text:
Talk:Billion (disambiguation)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for multi-move as proposed. There is clearly no consensus in favour of the second part of the move; a majority of those commenting favoured leaving the number at 1,000,000,000. However, this closure does not prejudice against a further move request to determine the narrower question of whether Billion should be a disambiguation page or a redirect. I don't think there is enough evidence in the discussion below to make that determination now. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The article long and short scales goes to a great deal of trouble to demonstrate that the short scale is now used in all English speaking countries, and by the English speaking people in multilingual countries. No English speaking country or region is listed as going against this trend.
 * Billion → Billion (disambiguation)
 * 1,000,000,000 → Billion

It is evident that the overwhelming usage of the English word billion is to mean 1,000,000,000.

That other languages have different words for 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000 and that some use a derivative of the Latin root of billion to mean the latter number rather than the former, should be of no relevance to English Wikipedia. We are not writing an article on Bilione.

The current set-up only serves to give the misleading impression of ambiguity in contemporary English usage when there really isn't any, and create confusion in the eyes of readers as to the meaning of the word billion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although I do not oppose the idea that there should be a primary topic for "billion", the Billion title should instead probably be turned into a redirect. The 1,000,000,000 title should remain the same on grounds of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (consistency), since most articles in Category:Integers and the like primarily use the numerical digits instead of the English word written out (e.g. Ten redirects to 10 (number)). Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to propose that until I noticed that the 106 article is at Million, but I'm certainly open to either. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Million should be renamed to 1,000,000 instead, it is how 1 (number), etc. are handled -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Support, this is now unambiguously the primary topic of the term, and almost certainly the common name in informal discussion. My second choice would be to make Billion redirect to 1,000,000,000, although either way, the current page should be moved to Billion (disambiguation). bd2412  T 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1,000,000,000 should be the article on the number. It is absolutely clear on how many zeroes are in the number. If you want, redirect billion to it, but the number article should not be renamed into the word. -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there is danger of confusion. Pretty much every other language than English uses "billion" to mean 1012, and English used to as well until the last couple of decades, when the short scale started becoming more prominent. J I P  | Talk 17:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong support as proposed but I also support move of billion to billion (disambiguation) and redirecting to 1,000,000,000. With all due respect to User:JIP, the word "billion" eclipsed "thousand million" and "milliard" several decades ago even in British English: ... And we are here to instruct people. If someone comes to read en.wp and they're not good at English, it is our job to help them learn that in English "billion" always or almost always means 1,000,000,000. If you wanted to learn Spanish, looking up "billón" and finding a disambiguation page would make you think it was ambiguous, right? But in that language "billón" (almost) invariably means 1,000,000,000,000 and their article on "billón" tells you as much right from the get-go. And ours should for the value of 1,000,000,000. Red Slash 03:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then are you going to propose to rename all number articles, to make it match this oddball word-form proposed title? 1 (number) to one; 0 (number) to zero, 100 (number) to hundred (number), 1000 (number) to thousand etc ? -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, I did. Talk:1_(number) I really don't know if the article on 1,000,000,000 should be at that location or this one, but billion absolutely should redirect to that article. Red Slash 05:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is confusion over what a billion is. Official usage does not change the fact that many English-speaking people still consider a billion to be 1,000,000,000,000. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [ citation needed ] Red Slash 05:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are still people who consider a billion to be 10^12.  Not only that, but someone unfamiliar with the intricacies of billion reading an early Arthur C. Clarke novel or anything else written by a Brit before about 1970 may be surprised that the term doesn't mean what they are probably used to.  It is not Wikipedia's purpose or role to change the world, only to describe what it is and was.  —EncMstr (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Official, academic and media usage is what we have to go on for reliable sources, not asserted, unsourced individual beliefs. That a handful English-speaking people still think a billion is a million million is hardly a basis for keeping the status quo. Universality is not a requirement to demonstrate a wp:primary topic. The status quo gives a clearly misleading impression of current English usage. And a hatnote to refer to the archaic position in the certain countries can always be added. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 17:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we go on common usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which we assess by examining official, academic and media usage. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, we assess common usage by common usage. The clue is in the phrase. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blue-Haired Lawyer, actually Necrothesp is right--with very few exceptions we absolutely do title our articles by common usage, period. (Or "full stop", if you prefer.) And in said common usage, the word "billion" means 1,000,000,000. Period. Full stop. I provided sources saying that even British English now has no other word for 1,000,000,000 besides "billion". You got any sources yourself, Necrothesp? Whether 1,000,000,000 or billion ends up as the resting place of this article is up for debate, but the common meaning of the word "billion" should not be. The sources are clear. Red Slash 05:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we have no other word for 1,000,000,000, but we do have a phrase: one thousand million. This has always been how British people have commonly said it ("milliard" has never been particularly common in British English). But if you want a source for the British usage of billion, try the Oxford English Dictionary, still considered to be the Bible of British English (and constantly updated online, so let's have no spurious claims that it's out of date). The first definition of "billion" is: "orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions. (= U.S. trillion.)". The second is: "In U.S., and increasingly in Britain: A thousand millions." Seems pretty unequivocal to me, therefore, that the traditional British definition of billion is still very current in everyday usage by British people (and through my own experience, that most British people will qualify their usage of "billion" as "British" or "American" in common speech). We all know that official usage is now the short billion (for some bizarre reason obviously best known to Harold Wilson and his government), but that doesn't invalidate common usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Short scale" use
