Talk:Periodic table (detailed cells)/Archive 1

Reformatting
I just added a whole hunk of information from the smaller version, including natural occurrence. The table looks substantially different, because I originally used it for a chemistry class and placed it in straight HTML (me being deprived of a test wiki at the time), then coded it back. There're probably several regressions, because I used a version from August, so feel free to fix 'em. alerante &#x2706; 23:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Good: Different text colours for solids, gases and liquids, and different frame styles for stable and radioactive elements. Possibly bad: I think the size of the table has grown beyond the two normal-size sheets of paper mentioned in the introduction. Any suggestions? As to regressions I'm not sure what you mean, but if errors were introduced with the reformatting I'm quite sure you'll find them before us. --Eddi (Talk)  03:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, all the repetitive formatting in this table really screams for templates. See for example the Norwegian version of this table, nn:Periodesystemet i stor utgåve, where the code for e.g. period 6 looks like this: ! 6 The main template is nn:Template:Grunnstoff/Celle2. The last three arguments are state of matter, chemical series and stability, which govern text colour, background colour and frame style. Font size, line breaks etc. are in the template. Would anyone be interested in a more easily readable and editable table code? --Eddi (Talk)  03:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Font size
Would anyone mind me shrinking the font size to about 50% and redirecting the detailed version into this one? æle ✆ 2006-06-07t20:40z
 * I'm not sure about font size, but I do believe that someone can slim down the size of the boxes themselves. I don't have the skill--but I'll look. Above, someone posted the norweigen version, which looks much better. And I don't mind redirecting the detailed version. They seem basically the same; the differences are negligible enough that I wouldn't care, and I doubt that anyone else would really mind your doing that. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy
I changed the accuracy of the atomic masses to a maximum of 5 digits resp. 3 decimal digits. I think this more than suffices for an overview table. Also, the table becomes less wide and the boxes now have almost identical widthes as they should. For the same reason one might consider to remove the remaining inaccuracies given in the table.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Printable Version
I have screen-captured this table as a printable file for my kids' use and would like to contribute it to Commons so anyone can use it. I know that this will be a snapshot and will not get updated as regularly as the live Wiki but the same is true of the Schools CD. Does anyone have a comment on this proposal? If not, I'll just go ahead. Mark Beard (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Cp
Can someone please edit the note beneath the table and the table itself: http://www.webelements.com/ Element 112 is now officially known as copernicium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.232.91 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The table at the webelements site is incorrect. First, the name "copernicium" will not be officially certified before January 2010. Second, the symbol "Cp" was previously used as a symbol for a proposed (but not certified) element name and has thus been disqualified. "Cn" has since been suggested as the symbol to be used when and if "copernicium" is officially certified. ---Glenn L (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Copernicium
Isn't copernicium supposed to be a liquid at STP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide citation to verify this claim. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Atomic weights of some elements to be expressed as integrals
See this article. Affected elements include hydrogen, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, chlorine and thallium, WTF? (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Old talk
The numbers whithin parenthesis; what do they mean? E.g. in the entry for hydrogen, it says "1.00794(7)". Does that mean there is 7 discovered isotopes, or is it the uncertainty in the number? \Mike(z) 13:37, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's the concise form of writing the uncertainty, giving only the corresponding last digits. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Info/Constants/definitions.html As I understand it, 1.00794(7) means 1.00794 with one standard uncertainty of 0.00007, that is, the value can be expected with a confidence of 68% to be between 1.00794&plusmn;0.00007 and with a confidence of 95% between 1.00794&plusmn;0.00014. Femto 14:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Also&mdash;all masses (except those in square brackets) usually don't refer to specific isotopes, but to the mean value for the natural isotopic composition, as standardized by the reference given at list of elements by atomic mass. Femto 15:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not sure. I THINK that it's the # of the most stable/common isotope, but otherwise you should listen to the members who posted earlier. They sound like they know what's going on ;) IceUnshattered (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Femto's correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.65.69 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

