Talk:Isotope table (complete)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For instructions on using templates in the isotope table, see Template talk:Iso1.

[edit] File size and background colours

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 <div style=background-color: yellow;> needs to be changed to <div style="background-color: yellow;">, for example. Tried that with one and it looks like that fixed it. Bryan

Thanx Bryan. I have substituted all "<div style=background-color" with "<td bgcolor". It is now even smaller than before. Would you take another look using Mozilla? Jan Pedersen 08:19 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's no good, you're throwing away information. The whole point of the div tags is to give a cell of the table two colours, one of them the background colour (the <td background= colour) and one of them the foreground colour (the <div style= colour). This is because some isotopes have multiple different decay mechanisms, which have different half-lives. I'd suggest just putting the quotes in; scrimping a few bytes here and there is not worth making the table less useful, IMO. Bryan

Thanx again Bryan. Now I see what you mean, now I don't ;-). When using the "Cologne blue" skin as I usually do, the standard stylesheet is not used. I therefore never saw the effect indicating the isotopes with meta states. Do you think the missig stylesheet should be reported as a bug?Jan Pedersen 09:05 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Direction of axes

Conventionally, the axes are defined the other way round, so that isotopes of an element exist in a horizontal line. Would it be not to tricky to write a little script which reorders the table? Pstevenson 17:22, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks to element articles

I was trying to link to all the istoscopes from the chart not finshed someone else please help put [[ ]] around element abbreviations -David

[edit] Table markup

This is a very neat table. In Firefox, the bottom left gridlines are still visible, though. There is probably a way to make them invisible on all browsers. - Omegatron 19:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed this a while ago. — Omegatron 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

They're still visible in Firefox for me, too. I'm adding a more direct approach that works for me, defining the border for each of those cells to be of 0 width. Bryan 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates make editing easier and file size is halved

Originally the Nynorsk copy of this article was more than 90 kB, which caused a lot of trouble. The most noticeable was that software introduced errors during edit/save, e.g. the isotope ⁷⁵Ge (in code: <small><sup>75</sup></small>Ge) was changed to <small>Ge (in code: <small&gt;<sup&gt;75&lt;/sup></small>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 <small>'s and <sup>'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) / --Eddi (Talk) 12:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

(*) For comparison the Danish copy discussed above is 63 kB.

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)

The cell separators could have been in the templates but were left out to maintain a kind of uniformity in the table coding. Since it would only free about 2 kB out of 43 anyway, I think it's OK. Theoretically it allows for extra attributes such as font effects in individual table cells, which wouldn't work if the separators were in the templates, although I see no current need for such attributes. The same templates may also be used rather neatly in other contexts, e.g. the half-life colour chart on top of the article, like this:

 {| align=right cellpadding=2 cellspacing=0 border=1
 |+ '''[[Half-life|Half-lives]]''' (example: [[Gadolinium|Gd]])
 |-
 | {{Iso1|145|Gd|-}} || Unstable
 |-
 | {{Iso1|146|Gd|V}} || 1-10 [[day]]s
 |-
 | {{Iso1|149|Gd|I}} || 10-100 days
 |-
 | {{Iso1|153|Gd|B}} || 100 days - 10 [[year]]s
 |-
 | {{Iso1|148|Gd|G}} || 10-10,000 years
 |-
 | {{Iso1|150|Gd|Y}} || >10,000 years
 |-
 | {{Iso1|152|Gd|O}} || Natural [[radioactive]]
 |-
 | {{Iso1|158|Gd|R}} || Stable
 |}

Regarding escaped characters I don't really know what causes the errors, but I use Opera, too. I try to avoid errors by always previewing my edits and sorting out obvious flaws, then searching for any additonal &lt;'s, &gt;'s, &quot;'s, &amp;'s etc. (or just &'s or ;'s) that may have been introduced while pressing 'Preview', and in the end I just cross my fingers while pressing 'Save'... Not very scientific, that is. --Eddi (Talk) 12:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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 &amp;. 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)

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)

[edit] Introducing templates to en:Isotope table (complete)?