The short scale is used by English speakers in the U.S., the UK and Australia (though maybe not Wales), and by Arabic speakers. It is far from an exclusive province of English speakers, and by singling out English at this dab page, the implication is that the short scale is exclusive to English. It is not, and while Wikipedia has an English speaking audience, it is inappropriate to adopt exclusively Anglo-centric definitions of terms such as this. Not to mention that by listing only one of the major users of the short scale, the reference is affirmatively misleading. It was fine before when we did not try to single out any particular adherent to these two scales, but if we're going to do it at all, the note must include the other major user. I intend to change it to that more accurate and complete form (English plus Arabic) absent a compelling argument why it should not be. JohnInDC (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference needs to come out in any case per Dab. JohnInDC (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Having suggested that the descriptor include Arabic in addition to English, I've thought about it some more and can't see any sensible reason not also to include other major languages that also use the short scale, e.g., Russian, Hebrew, Brazilian Portuguese. The problem though is that begins to get cumbersome; and too, if we're going to throw in a list of speakers who use the short scale, it leaves hanging the question of who uses the long scale.  That omission becomes kind of hard to defend.  I'm leaning back to where the description was originally, i.e. with no particular descriptor attached.  It's really a pretty interesting breakdown throughout the world - who uses which scale, and when they did - and that can't really be done justice in a snippet of a sentence.  Plus too the Long and short scales article is linked.  I'll reiterate - there is no reason to single out English for special mention in connection with one meaning of the word "billion".  Most of the readers here speak English, to be sure, but it's a non sequitur to suggest that they are therefore only interested in information about English language usage.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Glad we have a conversation going on this. Wikipedia uses the short scale and English dictionaries too. The common definition for billion *is* the short scale. We have to state the common definition here. There are pages here that say n billion and if you click the link you would have found out that n billion has two meanings which is wrong! If billion is in an article it *only* means the short scale. We should note this long-scale variation in other languages, but this is the English wikipedia. Bhny (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 * A problem with this page is that the name is "Billion" and not "Billion (disambiguation)". Many links and searches will be looking here for a referenced definition. I see above that there was an attempt to redirect to the short scale number which would have been better. Bhny (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly mind stating the common definition, and I don't mind emphasizing it if it is true. I do object to a dab definition that implies that the term is somehow more the province of English speakers than of the many others who also employ the short scale, which the dab does when it describes the short scale definition as the scale used in "British and American English".  I am not sure how true it is, that the short scale is "the" common definition for billion given that most of continental Europe and south America do not use it, but to the extent that it is, the qualifier you've added both underemphasizes that point as well as overemphasizes the importance of English speakers in its use.  To do this right, you need a real mouthful of a sentence, plus you'd need one for long scale as well because you can't equate long scale users with those who don't use short scale, see for example, much of Asia.  It's a mess, it was better when it was simpler, and so I'm changing it back to its original state.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Use in English Wikipedia
In the English Wikipedia the word billion is used in the American meaning (1 000 000 000), or the British (1 000 000 000 000)? I assume in most cases it is (or even it should be because of a wiki-recommendation/rule?) the American way (since it is the majority of users and Wikipedia is an American company). Am I right? And could anyone please write this into the article (Billion)? It would be very useful, i guess. Thanks, --Jiří Janíček (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the short-scale billion is used in all English speaking countries. England switched in 1974. Also Wikipedia isn't a company (haha) and tries to be international. For example the  spelling used in articles is whatever the article originally starts with, be it American/British/Canadian. Bhny (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, in all Wikipedia articles, billion follows the American usage and not the historic British one. (No, that's not because of the American origin of Wiki's founders or users; it's standard in all forms of English now. No, I do not understand why the move proposal above failed.) — Llywelyn II   08:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Formatting & move
As the comment above points out, Blue-Haired Lawyer was precisely correct in saying
 * The current set-up... serves to give the misleading impression of ambiguity in contemporary English usage when there really isn't any, and create confusion in the eyes of readers as to the meaning of the word billion.

I personally feel that  (for all forms of English) means that we should have the number 1 000 000 000 redirect to billion and have the first section of the article billion address the former (but now completely obsolete) British usage. I'm not sure what the cut-off is for resubmitting a failed move proposal, though.

