 103 need to stay the same though -- they are not transition metals. This would also make the main table conform to the organization of the Big and Huge tables in the subpages. Example on how this can be done Electron Configurations and the Periodic Table maveric149

I found this link which tends to argue against my above statement. So I'll have to think about what to do. maveric149


 * Well, I'm only tangentally a chemist (by way of a molecular genetics degree), so I'm not really in a position to opine about whether 71 and 103 "belong" in one spot or another. But I'll opine anyway. :) I think that if you need the elements to be arrange one way to illustrate one pattern (ie, transition metal vs. lanthanide/actinide classification) and arranged another way to illustrate a different pattern (electron orbitals) you should compromize by having both arrangements. Leave the current periodic table with its noble gas etc. classification alone, and put a whole different copy over in the electron orbital article which is arranged and colored appropriately to illustrate that instead. Put links between the two as well. How's that sound? Bryan Derksen
 * Sounds good to me. We can also copy the table itself to display all manor of periodic trends (such as electronegativity or atomic radius). Only problem, is that somebody is going to have to fix the Big and Huge periodic tables in the subpages to place elements 71 and 103 with their correct series. I volunteer if nobody else does it before Feb. 24. maveric149
 * I like fiddling with tables. :) Bryan Derksen

Template was moved to Periodic table/Temp

-- Sorry, Lu and Lr are not transition metals, they are inner transition metals at best:  --mav

According to the lanthanide and actinide pages, they aren't a lanthanide and an actinide. -phma

-- I have added (on the smaller table) elements 119 and 120. After that it starts to get messy so I choose not to.

If anyone wants to add Uue and Ubn to the bigger ones I think it would be a good idea. --Anon


 * I disagree - the only reason the other non-discovered transuranic elements are in the table is because they were either thought to be "discovered" and that "discovery" was found to be wrong or their presence on the table did not change the table significantly. I personally would like to only see elements that are known to exist at all but have never gotten around to fixing that part of the table. There is nothing wrong with making a small section in this article titled something like "Undiscovered elements" and then list those elements along with their predicted traits. --mav

- I have an idea. I (or someone else could create) an extended periodic table. The Question is which one? Because no-one really knows. I'll just say seabourgs extended table. - fonzy
 * That's fine with me. Maybe then we could only have known elements in the standard table variants. --mav

I jave never been shore sseen anumber of avrientsnbut what is the correct placement on the tabel for: La/AC and Lu/Lr - fonzy


 * Most places I have seen La/Ac as the first elements of the Lanthanides and Actinides respectively therefore making them rare earths. It would be too confusing to have the alternate scenario where they are considered to be transitions. Unless somebody presents some convincing chemical evidence to show that they are in fact more like transition metals than rare earths I think the table is fine as-is. --mav 20:44 Oct 7, 2002 (UTC)

-taht wasan;t why i was asking. i JSUT WONDERED. aS I HAVE SEEN MANY VARIENST SOEM PUT THEM WITH THE RARE EARTAHS BUT COLOur them as transition metals. - fonzy

What about giving the table a smaller width? It does not fit on my 1280x1024 screen, and I think it might with narrower columns. I know that an absolute table width in stead of width=100% may cause problems when somebody uses a larger font. Still now a cells are very much wider than need be.

Another question: does someone else also have the problem that the table moves underneath the left menu, showing through it, when one scrolls to the right. This happens on some other pages as well. I use Windows XP - Explorer 6. Erik Zachte

Compare version of environmentalchemistry. It fits easily on half my screen. Erik Zachte

I have the same width problem with IE 6 and the Phase III software. Before the upgrade the table scaled fine in IE and I don't ever recall table or image bleeds into the side bar. The table does' scale down to less than 600 px wide in Konqueror, Mozilla, and Galeon in response to browser window width. This looks more like a browser-specific bug rather than a design flaw in the table. Having the table scale to fit the user's screen is one of the best features of this table. --mav

Yo tego una idea. The Spanish perio table seems to be far superior to this one in terms of HTML simplicity and size. This table (by itself) is over 15,000 bytes and the Spanish table is less than half the size. Erik; Does the Spanish table also the same width and bleed issues that the English one has? --mav

Spanish table has same width issue, but no bleed. (As an aside: for chemistry fans, I added some very interesting extarnal links to the Mendeleev article) Erik Zachte

I'm afraid I don't really know what's going on, but I have noticed a similar problem with Wikipedia when I'm stuck with ancient Netscape 4.7; when using the "fixed right" layout (as is my preferred setting) the side menu instead winds up on the left side of the screen and overlays the contents of the article rather than having them flow around it. I haven't looked at the HTML code, but I imagine it's probably some CSS thing; neither Netscape or Explorer followed the specs very well for a long time. Another observation from the screenshot you posted (http://members.ams.chello.nl/epzachte/Temp/ScrPrint.gif) is that it appears the periodic table is sizing itself "correctly" to 100% of your screen width. It's just not taking the width of the side menu into account when it's doing that, so it ends up too wide. As a stopgap measure, perhaps you could try setting your Quickbar settings in preferences to "floating left"? That works for me in Netscape 4.7. Bryan

Bryan, thanks for the advice. However, my Quickbar setting has been already "floating left" all along. Yet another difference betwen Netscape and Explorer, I presume. :-( Erik Zachte

Ah well. Personally, I haven't used Explorer in ages - I much prefer Mozilla, for a variety of reasons. But I won't get evangelical about it. :) Whatever's going on with this page, I suspect that part (or all) of the fault lies in whatever CSS tricks Wikipedia itself is using for layout purposes, rather than the periodic table code itself. The table code looks totally bog-standard to me, nothing special or fancy. Perhaps you could get the developers to look at it? Bryan

Maverick, I can understand your relunctance to include the RST Wheel of Motion (alternate periodic table), but consider this: The Wheel of Motion (WOM), not withstanding that its conception was inspired by the RST, still contributes substantially to the understanding and simplification of the periodic nature of the elements. It shows all the rows compactly though they are of different lengths, something the table representation is unable to do, and is much more esthetically appealing.

