Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. 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

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements Talk archive 1

Element table development discussion from talk:Beryllium; early 2002

Ready for comments on the organization, look, size etc of the properties table I created. Are there any important properties that I missed? What about the order in which I list them; is this logical? How about the groupings -- is there a better way to do this? I am a biologist not a chemist, so I really can't say what the priorities should be. Would like to place the same table in all element pages. Also would like to get any ideas on the organization/layout & appearance of the headings. Does the order make sense? How about the titles? Remember, I plan on implementing this same format in each of the 113 or so element articles. --- User:maveric149

Comment Thread #1: I think the table is great, especially the colored bars at the top of each section. I like how the table is in the upper-right, and the text flows around it on the left. The symbols like the angstrom symbol worked perfectly. But, on my browser, the small fonts don't work well at all. Electronegativity has a 10⁶ where the 6 is completely illegible. In fact, I didn't at first realize there was a character after the 10. There are also a few places where a superscript of 2 or 3 on the units is illegible, and at first I couldn't even tell there was something there. I'd suggest using the "sup" and "sub" tags without any "font size=-X" tags at all. That will make some rows of the table taller, but at least everyone will be able to read all the text. --[anon]
STATUS: Mis-Feature Removed. Sadly the -2 fonts had to go - I shall miss them until modern browsers by default display super and sup-scripts very nicely. - Thanks for kind words and the input. --User:maveric149

Comment Thread #2: The table works well, but I like the simplicity of the tables found in amino acid more (with the borders just 2 pixels thick.) If this isn't hard to implement I would prefer this kind. --sodium (who's IP address now seems to change daily :)
STATUS: Change Implemented. Yep, it was easy. Thanks for the comment -- the table looks much better for such a minor change. --User:maveric149

Comment Thread #3: The article currently has a lot of mismatched sup/sub tags which ought to be fixed. You can get a list of them by clicking the "Validate this page" link at the bottom of the page. --Zundark, 2002 Feb 3
STATUS: Bug Fixed. Thanks for the heads up -- I would have hated to have to do that to all 109 elements pages after I copied this format those pages. --User:maveric149

Comment Thread #4: The State of matter link should point to the preexisting Phases of matter article. Bryan Derksen
STATUS: Link Created. Looks like somebody already provided a redirect. Even though I prefer the terminology of "Phases of matter" to the somewhat older "States of matter", Google has overriden me: <"States of matter" +physics> returned 13,200 results. And <"Phases of matter" + physics> returned only 2,230 results. However, since there is a redirect, I don't personally plan on moving the "phases" article to a more aptly named "states" article.--User:maveric149

Comments Thread #5: I personally don't like the floating table, though I have to admit it looks pretty. However, I do have to ask why the section headings are done with font tags rather than "=== Title ==="? --Carey Evans
Believe me I would prefer to use "=== Title ===", since it is much easier to do than font and bold tags. However, "=== Title ===" always seems to place a space after the heading -- which I found to be distracting because the table is just to the right (the table is in that position to save space and make to article visually appealing). Doing it the way it is now saves more space and makes the article easier to follow. Besides, the extra workload doesn't matter, since I will make a headings and table template out of this article as soon as feature requests/changes subside.--User:maveric149
Seems to me there's a fairly good chance someone will come along in a few months and boldly change them anyway to be more Wiki-like. --Carey Evans
Maybe so. But it would take a couple of hours to convert all 109 or so articles to the more "standard" format. More likely scenario, is that someone will change a couple -- then, I or somebody else will edit those articles to match the others. -- User:maveric149
The key to Wikipedia presentation should really always be simplicity, for the user *and* the writer. I think the use of === tags and other standard wiki-conventions is more elegant and follows the pattern set by other articles. Saving space is not *that* important an issue. Setting the formatting of an article too rigidly will make it hard for people to continue changing and improving the content. user:sodium
I agree that elegance of design for editors and end-users is very important. However, I don't see this particular issue as being a big deal; the font tags that were used are very simple: < font size="+2" >' ' 'Heading Title' ' '< /font >< br > (I learned how to use font tags by reading Wikipedia:How does one edit a page -- so I don't see how they could be considered to non-"standard wiki-conventions" -- whatever those may be). This is nearly the equivalent of using < b > for bold instead of ' ' ' -- it's more of a matter of style than conformity to any one way of doing things. Besides the tags render correctly in the most recent Konqueror, IE, Navigator, Mozilla, Opera and Galeon and I plan on being around for a very long time to clean-up any messes that may be created in the future. If you like we can continue this discussion tomorrow evening on my :Talk page. --User:maveric149
STATUS: Issue debated and considered closed; No Action Taken.

