Talk:Periodic table (standard)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details. This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Element Color/Liquid Broken? 2 www.webelements.com 3 Dotted vs. Dashed 4 Definition & Explanation 5 Natural occurrence 6 Actinides 7 Template talk:Periodic table 8 Layout 9 Iron triad, etc 10 Contradiction and Cleanup 11 "Metalloids" according to the American Chemical Society 12 Groups 13 Boron

[edit] Element Color/Liquid Broken?

I'm seeing the liquids in black instead of green, including the sample in the legend. Anyone else seeing this? 72.128.16.232 17:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.webelements.com

We should remove links to this site, once upon a time a prized reference endeavour, now a COMMERCIAL enterprise completely eaten by obtrusive advertizing.

[edit] Dotted vs. Dashed

I cannot see the difference between "dotted" and "dashed" borders here. I tried changing the dotted ones to "double" but that looked just like the solid. Any suggestions? Maybe colored borders? --Brian Z 02:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Me neither. Dotted and dashed look the same in Internet Explorer 6 --Kevin McManus 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

See further discussion at Talk:Periodic table#Faulty display of dotted borders. --Eddi (Talk) 23:44, 30 January 2006

(UTC)

Technetium should be dashed, not dotted, as it occurs naturally in pitchblende as a product of radioactive decay. In fact, all elements from 1-94 are either 'natural' or 'natural in minute quantitities' on Earth. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition & Explanation

Shouldn't this page define and explain the periodic table, in addition to showing it? For the novice, some explanation is in order, IMO. -asx- 00:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems that you linked to another article that defines/explains on the top of the page; good idea.--Brian Z 02:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Heh, what about unobtanium? ;-) —Mulad go find it in extended table202.156.2.35

There seems to be a inconsistancy with the element La: http://owl1.thomsonlearning.com/appendix/Chemistry/Fall2002/PeriodicTable.jpg This costed me a quiz question! --24.51.239.89 16:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See my reply at [[1]], I basically explain why I think we have decided to place La and Ac into the F block (though, I didn't make the page so this is only my interpretation). This convention has been adopted by most respectable sources (the most notable of which is [[2]] which is pretty much the most reliable source for elements on the internet). However, I do see the other method (like the one you linked to), most often in educational materials whose creators didn't bother to think about what they were writing. Silly thing that is, that thinking.

You should bring this point up to your Chemistry teacher (if you feel comfortable about it), and explain how La and Ac end up in the F block. Maybe she/he'll will even give you extra credit for thinking about how the periodic table is constructed. --Ctachme 02:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I cannot say for sure, but I believe that La and Ac are, in fact, transition metals, grouped by properties, not theory. Using the standard 1s², 2s², etc, you'd get La and Ac as lanthinides and and actinides, and Lu and Lr as transition, but thats not the way it works. It's the same way Cr is [Ar]4s¹3d⁵, as opposed to [Ar]4s²3d⁴.

I'm totally guessing here, but I bet that this is because electrons in the d block can ionize better, so it's more stable there...or something...go study Schrodinger's wave equation. And quantum mechanics. In any case, I think La and Ac are transition metals, not part of the f-block.Kr5t 17:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't plutonium be a "decay product"? As far as I know it's only found naturally in uranium deposits in trace quantities because Uranium neutrons get absorbed and convented by beta-decay in just the right way to make plutonium. The half life of plutonium is so fast that it can't possbily be natural??

The Pu article states:

« Some traces of 244Pu remain from the birth of the solar system from waste of supernovae, because its half-life (80 million yrs) is so long. »

So it is primordial (there just isn't much of it around).

Urhixidur 01:53, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

The periodic table is one of the most important things in life. We wouldnt have lived if it wasnt for the periodic table of elements! —This unsigned comment was added by 213.220.223.77 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Natural occurrence

Listen, Urhixidur, the current wording you have done allows for all elements with a z value of less than 95 (i.e. Pu and lighter) to be marked solid border. Americium would also probably count if found in the Gabon natural reactor. As they are all naturally occuring, on Earth no less. Cf doesn't even occur naturally on Earth. So unless you change the wording of the solid border back we would have to just remove the dashed border category. --metta, The Sunborn 18:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, we need some kind of workable categorisation. Stable elements, fine; long-lived radio-active ones, present on Earth since its creation, fine; short-lived radio-active ones, present on Earth because they are in the decay chain of the previous ones, fine; synthesised only ones, fine. But where do we put Cf, then? It does not occur naturally on Earth, but it does occur naturally elsewhere in the Universe. The real problem is that we have only three line styles to work with: solid, dashed, dotted (four styles, if you count 'none').

Any suggestions how to fix this?

Urhixidur 01:49, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it another whirl. Let me know what you think.

