User talk:DePiep: Difference between revisions

	The Special Barnstar
	For your thoughtful, poetic contribution about learning chemistry, and the value of informative categories in science. You have my respect. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For creating the 'recent changes' pane for WPMed. Wonderful! LT910001 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Non-metallic Barnstar for improving the Periodic Table You've done a whole damn lot for our project. You've actually made it better. Please keep up.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For turning the trivial names of groups table in the periodic table article into a visual feast for the eyes Sandbh (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		For repeated improvements on templates used in phonetics articles. Particularly admirable is the combination of seeking out explicit consensus and dutifully carrying out necessary changes once it is reached. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		You're the hero of the day on this pickle of a problem. Thanks for the insight. VanIsaacWScontribs 23:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For your amazing work with the graph. It appears now better than what I thought of it to be before! With your learning ability, you're all up to be an awesome graphic designer, in addition to your template skills! Thanks, man R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for all your suggestion and opinion (as here or here) which are really very helpful. Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Hi,
Please see Template talk:Convert/TonCwt to t#Just curious Peter Horn User talk 20:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, Peter. This is the most difficult topic I know with converting units. And since I grew up with metrics only, I have no grasp of these subtle differences. (Glad I know the difference between nautical and statute mile). I have been evading this template as much as possible!

My best advice would be to research & describe the units involved. That could include a "cultural" history (places, professions, topics where it is used). Once that is clear, write a request at Template talk:convert and expect Johnuniq to react helpful. Johnuniq may also give advice on naming of the units and their symbols (abbreviations), to prevent confusion and ambiguity. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Talk:15 in gauge railways#Requested move 2--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DePiep. Could you please reply there? Thank you. --Leyo 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+Action at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox#Template:Chembox_to_work_more_useful_for_eponymous_files) -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing all of the element templates, my ultimate plan seems to be to merge the "q=" parameter into {{ComplexNuclide2}}, and then somehow make all other templates a redirect to that syntax. In other words, I want to use the code in {{ComplexNuclide2}}, merge the "q=" parameter from {{Element}} into it, and then ... I guess ... rename the template to {{Element}}. Do you foresee any issues with this proposition that I'm either not seeing, or not understanding? Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, congrats with the move you proposed -- it was done I see. Now about this topic you write: I have no clue! Never met or used the |q=. So in the wiki spirit, I can say: go ahead. (If I ever have a better idea, we'll be in contact).

I see no conflicts. I have not ever worked with these nucleide templates. In such situations, I always go to WT:ELEM and ask Sandbh, Double sharp.

So: "not understanding" is the right answer (OTOH, I am the King of the periodic table presentations. A pity you don't need advice on that ...) ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pinged I continue, stepping up. I like this set of templates, they produce very good inline formats & wikilinks. The sub-element facts (with superscripts and subscripts) show and link very well. As for template technique, indeed it could be brought down from 200 individual templates into a bigger scheme (I do not oversee the requirements now). My own instinct now is to make everything in Lua, but if template wikicode is your thing that's better (since you like it; that overrules technical perfection. We are here for the fun of it).

