Template talk:Periodic table (with pictures)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconElements Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this template, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Pictorial poster?[edit]

This is cool - nice work. ---mav (reviews needed) 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did this more as a curiosity, but I think it might be worth moving it in the mainspace (many people have pictorial posters of the table, and this could have similar uses). Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For that, I think something would need to be done about the copyrighted images... Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Periodic table (pictures) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new Bi image in the PSE table[edit]

Do you like it? It is a typical view of Bi crystals. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get some better pictures[edit]

1) I have plenty (way too much if truth be known!) of Mercury, which is currently listed as a poor picture. What would be better? It sitting in a beaker? Being poured? A few drops? Lead floating in it? Give me some options and I'll take some pictures and upload them.

The idea of the current mercury image (pouring it) is fine, but it needs a neutral background (probably white) and without anything else in the image (like hands or bottles).Same thing for nitrogen. Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) I can easily make chlorine, but my fume hood is currently out of action. When it's back in action I'll make some and get a decent pic against a white background. I also have a method for liquifying it, so should be able to get a picture of at least a few drops of liquid chlorine. Fork me (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Pictures[edit]

That project was shut down and all the picture tags removed, so the table here needs adjusted to remove them since they don't exist now. — raekyt 14:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other elements[edit]

I found images for Rn and Th, but I'm not sure if they're real. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links? Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Th has to be not copyrighted because it is widely available (I think you can even buy it). Nergaal (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Radon is here: File:Radon_RSC.jpg. Thorium is at http://www.rsc.org/Chemsoc/VisualElements/pages/data/thorium_data.html Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Rn one has the remotest chance of being real. The other RSC images I uploaded have some chance of being real, or at least they don't look fake like the Rn one. Nergaal (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are both fake, Th is a computer render, also File:Protactinium_RSC.jpg and File:61 Pm 02 large.jpg are fake, making the NFCC rationale fairly week. — raekyt 14:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about 200px? (ED: the current File:Radon.jpg is different... Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
pure fantasy ... it isn't real. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least it's a representation...anyway, the French Wikipedia appears to actually use it! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake element images[edit]

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed above comment as images deleted. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links for missing pictures[edit]

Fr
F

Better-quality images?[edit]

I notice that Cl, Ca, Se, Sr, Sn, Ba, Hg, Tl and Ra are marked as low-quality pictures. Possible replacements??

  • Cl (liquid)
    Cl (liquid)
  • Ca
    Ca
  • Se
    Se
  • Sr
    Sr
  • Sn
    Sn
  • Ba
    Ba
  • Hg
    Hg
  • Tl
    Tl

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

  • Cl: there is already a featured picture of liquid chlorine. the infobox should have a gaseous, or gaseous/liquid image
  • Ca: better technical quality, extremely oxidized sample; not better
  • Se: current infobox picture shows all three allotropes for comparrison
  • Sr: this picture might be better than the infobox picture, even with the oil it has
  • Sn: same as Se
  • Ba: is better than the current one (though a bit oxidized) but try to get a better crop
  • Hg: current one is interesting but has a poor background. a thermometer does not replace the liquid depiction
  • Tl: go ahead and replace the current one

Nergaal (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other pictures the site has listed, the ones for La, Eu, Gd, and Dy? are better than the currently-used pics. Nergaal (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal:

  • calcium
    calcium
  • strontium
    strontium
  • barium
    barium

I hopy to take in the next 3-4 weeks better images then the current from Ca, Sr, Ba, Se, Sn, Hg and Tl. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More missing element images[edit]

Promethium is up: File:Pm,61.jpg, although the copyright notice at the bottom is a bit...anyway, it's very hard to find actual images of pure promethium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same for polonium: File:Po,84.jpg. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A nicer francium: File:Fr,87.jpg. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More: File:Rn,86.jpg (radon), File:Pa,91.jpg (protactinium). Given that Theodore Gray is such an avid element collector, I think it's highly unlikely that these are fakes. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Neither of these pictures should be infobox pictures. They do not contain the element in pure form therefore they should be only used down in the article. The infobox is for pictures of the pure elemental samples. Nergaal (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I am sure that both the Rn and the Pa pictures are not justified by their NFP template as they show anything but the element. Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • File:Francium.jpg and File:Fr,87.jpg are the same and are both copyrighted. Only one should be kept. Nergaal (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing element images (more)[edit]