Urhixidur 01:57, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

The fact is that what are we talking about when we say natural occurance? Are we talking atmospheric? Crust? Mantle? Average earth? Universe as a whole? On wikiproject elements we decided that the most useful data should be used in table overviews. I.e data on Earth only. Variations are for the article proper. I would rather say "Natural Occurance on Earth" and remove the cf note. But it is better than it was. --metta, The Sunborn 03:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Either way, the page for astatine says that it hasn't been found in nature at all. So why is it dashed and not dotted?

Also, you could always use colored borders to distinguish between observed terrestrial occurence and observed extraterrestrial occurence.

Greg Kuperberg 06:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Actinides

Where'd the Actinides go? (65.57.245.11)

...They decayed? (Reverted to last good version.) User:Dcljr, are you sure about the <br>? The closing slash is newer XHTML style, though both works fine since the Wikisoftware has no problem 'fixing' single tags. Do we have a technical guideline about this? Femto 14:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Periodic table

Archived talk of to-be-deleted template --Femto 11:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

it's pretty big assumption that we're so special to be the only ones with these elements. Even the synthetic ones could easily be well below extraterrestrial technology. This is all speculation so it doesn't belong in an incyclopedia. At any rate I'm not a chemist so I don't know an unbiased way to correct this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.160.163.253 (talk • contribs) 8 August 2005.

It is done because this is a human encyclopedia if we ever find aliens then we will remove it. The fact is that most periodic tables list synthetic elements separate from naturally occuring ones. It is further funny that the IUPAC doesn't recognize anything to do with natural occurance. --metta, The Sunborn 19:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The elements are these all across the universe, since their building blocks (protons, neutrons, electrons) are few and all the same (if you find, say, an anti-matter galaxy, they would probably ). Complexity arises from combination of these. The synthetic elements are not important technologically, as they are 1-insanely expensive, and 2-often lasting no more than a fraction of a millisecond. --Orzetto 00:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The "dotted borders" and "dashed borders" look the same under IE6.0, WinXPPro. Is there a better way to distinguish these? Chuck 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind--I see that this template is likely to be deleted, and the issue has already been brought up on Talk:Periodic table (standard) Chuck 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See further discussion at Talk:Periodic table#Faulty display of dotted borders. --Eddi (Talk) 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

Can of worms! I've reverted User:Metacomet. The layout has been quite stable and should not be changed without extensive discussion. See related topics at Talk:Periodic table and archives, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, Talk:Group 3 element, Talk:Group number of lanthanides and actinides, User:Flying Jazz, etc. Femto 19:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The table as it currently appears on this page is incorrect and misleading. You don't need to go anywhere other than related articles right here on Wikipedia to see the inconsistency. For starters, take a look at Periodic table (wide) to see what the Periodic Table is supposed to look like. The form as shown on this page is an artifact of historical accident and attempts to fit the table within a "normal" aspect ratio. It has nothing to do with reality.

One of the defining characteristics of the Periodic Table is that it is in fact periodic. Although Mendeleev's work preceded the work of Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, and others in developing our modern understanding of the structure of the atom, it is now possible to understand the origin of the periodicity in terms of the electronic structure of the atom.

In any event, periodicity alone would suggest that Element 71, Lutetium, should appear directly below Element 39, Yttrium, since Lutetium has 32 more electrons than does Yttrium. As you know, there are 32 electrons in the fourth electron shell of the atom, which is what gives rise to the peridicity of the Periodic Table. Likewise, Element 103, Lawrencium, appears directly below Lutetium, as it properly should based again on the filling in of the 32 electrons in the fifth electron shell.

The problem, of course, is that if we put Lutetium below Yttrium, then there is no room in the table for the 14 other elements of the Lanthanide series, Elements 57 to 70. In Row 6, the table would skip from Element 56 Barium directly to Element 71 Lutetium. Likewise, there wouldn't be any room for the first 14 elements of the Actinide series, Elements 89 to 102. So in Row 7, the table would skip from Element 88 Radium directly to Element 103 Lawrencium.

By the way, it is no accident that the number of "missing" elements is 14, and not the current list of 15 elements in each of the two series, the Lanthanides and Actinides. The number 14 is in fact the number of electrons in the f subshell in levels 4 and 5, and it is the filling in the f subshell electrons that gives rise the the Lanthanide and Actinide series. So perhaps it would make sense to exclude Lutetium from the Lanthanide series and Lawrencium from the Actinide series, as some scientists have suggested, so that these two elements could take their "rightful" place in Column 3 directly below Yttrium.

