Jump to content

User talk:DePiep/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A word to the wise

It is much easier to persuade people that you are being civil, if you avoid being sweary. Take it from one who knows. There is a subset of Wikipedians who react extremely badly to foul language, and actually there is a lot of merit in their case. Even if it is fucking annoying. So please try to maintain parliamentary language, and save us all having to read another eye-bleeding wall of text on ANI. In friendship from one sweary fucker to another, Guy (help! - typo?) 21:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with pharmaceutical templates

I see that you were the main architect behind the pages Wikipedia:Chemical infobox/Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and Template:Chembox articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Drugbox and WP:PHARM crosscheck, which I've run into a bit of an issue with. The page for the radiotracer, formerly at Enhanced Fujita scale, has been moved to 18F-EF5. The former page is now a redirect to EF5. This changes the radiotracer's position on the alphabetical list. Is there way to do that without having to manually renumber the >1000 items in between? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Simple answer: yes, easiliy. In every row, the # symbol does the numbering (your browser does this for you).
So: just delete the row # [[:EF5]] (completely, no empty newline be left!),
and in alphabetical place add article # [[:18F-EF5]].
HTH. Sure, the list are from 2015 and so very outdated! Al the best. -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, it worked for the second page, but not the first as it was a wikitable rather than a numbered list. So I had to come up with a more creative solution. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Oops I had not seen it is a table :-( You solved it well :-) -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Proactivity

Hi, thanks again for being so quick in implementing the “exponent” → “minor units” change. I now realize that you may have misunderstood my original wording; it wasn't actually meant as a request, but as an invitation for discussion. So, sorry that your work may become obsolete now, depending on what the numismatics aficionados decide. But even if they decide to remove the parameter altogether, at least it's clear that without your involvement we would have missed your pivotal question about the displayed parameter text. ◅ Sebastian 17:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. Shall I revert it all? Then you can finish the discussion there. No problem. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's the cleanest for now. Thank you! ◅ Sebastian 17:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Blue Neon sign

Hi! The picture of a sign in a pastry shop in the Neon article has a misleading description. The blue sign is not neon. I am aware that in common parlance the word "neon" may mean any curved light source, for example LED lights. However, this article is about the chemical element.

You have reverted both regular and "alt" descriptions. I think, blind people also want to get a true description of the picture, not the false one.

Can you suggest a proper description, which clearly tells that this is not a neon sign?Ufim (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That's File:Blue_Neon_sign_in_a_pastry_shop.png then. (In [1] I only worried about the |alt= description, did not notice what you write here).
I have added this to the image, and will remove it from the article. OK? Thanks for the report. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
So: sorry it took me two steps to get the issue. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Cay

Hi DePiep, you edited the page Cay to add some information on etymology, with a footnote to "Albury:5, 13–14 Craton:17 Keegan:11" Would you please give the full references with titles, dates, etc.? Thanks.Sdrpyh (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

2018. Took the text from in-wiki Lucayan_people#cite_note-20 obviously. No currently I cannot refine the sources. If you can't find the sources from all this, then removal would be ok. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Done. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#An elementary issue and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the comments: Sandbh shouldn't be editing outside their section, so you are correct. I will reinstate their reply in their section, as we move comments made in the wrong section into the correct section (unless it warrants removal). As a general course of action, if you have an issue with editors editing outside their section in a sectioned discussion at ArbCom or anything similar (like word limits being exceeded) you should contact the clerks to deal with it. This is because the clerks are there to deal with this kind of situation, as they are uninvolved users who are authorized to manage cases. If you have further issues or questions, you can ask me here/at my talk page or email clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Good. Please note that I feel trolled. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
If there is anything that remains outstanding which is making you feel trolled please do let me or the other clerks know and we will see what we can do. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, very careful. I'm new to ArbCom (as a subject), so I'm learning. Meanwhile, I am ~involved in this case, so very touchy. I have good fellow-editors helping me in this (eg EdChem). Working & hoping this will turn out good. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hi DePiep. I see R8R has stopped chasing unicorn apologies (which seemed unjust to me) after Guy explained it to him and why Guy would not take someone's word for it (and a big bit of whether he was telling the truth etc). Anyway he has committed to not to mention you (and wanted to receive the same from you I would assume) which seems to be the status quo over the last few weeks, except the proposal of him trying to get a win on you before agreeing to behave. Anyway my question to you is this. What will it take for you to change your mind and say that it does not need to be seen at Arbcom? Games of the world (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Games of the world: A good question. Will have to read and think some things. Will be back here. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Games of the world: My reply-thinking may need some days, not hours. No problem pausing the CaseRequest-conclusion for me. Pausing does not excuse current disputable edits in ELEM area. I met good eh sub-ArbCom comments btw like this one; worth digesting. -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Bradv, Games of the world, EdChem, and Guy Macon: It's complicated, I need time to describe carefully. I am not convinced that recent 'declarations' will solve the WP:ELEMENTS disfunction. Essential 'declarations' are about but not with the issues. (if one must decide today: do Accept, for lack of true solution. If decide later: better, I can expand). -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
TL;DR: After recent statements, Sandbh and R8R have changed their Case Request statements in to Reject. But many issues in the Case origin have not been addressed (personal rubbings, discussion & editing performance). With such omissions, how can we expect change of attitude, for WP:ELEM to be back a functioning Project?
Long: The Case Request was based on some 7 AN/ANI threads. They reflected and illustrated the state of Project ELEM.
Sandbh and R8R did not commit to Ds's #Deciding_between_ourselves blanket pacification proposal. They did make a different statement, and from there stated to reject the Case.
Sandbh: After the Sandbh/Ds joint statement [2] (which does not involve me in any way), Sandbh still expresses battlefield mode towards me, and is still disagreeing on old ANI outcomes [3].
R8R says [4] to "do my best in general to avoid conflict in the future". IOW, both have not shown any thoughs of their behaviour being part of the causes, and give no indication on how they think problems can be prevented or eliminated.
The statements address and eliminate some issues indeed, but other issues are still open. Apart from personal animosity just mentioned, there are the non-personal issues that are hindering WP:ELEM. In short, talkpage behaviour and article editing (like: walls of text, did-not-hear-that replies, unstructured threads, ownership, RfC'ing regular questions, source handling, Bold but not BRD, chasing away editors); rarely 'ANI-worthy' edits, but collectively frustrating the project. To me the omissions do not give confidence that an attitude change is happening, thereby not bringing the WP:ELEM Project back within Wikipedia's respect.
My questions: Did I miss things? And: if the case were rejected (I could change my statement), how can we have confidence that these issues are addressed and resolved? -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Rather than pinging me asking for advice, I would prefer that you respond to this question:[5][6] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I pinged you before those posts, so how could I know your preference? -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, I doubt that anyone, including the Arbitrators, is certain that the recent developments will lead to a resolution of all ELEM issues. I think that there have been some good sentiments expressed but that there are pragmatic challenges that will reveal whether there has been real change – and as you note, there has not been much written on the "how" of dealing with issues. I am disappointed that nothing has happened to include you in a joint statement. The question that you face, however, is whether it is better to have a case now or wait and see if there has been change, knowing that a case is possible later if problems persist. Waiting also gives you the opportunity to demonstrate that your approach has changed. Pushing for a case now makes sense if you are near-certain that the situation will continue to deteriorate, but won't end well if it is taken that you are the only one who can't drop past conflicts and move on. It's up to you. EdChem (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The Elements case request, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration request

With regard to the pending request for arbitration, please respond to the question that my colleague Bradv asked there yesterday. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A response from you on this inquiry will allow the case request to be decided upon. Mkdw talk 05:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ship deprecated templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Ship deprecated templates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Easily distracted

Thanks for cleaning up Signature mark after me. Evidently I got distracted by the markup problem and forgot what I was doing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Could not have done it without 99% preparation :-). {{Unichar}} is multi-problematic. -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"TMS (nuclear physics)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect TMS (nuclear physics). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16#TMS (nuclear physics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

5 ft and 1520mm gauge

Please read my answer in my talk page Zenfox (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Reversion on Noble gases

Why did you revert my edit on noble gases? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said in my editsummary: "Undid revision 995588763 by Blacephalon (talk) you correctly went to the talkpage. let's see what that produces". here. I am curious for that outcome; properties of oganession are laregly unknown, so is its classification. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Well according to most chemists it seems Og is a noble gas by definition, since its atomic number places it at the end of a period. That's the route we took (because most chemists take it), and by that idea the classification is "known by fiat" even in the absence of chemical knowledge. Double sharp (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not following the details, just hoping the discussion is fruitful (and newbie not chased away). -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Seems to be so; the article has been improved following Blacephalon's suggestions. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Help request

Dear DePiep, I obviously need help if, in my best endeavours, I'm facing the prospect of a topic ban. Not help in a mental sense; help in how to meet WP expectations sense. I'm obviously missing something.

Is my goose cooked?

Appreciate any help or support either of you could provide.

thank you, --- Sandbh (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: I've asked EdChem for help, too.

I won't be online again until tomorrow morning my time; about 10 to 12 hours time.

@Sandbh:. @EdChem:
Just read EdChem's reply. My thoughts:
Many commentors at the ANI thread have made good points. Skipping all my comments (that still might introduce some personal preferences not objective facts, understandably IMO), skipping those does not change the perceptions there. I think the thread did not derail as badly as the previous ones did. So in there are lots of observations that make sense re improving (your) editing. Also, including and since the ArbCom Case Request were some remarks in this direction, usually more subtle (in ArbCom Request, WT:ELEM, Userspace, and by editors who have left).
The TBAN proposal origins from the IDHT responses you gave, not deminishing recent days. This examplifies the off-mainspace behaviour people see as problematic (IOW, discussion behaviour elsewhere is repeated at ANI).
Now I cannot see a direct route to avert a TBAN. Promises and good intentions are hard to rely upon, especially since ELEM members tried this in November, when ArbCom was in the picture. If, today, you see and understand the issues at hand, that is a strong point to start from. Still, incorporating them into editing behaviour takes some time; personally I would not be happy having to follow your edits checking for, or awareness of, promises (next to my content responses). This extends not only to proper discussion setups (say propose-advocate-discusds-conclude), but also generic guidelines like GF or COMMONSENSE. I note that since the ARbCom Request, I have often shied away from editing (e.g. in the PT article) to evade problems beforehand altogether. That is not an editing situation I would like having to continue.
So, for you to rethink these comments you need time and I'd prefer not to experience you practicing real time here. You could take a voluntary TBAN, to the same effect, but I wonder what difference that would make (and adding the need for return-criteria). I also thought what EdChem just wrote to you: the prospect of a TBAN-without-end-time-plus lift request after minimum 6 months is looming (I do not advocate, but is a possible consequence if you would break a voluntary TBAN). Anyway, almost all ANI judgements are directing the same way (again, one may skip my comments), so a less restrictive outcome is hard to imagine. And, this may sound untimely, but if you read this in Feb 2021 think: a TBAN leaves open editing everywhere else! You can contribute while practicing good editing, without the (current) burden the scientific load you want to enter. Could bring back the look and feel of your pre-2020 editing, contributions we all were happy with.
Again, my comments are harsh-sounding, partly because of my less-eloquent English, my personal involvement, my self-withhold edits, and my desire to be more direct & more clear. You can skip them freely, for example to free the mind of attack-like impressions. There are other editors who have written critiques better, and more opening, to learn from.
-DePiep (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you DePiep. I am happy to work with EdChem rather than requiring your direct involvement. What would help is your thoughts on how you would like to see me edit in future. You and I worked together previously for several years. I would like to restore that situation with help from EdChem, as he has offered. 2020 has been a bad year, in many ways, and I would like to start 2021 by putting my best foot forward, as I have shown I have previously been capable of doing. I appreciate EdChem may have some thoughts in this regard. It is good that we are still talking. Are we able to put these matters behind us, noting I will need to do a lot better in future? Best regards for 2021. René aka Sandbh (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: AFAIK, I am not writing as 'direct involvement' here, just an advice (by my evaluation of the situation) as asked for. About a form of 'EdChem guided editing', as I read at ANI, I have written here: I am very wary of n-editor-deals, application of selected generic policies (eg "always assume GF"), and bad discussion flow. Also, this editing route would introduce having to check edits for mistakes-against-a-promise reappearing (bad second nature attitude, like a sleeping distrust). Plus that it would be a huge tour-de-force to change editing habit overnight, I think. Maybe starting such a risky situation (risk of reoccurrance) might keep YBG and Double sharp from rejoining.
As for leaving thing behind: very well, and I am expected to do so by any conclusion. Except that reoccurrence c/would reopen the can, not for grudgement but for issue elimination. -DePiep (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, thank you for agreeing to leave things behind. That is a good start as I see it. I’ll shortly post a proposed set of 6-month editing restrictions and conditions that I propose to follow. Last night I was trying to recall your name, but I haven’t been able to do so. If it helps I know about tour-de-force change. When I was younger and working I used to manage organisational change, among other things. René —- Sandbh (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: re "leave things behind": pls note I added "Except reoccurrance .. nor for grudgement but for ...", to be understood as: one may expect me to address the edit, not the editor. Be assured that more editors are expecting this from me. -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed editing restrictions and conditions
DePiep, @EdChem: Here is my proposal, for your consideration.

For the next six months I will not edit articles of interest to WP:ELEM, broadly construed, unless there is WP:ELEM consensus. Of course, if no one chooses to check my proposals for consensus, then there will be no consensus, and no edits for you to check.
Exceptions
  1. Vandalism reverts, gnomish work e.g. spelling or grammar corrections, links, adding or correcting citations, minor housekeeping, edit requests by a WP:ELEM member.
  2. Subject to the agreement and guidance of R8R I would like to be able to edit aluminium in order to complete the work bringing it up to FA standard.
Subject to EdChem's agreement I propose to zoom with him, in order to discuss and clarify his concerns, including IDHT, and seek further guidance as to the way ahead. I will post a summary of this to an appropriate part of WP. He has already raised these concerns with me, and there is nothing like a f-t-f meeting even if remotely.
More generally, in my sandbox, I would like to redraft an FA standard periodic table article, for subsequent consideration by WP:ELEM members.
Further, I would like to be able to participate at FAC, including editing improvements in FAC articles generally.
If these conditions are accepted by EdChem and you, I will alert YBG and DS about them via PM.

My focus here is on meeting the expectations for a 6-month ban of some kind, and continuing to contribute to WP:ELEM goals by applying my SME, without imposing a burden on other WP:ELEM members.

Your thoughts?

PS: DePiep, I saw the barn stars at the top of this page that I awarded you. They still apply of course. I remember when Flying Jazz was active, and when I posted in your defence when he attacked you---on your talk page, if I recall right. I mention these things in the spirit of good memories of teamwork and hopes for a better 2021. I aim to leave 2020 WP behind, at WP:ELEM especially, and replace it with the conduct standard of the preceding nine or so years, as you mentioned.

  • @Sandbh: Since I spend time here responding to your Help-request, you have gotten me more and more in trouble. HEre DePiep and I agreed you are constructing some "agree"ment even (based on an incorrect quote, as I explained above 11:35). Please do not speak for others.
Please stop extending this topic here, as it complicates instead of clarifies matters. Consider this carefully for every post on this talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

WT:ELEM archiving

Just wondering if something has changed recently. As I recall, the bot had been taking care of archiving, but recently I've seen the one-click archiver being used frequently. YBG (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I did archiving manually, and that is what you saw. Automatic archiving bot archives threads that are inactive for 60d (full ==-threads only). Given that the page is huge, 500–900k easily, I archived threads manually when I judged them complete (no more relevant, discussion continued elsewhere, and such), before 60d. That may be arbitrary, so be it; the size by itself is getting prohibitive for the project talk. As such, it is a consequence of this years talkpage discipline.
Problem is not finding "finished" threads by itself, but that multiple threads are huge in size (ie, many plain simple long posts), have multiple topics, threads are intertwined between themseves (same topic in multiple threads), and reasoning structure (subthreads, concluding, keeping topics distinct, introducing POV, collapsing-into-limbo threads) towards an encyclopedic improvement is, eh, absent. This year. See these numbers. And yesterday, Dec 15: +32.000 bytes of talk [8]. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A Joyous Yuletide to You!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello DePiep, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 16:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Best wishes for the holidays

Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Stonehenge at mid-winter sunrise is my Wiki-Solstice card to all for this year. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: Thank you! A very pleasant surpise to find this uplifting card in my mailbox. All the best for you too (and please don't take stones home in your pocket from the Salisbury plains). Interestingly, Stonehenge is prehiostoric, that is from before any written notes. Given that writing in Wikipedia started in 2001, Stonehenge could be created as long ago as 1995! Mindboggling. -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Address

Hi, I've been meaning to ask you something. I've noticed how everyone refers to you as if you were male (saying "him" and the like), so I was wondering, are you? I have tried to keep track of how to refer to everyone, and while at some point I had some confirmations about this for other users, I've never known for sure whether you were male, too. That is, by the way, the sole reason why I keep referring to you as to a "they," even though I have noticed others go for a "he," and I didn't know whether they knew something I didn't or just were presumptuous. So you may either confirm that you're male (and I'll refer to you as to a "he," too), reject that, or refuse to discuss the topic altogether. How would you like to be addressed?

