Talk:Periodic table/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Bring table close to the top?

People who go to the Periodic Table page would want to see it displayed prominently on the top of the article, instead of what it is right now where you have to scroll down to look for the table.--Buzoo 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, or at least have a link at the top of the page to the templates. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

i, too, agree, maybe even enough to motivate me to do it... 66.159.227.105 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So it's got a prominent link at the top now. It's intentionally an internal link to the section on the local page, not to the Periodic table (standard) page. As was noted in this edit, "page-internal link loads instantly; another article takes up to several seconds to load". That's a reasonable reason, and no change from that to the other page appears to have had any rebuttal or other rationale. Let's not revert-war...please get some consensus for use of the external-page link before changing it. DMacks 00:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for a note, I moved the Table all the way to the top, since the page is mainly about the Periodic Table, the table itself should be located in the most visible place. --GeorgeTopouria 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this was a great move - whilst it's fine having the table itself near the top, the text under it is not especially well written (it was intended as end-of-the-article-style footnotes), it contains decided un-scientific wordings like "huge periodic table" (which might confuse a novice into thinking that's a commonly used term!), and the important lead-in text explaining what groups and periods now comes after this stuff.--feline1 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can try to rewrite it then? I'd do it myself, but since is a much-visited page, I would leave it to the native speakers.

--GeorgeTopouria 16:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

agreeing with all said move back 2 top and edit text to make more sense User:Karfsma778 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Errr...help?

"....reducing the validity of the quantum mechanical orbital approximation model, which considers each atomic orbital as a separate entity." 59.100.65.126 can anyone dumb this part down? --User:lalalalala 10:05pm, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

seriously!User:Karfsma778 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much high-school chemistry

Just a general grumble with this article - there is too much of what I'd call "high school chemistry" - that is, rather simplistic "explanations" for chemical behaviour in terms of "tendencies to acquire a full valence shell" etc etc. This is all very well if you're a 14-year old kid studying formation of simple binary compounds in the s and p blocks, but falls a little short of the more sophisticated thermodynamic and quantum mechanical / Molecular orbital notions at university level. Someone with a chemistry degree really needs to go through and sharpen it all up a bit... I'm a bit too busy right now myself though ;-) Any other takers? --feline1 10:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The periodic table is high-school chemistry, isn't it? In itself the table is very superficial; atomic numbers, atomic masses, reactivity, simple chemistry. I don't think the article should be more detailed, it should be less detailed, and the deeper chemical and physical properties should be covered by links to thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, molecular orbitals, etc. --Eddi (Talk) 11:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The periodic table is just CHEMISTRY, all of it! :) But that's not what I'm getting at, anyways - it's just that there's lot of little sentences inserted into the article "explaining" things using very simple (ie basically wrong) models. You are maybe right that it would get too confusing to replace them with "proper" explanations - in which case perhaps just stripping this sort of stuff out would be better.--feline1 11:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that a good article would have both the oversimplified high-schoolish models and the detailed explanations. I think both could be presented without confusing the reader. But that would take a lot of work. I hope you "do it" when you're less busy! Flying Jazz 17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

High school students need to be able to understand it, but more deltaild thing can be put in there.Blacksmith2 ^talk 04:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sooner or later the periodic table is going to have to be reorganized along the lines of the left-step or Janet tables in order for a rational discussion can be carried out about the details of what is now undefined and controversial concepts about the physical structure of the nucleus> WFPMWFPM (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Differences in classification of groups

Could someone knowledgeable about this please properly clarify the classification of the groups. I know that in the UK, all school curriculum materials up to at least A-level classify the groups of the periodic table as 1-8/0 or I-VIII, so the 1-18 classification grouping is confusing to me. Not to sound egocentric, but I know for a fact that if I find it confusing, there will be others who do as well. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 15:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence in the Groups section of this page links to the Periodic table group page, which explains the 1-18 scheme. DMacks 06:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not add the other (roman letters) classification in bold below the 1-18 classification? I can see this was done in the Periodic table (large version) and to a lesser degree in the Periodic table (big). I too am used to the roman groups especially since semiconductor physics uses this classification. The Semiconductor materials page also mentions the materials in the roman groups. -- The Enthusiastic Student 01:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The preferred terminology used by IUPAC is used. There's little point perpetuating obsolte, deprecated terminology in such a prominant place in the article, in my opinion. Moreover it's not really very confusing! As group N just becomes group N-teen under IUPAC - cf. the 12hour verus the 24hour clock....--feline1 17:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As a newcomer to the topic, I also found the 1-18 classification initially confusing, after seeing recently-published books using 1-8/0 classification. The books are published in the UK, intended for people preparing for school (GCSE) examinations. The impression was that the books and Wikipedia contradict each other. As this is still going on, is it appropriate to call this terminology obsolete? It might fail the "neutral point of view" test. Does anyone know why the UK is doing this, does anyone else do it and are they going to change? WB99 (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)WB99

Confirmed elements vague

The top of the article claims

The current table contains 112 confirmed elements

but under the arrangement section it says

As of 2005, the table contains 116 chemical elements whose discoveries have been confirmed.

Clicking on elements 112, 113, and 114 give reasonable evidence of their existence. The same is hard to say for 115: only 4 atoms existed for a few milliseconds? (But other researchers agree.) 116 seems a little more solid, despite its shady history.

So is the proper number of confirmed elements 112, 115 or 116? —EncMstr 19:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

112, 114 and 116 afaik Elk Salmon 21:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where 112 came from, 112 was discovered like 10 years ago If I remember correctly. 116 is the generally accepted number at this point. A few milliseconds is enough time to confirm the existence of a particular isotope. None of the elements beyond Seaborgium (106) have lasted for more than a few seconds with many being in the millisecond range. --Nebular110 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So Where is Oil?

Just curious. Anwar 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"Oil" is not on the periodic table because it's not an element—it's a class of compounds and mixtures of compounds. DMacks 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oil includes a large number of compounds made mainly of carbon and hydrogen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomi P (talk • contribs) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC) You might as well say that oil is chemically CH2 and that a barrel of oil is 42 gallons of CH2 by volume and approximately 300 pounds of CH2 be weight. The interesting thing is that the low API gravity so called heavy oils (10-20 API) have more mass and can produce more energy than the so called light or (30+ API} crudes but have a lower per barrel market value due to the cost of production and refining. WFPMWFPM (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for the individual element pages

What bout a box at the end with "preceded by" and "succeeded by", kind of like presidents and sports champions? Yeah, the succession isn't in time, but it'd be a useful feature. JCCyC 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To do this right, you'd want what's to the left/right/above/below. And indeed that is already present in the infobox at the very beginning of each element article, as clickable element symbols to the left and above the periodic table image. DMacks 13:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have the electron configuration in the general characteristics for the individual elements in the order of: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p. It is a little confusing when it is in numerical order (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d, 4f, 5s, 5p, 5d, 5f, 6s, 6p, 6d, 7s, 7p). It might be helpful to have both, but I would like to see them in the order of electron subshell. (eager high school student)

To "Eager High School Student's" point, I recommend the web site "Build an Atom". This provides a marvelous graphical demonstration of the filling of the shells as you page through the elements. 67.151.241.98 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ununennium

The other, as yet, undiscovered elements reference Ununennium in their articles. This element doesn't have a place holder on the table in this article, like the others do. Why is this?--Jcvamp 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No element of period 8 has ever been made, there'd be no point in extending the standard table with another row to look like periodic table (extended). Period 7 simply gets filled up with placeholders until the usual shape is full. Femto 12:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It makes me wonder how many elements are possible.--Jcvamp 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago, there was speculation that there may be an 'island of stability' beyond the current table. The semi-empirical mass formula suggested that, if we can 'get past' the run of highly unstable nuclei, we may be able to manufactrure some relatively stable heavy elements. Is this thinking still current? StuFifeScotland 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

One missing piece of data is the average binding energy per nucleon for each isotope. Someone needs to make this a project and add this data field.

Average Binding Energy per Nucleon

This data is missing and is needed for each isotope.

