Disputatio:Systema periodicum

Turma

Next little point - the Group numbers. Roman Numerals are fine in principle here, but regrettably they led to confusion when used in Anglice:

"Group numbers
"There are three systems of group numbers; one using Arabic numerals, another using Roman numerals, and one using a combination of Roman numerals and Latin letters. The Roman numeral names are the original traditional names of the groups; the Arabic numeral names are a newer naming scheme recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). The IUPAC scheme was developed to replace both older Roman numeral systems as they confusingly used the same names to mean different things."

The Roman numerals system also had no numbers for all the transitional metal groups (those not-very-rare metals such as Fe and Cu).

Let's add (or, even more radically, substitute) the modern standard "Arabic" numerals.

Robin Patterson 05:51 ian 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Actually there is a Roman numeral system for the groups.

Arabic numerals	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Roman numerals	IA	IIA	IIIB	IVB	VB	VIB	VIIB	VIII			IB	IIB	IIIA	IVA	VA	VIA	VIIA	0

There is no problem for that system. It is just that IUPAC does not approve of this system anymore. --Yejianfei (disputatio) 08:10, 22 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

Nomen paginae

"Systema Periodicum" aut "Systema periodicum"? Robin Patterson 06:02 ian 25, 2005 (UTC)

Systema elementorum periodicum, dicam.--Ioscius 04:26, 17 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

periodicus, periodica, etc. Lndeo 13:11, 7 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Systema -matis neut. (3a decl.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:38, 7 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Iod(i)um

Iam in saeculo XIX hoc elementum latine descriptum est non nullis in dissertationibus, quarum plures et veteriores formam cum i adhibent. (e. g. Herrklotsch 1845, Hilbeck 1833) Inde hoc praeferendum censeo.

Seria chemica tabellae periodicae

Quid significat haec sententia arcana? seria Anglice est 'a large jar for holding wine, oil, etc.' et 'serious things'. IacobusAmor 02:27, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Iacobe, please just fix these minor things instead of commenting on the disputatione. Pantocrator 02:33, 24 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

The disputatio is a good place to bring up issues, rather than bring up revert wars of "this means this" vs "no it doesn't". Also it's a better place to make sure comments are seen than edit summaries, so others can learn and not repeat the same mistakes. —Mucius Tever 05:11, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not for minor and obvious mistakes like that. By the way, it had been here since the original creation of the article 7 years ago! Pantocrator 06:08, 26 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

So why take offense? :) —Mucius Tever 00:07, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

And sometimes P-crator, it's just hard to understand what the sentence means, and we put it on the discussion to see if anyone can help. Like at Disputatio:Apple II... really had no idea what was trying to be said. --Ioscius^∞ 00:15, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

No personal offence, but I feel it's a waste of time. It's immediately obvious that series was meant there (that's why I could correct it immediately!). Pantocrator 04:58, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Well no personal offense (different than offence) back, but it was illegible. Illegible things are not immediately (or ever) obvious. --Ioscius^∞ 12:37, 28 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

Exemplum

Yejianfei, cur exemplum delevisti? A deletion of that size (8064 octeti) would cost Vicipaedia four points in the 1K rankings at Meta and several points in the 10K rankings. Perhaps you're going to insert a better table? If so, please work from the present version, as I've made improvements while reverting. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:55, 19 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Wait! I didn't see the new table. Maybe it's better; let others decide, but do work from the present version. Still: the reduction does cost Vicipaedia those points. Perhaps you'd like to make up the loss by adding 8000 or so bits of Latin text. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:58, 19 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I thought you'd notice that! A relevant question is whether the new table, designed as a formula, is to be used on any other page. If not, it might possibly be "subst"ed on to this page. But better to wait and consider rather than acting hastily.

Hence (not meaning to edit-war, mi Iacobe) I have reverted to Yejianfei's version, just for the moment, to see whether he will improve it further. Your edits remain in the history and could be transferred to Formula:Systema periodicum if that seems the best way to go.

UV may have a comment on whether it's best to adopt Yejianfei's formula or not. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:43, 19 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Propositum pro nomenclatura elementorum sal formantes (halogenia, grex XVII)

nomines iupac sunt fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, astatine, tennessine

in analogia propono fluorinum, chlorinum, brominum, iodinum, astatinum, tennessinum ...

Necesse erit nomina tua, fontibus munita, in paginis disputationis singulorum elementorum proponere. Ubi fons iam rite citatur, nomen sine fonte propositum non accipimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:57, 5 Novembris 2018 (UTC)

Propositum pro nomenclatura elementorum $Z=57\div 70;89\div 103$. "-ida" vs "-oida"

Professor Spitsyn [[1]] docebat elementa $Z=57\div 70;89\div 103$ liberi Lantani vel Actinii non esse sed similia esse respective Lantano vel Actinio. Ergo flexio graeca oida esse debet, non ida. Tchougreeff (disputatio) 06:54, 20 Iulii 2021 (UTC)