In the meantime, we must phrase the lead (with or without citations) to clarify Wikipedia and all official English venues' use of this number. Otherwise, we are giving people the impression that pages with USE BRITISH ENGLISH tags or newspaper articles from The Economist or the Beeb are still using the long scale. If there are general policies that conflict with fixing that problem (I myself believe the earlier editor who left the commented text was just misreading our dab page policy), then this is a situation. — Llywelyn II   09:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the long scale billion
I have restored a link to the long scale billion which was removed several months ago. This page serves as a disambiguation page and Billion (disambiguation) redirects here. Since this page serves to disambiguate between all articles that the title "Billion" may refer to, it should include a link to 1,000,000,000,000. If editors genuinely feel that "billion" is the primary topic for 1,000,000,000 they should start another move discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That link still appears - look again more carefully. But it is plain antisocial to restore a version that fails to indicate which is the normal meaning of billion and which is an antiquated one. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are treating the short scale billion as the primary definition of the word, and that argument was rejected above. When there is no primary topic all articles should be given as a list. Basically the consensus in the move discussion went against you so you have gamed it by restructuring the article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really think 10^9 is not the primary meaning of "billion" in today's world? Do you read British newspapers? Have you ever seen billion used to mean 10^12 in real life, because I don't think I have, whereas I see it used to mean 10^9 practically every day. There isn't any serious dispute about what the primary meaning is, the argument in the move discussion was about what should redirect to what, and I agree it seems quite reasonable to keep this as a disambiguation page, but a helpful one, i.e. one that makes it clear to readers what billion nearly always means, as well as all the other things it might occasionally mean. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not the point. The move discussion found there was no consensus that the the short scale billion is the primary topic for "billion". If it is the primary topic then start another "move" discussion. Otherwise please leave this page to fulfil the function it was created to do i.e. disambiguate between topics which share a common name. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to start a move discussion, since I don't want to move anything. I'm happy for this page to distinguish between topics, as you say, but it needs to do this slightly more intelligently than most disambiguation pages do, since people may be confused as to what the normally encountered meaning is (that being the reason for keeping this as a disambiguation page and not simply redirecting). W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't the job of a disambiguation page to explain the etymology of a word. Even if modern English-written publications predominantly use the short scale there are plenty of historical ones where the situation is reversed. A "billion" is not a number, it is a word and its meaning depends entirely on when, where and for what it is used. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No-one said or added anything about etymology, and as I've said already, no-one removed the historical meaning - just noted that it is, basically, historical, which is what people need to know. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 * A billion is a number. Disambiguation pages have the common definition followed by "may also refer to". I don't know why we can't do that here. And nobody was talking about an etymology. Also it is actually dangerous to give people the an obsolete value if they are depending on this for a calculation. Bhny (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000 are numbers. A "billion"—as confirmed by the move discussion above—is a word that denotes several different things not only in the English language but also on Wikipedia. This is a disambiguation page not an article, and it was fine as it was before all the tampering. As for your assertion it is dangerous to give people an obsolete value, it is equally dangerous if someone is reading an older document that uses the long-scale version and the disambiguation page gives them the impression that the short-scale version is the "correct" version. Which version is correct depends entirely on the context, when and where the term originates. A disambiguation page shouldn't be making any assumptions on behalf of the reader; it should simply make it clear that it can have two interpretations in the numerical sense that are covered on Wikipedia. We have a comprehensive article at Long and short scales to explain the distinction and this article doesn't need to do anything other than simply providing the links. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Several people have explained, now and in previous threads and edit summaries, why "simply providing the links" is a less helpful solution in this case than providing the links together with a little added commentary about actual usage. You would seem to want to deprive readers of that knowledge or make it harder for them to find it, perhaps because you want to feel some companionship in what appears to be your own ignorance about this subject. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Article
What about having a separate article for the number (at Billion) and the rest of the entries at Billion (disambiguation)? As done recently (though originally using different titles), and reverted because it is "controversial"? It seemed to me the result was slightly preferable to the arrangement we currently have - what are the objections? (Initial version of the article here, obviously this could be expanded on.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's controversial because it's not the first time that you have attempted to repurpose the page when others have disagreed (see ). -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not me guv. What is your (or anyone else's) objection to the change? W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billion&action=history page history] I see plenty of disagreement between yourself and . -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Relevant how?? The question is whether to have an article for Billion that talks about the number (or rather, the term for a number), separate from the disambiguation page. Seems to me that having an article will be more helpful to readers, as we can explain the use(s) of the term in somewhat greater depth than would be normal for a disambiguation page. The numerical term is clearly a primary topic ahead of the corporation or the person with the surname. W. P. Uzer (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, our friend seems insistent that there should be a separate article (though "violating MOSDAB" is a pretty useless reason, and if there is to be a separate article, I can hardly see how it can not be the primary topic). Does anyone want to discuss this, or is it just going to be decided by edit-warring? W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like has gone against the spirit of WP:BRD at Quadrillion, Billion and Billion (number) by re-reverting instead of discussing. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm going to comment purely from a disambiguation point of view, which is a field in which I spend most of my edits on Wikipedia. Why was there an issue with the dab page as it was (see WP:MOSDAB, or WP:DDD for quick reference)?
 * Dab pages should not contain banners or portals. This is because they are not articles, they are not referring to a single topic (in this case, the number). They are merely a list of redirects to topics sharing the same title.
 * Dab pages should not have references (for the same reason). Any clarification provided by the reference should be included in the article being linked from the dab page.
 * Entries on dab pages should include only one blue link.
 * And in general, dab pages should not be used as a "source of information", which was an issue here because multiple articles were linking to the dab page as "a source for information on the interpretation/meaning/background of billion as a number".
 * Now, as I wrote in my comments, there are two ways to deal with this. Either the offending information gets stripped, leading to a very condensed list of links, as on the page which I formatted. It is fully MOSDAB compliant but you can easily see the issue here. The background/information gets lost (as excellently elaborated in the article Billion (number) by W. P. Uzer), and people will still need to link to the dab page to catch the two different meanings of the number billion. Or, alternatively, a separate article (small or large) is created, which can then benefit from all the privileges of a real article. This solution is often applied for evacuating a long list of surnames from a dab page for instance.
 * That's all I have to say about this. Whether the number billion is a primary topic or not is a completely different debate, but I can easily see it getting a majority vote. W. P. Uzer, I have an issue being called "my friend" though. I find it demeaning, or at least that's how I interpret it, and I would like you to take it back. --Midas02 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose it was supposed to imply a tiny degree of disrespect, as is due to one who revert-wars without attempting to explain or discuss the matter on the talk page. Anyway, since you've belatedly done that, consider it withdrawn. I tend not to care too much about "rules" that certain select groups of Wikipedians have formulated and then attempt to apply without exception (even though it is a fundamental Wikipedia policy to ignore such rules whenever we can do better without them), but I agree now that the information in this case was being cramped by the dab-page format and is better presented in a fuller article. Question remains of what to do with the other -ILLION words (I haven't really looked at them in detail). W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment My objections related to the attempts to subvert the outcome at which rejected the primacy of the short scale billion. When a requested move fails to arrive at the conclusion that any one particular definition is the primary topic then the disambiguation page should respect that outcome. This isn't just my objection, this is an objection that was voiced by several editors at the move discussion. If any editor believes that the discussion arrived at the wrong conclusion and that the short scale billion is indeed the primary topic then the move discussion should reopened. Until then any editing on this page should recognize the fact that neither scale enjoys primacy. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Current shenanigans doesn't make the short scale "primary" in the Wikipedia sense (since "billion" is not being redirected to the 1,000,000,000 page, nor is that article being renamed "billion"); the question is whether (a) there should be a dedicated article explaining the use of the term billion to denote a large number, or whether that should simply be done within the framework of a disambiguation page, and (b) (if the first option) whether that article should be the primary topic for "billion". In my view, the answer to (a) is dedicated article (though I don't feel particularly strongly about it; the explaining is also done at the various large number articles, of which there may already be too many, and MOSDAB isn't law, so we can vary its provisions slightly if it's beneficial to readers to do so); and the answer to (b) is definitely primary topic. Other views please? W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

