Jump to content

User talk:DePiep/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Poor metal

I've moved Post-transition metal to Poor metal as you requested. The old and new articles had WP:Parallel histories so a history merge was not possible. A cut-and-paste move was done back in 2008, which you can verify by looking at [1] and [2]. I think it's too late to fix this, but the old history of Poor metal needs to be parked somewhere. See Wikipedia:Parallel histories#A troublesome case for a way to handle this. Check Talk:Poor metal for my note and let me know if there are still any problems. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I have thanked you on your talk page. It was a tough one I understand now. Thanks here too. -DePiep (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have reverted the change to inert pair effect you made as a result of the merge of poor metal and post-transition metal articles. I was not aware of this merge and would have probably have had some input as the two terms historically are not interchangeable, whilst aluminium is often termed a poor metal it is most definitely not post-transition and why anyone could ever think it was is beyond me, but apparently they do. Regarding the so-called inert pair effect - aluminium as a period 3 element is not affected, whereas gallium, germanium, indium, tin, etc are. The vagueness of the terms poor metal and post-transition metal are apparent and perhaps a more specific wording is required to ensure the correct elements are identified in the inert pair effect article. I will put this on my to-do list but will not get back to it for a while.Axiosaurus (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not too deep in this knowledge, I was just reading the outcome at WT:ELEM. Recap of the discussions:
  • Roundup called "option 10" (concluded & closed): Option 10
I suggest you discuss this further in these sections; my talk is not of great weight. I understand inert pair effect will follow the outcome of these discussions (I won't mind you rv again during that). -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like I should clarify. :-) Even if this group 12 change goes through, we will still be calling them poor metals, as we must, for aluminium is not after any transition metals and hence cannot be classified as a post-transition metal (if we're trying to be accurate, and of course we are!). So it will still be poor metal. There is a difference: post-transition does not include Al while poor does, so if Al is specifically being excluded from the discussion, we can use post-transition metal. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Getting it. So "post-transition metals" is not deleted completely. and, by keeping "post-transition metals" in inert pair effect, the current poor-group-12 discussion won't have any effect there. I was going through this search. Some have kept "post-transition" because group 12 elements are not poor (yet). Imperfect maybe. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A really simple question. This "new" periodic table with poor metals / metalloids etc will there be other versions refelcting other POVs? Time for a quick rant:- Personally this sticking elements in boxes is all a bit strange - there is no correct answer most of the time, as the old saw has it "every rule in inorganic chemistry has exceptions incluing this one". Personally I would like a version of the periodic table which shows active nmetals as per chemical reactivity series that at least would be useful to students, better than confusing them with the impression that Al was a brittle poor conducting semiconductor, with intermediate properties between metal and non metals. Some metals are just slightly dodgy metals - so what. Axiosaurus (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Boxes in chemistry often are fuzzy. Axiosaurus (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Sandbh here. There can be other PT versions reflecting other POVs. I respectfully disagree with you that there is no correct answer most of the time. It seems to me that there is a right answer most of the time, and that is a good thing to codify knowledge and illuminate and contrast relationships. The exceptions and difficult borderline cases are the minority however they are the ones that make things interesting and challenging. They do not matter so much, as long as the overall arrangement of boxes is found to be useful. Personally, I've found the work to tidy up the boxes and the assignment of elements to boxes on the right hand side of the PT to be profitable in terms of improving my understanding of the rich nuances of the elements involved. I’ve also improved my appreciation of how the relevant periodic trends interact to produce the left-right progression in metallic character across the PT. I credit students and teachers with having enough nous to be able to understand and explain the difference between a poor metal such as Al, which is patently neither brittle nor semiconducting, and a metalloid such as Si, which is both. A version of the periodic table showing active metals as per the chemical reactivitity series would be interesting and useful. Sandbh (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
About five years ago a large group of Wikipedia editors (including me) with a wide range of backgrounds in academia and industry reached consensus about element classifications that ought to be used in Wikipedia's periodic table. IUPAC categories were consulted along with relevant articles from the Journal of Chemical Education (JCE), and an image from Lawrence Livermore of a table signed by Seaborg. From this careful consideration of evidence, the category name "Poor Metals" was dropped from the table used at Wikipedia, and the ambiguity of categorization was acknowledged by using the non-category "other metals" and "other non-metals" when appropriate. Then most of us (including me) stopped editing much when we realized that decisions at Wikipedia are mostly made by people who have huge amounts of time on their hands to continue making changes without consulting authoritative sources and also have the patience to wait until their opposition gets tired of arguing about the issue. I see now that the category of "Poor Metals" has returned. Thank you for confirming that we made the right decision to stop contributing here. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
hm. So you are claiming "authority", and you state theat I confirmed anything. Next time take some more time. It was the consensus of a 16 month 400k discussion at WT:ELEM, wich you might have missed (see its archive 15 - warning big page). And really these "non-categories" names were nonsense as they were used as a category. Another page of authority you have contributed is the (earlier version of) a page called something like groupings of groups of elements or whatever, by long the worst named page on enwiki. But do enjoy your authority. I guess noone could spoil that pleasure. -17:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
And perchance you are the author that thankfully deleted nonsensical page group number of lanthanides and actinides? (Sure, you have people claiming that La and Ac are in group 3. You have those claiming that Lu and Lr are in group 3. Show me someone who claims that the other lanthanides and actinides are in group 3?)
For the record, I do not have a huge amount of time on my hands usually, and also try to consult authoritative sources (and actually read them properly. Doubtless you will claim we read them only in ways that justify what we think? Look at me who wasted time arguing for Sc/Y/La/Ac and not splitting the nonmetals despite not believing those were the best suggestions to convince myself and others!) Patient, yes, but not to wait until the opposition gets tired of arguing; rather until we reach a consensus. Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Flying Jazz. I've read some of your contributions in our archives, including the ones about PT categories, and was impressed by their overall calibre. I wasn't aware you were still active. In any event, it's good to hear from you again.

I think you're judging the current state of affairs harshly, and without sufficient foundation.

As noted by DiPiep, the project has been looking carefully at the poor metals category. I always thought it was poorly defined, inconsistent, confusing, and poorly written up. After doing some exhaustive research of the literature we have prepared a draft reboot of the poor metal article, here.

There is still some residual ambiguity around the poor metals just as there are varying degrees of ambiguity about, for example, where the transition metals finish, the composition of Group 3, and how many lanthanides there are. But that didn't stop you from making, as I understand from reading your user page, a decision about how to show the lanthanides/actinides.

In the present case, the literature shows that the poor metals, as a bunch of second-string metals between the transition metals and the metalloids, make up a reasonably coherent grouping.

An outstanding issue is what to do about aluminium and whether it truly warrants being categorised as a poor metal.

I was somewhat surprised at your bitterness about the Wikipedia experience. Since I joined the project I've only seen improvements such as those in, for example, the articles for periodic table, fluorine, astatine and the transactinide elements. Sandbh (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sandbh for this nice description of the state of affairs. Unless Flying Jazz returns here with a nicer and better informed reaction, I don't allow this childish route by FJ any further on my talkpage. FJ spends 5 minutes on wiki this year and this attack comes out? Anyway, everybody knows that the topic(s) should be talked elsewhere. -15:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

element infoboxes

they still use post-transition metal instead of poor metal; could you help me fix it? thx. Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple edits right? I'll work from Po. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 Done. btw, I understand you do not want these infobox headers bg colored like "poor metal (predicted)", but "unkown", I see. Fine with me. -DePiep (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I add: I did not do any synchronisation with page content at all, these days. That takes a more sophisticated editor level. I can draw colors, nicely within the lines. I can even draw these lines! ;-) -DePiep (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

also: would it be possible to make the formatting of List of oxidation states of the elements better? Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what to improve. Anything off with the colored columns? -DePiep (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, now I see. Will change these two colors, but the categories do not correspondent all with oxygen state, right? Metalloids is not "+5". This error exists before and after. -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
that wasn't what I meant...currently it's a nightmare and I was wondering if there was a way to make it such that any time you entered a new entry into any cell it would be coloured already (col scopes?? or do they not work here??)
but yeah, this is a case where we misuse our standard colour scheme for something else. do you think it a problem? Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Dunno about column scopes at all, never used it. All I can think of is another sort of {{element cell}} with counting input options. But having to change the cells, is it not that stable yet?
Better use different colors sometime, we must protect the standard ones from abuse. Also, there should be a legend: what do bold and/or italics mean? But I'm low in inspiration at the moment. -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Take a look. I threw out all colors, because they do not mean anything. They are two greys now: only to support the table structure. A good thing is the repetition of the number in a cell: a reader cannot see the col header always, so this (redundant) info is great. Todo: greys might be in empty cells too; add legend for bold.italis writings. Not today for me. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Compact extended PT

[3]

If I might ask, I very carefully set the CSS to make sure it was barely any larger, while including both the easy and systemic names. Why do you think it's not compact?

Your edit reason, 'No understanding of "compact"', seemed very... dismissive, given that, unless the CSS I used isn't supported as widely as it should be. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing bad with the CSS. I wrote the words like "understand compact" in my es after I saw your edit sqeezing two lines into a cell (overlapping vertically, in my screen). If that were a solution for something (could be), I would like to have seen that solution before. I'd have opposed it for being bad layout, btw. So far for the easiest part. But what is it a solution for? What was the original problem? I have not seen that problem pointed anywhere. On WT:ELEM, no one mentioned such a thing. That is why I reverted. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that every other periodic table - including the unextended version of our periodic table template - uses the systematic symbols. It seems like rather a horrible throwing-out of conventions to arbitrarily change it, but, at the same time, the systemic names get a lot less useful somewhere around 127 or so, once you're outside the island of stability, since, at that point, we don't have articles on the elements (as there's some doubt as to whether they can even exist still after the island) so all the systemic names are doing at that point is concealing the patterns. As such, it seemed better to attempt a compromise that was compatible with other periodic tables which do use the systemic symbols, but also kept the useful parts of the numbering system. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
First let me re-explain my earlier remarks (which indeed might sound dismissive - that was from the emotional part of my surprise). Agree the compact cell is not enlarged, but "compact" also means: "we leave things out". Trying to put in two facts resulted in an overcrowded cell. The overlapping text lines are poor layout and make difficult reading. It is a disruption of regular text layout on a regular page. There may be situations where this is seriously needed, but this one is not as far as I can see (there is no compelling reason to do so). I hope you can agree.
Second, about what info there should be. Clearly the topic is not with regular symbols like Mt, Lv and Fl; just the IUPAC symbols, at 113 and up. Only recently I learned that using the number may be more useful & common than the IUPAC symbol (I do not regularly work in the sources). It was brought up in Wikipedia_talk:ELEM#Why_do_we_use_weird_names_like_.22unbiseptium.22.3F. Note that there the topic is about the names (and so our article titles), and symbol/number usage in texts. Now if you (too) argue to use the number not the symbol in these places, I'd ask you to make the case over there. Such a decision should be fleshed out into a consensus first, after which we can apply is consistently over our pages. Since this is about a writing style (and not about undisputable facts) discussion is required. OTOH, reaching a stable new style in this may be very rewarding, and an improvement of many element pages.
I add my own postion in this, in quick words, as of today. 1. I oppose stating that the symbol is 113: number and symbol do not swap in their definition. 2. We do can state to use the number primarily, in lieu of symbol (text, compact PTs). 2. For layout & format reason, I oppose putting both in a compact cell. 3. Renaming into like "Element 113", when shown to be common in Real World, would be OK. 4. Any outcome should be applied consistently over all pages involved; this requires tough thinking beforehand to cover all situations. -DePiep (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Wait wait. I am confused. You actually introduced the IUPAC symbols (like Uut)? I thought until now you had introduced the Z numbers. You actually propose tho change the habit around 127? ("systemic names get a lot less useful somewhere around 127 or so" you wrote). Either way, it seems contradictionary to write both number and symbol.
And clearly you are aware of the Talk I mentioned [4]. In that case I am glad I reverted, and could have done so without much es. This is not the way to make changes, and you know it. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Periodic table (polyatomic).svg

DePiep, there is something wrong with the arrow for "Group" in the top left corner. The arrow overlies the "p" in Group. Sandbh (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you able to make this table look more like the old one File:Periodic table.svg I.e. smaller font size and more spacious positioning of the period and group legends and arrows? Current one looks too crowded to my eye. Sandbh (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I could, but big font is exactly what I intended. The old small font needed over half of the page width (say 500px) to be legible. By the larger font, we don't need that much width. -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Understood. Perhaps just a little more white space between "↓Period" and the table proper. The two are almost touching at the moment. Sandbh (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Added to Todo list. BTW, this is a comparision of font & sizes:
on Nonmetals, 350px wide
File:Periodic table.svg, the pre-polyatomic version, 350px wide (other wikies still use) ALREADY SAME FONT WIDTH now - idle example.