NOTE: A much later mailing list discussion convinced me to use wiki headings and remove the excess HTML. --mav

Comment #6: comment grouped under similar one under Comment Thread #5

Comment Thread #7: Per the edit comment, W/cmK is "watts per centimetre-kelvin". It should really be "W/mK", i.e. watts per metre-kelvin, the SI standard measure for thermal conductivity.--Carey Evans
STATUS of 7a: Feature Implemented Thanks Carey. I most definetely would like the entire table expressed in SI units. Found this link by checking Google. I'll go through the units on the table to make sure they are all SI compliant. Thanks again for pointing that out. --User:maveric149
I also agree that it would probably be better to standardize to SI rather than the current cgs units in the table. Trelvis
STATUS of 7b: Feature Implemented (Non-SI units removed: Conversion info will be added to the as-yet-to-be-created units articles) Yep, this is already on my radar. I'm still undecided about whether to simply convert the cgs units to SI and not display them at all, or maybe have them in parenthesis (like it already is in the boiling and melting point fields) or even create a separate column for the cgs values. Do working scientists and current students still use non-SI metric units anymore? I know I did a few years ago in general chemistry. Anyone have thoughts either way on this issue? Should we go totally SI and preserve the relative simplicity and elegance of the table at the risk of rendering it less usable for a significant minority of technically inclined end-users? Or should we have a dual SI/cgs unit table and have it "cluttered" with similar looking units and therefore confuse many (if not most) of the average (i.e. relatively non-technical) end-users and visitors to the page? --User:maveric149 Yep, I was right -- The table does look cluttered with the cgs values in parenthesis. Tried adding an extra column in just those feilds that had both SI and cgs units in it, but that didn't work (all it did was add an extra column to the entire table - which was ugly, and consumed a lot of space). I am tempted to remove the non-SI values and then provide conversion info on the as-yet-to-be-created linked articles on the various units (W/m*K for example). What does everyone think about this idea? --User:maveric149
What does everyone think of my deletion of the non-SI units? Was this a wise thing to do in order to save space and de-clutter the table? Could we just as easily add another column for the cgs units now? (dare I say) maveric149
The removal of the non-SI units works very well, I think the table is physically thinner now than it was before I pulled that 6-column trick [to fix to "Isotopic" part of the table]. I could add another column for other units easily enough, but then the table starts getting fat again and I'm not sure if that's a good idea. It already occupies about half the width of my browser already, and with conversion formulas easily available there doesn't seem to be a pressing need. Bryan Derksen
Agreed, the non-SI units will stay out. maveric149