– Topic of the article Billion (number) is primary. At least, it is almost certainly what a reader is looking for if typing "billion". W. P. Uzer (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Billion → Billion (disambiguation)
 * Billion (number) → Billion

 * Support The numerical concept is clearly the primary meaning of the term, regardless of the scale. As Billion (number) currently stands, it covers both definitions and the etymology of the word, which also addresses the main reason why the original move request failed. I see no valid objection as to why this can't go ahead. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I can't quite believe this isn't already the case. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC a billion times over. Zarcadia (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support and speedy move per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 19:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support speedy move – There is absolutely no justification for the present situation. The primary topic is clear as could be. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. bd2412  T 21:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The primary topic is what we find at 1,000,000,000. There is no English-speaking country where you will find the word "billion" to mean anything else in 2015. Only support move of this page to Billion (disambiguation); move Billion (number) to Billion (word), and redirect billion to 1,000,000,000 Red Slash 00:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: the alternative suggested by Red Slash was rejected above at . Other editors simply do not share the opinion that 1,000,000,000 is the primary topic. W. P. Uzer has put forward a pragmatic and elegant solution to a problem that has gone on for too long so let's not derail the current move request with suggestions that have already been rejected. We should put this move through as quickly as possibly because it is better than the current scenario, and if Red Slash wishes to re-submit their proposal to the community they can start a fresh move request after this one is completed. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. That the primary topic of "billion" is a number should be without doubt. The other issue is one that can be addressed in a separate discussion. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: the (still slightly ambiguous) number is clearly the primary topic. Pam  D  12:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

1,000,000,000,000 as a billion
Is there any credence mentioning 1,000,000,000,000 as a billion, it seems archaic and not used in British English anymore so why is it still listed at the top of the page? Zarcadia (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is still a meaning some people would encounter (though to be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it except in the context of people explaining what a billion used to mean). I hope that when this disambiguation page is reformatted as one with a primary topic (see above proposal) it will continue to make clear to readers that this meaning is outmoded (as far as the English language is concerned). W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, it's obviously worth mentioning but personally I don't think it should be given so much importance. The RM looks like it's going in the right direction, there's no way the number should be disambiguated. Zarcadia (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Billion (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Scheme Links

Moved from Scheme Links

http://www.schemers.org/ - A large collection of Scheme resources.

http://www.htdp.org - Online book How to Design Programs which purports to teach programming using Scheme. The authors seem to have some very clear ideas on how they think teaching programming should be done.