If you want me talk about the template structures & techniques for this, then ask (I can take a dive into this, but not as unsollicited help!). -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Periodic table templates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you commented at this discussion, I would appreciate your views at this RfC on the particular issue of DOI templates. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all the posts that were seen as off-topic. That was assuredly not my intention, which was only to attempt to address all the queries from you and Parcly Taxel. I believe you wanted only the scientific arguments from sources: since you are unsatisfied with how the discussion is proceeding, I can write a summary in a subpage of the arguments and nothing else. Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this reply. I best take some 24h off from the thread, then see how it looks. -DePiep (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I shall probably do that too before looking back and writing my summary. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One or two nights will be OK for me. (You know, today I actually did not dare to mention a point to you, being afraid that it would multiply topics. That point was: "when talking about extended PT's, do you realise that extensions usually come in threefold: Fricke, Aufbau, and Pykkö". That is a weird experience, the 'not'). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I have a two-day extension? (I was planning to do it today, but did the merging instead, which required some thought. Sorry for the inconvenience.) Double sharp (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take as much time as you need, and then a holiday. Didn't read this as a promise by you, I'm not waiting. As you might have noticed, elsewhere I am rebuilding this , keeps me bizzy. (... and expect a 32-column injection soon in one of your current topics). -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the first one (group 3). Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next one will be group 12, I think. Double sharp (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me put in the names and symbols for 119 and 120, so that they read "119 / Uue / Ununennium" and "120 / Ubn / Unbinilium" (/ represents a line break)? I tried, but I couldn't get it to look right and work for future recolourings. Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where/how did you make the png (from)? -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ping @Double sharp: -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make it: I just kept modifying the original image with Microsoft Paint (yes, I know it's not great, but it does the recolouring job). I made the E119 and E120 cells from the Na and Mg cells, copypasting in 9's and 0's from F and Db (I think) and erasing the symbols. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Wow that's like 19th century chemistry. I'll grab a brush then, later on. -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the svg version. Can we ditch it? I see little use, and it is outdated. Keeping it requires regular maintenance. -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I prefer to let this request go (won't do). I'm not that good with paint, and I don't like diving into this. My idea: better would be to use the always hot Template:Periodic table by article quality for this. It might take weeks, but another tailored {{Element cell}} might do the job (=create a page you can male a png picture of, and that looks like the old one). For today: 119 and 120 are not wrong. Can you live with this? -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fine with that. Think the .svg can also go, we don't need more than two versions of this honestly. (Template for easy reference and grabbing data from, and .png for easy resizing and updating and also because that's where all the history is).

For now 119 and 120 are not wrong, and I thought of leaving them like this to symbolize that they are so far undiscovered. Also, once we switch "ununtrium" to "element 113" and so on, a strong case could be made for blanking out all the systematic names on the PTQ image. :-) Double sharp (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I tried rearranging the template to stop showing the redirected periods. Not sure how to get the quality legend back where it was before, though, and how to split the block/period/group cells equally. As a temporary cop-out, I stacked them up. Double sharp (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure if you thanking me for my contributions is sarcasm or not. As for the Delegate comment, that's used to delegate-related comments. Mainly due to the fact that I'm one of the two delegates for Featured Topics. GamerPro64 22:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64:. No sarcasm at all. The topic went astray outside of your intention (the proposal). You ran into some WP:ELEMENT editors + their interaction. As I tried to say, the topic can continue elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Just don't want this whole thing lead into any major arguments. GamerPro64 22:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well it will AFAIK, but it just should not be on page FTRC ;-). -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your complaint that we have both a merge discussion and an AfD about the same article. Should an admin close the discussion at Talk:Periodic table#Merger with Periodic table (large version) as Not Merged? This seems technically correct. The merge discussion has run over seven days already and the merge proposal has no support from anyone but the nominator, who has withdrawn. Such a closure wouldn't rule out further discussion in whatever forum is best. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix states the they can "withdraw" it. I think it better that some clarification is put upon them instead of me, esp. wrt the closing/nonclosing of the merge proposal. Quite importantly, I still do not get what happens with the argumentation. Given this is forumshopping in WP processes (not just talkpage discussion), I may expect a more strong intervention.

For example, if the merge discussion closes as "Keep/not merged", how can an AfD to the same effect be opened? -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this requires admin intervention to restore a sound procedural status from it. (And I expect to read consequences in the AfD). -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any consensus to merge so I have closed the discussion as Not Merged. Maybe you'll have better luck seeking input at a place that gets a wider set of editors than WT:ELEM. Is there a concern that unusual templates will get nominated for deletion? Assuming that the AfD gets closed one way or the other, you might ask for input at Wikipedia talk:AFD in an open-ended way and see if others have any suggestions. Editors who follow that page would know about deletion policy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) EdJohnston Let me rephrase my idea. As we know I am involved in the discussions.