atomic mass ... atomic weight
So, when I clicked Relative atomic mass, the link available right to the rigth of H (it appears as a legend). I end up at Relative atomic mass, with the hatnote: Not to be confused with atomic mass. Now I don't want to confuse myself at all, but why this confusing link then? -DePiep (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I correct and clarify. Page Periodic table (large version) has template . Top left has the link (like a legend): "Relative atomic mass". So far so good. Now when I click that link, I get: Redirected from Relative atomic mass to Atomic weight (acceptable for now), that has the Hatnote(!): Not to be confused with atomic mass. My Q is: Sir, I clicked that word. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "atomic mass" and "relative atomic mass". (Yes, the terminology is unfortunate.) Atomic mass refers to the mass of an individual atom. Relative atomic mass is the same thing as atomic weight, and refers to the ratio of the average mass of atoms of an element (from any source) to 1/12 of C-12's mass. Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the table be more like...
This is a large version of the periodic table and contains the symbol, atomic number, and mean atomic mass value for the natural isotopic composition of each element. The periodic table of the chemical elements is a tabular method of displaying the chemical elements. Although precursors to this table exist, its invention is generally credited to Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. Mendeleev intended the table to illustrate recurring ("periodic") trends in the properties of the elements. The layout of the table has been refined and extended over time, as new elements have been discovered, and new theoretical models have been developed to explain chemical behavior.&lt;ref>&lt;/ref>

The periodic table is now ubiquitous within the academic discipline of chemistry, providing an extremely useful framework to classify, systematize and compare all the many different forms of chemical behavior. The table has also found wide application in physics, biology, engineering, and industry. The current standard table contains 118 confirmed elements, through element 118.


 * The Periodic table (18 columns, large cells) goes here (turned into a mentioning here, to keep overview -DePiep (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC))
 * Signing: User:71.217.65.69 06:25, 23 February 2011 (signing, added -DePiep (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC))

Merger proposal
I propose to merge article Wide periodic table (large version) into this Periodic table (large version). Bottom line is that both large-cell periodic tables (PT's) show essentially the same PT: one in graphic 18-column format, the other one in 32-column format.

Of the Reasons for merger #2 Overlap and #4 Context are present. One can also see #3 a Text point (as in: they have mostly the same text). For the topic of periodic tables in this wiki, the merge would also help improve overview over various PT articles and topics we have. The two tables shall appear in two sections. The thumbnail-size images, as used here above, may be added as a helpful visual TOC.

The two PTs here show PTs with the same structure in different graphical layouts. This difference does not imply any significant meaning, it is a choice of presentation. Both forms exist in RL. And simply, if there were differences noteworthy, they can ben pointed out easily (more easily) in the merged article. Its background is found in the history of the PT: When the chemical and physical aspects of lanthanides and actinides were discovered, they were simply put below the 18-column PT. This was enough for those who worked with it, and not unimportantly it fitted a book page ratio more conveniently (being more in the book page rectangle). On the other hand, from the scientific point of view there is no reason to set elements apart, and the 32-column shows the PT more complete.
 * Background

In history, names like "wide", "long", "medium-long" have been used for these layouts. Since they may be confusing, internally this wiki uses "18-column" and "32-column" for unambiguous identification. The word "large" is a word used locally in this enwiki to denote "large element cells" (that have more information, and can run off the screen page; as opposed to medium sized cells seen here.
 * Nomenclature

PTs come with three major identifying differences:
 * Different periodic tables
 * 1. Structural difference. This exist when a table is rearranged introducing different meaning of columns etc.: e.g., Janet's Left Step, ADOMAH do reposition and redefine rows, columns or cells by a different scientific reasoning.
 * 2. Difference in detail. Within one structure, details can vary. For example, the positioning of helium can be in group 18 or in group 2 (more here). This too has scientific reasons, not graphical choices.
 * 3. Graphical choices. Given PT structure & details to present, the graphics have some freedoms. For example, changing the size of the cells does not change the PT, nor does the inclusion/exclusion of information. SAme with the positioning of the lanthanides and actinides. It is this freedom that gave us the two variants.

Together, this produced some 16 PTs on this wiki. Folding the two graphic variants into one reduces the number of PT's articles. Also, this merge improves the overview of the PT articles and topics in this wiki, at no cost at all. Even better, the article can zoom in on the (graphical) differences, and maybe its history. (I was triggered by this talk here by, that showed that the overview of PTs for Our Reader can be improved). -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Improve overview