I copied the above links directly to the Scheme article. As it is Scheme Links simply isn't encyclopedic; nor is the page named correctly yet. You can have these types of links on your own user page, but in order to have them in an article they must be followed by at least a definition telling the reader what Scheme is and what this specific article is for. Otherwise, it just looks like what it is -- a list of links. If all you wanted was to list a few to several links, then just simply add them to Scheme like I did. If you really want to build a resource for finding info (not just listing links), then that is a great idea -- but the article just needs more and should be renamed. Cheers! maveric149

Thanks for the pointers! I also felt that a separate page for this was unnecessary, but didn't want to mess with the existing page-level structure, as a wikipedia newbie. user:Darius Bacon

 * So long as you have good intentions and try your best to understand things, you don't need to worry too much about messing things up around here. If you do something wrong somebody will eventually come along and fix it. That's the great thing about the History links from each article and the fact that everything shows up in RecentChanges. A far wiser man than me once said that "many eyes make bugs shallow". We have a policy here to Be bold in updating pages, so now if you like, you can delete the text in the Scheme Links article, destroy the link to it in Scheme, and then place an entry in page titles that need to be deleted for Scheme Links -- this is the general procedure for this type of thing. Happy hacking! --maveric149

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Scheme Links


text:
Talk:Radionuclide

Merge Discussion
Suggested to merge the commercially available radioisotopes page with this one. Would make sense to consider merging both with the ionizing radiation page? I'm no expert, but as a lay man, I assume some duplication: certainly between this and the ionizing radiation page --Haruth (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to stress that a radionuclide (radioactive tracer used in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging) is not necessarily a radioisotope. It's like saying that all Christians are Catholic. A radionuclide can be an isotope (same number of protons as the original element, and therefore called by the same name as the original element), or even an isomer. But of what? It is assumed an isotope of its parent. Example: Metastable Technetium ninety-nine is the most common radioactive metal used in diagnostic imaging (nuclear medicine) today. Tc99m is the daughter nuclide of Mo 99 through radioactive decay. Both are radioactive, but they are not isotopes of each other. If they were, they would both be called Tc##, and would also, therefore, contain the same number of protons in their nucleus. An example of the proper use of the term "radioactive isotope(s) or "radioisotope", would be when speaking of two isotopes of Iodine: I131 and I123 (also used in diagnostic imaging, and the former used in both diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy).  They are both iodine. They both contain the same number of protons, and therefore, ARE isotopes.

Radioisotope, or just radioactive isotope is an old term-- probably because when nuclear medicine, as a study/medical practice, most radoactive tracers WERE in fact ISOTOPES of each other. That is NO longer true of all the radiotracers used today. It has not been true for some time. Some die hard's refuse to give up the misnomer.

Hope this clarifies the situation for many. KR, Nuclear Medicine Technologist 12-23-08

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.176.83 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC) This article fail to mention the environmental problems that the disposal of these causes. It is unbalanced.

 * I agree. To be complete, there are other negatives that need to be mentioned, such as polution, the diseases and mutations that can be produced by exposure, et cetera.  -- April

 * This article sounds as though it were taken from a P.R. brochure for the nuclear industry. "saving many lives"?  c'mon.

I think a seperate section on the disposal or radioactive materials with a link from radiosiotopes would be better than adding to this entry.

Some balance is needed in the discussion of radioactivity, waste disposal and risk. Most radioisotopes are natural. The medical use of radioactivity does not cause a significant disposal problem. The fear of mutations is not sensible. More radioactive material is released by non-nuclear activity eg. coal burning than nuclear activity. The real concern is of a catastrophic event eg Is it worth mentioning Americium 241 by name in smoke detectors?

Isotopes with half lifes significantly less than the age of the earth are not necessarily rare if they are a decay products of longer lived isotopes.

Is it worth mentioning the different types of radioactive decay that radioactive isotopes can undergo? The entry gives the impression that only gamma radiation is emitted. This is only the case when excited nuclear states decay (eg. Tc99m very important in nuclear medicine).

 * What's all this whining about? Be bold and improve the article!
 * —Herbee 01:53, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

The article could be more specific about which radioisotopes are used in each application, and how exactly. I don't know much about such matters, but surely many Wikipedians do? —Herbee 01:53, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

If you think this article has a rather peculiar slant on the subject, check out the article on ionizing radiation. Quite curious. --Martschink 13:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

radioisotope / radionuclide
I moved this page and changed the word radioisotope to radionuclide to fix the minor nomenclature oversight. an isotope must be of a specific atom. The statement, 'Which isotope is that?' can only be used when the atom has been established. In contrast, "Which nuclide is that?" can be used when the atom is unknown, i.e. when you find something radioactive and you want to know which radionuclide it is. Pdbailey 17:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Good catch. Andrew 04:33, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

The article is good the way it is!!

dont change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.38.253 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Shouldn't most of the uses section be moved out to radioactive tracer? I'm not really qualified to say for sure, or else I would do it myself, but that article is certainly lacking much of what is in here. Also the more general article Isotopic tracer seems to be a bit orphaned too. - Taxman Talk 21:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Additional suggestion: Revise the sentence, "Unplanned exposure to radionuclides generally has a harmful effect on living organisms including humans, although low levels of exposure occur naturally without harm." So a planned exposure is expected to be harmless? I suspect the author meant something else by "unplanned," but I'm not sure what. Maybe "unprotected?" PerryTrenton (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Reference needed to refer to in a report
<>

Please, can you provide a reference for this statement? 150.135.161.120 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a few words strangely out of place in this article. The most prominent is "Orgasm". Wtf do radionuclides have to do with orgasm? We must have some strange theoretical physicists out there.....

