Template talk:Isotopes table

Bad reference
For example, Isotopes of actinium has this reference in its Big Table header:

The link looks broken or bad to me. Can "someone" (ping ) check & improve that reference? I can give a list of isotope pages that use it, just ask. -DePiep (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rough indication: some 95 out of 122 pages have this reference. -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the same issue with the link, and I've been slowly replacing it with NUBASE 2016 (half-life, spin, decay modes) and NUBASE 2016 II (mass) as I work through all 118 pages. Should I fix all of them at once, or continue at the rate I am working (completed 13 pages, but have been especially busy the past few days IRL)? ComplexRational (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to replace all: in a week I'll put in the header-template so we can automate this stuff. Just do as you like in individual articles, no edits will be lost. -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

How to handle these refs?
Asking. For example, Isotopes of technetium. It has this source list:


 * Isotope masses from:
 * NUBASE 2003
 * Isotopic compositions and standard atomic masses from:
 * CIAAW2003
 * CIAAW 2005
 * Half-life, spin, and isomer data selected from the following sources. See editing notes on this article's talk page.
 * NUBASE 2003
 * NNDC

Clearly, these are old & possibly outdated (for atomic masses they are, I know -- see CIAAW2016). So there is some updating/checking to do.

But apart from that, how should we handle these? I can embed them in the Big Table header. Example of good: Isotopes of hydrogen has NUBASE 2016 and NUBASE 2016 II with the mass ands decay column headers. Shall we strive to put all those refs in there? (They will have ref names, so can be reused in the article).

-DePiep (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * By now, the list of general refs that are used is:


 * NUBASE 2016
 * NUBASE 2016 II
 * NUBASE 2003 - Audi
 * CIAAW2003 - de Laeter
 * CIAAW 2005 - Wieser
 * NNDC


 * Absolutely (and I already updated isotopes of hydrogen) . In that case, the bulleted list can be phased out as the table header would have footnotes and named refs. ComplexRational (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

bad format
Todo: in the footnotes looks like when p is missing and n is present, format (whitespace) goes wrong. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible wrong grammar and/or punctuation.
"This header does not change existing rows: values, isotope-specific footnotes, structure, nor split decay routes {2019-06}." I don't know what exactly this is intended to mean, so I can't be sure anything is wrong here, but it looks to me like maybe it would be better as: "This header does not change existing rows, values, isotope-specific footnotes, structure. Nor does it split decay routes {2019-06}." or ""This header does not change existing rows, values, isotope-specific footnotes, structure, nor the split decay routes {2019-06}." Polar Apposite (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a "William" around?
"|symbol= William do various settings" seems like maybe it should be "|symbol= Will do various settings" or "|symbol= Willing do various settings". Unless there is an editor called William. Polar Apposite (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)