By the way, I am male. You can refer to me as to a "he."--R8R (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I am male, and so he/his is OK. My preferences are set to "undefined" or so. I never noticed "they" usage, except as being a common WP communication. -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Got it.
As for "they," I actually noticed that several times in running speech. To me, it seems a legit thing given that English lacks the grammatical category of gender, so it's not obvious how to refer to a person whose gender is unknown, and singular they works as I see it.--R8R (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Alway found it sounding friendly or careful; never saw an issue (like: introducing gender discussions, not). Nice solution in English. -DePiep (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox ununennium isotopes

Template:Infobox ununennium isotopes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ComplexRational (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:String manipulation modules (no template)

A tag has been placed on Category:String manipulation modules (no template) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Module

Template:Module has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs: fishes and parts of fishes

A tag has been placed on Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs: fishes and parts of fishes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs: woman and her occupations

A tag has been placed on Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs: woman and her occupations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs: strokes, signs derived from Hieratic, geometrical features

A tag has been placed on Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs: strokes, signs derived from Hieratic, geometrical features requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs: anthropomorphic deities

A tag has been placed on Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs: anthropomorphic deities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Today, I learned: When you doubleclick the article link, it opens the Edit page.

same here;) regarding my unintended "edits" of infoboxes zinc and radon. Sorry and all the bestVitosmo (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thx, they looked out of character indeed. -DePiep (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vitosmo: Note that doubleclick to edit is a preference that can be turned off in preferences (although once you know you can, you kind of want to do it all the time). BD2412 T 05:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Something weird with the 18-column micro Periodic Table

Hi DePiep. On 25 July, I placed your then-new version of Template:Periodic table (18 columns, micro) on my User page, because I liked it so much. I used the version where I highlighted some of the elements I'm interested in so the mark-up was {{Periodic table (18 columns, micro)|mark=C,H,N,O,S,F,Cl,Br,P}}. Today I noticed that the table now looks like this

It has black marked cells and some others. I'm pretty sure that wasn't how it looked before and is much inferior. Can you explain what is going on and preferably fix it? The issue must be in the depths of what the template calls, as the template itself hasn't been edited since July. Thanks. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull: Should be fixed (collateral damage from recently agreed element category colour change, sorry). Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Thanks, that's perfect. I wondered whether the discussion on colours was the problem but I haven't been following that closely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

18 or 32 ideas

Just curious, Mike Turnbull: can you tell us why you prefer this one over the 32-column form? -DePiep (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hydrogen Helium
Lithium Beryllium Boron Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Fluorine Neon
Sodium Magnesium Aluminium Silicon Phosphorus Sulfur Chlorine Argon
Potassium Calcium Scandium Titanium Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Nickel Copper Zinc Gallium Germanium Arsenic Selenium Bromine Krypton
Rubidium Strontium Yttrium Zirconium Niobium Molybdenum Technetium Ruthenium Rhodium Palladium Silver Cadmium Indium Tin Antimony Tellurium Iodine Xenon
Caesium Barium Lanthanum Cerium Praseodymium Neodymium Promethium Samarium Europium Gadolinium Terbium Dysprosium Holmium Erbium Thulium Ytterbium Lutetium Hafnium Tantalum Tungsten Rhenium Osmium Iridium Platinum Gold Mercury (element) Thallium Lead Bismuth Polonium Astatine Radon
Francium Radium Actinium Thorium Protactinium Uranium Neptunium Plutonium Americium Curium Berkelium Californium Einsteinium Fermium Mendelevium Nobelium Lawrencium Rutherfordium Dubnium Seaborgium Bohrium Hassium Meitnerium Darmstadtium Roentgenium Copernicium Nihonium Flerovium Moscovium Livermorium Tennessine Oganesson
{{Periodic table (18 columns, micro)}}
{{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)}}
Because I'm an organic chemist and more accustomed to seeing that form of the table! Incidentally, if you remember, I wanted to propose that the 18-column form was tweaked to make the boxes bigger, for use in the Chemboxes of element articles. There is still a discussion proposal for that in my sandbox "here". which it might now be time to resurrect.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Thx. Just some notes, not complete replies. Well, ELEM is very very busy these days ;-) and we have to change (redesign) the category colors to be more balanced. Changing the presentation (32 to 18) to accomodate webpage effects is a bit strange to me, like wrong priorities. Personally I prefer the 32-column form, for having no needless IKEA deconstruction. I guess only older scientists ;-)prefer the 18-column one. When I worked with a highschool chem teacher, he was very happy to use a 32-cooluimn form. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd absolutely advocate to remove the neighbouring elements (above-below-left-right or N-E-S-W) in the element infobox. This is navigation not info. Extra space can be used to widen the micro cells. -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
If you propose that, you'll get support from me, provided the micro cells get to be widened enough to show the element symbols. ^_^
FWIW, I think 32 is the theoretically ideal form and 18 is a concession to practice kind of like moving Alaska and Hawaii on maps of the USA. But as long as the 18 and 32 are consistent, I'm willing to accept 18. Double sharp (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The issue, for me, is all about ease of navigation and ^_^'s comment regarding maps is an excellent analogy. So, if you, Double sharp and DePiep support my proposal, which is basically to widen the 18-column micro table so that it is the same with as the current 32-column one (hence fitting into Chemboxes but with bigger cells) I'll move the proposal now in my Sandbox (linked as above here) into the ELEM talk page. By all means suggest improvements to the wording of the proposal so that it is more likely to get a swift consensus. Note that I don't think the cells could be big enough to show the element symbols. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: I understand about the symbols; it's just something I wish could be done, but I understand it might not be practical. I'd still support 18 for the micro table as being more familiar and suiting the limited width we have; 32 makes most sense for the footer when we have a lot of width and 18 won't fill the space well. So I'd support your proposal. Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no space for symbols, and being a micro PT has a reason and a consequence: only to show an overview not details. The main overview to show is period, group, block, category. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
We could add headers for rows and columns. Removing the N-S elements would give 10% extra width. -DePiep (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Must say, I am not convinced that enlarging and using the 18-column form would be desirable. (Enlarging to occupy the same width would be a 80% enlarging of the cells (linear). Navigation is not the purpose of the infobox, and squeezing in such function would creep infobox essence. Then having to return to the 18-column form, for the wrong reasons, is a setback and reducing information quality. An IKEA DIY building box is not helpful in giving the overview. -DePiep (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear why "navigation is not the purpose of the infobox" when it clearly has that functionality. Users who accidentally mouse-click on one of the cells will be whisked off to the article for the element they clicked on. Merely hovering over the cell gives its page title, or page preview if the user is not logged on, so there's a lot going on in these little graphics. Maybe you would prefer removing such functionality in the micro version of the table? That's not something I'd support but is a logical step given your "not navigation" opinion. Incidentally, IKEA is very successful, so perhaps not so damning as you imply ;-) Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The 18-column form requires an extra mental step to get it. Only more experienced readers (like us) are familiar with the cut-and-paste trick, for new readers this is a distracting complication. And, of course, not helping to give the *overview*. I am not saying or suggesting that the links should be removed. -DePiep (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I guess that's the crux of our difference of opinion. My opinion is that the "cut-and-paste" version of the periodic table is actually the one most people are familiar with, as evidenced by the {{Periodic table}}, the version top right in the periodic table article and IUPAC's standard (albeit not "endorsed") version. It is certainly the version I first saw when in school chemistry, although in those days we paid hardly any attention to the lanthanides and actinides (except uranium). I don't want to make a big fuss about this: as I said I'm mainly concerned to make navigation around WIkipedia as easy as possible and I think the element infoboxes are ideal places to do that. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I guess what DePiep says is true if you think about it as restoring an ideal format, since the asterisks basically mean "slot the f block elements in there". So with an 18 column form you have to imagine what the 32 column form gives you. But, in terms of sheer commonness, 18 column is way more familiar and everyone is used to the footnoted f block. That's how I saw it in books, that's how I saw it in school, that's basically how I see it almost everywhere frankly. So if we speak about navigation I think 18 column serves the readers better due to familiarity, whereas 32 column may leave people wondering how it relates to the format they're used to: the direction of imagining then becomes 32-to-18 instead of the other way round. I also think Michael D. Turnbull is correct about how it matches the way the f elements are generally considered not very important to talk about at school level (and, as an aside, I guess uranium truly is the most interesting of them anyway). But, I also do not want to make a fuss about the issue either. Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
re User:Michael D. Turnbull: I don't have time to reply more thorougly; the reply you deserve here & in this. Maybe time is part of the solution. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Michael D. Turnbull: Below in #Regarding your addition I have written my reasoning wrt 18- or 32-column presentation. It is a reply to section Periodic table#Periodic_table#The_32-column_form Double sharp recently added. You're welcome to engage of course.
That reply does not address the infobox specific situation (at issue here), nor Double sharp's preference to keep N-E-S-W PT-neighbours as infobox relevant (instead of: navigation only, =my point). -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your addition

Firstly, thanks for the thanks: to preserve my comment past the edit summary, I still feel you have it right but that it's difficult to find RS willing to admit it. Secondly, I did some looking after I reverted you: my impression is that 3ARY sources stick to the Britannica line that the main reason is that people find the wideness of the 32 column form inconvenient, as we now say. So yeah, we'll stick to that unless you or anyone else finds someone saying something more detailed. ^_^

PS. That Britannica article is a pretty good inspiration for organisation IMHO. Will think about it. Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Inconvenient" is a bad argument: I find the word "inconvenient" the lowest quality of argument in here ;-) especially when used in combination with "people find". Sure there are 3RY sources that support this, eh, impression. We even see it in papers and posts from scholars.
"I am used to it": idem ditto: It still hoovers in the area of "what experienced schienists and scholars are used to".
Book page ratio: Incidentally, this is a fully different argument from "better fits book's page ratio" (was also present in the text), which is also true (obviously true even), but which might be easily cancelled in the case of modern webpages (various ratios) and of course wall (classrooms), which are presdominantly not bookpage-ratio. Even better: classroom walls have a ratio very suitable for the 32-column form!
Leave out judgement at all: We can solve this easily because we do not have to report an argument of preference or advantages at all in the article. The section could be: "The PT is also presented in 32-column form: [table graph]".
Historical development: There is a strong explanation by historical content for the various forms (Mendeleev's 10-column, added NG's, then 18-column before f-block aka "long", then adding the f-block by Seaborg initially crammed into one cell). This is content based, and descriptive, not judgemental. Could be completed in the History article. The published forms themselves are the proof, the original publication is the RS and has enough 2RY 3RY confirmations. Expected, a section about "The PT in 1930" would have the 18-column one. In this 18/32 talk it is relevant because it has the content-based introducion of 18-column form.
Both forms must be equal: Again, no need to judge any form over the other. As long as both presentations are scientifically equal (they make exactly the same statements). This includes author's choices or claims like positioning H, stating group 3, etc.: must be the same in its 18- and 32-column form.
All other equal, 32-columns is preferred for being encyclopedical: All this said, there is one more argument for WP: the 32-column form is more encyclopedic. Both for scientists and scholars, especially uninitiated ones(!). It represents the PT without prerequisite of mental reconstruction or disturbing side-explanations. Rarely if ever WP is forced to compromise on this and has to degrade to the 18-column form. We do not have to follow any "popular" form, or "more often seen"—unencyclopedic. A pity so many experienced readers (us editors included) fall back to "I am used to it so let's do the one as I learned it 30 y ago". -DePiep (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Heh, I agree totally. I also think the "I am used to it" plays a role in it. Rare earth metals were annoying for Mendeleev to place, first they were scattered across groups, it became clear that it doesn't work, then were all stuffed into one cell in the * form, then that was sometimes combined with La form with electronic periodic tables based on misunderstanding of the meaning of electronic configurations. With some protests in favour of Lu once enough was learnt to avoid that historical misunderstanding, of course. F block elements have been misunderstood from the beginning: the inconsistency of 18 vs 32 plus the continued existence of a group 3 dispute is the last shudder of this misunderstanding (thankfully dying slowly). Problem is, this understanding is from Jensen and Thyssen in context of their support for Lu. So it's not entirely usable as a neutral account until/unless La gets killed off. We will have to see about that.
I think the first section should probably explain those asterisks very early like it does now. And indeed, the book-page lame reason can be left to the history as an explanation for why now, even 115 years after Werner's first long 32 column PT, we still have 18 as common. It is a lame reason indeed, but we ought to report it if RS truly have no better one. ;) Double sharp (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to add a couple of comments that follow from my earlier suggestion about navigation aids. I think that there needs to be a distinction between an article about the periodic table and how we, within Wikipedia, help readers navigate using graphics in the Infoboxes of individual elements. In the article we must use only WP:RS BUT have the space to cover all the history including the Group 3 controversy and the 18 versus 32-column forms (and other layouts). I'm not an expert on any of that and those that are within the ELEM project are doing a pretty good job, in my opinion, when they stop the point-scoring and stick to the aim of making a better encyclopaedia. That said, I think that we editors are missing a trick by not switching to an 18-column compact graphic in the cases where there are constraints imposed by the pixel counts across the page: that's not dependent on reliable sources but is a simple fact regarding how Wikipedia works! Thus I would urge that, at the appropriate time, the ELEM group start that discussion, whether based on "the draft in my sandbox". or in some other way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: In fact personally I agree. I think, it would be good if the navigation aids were 18 rather than 32 column in the cases where we don't have so much horizontal space. So, I would support 18 in {{infobox iron}}, say, but 32 in {{compact periodic table}}.
This said, I still also think you get not much improvement either way unless we manage to force the cells big enough to inscribe the symbols. Otherwise it is pretty difficult to find for example ruthenium to click on in a solid mass of salmon. DePiep has previously commented that this may not be possible, though. I'd still support 18 there even if this remains impossible, but still: it is something I still think should be tried. Maybe imagemap, maybe Wikitext table, we'll see. But there should be some way, given that when you write about chemistry of a specific element, you usually want to compare with neighbours and congeners to show continuity of trends and comparative chemistry (e.g. talking about iodine, I want to compare to other halogens, also to neighbours Te and Xe for some late period 5 trends). Okay, you sometimes want to refer to faraway elements (e.g. similarities of Cl to Mn), but at least I feel like we should have some sort of "zoom" onto the region we care about like WebElements. If the infobox cannot effectively show the reader who these neighbours are then the article has to do some of this work by itself, possibly with its own picture. This somehow does not satisfy me, but partly technical issues are responsible, which DePiep's more familiar with.
This said, this conversation was rather about how to describe in the periodic table article the 18 vs 32 column thing and the reasons for it based on RS. The history is coverable from some RS indeed, it seems to be indeed part of a long struggle from Mendeleev onwards on how to deal with the rare earths that is not wholly finished. I also think we can do a good job. ;) Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Apologies, Double sharp, I wasn't trying to muscle in on the conversation regarding the article. To your point on making the cells big enough, I would agree with DePiep that isn't going to be possible: however, from my desktop-based PC perspective, the hover-text of the element's name I get when moving from cell to cell in the graphics is all I need — and when that cell is a bit larger, as it will be in {{infobox iron}} etc., my joy will be unbounded... Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Mike, please help me convince Double sharp in this ;-). In the {{Infobox element}}, the North, South neighbours should be removed from their current location. As presented today, they are navigation only, not noting an article statement at all. If, as Double sharp says (I think), exactly those two are, eh, contentual meaningful being homologues, then the infobox should have an extra datarow with a Label-Value pair, like: "Homologues: N, S element (linked)". Of course, these two homologues should be significant different from group homology, already present in the infobox. All this similar for the E-W neigbours now in there too. I promis, loyally, I'll make test demo's to enlarge the micro cells as you propose: the micro PT can use that extra width, for hovering at least. (Other issues here then can be discussed still). -DePiep (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I can convince anyone, but personally, I don't like trying to fit all the information about E/W or N/S neighbours into the infobox graphic. It makes it very cluttered and doesn't add much that isn't already pretty obvious given all the information about groups, periods and so on that's in the part immediately below in the infobox. I'd prefer if the (18-column, naturally!) graphic stuck to its main task of marking where the element fits, without making assumptions about where the reader might want to go next or what relationships to other elements they are interested in. Also, you get too many complications, like having to mention Uqh under Uranium, which almost nobody will understand and the assertion that He is to the "left" or W of Li when it clearly isn't; it is just the element of next lowest atomic number. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: I think I'm persuaded to cut out the neighbours, since they'll need to be mentioned in the article anyway when relevant, and people will be able to use the 32-column PT at the bottom to get to whatever article they feel like. So, despite your lack of sureness, you succeeded. ;) 18-column for this limited-width situation I am already persuaded by. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of templates

Hello DePiep,
An administrator and I have discussion as to how deal with an editor who does not like template:Convert and template:Track gauge. If you care to do so, please have a look at the discussion at User talk:PrimeHunter#South Australian Railways K class (narrow gauge). Peter Horn User talk 21:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, DePiep,

I know you are a very experienced editor but I just wanted to remind you that when you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/TFD/CFD/etc), you should post a notice on the talk page of the page creator informing them of the tagging. If you use Twinkle, the program does this automatically for you once you set up your Preferences so I encourage you to use it if you aren't. It makes things very easy. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I usually take care of this. Recently, I am working with development-pages only (not mainspace, not matured, maybe even my own creations), so I do not check the creator-thing thoroughly. Have not met devastating issues these weeks. Did you met problems? -DePiep (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Apology

Hi DePiep,

I have come here to offer you an apology.

I have read your post at my user talk page. Though addressed primarily to Sandbh, you refer to "triggering posts" and "emotional triggers," expressions that have significant meaning for me. As someone who also has some significant emotional and psychological triggers, I know the pain that can accompany being triggered and having events / experiences from the past suddenly brought to the surface. I am upset realising that I have likely contributed to you feeling the pain and anguish that can go with being triggered. I am sorry for having done so, even inadvertently, and I will try to avoid causing you emotional distress. If there is anything I can do to help / support, please feel free to ask, or to discuss.