That still leaves the question of where to put the 14 Lanthanide elements in Row 6 and the 14 Actinide elements in Row 7. Well, there is really only one place to put them, and that is in ascending order of atomic number. So that would place 14 additional columns right smack between Column 2 and Column 3. And if you look at the Wikipeida article Periodic table (wide), lo and behold, that is exactly where they show up!

The only remaining issue, then, is how to fit the table into a reasonable aspect ratio so that human beings can see the whole thing in a convenient layout. The current layout is almost correct. The only change that is required is to open up a gap between Columns 2 and 3 to allow reference markers to be placed in Rows 6 and 7 pointing out the location of the Lanthanides and Actinides.

It is really a pretty minor revision, but it makes a huge difference in explanatory power.

-- Metacomet 22:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why we have different articles is that different layouts exist. This article is called Periodic table (standard) and shows the standard layout – perhaps historical and not up to current scientific standards. However, other articles show other layouts to your heart's content. All of them don't need to look the same. For an overview of the various articles see the {{PeriodicTablesFooter}} at the bottom of each article. --Eddi (Talk) 01:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You present an interesting argument. It does not, however, change the fact that the table as presented here is incorrect and misleading. Moreover, neither you nor Femto has presented any reason why the changes I made should not be adopted. -- Metacomet 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Chemical and electronic reasons for and against these layouts are presented at Group number of lanthanides and actinides and Group 3 element. Please move this discussion to their talk pages or alter those articles if the reasons presented there do not address your concern. The layout you suggested with a marker and an empty space should not be adopted in my opinion because an empty element cell is simply a lack of information. Perhaps you meant to have a white space between groups 2 and 3 and to put Lu and Lr up there, so your table looked like the one at webelements.com? This was the wikipedia table before last summer, but it was changed because IUPAC reflects common practice by calling lutetium a lanthanide and lawrencium an actinide. See the second-to-last-page here showing the IUPAC recommendations for the names of chemical series of elements. Wikipedia should reflect current practice on this in my view and an encyclopedia should not advocate moving elements in and out of chemical series when an international organization for nomenclature has placed them there. Flying Jazz 15:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I really meant to do was to move Lutetium and Lawrencium out of the auxilliary lists below the table and to the main table in Column 3 (as shown below). The placeholders between Columns 2 and 3 would then represent only the 14 elements in each auxilliary series that represent the 14 electrons in the f sub-shell. Note that I have left the color-coding for Lu and Lr alone, indicating that chemically, they still belong to the Lanthanides and Actinides respectively. But by changing the physical arrangement in the layout, it now more accurately reflects the electronic configurations.

I realize, of course, that you will probably never agree to make these changes, although I am not entirely sure why. This specific aspect of the periodic table has always confused me, ever since I first took high-school Chemistry. I never really understood the issue fully until I took a course recently in Quantum Mechanics. It is very clear to me now that the table below makes far more sense than any other version, and would go a long way to clearing up the confusion surrounding the Lanthanides and Actinides.

-- Metacomet 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Group →	1	2		3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
↓ Period
1	1 H																		2 He
2	3 Li	4 Be												5 B	6 C	7 N	8 O	9 F	10 Ne
3	11 Na	12 Mg												13 Al	14 Si	15 P	16 S	17 Cl	18 Ar
4	19 K	20 Ca		21 Sc	22 Ti	23 V	24 Cr	25 Mn	26 Fe	27 Co	28 Ni	29 Cu	30 Zn	31 Ga	32 Ge	33 As	34 Se	35 Br	36 Kr
5	37 Rb	38 Sr		39 Y	40 Zr	41 Nb	42 Mo	43 Tc	44 Ru	45 Rh	46 Pd	47 Ag	48 Cd	49 In	50 Sn	51 Sb	52 Te	53 I	54 Xe
6	55 Cs	56 Ba	*	71 Lu	72 Hf	73 Ta	74 W	75 Re	76 Os	77 Ir	78 Pt	79 Au	80 Hg	81 Tl	82 Pb	83 Bi	84 Po	85 At	86 Rn
7	87 Fr	88 Ra	**	103 Lr	104 Rf	105 Db	106 Sg	107 Bh	108 Hs	109 Mt	110 Ds	111 Rg	112 Uub	113 Uut	114 Uuq	115 Uup	116 Uuh	117 Uus	118 Uuo
* Lanthanides				57 La	58 Ce	59 Pr	60 Nd	61 Pm	62 Sm	63 Eu	64 Gd	65 Tb	66 Dy	67 Ho	68 Er	69 Tm	70 Yb
** Actinides				89 Ac	90 Th	91 Pa	92 U	93 Np	94 Pu	95 Am	96 Cm	97 Bk	98 Cf	99 Es	100 Fm	101 Md	102 No

Chemical series of the periodic table

Alkali metals	Alkaline earth metals	Lanthanides	Actinides	Transition metals
Poor metals	Metalloids	Nonmetals	Halogens	Noble gases

