Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

<ref> definitions on two places

I got a message from the reference parser (seems to depend on preference settings). In Ununoctium in the ref section, it said: Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Nash" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

This was because there were two full <ref name=Nash>{{cite web|...}}</ref> definitions on the page. (Solved by removing one; renamed to <ref name=Nash2005> btw. This is not exactly the issue).

I want to point out (warn, and explain) that we also have reference definitions in the infobox element. In this case, {{Infobox ununoctium}} had one full definition, the article an other one. After transclusion, the article had two. The solution is to only define the ref in one page, proposedly the infobox page. Then in the article only use the named ref like <ref name=Nash2005/>. This has the inconvenience that the definition is not in the article for editing, but done other way around (define Nash2005 in article only) the infobox page would have an undefined reference call.

Anything else we need to consider? -DePiep (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. re Sandbh/sandbox

Take a look at User:Sandbh/sandbox#Layout_variations [1]. We talk for weeks and weeks, and in the end the proposal is still saying: "I do not know the difference between structure and presentation". For this, I object everything and anything by now. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I now only refer to common forms and different arrangements (i.e. of squares on a piece of paper). [Sandbh reply? -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)]

errgh, no you don't. You do a lot more, Sandbh. -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Inacceptable contrast in bg color

Our PTs use background colors for category=metallishness; "category" is the word we use at enwiki (there is no international word for this periodic trend).

Now some of these colors are too dark to make good contrast with the font (example: Group 1, red background). So I think we should change these colors by sound reasoning. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Support. As well as the group 1 red being too dark it would be nice not to have so many red shades (five) overall. But I don't know how easy it would be to come up with 11 colours (nine if you keep the two shades of grey) that aren't too dark, yet still all go together. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Support. We have too many reds, especially if we include the predicted shades. I'd probably give the current transition metal colour to the alkali metals and change the transition metals, as I admit that the reddish shades would give a clear idea of reactivity otherwise (having warning colours like red/pink/rose + orange + yellow for the more reactive elements at the left and the right, which only really breaks down for N). I also dislike that it is hard to tell "unknown chemical properties" from "post-transition metals": both are greys and they are right next to each other. Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Support. Seems a reasonable and non-controversial idea. But the color selection should be be intentional. YBG (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

re Double sharp: no, colors should not be chosen by (assumed) cultural meaning.

YBG, what 'intentional' here?

Sandbh: starting from scratch (first thing to do is throw out current selection), there is no preference. The optimum follows from needs in the first place, not likes. -DePiep (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

By 'intentional', I mean rather the opposite of WP:BB. We should think about some basic principles, and try to agree on them before getting into the specifics. I will propose a process for us to consider. YBG (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

A process I already have in mind, my earlier notes here show. Biggest hurdle is recent experiences here show that a lot of time may be wasted while people refuse to understand the difference between editorial and sourced bases. -DePiep (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested process

Here's my idea for how we should proceed:

1. Brainstorm all possible principles or considerations that could be used to select colors
2. Discuss the order in which we should decide these considerations
3. Discuss and decide each consideration in the order listed

I have started the list for #1 below -- this list will be useful whether or not we decide to follow this suggested process. YBG (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Support for and opposition to this suggested process

(Please indicate whether you support or oppose this process)

• Support (after all it is my suggestion) YBG (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose In general, it is often a good idea to divide a task into smaller jobs. If I was to solve a business case, it would be what I would do. In this case, however, it's different. This is a small task and as such it wouldn't be very efficient to complete a whole setup: choosing rules, assigning them into priority, etc. Not to say, in this case, the tasks may be interrelated, as we only have a small set of colors and ten groups to color. So the colors should be pale enough to not disturb reading, not too similar, one color shouldn't prevail in the palette. Other than that, rules would seem superfluous to me. I made my PT (below) in two hours using these principles, and I don't think this is an issue worth weeks-long discussion and work if anyone can get it work fine. Again, long setup and discussions would be great for a long labor-consuming process; this isn't one.--R8R (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I have some sympathy for R8R's position. I was impressed by the principles that YBG came up with for guiding the categorisation of non metals, and I have found it really hard to come up with colour schemes that have 11 different but complementarily arranged colours. So I was curious to see where the work on colouring principles went. Sandbh (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, but for diametric reasons R8R mentions. R8R states that "This is a small task", and solved "in two hours". I claim tyhat it is not a single-step task, and R8R illustrates this by applying not even the most basic principles on color selection. "pale enough to not disturb reading, not too similar" is not a serious approach. Below I have described separate steps in the process, which is my proposal. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  Well, I must admit I stand corrected. It took me two hours to build the very basics of the current proposal and the spectrum it forms. I still think it was right to boldly go for it, at very least, for me personally (and we got a likeable model to start with), but in any other way, again, I do stand corrected. By the way, I appreciate your comments and will try to act accordingly in the coming days.--R8R (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, I understood it this way but I wanted to peg a point timely that we might need to roll in professional webdesign criteria (WP:ACCESS for starters). As I wrote below, I am happily surprised that your setup got rid of old bad choices (in the 2015 colors) and gained support already (I had expected that would take way more time). When RL releases me, I can work out more of my points. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, I hereby withdraw my suggested process. YBG (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I am flushing lots of ideas these days, I gathered the last years when working with PT colors. I'll reduce the discussion into some structured section later on. All points raised (here and elsewhere) I will address, nothing to disappear. -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments about and alternatives to this suggestion

