User talk:DePiep

		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)

Careful with the taking out of content in articles into templates

Those templates may be whacked at TfD, because they could only ever be transcluded once and don't actually have that much content in them usually (with some exceptions, such as Template:Periodic table (alkali metals)). Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I know. Still for template maintenance, in many aspects, separating them is usefull. E.g. to make similar topics' tables actually look similar. Right now, it isd unorganised. I can add that linking to a template directly in the "footer"navbox as if it were an article (i.e. in reader space) may be subject to whacking too. -DePiep (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I expressed my reservations about linking to templates directly in the navbox earlier. I don't really mind the templates being separated out anyway, since they usually make it extremely hard to edit a certain section (Alkali metal's lead used to be terrible to edit), but sometimes they are extremely related to the article (e.g. extended periodic table). Double sharp (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Adding: 1) I skipped some when extracting templates (e.g. Period_6_element#f-block_elements_.28lanthanides.29) because of that reason: very article-specific. 2) Later on, when I have a more complete overview (in the category, and in {{Periodic table templates}}), we can try to make templates more look-alike, e.g. the block-ones. In the process, I already have turned into single some individual Pyykkö model tables into one template, which I think is an improvement. 3) About your example extended periodic table: could be a single-use template (today), but now I could wrap it in {{Wide template}} to keep in within the page (small screen issue; see the slider below when zooming out). Another argument for templating. -DePiep (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

On your reverts re {{Periodic table (Pyykkö model)}}: I do not understand most of them (really, the legend in the table title?), and I wrote Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#No_squeezing. You referred to yourself: "I am NOT ... going to" in the es, which sounds like taking things personally? -DePiep (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I saved it before realising that it could be misconstrued. :-( I just meant that it would be useful to have a link for consistency, but you couldn't really write an article about Period 9 (there's not much to talk about period 9 alone), so I wanted to clarify things. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit re a Period 9 link is minor with me (although as I left it, it was linked to the right page & section). Most other edits in that model were layout related, a lot you did not address. Legend in the title row? Unbolding the essential elements? Reintroduce blockcolor legend separately while these colors are not needed as you write, here (as an unused legend)? Another irregular font-size in the bottom row? As you might get, I am not happy with the blanket-reversing. Especially since it was not broken. -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I was reverting so that I could figure out how to change it and forgot to revert back the article. I've removed the unused legends. The font-size was another thing which I didn't notice. Sorry about all this. I've fixed it all. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Metalloid templates

DePiep, thank you for your work on these. The use of legend boxes in the metalloids in the periodic system template is wonderful. Had been thinking about doing the same kind of thing for quite a while but was unsure how to do it without a lot of stuffing around. And lo and behold it happens just like that. Applause also for your use of the phrase 'periodic system' in the title. Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this kind post. Any other things you have been thinking of, re the periodic tabel?

Have been thinking that the way Wikipedia color codes the elements into different categories is a bit of a jumble, especially the way the non-metals are done. I particularly dislike the wooly category of 'other nonmetals'. I have some ideas, supported by the literature, as to how to address this but that's a project for another day. Want to get the metalloid article done first. Sandbh (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can check & improve the legend of {{Periodic table (poor metals)}}, period 7 looks incorrect now. -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that in this template Ge, Sb and Po should be coded as metalloids (I think Po is better regarded as a poor metal, but that's another story) and 113 to 117 coded as unknown Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason you gave for reverting my formating edit to the metalloid template: 'AGF. no squeezing of otsize'. Could you clarify what this means? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It should read: AGF. no squeezing of fontsize. In general, there is no need to change or set a font-size. It introduces another style, which clutters the look of a page. More so because those sizes are different: 90%, 85%, etc. used on one page (infobox and navbox do that too). Sometines even reduced fontsize is used (not in this template) to solve a layout problem (trying to get more text in a certain space). In all those periodic table templates, I have tried to introduce a single style (sort of). So that the templates have the same look. -DePiep (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

OK I understand where you are coming from. The practice on Wikipedia seems to be to reduce the font size in the text accompanying images and pictures. I gather this is a common typographic presentation technique, as well. The same approach has been applied to the metalloid border template a bit further down. The original metalloid template also had one font size, as far as I can see. At the moment this is not the case with the metalloid template, which currently has two different font sizes. Could you reconsider your reversion decision please. Sandbh (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We are talking this edit in {{Periodic table (metalloid)}}.

First, what is not our topic here is the left-aligning of the asterisk footnote, the idle colspans removed, and the one period removed. (Nor the content-thing that bothers me: why so much descriptive code in the box?).