Po
RaBr2
Th
Bk
Pa
Es
Rn
  • http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/086Rn/Rn.htm Nergaal (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now at File:Radon.jpg. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Faked image, noone has ever had enough radon to fill a discharge tube. — raekyt 11:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What a pity. Unless this isn't fake (there is some chance given that it was actually published in a book), I'll have to add Rn to my "impossible!" list. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wouldn't say it's IMPOSSIBLE, it's just not likely anyone has been able to get enough to fill a gas discharge tube with it... might be possible with huge budgets and a very small tube.. but I donno. A source would need to be far better then that image to confirm it I think. — raekyt 15:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other of interest:

Pm
OK, what's still missing? I think what's currently missing is At, Ac, Th, Es, Fm. Since we're not likely to get At, Th (unless one of us buys some and photographs it), Es or Fm images, that really leaves just Ac to worry about. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pm2O3
Tc

Copyrighted images[edit]

Now, if you click the copyright symbol for the elements with only non-free images, you'll be transported to the non-free image file page rather than the copyright symbol file page (done with |link= stuff). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns[edit]

File:Promethium.jpg, File:Pm oxide.jpg and File:Polonium.jpg don't have reliable sources. Can anyone find real pictures with reliable sources?? (chemie-master.de I consider to be reliable as most of them are from Dr. A. Kronenberg at Los Alamos.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, uploaded new versions of File:Pm oxide.jpg and File:Polonium.jpg (same source as File:Radon.jpg), but I cannot find good pure promethium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pm and Ac are the only two remaining elements. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thorium crystals (crystal image)[edit]

Although Alchemist-hp has supplied a beautiful picture, thorium can also form crystals. Thus, to show this form of thorium, I have uploaded File:Thorium crystal.jpg. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Element pictures[edit]

How is commons:File:Mercury1.jpg for mercury? I know it is not high resolution but it appears quite clear. A photo for barium could be this one. Thanks for your thoughts. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fermium[edit]

I recently decided to email Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the largest producer of fermium, to see if they had any pictures of the element. Sure enough, they actually did: File:Fermium-Ytterbium Alloy.jpg. I've placed it on the fermium page, much like the sample on the promethium page. It's not in pure form, so it can't be used in the infobox, but considering this is the only photo from the place that actually makes the stuff, I doubt we'll ever get much better. Nicholasb07 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promethium Image[edit]

I think I may have found a possible location of a promethium image. The promethium section in Nature's Builing Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements by John Emsley states that "A microgram sample of the metal itself was obtained in 1963 by F. Weigel of Munich". It's not much info, and I strongly doubt the sample is even around anymore, but there is a chance that a photo was taken. I will do my best to track it down, if it exists. Nicholasb07 (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, try googling the name and see what you can find that I may have missed. Let's hope this gets us somewhere! Nicholasb07 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good find, but neither of them has a picture. The melting point is the only data they report. Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame :( I'll see what else I can do, but I doubt I'll find much elsewhere. Out of curiousity, how did you access the journals? Is payment required or is there a way to view them with no charge? Nicholasb07 (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fulltexts are available online: the English paper is here, and the German paper is here. They're translations of each other. Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues[edit]

I noticed that File:Tc,43.jpg is listed as public domain (as it is supposedly from the US government) whereas File:Polonium.jpg is listed as copyrighted. I noticed the pictures both orginate from the same source, which I checked, and found out that they are in fact taken by the same photographer, Albert Fenn. A quick google shows that he worked for the book's publisher, with no mention of the US government. So, one of these photos will need to be reclassified, which most likely seems to be the technetium image (it should probably not be listed as public domain). Nicholasb07 (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See File:43 Technetium.jpg and File:Technetium.jpg. Double sharp (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I was just curious as my copy of the source does not mention any government source. Just a quick question though, should File:Polonium.jpg therefore be listed as public domain? My source does not list it as a government work but it is attributed to the same photogrpaher as the technetium image. Nicholasb07 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't know the copyright status of any of these images, and only copied the license from Tc,43.jpg. You can ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Images of technetium and polonium Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this, I haven't had time recently to investigate into this, although as far as I can tell from my sources, all images should be free use. I will post any updates I find on Copyright Questions page. Nicholasb07 (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A nice (but copyrighted) technetium image Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tc,43.jpg, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 21#File:43 Technetium.jpg and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 21#File:Technetium.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing element picture progress[edit]

