Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:07, 6 September 2013

User:DePiep/wkbounce

		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)

		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 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

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

	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)

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

Archives

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

Pierre Auger Observatory

Hi, do you have any idea why our Observatory's logo keeps disappearing? Darko.veberic (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It was File:Pierre Auger Observatory-logo.svg. It was deleted because the copyright situation was unclear or wrong. (copyright violations are very serious (possibly expensive) for Misplaced Pages. I noticed the wrong copyright situation, and suggested the deletion. After that I removed the logo from the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pierre_Auger_Observatory&diff=559920937&oldid=559838964 here].

Such a logo is a private design (possibly owned by the Observatory's organisation), which may only be used here in "fair use". That would be: not everywhere, but only once on the topics page (that is the PAO page).

So what went wrong then? The uploader had not noted that this was a "fair use" only image. So it could be deleted very fast.

The solution is, of course, to upload it with the right copyright notice (something like: proving/stating that we can use it by fair use). So that is how the logo could be back (lots of companies have their logo here). I would like to have it back, but I have not enough knowlegde of that process, copyright is legally difficult stuff. If you'd like to try, you could ask for assistance via Misplaced Pages:COPYRIGHT#Non-free_materials_and_special_requirements for how to upload - company logo - fair use. To be clear, I'd love to see it back on that page. -DePiep (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will get in touch with our Outreach task and clarify the copyright status with the Observatory's management. IMHO, we could release it. Nevertheless, I have been scanning a lot of pages of large companies like IBM, Apple, Microsoft etc. and it is unclear to me why the situation shouldn't be the same with my logo I made for the Observatory. It is composed of shapes, text etc. and therefore isn't directly considered as a work of art etc. etc. I also don't see why we would try to restrict its usage (I am a senior member of the Pierre Auger Collaboration) and any guidance on how to properly release it would be most welcome. Darko.veberic (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If I understand it well, the PAO does not have to release anything (that would be a tough road into copyright legal world for the institute - time not well spend I'd say). To solution is, that someone here atWp downloads the logo, and declares very clearly that it is for "fair use" only. That means: use freely in direct connection with the PAO, such as in the PAO article. That is fine already (something like: one can also quote a newspaper as it is news).

Even easier: I'll ask a wp admin to get back the deleted one, and make sure we add that right "fair use" claim. That could solve it easiest way. I'll report on that later on, this place. Meanwhile, you can point the Outreach department to this talk of course. Stay tuned. -DePiep (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have put my request here Misplaced Pages:Media_copyright_questions#How_to_get_back_an_institute_logo. -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Poor metal

I've moved Post-transition metal to Poor metal as you requested. The old and new articles had WP:Parallel histories so a history merge was not possible. A cut-and-paste move was done back in 2008, which you can verify by looking at and . I think it's too late to fix this, but the old history of Poor metal needs to be parked somewhere. See Misplaced Pages:Parallel histories#A troublesome case for a way to handle this. Check Talk:Poor metal for my note and let me know if there are still any problems. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I have thanked you on your talk page. It was a tough one I understand now. Thanks here too. -DePiep (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have reverted the change to inert pair effect you made as a result of the merge of poor metal and post-transition metal articles. I was not aware of this merge and would have probably have had some input as the two terms historically are not interchangeable, whilst aluminium is often termed a poor metal it is most definitely not post-transition and why anyone could ever think it was is beyond me, but apparently they do. Regarding the so-called inert pair effect - aluminium as a period 3 element is not affected, whereas gallium, germanium, indium, tin, etc are. The vagueness of the terms poor metal and post-transition metal are apparent and perhaps a more specific wording is required to ensure the correct elements are identified in the inert pair effect article. I will put this on my to-do list but will not get back to it for a while.Axiosaurus (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not too deep in this knowledge, I was just reading the outcome at WT:ELEM. Recap of the discussions:

• Roundup called "option 10" (concluded & closed): Option 10

• After_closure_comments

• Implementations (edits done): Pages edited
• Make_the_group_12_elements_poor_metals.3F - new topic. As far as I can see, only this topic can be a reason to use the words "post-transition metal"; otherwise we use "poor metal" (since option 10 was closed).