Above I explained that mixing font-sizes is a route that only rarely should be taken. As you write, it is done in text "accompanying" an image -- but only sometimes. It is not standard MoS. I even have considered to remove the font-size from the two text blocks. And foremost of all, the element cells in the table have another two font-sizes, <big> and <small>. So that is three alternative settings in one template (four in total).

Apart from font-sizes, there is another style setting (row-)height. Now this is a similar problem in itself and in conjunction. Of course row-setting changes the layout, possibly disturbes it. The eye is very sensisitve to that. One senses a difference or irregularity, even though one cannot point out what it is. Changing (setting) row-height should have a clear reason. The "250%" in the title looked like if by accident: no regularity to be discovered. I have removed that one, because the browser can very well adjust row-height to an actual font-size, best without us interfering. Further on, the "height:10px;", which was only in the second text block (why-oh-why that?), happend to have no or minor effect at all (to me, dependent on my zoom-factor). So it is an idle styling, that suggests an improvement, but is not. Just compare this with the table in this template: while using different font-sizes, the spacing in the cell (in many ways) is nicely done by the browser without extra so-called improvements.

Other style settings, like margins, borders and padding, can be disturbing too but I have not looked into that wrt this template.

Together, reverting the whole edit would reintroduce, apart from the font-size you request, these other styles, all unwanted as I explained here. For inspiration, I think of this. That said, if you reintroduce the 90% size (necessary manually) I have no killing argument to oppose it. -DePiep (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear: if you redo, set style="font-size:90%", I will not revert. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, thank you for your considered response. I'll look again at the template, MoS, and some other articles, and get back to you. Sandbh (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello DePiep. Your last edit to the metalloid template removed some text describing the path taken by the metal-nonmetal dividing line. This text was there in order to fully meet the MOS specs re accessibility for visually impaired people. There is some discussion about this by RexxS here. Accordingly, I will restore this text. Sandbh (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the accessability requirement, but I did not think current verbose was the right way to do it. The text descibes the whole table, and even more. I think the line-description should better be in an alt-text like structure, or in the main text. Adding accessability information is describing the Image, not redefine it in words. Note that "Image", and so this topic, usually means a file, not a table. -DePiep (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've carefully read your feedback about font sizing and broadly agree. Your comment about smaller text being used to accompany images only on a 'sometimes' basis is puzzling: smaller text size seems to be a standard Wikipedia practice hard wired into image templates, including those used in MOS. To improve the consistency of font sizing in the metalloid template I will extend the 90% sizing to include the footnote about the metalloid status of Al, Po and At. This will also help to more often keep the note on one line. Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"sometimes" refers to its usage in periodic table templates in the first place. Font reducing is not always used in similar places, and even when it is, different numbers are used (90%, 85%, 83%, <small>). My point is that it is not done consequently over these templates. Your note "... keep the note on one line" is irrelevant, since we should not use fontsetting to squeeze text. As you imply, it is not written in MOS (used in MOS it is), and that is what I wrote. Horribly, even highly usage templates use different fontsetting (eg navbox vs infobox). And, of course, you will have met my conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi DiPiep. I'm going to increase the bottom margin of the Periodic table (metalloid border) template, in order to improve consistency with the borders around other similar boxes. At the moment the main article text in the metalloid article crowds up against the bottom border of this template. Increasing the margin across the bottom border should address this and improve presentation. Sandbh (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Good plan, especially now that both left and bottom margins are set, equally, in a right-floating template. But maybe 1.4em is a bit much for border-lined templates (from the time when these templates had no border, all was in the white canvas?). {{infobox}} sets them at 1em. -DePiep (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

30,000

Hey, congratulations! You're well on your way to having no life.

** ONE OF US ** ONE OF US ** ONE OF US **

— kwami (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Superactinide

I've reverted your edits to superactinide. What you deleted was no duplicate, as you claimed it was, but was showing what the superactinides would be if the Pyykkö Model was correct. Please, look before you delete stuff like this! StringTheory¹¹ 03:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I was wrong. -DePiep (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELEM/PTQ

The PTQ was much easier to read before you changed it. Before, I could see the legend and the PTQ on the screen at once; now, I can't. As such, I have reverted your edits. StringTheory¹¹ 20:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Before, I could not read it, for starters. Please rethink that probably you are used to this template, but not that many other readers.

