User talk:Lubomir Kucera

Thank you for the work on element infoboxes
Your work on the element infoboxes is great and much appreciated. Double sharp (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for appreciation of my work. My primary goal is to keep the data homogeneously formatted across all infoboxes, so I could easily parse the data for my Android application: Periodic Table. Lubomir Kucera (talk)

at-value in infobox element
So I reverted your edit. I forgot to mention GoodFaith in my editsummary, but here it is. In detail, it is about this. In Infobox element, we still have multiple forms to add a non-stp measurement. Indeed, a ..._comment can be used for that too. However, in these situations the fact is in the parameter name: electrical resistivity at 20. So I think it is OK to have that added always, and in this form. Sure other values (like speed of sound) do this differently, but this way at least we have reduced the format variants from ~99 to ~98. Hope you can agree. Have a nice edit, DePiep (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is a problem for me. I use this data in my project and I parse comments and units separately. Now it is hard for me to distinguish which is the real unit and which is the comment. I request you to revert your changes related to this problem. Best regards, Lubomir Kucera (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. If you add the same qualification as a comment, it will show exactly the same!: (at 20 °C)
 * 2. As it is now, the result is the same as in thermal expansion at 25. Why no problem reading that?
 * 3. I'm afraid that you can not require Wikipedia to format information to solve your reading requirements. (Does your reader read the article page, or the article & infobox code with the parameter value?).
 * 4. Unfortunately, today the speed of sound values show such a qualification differently. No problem there? (I think we should improve this: make this info show alike). I think all those qualifications should look alike in the infobox.
 * Is there an other way I can help you reading the data? Can you tell what exactly goes wrong, now? -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My reader works with infobox code. I use Special:Export to export an article in Wiki markup. I do not see a problem anywhere else. Both thermal expansion at 25 and speed of sound use comments where there are supposed to be. I require you to revert that not because I have got problems with parsing but because it seems to me like there is a mess about to form. I have not suspected the same problem anywhere else. Anyway, I do not understand why you want to add the comments to unit parameter instead of their comment parameter. --Lubomir Kucera (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose revert, I won't.
 * No, thermal expansion at 25 does not require the "(25 &deg;C)" in the parameter thermal expansion at 25 comment. It is added by the template always, because the editor uses that specific parameter ("at 25"). See the demo: Template:Infobox element/testcases2.
 * If your automate reads the infobox, there are these parameters. Behaviour is consistent:


 * thermal expansion=
 * thermal expansion ref=
 * thermal expansion comment=
 * thermal expansion at 25=
 * thermal expansion at 25 ref=
 * thermal expansion at 25 comment=
 * electrical resistivity=
 * electrical resistivity unit prefix=
 * electrical resistivity ref=
 * electrical resistivity comment=
 * electrical resistivity at 0=
 * electrical resistivity at 0 ref=
 * electrical resistivity at 0 comment=
 * electrical resistivity at 20=
 * electrical resistivity at 20 ref=
 * electrical resistivity at 20 comment=
 * As you can see, that "comment" is in the parameter name, and so we must show it. The same for the "at 0" and "at 0" values. If you have questions or would like more clarification, please ask. Always see Template:Infobox element/testcases2. And you can edit that one to try, it's yours! -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe bad for you, but consistent for the elements: in "Speed of sound" I have moved the "(at 0 &deg;C)" notes to the right-hand column. I think this general pattern is good. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I have worked around electrical resistivity on my side and I will do the same with speed of sound. Thank you for notifying me. Lubomir Kucera (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits to "Template:Infobox tungsten"
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edits to Template:Infobox tungsten. The addition of commas to five digit numbers as separators is in perfect accord with MOS:DIGITS. Would you please be so kind as to explain why you did this?—DocWatson42 (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, sure I will explain it. I find it inconsistent with the rest of the pages. There is probably more than 500 similar numbers across infobox pages and other related pages and not a single of these numbers contains commas. Lubomir Kucera (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Point me to them and I'll fix them. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would said the vast majority of them is located in Molar ionization energies of the elements and also you can find some in Template:Infobox beryllium, Template:Infobox boron, Template:Infobox carbon, Template:Infobox technetium, Template:Infobox tungsten and Template:Infobox rhenium. But if I was you, I would let it be. Too much work and I do not think it is worth it. Lubomir Kucera (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If I can track down and fix nearly 1900 instances of a misspelling, I can do this.  —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)