I've added a page to my user page here where I'm keeping track of my progress in finding the last few element images. The page is adapted for anyone to add to, so feel free to add any findings to this page, no matter how insignificant. Not sure if this will help, but it assists in collaborating advances that have been made. Nicholasb07 (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to project space due to its usefulness. Double sharp (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to merge the project page into template {{Periodic table (with pictures)}}. Rationale:

  • Both pages have the periodic table with pictures of elements. So structure and setup is alike.
  • In content, only one element picture differs (Iodine. A: In template B:ELEM page).
I'd like to keep A, the single lump, but that's just a like.
  • The project page is not transcluded. It's layout is more irregular (I recently edited this in the template).
  • The project page has no picture-quality notes. No replacement copyright or missing images.
  • So, as for our overview (element picture maintenance) the template does well, and I see no need for a second page of maintenance, esp. not a parallel one.
  • After a merge, the project page can simply redirect to the template (if allowed). -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. -DePiep (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement pics[edit]

I found a website with really good pics of some of the elements we have crappy images. Can somebody email this guy and see if he is willing to give them to wikipedia?

Nergaal (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the Ca picture there: it's so clear and unoxidized. The Tc picture I am still thinking about – sure it's higher quality, but ours does have a scale. Nitrogen's would be a lot nicer without all those annoying reflections and the tiling showing up behind the transparent liquid N2. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong objection[edit]

