User talk:DePiep

Toggling options[]

Right, so here we go.

First of all: I just ask this as a sort of proof-of-concept. No guarantees that it will actually be deployed in articlespace, to make it clear upfront. And I have no intention to argue for it now when Scerri's article in Chemistry International telling us about what the project has come up with is still being written and yet to be published. It is just that I thought it was an interesting idea when SMcCandlish proposed it, and that I can definitely see situations in which I think it would be appropriate. ^_^

Now that that's clear: the idea would generally be to have some sort of thing you could click to flip the PT (or really any template) between various forms. Could be used for Sc-Y-La / Sc-Y-Lu; could also be used for something like He-Be vs He-Ne within the specific context of block (periodic table) for example; could even be for something like showing or hiding the extension or flipping between category sets. I can see a lot of possibilities for it beyond just the group 3 and category things, which is why I think developing it might be a good idea anyway. But you're under no obligation to really do it; I was just curious if it could be done. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

An addendum summarizing my original yakking: It would be a lot of Lua work, and we'd also need to establish what the default output should be (for people running without JavaScript). And "default" might be universal or something set on a per-category/field basis, or whatever; depends on the consensus discussion outcome[s].  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand. In my testpage I have two technical options. Third one is todo: that would be "zoom" (so not exactly fits here, but a major need for the PT: show overview PT <-> cell details. Example: see US election broadcasts at CNN or NYT: USA map w/colored states, and opening popup with State detailed numbers).
c:Category:Animated GIF files can handle table images, pics &tc, and with various precision (fluid/flickering alternations). No pause option AFAIK. Jscript required?
The map options map zooming (Paris example) are hardcoded in Lua for maps (globe coord calculations!). PT would be easier / hardcoded. Could be cluncky?
Meanwhile, the actual flipping content trbd. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Drug links template[]

Hi there, just a gentle nudge to ask if there's any chance you'll still have time to work up Template:Drug links? A minimal version that looks like the mock at Template_talk:Drug_links#Mock_drug_links_bar and requires users to manually feed the template links (i.e. {{Medical resources}} but for drug links) would be a great minimum functional solution. If you (or anyone else) ever has time to revisit pulling that data from Wikidata, even better. Thanks a million and I hope you're staying well! Ajpolino (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Very inviting (happy face), sure, but cannot promis these days. (sad face) -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Completely understood. Well if you don't get to it in the next few weeks, I'll take a crack at it. If I set anything on fire, I'll find a noticeboard to go crying to. I hope you're well, and that you're a good kind of busy. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles with a Chembox not in certain WikiProjects[]

Hi, about 5 years ago you did something clever which generated a list of pages containing chemboxes which weren't assigned to WP:Chem. Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox/Articles_with_a_Chembox_not_in_certain_WikiProjects. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to refresh that list? It's a good way of finding 'orphan' articles. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I will do so. It is a manual process, I remember. Probably some time next week.
Do you want {{Drugbox}} processed too?
-DePiep (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I suppose I should be thorough and do both - providing it's not too much trouble for you? Thank you. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Project Osprey: So I check whether all {{Chembox}} articles have one or more of these WikiProjects on their talkpage:
Question: I could leave out ELEMENTS articles, and treat {{Infobox element}} equal to {{Chembox}}, so that all 120 element articles are listed to have CHEM/CHEMS Project. And other ELEMENTS articles are not checked at all.
Question: About {{Infobox drug}}: do I check these against the same WikiProjects? Maybe some bio-pharma drugs (eg vaccines if I am right) are listed too.
-DePiep (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it's safe to leave out Elements entirely, they're very important, so I'm sure they've already been checked. WP:POLYMER is dead, so ignore them too, any chembox articles they have now need links to WP:Chem. Don't worry about Infobox drug, I'm going to go through the list manually: small molecules we should share with the bio-pharma people but antibodies etc are all for them (we have a claim to man-made stuff produces by chemical means, but 'biologics' etc are outside our area) --Project Osprey (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Will do so. Chembox and Drugbox treated alike. (& we can refine afterwards if results are impractical). -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks you. I probably wont be able to do much ing until until next week, so don't rush. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
By a strange quirk of circumstance, I was without the internet for 3 weeks just after I asked. So I wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Off to a wrong start[]

As you have probably seen or are about to see shortly, I provided an answer to your request. You will probably not like my response, and as you've probably figured (or are about to figure), I did not like the way you put your request. Still, it's in no one's interest if this disagreement between us spirals into anything else---most certainly, not in mine, not in other ors', and, presumably, not yours---so we better talk this through.

