Template talk:Extended periodic table (navbox)

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Elements This template is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this template, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles Physics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles

The background colors now are changed, different from all bg colors as defined in {{element color}}. I do not get the reason to change a setting here, esp. since now the many periodic table variants are not consistent any more. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why atomic numbers 109-111 are in the light pink for predicted? -mrericsully (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their chemical properties and characteristics have not been researched yet, so any claim in this is theoretical only (extrapolation, calculation etc.). -DePiep (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to oppose it, but could you, Double sharp, point to some reasons for changing this into a Pykko one? Just to improve my knowledge. -DePiep (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more correct scientifically, and is the one scientists actually use. See

WT:ELEM#Predictions. Double sharp (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

pt:Obrigado (and realy I should write Pyykkö correctly). -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The s-block has 2 elements; p-block 6; d-block 10; f-block 14. The g-block should have 18 elements, but it actually has 20 according to this template. Why does it have 20?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because due to relativistic effects the 8th period fills up oddly: 8s, 5g + 6f + 7d + 8p_1/2 (all together; the last adds to the g-block making 18+2=20). The 9th period then begins: 9s, 9p_1/2, 8p_3/2. Double sharp (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. The g-block for period 8 should be 18 elements long, not 20 as this illustration shows. Elements 139 and 140 belong in group 13 and 14, respectively, followed by elements 169-172. Compare this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekka_Pyykkö and to the original source DOI: 10.1039/C0CP01575J. Blocks increase by double an odd number, thus s = 2*1 = 2, p = 2*3 = 6, d = 2*5 = 10, f = 2*7 = 14, g = 2*9 = 18.

signed: 03:09, 1 January 2015‎ 2604:2000:c5a0:9400:9d16:96a1:48d2:b214 (talk · contribs)

There are various interpretations of this. We selected the one predicted by Fricke et al. in 1971 (link: periodic table on p.474), because it seems to have gotten wider usage. E139 and E140 are expected to behave chemically as superactinides, not post-transition metals, and Fricke's placement of them in the table suits their expected chemical properties better, while sacrificing the precise placement based on electron configuration. (Pyykkö's is also available and discussed in the main article extended periodic table.) Double sharp (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never, once in my life, seen a periodic table that does not use the symbols based on the systemic names, but uses numbers instead. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you don't normally see extended periodic tables, where the systematic names become a real problem. See the Pyykkö paper for an example. Symbols are given only for the elements that have non-systematic names: the systematic symbols aren't even given. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence supporting the possibility of element 184?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a magic number (perhaps 164 instead though). Fricke gives it as his last prediction in his paper, so we're just following him all the way. :-) Double sharp (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The limit of atomic number is 173. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.219.149.55 (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It probably isn't. Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted edits like [1]. (which reinstalled eralier edits): [2]. I note:

• Atomic number is not limited. For example, see the post above here.
• The ordering is according to Fricke. That is, the atomic number is not increasing regulatly over the periods.
• The categories in metal-nonmetal trend (like 'transition metal') is established in the elements article (linked). These changes here are not sourced or discussed in that article.
• The Z=0 "element" Neutronium is not recognised as an element.

-DePiep (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fricke, Greiner and Waber in their work declared, that element 164 will be possibly noble gas (even though it should be located under Hg or Pt). Shouldn't be colored in light cyan tone? --Dvorapa (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a 1974 paper by Fricke he writes "the chemical behavior is expected not to be too different from that of the other d elements...it would be chemically quite active. ... comparison with Hg agrees well with the position that Fricke, Greiner and Weber have allocated this element in the periodic table." And even in the paper you quote they call 164 a good noble metal: so I think the transition metal colour is fine as it is. Double sharp (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DePiep did revert after I made template be of same style as Template:Periodic table (32 columns, compact). Comment was "rv. Nonsense. Your es is I do not understand (well, I se you mix up issues). Why not talk Proposals & Ideas?".

I don't see why is good faith edit in which template was widened to 100% to have consistency with parent template (used for elements before 119) regarded as "nonsense" and what is exactly meant by statement that my "es" (I guess this stands for edit summary) is "I do not understand".

So here is proposal (even if there was no [or I can't find it] proposal for main template improvement done by User:Matt Fitzpatrick). --5.43.78.13 (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The colors of the s and g-blocks are too similar. Georgia guy (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As which table is the most likely to fit period 8/9 elements is still controversial, would it be possible instead to show the several proposed models (Pyykkö, Fricke, etc.) as collapsible sections inside the template? Chaotic Enby (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]