(Add comments about this process here)

Comment by DePiep

This is not a single-track steps route, expect cyclic and sub-topics to be explored before seeing just one color. My experience in color picking here (nonmetals) is that it is more complicated.

Also, I have bad experience last year when topics went on without discussion and were pushed into mainspace by personal pushing instead of fleshing out. Unsourced even. So if people want to dive into it and push private hobbies, please announce beforehand. Saves time for everyone, and the result is the same (a bad wiki).

This is what I think is the main setup:

1. Drop all existing associations, knowledge, current situations, hammer head against wall if needed

2. Define & analyse the set it is about, including internal and external relations

3. Find pro guidelines in coloring

4. Get a brush (only now)

-DePiep (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment by YBG

@DePiep, Double sharp, R8R Gtrs, and Sandbh: Please consider voting above on my suggested process. I'm more than happy to have this voted down; in fact, I believe that a definitive Support or a definitive Oppose would both move the process of consensus forward. Also, please consider adding to the list of potential considerations I started below. Note that it includes considerations that are mutually contradictory. I did this because I was trying to include all the possible ideas without filtering anything out ahead of time. YBG (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

YBG, you have not altered the list into four separate topics, what I suggested. Apparently scientists here do not do separation of independent topics, which in this case leads to shots at 'solutions' without using a sound base (existing parallel: the group-3 trainwreck discussion before). One c-a-n n-o-t pick good colors at random. -DePiep (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not understand that you were suggesting that the list of considerations be altered into four separate topics. I actually think it would be a good idea to subdivide the list. However, as I didn't want to presuppose this, I simply copied down all of the different considerations or principles that I could think of, including those suggested by you and by others. I thought that the list would be more likely to be complete if we all could add to it without any presuppositions, and then take the resulting list and divide it into groups, maybe even into four groups that correspond to your four points above. And while I think it would be good to re-think the whole color scheme completely, I did not want to impose this idea on the discussion. Consequently, I included both "The palate should be selected without regard to the current palate" and "The palate should be selected to minimize changes from the current palate". One can't have it both ways, but while I have a preference, I did not want to initiate a process that was predisposed toward my preferences. YBG (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

While your approach may be natural at first glance, my recent experiences with the group-3 development here prove that even scientists cannot be trusted with making a chaotic start into sensible reasoned logic. That is a warning to not spend too much quality time into this: somehow personal preferences prevail. -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This plane already took off. See #Category Color Set review -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

m.view bad infobox

I just saw an element article in mobile.view. Jee, that infobox is showing tooo bad. And no we will not change the micro pt into the crippled 18-col format for this. Internet can do better. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Article needed: Subcategories in Metallicity

On the topic of metallicity categories (ie, subcategories of the main metal-metalloid-nonmetal classification), we do not have an good article or section (descriptive, comparative). Since we spread these categories all over the world (by coloring our PT), such an article is desired.

• Related articles:

Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals (good example, for this 3-set)

metallicity (in astronomy)

metal, metalloid FA, nonmetal GA

nonmetal#Categories, metal#Categories

• Title issues

'Category' is our enwiki word (lack of international/IUPAC word for this). Even we use this ambiguously, see Metal (category: heavy metal etc).

-DePiep (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

See also the Metals, Metalloids and Nonmetals section in the Periodic table article, and Names_for_sets_of_chemical_elements, and Categorization. Sandbh (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

How about Metallicity of chemical elements? Lede sentence: "The elements of the periodic table can be categorized/characterized by their metallicity, that is, where they fall on the metal-nonmetal continuum."

Another interesting point that came out while working on Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals was the idea that transition metals are the "archetypal metals" and diatomic nonmetals are "essentially nonmetallic". Interesting perspectives I hadn't thought of before.

YBG (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• If I understand the recent thread by Sandbh well, this categorising (or grouping) is not just by metallishness and metallic properties, but also is supported by other chemical & physical properties. That makes the grouping stronger, but the decription as "category of metallicity" less applicable. The article is needed (even more!), but maybe with a different title. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)