At least, that's what I would normally say. With you in particular, however, I don't believe this will help. Having known you for many years now (you've probably figured it out, but in case you haven't, I used to as User:R8R; I'm not really sure if the word "start" in the title is really fitting, but it's going to stay), I have made quite a number of attempts to understand you think and what kind of responses I would get, as well as how to get to you at times. For some reason, that did not work. Maybe you were not responsive, maybe my attempts were misguided; one way or another, it doesn't matter in the end. That fact at hand is that we can't get along for some reasons, and we surely have different estimates of why that is.

I really don't want to have a conflict with you every time I show up. It does genuinely appear to me that you were either asking to change a discussion in a, frankly, rude manner that was absolutely not justified given the context (you were not a part of this discussion), or straight looking for a conflict (and I wasn't even expecting to encounter you to begin with). I don't know which one it is, and it could even be neither; this doesn't matter, either. All I want is to find a way to not have an argument with you, regardless of whose fault that might be. I don't understand how we could come to that in a discussion, however, as I gave it a good thought over and over in the past. With this in mind, I'm asking you for one, and one thing only:

Please leave me alone.

Please do leave me alone, for good. Don't comment on my words. Don't ask me anything. Don't discuss my s. Don't challenge me or my s (unless you can specifically point out how I'm violating a policy or a guideline). Don't make suggestions to me. Don't undo my s. Don't do anything that requires any interaction between us. Evidently, we are not good at that. We tried it; it didn't work.

What's in it for you?

First of all, I would never ask of you anything I wouldn't be ready to provide to you myself. You can stay assured that I'd gladly do all of those things I just mentioned to you, no matter what you do. Second, and perhaps even more important, I'm absolutely sure that other WP:ELEM members would be glad to learn we found a way to put aside our differences, even if it means we wouldn't create something productive together. Here I am, offering you a way out of the conflict, and here they are, seeing this message, likely having encountered it in their watchlist. I suspect it will score you some points with them if you can agree to something they'd approve of. Besides, I can only hope that you'd also gladly take a chance to avoid any future conflict with me in the most productive manner available, right?

In case you're thinking that me ing one article meaning you shouldn't it is a restriction that nobody can force onto you, I assure you I can't and wouldn't even try to force this onto you; think of it as more of a gentlemen's agreement or something along these lines, and it obviously can only work if you agree to it.

I really do think that this is the best way to proceed from here. No more disagreements, no more conflicts, no more misunderstandings... no more anything. (And the alternative is to let the nonmetal PR disagreement spiral out into yet another conflict, and risk that over, and over, and over again.)