1. The merge proposal best be closed by an admin imposing a conclusion. That conclusion could be explicit (instead of a neutral 'no conclusion'), because some contributions and arguments (including mine) will be lost.

2. Then, the AfD can get a strong wording about this conclusion (maybe in my 'procedural note' !vote post. That post, by the same admin as #1, could say stongly a. the merge conclusion and b. something about the process (the twice-OP be named).

3. If some admin can do something like this (in fewer words that I need ;-) ), I'm ready to contribute to the AfD without any reminiscence. I promise. ((ec); I'll read & reply after) -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re EdJohnston. It would be nice if you could note that merge closure on the AfD page (otherwise, my posts may look silly).

IMO, but I don't have the WP:-page at hand: a template that is not used in article space may be deleted (we're not talking maintenance T: stuff &tc). Years ago this was SOP. Of course, this is why the A(!)fD makes me restless. (I'm a practical template editor, so I fear wikilawyers).

As said earlier, once the process (merge/AfD) is cleared, I can go in with arguments. I assume you did just that cleanup. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin, and I've done the close of the merge discussion. This may not settle the long-term dispute but it ends the merge discussion. I'd be surprised if the AfD reaches a consensus to delete, but after it is over, the problem of what to do about the over-large template may still need to be faced by someone. It's possible that some chances for reasonable compromise are being missed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You decided to revert my edit telling me to read the doc. I suggest simply reading the template which clearly states not to add it until there is a consensus. "...if the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template..." So what is your issue here? Rjd0060 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rjd0060 As I said: read the documentation. It is you who might have an issue. Strong note: This is about our WP:MP:talkpage. Then invoke quality beforehand, and don't ask me what you are supposed to know. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the redirection of the period articles has been reverted, could you help me bring back the tabs for the PTQ image and template (accessible via WP:ELEM/PTQ)? I tried in preview, but couldn't figure out how to get it back to how it originally was, because you made some improvements in the meantime. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I am reading the Israel-Gaza reports these days. Over 300 children killed by Israel. (WP is low in Quality on this, by the way).-DePiep (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hi, can you provide the diffs for the Main Page discussion being hidden? Unfortunately, all I can find is the edit protected template being removed or marked as answered. As I'm sure you're aware, that was the correct course of action since you were mistaken about your request being uncontroversial, the docs you asked someone to read say so. I don't understand why you marked the template as unanswered or removed the removal, I can only presume you got confused by the hiding of the discussion that you said happened. In any case, there's a lot of confusion in that discussion now since people think you are referring to the edit protected template which of course is just daft.
2. Who gives a damn about the template? I'm sure you'll agree, given the state of discussion, clearly no admin would ever make an edit and there was no need for the template. However this doesn't mean people should have tried to close off the discussion by hiding it as you said happened. Although I don't agree with your POV, I think there was a discussion to be had there and it should have been allowed to progress even if you did screw up big time with the template so I find it rather unfortunate that people tried to close off the discussion just because of some unfortunate errors on your part in handling the editprotected template. Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) re #1: You are wrong. Correct handling would be: use the |answered=. The misunderstanding you show here, as with the other mistaking editors, is the cause of that confusion. Since that set does not tend to get my point, that confusion will remain. (The general smart line is: it you don't know how to handle such a request, don't touch it). I leave it up to you to grab this knowledge & help from me to clear things up over there. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re #2: (you added later): nothing to reply to. -DePiep (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I think we both agree that the template was irrelevant once it became clear it wasn't justified yes? That being said, I don't get why you're so worked up about the template. I don't think anyone finds major fault in you adding the template in the first place, you thought this was an uncontroversial edit and it was justified. Jayron's first reply may not have been the most polite, but I think considering the tone of your comment, it wsd resonable. In any case with the other respondent e.g. HiLo48 etc, I'm sure you quickly became aware there's no way the template should have been added in the first place. It's possible some people screwed up in dealing with the template after it was added. If so that's unfortunate but not a big deal since the template was of course irrelevant.

