User talk:DePiep

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 14 as User talk:DePiep/Archive 13 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

	The Special Barnstar
	For your thoughtful, poetic contribution about learning chemistry, and the value of informative categories in science. You have my respect. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Non-metallic Barnstar for improving the Periodic Table You've done a whole damn lot for our project. You've actually made it better. Please keep up.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

Periodic table brilliant idea

The barnstar made me curious: What was the “visual feast for the eyes” you created? ◅ Sebastian 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We show the PT with nine categories (say by metallish behaviour), which require nine background colors to be used as a legend (not just fancy illustration!).

Back then we had our set improved. The category colors look like {{Periodic_table/blind1}} (as published in Periodic table: {{Periodic table}}).

Still it is not great, it is very complicated to find nine distinct colors useful as a legend. (Today, we are going to redesign the set). Anyway, it was an improvement compared to previous color set. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see; I understood “groups” to refer to the columns of the table. But I see not nine, but ten different background colors, including the light gray for the hypothetical elements. ◅ Sebastian 19:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it's "9+1". Groups/columns do not need colors because they are visible already. A different color scheme is used in block (periodic table). -DePiep (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you write “it is very complicated to find nine distinct colors useful as a legend”? When I need a bit more than a handful of colours, I like to start out from the Electronic color code, and tweak it as needed. ◅ Sebastian 19:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because, being a legend they have to be distinguishable (between one another, and find-tihe-color-in-the-legend requirement (the Reader needs to do), and also v.v. find-color-from-legend-to-image). This asks for strong (outspoken) colors. BUT on the other hand, texts must be readable too (contrast requirements per ws3c and WP:ACCESS). This require light colors -- that is a contradictionary requirement. The number of 9 makes this ~insolvable without compromise, I expect. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're being too perfectionist. I think your choice is a solution, and a good one at that. In addition to the criteria you listed, it also uses familiarity of the color to express how ⸉exotic⸊ their block is. ◅ Sebastian 19:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well, problems with current colors: grey is used, "brown" for the main main category (metalloids) is not a color. Five reds, no greens is uneven. Before being perfect, lots of improvements possible. A nice process btw, designing for the Reader (science communication). -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your last sentence: Designing (and writing) for the reader is a great challenge, and BTW, IMHO much underappreciated here on Wikipedia. And science communication in particular is a fascinating area, although it apparently more and more falls victim to our edutainment expectations. As for your color tally, I still don't think you're being fair to yourself. By assigning the colors to the coarse boxes of our traditional color names, you're glossing over the fact that both the metalloids and for the reactive nonmetals are represented with hues related to green. But I agree that the use of grey for the post-transition metals is suboptimal; it appears too far away from the transition metals to adequately represent their properties. ◅ Sebastian 20:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like that. First new try would be to follow the rainbow left-to-right, as it is a trend inthe PT. And evenly, not 5 reds. (Did this in private PT's I made). However, that could make neighboring colors too much alike. So we could shuffle them, that is create alternating neighbours (blueish next to yellowish; checkering). Not yet noted, there is also requirement colorblind-awareness: through CB filter, less colors remain so they better alternate too. Will be researched. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see what bothers you. You're on a quest for the perfect design, where by “perfect” you understand a logical, provable property. That is probably really insolvable. I think you would feel more at ease if you understood it as an art, not a science. Even for the Mona Lisa, we have no proof that no detail of it could have been improved.

Regarding “evenly, not 5 reds”: I don't think an even color distribution would do justice to the properties of the elements. At least in my layperson understanding, two metals, even from opposite ends of the grouping, are much more related than, say, a halogen with a noble gas. It makes sense that the colors of the latter differ more than those of the former.

Regarding accessibility: It's good that you're thinking about it. But where to stop? Even CB relies on information not available to other disabilities. I'm no expert on this, but here's an idea: It might be best to fork the information: Use a graphic approach for the majority of readers, and create another table intrinsically geared towards accessibility which then could smoothly dovetail with assistive technology. For instance, the accessible version could simply contain abbreviations for the subcategories that would naturally also be read by a screen reader. The PT lends itself to that approach since it changes infrequently enough so that the fork would not require undue extra maintenance work. ◅ Sebastian 10:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the requirements could be too much. But first we give it a try, so not compromise (split) beforehand. — DePiep 10:50, 30 October 2020 — continues after insertion below

To the contrary, not splitting forces far more compromises. ◅ Sebastian 11:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

beforehand is the active word here. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re the association of colors and metal property: this is what we cannot permit. The suggestion that metals are more related and so should have the same teint (say reddish) is reducing degrees of freedom. This makes it more difficult to have them distinguished (they will all look alike, ~just like today). — DePiep 10:50, 30 October 2020 — continues after insertion below

This has nothing to do with degrees of freedom in any of the four meanings of that disambiguation page. So there is no reason to state apodictically that “this is what we cannot permit”. And looking alike does not make it hard to distingush them; or has anyone ever told you he or she couldn't distinguish the metals in your coloring? (Well maybe the actinides from the alkali metals; those could really be set a bit further apart. But that's not a fundamental problem, only one of good judgment.) ◅ Sebastian 11:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an omission of Wikipedia then. Until WP is fixed, I'd go with the mathematical one and extend it to 'design'. I'm fine with that.

