User talk:DePiep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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. smile 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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Todo in periodic tables[edit]

  • Books: make complete & check. add legend to table (+their books). -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Chem picture PT: big cells
  • wide PTs

Disambiguation category[edit]

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

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

Convert templates[edit]

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

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

Request for help[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Periodic table[edit]

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

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


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

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

R3 declined on T:DPP[edit]

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

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

Here we go again Nov 2013[edit]

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

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

December 2013[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

°F to °C[edit]

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

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

Chembox help[edit]

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

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

3RR at Template:Cvt[edit]

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

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

Was your cat running across the keyboard[edit]

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

Busy IRL[edit]

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

Pinging other users[edit]

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

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


Hello, DePiep

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

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

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

Category:Jimmy Savile[edit]

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


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

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


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

Redirects listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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

Recent changes/Pharmacology[edit]

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

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

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

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

Discussion about "Template:Wpcm"[edit]

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

Other metals[edit]

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

List of metalloid lists[edit]

Hi DePiep

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

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

periodic table (32 col, compact)[edit]


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

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

Metalloid FAC[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Very unhappy. We're already stuck with names like group 1 element for 'group 1' (a pain when reading, every instance), recently period 1 element for 'period 1' was declared OK (that pain again). Now there will be this other named-by-a-commission page eh "something" in here (because, you will also move the page right). If the worldwide scientific community had a convincing solution, I could edit silent & swift. But now that this (once again in IUPAC) is undecided, I abhor it for the bad language. (btw, would 'poor' prevent adding group 12?; if that matters?). -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not that happy either but that's the way the chemistry nomenclature situation is. A bit like on the old maps where you would see "here be dragons" or "terra incognito" until the geographers got their act together and one name became popular. I'll see if there's any more scope in the article to more clearly explain why it's called other metal. 'Poor' would not prevent adding group 12. Yes, I will use the move option to do all of this. Sandbh (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ay, is it really too late to introduce "dragon metals", "poor dragons" and "rare terra incognito metals"? -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Sandbh (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't use the move function as an article called 'other metal' already existed, with a redirect to poor metal. So I removed the redirect from poor metal, put my sandbox into it, deleted the content from the poor metal article, and added a redirect to other metal. I wasn't able to add the standard periodic table template after the references, as the template was being squeezed into the third column. Don't know why this would be so since it doesn't happen with the metalloid article. Still some tidying up to do. I need to add a note to the other metal talk page. And I need to change all non-template mentions of poor metals to other metals, as per your previous advice. Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


  • Congrats with the moving result, although ... ,-). Later on I will enjoy the improvements. :-)
  • Any more page moved ahead? If so, I better wait them out.
  • Your reflint had to be closed: after {{refbegin}} ... {{refend}}. Added navbox and 32-col PT.
  • The Category:Poor metals must be redone too I saw.
  • My sp checker marks "optimised" in the page. I won't go in that topic.
  • Any issue you can report here of course. If you need me, I'm going to the legends & the PT links. -DePiep (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
WOW! That was quick. Thanks! Probably still a few more things yet to do. Appreciate the congrats. More edits tomorrow. Sandbh (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll do the visible things first. Move {{Peridic table (poor metal)}} and such later. -DePiep (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Text check needed at polonium, infobox explicitly mentions this (combined with ... this one)
Do not know of images that need a change.

Yes check.svg Done OK, this was the main batch I guess (legends & color name changes). See [2] & [3]. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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


Did you find the explanation at the end of [4] to be at all reasonable? I'm not sure at the moment if I should continue with it or give it up as a useless rehash. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

Reference Errors on 24 March[edit]

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

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

Reference Errors on 26 March[edit]

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

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

Convert error[edit]

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

Category:914 mm gauge railways[edit]

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

March 2014[edit]

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

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

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

Reference Errors on 28 March[edit]

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

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

Redirects for discussion[edit]

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

Some falafel for you![edit]

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

Chembox changes[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

Article assessment table[edit]

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

Redirects for discussion[edit]

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