Talk:Lead: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Robert W King
No edit summary
imported>Robert W King
Line 3: Line 3:
Some of us discussed the elem & chem infobox earlier, and seemed to agree, that the last thing we ever wanted was a really long elem infobox or chem infobox.  In other words, only the key things should be in, with the idea that other physical attributes could be put in the article or under a separate subpage.  A really long infobox leads to a bad layout for articles.  Note all of the white space in this article at the top.  I think you will find fair resistance to changing the chem and elem infobox to be this inclusive.  An alternative might be to have a physical properties infobox later in the article in a physical properties section where things like boiling pts and crystal structure forms, UV-vis, NMR, refraction, etc could be placed. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 16:06, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
Some of us discussed the elem & chem infobox earlier, and seemed to agree, that the last thing we ever wanted was a really long elem infobox or chem infobox.  In other words, only the key things should be in, with the idea that other physical attributes could be put in the article or under a separate subpage.  A really long infobox leads to a bad layout for articles.  Note all of the white space in this article at the top.  I think you will find fair resistance to changing the chem and elem infobox to be this inclusive.  An alternative might be to have a physical properties infobox later in the article in a physical properties section where things like boiling pts and crystal structure forms, UV-vis, NMR, refraction, etc could be placed. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 16:06, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
:There's actually a discussion which I hope you would have found on the talk page of this particular template in use; I meant to post it to the chemistry workgroup page but there didn't seem to be that much activity there.  Please weigh in. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:10, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
:There's actually a discussion which I hope you would have found on the talk page of this particular template in use; I meant to post it to the chemistry workgroup page but there didn't seem to be that much activity there.  Please weigh in. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:10, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
== Temporary commenting out ==
I've temporarily commented out the infobox, because it is just not ready for implementation. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:55, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 09:55, 1 April 2008

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Isotopes [?]
Properties [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Chemical element number 82, a corrosion-resistant, dense, ductile heavy metal known to cause neurological problems. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Chemistry and Health Sciences [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Some of us discussed the elem & chem infobox earlier, and seemed to agree, that the last thing we ever wanted was a really long elem infobox or chem infobox. In other words, only the key things should be in, with the idea that other physical attributes could be put in the article or under a separate subpage. A really long infobox leads to a bad layout for articles. Note all of the white space in this article at the top. I think you will find fair resistance to changing the chem and elem infobox to be this inclusive. An alternative might be to have a physical properties infobox later in the article in a physical properties section where things like boiling pts and crystal structure forms, UV-vis, NMR, refraction, etc could be placed. David E. Volk 16:06, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

There's actually a discussion which I hope you would have found on the talk page of this particular template in use; I meant to post it to the chemistry workgroup page but there didn't seem to be that much activity there. Please weigh in. --Robert W King 16:10, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Temporary commenting out

I've temporarily commented out the infobox, because it is just not ready for implementation. --Robert W King 10:55, 1 April 2008 (CDT)