Template talk:Infobox lithium

Border

Could this be changed to put a black border around Li, as there is in Na or K? As it is, the differing color does not make it at all clear which element is being highlighted. SBHarris 19:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Where dose this data come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.224.110 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mostly from here. Materialscientist (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

details

@Double sharp: I have removed the comment re un/natural abundance: too much detail for infobox. Lots of elements have precautions & notes at their CIAAW page. Is what I wrote before. Never said it is not true btw. DePiep (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

So, the CIAAW page (& so standard atomic weight data) says [1]:

6Li s.a.w.: 6.015 122 89(1) uncertainty: [0.019, 0.078] (ie 1.9%–7.8%)

7Li s.a.w.: 7.016 003 44(3) uncertainty [0.922, 0.981] (ie 92.2%–98.1%)

That's how abundances are reported. The uncertainty (an interval in this case, so a wide spread signaling RL sample variations) causes are mentioned in the papers, and a bit different from the editsummary you made, but we do not report this in the infobox (especially since it is not even in the article body).

We could consider introducing the CIAAW-standard-footnotes: g, r, m. Here, or in other isotope places. Right because they are standard footnotes (ie situation reoccur over elements in the CIAAW reports), a better solution (not infobox indicental) to be found. DePiep (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: But we already do have it in {{infobox boron}}. In general I agree that it's not worth it for the infoboxes, but the variations for Li and B are so wide. Double sharp (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: that's not an argument. Because: quite possibly it is wrong there too.

BTW, the abundance values are in NUBASE 2020. 6Li: 4.85171, 7Li: 95.15171, so the tabular values are OK. (and of course, in an infobox no need to be more precise). DePiep (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: OK, I think the low precision is good enough to warn the reader. So I've gone ahead and removed the comment from the boron infobox (that one had 20% and 80%, so also correctly low precision). Double sharp (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Though maybe, some footnote can be in place :-) noting why the spread is wide, + a "see § sectionlink" to the text. In there is enough splace to describe the issue. (personally, I'd prefer lowlevel Reader aiming not physics: "Human activity has changed lithium-isotope distribution in nature: ..") DePiep (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

For an overview of []-bracketed uncertainties see ../saw/overview ("type=2" column; all recent CIAAW). Each of them has a story I guess. That story can be in the article, as a Reader expects, especially for lithium these days (well, abundance in earth first, but the is-human-touched detail relevant too I guess).

Further, page isotopes of lithium should be complete in this.

What to do with CIAAW-footnotes g, r, m? I guess they should be introduced, and nicely reused over our element/isotope articles. DePiep (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

(Related, but not the issue here: I think the standard atomic weights as we present them in top if the infobox are also too much detailed for that place. In IB the abridged form would do. Same with oxidation state: main ones in top. Then, add section ==Data sheet== (120×) where the details go). DePiep (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: It's already mentioned under Lithium#Isotopes: Nuclear weapons manufacture and other nuclear physics applications are a major source of artificial lithium fractionation, with the light isotope ⁶Li being retained by industry and military stockpiles to such an extent that it has caused slight but measurable change in the ⁶Li to ⁷Li ratios in natural sources, such as rivers. This has led to unusual uncertainty in the standardized atomic weight of lithium, since this quantity depends on the natural abundance ratios of these naturally-occurring stable lithium isotopes, as they are available in commercial lithium mineral sources. So we at least already have a place to link it to.

Yes, I think abridged atomic weights are quite enough for the element infoboxes. The full ones make sense for the isotope infoboxes, e.g. {{infobox lithium isotopes}}. Double sharp (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

And well-written too! Allow me to leave this thread for a while. DePiep (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

The natural abundances in the sidebar are inconsistent with the main body of text. In the main body Li7 is listed as 92.5% while in the sidebar it is listed as 95.15%. From the IUPAC 2013 report on isotopic abundances the best measurement of abundances for Li6 is 7.589% and Li7 is 92.411%.

A comment is given that the abundances of Li6,7 vary significantly due to the use of depleted lithium laboratory reagent. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/pac-2015-0503/html Timizzen (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Technically, the sidebar values are in {{Infobox lithium isotopes}} for editing. DePiep (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

1.	2,3. Meija "2013" (2016) 10.1515/pac-2015-0503			4. Kondev, NUBASE2020 "IS=Meija (2016)"
6Li	[0.019, 0.078]	0.075 89(24)		IS=4.85 (171)
7Li	[0.922, 0.981]	0.924		IS=95.15 (171)

• [2] is: Meija, Juris, Coplen, ... "Isotopic compositions of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report)" Pure and Applied Chemistry, vol. 88, no. 3, 2016, pp. 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1515/pac-2015-0503
• NUBASE2020 says for source of "IS: Isotopic abundance taken from Ref. [20]" (p. 030001-19/20pdf),

Ref. [20] being: "20 J. Meija, T.B. Coplen, .. Pure Appl. Chem. 88(3) (2016) 293."

So, while same source, Kondev has different number. Also: range middle: (0.019+0.078)/2=0.0485, (0.922+0.981)/2=0.9515: is this what Kondeev did? ID so, is this the correct range handling wrt statistics (does not represent a normal&variant distribution)?

Anyway, the main body values not found (so probably to change). -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

BTW, some rounding is OK here. We want to be correct, not exact. DePiep (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done @Timizzen: I have changed the 7Li abundance value in body text into "95.15" from Konev (NUBASE2020), (column 4 above). Removed 3 pre-2010 sources that were with it. [3]. At least, infobox and body text now align.

However, the value(s) might need improvement per the above table (same source conflict). So I left this edit request as unanswered, to allow others to check. After all, it was also me who put those numbers in the inbobox ;-) [4]. -DePiep (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and has been open for comment for 4 weeks. Marking answered. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

References