Talk:Atomic number

Atomicity

Why does this article include a paragraph on atomicity? Should it be expanded into a section that ties in with Z? (And if so, how?) Or would anyone mind if I just deleted it? Querl 02:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I had a similar thought when I did a cleanup of the article. The paragraph seems like it belongs in some article, but it wasn't immediately apparant to me which one. It's more closely related to molecules than to atomic number. -- Mainstream Nerd 03:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  What is a symbol 105.245.171.186 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Confusing diagram

The diagram that appears at the head of this article is confusing and requires amending: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atomic_number_depiction.svg Specifically, the text in the upper-right seems to indicate that the superscript number is the "Atomic / mass" number, as if these terms were interchangeable, but they are not. The superscript digit shows the mass number, the subscript digit the atomic number. Connoissaur (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Short description

@Dirac66 I wanted to explain why I changed the short description. According to WP:SHORTDESC:

• The short description of a Wikipedia article or of another namespace page is a concise explanation of the scope of the page. These descriptions appear in Wikipedia mobile and some desktop searches, and help users identify the desired article.

So I used

• Nuclear property important for chemistry

to include both "chemistry" and "nuclear" for the scope. "Physics property" could be better. You replace this with a definition:

• Number of protons found in the nucleus of an atom

Since the title is "Atomic number" the new content in the definition is "protons found in the nucleus" which presumes the reader knows "protons" and it omits the field of study most concerned with the topic, "chemistry".

I know that "short description" sounds like it should be a definition, but it has a different role in the Wikipedia system. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation of the Wikipedia policy. If you want to change it back in this article, I will leave your definition alone. Dirac66 (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

History section is not correct.

After this large delete by @Kurzon the History section is incomplete and lacks secondary references that were deleted. The current version omits the critical role of Moseley's work and over emphasizes Rutherford's. In fact Rutherford considered Moseley's work on par with the discovery of the periodic table and others viewed as superior. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary on that delete is also incorrect.

• Deleting stuff that repeats in History of atomic theory

The content that was deleted is not in History of atomic theory. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I restored the section. Let's discuss why you want to remove it. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The History section has too much general history, stuff that belongs in other articles. This article should not repeat the history of the periodic table or Moseley's work. It should provide nothing more than links. All the History section should have is when the definition of "atomic number" shifted. Kurzon (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The history of this most important concept needs background. Moseley's work is critical. The history of the term "atomic number" is all that was left after your delete. Why was the concept so difficult to discover? Because Medelev got off course using atomic weight. What set it back on course? Moseley's work. I'm not against splitting this with History of atomic theory but that article is way off track on this topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)