Comment Thread #8:
a(?) I note that the table of general information now has nice colorful backgrounds on the section headers. How about making the color used on an element's table match that used as its color in the periodic table? Anyone who does a lot of browsing around in the elements will then be able to tell at glance that they're looking at an alkaline earth or a noble gas, for example. Of course, now that I look a the periodic table I see that it will need some more colors to make this useful, but the basic idea is still neat. It'd make Wikipedia seem like more of a unified source of information. Bryan Derksen
a(=) What a wonderful idea! That will definitely be done.
STATUS of 8a: Feature Implemented.
b(?) You are right though, the periodic table entry needs a lot of work to make this happen. I have no idea why the table looks the way it does -- the "alternate" periodic tables are far more visually appealing and (and in my opinion) useful. --User:maveric149
b(=) My guess would be that the table used on the main periodic table is intended to be as simple and as easily-displayed as possible, so that it will be useable by as wide a variety of browsers as possible. The various alternate tables are available for people with high resolution displays and such. Bryan Derksen
b(?) You are plobably right -- My display is set at 1024x768 and even the "small" periodic table takes up my entire browser window. However this version of the table does downscale when I decrease the size of my browser window, which should mitigate for much of the problem. I still think the main periodic table is rather odd though, and I find it most difficult to navigate -- so I am unsure about what to do with it. --User:maveric149
STATUS of 8b: Feature Implemented. (Standard table is now the main one)
c(?) Either way, the color scheme will be done to each of the tables -- just usure about which table to use as the primary (If this particular thread gets too long, I will move it to Talk:Periodic table). -- User:maveric149
c(=) Oh, and regarding the periodic table, there was no particular reason why I picked the colors I used for the various element groups other than that they looked reasonably good and were distinguishable; if you can think of a better color scheme I'd love to see it. Bryan Derksen
Mea culpa. Sorry, I didn't know you had changed it -- looks good. However, I am going to do some searching on Google to see if the different periodic families already have colors associated with their presentation in various periodic tables. And if so, I would like to see if there isn't already soom sort of informal convention on which families are depicted in particular colors. --User:maveric149
Even if there isn't a convention, I'm thinking that perhaps I tried getting too fancy in giving every different group a different color. It looks kind of cluttered, and it winds up with 37 pink transition elements and only 5 halogens, chalcogens, etc. Plus, some of the colors I wound up using aren't very pretty. I'll put a list of links to some other colorful periodic tables I've found into talk:Periodic table for reference and discussion there. Bryan Derksen
STATUS of 8c: Changes Implemented.

Comment #9: comment grouped under similar one under Comment Thread #5

Comment Thread #10: a(?) We may want to think about how we will make room for multiple forms of a metal (see plutonium for example - how will temperature ranges of stable forms be presented? - not a huge deal, but the current table won't be cut and paste for these types of complications. Trelvis
STATUS of 10a: Feature not needed for Beryllium, but is Planned where Appropriate. This won't be a problem; there will just be several fields in the table for the different changes of state for the various stable forms of a metal. --User:maveric149
b(?) For the isotope part of the table it would be good to include the dominant decay for unstable isotopes (alpha, beta, gamma)? Trelvis
STATUS of 10b: Feature Implemented Will do; need to play around with the formatting to make this work, but it shouldn't be a problem.
Overall this looks great and will be quite useful. Trelvis
Thanks for your ideas on improvement, I will implement them as I have time, and as appropriate for the particular elements in question.-- User:maveric149

Comment Thread #11: Is the table in this article redering incorrectly for anybody else? --User:maveric149
STATUS: Bug Fixed Just took a look a the HTML code for the table, and made a few changes:

removed nested table, it wasn't displaying properly in Mozilla and it doesn't look necessary anyway. Moved the align="right" attribute to the main table tag.
Changed header rows to <th> tags instead of <td>
changed colspan="3" into colspan="2", since the table only has 2 columns.
put quotation marks around all attribute values that I noticed without them.

Bryan Derksen
Wow, thanks again Bryan! --User:maveric149

Comment Thread #12: I hope the table never gets as wide as it did in revision 71 again, for any other elements - it didn't work very well in my browser, see [1]. It probably doesn't work very well in set-top boxes either. --Carey Evans Can't agree more on the width issue, see my comments up in 7b about my ideas to keep the width of the table in check. --User:maveric149

=

Last set of feature requests fulfilled; Open for final comment on minor to moderate glitches--Release Candidate phase has begun (Beryllium is the prototype for what is planned for ALL the elements) Ideas still welcome about other possible features -- However, if they are too time consuming, then they will have to wait for the next version of the table and layout.

