View source for Template talk:Infobox isotope

{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Infoboxes}}
{{WikiProject Physics}}
}}

== TeX Markup ==

There is no good reason to resort to TeX markup for the plus-or-minus symbol, so I'm changing <code><nowiki><math>\pm</math></nowiki></code> into <code><nowiki>&amp;plusmn;</nowiki></code>.
<br>&mdash;[[User:Herbee|Herbee]] 22:29, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I was not aware there was HTML markup for plusminus. [[User:Oo64eva|'''''oo64eva (AJ)''''']] 00:45, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Haha i just realized there is also a plusminus symbol at the bottom of every edit page in the character map... I should pay more attention. ± ± ± [[User:Oo64eva|'''''oo64eva (AJ)''''']] 16:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

== Decay modes ==

I have made the last three decay modes fully optional (I hope). ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', 13:06 [[19  September]] [[2006]] (GMT).

== Unified for stable isotpes ==
I chaged the halflife, etc. so that this template would work for stable isotopes.
I could have changed that color part can be switched with "stable" or somthing. But I do not know if you would like to do or not.--[[User:Shoons|Shoons]] 11:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

== Colours ==

Hi, I've just improved the template. Please do let me know if there are any bugs!!!

I'm just wondering what rationale you have behind the colours. Should certain isotopes or chemicals be displayed in certain colours? The documentation ought to reflect this. It would make sense to have a colour coding (as they do for animal taxoboxes).

It might be nice, also, to have the option to have a little image to denote stability or decay mechanisms.

''[[User:Verisimilus|Verisimilus]]'' '''<small>[[User_talk:Verisimilus|T]]</small>''' 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


== Magnetic properties etc ==
How about adding [[magnetic moment]], [[gyromagnetic ratio]], and [[Quadrupole moment#Electric quadrupole|electric quadrupole moment]]? Will make a huge difference for us [[NMR]] folks. [[User:Xenonice|Xenonice]] ([[User talk:Xenonice|talk]]) 02:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

== How do I add decay branch probabilities? ==

Many isotopes, for example, 238-Pu, can decay in multiple ways.  The Infobox isotope has the ability to list four different decay modes and their energies, which is good.

However, we need to list the branch probabilities as well.  These are listed in the CRC bible as half-lifes for each decay mode, because often one branch is many orders of magnitude more likely than the other.

To do this, we can define two a new variable for each decay mode, decay_halflife1.  I had hoped to modify the template as follows, but it didn't work:

<pre>{{!}}-
{{!}} {{{decay_mode1}}}
{{!}} {{{decay_halflife1|}}}
{{!}} {{#if:{{{decay_energy1|}}}|{{{decay_energy1}}} [[MeV]]|}}
{{!}}-|}}
{{#if:{{{decay_mode2|}}}|
{{!}} {{{decay_mode2}}}
{{!}} {{{decay_halflife2|}}}
{{!}} {{#if:{{{decay_energy2|}}}|{{{decay_energy2}}} MeV|}}
{{!}}-|}}</pre>

I gave up after I could not even figure out how to make any change at all show up in "Preview".  If anyone else can make the template change, I'd appreciate it.

[[User:Iain.mcclatchie|Iain McClatchie]] ([[User talk:Iain.mcclatchie|talk]]) 09:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

:The change won't show up in preview because no data is specified.  To experiment with changes you should copy the template (with your changes) to [[Template:Infobox isotope/sandbox]]; you can then use {<nowiki>{infobox isotope/sandbox|test_data=test}}</nowiki> in the [[WP:SANDBOX]] to try out different combinations of parameters.  Incidentally, I've modified the code you proposed to a more efficient format that will produce the same output.

== Missing decay constant - please fix ==

Would some please add a variable for decay constant, <math>\lambda</math>, and I will add it to the radioactive element articles? I hesitate because the template impacts multiple articles, and I'm not sure it's straight-forward to edit. Thank you. --[[Special:Contributions/68.107.135.58|68.107.135.58]] ([[User talk:68.107.135.58|talk]]) 03:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:Just list the [[half-life]] (using the variable halflife) instead.  The decay constant is just the inverse of the half-life up to a constant factor (see [[Exponential decay]]) so it would be redundant to list both.  [[User:Danlaycock|TDL]] ([[User talk:Danlaycock|talk]]) 00:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
::If either of the two are included, it should be the decay constant, not the derived half-life. [[Special:Contributions/68.107.135.58|68.107.135.58]] ([[User talk:68.107.135.58|talk]]) 16:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

== Double bold in infofox  section headers ==

A case of having the bold (triple ') and the ! used at the same time in the code. Any objections if I resolve it? [[User:GraemeLeggett|GraemeLeggett]] ([[User talk:GraemeLeggett|talk]]) 11:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