Merger opinions

 * Don't merge . (changed my mind, see below) I'd recommend keeping all the various versions and renaming them, e.g., instead of Wide periodic table (large version), I would recommend Wide periodic table (large cells) or even Periodic table (32 columns, large cells), and make the corresponding changes to the other versions.  YBG (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But why? Keep the twin separated? How to describe the difference/similarity when separated? (instead of together). -DePiep (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose because I think part of the reason for the proposal is the confusion between 'wide' and 'large'. YBG (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge. OK, now I understand.  The proposal is to merge the encyclopedia articles, not the templates.  In that case, I think I would go one step further and discuss all of the different PT templates together so that someone can easily navigate to pick out any of the templates that one might wish to use for whatever purpose.  YBG (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, this shows how difficult it is to explain the issue (just think what The Average Reader experiences). To be clear: one article, having two large-cell PT's (in two sections likely). Name change, and other PT-bring-in-overview better be discussed separately. -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war ...
Hey, and  How about the two of you list the specific differences they are disputing and let some others chime in? It seems that there is more than just one change being edited and reverted. YBG (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) FULLPAGENAME is never to be used in articles.  This is a template parameter, not an article.  Just add in the article's name.
 * 2) {| id="toc" class="toc" style="float:right; margin:auto; text-align:center; vertical-align:top" (bold mine).     This sets  parameters for the entire table.  The entire table is aligned center.  The entire table is vertically aligned at the top.  There is no need to set these again in the table unless it is to be different from the default.
 * 3) id-"toc" class-"toc"      No content between TOC and first headline per WP:TOC and WP:LEAD. This is an accessibility issue for users of screen readers.  They will not notice ANYTHING between the TOC and first section heading.  The entire lead is now blank to those who use screen readers.
 * Bgwhite (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * With me, the two graphs do not line vertically any more (in my Firefox). That is not acceptable. Main aim of the content is that the reader sees the essential difference at a glance: same PT rows (=periods) in the same horizontal line. After bw's edits, this is not the case. (This is is why I used  that way, maybe there are other routes). This is wrong now, and must be corrected. Saying that "The entire table is vertically aligned at the top [all cell contents, I understand]" is not correct. This is also true for the mobile view.
 * Given the edit timing, instead of editsummary "yet again" (how unhelpful, and incorrect even) one should have initiated this talk right away, without need for invitation.
 * You undid a textual edit without explanation. That should be undone (this "yet again" editsummary is sounding a bit offensive by now).
 * is part of every TOC. It is the anchor. Should not be removed.
 * About the guidelines mentioned re TOC and first headline (section title that is?): I do not see anything proposed in the edit nor here. What improvement is proposed? -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In short: make sure the two images align horizontally (equal periods fitting), and spend some quality time on communication. -DePiep (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have proceeded, chiefly to get the alignment back. Consider closed. -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Page / template broken?
Is there currently something wrong with this page (as of December 31, 2014)? The atomic number on each element shows. I'm pretty good with wikicode, but I don't want to play with this too much and break it even more.... • Supā saru  17:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, a bad edit in Element cell-large. Thanks for this note. -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Super Large version?
Although the standard layout of the periodic table of elements (normal or large) is practical due to its compactness, is there a page on Wikipedia for a non-compressed versions ("super large") which shows the true "scale" of the atomic structure... that is, is there a Wiki page showing the "F-series" in the middle of the table (for best symbolic effect) as opposed to the format of this page (the classic / compressed version with the F-series relegated to side-notes with * and ** "links") ?

As a terrible example (rendered in ASCII art), something like this:

S                             S SS                        PPPPPP SS             DDDDDDDDDDPPPPPP SS             DDDDDDDDDDPPPPPP SSFFFFFFFFFFFFFFDDDDDDDDDDPPPPPP SSFFFFFFFFFFFFFFDDDDDDDDDDPPPPPP

Personally, I think the above form is more revealing about atomic (or rather electron) structure than the standard form of the periodic table. I suppose because I am a visually-oriented person... but I imagine that applies to many (most?) of the humans on planet Earth. Thoughts? Hydradix (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there is: Wide periodic table (large version). The periodic table on this page has a link in the title to that page.
 * - To prevent confusion, in this wiki periodic tables with the structure you gave are often referred to as "32-column", as opposed to "18-column" (counting columns with elements). The difference is introduced in Periodic table. The "large" here means 'large cells', with more data but with the risk of running off the page (having a slider below).
 * - Your quick scheme is not that terrible at all to illustrate this. (However, if you propose to also include the block named s-p-d-f- in the large one, you might want to check block (periodic table) for group 2 and 18 wrt s- and p-block).
 * - The 32-column structure, with smaller element cells, is also used in: Periodic table (32 columns, compact) and Periodic table (32 columns, micro) (for example in infobox lanthanum, which happen appear on quite a lot of element articles. (discussions are at WT:ELEMENTS, for example on exactly which elements are to be placed in group 3). -DePiep (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit

Thanks for your response! The strange thing is my idea is shown in small form in many Wikipedia articles (in the sidebar) but I can not find a page or "official" name for this 'super large format'. I couldn't generate a link to the image, but here is the image itself Yes I did see where my (not so unique) idea is described as 32-column format, as opposed to "classic" 18-column format. In fact, my idea of "super-large format", can be found in many Wikipedia articles, for example Hydrogen (or any atomic element)... but I can not find a specific reference/article about it!!
 * I think this is an important reader's response, because it tells us that our set of PT articles is not clear or even complete for The Reader. I'll go into details now, and make a general notice on this in the end (so: first some background).


 * -Naming: "18-column" vs "32-column" to identify a periodic table (PT) is mainly used in this wiki's background like template names, not in articles. It was introduced (by me) to prevent the confusing "wide" and "standard" descriptions, (and if I'm correct, "wide" was introduced 80 years ago to describe the18-column PT, because Mendeleev had published an 8-column PT - at the time, that was the narrow one! So later, after 1945?, there came an even more "wide" PT in play). Too confusing, but qualifiers "wide" and "standard" are still used in the domain (outside wiki). Also there is the habit of "common" or "we are used to it", for the 18-column PT, always having that f-block below as a satellite table (as you know). This about the naming (our PT templates are listed here).
 * -Renamed: A year ago I did simply rename the templates to be clear (that's out of sight, wiki-technical only), but changing that old chemistries/physics habit to use the 18-column form ("'standard', everybody knows what that means") into such rational renaming could be touching WP:OR.
 * -Other PT qualifiers: An other qualifier in naming is cell size, in which we use "large", "compact", "micro" (while the default one has no qualifier. It is the one that makes the 18-column PT fit into a page width). These two can be chosen independently of the x-column choice, and a lot of combinations are available indeed. So there are qualifiers like (32 columns, large cell), (32-column, micro), and PT (=sort of default name, 18-columns, medium cells).
 * -Block coloring: you have used the block naming & colors here (s, p, d, f makes four). The article is block (periodic table). In the same layout variant, you'll see also other coloring: the metal-nonmetal trend (in ~10 key colors). For example in the two images I added. This is another qualifier that can be chosen independent of the layout (though some combinations are awkward/meaningless).
 * -Why no article? At the moment it is described in Periodic table and here. Note that between is only a layout difference, the PT structure does not change! It is a graphical thing (of course, influenced by the more square page sizes in printed books; IMO in a classroom the 32-column variant fits the wall better). These variants are of minor interest scientifically, because they depict the same PT structure. However, for learning & understanding the PT (in wikipedia, in a classroom) it is very important not to introduce confusion. I do not know whether an new article would solve it, it could be solved with good sections and clarifications.
 * -Structural variants: More important from a scientific view are the structural variants, (they do have an article: alternative periodic tables). These are different PTs by chemical or physical reasons (Janet's Left Step, Adomah). These are hundreds of scientific variants possible: just pick a criterium and redraw.
 * - Note that I mixed up readers views and editors views here (like template naming). Hope that does not distract us. Here is some more distraction ;-). -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit 2 I tried your link to Wide periodic table (large version) and it works (thanks), however on first glance, and again now after review, I do not see that link in this article. Did it move somewhere else in the article? Am I blind? Did somebody remove it? I think it should be obvious for the casual Wikipedia reader! Anyway, thanks again DePiep! Hydradix (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This too says we should explain these two layouts more clearly, somehow anyhow. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit 3 After looking a third time, I did find the link to the Wide periodic table (large version)... it is in the header of the main table of this article. Not at all obvious to me (and I like to think I'm an experienced Wikipedia reader), but at least it exists... thanks again! Hydradix (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC) /Edit
 * In general: the request is to make these two layout differences more visible for the reader. That could imply: rewrite big chunks, improve links and links labels, add an article, expand History of the periodic table, expand existing sections elsewhere. It also says (to me) that we should be more clear about the variant PTs by layout and by structure, pull them apart. I'll think of some changes, later on. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems there is a conscious that we should mention (in the article, not just "side bars") that alternative Periodic Tables exist (weather they are useful/popular is a different story...) I'm not a chemist, so I'm not confident to insert/modify the main text myself, but would love to hear good suggestions (or perhaps somebody will be bold and just do it).Hydradix (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)