Talk:Atomic number/Archive 1

Archive 1

Expansion of the article

can u plz further explain?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.156.6.54 (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2006.

Yes I put the expansion tag in the article. BTW I changed the name of this discussion to a more apporite name for the topic.---Scott3 _{Talk Contributions Count: 950+} 01:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

what is there to explain? can you say whats not understood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whmice (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge material from List of elements by atomic number

I don't see a reason for this list to exist separately when the existing atomic number article is requested for expansion. Catchpole 12:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I do. There's a lot of information about the significance of the atomic number that should be added instead. The list serves as a stand-alone reference of all kinds of chemical data, and just happens to be sorted by atomic number (the same list exists sorted by atomic weight, symbol, and name). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 23:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that this list should be merged into the Atomic number article. There is no justification for a number of lists of elements, each sorted by a different criterion, and each constituting a separate article. The reason for the specific list is the sorting criterion and should therefore be a part of that.--EvenT 15:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• I also agree with this proposal. However, the table, so sorted should appear on the Atomic_number page as it is useful. When somebody needs this sorting, one seeks for the word Atomic Number and not the full phrase "List of Elements by atomic number". Today I did the same thing and out of the search I had to make trial and error to reach the correct page. -- Dr. Dinesh Karia 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree. Adding it to the other page would make the other page unwieldy. However a link to this list should certainly appear on the other page. When studying the periodic table, it is good to approach the task from a variety of angles. This list is very readable and has a set of very convenient links. It is much easier to scan than a regular periodic table.
• I agree with the previous statement that pages should remain seperate with a prominent link between the two. The primary sorting system for the elements is the atomic number, so if any should remain a seperate page unto itself it should be the list by atomic number. There is much to be said for the value of a legible, well made list. To require the sorting criterion on the list is comparable to combining the page for the alphabet with the "list of elements by name". Combining the two would make two useful pages into one hideous one.--Scorpion451 20:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Absolutely disagree with merging. Most notably, this article is at 5,095 bytes and the list is at 26,009 bytes. Add them you get 31,194. Generally, you don't want to exceed 32 KB and considering atomic number is very thin as an article means that a featured article would require adding a lot of material. Adding a lot of material and the list of elements by atomic number would blow 32 KB away and make it a very large article. I also prefer the list be a list so it serves as a reference instead of being cluttered up with lots of prose. You don't go to List of elements by atomic number to read about atomic number. You go to atomic number for that. Cburnett 13:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Disagree with merge, which is madness. In the article on city are we going to have a list of cities? In the article on automobile are we to have an embedded list of automobiles? No in both cases, although there are prominent list articles linked as {{main}} articles, in both of the above. There is absolutely nothing wrong with stand-alone list articles, see WP:LIST. Unless they are short, it is very inappropriate to use them to pad-out a topic article. The list of elements is fairly short, and I could (otherwise) suggest sticking it in here as a collapse box as we do with coin mintage numbers in some coin articles. But we already have a number of really excellent list articles on the elements and nuclides already, and putting in one more simple list of elements here would be just gilding the lilly. Put in more {{main}} links and see-also's if you must. But don't add hyperredundant crap just because you can. SBHarris 17:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that this list should be merged into the Atomic number article.--AlfaRocket (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Z, N and A italic?

Is it not the accepted convention to italicise Z, N and A? If so, then this article should be amended to conform with this convention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.98.82 (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Readability

FIAT: In "History" the sentence "Such an ordering is not necessarily a numbering, but can be used to construct a numbering by fiat." - What is a "fiat"? Can I suggest that this either needs explaining, linking to a definition, or changing for something that can be understood by a lay person such as myself unless in my ignorance I am missing that this is a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.17.82 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

neumonaultramicroscopicsilicavolcanoconiosis

Surely that's a joke. 121.74.229.246 (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching it (surprised several other editors thought it was correct!). DMacks (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)