Template talk:Navbox periodic table

Elements Template‑class

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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Physics Template‑class

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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Merge

There are lots of tables duplicating the same information, but sorted on different fields. Since all the tables are sortable anyway, this is redundant duplication. The combined table would have between 10 and 13 columns, which does not qualify as too much information.

• I can't think of any generic reason to avoid merging overlapping sortable tables like these. I raised this on
  Wikipedia talk:When to use tables#Duplicate sortable tables
  and attracted no comments.
• Not sure whether to include columns Moh's hardness, Color, and Notes columns from
  List of elements by density
  ; the info is scrappy
• Exclude symbol etymology from
  List of elements by symbol. This belongs on the separate List of chemical element name etymologies
  , not currently on this template. I suspect it was put in to get the list up to Featured Status.
• The extra sections at
  List of elements by symbol
  for non-element symbols deserve their own article, so I guess technically the redundant main table deleted and that page could be renamed rather than redirected or deleted.
• List of elements by melting point#Temperature with most liquid elements
  could be a section on the merged page.
• Not sure we need multiple temperature scales for melting and boiling - Kelvin should do.

jnestorius^(talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Weak oppose: I notice that the sort feature doesn't work properly, it thinks 118 should come before 12 (try sorting by atomic mass). Until that is resolved we can't reliably use it. Still, that's a very nice feature, I wasn't familiar with it! I think we need to be careful about this, though, because it is not obvious (many ordinary WP users I talk to didn't even know you could edit a page, never mind sort a table on the fly!). FYI, here are the no. of hits on each page for a 20 day period last month, from this site:

• List of elements by name, 2937
• List of elements by symbol, 8843
• List of elements by atomic number, 2973
• List of elements by atomic mass, 2252
• List of elements by melting point, 3283
• List of elements by boiling point, 2600
• List of elements by density, 3880

Since each one of these pages are probably getting over 50,000 pages views per year, and collectively perhaps half a million, I'd say that they are all "notable" enough to stay in existence as they are. Could you write a new List of elements article with a fully sortable table, and if these existing pages lose their traffic we could merge them then? We don't want to upset those half million users. Walkerma (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.

• Incorrect numeric sorting: this is because the default is alphabetic. This can be overridden, though it's a bit clunky (Help:Sorting and Category:Sorting templates); it might be a few days before I have time to do so myself. Silly me, assuming a featured list would have this implemented properly :)
• User unfamiliarity: perhaps a message would suffice? A boilerplate something like "The rows in this table can be sorted by clicking on the arrows at the top of any column" in a new {{
  Wikipedia talk:When to use tables or even meta:Help talk:Sorting
  .
• I think the hitcounts are a spurious argument. For example, suppose there were separate identical pages "List of elements" and "List of Elements". Even if each got a million hits a day, that would not be a reason to keep them separate: a redirect from one to the other would accommodate all readers.

jnestorius^(talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were featured before lists were sortable. This is a good idea; my main concern is that there will be too much information going across for low resolutions (not everyone is at 1024x768 yet), and furthermore, some have supplementary information—for example, "List of elements by name" has lots of historical element names included in it below the main table. This could be moved to a separate article (like List of historical element names), potentially. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well, it used to anyway. Forget everything after "furthermore". --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support Excellent idea for the long run, if there are minor problems with sorting they can be dealt with. --RucasHost (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slight support I think it is a good idea, but before actually implementing it, I would prefer to have a longer debate and a testing period. Furthermore, once the merged page is ready, do not delete the old pages (yet) but instead keep them as subpages of the main page (at least for a while).

Slight support: I agree with

List of elements by symbol is a featured list and List of chemical element name etymologies isn't.Thibbs (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Conditional Support and agree with Nergaal about testing period. We have to make sure that the numbers sort correctly and I'd like to see this in action and suggest improvements before this is combined list replaces the individual ones. We also need to make sure we don't combine too many lists. --mav (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Support Excellent idea. Since they can all be sorted, they can be kept to one page. --Russoc4 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support I believe this is a great idea. It will be very useful for reference and schoolwork, and also to satisfy curiosity. This will be much easier than having to go from page to page, trying to find description about an element in a list that is organized by boiling points or melting points instead of atomic number or alphabetically.Wyatt915 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Random walker think that mediawiki is as mature as to allow merging fat tables while keeping good overview. Mergem! Said: Rursus ☻ 12:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Strong Support That sounds like a great idea, I have been studying the elements a little bit and the new list would accommodate me much better. Tavix (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am currently studying Chemistry, and I find this series of pages the way it is easier to work with than one page. Most of the current pages link to each other, and it is nice having different pages that have the elements sorted different ways. We could simply improve the current system by making all of them link to each other and maybe by making a List of elements (disambiguation) page.some page -- TurtleBoy0 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But combining them as sortable tables would mean you could switch between sorting styles ina second, instead of going between pages.Yobmod (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for all those that can be reasonable merged without losing data. Maybe leave entymology and density if the info doesn't fit well.Yobmod (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support We got to merge into one article just like most listing articles that have only one article regardless of being sorted by properties, such as