This is from WP:LAYIM (mos layout): "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default. ... Lead images should usually be no wider than "300px"". So if we can shrink that 350px a bit more, we'd be better. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is only a general rule ie exceptions would be ok and our PT is such an icon, I reckon it deserves a bit of extra px bandwidth. I like the original better as itsn't quite so loud as the current version. Then again, the current version is more legible. Is there a font that is as large as the current one but not so thick/bold-looking? Sandbh (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Good idea, I tried: "DejaVu Sans Light". Let's see what the commons server can can make of that. Now 350px width might be OK, but that should be a maximum. With the bigger font, 500px (as does Periodic table) is too much. -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Astatine

[Comment copied here for context]: Please stop changing astatine. The Talkpage concluded different. At least a bitstrange you did not visit the talkpage before about this. -DePiep (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I find your your tone uncalled for. This was the first time i, or anyone, changed this since your recent edit. I did check the template talk page before making my edit, understanding that it might be controversial. There is no mention of the issue on the relevant talk page. After finding your revert in the history i followed the link to a discussion and consensus on a proposal that is not clearly spelled out, and i only see At mentioned in post consensus comments.
Please see my comments regarding the status of At and Po here. Bcharles (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, my tone was unneeded. It's just that I was afraid an avelache of At edits were to be expected (the setting was done in many many pages & templates). I had left a link to the discussion page in my es in the templates.
As for the content, I am not that much of an expert on the issue, so I can grasp it but not add to that much. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

electron shell images

The discussion continues here at WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

if it's not a problem with you, could you create all the electron shell images for elements 119–172 and 184 with info from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 13#Electron shell images? because (1) other wikis have articles on the other elements and if they update they will have a problem and (2) at the discussion to insert 173-184 in our compact PTs I raised a suggestion to recreate all those articles for the elements (I will create a new subsection for that after group 12) Double sharp (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean "electron shell images" as in File:Electron shell 092 Uranium - no label.svg? More circles-with-dots? thunb
-DePiep (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I add: not a "problem" for me; I just have to make them manually. But: these schemes are nonsense. We need a scheme that shows "[He] 2s2 2p2" good. DePiep (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. But it's very difficult. I can envision for that some vaguely circular areas labelled 1s, 2s, and 2p, but that becomes an insane mess of circles. I also would not want to have a big shaded area for each shell, because we don't know exactly how the energy levels of the shells are for most of the elements (and bad things happen to this scheme in the 9th period because 9p1/2 and 8p3/2 are about the same level, so insane overlapping happens and I'm not sure how you will do that!
(Note: if you can think of a better idea than I can, please tell me!)
In any case, those larger diagrams can be bigger pictures in the main article (when we have them). At the infobox size this gets completely lost (and let's face it, how many anons know what happens when you click on an image? I'm pretty sure we've all first discovered it by accident). Then we can have the article diagram adding detail to the infobox diagram. And to my mind we should be consistent. We already have these for the transactinides and early period 8 elements when such diagrams are already nonsense (5g ~ 6f ~ 7d ~ 8p1/2). It will be OK... Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
54 images to be handcrafted (I copy-edit them in a texteditor, the svg is not too complicated). But today they are not needed in an article (or infobox), so it would be for the future (unless I am missing a usage you have in mind). I hope you can understand I give this a low priority. Of course, when a new article is created, we can make that single graph easily.
For a better graph I must study some quantum mechanics first. (eh, let me coin it "quantum graphics"). Is should be as useful as the Feynman diagram. We could use colors for electrons that are: incomplete (missing) in a shell, the one added compared its left neighbor. The [Xe] detail could be clickable (linked) separately (using some image technique). We could leave out details (like your 9p1/2 ... point) from the element graph, and make that clickable. Have you seen a graph system somewhere that could be used for all elements? -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
How do you hide the core? I mean, even if 7p is full, 7d is not, so I'm not sure how you're going to deal with that.
Here's my idea: Get rid of the circles. I mean, there's no way to have circular orbits without causing visual havoc. Instead have a linear view like at the solar system template. Colour-code the shells 1–9. We have 1s first, then 2s further out, then 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d and 4s overlapping, 4p, 4d and 5s overlapping, 4f/5d/6s, 6p, 5f/6d/7s, 7p1/2, 7p3/2 (do note: 7s falls further down for elements 113++, while 6d stays up. 114 has it reversed, but not by much. In general (periods 4 to 8) the ns electrons should fall inwards in the np-block, by inert pair effect; 8s should start fading in the 7d-block.), 8s, a mess of 5g/6f/7d/8p1/2, 9s, 9p1/2/8p3/2, a complete mess containing 6g, 7f, 9d and numerous other blurry ones (because no ref gives anything about what else should be here). Then it should fade out after that. Then we would have a sort of schematic diagram of approximate energy levels (see Ununseptium for an exact version).
Actually, this could be a great as a GIF scrolling through elements 1–172 and then 173–184 can just insert electrons (I'm thinking silver spheres to mark them out) into the big mess of colour at the right and fade out gradually. Electron configurations should be given in each frame, along with name and symbol (obviously). Just shove the nucleus almost out of the frame so we have lots of room for the electrons. We should rush through 173–183 without predicted electron configurations. The more I think about this, the more I think it would be a great animation for extended periodic table. It works there better as this is either very wide or very tall (would prefer wide for an article, not tall).
If you like it, tell me and I will give you the necessary details. It will probably take a while, but it will be so worth it. Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention: higher subshells that are not filled or being filled yet are greyed out. When relativistic effects start taking over at high Z, visually show the higher subshells (except s) slowly splitting. Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, getting rid of the circles. It cannot be picture-like, we must step to a scheme. I also expect we cannot use the cloud-shapes. And YESSSSS to that gif! Popping in the electrons! So we need a tough principled base that covers H to 184 the same way. An idea On how to handle details (i.e., links to detail topics): the base drawings can have a visual box that says like "[Xe]". Put in a template, that box has a transparent cover image, that links to the detail page (a Xenon section?). Other details can have a different cover+link. (We use this trick in {{NavPeriodicTable}}). Will take a look at the solar system template in a minute. -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You mean {{Distance from Sun using EasyTimeline}} I guess. -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly: each element has its own image right? The Uus picture you mention (into the Island of S) has multiple elements. A gif animation only shows them after another; this works if we keep the same frames & positions for the graphic items, or maybe squeeze over a period. Size for now doesn't matter (indeed we can always decide to put is outside of the infobox), to get width. OTOH, oriented vertically solves something because of easier scrolling? I keep in mind. -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Can we separate the nine shell color blocks, making a stairs with nine colored steps (they overlap in the end in the l-to-r sense). When undecided (SHE), we can mix them vertically (fading/mixing colors at borders maybe, or grey). Let me study the details. I am currently in chapter 3 of The Disappearing Spoon. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion continues here at WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dimensions to be covered

The graph should be able to show these items independently. I assume for now we add text where needed:

This list may change over time

1. Element core and & text Z+id (say, LH side a sphere suggestion, with text 85At in or below).

Range: 1H to 184184

2. Shells:

Range: 9 shells distinguishable (as proposed by Ds, by color, see above)
They have overlaps and shifts over Z

3. Energy: in eV. Probably to scale; scale logarithmic? (we already fold the group 0)

4. Group 0 configuration: One "[gr0]" marker ([Xe] folds the complete Xe configuration).

Range: group 18 elements (one of 8 from the extended PT, or none)
In Xe, [Kr] is used.
Note: folding would create a jump in the animation (at group 1). For development thinking, we can postpone this (our setup must work without this folding, size issues are not conceptual).

5. Last added electron (compared with Z-1 element).

6. Electron gossip: Exact electron property not determined (mixing shells, just suggest a presence without assigning a value)

7. Electron configuration in text: [Rn] 5f14 6d10 7s2 7p5

8. Sources and notes "(predicted)"?

9.

10. ? Empty electron places in shell?

11. ? option to mark exchanged electrons (in chemical bondings)?

-DePiep (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion continues here at WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

cannot believe this is still not done

flerovium livermorium please Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

and pls change Po to a poor metal, At to metalloid and kill off halogens here too Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Please take some time of, off these topics, and then rephrase it here. You are welcome by then. -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Basically just raising a few pics that seem not to have been updated to option 10 and the new element names Fl and Lv. :-) I hope this is not a Big Issue. Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
It is not a Big issue indeed, and I could get the basics. But your wording, being on a talkpage, is commanding not asking. That is not an inviting gesture. We both are here for fun. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, unintentional! The cannot believe part was because the element names had been updated last year and nobody had seen the pic yet. Not referring to you, surely, and I apologize sincerely if it was taken that way... Double sharp (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Clarified then, thankx. These are on my todo-list but with low priority (like: todo-when-I'bored). -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It'll be some time before we find them all, it seems! But now it's much more efficient to wait until the WT:ELEM talk discussions are over and your Great Recolouring is done. (Low priority indeed!) Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

my todo list. What is the better enwiki specification? Earlier "(polyatomic)" won't do. (this is about images that are used in multiple wikis; we introduced specification "(polyatomic)" last August to separate them from old-colored pictures used in non-en wikis). -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
"option 17"? "pre-transition"? "rare earth"? Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

{{done} SHE File:Super heavy elements (polyatomic).svg -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Periodic table (nonmetals variant)/sandbox

That page was deleted per author request and you mentionned it was "solved elsewhere". Template:Periodic table (nonmetals variant) redirects to the deleted sandbox. Should it retargetted, blanked and kept, or deleted along with the talkpage (which seems a shame considering the talk page discussion)? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I deleted Template:Periodic table (nonmetals variant) because it doesn't seem like you know where/if it should be retargetted and perusing the history tells me you've "solved the problem" but not where. Lemme know if you ever remember what should be done with this title. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
OK you did. Sorry I did not clarify earlier (actually, the content started being a sandbox, then it moved to the main template by copying). -DePiep (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Make group 12 poor metals?