Question:
An article on at the BBC, "A Return to the Orangey World" says that radioisotope antennas may be used to power future lander missions. How? 75.72.58.56 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)PeterVossler@yahoo.de
 * Using radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) technology as the primary heat (1 kW total) and power source for the robotic vehicle. Radioisotope heater unit (RHU) milli-watt power systems (120 mW total) can also be employed to power mini-radiowave ransceivers. Do a web search or put teh question to the wiki help desk for more info. Jclerman 19:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

False Reference (?)
This page gives an external link to:

Pocket Rad - A source for radioactive isotopes

However, unless I am mistaken this is a unrelated parody website. Can some one confirm this and then remove the spurious link? Thanks.

--Owlcatowl (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another question
"Radionuclides can also cause malfunction of electrical devices such as the one you are now using."

Hmmm... exactly how do they do this? References? Rb88guy (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

How many radionuclides after a nuclear meltdown?
After the reactor meltdowns in Japan last week, my newspaper has claimed several times that "Some 400 radioactive isotopes can be released in a full-scale nuclear meltdown". Can someone explain what this number is based on? Dirac66 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's based on politics. It's a scary and meaningless number. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

nuclide vs. nucleotide
Why does a search for 'radionucleotide' redirect to this page? That would imply that 'radionucleotide' is the same as 'radionuclide' and that 'nucleotide' is the same as 'nuclide,' neither of which is true. If anything, a search for 'radionucleotide' should redirect to 'nucleotide.' Anyone care to weigh in, correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdevola (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that that redirect should not point here. However it should not point to nucleotide either, since that article has nothing on radioisotope-labelled nucleotides. Probably the redirect should just be removed, so that a search for radionucleotide gives no result at all. Dirac66 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 * It would probably be best to list the redirect at redirects for discussion. What should be done with the pages that link to "Radionucleotide"? I know absolutely nothing about this subject, so I don't feel comfortable taking any action on the redirect myself. Graham 87 01:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now looked at the 3 pages that link to Radionucleotide - two are on medical subjects so may be related to nucleotides, but the third on Electrokinetic remediation appears to be an error for radionuclide. Quick Google searches also turn up some papers which seem to be about DNA and some which do not, so I am now confused as to the usual meaning of this tem, and I would like an opinion from someone more familiar with the term. Rather than redirects for discussion, I have decided to ask at Talk:Nucleotide - both about the real meaning of the term and about whether a section on radionucleotides would be useful. Dirac66 (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "radionucleotide" should direct to a little stub that says that there is no such word in common use, but it is a common misspelling for radionuclide (this will prevent people from making any other redirects from this non-word, if somebody searches for it). Radiolabeled nucleotides are called just that, no short version. I did read one definition claiming "radionucleotide" as a "radiolabeled nucleotide" but I don't think that's in common use, and wouldn't encourage it. Radionuclide can be misspelled, and you see that very often in descriptions of papers, and I've even found it as a flub in in the titles of several published medical papers, for example: here in a paper which is clearly not about radiolabeled nucleotides, but rather is about a radionuclide scan. The two medical pages above are probably in error. Most pages on google that have "radionucleotide" mean "radionuclide" but where written by some biomed person (as in the hapless doctors above) who'd never heard of nuclides and so misspelled it nucleotide.  S  B Harris 01:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A misspelling that appears in thousands of books? Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the first four pages I looked at are any indication, yes! There is about one possibly correct use per page, and the rest (90% or so) are clear mistakes. Methods in Enzymology by Balch describes radiolabeled DNA nucleotides with P-32, and there are two others in the first 4 pages of 40 books I looked at. Perhaps there are some biochemists using it deliberately, but all the medical books have it wrong, which means that most of these are errors. There are no clinical applications (use in patients) that legitimately use the word. Perhaps our dab should say that a few papers on DNA-enzyme chemistry use "radionucleotide" to actually mean a radiolabeled nucleotide (frankly a new use to me, but you learn something new on WP every day), but most of the uses in the science literature, especially medical literature, are misspellings or malapropisms for radionuclide. S  B Harris 04:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedic article to me. Perhaps it should redirect to the Wiktionary entry for this "non-word" (which would also need to be updated) using the wi template? Graham 87 06:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a disambiguation page would be the way to go here. The items would be "An incorrect term for a radionuclide" and "A nucleotide labeled with a radioisotope such as 32P".  Alternatively, we could place a hatnote on this article saying "Radionucleotide redirects here; for radiolabeled nulceotides, see X".  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I have gone ahead and changed the redirect to a dab page. Thanks to Jdevola for raising the question, to Sbharris for checking the literature and explaining how this word is used, and to Antony22 for a concise summary which I used almost as is on the dab page. However I put the nucleotide meaning first as that one actually makes sense even if it is not widely used.
 * And one more note - Wikipedia does have other articles explaining incorrect terms, as there may be readers who look for them. In nuclear physics for example, see the infamous nucular! Dirac66 (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Yes, we do have full articles about incorrect terms – e.g. the above-mentioned nucular and irregardless – but only when several reliable sources have commented on their incorrectness. As the term seems to have legitimate uses, a disambiguation page is probably the best way to go. Graham 87 02:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Radionuclide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112082137/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf57.html to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf57.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318173013/http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs23am241.htm to http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs23am241.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

New redirects
I've created redirects here from and  to anchors (hopefully sections here one day, hence the leading capitals on the anchor names) on these important classes of radionuclide.

