![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It seems odd that the atomic mass is 268, but the only mentioned isotope is 276 ... in general, 268 seems light. Perhaps there is an error in the infobox? Stifynsemons 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the pronunciation /maɪtˈnɜriəm/ (rhymes with "might furry 'em") really correct? What's the source? Grover cleveland ( talk) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this. Surely being element 109 makes it have that position in the periodic table in group 9? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 04:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Meitnerium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nuclidetable":
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |unused_data=
ignored (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jasper Deng ( talk · contribs) 18:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
A few minor issues here and there:
I think that's probably good to go.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The removal of the section Nucleosynthesis, describing the processes by which the element can be produced, by Double Sharp on Sep 2nd. is bizarre. Is there any justification for this? Perhaps the title confused somebody and it would be clearer if it simply said 'synthesis'. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 10:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
If you think being 'truly great' is the issue, then you don't understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to be informative. And don't forget the editors' maxim: 'first of all, do no harm'. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 11:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll make a single comment (I'm leaving the city early in the morning).
"Do no harm" is a debatable one (what is "harm"?). We delete articles for lack of notability. A similar case here. Srsly, this stuff isn't importnat for almost every reader (try yourself: aside from a few dates and mass numbers, what can you actually remember after one read? after two? can that be summarized into a single para like "Since the original discovery, XXXX of meitenerium has been made, via nuclear collisions and from decay of heavier atoms." and a For more details, see Your Article line?
The is such thing named "excessive details." This is the case. I mean, take any FA of your choice. It could be easily made twice as long. There is an optimal size, though, with some items in and some details out. If there's too much details, even if the article is informative, it ain't that great anymore. It can be a great article, it will even have more details, which, with a good hierarchy, will be easy to find, but it won't be a Wikipedia featured article (FA criterion 4).
For an encyclopedia, "informative" is one of the subcharacteristics of "truly great". Normally when the structure and prose are decent, an article is informative. But another thing is, many people also love to read these articles as sorta narratives. For a text, this section is redundant.
Also, for being stored just in case, it is too raw. Much data must be missing, and the list of syntheses grows every year. There's no reason to keep up. It soon will (or maybe already has) reach 50 events. Should we keep them here? And those we have, they're no special, they're just some that are here.
With little understanding of SHE, paras like this are scary:
With alpha decay spectrum for 268Mt appears to be complicated from the results of several experiments. Alpha lines of 10.28,10.22 and 10.10 MeV have been observed. Half-lives of 42 ms, 21 ms and 102 ms have been determined. The long-lived decay is associated with alpha particles of energy 10.10 MeV and must be assigned to an isomeric level. The discrepancy between the other two half-lives has yet to be resolved. An assignment to specific levels is not possible with the data available and further research is required.
The rest of paras aren't much better. And this stuff isn't just poorly written, it is hardcore in its essence. Which is why it should go to a subarticle.
If you move that elsewhere, where it could do no harm, okay then, do it. Subarticles are a good thing. (Just cut and paste elsewhere if you wanna keep it.) Add a subheader like For more details on further syntheses of this element, see YourArticle. But if you keep it here, this article will lose in quality. It will be more difficult to read (it's not that difficult, but that section's redundant here). This, for example, lowers the FA promotion chances. However, I don't mind having notable further syntheses here (like, if we ever reach the island of stability with this element, it should be here). Also, see fluorine and its subarticles (check for Main article: subheaders to see what I mean)
Why exactly this text is not so great, Double sharp has explained perfectly.
Tl;dr It is excessive here. And of outstandingly poor quality (hard to read, much info missing)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 21:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. 2:1 is no clear sign of the opponent not being right. I'd go ask for opinions elsewhere no matter what side I were on. 4:1 maybe. (forgoing by user R8R Gtrs)
...and Done (Rf, Bh, Mt, Ds, Rg, Cn, 113). Hs and Fl were already done beforehand.
Double sharp (
talk)
13:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you, it's just that simply removing the section, as was done initially, is a disaster, but the change that ## has just carried out (including the cross-reference) makes it less of a disaster. There still seems to be little support for ##'s position. And of course if it is 'of outstandingly poor quality', that is cause for improving the text, not its removal. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 19:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's trivia, but may be worth noting that it's only the second element (after Curium) to be named after a non-fictional woman. (Only two other elements are named after female figures: Niobium and Vanadium, and they're both mythological.) Lurlock ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Meitnerium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/anrep01/B-06heavies.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Professor Erik van Lenthe was so nice as to report a mistake (I'm quoting him with his permission):
I found my work cited in /info/en/?search=Meitnerium "For example, the Mt–O bond distance is expected to be around 1.9 Å.^[33] < /info/en/?search=Meitnerium#cite_note-MtO-33> " However, in the paper doi:10.1002/jcc.10255 bond distances were not optimized, thus no theoretical prediction were made for bond distances in this paper. Thus the sentence is incorrect, and should be removed.