I suggest you discuss this further in these sections; my talk is not of great weight. I understand inert pair effect will follow the outcome of these discussions (I won't mind you rv again during that). -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like I should clarify. :-) Even if this group 12 change goes through, we will still be calling them poor metals, as we must, for aluminium is not after any transition metals and hence cannot be classified as a post-transition metal (if we're trying to be accurate, and of course we are!). So it will still be poor metal. There is a difference: post-transition does not include Al while poor does, so if Al is specifically being excluded from the discussion, we can use post-transition metal. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Getting it. So "post-transition metals" is not deleted completely. and, by keeping "post-transition metals" in inert pair effect, the current poor-group-12 discussion won't have any effect there. I was going through this search. Some have kept "post-transition" because group 12 elements are not poor (yet). Imperfect maybe. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

element infoboxes

they still use post-transition metal instead of poor metal; could you help me fix it? thx. Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple edits right? I'll work from Po. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. btw, I understand you do not want these infobox headers bg colored like "poor metal (predicted)", but "unkown", I see. Fine with me. -DePiep (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I add: I did not do any synchronisation with page content at all, these days. That takes a more sophisticated editor level. I can draw colors, nicely within the lines. I can even draw these lines! ;-) -DePiep (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

also: would it be possible to make the formatting of List of oxidation states of the elements better? Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what to improve. Anything off with the colored columns? -DePiep (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. Will change these two colors, but the categories do not correspondent all with oxygen state, right? Metalloids is not "+5". This error exists before and after. -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

that wasn't what I meant...currently it's a nightmare and I was wondering if there was a way to make it such that any time you entered a new entry into any cell it would be coloured already (col scopes?? or do they not work here??)

but yeah, this is a case where we misuse our standard colour scheme for something else. do you think it a problem? Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dunno about column scopes at all, never used it. All I can think of is another sort of {{element cell}} with counting input options. But having to change the cells, is it not that stable yet?

Better use different colors sometime, we must protect the standard ones from abuse. Also, there should be a legend: what do bold and/or italics mean? But I'm low in inspiration at the moment. -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a look. I threw out all colors, because they do not mean anything. They are two greys now: only to support the table structure. A good thing is the repetition of the number in a cell: a reader cannot see the col header always, so this (redundant) info is great. Todo: greys might be in empty cells too; add legend for bold.italis writings. Not today for me. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Compact extended PT

If I might ask, I very carefully set the CSS to make sure it was barely any larger, while including both the easy and systemic names. Why do you think it's not compact?

Your edit reason, 'No understanding of "compact"', seemed very... dismissive, given that, unless the CSS I used isn't supported as widely as it should be. Adam Cuerden 23:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing bad with the CSS. I wrote the words like "understand compact" in my es after I saw your edit sqeezing two lines into a cell (overlapping vertically, in my screen). If that were a solution for something (could be), I would like to have seen that solution before. I'd have opposed it for being bad layout, btw. So far for the easiest part. But what is it a solution for? What was the original problem? I have not seen that problem pointed anywhere. On WT:ELEM, no one mentioned such a thing. That is why I reverted. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that every other periodic table - including the unextended version of our periodic table template - uses the systematic symbols. It seems like rather a horrible throwing-out of conventions to arbitrarily change it, but, at the same time, the systemic names get a lot less useful somewhere around 127 or so, once you're outside the island of stability, since, at that point, we don't have articles on the elements (as there's some doubt as to whether they can even exist still after the island) so all the systemic names are doing at that point is concealing the patterns. As such, it seemed better to attempt a compromise that was compatible with other periodic tables which do use the systemic symbols, but also kept the useful parts of the numbering system. Adam Cuerden 00:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

First let me re-explain my earlier remarks (which indeed might sound dismissive - that was from the emotional part of my surprise). Agree the compact cell is not enlarged, but "compact" also means: "we leave things out". Trying to put in two facts resulted in an overcrowded cell. The overlapping text lines are poor layout and make difficult reading. It is a disruption of regular text layout on a regular page. There may be situations where this is seriously needed, but this one is not as far as I can see (there is no compelling reason to do so). I hope you can agree.

