User talk:LaundryPizza03

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.

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]

Here is an area where I could perform Edits (minor edits) . The reason I submit this is that they refer to Nuclide IT decays.

My comprehension of an IT decay is that the "Daughter" must be the same isotope having a lower excitation energy or being in the ground state. Therefore, if the "Nuclide" has only 1 isomer (_m) or is the first (_m1), then the "Daughter" is the ground state of the isotope

There are 13 cases where the "Daughter" should be the ground state of the isotope

Example : Nuclide = Mn62m (Z=25) Daughter specified = Mn61 Expected result = Mn62

Is it OK with you if I apply these Edits ? Michel Béliveau (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michel Béliveau Sure, go ahead. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning...

Here a 2 issues :

1. 1 I cannot perform the following EDIT : for nuclide Hs267 (Z=108 N=159) : indicate "ms" as half-life duration
2. 2 Remove the uncertainty for decay result : in my understanding of the "?" , it is the decay mode that is uncertain, not the result.

For instance : check Neon isotope Ne34 (Z=10). If Ne34 undergoes a "Beta minus n" decay, the result will definitely be Na33 - there is no need for the "?" after Na33

If you agree to my interpretation, I could make the EDITS ( if I can... ) to remove the "?" from the "Daughter isotope". Here are some numbers : there are 703 decays having a mode flagged with a "?". 56 of them also have a "Daughter isotope" flagged with a "?" - these are the subject of my request. 56 looks as a big number, but they concern only 12 elements ( Fluor(10), Neon(7), Sodium(9)and Magnesium(9) contain 35 of them...) so it is not a big job to do after all.

Is it OK with you for me to apply these changes ?

Thank you for your support. Michel Béliveau (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some concerns about Wikipedia's Lists of Isotopes data that I believe need your attention. Sorry for the length...

#1 Do you think the isotopic masses of He2 and Li3 are valid ? In both cases, their isotopic mass exceeds the sum of the masses of their protons-neutrons-electrons. Can you confirm my conclusion ?

#2 Correction required for Nuclide Ac215 Decay Mode = β⁺

Specified result = Ra214 Expected result = Ra215

#3 Daughter isotopes not defined in Wikipedia. I have a list of 14 cases.

Example : Na39 (Z=11) Mode = β⁻ Daughter isotope = Mg39 : undefined in Wikipedia

#4 Decay Mode = CD ( Cluster Decay ) : I suggest you return to the previous format for CD decay mode because the new format does not increase clarity, readability etc.

In previous versions, you had the following format for CD decays for nuclide Ba114:

Nuclide Decay Mode Daughter isotope

Ba114 CD (<.0034%) Sn102 , C12

This is the only nuclide remaining with this format for its CD decay mode.

In addition, here are some notes found in the CD decay modes for the following nuclides :

Fr221 The nuclide with the lowest atomic number known to undergo cluster decay

Ra221 Lightest known nuclide to undergo cluster decay

Don't these contradict Ba114 (Z=56) ?

Finally, the CD decays for these nuclides are far from adding to the quality of the data :

Thorium-232 Z=90

Uranium-234 Z-92

Uranium-235 Z-92

Uranium-236 Z-92

Plutonium-238 Z=94

There are also some other special situations from Wikipedia Lists of Isotopes and will be the subject of another reply. This reply is already quite long ...

Thank you Michel Béliveau (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that you really should be doing some of this yourself and not bothering busier editors with it. I will answer you for him:

1. This is correct. Those nuclei are not bound, as is any composed only of protons, and so have more mass than the protons together (the electrons can be ignored).

2. These edits should be made yourself upon finding them. These errors are just like typos if you understand how nuclear decays work, and if it's the decay mode that seems doubtful, you can check yourself in Nubase or another independent source, or the source provided if any.

3. Also correct, this means that Mg-39 has not been observed. In this case, it should immediately emit a neutron and therefore be difficult to observe. As all observed nuclides in Nubase should have been added, you'd likely need to find a source more recent than that to justify adding Mg-39 or another in the same situation. This should, and hopefully does, occur only for nuclei near the limits of stability.

4. I have recently updated our CD data and it now matches the best we can do with what's been observed. If you have a problem with the 'quality of the data', it's not something we can address here.

As the carbon decay of Ba-114 hasn't been observed (only having an upper limit - you can see my statement below on "Isotopes of radon" to see the importance I give to that), the statements about Fr-221 and Ra-221 are true at this point.

Finally, I don't know what you mean about format. Why don't you edit the barium list yourself to your preferred format? 73.228.195.198 (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Blue zone, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it had been live for about 18 hours by then. I've blanked my sandbox now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have been mistaken when you reverted me on Isotopes of radon. Yes, I caused the formatting issues, sorry, but that's not the issue. I have no strong opinion here about whether unobserved decays should be listed (I've usually followed Nubase), but if they are not to be the two branching ratios you restored certainly should not be either. They can't be called observed with their given range: for these two Nubase gives 93(7) and 92(8) percent alpha, i.e. 100% as the upper limit and therefore 0% as the lower limit for the beta branch. If zero is not ruled out the decay is not experimentally confirmed (the details of the experiment don't really matter, although I looked) - it is just another unobserved decay. If the uncertainty range does not include 100%, we may infer the other branch exists even if not directly observed, because evidence supports it. I have consistently observed this distinction in my own edits - in the former case, the branching ratio is not given and the other decay listed (if at all) as unobserved; in the latter, the branching ratio is given. As I don't object to your decision not to list the unobserved branch in this part of nuclide space (where both decays must exist), I have therefore removed the branching ratios for the two isotopes for which you restored them, to be consistent. This is no more overruling Nubase than not listing their unobserved decays is in the first place; it is only choosing how to present their information.

And this is nothing more than an application of the convention normal in science that a discovery requires confirmation sufficient to exclude the null hypothesis (falsity or non-occurrence), and radioactivity has not been an exception to this rule.

As for the order on manganese-54, I had changed it mainly for the simple reason that I had misread it more than once, assuming that B+ and EC would be kept together as they are the same decay mode - as everyone, including Wikipedia, normally uses for listing. It would not occur to me that strictly listing by probability should overrule everything else, and as there aren't many times all three decays are allowed the order seems bound to be surprising. If there were consensus on this case, I wouldn't fight it, but its rarity leads me to assume there probably isn't. 73.228.195.198 (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - a few days ago you closed the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 10#Category:July 2023 crimes in Oceania but for some reason I notice it's the only one that hasn't been processed yet, out of the nominations on the July 10 log page. I also can't see it listed on the WP:CFDW page. Do you know what happened to it by any chance? Thanks. – numbermaniac 08:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Solapur Earthquake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Solapur Earthquake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]