User talk:YBG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Age difference between U.S. presidents and their vice presidents[edit]

Table[edit]

Partnership, president, and vice president Older Age difference Time span
years, days       days      starting – ending
Starting & ending events
P/V years, days ±d
1 01 George Washington 01 John Adams POTUS 3 years, 250 days 1346 7 years, 317 days 2,874 1789-04-21 – 1797-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
2 02 John Adams 02 Thomas Jefferson POTUS 7 years, 165 days 2722 4 years, 0 days 1,460 1797-03-04 – 1801-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
3 03 Thomas Jefferson 03 Aaron Burr POTUS 12 years, 299 days 4682 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1801-03-04 – 1805-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
4 04 George Clinton VEEP 3 years, 261 days -1357 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1805-03-04 – 1809-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
5 04 James Madison VEEP 11 years, 233 days -4251 3 years, 47 days 1,143 1809-03-04 – 1812-04-20 inauguration – death of VP
6 05 Elbridge Gerry VEEP 6 years, 242 days -2433 1 year, 264 days 629 1813-03-04 – 1814-11-23 inauguration – death of VP
7 05 James Monroe 06 Daniel D. Tompkins POTUS 16 years, 54 days 5898 8 years, 0 days 2,922 1817-03-04 – 1825-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
8 06 John Quincy Adams 07 John C. Calhoun POTUS 14 years, 250 days 5364 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1825-03-04 – 1829-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
9 07 Andrew Jackson POTUS 15 years, 3 days 5482 3 years, 299 days 1,395 1829-03-04 – 1832-12-28 inauguration – resignation of VP
10 08 Martin Van Buren POTUS 15 years, 265 days 5744 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1833-03-04 – 1837-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
11 08 Martin Van Buren 09 Richard M. Johnson VEEP 2 years, 49 days -779 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1837-03-04 – 1841-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
12 09 William Henry Harrison 10 John Tyler POTUS 17 years, 48 days 6257 31 days 31 1841-03-04 – 1841-04-04 inauguration – death of POTUS
13 11 James K. Polk 11 George M. Dallas VEEP 3 years, 115 days -1210 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1845-03-04 – 1849-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
14 12 Zachary Taylor 12 Millard Fillmore POTUS 15 years, 44 days 5522 1 year, 127 days 492 1849-03-04 – 1850-07-09 inauguration – death of POTUS
15 14 Franklin Pierce 13 William R. King VEEP 18 years, 230 days -6804 45 days 45 1853-03-04 – 1853-04-18 inauguration – death of VP
16 15 James Buchanan 14 John C. Breckinridge POTUS 29 years, 268 days 10860 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1857-03-04 – 1861-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
17 16 Abraham Lincoln 15 Hannibal Hamlin POTUS 196 days 196 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1861-03-04 – 1865-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
18 16 Andrew Johnson VEEP 45 days -45 42 days 42 1865-03-04 – 1865-04-15 inauguration – assassination
19 18 Ulysses S. Grant 17 Schuyler Colfax POTUS 330 days 330 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1869-03-04 – 1873-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
20 18 Henry Wilson VEEP 10 years, 70 days -3723 2 years, 263 days 993 1873-03-04 – 1875-11-22 inauguration – death of VP
21 19 Rutherford B. Hayes 19 William A. Wheeler VEEP 3 years, 96 days -1192 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1877-03-04 – 1881-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
22 20 James A. Garfield 20 Chester A. Arthur VEEP 2 years, 45 days -775 199 days 199 1881-03-04 – 1881-09-19 inauguration – assassination
23 22 Grover Cleveland 21 Thomas A. Hendricks VEEP 17 years, 192 days -6402 266 days 266 1885-03-04 – 1885-11-25 inauguration – death of VP
24 23 Benjamin Harrison 22 Levi P. Morton VEEP 9 years, 96 days -3383 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1889-03-04 – 1893-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
