User talk:MeasureWell

Nuclide templates
I saw you introducing ComplexNuclide-set templates. Is there any advantage for using them? -DePiep (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean…I'll be honest, I added it solely because I didn't like seeing the "sup" notation. There's not really any other good reason :) MeasureWell (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 &lt;subs>. Have a &lt;sup> new year, -DePiep (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, very funny :) Happy new year for you as well. Also, thanks for the tip. —MeasureWell (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Isotope value precision
About, for example,. 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 ✅), 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)


 * 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 guess we could 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.


 * ―MeasureWell (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of a response
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.

—MeasureWell (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right to disturb me :-), you deserve a reply. Will take a look later on. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)