Talk:Periodic trends

Elements Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This periodic law was stated by Henry Moseley, not by Dimitri Mendeleev

Opening heading[edit]

I think this article made a mistake in the trend for nuclear charge; this says nuclear charge increases as you go down a group (column), but other sources (nothing really citable, just my son's class notes and a Yahoo! answer post) say nuclear charge decreases down a column.

I don't want to edit this article, because I'm just a mom checking my son's chemistry homework, and I'm not completely certain about this.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable would be willing to edit this article, correcting this and any other factual errors?

Sterghe (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Sterghe[reply]

Adding Nucleophility as a section[edit]

I'm not well enough versed in Chemistry to add this section but, I did come to this page looking for this information so I would like to see it added in the future. Perhaps also periodic trends in acid bases strength.

Elleacampbell (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus to move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic trends → Periodic trend – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC) See WP:PLURAL. Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The counter argument, per WP:PLURAL, would seem to be (if) that periodic trends are "classes of specific things". This seems like a distinction clearer to someone else than it is to me. ENeville (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to explain this clearly, but the difference between this and the examples listed there is that here the singular form does not depend on the plural form for notability and the periodic trends are not usually considered to be an inseparable unit (like polar coordinates or Maxwell's equations). Each periodic trend (electronegativity down the groups, ionization energy across the periods, etc.) can be (and often is) referred to independently of the others. (The wording "classes of specific things" seems vague to me - birds is a class of specific things, but the article is at bird for the reasons in the first paragraph. A better wording might be something like "classes of specific things that naturally occur in a group".) Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those borderline cases which defy the simple division implied by WP:PLURAL's wording. Powers ^T 13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Well put. So... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think maybe we can look at the counterexamples Double sharp mentions: polar coordinates and Maxwell's equations. The first may be a bad example, since the article is actually at polar coordinate system -- and that makes sense, because the topic is really the systematic method of using the coordinates, not the coordinates themselves. For Maxwell's equations, it makes sense to use the plural because each of the individual equations has its own name, properties, and (in many cases) article; the article is thus about a collection of equations rather than describing a set of properties that would make an equation a "Maxwell's equation". There is no concept that defines a "Maxwell's equation"; it's just a name given to an existing collection, so there's nothing to say about the concept generically. I think this article is similar; although there is such a thing as a single "periodic trend", the article is not about that, but rather is about the collection of trends known as "periodic trends", each of which has its own article. Nothing in the article talks about the concept of a periodic trend as a generality, so it makes sense to use the plural. So I guess I oppose. Powers ^T 23:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mendeleev[edit]

It would be nice to at least mention Mendeleev's work? He found the trends, so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.209.118 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this article is quite confused in its basic definition![edit]

The article starts off "In chemistry, periodic trends are the tendencies of certain elemental characteristics to increase or decrease as one progresses along a row or column of the periodic table of elements." This seems completely wrong-headed to me, and completely misunderstands both the common and scientific meanings of the word "periodic", and why the "periodic" table is so called! "Periodic" things are those which repeat themselves at regular intervals. The "periodic trends" which Mendelev famously noted in the elements (when arranged in increasing atomic weight) were recurring similar properties. It was on the basis of these recurrances that Mendelev decided where to break the table into a new column or row. In other words, the "definition" in the article is ass backwards. --feline1 (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge trends+law[edit]

Resolved It was proposed in February 2016 that Periodic Law be merged with Periodic trends, but no discussion was started so I am adding this section to hold the discussion. YBG (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The options here:

Don't merge
Merge into Periodic Law (Pt becomes a redirect to PL)
Merge into Periodic trends (PL becomes a redirect to Pt)
maybe some other option???

I note that the trends article is longer and older, having been around since 2006; the Law article is shorter and has only been an article since February 2016, although it was a redirect to History of the periodic table since 2005. I note that Periodic law (with a lower case "l") was also a redirect to History of the periodic table (since 2004), but was changed to point to Periodic table in 2007 and in 2008 to § Periodicity of chemical properties and finally, in 2015, to Periodic trends when the section was expanded into a separate article.

As an aside, if Periodic law redirects to Periodic trends, maybe I should create Periodic Trends as a redirect to Periodic Law?

Please indicate your preferences below. YBG (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting those who have edited these articles:

Editors who have edited Periodic Law one or more times:

@Tagishsimon, Sskgb265, Quibilia, Suruena, and Hunterhogan:

Editors who have edited Periodic trends 3 or more times:

@Chipmunkdavis, Christian75, ClueBot NG, DarkNiGHTs, Dimitar G Slavov, Dotarulez2, DVdm, Feline1, Jpskycak, Materialscientist, Rifleman 82, Sluzzelin, Tetracube, and Wikipedian0791:

YBG (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences

Merge into (TBD). There is too much overlap in these two articles and not enough material to support two separate articles, much less a clear dividing line to know what should be in each article. YBG (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't yet decide between Merge into Periodic Law and Merge into Periodic trends. Any help would be appreciated. YBG (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into periodic law. - DVdm (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any preference between (2) and (3), i.e., which article should be the target and which the redirect? YBG (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. Of course merge into Periodic Law and then obviously rename to Periodic law. See [1]. - DVdm (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added periodic law above. Thanks for your input! YBG (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say merge into periodic trends - its more general. Periodic law is one specific "law" also known as Mendeleev's law. Christian75 (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can live with that too. No problem. - DVdm (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into periodic trend (per my last comment). Christian75 (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into periodic trend Surprised anyone needs to even ask, just Be Bold and get on with it ;) --feline1 (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to be a bit timid in such matters, thanks for the encouraging boldness. But in this case, with two alternatives that I can't decide between, I'm glad to have input from other editors. Thanks! YBG (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into periodic trends Sandbh (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and conclusion

It looks to me like a consensus to merge into periodic trends. I am going to do this in a rather simple-minded way as follows

Create a new section Periodic trends § Periodic law
Move the contents of Periodic law into that section
Change Periodic law into a redirect

I will leave the additional wordsmithing and merging to subsequent editors. YBG (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry[edit]

Summary for unit 11.2 , 11.3 and 11.4 14.192.74.11 (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]