Remember, the only thing that mattered was the discussion since the sole purpose of the template is to alert an admin (or autoconfirmed in the case of semiprotected pages) that there is an edit that has (or is presumed to have) consensus awaiting attention. Once it becomes clear there's no such consensus, the template is basically irrelevant (although it should be removed to ensure people don't waste their time revisiting the discussion).

I don't agree with you that it's best to leave the template be. Even if mistakes were made in the way the template was handled, it's far more urgent that the template is made inactive so that people don't waste their time to deal with an editprotected request when it's clear there's no justification for such a request.

While this shouldn't happen, remember we're all human so in reality if some admin comes to the discussion due to the template and sees the resulting discussion, what could easily happen is they'll get annoyed and so will not only disable the template (as they should) but will oppose your changes partially because they're annoyed at wasting their time coming to an edit protected request. In other words, it's actually to your benefit that the template is quickly disabled whatever mistakes were made in the way it's disabled.

As I mentioned before, if and when there is justification, the template can easily be readded. And yes, this applies whatever earlier mistakes were made in dealing with it the first time. Heck the one or two times I readded an edit protected request, I don't think I ever reused the old template. Usually by the time consensus has reached, the nature of the request may have changed so it's best to just start afresh.

Either way, I seriously suggest you fix whatever mistakes you feel were made with the template and then move on. Since template is irrelevant and these asides about the template are not helping the discussion which should be about whether your proposed change is justified not whether or not mistakes were made in handling a template which shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is: the template must be responded to using the |answered= parameter. Also, good editing means that any argument then be added to the talkpage, and not be hidden in the es. Or worse: on a user talkpage. So: you and these other editors should apply the template (-responses) following its documentation. Clear enough?

And this marks the end of my patience in answering. I am not interested in your secondary ideas, coming after you stated that you don't understood me (how can you reply then?). Also, I do not see the usefulness for injecting opinions in a technical discussion (as you do here). -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I haven't read any replies you may have left since frankly I've spent enough time on this. (I understand it wasn't your intention, but when I joined this discussion I AGFed there was a serious problem that was being missed. While I appreciate you think the way the template was allegedly mishandled is serious, it just doesn't do it for me since as I've said, the template is a moot point so to me, it doesn't matter what errors were made in dealing with it.)

Anyway someone else already marked the template as answered=yes in accordance with the documents. (I know someone used the tlx once, but I thought this happened at least twice, but I'm lazy to check again.) So the only thing missing was that there wasn't a formal template response. While I think many would disagree that a formal template response is necessary when a personal one was left explaining the reasoning, I've left one now. So you can be happy that the template has been handled in exactly the manner the docs proscribe even if it took a while to get there, and may not have been in the correct order.

One thing I did notice, it seems the template has been moved from the beginning of the discussion. I'm lazy to work out who did so, so sorry I can't help you there. I'm not sure if this is one of the reasons you're so prickly. While I can only speak for myself, I would be fine with you moving the answered template back to the beginning of the discussion. I can understand somewhat why you'd be pissed that this happened. I would be too if someone made it seem I added an editprotected template after the discussion which made it clear there was currently no consensus had already taken place.

So you have my sympathies on that. If you have problems convincing people to let you move the template back the beginning of the discussion where I presume you first added it, feel free to ping me. I'll prefer to leave the discussion completely but I'll rejoin for that as I personally hate it when people move stuff around making me look like an idiot.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Nil Einne Sorry but I haven't read any replies you may have left is your opening. So you are just flushing. (Will you do not bother me again?). -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my revision of Template:Unicode chart Mathematical Operators to take out the nounderlines for the entire wikitable. The irony is that my notes to myself about adding nounderlines is from a change you made to List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4 on 8JUL2013. I'm not invested in how we do it so long as it's consistent across the templates.