You are invited to comment on this suggestion (Zn, Cd, Hg → poor metal; Cn → only predicted; 113 → predicted transition metal) at WT:ELEM#Make the group 12 elements poor metals? Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Convert testing

The page you created at Template:Convert/testcases/messages1 won't work as it need to be in the module namespace. So take a look at Module:Convert/testcases/messages1 instead and the results are at Module talk:Convert/testcases/messages1

There are some problems using Module:UnitTests though. Visually the results are the same a lot of the time but they never match as there is slightly different HTML behind the scenes with   being placed in slightly different places. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw your suggestion, got it, and I am working with it. The module/talkpage construction I would not start, because it would be a split in convert testing. I suggest we try to make the existing testcases list longer, i.e. use the ad hoc testmodule. I will have to add some patience. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
adding: Also missing is the "link" conclusion meaning. But please don't spend time here. Drop in on the doc page please. -DePiep (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you may also be getting a little confused with the |warnings=on parameter. As described in Module:Convert, the warnings parameter is applied directly against the #invoke rather than for use against the template. {{Convert/sandboxlua}} does not have the warnings on but {{Convert/sandboxlua2}} does have it on. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

So for example:

Usage Result.
{{Convert/sandboxlua|123|m|extra=abc}} 123 metres (404 ft)*
{{Convert/sandboxlua|123|m|extra=abc|warnings=on}} 123 metres (404 ft)*
{{Convert/sandboxlua2|123|m|extra=abc}} 123 m (404 ft)[convert: invalid option]
{{Convert/sandboxlua2|123|m|extra=abc|warnings=on}} 123 m (404 ft)[convert: invalid option]
{{Convert/sandboxlua2|123|m|extra=abc|warnings=off}} 123 m (404 ft)[convert: invalid option]
{{Convert/sandboxlua2|123|m|warnings=on}} 123 m (404 ft)[convert: invalid option]
I know but I am evading this bug invitating parameter as much as possible. All those develop options in the module are chaotic. Just discovered that |debug= doesn't get 'on' (the time & thinking is costs to research inconsistent code ...). The test options in the module are a horror. And I can maintain that the code is unnecessary complicated (two pass through calls needed, with senseless function names, before starting the basic convert workings? Why all these table copies & manipulations?). -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Adding: this parameter should be set in the module, not the invoking template. -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Better improve Template:Convert/sandboxlua/parameter options right away. That is thafactual list; tests and documenation should be derived from there. We couold also use a complete units table straight from Johnuniq's data page (adjusted script?). -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Signpost Report

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Elements for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! --buffbills7701 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add to the group 12 work

Group 3 changes also: Sc, Y, and the present lanthanides all become "rare earth metals" (new category). We can keep the pink colour, but redefine it, as the old meaning will not be used again. (Discussed with Sandbh; he agrees.) Double sharp (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be fluid still. Preparing edits is more usefule when talk topics are stable. -DePiep (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
On to the voting stage! ;-) (Shall I go spam everyone's talkpage again?) Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Saw that just today, will be there. Ping them as you like. If you do all talkpage-/archive people, there is nothing wrong. Plus WT:CHEMS I'd say. -DePiep (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You are now a template editor

Your account has been granted the template editor user right, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer reasonable edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.

Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editors and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no-one else should be allowed to access your account. You may wish to take a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links:

Happy template editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've also changed the protection of Template:RailGauge, Module:RailGauge, and Module:RailGauge/data for you. Enjoy! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, it is an unexpected honor. Though I was happy someone checked me on these edits ;-) -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Causes of false edit-conflicts

Hi, Wikid77 here. I replied at "wp:Village_pump_(technical)#After OK edit saving, the return page is an error_(504_or_ec)" but my replies were deleted by U:Legoktm (other replies have been axed by U:Matma_Rex so beware), but I re-posted there and below:

  • Self edit-conflict of "~~~~" against saved signature: I took time to read those diff sections which rejected your use of tildes "~~~~" as conflicting with your saved timestamp-signature, where you had immediately saved those changes as the latest revision (shown in screenprint). That result is so twisted, that it took me a few minutes to understand, and it does seem like an attempt to re-save the same edit twice. I need to re-read and re-think, but I thank you for posting the screenprint, and I will watch for similar future false edit-conflicts of tildes "~~" clashing with the saved signatures. I get so many edit-conflicts, per week, that I had stopped reading them and just re-ran the edit with copy/paste text. It also doesn't help that the developers think edit-conflicts are ok, and not a massive, high-priority problem to be solved (this month) by changing diff3.c and setting read-lock semaphores in the system. Even in a distributed system, with mirrored databases, there will be write-lock and read-lock operations which limit access to the latest stored revision of a page. The whole concept of test-and-set access to resources has been known to software developers for decades. I have also suggested to Jimbo that Wikia should fix edit-conflicts, since most are easy to auto-merge, and computer scientists have known for years how to recover from edit-conflicts. This "ain't rocket science" or even consumer loan origination which has 18 independent variables affecting the loan-payment calculations. It is merely a case of comparing 3 revisions of a page, while a read-lock prevents another user from trying to perform an edit-save against the same prior revision, during the intervening few seconds. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So, in retrospect, perhaps the large size of the page sometimes triggered a timeout-exit which caused the self edit-conflict against the just-saved revision. In remembering past false edit-conflicts, I think many occurred in large pages, or smaller pages with many large templates as might reach a timeout limit. Beware Legoktm and Matma_Rex have deleted replies to some VPT threads. I really want to thank you, again, for saving the screenprint and discussing this issue. We might confirm a pattern where some edits to very large/templated pages can trigger a false edit-conflict, so to warn users not to worry as much, for the Save-page might have succeeded. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your actions, you described the situation very well. Right now I have little online time to dive into this. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I can add that the screenprint was from edits that were done in three places on the page. Later on that day I encountered the same issue (editconflict showing the sign being expanded as in a second saving) with a plain simple content-plus-tilde-singing. -DePiep (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And I'm now getting this too. <sarcasm>How wonderful.</sarcasm> Well, at least the edits are being saved, although the current state of affairs is really unsatisfactory... Double sharp (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Elemental gases in the periodic table

Hi DePiep

Re this template, could you please add solid lines around the known elemental gases, and dashed lines around copernicium and flevorovium? Context is that I've updated the elemental gases section of the nonmetal article.

thank you Sandbh (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sandbh: you forgot element 118, which might be a gas at STP.
For convenience: the known elemental gases are H, He, N, O, F, Ne, Cl, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn. Cn, Fl, and 118 may be gaseous, though all are disputed. Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I will, but not within days. Maybe better remove (hide) that box for now. What is that with dashed lines? What would they mean? That would require some explanation nearby (legend). Also this, on speed: the box has 118 individually processed cells, and adding such an option old style makes a page even more slow. That is why we also don't have the periods in there yet. I'm breeding on a faster way, while I an busy IRL. -10:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)DePiep (talk)
It means "predicted", which would be applied to Cn, Fl, and 118. Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I would have guessed that, but how about the Reader? The mini PT is too small for subtleties (or a legend). It is (was) just about marking elements, not explaining. Maybe, mark them with a solid line and explain in text? Will have to revisit this when the high-speed version (Lua module) is arriving. -DePiep (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Not a bad idea too. Double sharp (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course, I have my "always a legend" constitution. -DePiep (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A confirmation, for your info

Hello,
I wanted to confirm the peculiar 1638mm of the Baltimore Streetcar System so I emailed them using the form on the corporate website. I got a reply confirming the gauge:
Re: BSM - Viewer Feedback-Ver 222-1
Johnlacosta@verizon.net
13 Sep
to me, tlchost, samsmeatm, tinseltrolley, k3hrn
That is the correct gauge for the Baltimore system.
John La Costa
V.P. Enginering


I tried to do the same thing for Carmelit, but until now I got no answer.
Regards, Peter Horn User talk 17:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Great job @Peter Horn:, made me smile. Looks like Baltimore is a single-network gauge. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I emailed them again just to confirm the gauge of their current light rail system. Peter Horn User talk 19:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

How to get dat a out of wikidata?

I have arrived here from the archived talk about the en:template:infobox element [5]. I am working on that one, long term. I understand the topic is on hold because we need a number data type here. All fine.

My question now is: how could one use wikidata in say enwiki? How can one get existing data (and source) out of wikidata onto a wiki content page? Any examples? en:User talk:DePiep -08:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What you need is to know lua programming language: an infobox is very complex and the use of the template invoke is not sufficient.
But you can try first: go in the article you want to have wikidata data and be sure that the corresponding data in available in the wikidata item linked to your article. Put the code line {{#property:Pxxx}} where Pxxx is the property used in the wikidata item to store the value you want, save and normally the value is displayed in the article text. Now you can take the infobox template you want to improve and in each field of the template you can add the corresponding property in the code line.
{{XXX |xxx1 = {{#property:Pyyy1}} |xxx2 = {{#property:Pyyy2}} |xxx3 = {{#property:Pyyy3}} }}
But this code can't held the existing data in the infobox and can't manage sources or data selection when multiple data values for the same property are present. And here lua plays a major role.
In WP:fr we already develop some lua modules to generate some infoboxes and I can only propose you to look at w:fr:Undéc-1-ène to see the potential of data extraction from wikidata: the first infobox is filled only with data from wikidata (look at the code source of the article: the first infobox is defined in the code only by {{Utilisateur:Snipre/bac à sable | nom = Undéc-1-ène }} (my test code).
But in reality the system behing is very complex: to be able to generate this first infobox we are using different modules: see w:fr:Module:Wikidata, w:fr:Module:Infobox, w:fr:Module:InfoboxBuilder, w:fr:Module:InfoboxBuilder/Composé chimique and w:fr:Utilisateur:Snipre/bac à sable. This is still draft code and if somebody with very good skills in lua programming can simplify a little this structure this can help a lot for further development.
Just a detail: for the full data extraction we need to wait for the number datatype but for the possibilité to extract data for an wikidata item which is different from the one linked to the wikipedia article. This is already known by the developers and this is on their priority list (see bugzilla:47930) but this is an huge development task. Hope I answered some of your questions and if you are ready to develop some feature in WP:en, I will be interested to follow your improvements. I have an account on WP:en : user:Snipre. Snipre (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand that it will take more development time, mostly out of my comfort zone. When any such data communication is needed, I'll be back at wikidata. For now, I'll edit in enwiki. -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You should have this thing too

( barnstar to top)

Nice design, by the way. Seriously, I love it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Took me a whole day to craft it, and anotrher day to get the paint drying. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:RELC list

Do you see where I am trying to go with my report idea? Werieth (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Werieth: Just logged in, will take a look. I'm very interested. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Page reports requests

Hi, what is the purpose of Category:Page reports requests? It contains no pages other than itself, and is not in any categories - other than itself and Category:Hidden categories. I ask because it's appearing on the latest version of Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It was created last week in the early development of WP:PRP, discussion is at Template talk:Page reports. Yo want me to add an info message? -DePiep (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
An info message would be nice, but my main concern is that it shouldn't be categorised inside itself. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Fixed & clarified. Was bad indeed. -DePiep (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pierre Auger Observatory may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • detector (or '''Surface station (SD)''') a small water basin, 1.2 m deep; also called ''tanks'') and created a 12 km<sup>2</sup> detection area [[Haverah Park experiment|Haverah Park]] using 200

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

deprecated

Don't see why we should avoid them just because Unicode deprecates them. If they're just duplicates, but the ones in the Math-A set don't work for us, then perhaps we should use them anyway. — kwami (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

kwamikagami: "deprecated" by Unicode is serious matter: font support may die, modern browsers don't have to take care of these characters, and more. And I thought it is inline with your observation: bad association with Chinese spacing (too wide), related to CJK chars U+3008, and tried before for IPA. So I thought for this problem (visible & good pointed brackets for IPA) they are useless. Or do you still want to spend some investigation on them, besides the math route? -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

T:WPTECH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect T:WPTECH. Since you had some involvement with the T:WPTECH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 14:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. it is a group nom, including T:OU which you created during a move.

