Talk:Table of nuclides/archive (complete)

message: This is one of the largest pages i Wikipedia. I have therefore tried to reduce its size on the danish copy. In IE 6 it looks OK, but it might not in others. If you use another browser, try and have a look.Jan Pedersen 12:55 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Something's broken. I'm using Mozilla 1.4, and on the Danish table I don't see the "foreground" colours for the isotopes with alternate decay paths. Something to do with div tags, perhaps? Bryan
:Found the problem. Your're not putting double quotes around attribute values; I belive the standard requires them. So  needs to be changed to , for example. Tried that with one and it looks like that fixed it. Bryan
Thanx Bryan. I have substituted all "75</small>Ge (in code: 75Ge) was changed to Ge (in code: Ge), and another place the attribute bgcolor="#993399" was changed to bgcolor="#993399" resulting in a black cell.
In order to reduce the file size and avoid such errors, and also to make editing of the table easier, I introduced a couple of templates to take care of all the colours and 's and 's. The file size was reduced to less than 45 kB (*) and editing is a lot easier now. There is one template for one-coloured cells (~2000) and one for two-coloured cells (~200), with simplified syntax for white cells or white borders. The two-colour template could do everything but uses more text to do it, and is only used for the two-coloured cells. The templates are described in more detail at the article's talk page. The template code is in English so I believe most of it is understandable, although the talk page is in Norwegian. --Eddi (Talk) 00:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the way to go to me. Couldn't the leading cell separator pipes on each line also become part of the templates? ...Huh. Here I am, thinking I was the only one with those odd escaped character insertions. Do you know more about this bug, whether it's on the Wiki software side or specific to certain browsers (like Opera 7.54), or even how to avoid it? Femto 11:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: After some testing, Opera seems to be the culprit. I've got a large HTML file here with a textarea that demonstrably doesn't contain any odd characters. Loaded into Opera, there's an escaped &. Don't tell now, you've also got a sporadic error with empty edit areas that don't show any content, right? Femto 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On top of my head I don't remember, but that doesn't mean it never happened. I only remember major trouble with one other page, namely a language politics discussion that ended up over 180 kB. While it was still "only" 133, most of it was duplicated by someone and it grew larger than 250 kB before I fixed it with great difficulties. What caused the duplication I don't know, but my trouble fixing it may have been Opera related. --Eddi (Talk) 22:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I thought that's what this is all about in the first place. Converting the more recent content will be better of course. User:Femto/templatedisotopetabledraft Apart from the colors and a few red links, as a preview at the Nynorsk Wiki using their templates, it appears identical to the English version here. You may want to give it a more thorough check though. Femto 12:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I was afraid of the transformation task, but now that you've done it I fear nothing. :) I copied :Template:Iso1 and :Template:Iso2 from nn: and the draft table appears nice and orderly. I'll add the colours and the proofreading may commence. --Eddi (Talk) 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Alternatively you could just preview the diff with the show changes button, but diffs are easily thrown off sync with data like this. Another approach would be to load both pages into separate browser tabs, scroll them to similar positions, and then flip back and forth between the pages (number keys 1 and 2 with Opera). Differences in the visual appearance of the pages will stand out as 'jumps' in the image. Femto 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll use the show changes button, which I think is safer than flipping tabs. --Eddi (Talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Following a complete proofreading of the draft vs. the live table, I have implemented the templates in the live table. As far as I can see, all isotopes are included, all colours are the same as before, and all links are in place. --Eddi (Talk) 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: PS: To support the diff sync I kept the spaces in the "! NN" lines (where NN is the neutron number) so that those lines were unchanged. --Eddi (Talk) 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Detailed instructions should go with the talk page of the first template, and a reference to that at the top of talk:isotope table (or any other page which uses them). Femto 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written instructions at Template talk:Iso1. A reference is inserted on top of this page. --Eddi (Talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This apparently also depends on the browser. Which part of the code could cause it? Both versions render the same on my system, as shadows, I never saw gray borders. Femto 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea what causes it. Different name spaces? Just now I'm borrowing a computer with only Internet Exploder. --Eddi (Talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Something of both. It will make the least work to keep the formatting stuff from the divided table, scan for the number-and-symbol entries, replace them with the corresponding lines from the complete table, and there you go. User:Femto/templatedisotopetabledraft2 Found no obvious flaws in the coding. Besides proofreading this single page, it would also be a good time to check for differences and synchronize the data between (complete) and (divided). Femto 16:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at the proofreading one of these days. As to synchronisation I believe the major differences lie with Dubnium (changing Ha to Db) and Bohrium (changing Ns to Bh). --Eddi (Talk) 22:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Another point in favor of using templates is that they make automatic comparisons easier due to the standardized coding. Excluding Db and Bh, the following entry lines are mutually missing in either table: Ne-15, Mg-31, Mg-33, Al-21, Si-22, Si-23, Si-24, P-24, P-25, P-26, P-45, P-46, S-41, S-42, S-43, S-44, S-45, Cl-44, Cl-45, Cl-46, Ar-47, V-45, Mn-48, Co-51, Co-52, Cu-55, Cu-56, Cu-57, Zn-58, Zn-59, Ga-59, Ga-60, Ga-61, Ga-62. Note that this only checks for exact same occurrence and doesn't catch things like slipped rows or changed content, so a manual check is still advisable. Femto 10:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've compared the templated version vs. the old version of the divided table with respect to cell colours and wikilinks, and found 2 differences; F-18 is linked vs. not linked, and Si-32 is blue vs. green. The F-18 link is OK as far as I'm concerned, but I suppose this can wait until the synchronisation between complete and divided tables. The half-life of Si-32 according to the silicon article is 132 years, or 160 years according to WebElements, which in the isotope table corresponds to green (10-10000 years). I'll make changes in the draft for F-18 and Si-32, plus Db and Bh. --Eddi (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: In general I haven't looked at white cells yet, but this could also be part of the synchronisation. I suggest we make a note at Talk:Isotope table (divided), then intoduce the templates in one edit without any other changes (apart from Db and Bh), and in a separate edit synchronise the complete and divided tables. --Eddi (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a note at Talk:Isotope table (divided) 18 August, and introduced the templates to Isotope table (divided) 22 August. See that talk page for details. Now everything should be set for #Synchronisation of complete and divided tables. --Eddi (Talk) 22:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  File size and background colours 