Second, about what info there should be. Clearly the topic is not with regular symbols like Mt, Lv and Fl; just the IUPAC symbols, at 113 and up. Only recently I learned that using the number may be more useful & common than the IUPAC symbol (I do not regularly work in the sources). It was brought up in Wikipedia_talk:ELEM#Why_do_we_use_weird_names_like_.22unbiseptium.22.3F. Note that there the topic is about the names (and so our article titles), and symbol/number usage in texts. Now if you (too) argue to use the number not the symbol in these places, I'd ask you to make the case over there. Such a decision should be fleshed out into a consensus first, after which we can apply is consistently over our pages. Since this is about a writing style (and not about undisputable facts) discussion is required. OTOH, reaching a stable new style in this may be very rewarding, and an improvement of many element pages.

I add my own postion in this, in quick words, as of today. 1. I oppose stating that the symbol is 113: number and symbol do not swap in their definition. 2. We do can state to use the number primarily, in lieu of symbol (text, compact PTs). 2. For layout & format reason, I oppose putting both in a compact cell. 3. Renaming into like "Element 113", when shown to be common in Real World, would be OK. 4. Any outcome should be applied consistently over all pages involved; this requires tough thinking beforehand to cover all situations. -DePiep (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait wait. I am confused. You actually introduced the IUPAC symbols (like Uut)? I thought until now you had introduced the Z numbers. You actually propose tho change the habit around 127? ("systemic names get a lot less useful somewhere around 127 or so" you wrote). Either way, it seems contradictionary to write both number and symbol.

And clearly you are aware of the Talk I mentioned . In that case I am glad I reverted, and could have done so without much es. This is not the way to make changes, and you know it. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Periodic table (polyatomic).svg

DePiep, there is something wrong with the arrow for "Group" in the top left corner. The arrow overlies the "p" in Group. Sandbh (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you able to make this table look more like the old one File:Periodic table.svg I.e. smaller font size and more spacious positioning of the period and group legends and arrows? Current one looks too crowded to my eye. Sandbh (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I could, but big font is exactly what I intended. The old small font needed over half of the page width (say 500px) to be legible. By the larger font, we don't need that much width. -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Perhaps just a little more white space between "↓Period" and the table proper. The two are almost touching at the moment. Sandbh (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Added to Todo list. BTW, this is a comparision of font & sizes:

This is from WP:LAYIM (mos layout): "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default. ... Lead images should usually be no wider than "300px"". So if we can shrink that 350px a bit more, we'd be better. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is only a general rule ie exceptions would be ok and our PT is such an icon, I reckon it deserves a bit of extra px bandwidth. I like the original better as itsn't quite so loud as the current version. Then again, the current version is more legible. Is there a font that is as large as the current one but not so thick/bold-looking? Sandbh (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, I tried: "DejaVu Sans Light". Let's see what the commons server can can make of that. Now 350px width might be OK, but that should be a maximum. With the bigger font, 500px (as does Periodic table) is too much. -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Astatine

: Please stop changing astatine. The Talkpage concluded different. At least a bitstrange you did not visit the talkpage before about this. -DePiep (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I find your your tone uncalled for. This was the first time i, or anyone, changed this since your recent edit. I did check the template talk page before making my edit, understanding that it might be controversial. There is no mention of the issue on the relevant talk page. After finding your revert in the history i followed the link to a discussion and consensus on a proposal that is not clearly spelled out, and i only see At mentioned in post consensus comments.