Media image mix-up

Hey DePiep, I really appreciated you're work on vectorizing this image but there seems to be a mix up with the "Progressive" and "Centrist" labels. If you could fix that it would be great! Thanks, CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! Will cleanup my lying shortly. -DePiep (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done. To my defense: so red is centrist not progressive here. -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! And I agree the colors are a bit unorthodox. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Module:Convert

Thanks for your support, but viewing Template talk:Convert#RfC does not show your yes/no answer to the RfC. As it stands, AzaToth and I are the only clear supports. I'm going to ping Frietjes hoping she will also want to make a clear statement. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That gap filled. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

what would Mendeleev do? (your essay)

Well, he'd use the short, 8-column table, at least in 1871! ;-) (It's more on the chemistry side of the continuum.) But the problem with the 8-column table is that like the 18-column table, the lanthanides and actinides are relegated to a footnote.

I think he actually got things right the first time: his original 1869 table is more akin to the current 18-column table, but only in that the periodicity of the rare earths was yet unknown. His placing them in separate groups seems to indicate 32-column thinking. Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not so fast! I have written my puns to claim first authorship. I am sure I can kill those 18-columists, squeezing them with my 32-col and with an 8-col Medeleev on the other side. -DePiep (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Vote: Group 3 metals; group 12 as poor metals

As a member of WikiProject Elements, you are invited to comment and vote here.

(Yes, I'm posting this on all active members' talkpages.) Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Patrolling recent changes to all medical articles

Hi. I notice Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/List_of_pages/Articles isn't working any more and I don't see an "all medical pages" option in {{WPMED related changes}}. Would it be possible to add that option to the template? (Sorry if this is a dumb question - templates scare me.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: Very relevant question! And tough template background. See Template_talk:WPMED_related_changes#Why_split_over_five_lists.3F for answer, open for improvement. -DePiep (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I moved further talk to Template talk:WPMED related changes, wider interest. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  • to top

TWow! Thanks! And that coming from one of the the biggest content-projects we have. -DePiep (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!

Thanks, sandbh. A nice start this is when I logged on. And thanks for inventing some scientific base for my periodic table. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Moved to top. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Todo in periodic tables

Disambiguation category

Hi, DePiep,
There is some code that is causing one of your user pages (User:DePiep/T pseudo ns) to be tagged with Category:Wikipedia disambiguation but I can't figure what it is. This is not a category for user pages so if you could remove this categorization, that would be great. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, will turn it off. Thx for the message. -DePiep (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Convert templates

I came across Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert/wrapper templates while talk-page stalking. {{Chembox MeltingPt}} and {{Chembox BoilingPt}} both do conversions via hard-coded functions. IIRC, they actually pre-date the standard {{convert}} suite, and have a different behavior in the use of hyphen vs endash for range/negative values. WP:CHEMS has kicked around changing that for years, you'll definitely want to coordinate there with any changes (the Chembox template suite is large and complicated). DMacks (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep. -DePiep (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
DMacks, please see WT:CHEMS for demos, & comment. I also added flash point and autoignite temps to this. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi DePiep! I tagged you on a discussion on WPMED. I've been having a bit of trouble creating the society and medicine taskforce (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Society_and_medicine_task_force) for WPMED. Other taskforces are able to get an article assessment table created (for example, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cardiology task force/Article assessment), but I'm not sure about how to go about doing this. I've created the categories and added one or two articles. How are articles automatically added to the categories? How does one get the assessment table? I've been flummoxed for months and would appreciate any help you can give, or a reference onwards to a third party or place on this website. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Will pick up shortly. -DePiep (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! --LT910001 (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
See the talkpage. Couldn't get the bot working today. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation to contact you. If I could magically use bots, I'd use a bot to tag every article with the taskforce:

That should net the majority of the articles we wish to catch. Thanks again for your help! --LT910001 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I will copy-paste this useful request appropriately and notify you. Probably it would be good if you try to take it of from there. Expect tomorrow. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

bot request. Do NOT continue here. -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Periodic table

Just to let you know that I shall be away 15-23 Dec. Petergans (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there something you expect me to do? I thought you were watching the demos & discussions:
This is group 3 & gap -- about the 18-column table, and the asterisks
/sandbox shows a proposed group 3 and f-block arrangement
This is a !vote about group 3 and group 12. I'd guess you would want to contribute there. If I understand you well, you would oppose aspects, but I have not read you there. Sort of warning: that discussion rolls on, and may lead to a conclusion. Not in days, but possibly in weeks. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Continued on my talk page. Petergans (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Metalloid

Hi DePiep: I'm doing a tidy up of the metalloid article. You may see some unusual activity associated with these refinements e.g. I just edited the metalloid border periodic table template. Tx, Sandbh (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edits would not disturb me any moment. Usually I'd take a look afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Ta. Work on the metalloid article seems to be going OK. I have the templates and the list of metalloid lists all in tune with one another now. I believe I only have to check my prose to see there are no bullet-like segments left, and then I'm done. And I'll probably also look again at my list of refs to make sure my commas and dashes etc are looking proper. Sandbh (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
See. Is what I said ;-). btw, seen any template tweaking needed in these tables? -DePiep (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No, all good I think, at least for now. Managed to find the templates involved. If lucky I may finish tomorrow, else early next week. Then back into the arena :) Sandbh (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

R3 declined on T:DPP

Hey, DePiep, I've declined your CSD nomination this redirect. It's not particularly misleading for a shortcut, I don't think, and per this, there is policy support for such shortcuts. Precedent, too. You can still take it to RfD if you like, of course, but I don't think it's clear enough for a speedy deletion. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, then what does DPP stand for, come from, or mean to say or help (as the r3 tag already points to ask)? -DePiep (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, but does it matter? It'd be one thing if this were a redirect to another article in mainspace (which is the case that R3 is usually for); I'd agree with you there. But shortcuts are for whatever people find convenient, and I just don't see the point of deleting one because we don't find it useful. Why not have it? I mean, the best solution would be for you to talk to the person who created it, rather than nominating it for deletion; perhaps you could suggest a better shortcut. Why the rush to delete something someone else may find useful? Redirects are cheap, after all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Again (after R3 and after my 18:11 note here): it is a nonsense. Why don't you read & answer my question? And of course, "speedy" exists for a reason. -DePiep (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I did answer your question: I don't know what it stands for (though I bet the first letter stands for "documentation", so it's not totally off the wall). It's clearly not nonsense to someone, though, or they wouldn't have created it. Speedy certainly does exist for a reason, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to delete something just because it fits a criterion, and the criterion in this case has a somewhat different scenario in mind. As I said, this criterion is geared towards redirects to other articles: if this were a redirect to a page in the article namespace, then it would be a bigger problem, and I totally would've deleted it without question; we don't want readers to be redirected to an article they weren't looking for. But this is a shortcut, and shortcuts are for editors, not readers: editors can be trusted to not be flabbergasted if a shortcut takes them to a page they weren't expecting. And again, redirects are cheap. Having a shortcut that's only of use to some people won't actually detract from anyone's actual encyclopedia experience (since a reader won't come across it in the first place), so there's no need to speedily delete it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Same as WP:DPP, except with the correct namespace-abbreviation. The abbreviation for template-space is "T:", "WP:" is for Wikipedia-space. As for why the abbreviation is "DDP" you'd need to ask the guy who created WP:DDP, tough now that you mention it "DDP" does seem a strange abbreviation for "Documentation". Related discussion at Template talk:WikiFauna#"T" vs "WP". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:DPP used to redirect to Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern but that was moved to Wikipedia:Template documentation at the end of 2007. So I would say that T:DPP is don't going to be a useful redirect. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
That explains that, I put a G7 tag on T:DPP and created T:DOC to replace WP:DPP. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sorry for the bother, DePiep; I just feel that it's better to talk these things out first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Come to think of it, that brings up another mystery. If WP:DPP was a shortcut for Wikipedia:Template documentation (under a previous title) and not Template:Documentation, why does it redirect to Template:Documentation instead of Wikipedia:Template documentation? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
this edit -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Writ Keeper:. An analysis of your actions in this speedy. And questions from it.
  1. When judging a Speedy request, you are supposed to judge by the argument in the request. So if the request is "speedy for reason X10", you should check for that reason X10, and nothing else. That is the Speedy process, that should do.
  2. I used reason R3, and you did not judge by that at all. Even worse, about that very reason you answer: "I don't know, but does it matter?". Simple: if you don't understand R3, then don't judge about R3. If I say "R3", you are not to say: "does not matter".
  3. You edit and edit summary here "what's the rush" is offensive (you were trying to provoke me? Are you "questioning" my action, actually by an indirect accusation? How did that insincere attitude influence your judgement?). I don't mind it it was a mistake, you were just showing that you don't get it yourself. And then you started pointing to me. Know what, just read about the words "speedy" and "recent" (that word is in the bold top R3 text you did not read), and their relation to "time". The more I think about it, the more stupid it sounds. Why wait with a speedy tag? I want you to withdraw these questionings.
  4. You then introduced an other policy as argument (Speedy is a policy too you know). That is not in the speedy process. Speedy is not about discuss.
  5. You write "better to talk these things out first". Not in judging a speedy.
  6. If you have an opinion or question, you should have gone to the talkpage (there is a button in a tag for that). You should act like any regular editor then. Concluding on a Speedy and discussion are exclusive.
  7. You did not "talk out first", you concluded first.
  8. You write "Sorry for the bother, DePiep; I just feel that it's better to talk these things out first". Another offensive paternalistic stupidity ("bother"?), and not true (you did not talk first). I want you to retract that too.
  9. In general, I think you do not understand the speedy process. Your involvement in this, in multiple moments and steps (I just described them), is not according to Speedy. With what you apparently know & say, you should not decide on the Speedy request, but start a discussion like any editor should. Then, you were paternalistically addressing me here, provokingly explaining to me or draging others in a wrongly placed discussion. Since you concluded & acted as an admin (instead of questioning like an an editor), you were overstepping your line. I ask you to rethink this behaviour and respond accordingly. -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Well:
  1. That's actually not true. It's not at all uncommon for admins to delete a page for a different CSD reason than the one for which it has been nominated, or sometimes even if it hasn't been nominated at all. It's also not unheard of for an admin to decline a tag that might technically be correct, if there's reason to believe that the page can be improved. CSD isn't an automated process; the admin doesn't just robotically check the page to see if the tag is valid. As the speedy deletion policy says: The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. (emphasis mine) Admins are allowed, and indeed encouraged, to use their discretion in deciding speedy deletion cases. (Also as an aside, one doesn't have to be an admin to decline a speedy deletion nomination; anyone other than the page creator itself can.)
  2. I did judge based on R3, and I do understand the criterion. When I said "I don't know", that was my answer to your question: what does DPP stand for, come from, or mean to say or help, not that I didn't know what R3 was. I didn't know exactly what it meant or where it came from, but just because you or I don't know where it came from doesn't mean that nobody does. After all, we have some pretty strange things in Wikipedia or Template space: look at the csd templates themselves. It's not at all straightforward where "db" comes from; one would naturally expect that the CSD templates would start with "csd" or something. They don't, but just because we don't know the reason they're called that ways doesn't mean that there is none. And "DPP" isn't totally implausible: the "D" presumably stands for documentation, and there could be a historical reason that the rest of the shortcut is "PP". Anyway, the speedy deletion template you used says: a recently created redirect page resulting from a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common, and not in another language. T:DPP certainly wasn't a typo. Given that there could've been (and in fact was) a redirect that referred to that template as "DPP", it wasn't a misnomer, either. It might not make immediate sense, but it's neither a misnomer nor a typo, so technically speaking, R3 doesn't apply. "Implausible" and "recent", while certainly part, aren't the only two factors that make that CSD criterion apply to a page.
  3. No, I wasn't questioning your judgement. I was just disagreeing with it. Speedy deletion is meant only for uncontroversial cases; if someone disagrees witht he deletion, then CSD doesn't apply. Accordingly, declining isn't particularly an admin action, as one doesn't have to be an admin to decline a CSD. Anyone can, since if anyone disagrees with the deletion, their objection stops the process. "what's the rush" is simply my manner of speaking, as in "what's the rush to delete?" I meant it in the sense that, since it's a shortcut to template space, it's not affecting the actual encyclopedia, so there's no immediate need to delete it. That's all; I didn't mean anything else by it.
  4. That's correct, the speedy process is not about discussion, which is precisely why we must be cautious about it. It doesn't mean we stop thinking about it; on the contrary, it means we must consider very carefully before we delete it, as we're deleting without a discussion to establish consensus that it should be deleted. Deletion is the last resort, not the first; speedy deletion isn't meant to circumvent that. Speedy deletion is for determining quickly the pages for which there is no other option than deletion, rather than simply quickly choosing the deletion option out of many.
  5. It depends on the speedy. Some, like G10 or G12, do need to be immediately deleted (as soon as the admin has verified that the tag is correct). For others, that doesn't have to be the case. Again, speedy deletion is not an overarching policy that trumps all others. R3 is not at all one of the very important criteria that must be acted on immediately.
  6. I didn't mean that I wanted to discuss it; as I said, I didn't know what "DPP" stood for, either. My point was that, if you want to delete the shortcut, you should discuss it with the page creator first, to see if there actually is a reason for it.
  7. Yes, I did conclude: my conclusion was that there was no reason to delete the shortcut speedily with more discussion. That's a conclusion one is allowed to come to. It happens pretty frequently; articles that are nominated for things like A7 can be declined, even if the person who declined agrees that the article should be deleted, because they might feel that more discussion via AfD is warranted. That's fine.
  8. When I said "sorry for the bother", I simply meant "sorry for bothering you", since declining the CSD clearly had bothered you, and the shortcut ended up being deleted anyway (after the creator came to discuss it, which is what I was hoping for). I don't know why that's particularly paternalistic, but I am sorry for offending you. It wasn't intentional.
  9. I think that I understand the speedy deletion process quite well, to be honest. Again, it's not a policy that overrides the general Wikipedia principle of consensus-driven editing. I'm again sorry if I implied any kind of accusation or insult in anything I wrote; that wasn't at all my intention. It's just that I hadn't really seen the question of whether or not to delete this shortcut was a big deal, which tends to make my language more informal than otherwise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again Nov 2013

