Talk:Period (periodic table)

Chemistry High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elements Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Requested move 2 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Period (periodic table) → Period (chemistry) – This is the primary topic for the proposed title, which currently redirects here. It's both precise and concise. In chemistry, "period" usually refers either to this or to a time period. I can't find any significant articles which could be hurt by this move, and there are no articles focused on chemistry at Period (disambiguation). Except of course the last entry in "Other uses", which is actually a prefix "period-" which I'm not worried about too much. I'm not proposing a move from Group (periodic table) to Group (chemistry) because Group (chemistry) redirects to Group (disambiguation). In my opinion however, Periodic table group is a better title, although it's still inconsistent and bad. Note that Group (periodic table) used to be titled Periodic table group, but was moved on 16 October 2006. wumbolo ^^^ 19:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My gut reaction is that Wavelength and Unit of time both refer to "periods" that are also applicable to chemistry in certain contexts. No objection to either the current title or Periodic table group. Dekimasuよ! 21:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, "period (chemistry)" also suggests (1) a school class period when chemistry is taught, and (2) changes in body chemistry that accompany a menstrual period. It is too vague. Leave it as Period (periodic table). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not see (in the proposal) what is the problem with current name. "This is the primary topic for the proposed title": no it is not. This period is not only chemistry, it is also covering physics (think electron configuration, isotopes). So cutting physics out of its meaning is not an improvement. I note that the use of wording "primary topic" in your post is not the same as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since it is not about change of topic (article). WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about deciding between two different topics with same (prospect) title. In that case, one can look for one being the primary.

Next, you write: In chemistry, "period" usually refers either to this or to a time period: IOW, "Period (chemistry)" does not disambiguate! Instead, it would require disambiguation like "Period (chemistry, periodic table related)", "Period (chemistry, time related)".

The article actually hurt by this move is: Period (periodic table), because its article title would be made incorrect and ambiguous.

The considerations for Group (periodic table) I do not understand. Anyway, a name change for that page cannot be made in this thread.

There is a bigger argument for current name. That is: the word "period" in Period (periodic table) and in Periodic table stem from the same base: periodic law. The period we ar talking about originates from the periodic table. So using that disambiguation term is most appropriate and least confusing. WP:DAB says, in point 3: [Add in parenthesis] the subject or context to which the topic applies. -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per DePiep; the current title is most precise for the article's subject, while the proposed destination is more ambiguous as there are other types of periods in chemistry and physics, which could lead to some unpleasant WP:SURPRISEs. If anything, we can add a hatnote to period (disambiguation page) where other uses are listed. ComplexRational (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The marking you do in periodic table image is wrong correct one is periods -horizontal[➡️] and groups vertical[ ⬇️]

The marking you do in periodic table image is wrong correct one is periods -horizontal[➡️] and groups vertical[ ⬇️] Sose69 (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sose69:

Do you mean this image? It is clearly labelled with "Group" pointing to the group numbers at the top of each column along the top edge;, and "Period" pointing to the period numbers at the start of each row down the left edge. It also states each numbered row is a period. Are you saying this is incorrect? Bazza (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]