Talk:Periodic table
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference
This article bases its entire content on a graphic that cannot be clearly seen on screen (I've just checked the DVD of the actual episode). Where is the information coming from? I have a graphic from the web that purports to be the "Table of Elements", but it is not possible to determine whether that is the graphic actually used. So the source of the information is clearly not from the episode "Rascals" - where is it from? Aholland 14:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime." You will find what you seek on the "mother page" of this table: Element. --Alan del Beccio 14:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I actually have that book - just haven't looked at it in awhile. This prompts the question, though, whether this information should be presented in a manner that, despite the note in the article about errors and such, makes it appear to be treated as canon. I, for one, do not think anyone, anywhere in TPTB would have considered "Daffyduckium" or "Exitstageleft" to be fair use for continuity purposes (the touchstone for canon as I understand it at Memory Alpha). By that definition, the article - *very* nicely done, by the way - would seem to fall into a "production notes" section instead. What do you think? Aholland 17:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment, Aholland! While I agree that there is little chance of any of the fictional elements appearing in a future Trek program, I don't see a harm with including the info here. The fact still stand that these elements were used and created by production staff for a Trek production. Other than its absurd names, there are no canon conflicts and its inclusion only serves to help this wiki.--Tim Thomason 23:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- My point is that, however interesting and entertaining the information, the article's approach appears to validate the Table of Elements and give it a degree of authority and authenticity not intended by the production staff. I suggest the intro section simply say that the TOE was a chart seen in a schoolroom on the Enterprise-D, then have an italicized section similar to what is there that describes what it really was. That would seem to serve both Memory-Alpha (inclusion of Trek info) and series credibility and canon (that window dressing like this should not being taken literally). Aholland 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'd just like to say that my personal opinion is that unless stated in some later episide, the absurdly named elements should keep their names. I do think that they may need to be flagged as not necessarily being canon, but nonetheless created by official Trek info. Bobbias 207.164.82.111 12:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since the majority above agree that the information should stay, I've removed the inaccuracy pna. --From Andoria with Love 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] wow
daffyduckium is canon? Isn't that a bit silly? --Commodore Spock 21:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, if it appears on-screen, it's canon. --From Andoria with Love 04:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Current Periodic Table
Where are the current elements, like Helium, etc?
[edit] Elements in the wrong place?
I have noticed that both elements Lutetium (Lu) and Lawrencium (Lr) are not listed as a Lanthanide and an Actinide, respectively. As anyone can confirm by looking at another Periodic table, they are actually in these "special" Chemical Series.
I want to know if this supposed error was intentional or if I can fix the Table. (I apologize if there are some mistakes with the writing... I'm not so fluent in English). Thanks! -- Carol Dias 03:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. -- Renegade54 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Canonical relevance?
The chart's pretty, and it obviously took a lot of work, but I fail to see the canonical relevance of a 2007-current periodic table. If we had a pic of a canonical table, maybe that'd be a good thing to include, but the chart itself is non-canonical. Article should be redacted to just the text. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 03:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it is in background after all. More significantly, it links to in-universe canon articles on the elements. But given its size, I wouldn't mind if it was replaced by a drop-down list of elements, plus See Also: for the other terms linked – Cleanse 04:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with "Periodic table"
OK, the content of this and Periodic table are slightly different. However, they are describing the same concept - a listing of known elements in tabular form. Do we need two different articles for it, or would it suffice to have one merged article and a redirect? -- Cid Highwind 10:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd support having all the info on Periodic table.– Cleanse 11:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- They were in one article, with redirects. They were split into two in December of 2006. -- Renegade54 11:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that way, yes... although no real indication of the split can be found in either edit summary, which is why I missed that: See [1], [2]. So, any reason for having it split instead of merged? -- Cid Highwind 11:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The only discussion I can see is here. The only reason there is it being too crowded. But surely the page will look fine if we clearly separate the two tables (under headings). And I'm not really sure graphical considerations should really be considered more important than content...– Cleanse 11:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I remember when it was a single page, and I don't think it looked bad at all. I'm not sure what the reason for the split was... I guess you'd have to ask Tim. It was a bit long because of the long, narrow element table at the bottom, but the split only shortened it a little. A view of the page before the split can be seen here. -- Renegade54 21:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I support a merge, the page looked fine the way it was before. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep them apart, it should be done.--31dot 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Puting them back together makes sense to me. Long Live the U.E.
- Articles have been merged. --From Andoria with Love 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Puting them back together makes sense to me. Long Live the U.E.
- I support a merge, the page looked fine the way it was before. Unless there is a compelling reason to keep them apart, it should be done.--31dot 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I remember when it was a single page, and I don't think it looked bad at all. I'm not sure what the reason for the split was... I guess you'd have to ask Tim. It was a bit long because of the long, narrow element table at the bottom, but the split only shortened it a little. A view of the page before the split can be seen here. -- Renegade54 21:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] did it really appear on screen?
- Moved to Did it really appear on screen?.