→Homology: r |
→Picture: new section Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::The blurb here doesn't say anything the lead doesn't. Thank you, more attention is very welcome, I make this this sort of errors all the time even if I do try to look after myself.--[[User:R8R|R8R]] ([[User talk:R8R#top|talk]]) 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC) |
:::The blurb here doesn't say anything the lead doesn't. Thank you, more attention is very welcome, I make this this sort of errors all the time even if I do try to look after myself.--[[User:R8R|R8R]] ([[User talk:R8R#top|talk]]) 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::Sure ... please take what I'm saying at face value, there's no subtext here. You've been around forever and you're doing a fine job. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC) |
::::Sure ... please take what I'm saying at face value, there's no subtext here. You've been around forever and you're doing a fine job. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Picture == |
|||
I have restored [[:File:Hassium.svg]] as the picture to be used in the blurb. That is because the newly added picture added more elements to look at without adding any new information: 1) the name of the metal is already present in the blurb, there's no need to duplicate it; 2) the checkered border grabs attention and distracts the reader without having any purpose (I was actually unpleasantly surprised to see such an attention-grabbing element before I figured in a few seconds that the explanation can be found in the big table in [[periodic table]]... most people won't know that's where they could look, so it's meaningless to them); 3) greater abundance of colors and font styles is also distracting. |
|||
To see the similarity to the table in [[periodic table]], people would need to know it's there to begin with. Many won't, so the analogy will be lost on them but they'll still be exposed to the added unnecessary and distracting details.--[[User:R8R|R8R]] ([[User talk:R8R#top|talk]]) 17:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:19, 18 September 2020
Homology
R8R: you added "Chemical experiments have been scarce but generally support this assignment", after the group and period mentioning. Are group and period disputed seriously? ('seriously' as in: worth noting in this blurb). The article intro itself mentions Homology (chemistry) with Os, which refers more to having similar chemical (and physical) properties. But since this homology is not mentioned in the blurb, could you check whether the addition is in place? thx. -DePiep (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- They were never disputed in the sense that nobody interpreted the experimental results differently. Back when they were not known, one could generally guess that element 108 would be a group 8 element, but that was yet to be verified, and it often occurs that scientists establish things other than what they expected to see. For example, it was only element 96, curium, the eighth element in the actinide series, that helped Seaborg formulate his actinide hypothesis.
- As for homology with osmium, it would be fine to mention it if there weren't a character limit.--R8R (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't want to discourage anyone from actively thinking about how to improve blurbs, but people often run into trouble when blurbs don't follow the lead. I won't fiddle with this one, but I'll try to remember to call attention to the blurb at ERRORS two days ahead of time so that people have a chance to spot problems (such as "in the Soviet Union in the Soviet Union"). - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- The blurb here doesn't say anything the lead doesn't. Thank you, more attention is very welcome, I make this this sort of errors all the time even if I do try to look after myself.--R8R (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sure ... please take what I'm saying at face value, there's no subtext here. You've been around forever and you're doing a fine job. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- The blurb here doesn't say anything the lead doesn't. Thank you, more attention is very welcome, I make this this sort of errors all the time even if I do try to look after myself.--R8R (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't want to discourage anyone from actively thinking about how to improve blurbs, but people often run into trouble when blurbs don't follow the lead. I won't fiddle with this one, but I'll try to remember to call attention to the blurb at ERRORS two days ahead of time so that people have a chance to spot problems (such as "in the Soviet Union in the Soviet Union"). - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Picture
I have restored File:Hassium.svg as the picture to be used in the blurb. That is because the newly added picture added more elements to look at without adding any new information: 1) the name of the metal is already present in the blurb, there's no need to duplicate it; 2) the checkered border grabs attention and distracts the reader without having any purpose (I was actually unpleasantly surprised to see such an attention-grabbing element before I figured in a few seconds that the explanation can be found in the big table in periodic table... most people won't know that's where they could look, so it's meaningless to them); 3) greater abundance of colors and font styles is also distracting.
To see the similarity to the table in periodic table, people would need to know it's there to begin with. Many won't, so the analogy will be lost on them but they'll still be exposed to the added unnecessary and distracting details.--R8R (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)