Wikipedia:WikiProject Isotopes/Vote/May05

Voting is now closed.

Color Scheme

Voting ends 3:40 UTC on 05/12/05. Vote for which scheme you would like to standardize. Give a brief reason why. Please only choose one scheme!

Color Scheme 1

See it here

Support # Quick and simple to implement. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 03:48, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

1. Simple enough to learn quickly, and therefore actually useful for the average Wikipedian. The other color schemes are multidimensional (encoding source or decay mode besides lifetime) and so hard to learn that they will puzzle people rather than inform them.—Herbee 12:07, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Color Scheme 2

See it here

Support

Color Scheme 3

See it here

Support

1. I strongly support color scheme #3. It conveys two kinds of information in an easy-to-read format and will not require arbitrary judgments as to what constitutes a "metastable" or "stable" element. Further, the colors can easily be done by a simple conversion of the half-life numbers that must already be in the article. However, that being said, I think the log-scale units offered by scheme #2 ought to be applied rather than the arbitrary human-scale units of scheme #3. -- Xerxes 14:07, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
2. I mostly support #3. It won't be that terribly confusing I think, because the "stable" elements will be in black, and all reactives will be in some shade of some color (it would look something like this) I support the convention if not the colors, the colors could be re-arranged and changed to more suiting shades as needed. Splarka 20:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
3. Deciding for scheme 3 here since the groupings of scheme 2 seem too arbitrary to be of much use. Please don't shuffle the colors! The additive mixing between those decay modes works out wonderful (you know, red+green=yellow, green+blue=cyan, blue+red=magenta). Femto 23:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
4. Changing vote to this scheme since it may end up making the chart look nicer. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 01:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

New proposal

Vote here if you think a whole scheme proposal is needed, or a varation on an existing one.

Support

Infobox Template

Voting ends 3:40 UTC on 05/12/05. Vote for the proposed template or for a new proposal. Give a brief reason why. Please only vote for either the new proposal or the existing one!

Template 1

See it here

Support

1. I feel this conveys a lot of information in a table that is nice looking and simple to use. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 03:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
2. Tentative support for the current template. It's very nice for a single isotope, but how does it mesh with our plans to put all isotopes of a given element on one page? -- Xerxes 14:11, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

   There is currently two proposals for the isotopes of element page. The single isotope table is only for those cases for which we feel single isotopes deserve an individual page. A vote will be conducted on the isotope of element page soon. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 18:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

3. I support the current template. A picture of all the protons and neutrons might be somewhat confusing, but what other graphical representation of an isotope would work well? Splarka 08:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

New proposal

Vote here if you think a whole scheme proposal is needed, or a varation on an existing one.

Support

1. I don't like the diagrams showing protons and neutrons as colored marbles. They are physically meaningless, become monstrous when there are hundreds of nucleons, and the numeric "Neutrons" and "Protons" fields make the 'marblegrams' redundant. As a better alternative, I'm proposing a clickable map of neighbouring isotopes. —Herbee 14:43, 2005 May 9 (UTC)