I strongly object to the manifold irrationalities of showing the vast majority of elements in the physical states they are to be found, at STP, then introducing, almost as fancies, non-STP solid, liquid, and even excited state forms of other elements. More than this, I object to the religiousity with which this irrational system is seen as the only, inarguable paradigm for presenting the opening (infobox) image for given gaseous elements at their articles. Were this set of fancies followed, sucrose and penicilin would appear as indistinguishable white powders at their articles, and acridine orange would appear as a coloured test tube, rather than each as its informative molecular formula, in its infobox, at its article. No, if consistency of representation at STP is the rule, present an image of a glass bulb with the legend "colourless gas" for such elements, or give expert editors the choice, as with molecules, to present a structural representation. But let go of the irrational religiousity on these matters. (See the Oxygen article for the latest eruption of this debate, where it was speciously argued that a blue cryogenic liquid will help readers to understand the blue of the sky.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are alone with your (wrong?) opinion! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leprof 7272, since you talk about "manifold irrationalities", "inarguable paradigm", "religiousity", "fancies", I can not argue with you. These are not arguments.
re "if consistency of representation at STP is the rule" - who says so? Is this part of your religiousity? One straight objection to your logic: it is you who declares that elements and compounds should be treated the same in this. So it is you who can solve this (by stopping that assumption). To help you start thinking rationally, I can say: the top image for article X best be: "This is X" (only add caption when needed). If there are specifics (sub-topics) of that article-topic, these can be mentioned in the lede, and possibly be described in a section. Preferably with a fitting image. Examples of potential sections are: "applications of X", "history of X", "electron shell scheme of X", "molecule of X (stick-and-ball, space-filling, crystal structure)". Never should an abstract representation of X be labeled or suggested to be: "this is X". -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the structure as primary makes sense for compounds, because the structure then is non-obvious. However, I think for elements it tends to be either really obvious (e.g. what can O2 look like?) or common to many elements (e.g. Ta, bcc crystal structure), and when it isn't (things like S) we give the the structure in the very first section, "Characteristics". I'm not opposed to putting the structure in the infobox: what I object to is leaving an infobox without a representation of the real element, when one is available. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this Double, is that there is often not just one physical form of an element, and there is often no presentable physical form. Gaseous elements present a particular challenge to the question, which the current curators of this template seem to have decided on the basis of image prettiness. (Recall earlier, their objection at Oxygen, that a space-filling representation of dioxygen met with disapproval, where it was asked, "why… bulbous" and "red", i.e., the CPK color.) The superficiality of this, and the logical, physical inconsistencies it leads inevitable toward, are clear. The use of discharge tubes takes us in a further artificial direction, and arguments relating the color shown in excited state to reader-familiar colors in the natural world are often superficial if not wholly incorrect. The question is, what are the criteria here, as stated by the curating editors, and are the conclusions these lead us to any more esoteric than an accurate rendering of a molecular graphic? After the alchemist and the piep have a chance to explain their current criteria for image inclusion, we can chime in again. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have clearly never studied rhetoric, or debate, DePiep, if you believe that use of language for emphasis is not a part of argument. Regardless, the real issue is your limited grasp of the English language, so limited, you do not appreciate the simplest connotation of the word "consistent". Let's frame this a constructive way, and move beyond the tit-for-tat. I will start a new section, below. Please, state for the experts that will visit, what you wish the criteria to be for inclusion/exclusion of images in the pictorial table of images you have going here. I broach no further argument regarding whether my call for consistency to chemical principles such as "physical state at STP" are correct. I ask you to lead and mediate the discussion on what are appropriate criteria to guide deciding between options. If "pretty" is important to you, state it. First, make them general criteria. One can argue specifics later, but make clear to us the criteria that you are applying. Please, begin the discussion. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think "YOU" never study rhetorik, otherwise your behavior would be much different here. You are not alone at this world! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re Leprof 7272 "You have clearly never studied rhetoric, or debate, DePiep" LOL. So, to understand The Prof, one has to pre-study medieval UK-Oxford practiced verbosity? That would be in Latin, then? You talk plain stupidity when you say that your set-up for the oxygen article is best for teaching reasons, and then you say that I do not "understand your teaching". In short: If you can not explain it to me, it is not true. Why don't you continue making Pb into Au? -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are giving you the chance to explain clearly what the criteria are, for inclusion in this list, as is required of such by WP policy. Perhaps take a day, write out the criteria, and have an English speaking colleague review them for clarity of communication. Your ranting in disagreement with me, on a personal basis, will not change the fact that there is a substantive chemical and editing question here that you have to address. No article or template stands on how long it has been in development. It can in future change. Yours is being challenged now. Answer, by beginning a cogent, rational, English discussion below, stating the criteria to include or exclude images in this template. Please. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I pity the student who has to learn from you. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for picture inclusion in this template[edit]

I have argued this template lacks rigour and consistency, and seems to be based on individual editor preferences regarding the attractiveness of images, rather than physical consistency from image to image (and so derived article to article, via infobox). I have called attention to differences of physical state that chooses attractive esoterics, and differences of excited versus ground state. To these I would add differences of containment, image clarity (in some cases emphasizing, by lack of legend, artifacts rather than elemental reality), etc. I stand back from these, and invite the active editors here to state the criteria for this "list" of acceptable element pictures. Please leave the call for expert attention in place until sufficient time has passed so chemistry experts can find this, and comment. Let the debate begin. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions? Which image samples and why? I think we don't like to discus it only for you. Our image collection are grow in a long time and now you can see the result. If you have a better proposal, so show us those. It is counterproductive only to say: all are bad ... be productive or stay away here. Other opinions??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, and will continue to ask—regardless of how long you have been developing this—what are the criteria for including and excluding images in this "list", that underpins current element infoboxes? Please, we are giving you first word on this. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) re Leprof 7272 earlier: writing "I have argued this template lacks rigour and consistency": No you have not. What you did was repeating this statement "I said ..." a dozen times. That is not an argument, Prof. Could you give me one, just one, post where you did (out of a dozen; by diff please, or a literal quote), where you did gave an argument for this lack. Just one. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See response to Double sharp, above. If you cannot read the points made at Oxygen, and here, and see the challenge I have stated to rigour and and consistency, then bring this article to a native English-speaking Professor/teacher of chemistry and have her or him explain my argument to you. (Your statements here are so rife with basic English language errors—subject-verb agreements, etc.—that I have to believe the issue is, at least in part, one of language.) I will not argue with you further. I have made a reasonable request, that you state inclusion/exclusion criteria for this template cum list. I will take this elsewhere, if necessary to get this answered and resolved. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, and will continue to ask—regardless of how long you have been developing this—what are the criteria for including and excluding images in this "list", that underpins current element infoboxes? How do you choose between images? Please, we are giving you first word on this. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have what we have. I'm not the author of this template. Please take a look to the history! If you have other image sample proposals, so show it to us and tell us why or stay away here. Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, of the regular contributors to this template, who apply criteria in deciding to include or exclude images—regardless of the history of this template—what are the criteria for including and excluding images in this "list" / template? How do you choose between images? Please, we are giving the regular, current contributors first word on this. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're repeating yourself. It is boring. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-example to restrictive current practice[edit]