Weak Oppose I think this table is excellent for those just looking for density data without the clutter that a larger table would provide. I understand that Wiki is a knowledge database, but it also has to cater for the needs of those seeking the data. Remember that most people have a middle high school level of reading and education. If they are looking for density data, let them find it easily. I know this works for me.Rvanderlely (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)rvanderlely[reply]

Suppport As an aside, tables can never qualify to have too much information.174.3.101.61 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun creating a merged table at

Good start! But I think the element lines should not be coloured according to the chemical series, it makes it much harder to read the lines (this annoyed me with the old tables as well). The element category is clear from the corresponding column entry. (I would be fine with colouring the "chemical series" box for each element, but the whole line is too much.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll remove the colors when I work on the article, but don't expect that to be soon. I want to have a merged list, but I'm busy in real life and have other articles in my queue. Reywas92^Talk 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to

To make this merged table more useful for those who are not scientists or science students, melting & boiling points should be in Celsius and Fahrenheit as well as Kelvin. Without that, searchers like me will be forced to use a conversion table. Irritating. Luke Line 09:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Line (talk • contribs)

Goldschmidt classification to add? -DePiep (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Collective names of groups of like elements is not mirrored (not reciproced). -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply
  ]
• Chemical Galaxy? Has a relation. Does not have the footer template, and is not in it. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose the name change into {{Periodic table navigation}}. Clearly this needs talk & consensus. Two aspects are involved:

• Singular: The concept of "Periodic table" is singular (as is the main article title:
  WP:MOS
  ). PT is singular. Maybe there are variant presentations, but that should lead to, like: "Periodic table presentations"
• Navigation box: It is a
  WP:navigation
  box, and so should have all its properties.
  

I suggest that name change. (Formally: I propose to start a move, later on}. -DePiep (talk)

[1]: your es says exactly why I edited it this way. Since it is the "Groups" row, we should include "1", and since Group 1 is not the same as Alkali metals (no dispute), my phrasing described that well. As you edited it, it states wrongly "Group 1 = alkali metals". -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose:

• Remove "period, group, block" from top row. They are OK below, and linked.✓Done YBG (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Write the second level singular too ("group" not "groups"). That is a class name in the navbox hierarchy all right (it says how the PT is structured). Sort of warning: such plurality habit might creep up upwards, into the title having to be "Periodic tables". Ouch. -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think the idea has promise, but I'm not sure whether to apply it everywhere. Here is the template group name hierarchy with the plurals struck out:

• Forms
• Structure
  • Groups: ***
  • Periods
  • Blocks
• Metallicity (propertiesy)
  • Metals: ***
  • Metalloids: ***
  • Nonmetals: ***
• Elements
  • Propertiesy: ***
  • Lists
  • Data pages: ***
• History: ***
• See also: ***

Also, I have noted by '***' those places where the detail template list items have plurals also, e.g., ___metals, . Do you propose to singularize these also? In some cases, the singular seems an obvious improvement, and I may just

Exceptions can be plural indeed, but not for the reason you mention. These rowheaders are not to state what they contain, but what they stand for. It's a class name, not a list announcement. For example, about the PT groups: The topic is group: topic singular, the object, thing, noun is a "group". (

WP:TITLE has this same issue. A very natural inclination is to title a page in plural, eg our (PT) [[groups]], but we should resist that. By the way, WP:Title does list exception criteria, when plurals are OK). I won't start about the exceptions here. My aim is that you look at this with the "it must be singular" glasses (what a self-destructive pun ;-) ). Once you can use that singular without aversion, you can reason about exceptions too. A starting point: shouldn't the title "PT" be "PTs"?, it is about PTs right? (I promise: thinking this issue is rewarding for a scientist. It is higher math thinking about definition/thing stuff. It's "group 3 element" vs. "group 3". Glad I can follow it, hanging by my nails). One giveaway: I think "lists" is a plurality exception. -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I have edited the lowest-level to change some of the most obvious ones from plural to singular. However, I'm still wondering about your statement that the rowheaders should be class names not list headers. I decided to check some un-related navboxes, and the following is the result of my non-scientific pseudo-random stream-of-consciousness survey: