Talk:Potassium

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articlePotassium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starPotassium is part of the Alkali metals series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2011Good article nomineeListed
December 21, 2016Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023

Change (kalium) to (kalium) to balance like other elements. 2001:EE0:4BC9:11A0:C19F:C86:76EB:92C7 (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be not protected.

I conclude this as mentioned in title. 2001:EE0:4BC3:440:210F:B0D8:CCFD:2918 (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Experience tells that unprotected an article on a school topic is very risky, especially in the middle of the school year. Materialscientist (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot satisfy my fulfillment, would any of you mind changing or modifying the source code for a little words from from Latin kalium to from Latin kalium to ensure its consistency, especially in an encyclopedia? 2405:4802:64A8:D090:71E5:E055:6008:4DEC (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2024

In the commercial uses part, under the niche uses section, can you please add a () mentioning the states of each compound ? example: 4 KO2 (s) + 2 CO2 (g) → 2 K2CO3 (s) + 3 O2 (g) feel free to not, if it's too confusing or unnecessary Artin 72 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Change the source code from [[wikt:kalium#Latin|kalium]] to {{etymology|la|kalium}} to ensure consistency, like the source code of Sodium, where the code represents as {{etymology|la|natrium}}. Hope you fulfill my request. 2001:EE0:4BCA:FD50:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Change the source code for Sodium too, where is written in a common way to {{etymology|la|natrium}} to maintain its seamless synchronization. 2001:EE0:4BCA:FD50:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Please come here and help me done my fulfillment. 2405:4802:64C7:BF70:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Your request is not clear. The source code does not contain the string you want changed, and what you want it changed to does not make sense either; neither is it found in the Sodium article. I'm also a bit concerned that your primary concern is not improving the article, but doing some sort of "fulfillment". Bazza (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bazza 7, I'm regrettably sorry if you couldn't satisfy and turn my wish to keep the article looking seamless successfully. What all I meant is to change the source code to keep the code balanced like other chemical articles, which most of them use {{etymology|la|[Latin text]}}, rather than [[wikt:[Latin text]#Latin|[Latin text]]]. See gold, silver, tin, antimony for reference. 2405:4802:64C7:BF70:20BF:895B:4915:B58A (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The request was in proper format. Furthermore, the edit made was seamless and exactly as stated.
Urro[talk][edits] 17:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See again if that is listed in the article. Regards, 2405:4802:64C7:BF70:20BF:895B:4915:B58A (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just mentioned the Latin spelling and its root for the chemical element, but nothing changed for other content shown except this one as wanted. 2405:4802:64C7:BF70:20BF:895B:4915:B58A (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Urro[talk][edits] 17:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I see nothing changed. Note for you: Don't break the original format, I want to let you know that to make it proper, simply clear or remove the couple word (from Latin) first, then add the text as requested. Doing so may avoid duplicating and doubling the word (from Latin), which is not grammatical. Therefore, it might become more and more redundant and not getting better.2405:4802:64C7:CFE0:20BF:895B:4915:B58A (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{etymology|la|[Latin text]}} should transfer to from Latin [Latin text]. It plays two roles: mentioning the origin, and the root term. You haven't deleted the word (from Latin) first, so it is duplicated. Be sure to check the preview first before performing any task then. 2405:4802:64C7:CFE0:20BF:895B:4915:B58A (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the origin of the term is from Neo-Latin, so make yourself determined and insert the code as follow: {{etymology|la|{{lang|la-x-new|kalium}}}}. After that, the input code would result in from Latin kalium. That's it. 2405:4802:64C7:CFE0:20BF:895B:4915:B58A (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again -- Apologies, but it seems my edit was eraser Undone by another Wikipedian, which is why you see no change. Thus, this edit may be considered controversial or against Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I recommend consulting other users in a discussion and establishing a consensus before making this request again. Thank you!
Urro[talk][edits] 13:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, @Urropean, we need to get broad consensus before we go ahead! 2001:EE0:4BC5:F2E0:20BF:895B:4915:B58A (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would, sincerely, open an existing request page (this one, to be honest) again since no one noticed and revised this ongoing discussion. Thus, there were no comments arriving here about whether the Latin root code needs reformatting. 2001:EE0:4BC4:4240:71D2:A29:A5C4:100E (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]