RC Comment Thread #1: Looking at the Oxygen tables for inspiration
I just saw the "example" layout of the article today, and I think it is great! Much better than the attept I made on the Nupedia chalkboard (RIP) some time ago... --Magnus Manske
Thank you! As you can see in the comments above, this has most certainly has been a team effort. (Bryan Derksen has been especially helpful with the layout and HTML coding) maveric149
One other Wikipedian (not me!) has made a somewhat differently-formatted table for another element: oxygen. Perhaps those interested in these things should look at that article, compare with the table here, and decide if they like some features of that table better; before maveric goes and reproduces this table style 108 times over would be a good idea! I'm not sure which I like better, and probably we should consider some ideas from here and some from there. ---BRG
Hey, you found my oxygen chalkboard article! I don't remember putting it up here, but there it is (that is, the tables:) Anyway, I like the Beryllium design better; we might think about adding that isotope table, though. That could be an option, so it won't block the 180× conversion. --Magnus Manske
I don't know what the "180× conversion" is... I didn't notice the isotope table in the oxygen article before. Hum, it does have some information that the "Isotopic" part of the Beryllium properties table does not. (see both of the tables below) But then again, the opposite is also true. I personaly like the elegance of the Isotopic part of the Beryllium properties table. The other information in the oxygen Isotope table can be inferred (such as atomic weight; just add or substract the weight of the correct number of neutrons), and I was already planning on having separate Isotope articles for many of the elements. In those cases, then an expanded, modified and improved version of either table would be needed. I wouldn't mind at all about having separate Isotope articles with the expanded table for each of the elements. We could then only have to sumarize the "most notable isotopes" in the main article for each element. But I do not want to expand the existing Beryllium table by adding more columns. I also do not want to have a separate Isotope table in the article, since I have already spent several hours (probably more) trying to get a separate table to "work" in a pleasing and functional mannor. In addition, in shorter articles having two tables would be a bad idea; each table would interfere with the placement of the other because of the fact that the properties table is right justified and long (this was done so that the table could be arbitrarily long without blocking out the text of the article and to make it very easy to copy the table in a browser, and paste the text in a text editor, with each numerical value right below each type of property). maveric149
I like the current Beryllium isotope table layout better too, it took me several minutes to figure out what the oxygen table meant. I think the "key" cell should have been at the beginning rather than the end. :) Bryan Derksen
Updated alternate isotope table to current style. --Magnus Manske
The alternate table is an improvement on the original alternate, but I need to agree with Bryan and still maintain that the one in the Beryllium article is better. It is easier to follow than the alternate (each column has an obvious property type, and the fields in the alternate do not line up correctly). We still do need to think about what we want to do the the as-yet-to-be-created isotopes articles. Those entries will need a larger table than that in the Berylium article, yet be more easily followed than the alternate table. --maveric149
I don't insist on the alternate layout at all, and you are right, the one in use at Beryllium is more easy to read. However, the alternate table does contain more information, which might become difficult to include in the standard layout. Or should that go to the isotopes article instead? I am not a physicist, but I have a copy of the Karlsruher Nuklidkarte (Nucleid map), that shows (about) all isotopes of (most) elements and their stability, decay rates and -products. I doubt it would fit on a 1024x768 screen, though. Anyway, shouldn't we at least incorporate all isotopes from the alternate table into the standard one? --Magnus Manske
In its current form yes, the alternate table does contain more information. But remember, the current Beryllium table is only supposed to have the most important isotopic properties that couldn't otherwise be inferred from the data already given. This same table, however can easily contain much more information by adding additional columns -- which should only be done for the corresponding isotopes article for the element in question. We could list all the isotopes in the main elements article, but I think it would be best to only list the most important/stable ones. We could then easily have a 20 column and 50 row table in the corresponding isotopes article (to show 20 properties of 50 isotopes). But I don't really plan on implementing the isotopes articles until after the main articles are all converted to the new format. Of course, you are free to do so. And in that case, we can further discuss what that table should look like - which in my humble opinion, should work to same way as the abbreviated one in the elements articles - for consistency and to reduce confusion for end-users (who will switch back and forth between the the elements and isotopes articles). In addition, the alternate format takes up considerably more vertical space than the current one -- on my screen it takes up 2.3 times as much space to list the same number of isotopes (and I have already received complaints that the properties table is too long). In the current example, the listing of 3 isotopes in the alternate table would leave two empty cells on the second row. We will have to make a decision on the type of table to use for the isotopes articles after we decide just how much information we want to have on it. In the end, this is the most important factor (although it would be nice to have the two tables similar if possible - like I stated above). --maveric149
OK, let's stay with the current layout. For the nucleotide table I was talking about, see [2] and the following 11 pages. --Magnus Manske
Saw the link, now that table is cool! We should try to do something similar with the isotopes articles when we get around to them.
Oooh! I can't wait to get to work making an HTML table version of that beauty! Not today, though, I'm loaded with RL work. Perhaps tomorrow afternoon if nobody's beaten me to it. :) Bryan Derksen
Update: I made a first attempt at one of those tables over on Talk:Isotope. Comments welcome. Bryan Derksen
STATUS:
Solved. Current layout stays.