message: Would it be a good idea to introduce similar templates in the English copy? It would involve 2 main templates (Iso1 and Iso2) plus 8 colour templates (e.g. Iso/R containing the string ff9999). If such templates should be used here, would it be easier to transform it locally or translate the Nynorsk copy? The English copy contains a whole bunch of recently discovered unstable isotopes of both light and heavy weight that are not (yet) included in the Nynorsk copy. --Eddi (Talk) 22:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that's what this is all about in the first place. Converting the more recent content will be better of course. User:Femto/templatedisotopetabledraft Apart from the colors and a few red links, as a preview at the Nynorsk Wiki using their templates, it appears identical to the English version here. You may want to give it a more thorough check though. Femto 12:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I was afraid of the transformation task, but now that you've done it I fear nothing. :) I copied :Template:Iso1 and :Template:Iso2 from nn: and the draft table appears nice and orderly. I'll add the colours and the proofreading may commence. --Eddi (Talk) 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Alternatively you could just preview the diff with the show changes button, but diffs are easily thrown off sync with data like this. Another approach would be to load both pages into separate browser tabs, scroll them to similar positions, and then flip back and forth between the pages (number keys 1 and 2 with Opera). Differences in the visual appearance of the pages will stand out as 'jumps' in the image. Femto 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll use the show changes button, which I think is safer than flipping tabs. --Eddi (Talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Following a complete proofreading of the draft vs. the live table, I have implemented the templates in the live table. As far as I can see, all isotopes are included, all colours are the same as before, and all links are in place. --Eddi (Talk) 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: PS: To support the diff sync I kept the spaces in the "! NN" lines (where NN is the neutron number) so that those lines were unchanged. --Eddi (Talk) 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Detailed instructions should go with the talk page of the first template, and a reference to that at the top of talk:isotope table (or any other page which uses them). Femto 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written instructions at Template talk:Iso1. A reference is inserted on top of this page. --Eddi (Talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This apparently also depends on the browser. Which part of the code could cause it? Both versions render the same on my system, as shadows, I never saw gray borders. Femto 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea what causes it. Different name spaces? Just now I'm borrowing a computer with only Internet Exploder. --Eddi (Talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing templates to en:Isotope table (complete)? 

