Template talk:Infobox lead

Can we have Vickers Hardness

Could someone add Vickers hardness (as with eg Copper and Gold) ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

CIAAW

@DePiep: come one, are you serious. You wouldn't think "CommissiononIsotopicAbundancesandAtomicWeights.com" could ever be the address they used? We even in informal speech---and many scientists in their papers---refer to elements by their symbols. Referring by an acronym is the same thing.

We wouldn't go for "International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)" in a reference, either.--R8R (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Is what I say: they are also known by their acronym, so why not mention it? Journal titles are shortened too. -DePiep (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Pb-202 not relevant enough for the infobox

I removed lead-202 from this infobox, but it was reverted.

Once again: an infobox is a summary of the article, not a replication. The mere fact that Pb-202 is mentioned in the body does not make it required in this the infobox. And that 'mentioned' is just a sentence to mark it as a curiosity.

It was added some weeks ago when the infobox subheader said "Most stable isotopes", and so this one had to be in there within a list of true important isotopes (omission then would cause a gap in halflifes). But, the subheader title now is "Main isotopes". That is: we can freely leave out non-main isotopes. As is Pb-202, its just a curiosity, it does not play a role in the isotopes ov erview at all. So it should be removed from this infobox. Note: this does not imply any change in article section Isotopes of course. -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Except that it is mentioned in the article section "Isotopes": "In total, 43 lead isotopes have been synthesized, with mass numbers 178–220.[31] Lead-205 is the most stable, with a half-life of around 1.5×107 years.[i] The second-most stable is the synthetic lead-202, which has a half-life of about 53,000 years, longer than any of the natural trace radioisotopes.[31]" Given that it's important enough for the main text, it's probably important enough for a summary, at least IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Being in the main text is not enough for being in the lede/infobox. I'm still wondering, what would be your criteria for not including a fact in the infobox? I'm missing the guadsmanship to keep chaff out of the main box. -DePiep (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If you can't follow it up in the main text and say something deeper about it than "such-and-such property has such-and-such a value", then I would leave it out. For instance, the speed of sound in Xe is not really a useful number to give; if people are looking for it, they can go to the data pages. But if you can explain it in a way that adds to the story of the element being told by the article, then it can stay in my opinion. (I wonder if Pb-202 has this stability because the decay would break the closed proton shell; I shall have to check that.) Double sharp (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Make that "the main story" and we're close. As with the lede (text), sidenotes are distracting. Like sports statistics in a match: not the point at all! For lead, the four stable isotopes and the decay chains are the story, and maybe the irregular abundances. That's main. The Reader does not need details in top. The top should be catchy. And btw, I don't think speed of sound is important for any element. -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, as my last line of defence, ²⁰²Pb was produced primordially in stars along with the other isotopes in the infobox and also has caused irregular abundances in Hg (its final stable daughter); I'll add this to the article. So was ²⁰⁵Pb, which I notice we have no qualms in including. Double sharp (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know. That is is true & true & interesting detail & true again. But. It-is-not-the-main-story-of-lead. Describe it in the section. Add graphics. But do not claim it is main.

Our 3000 Readers each day are not here to read this in their opening section, especially not on their mobile screen. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

But then ²¹⁰Pb would equally well not be that important, because it is not an isotope of lead that you can viscerally see. (Only ²⁰²Pb and ²⁰⁵Pb are really stable enough among the radioisotopes of lead to have in bulk, at least.) It may be present in traces, but just like ²⁰²Pb being more relevant for Hg than for Pb, ²¹⁰Pb is more relevant as coming from its parent ²³⁸U. So I am not sure if it would be consistent to remove one and not the other – especially since ²¹¹Pb, ²¹²Pb, and ²¹⁴Pb are all also in the decay chains from ²³⁸U, ²³⁵U, and ²³²Th, and yet we don't mention them because they don't live long enough. Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2022

Add the "cell parameter": Ortho Normal (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What data would that be? -DePiep (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, something went wrong with the online wiki "editor" (it cut the whole "edit request", except the very first line).

I created an "improved" one below. Ortho Normal (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn by OP, rewritten below. -DePiep (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2022 (2)

Add the "lattice constant" (the second line below):

|crystal structure=face-centered cubic
|crystal structure comment=''a''=495.08 pm

Ortho Normal (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Probably the parameter could be more specific, like |crystal lattice constant=. -DePiep (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

These are the options in {{Chembox Structure}} (example). -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I copied the |crystal structure comment= string from the corresponding "Other properties" table on the Iron web page. -Ortho Normal (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Ortho Normal: Value added, unchecked wrt source. (My mistake: not a new parameter, but adding the value by existing parameter. OK). -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)