Thank you,

EdChem (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EdChem: Thanks for this very unexpected post! Unexpected, because there is no need for an apology :-)
  • In short: it was not your behaviour, it was the topic. Once again: 'the edit not the editor', gotcha! I'll remember who taught me this.
I replied to (and was triggered by, sure) the topic of between-editors side-deals. I recognised those from Nov 15 (ca. closure of the ArbCom Request), and I learned the sense of being locked-out — very un-wiki. Eventually it fell apart, and we just met the effect.
Also, I fell into the trap of multi-page talk (even when only a Help-advice was asked).
  • Anyway, I think the ANI-thread is fruitful so far, as in: good posts & reasoning lines (I have had other experiences). That is: I am not 'happy' with anything, but I am OK with other persons' reasoning and the overall conclusions. (As I said somewhere: strike me/myopinions out, and the line of reasoning, into conclusions, does not change). Since my name is in the section/report title, I have leeway to say some judgements.
I repeat: most of the statements at ANI were posted by uninvolved editors. That gave me reassurance wrt my replies. Also, I think I kept my posts non-personal (mostly). But it was a heavy 10 days (or was it a year?).
  • I'll see what happens with the closure of that thread. No new fireworks expected. If you want to look & opinion at one more open Question over there, it might be my "Should we revert article Periodic table to Nov 14?".
  • I'm looking forward working with you, for example starting from your Oct 17 post.
Have a nice edit, -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sequence issues

Thank you, DePiep. I did see your question on reverting the PT article. My immediate reaction was that it is an option to consider once the ANI thread was resolved, and should probably go to WT:ELEM. I note one commenter at ANI noted that the tban is not a green light to "win" by doing everything that Sandbh might have opposed, but I think the group is mature and wise enough to still think about what is best for the readers in line with policy, etc. As I said to Sandbh at ELEM a while back when he announced an intent to revert, there are arguments for starting from a blank slate for a section and rebuilding, and arguments for renovating what already exists in a section. Which approach to take in a specific case is really a matter where reasonable people can disagree and not one where there is a clear-cut policy "right" or "wrong" answer. EdChem (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
re EdChem: No way and nowhere I have the approach that the tban is an reason to do, undo or forego any edit or topic. Each action should be discussed for its own merits, for the improvement of the encyclopedia. That said, there is no content issue or question that cannot be brought to the table. -DePiep (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, DePiep, and I did not and do not intend to suggest that you would act in the way that reflects the concern raised at ANI. I do, however, think that perceptions of those looking at a situation briefly and without an awareness of what has gone before can be different from those who have been involved – and I hasten to acknowledge that you have a far longer history of experience in the ELEM area than do I. I think there is value in being aware of how others may see actions and that it is desirable for us as a project not only to not act to "win" over Sandbh, but also to not be seen to act in that way. I totally agree about the importance and value of discussion and of our goal of improving the encyclopaedia, and look forward to working with you and others for our readers. EdChem (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@EdChem: I am not in any mood to "win" anything. I have seriously tried to avoid (and did so in posts, best as I could) judgements etc. about other editors, including Sandbh.
I understand the concern you write being 'don't go wild' (this is a good and sensible sign, sure, and it made me thinking these days). But. I can not derive an edit behaving guideline from this. As in: What can I post/notpost? At WT:ELEM propose/notpropose? If must I calculate other editors "perceptions" and act by my calcualtions ouch, how is this fair talking? (IOW, Why don't they just expres their perceptions themselves?). Must I interpretate intentions, really? -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
By rationale I want to pursue
(1) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § ELEM future plans (about Periodic table only. A pity you did not change the sectiontitle and -level, keeping confusion up).
(2) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § WT:ELEMENTS: winding down. You did not engage with it yet. I really do not understand how keeping absent helps improvement of that page.
(3) Other stuff.
What do your 'perception' thoughts say about this?
-DePiep (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
DePiep, I feel like I am not communicating well. I am thinking that there is value in considering how things might be seen, and I mean that as a general thought for you, me, and everyone else contributing after all that has gone on. On your specific points:
(1) I don't object if you want to change the section level, as I agree that confusion is not something we need.
(2) Keeping absent is not about improvement of that page, nor has it been meant as it may have seemed. Christmas to mid-January is typically my most difficult part of the year... and this year has been / is particularly bad. It's not that I don't want to engage but rather what I feel up to doing and what time I have – because off-wiki situations are hitting my depression pretty hard right now.
My major thought on perceptions right now is that mine are not functioning well. I want to contribute positively but maybe I am so out-of-sorts that my self-perceptions are so distorted as to be untrustworthy. I'm sorry. EdChem (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanx for this careful reply. I'll keep this in mind, as in: me restraing & rethinking. I trust future cooperation will be ok. All the best. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A template question

Hi, I have been discussing with ComplexRational on his talk page some specialised stuff about the undiscovered superheavies: User talk:ComplexRational#Electron configurations past 121.

Do you think it would be possible to change the infoboxes for elements 122, 124, and 126 to not display a particular electron configuration (and indeed electrons per shell)? What I would want is for "Electron configuration" to instead say "predictions vary among sources; see text". The reason being, that for elements past 121 calculations disagree, and I do not want the appearance of UNDUE. Double sharp (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Will work on this, shortly. -DePiep (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!!! Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done [9]
Added |electron configuration comment=, free text = will show unedited.
Suppressed only for these three (E121 <-> E122).
Only applied in Infoboxes, not in tables etc elsewhere.
What with "Electrons per shell" data in there?
@Double sharp and ComplexRational: -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Electrons per shell: |electrons per shell, electrons per shell ref, electrons per shell comment= are existing parameters, no automated data pulling in this. One can edit the element's infobox manually. -DePiep (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I have made the changes for the three elements. Hopefully in some years we will be able to fill it up with surer data. ;) Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Then we'll change the numbers into higher ones... Ping me by then :-) -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:2603:6011:C822:1416:3C4A:C57A:BD3F:F6EF has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hockeycatcat (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hockeycatcat: I do not understand what you are trying to say. Nor this post, nor it's links, nor your es's give a hint of what "misuse" you are referring to. Also, the tone is way too paternalistic. (Let me quote from one of the pages I met: You should ensure that you are familiar with the content of templates before issuing them. If the tone or content of a template isn't appropriate, don't use the template — just say it normally, because it likely would violate basic WP:CIVIL. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DePiep, apologies for not getting back to you sooner, I was just letting you know that you used the wrong warning levels on User talk:2603:6011:C822:1416:3C4A:C57A:BD3F:F6EF. If a warning has been given in the same month, you should continue to give higher warnings, ranging from 1 to 4im. You were giving level 1 warnings after a level 1 and level 2 warning had already been given. Just letting you know for the future. Here is the old edit for reference. Regarding my "tone", I didn't write the template myself, that's a default thing that is the same for everyone, and I apologise if I offended you. It was required. Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Uranium-214 needs help for an ITN nomination

Hey. This is a notice and a request for assistance. I started Uranium-214 earlier today since it was published recently. I also nominated it for ITN (Major science discovery, so it has a chance to be accepted), but it needs help since it is a small stub with just over 2k bytes in size, and that is including references and the infobox. Feel free to help it out! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Largest cities of Israel

Template:Largest cities of Israel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ISO 15924 number

Template:ISO 15924 number has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox edits

Hey, your recent edits to the infobox templates of a number of pages caused some errors because you forgot to replace &minus; with a minute sign in the argument to {{val}}. Can you fix that? — SkyLined (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Later today. -DePiep (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
done Category:Pages with incorrect formatting templates use (8) (was 34) should clean up -DePiep (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Numcr2namecr/listbydec

Template:Numcr2namecr/listbydec has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 22:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

"Template:Str rep all" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Str rep all. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26#Template:Str rep all until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:GKFXtalk 07:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:10¼ in gauge railways in England has been nominated for renaming

Category:10¼ in gauge railways in England has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Beland (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Empty categories

Hello, DePiep,

You are such an experienced editor on Wikipedia, I thought you understood what happens with empty categories here.

Every day, there is a database report listing empty categories (see Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories). Unless these categories are involved in a CFD discussion or fall into a limited group of exceptions, these empty categories are tagged CSD C1. They then sit, for 7 days, in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. This waiting period is because sometimes categories are emptied out-of-process or are just temporarily empty. If, at any point during this week, a page is appropriately categorized and the category is no longer empty, the CSD tag is removed. Several editors beside me check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion frequently and remove categories that are no longer empty. This happens every day.

If, after a week, the category is still empty, then it is deleted. So, the tagging happens first, then a week passes, then deletion happens IF the category is still empty. If, at any point, there is a legitimate need for this category, it can be recreated by any administrator. Just today I restored about a dozen categories that were deleted last year because they were empty but, now that we are into 2021, there are articles that need these categories so they were restored. I hope this adequately explains what occurs with empty categories. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: I know how it works. It occurs to me that you have not responded to my "Objection" posts on the talkpage, at all. I remember (because it makes sense), that I noted that you tagged the categories within 1,5 hrs of creation. That is drive-by tagging without follow up. I also noted that there was a structural need for the cartegories. You did not engage in that argument. I also noted that you were invited to add the "empty category" template. You did not respond. Then after being this irresponsive to come back to me to paternalise is rather ... unexpected. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Periodic table brilliant idea

The barnstar made me curious: What was the “visual feast for the eyes” you created? ◅ Sebastian 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

We show the PT with nine categories (say by metallish behaviour), which require nine background colors to be used as a legend (not just fancy illustration!).
Back then we had our set improved. The category colors look like {{Periodic_table/blind1}} (as published in Periodic table: {{Periodic table}}).
Still it is not great, it is very complicated to find nine distinct colors useful as a legend. (Today, we are going to redesign the set). Anyway, it was an improvement compared to previous color set. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see; I understood “groups” to refer to the columns of the table. But I see not nine, but ten different background colors, including the light gray for the hypothetical elements. ◅ Sebastian 19:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep it's "9+1". Groups/columns do not need colors because they are visible already. A different color scheme is used in block (periodic table). -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Why do you write “it is very complicated to find nine distinct colors useful as a legend”? When I need a bit more than a handful of colours, I like to start out from the Electronic color code, and tweak it as needed. ◅ Sebastian 19:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Because, being a legend they have to be distinguishable (between one another, and find-tihe-color-in-the-legend requirement (the Reader needs to do), and also v.v. find-color-from-legend-to-image). This asks for strong (outspoken) colors. BUT on the other hand, texts must be readable too (contrast requirements per ws3c and WP:ACCESS). This require light colors -- that is a contradictionary requirement. The number of 9 makes this ~insolvable without compromise, I expect. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you're being too perfectionist. I think your choice is a solution, and a good one at that. In addition to the criteria you listed, it also uses familiarity of the color to express how ⸉exotic⸊ their block is. ◅ Sebastian 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
well, problems with current colors: grey is used, "brown" for the main main category (metalloids) is not a color. Five reds, no greens is uneven. Before being perfect, lots of improvements possible. A nice process btw, designing for the Reader (science communication). -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with your last sentence: Designing (and writing) for the reader is a great challenge, and BTW, IMHO much underappreciated here on Wikipedia. And science communication in particular is a fascinating area, although it apparently more and more falls victim to our edutainment expectations. As for your color tally, I still don't think you're being fair to yourself. By assigning the colors to the coarse boxes of our traditional color names, you're glossing over the fact that both the metalloids and for the reactive nonmetals are represented with hues related to green. But I agree that the use of grey for the post-transition metals is suboptimal; it appears too far away from the transition metals to adequately represent their properties. ◅ Sebastian 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, like that. First new try would be to follow the rainbow left-to-right, as it is a trend inthe PT. And evenly, not 5 reds. (Did this in private PT's I made). However, that could make neighboring colors too much alike. So we could shuffle them, that is create alternating neighbours (blueish next to yellowish; checkering). Not yet noted, there is also requirement colorblind-awareness: through CB filter, less colors remain so they better alternate too. Will be researched. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, now I see what bothers you. You're on a quest for the perfect design, where by “perfect” you understand a logical, provable property. That is probably really insolvable. I think you would feel more at ease if you understood it as an art, not a science. Even for the Mona Lisa, we have no proof that no detail of it could have been improved.
Regarding “evenly, not 5 reds”: I don't think an even color distribution would do justice to the properties of the elements. At least in my layperson understanding, two metals, even from opposite ends of the grouping, are much more related than, say, a halogen with a noble gas. It makes sense that the colors of the latter differ more than those of the former.
Regarding accessibility: It's good that you're thinking about it. But where to stop? Even CB relies on information not available to other disabilities. I'm no expert on this, but here's an idea: It might be best to fork the information: Use a graphic approach for the majority of readers, and create another table intrinsically geared towards accessibility which then could smoothly dovetail with assistive technology. For instance, the accessible version could simply contain abbreviations for the subcategories that would naturally also be read by a screen reader. The PT lends itself to that approach since it changes infrequently enough so that the fork would not require undue extra maintenance work. ◅ Sebastian 10:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes the requirements could be too much. But first we give it a try, so not compromise (split) beforehand. — DePiep 10:50, 30 October 2020 — continues after insertion below
To the contrary, not splitting forces far more compromises. ◅ Sebastian 11:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
beforehand is the active word here. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
re the association of colors and metal property: this is what we cannot permit. The suggestion that metals are more related and so should have the same teint (say reddish) is reducing degrees of freedom. This makes it more difficult to have them distinguished (they will all look alike, ~just like today). — DePiep 10:50, 30 October 2020 — continues after insertion below
This has nothing to do with degrees of freedom in any of the four meanings of that disambiguation page. So there is no reason to state apodictically that “this is what we cannot permit”. And looking alike does not make it hard to distingush them; or has anyone ever told you he or she couldn't distinguish the metals in your coloring? (Well maybe the actinides from the alkali metals; those could really be set a bit further apart. But that's not a fundamental problem, only one of good judgment.) ◅ Sebastian 11:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
That's an omission of Wikipedia then. Until WP is fixed, I'd go with the mathematical one and extend it to 'design'. I'm fine with that.
I am writing short indications of design issues here, not a dissertation. There are six metal categories. Aiming to use only reddish colors for these is nigh impossible given the other requirements. (Been through this design route before, as I wrote). Even maintaining a rainbow-sequence (l-to-r) is critical. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
But yes, I expect no perfect solution. Though trying and playing with colors wil give an improvement. (Another bad design thing is the meaningful fontcolor, red=liquid etc. Maybe solve different too). -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that might be improved. It's also not logical to attach that information to the atomic number. Moreover, while that information traditionally often is included in the PT, how helpful is it really to know that some form of H (that is, H₂) and some form of O (i.e. O₂, or maybe a mixture of O₂ and O₃, the legend doesn't indicate which) are gases, when the triple point of ubiquitous H₂O is more informative for all manner of things we compute and measure daily? ◅ Sebastian 11:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
We PT people have that in mind too: is it about the concept of the atom (say, a physical thing, and chemical behaviour) or its RL appearance (substances like O2 and C diamond). However, for this (being liquid at room temp) this is not very problematic. When the State is shown clearly in the graph, the solids and gases show a pattern (l-r); just two seemingly random liquids appear. Point is: do we want to show that in the primary showcase PT. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Just came across your colored table

Here: https://youtu.be/fCn8zs912OE?t=714. There are a few differences, though – so maybe that's an earlier version? ◅ Sebastian 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Nice to see, even nicer you noticed & recognised. (Of course Wikipedia is a free source so easy to use). -DePiep (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes an older coloring version (pre 2018): yellow+green form is now single yellow (and renamed), column 30-112 now grey. -DePiep (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
One sign that it's earlier is that it still has the three-letter abbreviations like Uut. But what made me wonder was that several elements that are now light gray (for “unknown chemical properties” – such as At and Cn) were already colored in that table. 😕 ◅ Sebastian 18:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
The four Uxx's were officially named in 2016. At is not "unknown", but "post-transition metal" (dark-grey -- one of the problematic colors!). Cn changed color after new research was published. (All this is at WT:ELEM; usually I follow the talk & apply the consequences like colors). As said, these months WT:ELEM is more chaotic and less stable; conclusions are pushed, a pity. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The confusion of the two grays was my error. But we talked about that particular color choice before.
When you mention WT:ELEM, do you mean specifically On the inevitable misunderstandings...? That is really TLDR now. (You already wrote so after one 500 word reply, but the whole discussion has grown to 5500 words since.) It is remarkable that the OP didn't react offended by your characterization of what they wrote as “basically senseless”. That takes a lot of good faith. ◅ Sebastian 19:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Was not aimed at the OP, was about the thread development. Let me say this: discussions were more fruitful before 2020, somehow, same people. It was easy to cooperate & improve (articles). Not much need to go into that here. While, when the flow returns, I could invite you to follow WP:PTG (now infant). But please do not start commenting on that unborn baby now. I had in mind to tip you for that. -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I noticed people changing in other walks of life, too. In those cases, people understandably are getting more impatient due to the ongoing impact of COVID-19. I wonder if that could be a cause here, too.
Thanks for the pointer to WP:PTG. I added it to my watchlist, but I already got so much on that list that I may well miss the development there. ◅ Sebastian 20:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Think I'll ping you when it's on. As for 2020: no, changed in 2020 before covid (well, Wuhan was happening but unrelated). Sure 2020 is weird. And then there is 2021. -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I see. Actually, it's a cute idea. The thought appealed to me, but i can't imagine how it would work in practice. The closest in reality i could think of that would help Wikipedia would be something like a WikiProject for articles not claimed by other WikiProjects. So I did a quick survey of 12 random articles, and found they were claimed by the following number of WikiProjects:

number of WikiProjects number of articles
0 1
1 6
2 2
3 1
4 2

The one article for the value 0 is David Bowie: Sound and Vision (documentary), which could go in at least four of the WikiProjects found at talk:David Bowie, and certainly is no topic where a dabbler would be of much help. ◅ Sebastian 13:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Nah, should stay a joke, time is limited. Sure if you browse this wiki you'll find your niche of editing. -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Articles using template 'Track gauge' with unrecognized input has been nominated for renaming

Category:Articles using template 'Track gauge' with unrecognized input has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Str mid

Template:Str mid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 10:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Null edit

Hi, apols for a dummy edit on User:DePiep/TG. It was only meant to be a null edit, to remove backlinks to the old track-gauge category. – Fayenatic London 19:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Catchpoke/sandbox

I have drafted a small r.f.c. on my sandbox which is linked in the section header. I plan to post it on template talk:largest cities. I plan to categorize it in geography. Please let me know what you think on my talk page if you any suggestions. -Catchpoke (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Will take a good look later today. -DePiep (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ...

for the edit summary ping. However, because you mis-capitalized the word "user" I did not receive that ping. I was, however, pinged by the fact that my edits were reverted. Or maybe the system is smart enough to not only recognize the miscapitalization of "User" but also recognize that the extra ping was redundant. Nah, not very likely. Cheers! YBG (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

How do you know the es ping failed, and it was the rv that did it? (btw, the misspelled wl works as a link ?!). -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I based this entirely on the wording of the ping.
Your edit on Template:Sidebar periodic table was reverted.
rv USer:YBG: uncluear what issue would be solved by this. anyway: introdicing new, incomplete abbreviations, codes?, to clarify information is not...
Looking back through my alerts I see an identically worded one from last year
Your edit on Periodic table was reverted.
Undid revision 969226308 by YBG (talk) GF. But this is a change from "which are in class X?" into "How to classify?"
However, I now see in my alert list an alert for your edit just above:
DePiep mentioned you in an edit summary on User talk:DePiep
Thank you ....: USer:YBG Q
So apparently, not only does the miscapitalized USer work, but also the notification process was smart enough to eliminate a redundant notification. I stand corrected - and grateful to be so. My evaluation Nah, not very likely was in fact totally wrong! Thanks for pushing back, it gives be a greater appreciation for the unknown programmers behind the scenes. YBG (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for this reply. Consider ~clarified & closed. -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Cities Templates

I'm starting a Tfd for the two Egyptian cities templates that were listed on my sandbox. It is under the discussion for June 20. More are expected to come as I look through those templates again. So just be sure to check from June 20 and onwards. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. Apply MOS:INFOBOX consistently. And set either class=infobox or class=info. -DePiep (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal

I think your proposal for the template is pretty rational. All cities that have a similar design should be looked at. But the navbox Largest Israeli cities can have Largest Cities of Israel merged into it. A major issue with these Largest cities of templates is that a large number of them are unused. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is ;-) Requires listing all relevant templates. Note that in the end, some techical editors said ~the same. But first I'll wait what ani does. -DePiep (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
You can find them on my sandbox and on Catchpoke's talk page. I posted them on his talk page since he was going to look at all those templates and I provided a large list. Do you need a link to it? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes nice to have, but won't have much time fior this next couple-a-days. Remember any list must be dococumented (=how composed?). -DePiep (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It's bullet points. Catchpoke's talk page, Largest Cities of Templates, and Templates to be merged.
@WikiCleanerMan: You recommend that I list templates for discussion in bunches but do the ones that are unused usually get listed individually?Catchpoke (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I should add, also, that most of the templates are being used.Catchpoke (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Code point ranges

If I admit that I was simply talking about bad faith in [14:42, July 26, 2021] topic, will you eventually collaborate? Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: yes, as has been noted in the talkpage. Using unbased bad faith as argument is corrupting the argumentation (and a personal attack on editors). You are invited to understand this undesired situation, and cancel it out (e.g., by redacting or <s>striking</s> the offensive comment).
To be clear, this is not a trade-off deal (as in: if you do this I'll do that), but simply restoring/restarting good discussion forms. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: Alright, done. Checkout: [11:03, August 1, 2021]. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You are more forgiving than I would have been had the allegation been directed at me. I would have expected an apology too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: thnx. I've been away for some days, at a distance, and I'm happy to put this at rest. It seems to be a good way forward, really. Then, if & when any next time such a thing occurs, we'll know. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:DYK templates has been nominated for merging

Category:DYK templates has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on your template.