message: Now that the templates have gone live in the complete table, how about the divided table? (As you might expect, I'm all in favour.) Should the existing divided table be transformed, or should the already transformed complete table be divided? --Eddi (Talk) 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Something of both. It will make the least work to keep the formatting stuff from the divided table, scan for the number-and-symbol entries, replace them with the corresponding lines from the complete table, and there you go. User:Femto/templatedisotopetabledraft2 Found no obvious flaws in the coding. Besides proofreading this single page, it would also be a good time to check for differences and synchronize the data between (complete) and (divided). Femto 16:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at the proofreading one of these days. As to synchronisation I believe the major differences lie with Dubnium (changing Ha to Db) and Bohrium (changing Ns to Bh). --Eddi (Talk) 22:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Another point in favor of using templates is that they make automatic comparisons easier due to the standardized coding. Excluding Db and Bh, the following entry lines are mutually missing in either table: Ne-15, Mg-31, Mg-33, Al-21, Si-22, Si-23, Si-24, P-24, P-25, P-26, P-45, P-46, S-41, S-42, S-43, S-44, S-45, Cl-44, Cl-45, Cl-46, Ar-47, V-45, Mn-48, Co-51, Co-52, Cu-55, Cu-56, Cu-57, Zn-58, Zn-59, Ga-59, Ga-60, Ga-61, Ga-62. Note that this only checks for exact same occurrence and doesn't catch things like slipped rows or changed content, so a manual check is still advisable. Femto 10:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've compared the templated version vs. the old version of the divided table with respect to cell colours and wikilinks, and found 2 differences; F-18 is linked vs. not linked, and Si-32 is blue vs. green. The F-18 link is OK as far as I'm concerned, but I suppose this can wait until the synchronisation between complete and divided tables. The half-life of Si-32 according to the silicon article is 132 years, or 160 years according to WebElements, which in the isotope table corresponds to green (10-10000 years). I'll make changes in the draft for F-18 and Si-32, plus Db and Bh. --Eddi (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: In general I haven't looked at white cells yet, but this could also be part of the synchronisation. I suggest we make a note at Talk:Isotope table (divided), then intoduce the templates in one edit without any other changes (apart from Db and Bh), and in a separate edit synchronise the complete and divided tables. --Eddi (Talk) 13:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a note at Talk:Isotope table (divided) 18 August, and introduced the templates to Isotope table (divided) 22 August. See that talk page for details. Now everything should be set for #Synchronisation of complete and divided tables. --Eddi (Talk) 22:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introducing templates to en:Isotope table (divided)? 

message: Some of Talk:Isotope table (divided) is also valid for the complete table, and vice versa. I suppose a redirect may be too drastic, but there could at least be a prominently displayed link between the talk pages. --Eddi (Talk) 22:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, these pages should be linked together much more prominently, like a reference at the top of the talk, and/or as part of the template comments in the article code. Many editors may introduce changes to one page without even realizing there's another version. We may also designate one page (preferably the 'complete' one) as mother and one as daughter for a more defined flow of information. Femto 10:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking the talk pages of the complete and divided tables 