Hello DePiep,
Please see Template talk:RailGauge#Here we go again Nov 2013. Peter Horn User talk 02:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Any ideas about the 2 ft 6 in named gauge, how to link that (former Imperial)? See the talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hexaethyl tetraphosphate may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • has a [[pH]] of 5.5. Its [[index of refraction]] is 1.443. The chemical [[boiling point|boils]] at {{convert|467.01 at a pressure of 760 millimeters of [[Mercury (element)|mercury]] and its [[flash
  • its [[flash point]] is {{convert|249.48|F|C}}.<ref name = "chemspider"/> Its [[melting point]] is {{convert|-40.<ref name = "digest2">{{Citation|url = http://archive.org/stream/dimat00unit#page/2/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Methyl butyrate may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Although it is [[flammability|flammable]], it has a relatively low [[vapor pressure]] (40 mmHg at {{convert|30), so it can be safely handled at room temperature without special safety precautions.<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

°F to °C

Is this edit checked? It looks like a mistake, but... :-) Christian75 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes a mistake, I corrected this one. I did ~1000 such edits using AWB with a visual diff check (most are in C clearly), but this is a bad mistake because it may go unnoticed. Is there a way to check this editor? (CHEMBOT?) -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I dont know if there is a easy way. I dont know the chembot. Christian75 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. I will be more careful then. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Chembox help

Since you seems to know something about chemboxes, could you look at the CAS#s in Bis(triphenylphosphine)nickel chloride? Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. After some playing & previewing: ImageSize 320px was more than the box width itself -> reduced to 300px. -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

3RR at Template:Cvt

You have again disabled Template:Cvt, a 3-year variation of Template:Convert, in dif782 without consensus, and now against recent edits. Please beware wp:3RR and seek first to establish consensus for further changes. Thank you. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It was talked, and you know. -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Was your cat running across the keyboard

It looks likethere were some inadvertent changes made in your recent edit. Or maybe I missed something. YBG (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Busy IRL

Expected, well into January 2014. -DePiep (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pinging other users

Hi, re this edit: I didn't get a notification, and I suspect that none of the others did either. It's explained at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#To ping, or not to ping... - the ping and your signature need to be added with the same edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thx. -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Yesno/doc

Hello, DePiep

If it isn't much trouble, I'd like to ask about a few details concerning our disagreement on edit #590655443 in Template:Yesno/doc. Well, it is a very easy question: What is the table attempting to show anyway? I can make neither head nor tail out of this.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In short: it is complementary to the text (especially before your edit), when it was me who could not make heard or tails.
The template differentiates between exactly five logical options (and so not just yes/no). Then, the template folds these five into two default options. Third and fourth, you can overwrite the output options in a two-tier way (back into five or less). That was what I had to discover (uncover) in the documentation myself each time I used it. So I made it explicit in a table.
As the text is now (after your changes), I still find the logical options difficult to find those five in the descriptions (distractions all around; e.g., logical inversion, "but" a second option, a puprlemonkeydishwasher what?).
Of course the table might be improved for its purpose, though its essence is there. I propose to leave it as an addittion, describing the core in a different way. What puzzles me is that you don't see the connection with the template, after rewriting the documentation. -DePiep (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Er, purplemonkeydishwasher was already there, but in a different place. I think it was an example of how the template resolves a potential GIGO situation. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was there when I started using & learning the template. I mention it here as an example for very, very distracting explanation (I still am thinking: what is it with that weird word that makes it a "yes"?). So I researched the template, and wrote that table to understand it myself. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Adding: I just clicked the GIGO link (of course, never a documentation itself should need explanation). As I understand it, weird words are not garbage. Myt table says like: ~"words not being Yes, No". -DePiep (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Jimmy Savile

Category:Jimmy Savile, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Stealth

Please excuse me, I write in British English and from my "offence" and your "offense" I guess you write in American English. No problem with that, but I should apologise (or apologize) if it seemed that I was being rude. I know how hard you work at RfD, let alone other places I am sure. Please excuse my typing errors I am not used to this keyboard. Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No off... problem. It was my spellingchecker who marked it. I myself usually create whole new spellings in my English (so my spellchecker asks: "switch to Swahili?"). -DePiep (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address one or more redirects you have created. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes/Pharmacology

Hi DePiep. Thanks again for making the awesome medicine patroller tool. I was wondering if you'd be interested in creating a tiny badge/button-sized tool that retrieves just recent changes to articles (not talk pages) with {{WikiProject Pharmacology}} on their talk page? I want to show it to pharmacologists in the hope of recruiting some as patrollers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Can be done, with one note. After initial cration of the button+sourcepage, the source pages (=pages with the patrolled page links=list of pharmacy-article wikilinks) should be updated by a bot (As with the Medicine RC lists. I did that manually, so far). That would be a bigger challenge for me to accomplish (get a bot owner to make it run). Also, I am buzy in RL.
So, once I'm back in the wikiworld, I'll give it a throw and come back to you. -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks DePiep. Just for thinking about for now: I presume it would be technically possible to create a "badge/button thingy" that produces a drop-down menu of various specialties so an editor with an interest in, say, dentistry and anesthesia could select those two and summon recent changes from just those topics? I'm not expecting you to volunteer unless it takes your fancy, more just running the feasibility by you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
About being "tiny": I read that, no need to be cluncky. Hide/show good for the same reason. Then you write about the crossing of categories (CAT:A and CAT:B; CAT:A or CAT:B). That is a bit more complicated, though a very plausible need. I don't thinks that can be in a single link-click, though possibly by entering parameters (by that user in the template; somewhat like {Medicine RC} has). IOW: the manual would be a bit complicated. Anyway, it would be a logical next step from the simple ones we know (and not a contradiction). Later later more, after the WP:PHARM thing. -~~
No worries. Thanks. :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole@. See {{Pharmacology recent changes}}. Useable? -DePiep (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yay! (Sorry; I just noticed this.) That is exactly right. Thank you, DePiep. You are a gem. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
:-) -DePiep (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Wpcm"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25#Template:Wpcm about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Other metals

DePiep and @Double sharp: Time for us to make the change from poor metal to other metal, I reckon. If I change the name of the poor metal article, and load my sandbox into it, is there then a methodical way to change all of the 200 or so other articles/templates? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