RC Comment Thread #2: Should the Periodic table link at the end be removed?
One minor thing: Is the link to Periodic Table at the end of the article really necessary? There's already a link in the first line, and that link at the end looks a little lost, especially on the printable version. --Magnus Manske
That came from an idea I saw in Talk:Periodic table and from several subsequent examples of that idea. The reason for it is to provide structure, consistancy, and an easy way to get back to the table if you have finished reading a moderate to long elements article. I use it all the time but I wouln't begin to suggest that I am at all a normal user. You are right that it is a bit redundant, and may not look the greatest, so I wouldn't change it back if someone felt that it needed to go so bably that they removed it themselves. However, if it stays in the article through the final testing phase, and gets copied into each of the elements articles, then I will replace it each time it is removed from an element article (to ensure consistency of layout). maveric149
So I removed it ;) --Magnus Manske
STATUS: Issue resolved, redundant link removed and will not be part of template

RC Comment Thread #3: I like the layout a lot! --Axel
Thank you! The idea of building a comprehensive table was mine, but it was Bryan Derksen who actually made it work (just look at some of my early attempts). --maveric
Maybe the only thing is that the "Isotopic" table is a bit cryptic, with lots of non-standard abbreviations. Also, maybe it should be called "Isotopes". --Axel
Standards, did you say standards? :-0 We are always happy to hear about standards. Please tell us about the standard abbreviations you speak of - the more standards compliant this table is, the more useful it will be. However, I think the table itself is as clear as it can be with rows for each isotope and columns for each property (BTW the name of each property shows up upon a mouse over of the abbreviation). I've seen it done this way in several other places and I simplified and adapted this table. The reason why "Isotopic" vs. "Isotopes" was chosen for the properties table was due to the fact that originally the word "Properties" was on each heading bar, thus: "General Properties", "Atomic Properties"... "Isotopic Properties". Later the redundent uses of the word "Properties" was removed and the rest of the headings were left intact. That part of the table still lists the isotopic properties, so "isotopic" is more appropriate (one wouldn't say "Isotopes Properties"). Besides, the heading of "Isotopes" is already taken in the text part of the article.--maveric
I don't think there are any standard abbreviations for these properties, but the rest of the table doesn't use many abbreviations either, only the isotopic part. I couldn't figure out what all the fields in the isotopic table stood for; by contrast, the example below in the Sandbox is completely self-explanatory. AxelBoldt

For me it's the opposite; I keep losing track of which number belongs to which property, and have to keep searching for it. The eyes don't flow well over the table IMO. Bryan Derksen