I am writing short indications of design issues here, not a dissertation. There are six metal categories. Aiming to use only reddish colors for these is nigh impossible given the other requirements. (Been through this design route before, as I wrote). Even maintaining a rainbow-sequence (l-to-r) is critical. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, I expect no perfect solution. Though trying and playing with colors wil give an improvement. (Another bad design thing is the meaningful fontcolor, red=liquid etc. Maybe solve different too). -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be improved. It's also not logical to attach that information to the atomic number. Moreover, while that information traditionally often is included in the PT, how helpful is it really to know that some form of H (that is, H₂) and some form of O (i.e. O₂, or maybe a mixture of O₂ and O₃, the legend doesn't indicate which) are gases, when the triple point of ubiquitous H₂O is more informative for all manner of things we compute and measure daily? ◅ Sebastian 11:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We PT people have that in mind too: is it about the concept of the atom (say, a physical thing, and chemical behaviour) or its RL appearance (substances like O₂ and C diamond). However, for this (being liquid at room temp) this is not very problematic. When the State is shown clearly in the graph, the solids and gases show a pattern (l-r); just two seemingly random liquids appear. Point is: do we want to show that in the primary showcase PT. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across your colored table

Here: https://youtu.be/fCn8zs912OE?t=714. There are a few differences, though – so maybe that's an earlier version? ◅ Sebastian 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Nice to see, even nicer you noticed & recognised. (Of course Wikipedia is a free source so easy to use). -DePiep (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an older coloring version (pre 2018): yellow+green form is now single yellow (and renamed), column 30-112 now grey. -DePiep (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One sign that it's earlier is that it still has the three-letter abbreviations like Uut. But what made me wonder was that several elements that are now light gray (for “unknown chemical properties” – such as At and Cn) were already colored in that table. 😕 ◅ Sebastian 18:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The four Uxx's were officially named in 2016. At is not "unknown", but "post-transition metal" (dark-grey -- one of the problematic colors!). Cn changed color after new research was published. (All this is at WT:ELEM; usually I follow the talk & apply the consequences like colors). As said, these months WT:ELEM is more chaotic and less stable; conclusions are pushed, a pity. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. The confusion of the two grays was my error. But we talked about that particular color choice before.

When you mention WT:ELEM, do you mean specifically On the inevitable misunderstandings...? That is really TLDR now. (You already wrote so after one 500 word reply, but the whole discussion has grown to 5500 words since.) It is remarkable that the OP didn't react offended by your characterization of what they wrote as “basically senseless”. That takes a lot of good faith. ◅ Sebastian 19:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was not aimed at the OP, was about the thread development. Let me say this: discussions were more fruitful before 2020, somehow, same people. It was easy to cooperate & improve (articles). Not much need to go into that here. While, when the flow returns, I could invite you to follow WP:PTG (now infant). But please do not start commenting on that unborn baby now. I had in mind to tip you for that. -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed people changing in other walks of life, too. In those cases, people understandably are getting more impatient due to the ongoing impact of COVID-19. I wonder if that could be a cause here, too.

Thanks for the pointer to WP:PTG. I added it to my watchlist, but I already got so much on that list that I may well miss the development there. ◅ Sebastian 20:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'll ping you when it's on. As for 2020: no, changed in 2020 before covid (well, Wuhan was happening but unrelated). Sure 2020 is weird. And then there is 2021. -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

btw, SebastianHelm, how come you are so good in this topic and I only know you from this side-talk? Are you hiding some brilliance from me ;-) ? -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- May I agree with that? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the compliments. Well, i'm interested in many topics, but often not strongly enough: In order to achieve something – here as in the real world – one often needs to compete with people who dedicate much more time and energy to the same area. So i dabble a little here and there, but rarely join a WikiProject. ◅ Sebastian 09:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#An elementary issue and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the themes of that case, if it's accepted, will no doubt be that (a) you often misinterpret inter-editor interactions; and (b) after years and years and years you still haven't learned to butt out of things you don't understand. A year ago you came to my talk page with this [1] and then (unbelievably) compounded your self-humiliation by opening an ANI thread. One perceptive editor summarized that thread thus:

I had a friend ... who was literally incapable of understanding hyperbole, jokes, or other non-literal forms of speech. It was very amusing telling him things that we all understood were not literally true but he didn't, watching him react, and then letting him know that it was not true so that he'd be in on the joke as well (as he was a friend and we wanted to laugh with him, not at him). This somehow reminds me of that, except for the part about being in on the joke once informed that it was a joke, and also the part about ending on ANI instead of in laughter.

And now there's this [2]. So consider this your final warning: keep out of other people's business, and if you ever again remove or modify one my posts – or any other editor's post – you'll be back at ANI so fast it will make your head spin.^[1] E Eng 07:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ This is a favorite phrase of mine, but one I dispense selectively. I'd refer you to the last few people I said it to, so you could ask them how things turned out, but they wouldn't be able to answer since they're all blocked.

[1] This is a favorite phrase of mine, but one I dispense selectively. I'd refer you to the last few people I said it to, so you could ask them how things turned out, but they wouldn't be able to answer since they're all blocked.

[1]