This template is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this template, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
As mentioned on WP:ELEMENTS talk page, the IUPAC has released the 2021 Standard Atomic Weights of the Elements (kudos to DePiep for the speedy update of the abridged atomic weights). However, while the atomic weights have been revised, I've noticed that the references have not yet been updated to the corresponding IUPAC Technical Report.[1] Is it possible to find some way to update all the references for the atomic weights and isotope abundances in the template to this paper? I'll be fixing up the Isotopes pages in the meantime.
(By the way, I may not be able to respond to comments or replies quickly, because I have exams coming up in the next two weeks. If you reply or have questions, please ping me.)
@MeasureWell: I don't see the question. Each isotopes infobox uses central SAW data, and so is updated per CIAAW2021 (changed values, value presentation uncertainty, abandoning "conventional", use new quantity symbol Ar°(E)).
By /doc, there is individual parrameter |standard atomic weight ref= that can add extra reference(s). Up to template editor to change/update these, individual infobox/editor/element judgement needed. Can I automate this (eg, using WP:AWB)? -DePiep (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: Thanks for the response. Sorry for the misleading title and the confusion — I was referring to the fact that while the values of the atomic weights have been updated (which, like I said in my original post, great job and thanks for getting onto that quickly), the references next to the abridged values have not. For example, the abridged atomic weight for hydrogen still references the 2013 report, when clearly we should be citing the 2021 paper. Hope this helps! – MeasureWell (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... but if you refer to this edit: these are not automated. Of course AME and NUBASE are screaming for automation (and so our isotope tables), but it takes some time really ;-) . Maybe better do put this data in wikidata right away (IIRC, NUBASE2016 is in WD). -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parameter changes
Single isotope parameter |ref=
Added for all row subtemplates (stable, decay 1-4):
NUBASE2020: In general, referring to {{NUBASE2020}} is not needed, as this is the default referencing for isotopes.
By specific decay mode: When the reference refers to a specific decay mode (α, SF), it can be added as opening text: |ref=SF decay: {{cite web}}
No edits required: but in the long term it is advisable to move references from in-parameter into this one (for example, remove from|hl=2 y<ref>...</ref>to|ref=<ref>...</ref>).
The main isotopes list to be maintained solely at {{Infobox <element> isotopes}}.
Parameters read: |isotopes= (i.e., the table), |footnote=, |isobox ref=. Ignored: standard atomic weight.
This Isobox has its own V-E-links in the Infobox headerbar, appearing as "Main isotopes of uranium V · E".
Theoretical elements with an article & Infobox (E119, E120; and E121, E122, E124, E126) have different effects because not all their (linkable) isotopes pages exist. E119 and E120 can use |isotopes comment=.
Deprecated in {{Infobox <element>}}: |isotopes=, |isotopes ref=, |isotopes comment=(mostly, but kept for E119, E120)
Later: check abandoned data before deleting (taskforce "Isobox reuse").
About decay mode and {{NUBASE2020}} (NB2020).[1] See {{Decay modes}} (updated for NB2020; used in-article).
We aim to control the dm options used, as opposed to free input. For example, use/deprecate "EC"?
Some research to be done:
Question mark ⟨?⟩ used
The most important policy in assembling the information about the decay modes and their intensities was to unambiguously establish whether a particular decay is energetically allowed, but not experimentally observed (represented by a question mark alone ‘?’, e.g. ‘IT ?’ or ‘a ?’, the question mark refers to the decay mode), and whether the decay is actually observed, but its intensity is not determined (represented by ‘=?’, e.g. ‘IT =?’ or ‘a=?’, the question mark refers to the branching intensity).
— NUBASE2020 p.11
Variants of meaning in of beta+
Similarly to previous versions of NUBASE [1–4], b+ denotes a decay process that includes both electron capture, e, and positron emission, e+, decays, so that one can symbolically write b+ = e +e+. It should be made clear that this notation is not the same as that used in ENSDF, where the combination of both modes is labeled as e +b+.
Well, that's the Testpage at work! Projected efefct is, that when the link is nonsensical (like a DAB or abba indeed), the template corrects it. The good news is that correction works happens. -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, new {{Isotopes/main/isotope}} will be used (single isotope row), replacing all variants like "{{Infobox element isotopes/isotopes decay1}}", "{{.. decay4}}", "{{.. stable}}".
Enhanced parameter set like |link, mn, sym, na, hl, ref, dm1, perc1, link1, ref1, pn1, ps1, ..., dm4, ...=. See {{/doc}}.
This is a list of previous wikilinks for decay modes (so, appeared like: IT - IT).
The list shows that a single decay mode was linked to various target pages (redirects are shown resolved).
Current redirects are standardised, see {{Isotopes/decay-mode/overview}}.
As stated above three years ago (#2021 revision of the standard atomic weights), the links for the atomic weights have not been updated to the most recent version. Or rather, the links for the 'abbreviated' atomic weights (second line) have, but the main one (first line) have not - we should need only one citation to cover both. And most likely some or all atomic weights have in fact been fully updated to the 2021 version (I haven't found any that aren't, and would update any I do find), and are now inconsistent with the old version that they are cited to. This clearly should be fixed; is there any difficulty in doing so? 73.228.195.198 (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I misjudged. The 'first line' references are to the Web pages on the CIAAW site, which are given various dates in the footnote depending on when they were last revised; they are the most current available even though those dates might suggest otherwise. I'm not sure if those are really the most appropriate dates to use, given that surely CIAAW has looked at each more recently, even if they determined no revision was required. Anyway, blame it on my haste, as well as not understanding the infobox code. 73.228.195.198 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