25 24 Grover Cleveland 23 Adlai Stevenson I VEEP 1 year, 146 days -512 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1893-03-04 – 1897-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
26 25 William McKinley 24 Garret Hobart POTUS 1 year, 126 days 491 2 years, 262 days 992 1897-03-04 – 1899-11-21 inauguration – death of VP
27 25 Theodore Roosevelt POTUS 15 years, 271 days 5750 194 days 194 1901-03-04 – 1901-09-14 inauguration – assassination
28 26 Theodore Roosevelt 26 Charles W. Fairbanks VEEP 6 years, 169 days -2360 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1905-03-04 – 1909-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
29 27 William Howard Taft 27 James S. Sherman VEEP 1 year, 326 days -692 3 years, 240 days 1,336 1909-03-04 – 1912-10-30 inauguration – death of VP
30 28 Woodrow Wilson 28 Thomas R. Marshall VEEP 2 years, 289 days -1020 8 years, 0 days 2,922 1913-03-04 – 1921-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
31 29 Warren G. Harding 29 Calvin Coolidge POTUS 6 years, 245 days 2436 2 years, 151 days 881 1921-03-04 – 1923-08-02 inauguration – death of POTUS
32 30 Calvin Coolidge 30 Charles G. Dawes VEEP 6 years, 312 days -2503 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1925-03-04 – 1929-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
33 31 Herbert Hoover 31 Charles Curtis VEEP 14 years, 197 days -5311 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1929-03-04 – 1933-03-04 inauguration – inauguration
34 32 Franklin D. Roosevelt 32 John N. Garner VEEP 13 years, 69 days -4817 7 years, 322 days 2,879 1933-03-04 – 1941-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
35 33 Henry A. Wallace POTUS 6 years, 251 days 2442 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1941-01-20 – 1945-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
36 34 Harry S. Truman POTUS 2 years, 99 days 829 82 days 82 1945-01-20 – 1945-04-12 inauguration – death of POTUS
37 33 Harry S. Truman 35 Alben W. Barkley VEEP 6 years, 166 days -2357 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1949-01-20 – 1953-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
38 34 Dwight D. Eisenhower 36 Richard Nixon POTUS 22 years, 87 days 8122 8 years, 0 days 2,922 1953-01-20 – 1961-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
39 35 John F. Kennedy 37 Lyndon B. Johnson VEEP 8 years, 275 days -3197 2 years, 306 days 1,036 1961-01-20 – 1963-11-22 inauguration – assassination
40 36 Lyndon B. Johnson 38 Hubert Humphrey POTUS 2 years, 273 days 1003 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1965-01-20 – 1969-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
41 37 Richard Nixon 39 Spiro Agnew POTUS 5 years, 304 days 2130 4 years, 320 days 1,781 1969-01-20 – 1973-12-06 inauguration – resignation of VP
42 40 Gerald Ford POTUS 186 days 186 1 year, 13 days 378 1973-12-06 – 1974-12-19 confirmation of VP – resignation of POTUS
43 38 Gerald Ford 41 Nelson Rockefeller VEEP 5 years, 6 days -1832 2 years, 32 days 763 1974-12-19 – 1977-01-20 confirmation of VP – inauguration
44 39 Jimmy Carter 42 Walter Mondale POTUS 3 years, 96 days 1191 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1977-01-20 – 1981-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
45 40 Ronald Reagan 43 George H. W. Bush POTUS 13 years, 127 days 4875 8 years, 0 days 2,922 1981-01-20 – 1989-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
46 41 George H. W. Bush 44 Dan Quayle POTUS 22 years, 237 days 8272 4 years, 0 days 1,461 1989-01-20 – 1993-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
47 42 Bill Clinton 45 Al Gore POTUS 1 year, 225 days 590 8 years, 0 days 2,922 1993-01-20 – 2001-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
48 43 George W. Bush 46 Dick Cheney VEEP 5 years, 157 days -1983 8 years, 0 days 2,922 2001-01-20 – 2009-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
49 44 Barack Obama 47 Joe Biden VEEP 18 years, 257 days -6832 8 years, 0 days 2,922 2009-01-20 – 2017-01-20 inauguration – inauguration
50 45 Donald Trump 48 Mike Pence POTUS 12 years, 358 days 4741 2 years, 322 days 1,052 2017-01-20 –  (present) inauguration – (present)

