User talk:DePiep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WIKIPEDIA!
You first have to scroll through my Barnstars. DePiep
Special Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For creating the 'recent changes' pane for WPMed. Wonderful! LT910001 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
periodic table
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)
Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG 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)
Compass barnstar.png 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)
Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png 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)
Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
Thank you for all your suggestion and opinion (as here or here) which are really very helpful. Face-smile.svg Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
THIS today is edit #50000 by DePiep on en:WP.
-DePiep (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Convert/TonCwt to t[edit]

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

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)

Notice on requested move for 15 in gauge railways article[edit]

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

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diadinoxanthin.png[edit]

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

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

About that element module...[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table templates[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate: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)

Template:cite doi RfC[edit]

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)

on the WT:ELEM thread[edit]

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)

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

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)

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)
I wrote the first one (group 3). Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Next one will be group 12, I think. Double sharp (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG[edit]

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)

Where/how did you make the png (from)? -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
ping @Double sharp: -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
(ec) Wow that's like 19th century chemistry. I'll grab a brush then, later on. -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)