For plutonium's discovery, you did mentioned that Pluto is a planet. I just added some clarification mentioning the differing status between Pluto's status in 1940 (one of the nine major planets - hence how Pluto got its name) and now (a dwarf planet). 108.160.120.55 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@108.160.120.55: Just saw this. Thank you, good improvement indeed. -DePiep (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

About those hyphens

I had intentionally used hyphens in {{chem2}} instead of minus signs or n-dashes, because I thought that the documentation on the template had explicitly recommended that. But when I went to look at it just now, I see that it does no such thing. Don't know where I got that idea. But if it were clear to me (which it is not) that it renders the same, I would prefer to type the simple character available on the keyboard instead of hunting for a fancy one. But until I'm sure, I will switch to using the dash in {{chem2}}. Thanks for making the change. YBG (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right. Must say, hadn't even thought of this chem2 possibility. I changed all (using regex, don't worry) after I did see, live, those two next to each other. But I dunno what (template, sup?) left the hyphen unchanged. Anyway ok now. -DePiep (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
{{chem2}} is really great. Check out what it does at List of aqueous ions by element § I. It is really amazing what it can do! (I note that the anchor works will in Chrome but not in Firefox.) YBG (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
It's {{Chem2}} then. {{Chem}} uses <chem> (latex) formatting like <math>, but not that great apparently.
With me, anchors work in both Ff and Chrome (desktop). To improve: nitrogen List of aqueous ions by element § N has >1 line ({hr}), but jumps to the halfway-placed "nitrogen" text (not top of cell). More research? Did you look in mobile? -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

NaCl polyhedra

Hi, I hope you can help me out as I have nominated this image to become a Featured Picture and now there is some questions about this image.
I hope you have the knowledge to provide answers to the questions at this link. The questions are;
1) This representation is different to all the others I've Googled. Does it have Academic authentication?
2) But could you add to the description about which colors are which elements.
I'm a graphic worker and have no knowledge of this subject.
I really hope you can help me or tell me someone else who might be able, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

re User:Goran tek-en

1. Academic authentication:

We do not have "authentication" at wiki ;-) . However, the structure is correct per this source: [10]
See also the top drawing at Sodium chloride (=NaCl).
I haver added a source to NaCl image [11]. It says:

"It is obvious from the diagram that each chloride ion is surrounded by six sodium ions which are disposed towards the corners of a regular octahedron. We may say that cations and anions are present in equivalent positions and the structure has 6 : 6 coordination."

This is your academic source for the "cube-like" images.

2. Colors:

In general, the "PyMol" coloring is: Elements_coloring_scheme.
See row 3 in there:
Element "Na" (natrium) is purple Na rgb(161,086,229); and is a smaller ball
Element "Cl" (chloride) is green Cl rgb(029,191,029); and is a larger ball.
So in this drawing, the smaller, grey balls are chloride; the bigger, green ones are natrium.
The two cube-like image parts are representations of the spatial situation of the grey (or green) atom in its center. These is a nice additions/features in this image, acadsemically interesting (crystal information) !
In science, one would use/see the purple color as it is common (but not required), e.g. [12]. The ball-shading is common and helpful, so better be kept!

-DePiep (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so so much for this. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Userbox with issues

Hello, DePiep. I was wondering – what are your plans with regard to Category:Userbox with issues, which you have created? The category isn't linked to from anywhere, it is not used to automatically categorize pages by Module:Userbox. It seems to be completely unused. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy C1 requested. Thx. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for defending me at wp:ani. I don't think user:EEng's comment was helpful.Catchpoke (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bone and cartilage navs/old

Template:Bone and cartilage navs/old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 00:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Thot Sign List

Hello, DePiep. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Thot Sign List".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chembox NFPA (set)

Template:Chembox NFPA (set) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tl flat

Template:Tl flat has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kennedy family tree/image version

Template:Kennedy family tree/image version has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Chembox Wikidata

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Chembox Wikidata, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Convert templates has been nominated for renaming

Category:Convert templates has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Lua String-based templates has been nominated for renaming

Category:Lua String-based templates has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. User:GKFXtalk 20:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Thot Sign List

Information icon Hello, DePiep. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Thot Sign List, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Aqueous ion colors

Do you have any thoughts on which of these is better:

  1. All four colors from https://colorbrewer2.org/#type=diverging&scheme=RdBu&n=4
  2. The middle four from https://colorbrewer2.org/#type=diverging&scheme=RdBu&n=6

Also, I'm wondering

  • Is there enough contrast between the light gray for "neither type" and the light blue for xA and the light red for xC?
  • Should the same light gray be used for "neither C nor A" and also for "neither xC nor xA"?

Thanks for your opinion YBG (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Q1: difficult question. Sure, if there is text on it (black, or wikilink-blue) the contrastr rules will point to lighter shades. (Next issue might be Color Blindness (CB), which is a more serious check but will be easier with only four (in two pairs :-) ) needed; I can give links (WP:PTG) but checking&choosing in CB is a separate process). Apart from this: I tend to look for lighter colors (pastel), in general. Because they are supporting, and should not be shouting. More and more I think the eye is very well capable to distinguish lighter colors. (for example, the new block-colors in main PT are too strong, could be more pastel for the same effect).
That said, re-viewing the two links, I think the lighter ones do not work out well in the checkered area (left-below of the US demo map).
Q2,3: -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Q1 & Q2: use the 4 darker colors, make the grey a notch lighter (could be ~white).
Q3: I don't think I would look for that difference. Is is a meaningfulll diff, or just a statistic? -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Are suggesting that instead of using the four middle (lighter) shades from https://colorbrewer2.org/#type=diverging&scheme=RdBu&n=6 (#2 above, and what is currently implemented in the template), I should use the four outer (darker) colors? I chose not to use that option because of the preference for lighter shades (as you say), particularly because the Z is written over the top of the darker color box. YBG (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
PS, I thought that part of the point of using color brewer is that it takes CB issues into consideration. YBG (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes I thought color brewer (argh, "CB" too...) does colorblindness too.
I swithched to "darker", in the end, because the demo-page at CB has small flakes left-below (US districts?), that are hard to color-tell with the lighter ones. However, since you use text (Z), lighter = better (or even: resuired). So be it. -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, lighter it is. BTW, the map in color brewer is the south east part of the US with counties and states. See file:Map_of_USA_with_county_outlines.png. YBG (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry I have no time enough to dive deeper into this. That's why my replies are sketchy. Didn't find time to look for other options. -DePiep (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries. You have been very helpful. YBG (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Question re tables and templates

You are way more familiar than I am with creating templates, and so I ask you this question: When a template is used to generate table rows, what is the best way to generate the table headers?

  1. Include the table headers in the page in which the table itself occurs, the page that transcludes the table-row-generating template
  2. Have the row-generating (sub)template also generate the header, either when called with no parameters or when called with a special "header" parameter
    • Advantage: when adding or removing a column, you only need to edit one template, not two.
    • Disadvantage: The if/then/else logic forces you to use special magic words like {{!}}
  3. Write a special-purpose (sub)template to generate the header
    • Advantage: The header-generating-template can be conditionally transcluded in the row-generating template (and vice versa) providing context when each is edited.
    • Advantage: No magic words are needed
    • Disadvantage: Proliferates yet another template
    • Disadvantage: Not possible to edit table and row simultaneously

Do you see any other pros or cons? Do you know if there is any best practice, either a broad WP-wide best practice or a narrower DP best practice? In {{List of aqueous ions}} we started out with option #1, and yesterday I spent a great deal of time and effort implementing #2. But now I am leaning for #3. But having switched horses once, I reckon it is time to ask for advice. YBG (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  • First of all, you have described the options and their +/-s very well. I have not much to add for pros/cons.
I have used all options, depending on end usage and development status.
Option 1 is not advisable for mainspace anyway. In secondary pages, like documentation, talk, support, this may well be done. So: an article preferably has templates-all table. (Isotopes of uranium § List of isotopes is still halfway development ;-) ). That is, a /header template and all /row templates can be in the article all right (but usually I move them into the main template; allows for good v-t-e links & footnotes etc).
In development, I start with a crude header hardcoded (i.e. not subtemplate; probably in the main template Template:TemplateName); columns may be numbered first. Then develop the /row template into a final form; header adjustments just follow. If the row is complicated, a subsubtemplate may be useful: step 1 = calculate values once(!), step 2 = format them. If values from step 1 interact & create a new value add a step between: step 1,5 = calculate (eg, [13]: 1. calculate temperatures then 2. compare, then eh 4. report).
This subtemplating for steps can occur in the /row (call subtemplate ../row/format), or in the data retrieval (/data-list has subtemplate /data-list/format; invisible from the row because handled by the /data-list template itself).
Having /header and /row subtemplates but no main one leaves the main template name empty, which confuses editors & leads to deletion-efforts. E.g., {{Periodic table (alkali metals)}} (bad situation still).
If data is pulled from a list (like your aquaeous ions does), handling <ref>s can give complications in value processing (calculating, formatting). I have used {{Plain text}} and considered using {{KillMarkers}} to handle data, but that is tricky, and could create ghost references. IOW, no good practice found yet. Need for {{Plain text}} indicates that formatting should be separated from the data value, and need for {{KillMarkers}} indicates a separate para |foo_ref= or format-option |format=no-refs/refs-only is useful.
In general, if a datalist is used, best is to design & develop that one first into stable & flexible usage. That is: value options, format options. {{Infobox element/symbol-to-saw}} (standard atomic weight) took some years & many versions to develop (while live), but now serves quite well. Row-writing (pulling s.a.w. data with right value, conditions & formats) now is done nicely by parameter options; no subtemplate-calling needed in a row (mostly).
I rarely use the header-in-the-/row-template option. The enveloping big #if:-split complicates editing, while two-tab-editing is just as easy.
If the header is complicated, start its own subtemplate /header anyway. That is: when header has conditional columns (+/- appear), or data-dependent columns (number of colspan varies). For example {{Isotopes table}} (which is the header only, btw) uses the element symbol for various conditional column headings (eg, element has named isotopes?).
BTW, to allow friendly multi-option-parameter like |format=wl, ucfirst I use
{{#if:{{in string|1=,{{{format|}}},|2=%Wwl%W|nomatch=|plain=false}}| wl-HIT | wl-NOHIT }}
Overall, I come to this conclusion. Best practice, for mainspace:
1. The MainTemplate (1-deep name) should be called from the article. Use parameters for options.
2. A data-list, when used, be developed first. Analysis of data structure(s) is required! Preferably split data from formatting. Consider splitting references from value.
3. Two subtemplates /header and /row are easiest to maintain. Durign development, the /header can be postphoned (header hardcoded in main template).
4. A separate /footnotes or /footer subtemplate can be handy.
5. Non-mainspace some compromises can be acceptable (single all-in, formatted data value; header coded in-situ).
HTH. (I see I have a lot of templates to improve ...) -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A good, recent example is {{List of hieroglyphs}}. Clearly, hieroglyph-expert editors can edit the data easily (recognition of the /row parameters!) while the table is stable in formatting.
Recent {{List of chemical element name etymologies}} works technically well too, but has a complicated data structure to show (inherited ...). -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I see you use construct {{#ifeq:{{{symbol|header}}}|header| .... Personally I would not use parameter |symbol= this way, because it is "corrupting" its meaning. Later on or elsewhere such deviation could cause headaches. And in this case the solutiuon is simple: use like |rowtype=header. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments; I am now convinced to go to option 2, /header. YBG (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
A good thing you found the conclusions! -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi DePiep While doing updates to riboflavin, which is undergoing a GA review, I noticed that the Infobox correctly links to DTXSID8021777 at comptox.epa.gov. However, when clicking on the link in the article, the URL automatically provided is this one, which goes to the wrong place. It turns out that the epa have recently changed their dashboard and the correct link for riboflavin is now a more complex one. All this is well beyond my skills to fix and needs your expertise delving in the bowels of Wikidata etc. Can you take a look, please? I suspect the problem now spreads to all our drug articles! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Good report, thx, can do (not right now). Looks like Wikidata has the same problem [14]; will notify there (with same time issue;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
btw, "more complex" ? -- just a longer URL right? No extra ID handling etc. seen. -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
True, should be fixed just by adding the extra "/chemical/details/" to the automation that's used to generate the URL on-wiki. I used the word "complex" only because I had no idea where to find that bit of programming! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I note that the changes have rippled through today and all looks fine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

localPhrases

Hi DePiep,

I often stalk Category:Pages using Chembox with unknown parameters, and noticed a bunch of pages just appeared there after you added |localPhrases= fields. Is there a validation/fields-list that needs to be updated somewhere to recognize that as valid? Or is it just a transient entry while debugging/upgrading some other template? DMacks (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The latter. In {{GHS phrases}} (talk), we plan to accept phrases like EUH032, ie local. While updating the GHS from sources today, it is easier to add this one carefully right away in a projected new parameter. Expect resolved within days. No harm seen. Acceptable? -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Definitely no harm; I figured you knew what you were doing, I just didn't want to have a long-term set of pages with new parameters filling that cat for no obvious reason. DMacks (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, good to know. I was pondering to list R,S-phrases articles there, ~200 to be cleaned up, but a bad idea i understand ;-) Will do the cleanup through other lists all right. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
... made just one small uc/lc mistake. If you like, you can process the {{Chembox Hazards/sandbox}} once more ,-) (diff)-DePiep (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks like User:Gonnym beat me to it. DMacks (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Circular-orbits atomic diagrams

SM358's edit on Caesium-137 wasn't a one-off. Check out Special:Contributions/SM358. DMacks (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A couple of questions

  1. Do you prefer the aqueous ion row headers be a single column? If so, you should remove the pipe from the middle of your !vote as it indicates a separate column.
  2. What is an F3 search?

Oh, and if you have an opinion on the OS number format (ie +/-), I'd welcome a !vote. YBG (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

H-phrase combination

Hi, could you please have a look, why this addition did not help in this case? --Leyo 11:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Testcases only {{H-phrases/sandbox}}, yet. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the interim solution. --Leyo 15:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW: I noticed that also other combinations are missing (see list). --Leyo 15:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

1. When used at enwiki, they will appear in Category:GHS errors (today old /text pages, soon /data).
2. You can edit Module:GHS phrases/data as you did. Editing old /text files: could be lost time.
-DePiep (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Do you know of an efficient way to extract the phrases from the PDF? --Leyo 17:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not -DePiep (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

May I ask why you did this edit? I would rather have done such an edit the other way round. --Leyo 09:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I applied MOS:ELLIPSIS. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a silly recommendation, but okay … --Leyo 13:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I am happy with it... -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Category talk:Articles using template 'Track gauge' with unrecognized input/Archive 1

Hello, DePiep,

I'm not sure why you created an archive page for a category talk page. If you don't believe it is needed any longer, would you tag it for deletion? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. (btw, in general Archives for talkpages can be useful anywhere: remove old & solved talks, away from distraction). -DePiep (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Hatnote templates for user pages has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hatnote templates for user pages has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chemical elements: table of term symbols

Template:Chemical elements: table of term symbols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Subtemplates of chembox in development

A tag has been placed on Category:Subtemplates of chembox in development indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chembox MolarMass

Template:Chembox MolarMass has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. DePiep (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Extended periodic table (by Nefedov, 54 columns, compact cells)

Template:Extended periodic table (by Nefedov, 54 columns, compact cells) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Latn in Unicode

Template:Latn in Unicode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

For the future, would you mind not moving things before the TFD closes? It makes certain automated actions more difficult. Thanks. (I've now relisted this btw.) --Izno (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Izno:, some time after the crime, but I'd like to note this, possibly for future situations (about TfD original, 17 Dec, relisted by you Relisted, 25 Dec):
So I moved the page while at TfD (IMO thereby solving the question, or trying to, in GF). I think this is within understanding that "Editing (improving) a page while at XfD is OK" (but cannot find this as a guideline). With this, the problem is with the bot not the editor—inconvenient sure, but should we forbid it?
More worried I was about the relisting itself, since that discussion had gone offtopic (off XfD) already. So I had expected a closure after week 1. (And because being OT, I guessed any further response from me could be considered unhelpful, so I was in doubt.) -DePiep (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"Template:Chembox MolarMass" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Chembox MolarMass. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 13#Template:Chembox MolarMass until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. DePiep (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Accidental rollback

Sorry, that rollback was accidental, my apologies for having thick fingers on my iPad! Dirk Beetstra T C 18:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, things happen. Thank you for this message! All the best. -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sclass/core2

Template:Sclass/core2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uralic languages/doc

Template:Uralic languages/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Documentation/color scheme

Template:Documentation/color scheme has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 20:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And Template:Documentation/color scheme for statistics, /docgreen1, etc; I'm assuming they are no longer needed. User:GKFXtalk 20:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tomorrow+1

Template:Tomorrow+1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 20:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about deprecated templates

Hey, the following templates were marked as deprecated by you:

Can these be sent to TfD or are they still needed? Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

TfD all is OK with me, and as intended when deprecating. No hidden usefulness. I'd also support a speedy. Anything I can do to make it easy? Shall I add the speedy tag? -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gonnym: -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
If you can comment out or replace the usage at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 38 then you can speedy Template:Infobox drug/chem styled and its sub-pages with G7 as the author. The rest will need to go to TfD sadly. Gonnym (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. Not used to editing /Archive page. Can't it be left a redlink? -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Documentation/color scheme

Template:Documentation/color scheme has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Unused Template:Infobox element sub templates

Hey again, the following are all unused:

Note by DePiep: double hyphen (like "-to--(118rows)" indicates meta-template: blank setup for future usage (for example add new property to the list).