I'm not arguing for its adoption by science. The table may be much more useful, but it is more natural to represent a periodic series as a rotation than as a linear block collection with ungainly features. It contains the same elements and in the same order, so it is just as valid as the table representation is. If you still insist on objecting to its inclusion, then please, at least be honest and do so on legitimate grounds. Do not say that it is not valid because it is. Say that it is new and unfamiliar, or say that you do not like it, whatever. However, keep in mind that people have a right to know that a new alternative exists for representing the periodic series of elements, and who are you to say that they can't consider it?

Doug July 11, 2003


 * Doug - this article is about the scientific representation of the periodic table and its history. The RST table is not based in science so it has no place here. Just because some crackpot has a weird idea for a new way to represent the table doesn't necessarily mean that we list it. Doing so would be like having a direct link to the RST article in our physics article - it simply is irrelevant to the subject. --mav


 * Mav- That "crackpot" is me. I had the "weird idea for a new way to represent the table." My experience is that people are generally intrigued by it and find it remarkable that nobody ever saw it that way before. I added the explanation of the RST aspect to the text, because that's relevant to the WOM, but I can take that out if it offends you that much and only provide a link to the RST.


 * However, I think it's relevant because the WOM is based on the $$2n^2$$ relationship that was only discovered by Larson (as far as I know, if anyone knows otherwise please inform me.) It strikes me as odd that new ideas are so unwelcome here.  This case is a striking example of a bias against anything new regardless of merit, since the WOM, as the periodic table, is simply an organization of ascending properties, that is it is strictly an empirical observation, and since it has several advantages not obtainable in the usual table representation, how on earth can it be irrelevant?  And another thing, if the RST can predict the atomic properties of the elements and thus their order in the periodic table, how is it not scientific?


 * From past experience in this kind of thing, I know that reason has little power to influence the outcome, but I was hoping that I could prevail upon your sense of wonder and beauty to overcome prejudice against anything new. I'm sure if this exact idea had come from within the establisment there would be an overwhelming acceptance.  Doug


 * Wikipedia is not a place to present new ideas (see #10). We are an encyclopedia and thus summarize topics with an eye toward broad-based consensus on subjects. Therefore since WOM is not part of that scientific consensus when it comes to representing the periodic table then it does not merit listing here. It is irrelevant. --mav

--- Ah crap. After a bit of research I've uncovered a nasty little fact; Lutetium (element 71) and Lawrencium (element 103) are usually not considered to be f-block elements and are in fact usually placed with the transition elements in the d-block. They furthermore really don't belong to a distinct chemical series but are often lumped into the Actinide/Lanthanide groups anyway. But given the fact that they are d-block elements I propose we move them and make the appropriate fill color changes to the tables and the table images. --mav 18:18 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Yes the Lu and Lr cannot be f block element as those subshell are already filled and you start to fill the 5d and 6d subshell. So they should be classed as d block element and presumaly as transition metal. Anyway they are not considered neither as an actinide or a lanthanide, hence the color should be changed. Greatpatton


 * Yep - that's what I thought. I'll make the changes later - in the meantime if you could upload all the BIG versions of the TableImages you created then that will make is easy to update those images. --mav


 * I just updated the main periodic table table, hope everyone likes it. I'll do the other various periodic tables in a similar manner if this one's okay. Bryan


 * Thanks Brion! --mav


 * nice. Of course Periodic table/Wide Table doesn't need it! :-) -- Tarquin 22:58 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Well the fill colors did have to be switched. --mav

Are there any useful mnemonics for the first 20 or 36 elements of the periodic table? -(haven't registered yet)

113 and 115 have been created - maybe
According to the NY Times 113 and 115 have been created. But before we change this table, the associated articles and table images, I think we should wait for confirmation. Remember a few years ago when elements 116 and 118 were "discovered" - not. --mav

Well, 114 is listed but it seems to also be unconfirmed. We need either all 3 or none. Someone decide? --Dante Alighieri 23:23, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The same team created another isotope of Uuq three months after the first one they created. Since then, nobody has seriously challenged their findings. Let's give the scientific community time to challenge 115 and 113 before we start changing tables and table image files. The articles have been updated to reflect the possible discovery - let's just leave it at that. --mav


 * Ah, there's the confusion. The article on 114 hadn't been updated to reflect the status of the confirmation. I assumed that if 114 was unconfirmed and listed on the table, so should 113 and 115. I'm fixing it now. --Dante Alighieri 19:12, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could someone clarify what it is about the triads that made it clear the elements were related? The number and mass data for halogens, for example, doesn't immediately suggest any affinity among them. David K 18:19, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)