List of metalloid lists

Hi DePiep

Could you have another look at this article? The sort function no longer works properly as it is including rows two to four, which are heading type rows, when sorting. And once sorted, the sort function stops working. Previously the sort function sorted blank cells first and then occupied cells depending on which column you sorted on, and then you could sort again to get the occupied cells first and then the blank cells. I like the extra rows with names of elements but I think you will have to have the sort keys in the fourth row to get the sort function working as intended. There does not seem to be a way of preventing rows two to four from being sorted, which would otherwise be a solution. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Everything you say is right. 1. I just gave the sortbuttons to their own separate row. It works well & looks well in my browser. 2. Todo: colors back in top row (symbol). (Problem was: when the sortbuttons were in that row, yesterday, the colored cells did not show that sortbutton - for me). 3. Full element names make the table wider (=more too wide). I could not make it smaller print (they must be !bold header format because to keep them out of the sorting business). We could throw that row out, but I'd say keep for the readers, 22 hits per day!. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm ready to put the metalloid article up for FAC. It would be good to first have stability in list of metalloid lists. I just had a look at list of metalloid lists via my ipad and it needs some work. The mini-periodic table to the right runs off the page, for example. Do you have many more edits to do? Perhaps it would be better to do this work in a sandbox and then once we are happy with it move it into the main space in one go? I quite liked your work on adding the periodic table names and would be happy with that version (08:41 on 8 Mar) for now, to accompany metalloid FAC. Sandbh (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Will make push one change to the metalloid PT (more table internals; to make all groups equal width & manage sizes). One minute. Then I'll make plans wrt to what you write here. -DePiep (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. Think I improved the metalloid PT (p-block) with more regularity (PT columns equal width, regular cell height). I also added the swith "addnotes=no", so it can be used in the List of M Lists. I also reorganised that L of M L to reogarnise the lead + graphs + some ce (that could use some more fleshing out I guess). Plus the lists table. I stop my editing in these right now, unleess asked/talked. FAC first. So if you see any hitches I introduced/I could solve, tell me. About LofML. 1. I think the table is OK, I see no issues. 2. Here above you say "mini" PT runs of the page. That must be the p-block cutout, I added today (not a poststamp-size micro PT we have elsewhere). It may be changed into solved just now (pls check again). So: if that is still wrong now, we throw it out of that page. 2. If the section changes are not satisfying (lede + created new section on clusters graph), maybe undo them. I must leave that to your judgement (to reverse to yesterdays lede version). But please take a good look: the texts were awful & horrible (including the intro of the table). About metalloids article: no edits by me. About the PT used (p-bvlock): don't see issues.
I'll take a break from this, see what you need, and later on will revisit the FA page. -DePiep (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
For a quick show, I have put the 08:41 text of List of metalloid lists here: User:DePiep/sandbox/LofM text 07 MAr. Please compare with current text (with or without the PT p-block-ish table). May be not stable, but sure better. -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the fast reply. Have done some more restructuring and copy editing, prompted by your work, instead of reverting back to the 0841 version. Many of your changes improved the list, so I was keen to develop that further. I had a look at the WP guidance on what lists should look like and that was helpful too.I I think the mini-PT isn't needed as it duplicates the one in the metalloid article. Overall LoML looks much better now. Will now shortly list metalloid at FAC. Happy to continue talking about LoML. Tx, Sandbh (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Glad I could convince you of text improvement needs. My prose in English & science is not always FA-fit. As said, I'll leave the pages alone unless for asked or obvious edits. No problem leaving out the bricksize PT template in the LofML -- for esthetical reasons only. The coloring is exactly based on the big Lists table, so I thought it illustrative to show where those frequency-colors are positioned, near the staircase borderline & that. Maybe in the future we can create a small one with just that information, for LofML. Quicky: User:DePiep/sandbox3. About the template in metalloids: I sure must find a better graphic for the grey staircase line. It is almost invisible now. Will make suggestions. And we could drop the micro periodic table in the from the bottom there (Po is included, is correct too but such a variant in there should be shown explained or not at all). It looks a bit half-explaining there, not full. About the text: the notes in the table say: "[Elements Po, At] are inconsistently recognised, due to their status as metalloids being disputed." That sounds a bit circular. imo 'inconsistently' is the trouble word, as if researchers were sloppy. (recognis/zed?). As said, gonna edit elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
This is very cool. I've renominated Metalloid for FAC here. A few people watching this time: John; Dirac66; 99of9; R8R. Should be good I hope. Will reply more to your comments above, tomorrow my time. Sandbh (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The small PT under the p-block extract in the metalloid article is fine. It shows where the metalloids are in the whole show. The caption is good, too. WP has to decide what to show as metalloids, which means making a decision about what to do about Po and At. And At as a metalloid but not Po is consistent with the literature noting At might be a metal. The micro PT is cute. I currently don't think we need a PT in LoML. There is a PT in the metalloid article which serves this function, the one showing the distribution of elements more or less often called metalloids. People will arrive at the metalloid article first, not the LoML so that reduces the need for another PT in LoML. Re Po and At inconsistently recognised. Challenge is to come up with a descriptive adjective between commonly and less commonly. Inconsistently was the best I could think of at the time. It's hard because sometimes one is included, sometimes the other, sometimes both, sometimes neither. Reason for inconsistency is mainly because authors don't do their homework, due to the properties of Po and At being hard to find, and so copy the sloppy research of others. Happy to hear of any alternatives. Inconsistently is neutral and a fair reflection of what's going on, it seems to me. Sandbh (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
DePiep, could you adjust the positioning of the period numbers in the p-block extract table appearing in the metalloid article? They don't line up with their corresponding rows. Sandbh (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I did not see the issue at all today, but I made a change to improve it (I know it could happen though). Please purge the page metalloids and check me. There is crisp visible check available: the old explanatory text had bad color names, I changed just now: "yellow green" -> "green", "pale yellow" -> "yellow". Page Metalloids now should show those new color names OK. They were in there a longer time [6]. Glad to have solved this -- if I did.(minor: One small visual issue is not solved: to me, the group 13 elements texts look shifted a pixel or two upward, making lines a bit irregular. Could not solve that yet). -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
On my ipad, the row numbers are still out of alignment. Don't know yet if this is an issue in e.g. Firefox. Anyway, on my ipad, 2 is aligned with B; 3 is aligned with the dividing line between boron and aluminium; 4 is aligned with Aluminium; 5 is aligned to just below Ga; and 6 is aligned to just above the grid line between In and Tl. I also see that for the cells with a thick grey metal-nonmetal dividing line along their base, the cell contents are bumped up a bit compared to the content of cells without the dividing line running through their bases. But this is not that noticeable unless you look hard. Going to answer your post about LoML now, as flagged yesterday. Tx, Sandbh (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Very bad. Browser/mobile dependent, I cannot check. I'll hardcode a solution, for FAC. Refinements postponed/revisited later. My testpage for this: User:DePiep/Metalloid (current article version), I'll ask you here when a check is needed. -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sandbh. About fixing those wrong period positionings. Please purge these two pages (if you can, mobile?), and answer the check question.
(If you see the new one is OK and I am irresponsive/offline, you can: 1. Copy & save all code from {{Periodic table (metalloid)/sandbox}} into {{Periodic table (metalloid)}}. 2. Check the result, and 3. Revert yourself if not ok somehow). Don't go into minor pixel-issues, FAC first. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
1. Bad; 2. Good. Will copy code maybe later today subject to RL. Don't wait for me if you read this before then. Sandbh (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done. Sandbh. Good one is live now in Metalloid. Should end this crisis. -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

periodic table (32 col, compact)

Resolved

On my screen Mt–Rg, 113–118 are showing up on a white background rather than the "Unknown chemical properties" colour, and the column width seems very uneven. Could you fix it, please? Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Going in. -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Color solved. "very uneven" column width, I do not see so I can't check. Does it have to do with 3-character symbols (like 'Uut')? These cells are now set to font-width:90%, and show smaller=OK on my screen. -DePiep (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
yes, those are uneven, but not just those. La/Ac is narrower than group 2, group 4 is narrower than surrounding, etc. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Double sharp. OK. Please purge and check the next pages wrt that irregular width (bad/good/other):
  1. {{Periodic table (32 columns, compact)}}
  2. {{Periodic table (32 columns, compact)/sandbox}} -- top PT, bottom PT
  3. Fluorine -- (just a live sample in article, should be same as #1)
PS do you remember since when this shows wrong? Some weeks, or many months? -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC) (fix & ping -DePiep (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC))
All looks OK now. Sandbh (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So no need to change the live version. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks great now! Thanks! :-) Double sharp (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Good. 've given those huge PTs equal cell widths too now. (lefthand column could have less, later on). Those regular columns, though even wider in total now (scrolling), look much better. -DePiep (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid FAC

DePiep, @Double sharp: Interesting question there about the bottom info graphic. Not sure yet how to respond. Simple answer is to delete bottom graphic, as suggested above? Sandbh (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sandbh, this is my concept of a reply. Don't know if it is helpful enough for a FAC discussion.
reply
Your observation is to the point. Some background about the bottom graphic (=the full periodic table with pinhead cells). It is a micro version of a periodic table graphic we use commonly on enwiki (this basic form). Element categorization (in subdivisions of metal-metalloid-nonmetal) corresponds with the cell background color and its legend. For those periodic tables we have found consensus July 2012–August 2013 to list polonium as poor metal (grey background), and astatine as metalloid (brown background).
It is obvious that those two were not categorized by the frequency-criteria that the top table shows (where both are blue, i.e. have their metalloid relevance alike). It could be that polonium had a stronger argument pull from the neighboring category (poor metals) that astatine had from its neighbor (nonmetals). But (possible) concurring arguments from outside the metalloid contemplations are not directly present in the frequency-analysis.
What to do? Imo a different classification is not wrong per se. But if it is visible, it should be explained. Since that level of detail is not available nor desired in the location (the infobox), we should remove the confusing micro periodic table from that box. The alternative, outline polonium too in that graph, would introduce differences within all our related pages: where it is stated of accepted that polonium is a metal (poor metal). Template-technically is would require a variant template, which in itself is no problem but it signifies the deviation.
end of reply

In other words: Po is considered a metal in the range of categories (pulled to poor metal in the considerations), At moved differently in that same argumented range battle. If the metalloids page leads to the consequence that Po should be labeled metalloid, we should adjust all our relevant PT pages. A let's-vary-per-page periodic table is introducing inconsistency between enwiki pages. For encyclopedic soundness, that is to be prevented at high costs. I wonder if the metalloids page text does of can clearify this Po/At difference. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this saying something? In the List of metalloid lists, Po and At are mentioned 93.5, 78 times (48%, 40%), nice. But only ~50 are mentioned in pairs (=Po and At together in one source). So ~75 other sources mention only one of them. Cluster 2 is already down to "44%"! (after a whopping 93% for cluster 1). -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Like your work. Will consider further and respond more, later today. Sandbh (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd let the reply start with a joke like: "consistency with Po and At has no scientific base -- so we won't be either." -DePiep (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd actually be in favour of including only the practically undisputed metalloids in the graphic (if we keep that graphic at all), thus not highlighting At. I find this more defensible than stopping at inconsistent recognition. Although IMHO we should really explain in the article why we've chosen to include At but not Po as a metalloid generally, as I note that we never really addressed the reason for our choice of classification in the article, despite going on and on about it at WT:ELEM. Double sharp (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I end up thinking that too. The infobox is too small to describe these details right (for a reason; that's why they are called details). So the micro full PT could be out. As often, in text there might be more space to go into this (why Po yes, At no, in out regular PTs). If this stays unclear/contrasting in the article (infobox), FA could be in danger. -DePiep (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I answered there. We should remove the micro periodic table for reasons of space (=too detailed to explain). I'll remove it upon support, e.g. from Double sharp, Sandbh. Any chance this difference might be explicit in the text ("we in wikipedia apply ..." even)? -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Impressive answer! Really the micro PT is only an example of a PT. It could be any example with any example of metalloids highlighted according to whichever author. So, it doesn't matter, I think, that At is highlighted, which is not the same as the top graphic. The two show different things. The caption and its wlink explain more. Why do we show At as a metalloid? This is explained in our project page but nowhere else, not explicitly. I'm not sure where we explain any of our other choices either like group 3 composition, 14 v 15 lanthanoids etc, other than in talk pages and project page, which is presumably the right place for them? Sandbh (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Especially proud that I condensed my words into a few lines :-). The point is that in that infobox, there is no place for those (explaining, correct) details. "No place" also means: it would be too detailed. That is off topical too! The OP is right: confusing/contradicting. So: remove that PT. (But as promised, I won't edit it on my own). -DePiep (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, you have some talent there with the way you worded the few lines. Good to see. Sandbh (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Other