Are they needed? Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also
Gonnym (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
See individual notes. Keep = no harm, right? -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of chemical element name etymologies

Template:List of chemical element name etymologies has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 10:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Track gauge/documentation notes

Template:Track gauge/documentation notes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Chemical data pages to keep

A tag has been placed on Category:Chemical data pages to keep indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. DePiep (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles with a Chembox not in certain WikiProjects

Hi, about 5 years ago you did something clever which generated a list of pages containing chemboxes which weren't assigned to WP:Chem. Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox/Articles_with_a_Chembox_not_in_certain_WikiProjects. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to refresh that list? It's a good way of finding 'orphan' articles. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I will do so. It is a manual process, I remember. Probably some time next week.
Do you want {{Drugbox}} processed too?
-DePiep (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I suppose I should be thorough and do both - providing it's not too much trouble for you? Thank you. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Project Osprey: So I check whether all {{Chembox}} articles have one or more of these WikiProjects on their talkpage:
Question: I could leave out ELEMENTS articles, and treat {{Infobox element}} equal to {{Chembox}}, so that all 120 element articles are listed to have CHEM/CHEMS Project. And other ELEMENTS articles are not checked at all.
Question: About {{Infobox drug}}: do I check these against the same WikiProjects? Maybe some bio-pharma drugs (eg vaccines if I am right) are listed too.
-DePiep (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's safe to leave out Elements entirely, they're very important, so I'm sure they've already been checked. WP:POLYMER is dead, so ignore them too, any chembox articles they have now need links to WP:Chem. Don't worry about Infobox drug, I'm going to go through the list manually: small molecules we should share with the bio-pharma people but antibodies etc are all for them (we have a claim to man-made stuff produces by chemical means, but 'biologics' etc are outside our area) --Project Osprey (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Will do so. Chembox and Drugbox treated alike. (& we can refine afterwards if results are impractical). -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks you. I probably wont be able to do much editing until until next week, so don't rush. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
By a strange quirk of circumstance, I was without the internet for 3 weeks just after I asked. So I wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome to ask this, I made sort of promise didn't I. Still on my mental todo-list; need some inspiration from RL. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Lanthanides

The template {{Periodic table (lanthanides)}} used in this article appears to assign fixed widths for the columns, giving rise to an ugly splitting of the names of the elements when the table is shown. Petergans (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

By design. The whole (= the overview) is best shown with regular widths (which could be improved in here btw). Given the information per visual row (15 element names) and readability wrt the fontsize, this is the result. So, smaller font or irregular cell widths are not used.
I note that this issue is inherent to the periodic table: there are say 18 columns to show with each cell having (multiple) information elements to show, including text & numerics. There is no solution that covers both. (It is as in a theater: when you have a view of the stage, you cannot see the hedline in a paper the actor is reading. And vice versa). -DePiep (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we change the sample columns to navbars?

As there have been no adverse comments, can we be bold and just do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman Which page? -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Template talk:Diacritical marks#Can we change the sample columns to navbars? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Taht one of course, sorry. Will write a formal proposal on that talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nudge... --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Aggravation

For what it is worth, I consider that the personal remark about you was unwarranted and unseemly. But it is not a hill I would choose to die on if I were you. I am reminded of John McEnroe who (correctly) challenged a line call and when it was refused, slammed his racket on the ground in disgust - and got penalised as a result. Sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and be content with knowing to yourself that you were right. Best wishes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Patience

Never ever again I want to see such a revert out of impatience! --Leyo 08:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Not impatience. I just needed to cite my earlier editsummary: it produced an error. (You completely ignored or missed obviously). Also, "not discussed" is not the absolute requirement; it's called bold & obvious improvements. Now you are free to deny the error in article space or improve in the sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I was well aware of your edit summary. I fixed the error within 9 minutes. --Leyo 09:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
You es'es did not even hint. Instead, you were blaming me, with a crippled argument (as I wrote here). So no need to suggest that you asked for 'patience' at all. -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Off to a wrong start

As you have probably seen or are about to see shortly, I provided an answer to your request. You will probably not like my response, and as you've probably figured (or are about to figure), I did not like the way you put your request. Still, it's in no one's interest if this disagreement between us spirals into anything else---most certainly, not in mine, not in other editors', and, presumably, not yours---so we better talk this through.

At least, that's what I would normally say. With you in particular, however, I don't believe this will help. Having known you for many years now (you've probably figured it out, but in case you haven't, I used to edit as User:R8R; I'm not really sure if the word "start" in the title is really fitting, but it's going to stay), I have made quite a number of attempts to understand you think and what kind of responses I would get, as well as how to get to you at times. For some reason, that did not work. Maybe you were not responsive, maybe my attempts were misguided; one way or another, it doesn't matter in the end. That fact at hand is that we can't get along for some reasons, and we surely have different estimates of why that is.

I really don't want to have a conflict with you every time I show up. It does genuinely appear to me that you were either asking to change a discussion in a, frankly, rude manner that was absolutely not justified given the context (you were not a part of this discussion), or straight looking for a conflict (and I wasn't even expecting to encounter you to begin with). I don't know which one it is, and it could even be neither; this doesn't matter, either. All I want is to find a way to not have an argument with you, regardless of whose fault that might be. I don't understand how we could come to that in a discussion, however, as I gave it a good thought over and over in the past. With this in mind, I'm asking you for one, and one thing only:

Please leave me alone.

Please do leave me alone, for good. Don't comment on my words. Don't ask me anything. Don't discuss my edits. Don't challenge me or my edits (unless you can specifically point out how I'm violating a policy or a guideline). Don't make suggestions to me. Don't undo my edits. Don't do anything that requires any interaction between us. Evidently, we are not good at that. We tried it; it didn't work.

What's in it for you?

First of all, I would never ask of you anything I wouldn't be ready to provide to you myself. You can stay assured that I'd gladly do all of those things I just mentioned to you, no matter what you do. Second, and perhaps even more important, I'm absolutely sure that other WP:ELEM members would be glad to learn we found a way to put aside our differences, even if it means we wouldn't create something productive together. Here I am, offering you a way out of the conflict, and here they are, seeing this message, likely having encountered it in their watchlist. I suspect it will score you some points with them if you can agree to something they'd approve of. Besides, I can only hope that you'd also gladly take a chance to avoid any future conflict with me in the most productive manner available, right?

In case you're thinking that me editing one article meaning you shouldn't edit it is a restriction that nobody can force onto you, I assure you I can't and wouldn't even try to force this onto you; think of it as more of a gentlemen's agreement or something along these lines, and it obviously can only work if you agree to it.

I really do think that this is the best way to proceed from here. No more disagreements, no more conflicts, no more misunderstandings... no more anything. (And the alternative is to let the nonmetal PR disagreement spiral out into yet another conflict, and risk that over, and over, and over again.)

Please don't think you need to answer immediately; if anything, I'd like it very much if you thought it over for a few days and then given me an answer.--213.24.133.229 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am glad to know that you've heeded to my request to not answer immediately. I know you have read it (your edit history shows you were pretty active in the last week, and there is no doubt in my mind that you read messages on your talk page), and you still were not quick to respond. Thank you very much, I appreciate it (I really do).
At this point, you've surely had the time to think my message through. I'm sure you have an opinion regarding what I wrote, and I hope you wouldn't choose to specifically hide it from me. I might be sporadically back if you accept my request, and I will not be otherwise. Given the weight you have in this, I'm curious to hear what you think. Will you and accept my request and do the one thing I'm asking of you?--213.24.135.49 (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
First of all, I don't need your "advice" to wait answering. Could very well be I advise myself. Also, 'please' stop interpreting my behaviour and prescribing my interests. "you will ...", "you've probably figured it out", "In case you're thinking": stop it. Speak for yourself. -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please give me an answer. Yes or no.--213.24.134.134 (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I did not see a question. Could you strike out the non-question in your text, as already noted? -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I did not ask a question, I made a request. Therefore, I can't strike out the non-question, and I'll repeat the main idea instead.
I asked you to stay away from interacting with me because our interactions tend to spiral into conflicts. I promised I'd do the same to you if you agreed to it.--213.24.134.134 (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
And it's up to you to either accept my request or reject it, hence the yes or no part.--213.24.134.134 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
(ec) I can read and reply if and when I want to, and I will do so. You have no business to come here and start commanding me to answer, especially after loading dozens of personal judgements & inferences about me. I already pointed out that you are not welcome to speak for me in any way, and that after doing so you are not to "request" a response. -DePiep (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I am genuinely confused. I really did not come looking for a conflict, but it appears one is underway anyway, which was not my intention.
I can see that you said you'd answer in your last post. Good to know. I'll be waiting.--213.24.134.134 (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Fifteen days ago you said you would reply to my request. When can I expect a response?--213.24.126.91 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't know. When I have energy to dive into this. -DePiep (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Being asked, out of the blue, to shut up on a general discussion page after posts I do not see any harm in is quite a distance to overcome. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You see, if you don't set up a deadline, you can always count on a tomorrow to do it. And on that day, you can say "tomorrow" again, and again, and again, and I'm afraid this gives you a way to not stand up to a commitment you've made. Perhaps that's not your intention, but this could happen, and I really wouldn't want to see this; I'd like you to fulfill your promise.
If you can't answer off the top of your head, that's fine, I'm in no hurry and I can wait a few weeks. Just tell me how many exactly.--213.24.126.91 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I wrote: 'I can read and reply if and when I want to, and I will do so.' Meanwhile, I don't think there is an issue since I do not edit That Page nor did I meet your edits elsewhere AFAIK. -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
"I don't know when" is just as promising as "never." I hear you. I will think the promise is effectively taken back, although I'll be glad to see a response if one ever comes up and the promise is fulfilled after all.--213.24.126.91 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Enough for now. I did not ask for this intervention. Nor are there sound reasons for it. Also, it is out of due proces. Telling is that you cannot invoke any policy or guideline that supports your issue or claim. You ask me something, I am free to answer but not obliged to. Let alone that I must follow your wish. The thing you ask is terribly non-wiki. Just re-read my posts to get clear what I mean tot say. -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST

You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd!

Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for:

This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

-- Environment of New York City Task Force

Toggling options

User:DePiep/PT-toggle-zoom

Right, so here we go.

First of all: I just ask this as a sort of proof-of-concept. No guarantees that it will actually be deployed in articlespace, to make it clear upfront. And I have no intention to argue for it now when Scerri's article in Chemistry International telling us about what the project has come up with is still being written and yet to be published. It is just that I thought it was an interesting idea when SMcCandlish proposed it, and that I can definitely see situations in which I think it would be appropriate. ^_^

Now that that's clear: the idea would generally be to have some sort of thing you could click to flip the PT (or really any template) between various forms. Could be used for Sc-Y-La / Sc-Y-Lu; could also be used for something like He-Be vs He-Ne within the specific context of block (periodic table) for example; could even be for something like showing or hiding the extension or flipping between category sets. I can see a lot of possibilities for it beyond just the group 3 and category things, which is why I think developing it might be a good idea anyway. But you're under no obligation to really do it; I was just curious if it could be done. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

An addendum summarizing my original yakking: It would be a lot of Lua work, and we'd also need to establish what the default output should be (for people running without JavaScript). And "default" might be universal or something set on a per-category/field basis, or whatever; depends on the consensus discussion outcome[s].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand. In my testpage I have two technical options. Third one is todo: that would be "zoom" (so not exactly fits here, but a major need for the PT: show overview PT <-> cell details. Example: see US election broadcasts at CNN or NYT: USA map w/colored states, and opening popup with State detailed numbers).
c:Category:Animated GIF files can handle table images, pics &tc, and with various precision (fluid/flickering alternations). No pause option AFAIK. Jscript required?
The map options map zooming (Paris example) are hardcoded in Lua for maps (globe coord calculations!). PT would be easier / hardcoded. Could be cluncky?
Meanwhile, the actual flipping content trbd. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Block

To enforce edit restrictions placed by the community, and for violations to Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep,
you have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. 
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Reminder to administrators: Edit restrictions placed by the community are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

DePiep, I've given you so many outs, but it doesn't look like you'll ever stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND unless compelled. Which is unfortunate. I'm getting the sense that, in this matter, you cannot see the forest for the trees, with the latest statements citing "gossip" and "underinformed, prejudiced or biased conclusions" (ironically, all after complaining about a lack of diffs).

Even after I've given you an escalated warning, which I've issued before I've learned of your editing restrictions, you still appear to have been operating under the misapprehension that because I got some of the facts wrong at the beginning of the ANI thread, the terms of your editing restrictions are to be waived (which was actually true, but only to a point). That is not how editing restrictions work, though. Sorry it has come to this, but I don't know what else to do at this point, as one thing has become clear to me: you are unwilling or unable to de-escalate at this time. El_C 09:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion: FAC 4 nomination of nonmetal

Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.

The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DPCLEANUP category header

Template:DPCLEANUP category header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Village pump page header/tabs

Template:Village pump page header/tabs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Letters with tilde

{{Letters with tilde}} doesn't exist. Given that there is already a huge table at Tilde#Unicode that lists them all, I expect I could create it fairly easily. Was there a technical reason you haven't already done it? If "it's complicated", I would prefer to know before I spend the time on it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason it does not exist is: there was no "old2021" version so there was nothing to transport. Yeah just pick a good existing example & start editing it. I expect the setup to be a bit self-xplanatory & /doc'ed. I noticed that Hook_(diacritic)#Letters_with_hook also has a very good overview list, before the letterbox. -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Did you not fancy creating this one, John Maynard Friedman? -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I got sidetracked onto other things. I plan to have a go today. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Well it's an attempt but not a very successful one, but I've done the grunt work so perhaps you can fix it. I also changed {{Letters with diacritic/doc}}, somewhat arbitrarily so that will need fixing too. Sorry. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

On radioactive decay modes (again)

@DePiep: Sorry to bother you about this subject again, but I'm here to ask about the presentation of certain decay modes. I'm looking at the "Isotopes of helium" page right now, and there are a couple of decay modes mentioned in NUBASE2020 [15] that don't use the same notation (same goes with Template:Decay_modes). Since you are the main contributor of Template:Decay_modes, is it possible to update the template to reflect the decay mode notation used in NUBASE2020 (assuming that NUBASE is taken as the "standard" for decay mode notation, of course)?

Thanks :) —MeasureWell (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to say "sorry", you're perfectly right to ask so. RL is taking my interests though. Question(s) heard. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

On Template:Decay_modes/2020

@DePiep: In the Template:Decay_modes/2020 table on Talk:Radioactive decay you wrote in the "Notes" column next to "ε" (electron capture) that it "equals old EC?". To try to help resolve the matter, I've gone ahead and looked at the nuclides listed on Electron capture that decay via electron capture, and here's what I found:

  • Under Electron capture#Reaction details, all of the example nuclear reactions given are wrong* (the nuclides given decay by β+ decay*, NOT by electron capture). Oddly, however, that section correctly* states that 163
    Ho
     decays via electron capture.
  • In the tables shown in Electron capture#Common examples, all of the nuclides given (except 59
    Ni
    , which again decays by β+*) do indeed decay via electron capture.*

Hopefully this helps (even if only a little bit) to help resolve this matter?

Cheers,

— MeasureWell (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

* according to NUBASE2020

I'm fine with adding this to the talkpage there, after all it is of interest for all.
Since there are many changes between enwiki/2016/2020, I'm not sure on how to proceed.
I'm not familiar with the decay physics at all. I'm just preparing to reproduce the Table, in the article and in all isotope/decay articles.
That includes, resolving differences. This "EC" is part of that. -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: Right, OK. The reason I decided to mention this here was because it didn't look like you'd seen the reply I'd put on Talk:Radioactive decay regarding certain things in the table. Like I also mentioned in my reply on that page, I'm no professional expert either. Perhaps you could cross-link (or whatever the right word is) this on the WikiProject Physics talk page to maybe speed things up? From what I can tell, there haven't really been any major additions to the table since you first put it on the talk page. Thanks for the quick reply! MeasureWell (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Template talk:Diacritical marks#Proposal: change Sidebar into Navbox

I'm tempted to leave a message at each of the diacritic mark articles (Acute accent, Circumflex, grave accent, etc) inviting contributions to Template talk:Diacritical marks#Proposal: change Sidebar into Navbox because two editors v one can't really be called a consensus. Any reason why not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No, preferably not do so. As with the Letters-with-diacrit change, and the Infobox split-out: no big issue, more a default improvement than disputable. Remember the "should be sidebar"-note is in top a very long time, ie is due. Hope we are convincing Uanfala by now, that's all. Worst case: a revert needed? -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Also, I'm changing the sandbox, eg splitting scripts and adding the Unicode group list. INto a better navbox. You could do so too. Sub-group the top set? DePiep (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok but if Uanfala holds out, we will have to widen it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah but not by those articles. It better needs a MOS expert: why such a list in LEAD? -DePiep (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
It would be very easy to argue that it is not really "in" the lead but "beside" the lead. Thousands of articles have an image, an infobox, a 'series' sidebar, what makes this sidebar any different in that respect. Sorry but I can't see that argument going anywhere.
IMO, the best line is that, now that the original sidebar has been split, the symbol that is the subject of the article is getting its deserved position beside the lead (just below, on mobile), which is as it should be. The 'rump' sidebar (in our opinion!) has inherited a prominence that is undue. It no longer belongs there because in the articles where it is used, it gives the specialist interest in diacritics (as a grammatical structure) a higher priority over body content for most visitors (who use mobile phones). Given its size, that is an unreasonable imposition. Which is why I feel that putting a invitation to comment at the talk pages of the articles where it is used will draw in a wider audience than watches the template or is interested in the principle of diacritics rather than their use in the real world. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
No need to redo the discussion over here. We'll wait some more days. DePiep (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

To avoid an edit conflict

I guess you are still working on the new navbox and wouldn't appreciate my getting in the way. I noticed a few errors (where you haven't used the combining form) but have only done A to C before deciding it would be best to hold off for the time being. But you may as well have what I've done rather than lose it:

For some reason, the cedilla is not combining on my system (Chromebook) but I assume it works ok elsewhere. Enjoy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

User:John Maynard Friedman I'll need 30 minutes for the edits. Will ping you when ready. -DePiep (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
re User:John Maynard Friedman Move completed. Now open for improvements as usual per wiki. And yes, I see the same issue (Firefox). Could not fint the cuase (writing &#x030F; for ̏ in ◌̏  ?). -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
All done and all except cedilla appearing as advertised (including double acute this time!). I've added a group7 = non-diacritic uses that you may think is "out of scope" so I won't object if you revert. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

GAR of nonmetal

Nonmetal has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, just a gentle nudge to ask if there's any chance you'll still have time to work up Template:Drug links? A minimal version that looks like the mock at Template_talk:Drug_links#Mock_drug_links_bar and requires users to manually feed the template links (i.e. {{Medical resources}} but for drug links) would be a great minimum functional solution. If you (or anyone else) ever has time to revisit pulling that data from Wikidata, even better. Thanks a million and I hope you're staying well! Ajpolino (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Very inviting (happy face), sure, but cannot promis these days. (sad face) -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Completely understood. Well if you don't get to it in the next few weeks, I'll take a crack at it. If I set anything on fire, I'll find a noticeboard to go crying to. I hope you're well, and that you're a good kind of busy. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates

Hi, I was just cleaning up Special:WantedTemplates and found one of your pages. Would it be possible to fix this? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Done.