Neptunium

The above article reads: "Trace amounts of neptunium are found naturally as decay products from transmutation reactions in uranium ores". In this article it is marked with a dotted border: "those with dotted borders are synthetic elements, which do not occur naturally". Does need fixing? Yonidebest 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Same problem with Technetium. Its article says, "On earth, technetium occurs naturally only in uranium ores as a product of spontaneous fission; the quantities are minute but have been measured," but it's in a dotted box instead of a dashed one. LifeMega 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The trace amounts are the point. This traces were found after the element was produced by transmutation. It was never isolated in quantities capable to do any experiments with it. In literature they are mostly still considered synthetic. The names change slowly, but they should.--Stone 08:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This splitting of atoms in "atoms that lack stable isotopes, but occur naturally" and "atoms that only exist in manufactured form" is a bit outmoded - I haven't seen a serious table in 20 years that still uses it. It will only ever be a guess at best. In practice, everything from Bismuth up to and including Uranium is labelled as "natural but unstable", reflecting how they were discovered. I would suggest changing the table so that everything up to Bismuth but excluding Technetium and Prometium is labelled as stable, and all the others as unstable, or rather "lacking stable isotopes". Uranium and Thorium do not have stable isotopes - they have isotopes with very long halflifes (4.5 billion and 15 billion or thereabouts, but they do decay). Or maybe some of them decay and some dont and are stable, Like for example EE90Th232. How are you gonna know?WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Neptunium does not occur naturally today, other than in minute trace amounts. It can be proven that Neptunium did at one point exist on Earth. The evidence for this is somewhat complicated, but I'll go over it quickly - there are four chains of radioactive decay, one each for U235, U238, Th232 and Np237. Atoms only decay within each chain - they can't skip to another. The most stable element in the Np237 chain is Np237 (hence the name). That chain is almost "dead" - everything having decayed into a stable isotope - but not quite, and that there are still unstable isotopes left indicates that there must have been Np237 in non-trace amounts on Earth at some point after Big Bang. In the same way, Pu239 MAY have existed naturally on Earth, but that cannot be proven, because it would decay into U235, which is much more stable.

This decay includes only alfa, beta and gamma decay. Spontaneous fisson can create anything smaller than the decaying atom, so no real "chain" of decay.

Humorous Uses of the Periodic Table

I notice that such a highly scientific matter should be devoid of humour.

This entry was inserted by me on 24 September 2006, and promptly removed.

• The musicologist Peter Schickele has a Periodic Table of Musics that lists the names of composers and performers against mythical element names in a table format.

12:14, 24 September 2006 User:Ydoommas (Talk | contribs) (This has very little to do with the Periodic Table of Elements which should be kept scientific, not humorous.)

10:29, 24 September 2006 User:Peter Ellis (Talk | contribs) (Schickele's table)

I would contend that the Schickele table has at least a little to do with the periodic table:

• The form of Schickele's table is deliberately reminiscent of the periodic table;
• Many 'elements' in Schickele's table are named to be readily confused with those in the periodic table;
• The manner in which Schickele's table citations are constructed are reminiscent of the elements;

Under this heading the Idiotic Table of Elements], already linked, could also find a home.

If this is not a place to mention Schickele's table then I assume that it would be appropriate to include a See Also reference to his page. Peter Ellis 03:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an article on a specific topic, not a web directory to derived works. An external link to the work of a particular person belongs in their article, to which a seealso with a short description of its relevance would be appropriate here. Bare links however to just another of the literally thousands of periodic table sites on the web should be avoided, not to mention parody sites that don't contribute at all to the actual encyclopedic topic. Femto 11:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Some help here?

• Hi, folks! I'm trying to figure out how to make feminum. Anybody know anything? I want to make my girlfriend some Wonder Woman bracelets. Thanks, -- Macmelvino 20:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Doh! Obviously you don't make it. You go to her remote native isle and mine it.[1] — EncMstr 20:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just got back. They wouldn't let me on the island. Something about my being too manly. Thanks anyway, tho'. Anymore ideas? -- Macmelvino 22:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't even bother getting those. Just tell your girlfriend she is the most wonderful woman ever. You don't need bracelets for that! 70.104.165.99 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Technetium

This element does occur naturally in the earths crust, but in really tiny amounts through extraordinary circumstance. In the Janet table 43Technetium is the 5th element in the 2nd row of the (transition metal) series and 61Promethium is the 5th element in the first row of the rare earth series, and of course they're both odd Z elements.WFPM.WFPM (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC).WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC) And furthermore please note that both 43TC AND 61Pm are cogeners of 25Mn which is monisotopically stable with the stable being Nunmber 55 with Oe25Mn55 having 5 "extra" neutrons beyond its presumably paired normal 25. How's that for a coincidence? WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed elements

Recently, the number of confirmed elements at the top of the article was changed from 116 to 117, following the reported discovery of ununoctium. I don't think this is warranted at all, because I don't think we can call the discovery confirmed so soon after it was reported.

This also raises the question of which elements should be called confirmed. Have the creations of elements 112 through 116 been independently replicated? Not, it would seem, as of October 3, 2005, based on this IUPAC table (PDF). A note below the table reads, "Elements with atomic numbers 112 and above have been reported but not fully authenticated." Eric119 05:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

element 118 detected not synthesized

from element 118:

On October 10, 2006, researchers from Russia's Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California announced in Physical Review C that they had indirectly detected element 118 produced via collisions of californium and calcium atoms in Dubna, Russia.

in chemistry synthesis is a means of production: you can actually store the compound in a bottle. No need to revert my edit V8rik 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you can produce it doesn't mean what you produced is actually storable IMO. And actually they didn't even detect it directly, and "it" only existed because they made it. Sounds like synthesis to me. DMacks 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. Just because you can produce something in Chemistry doesn't mean you can store it in a bottle for evermore, especially given the half lives of radioactive elements, some of which are well below 1 second. Anyway, you can store Ununoctium in a bottle even if it's just for the 0.89ms it exists for.

"The decay products of three atoms, not the atoms themselves, have been observed in Dubna [1] [2]. A half-life of 0.89 ms has been observed: 118 decays into 116 by alpha decay. 116 is very unstable and is eliminated in a fraction of a second: it decays into 114, which may undergo spontaneous fission or undergo alpha decay into 112, which will undergo spontaneous fission. [3]"

Synthetic/Artifical Dispute

Greetings, the simple but wrong answer to the 'which elements occur in nature and which only exist in synthetic form' is that 90 elements (1-92, minus 43 and 61) are 'natural'.

The attempt to move to a three-tier system: natural in significant quantities (exists in stable form)

natural in trace quantities (exists only as byproduct of radioactive decay)

not found in nature (synthetic)

is a step in the right direction. I note the article on 'transuranium element' claims that

Of the elements with atomic numbers 1 to 92, all but four (43-technetium, 61-promethium, 85-astatine, and 87-francium) occur in easily detectable quantities on earth, having stable, or very long half life isotopes, or are created as common products of the decay of uranium.

However, it's possible that some of the other elements in the 84-91 range could also fall into this category. Anyone else like to leave comments?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

suggestion to rearrange page

Hi all, I just noticed someone moved the periodic table up. I do concur with his/her reasoning, most people come for the table, not for the story. Could people comment on the following suggestion: split this page into a page 'periodic table' which contains a periodic table, and one link to a {{main}} article, which contains the whole story? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do like the periodic table being so far up the article: it tends to obscure the section of the article which explains why there was a table at all: i.e. Mendelev's insight in listing the elements according to recurring ("periodic") properties. Instead readers get spurious colour coding for this "chemical series" stuff :-/ --feline1 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-Metals section contradicts itself

I'm not a chemist, but even I can see that the non-metals section is ambiguous, contradictory, and not very accurate. For example, the statements about gases cannot all be true, and everyone knows that carbon conducts electricity quite well (which is why it's used in motor brushes).

The linked version of the periodic table that shows metals, non-metals and metalloids in different colours depicts the metalloids as forming a neat buffer band between the metals and non-metals. This buffer band cuts across five groups, contrary to what's stated here. However, I haven't a clue whether this information is any more accurate than the text. It needs sorting out and I'm not qualified to do it. StuFifeScotland 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have re-written a portion of the nonmetal section and removed some of the blatantly incorrect information (like the statement about nonmetals being neither metals nor gases for example). I've added what I think is a better description based on my knowledge and some references. Still, chemistry is not quite my area of expertise either so it would probably still benefit from a better review. I also removed the statement about the nonmetals being the elements in groups 14-16 of the table. Some members of these groups are indeed nonmetals but not all of them. The halogens (group 17) and the nobel gases (group 18) are also considered nonmetals. As far as Carbon conducting electricity, it is only Graphite that is used in such applications as you mentioned above. In general, nonmetals do not conduct electricity. Graphite is one of the exceptions, it contains free electrons which is the property that allows it to conduct electrically charged particles whereas diamonds, the other well-known allotrope of carbon, does not conduct electricity.--Nebular110 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh boy, that's fast! The new version is much better! Good work! Pity you didn't include the interesting bit about carbon allotropes to emphasise how careful one has to be with these categories of properties. StuFifeScotland 10:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Done, both here and at nonmetal. --Nebular110 00:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Nice work! I've added that bromine is a liquid. StuFifeScotland 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Alien Periodic Table

I added a page on one of the chemical elements of the "alien" periodic table.

Confirmed by whom?

One of the sentences states: "The current standard table contains 117 confirmed elements". Confirmed by whom? For example, I have a periodic table that is all in Russian. It is written in the Cyrillic alphabet. It identifies element 104 as "Ku" and 105 as "Ns" (sorry, can't read Cyrillic, so I don't know what these are). Who is the final arbiter of the Periodic Table?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.193.3 (talk • contribs)

Naming of substances is done by the IUPAC, I guess they also define an element as a 'confirmed element'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally accepted to exist by consensus of scientists, "confirmed" in the usual scientific sense as "data has been validated and is reproducible by others". DMacks 17:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a useful IUPAC page: http://www.iupac.org/general/FAQs/elements.html --Mycroft.Holmes 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you to check individual element pages to figure out what those names could be standing for. On Rutherfordium page it says that kurchatovium /ˌkəːtʃəˈtəʊviəm/, symbol Ku was suggested as one of the name. On Dubnium page it says that nielsbohrium /ˌnɪəlsˈbɔː(h)riəm/ was one of the former names (probably symbol Ns) --Drundia 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Groups

Aren't the groups (from left to right) numbered 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8?69.40.177.234 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)MJG69.40.177.234 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The current IUPAC table numbers the groups consecutively 1 - 18. Older version did have different group numbering IA - VIIIA and the transition element groups as IB - VIIB. Other variations were used, but I don't recall seeing the numbering that you mentioned, could've been used somewhere & sometime though. Currently accepted is the simple 1 through 18 numbering. Vsmith 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What's going on with "Alternate Versions" in th article for the periodic table? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FallenRaven (talk • contribs).

I don't see anything particularly unusual going on. What specifically interests/concerns you? DMacks 21:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about adding "chalcogens" to the list under Groups (between "alkaline earth metals," and "halogens") ? Shannock9 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Chemical series

FYI: There is currently some debate at Talk:Chemical series that is relevant to the periodic table article, because the periodic table article uses the same "chemical series" and colors. Itub 19:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is beginning to bug me now. The periodic table in this article is colour-coded according to these "chemical series" and this is detailed in a large footnote key under the table. To the uninitiated, it presents these "chemical series" as if they are some kind of important systematic classification, rather than a handy informal set of rule-of-thumb categories. I don't like it at all - we have "Non-metals" in green and then "halogens" (which are also non-metals) in yellow, for instance. It's sloppy and confusing.--feline1 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

alternate visualizations

it might perhaps be nice to have at least a link to some alternate visualizations. And since

• Heilman, Chris, "Alternate Layouts".

seems dead (maybe it contained similar content), http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110203/othertables.htm might be a good replacement. --MarSch 12:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• check out the alternative periodic tables page, the external links in this article should be up to date V8rik 20:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Periodic Spiral

I think Wikipedia must be updated with a new article on the latest novelty in chemistry i.e. Periodic Spiral. Jeetesh 12:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding triple points

Can you add known triple points to every elements and some compounds to every element box and compound box please. Why didn't you added triple points, but you designed critical points. Does every element have triple point and do you have it? Cosmium 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Groups in f-block

Why didn't you number the groups in f-block. If groups numbered in the periodic table included f-block, then periodic table contain 32 groups. In f-block, it should be numbered from 3-16 and following the numbers through d-block and p-block by adding 14 from current group numbers. Cosmium 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The commonly accepted number scheme of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry is used. Femto 11:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Defining series and families

I defined the series and families on the periodic table. The series is the periods per block. Families are synonym for groups, but this involves in naming. In groups, this uses numbers that increases by one when going across the periods in the periodic table. Or it uses orbitals, in which uses like group numbers per block as a superscript and name of block by a letter as a base.

The naming of series involves in first element to be in the block period (lowest atomic number). Periods by orbitals or period numbers per block uses the number before the block letter. The first period in the block don't always use '1', but depending on which energy level (orbital number) it is occupying. The first element transition must be ended with -ide, as in lanthanide and actinide. Secondary name component would always be 'series'. Names of series should be in every block periods of the periodic table.

Family is about the same as series. The naming of family involves in first element in the group then 'family'. The ending transition does not change and first component word in the name and would be identical to element names such as boron family, carbon family, nitrogen family, oxygen family, fluorine family, and helium family or neon family since helium is located in s-block. Cosmium 23:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish original ideas. See Wikipedia:No original research. Femto 11:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think I seen that origization (sp?) for the table used in a high school science book years ago. 206.251.1.249 invinible

Anything for which there are reliable sources may qualify for inclusion of course, though my remark was not an isolated comment and part of a more general context about this user's contributions. Femto 12:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Periodic triads problem

The discussion of periodic triads appears to be hinting at approximately-constant molar density among the elements in a Group. However, it credits this idea to Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner, on whose page the discussion of triads talks about an approximately linear increase in molar mass going down a Group. Neither description has any external references. Anyone have any information about how it actually is? DMacks 08:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I found multiple cites for molar mass and several for density trends, which I added to the Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner page. I didn't find any for their quotient (molar volume) being a special trend nor do we mention anything about those values in the article—it seems like it would be a secondary/derived result of the other two cases anyway—so I removed that column from the table. DMacks 07:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

H-block

If the periodic table has 362 elements, then it has six blocks including g-block and h-block. H-block is the least prominent block of all six preferred blocks. Elements in h-block can be found in Apsidium.com. The periodic table that contains 362 elements and includes h-block is called the super-extended periodic table or supextended periodic table. You know that h-orbital can hold up to 22 electrons. Once they filled up, then it will occupy the g-orbital, which hold up to 18 electrons, after that, it will occupy f-orbital, which hold up to 14 electrons, and so on. On the supextended periodic table, h-block spans for only two rows or periods; there are periods 10 and 11. Cosmium 03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC) In the left step or Janet tables you can go on forever by adding increments of 2 rows of (last row plus 4) elements) in each block or orbital, but that's mathematics, and evidently beyond the capability of nature's accumulation processes. But you can build real physical models of such atoms as per the the process shown in Talk:Nuclear model.WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC).WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

update standard states

The page is much tidier now, and the flesh-eating sherbet design is gone. (Someone should fix the vertical's.) The IUPAC's representation of the elements blows chunks: Can we use SATP instead? There should be a few further liquids on the table. -lysdexia (still wrongly banned) 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Erotic table????

some idiot said this is an erotic table (above the picture) i dont know how to fizx it but it needs to be fixed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.62.82.144 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Transuranic, Actinides/Lanthanides, and Seaborg

Under history is found: "In the 1940s Glenn T. Seaborg identified the transuranic lanthanides and the actinides, which may be placed within the table, or below (as shown above). Element 106, seaborgium, is the only element that was named after a then living person." From what I gather on individual pages on these topics, there are a number of inaccuracies here. First, lanthanides and actinides aren't transuranic, though trans-actinides are, and it was these Seaborg (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say his team) discovered. However, I don't know if Seaborg is credited with "discovering" the transuranic elements in general (maybe by virtue of first synthesis?), lanthanides, actinides, trans-actinides, or any or all of the above, as I'm no chemist (I may also be mistaken about some part of this). Second, according to Element_naming_controversy, Einstein and Fermi were still alive at the time that Einsteinium and Fermium were named, their discovery just wasn't made public. Could someone more knowledgeable in this area clean this area up? It's small but pertains to some of the most interesting material this particular article touches on (IMO) 74.75.225.101 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant subsections

Arrangment and Structure of the Table seem entirely redundant to me (in intent) and I believe they should be merged. I have already de-duped some history that was in the Arrangement section (and moved it to History). Dhollm 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Metaloids

would metaloids be considered metals or non-metals? 80.240.197.170 10:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Test pilot's repeated edits (originator of periodic table)

