Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

		The Categorisation Barnstar
		Thank you for your thoughtful nominations and input at CFD. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Words and phrases category has been nominated for merging with Template:Words and phrases. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 16#Films by year of setting as close/merge. Please kindly undo your close and relist the discussion. I don't think a clear consensus emerged with 2 !votes only. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 12:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While it is my own nomination, I think a relisting of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_22#Births_by_year_600_BC_-_500 would be appropriate because of User:Fayenatic london's argument. At the same time I think (for FL to confirm) that there is clear consensus to merge the 6th-century BC categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear hear. And yes I do not oppose merger of 6th century BC. – Fayenatic London 22:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand; do you want me to relist or not? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please relist for the sake of the ten centuries 490 BC births to 499 births, but you could acknowledge that there is consensus so far to merge 6th century BC. – Fayenatic London 10:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I send a list of minor corrections to the List of isotopes articles? I recently send some but I am not sure I used the proper channel. There are 14 of them . Would an e-mail be better ?

Thank you. Michel Béliveau (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you edit the affected articles directly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning LaundryPizza03

I will preform the edits. Here is the list of these edits so you can have a trail. Thank you. Please note that - for testing purpose - I performed the first one before sending this reply .

D11 Article = Isotopes_of_rhodium

Isotope : ¹¹⁷Rh Decay mode : β⁻ n Result specified : ¹¹⁵Pd Should be : ¹¹⁶Pd

D12 Article = Isotopes_of_palladium

Isotope : ⁹³Pd Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ⁹¹Ru Should be : ⁹²Ru

D13 Article = Isotopes_of_palladium

Isotope : ⁹⁵Pd Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ⁹⁵Rh Should be : ⁹⁴Ru

D14 Article = Isotopes_of_cadmium

Isotope : ⁹⁸Cd Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ⁹⁷Ag Should be : ⁹⁷Pd

D15 Article = Isotopes_of_antimony

Isotope : ¹⁴²Sb Decay mode : β⁻ 2n Result specified : ¹³⁰Te Should be : ¹⁴⁰Te

D16 Article = Isotopes_of_iodine

Isotope : ¹¹¹I Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ¹¹¹Te Should be : ¹¹⁰Sb

D17 Article = Isotopes_of_iodine

Isotope : ¹⁴³I Decay mode : β⁻ n Result specified : ¹⁴¹Xe Should be : ¹⁴²Xe

D18 Article = Isotopes_of_iodine

Isotope : ¹⁴³I Decay mode : β⁻ 2n Result specified : ¹⁴⁰Xe Should be : ¹⁴¹Xe

D19 Article = Isotopes_of_cerium

Isotope : ¹²¹Ce Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ¹²¹La Should be : ¹²⁰Ba

D20 Article = Isotopes_of_dysprosium

Isotope : ¹⁴⁷Dy Decay mode : β⁺ p Result specified : ¹⁴⁶Tb Should be : ¹⁴⁶Gd

D21 Article = Isotopes_of_holmium

Isotope : ¹⁷⁷Ho Decay mode : β⁻ Result specified : ¹⁷⁵Er Should be : ¹⁷⁷Er

D22 Article = Isotopes_of_thulium

Isotope : ¹⁵⁶Tm Decay mode : α Result specified : ¹⁵²Er Should be : ¹⁵²Ho

D23 Article = Isotopes_of_thulium

Isotope : ¹⁵⁷Tm Decay mode : α Result specified : ¹⁵³Er Should be : ¹⁵³Ho

D24 Article = Isotopes_of_gold

Isotope : ²⁰⁹Au Decay mode : β⁻ n Result specified : ²¹⁰Hg Should be : ²⁰⁸Hg

Michel Béliveau (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good day.

I applied the changes but got a message for the last 2 :

D23 Article = Isotopes_of_thulium

Isotope : ¹⁵⁷Tm Decay mode : α Result specified : ¹⁵³Er Should be : ¹⁵³Ho

message = This template is missing TemplateData, and its parameters have been autogenerated. As a result the template and its parameters lack descriptions. There might be additional information on the template's page.

D24 Article = Isotopes_of_gold

Isotope : ²⁰⁹Au Decay mode : β⁻ n Result specified : ²¹⁰Hg Should be : ²⁰⁸Hg

message = Required field missing. Are you sure you want to continue without filling the "Reference name 1" field?"

Can you fix that ?

Thank you. Michel Béliveau (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with the visual editor, so I cannot offer guidance. However, I fixed the issues listed here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

Here are 4 edits (almost final edits) that I intend to apply today. They all are minor edits and are in accordance with "The NUBASE2020 evaluation of nuclear physics properties" in Chinese Physics C Vol. 45, No. 3 (2021) 030001.

3 are for half-life units ( ¹³⁰Sm, ²³⁰Rn and ^127m4Sn )

1 about the use of "?" in decay mode and daughter For isotope ⁶⁰Sc : remove the question mark from the daughter isotope (⁶⁰Ti) and apply it to the decay mode. It is only for coherence : it is the only case where de Decay mode does not contain "?" but the daughter isotope contains it. It is the Decay that is uncertain, not the result.

I will eventually post another comment about the use of the "?" in Decay nodes and Daughter isotopes. Michel Béliveau (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 20 § Category:Fiction set in the 7th millennium or beyond on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]