Comments[edit]

I made this primarily for my own benefit, to validate my gut reaction that the President is usually older than the VP - Obama/Biden notwithstanding. But the data actually shows the 50 "partnerships" are split almost exactly evenly: 26 presidents are older than their VP and 24 are younger. Omitted from the above chart are instances when the vice-presidency was vacant. YBG (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

On average, the president is slightly older than the VP, and the difference is decreasing slightly over time. Haven't checked the weighted average yet. YBG (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The 26 older presidents are older by an average of 3,748.5 days (97461/26); the 24 younger are younger by average of 2740.4 days (65770/24); in the average partnership, the president is older by 633.8 days (31691/50). The weighted averages are 3854.4 days (144177171 days2/37406 days), 2786.0 days (91120253 days2/32707 days), and 756.7 days (53056918 days2/70113 days) respectively. YBG (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
The non-weighted averages will stay the same throughout the duration of the Trump/Pence partnership, but to bring the weighted averages up to date, add 4741×504 to the 1st and 3rd numerator and add 504 to the 1st and 3rd denominator. YBG (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the data presented tabularly:

Average number of days the U.S. president is older than his vice-president
As of December 8, 2019, 1,051 days into the Trump/Pence partnership.
(red values update automatically every day)
Count Average difference Weighted average difference
Presidents older than VP 26 -3748.5 -97451 / 26 -Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". -Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". / Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". (-141579103 + 1,051×4741 ) / ( 36858 + 1,051 )
VPs older than president 24 -2740.42 -65770 / 24 -2785.96 0-91120253 / 32707 (0-91120253 + 000×4741 ) / ( 32707 + 000 )
All partnerships 50 -0633.82 -31691 / 50 -0Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". -0Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". / Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". (-050458850 + 1,051×4741 ) / ( 69565 + 1,051 )

YBG (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ex officio[edit]

The following is in response to the comment that I made on JTRH's talkpage. YBG (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Vice President is not "ex officio" the President of the Senate. The Vice President is the President of the Senate. No modifier is necessary. Best, JTRH (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@JTRH: It sounds like you are using "ex officio" as though if someone holds a position "ex officio" it somehow means they are occupying the position unofficially or temporarily. The President of France is one of the two co-princes of Andorra. To say that he is a prince "ex officio" does not take away from him being a prince, it merely makes a statement about why he is prince. In the same way, the VP is President of the Senate ex officio because he holds that presidency for no other reason than that he is the He is the VP. That is what the wiktionary article means. YBG (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Ex officio means you do Y as a function of doing X. It's not a necessary modifier or qualification for the Vice President. "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate" is not "ex officio," that's his primary Constitutional responsibility. The term is unnecessary in this case. It's no more necessary than saying the President is "ex officio" Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. JTRH (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@JTRH: I agree that it is unnecessary verbiage. YBG (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Living Prime Ministers of Australia[edit]

Why did my account get randomly blocked with no warning? I had to make this account to see what happened. I have no affiliation with that sock puppet account. All of my work has been deleted. I spent hours on that. :( LR.2004 (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

1st of all, take a deep breath. All is not lost, your work can be resurrected. In a few days or weeks, when I have more time, I will make the appropriate requests to get your work on this template restored.
2nd, this might be a good time to take a wikibreak and concentrate on your off-wiki life.  I have begun a habit of doing this once a year for a month or so, and it has helped significantly in improving my life, both on-wiki and off-wiki.
3rd, please assume good faith on the part of the person who blocked you and deleted your work. Fighting against unconstructive editing on WP is a tireless and often thankless job. We should be grateful for those who do this work, even with the occasional overzealous actions.
Since I do not have access to any special administrative or investigative powers, I can only guess why your account was blocked and your work deleted. But I can assure you that it was not random and not capricious.
I suspect that you are editing from a shared IP address which has been used for unconstructive editing. Sometimes under these circumstances, not only do specific registered users get blocked, but also an IP address or address range can be blocked. It appears that multiple accounts have been used to make similar edits from the same IP address or address range, and a sock puppet investigator concluded that these multiple accounts are being used by the same individual in violation of wikipedia policies, which are quite strict about about enforcing the very limited circumstances under which it is permissible for a user to use multiple accounts.
It looks like previously blocked accounts have been used to edit articles about Australian politicians and railroads. Some of your edits seem to match this profile. This could be for a number of reasons - maybe you are the same individual, maybe you belong to a school or club where lots of people have similar interests, maybe you left your account logged in on a public computer. It may even be that you have made unconstructive edits in the past, but have now decided that you prefer making constructive edits.
Whatever the case may be, I really appreciated your effort to create a living Aussie PM template, and enjoyed collaborating with you.
I hope this setback does not discourage you. I encourage you to continue gathering the information needed for this template. When it is complete, you could send it to me using the "Email this user" feature, described at Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/Communicating with your fellow editors § Email. Then when I get around to restoring the work you have already done, I can complete your work if you are not able to.
I welcome further interaction, either on-wiki or off-wiki. Thank you again for all your hard work. YBG (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't Wiki that much, but when I saw your awesome template I really wanted to make my own version for Australia. I haven't vandalised anything and I was just really bummed that all my hard work has been lost. I make constructive edits as evidenced by everything I have done, and I really hope there is a way to recover that page, so I can finish the job off! Thanks for your kindness, not many people on Wiki seem to have any social skills, other than banning it seems. Hahaha. LR.2004 (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Living Vice Presidents[edit]

