Open main menu

Alt name and pronunciation orderingEdit

I reverted this edit by R8R. The ES says that if we have an alt name, the (single) pronunciation field covers both and so should be below that 2nd name.

I don't think this is the right principle. Pronunciation should be as close to the pronounced word as possible, preventing any confusion or searching. So it should be in top closest to the formal element name (even above the image, could be argued). Then, if there is a second name pronunciation to be added, that should go with the |alt name= parameter: again closest possible to the word it is about.

I see three different situations. Note that this is about where to put any pronunciation, not whether it should be added.

  • Example of good: wolfram.
  • Example of has alt name, but no different pronunciation: sulphur, cesium. I'd say no pronunciation with these spelling differences, but PRON knowledge may say different. So: if wp:pron guidelines concludes to add pronunciation, add it to the alt name.
  • Example aluminum: depends. How does an American pronounce "aluminIum"? If US-pron anyway, then the two pronunciations could stay together (two for the title word, as today). If the American speech is "aluminIum" when spelled "aluminIum", then split the pronunciation (add one to the US alt name).

There are no other element infoboxes with alt name. -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that pronunciation should immediately follow the name. However, if pronounciation is the first thing, then alt names is sort of a zeroth thing, a continuation of the title (name). For example, country articles include native names directly in the titles of their infoboxes. And so is important to realize that an element may have multiple names and if that is the case, we should introduce the names we are going to pronounce before we pronounce them. It is more important to tell what the element is even named before we get to discuss how this name or these names is/are pronounced. Once that is established, we should immediately proceed to pronounciation, but only then. It is in fact likely that any element will be searched by its written name rather than pronunciation keys, so that argument in fact favors alt names first. However important pronunciations are, names are more important.--R8R (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
First replies.
I disagree that pron is comparable in importance to local names, synonyms, &tc. Pron is less important, and must be treated as such.
See Hypoglycemia for the placement of synonyms (synonyms, not pron).
Listing alt names is good, but that does not have any, any claim on their pron position. ("alt name is important, thus so is their pron"???) C'mon. See the synonym example.
The aim "pron should be near the word it is about" is OK in general. But it comes from the age that pron was in the lede sentence (inline text). Since we moved it to the infobox (making everybody happy), that principle should be rethought. Because: this induced that the pron must be near/below the infobox title, sort of. This is too much of a burden (by nice page design & presentation). It must be near sure, but in infobox situations we are free to find a new, different solution. Also, quite important: the infobox top image is there! It was not there when pron was in-line!
The image is a weird thing in this. pron below image?
The proposal you state still has this order:
element name (title)
alt name
pron alt name
pron name
IOW: pron of the title is split from its word! Even worse: alt name & alt-name pron are in between!
- DePiep (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I totally forgot to respond. My apologies. I will soon.--R8R (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Take your time. I've rethought all this meanwhile, and I am still very convinced. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As for my proposal: you're reading into my words a bit too much. What I said was only that we should have the alternative name before pronunciations (of both). If I was to continue the infobox from there, I go with this:

element name (title)
alt name
pron for both (see [[Template:Infobox_aluminium]] for an example)

or this:

element name (title)
alt name
pron for both

The latter makes more sense to me, though I wouldn't exactly oppose the former, either.--R8R (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2018Edit

The title of the infobox section containing miscellaneous items is labeled "Miscellanea". Please change this to "Other Properties" or "Other". The item in question is "header100 = Miscellanea".

Reasoning: 1) Though a reasonable title for this section, the label "Miscellanea" is a term that is likely to be outside of the vocabulary of a majority of even native English readers, but especially non-native readers. Changing this label would increase the readability of the infobox to include a much wider audience.

2) Labeling the section "Miscellaneous" or "Miscellaneous Properties" would be a significant improvement, as the adjective form is in widespread and frequent use in English writing, however...

3) Considering that this section is meant as a sort of catch-all for any property not included in the other "X Properties" categories, it is more appropriate to label these items as "other" than "miscellaneous", as it is not an assortment of various items from various sections as the term "miscellaneous" properly implies, but a selection of items other than those falling under any other category. Lumentex (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done - DePiep (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Specttra cropped at too short a wavelengthEdit

The spectra shown in the infoboxes for chemical elements are cropped too early, in the yellow/green part of the spectrum; hence elements with characteristic lines in the yellow-red region do not show those distinctive features. Some examples:

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Shown ok in Spectral_line#Spectral_lines_of_chemical_elements. -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Fixed. For some dark reason a cropping template was used. They look really nicer now. @Redrose64:, thanks for the report. -DePiep (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
      Thank you for fixing it. But please don't put blank lines into lists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Infobox element" page.