Talk:Periodic table (extended)

message: * WHERE DID ELEMENT 118 go??
I've unlinked all the entries above 120 because, as several places have said, these are only temporary names. Until they've been discovered, we really don't have much to say and after they've been discovered, they'll be renamed - likely for the discoverer.  Any article on the new element should be created at that new name. Creating a bunch of red links now will just mean a lot more maintenance later.  
There are, of course, exceptions like 118 which was thought to be discovered and then retracted.  For reference, here is the list of names and symbols that I touched.  Rossami 23:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. The time between the discovery of an element and it's naming can be decades! For example, it took Rutherfordium THIRTY THREE years to be named. That's why it's important to maintain links to the temporary names (and they can't be named after their discovers because you aren't allowed to be alive and have an element named after you... though if you wait 33 years...). Since they will be used (if the element is discovered), and not renamed for some time, I think we should replace the links. Ctachme 16:30, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Elements above 120

message: This going back and forth is tiring. I strongly support the recent delinking of uncreated articles. Until someone has something to say about it, leave it unlinked.
Content of the poll:
* Element articles shall only be linked to this page if the article linked 1) exists 2) contains information other than boiler plate material. Elements may have articles even if they have not been detected, if there is information of encyclopediac relevance. 
Stirling Newberry 05:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: This is probably a dumb question, but what is meant by "discovered" in this article? Any other elements that come along are ones that will have been "created" by scientists in a labratory, right? Generally, we don't "discover" things that we artificially make our selves. func(talk) 04:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovered 

message: I recently created an article on Untriseptium, which gives reasons why elements of atomic number above 138 are unstable. Basically the 1s electrons of elements with atomic numbers higher than this would have to be traveling faster than the speed of light.
Therefore is the table to element 218 needed, considering that one could never generate atoms or ions of them, even if one were able to create a stable central charge. --Neo 22:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
*The table in that case should extend to atleast element 139... 132.205.64.91 01:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nuclei of atomic number 139 and above could exist entirely stripped of electrons. Just like H+ or He2+ which have no electrons, this ion would be Uto139+. Some people conjecture that their massive density along with an occasional proton would give neutron stars huge nuclei. Flying Jazz 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I find the addition of period 9 to be bonkers. Period 8 is bad enough...--feline1 12:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  As I understand it, even neutral atoms with Z>139 are possible, only we don't yet have the physics to describe them (there is no consistent theory combining quantum mechanics with general relativity). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this table needed 

message: None of the references given shows the extended periodic table as it is given here. In fact, only the first reference mentions it at all, and it gives three different versions of the extended table (one by Seaborg and two by other scientists). Seaborg's version, as given there, puts the f1 column to the left (between s2 and g1). The other (more recent) suggestions for an extended table vary even more from the Wikipedia table. So is there any reference for the Wikipedia version at all?? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table incorrect ?! 

message: Can we get some consensus on whether to put good 'ol #2 over Be (beryllium) or Ne (neon)? ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it on the right because a) the referenced table puts it there, b) chemically, it belongs to the noble gases, not to the Alkaline earths, c) all other Wikipedia tables have it there.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  He (Helium) has been floating around lately 

message: Why? Why have a periodic table where nearly half are undiscovered and will remain that way far beyond any of our lives, and maybe are completely unable to exist?
It's folly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.254.168 (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What in heck heck is the point? 

message: According to http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/603220/transuranium-element, it is generally believed that the highest possible atomic number is between 170 and 210. The Rihani reference used for the table only numbers the element boxes until 173. Thus I suggest we remove the element names and numbers from the table for all numbers above a certain limit (e.g. all above 173, or all above 190 (the average of 170 and 210)). Any opinions? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How did scientists studied that the maximum possible atomic number is believed to be between 170 and 210? I think that the highest atomic number should be at least 218 since element 218 is the last element of period 9 and the last in the extended periodic table. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 17:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know how they calculated these numbers, but the Encyclopedia Britannica is surely a trustworthy source. Whereas the extended table with 218 elements, as currently shown on this page, seems to be a Wikipedia invention (the only reference with a 9th period stops numbering at 173).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A vague statement that "The maximum atomic number, according to current theories, lies somewhere between 170 and 210" is not a discussion of the depth or clarity that induces confidence.  I do not consider the EB a sufficiently reliable source for contemporary science, as compared with actual scientific works, and I think we need better citations than that.  Even if this is pure speculation, there may be as ource for the speculation being notable.  DGG (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is vague about the statement? I'm happy if you can give other sources. But currently, we do not have a single source for a periodic table with more than 173 elements, other than the EB. Thus, the higher elements must be removed by WP:OR. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I seen that the Extended Periodic Table in Apsidium shows all 218 elements, while the New Periodic Table pages shows elements up to 369 except for the incompleted h-block. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I cannot open your link ("connection time-out").--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this website is encountering problems that last for months. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove highest-numbered elements ? 

message: If we add two more periods to the extended periodic table, then there would be an another theoretical block called the h-block, which will have 22 elements in each row, and the total number of elements in periods 10 and 11 are 72. This periodic table would be called super-extended periodic table, which will contain 362 elements (72×2=144+218=362). BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super-extended periodic table 

message: A o a lo demás que a 189.174.171.191 (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jajajaja y el sábado el de los demás es de la