Please don't think you need to answer immediately; if anything, I'd like it very much if you thought it over for a few days and then given me an answer.-- (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am glad to know that you've heeded to my request to not answer immediately. I know you have read it (your history shows you were pretty active in the last week, and there is no doubt in my mind that you read messages on your talk page), and you still were not quick to respond. Thank you very much, I appreciate it (I really do).
At this point, you've surely had the time to think my message through. I'm sure you have an opinion regarding what I wrote, and I hope you wouldn't choose to specifically hide it from me. I might be sporadically back if you accept my request, and I will not be otherwise. Given the weight you have in this, I'm curious to hear what you think. Will you and accept my request and do the one thing I'm asking of you?-- (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
First of all, I don't need your "advice" to wait answering. Could very well be I advise myself. Also, 'please' stop interpreting my behaviour and prescribing my interests. "you will ...", "you've probably figured it out", "In case you're thinking": stop it. Speak for yourself. -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Please give me an answer. Yes or no.-- (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I did not see a question. Could you strike out the non-question in your text, as already noted? -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I did not ask a question, I made a request. Therefore, I can't strike out the non-question, and I'll repeat the main idea instead.
I asked you to stay away from interacting with me because our interactions tend to spiral into conflicts. I promised I'd do the same to you if you agreed to it.-- (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
And it's up to you to either accept my request or reject it, hence the yes or no part.-- (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
(ec) I can read and reply if and when I want to, and I will do so. You have no business to come here and start commanding me to answer, especially after loading dozens of personal judgements & inferences about me. I already pointed out that you are not welcome to speak for me in any way, and that after doing so you are not to "request" a response. -DePiep (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I am genuinely confused. I really did not come looking for a conflict, but it appears one is underway anyway, which was not my intention.
I can see that you said you'd answer in your last post. Good to know. I'll be waiting.-- (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Fifteen days ago you said you would reply to my request. When can I expect a response?-- (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't know. When I have energy to dive into this. -DePiep (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Being asked, out of the blue, to shut up on a general discussion page after posts I do not see any harm in is quite a distance to overcome. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
You see, if you don't set up a deadline, you can always count on a tomorrow to do it. And on that day, you can say "tomorrow" again, and again, and again, and I'm afraid this gives you a way to not stand up to a commitment you've made. Perhaps that's not your intention, but this could happen, and I really wouldn't want to see this; I'd like you to fulfill your promise.
If you can't answer off the top of your head, that's fine, I'm in no hurry and I can wait a few weeks. Just tell me how many exactly.-- (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I wrote: 'I can read and reply if and when I want to, and I will do so.' Meanwhile, I don't think there is an issue since I do not That Page nor did I meet your s elsewhere AFAIK. -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
"I don't know when" is just as promising as "never." I hear you. I will think the promise is effectively taken back, although I'll be glad to see a response if one ever comes up and the promise is fulfilled after all.-- (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


The template {{Periodic table (lanthanides)}} used in this article appears to assign fixed widths for the columns, giving rise to an ugly splitting of the names of the elements when the table is shown. Petergans (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

By design. The whole (= the overview) is best shown with regular widths (which could be improved in here btw). Given the information per visual row (15 element names) and readability wrt the fontsize, this is the result. So, smaller font or irregular cell widths are not used.
I note that this issue is inherent to the periodic table: there are say 18 columns to show with each cell having (multiple) information elements to show, including text & numerics. There is no solution that covers both. (It is as in a theater: when you have a view of the stage, you cannot see the hedline in a paper the actor is reading. And vice versa). -DePiep (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we change the sample columns to navbars?[]

As there have been no adverse comments, can we be bold and just do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman Which page? -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Template talk:Diacritical marks#Can we change the sample columns to navbars? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Taht one of course, sorry. Will write a formal proposal on that talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nudge... --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


For what it is worth, I consider that the personal remark about you was unwarranted and unseemly. But it is not a hill I would choose to die on if I were you. I am reminded of John McEnroe who (correctly) challenged a line call and when it was refused, slammed his racket on the ground in disgust - and got penalised as a result. Sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and be content with knowing to yourself that you were right. Best wishes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


Never ever again I want to see such a revert out of impatience! --Leyo 08:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Not impatience. I just needed to cite my earlier summary: it produced an error. (You completely ignored or missed obviously). Also, "not discussed" is not the absolute requirement; it's called bold & obvious improvements. Now you are free to deny the error in article space or improve in the sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I was well aware of your summary. I fixed the error within 9 minutes. --Leyo 09:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
You es'es did not even hint. Instead, you were blaming me, with a crippled argument (as I wrote here). So no need to suggest that you asked for 'patience' at all. -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021[]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022[]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Documentation/color scheme[]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Documentation/color scheme has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 20:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And Template:Documentation/color scheme for statistics, /docgreen1, etc; I'm assuming they are no longer needed. User:GKFXtalk 20:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tomorrow+1[]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Tomorrow+1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 20:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)