Another mystery is the underlines themselves. I could swear it came to my attention because I could see the underline on all the characters (not just when I hovered over them). That isn't the case anymore. Did the wikitable change? Anyway, because they don't show up on all characters I'm fine with removing nounderlines from all the templates I've updated and don't know that it's worth the effort to put them on each table row. I just want to make sure that's the way we want to go before I do it. Thanks DRMcCreedy (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it was a pain to my eyes all these years. Mathematical symbols with an extra line! Last month I only did one or two tables, to get test the idea. Glad you picked it up.
• First some background. Using nounderlines is a break of form, because the reader expects and is used to the lines, of course. This is no small feature, because it is about reading and glancing a page. If the line is omitted, it looks strange to the reader (while they may not know exactly what it is they see is strange or different). And irregularity in layout/format is bad. It is this that the higher-level page designers at wiki (and any website) have in mind: regularity. (For example, think about how they use whitespace and linewidth/columnwidth). And this is so subtle that we, ordinary readers, do not know their tricks & styles, until it changes or breaks. So that is why I am reluctant to use nounderlines all over: readers expect the underlines. Again, this is subconscious, just about glancing and not actually about reading or checking a text. So in fact I think we'd need to ask 'permission' from the layout-designers to use a nounderlines. I trust their arguments (mostly).

Other places where it is used: IPA symbols always & everywhere(!) and sometimes in currency symbols. Interestingly, a mobile view does not use underlines at all -- consistently! (check any page by clicking at the very last link at their bottom).

• So. I did dare to remove the underlines in the math symbols (in that table). Did I do in CJK tables too? - ok, same reason. I think the improvement is very obvious. But in the regular text (in the headers and footnotes) I kept to the safe side: keep underlines, it is a base wikipage style. It's just Latin script - no confusion there with underlines. Also, when such a table is in an article, all other Latin text links have underlines. So that is consistence over all text.

I think we can have rule 1: keep underlines with Latin text.

Then, rule 2: which symbols & letters do we give nounderlines? IPA: done. Maths: sure. Scripts CJK: probably. But Greek, Arabic, Cyrillic, Hebrew? Currency symbols? I don't know.

Rule 3: If a character (script, symbol set) has nounderlines, it should be done everywhere in content space for consistency. That is: also in running text! This is entering the area of {{lang}}, a long-established often-used template.

• I conclude for now: for math symbols and CJK characters it is convincing to use nounderlines (this can be applied to all their Unicode chart tables, then - per row). For a Latin script text it is a no. For other scripts & symbol sets: don't know, needs wider discussion. Into a MOS maybe.

Would it be an idea to ask these questions at WP:VPT, for starters? -DePiep (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out my underline preference setting was why I wasn't seeing underlines. Once I changed that I can see (and be annoyed by) the underlines in the charts without the nounderlines attribute.

I've reversed my nounderlines changes for Latin blocks (specifically Basic Latin, Latin-1 Supplement, Latin Extended Additional, Latin Extended-x) for now.

I'm not sure I agree with having the underlines even for Latin blocks because they render some characters, like U+1E71 LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH CIRCUMFLEX BELOW, terribly.

Because these are charts of single, exemplar characters I think the underlines are confusing but agree that in the headers and footers they're appropriate.

That brings me around to adding nounderlines on just the contents (by row) like you did on the Ideographic Description Characters chart.

I'm good with that approach if you are. DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmccreedy: So you plan to do: all characters in all Unicode chart templates. (and their regular texts stay underlined). I myself don't oppose, these are like "images" after all. But I'd look for support from others (e.g., I often go to at WP:VPT; you want me to ask there?). This page formatting is a sensitive issue (as in: important & with many aspects, not as in emotional ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: Yes, I want it to be consistent over all the Unicode chart templates. Text in table header and footer rows would retain their underlines. The table data rows (eg. U+005x P Q R ...) would be the only ones with nounderlines.