Your use of negative indices for the deaths on {{Living vice presidents of the United States}} causes an error; when the parameter is "4", the box links to George Clinton (vice president), but when it is "-4" it incorrectly links to George Clinton. By the way, kudos on your mention of "ease of editing" in the template documentation; it shows you have a great sense of humor! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@R'n'B: Thanks! I will fix it immediately. I'm in the process of revamping the templates, but it does take a bit of time. YBG (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Oops, I see you already made the necessary change! Thanks. By the way, I was actually serious in my comment about ease in editing. I do recognize that it a bit opaque, but I think when I get finished with my next batch of changes I hope you'll agree it is less so. YBG (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Periodic table[edit]

Please do not undo again; links are never put in bold on Wikipedia. IWI (chat) 20:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thank you for reaching out to me here. Your 2nd edit summary (MOS:BOLDAVOID links never put in bold. No discussion required)) made much more sense than your 1st one (MOS:LEADSENTENCE), which  didn't seem to apply. Much as I am a big fan the WP:BRD and generally dislike discussion via edit summaries, your explanation was succinct and to the point, and the linked policy clearly explained the situation. Many thanks and happy editing. YBG (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes maybe the original summary was a mistake. IWI (chat) 08:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Living presidents of the United States[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Living presidents of the United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Living vice presidents of the United States[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Living vice presidents of the United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

presidents by age[edit]

your last edit doesn't seem to have changed anything עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@AmYisroelChai: Try it now. YBG (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
still don't see a difference what color are you trying to put in עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: I'm using |style="background:#eeeeff;", which is a light purplish color. If the color isn't working, feel free to try a bolder color. Alternately, the problem could be that there is also a row style and it might be that on your browser the row style overrules the cell style. Do you see a color in the legend at the bottom of the table? YBG (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
i see you're right my computer doesn't show a difference but i see it on my phone עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: Try removing the row style on the |- line and see if that makes a difference on your computer. I'm still wondering if it is the color or the interaction between the row-style and the cell-style. YBG (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
didn't do anything not sure why that line was there עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: That being the case, it probably is just the color. Anyway, its a moot point now that Drdpw has reverted it all. YBG (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@AmYisroelChai: P.S., happy 2nd "C" anniversary, whatever that is. YBG (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Periodic table categories in plural[edit]

Could you take a good look are the proposal text in User:DePiep/sandbox2? Should be convincingly strong, but it's long too. Edit if you want to.-DePiep (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all of your proposed change-to-plural articles. I would be inclined to change more things, however, including "nonmetals" and "metalloids" because these words are in fact used predominately as classes. The metal article stays put because that article is not about the class of but only because that article is used more frequently in common English as a mass noun (a bridge made of metal, a metal cabinet) and not referring to the specific class of ~90 elements. Metalloid and nonmetal, however, are used predominately as class names, although there are exceptions, e.g., see User talk:YBG/Archive 4 § Re nonmetals.
I would also be inclined to change the name of the other named groups, e.g., halogens, pnictogens, calcogens, noble gases, etc. But I'd be fine with changing the most uncontroversial ones now and leave those that need more thought for a later time. So I suppose this is a plea to write the proposal in such a way that it does not categorically state that other things should not be changed.
By the way, regarding the previous suggestion to change group/period article titles (Talk:Group 3 element § Requested move), I think I now agree 100% with the proposal that I rejected then.
YBG (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I wrote "Should be convincingly strong" for two reasons. First is that the concept of class (class (disambiguation), most of these concepts, but I'd pick class (set theory) first). What went wrong in Talk:Group 3 element#Requested move (2013) is that such a discussion cannot enforce !voters to understand and then apply the concept. Then, the closing admin turns to some ""vote counting" when enough people wrote "but I've seen it used in singular once".
Background: Asking the test question "Is instance of [class]?" (popularly: "Is a ... ?") is called "orthography (of Wikidata)". It is applied thoroughly in Wikidata to determine whether a Wikidata-item (QID) is member of a certain class. The property appears as "Instance of [class]" (instance of (P31)). For example chemical element (Q11344) had :d:this discussion. At the moment, all elements are "Instance of chemical element", not part of (P361) (e.g., carbon (Q623)).
So I want the discussion to only be about this is-instance-of-class, not "is part of item".
Second, keep this focussed on not being a list but classes. Not introducing distractions. I stroke all dual use titles (metal/s, pnictogen/s, period 1 element/s). Groups and periods are class: may follow later. Enwiki categories first.
  • How to proceed?
    1. About "metalloids, nonmetals": sure these are border cases, I left them out because of distraction (next to "metal"). We could put them in, if strong enough (I don't want the proposal to fail because of such detail discusissions, but maybe these are not details just main causes too).
    2. The proposed text may be too long. What can we cut? Add Red Book as an argument not nom text?
    3. Introduce groups like pnictogens (already in the Red Book): same question, can we keep this to class plurals? Would shift away from "categories".
    4. Major issue: shouldn't we make this a WP:ELEMENTS guideline first to discuss: "Predominantly class = plural (in titles and in body texts)"? -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • See, this is what we are up against. People who do not know or explore the concept of "class", and still do !vote. Same as in 2013. -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
What would be the chances when we throw both steps in one formal proposal (as a WP:ELEM GUIDELINE): "article names & legend texts are plural, with exceptions: metal, sentencing 'sodium is an alkali metal'"? Too complicated? -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@DePiep: A few random comments - probably not exhausting what you've written.
  • Where you say Asking the test question ... left me wondering what is the "test question" that one would ask? It sounds like you're talking about something like "Does ____ have hair?" as a test question to determine whether something is a mammal, or "Does it make sense to say 'Here are 33 _____s" to determine whether a thing is a count noun or a mass noun
  • I looked at a couple of the WikiData discussions you posted and read a screenful or so and gave up.
  • I've completely missed the point where you talk about orthography. I've always thought of that term as having to do with writing systems, not with classification systems.
  • A minor nit:
    You write: So I want the discussion to only be about this is-instance-of-class, not "is part of item".
    IMO better: So I want the discussion to only be about this is-instance-of-class, not "is-part-of-collection".
  • You write The proposed text may be too long, but I'm not sure what all is included in "the proposed text".
  • I'm not sure what the difference is between "class" and "category".
  • I like the idea of WP:ELEM/Guidelines. But it might not be the best thing to have as a first guideline.
    • Over the course of years of discussion, there are in all likelihood a number of guidelines that we've informally established, but never recorded. It would be good to document such already-informally-established guidelines on a single page.
  • The proposed guideline should read "Classes of elements should should be rendered in the plural in legend text and article titles."
  • I'm not sure whether it would be better to go for the big-bang approach of putting both steps into a single proposal or to go the more incremental fashion.
YBG (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
replies:
re "Orthography": yes, is used to describe a language. The "mass noun check" you mention is part of orthograpy too indeed.