There was no overview at all. It did hint to the periodic table, but nothing more. "All in one screen" is not a good design principle, because users have multiple weird screen and browser settings. Only he basic stuff (wikitables, CSS style, class, HTML) serves all these user situations well. What I added too, was the general periodic table layout & format we use everywhere here on WP. At least, now the pattern is the same as in the other perioic tables we have (any reader will recognise that). Apart from that, the colors in that PTQ table are screaming the reader into deafness. -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks great now, maybe you'd love to hear this. Keep it up--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Double Sharp refined some things. It is stable now. -DePiep (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Compare: before and after. I like it. -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Largest Israeli cities plus an ANI case

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I notice you are in the middle of an edit war, and on the edge of 3RR and the inevitable block that will follow. It doesn't take a 4th revert in 24h to block, so I strongly suggest you refrain from reverting and try to just cover the dispute on the talk page for now. As you are 3 edits into 3RR, you have to consider this a final warning. Hopefully, you guys will just work it out without the need for a block. Thanks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Corrected myself, you were not on the verge of a 3RR or even close so this was certainly my mistake. It is still a slow, simmering edit war, and I still suggest WP:DRN, as it is still a form of warring. I have no doubt in your intentions or good faith, I'm simply stating that multiple reverts isn't the answer. If you think there is a sock at play, WP:SPI is the answer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But ... even the dripping is less than it looks: the edits by Jabobito48 were reversions of a sock puppet so do not count! And H8Gasma I did revert once! btw, the ARBPIA warning reduces it from 3RR to 1RR. -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I will trust you in this and just say that the lack of admins jumping in to help shows it isn't easy to block on content related issues, even when the content is a bit to the side of behavior. I did block him last time for the behavior, but this time, his talk behavior wasn't the issue. When there is a clear DRN or simple consensus on the page, then POV isn't even relevant if the edits are disruptive for being repeatedly added against consensus. If there isn't a clear consensus, many admins loathe getting involved as it looks like you are taking sides in a content dispute. It is probably obvious to you, but isn't as obvious unless one goes back and reads a couple hours of talk, diffs and user talk pages, which isn't always practical. Truthfully, when an admin is blocking, what we want is clear, obvious and simple reasons, without having to explain it afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

All right & crisp clear. I can only say I did not ask for a block at all (it looks "like "Block him!" is part of the question mark on that page). I asked to warn him according to WP:ARBPIA, by messaging {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} on their talkpage & logging that. That way, the 1RR rule --which is imposed on every I/P page-- gives an admin more power when 1RR is violated, but only after the warning. The SPI I noted was just for completeness, not my own request. Anyway, the user is gone now. -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SPI case

You mistakenly included "User:" when you filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:AndresHerutJaim. I have moved your case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim, which was opened a few minutes later, and combined them into one. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I noticed, but did not dare to edit much more. First time SPI, learned. Thanks for cleaning up. -~~

WT:ELEM header

Is this any better? Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I see not much diff. Go as you like. Yesterday I just flushed some ideas in the page, and described them to you, but they are not accepted. No problem, but I won't micro-puzzle with it any further. You can use any idea you like from my proposed version [1]. -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

POV =

Hi DePiep. You recently made this change to the article Wars involving Israel, claiming that using blue instead of grey qualifies as POV-pushing. It is, however, normal to use color from flags or coats of arms in templates related to a specific country. For instance, see Template:Military ranks of Egypt, Template:Sierra Leone Civil War. Based on this, I don't think this constitutes POV-pushing. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Elementbox

Hey, saw your last change. Got two suggestions. First, to color the title (the uppermost line) the same as others. Second, to push the line (oxygen-fluorine-neon, etc) above the table again. What do you think?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Could do the color thing. But hey, it is a title, not a subtitle. I mean: I wanted to stress the title a bit, make it stand out. But I'll give it a go, since the title is bold already.

Then, putting the left-x-right text above I do not like. First, there it covers the three uninvolved graphs too (crystal, shells, ZsubSymbol). Not a good visual support for the information. Below the directions are visually more related to the horizontals of the periodic table.

Now that you are here, I left out a separate subtitle bar (colored) with "Periodic table". Looked too massive. And not a fully correct subtitle for that table section. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also we could add Periodic table in smaller print on top of that box. I would like that, since it gives a title (and a link) to it. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Got your point, thanks! Just one more. Think that the lower left corner is a little empty. Don't you think that the horizontal element names line should be centered per the whole white cell, not just the table? (See Template:Infobox technetium for an example)

Agree, it could be useful (more for the link purposes than for anything else, though)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I tried a lot of stuff to get it this way. The reason is alike: the hor and vert neighbour directions (we are talking) better be close to the structure they are about (the hor and vert periodic table directions). As it is now, they bot are right next/below their action (the eye likes that). Having a vertical neighbour below the periodic table breaks that good suggestive (subtle/subliminal) association. -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. You're good at explaining :) thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A very, very nice compliment. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Extra Parameters in Elementbox?