I may just remove the sentence in a few days but maybe we can just fix it according to the original intention. -- Nemo 10:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 10:47, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:05, 7 June 2005). 7 June 2005
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It seems odd that the atomic mass is 268, but the only mentioned isotope is 276 ... in general, 268 seems light. Perhaps there is an error in the infobox? Stifynsemons 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the pronunciation /maɪtˈnɜriəm/ (rhymes with "might furry 'em") really correct? What's the source? Grover cleveland ( talk) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this. Surely being element 109 makes it have that position in the periodic table in group 9? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 04:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Meitnerium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "nuclidetable":
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |unused_data=
ignored (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jasper Deng ( talk · contribs) 18:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
A few minor issues here and there:
I think that's probably good to go.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The removal of the section Nucleosynthesis, describing the processes by which the element can be produced, by Double Sharp on Sep 2nd. is bizarre. Is there any justification for this? Perhaps the title confused somebody and it would be clearer if it simply said 'synthesis'. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 10:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
If you think being 'truly great' is the issue, then you don't understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is to be informative. And don't forget the editors' maxim: 'first of all, do no harm'. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 11:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll make a single comment (I'm leaving the city early in the morning).
"Do no harm" is a debatable one (what is "harm"?). We delete articles for lack of notability. A similar case here. Srsly, this stuff isn't importnat for almost every reader (try yourself: aside from a few dates and mass numbers, what can you actually remember after one read? after two? can that be summarized into a single para like "Since the original discovery, XXXX of meitenerium has been made, via nuclear collisions and from decay of heavier atoms." and a For more details, see Your Article line?
The is such thing named "excessive details." This is the case. I mean, take any FA of your choice. It could be easily made twice as long. There is an optimal size, though, with some items in and some details out. If there's too much details, even if the article is informative, it ain't that great anymore. It can be a great article, it will even have more details, which, with a good hierarchy, will be easy to find, but it won't be a Wikipedia featured article (FA criterion 4).
For an encyclopedia, "informative" is one of the subcharacteristics of "truly great". Normally when the structure and prose are decent, an article is informative. But another thing is, many people also love to read these articles as sorta narratives. For a text, this section is redundant.
Also, for being stored just in case, it is too raw. Much data must be missing, and the list of syntheses grows every year. There's no reason to keep up. It soon will (or maybe already has) reach 50 events. Should we keep them here? And those we have, they're no special, they're just some that are here.
With little understanding of SHE, paras like this are scary:
With alpha decay spectrum for 268Mt appears to be complicated from the results of several experiments. Alpha lines of 10.28,10.22 and 10.10 MeV have been observed. Half-lives of 42 ms, 21 ms and 102 ms have been determined. The long-lived decay is associated with alpha particles of energy 10.10 MeV and must be assigned to an isomeric level. The discrepancy between the other two half-lives has yet to be resolved. An assignment to specific levels is not possible with the data available and further research is required.
The rest of paras aren't much better. And this stuff isn't just poorly written, it is hardcore in its essence. Which is why it should go to a subarticle.
If you move that elsewhere, where it could do no harm, okay then, do it. Subarticles are a good thing. (Just cut and paste elsewhere if you wanna keep it.) Add a subheader like For more details on further syntheses of this element, see YourArticle. But if you keep it here, this article will lose in quality. It will be more difficult to read (it's not that difficult, but that section's redundant here). This, for example, lowers the FA promotion chances. However, I don't mind having notable further syntheses here (like, if we ever reach the island of stability with this element, it should be here). Also, see fluorine and its subarticles (check for Main article: subheaders to see what I mean)
Why exactly this text is not so great, Double sharp has explained perfectly.
Tl;dr It is excessive here. And of outstandingly poor quality (hard to read, much info missing)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 21:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. 2:1 is no clear sign of the opponent not being right. I'd go ask for opinions elsewhere no matter what side I were on. 4:1 maybe. (forgoing by user R8R Gtrs)
...and Done (Rf, Bh, Mt, Ds, Rg, Cn, 113). Hs and Fl were already done beforehand.
Double sharp (
talk)
13:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you, it's just that simply removing the section, as was done initially, is a disaster, but the change that ## has just carried out (including the cross-reference) makes it less of a disaster. There still seems to be little support for ##'s position. And of course if it is 'of outstandingly poor quality', that is cause for improving the text, not its removal. -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 19:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's trivia, but may be worth noting that it's only the second element (after Curium) to be named after a non-fictional woman. (Only two other elements are named after female figures: Niobium and Vanadium, and they're both mythological.) Lurlock ( talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Meitnerium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lch.web.psi.ch/files/anrep01/B-06heavies.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Professor Erik van Lenthe was so nice as to report a mistake (I'm quoting him with his permission):
I found my work cited in /info/en/?search=Meitnerium "For example, the Mt–O bond distance is expected to be around 1.9 Å.^[33] < /info/en/?search=Meitnerium#cite_note-MtO-33> " However, in the paper doi:10.1002/jcc.10255 bond distances were not optimized, thus no theoretical prediction were made for bond distances in this paper. Thus the sentence is incorrect, and should be removed.
I may just remove the sentence in a few days but maybe we can just fix it according to the original intention. -- Nemo 10:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 10:47, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:05, 7 June 2005). 7 June 2005