== Mass confusion ==

(with small pun...)  I note that there is a source of confusion with this infobox regarding mass.  The heading says "Nuclide data" but the box itself has "Isotope mass".   Thus, this template on the [[Deuterium]] page has the mass that includes the bound electron, that is, it gives the mass of the Dueterium atom, rather than the deuteron nuclide.  Seems to me the template ought to perhaps have nuclide mass and also isotope mass.  Or something... [[User:Bdushaw|Bdushaw]] ([[User talk:Bdushaw|talk]]) 21:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Or there should also be an entry for number of electrons in the Isotope.  [[User:Bdushaw|Bdushaw]] ([[User talk:Bdushaw|talk]]) 21:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

== Infobox title typograpy ==

In the infobox title formatting, I have explicitly added two NBSP spaces. This is for typographical reason (later more) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
:This is grammatically incorrect and inappropriate. Elements of a list are separated by single spaces, not double spaces. Reverted. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 21:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
::(ec) For example, ''as a title not a sentence'', compare (changed to use {{tl|infobox}} more to the point<!--2019-10-25, 06:20-->):
{{infobox|title=Chlorine-37,&nbsp;<sup>37</sup>Cl|bodystyle=float:left|label1=Label|data1=Data}}{{clear}}
::with
{{infobox|title=Chlorine-37,&nbsp;&nbsp;<sup>37</sup>Cl|bodystyle=float:left|label1=Label|data1=Data}}{{clear}}

::It shows that, with the sequence: <code>-hyphen, nn number, comma, space, superscript, symbol letters</code> a separation between the two main elements (English naming and international code), the title is more clear. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 21:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
::::There is already a grammatically valid separation, for lists, a comma followed by a single space. It is just as clear, and has the considerable benefit of being correct. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 21:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::re "gramatically incorrect": it is about ''whitespace'', which has nothing to do with grammar. Whitespace is used to improve typography, the esthetics & pleasantness of texts and reading. There is no rule that says this is not "correct". And again, this is a ''title'', not a "list". -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::That is a non-argument. That's like saying that "it's not a list, therefore we can separate two elements  of the title with an [[obelus]] "Hydrogen-3 ÷ <sup>3</sup>H". Titles follow grammatical rules, like anything else, and here the title is formed by the joining of two elements in list form. When commas are used as a separators, they are followed by single spaces, not double spaces. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 11:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Editwarring. You know I object. You have not gained consensus (actually, you did not even start a talk), so no base for the change. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 11:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't start a talk because you did, and I invited [[WP:ELEMENTS]] to comment. And the base for change is proper grammar. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 12:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I’d normally oppose two spaces after a comma. In this case, where each title would include two identical numbers, one normal case and one superscripted, I agree two spaces makes the title somewhat easier to grasp. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 22:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
:I agree. With the single spacer, there is not enough separation for me to readily identify that there are two different elements in the title. I expect this problem would be even greater in an infobox which uses a smaller font size.  I note that a comma is sometimes used (with no spacing) inside a chemical formula. Although the given use would never be ambiguous, nevertheless, I think it might be wise to eliminate a comma entirely.  <s>I actually like the separation with the [[obelus]] better than either but I recognize that this would probably not fly.</s>
:There are other options. One could write '''Chlorine-37&nbsp;(<sup>37</sup>Cl)''' <sup>now that I've clicked "Show preview", I see that doesn't really work well</sup>. With the right markup, one could left justify the '''Chlorine-37''' and right justify the '''<sup>37</sup>Cl'''. But between the two listed alternatives, I much prefer the one with two spaces. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 02:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
:<small>Actually, now that I've looked closer, I do not like the obelus.  I carelessnessly thought that the glyph being displayed was a [[Dash#Swung_dash|swing dash]] (⁓). Both of these are nonstarters. Sorry for adding confusion. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 05:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)</small>
::I could live with (<sup>37</sup>Cl), but the double space is simply incorrect. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 22:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
:::re {{U|YBG}}: no reason to use brackets, (a nice excercise it is). Because: both title elements are defining the isotope (or element in the other infobox), no need to indicate a subordination. Even better: the symbol one is more international. 
:::Anyway, as Sandbh writes: with more whitespace (say doublespace), the names and symbols are easier to grasp. That is, because the eye can more easily ''distinguish'' theem. It is not a sentence. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
::::Any thoughts to expanding the whitespace to the max by left justifying one and right justifying the other?  Also to be considered, perhaps reversing the order might provide some benefit. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 23:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::Thought of those, but to me doesn't seem to give improvement. Natural reading & understanding order (here) is: name, &rarr; symbol. Using outer limits looks awkward, and actually breaks the reasing. Tbh, I don't se a need for any change (away from double space). -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::Re order, I understand and agree. Re max spacing, its advantage over double-space is that it makes it absolutely clear that it isn't a sentence and further it eliminates the need for a coma, which I think is a bit unsightly. But if it weren't for trying to achieve a broader consensus, I wouldn't press the issue. Max spacing is my first choice, but the double-spacing alternative is a close second. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
* The world uses [[Space (punctuation)|whitespace]] (not just single fixed width space) everywhere. Also vertically. In general: none! of these whitespacings are the same. 
;For example:
;In numbers
::{{val|123456.7}}, {{val|11100}}
;In tabular lists
{{ubl|1=foo|2=foo|3=foobar}}