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Unused templates

Do you plan on using the templates you created which are sitting around as unused in some capacity on Wikipedia? If not on articles, then maybe you can move them as subapge of yours. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I do not plan so but if I meet one I consider as speedy as possible (or consider keep). I have no automated overview. Recently did browse Unused list, and got tips from T-editors like you. Is there automation fot "created by DePiep & unused"? -DePiep (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of that specific kind, but would you rather I list them here and you can figure out what to do with them? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with the incidental mentionings. Is there some project running?-DePiep (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I created the Unused Templates Task Force and our goal is to reduce the backlog which has been reduced since we started around September 2021. And only a few unused/unnecessary templates remain, but we'd like to see templates used if there is a place for them. These are the ones I found from the main unused database report:

-r

Nomination for deletion of Template:EMA source

Template:EMA source has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Template errors

During your editing of {{Infobox element/symbol-to-saw}}, you changed something in a way that caused {{List of chemical elements}} to start failing due to an invalid value being passed into {{val}} (See {{List of chemical elements/row}} specifically). Im in a rush right now so i cant check what the cause was myself, but please double check the edits you made and re-apply them correctly if relevant. Thanks. Aidan9382 (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Now that im not in a rush or busy, ive gone ahead and taken a further look into the edits made, and I see you were removing or redirecting the formats as deprecated. Ive gone ahead and re-instated the edits, but im going to leave plain-short-value unedited, as it has no deprecation notice on its page and is essential for {{List of chemical elements}}. Ill let you look into it further when your available, as i can only hazard a guess as to what you were attempting to do. Thanks. Aidan9382 (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

1. The source/institute ({{CIAAW2021}} has changed the values: (a) both in formal accepted (only "abridged" as secondary; "conventional" is merged into that one, and (b) uncertainty notation (not 123.45(4) but 123.45±0.004). Also (c) the symbol has changed into Ar°(E). This for all s.a.w.
2. I have changed the templates (data lists) accordingly; also their presentation (eg in {{Infobox hydrogen}}).
3. Also, for specific publications, we apply shortened values (no uncertainty), eg in {{Periodic table}}. That is the ../plain-short-value.
4. These are my (intended) edits. After this, I was deprecating certain templates (like /conventional), especially after checking actual usage (should be ~none of course).
5. Now apparently you found and fixed errors. I cannot see them any more, so no edits for me.
6. I understand mainspace is OK now. When I want to deprecate more templates, I'll have to take this in consideration too.
7. That's it for now? Or anything else I should look at? Thanks for the fixing & the report. -DePiep (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
If that seems to have fixed all the issues for you, then thats fine. You must have accidentally put plain-short-value into the abridged section without meaning to. Nothing else to look at, thanks for replying quickly! Aidan9382 (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
All fine. Coming days I will revisit the template set, at ease (deprecations can wait). Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, DePiep

Thank you for creating Syriac (Western variant).

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the redirect

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@SunDawn: thanks, nice to hear this. DePiep (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Parks in East Jerusalem

A tag has been placed on Category:Parks in East Jerusalem indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Unicode proposed charts

A tag has been placed on Category:Unicode proposed charts indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table by article quality/2018-12-31

Template:Periodic table by article quality/2018-12-31 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q𝟤𝟪 16:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

River Phoenix

I reverted your edit to River Phoenix because your change of the field name "occupation" to "occupations" hide that field in the infobox. - Donald Albury 14:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Saw that, thanks, good action. Will research more. DePiep (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox errors

Your recent IB changes broke around 70 articles because you changed |occupation= to |occupations= in Infobox person. We you trying to make changes to Infobox musical artist only? These articles have that IB imbedded within IB person. MB 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@MB: ouch, that is very bad indeed. Yes, I had prepared an AWB/REGEX for {{Infobox musical artist}}, and that one got through. I will start cleaning up Category:Pages using infobox person with unknown parameters (263) right now. If there is anything I should know, do let me know. -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Done. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Url errors

Your edits such as this one are changing url= (which is correct) to website= which is not. Oculi (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oculi: thanks. I have checked my edits for this; did not see any more (but some could be hidden) DePiep (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

't Hooft symbol

Heya! Nice to meet you.

Concerning your edit on 't Hooft symbol, I still disagree that the unicode information should be included. This page sits within the context of mathematics/physics where non-Latin symbols are standard. There are hundreds of pages which include such symbols as standard notation, yet the unicode information is not included (and should not). It also misses the point that the Greek letter used is just a convention (even if an overwhelming one), not the rule. I could represent the 't Hooft symbol with an epsilon a B. Its meaning would not change.

But I will keep to the main point that this is simply not done anywhere else in mathematics/physics (and is not necessary). I mean, just to scratch the surface for some obvious ones, Levi-Civita symbol, Kronecker delta, Permittivity, Angular frequency, etc. None of them have this (or should have this). The unicode information does make sense in some contexts, such as the article for those letters, but not in physics/mathematics articles. OpenScience709 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think its symbol should be described in that article somewhere. For starters: I say for for every symbol that is not a simple Latin letter, on this English(-language & so Latin-script) wiki. I have reduced its prominence. Do edit as you please. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
But my point still stands that this is NOT the convention undertaken by Wikipedia. Mathematics/Physics articles simply do NOT include the unicode information every time a non-Latin letter comes up. And I think that they should not (and again convention agrees with me). I think that if you think otherwise then this should rather be proposed as a WikiProject wide suggestion (it's a massive change, which I doubt would pass) rather than imposed selectively on some articles. I again can't overstress the prominence of Greek letters in these articles. BTW hope that my vigorous stance is not coming of as hostile (I'm not)! I get what you are trying to say, I'm just saying that in the particular context of mathematics/physics, such a view is not standard and would be highly impractical and not very useful. OpenScience709 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
We describe the symbol (say character), extensively if not basic Latin, unopposed as wide as I can remember, with scientific quantities, units currencies, phonetic symbols, game, traffic, alchemic, flag, etc symbols. That is: apart from and next to their meaning. Yo may have found some counterexamples (looks like a special niche in maths only?), but that is not an argument at all. In short, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, in long: if I'd produce an opposing article, I'd have counteragued you "proof" examples and so you'd have to admit the argument is idle (So pls check out ths other-other-stuff: from here).
Anyway, I still have not read why the symbol definition does not belong in an encyclopedic article (with or without the actual word symbol in its name/title). -DePiep (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
But the article is not about the symbol itself. It's about the concept, the algebraic structure. I can use whatever symbol I want to represent the algebraic structure. The fact that it has "symbol" in the title does not mean that the article is about the symbol eta itself. Also my argument is not that other articles exist. It's that pretty much ALL articles in mathematics/physics do not include unicode information, not just some of them.
My "special niche" of mathematics/physics is EXACTLY my point. That is exactly where you find that Greek symbols proliferate, to the extent where including their unicode information every time they come up is pointless. Anyone reading the 't Hooft symbol article knows what eta is. The article is a super niche topic in theoretical physics; no one here who seriously needs to use the symbol will not know what eta is.
My point still stands that if you think that the convention on the mathematics/physics WikiProjects should change, propose it. Do you at least agree that the current convention does not include unicode information? OpenScience709 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I think I understand your confusion though. The 't Hooft symbol is NOT about the symbol. It's about the algebraic concept, just like any other similar page. Just how the Kronecker delta (or literally any other page on a mathematical concept; this is not me cherry picking examples) is about the algebraic concept of the particular function, not about the symbol. In principle we could have called the 't Hooft symbol instead the 't Hooft eta or the 't Hooft tensor. It's referred to as a symbol by chance. OpenScience709 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
What are you trying to say? That the first sentence is wrong? I did not write that. That the actual examples are wrong? I did not write them. People are free to use any symbol? Then add that claim to the article. And no, nowhere I said that the article is about the symbol. Why are you thinking I am "confuses": pls stop thinking for me, no need to fill me in on symbols. The question is, why don't you want to describe the symbol(s) that are actually applied to this concept/or specifically not?. -DePiep (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm just saying that you seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of the first sentence. We call it a symbol for lack of a better word. It could just as well be called a tensor (its a collection of matrices as the rest of the article makes clear). Its the same idea as the fact that the Big Bang has nothing to do with sound despite the choice of the wording. The fact that people are free to use any symbol is already self evident from the fact that its a mathematics/physics topic. Adding that to the article is completely pointless. Look I will reword the first sentence a bit to make things more clear ok? Now it reads like the analogous Levi-Civita symbol article first sentence. If you still disagree, then we should probably get this issue sorted in the Teahouse or somewhere. OpenScience709 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
No need to tell me I have to sort things out. You still have not digested my question, let alone answered. Instead, you keep thinking, suggesting and speaking for me that I do not understand things. This thread is closed, won't get you or the article any further. This does not say agree with your underinformed actions. -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Of course, if some "epsilon a B"[?] is possible, it should be mentioned as well. (insteead of omitting them both). And, adding that convention-not-rule note would be an improvement. -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Convention not rule is a fact of mathematical notation, not something that is particular to this page. I can represent pi with a the letter "m" or a "B" or a random Russian letter. If I declare it mean the number 3.14159..., then this is so. Of course some things have overwhelming conventions, but others have weaker conventions. But this idea of conventions is always implicit, so does not require the introduction of absolutes such as unicode information. OpenScience709 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Again. Any symbol you can possibly imagine can be used to describe the 't Hooft symbol. A squiggly line I will draw could describe it if I declare that it describes it. This is again because the article is not about the symbol. It's about the algebraic concept. OpenScience709 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
If you say that even other notation (letters) are possible as symbol of the topic where the article is about, which I can accept without blinking, then again and even more so it is a job of this encyclopedia to describe these (as in: "Which letter is this symbol?)". -DePiep (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letters with grave/old2021

Template:Letters with grave/old2021 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sidebar metric prefixes

Template:Sidebar metric prefixes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Consider this a formal warning, your next revert will be a violation of WP:3RR. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You are supposed to join the discussion, not to impose your personal preference. You are violating WP:BRD. This is a formal warning. DePiep (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude: -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't need to be discussed, you shouldn't create inappropriate articles. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
"This doesn't need to be discussed" - please don't visit my talkpage ever again. And read WP:BRD. I stress that you have been warned already. -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  • DePiep, I think it would be best if you just stayed away from this. Your engagement with this editor at ANI would probably only inflame the issue, and it's not getting any traction anyway. VanIsaac, LLE contWpWS 17:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Van! There were some good replies already indeed. However, because preluding edits already showed the issue clearly, I thought I could add some, eh, illustrating diffs. Knowing ANI, nothing is safe since all depends on careful reading & basic reasoning there. DePiep (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Link doesn't work fix. -DePiep (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Moddef

Template:Moddef has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

signature

You forgot to sign your latest addition to Talk:Periodic table. Dhrm77 (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hexcolor-to-hue

Template:Hexcolor-to-hue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Beryllium

Thank you for your support. I really appreciate it. That user made two unfounded reverts but never joined the discussion I started. Now they ask me about my IP. Ridiculous :-) 85.193.215.210 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thx, hope you feel safe in editing now. Here is the guide: never engage in such personal requests. If more troublesome, or more doxing, look at WP:Oversight (I could do that too). Al the best. DePiep (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Periodic table period templates

A tag has been placed on Category:Periodic table period templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing WP Chemistry/Chemicals from templates

Why did you remove the WikiProject from the Chembox tree? (e.g. [16] )I added them three years ago so they would be part of recent changes. Christian75 (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it is only a subtemplate, does not appear standalone. It's {{Chembox}}. For maintenance or template reseach there is, for example, Category:Chembox templates (154). HTH -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
But they belongs to the WikiProjcet and therefore, they should be tagged with the WikiProject banner. Christian75 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
They still are in the WP, via {{Chembox}}. But they are not by themselves, not standalone. For example, /doc pages are not bannered either. Do you have a situation where this is an issue? -DePiep (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, next time someone updates Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Lists of pagess, the templates will disappear. Christian75 (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and correctly so. Not an issue. Again, these are all subpages of the template. They are not independent, standalone pages. The template itself shows up as expected & intended. So please point out why such dependent subpages should be listed there? -DePiep (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
So you can see recent changes. Is it a problem that subtemplates have WIkiProject banners? Christian75 (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
They are not standalone. WP:RELC through the category I already mentioned. Since you did not once started to explain why you think the subpages should be listed, I will stop this exchange because it is only a repetition by now. -DePiep (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Christian75: I have been thinking some more about this. If one wants to follow {{Chembox}} developments (say, talks and edits; maybe sandboxes, testcases), there are the following options. There is a level of intensity: how many pages do you want on the watchlist?
  1. WT:CHEMISTRY, WT:CHEMICALS, {{Chembox}} (talk), {{Infobox drug}} (talk) are the basic pages for the watchlist & participation. All notes here apply to the Drugbox-environment equally, adjusted.
  2. Category:Chembox templates (154) is the one to follow, using WP:RELC. A Special page so on the fly, no watchlist notings.
  3. template talk:Chembox is the central talkpage to go to. None of the 450 subtemplate page, nor their /docs or /sandboxes, have talkpages any more.
  4. The 10 sectiontemplates {{Chembox Identifiers}} .. {{Chembox Footer}} (under * in the Category)) is the next level of activity to watchlist: usually all serious /subtemplate changes show here beforehand. Minor changes like "http: → https:" could be missed.
  5. The Testpages can be watchlisted, or {{Chembox/testcases/navbox}} can be RELC-followed. This is where development actions are visible early.
  6. Category:Chembox documentation (6) has the main documentation pages (not the /doc pages), including parameter lists, the validation bot, ..
  7. Category:Chembox tracking categories (28) does the articles.
  8. And of course once can watchlist individual pages by special interest, like CAS RN datapoint.

HTH. -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Unicode versions in code charts

I think it would be much more interesting to say what version of Unicode a given block was last changed in, maybe saying "since Unicode V 1".Spitzak (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Good plan. We can add that (to {{Infobox Unicode block}}) later on, it is plainly adding information. Should have a good link target. IMO better & easier not to do this together with version 15-changes these weeks.
Having said this: {{Unicode version}} is mainly intended for our maintenance tracking: when an new Unicode version is published, we should check all pages that say "as of version 14" (that is, references, sources, {{As of}} statements), manually! For example, chapter numbers (for the same text!) may have changed. So, using
Redirect
has a different goal that what you prop[ose. OK? -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure, though if that is the purpose putting the version in a comment might be ok. I also found that the template does not say "Unicode version" if I change the text to "since" and gave up on trying anything anyway.Spitzak (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
That would be |prefix=since Unicode version. HTH. I am editing the infobox :-) DePiep (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to create articles on Unicode blocks, Cyrillic D needs a page. But if we already have an article, as at Kaktovik, it's not worth creating a stub that's merely a content fork. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"not worth" - the opposite. The Category:Unicode blocks (354) are the righty place to describe block hiostory, including the huge & higly infomative Unicode papers. Developing such a page in-section and then forking out, as you seem to propose, is abusing the host article and creating unbalance (for example, the Unicode history papers as mentioned). Also, being a stub is no reason for deletion or hiding. Quite the opposite. DePiep (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Read WP:FORK.
There were no Unicode papers. If you're willing to create a real article, great. Otherwise it's merely clutter.
Also, redirecting a merged fork is not "hiding" it. And it's the person who starts edit-warring (you) who should instead start the discussion, per WP:BOLD. I'm disappointed to hear such nonsense from you. You know better. — kwami (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes I know FORK. As I said, cumbersome & burdening for the parent article to develop a Block article in section. I also know almost each and every of these, which simply show the goal. Now my question is: what is wrong with a stub?, and that cannot be solved with a tag. For an item that was published into life not yet six hours ago. What is the harm? DePiep (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
But the block already has a section in the parent article. You're not making it less cumbersome, you're just duplicating it.
Are you planning on creating a full article? How about once you've written it, with the history, papers, etc., so it's more than a stub, then you add the dab notice to the parent article? Otherwise you're redirecting readers for no purpose. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
You are telling me how to develop an article. Above you were directing me to create some other article. Anyway, you still have not pointed out, nor tagged, what the issue is/are with the stub, and so why it cannot be a stub. High level of paternalising and imposing. DePiep (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I snapped at you. Maybe it's because I'm not used to falsehoods from you, or maybe I'm just in a bad mood today. Either way, uncalled for.
I didn't tell you to create some other article. I objected to a useless hat note and an article that was merely clutter.
It would be perfectly fine as a stub if it didn't duplicate an existing article. We shouldn't add a hat note to 'Britain' to 'See also Britain (etymology)', where we merely repeat what we already have under Britain#Etymology. It's not that the topic doesn't warrant a stub, it's that it's a pointless distraction that contributes nothing to WP. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that @Drmccreedy: has expanded that section with the history and papers. I agree that's superfluous for the parent article. Is that what you were planning? If so, my apologies (again). I should've waited. BTW, an 'under construction' tag helps in situations like this, where you're reverted in the middle of constructing something.