It would be great if you would ask around to confirm this is an acceptable approach to rendering these exemplar characters without underlines. Thanks. DRMcCreedy (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmccreedy As you might have noticed, I have not enough time to start & get involved in such a discussion (at WP:VPT or elsewhere). So for now, IMO the situation is: class=nounderlines is to do without problem in the characters of math symbols, CJK characters, and other symbols like dingbats in their Unicode graph templates. I am not sure about other scripts (like Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin). So if you edit these, one might expect a talk. -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you have been moving articles from Category:Israeli_operations_against_Gaza_strip to Category:Israeli_attacks_against_Gaza_strip. Is there some discussion on this? Kingsindian (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What moving? -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad category mentioning. Question ignored. Bye. -DePiep (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored for clarity Kingsindian. -DePiep (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...regarding this edit, I believe that {{Convert}} didn't originally have the proper functionality, so I had to use {{Convert/2}}. I just thought I would say, for your information... Thanks for changing it back to normal {{Convert}} since the proper functionality appears to have been added. (I may be making a mistake here, but regardless, I am sure that {{Convert}} didn't originally work.) Dustin (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. I am just cleaning. I think the {{convert}} should be inviting to be used (not by pointing to "wrong" edits; I won't spend time on that). Interestingly, {{convert/2}} does have a functionality that is not covered yet by {convert}. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for this too, which I saw on ThinkPad X Series. I'm pretty sure Convert with four quantities didn't work at one time, but now that it does I'll be using it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Most of these range-separators indeed are quite recent in {convert}. Did not want to point to editors (so I'll write "using ..." not "use ..." any more, sure that sounded commanding :-( ). -DePiep (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ancient and historic scripts in Unicode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DePiep
Could you please list these here or provide a link? Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are actually called from this list: {{element color}} (edit)

So that {{element color|lanthanide}} → #ffbfff

Setup:

{{#switch:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}
| lanthanide | lanthanides | lanthanoid | lanthanoids = #ffbfff
}}

(# produces the # hashtag, required to be late in the parsing & formatting process)

A presentation is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Guidelines#Color_standards. Enough? -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for bringing this up after you've sped through the element articles, but in cases like the electron configuration table in Extended periodic table this can get very hard to read because there are stacked super- and subscripts and the subscript is itself a fraction. I would much prefer it inline, like 8p⁴
_3/2, to make it easier for the reader.

Also the new slash cuts the numbers on my screen (using Chrome) and can sometimes be hard to identify as a fraction bar, e.g. in 1⁄2. 1/2, while perhaps technically inferior, looks better in this regard. However, this may just be a problem on my end, and if it looks all right to most people the way it is now, I have no objections. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was going to look into this myself.

1. When doing the spin numbers like +3/2 into +3⁄2, I started doubting whether that would be a common way of writing in the topic (though they are fractions; the slash is not a listing 'comma' as in old UK money: "11/-" [see shilling]). I stopped my AWB run for this (at "isotopes" in the alphabetic list). Note: this is in plain running text, not sup or sub texts.

2. What you write is a visual effect (not whether a fraction slash is appropriate for math reasons). Of course we should not use {frac} in sup or sub, but maybe plain ⁄ ⁄ (not keyboard slash /). I reverted that single page, later more.

3. At least, the special characters like ½ are gone (after my AWB runs yesterday), which is good anyway. (Mostly from half-life t_½ → t_1⁄2) Y

So I'll take another look into #1 and #2. -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Which one looks OK to you?

A. 8p⁴
_3/2 (uses keyboard slash /) Y

B. 8p⁴
_3⁄2 (uses keyboard ⁄ ⁄)

C. 8p⁴
_3⁄2 (uses {frac}) N

-DePiep (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You already answered. Same for me at Firefox. Probably something in the {{su}} template, because

D. half-life t_1⁄2 is OK, right? (over here it is).

E. or half-life t_1/2 (keyboard slash)?

-DePiep (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E looks better on my screen. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Will sweep the wp:element pages for this.

