Talk:Cobalt: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Chemistry workgroup) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
<!-- This is a list of the WP templates removed when this article was imported from WP. Why in the world must this forever remain on the Talk page? It ought to be deleted. ~~~~ : | |||
{{otheruses}} | {{otheruses}} | ||
| Line 46: | Line 48: | ||
{{Elementbox_isotopes_decay | mn=60 | sym=Co | na=[[synthetic radioisotope|syn]] | hl=[[1 E8 s|5.2714 years]] | dm=[[beta emission|β<sup>-</sup>]] | de=2.824 | pn=60 | ps=[[nickel|Ni]] }} | {{Elementbox_isotopes_decay | mn=60 | sym=Co | na=[[synthetic radioisotope|syn]] | hl=[[1 E8 s|5.2714 years]] | dm=[[beta emission|β<sup>-</sup>]] | de=2.824 | pn=60 | ps=[[nickel|Ni]] }} | ||
{{Elementbox_isotopes_end}} | {{Elementbox_isotopes_end}} | ||
{{Elementbox_footer | color1=#ffc0c0 | color2=black }} | {{Elementbox_footer | color1=#ffc0c0 | color2=black }}--> | ||
== This WP import (November 22, 2006) needs more detailed review/editing == | |||
This article was imported from WP on November 22, 2006 and it still corresponds almost word-for-word with how the WP article looked on November 22, 2006. After 4+ years, it has not yet been thoroughly reviewed and edited. I just did some cursory editing and deleting of some WP-isms that conflict with out formatting style and subpages ... but it needs a much more detailed and critical review. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
:This is not the only one. A great many articles have been imported from WP, with or without accreditation. This is especially evident, as you mention, with articles that have subpage material at the bottom of the main article, WP style. However, the Chemistry workgroup has one active Editor, Milton (also active on the MC), and two active authors: Milton, and Anthony (active on the EC). The problem of WP imports and stagnant older articles covers many subjects, not just Chemistry, and even the Chemistry subset may be too great for Milton and Anthony alone, so if the problem is to be tackled it might be dealt with more appropriately at the EC level. I do not think that deletion would be considered appropriate for such core articles so if there is work to be done it is project-wide and might be better coordinated by the EC. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 07:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Dave Volk is also a chemistry Editor. While I'm not an Editor, it was my primary undergraduate major. I wonder, however, if a style guide may be even more urgent than the experts directly contributing in the articles. Since this seems to be an increasingly important area of CZ, I can try to contribute especially in chemical and nuclear instrumentation, and, if appropriate, clinical chemistry. Perhaps there are others that will write under Editor guidance; let's revitalize the Chemistry Workgroup. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:18, 20 April 2011
This WP import (November 22, 2006) needs more detailed review/editing
This article was imported from WP on November 22, 2006 and it still corresponds almost word-for-word with how the WP article looked on November 22, 2006. After 4+ years, it has not yet been thoroughly reviewed and edited. I just did some cursory editing and deleting of some WP-isms that conflict with out formatting style and subpages ... but it needs a much more detailed and critical review. Milton Beychok 04:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is not the only one. A great many articles have been imported from WP, with or without accreditation. This is especially evident, as you mention, with articles that have subpage material at the bottom of the main article, WP style. However, the Chemistry workgroup has one active Editor, Milton (also active on the MC), and two active authors: Milton, and Anthony (active on the EC). The problem of WP imports and stagnant older articles covers many subjects, not just Chemistry, and even the Chemistry subset may be too great for Milton and Anthony alone, so if the problem is to be tackled it might be dealt with more appropriately at the EC level. I do not think that deletion would be considered appropriate for such core articles so if there is work to be done it is project-wide and might be better coordinated by the EC. David Finn 07:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dave Volk is also a chemistry Editor. While I'm not an Editor, it was my primary undergraduate major. I wonder, however, if a style guide may be even more urgent than the experts directly contributing in the articles. Since this seems to be an increasingly important area of CZ, I can try to contribute especially in chemical and nuclear instrumentation, and, if appropriate, clinical chemistry. Perhaps there are others that will write under Editor guidance; let's revitalize the Chemistry Workgroup. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)