Any correct table is fine with me as long as it does not have the potential to confuse the typical reader. The table above, like the current version in Wikipedia is factually correct, but the elements in rows above labelled "lanthanide/actinide" do not match the elements in colors indicating "lanthanide/actinide." Lu and Lr are colored as belonging to the series, but are not located in the series spatially. I think this will be more confusing to the typical reader than the current Wikipedia version. There are simply many tables that are correct and "IUPAC approved" and there is a lot of flexibility in the world. Some tables that strongly emphasize ground state electron configurations place the Lanthanides/Actinides as you have them and place He above Be and away from the other noble gases because He is s2. Even though many tables are OK, one is used over and over by IUPAC (see here and here and compare to Periodic table (block)) The current Wikipedia version puts the 15 lanthanides/actinides together and the noble gases together because it emphasizes chemical series over electron configurations, and La/Lr are exceptions (a d-block lanthanide) just as He is an exception (an s-block noble gas). Also see previous discussions here and here. This really isn't obstinancy on my part. I would certainly agree to changing Wikipedia to this version if there is support from the community for this, but considering all the issues and also what is on the IUPAC pages (for now), I don't think that will happen. Please contribute your quantum mechanics knowledge about this issue to the Group number of lanthanides and actinides and Group 3 element articles where you will find more complete reasoning about the chemistry and physics of this issue. Flying Jazz 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point. Perhaps it is to a large degree a matter of emphasis and taste, which are primarily subjective, as opposed to a matter of factual correctness, which is objective. Certainly there is room for different versions of the Periodic Table that emphasize different aspects of the chemical elements.

My own interests are more related to semiconductor physics and electronic devices. For my purposes, the electronic structure of the atoms is much more important in general than classification into chemical families. But obviously, people with interests different from mine may prefer to emphasize other factors.

BTW, thank you for your willingness to discuss these issues in a thoughtful, polite, and respectful manner.

-- Metacomet 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, guys, lanthanum and actinium are transition metals. Kr5t 17:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

See 3.6.2 here. According to IUPAC, not just lanthanum and actinum, but all the lanthanoids and actinoids are transition elements. However, there might be some ambiguity about whether they are inner transition elements. As for where lanthanum and actinium should be placed on the table, see Group number of lanthanides and actinides, and I hope you contribute there. Flying Jazz 17:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lutetium and Lawrencium are d-block elements by location, and their highest-energy electrons are in d orbitals. Lutetium is easily more similar to the Transition Metals than to the Lanthanides, while the Periodic Law dictates that the same should hold true for Lawrencium (which is unobserved in any significant amounts). What POSSIBLE rationalization could there be for associating Lutetium and Lawrencium with the Lanthanides and Actinides, or putting the f-block under Group 3, other than "IUPAC sez so"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.156.164 (talk • contribs) .

Per WP:V, Wikipedia will prefer the recommendations of an international body of chemists. Ask IUPAC for their rationalization, until then, "because an IP address sez so" isn't exactly the better alternative either. With substantial changes to conventions like these, consensus should be established first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements in any case. Femto 12:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iron triad, etc

Does anyone think we should group the iron triad, the noble metals, etc? Kr5t 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction and Cleanup

Someone thourght that a reason should be specified after since in the {{cleanup template. Anyway, it should be a date, because if it's not, it will be categorized wierd.

The reason for cleanup is: it contains contradiction to Lanthanide and Actinide. --Ysangkok 14:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's now contradict-other, which formats and categorizes correctly.-- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Elements 71 and 103 are d-block, whereas Lanthanides and Actinides are f-block. Ergo, elements 71 and 103 should not be included in the Lanthanides/Actinides box. --TiroAethra 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Element 71 is a d-block lanthanide. Element 103 is a d-block actinide. Element 2 is an s-block noble gas. No contradictions. Just human categorizations that aren't as cut-and-dried as they're taught in 7th grade. I cleaned up Lanthanide and Actinide and added the IUPAC reference there. Flying Jazz 03:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Metalloids" according to the American Chemical Society

Check out the periodic table ACS provides at [3]. I don't know what the original source of their data is, but they give B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po as metalloids, Be, Al, Ga, Sn, Bi as metals, and C, P, Se, I, At as nonmetals. Uuh has no designation; after Lr, they stop labelling the element as a metal/nonmetal (they stop specifying it as a solid/liquid/gas after Sg). youngvalter 02:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Groups

Sometimes groups are reffered to missing out the transition metals (i.e. 1-0/8). Perhaps a compromise could be adopted?

[edit] Boron

Is Boron really considered a Metaloid? Thought it was fairly obviously a non metal.