Talk:Periodic table/Archive 2

message: Does anyone want to list the oxidation states on a certain periodic table? Bensaccount 02:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I read it my Chemistry for Engineers textbook last semester that plutonium is not purely synthetic, there are about 10 grams of primodial Pu on the planet earth right now. I can show you the calculations. Neptunium might also therefore be natural because it is lighter than Pu. Technetium is noted on its article to be naturally occuring. I will quote: In 1962, technetium-99 was isolated and identified in pitchblende from Africa in very small quantities. I also read that Technetium is naturally occuring in Molybdenum mines. As such, there is at least two errors. IUPAC might list these as synthetic, however, until their reasons for synthetic qualification are revealed we should consider these elements naturally occuring. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 17:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into this and found that the IUPAC does not list what elements are synthetic and which are not. I guess it seems that everyone whould no or not care. It seems to be on every periodic table I see and yet doesn't serve any purpose. I guess that is why no one else noticed they are wrong--it doesn't matter. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 08:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthetic / natual elements 

message: The house style of a certain scientific journal required Periodic Table to be spelled with capital initial letters.  So an author, writing about periodic motion of a table, referred to "the Periodic Table motion", and accordingly the capitals were inserted.  Michael Hardy 03:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Most obtuse editing

message: As far back as I can recall, the Periodic Table has always been referred to in the proper sense. It is, after all, the only such table (at least as far as current quantum theory and chemistry bears out). As such, it seems as though not capitalising "Periodic Table" is improper. Anyone else have comments? Chris Lawson 05:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: I was just about to use this table to explain how impurities relate with valence electrons. You don't give the valence electron order here and that's not cool. Nor does wikipedia talk about trivalents as of current as so I have to explain the whole thing from scratch. Throw the periodic chart and get permission from someone to use theirs. Or else make it more detailed. Or better yet pressure wikipedia into allowing macromedia flash files with a maxium upload size. --Cyberman 03:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have a table with electron configurations, if that is what you want. And the solution to having incomplete information is definately not deleting what we have and starting over. Eric119 03:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh.. Not a good source for wikipedia. 

message: On the individual pages for the elements, in the table it says 'atomic weight', surely this is wrong, i have always heard it called 'atomic mass'. Weight is only in the presence of gravity?  and from the  weight page "Although terms such as "atomic weight", "molecular weight", and "formula weight" may still be encountered, such usage is often discouraged; terms like atomic mass are used instead."
I think this should be changed. thanks Bluemoose 16:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  atomic mass 

message: I just reverted periodic table changes by an anon. The changes talked about dotted and dashed lines although there were the same and the language wiki links were messed up in the same edit.  Can anyone check this? - Tεxτurε 15:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who started the categorization this way, I know what it was supposed to do. On most periodic tables there are what is called "synthetic elements" some of which are naturally occuring and some of which that are actually synthetic are not listed as such. I have already stated why plutonium is listed as natually occuring and primordial plutonium has been isolated. Even though there are about a total of 6 grams on the entire planet earth. However, the editor marked califorium as a natural decay element, this is patently wrong. No element is naturally formed that is that atomically heavy. The element name that was changed also has no IUPAC sanction and hence by convention not used (AFAIK). The editor also changed other version of the period table.--metta, The Sunborn 17:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  periodic table changes