The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to g-block. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table (extended) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Redundant and unneeded hypothetical periodic table. There are already 15 different versions of the periodic table, and all information about the hypothetical g-block is already found in the G-block article. Other than that, it is a crystal ball because no one knows when/if the g-block extended table will be used. Also, it is unreferenced because the current references don't show at all that a g-block extended.periodic table exists/is needed. Tavix (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it integrates the G-block into the table. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't a G-block though, as there are no confirmed elements in that block. Therefore, it isn't needed. So I don't see what your getting at. Tavix (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The heart of the article is the graphic/table of the extended periodic table. But as the article acknowledges, the actual position of the g-block might be nowhere near where it's drawn on the table (between the s's and f's). So the heart of the article is in fact an unsourced assertion about the electronic configuration of still-theoretical elements. Unless a source can be found, I say delete. --Steve (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DOI.org Nergaal (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Touchee. Allow me to modify my complaint: The article does not (yet?) establish the notability of this particular way to extend the periodic table. (The references right now seem to amount to a few random papers in obscure journals.) --Steve (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft. This is a silly argument. Who are we to judge if a paper is "random" or if a journal is "obscure"? It is scientific literature! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can judge based on the criteria in WP:NOTE. For example, the paper that Nergaal gives has never been cited by another scientist, never (to my knowledge) discussed in a newspaper, etc. --Steve (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guy seems to have over 150 published articles though. Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the author is notable, maybe not, but either way, notable people are capable of proposing non-notable ideas. :-) --Steve (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge Yes there is a reference, look at page three of the jeries.rihani.com reference where it shows a table with the g-block. Also look at the pdf link below that. If the g-block is going to be deleted for being a crystal ball due to no g-block elements being discovered, we might as well delete stuff on hypothetical things like supersymmetrical particles, the Higgs boson and the Oort cloud and stuff like dark matter & energy that we do have evidence for. We do know of g-orbitals. Having 15 different versions of the periodic table is no reason to delete some because we are not writing on paper.--BrendanRyan (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The problem is that the links do not really address this form of the periodic table directly. The quote from Dr. Eric Scerri in the jeries.rihani.com link: "There is also the complicating factor of relativistic effects in very heavy atoms due to very rapidly moving inner electrons. Relativistic quantum mechanical calculations have provided some predictions but again we cannot confirm them yet. So the next time you see a detailed configuration of any element beyond about 105 bear in mind that this is somewhat hypothetical." is most apt and says it better than I can. We simply do not know where the orbital filling with go for these elements. Indeed the relativistic effects may be such that the whole concept of orbital filling and electron configuration may make no sense for these very heavy elements. Perhaps it should be partly merged somewhere else. I am not sure where. I do not think it can be kept as it is unless there are better sources that address this form of the table directly. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Makes sense, I changed to merge.--BrendanRyan (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A scientific journal appears to have accepted at least one article covering this (as Nergaal pointed out), so this seems to be a valid science topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• the topic is perfectly valid, as it is discussed in the G-block article, but it is redundant to have an extended periodic table that includes the G-block in it. Tavix (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A "valid science topic" is not necessarily a notable one. Anyone who's spent time doing science will know that whatever dumb idea you can think of, someone somewhere has published a peer-reviewed article asserting it. Scientists publish 1,000,000 peer-reviewed papers each year. They're not all automatically notable simply by virtue of having been published. --Steve (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with g-block. Neither article is particularly big, and they cover more or less the same ground. On the other hand, they seem perfectly valid scientific concepts, and I don't see why they shouldn't be included under one title or the other. Anaxial (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. This seems like a step in the right direction. Having an article titled "Periodic table (extended)" makes the thing sound more official and notable than it really is, but having the same table as one item in an article about the g-block would be fine in my opinion. --Steve (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. First, let me say something about the reference in "Foundations of Chemistry". This journal is refereed but it is not strictly a science journal. It covers a lot of general philosophical, historical and educational ideas about chemistry. Nevertheless in general it is good source for wikipedia. In this specific case, the article does display the block from element 121 and refers to it in one sentence "In contrast with Seaborg predictions, the table in Fig. 4 shows the elements from Z = 121 to Z = 138 form a new period having no homologue among the known elements". That is all. It does not say anything more and does not call it the g-block. The article is not about this specifically but about the application of Group Theory to the Periodic Table. So it is not that notable nor is the g-block, so the best solution is to merge the two together. Which way, I am not sure, but perhaps, since we are discussing this one, merge this to g-block for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into g-block to serve as an example of how the periodic table might look if the g-block were integrated into it. The basis for a separate article on a hypothetical periodic table was extremely weak when this article was created in 2002 (*cough* several years before the paper cited above) and is still very weak. BTW, once a g-block element is discovered and researchers have a good idea of where the g-block should be placed, then we will extend all the periodic tables. Both then and now - I don't see much need for this article. --mav (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with g-block seems to be the best way. Without the extended table, there is no explanation for why the g-block contains those elements given in the g-block graphics. I suggest a title like Extension of the periodic table beyond the 7th period, with redirects from the two old titles. Since we also have (non-stub) articles for elements 119 to 126, there should be a periodic table containing their (presumed) positions in period 8. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is what the periodic table might look like if any elements were known beyond 118. On the other hand, it might look very different if the Madelung rule breaks down, we just don't know. Nor do we have any real prospect of finding out in the forseeable future. Pure WP:CRYSTAL stuff. Physchim62 (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. I created a page in BlueEarth wiki-site Extended periodic table that has non-systematic names for all 218 elements, even through I made-up those names from elements 112-218. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• Um, your link does nothing. Tavix (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I clicked on this link and it does work, so you should try again. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The link "works" but it does nothing for this article. Tavix (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you see the extended periodic table on that page since the link works? BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 03:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that you made up names for over a 100 unknown elements makes this an unreliable source. It should not be linked to from this article.

Striking conversation because it doesn't do anything on whether this article should be kept or not. Take this to the talk page. Tavix (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.