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)

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)

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)

I have now proofread the draft table with respect to colours, and all the coloured cells have correct backgrounds and borders. I have not checked to see if all white cells are included, or if all links to special isotopes are in place. To check this I would like to overwrite the existing table with the templated one, and then look at the history diff to spot any missing cells or links. Would that be all right? --Eddi (Talk) 12:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

I'll use the show changes button, which I think is safer than flipping tabs. --Eddi (Talk) 18:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

If/when the templates are introduced in the live table, there must be an instruction for the use of the templates. I can copy the essentials from :nn. Should the instruction be in Template talk:Iso1 / Template talk:Iso2 or a section of Talk:Isotope table (complete)? (By the way, I think there should also be a more detailed explanation of the various border colours. This could be placed together with the template instructions.) --Eddi (Talk) 12:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

I noticed that the draft table has "shadow" cell borders, that is, grey to the left/upside and white to the right/bottom. I think this may obscure the rightfully white borders of isotopes with multiple decay pathways. Could we keep the simple, grey cell borders of the current table? --Eddi (Talk) 12:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] Introducing templates to en:Isotope table (divided)?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Linking the talk pages of the complete and divided tables

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)

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)

I have now inserted red boxes on top of each talk page with links in both directions. I didn't designate any of them as parent or child, but that may be done with little extra effort. --Eddi (Talk) 20:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list candidate

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)

OK. --Eddi (Talk) 23:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues to be addressed before nomination

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)

[edit] References

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 [1]. (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)

I cannot understand why International Atomic Energy Agency gets credit for Interactive Table of Nuclides? Interactive Table of Nuclides (http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2) is developed and maintained by the National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory. International Atomic Energy Agency is only hosting it, providing the second installation in addition to NNDC.

[edit] "Stable" and "Natural radioactive"

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)

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)

[edit] Editors interested in helping the article to featuredness

• Eddi (Talk) 20:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Commit myself? I'm crazy, but I'm not that crazy. :p Femto 11:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

After modifying the section header, I take your comments as interested anyway. :-) --Eddi (Talk) 00:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colour intensity in table cells

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)

[edit] Synchronisation of complete and divided tables

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)

[edit] Alternatives for displaying colour legend

Can we somehow make the colour chart float over the article so that it's still visible when scrolling down and right through the isotope table? --Eddi (Talk) 12:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert about the Wiki software but I believe it doesn't support anything remotely like putting pages (or parts thereof) into frames. Such a navigation bar would have been nice though. Femto 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

One could wish, yes. If I'm really in the mood one day I might just post a bug. Or persuade somebody else... :) --Eddi (Talk) 22:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That is a CSS issue, not need to mess with wiki software or frames. Just add 'position:fixed' to the style. Works in any decent browser. See demo--Joris Gillis 15:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the technical matter. However, the floating box obscures Wikipedia's own navbar, edit fields, or footer for example. It still seems rather kludgy, and Wiki's pages should be technically as simple as possible unless there's no impact on the accessibility for the majority of readers. If it would be possible to keep the box within the context of the Wikipage and have its own scrollbars, then perhaps. Though re:"works in any decent browser", the first Google hit I get for "position:fixed" is a hackaround on how to get it working in Internet Explorer without too much fuss. (I'll let everybody decipher their own meaning from that... :) Femto 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to provide a tooltip for each cell.--Joris Gillis 10:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the the isotope templates and isotope tables. However, I have been unable to open the isotope tables after you changed the templates. Introducing complex recursive templates used thousands of times in an article may be extremely hard on the servers. Could you please go back and revert your changes? If you want to experiment, you may consider using template copies, not live templates, and keeping the experiments out of the main article space. For example, I believe User:Femto/templatedisotopetabledraft and User:Femto/templatedisotopetabledraft2 have served their purpose and are free game. And talk pages such as this one and Template talk:Iso1 are always useful for discussing major changes. Thank you. --Eddi (Talk) 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the slow response had indeed to do with the changes I made in the templates. I tried to introduce logic, but the server couldn't handle it. What shall I do?--Joris Gillis 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I just found a solution. Version 1.6 of the MediaWiki-software introduced defaulting for parameters. The overhead is now virtually none: no need for nesting/logic--Joris Gillis 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! With the title property we don't have to consult the colour chart all the time. I'll update the template instructions as necessary. --Eddi (Talk) 15:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like it:-) But how about the double case? (Iso2) what should the title say? --Joris Gillis 16:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect to popup-titles, the two-coloured cells are a challenge, yes. There are 8x7=56 different text combinations if the frame and the centre can have any colours, or 7+6+5+4+3+2+1=28 combinations if the centre colour is always more "stable" than the frame colour (*). If we must use 28 or 56 new text files I think we should forget about it, but if it can be done with some template magic the titles could for example be as in the table below. --Eddi (Talk) 22:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