These anchors do not yet exist, nor does any section where I could put them, but I could find no better target for them at present. Meantime The redirects will at least take readers to this article. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Radioactive material" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Radioactive material and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Proton and neutron deficiency
Both and  currently redirect here, but neither term is currently mentioned anywhere in the article.

As these are the standard terms for these two types of radionuclide, and the difference is important, I think we should do better than that. Andrewa (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Radionuclide


text:
USS Skate

Three submarines of the United States Navy have borne the name USS Skate, named for a type of ray.

 * The first USS Skate (SS-23) was a United States F-class submarine that sank in March 1915 off Pearl Harbor.
 * The second USS Skate (SS-305) was a Balao-class submarine that saw action in World War II.
 * The third USS Skate (SSN-578), the lead ship of her class of nuclear attack submarines, saw action during the Cold War.

title: USS Skate


text:
User talk:Darius Bacon

Hello there Darius! I see you are a new Wikipedian. Welcome aboard. You might want to see a note I placed in Talk:Scheme Links. Cheers! maveric149

title: User talk:Darius Bacon


text:
Orientalium Ecclesiarum

Orientalium Ecclesiarum, subtitled the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches is one of the Second Vatican Council's 16 magisterial documents. "Orientalium Ecclesiarum" is Latin for "of the Eastern Churches," and is taken from the first line of the decree.

One of the shortest conciliar documents, it was approved on 20 November 1964 by a vote of 2,054 in favour and 64 opposed, and was confirmed by a vote of 2,110 to 39 on 21 November 1964, the day when it was promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

The decree recognizes the right of Eastern Catholics to keep their own distinct liturgical practices while remaining in full communion with the Holy See. The decree exhorts Eastern Catholics to "take steps to return to their ancestral traditions." This aspect of the decree was directed against Latinisation.

The document specifies some of the autonomous powers of the Eastern Churches. In particular, the Patriarch (or where applicable, major archbishop) and synod have the power to establish eparchies, to nominate bishops within their patriarchate, to legislate the rights and obligations of the minor orders (including subdiaconate), and to determine the date for celebrating Easter within their rite. It furthermore recognized the ancient practice in the East regarding the sacrament of confirmation (Chrismation), stating that all Eastern priests have the power to administer this sacrament using chrism blessed by a bishop. One of the implications of this is the further practice of infant communion was formally recognized.

Contents
There are 30 articles, divided into 6 chapters, plus a preamble and a conclusion.

The Preamble affirms the Church's respect for Eastern Catholics (§1):

"The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church."

The Individual Churches or Rites

- “Each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire” but “should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place” (§2)

- The individual Churches, whether Eastern or Western, are of equal dignity (§3)

- Every Catholic must retain his own rite, cherish and protect it (§4)

Preservation of the Spiritual Heritage of the Eastern Churches

- “The Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines” (§5)

- All Eastern Churches may preserve their liturgical traditions and way of life, and if history has imposed changes on them, “they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions” (§6)

Eastern Rite Patriarchs

- “The patriarchate, as an institution, has existed in the Church from the earliest times” (§7)

- All patriarchs are of equal dignity (§8)

- The rights and privileges of patriarchs “should be re-established in accordance with the ancient tradition of each of the Churches and the decrees of the ecumenical councils” (§9)

- “The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate”, subject to the Pope's right to intervene in individual cases (§9)

- New patriarchates should be established where there is a need (§11)

The discipline of the Sacraments (§12-18) is concerned with the regulation of the sacraments. An important issue is the right of priests of one rite to administer sacraments to faithful of another rite. It also recommends that the diaconate be restored as a permanent ministry.

Divine Worship (§19-23) deals with the regulation of such liturgical matters as feast days (including Easter), the Divine Office and the languages to be used in the liturgy.

Relations with the Brethren of the Separated Churches

- Eastern Catholics have a special duty to promote Christian unity, especially with the Eastern Orthodox (§24)

- If a member of an Eastern Orthodox Church becomes Catholic, “no more should be required of him than what a bare profession of the Catholic faith demands”. An Orthodox priest or bishop is permitted to act as a priest or bishop upon joining the Catholic Church (§25)

- A member of an Eastern Orthodox Church, if he asks of his own accord, may receive the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the sick from an Eastern Catholic priest. And an Eastern Catholic, if no Catholic priest is available, may receive these sacraments from an Eastern Orthodox priest. Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox may take part in each other's liturgical services (§26-29)

The Conclusion (§30) asks all Christians, Eastern and Western, to pray for the reunion of Christians, and also to pray for those Christians suffering for their faith in Christ (a reference to Christians in communist countries).

title: Orientalium Ecclesiarum


text:
Synthetic radioisotope

A synthetic radioisotope is a radionuclide that is not found in nature: no natural process or mechanism exists which produces it, or it is so unstable that it decays away in a very short period of time. Examples include technetium-99 and promethium-146. Many of these are found in, and harvested from, spent nuclear fuel assemblies. Some must be manufactured in particle accelerators.