;Horizontal lists ({{tlf|hlist}})
{{hlist|1=foo|2=foo|3=foobar}}
;In indenting (using <nowiki>::</nowiki>)
::Foo
::Bar
::Foobar

;In textual paragraphs
<p>Blabla par 1.</p>
<p>Foofoo par 2.</p>

;Bulleted list
{{bulleted list|1-Some thing|2=Some other thing|3=The rest}}
;Numbered list
# One
# Two
# Three
;Table
(e.g., wikitable)

;Etcetera. 
Technically they can be thinspace, figure space, ... too. While indenting whitespace can be anything the typographer prefers. So: various whitesapace is a common typographical form, also outside of sentences. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:Irrelevant, none of those are phrases. In lists, commas are followed by single spaces. This is not a matter of preference, but a matter of proper grammar.&#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 00:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
::{{tq|1= none of those are phrases}}&mdash;exactly, ''nor is the title of an infobox''. "Grammar" is irrelevant: this is a ''title'', not a sentence nor a phrase. The examples show: various lists can have various whitespace, also vertically. They can have, and they do. (i.e., whitespace is not a grammatical rule but a typographical choice&mdash;all over wikipedia. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 00:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Clearly you don't know what a [[phrase]] is: "A phrase is a group (or pairing) of words in English". But regardless of it being a phrase or not, it is still a list, and in comma-delimited lists, commas are followed by single spaces. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 00:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
:::(<small>Easy reply: "And you don't know what a title is".</small>) But seriously: <big>grammar-does-not-prescribe-size-of-whitespace.</big> -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 01:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
::::Grammar [https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/spacing.asp ''does'' dictate] how many spaces follows a comma. And the answer is ''one''. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 01:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::1. Your link is not a Wikipedia policy/MOS so it cannot "dictate",
:::::2. It says (that is: your argument itself says) in Rule 1: "The space needed after these punctuation marks is '''proportioned''' automatically" (my stress). In typography (that is: not grammar), the ''amount'' of whitespace is quite variable: see this [[Whitespace character#Overview|#Overview]]; (BTW and these are only the predefines characters; a typgraphy dsigner is even more free to adjust whitspace), 
:::::3. While it says "use only one space following periods, commas", this is not correct e.g. in "100,000", nor for lists that apply newlines e.g., [[Apollo_program#Choosing_a_mission_mode|here]],
:::::4. [[Mercury (element)|Here]], the infobox correctly creates a ''nerwline'' after the comma in "Post-transition metal,&lt;newline&gt;alternatively considered ..."
:::::5. Again, please stop applying ''running sentence'' guidelines to ''titles''.
::::: -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::100,000 isn't a list. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 22:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::''Whitespace varies in situations''. Glad you could not counter my main point :-) -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::And in lists, the whitespace is a single space, not a double one. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 22:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Back from start? Above I showed four lists, none of these having "single space" separation. (tabluar lists, unbulleted list, hlist, bulleted list, numbered list, paragraphs). --[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 06:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
* I agree with the objections. Stuffing an extra space (or any other content) in there is simply wrong; it's a classic failure of [[separation of content and presentation]], of the kind widely excoriated since the obsolescence of HTML 3 in 1997 (and criticized in smaller circles for decades).  On the Web, if you need to visually kern something for readability then do it with a tiny bit of CSS spacing. A convenient way to do this inline is (using an exaggeratedly spaced example): <code><nowiki>like <span style="display: inline-block; margin-left: 3em;">this</span></nowiki></code>, which renders as: like <span style="display: inline-block; margin-left: 3em;">this</span>. (The <code>inline-block</code> is needed, because such spacing does not normally apply to a <code>span</code> or other inline element.) &nbsp;—&thinsp;[[User:AReaderOutThataway|AReaderOutThataway]]&thinsp;<sup>[[User talk:AReaderOutThataway|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/AReaderOutThataway|c]]</sub> 10:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
::{{re|AReaderOutThataway}} Let me check if I understand your point. Do you mean to say, that ''setting whitespace by css is OK, just don't use space characters ("content") for it''? If so, that would make it OK to change the amount of whitespace in this by using css. (While the objections are, in my words: amount of whitespace is not to be chosen). IOW, you suggest a technically different solution per good design, but you do not object to the intent. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Exactly. I don't have a strong opinion on the design intent, though generally have no issue with kerning for readability (and under other ID have created other templates that do that for some special cases). &nbsp;—&thinsp;[[User:AReaderOutThataway|AReaderOutThataway]]&thinsp;<sup>[[User talk:AReaderOutThataway|t]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/AReaderOutThataway|c]]</sub> 03:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the discussion has stalled, and lack of sensible objections, I've restored the semantically correct single-spaced version. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 12:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
:I disagree with your assertion of a {{tpq|lack of sensible objections}}. Here are quotes from the other four participants in this discussion:
:* {{u|DePiep}} {{tpq|Whitespace is used to improve typography, the esthetics & pleasantness of texts and reading}}
:* {{u|Sandbh}} {{tpq|I’d normally oppose two spaces after a comma. In this case, where each title would include two identical numbers, one normal case and one superscripted, I agree two spaces makes the title somewhat easier to grasp.}}
:* {{u|YBG}} {{tpq|With the single spacer, there is not enough separation for me to readily identify that there are two different elements in the title}} {{tpq| Max spacing is my first choice, but the double-spacing alternative is a close second.}}
:* {{u|AReaderOutThataway}} Objects to violating {{tpq|separation of content and presentation}}, but says {{tpq|generally have no issue with kerning for readability}}
:Three of these clearly believe that additional whitespace is helpful in this situation; the fourth does not object to changing the [[kerning]] but objects to doing it with hard-coded spaces as opposed using a technique that separates content and presentation.
:I believe that the consensus here is that additional spacing is needed; the question is, how much. My suggestion of maximal spacing may be too much, but as only one editor reacted to this, I'm not prepared to say there is a consensus to remove that idea from consideration.
:Comments? [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 04:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Headbomb}}: Apologies, I failed to ensure that you were pinged in the above. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 04:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
::If you want to change spacing for whatever reason, the way to do that is not through double spaces, which are semantically wrong and grammatically incorrect. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 04:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Headbomb}}: So if I understand it correctly, your position is akin to AReaderOutThataway, you have no objection to additional space, but you strongly object to adding it with hardcoded {{red|&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;}}. Is that correct? [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 04:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
::::Amongst other reasons. I fail to see why there is a need for more space ''there'' to begin with, and not&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;randomly&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;between&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;words. But if additional spacing was created via semantically valid ways, I would have much less of a problem with it. There's also '''Chlorine-37 (<sup>37</sup>Cl)''' as an alternative if people can't live with a single space. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 05:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Headbomb}} I suggested using parens, but as soon as I hit {{blue|Publish changes}} and saw the result, I thought it looked ugly, primarily due to the superscript immediately after the opening paren. What would you say are {{tpq|semantically valid ways}} to create additional space? [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 05:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