I think we're getting a mountain out of a molehill here. I'll go ahead and self-revert on your Unicode article, then move Drmccreedy's additions there. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Kwamikagami Thanks for coming back to me with this very generous and kind replies! My day will be fine, and looking forwad to opur future editing. As for the articles & the topic, coming days I have no time to flesh things out, so I'll take a new look in a week or so. Non-complicated edits areeasier :-). With a fresh look & rereading your views, we'll see what is needed. Maybe others will have contributed too (much activity since the new version 15 was published; Drmccreedy has leading activity in the changes). So, thanks again.

Infobox currency

Hello, I wondered if maybe you could spare a few moments to look at my attempts to add new parameters to this template, please? My work in progress is at Template:Infobox currency/sandbox. Per the template talk page, the object is to add the parameters "Main unit" and "Abbreviation". I've added the code but can't seem to stop them displaying when they have no content. I have tried various combinations of #if which either have no effect or break the whole thing. Perhaps you can see easily what I, being a complete amateur when it comes to template writing, can't.

Thank you if you have time, if not don't worry if not as no doubt I'll find it eventually. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I have removed <nowiki /> in your new code: when input is missing, "nowiki" is content so the labelX reacts as if there is info to show. Don't know why they are with other input; these will have the same effect (testpage tests).
Point: main and abbr will apear both in the same header? (unseparated). And more. Hope that is intended.. DePiep (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Nice tag btw DePiep (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for solving my problem. As you might guess, the "<nowiki />" was a "kick and pray" when I couldn't see what I was doing wrong, saw it used elsewhere and thought "well I don't know what it does but maybe that is the magic dust I need".
No, they shouldn't appear in the same header, I will have to try to find what is causing that to happen. The layout should be similar to the current "Symbol", to produce (for NZD, for example):

Denominations
Unit: Dollar
Symbol: $
Abbreviation: NZ$ [ref: World Bank Style Guide]
Subunit
(etc etc)

and I'm not convinced that I've got things in the right order to achieve that either.
re my new tag, thank you. It has taken a while to find something suitable. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
OK. Know, {{Infobox currency/testcases}} is your friend.
I have made som crash edits, because the code is dirty. Though there are more huge imprvements to make, I will refrain for now, unless you ask me to. (keyboardfingers are itching to edit). -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I will very gladly stand back and let you take over: I might learn something. I am a complete amateur at template writing and it looks like I've picked a very poor example to learn from, let alone try to develop. "Go ahead, make my day!" --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:-) I do not know what your new 2 parameters are supposed to do. So pls put them in the right position (|dataX=-number). Are there interactions with other parameters? Like dependency, or "only show when |foo= is present"? DePiep (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Found: new |main_unit, abbreviation= will show in Denominations. DePiep (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The long explanation is at Template talk:Infobox currency#unit= option needed but in a nutshell, the present model assumes that the currency name and primary unit are the same, which is true (AFIK) for every currency except Sterling and Renminbi. (In course of investigation, we see common misunderstandings, like the currency symbol for the New Zealand dollar is currently shown as $, NZ$, which is not correct, it is simply $: NZ$ is the abbreviation.)
Given the hundreds of existing uses, the new titles have to be invisible until put into use. Pound sterling and Renminbi are the obvious first candidates.
IMO, the lines "Symbol:", "Abbreviation:" and "Main unit:" should come first in the Denomination section – before any sub-units or super-units. This means a change in the current placement of "Symbol:"
What else have I missed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that the abbreviation is for the currency, not the main unit. cf "Stg." for Sterling, "RMB" for Reminbi. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

todo also

  1. " Jordanian dinar is divided into 10 dirham" - but current IB sugests "10 dinar = 1 dirham"
  2. reorg subunits; per # data together
  3. linked header denomination, todo demograph
  4. symbols {{big}} or {{huge}}
  5. add: notation form(s) € 6,00, 6.00€
  6. pound stirling says "Super-unit:  1 Pound" --don't think that is correct (not a superunit) / will be solved by main_unit handling
  7. add |in_unicode= for symbol -- when available
  8. language(s) & scripts?
  9. fix plural/sing text |more_languages= adding (slavic) Green tickY done in /sbox
  10. JMF: Sterling super-unit 1:1 is what provoked this need to change, being the only way to get the word "pound" into the infobox. It is a deliberately provocative kludge.
  11. what is ISO "exponent"? Not in the ISO page -- JMF: I've never come across "exponent" either but will ask at talk:ISO 4217 and at Wikiproject numismatics.
    1. JMF: you have tangled with this before! See template talk:infobox currency#“Exponent” in Infobox currency. So "Exponent" is a wikipedia creation that really should be corrected to match the standard, but maybe it is too difficult for now, maybe best park it? Either way, I would wlink this and "number" to the corresponding subsections of ISO 4217 because they are too terse to make sense without explanation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  12. anomalies: JMF: FYI, I have started a section Template talk:Infobox currency#Anomalies that need to be resolved. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  13. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 please add to {{Infobox currency/testcases}} the currencies you want to test for now (c/p infobox from live article in ===section). FYI, there is TPU for current parameter usage: See a monthly parameter usage report for Template:Infobox currency in articles., very informative. -DePiep (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  14. |date_of_introduction_source= follows date, is regular ref (not separate datarow) for /doc: has rtegular text before refnot[1]?? To check all pages.
  15. same with inflation source: cannot be stand alone ref [2] number
  16. todo: pick lighter colors for the headers
  17. add |symbol_script= (when not Latn, and when known)
  18. add: |iso_status= (at least: 'historical' or more formal)
  19. Category:Infobox currency with an unlinked website (5) tracking check+doc
  20. add |symbol_use/use_symbol= for ratio?
  21. renminbi make lang box a module?
  22. ISO code can be none - then nocat see the cat. Better: create cat:Not ISOcode
  23. Andorran diner footn link not just number

You've earned it!

The Template Barnstar
For template:infobox currency Thank you for the hours of work you've put in. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, appreciated! -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

CHF subunits

Have you noticed that there is an erroneous duplication of subunit names in the infobox? (I assume that this is a "work-in-progress" issue but thought I should mention it just in case. No need to reply.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I have not worked on the subutunits at all (and do not plan to do so shortly). And yes, I know the same input (subunit name?) is re-used in rows below like nickname (on LH side ouch). Swiss franc then. These weeks I've been truying to get the ISO definitions right everywhere WD. DePiep (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
It is a general problem, not restricted to CHF. So I will start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox currency#Labels on the subunits plural lines. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
As you like. I won't have time, need to complete of the ISO Wikidata set, and especially the ISO 4217 main tables. I think these subunits are template-programming issue, not a policy. DePiep (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
It is nothing that can't wait until you are doing an update anyway. I could do it but I don't want to risk messing up your work in progress for a cosmetic change. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
All is fine with me. But at the moment I am not using the /sandbox, so you can experiment & test as you like. (I'll respect the space). What I suggested is, that you simply post a RL example for a subunit (which text in which place, roughly). DePiep (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Unhelpful revert

DePiep please do not engage in unhelpful reverts such as this one: [17]

Contrary to the reasons given for the revert, namely, "text disputed, per talkpage. in general: no support for cherrypicking for POV", the actual text of the IUPAC Group 3 report is not in dispute. It says, "Perhaps a compromise could be reached on the table" depicting group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr. In this context there was no need to revert what the article said, "In 2021 an IUPAC project team published a provisional report suggesting that, "perhaps" group 3 "could" contain scandium, yttrium, lutetium, and lawrencium."

If there are concerns about cherry-picking it would be more helpful to edit the passage in question to reflect what was actually said in the report. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have written on this extensively & repeatedly on the talkpage. DePiep (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Removing arbitrary sub-section breaks

DePiep, could you please not revert my addition of an arbitrary generic subsection break to a longer thread? I do so to make it easier to edit that part of the thread. Thank you, Sandbh Sandbh (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You wrote a reply/followup to an existing thread. I'd have to reread the thread careffuly as to where a cut could be made (with adjustments in intoductions, &tc). Don't have the time for that now. Is an issue that appears multiple times in the thread. In short: single-topic is the solution. DePiep (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
More simple: if you think it's a new topic, start a thread right away. But take care: this requires a good introduction, (unlinke here). Just take care of indenting &tc &tc. DePiep (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks DePiep. That you "don't have the time for that now" is not an issue, since no-one owns the page, and I do have the time.

It was not a "new" topic; it was a continuation of an existing long thread. Like I said, I added an arbitrary generic subsection break in order to make the conversation easier easier to edit.

What we have now is a 6,500 word thread, which is hard to edit due to a lack of sub-section breaks.

Could you please not revert my addition of arbitrary generic subsection breaks to longer threads? Sandbh (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Cannot blanket promis that beforehand. For example but not only this, the "(unlinke" diff I gave above broke the talkpage flow/logic/buildup. With that, the huge size of threads & posts does not help keeping overview. A better talkflow stucture needs consideration beforehand ie not arbitray as we can do easily elsewhere (eg in a full single-topic section).
Then, as I have pointed out on that ELEM talkpage, your contributions too easily and sloppily switch/deviate/fork topic. I also pointed out that this happens in other, high-contentious, related talkpage(s). Some section restructure could be done I guess, but takes a leanback rereading & do-I-understand-this-right clarifications. Given the forking &tc. issues I just mentioned, and their initiating pattern, I don't think you are in the best position to do this. DePiep (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Sc-Y-*-**

There is a bit of confusion in the literature about this one:

  • In the 2021 IUPAC report it is described as having only Sc and Y in group 3.
  • However, in the so-called "IUPAC periodic table", the cells under Sc and Y are filled with "57-71: lanthanoids" and "89-103: actinoids". The version by Pyykkö (the practitioner of specialised relativistic QM referred to by the IUPAC report) also writes "57-71" and "89-103" below Sc and Y. So, understandably, before the report clarified what it was, some writers have understood it as meaning that all lanthanoids and actinoids belonged in group 3, e.g. Thyssen and Binnemans (which shows stretched-out Sc and Y cells) and even the IUPAC report on recognition of elements 113, 115, and 117 from 2016: The technique employed was claimed to distinguish between Group 3 elements (lanthanides and actinides) and combined Groups 4 and 5.

I have made some edits to Periodic table#Group 3 and Group 3 element#Dispute on composition to make it clear. In particular, the IUPAC 2021 report implies that Sc-Y-*-** is a misinterpretation, but it is a form that has been considered recently in the debate. So, I think that it is equally "rejected" as Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-[stops there].

Frankly, the main reason for this confusion is the "IKEA" 18-column format, if you ask me. Both of these forms are very rarely encountered in 32-column format: at least, the IUPAC project could not find a single example in the literature, and I know some sources that give Sc-Y-*-** or Sc-Y-[stops there] in 18-column form, but expand it into Sc-Y-Lu-Lr in 32-column. This is obvious confusion and changing the scientific statement. So, it could be argued that these formats should not be illustrated in 32-column format anyway, since nobody does that except to illustrate the problems with them: even the IUPAC 2021 report does not illustrate Sc-Y-[stops there] in 32-column format. Actually, the only illustration of Sc-Y-*-** in 32-column format I know of is in Thyssen and Binnemans (and they argue against it because that ends up mixing the d- and f-blocks), and the only illustration of Sc-Y in 32-column format I know of is in another article by Scerri arguing against it.

So arguably these forms might be de-emphasised and not illustrated, since people are so confused about what they mean: we could note per the 2021 report that some specialist practitioners of relativistic QM for superheavies use 15-element f-blocks from La-Lu and Ac-Lr, and per the 1988 report that some have tried to use that as a compromise group 3, but that there is wide confusion about what this actually means and how it actually fits into the 32-column form. At the very least, the IUPAC project's website stated that they would be choosing between Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, and did not give this specialist option as a possible conclusion at all.

Well, what do you think? Double sharp (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well at least the confusion does not originate with me.
This second bullet looks like we need graphic enhancement: the number "3" column header could span them all, whatever naming consequences ("scandium group" would not work any more).
It is impossible to see what stretched cells for Sc, Y even mean, or whether this is a different statement from the Sc-Y-blanks statement (Scerri resolving the Pyykko statement, by different graph then?). Personally, I will not let Pyykko or anyone else draw a stretched cell this carelessly unclarified.
The "IUPAC PT" is not serious nor formal because it is not based on a paper. It's how a pupil would "solve" it in a test.
So I'll leave it alone of course, but this is not solved in RL. And does not comply with the three forms in IUPAC2021. DePiep (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that the "IUPAC PT" is not formal. I mention it because the "57-71" and "89-103" in it matches Pyykkö.
I think using "3" to span over all 15 columns may make sense if that is the statement of a source. The problem is that I am not sure that people who give this form actually know what they are doing, considering for example this case of Sc-Y-(57-71)-(89-103) in Fig. 1 mysteriously turning into Sc-Y-Lu-Lr in Fig. 2. Perhaps this is to be expected given its specialist basis. If you ask me, I think most forms of this are horribly ambiguous, because as you say it is not clear how exactly 15 elements are supposed to fit below one.
I've been messing around with the article to try to resolve this thing. My impression is that since the IUPAC project did not consider Sc-Y or Sc-Y-*-** as a possible final option to recommend, and the scientific community is not sure what they mean in the first place, this form should be de-emphasised. To that end, I removed the 32-column illustrations: they are welcome clarifications, but there's no evidence that people giving this format had such a clear idea of what they were saying in the first place. Even the 2021 IUPAC report lists three forms in 18-column (Fig. 1-3), but only two in 32-column (Fig. 4-5): Sc-Y has gone missing, I suspect (but cannot prove) because no one is sure how the elements are then supposed to fit in 32 columns. Currently I turned this into a footnote reading
According to a 2021 IUPAC provisional report on the group 3 question, this format considers only scandium and yttrium to be in group 3.[157] However, other writers (including other IUPAC reports) had previously understood it as including all thirty lanthanides and actinides in group 3 as well.[55][184][185] When a IUPAC project was set up in 2015 to decide the group 3 question, it did not list these as possible options for the final recommendation, giving only Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-Lu-Lr: it could not find any 15-element f-blocks appearing in 32-column format,[57] and such an illustration was not given in the 2021 report that suggested Sc-Y-Lu-Lr.[157]
But as always, comments appreciated. :) Double sharp (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Go ahead, I only tried to edit the obvious bits -- which weren't. Must say, "not sure .. actually know what they are doing" is giving peace over here. Sure is different from say assigning a meaning to it.
I hope the 2 remaining micro PTs can stay; for me as a reader they are hugely helpful. (Could use a visible "3", seen shifting)
I have seen that IUPAC 2021 is sloppy by itself. As you said, one graph is missing (IMO all three forms must & can be drawn in both 18 and 32 graphs makes 6; unless there is something to hide/mask/sortout). Another thing I find sloppy is that it says "Mendeleev (1871) is 8 column", while it is ten-column, VIII-(8)group. So remind me, I must write angry letters to both Pyykko and Scerri. DePiep (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I finally found Pyykkö explaining himself in 2019. The 2021 IUPAC report seems correct in calling it Sc-Y-[stops there]: Pyykkö did mean that there are "holes" in the d-block and no heavier congeners of Y. It is entirely plausible to count from 4f0 to 4f14, and to leave a hole in Group 3 of Period 6 On the other hand, putting "57-71" and "89-103" below Y is a remarkably poor way of illustrating a "hole", because it fills up that hole. So immediately afterwards Pyykkö contradicts himself and thinks that actually, all the lanthanides and actinides are in group 3 again: A clear advantage is then having all these, mostly trivalent, rare earths in the single Group 3, corresponding to three valence electrons. (This is, shall we say, bizarre given that Jensen already pointed out in 2008 that it has long been known that most of these elements have more than three valence electrons. Uranium is an obvious example. Perhaps Pyykkö has managed to confuse himself with his own figure!) And he actually seems to think that in the 32-column form that Scerri wants, there are many group-3 columns – Conversely, the 32-column ‘long-form’ PT favoured by Scerri [30] (see his Fig. 1) violates (1) by having very many potentially Group-3 columns and may also violate (4). It does satisfy (3). – forgetting that Scerri explicitly thinks group 3 has Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, and not any of La–Yb and Ac–No. Pyykkö himself does not deign to clarify what he means with a 32-column graph expanding out the asterisks. And frankly, it's even worse considering that it's an extended periodic table; there's "121–" at the bottom of group 3 without an endpoint. Assuming it's all those footnoted elements 121–138 and 141–155, we then have a new question about how exactly 15+18=33 elements are supposed to fit under the 15 elements 89–103, which he does not answer.

Well, Scerri was asked in his lecture about this (54:56). The questioner asked: So based upon the fact that the Madelung model doesn't work near-perfectly, what about all these predictions by Pekka Pyykkö about elements that go all the way up to 170 atomic number, what should we think about this? He answered: One should be sceptical although, actually, Pekka Pyykkö is not using the Madelung rule for that; he's using relativistic quantum mechanics. ... Yes, and he strangely enough happens to favour an f-block with 15 elements across, which I find rather strange, and I've had many conversations with him over this. So, I don't know, it's unresolved. I am not surprised because it seems to me that Pyykkö is contradicting himself: there cannot both be a hole in group 3 of period 6 (Sc-Y-[stops there]) and "all these, mostly trivalent, rare earths" in there as well.