Hi DePiep, following your addition of the history section to template:elementbox, I've been slowly adding the discovery details to the elements. You mentioned that I could contact you if I had the need to repeat the "Named by" heading more than a few times. It now seems like it will occur reasonably often so I was hoping you could add the parameters "Named by" and "Named date" to the infobox? - to appear in a single row before the comment row, as shown below:

Prediction: Person (date)
Discovery: Person (date)
First Isolation: Person (date)
**Named by: Person (date)**
Comment Label: Comment text

Regards Nozzleberry (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done

|named by=
|named date=

-DePiep (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I've realised an extra parameter would be handy in the history section - "Recognised as an element by" (person and date). I was thinking of having it underneath the "Discovery" heading. What do you think?Nozzleberry (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've actually raised this point on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements as I've reealisd it would be good to get some feedback before putting it in. So please don't proceed with my request until I've cleared it with the community. Thanks Nozzleberry (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hatnote templates for names

Category:Hatnote templates for names, 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. Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox element ‎

Something went wrong with the top line (name parameter) in all infoboxes. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not perform mass operations without discussing them first. Why do you uncapitalize Earth? Look in Earth-related articles, discuss this with the community first, please. Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"earth" not "Earth" is trivial I'd say. Where do I discuss this? -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Anywhere. Earth is capitalized all across wikipedia, and many of those articles are FAs. As I recall, it is only uncapitalized when you mean "soil", but is always capitalized as a planet. Materialscientist (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

All right. So it is. Could you please mass-revert my AWB edits in this? Can do, but me no admin, so would be more troublesome. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They even write "the Earth", so we can write "the Venus"? "the Horror" I say. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted edits that change caps, could you revise others like on helium? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks, and I'll check my list. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Checked Category:Chemical elements on this, using AWB. Caught some other illegal "earth" writers, dammit. There also seems to be some "rare earth" stuff, I did not alter (I'd like to know more about this "rare earth", especially the uncapitalised version). This "the Earth" thing is interesting. -DePiep (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Element articles are heavily watched, thus to avoid cluttering watchlists I usually don't correct one thing at a time everywhere, but read and apply several fixes (every article has lots of minor issues), but that's me. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the MOS on this: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Celestial_bodies. Afterwards, I could say that we are not talking astronomics in these, so bit of my intuition was right. I won't challenge though. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So what now?

You insist on "BRD", but then you are too busy to actually join the discussion? You can't be bothered to actually read the arguments and "will do so later", but the pages must stay in your preferred version in the meantime? You are too damned lazy to at least cleanly revert your version back in without blanket-reverting unrelated constructive edits, and you expect me to just patiently sit and wait until you can finally be bothered to respond? Man, some kind of behaviour there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have disappointed you in this. All I can say is that I want to reply seriously, so I'll have to save serious time for that. In general, taking some days to resolve such a thing is not unusual. -DePiep (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if you might read this: do not ever force an editor into a React-Now threat. I'll revert you for this anytime anywhere. At least. -DePiep (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize for not linking to the DRN discussion from the get-go. It was an oversight that I tried to rectify as soon as I realized that nobody had actually done that yet. Again, my sincere apologies for dropping the ball on that. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 22:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated. I assume that you read my notes on this. For now, no cmts. -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Music template

*laugh* Well, I did point out that I was worried more about third parties who might come along after the fact than I was about whether you understood my request or not. But I'll stop anyway (*grin*). Yeah, the sheer number of articles that would be affected by the change is obviously why we need to be careful to find the right solution here — although I did also catch a couple of individual musicians who had one of the templates applied to them unnecessarily. Anyway, I'll let you get on with it. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw you edited {{USmusic}} out of three articles. All right. (So my check number went from 269 to 266! -- is the pulse where I have my finger on). But if you edit the template(s) involved, you lose me. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And you moved it without discussion because? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviousness. -DePiep (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Braille-cell template

Hey,

Could you take a look at {{Braille cell}}? The coding is horribly inefficient, and with all the duplicated input tables, very difficult to update or maintain.

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Index to isotope pages

Can you change the template so that the periodic table of links to the isotope pages is open when the template loads. After being redirected from the deleted page it took me about 1.5 minutes to find and open the link table. Also how about making the default load so that the "Periodic table templates and files" section is closed. Unless you think that most people coming to the template page are looking for that information. I can only speak for myself, but I loved using the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_to_isotope_pages" as a link to the isotope pages. I feel like I used that over half the time. Of course I and most other people also arrive at an elements isotope page from the link in the isotope section of the main article for that chemical element. See "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium" the section "Isotopes and nucleosynthesis" and also the small table to the right "Most stable isotopes" When people are only looking up nuclear data for several different elements that periodic table in the "Index to Isotope Pages" was useful. It is still there in the template file, but harder to find. Thank you, Darian Jenkins