Talk:Gadolinium

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Untitled

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by schnee. Elementbox converted 11:31, 10 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 13:43, 9 July 2005). 9 July 2005

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Gadolinium. Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Chemical/mineralogical errors

"Gadolinium is a constituent in many minerals such as monazite and bastnäsite, which are oxides." --> wrong: "monazite" (it is actually a group of minerals an not a single mineral; so is true for the latter) is not an oxide, but a phosphate; "bastnäsite" is also not an oxide: it is a carbonate.Eudialytos (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Eudialytos (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs.:

https://www.mindat.org/min-2750.html

https://mineralogy-ima.org/Minlist.htm Eudialytos (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction for Gd b. p. value (among others)

Because only editors are permitted to change b. p. values in Wikipedia, I submitted the following to veteran editor Polyamorph on 30 September 2023 without any response. I submit it here

Wikipedia B. P. values[edit]

Dear Polyamorph,

This is VatievonHans who is unable to login on my new Pavilion PC or to reset my password. I have graduated from densities & m. p. to b. p. Below are issues for your consideration because I am not qualified to change b. p. values on Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia accepts the b. p. temp from Zhang et al. (J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 328-337) for Tb at 3396 K rather than the CRC value at 3503 K (or 103% of Zhang) and for Ir at 4403 K rather than the CRC value at 4701 K (or 107% of Zhang), should the current b. p. temp at 1802 K for Eu on Wikipedia be replaced with the 1713 K value from Zhang et al. (where 1802 K is 105% of Zhang)?

For Gd, Wikipedia & Zhang claim b. p. at 3273 K, but the 2016 CRC Handbook shows (p. 4-14) 3273 °C (not K) and adding 273 = 3546 K (which is 108.34% of 3273). Zhang et al. do show (in Table 1) a CRC value of 3546 K as well as values of 3533 K and 3539 K from two other handbooks along with 3273 K (°C?) from two different handbooks.

Below is my 9/13/23 email to the corresponding author for Zhang et al. (before I noticed the Gd issue).

Dear Professor Shoufeng Yang:

Concerning J. Chem. Eng. Data 2011, 56, 328-337, the "corrected" B. P. values are the same in Tables 11 & 13 for Ba, Be, C, Pd, Pr, Rh, Sn, and Y, but the Yb value in Table 11 is 116% of the value in Table 13 (1703 vs 1466 K), the Tm value in Table 11 is 110% of that in Table 13 (2203 vs 2003 K), and the Nb values differ slightly at 100.9% (5017 vs 4973 K). Perhaps errata could be submitted to the journal to avoid confusion for other readers. Sincerely, Thomas A. Hinners a recovering chemist 68.108.51.9 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC) 68.108.51.9 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

citation styles

A mix of citation styles. Maybe there's an automated way of aligning. Spicemix (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicemix ? Can you give some examples? All of the refs I see are use the "ref" tag. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton Thanks for responding. For example, Raymond KN, Pierre VC is one approved citation style and Kondev, F. G.; Wang, M.; Huang, W. J. is another. Danevich, F.A. is simply wrong so far as I know. As is Durrell, J H; Dennis, A R . Only one style should be applied in an article. I don't wish just to drive by saying this, but I can't really justify spending my time on it. Cheers. Spicemix (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These all look fine to me in terms of style. The vast majority of articles I edit use the ref tag and mostly use Template:cite. This is the style produced by the ProveIt tool. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is here: WP:CITESTYLE, "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." At least four styles here as things stand. I see the FA Hydrogen goes with Smith, A. B. C., and many cites here are in that style, so I suggest that as the consensus. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think these differences are trivial. The vast majority of readers will not notice a difference. To me the WP:CITESTYLE is more about how the footnotes relate to the citations. (We need more and better refs first).

But if you are keen to make these changes you should adopt the majority style on this page, not Hydrogen, per WP:CITESTYLE.

As an experiment I tried the ProveIt tool on the Danevich reference. Just updating did not change it, I had to copy the DOI, delete the ref, then use ProveIt's DOI lookup to add it back. That result is the style I would advocate unless it is clearly not one widely used on the page. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that a large majority of MOS points would be "trivial" by your definition. Disagreeing with me is irrelevant when I am voicing policy. Your proper route is to start a discussion at the MOS talkpage. I began this thread by noting "A mix of citation styles." We have now come full circle after your proposal for sticking with a local consensus of no consensus. Please note that "you should adopt the majority style on this page" is your invention: the guideline in this case is at WP:CITEVAR, "defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page". You dismiss Hydrogen as a model for referencing articles on chemical elements, but please note that Featured Articles are considered models of style that can be emulated. Please do not be guided in future by your maxim "The vast majority of readers will not notice a difference": it creates a lot of work down the line for conscientious editors. Spicemix (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You're making up an argument where none exists.

"While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style."

I claim the style is already consistent. You disagree. I'm ok if you want to make it even more consistent!

"Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change."

You have consensus (me and you) to change within the existing majority formats, so go for it!

"defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page"

That is exactly what I am agreeing to! I am not agreeing to change the format to match another page.

My proposal is to use the style produced by ProveIt. It looks like

Danevich, F. A.; Kobychev, V. V.; Ponkratenko, O. A.; Tretyak, V. I.; Zdesenko, Yu. G. (2001-11-05). "Quest for double beta decay of 160Gd and Ce isotopes". Nuclear Physics A. 694 (1): 375–391. doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(01)00983-6. ISSN 0375-9474.

If that works for you, we agree. If not, make a specific proposal. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]