Test pilot, as I have explained to you repeatedly, your edits to the article summary contradict the detailed material in the 'History of the Periodic Table' section. You've been repeatedly trying to edit the article over the past year to change it to this inconsistent intro. Newland's did not invent "the periodic table", he proposed a "law of octaves" which didn't really work and was ridiculed. Mendelev is the one generally credited with invented a periodic table. His key insights were leaving gaps for "missing elements" and not being a slave to atomic weight order. Unlike Newlands, his work was recognised as insightful and useful. --feline1 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Here's a useful link http://www.iupac.org/didac/Didac%20Eng/Didac01/Content/S01.htm --feline1 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Concurred...even TestPilot's own sources don't really support his assertion. One of his cites states that it is Mendeleev's that "forms the basis of the one used today (arranged by atomic number)". Observing certain patterns is great and certainly seems like a precursor idea to the Mendeleev work (though one of his cites states "Mendeleev, unaware of Newlands' ideas, formulated an improved Periodic Table") and he is credited with doing that. One of his cites says: "His idea was ridiculed by his colleagues but was vindicated five years later when the Russian chemist D. I. Mendeleev published a more developed form of the table.", so it still seems like Mendeleev is creator of the table as we know it. DMacks 15:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, given that the table as we know it is directly based on Mendeleev's form (even if he based that on some existing knowlege at the time) the article is about the modern table, so extensive historical info about precursors in the lead is undue weight on them. DMacks 07:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Element 112's state of matter

It is shown on the periodic table to be a liquid, yet the article on it states that it is hypothesized that Uub is a gas rather than a liquid based upon observations. The inconsistency should be removed as it can be confusing. Ununbium's wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununbium

Bismuth's radioactivity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth states that bismuth is very slightly radioactive (half-life of 1.7 10**9 years discoverd in 2003).Should it be indicated as radioactive in the table? Rknasc 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. In reality, the vast majority of elements have a few known isotopes that are radioactive. So the blanket category of either "radioactive" or "not radioactive" is just a schoolboy over-simplification anyways. Bismuth is not really "radioactive" in that anyone would notice (i.e. there's no need to take radiation precautions when handling it).--feline1 11:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between those elements that have stable isotopes and those that don't seems more objective than one based on "naturally occurring". Note that even this latter distinction is not used properly. For example, Technetium is shown as "synthetic", but is known to occur through decay both in Red Giants and on Earth (in trace amounts from the decay of Uranium). Rknasc 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Your half life should read 10**19, not 10**9 years. It was news to me that Bismuth is radioactive. It is not without precedence, K-40 is a common radionuclide which has a very long half life. The case of Te-130 with a half life of 2.5 10**21 years could be looked upon for guidance (to the best of my knowledge, the longest lived radioactive isotope). If the half life of some isotope (isomer) is such that it could be here from the big bang, it tends to be regarded as natural. If it is an isotope which can be produced in supernova, and hence incorporated into solar systems during formation, I would suppose their might be an argument for them being "natural" even if they aren't long enough lived to be here since the big bang. Fortran (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Considering that the estimated age of the universe it estimated at approximately 14 billion [= 10**10+] years, aren't we getting carried away about half lives of greater time than that. And since the half life calculation involves a mass factor, maybe we're looking at a low percentage isomer instead of a long half lived isotope? WFPMWFPM (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Standard layout to wider form?

Please see the discussion at Talk:Periodic table (standard) Flying Jazz 09:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

96.229.60.245 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Henry Kerfoot, 21 OCtober 2007: What exactly is a 'poor metal'? Is there some definition of the term? I never encountered that term in college or graduate school or while teaching college chemistry. I believe it may be a casual, non-standard term that is intended to refer to 'wealth' metaphorically. I believe those elements are properly called _metals_. Regardless, if the term is not in common use or officially sanctioned (e.g., IUPAC) nomenclature it should be removed and gthe metals should be shown as metals.

"Poor metals" - inconsistent with definition in Wikipedia ('Metals') and not warranted(?)

(I think) I commented earlier on the phrase 'poor metal' as non-standard. However, I have found it and it refers to the more commonly (IME) used 'metalloid'. Hwever, you use both terms. Aluminum and tin are clearly metals (the 'poor' term while cute does not seem to describe anything related to electrons, ionization potential, or other properties.) Your "poor metals" often have lower ionization potentials than the adjacent metal or 'metalloid' ("poor metal" Al: 597 kJ/mol but metal Mg: 737 and metalloid Si 786; "Poor metal" Ga: 579 kJ/mol but metal Zn 906 and metalloid Ge 762 kJ/mol and "poor metals" In 558 kJ/mol, Sn 708 kJ/mol but metal Cd 866 and metalloid Sb 834 kJ/mol. The "poor metals" seem to form basic oxides - a characteristic of metals. (The pKa of silicic acid is 9.8, making it a basic oxide). What is it about these elements that warrants the new category "poor metals", particularly in light of the fact that in Wikipedia 'Metals', poor metals are defined as metalloids? That represents an internal inconsistency in Wikipedia.

96.229.60.245 Henry Kerfoot 21 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 19:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This term will most likely be replaced by "post-transition metals" soon. Flying Jazz 08:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Other Metals" is the best term to use in a legend, I think. Post-transition metals do not include aluminum. At the moment, I don't know if the term "poor metal" that someone chose a long time ago at Wikipedia was the mistaken creation of a new category or a rarely used old category or a misinterpretation of some generic use of the word "poor"(Such as "These metals have less metallic character with respect to ______, so they are poor metals." where ______ could be some property or other.) If by "I have found it" you mean you found a reference that equates a distinct category called "poor metals" with metalloids, please post the reference here. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

UM?

Where is the PICTURE of the Periodic Table itself?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.249.209 (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's there. This page is a frequent target of vandalism, so perhaps you happened to look before someone had cleaned up the latest round of defacement? DMacks 13:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Other styles of tables?

Having just read about this, I was wondering seeing as it is a CC licence if we could integrate it into the article somewhere? Fosnez (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC) I suppose it should actually go on Alternative periodic tables instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosnez (talk • contribs) 11:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry, can't. it has noncommercial on it, which can only be used on Wikipedia under fair use. ViperSnake151 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Periodic Table displayed on element pages: Number of neutrons

If a person brings up any page for an element, the periodic table shows where the element is, and in this picture is also a mention of the number of neutrons and the number of protons. For instance, the gold page shows 79 P and 118 N. Stable gold is monoisotopic, so this isn't a problem for gold. But in general, there is no fixed number of neutrons for any given element. Even Technetium displays 55 N in its page, and there are no stable isotopes. I think the best solution is to drop this N number from those little pictures, as it isn't accurate. Another option would be to use the natural abundances to come up with an "estimated" number of neutrons. In the case of elements like Technetium, there would be no N number displayed, as there are no stable (or primordial) isotopes. Fortran (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those neutron numbers are often meaningless or inaccurate and won't weep if they are removed. --Itub (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the trouble with the reported N or neutron number of the various isotopes is that it is not significent to the properties of the individual isotopes. A much more significent number related to the stability and other properties of the isotopes is the "excess neutron" or N - Z number. This is based on the concept that the nucleus is an accumulation of deuterons plus extra neutrons, with all same element isotopes having the same Z number or number of deuterons plus a varying number of excess neutrons which affect the stability and other properties of the individual isotope. Try it and you'll see. See Talk:Nuclear model WFPMWFPM (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 68.88.111.95 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC) It also is important to remember that of the approximately 280+ stable (or very long half lived) isotopes, over 200 of them have an even number of neutrons, and accordingly of the majority type EE, (150+) or OE (50+) type of isotope. WFPMWFPM (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just have to ask.. What is the nature of the vandalism on this page, exactly? It sounds a bit weird. Didn't know people felt so strongly about the elements. Who would vandalise the periodic table? Fanatic alchemists? Maox (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume the context of your question is the edit-protection for the page? In that case, it's most likely school-kids, adding nonsense. You can click on the "history" tab for the article to see each piece of vandalism leading up to the protection on December 14. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It really is one of the most vandalised pages I've come across in wikipedia - hardly a day passes without some kid added "butz LOL!!!!!!11!!1!" to it...--feline1 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

*EDIT*: Someone please fix this! I don't know how. :(

On the first actual figure of the periodic table in the article, "Group" is followed by a horizontal arrow, while "Period" is followed by a vertical one. This is wrong, it is the opposite way... someone please fix this, as I don't know how - I only made this account just now to point out this mistake. Thanks! * EDIT: Ehh, oops... pounding my head into my keyboard! I just noticed that, and came back here to edit my post. And I am having to edit now anyway, because I have no idea how to reply to your post - hehe. Well, thanks, lol! Sorry about this! I will make sure to triple check stuff next time I post for a correction. X)* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messyneat (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The horizontal arrow from "Group" is explicitly pointing at the row of numbers next to it, which are the column-headers, not generic "Group goes across" sign. Likewise, the down-arrow from "Period" is pointing at the row-labels. DMacks (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Periodic Law?