Please see my comments regarding the status of At and Po here. Bcharles (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, my tone was unneeded. It's just that I was afraid an avelache of At edits were to be expected (the setting was done in many many pages & templates). I had left a link to the discussion page in my es in the templates.

As for the content, I am not that much of an expert on the issue, so I can grasp it but not add to that much. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

electron shell images

The discussion continues here at WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

if it's not a problem with you, could you create all the electron shell images for elements 119–172 and 184 with info from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 13#Electron shell images? because (1) other wikis have articles on the other elements and if they update they will have a problem and (2) at the discussion to insert 173-184 in our compact PTs I raised a suggestion to recreate all those articles for the elements (I will create a new subsection for that after group 12) Double sharp (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean "electron shell images" as in File:Electron shell 092 Uranium - no label.svg? More circles-with-dots?
-DePiep (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I add: not a "problem" for me; I just have to make them manually. But: these schemes are nonsense. We need a scheme that shows " 2s2 2p2" good. DePiep (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But it's very difficult. I can envision for that some vaguely circular areas labelled 1s, 2s, and 2p, but that becomes an insane mess of circles. I also would not want to have a big shaded area for each shell, because we don't know exactly how the energy levels of the shells are for most of the elements (and bad things happen to this scheme in the 9th period because 9p_1/2 and 8p_3/2 are about the same level, so insane overlapping happens and I'm not sure how you will do that!

(Note: if you can think of a better idea than I can, please tell me!)

In any case, those larger diagrams can be bigger pictures in the main article (when we have them). At the infobox size this gets completely lost (and let's face it, how many anons know what happens when you click on an image? I'm pretty sure we've all first discovered it by accident). Then we can have the article diagram adding detail to the infobox diagram. And to my mind we should be consistent. We already have these for the transactinides and early period 8 elements when such diagrams are already nonsense (5g ~ 6f ~ 7d ~ 8p_1/2). It will be OK... Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

54 images to be handcrafted (I copy-edit them in a texteditor, the svg is not too complicated). But today they are not needed in an article (or infobox), so it would be for the future (unless I am missing a usage you have in mind). I hope you can understand I give this a low priority. Of course, when a new article is created, we can make that single graph easily.

For a better graph I must study some quantum mechanics first. (eh, let me coin it "quantum graphics"). Is should be as useful as the Feynman diagram. We could use colors for electrons that are: incomplete (missing) in a shell, the one added compared its left neighbor. The detail could be clickable (linked) separately (using some image technique). We could leave out details (like your 9p_1/2 ... point) from the element graph, and make that clickable. Have you seen a graph system somewhere that could be used for all elements? -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you hide the core? I mean, even if 7p is full, 7d is not, so I'm not sure how you're going to deal with that.

Here's my idea: Get rid of the circles. I mean, there's no way to have circular orbits without causing visual havoc. Instead have a linear view like at the solar system template. Colour-code the shells 1–9. We have 1s first, then 2s further out, then 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d and 4s overlapping, 4p, 4d and 5s overlapping, 4f/5d/6s, 6p, 5f/6d/7s, 7p_1/2, 7p_3/2 (do note: 7s falls further down for elements 113++, while 6d stays up. 114 has it reversed, but not by much. In general (periods 4 to 8) the ns electrons should fall inwards in the np-block, by inert pair effect; 8s should start fading in the 7d-block.), 8s, a mess of 5g/6f/7d/8p_1/2, 9s, 9p_1/2/8p_3/2, a complete mess containing 6g, 7f, 9d and numerous other blurry ones (because no ref gives anything about what else should be here). Then it should fade out after that. Then we would have a sort of schematic diagram of approximate energy levels (see Ununseptium for an exact version).