Fair enough Axel, I will work on concepts for a key and run it by Bryan to make sure they will work in HTML. We both thought that appreviations such as "DP" for "Decay Product" were self explanatory - especially since the word "decay product" comes into view when you place your mouse pointer over "DP", and I plan on creating a linked article explaining what a "decay product" is. My first thought would be to have a colspan=6 heading bar right below the isotopic part of the table with: D = decay, M = mode, E = energy, P = product (see sandbox below). At first, this did increase the width of the table, so I inserted a -1 font for the key. Wasn't able to also include NA = natural abundance with only the one row cell - but I could insert another row with this info, along with a statement that all table values are in SI units (which was my original idea for the sole use of a key cell). However, anybody at all familiar with what isotopes are, will see right away what that column is for. As for the other abbreviations; well it would be silly to start add them to the key since they are all linked to articles that both spell out what they stand for and tell what they are (such MeV, or the linked iso for example). See RC comment thread #1 for the discussion on the other table and the reasons why we decided not to use it (although an improved and modified one may turn up elsewhere - such as the mentioned isotopes articles).

I have a question about Beryllium: is it known why it is toxic? What does it do to the body? AxelBoldt
Interesting question. However, I haven't yet come across a good answer. Probably has something to do with its oxidation state of 2. Be is just begging to give away its electrons in chemical bonds because of this, and that leads to major oxidation. You might be surprised that it causes severe allergic reactions and an oftentimes overactive immune response that leads to lung damage. Haven't heard a good explanation for this either. (of course I could surmise that the oxidation causes an inflammatory response, which in turn ramps up the immune system). The cancer connection is not yet proven. --maveric149

RC Comment Thread #4:'
A minor question, over on http://www2.bnl.gov/CoN/nuchart1.html there is a bunch of additional isotope information for Beryllium (and everything else) but I don't know how to translate one of half-life units. ⁶Be has a half life of 92 KEV, which I'm guessing is kiloelectron volts, but how does that turn into a duration? Bryan Derksen
Very interesting question. I had a hunch it had something to do with relativity so I asked my spouse about it (he's taken some high level physics). He said that if he remembers correctly, it has do to the fact that it begins to become meaningless to speak of time periods below a certain duration, so physicists switch to speaking about the kinetic energy of the decay particles. He's not totally sure about this explanation and I couldn't find anything useful while googling, so you might want to ask one of the physicists that actively contributes to wikipedia what they think. (I hear User:Trelvis is a plasma physicist) --maveric149

When a half-life is quoted in units of Energy (eV) then it is a measure of the energy width when observing the particle. You can not know the energy and the decay rate of a particle precisely (similar to the measurement of location and momentum). So the energy width (Γ) can be related to the half life (τ) by Planck's constant (h). Γ=h/τ - actually particle physicists often use the mean lifetime instead of half life I can't remember which this formula would describe, but they are related by a simple constant in any case. If you rewrite for τ then τ(s)=4*10^-15/Γ(eV). They are inversely proportional so a big energy width means a very short half life. Use of this unit means the particle is very unstable and this unit reflects the way which the half life is measured. As an additional note, I doubt any isotopes that are this unstable would be of use in a wikipedia, if someone needs to know this specialized info they will know where to find it elsewhere - or could be given a reference to help them, but its inclusion will just clutter up all of the element entries in my opinion. I would just list the common isotopes, which are either abundant or useful in some application. Trelvis

RC Comment Thread #5: Are there any unsolved issues left, or can we start on the other elements? --Magnus Manske
No not really. I never heard a response back on my idea to assuage Axels concerns that the current isotope part of the table needed some type of key. Looking at the table again after a much needed break from working on this article, I can see that starting such a key is unneeded and potentially counter-productive (if one followed such a thing to a logical end, the key would become nearly as large as the entire current table). For numerous reasons already given above, Bryan and I both think that the current isotopes table is intuitive and logical. If somebody wants to know what DP is, then they can click to the linked article on it and find out that is stands for "decay product" (I will create these articles as soon as I am sure that it is OK to go ahead with creating the template). My only plan now is to include a note at the end of the table stating that SI units were used where possible. That's it -- After that, and baring any loud protests, I will then give the go-ahead. maveric149, Monday, April 8, 2002