Perhaps I am being ignorant but I thought that the periodic law was a law that stated: the physical and chemical properties of the elements are functions of their atomic numbers. So, why is it when I type "period law" it redirects me to the period table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.152.179 (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just "functions of" (i.e., each element has a specific but possibly arbitrary set of properties) but "periodic functions of". Many of the properties have patterns and trends, and these patterns follow the layout of the periodic table. See especially the "Periodicity of chemical properties" section. I adjusted the Periodic law link to point directly there, since "the whole article" can seem a bit overwhelming as you see. DMacks (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Predictive equation

from jc perez sorry, Dr Smith there is not a self promotion. I consider only that adding PREDICTIVE FORMULA paragraph increase a bit wikipedia periodic table knowledge and data... Thanks jc perez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed (twice) a section with the above title. The section was added by User:Jean-claude perez who seems to tbe the originator of the equation. The reference cited was to a blogpost: [2] referencing a paper by one Jean-claude Perez from 1997. As the editor posts with the same name, I'm assuming the same person. As such, would appear to be WP:OR and or self promotion. I requested clarification and discussion on his talk User talk:Jean-claude perez, but received no response - instead he simply re-added the content. I am not familiar with the predictive equation nor with its importance/notability - so I'm posting here for comment by other editors. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree this goes against WP:OR and WP:COI. While the PREDICTIVE FORMULA does work, it is just an exercise in simple arithmetic, of dubious notability, and not attributed to a reliable source. --Itub (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

____________ msg from jc perez to user Itub: yes you are right. here is exactly the problem. the equation is very simple... but remain unknowN: the mendeleev table is heterogeneous and nobody known a simple formulation predicting the structure and architecture of the table. I propose it... simply Regards: Science of facts is more than science of humans... Nota: I could send you be email datailed data and particularly strong links between formula and the four quantic numbers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-claude perez (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a nice equation that concisely summarizes what has been known since the 1920s-1930s from the solution of the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom and the Madelung rule, but adding this original research goes against Wikipedia policies. Try publishing it in a mainstream source such as the Journal of Chemical Education and then we can cite it. --Itub (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to adding research: what's the idea? Provided it's been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal then it's okay? To say that we cannot include original research is a little confusing. It suggests that we can only include results which were simultaneously and independently discovered by multiple people. Dharma6662000 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Who ate the electronegativity table?

Why does the link to the electronegativity table link instead to electronegativity? It's been that way for quite a while. Penguinoid (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lanthanide/Actinide and IUPAC

Although the separate pages for lanthanide and actinide are named according to the chemistry style guide, (named after the common usage term), a periodic table should list these according to IUPAC, i.e. lanthanoid and actinoid, and then still obviously link to their respective "common use name" pages. It is after all a periodic table, so everything in there should be according to IUPAC? I could be bold on this one but there's a few of you out there that have done a lot to make this article what it is, so I'm posing the question here. Freestyle-69 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea and a number of people have suggested it previously. However, I think consistency across all of Wikipedia is a more important idea. The problem is...to maintain consistency, it would be great to do it everywhere on wikipedia, including category names and template names and linked text and inside little program-like thingies and other hidden places I don't know about. That's a big job. Maybe there's a bot that can help you, so when you're sure it's what you want to do, contact a bot-maker. Before doing that though, I would definitely contact the style-guide-type editors at the chemicals project and elements project and make certain we have consensus. Flying Jazz (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the general silence tells me this one's gonna be a while before the traditional names get replaced. It's not hugely important IMO, and I agree- consistency is more important. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New Link

Can we please add this link? http://www.dayah.com/periodic/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.161.70.60 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?--feline1 (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Stable Element With Atomic number of 122?

Scientists in Israel claim they may have discovered a new superheavy element in the actinide group with an atomic number of 122 (Atomic Mass Number A = 292). Is this a reliable source? If so should this discovery be mentioned although not yet confirmed? Wayne (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too early to tell. Their article has not even been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet, and most of the responses I've seen have been very skeptical. --Itub (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

14 actinoids

Under "Structure of the periodic table" there are 14 lanthanoids and 14 actinoids. Shouldn't there be 15? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomi P (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC) The inclusion of 15 elements in the lanthanide and actinide is in error due to the inclusion of the first element of the next series in both instances. There should be only 14 element in each of these series as indicated in both the leftstep and janet tables.WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is Left Step Periodic Table?

How come article on Periodic Table does not have anything on Janet's Left Step Periodic Table, that lists spdf blocks in correct order in accordance with quantum number l=0,1,2,3.... while, it features such theoretically insignificant tables as the so called "alternative vertical" PT. [alternative vertical PT]?

How about alternative IUPAC PT shown upside down? Would it be also acceptable? It does not matter how you turn the standrad IUPAC PT, it would still list subshell blocks incorrectly: sdfp or l=0,3,2,1.

The numerous books and articles were written about LSPT since 1928. This situation needs to be fixed.

Also, there is only one table that shows quantum number 'n' directly. That is ADOMAH PT, which is modified LSPT.

Drova (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be the author of said table, would you...? :-) --feline1 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that none of these "alternatives" such as the vertical rotation are actually alternative; just simple formatting changes to the standard design due to possible limitations of browsers or screen size. There are dozens of alternate periodic tables, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. However, Wikipedia is absolutely not the place to attempt to highlight a specific alternative. Wikipedia is not an evaluator of scientific claims or arguments. Wikipedia is, by design, the last place you will see your new periodic table, if it does successfully replace the current standard. If it's here before scientific journal articles, the back of textbooks, and other web sites, we are not doing our job as encyclopedia editors in consolidating scientific consensus.--Lucent (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be easy on Drova. I doubt he is the author of the left-step table, because it is was proposed on 1929. It is probably the most notable alternative to the standard, long and short versions of the periodic table, and has been discussed multiple times in the literature. IMO it is notable enough to have its own article. --Itub (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of getting killed I would like to point out that the article title "Periodic Table" is a generic article about the existent and potentially possible elements and was invented by a guy who had no concept about the electron. At question is how a table best allows a conceptualization of how many elements there are (or might be} and what their relationships are to each other. And in this respect the Mendeleev and standard tables are deficient. Please note that the other tables with different formats tend to get away from the original question to their demerit. Of the alternative tables I like both the left-step and the ADOMAH tables because they have the same format, and because I used that format to make a set of real physical models.WFPMWFPM (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me quote Webster's Dictionary: Encyclopedia "is a reference work dealing at length with all areas of knowledge". If Wikipedia is intended to be a good encyclopedia, it should cover as many aspects of any particular subject as possible. Therefore, it should be an article on Left Step periodic table (1928), that lists fdps blocks in order of quantum number l=3,2,1,0. That article should also include its alternative formats, such as the ADOMAH PT (2006), modified Left Step that shows quantum numbers "n", that is electronic shells, directly. 68.48.234.55 (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Eliminate improperly located paragraph.WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

error in periodic table

group is vertical, periods are horizontal in the periodic table. Look at the table itself - there is an arrow saying that groups are horizontal and periods are vertical. WRONG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oohpsjin (talk • contribs) 03:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The arrow is a name pointing to the things that are the name. It's not any group that's pointing across, just the label "group" pointing to the group labels, i.e., the column-names. Not sure what better layout could be used here. DMacks (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the arrows could be removed, and each "title" be placed such that it is abundantly clear which title corresponds to which set of numbers? It sems pretty clear to me but I can also see that it might be ambiguous. Perhaps Group directly above the 1 of group 1, and Period directly left of the 1 of period 1. Freestyle-69 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone colored one set to help group it visually, and I just removed the arrows. DMacks (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical Possibilities

I'm a mathematician, and not a chemist, so please try to be nice. The periodic table can be treated as an abstract classification system. This system was arrived at by looking at the existing elements, but all of the other synthesised elements have been predicted by the periodic table. In 2002 they discovered three atoms of Ununoctium in a supercollider: it's a 'new' noble gas. My question is this: is it theoretic possible to fill the table up forever, i.e. elements in the 2000th row? If it is not theoretically possible, then why not? If it is theoretically possible, then what are some of the practical problems?