{{su/doc}} is full of warnings about this (bad browser effects), so I better follow. -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Schmick work
	A short note to say that the periodic table (large version) at the end of the element articles looks cool and "just so". Sandbh (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is a nice post. We've come a long way since I met Periodic Table here on enwiki, 2+1⁄2 light years ago. I like the current looks too. Nothing to improve left (... almost). -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DePiep. Is Template:Periodic table (period 8) (which is unused) still required? If not, I'll nominate it for deletion (or you can, if you prefer). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done by db-author. As speedy as we can go. (It was a nice baby though). -DePiep (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day DePiep

Metalloid is listed as a potential Today’s Featured Article, for 4 Oct, here. I’ve drafted a blurb in my sandbox. I was thinking about showing the top right periodic table extract from the metalloid article as the image, but am not sure how to do this. Any ideas? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You want to use a picture of Template:Periodic table (metalloid), in the blob? -DePiep (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC) ping @Sandbh: -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but only the PT extract. I presume I could do this via a screen capture. Sandbh (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked in {{Periodic table (metalloid)/sandbox}}: remove links and unwanted texts (for the picture).

Then I did a screenshot (+cropping), and uploaded it to File:Periodic table (metalloids).png.

From here, you can edit the sandbox and overwrite the image as you like. Also, I can do that for you (if you ask for improvements). -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After this picture, I've played with font-size and line-height. I guess it is a bit more clear in when in png. Maybe for live template too? -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried working up an image showing all six of the commonly recognised metalloids but that didn't look very good when scaled down to the size of TFA pictures. I then did a screen capture of {{Periodic table (metalloid)/sandbox}} for which thank you, and trimmed it right back. Result is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#October_4. It looked OK on my ipad but somewhat blurry on my desktop monitor. It would probably be better in svg format rather than png. How does it look at your end? I'll ask Bencherlite if I can have a bigger picture in exchange for a few less words. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look good, for various reasons. 1. writing 5×5 element names in a poststamp size won't work. 2. The periodic table structure (the castle) is not present, so it is not apparent what the square is from. It might as well be a plain text table. 3. I don't think the different colors come across as meaningful. 4. The staircase line is invisible.

Point 2 and 4 are part of the original, and do not depend on actual size. All size issues will improve when going svg, but I don't expect they will solve into level 'accceptable'. (btw, did you re-color names blue?).

Cutting out the borders & numbers is good.

All in all, I don't think on main page this will become a catching image.

Suggestion: can we use a mini periodic table, textless, with just the metalloids black (or red)? Or, it that is too far off from the article, simplify the p-block into the colors only + staircase line, stressed (no texts, all scheme)?

-DePiep (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Bencherlite if the image could be rotated amongst the six elements commonly recognised as metalloids. See here. Sandbh (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a better title, but I'd hesitate to mark that edit as minor. Although you didn't change a lot of text, changing the title of a widely-transcluded navbox could be a potentially controversial edit. —Swpb^talk 14:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Knowing my reluctancy to use m for even possibly questioned edits, I'm think it was unintended. A sloppyness. -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have been made. For cleaning up an existing SVG file, I use a text editor (Emacs etc.) more than anything else... AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By text editing, heh. I'll have study that ;-) -DePiep (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves. It is not permissible to move the page like this. Revert and open a move request. Kingsindian (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be Internet Explorer 11's fault (Chrome displays it correctly), but the atomic number subscript at the top of the infobox (the part that reads for example Radium, ₈₈Ra) is appearing so small as to be unreadable on my screen. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp

Did this start after my edit [1] yesterday (adding the comma)?

Do you think this requires an emergency solution (asap & at all costs)?

Otherwise, I'll take a good look later on. -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may have started earlier, but I was on a different computer for a while (and using Chrome, where there were no problems at all), so I'm not sure exactly when it started. No, emergency shouldn't be necessary – the atomic number is given again below, so it should be OK temporarily (but please do take a good look when you feel like it). Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the talk page and search for "bollocks". In that paragraph you will find that I investigated the document and its sources and found that it is barely at all about the separation barrier. Zero^talk 00:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal of the words "opponents of" from Israeli West Bank barrier, not because I disagree with the change. The sentence no longer flowed without those words, and didn't make sense. If you want to remove those words there is more to the sentence that needs to change than just removing them. - Galatz (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did not you do so? -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SeattliteTungsten. Zero^talk 03:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Top Gear controversies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. WCM_email 21:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]