So, while I agree with you that the 2021 IUPAC report was being sloppy here, I understand why: I find it difficult to understand what exactly Pyykkö means, and actually it makes me sympathise even more with its statement that this is all "interest-dependence" that should not dictate how we generally present the PT. Double sharp (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You are very generous, thanks, I hope you can use this in article space too; I don't wonna consume this unshared. DePiep (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
"Perhaps Pyykkö has managed to confuse himself with his own figure!" -- make it stop please ;-) DePiep (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I wish I could! The only thing I can frankly conclude from these sources at face value is that everybody giving the Sc-Y or Sc-Y-*-** form is being sloppy and that none of them are explaining what they actually mean! (Well, except for Thyssen and Binnemans, but they are attacking this form based on what they think it means. So that's not even support.) I think I would even forgive Scerri for being sloppy in the 2021 IUPAC report here: everybody giving this form was being sloppy, so, Scerri really could not have been otherwise without creating something that nobody was arguing for. (He did clarify the Sc-Y-*-** in 2019 outside writing for the IUPAC report.) That's awful, but the sloppiness was thus needed to accurately portray all sides of the argument, so for me it is forgivable (but only for that reason :D). The point the IUPAC report makes against this form, thankfully, is the one thing that is clear even in those sloppy presentations: it has 15 f-block elements in each row whereas there ought to be 14.
As far as article-space is concerned, I think the best bet is to just say what I just wrote: that some practitioners of specialised relativistic QM branches support having 15 f-block elements in each row, but that it's not at all clear what that means for group 3, and the IUPAC report deals with it by saying that it's all interest-dependence that shouldn't control how the PT is presented to most users, and that there should only be 14 f-block elements. I could say more, but it would just amount to giving example after example of plain sloppiness. Double sharp (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Yep. Guess I might hit keys when the prose is needlessly difficult. Better is to work in other areas. DePiep (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I put the mutually contradictory Pyykkö quotes in the note (footnote o on periodic table). I think that's probably enough: we already do that sort of thing to illustrate other ambiguities in the literature (e.g. footnote l, where to point out that the categories are not really agreed on, we mention one book which on different pages says first that Sb is a nonmetal and then later that it is a metal). I think that ought to do it. (Must say, writing mutually contradictory things in one paper is a feat in itself.) Double sharp (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Section on G3 is already long or too long for readability. Can't have all in there, must summarize somehow. DePiep (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to summarise it further now... Double sharp (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
I have shortened the section to two paragraphs. Hopefully it is now easily understandable for the lay reader. No more footnotes! (Those were helpful for writing the main treatment in Group 3 element, though.) :)
Do you mind if I ask anyone else to have a look? Double sharp (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A further note on Sc-Y-*-**

This really seems to be based on a hilarious amount of confusion. The 2021 IUPAC report, as you might recall, says that this is based on some relativistic quantum theory concerns. Looking at what modern authors supporting Sc-Y-*-** tend to cite, it seems to come from this paper, whose idea seems to be that allowing 15-element f-blocks, including Lu and Lr fits the "chemical bonding". The only problem is that the authors of this paper use some relativistic quantum calculations to examine the chemical bonding in Lu and Lr compounds and did not find any f contributions at all. So the paper itself fails to support its own conclusion (its findings would actually quite elegantly support Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, which is the only form that claims that Lu and Lr are not f-elements).

I'm posting this on your talk page instead of to an article because I have not yet found anybody explicitly pointing out that this paper does not actually support its own conclusion. But it might amuse you, and I'd like to have this pointed out as soon as an RS can be found doing so. I don't really blame the IUPAC report for not noting it outright though, since as I posted here earlier, there is so much self-contradiction in defenses of this format that no one really seems to know what it means.

(Also, LMAO at section 4 of that paper citing Wikipedia.) Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Those graphs, especially #5! And those author names! Have to study all this. "currently Wikipedia" is nice and accurate wording (so, if you can put this post/finding in the Talkpage, they'll read it...).
Now I must have some serious words you, and two blanks. For me, "Sc-Y-*-**" has always been stating the old "Group 3 contains whole f-block; Sc and Y stretching 15 columns". It's the sloppy, 1940s form to add LNs, ANs, new f-block (otherwise correctly), often with the "3" in top headser row; we are now seeing & doing it's abolition.
But what you address here is their option [4.3] "Now chosen by IUPAC23 and by us". This one does not mention group3/Sc/Y, these are separate and must have a blank cell in periods 6, 7; next to 15-wide f-block. So the struct is fot this is: "Sc-Y-<blank>-<blank>".
BTW, any chance of Scerri publishing a follow up on 2021, to more explicitly clarify al this (Pluto etc)? DePiep (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I know: the wording suggests that Xu and Pyykkö want a hole in group 3 under Y. But Pyykkö in a later 2019 paper then confusingly fills the blanks below Y with "57-71" and "89-103", which suggests putting the lanthanides and actinides back there again. (Okay, true, he copied Fig. 1 from somebody else. But surely he could've at least edited it to make it agree with what he meant.) The wording in that paper that is most confusing: It is entirely plausible to count from 4f0 to 4f14, and to leave a hole in Group 3 of Period 6. Moreover this completely avoids the heated argument on which end should one cut off – La or Lu. A clear advantage is then having all these, mostly trivalent, rare earths in the single Group 3, corresponding to three valence electrons. In the first sentence quoted there is a hole in group 3, in the last sentence all the lanthanides and actinides have jumped back into the hole. Huh? This is why I'm hesitant to make a distinction between Sc-Y-[blank]-[blank] and Sc-Y-*-**, because it seems like the authors arguing for Sc-Y-[blank]-[blank] are not even making the distinction properly.
I don't know about what Scerri is planning. Indeed, I would like to see the analogy with Pluto specified, because thinking about it, it is actually quite exact. The whole thing started because the lanthanides were assumed to have a d-electron in their configuration when we now know that most of them don't; well, Pluto got called a planet because we thought it was at least as massive as Earth, when we now know that it isn't. Double sharp (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
OK DePiep (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm now doing this lesson ('PT of guitarists'). Glad to hear the put "chemistry & discovery first" part, not atoms first (not QM, physics, ...). I like that, and it concurs with my issue with current periodic table article: even prime concepts "group" and "period" are missing in the TOC! Atom model & QM is not the way I could start expleining the PT. Won't be fixed this year though. DePiep (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it's not unusual that the modern explanation and the historical background are so different: as Jensen has noted, the current treatment is from after the chemical revolution where atomic weight was replaced by atomic number, valence was replaced by number of valence electrons, and a chemical element became defined as a class of atoms with the same Z. That is not at all how periodicity first started, but then again, we don't talk about phlogiston outside a historical context either. :) As Jensen later mentions, after all: chemistry would rather suggest the "short-form" version of the periodic table (Mendeleev original 8 columns groups, or Gruppen), because the maximum valences match (Na-Cl go from +1 to +7 maximum, as do K-Mn). Scerri also mentions this in an article from last year. The fact that our modern table doesn't look like that is because it is trying to reflect the electronic orbitals instead: if you look at the section "The Modern Periodic Table" in the Jensen article I linked, it is very similar to how periodic table is currently written, going one row at a time and counting the orbitals filling. In fact reflecting electron shells sometimes means putting chemically quite dissimilar elements together, though in fairness Mendeleev already began this himself (O and F do not show their group numbers as valences).
Viewed that way, "group" and "period" are actually afterthoughts to the filling order: a period starts when you begin a new shell, and then groups are just elements in the same block that have the same number of valence electrons. But I added something to the beginning "Overview" section. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I disagree re this as main & basic structure for the article. Your Viewed that way, "group" and "period" are actually afterthoughts ... is relevant for the latter part half of the article, if at all. "atomic model" is a separate {{main}} article, not the PT. Simply: the base & discovery route of the Table is chemical, and has not been falsified. (Already, the blocks are given too much attention in here. As the whole PT, they are an outcome of good chemistry from the PT start). This is the generic article setup: first say what it is, then explain how so (still chemistry before physics). Oh and anyway, in the end it's mathematics not even physics. To fleshed out at WT:ELEMENTS.
BTW, the article is 200k size now, which indicates there is too much text. My hypothesis is that your this (your) approach is to be checked for this ;-) ;-) DePiep (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll try and explain why I disagree with the base of the table being chemical. Mendeleev put Si above Ti: chemically they are a good match (both have valence IV and form RO2). We don't do that anymore, and subshells are the only consistent reason why not to do that. We no longer think that all the lanthanides fit under Y (like Brauner thought), even though chemically almost all fit OK there. Subshells are the only consistent reason why not to do that. Therefore, my contention (following what Jensen and Scerri wrote) is that while the table was discovered out of chemistry, the electronic discoveries of the early XX century led to a massive sea change of what the table was about. (I'm very sure that when I first learnt basic chemistry, it went subshells first, albeit in a mathematically dumbed-down way, then periodic table.) The separation of the d- and f-blocks, and the fact that our table has 32 columns and not 8, is proof of that (chemically, 8 columns make sense, because 8 is the maximal valence outside one quite unstable iridium(IX) species). Okay, there is still helium, but that's a relic of "group 0": now we know noble gases have valence electrons and more and more chemists are arguing for He in group 2.
But yes, probably some of that periodic-trend section ought to be spun off to Periodic trends. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I had in mind this be continued in article talkspace. Can't point it out to the word, but I still have the impression that you are skipping valences, RxOy patterns, bondings, ie the chemistry. Is what Scerri is preserving. It is simply not true that there is no chemistry present "any more" in the PT. DePiep (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Where would you like this continued?
Ni vs Pt don't typically have the same valence, the RxOy pattern breaks in d-elements (worse for f-elements), and for O and F it never existed. Double sharp (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Got it, even that 2016 Xu and Pyykkö paper contradicts itself at the end of section 2: Why is Lr, like other lanthanides and actinides, so electropositive? A broad-brush explanation could be that they all belong to Group 3 and the electronegativities in the Periodic table increase from left to right (from Group 1 to Group 18), probably due to increasing partial screening by the fellow valence electrons. So even in one and the same paper they cannot help contradicting themselves, at the same time suggesting that group 3 has blanks below yttrium, and then mysteriously having all lanthanides and actinides jump back into the blanks. Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Help with the Spanish Unichar template

Hello. I need some help with the unichar template on the Spanish Wikipedia. For some reason, some parameters do not appear. could you help me? Thanks Daniel G. (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel G.: Hi. Looks like the examples look OK: Es:Plantilla:Unichar#Ejemplo. What is not OK? -DePiep (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep Does not show the notes or the html parameter. I do not know why 🤷🏻‍♂️ ~~~~ Daniel G. (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Two dots (diacritic)

Hello
It’s been suggested that I haven’t assumed good faith towards you: If that is the case, my apologies. Frankly, some of your comments have been less than clear to me, and I haven’t understood your asking questions when the answer is (to my mind) in clear view. Are you working in English as a foreign language (which might explain it)? Do you want to re-state your questions (and maybe say why you are asking)? If what I have done there really isn’t clear I will try to explain, though I should point out I have only split the content that was already there; if it is the content that’s the problem I’m afraid the confusion precedes me. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Moonraker12: thanks for posting this. I can cut it short: while, IMO, your reply was not helping solutions forward, and so not all of it useful to reply to, I do not have any problem with it. That is, I did not perceive it as BF Full stop. (And yes, my en is a working language for me; in general, asking clarification is what I usually do or propose. Subtleties or indirect meanings are not working on these talkpages I learned). I just don't have too much time to dive in to the content topic more deeply, so I refrained from actual editing. Hope this clarified & closes it for us. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry): Your reversion of my revert

DePiep

With regard to your reversion [18] of my manual reversion [19] of the edits to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry), I reverted the content as it had nothing to do with naming conventions, and indicated this in the reason given for the edit.

Since the content I reverted has nothing to do with naming conventions I seek your agreement to (re)remove that content.

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Periodic table § Some MOS-updating DePiep (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have asked for Administrator help at my talk page. Sandbh (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any question for me to be answered. DePiep (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Template cleanup – missing documentation?

Hi, I've been working through deleting the templates you marked for deletion, though I notice that there isn't documentation for {{Infobox element/isotopes decay}} at the page used for all the similar templates, Template:Infobox element/isotopes stable/doc. I was thinking, you might want to make this truly a catch-all documentation (i.e., with the parameters for the isotopes decay templates included alongside those for the isotopes stable template) before having Template:Infobox element/isotopes decay/doc deleted. Complex/Rational 15:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, central /doc {{Infobox element/isotopes stable/doc}} is incomplete, but {{Infobox element/isotopes decay/doc}} has nothing useful for that (it only has {{Periodic table templates overview}}, and that one is already present). So, /doc is to be completed from elsewhere (first place to look would be {{Infobox element/doc}}). Deletable without loss. DePiep (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Good to know, all deleted now. Complex/Rational 16:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible AWB edit with no visible output change

This edit appears to have produced no visible change in the output, contrary to WP:AWBRULES #4. I may be incorrect. If not, please adjust your script or your editing choices. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Checked 400 pages, 2/3 skipped by visual control, must have slipped through. DePiep (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to add, as a semi-frequent AWB user and follower of AWB pages, rule #4 is taken to be a general rule against creating runs whose only effect those kinds of changes, and not about incidentally having pages that happened to hit only parts of your task that didn't have a visible effect. If you select the checkbox for making genfixes during your run and you have a large number of pages in your run, it is almost inevitable that you will have these sorts of edits peppering your contributions history, and it is not problematic in the slightest. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 08:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    I try to be more strict, indeed preventing invisible edits. Although, when the wikicode page is very cluttered (and so, hard to understand for novice editors), I do the cleanup-code edit. For example, ordering templates and sections per WP:LAYOUT is helpful then. And I remember some months ago someone changed like &#xe1234; into its character systematically (can't find their argumentation now). DePiep (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Jonesey95: for completeness DePiep (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

RfA facpalm

Sorry, still waking up from new years' celebrations. I'll drink another coffee. Thanks, -- Ϫ 09:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah could only be a mistake :-) Happy New Year Edits, -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hydrogen-2, Hydrogen-3

These are redirects, not content pages. This was debated ad nauseum, and no one agreed with you. Don't restore that spurious category on them again against consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Not 'consensus'. See User_talk:Headbomb#Drive_by_reverts. -DePiep (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox demo isotopes

Is there any way we can fix Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox demo isotopes by either creating the template, or removing the transclusions of missing template? This is going to clog up Special:WantedTemplates when it gets regenerated. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Same from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox test en-GB isotopes, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox test en-OED isotopes, and a bunch more that recently started popping up in my list of missing templates. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I see, will remove it shortly. DePiep (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if there are more issues. @Plastikspork: DePiep (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox xenon isotopes error

Hi DePiep, sorry to be back so soon. Template:Infobox xenon isotopes gets a duplicate "ref" parm error in xenon-136: refs "Albert2013" and Redshaw. Davemck (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome, a Good Bug Report is always welcome. Will handle. DePiep (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. DePiep (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox element/symbol-to--overview-infobox-formats/row error

Template:Infobox element/symbol-to--overview-infobox-formats/row gets a duplicate "format" parm error (=number & =circle) on a call to {{Infobox element/symbol-to-period}}. I'm assuming this isn't a good thing. Davemck (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thankis for the report! DePiep (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-02

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • You can use tags to filter edits in the recent changes feed or on your watchlist. You can now use tags to filter out edits you don't want to see. Previously you could only use tags to focus on the edits with those tags. [20]
  • Special:WhatLinksHere shows all pages that link to a specific page. There is now a prototype for how to sort those pages alphabetically. You can see the discussion in the Phabricator ticket.
  • You can now use the thanks function on your watchlist and the user contribution page. [21]
  • A wiki page can be moved to give it a new name. You can now get a dropdown menu with common reasons when you move a page. This is so you don't have to write the explanation every time. [22]
  • Matrix is a chat tool. You can now use matrix: to create Matrix links on wiki pages. [23]
  • You can filter out translations when you look at the recent changes on multilingual wikis. This didn't hide translation pages. You can now also hide subpages which are translation pages. [24]

Changes later this week

  • Realtime preview for wikitext is a tool which lets editors preview the page when they edit wikitext. It will be enabled for all users of the 2010 wikitext editor. You will find it in the editor toolbar.
  • Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of their main database. It will be performed on 10 January at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 12 January at 07:00 UTC (targeted wikis).
  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 January. It will be on all wikis from 12 January (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 01:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Journal of Topology cover.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Journal of Topology cover.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the de-linting

Thanks for these edits. I had to run out and had only gotten partway through the long list of errors on that page. I appreciate you cleaning it up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Was a nice excercise. DePiep (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:Isotopes/main/isotope/decay

Your edit of 21:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) of Template:Isotopes/main/isotope/decay changed three {{decay modes/error-message}} templates to {{Isotopes/main/error-message}}, which adds Template:Isotopes/main/isotope/decay to the div-span-flip lint error templates. However, this edit was probably not the proximate cause; the proximate cause is probably changes to Template:Isotopes/main/isotope/cell-format or something related. I believe you can straighten this out. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for this helpful report. DePiep (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates

Hi! I was cleaning up Special:WantedTemplates and noticed that two of the entries are used in User:DePiep/help/wikicode-&-html. Could you remove or comment these out? It would be helpful for reducing the number of entries in the list and related database reports. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. "Wanted" is not the right word. Issues caused by definition only. DePiep (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! The more frequently updated page is Transclusions of non-existent templates. I see you removed some, but there are still more on that page. Thanks again! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
What I meant to say, P, is that I find the listing irrelevant. The problem is caused by the name. A bot-created problem. If we rename it into "redlink templates", there is no problem. I could not find a ground to label such red templates an issue by themselves.
IOW, why must they be removed? (as opposed to, cleanup) DePiep (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Anchor tag

Hi, I suspect that I owe you a thank you for this edit but I confess I don't understand it or the edit summary.

And I'm always eager to learn, particularly as I make a lot of similar fixes where a section heading is a link target but has been changed or deleted. Such broken links often slip though the cracks.

Your edit doesn't seem to have changed anything other than to make the wikisource harder to follow. What am I missing?

This is not a criticism but a request for information. I'm sure you have a good reason, and I want to learn from it and become a better contributor. Andrewa (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrewa:
1. About {{anchor}}.
Your {{anchor}} Hydrogen-1_(Protium) is still in place and functioning (try: Isotopes of hydrogen#Hydrogen-1_(Protium)). I put it in the subheader (inside =='s) so that the reader will arrive at the section top.
See Template:Anchor § Basic format: "In general, substitute an anchor at the end of a section header: ... subst:anchor ...", so I applied {{subst:anchor}}. Result is de HTML code in the header. Should work as we expect.
2. About {{main}} I removed.
2A. {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing says, in top: This template [{{Main}}] is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the subtopic article that has been summarized.
- "the summary" is section Isotopes of hydrogen § Hydrogen-1 (protium).
- "the subtopic article that has been summarized" would be Hydrogen-1 then, or that article under a synonym name; whereever the synonym redirect leads to. (Try Hydrogen-1). But: this does not lead to "the subtopic article", because there is no article for topic hydrogen-1 (or whichever synonym: protium Protium (isotope), Hydrogen-1 (protium): no article).
For this, the Main template is not in place here.
2B. Not irrelevant: the Main target for this topic "protium" redirects to .... this same section: Protium (isotope) → Protium (isotope) R (try it).
-DePiep (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DePiep/Archive_13&oldid=1148982945"