Talk:History of the periodic table
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
[edit] Naming
"Periodic table history" sounded weird to me, so I moved to what seems a more natural title. If anyone disagrees, you may of course move it back. Isomorphic 14:18, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I chose Periodic table history because from Periodic table it brached from as Periodic_table_whatever. It's fine the way it is now, though. Goog 12:58, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- In general, it's a strong WP principle that articles don't have parents and must make sense of their main topics on their own, so try to avoid thinking "what is this a branch off of?" (I'm a wanton violator of the principle, for having made so many branches and levels of List of people by name#Direct links to pages of names, but IMO LoPbN is so far from being a real article (it's a navigational tool, like a dab or redirect) as to be an "exception that proves the rule" by showing what it takes to justify violating the rule.) I mention that partly in the spirit of the discussion below of what else could go in this article.
- In general, it's a strong WP principle that articles don't have parents and must make sense of their main topics on their own, so try to avoid thinking "what is this a branch off of?" (I'm a wanton violator of the principle, for having made so many branches and levels of List of people by name#Direct links to pages of names, but IMO LoPbN is so far from being a real article (it's a navigational tool, like a dab or redirect) as to be an "exception that proves the rule" by showing what it takes to justify violating the rule.) I mention that partly in the spirit of the discussion below of what else could go in this article.
Destiny Day rocks she is the one to get in touch about the periodic table at pinkfroggy12@yahoo.com I suggest this article be expanded to indicate how people were able to tell the difference between elements and chemical compounds. That is, what was the criteria for inclusion of a given substance into the periodic table? Psychonaut 05:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- IMO that would involve the mistake of confusing the table with the modern concept of element, as if just bcz the table is our favorite way of listing the elements. Chemical element and Atomic weight are titles that should bear more directly on this (IMO) very article-worthy topic, and History of chemistry should include more about the law than is appropriate in this talk page's article. Modern history of element isolation or Atomic theory in chemistry may even be worthwhile.
This article should expand more on the periodic law. --Jasonn 20:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, IMO. Periodic table could do so, and i'm not sure that it is excesssive to treat periodic law (which should not in any case redirect here), separately from the table. But history articles should focus on the dynamics of getting from one discovery to another, and not on laying out the logic of the final synthesis.
[edit] Questions about history: From numbered sequence of elements to number of protons
- (Moved questions from Talk:Helium)
- When was helium identified as the element with atomic number 2 in the periodic table of elements?
This periodic table from 1891 (Image:Mendeleev Table 5th II.jpg) does not list helium, nor does it leave an empty slot for element number 2. The result is that all elements beyond hydrogen are given an "atomic number" one less than the number of protons. -- Petri Krohn 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact the table is missing all noble gases, so there are other gaps in the table. Question number #2 is thus:
- When were the noble gases added to the periodic table?
-- Petri Krohn 03:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