message: Oh, this is lovely!  When you are done, please come to WP:FLC to nominate it as a Featured list. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. --Eddi (Talk) 23:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: R.R.Kinsey, et al.,The NUDAT/PCNUDAT Program for Nuclear Data,paper submitted to the 9 th International Symposium of Capture-Gamma_raySpectroscopy and Related Topics, Budapest, Hungary, Octover 1996.Data extracted from NUDAT database (Dec.18, 1997).
Femto 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: For example, we could look for ideas in the border styles and definitions used in the periodic table. The categories there are stable, natural, artificial, and unknown. The definitions of stable and natural seem to be different than in the isotope table – and they cover elements, not individual isotopes – but they're worth looking at and perhaps harmonising in the long run. --Eddi (Talk) 00:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: According to , 113Cd has half-life of 9.3x1015 years and abundance 12% in natural cadmium, which would seem to fit in "natural radioactive", but it is colored yellow for >10000 years. (the center, not the green border which is 113mCd) --01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: After modifying the section header, I take your comments as interested anyway. :-) --Eddi (Talk) 00:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FLC|Featured list candidate]]

message: If the isotope table is going to be nominated as a featured list candidate, I think a few issues should be addressed to meet the FLC criteria on usefulness, comprehensiveness, and accuracy (I believe the other criteria are already met):
* Critical view on user friendliness with respect to layout, colours, ease of navigation, links to other articles, etc.
* Verification of isotope data.
* Section on references: Isotope table (complete)#References.
* Review of the term "stable": What constitutes a "stable" isotope?
* Review of the term "natural radioactive": Does it imply a certain half-life, does it amount to a certain percentage of the natural abundance, or is it some other quality unrelated to half-life and abundance?
A formal project may not be required, but a group of editors should be ready and prepared to handle any shortcomings of the article during the nomination period. I'll set up a list of interested editors below – feel free to add your name. --Eddi (Talk) 20:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: R.R.Kinsey, et al.,The NUDAT/PCNUDAT Program for Nuclear Data,paper submitted to the 9 th International Symposium of Capture-Gamma_raySpectroscopy and Related Topics, Budapest, Hungary, Octover 1996.Data extracted from NUDAT database (Dec.18, 1997).
Femto 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: For example, we could look for ideas in the border styles and definitions used in the periodic table. The categories there are stable, natural, artificial, and unknown. The definitions of stable and natural seem to be different than in the isotope table – and they cover elements, not individual isotopes – but they're worth looking at and perhaps harmonising in the long run. --Eddi (Talk) 00:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: According to , 113Cd has half-life of 9.3x1015 years and abundance 12% in natural cadmium, which would seem to fit in "natural radioactive", but it is colored yellow for >10000 years. (the center, not the green border which is 113mCd) --01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues to be addressed before nomination

message: Just got confirmation from Bryan that the now defunct http://www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuchart1.html (BNL), which was the source for this data, indeed is the same site as the archive.org'ed . (You might have to turn on javascript, play around with the link, and/or replace the date string with an asterisk to get that silly thing to work.) Their reference was given as
:R.R.Kinsey, et al.,The NUDAT/PCNUDAT Program for Nuclear Data,paper submitted to the 9 th International Symposium of Capture-Gamma_raySpectroscopy and Related Topics, Budapest, Hungary, Octover 1996.Data extracted from NUDAT database (Dec.18, 1997).
Femto 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: So whichever is the exact meaning of "stable" or "natural radioactive", our definitions are BNL's definitions. Apparently, http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ is the direct successor of that page, maybe there's also something buried in their FAQ. In the long run, and before a featured nomination, I agree though that it's absolutely essential for these articles to set their own definitions. There does seem to be no Wikipedia-wide agreement on those terms, let alone on the web. Femto 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, we could look for ideas in the border styles and definitions used in the periodic table. The categories there are stable, natural, artificial, and unknown. The definitions of stable and natural seem to be different than in the isotope table – and they cover elements, not individual isotopes – but they're worth looking at and perhaps harmonising in the long run. --Eddi (Talk) 00:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: According to , 113Cd has half-life of 9.3x1015 years and abundance 12% in natural cadmium, which would seem to fit in "natural radioactive", but it is colored yellow for >10000 years. (the center, not the green border which is 113mCd) --01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Stable" and "Natural radioactive"

message: * Eddi (Talk) 20:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After modifying the section header, I take your comments as interested anyway. :-) --Eddi (Talk) 00:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors interested in helping the article to featuredness