Production
Some synthetic radioisotopes are extracted from spent nuclear reactor fuel rods, which contain various fission products. For example, it is estimated that up to 1994, about 49,000 terabecquerels (78 metric tons) of technetium were produced in nuclear reactors; as such, anthropogenic technetium is far more abundant than technetium from natural radioactivity.

Some synthetic isotopes are produced in significant quantities by fission but are not yet being reclaimed. Other isotopes are manufactured by neutron irradiation of parent isotopes in a nuclear reactor (for example, technetium-97 can be made by neutron irradiation of ruthenium-96) or by bombarding parent isotopes with high energy particles from a particle accelerator.

Many isotopes, including radiopharmaceuticals, are produced in cyclotrons. For example, the synthetic fluorine-18 and oxygen-15 are widely used in positron emission tomography.

Uses
Most synthetic radioisotopes have a short half-life. Though a health hazard, radioactive materials have many medical and industrial uses.

Nuclear medicine
The field of nuclear medicine covers use of radioisotopes for diagnosis or treatment.

Diagnosis
Radioactive tracer compounds, radiopharmaceuticals, are used to observe the function of various organs and body systems. These compounds use a chemical tracer which is attracted to or concentrated by the activity which is being studied. That chemical tracer incorporates a short lived radioactive isotope, usually one which emits a gamma ray which is energetic enough to travel through the body and be captured outside by a gamma camera to map the concentrations. Gamma cameras and other similar detectors are highly efficient, and the tracer compounds are generally very effective at concentrating at the areas of interest, so the total amounts of radioactive material needed are very small.

The metastable nuclear isomer technetium-99m is a gamma-ray emitter widely used for medical diagnostics because it has a short half-life of 6 hours, but can be easily made in the hospital using a technetium-99m generator. Weekly global demand for the parent isotope molybdenum-99 was 12000 Ci in 2010, overwhelmingly provided by fission of uranium-235.

Treatment
Several radioisotopes and compounds are used for medical treatment, usually by bringing the radioactive isotope to a high concentration in the body near a particular organ. For example, iodine-131 is used for treating some disorders and tumors of the thyroid gland.

Industrial radiation sources
Alpha particle, beta particle, and gamma ray radioactive emissions are industrially useful. Most sources of these are synthetic radioisotopes. Areas of use include the petroleum industry, industrial radiography, homeland security, process control, food irradiation and underground detection.

title: Synthetic radioisotope


text:
Trace radioisotope

A trace radioisotope is a radioisotope that occurs naturally in trace amounts (i.e. extremely small). Generally speaking, trace radioisotopes have half-lives that are short in comparison with the age of the Earth, since primordial nuclides tend to occur in larger than trace amounts. Trace radioisotopes are therefore present only because they are continually produced on Earth by natural processes. Natural processes which produce trace radioisotopes include cosmic ray bombardment of stable nuclides, ordinary alpha and beta decay of the long-lived heavy nuclides, thorium-232, uranium-238, and uranium-235, spontaneous fission of uranium-238, and nuclear transmutation reactions induced by natural radioactivity, such as the production of plutonium-239 and uranium-236 from neutron capture by natural uranium.

Elements
The elements that occur on Earth only in traces are listed below.

Isotopes of other elements (not exhaustive):
 * Tritium
 * Beryllium-7
 * Beryllium-10
 * Carbon-14
 * Fluorine-18
 * Sodium-22
 * Sodium-24
 * Magnesium-28
 * Silicon-31
 * Silicon-32
 * Phosphorus-32
 * Sulfur-35
 * Sulfur-38
 * Chlorine-34m
 * Chlorine-36
 * Chlorine-38
 * Chlorine-39
 * Argon-39
 * Argon-42
 * Calcium-41
 * Iron-60
 * Nickel-59
 * Selenium-79
 * Krypton-81
 * Strontium-90

title: Trace radioisotope


text:
Ad gentes

Ad gentes (To the Nations) is the Second Vatican Council's decree on missionary activity that reaffirmed the need for missions and salvation in Christ. The document establishes evangelization as one of the fundamental missions of the Catholic Church and reaffirms the tie between evangelization and charity for the poor. Ad gentes also calls for the formation of strong Christian communities as well as strong relations with other Christians. Finally, it lays out guidelines for the training and actions of the missionaries.

title: Ad gentes


text:
User talk:Great throwdini

Welcome to the 'pedia! Great handle BTW -- hope you like the place. Chow! --maveric149
 * Love the name, one of the best episodes of a great show. Spookyadler (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Great throwdini