Here are some example images from the rigorous, estimable, and clearly pedagogically useful work of Theo. Gray and Nick Mann:

  • Some gaseous elements are shown as clear gases, in ampules, [1], e.g., F2, [2], though there are some issues with the content of this image (color, glass fogging) that are only settled on reading the book entry;
  • Even when it is not the primary image, some clear gases have secondary images that make this clear as well, [3], again via ampules, e.g., O2, [4];
  • In some cases here, the principle image is not of an elemental form, but of a commonly experienced compound or mix of compounds, e.g., Fe [5];
  • Finally, when there is a departure, it is not inconsistent (given the already variable criteria used for inclusion), but rather consistent within a series—e.g., all gaseous but only the noble elements are shown in excited states, [6], and
  • In no case is an element presented as a cryogenic liquid as its principle image [7].

Note as well, from the poster format shown for the final two bullets, the authors there have chosen a consistent and stylish way to show the synthetic elements (showing what they are named after), as well as the as yet unknown elements.

Why can we not, as an encyclopedia, follow and cite a format from a published source as this? Why do our strictures about how to present the elements have to be more restrictive that that of the experts? Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha ... our "liquid" oxygen image is much better than from Theo! And you can try to ask Theo for spent some (other) images for wikipedia. F2 image: Theo havn't others ;-) I know it, because I know Theo. His Iron images ... this isn't iron, only iron-alloys! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Call for statement of criteria for picture inclusion in this template[edit]

I again invite the active editors here to state the criteria for this "list" of acceptable element pictures, and ask that they desist in other arguments with me. The request is simple, for the inclusion/exclusion criteria: How were there pictures chosen? I also have to ask, in the face of a reversion: Please leave the call for expert attention in place until sufficient time has passed so chemistry experts can find this, and comment. Let the debate begin. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I made this table to simply document which pictures were being used. I never intended it to dictate the picture to be used; in fact, quite the opposite! If it is thought of having that purpose, that wasn't my intention, and I don't think it should be thought of that way. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment Double sharp. No issue with your creating this, just with the way it is currently being viewed, and managed with regard to particular infobox content. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it has a large value as a simple collection of the current state of the articles' infobox images, and as such it's a maintenance problem. Maybe instead of an individual image of the element, it should be a link to the category of images of the element. That makes it a great navigational aid rather than being as meta/WP-centric. DMacks (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment DMacks. Interesting suggestion. Let's see what others say. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ Leprof 7272 I think the main problem is the user Leprof 7272. He talk to us: "we need criteria" (for what ever) ... It is simple: we are not your students to do your dictated homework. If you like to have some criteria for this template, so write us you concrete ideas and we can discuss about that. Here can't somebody demand anything. Wikipedia is a volunteer project! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) P.S: think about "your" pedagogy!? We all like to lern more and we needn't steamroller here, like "I'm the BIG Prof., I'm the law. Come down please from the high horse, so we can start the important Wikipedia work again. OK?![reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Periodic_table_(with_pictures)&oldid=1146719479"