Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 6

message: I've changed the template:
:template:Elementbox_isotopes_decay . 
It now has a variable for the small m indicating a metastable nuclear isomer. This allows the isotope name to link without error on all element pages. The variable is called "ms" for "metastable", and its default is blank (so that it doesn't affect elements that are not nuclear isomers). If it is declared, for right now it is only declared as "ms=m". If it is declared, it automatically links to nuclear isomer. Fresheneesz 18:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: etc reverted, this broke the ms parameter introduced above, causing mislabeled isomers. While the point about excessive linking may be valid, the template can't be reduced again until all instances of this parameter are removed too. Femto 11:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The rather awkward linking might be fixed, though there has been little benefit from the additional ms parameter, so I'm going to remove it altogether from where it's used and restore the template to its earlier form. A separate isomer entry row could be created later, or the whole infobox could be redesigned with the new parser functions, but until then, we might as well avoid adding additional coding complexity. Femto 12:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I think; I hate working on live templates. If this left any loose code ends dangling around, let me know or fix them. Femto 13:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template change - Elementbox_isotopes_decay 

message: This item, :Template:Elementbox isotopes decay, used in the infobox links the name of the isotope (e.g.: "57Co" to "Co 57"). Aside from this being an inappropriate link, it is not normal for most isotopes to have articles of their own, and common that anything notable about them—usually minor or not found at all on WP—is put in the main article about the element. Therefore, the isotope name should not be linked as part of the template, but in trying to unlink it I apparently broke it. Please help. —Centrx→talk 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rather awkward linking might be fixed, though there has been little benefit from the additional ms parameter, so I'm going to remove it altogether from where it's used and restore the template to its earlier form. A separate isomer entry row could be created later, or the whole infobox could be redesigned with the new parser functions, but until then, we might as well avoid adding additional coding complexity. Femto 12:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I think; I hate working on live templates. If this left any loose code ends dangling around, let me know or fix them. Femto 13:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elementbox_isotopes_decay linking 

message: I've been looking for years for a single good source to create images for spectral lines. And here it is:
Spectra of Gas Discharges. Only those elements from the solar spectrum are included so far, but it looks like the source code of the applet that created them could be used to create the spectra for any element; so long as you feed the correct data (see  previous discussion for good sources of the raw data). Copyright issues need to be explored, but what can be more in the public domain than spectral lines of the elements and the order of colors in the full light spectrum? What part of even the already-created element spectra images could be considered to protected by copyright? The only thing I see that would fall under copyright protection would be the source code of the applet. But the source is at least left open. I would like to experiment with putting the spectra below the table image and have that be the full width of each image. That may or may not be too small; if it is, then some code changes to the applet will be needed to make the lines more prominent so they can be distinguished in the smaller images. Any Java programmers around? This is way cool. --mav 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that images which only show some colored lines convey too little information. The applet uses intensity summing, that's good, but also only simple RGB interpolation, which doesn't reproduce anything meaningful, even if you just want to compare the positions. We shouldn't go for any less than properly labeled two-dimensional graphs, with a spectrum only to illustrate the colors, not to define them. When it comes to creating those, that's more or less back to square one. Femto 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating a proper graph with tics in the correct place should be fairly easy for somebody who can manipulate the Java code of the applet. However, a proper graph scaled down to 300px would be unreadable and thus not appropriate for inclusion in the table. The raw image still does convey visual information that is distinct enough even at 300px wide to tell different elements apart and get a general feel for what parts of the spectrum the element absorbs vs emits. Therefore the images can still be useful as is. --mav 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Even something that lists the 5 or 10 strongest emission lines (wavelengths in nm, and a generally accepted color) would be wonderful in most cases for ametur use (ie, college students and the like)...  That's the one thing I can see that's really missing from the physics box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyOwnLittlWorld (talk • contribs) 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectral lines! 

message: What is the reason for using the word "applications" for that section when the more direct, more accessible word "uses" is more appropriate to the meaning used here. —Centrx→Talk 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are equivalent terms. I simply picked one and stuck with it through the 70 or so element articles I expanded and converted to the WikiProject Elements format. It has since become part of the WikiProject standards. I am not opposed to changing the standard but do not think it is something that is worth the effort to change. All that I really care about is that we have a consistent yet flexible standard across all element articles. -- mav 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If "Uses" is more accurate than "Applications", then it should be changed. —Centrx→talk 06:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a general suggestion that "uses and applications" section be moved toward the end of the articles. Having "applications" first is sort of like starting a general article on the Colorado River with a discussion of major dams and recreational spots. It rankles. Hydrogen was here in the universe long before people were, and long before we found any uses for it. And will probably be here long after we're gone, too :). Can we show some respect for nature in these articles on the building blocks of nature? I've proposed putting some "applications" into the intro topical section (so we orient ourselves), but leaving MOST of this stuff till near the end.SBHarris 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section heading: "Uses" rather than "Applications" 

message: :From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals
I think that we should add the periodic table to the bottom of all element pages.  What does everyone think?  It would be as follows:
Group → 	1            	2            	3            	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18		
↓ Period	             	             	             	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
1            	             	             	             	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
2            	             	             	             	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
3            	             	             	             	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
4            	             	             	             	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
5            	             	             	             	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
6            	             	             	             	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
7            	             	             	             	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
             	             	             	             	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
* Lanthanides	* Lanthanides	* Lanthanides	* Lanthanides	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
** Actinides 	** Actinides 	** Actinides 	** Actinides 	 	 	 	 	 	 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  		
—Mets501 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, I think the full table would be a bit unwieldy - taking up too much space for the amount of relevant information it adds.  There is already a small table in the infobox so that the reader can see where the element is located.  There isn't much detail in that periodic table, but I don't think all that much is needed.  And there is a link to the full table right there if the reader wishes more info.  --Ed (Edgar181) 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Waaay too big as a footer. Generally, I think that link-collection footers should be kept to a minimum. While we're at it, what about the recently added E numbers footers? Helium doesn't need quicklinks to thickeners, stabilisers & emulsifiers etc., same as neon (I think) didn't need the full lamps-and-lighting-link treatment. It would suffice to mention the E-number in the body text, any objections to removing it? Femto 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the footer at the bottom of helium is harmless enough, it serves as a reminder of the real-world uses, and is not worth the hassle it would cause to keep it off the page. Physchim62 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodic Table 

message: Could a user with access to the relevant information add the values of the standard enthalpy change of atomisation to that article? A suitable table is available at standard enthalpy change of vaporisation. I would do it myself, but I am far from the data needed. Physchim62 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Why don't we just call the article on the elements their letter(s) and then (element) that way we won't have the problem sulfur/sulphur and aluminum/aluminium?Cameron Nedland 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same reason we don't call the United States article "US (country)" —Mets501 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article names are OK, everybody can find the article, there are just a few words which use a bit different spelling, but that is also no problem on other articles (is it?).  By the way, there is a question/suggestion posed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#IUPAC recommends .22Sulphuric acid.22 or .22Sulfuric acid.22.3F about this subject.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.Cameron Nedland 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to apologize for anything. Femto 11:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey, thanks.Cameron Nedland 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Names