Talk:2913: Periodic Table Regions

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Working on the table catalog. For ones that are part of multiple groups, I used the one that takes up the most. For split ones like Mn, I put them both. For Cs, please don't change it because Randall's American and that's how he would think of it. I know what all the elements are so please don't edit conflict me. --Purah #126 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm done. Again, please don't have an edit war over cesium and aluminum. --Purah #126 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
What about Hahnium? ;) 20:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
That's only for some people in Berkeley, if someone can find evidence that he's used it before in a comic then sure lol. --Purah #126 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
At times, dubnium, hassium, meitnerium and darmstadtium were considered for naming after Otto Hahn, and it reached several stages of international deliberation.
I actually learnt my chemistry in a (UK) lab with a wall-poster periodic table that had Hahnium shown on it. But I can't quite remember in what position, nor can I remember enough of the other differences (there being several) from the actual 'official' namings, so cannot be sure exactly what provenance it had. Pre '92, though, which rules out some of the options.
...but memorable enough for me to 'keep an eye out' for the fate of the name in later years. 21:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Being a Nazi ended it for him. Russians don't like Nazis and wouldn't allow the name to go through. Meitnerium was a carefully chosen slap in the face. I wouldn't count on Hahnium happening any time soon. 14:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What about the two categories implied by "Ends in a number, let it slumber. Ends in a letter, not much better"? Which elements are in which? -- Dtgriscom (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd say "all in both". Any given "fooium" is going to be a reactive element that (especially as you go further down) is nasty to deal with 'raw'. But not as nasty as "fooium-123", which highly suggests a nuclear decay product that will further decay. 02:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Correcting some errors in the stuff about radon led me to add perhaps too much information about how it's formed, how it accumulates in basements, and how it causes health problems. I spent a few years in a lab whose primary research focus was on uranium mine waste and its consequences, so I've got some bias and blind spots. Others may want to edit it down. BunsenH (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the idea that radon collects in basements because of its density is a myth. It mixes with air; any variation with altitude is negligible, just as xenon and CFCs don't collect at low altitudes. BunsenH (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to add this myself, but should there be something in the explanation about the overlap between "weird metals" and "murder weapons? (I checked over it quickly, correct me if there is already something about it) EDIT - just realized this could be due to mercury being in "murder weapons" - Thexkcdnerd 02:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There should be a comment on the fact that people have included that last row inside the table, [such as here]( It makes it really long, but there's a pretty basic pattern you can extend endlessly. Every other row, you lengthen it by four more than the previous pairs of rows. Though I understand the way orbitals work that make that useful doesn't really apply after you get too far down. DanielLC (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

That has been done (not by me), now. But I also added (along the way) something about how not all PTs actually shift La and Ac out of the table. Though, honestly, I actually find it darn unusual (in my experience) to do that, often with those two under Sc and Y, and then the 'floating' groups go from up to Lu and Lr, perhaps starting with a 'repeat hint' of the eponymous elements, then Ce and Th. Otherwise, a split indicated between Group 2 and 3 and the two 14-long sets (La to Yb and Ac to No) with Lu and Lr group-3ed (more accurate to f-block?).
Actually just overturned a few piles of books to try to find my old (30+ years!) degree-level material to confirm what exactly I recall working with back then, but they're probably stashed away elsewhere. Contemporary online versions do all kinds of things, sometimes seemingly according to abstract whims and clearly there's still no 'official' concensus... Hence I left it at "not all" doing so. 09:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I mean, "Lanthanide" means "Lanthanum-like". Is lanthanum like itself? It either very definitely is, pretty much pefectly,[citation needed] or it really isn't like it, for the same reason... (But, whatever the answer, we should probably say that actinide is the opposite for the actinides. To satisfy everyone!) 12:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There should be a map with the elements under the bubbles Moderator (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Currently Titanium appears twice in the table. Sebastian -- 20:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Some of the elements are split between "groups", but titanium is solidly in the "regular metals". BunsenH (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, there seems to be some disagreement on this one. The titanium box (4th row, 4th column) is almost entirely in the "regular metals" region; in fact, the region swells up for titanium so as to capture most of that box. Should it be listed in both that region and the "boring alloy metals" region? I don't think so, but ...? My inclination is to have it in only one group, which is obviously "regular metals". BunsenH (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I had a bit of time to spare, and I was considering the following either as a reworking of the table or an "indexing" table (make all xkcd main/overlap class names link to the appropriate internal section-headers, so we don't need to squash them up into a narrow column, and can add a "complete list" of elements to as a closing paragraph if that seems best) ...

...some notes:

  • I did play with rowspanning, but my added sortability didn't make it worthwhile. It breaks the rowspanning then doesn't remake them, upon sorting. And doesn't make a span out of things sorted into connection.
  • I also tried a few things out in Common Class. It all started off as Group id (except for Lanths/Acts), then I started going fancy.
    • There are arguably some classifications that work well or against the Munrovian definition, interesting in both cases.
    • Maybe I should have done a "Transition metal (special subclass)" type of thing, or stuck with "x-block" variations, or something with the standard metal/non-metal/semimetal thing.
    • There's also the option of background colouring the lines by some specification or other. But I couldn't decide what scheme to use that for.
  • For "main" xkcd classification, I gave whatever (seemed to) cover most of the element tile. For "overlap" I gave only those secondary classifications that did more than apparently accidentally stray over the line (e.g. on the way to/from covering other tiles, diagonally away from where they most obviously applied).
  • I didn't bother to check that every classification I assigned was true (and/or intentionally funny, of course). Nor if it matched the existing table's assumptions.
  • Where there's (common/notable) alternate forms of things I ()ed the form that I don't think Randall uses, but others certainly do (or have). I'm personally a Sulphur/Aluminium person, myself, e.g., and my unasked-for spellcheck really doesn't like the alternatives, but I'm not a Wolfram one.
  • As I was making sure the Group column sorted nicely, I sneakily gave the Lanths/Acts 'pseudo group' numbers to perhaps keep them/restore them to the correct relative position without necessarily relying upon an Atomic Number sort. You can also do anything you like with the non-sort display item for that column ("Group IIb"/etc), that way.

Anyway, now it's here, if anyone wants to do anything more with it. 00:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we all agree that silicon got done dirty? 18:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I initially read the 'don't bother learning them' line as saying that these elements are "hard to pronounce in large quantities". Which, funnily enough, isn't far wrong. 09:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It helps if one sets them to music. :-) BunsenH (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)