(*) There are a lot of isomers that are more stable than the ground state, you'll probably need most of those combinations. Femto 12:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cell	Code	Title	Code of title part of cell
93Nb	{{iso2|93|Nb|R|G}}	Half-life – Isotope: Stable; Nuclear isomer: 10-10,000 years	Half-life – Isotope: {{iso/R/text}}; Nuclear isomer: {{iso/G/text}}
91Nb	{{iso2|91|Nb|Y|I}}	Half-life – Isotope: >10,000 years; Nuclear isomer: 10-100 days	Half-life – Isotope: {{iso/Y/text}}; Nuclear isomer: {{iso/I/text}}
89Zr	{{iso2|89|Zr|V|-}}	Half-life – Isotope: 1-10 days; Nuclear isomer: Unstable	Half-life – Isotope: {{iso/V/text}}; Nuclear isomer: {{iso/-/text}}

I have made an {{iso-test}} template, currently with the same syntax as for {{iso2}}, and put it to the test in the table above. It allows any values of parameters 3 and 4 within R/O/Y/G/B/I/V/-/blank. With this template introducing isomers in the popup titles, there is even more reason than with the current iso2 template to stress that it should only be used if two colours are actually needed, although it is able to present one colour correctly and could in theory be used for all cells. --Eddi (Talk) 15:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The two-fold titles are now implemented in the {{iso2}} template. The titles had to be moved from the overall cell code to the inner div code to make them visible on the text, so the "title area" (the area where the mouse cursor triggers a title) is smaller than with {{iso1}}. A worse problem, however, is that the title is not visible on the "<sup>" mass number with either template – and the title area is almost non-existent in cells with wikilinks. Any suggestions? It could be improved if the wikilinks were on the numbers (alternative 2) instead of the text (alternative 1): --Eddi (Talk) 10:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 1	2D	4Li	5He	12C	13N	131I	235U
Alternative 2	2D	4Li	5He	12C	13N	131I	235U

Alternative 2 above is now used in the isotope table (complete) for the isotopes of H, He, Li, C, N, I and U that link to separate isotope articles. Compare with alternative 1, which is still used in the isotope table (divided). --Eddi (Talk) 22:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tantalum 180 nuclear isomer stability

The two-coloured cell for Ta 180 indicates that there is a nuclear isomer that is unstable (the white border). However, elsewhere on Wikipedia (under "nuclear isomer") we are told that Ta 180 has the only stable nuclear isomer.

One of these must be wrong - I suspect the first, since elsewhere there is reference to Ta 180 isomer stability - see http://iac.isu.edu/workshops/isometric.html.

I'm not sure if I can edit this, perhaps someone can have a go?

Edit - had a go now - looks ok

[edit] Should blanks under elements 16-25 be fixed?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] decay modes, products, half-lives, etc.

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)

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)

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)

: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)

Wikisource uses the same software (Mediawiki), and its largest page right now is just shy of two megabytes in size: [2]. 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)

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)

And compulsive tidier that I am, I've gone and ruined my example by splitting it into four subpages. Ah well. [3] still has the two megabyte version in its history. :) Bryan 01:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what about the free neutron (element 0)?

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)

Yeah, I agree. It would make sense to me given the free neutron article. Peter 04:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helium-2?

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)

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)

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)

[edit] "Natural radioactive"; neutrons

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)