Also, given that electrons are quite unreliable things, and we must use quantum mechanics to model their behaviours; why do we have eight column? This hints at some kind of countable finite discrete division of the electron shells, when there is no way of doing this. Dharma6662000 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Periodic table is an attempt to associate determined physical and/or chemical properties of the subdivisions of atoms classified as elements into a reasonable ascending element number (Z number) order. This has been achieved is several types of table formats involving rows and columns, and has resulted in a different estimate of the maximum Z number depending upon the format. Within the range of possible existence of real physical atoms of the elements of the tables there are two alternative formats of importance. One is the socalled standard periodic table with 7 rows and the following numbers of columns in each row: 1/2, 2/8, 3/8, 4,18, 5/18, 6/32, and 7,32 for a final Z number of 118. And I believe that the number 118 is the Znumber of the element Ununoctium referred to in your reference. The second format involves the creation of two beginning rows of two columns, based upon structural considerations, and results in the socalled leftstep or Janet format which has 8 rows with columns as follows : 1/2, 2/2, 3/8, 4/8, 5/18, 6/18, 7/32, and 8/32 for a total Z number listing of 120. It has also been determined that the listings of both tables can be extended to include additional Z numbers, with the number of columns in the next two rows being 50 Z numbers in each row. but since the incidence of occurrence of the meaningful existence of atoms is doubtful, very little attention has been paid as to which of these formats is the most informative regarding the actual properties of the atoms of the elements. From a mathematical standpoint, it seems logical to point out that since the last 3 periods of the table have each 2 rows, then the first period should also have 2 rows. This is also consistent with a set of real physical models which I have constructed and reported on in Talk:Nuclear modelWFPMWFPM (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed reply. I still don't quite know the answer to my question. Take the alkali metals for example. The periodic table I used to use at school says that these are Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Rubidium, Cesium, and Francium. (I used to love these guys: they got more reactive with water as you go down. The teacher stopped at Potassium thought). In terms of school boy chemistry these guys all have one electron in their outer shells (I know they don't really, but let's run with it), but each one has one more full ring of electrons than the last. Would it be theoretically possible to find in the heart of some massive cosmic event an element with 1000 full electron shells, and one electron on its 1001st shell? This would be an alkali metal too. Is there any physical bound that exists to stop such atoms forming? I know that because of their size these atoms would decay almost instantly, but nevertheless, they would have existed. Dharma6662000 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're getting lost in chemical lore and theoretical electron rings. Take a look at the pictures of the center of the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51). That's where atoms are being made. And it's a physical process not a chemical process. And it's evidently a 3 phase process since we're starting out with nucleons which must have been through 1 phase of creation (accumulation). And we're now in the phase of creating atoms just prior to being gobbled up into a black hole. But evidently out in the peripheries of this system there are places where things have calmed down to the point of temporary existence of solar systems with planets and biological life forms, and who hopefully have enough intelligence to learn to understand the system. WFPMWFPM (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC).WFPMWFPM (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again you seem to have missed the point of my question. Thanks for making the effort to reply. If there's anyone else that can give a straight answer, and that doesn't speak in riddles, then please write a note to answer my question. A simple yes or no would do at this stage. And just so you know, I do "have enough intelligence to learn to understand the system", but as an active mathematician I am too busy to spend time learning chemistry, that's why I wrote this note: I hoped that an expert could give me a straight answer, and not insult me because I don't understand their cryptic answers. Dharma6662000 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't help you. Suggest you acquire and read a book by Dr. Isaac Asimov called "The Search for the Elements" copyright 1962 by the Basic Books Co Inc. which chronologically discusses the element search process WFPMWFPM (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Having had only one course in nuclear physics during my EE studies, I feel honored to be misconsidered as an expert on anything, which I am not. But I am trying to understand the physical and chemical properties of the atom. and the history of it's creation. And I respect that Einstein, also a mathematician spent his entire professional life trying to reconcile the discrepancies between gravity force and electric force theories. And if you had challenged the validity of some of those theories I wouldn't have disagreed with you. But I believe in the existence of the electron, because it's needed to explain angular momentum (MVR) radiation and electron conduction theories.WFPMWFPM (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, for one moment, suggest that you were an expert. As I said "I hoped that an expert could give me a straight answer". I find you messages increasingly strange. Have you actually read my original post? It was a simple question that required a simple answer. If you don't know, then fair enough; neither do I. But please don't write these strange replies. If you have anything constructive to say about the question I posed then please let me know. Otherwise, have a nice day. Dharma6662000 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to reply to your questions. In principle, it looks like you could have an infinite number of elements. However, you get into at least two theoretical difficulties and two practical difficulties when going to ever larger elements. First, as the elements get bigger, the electrons go faster and faster, and relativistic effects become dominant (nothing can go faster than light according to the postulates of special relativity). It has been speculated that at some point it becomes impossible to have a stable atom (here I'm referring to the stability of the electronic structure of a neutral atom, which has the same number of protons and electrons). Second, as atoms become heavier, nuclei become less stable. Although an island of stability has been predicted, it is possible that there is some physical limit for the number of protons in the nucleus. This of course is also a practical difficulty when it comes to studying new elements, because they decay within a small fraction of a second of being formed. For example, there is no experimental proof that element 118 is a noble gas--certainly no proof that it is a gas, because you need a macroscopic amount of matter to observe its state of aggregation! Finally, a practical difficulty: the number of neutrons required to have a reasonably stable nucleus increases faster than the number of protons. As a result, when a heavy nucleus is formed by fusion, it won't have enough neutrons to be as stable as it could be.

