Talk:Clumped isotopes

Requested move 31 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Carbonate clumped-isotope → Clumped isotopes – The current title is an adjectival phrase applied to "thermometer" or "thermometry". It cannot stand on its own, however. Clumped isotopes are only used in carbonates, but in the future will probably be applied to other compounds — it makes sense for the Wikipedia article to cover the general concept of what they are and how they form, and then have sections devoted to the paleoclimatological applications of carbonate clumped isotopes. (Of course, that would require a thorough restructuring of the article, but that will be necessary anyway when someone gets around to cleaning up the references, etc.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with both the hyphenation cleanup (see also Talk:High-definition#Requested move 31 January 2017), and with the scope concerns, though they are actually severable. So, at very least fix the incorrect hyphenation; this would only be hyphenated if used as a modifier.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support either Carbonate clumped isotope or Clumped isotopes or Carbonate clumped-isotope thermometer, depending on the article scope, which I will be happy to let nom or others determine. As SMcCandlish and nom point out, the current title doesn't make sense with the hyphen. (Though it should have done as a Bold move, since fixing such errors is uncontroversial and the target is available.) Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@SMcCandlish and Dicklyon:: I have moved it. Do you know anyone (or are you yourselves) willing to help out in cleaning up this article by fixing the formatting issues? I really don't know the local rules well enough to do it efficiently and correctly, especially with the references. I intend to work on expanding the content of the article when I have the time. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Where are the remaining issues? I'm seeing "Clumped isotopes are heavy isotopes that are bonded to other heavy isotopes. The carbonate clumped-isotope thermometer, or ...", etc., which correctly has "clumped isotope[s]" as a noun phrase, and "clumped-isotope" as a compound adjective in constructions like "clumped-isotope thermometer".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:: The references are formatted inconsistently, the equation should probably be presented with appropriate formatting, etc. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah. I don't know much about WP math formatting. And I have been more and more avoiding WP:CITEVAR disputes, because some people will go to war with you to the ends of the earth if you touch "their" citations. I've had more than enough of those people. I'll take a pass on this one. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Then can you suggest someone who would be able and willing to fix it? I don't like formatting disputes either, that kind of inanity is the main reason I don't contribute here more. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: For math formatting, I would ask at WT:MATHS; if the wikiproject itself does't handle such work, they probably know where to ask (maybe there's a WP:Reference desk page for it? For citation style: If the page has long been inconsistent with citation style's WP:CITEVAR says to just impose a consistent one. I would advise using WP:CS1 since it is well-documented and the templates provide useful metadata. Historically, when I've done consistency work like that, I use an edit summary like "Imposing consistent citation style on an article without one, per WP:CITEVAR", to forestall reversions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)