I intend to update the poor metal article with the other metal article in my sandbox. Aim to do so within next 24 hours. Will then change all text mentions in other articles. Good if u can still do templates and images. Haven't forgotten metalloid FA and deciding what to do about micro-PT. Sandbh (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Very unhappy. We're already stuck with names like group 1 element for 'group 1' (a pain when reading, every instance), recently period 1 element for 'period 1' was declared OK (that pain again). Now there will be this other named-by-a-commission page eh "something" in here (because, you will also move the page right). If the worldwide scientific community had a convincing solution, I could edit silent & swift. But now that this (once again in IUPAC) is undecided, I abhor it for the bad language. (btw, would 'poor' prevent adding group 12?; if that matters?). -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not that happy either but that's the way the chemistry nomenclature situation is. A bit like on the old maps where you would see "here be dragons" or "terra incognito" until the geographers got their act together and one name became popular. I'll see if there's any more scope in the article to more clearly explain why it's called other metal. 'Poor' would not prevent adding group 12. Yes, I will use the move option to do all of this. Sandbh (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ay, is it really too late to introduce "dragon metals", "poor dragons" and "rare terra incognito metals"? -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Sandbh (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't use the move function as an article called 'other metal' already existed, with a redirect to poor metal. So I removed the redirect from poor metal, put my sandbox into it, deleted the content from the poor metal article, and added a redirect to other metal. I wasn't able to add the standard periodic table template after the references, as the template was being squeezed into the third column. Don't know why this would be so since it doesn't happen with the metalloid article. Still some tidying up to do. I need to add a note to the other metal talk page. And I need to change all non-template mentions of poor metals to other metals, as per your previous advice. Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Congrats with the moving result, although ... ,-). Later on I will enjoy the improvements. :-)
  • Any more page moved ahead? If so, I better wait them out.
  • Your reflint had to be closed: after {{refbegin}} ... {{refend}}. Added navbox and 32-col PT.
  • The Category:Poor metals must be redone too I saw.
  • My sp checker marks "optimised" in the page. I won't go in that topic.
  • Any issue you can report here of course. If you need me, I'm going to the legends & the PT links. -DePiep (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
WOW! That was quick. Thanks! Probably still a few more things yet to do. Appreciate the congrats. More edits tomorrow. Sandbh (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll do the visible things first. Move {{Peridic table (poor metal)}} and such later. -DePiep (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Text check needed at polonium, infobox explicitly mentions this (combined with ... this one)
Do not know of images that need a change.

 Done OK, this was the main batch I guess (legends & color name changes). See [7] & [8]. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

On my iPad the periodic table extract at top right doesn't display properly. The problem is in the row with the group numbers in it. On my desktop it's fine. On my ipad the first column is about 6 cm 7 mm wide whereas the columns with 11 to 17 in them are about 1 cm wide, and are fine. Sandbh (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Edited, but I cannot check mobile. Check & tell pls. (It did not show wrong in my Mobile view). Other metal, template moved to {{Periodic table (other metal)}}. Other graphic details edited too. -DePiep (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
That fixed column 1. However columns 11 to 17 are now 12 mm wide. So whereas before the width of the whole image was 95 mm due to column 1 being so wide it is now 93 mm wide due to columns 11 to 17 being so wide. Also, should you add 'grey=Unknown' after 'black=Solid, green=Liquid'? PS: Desk top appearance is fine. Sandbh (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Set max width. pls Check & tell. I am in the dark. Added grey, todo: add occurrence legend (borders), interesting in this PT section (with all 3 present). -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Mostly fixed. Column widths OK. The dark grey shading for the wide 'Other metals in the periodic table' cell overlaps the right border of the graphic box by 1.5 mm. So does the row with the group numbers in it. The astatine cell and the E117 cell do the same. So does the shading for the wide cell with the legend boxes in it. And the wide cell with the legend explanations; and the wide cell with the V T E in it. Rest is OK. Now down to 51 mm which is very good, but for the seven 1.5 mm overlaps, as noted. Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Widened it from 22.4 em to 23 em. Not a very gentle way. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Other metal in legend box at bottom of Other metal is showing as bold, with no w/link. Ditto in template listing under that. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course they are! "Other metal" in the legend links to Other metal, so this is a self-link! Good news, this is working. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
D'oh! Should've twigged---late; was tired. Re the Po image, that's OK to use. See the image use permissions and its history. Use was previously cleared for this file in the article Chalcogen, Metalloid, P-block, and Polonium. Grounds for use in Other metals are identical. Have restored on this basis; feel free to revert again if you disagree. Ipad nearly better. Try widening to 23.4 em.Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Did not understand that from your reversal. Now I won't touch this edit so do as you think good. If it ends up wrong, I'll visit you in that copyright prison they keep threatening with. Once in every four years, I promise. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Cheers!

regexes

Did you find the explanation at the end of [9] to be at all reasonable? I'm not sure at the moment if I should continue with it or give it up as a useless rehash. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is a pleasure to see! Right now I don't have the time to explore or study it, but I'll be back. The completing part of studying it is using it, so I'll use it to make some things work in the near future. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

barnstars

are not good enough for what you are doing for rail guages - thanks... satusuro 15:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A very welcome message between my AWB edits. I could use some good news. :-) -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
it is a jungle out there filled with village idiots in their own geographically challenged bubble that is self serving in its own ignorance and demise... it will pass.. like all things... satusuro 15:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It has charms too. A 100% engineering topic, filled with cultural preferenced engineers. lol. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 26 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Convert error

could you fix this edit? Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:914 mm gauge railways

Category:914 mm gauge railways, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trimethylindium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | Boiling_notes = (decomposes above {{convert|101|C|F K}}
  • found to be uncontrollable as the temperature of its surrounding exceeds its melting point (i.e. > 88°C) and reaches 101 °C and above. TMI is also reported to exhibit [[autocatalytic]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

so i am not alone in wp Zaid almasri (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Chembox changes

Hey, I noticed you made a large number of changes to articles with chembox templates, and didn't include a reason or link to the consensus discussion in the edit summary. Was there a consensus discussion for the changes? Agyle (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be more clear. Which article edit (example) would need a consensus dicussion? -DePiep (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Your most recent 600 edits or so, the ones dealing with image size changes to chembox templates, for example Trimethylsilyl chloride. You seem to be an experienced editor, so I'm not going to dig up guideline links unless you're unfamiliar with them, but basically edits should be explained in edit summaries, and large numbers of assisted edits should have clear consensus before making the changes. Agyle (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The example is an example of a botched edit (I was not simply clicking AWB, but here I clearly made the wrong manual edit). I corrected that just now, showing the intended result: the pair use default size (width) settings as chembox has them. The view is even and relaxed.
The recent changes to Chembox are announced and described at WT:CHEMBOX, during several months. These are technical (internal) improvements, and so IMO do not need an explicit proposal. Even then, since last December few other editors pointed to issues there, during the process. None made a suggestion of opposing.
One of the improvements is making defau

lt images size available without disturbance. (described in Wikipedia_talk:CHEMBOX#Chembox_code_update_27_March_2014). The default size settings were not altered! Since the default widths actually work as expected, at last, I removed the explicit settings in the articles. This is what the editsummary refers to: don't set a default in the article. (These earlier settings were more of a trial-and-error outcome because of unpredictable behaviour. Editors had to play with sizes to look for an effect. This stemmed from the text-column width influence. At the moment, it can not be reproduced, but the image pairs were systematically uneven in width, even in stuations where size was explicitly set).

So, the chembox was improved, and the articles now use that improvement. The images layout for pairs is more consistent over the chemboxes now. An incidental mistake, as your linked page shows, can happen. -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like you've hit on what I find bothersome about the change, that it makes the table cell widths uneven on equal-sized images, based on the details of the caption. While it may not be consistently reproducible for every computer or every browser, on my Mac the same pages are uneven in Firefox, Chrome, and Safari, as well as Safari on my iPad. However, if the consensus was to disallow image size adjustments by editors, the other obvious work-around is to adjust the captions (e.g., with copious use of <br /> tags, or shortening/lengthening their text, or choosing different words). Is that the current preference? Agyle (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- "makes the table cell widths uneven on equal-sized images, based on the details of the caption." makes? based on the captions? Either I don't understand or you are wrong. The image cells (in a pair L+R) are even by default now, and this is not set by the caption (image caption). A week ago they were not equal width, when used in default.
- "if the consensus was"? there was no consensus point, for reasons, as I answered.
- "disallow image size adjustments by editors" - no, not disallowed at all. Read this: if the default size is 100px, then there is no reason to set "100px" in the article. So that is what I removed. If an editor had set images to "50px", I left it alone and it is still there. Showing at 50px.
- "on my Mac the same pages are uneven in Firefox, Chrome, and Safari, as well as Safari on my iPad." If this says what I reads it to be, that is serious and of course contrary to the intention. To get the issue right: you have articles with a chembox, that chembox has an image pair (L+R), and that image pair shows in uneven width, without any editor setting of the |ImageSizeL1= or |ImageSizeR1=. That shows wrong in your views? (article links please). -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I realized there are other side effects of the changes that I don't like, but it sounds like the changes may have been unintentional, so I won't list them. Answers to your questions:
––Agyle (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
1. I reverted my Fuchsine edit, old 150px width seem to be needed to show the caption (as was original).
2. Yes I changed other widths too, but I was explaining things to you in simplicity. Your list articles show that there usually is a useful difference for "100px, 120px" in a pair. That means I'll have to revert those edits. Will prepare.
3. Other things you don't like or list, I cannot respond to. New topics maybe at WT:CHEMBOX. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If only "100px" is removed, I notice absolutely no difference in html rendering. I will add other suggestions at WT:CHEMBOX. Thankyou for your responses. ––Agyle (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, if only "100px" is removed, no problem. Because then that is added by {chembox} as the default. So it should not show a difference. Will take a visual check for each (very weird I did not notice anything in my intermediate checks, though. Well, the punishment is there). (btw, the 100px leaves some whitespace, 110px could be OK too in the same 32em wide chembox. Someone might propose a change of the default. Same for the 200px single image. OTOH, one can set chembox width too). -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable

You will no doubt be familiar with WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I invite you to strike out or remove your unacceptable and offensive comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No PA there. -DePiep (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment table

Thanks for your help a couple of months ago getting the Article Assessment table up and running for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Society and medicine task force. Another user I'm familiar with, CFCF, is trying to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology up and running, and we'd be very grateful if you'd help us get the Article Assessment up and running, or point us in the right direction. Kindly, --LT910001 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor metal/s to other metal/s

DePiep, I think I've done all of the changes to articles. Cld you do the templates? If you can see any articles I've missed just let me know. Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh, as far as I know I did this a month ago. {{periodic table}} says o.m.'s everywhere. Did I miss something? -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC) @Sandbh: +ping -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Sandbh, ok then? -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Sandbh again, this is done ok? -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting RailGauge Template usage issues

DePiep,

Today a manual Railgauge edit ([10]) of me on Robert Stephenson was reverted, partially due to an error caused by me.

After examination and an attempt to correctly restore my edit, User:Edgepedia reverted my restore with some interesting arguments about RailGauge template usage on Talk:Robert Stephenson#railgauge template. Can you please take a look at these so I can address the issues raised?

(my comments on the arguments (italics) as given on the Stephenson talk page):

  1. It's not compliant with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Unit_names_and_symbols "unit names should be given in full if used only a few times..." What is your opinion on the implication RailGauge templates not being compliant to the WP manual of style?
  2. Conversions are given in mm, not metres. Whilst this is the standard unit for modern railways, I don't see it as a useful conversion for say the 4 ft waggonways, and could imply a greater level of precision than is appropriate. This suggests RailGauge conversions might not be applied to old railways as these railways had larger gauge tolerances. I don't agree with this.
  3. In the use in the sentence that starts "In early documents...", these don't give a conversion, so I didn't convert. Again we could imply a greater level of precision than is appropriate. (point taken)
  4. Note that 7 ft (2,134 mm) gives 7 ft 1⁄4 in (2,140 mm); the source talks about the 7 ft gauge, without the extra 1⁄4 in. We might have a gauge conversion issue here, or was this deviation made on purpose? See: Great Western Railway#Early history: Firstly, he (Brunel) chose to use a broad gauge of 7ft exact to allow for (...) The rail gauge soon changed to 7 ft (2,134 mm), as it is identified since.
  5. I don't see any reason for the change. Seems to me to be a case similar to WP:NOTBROKEN. I think there is a case for all gauge related articles to be listed in the RailGauge maintenance categories as railways are better populated here then compared to categories and list articles.

--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. So your comments are here but not there. -DePiep (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Correct, I would like to have your opinion before I'm going to make bold statements over there.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I replied there. You can act as you like. Interesting thread. -DePiep (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And I reply to you, more loose.

1. In detail, one should use "inch" not "in" once. So then, it should be "56-inch gauge" in adjective (the hyphen is not required when writing "in" !;-) ). This point the editor could win, but is not prohibitive. Using {RailGauge} is not illegal.
2. I do not see any problem writing mm. What is the problem?
3. Precision: everybody is welcome at Template talk:RailGauge. Rail gauge precision is a current issue there. Even today.
4. Brunel is a definition. See also the talkpage about that 1/4 inch. Looks soolved to me (in-topic issue)
5. Your changes were improvements, I restored them, plus minor editts. -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, as I expected Talk:Robert Stephenson#railgauge template was a delicate issue.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Aaron-Tripel}. No worries. We want this enwiki to be the best place to go to, for all! rail gauges. If the editor has a point, that's good and we'll improve. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor metal/s to other metal/s

My bad; templates all done as far as I can see. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Spray (sailing vessel)

I don't know why you reverted my edit to Spray (sailing vessel). Your edit summary "we don't do no idle edit" makes absolutely no sense. The template {{italic title}} does exactly the same thing as your addition of {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Spray'' (sailing vessel)}} does but with a much cleaner edit. You can read more about the template here: Template:Italic title. —Diiscool (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As you write: "does exactly the same thing". So no reason for you to edit. That is it. -DePiep (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you didn't like my attempt to re-organize at TfD

That was a bizarre exchange at ANI. I sincerely thought we were in agreement until I logged on again and saw it was gone. I don't really mind, but am a little confused.
Although you began with:

"No, no refactoring. Closing admins have made a point out of grouped TfD's, and there is no super-guidance. I will not risk another "wrong place" argument by any admin."

you shortly followed it up with:

"I reverted. Admins are less smart than you are."

Which, to me, sounded like you were saying "Nevermind (I revise my stance and have reinstated your actions). Admins are dumb (so you need not listen)." Though I have gathered from the leading statement at ANI you believed I was ignoring you:

... I reverted early [312] 313, but that was undone.

Now I'm curious: what did you mean by "...Admins are less smart than you are"? Separate statement entirely, or what?

Not mad, just surprised you opened an ANI thread for it. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The ANI was needed to revert asap. I did not want a closure of the TfDs in the refactored state. Because, any admin could conclude that the discussions were corrupt and so useless (no consequence then). That would jeopardise all the TfDs in the first place. That was my main concern.
There was no time for discussion, nor did you use my editsummary in my earlier reversal.
So I started the ANI. Reverting myself would be editwarring I guess; and other eyes were welcome. As my ANI shows, it was not aimed at you (no blocking etc).
-DePiep (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
No hard feelings. I had totally missed the part where you objected, and can see my mistake in attempting to re-order the lot of them now. Glad the TfD has been preserved (didn't know closing admins could declare such a thing) and thank you for the feedback. Won't try that next time around. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Thx. (I had bad experiences with this recently, so I was alert and sensitive. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_18#T:WPTECH: the closing admin can say & conclude virtually anything; other examples by request). I can add: I fully understand your desire & action to reorganise those four. I usually get tired too for this repetition. It's just, the procedures cannot handle it. So thx again for understanding my bold actions, and have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Just some advice.

I would advise you to not put messages or "Grave dance" on Nergaal talk page, as it could be seen as personal attacks, and you could see your own ANI turned against you. Also be less hostile on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, some of the stuff that you are putting on there are borderline and sometimes even blatant attacks on editors. Just remember Wikipedia is not battlefield. TheMesquitobuzz 06:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

TheMesquito@. 1. Telling that you did not find it necessary to address Drmies with a single edit or word. Here, you even copy Drmies's wording and distorted edit reading. 2. But now how to explain that? Admins are not required to check by timeline, or to produce diffs. Just throw in some blanket yells, and off-topic threads, and borderline PAs, and editor ridiculing. So how could reasoning with diffs help me? -DePiep (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

template error tracking

Hi,

Do you have any idea how to get the templates to stop adding themselves to Category:Languages without family color codes? I've tried 'include only' etc, but can't figure it out.

— kwami (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

reply, part 1: the Category:Languages without family color codes is also filled by Template:Infobox language family as the cat page says. I first changed that template (1000 transclusions only): only categorise when in mainspace (=articles only), using {{main other}}, not the tags. Zero effect for this template, no changes in the category, but in the future it may.
I assume that is what you expect. Or else let me know.
To check & test this categorising (for example, in a a userspace page prepariong a language article): add |demospace=main. It will trick the user page to think it is in mainspace (and add that category if it would in true mainspace).
Now I will step up to {{Infobox language}}. -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Question kwami@: about Category:Language articles with unsupported infobox fields (parameter checks, now empty). Do you want categorised all pages or articles (mainspace) only? -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, thanks. Not sure it's working yet, as the templates are still listed in the cat. Maybe they need to be saved again before they adjust.
Sometimes the stuff in user space can be handy, as it shows articles in the works, but it can be a pain if people are just playing, as I feel weird fixing articles in their user space. Probably easier for other monitors if it's just main space.
On another topic, families with ISO2/5 codes are showing up in Category:Language families with SIL links, and I don't see why. That's not supposed to happen. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Quick: yes, still four in there because it is filled by two templates, and so far I only edited the one that did not add anything. (iow, those four are by {{infobox language}}, which is not changed yet). -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done: see Template_talk:Infobox_language#For_maintenance_categories:_using_main_other. Unfortunately, for the moment no test option is possible. -DePiep (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

About Category:Language families with SIL links. The individual pages are clean now, so the category will follow in a few days.
I don't know why they were there. There are lots of maintenance cats, filled by lots of infobox language templates, doing lots of checks. That's difficult research for me. -DePiep (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Appears that inclusion was spurious. Articles started showing up that didn't have any ISO fields, and hadn't been edited in a month. When I saved them without any changes, they disappeared from the category. Odd, but not a problem.
All tracking categories are now empty, except for those which are are permanent until the next edition of Ethnologue. Thanks for your help! — kwami (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Great! -DePiep (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert the Welcome message

Hi I'm ZackDickens12 and why did you get rid of the welcome message? →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 07:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, why did you put it here in the first place? -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I mean, why did you think I'm new here? -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Well I was just giving you some links :) →Zackdickens12→→Talk to me!→ 16:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
OK. Deleting not as an offence. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Good Game (Australian game review show)

Hi DePiep. I was just wondering.. if you are thinking of doing something completely different to the Elements WikiProject to challenge your brain in a different way, this is an article I wrote a while back. Unfortunately it suffers from major cases of "quotism" and "triviaism". Which my articles tend to do. So I was wondering if perhaps you'd consider giving it a little once-over. As far as I'm aware, most to all possible sources are already in the article, so that side of things shouldnt be an issue. Copyediting has never been my strong point so I've always relied on the help of better Wiki-editors to move forward an article I've started. If this interests you, please give me a shout. :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice to ask me. A first glance tells me, that it has a serious body & level already. From there, my Inglish and knowledge of the topic is quite low, so I'd have to spend serious time diving into that before I can contribute. I see no easy-for-me edits for me to be done; I'm more into Tech Tables. So don't expect edits from me in there, but maybe I can spend some relax time at the article. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou for your response. I understand completely. For what it's worth, I'm not sure how much knowledge of the subject matter would actually be needed. (AFAIK, with FA/GA reviews it's preferred if you come in knowing nothing about the subject matter, so you can work out what does and doesn't make sense to the general public). More of a case of tightening up prose here and there (for example replacing 2 long quotes with a succinct sentence), and removing things that Wikipedia articles shouldn't have. I tried to copyedit it just now but I ended up adding a whole heap more info to it. Haha it's a disease... :P.--Coin945 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Not 'game', but these elements do not rouse my interest: television, show, showhosts, Australian and especially not Australian television show hosts. Hey, I have to actually spend energy to avoid this culture any way possible, which is as bad as they come. To get diversion from chemistry, I have been building this page these weeks. Now I am singing! -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Haha fair enough. ----- Glad to see you're occupied with interesting topics. :)--Coin945 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
See, this is what I mean. Having to chase it away and kill the beast, popping up from every penetrating route. -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Tracking category

Hi, re this edit. Two things: (i) by moving one double apostrophe inside the {{cot}}, you've caused two cases of unclosed italics; (ii) it's not self-evident, see for example User talk:Redrose64#Why there are some categories that are categorized as hidden, that doesn't have a "hiddencat" in its text field? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've completed the pairs (to no effect). I maintain that the hidden remarks can be below the fold. It is self-obvious for the editor who arrives at the cat. For the reader who got lost and ended up there, there are more issues. -DePiep (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The italics now balance, thankyou.
Saying "this is a category" would be self-evident; but saying "this category is hidden" is not. We cannot know how the user arrived at the category page - they need not have followed a category link at the bottom of an article, but instead one shown in template documentation or in a talk page discussion; this does not mean that they got lost. For example, Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata, the one that prompted this, is linked from twelve pages, most of which are discussion pages. The user concerned may simply have been interested in one of those discussions, and followed the link to find out more about what was being discussed.
It's certainly not obvious that a user preference is available which alters how the category is shown; and for an unregistered user, like 148.87.19.210 (talk) who raised the thread on my talk page, the preference simply is not available to them. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I did not bother to dive into what the text says. I did not change that text. I only moved it to a collapsed part.
Loads of true facts can be said about HIDDEN, but I'm not even interested now. Same about Category definitions & properties (which might be more useful there, like "pages in subcategories are supposed to be in this catgory too"). It's just I don't think it has priority in showing. These eventualities can take up 15 or 25 lines: a lost reader is not helped out. An editor arriving here should be able to unfold a text. For me, that big blue box (plus the others) take too much space & attention off the top of such a page. In one instance, I even omitted the "this is a container cat" for this reason. -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Illustrating for the overload is, that I had to add the option to show page-related text. It was boilerplate all over. -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DePiep/Archive_6&oldid=1142961686"