en Template talk:Navbox element isotopes

Question (2007)

Would it be possible to add decay processes and products to the isotope pages? As it is, they only give decay energy and half-life Nik42 06:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There sure seems to be demand for someone to add it; I'm afraid it won't be me though. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Isotopes#Decay modes. Femto 15:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article

This is not an article, and so shold not be in article space. This way it might be up for ~~TfD~~ AfD. This last move revert [1] by Double Sharp misses the point (you broke???). The page move (ten days ago) did not cause the redlink problem. The old name carrying the redirect (correctly) was deleted today (cannot find the diff any more. User:Martijn Hoekstra deleted the redirect). -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what did I delete? Diffs or it didn't happen! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you did yesterday. Why did the links go red [2]? What "cleanup" did the bot do? What did you ask or help for the bot to do? How could User:Double sharp, who is not an admin, move to this page name if it did still exist? Why was there no problem for nine days, until you showed up? Why did you remove a speedy note [3], instead of denying it (db-r3!)? Whatever you did, you disrupted the whole. -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The logs for this page might explain. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am flat on the floor. He's the one complaining "Now I'm simply confused". -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you owuld like this moved, requested moves would probably be the better option over AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by Nergaal. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC) BDD (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index to isotope pages → Template:Index to isotope pages –Now that the dust has more or less settled, it might be smart to do the requested move. As DePiep asserts, this is no article. There are some index pages in main space, but this is very much used as a (nav) template, so template space may be the more suitable place for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 10:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As a template we can add it to each isotopes page, as a navigation footer. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, this definitely looks like a template. I'm not quite sure this is RM territory; it certainly looks like a case where someone could boldly kick it over to the other namespace. But I'll leave that to someone who knows anything about chemistry. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is apparently controversial: it has been moved back into article space at 2012-08-02T16:32:40. PinkShinyRose (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree, this should not be an article, but it can be used as a template. The broken links problem can be solved with a redirect. PinkShinyRose (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Default should be 'Collapsed'

I feel this navbox is far too dominant at the bottom of related articles, and that it would be better if it were initially collapsed by default, not expanded. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

To me a navbox like this is helpful in related (isotope) articles, so not too dominant. We could change it to 'autocollapse' though. -DePiep (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Font issue: small(i) and small(l) indistinguishable

On my screens the symbols for Titanium & Thallium are indistinguishable. The separation of the dot in the 'i' is insufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C100:F420:1154:14AF:BFBB:8A41 (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add element 0 (neutronium) to the table?

Should we add element 0 (neutronium) to the table? 210.243.206.107 (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]