RC Comment Thread #6: This just concerns the language - how about following ACS style? Meaning:

lower-case names of elements, compounds, minerals (unless it's the first word in a sentence)
don't use superfluous words like "grey in color" - "grey" is enough
use bulleted lists where there's a bunch of similar sentences one after the other (like under "Notable Characteristics" - forget how many synonyms you can think of for beryllium as the subject of the sentences and just make a list.
X-ray always, never x-ray and not X-Ray at the beginning of a sentence
"Other uses of beryllium occur in the making..." - do you actually talk like this? Lighten up! Chemistry should be written in English, not German, today! :-)
no hyphen in beryllium oxide (except when used as an adjective)

Other than that, it's lookin' good! -- Marj Tiefert, Friday, April 12, 2002

Thanks, I will keep all that in mind -- however the text was really secondary in importance to the general layout of the whole article and the look and functionality of the table. Most of the text came from a rewrite of LANL text along with some interesting tidbits thrown in. So I probably wont have time to stray too far from that while changing over all 109 elements. maveric149, Friday, April 12, 2002

Looks excellent to me -- go for it! The Anome, Saturday, April 13, 2002

Thank you! As you can see above, many people have provided great ideas and a few have worked directly on the article itself -- most notably Bryan, who's HTML table expertise was very valuable. maveric149

I think that the entire table needs to be redone, turning it on its side and making more of a modular framework in which all kinds of different data could be inserted, not just elements. It should be able to handle taxonomic information about species, astronomical data abuot planets, and also replace the current format of the CIA factbook information about countries.

Just kidding. I think the format is great. :) Bryan Derksen, Saturday, April 13, 2002

Ha, Ha very funny -- I just woke up and in that state of delirium you actually had me going for a second. :) Still don't have any idea how long it will take to change over all 109 elements articles, but I'm in no real hurry. Hopefully this can be done by the end of summer by the latest. This is assuming I do all the work myself -- however anybody else can jump in to help to expedite the process. All we then would have to do is work out who does what so we won't be working on the same element at the same time. I will do a few last modifications to the Berylium article to incorporate Marj's ideas; making the article a better example to follow. Cheers! maveric149

Glad you liked my contributions. :) I guess I should finish off the isotope tables now; I finished making the tables for the remaining elements, but but I haven't colored them yet. After I've finished that I'll chip in on a few element pages as well. Bryan Derksen

Sandbox

Isotopic
iso	NA	half-life	DM	DE M eV	DP
⁷Be	{syn.}	53.12 days	epsilon	0.862	⁷Li
⁹Be	100%	Be is stable with 4 neutrons
¹⁰Be	trace	1.51 × 10⁶ y	beta^-	0.556	¹⁰B
D = decay, M = mode, E = energy, P = product

Isotopes
MASS abund. Half-life Particle, Energy Decay Product(s) Isotopic Mass	012 0.40 msec p, 17.338 MeV N-11 12.034417	013 8.58 msec EC, 17.765 MeV N-13 13.024810
014 70.606 sec EC, 5.143 MeV N-14 14.008595	015 122.24 sec EC, 2.753 MeV N-15 15.003065	016 99.762% Stable 15.994915
017 0.038% Stable 16.999131	018 0.200% Stable 17.999160	019 26.91 sec B-, 4.821 MeV F-19 19.003579
020 13.51 sec B-, 3.814 MeV F-20 20.004076	021 3.42 sec B-, 8.109 MeV F-21 21.008654	022 2.25 sec B-, 6.490 MeV F-22 22.009962
023 82 msec B-/B-n, 11.290 F-23/F-22 23.015695	024 61 msec B-/B-n, 11.400 F-24/F-23 24.020397