message: Inspired by the Danish version of the isotope table, lighter colours were introduced in the Norwegian version by simple manipulation of the 8 colour templates. The contrast between cell text and background colours improved very much, not only for blue and red wikilinked text but also for normal black text. Compare the English version with any of those or, for an instant comparison, see the half-life colour chart in the Norwegian test version. Various colours have been discussed for various purposes at the isotope project and the deep colours were apparently chosen for the isotope table at some point, but I gather nothing is set in stone. Are there any objections to lighter colours here, perhaps except that it shouldn't be done before the templates have been implemented in the divided table? --Eddi (Talk) 23:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour intensity in table cells 

message: As mentioned by Femto above, some isotopes were missing in either the complete table or the divided table. I have now added or corrected the following entries in each table:
* Isotope table (complete): Ne-15, Al-21, Si-22, Si-23, Si-24, P-24, P-25, P-26, P-45, P-46.
* Isotope table (divided): Mg-33 (was Mg-31), S-41, S-42, S-43, S-44, S-45, Cl-44, Cl-45, Cl-46, Ar-47, V-45, Mn-48, Co-51, Co-52, Cu-55, Cu-56, Cu-57, Zn-58, Zn-59, Ga-59, Ga-60, Ga-61, Ga-62.
--Eddi (Talk) 03:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synchronisation of complete and divided tables 

message: i fixed the one under He (moved column down), but others exist and should be filled in. e.g. 28S has a pretty long half life.. Eupedia 05:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally added those blanks for aesthetic reasons, to reduce the jaggedness of the headers and provide a bit of separation for some of them to make them stand out more. Aesthetic judgements are quite disputable, of course, just pointing out a possible reason for leaving things as they are (which is always the easier option :). Bryan 06:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, here's another opinion that it looks better when label-cells and content-cells won't touch. Femto 12:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. I don't mind if the labels touch the contents here and there, but in general the table appears better with smooth edges above and below the jagged cells. Actually this should be used more, not less, especially at the lower edge. (I'm not volunteering though. ;) --Eddi (Talk) 01:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: i love Bryan Derksen's solution/edit: fill in the blank with something interesting (diproton)!  thanks, Bryan. 24.5.187.236 05:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should blanks under elements 16-25 be fixed?

message: is there another version of this on the wiki that shows richer data for each isotope?  plans for one?  here's an idea: alternate text that would give the richer data upon mouseover somehow.  not sure how to implement, tho. 24.5.187.236 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is partly included in this version, although not very detailed. Try to hover over the coloured cells to the right. So it is possible. But it would be a lot of work to add all the extra details, and I think there is a risk that the data would not be proofread as thoroughly or updated as frequently as it should be, because the data would not be immediately visible on the page. --Eddi (Talk) 17:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possibility might be to say "screw size! People can scroll, or get 40" monitors, damnit!" and create another version of this page where each cell actually includes a bit of text with the information. :) Bryan 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: D That's definitely an option. It's still a lot of work, but at least transparent and therefore safer with respect to reviewing and updating. But does the wiki software cope with file size? The current file is close to 50 kB. How big would the new file be, assuming that templates could still be used to reduce repetitive formatting? --Eddi (Talk) 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikisource uses the same software (Mediawiki), and its largest page right now is just shy of two megabytes in size: .  My biggest concern for this sort of thing is editability, though; IE used to not be able to handle articles over 32 kilobytes in a text box, and the nature of a table such as this would prevent the use of headers to break it up into smaller chunks. When I try editing the article in Firefox 1.5 I get the following message: "ERROR: The text you have submitted is 1,948 kilobytes long, which is longer than the maximum of 1024 kilobytes. It cannot be saved." Don't know what the limits of other browsers is. Bryan 00:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, now that I check in more detail, it seems Firefox is handling it and it's MediaWiki that's telling me "no." So I guess one megabyte is the limit on Wikisource. don't know what the limit for Wikipedia is, perhaps it's configrable. Bryan 01:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And compulsive tidier that I am, I've gone and ruined my example by splitting it into four subpages. Ah well.  still has the two megabyte version in its history. :) Bryan 01:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: decay modes, products, half-lives, etc.

message: Most charts that I have seen include the free neutron (p=0, n=1), as a natural extension of the table next to deuterium.  The free neutron article even includes a mini-isotope-table picture (shown at right) with the free neutron included in the table.  The neutron undergoes beta decay, just like many other nuclides, and has a known half-life (which according to the article is 15 minutes), so I think it should be included in the isotope table.  Spoon! 02:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. It would make sense to me given the free neutron article. Peter 04:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the free neutron (element 0)? 

message: This chart shows an isotope Helium-2, yet that is not listed in Isotopes of helium.  Which is correct?  Should Helium-2 be added to Isotopes of Helium, or should it be removed from here? Nik42 01:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The helium-2 entry links to diproton, and isotopes of helium has a seealso to it, I think that's fine. We need to be consistent though. Should or should not this chart include things like neutron, diproton, triproton, etc. ? Femto 11:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be OK with adding the neutron, because it is common practice. I would not add the diproton because as far as I know it doesn't exist. Tables of isotopes usually include only the isotopes that have been observed experimentaly. Itub 23:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helium-2? 

message: It has already been discussed above: The term "natural radioactive" is unclear. I think the corresponding entries should be divided up into the other categories. The source from which the data had been taken in the first place soon after changed their own data so that "natural radioactive" was no longer present.
However, I don't have a problem with "stable". It says: "This nuclide is belived to be (absolutely) stable."/"No decay has been observed."
Also, I agree with Spoon! that the neutron should be added. Quilbert 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isotopes that have survived since the beginning of Earth are also sometimes called "primordial" (there's some debate about whether primordial plutonium-244 has been detected...). --Itub 07:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we change the key to say "primordial" instead of "natural radioactive" then? I think only Template:Iso/O/text and Template:Iso1 have to change. --JWB 01:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the states of free neutrons, but didn't remove diproton because it had an article. Syphon8 05:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Natural radioactive"; neutrons 

message: Lead-204 is marked as having an isomer of >10000 years, but Isotopes of lead does not seem to list it. Does anyone know where this came from? --JWB 08:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  204Pb 

message: How do you feel about using gray for stable isotopes?
*It seems logical (red can suggest activity or heat) and less distracting.
*Believe it or not, there is a policy WP:BETTER#Use colour sparingly saying Colour should only be used sparingly... Specifically, use the colour red only for alerts and warnings. I don't think this needs to be applied rigidly to an isotope table, but it does agree with the previous point. 
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Isotopes#Color scheme already uses gray for stable.
*It would be very easy to implement (just in Template:Iso1 I think), unlike other color changes like implementing all of Wikipedia:WikiProject Isotopes#Color scheme or even subdividing the existing categories.
*It would free up red for reuse if we do want to do something like subdividing an existing category. Splitting either of the existing yellow (range of 105) or green (range of 103) categories would take 26 changes or less. --JWB 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red to gray? 

message: This footnote, from Kilogram explains something clear enough:
:In 2003…physicists found that the only naturally occurring isotope of bismuth, 209Bi, is actually very slightly radioactive, with the longest ever radioactive half-life of any naturally occurring element that decays via alpha radiation—a half-life of 19 ±2 ×</span> 1018 years. As this is 1.4 billion times the age of the universe, 209Bi is considered a stable isotope in virtually all practical applications.
Accordingly, I changed the color coding for 209Bi to “stable” (grey) but added a hidden editors note explaining the rationale for labeling it as so. Greg L (my talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bi<sup>209</sup>

