Talk:List of elements by atomic weight

Added reference, all data verified (with exception of the square-bracketed mass numbers). Changed to wikitable, checked links and spelling. There have been minor changes of footnotes (selenium +r, potassium -g, clorine +gr). Removed namescheme footnote irrelevant to this article. Left out elements >=112. Femto 18:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity:

As far as I can see the list is sorted by atomic number, not mass: Ar (#18, a.m. 39.9) precedes K (#19, a.m. 39.1)

An excellent point. Fixed. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 13:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrestrial

I would expect that every naturally-available elements would report a number based on "terrestrial material" (which is the result of the distribution of the isotopes in the Earth's crust/atomostphere) and that "note 4" would apply to all such numbers. Can we acknowledge this in the lead paragraph? Is "note 4" more specialized than my understanding of it? -- 199.33.32.40 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is incorrectly titled

It should be "List of elements by relative atomic mass" or even better "List of elements by standard atomic weights" since atomic mass is the mass of an atom at rest and relative atomic mass is the average mass of an element in a particular environment and the standard atomic weights are the commonly accepted relative atomic masses as found in the commonly laboratory or earth environment as determined by an IUPAC committee and used on most periodic tables. --Nick Y. 18:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, atomic mass is basically Molar mass, which is relative in its nature. Therefore, I think titling the page as "List of elements by relative atomic mass" would be redundant. At most, there should be a brief explanation at the beginning of the article, but even that is probably not necessary. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. Relative atomic mass is basically the molar mass (with different units) whereas atomic mass is the mass of an atom at rest. In other words atomic mass is the mass of a single atom and therefore a nuclide. Read atomic mass and the references therein. The definitions are very clear. There is also a nice historical article about the shift from atomic weight to relative atomic mass.--Nick Y. 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way atomic weight would work too, just not atomic mass. Even more appropriately would be standard atomic weight since that is exactly what is listed, including the uncertainties given by the IUPAC committee.--Nick Y. 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plain wrong

Hi boys and girls of english Wikipedia.

I've recently had the pleasure of translating this fine list into the great language of danish, but as I checked the numbers against the stated sources, I found something horrible: Some of the numbers are simply wrong, according to the sources. Take a look for yourself. One of those I have checked, is no. 104, which in fact weighs 267 of these units, but in the list, it is stated as 261. I have found at least two others I can't remember right now.

I think the whole list should be double-checked.

Love, --HenrikRomby (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the first note you would have realized what is the problem. The list contains the weight of the most stable isotope; in the past few years, for the elements with Z above 100 several heavier isotopes have been synthesized and characterized. The article has not been edited in more than a year, and it is very possible that the last 10 elements were obtained as more stable isotopes. Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading note number 1 didn't make me realize any problem. The numbers are still wrong, and note 1 doesn't say anything about any changes; it merely states that the atomic weight is noted for the longest living isotopes.

The list should still be run through for errors.. --HenrikRomby (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

longest living isotope... known when the article was last edited. I did not say the the numbers are right nor wrong, jut that they have not been updated in a long time. Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New song

Oh where, oh where have you gone, you gone? Where are you now and today? Ununseptium was discovered. But where it is in this page? 118.71.151.216 (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable evidence that it was discovered. Materialscientist (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]