And is also used in Wikidata to describe a data structure (for example: a "chemical element" is a class of isotopes or a "material appearance"? -- gold book says both BTW). That is what these difficult discussions are about. (I left them too, as you did). I mention this, because it is the Wikidata-philosophers way to check "is it a class or an object?". And: "Sodium is an instance of [class] alkali metal(s)"? (or: "Sodium is an alkali metal?")

I think our categories, when approached like this (asking the right questions), are a class definitely. Therefor plural at enwiki (not in Wikidata!).
Yes should be about [not] is part of collection OK.
"Proposed text too long": may be disracting. For the formal proposal, I will reduce the list-clarification (why are some in/out).
'difference between "class" and "category"'?: category=what enwiki uses for our nine metallishness sets, "class"=the generic word.
WP:ELEM/Guidelines: as you say. Later.
OK I will include metalloid/s and nonmetal/s, but not metal/s.
Will ask Sandbh to reconsider, and refine the proposal. You can edit my sandbox2 if you want to. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
All sounds good except I'm still puzzled by the use of the word "orthography". The lede in Orthography says (with emphasis added)
  • An orthography is a set of conventions for writing a language. It includes norms of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation.
wikt:orthography gives four definitions:
  1. The study of correct spelling according to established usage.
  2. The aspect of language study concerned with letters and their sequences in words.
  3. Spelling; the method of representing a language or the sounds of language by written symbols.
  4. (architecture) Orthographic projection; especially its use to draw an elevation, vertical projection etc. of a building.
As none of these seem to be aligned with what you are talking about, perhaps WikiData uses the term in other less-standard manner that hasn't been added to wiktionary. YBG (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@DePiep: PS, I really love the phrase our nine metallishness sets YBG (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yet another point. If we are using the red book as an authority, we should probably move rare-earth element to rare earth metals. This, however, should probably be treated as a completely separate issue. It does, however, make the citation of the red book seem a bit less authoritative. YBG (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A pause[edit]

I hope you are OK. Would like to see you back here. Do spend all time well, especially with people nearby. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

xref to[edit]

Hard to select namespaces suggestion at MediaWiki. YBG (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

ox state checks[edit]

I hope current Template:List of oxidation states of the elements/datacheck(edit talk links history) is useful & OK. Happy to get your ideas. -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thumbs up Wow!! You did way more than I was thinking about. Great work! YBG (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi YBG! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 21:13, Tuesday, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge