MeasureWell, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
HiMeasureWell! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Blaze The Wolf (talk).
Hello, MeasureWell! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! DB1729 (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think these templates are too oldfashioned (and too cumbersome to use). They might need a template-technical cleanup (or replacement/deletion). Alas, I don't think I can fix that this year. Meanwhile, hope you can make peace with these <subs>. Have a <sup> new year, -DePiep (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About, for example, [2]. I remember we talked about writing the full value (not rounded) in the big isotopes table. Now that you are writing these value precisions in all places (consistently Y), could we reconsider? Like: "inline (sentences) and informative (like the isotope infoboxes) we can use simplified values" (eg, percents in this case). I know it is a late idea, but maybe it makes sense for our Readers. What do you think? -DePiep (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: I … don't really get what you're referring to (i.e. the half-lives or the isotope abundances?). If you mean the former, all the NUBASE2020 half-lives and decay intensities have uncertainties of at most 3 digits (but most of them have 2, as far I as can tell), so I personally think that we could keep those ones without too much issue. If you're talking about the isotope abundances, I guesswecould keep the intervals/uncertainties, but change the values to percentages, like what's already done here? My line of reasoning is that while we do indeed need to make it clear for readers (which, by the way, is why I've kept the abundances displayed in the infoboxes for monoisotopic elements as "100%" rather than "1"), we also shouldn't give the wrong impression that isotope abundances are fixed and absolute - if I remember correctly, the CIAAW adopted the interval notation in 2009 for precisely this reason.
@DePiep: Sorry to disturb you if you're busy IRL, but seeing as this matter has kind of sat idle for a week or so, how about I do this:
Isotope infoboxes: update isotopic abundances to most recent values by CIAAW (with uncertainties), but keep in percentage format (as is currently the case for most of those infoboxes). Update half-lives and decay mode intensities to NUBASE2020 with full uncertainties (where it makes sense).
I'll also try to do something about the NUBASE2020 notation for decay modes in the meantime.
HiMeasureWell! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Example texts of languages, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Y), could we reconsider? Like: "inline (sentences) and informative (like the isotope infoboxes) we can use simplified values" (eg, percents in this case). I know it is a late idea, but maybe it makes sense for our Readers. What do you think? -DePiep (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