Now, regarding the super-heavy alkali metal example. Assuming for a moment that you could have such an element, there is the problem that for heavy elements many periodic properties start to break down due to relativistic effects. These are already observed in rows 6 and 7 of the periodic table, and are expected to become stronger as atoms become heavier. Some examples of elements that are "unexpectedly" different from the elements just above them include mercury, gold, thallium, lead, and uranium. --Itub (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks for that. It makes perfect sense. So the outer electrons need to move faster and faster as you go further out, but as velocity increases, so too does mass. What happens to the electrons? Do that jump down a shell because there isn't enough energy to push them round and the atom alpha-decays to something else? Dharma6662000 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to answer you're question, because you are framing it in nice macroscopic human terms where there are little round things called electrons whizzing about on orbits, and if you got a big enough magnifying glass you could look at them :) In "reality", there's no such thing as electrons, they're just a nice theoretical fairy story. There's some kind of quantum wibbly stuff of oscillating electron wavefunctions there, all munged up together. There's no seperate discrete electrons in there at all, that's just an approximation. A reasonable analogy is soundwaves - sit in a concert hall when an orchestra plays, and a single acoustic pressure wave will tickle your eardrum. Your brain, if it has been trained in the appreciation of Fine Things, may be able to decode it and create a mental picture of you hearing the individual 3rd cello on the left, and someone else playing a triangle at the back. But that's really just mental post-processing. There are not separate soundwaves traveling through the air for each instruments. Likewise there are not separate electrons in there going "round", or "jumping" anywhere. There's just a big interference pattern of oscillating charge and spin......... in answer to your question, yes it is *possible* to THEORISE about any number of fancy elements, feel free to do so if you wish. You'll never see them in testtubes though.....--feline1 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, or at least in would have to be one strong test tube! Thanks for your colourful and entertaining reply :o) I know that the solar system model doesn't work for the atom (even though it is still the logo for the IAEA). In some sense there is a particle-wave duality. Talking about an 'electron' moving down a shell is a simple way of conveying a complex idea which can be phrased in terms of energy levels of orbitals. The way I was taught alpha-decay at A-level was that an electron moves down a shell and releases some energy. I know that's not what happens, but you could phrase it in terms of wave functions and probability densities if you had the time, or for that matter, the inclination. I'm getting confused though. I've emailed some people from my university's chemistry and nuclear physics departments and I'm getting conflicting information. One said "theoretically, there are an infinite number of orbitals" and another one said "...there was a prediction that Z greater than about 137 was not possible." I guess there must be some problem with stability of the nuclei rather than the energetics of the orbitals. Dharma6662000 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, there are an infinite number of "orbitals" (energy levels) around the nucleus, although as you move away from the nucleus, they converge towards a limit (the simplest example is the hydrogen atom, and you will the the spectral lines getting exponentially closer together at shorter wavelengths) - moreover, once orbital energy reaches a certain height, it exceeds to ionization energy of the atom, so an electron "in" one of those orbitals would actually have escaped the nucleus. Also, just in case I wasn't clear enough: when describing atomic orbitals, one of the bits of small print at the start is what we call the "orbital approximation" - we pretend that each electron is a separate entity and has its own wavefunction, but in "reality" they are not, they are all congealed together: there is a total wavefunction describing the probability densities of the whole lot at once. This "orbital approximation" is one of the things which breaks down increasingly the bigger the nuclear charge gets. IIRC correctly, one of the main culprits is what is known as "spin-orbit coupling"... different vectors of spin and angular momentum interaction begin to dominate instead of the discrete electron ones for light atoms... this is a more quantum mechanical way of explaining the odd behaviour of heavy elements ("inert pair effect") instead of blaming it on relativity.... I'm kinda handwaving here though as it's about 15 years since I last read about this. Bottom line is: the notion of "K, L, M, N..." shells (or s, p, d, f orbitals) simply does not well describe atoms by the time you reach period 6. So if you are using these notions to explain chemical behavior down there, you will struggle!--feline1 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! You seem to be getting the hang of this now ;o) I guess IIRC means "if I read correctly", is that right? Dharma6662000 (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Does all this mean that you dont believe in the existence of the electron as a real physical entity and a constituent of the atomic structure?WFPMWFPM (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. Electrons are a very useful concept for explaining things :)--feline1 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not quibble about the S1 orbital. The question is whether the proton of the hydrogen atom is associated with a real physical associate entity that has properties to explain its chemical ionization and electromagnetic radiation properties? WFPMWFPM (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now in order to get rid of electromagnetic energy an electron is supposed to emit photons. And I can tell you right now that I dont believe the photon is a real physical entity. Does that sound irrational WFPMWFPM (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is pretty irrational. You're probably hung up on what exactly a "real physical entity" is -- photons certainly aren't something you can touch or taste or anything, but neither are most of the other elementary particles that comprise our universe. To some extent, it really doesn't matter whether you think of leptons, quarks, gauge bosons and so forth as "actual things" or "useful mathematical concepts" since at such an abstract level, they're really kind of one and the same. However, if you (like most people) accept that if experiments tell us that certain things are actually there, then they actually exist in the physical world as opposed to simply as some mathematical abstraction, you'd have to accept that all these concepts do have actual physical existence. You know, something similar happened with quarks: originally, they really just were a mathematical abstraction for simplifying the group theory involved with representations of SU(3), but later experiments showed pretty conclusively that the factors worked out correctly to predict that the baryons we're familiar with really were composed of three confined subparticles, and such work gave quarks their credibility as real physical entities.

Well thanks for commenting and you can see how it goes. First we have quarks which I don't want to fight about, then we have the division in the charge on the electron to balance the charge data. And scientists start getting away from physics into statistics, which is mathematics and not physics. I appreciate statistics also, but I try not to distract me from my basic goal, which is to determine the physical and/or chemical characteristics of the hopefully real physical entities I am trying to understand.WFPMWFPM (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Redirection

Um, sorry about this but I don't know what exactly to edit to fix this. When I search for "list of groups" on wikipedia, I automatically get redirected here -- could you fix that to go to, say a disambiguation page or something? Or at least not automatically redirect here but give the full search results? I think when people ask for "list of groups", they probably (like I did), mean something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_groups which isn't hard to find, but being redirected to the Periodic Table first is kind of random. Again, sorry -- usually I'd fix this myself but I don't really know where to edit to control "what page links to what" and so forth. Thanks.

External links

There's an edit war going on over the external links. I'm sure the person who wants to include a link now wonders why his link can't be included if we already have 10 other links--it is arbitrary. I would agree. I suggest getting rid of the entire section. There are a gazillion periodic table websites and software packages out there, but Wikipedia is not a directory and we shouldn't be promoting certain websites over others without very good reason. External links are supposed to be for official pages and the like, or for some types of content that is considered useful but could not be included in Wikipedia (See WP:EL for details). There is obviously no official periodic website, and only a few of the links such as the periodic table videos and the wooden periodic table have unique content that might be justifiable as "something that couldn't be included in Wikipedia". --Itub (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree- Google will find any or all of these anyway. Freestyle-69 (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. DMOZ is for directories of sites. For one case at hand (the yorx one), note that the user is spamming his links all over the Wikipedia world. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nuked it :)--feline1 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Going back to Itub's comments, a very few of the links are not "just another PT that happens to organize itself by X and have Y interface." In particular, Gray's table that is an actual collection of samples is actually WP:NOTABLE on its own (WP:RS WP:CITE: [3]), but I'm not sure there is enough to say about it to merit a full article at this time. DMacks (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Soz, well, put back the one's you feel have merit, but I was feeling ruthless. Links to sites such as webelements (whilst it is a good site) are just pointless - they're mostly all just other tertiary sources.--feline1 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; replying to Dmacks)The periodic table videos are also notable (mentioned in C&EN too). Those two links may be a good idea. But most of the others were not necessary, and the external links section is a spam magnet. Do you suggest re-adding the section with those two links? I'm OK with that, but we'll have to be vigilant before we end up with a long list of links again. ;-) --Itub (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this is the thing, you put a section like that there, and you end up having to prune crap out of it every week for the rest of your life! :)--feline1 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for "sites with proveable notability can be included but others are not to be included"? If we include cites, then we're deeply in the standard cited notability realm of WP by, and anything else is far outside normal content rules and pushing outside of WP:EL as well. Makes a bright line for keeping it pruned. BTW, Feline1, I don't oppose what you did, scrap the crap and start from scratch is probably best here. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Groups and Periods

Ok I am confused. Do periods go horizontal (across) or do they go vertical (down). The actual periodic table shows that groups are across and periods are down, but then the information in the 3.1 Groups and Periods section, it says that a group is down and a period is across. It contradicts itself...so which is right? Or am I just readingthe chart wrong??? Alice1869 (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Alice1869

The words "Group" and "Period" are labels for the numbers, the arrows do not indicate "which way this thing goes". Several readers have been confused by this notation, so I tweaked it a bit. Clearer? DMacks (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes thank you! I looked again and it is easier with no arrows!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice1869 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC definition for transition metals

NOTE: This section is transcluded so the widest-possible number of people can comment

I've been auditing the nav images in element articles to fix wrong neutron counts and giving Lu and Lr the lanthanoid and actinoid coloring, respectively. Part way through, I started to review our definitions for element categories to check them against IUPAC's provisional recommendations. See IUPAC Red Book IR-3.6 GROUPS OF ELEMENTS. Turns out that their specific definition for transition metal deviates from ours in a somewhat embarrassing way:

• IUPAC defines transition metals specifically as being those elements in groups 3 to 11. This excludes the group 12 elements!

ED NOTE: Turns out, that IUPAC's approved recommendations define transition metals as either the set of elements in groups 3 to 12 (our current set-up) or the set of elements from 3 to 11 (the set-up in the below table).

Fixing this results in somewhat modified periodic tables (Note, that the expanded 'Other metal' category includes all the post-transition metals plus aluminium):

Table showing the more IUPAC consistent element categories

So, before I finish my audit and fix of the nav images, I'd like to know if I should fix group 12 to be consistent with the provisional IUPAC definition of transition metals. OR should we wait for IUPAC to come out with the final-updated Red Book (comment period ends at the end of 2008)? I'm putting my audit and update of the nav images on hold until we figure this out. --mav (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how many agree to this definition so waiting would be ok. Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I just checked one of my college chemistry textbooks and it agrees with IUPAC. If this definition for transition metals is already widespread, then we may not need to wait for IUPAC's final revision of the Red Book. On the other hand, the updated document may impact other parts of the table and / or nav images. I'm simply not sure how or when we should proceed. --mav (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the comment period ended in 2004, according to the root of the file you quoted. The text approved in 2005 was (p. 51):

The elements (except hydrogen) of groups 1, 2 and 13–18 are designated as main group elements and, except in group 18, the first two elements of each main group are termed typical elements. Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included; the f-block elements are sometimes referred to as the inner transition elements.

As far as I'm aware, there are no new inorganic recommendations planned for four or five years or so (until they get round to sorting out inorganic Preferred IUPAC names). Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I saw this and assumed it also applied to the inorganic nomenclature. My bad. I also remember something about unfilled d-suborbitals as part of the definition, which also excludes group 12 elements (with a complication with at least one Hg compound). --mav (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of this term has always been a problem- whether to base the classification on chemistry or atom electron configuration. I was taught at school (1942 Sherwood Taylor text book) that the transition metals did not include Cu group and Zn group - only then to be told at university that Cu was a transition metal. IMO we should go with current IUPAC - that definition has been around for at least 40 years (Cotton and Wilkinson 2d edition 1966)- it leaves a little problem of colouring in and explaining the position of Zn group which is neither main group nor transition metal, but is in the d block according to our chart- although the chart conflicts with the definition in the article (sic "..highest energy electron is in a d orbital") which would seem to exclude both copper (3d10 4s1) and zinc (3d10 4s2) - if our list of electron configurations is right. Best of luck.--Axiosaurus (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The current IUPAC definition (quoted above) gives us freedom to include group 12 or not. Let's not forget that Cotton & Wilkinson doesn't class scandium and yttrium as transition metals either, on chemical grounds. Greenwood and Earnshaw agrees with our current classification except for lanthanum and actinium, which they (correctly in my view) class as transition metals. I seem to remember that the edition of Sherwood Taylor that you quote classes thorium and uranium as transition metals and, in the case of thorium ([Rn] 7s² 5d²), a naive or dogmatic application of the electron configuration criterion would force us to do the same! Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO IUPAC does not clearly define the matter, that's why such a long discussion is needed. My experience is very close to the Axiosaurus' one. The first simple definition refers to empty d orbitals at the elemental state whereas at university I was taught that it's more useful to include group 11 (Cu, Ag, Au) as well because they form ions having empty d orbitals - that is the Cotton Wilkinson definition. This is supported by their behaviour, for instance because they can form coloured complex as the other transition metals. I've never heard that the 12th group (Zn, Cd, Hg) can be included in the transition metals because their behaviour, i.e as catalist, is completely different than the others due to their full d shell. Most of my teachers would have marked as a serious mistake. Cotton Wilkinson (III edition, 1972) includes Scandium and Yttrium between the transition metals. Chemical behaviour should prevail as even Mendeleev based and actually built the periodic table on this characteristic. Some authors try to bridge this describing group 3-12 as d block. Please do not be misled by the shape of the periodic table or, worse, by aestetics issues. Chemistry is an experimental science and sometimes cannot be oversimplyfied. --Avogadro-I (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that our periodic tables have too many colors and that we could save ourselves a lot of trouble if we got rid of most of them. But I'm afraid I'm in the minority. --Itub (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But the table is so purty with the colors! And we'd have one less thing to argue about discuss - that would be boring. ;) --mav (talk)

Great feedback - thanks for finding the the current recommendations. Looks like IUPAC is giving us some leeway in the definition of transition metals in the approved recommendations. That means that our current table does not conflict with IUPAC. That is all I was worried about. We should therefore leave well-enough alone. We can revisit this if/when IUPAC comes up with a more rigorous definition. But I welcome anybody else to comment just in case we have missed anything. Again - Thank you everybody! --mav (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my own opinion is that it's one of those debates that creates more heat than useful work! Physchim62 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) allows us to go againt IUPAC occasionally, when circumstances demand it! Physchim62 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I may be getting in here a little late, but I just wanted to note that in post-transition metal, it claims that the IUPAC definition for transition metals is in conflict with it self. Based upon what I've read here, that doesn't seem to be the case any more. I think it needs to be cleaned up to match the above conclusions. --Wizard191 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: first time we get the chance, we should try to get rid of the color differenciation between actinoids and lanthanoids. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why and what would replace it? --mav (talk)

does not add enough information, and within the TMs, the variations in chemistry are larger than those between Ac and Ln's. Any of the two colors used now would be fine, or some random mix of the two too. Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The actinides and lanthanides are distinct enough for us to label them as separate element categories. That combined with the lack of consensus on what is an inner transition tells me that we should leave well enough alone. --mav (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercury is considered a transition element under both IUPAC definitions now, because the compound HgF₄ has been synthesized in 2007, giving Hg a d⁸ electron configuration. Should this be incorporated in the table and the article? Kumorifox (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that mercury is a transition metal due to the observation of HgF4 under exotic conditions. See the article on HgF4 for details. --Itub (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing suggestion to Merge d-block and Transition metal

Well I showed up 3 months too late for the fun, but I based on what I read, I am removing the suggestion to merge these two articles. No change in IUPAC recommendations will ever alter Periodic table (by blocks). The blocks must have a number of columns corresponding to the number of electrons that a full subshell can hold. So the d-block must occupy groups 3-12. This is a man-made oversimplification because the chemistry and even the ground state electrons in Periodic_table_(electron_configurations) are messier than the blockiness, but that's ok. Oversimplifications are important because they make reality interesting. "Transition metal" on the other hand, is a convention, not an oversimplification. One bunch of folks call some elements "Transition metals" and another bunch of folks don't, and IUPAC says that's ok. When the most recent IUPAC book says "the elements of group 12 are not always included," they mean not always included in the transition metals. Group 12 has to be in the d-block because if it weren't, then the d-block would only hold 9 columns, meaning 9 electrons maximum in the d-subshell and Kimmie, the cute new 22-year old high-school chemistry teacher, would cry because even the oversimplifications would be too complex to teach, and angry mobs of high school boys who love Kimmie would grab torches and pitchforks and attack IUPAC folks and Wikipedia editors for making Kimmie cry. So that's why d-block and Transition metal should not be merged even though IUPAC says they -can- contain the same elements. By the way, Inner transition element and f-block should also be separate articles for the same reason. Conventions and oversimplifications are very, very different. Flying Jazz (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I'm glad to see you editing again. :) --mav (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Kimmie is wrong, too bad I say. (^_^) Other than that, I agree they should remain separate articles (though that's probably because I am of the firm opinion that the d-block and the transition metals should be different groups). Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved page

i have moved this page from periodic table to periodic table of elements. i believe this is a more correct way of stating the table. if anybody disagrees, please write why here. Gopal81 (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Er no, you moved it to "Periodic table of lements". But I agree with others who have resisted renaming this page in the past: there's no need to be more specific (what other "periodic table"s are there?), and WP guidelines say to use simple unambiguous names not long overly-specific names. DMacks (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a capricious move to make without asking for a discussion on the matter first. And since the page was moved to the INCORRECT destination, I believe it should be renamed back to its historic name. I will rename the page to its original name, and would ask that any further moves be DISCUSSED before being enacted unilaterally. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

er...sorry guys. i'm new and i meant to say periodic table of elements. does anybody agree though that we should move the page to Periodic Table of Elements?Gopal81 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I know nobody who would search for Periodic Table of Elements all would go for periodic table. You might construct that a 100 year calender is also a periodic table, but periodic table is the most used one and that is always the best choice for the name of the article.--Stone (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Periodic table is fine, and there are redirects from some of the longer names already in case someone actually uses them or searches for them. Titles should be as short as concise as possible while being reasonably unambiguous. --Itub (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so i should say the final agreement is no?Gopal the vandal fighter

119 and 120?

Can anyone explain why the elements 119 and 120 are included? I believe they should be isolated since 1. the article says so, otherwise it would contradict the article content "The current standard table contains 117 elements 27 January 2008 (elements 1-116 and element 118)." 2. the identity of these elements (119 & 120) are not even discovered.

Thank you. Benhpark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.106.197.4 (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Element numbers 119 and 120 are the last two numbers of elements that con be contained within a table that has 18 columns involving 4 series of groups with each group having only 2 levels of its beginning series plus 2 of any sequential series. The left Step and Janet Periodic tables have positions for atomic numbers 119 and 120. WFPM (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I alarmed the wikipedia group elements to have a look at the change from user 91.84.211.112 [4] dating from 2. Novemeber 2008. I think those to should be deleted.--Stone (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10