== Tritium ==

[[Tritium]] is listed twice in the '''Name, symbol''' line in the infobox. Also, maybe the label should say name(s)? [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 15:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:Done/fixed. Names, always plural b/c next to "iodium-123", "I-123" is a name too not a symbol. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 16:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
::Thanks! 
:: btw, I'm not sure that there's a clear distinction between name and symbol.  [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 22:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Neither am I. For this, and to keep the infobox as clear as possible, I take: '''1. Symbol''' = <sup>123</sup>I (International, unambiguous, variants excluded). '''2. Names' TX ÷''' are like Iodium-123 (English only), I-123 (derived, OK in context, but not consistent eg in chem formulae). Simplifies singular/plural too. '''3. Elsewhere, like in medicines''', isotopes are even 'named' (identified) like "(123I)" ouch, see [[Iofetamine (123I)]] (fine with me, ''when in context''. But problematic when automating & parsiing a drug INN, eg {{tl|Infobox drug}}). 
:::Glad we have one well-defined chemical symbol. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:::: How about changing the label to one of these
::::* Synonyms
::::* Names
:::: or, if we remove the symbol from the value:
::::* Names for &lt;symbol&gt;
::::* Synonyms for &lt;symbol &gt;
:::: [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 22:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:{{od}} a name ''is'' a synonym. The international chem symbol is great, and serves all. What is wrong with current form? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 23:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Nothing wrong just trying to improve.[[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 05:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

== Specific activity ==

Would it be possible to add an extra field to the template Infobox isotope to easily provide the numerical value of its specific activity at least in Bq/g (or a multiple value, such as MBq/g, GBq/g, TBq/g...), and possibly also in μCi/g. Naturally, it only makes sense for radio-isotopes or radionuclides. 
For instance: 166 TBq/g for {{chem|210|Po|link=Polonium-210}}. In advance, thank you very much. [[User:Shinkolobwe|Shinkolobwe]] ([[User talk:Shinkolobwe|talk]]) 01:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)