Actually, this could be a great as a GIF scrolling through elements 1–172 and then 173–184 can just insert electrons (I'm thinking silver spheres to mark them out) into the big mess of colour at the right and fade out gradually. Electron configurations should be given in each frame, along with name and symbol (obviously). Just shove the nucleus almost out of the frame so we have lots of room for the electrons. We should rush through 173–183 without predicted electron configurations. The more I think about this, the more I think it would be a great animation for extended periodic table. It works there better as this is either very wide or very tall (would prefer wide for an article, not tall).

If you like it, tell me and I will give you the necessary details. It will probably take a while, but it will be so worth it. Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention: higher subshells that are not filled or being filled yet are greyed out. When relativistic effects start taking over at high Z, visually show the higher subshells (except s) slowly splitting. Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, getting rid of the circles. It cannot be picture-like, we must step to a scheme. I also expect we cannot use the cloud-shapes. And YESSSSS to that gif! Popping in the electrons! So we need a tough principled base that covers H to 184 the same way. An idea On how to handle details (i.e., links to detail topics): the base drawings can have a visual box that says like "". Put in a template, that box has a transparent cover image, that links to the detail page (a Xenon section?). Other details can have a different cover+link. (We use this trick in {{NavPeriodicTable}}). Will take a look at the solar system template in a minute. -DePiep (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean {{Distance from Sun using EasyTimeline}} I guess. -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly: each element has its own image right? The Uus picture you mention (into the Island of S) has multiple elements. A gif animation only shows them after another; this works if we keep the same frames & positions for the graphic items, or maybe squeeze over a period. Size for now doesn't matter (indeed we can always decide to put is outside of the infobox), to get width. OTOH, oriented vertically solves something because of easier scrolling? I keep in mind. -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we separate the nine shell color blocks, making a stairs with nine colored steps (they overlap in the end in the l-to-r sense). When undecided (SHE), we can mix them vertically (fading/mixing colors at borders maybe, or grey). Let me study the details. I am currently in chapter 3 of The Disappearing Spoon. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion continues here at WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dimensions to be covered

The graph should be able to show these items independently. I assume for now we add text where needed:

This list may change over time

1. Element core and & text Z+id (say, LH side a sphere suggestion, with text _{85At in or below).}

Range: ₁H to ₁₈₄184

2. Shells:

Range: 9 shells distinguishable (as proposed by Ds, by color, see above)

They have overlaps and shifts over Z

3. Energy: in eV. Probably to scale; scale logarithmic? (we already fold the group 0)

4. Group 0 configuration: One "" marker ( folds the complete Xe configuration).

Range: group 18 elements (one of 8 from the extended PT, or none)

In Xe, is used.

Note: folding would create a jump in the animation (at group 1). For development thinking, we can postpone this (our setup must work without this folding, size issues are not conceptual).

5. Last added electron (compared with Z-1 element).

6. Electron gossip: Exact electron property not determined (mixing shells, just suggest a presence without assigning a value)

7. Electron configuration in text: 5f 6d 7s 7p

8. Sources and notes "(predicted)"?

9.

10. ? Empty electron places in shell?

11. ? option to mark exchanged electrons (in chemical bondings)?

-DePiep (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion continues here at WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

cannot believe this is still not done

flerovium livermorium please Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

and pls change Po to a poor metal, At to metalloid and kill off halogens here too Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take some time of, off these topics, and then rephrase it here. You are welcome by then. -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically just raising a few pics that seem not to have been updated to option 10 and the new element names Fl and Lv. :-) I hope this is not a Big Issue. Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a Big issue indeed, and I could get the basics. But your wording, being on a talkpage, is commanding not asking. That is not an inviting gesture. We both are here for fun. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, unintentional! The cannot believe part was because the element names had been updated last year and nobody had seen the pic yet. Not referring to you, surely, and I apologize sincerely if it was taken that way... Double sharp (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to {{IPAslink}}

Hi, DePiep; can you please explain your reasoning for your removal of the note on {{IPAslink}} in this edit? Thank you. — |J~Pæst|  02:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite simple. It is in all caps shouting, and it is incorrect. -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)