Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Periodic table (large version)

Well, I think this is a list. Pretty too. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Support. Entirely delightful. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 13:00 (UTC)
Support. Beautiful. --Spangineer (háblame) June 30, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
Support Dsmdgold June 30, 2005 15:31 (UTC)
Support, nice periodic table. Image:PhoenixSuns 100.png Phoenix2 30 June 2005 16:50 (UTC)
Oppose. (1) Needs a better title and/or a better lead. Currently it seems to imply that huge is some sort of official designation. (2) Info from the talk page re numbers in brackets needs to be in the main article. In fact, it needs better labelling all round. What are the numbers not in brackets? I happen to know that one of them is the atomic number and the other is atomic mass, but there's nothing in the table to tell me so. (3) "in landscape mode, this table can be printed on one normal-size sheet of paper" - not on my PC it can't. Totally depends on people's printer, PC and browser settings. --OpenToppedBus - My Talk June 30, 2005 17:03 (UTC) Good work from Spangineer and ALoan - switching my vote to Support. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 08:46 (UTC)

Incidentally, the weight in brackets (I think) is the weight of the longest living isotope of that element. I'm not sure why it's like that and not just listing what the longest living isotope is, as they do at the two references listed. Any objections to going through and changing the values in brackets to the values found at the references listed? --Spangineer (háblame) June 30, 2005 17:35 (UTC)
OK, I rewrote the lead and added a key that explains what the different things are, and put it together with the color code box. I'm not sure how to include the uncertainty info. Personally, I sort of think that info like that, in addition to the group/period explanation, should be on the main periodic table page, not this one. --Spangineer (háblame) June 30, 2005 18:10 (UTC)

Spangineer has done a great job (with some interference from me) - the details from the talk pages are now in a footnote, and I have moved from Periodic table (huge) to Periodic table (large version). -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 18:39 (UTC)

For the record, ALoan gets credit for getting the uncertainty info into the article; I didn't do too much there. I'm still wondering if the lead should describe exactly what information is included in the table, and I still don't like having the weights of the individual isotopes in there instead of their atomic numbers. --Spangineer (háblame) June 30, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Well, I just copied it from the talk page and you made it make sense. I'm not sure I follow your last comment: the atomic number of each element is included as the first number in each cell. The atomic mass (or weight) is the last number in each cell - for most elements, we use the "most stable isotopic composition" (which is presumably the most common combination of isotopes) except for elements where all isotopes are unstable, in which case we use the most stable isotope... makes some sort of sense, no? -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 19:50 (UTC)

Sorry, I mispoke (err, mis-typed) – I didn't mean atomic number. I meant the mass number (incidentally, the article on atomic number says not to confuse the two!). I guess technically there isn't much difference between giving the atomic weight of the most stable isotope and giving the mass number of the most stable isotope (since protons and neutrons both weigh about 1). The problem is that the mass number is used alot more often—see [1], [2], [3], [4], for example. There are some that do it like the wikipedia table, but not any of the well known sites. And before doing a google search and finding one that does, I had never seen a periodic table that lists the weights of the individual isotopes. I'm not sure why. Maybe they figure anyone can calculate the weight of the isotope given the mass number (not too complex, since the masses of protons, neutrons and electrons are all known to umpteen decimals). But it's also easy to figure out the mass number based on the atomic weight (just round off). I guess it doesn't matter that much. --Spangineer (háblame) July 1, 2005 01:49 (UTC)

Ah - I see what you mean. If we are quoting the mass number rather than the atomic mass then we should say so. I had, perhaps naively, assumed that we actually quoting atomic masses, which just happened to be integers for the unstable isotopes. -- ALoan (Talk) 1 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)

OK, enough indentation. Your last edit made me see that inconsistency—that for the elements 112-118, we have the mass number of the most stable isotope, while for all the others (93-111 and a few more) we have the atomic weight of the most stable isotope. I can't do it now, but hopefully I'll have time some time today to calculate what those isotopes weigh. --Spangineer (háblame) July 1, 2005 12:05 (UTC)
- Well, it's not as easy as I thought. I changed the comment to reflect the fact that the numbers in brackets can mean two different things (mass number in the case of integers, and atomic weight in the case of non-integers), but I'm not sure I like the inconsistency. --Spangineer (háblame) July 2, 2005 16:32 (UTC)
Support--Sophitus July 1, 2005 15:01 (UTC)
Support -- but it doesn't seem to be a traditional list. User:Nichalp/sg July 2, 2005 17:52 (UTC)
Support -- Ian ≡ talk 09:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Support Dsmdgold 19:47, July 10, 2005 (UTC)