message: * I’ve temporarily upgraded “complete” so it uses Quilbert’s “User:Quilbert/IsotoneRows” template for its source data. All changes here are proposals for evaluation. As you can see, the article size is now only 38,876 bytes! It loads very quickly for me. Quilbert’s approach makes a great deal of sense. A unitized article is naturally the only place where discussions would occur. Further, the template is the only place where changes to the data occurs; one only has to make one edit to effect a change even though there are multiple views of the data being used.The new page requires no horizontal scrolling on 800 × 600-pixel screens. This is even smaller than the current standard for Web use (ABC News, CNN News, and MSNBC News, to name a few, all require 1024-pixel-wide screens to avoid scrolling). By “no horizontal scrolling,” I am of course, referring to situations where the reader elects to skip over the Unitized table, which always requires horizontal scrolling (unless you’ve got multiple monitors totalling at least 3,856 pixels in width).As I mentioned above, with this method, both views of the data are presented in one article so readers following a link to the article are immediately aware of both view options and can use whichever one suits them at a particular moment. Its convenient “ ← Previous | Next →Go to Unitized table (all elements)  Go to Periodic table ” nav tools make it a better solution than the two separate articles ever were; the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Further, the new nav tools I added lately make it much easier for the disabled. If you want to scroll and see the unitized table, that’s all you see and deal with because it is conveniently located near the top and is the first thing you encounter when you start scrolling. For “click-happy” readers (I’m one of ’em) who often like to jump around in the segmented view using the new nav tools, we never have to mess around—or even see—the unitized table. And any reader can now instantly skip between both views of the data without having to go to an entirely different article.Although this is “change” (which rarely occurs on Wikipedia without objection), it doesn’t appear to me that there are any downsides to Quilbert’s way of maintaining data tables and displaying the information. I think it’s a fabulous way of doing things and its advantages are obvious and compelling: there’s only one place to visit for reading, only one place where users would naturally discuss issues, only one place to edit the data, and the article’s code becomes exceptionally tight (at 38,876 bytes, it’s smaller than it’s ever been before). This has my enthusiastic support. Greg L (my talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New example via “Quilbert Method”

message: So far, when the most stable and the second most stable nuclear isomer are in the same color category, Iso1 is used. I wonder why. Please use Iso2 instead and double the color statement (except when both would be white). I have changed Iso2 in that a dotted border is displayed in that case. I have found this to apply to at least Xe-133 and Rh-102.
My second point is: When do we display white borders? When a nuclear isomer has been detected, even when it is extremely short-lived? --Quilbert (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, that is the gap between Sm-146 and U-235. This comes from the “natural radioactive” category in the original data, which meant nothing but long-lived enough that it still occurs naturally (see my newbie request above). It can’t be ruled out that there are nuclides within the gap near the hypothetical island of stability, but so long, that is ok. --Quilbert (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  aside: nuclear isomers 

message: I’ll try to construct a proposal everyone might be satisfied by:
*My first point is somewhat unrelated and not even new: We should move to “Table of nuclides”. The articles that at the moment exist under that name, better fit “Isotope lists”.
*Table of nuclides should be a disambiguation page that links to (combined), (divided) and (complete), maybe even (divided, wide), with proper remarks about their designs and download sizes. It also should link to the non-graphical Isotope lists (now “Table of nuclides”).
*All talk pages of the three or four representations should redirect to the talk page of the disambiguation page to avoid unnecessary confusion. Maybe even the template’s talk page should redirect there. Current discussions here and on (divided) can be archived on a subpage. The articles themselves get the usual disambiguation notes.
I hope that from here, we finally come to a consensus. --Quilbert (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Lay something on us Quilbert. I think we could all use some intervention by someone who possesses the skills to make a difference and further, is willing to do some heavy lifting here. Thanks.  Greg L (my talk) 17:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * Quick feedback: I’m looking at this site using Safari on a Mac but I usually see what Windows users see when I use FireFox. I assume you are aware than many cells in the unitized table are stretched vertically. The offending column is apparently always the last one in the segmented tables (N14, 21, 44…).And then good news: when the Wikipedia server isn’t burdened and other articles are loading quickly, the new “complete” page loads and refreshes very quickly too.  Greg L (my talk) 18:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks for noting, that happened when I added the :Category:Isotope tables templates to the Template:Isotones. It should be ok now. Looking at the category, you will find that I have created some more templates for the actual tables that implement the data, as they are planned to appear in different places (for example, Template:NuclidesDivided, 0-14 is currently used here and on (divided)). We have four layers of templates now, the color and text templates, the cell templates, Isotones and the tables. --Quilbert (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * It looks really good Quilbert. Greg L (my talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging objectives