User talk:YBG/Archive 2

Interesting WP articles

 * Collective names of groups of like elements
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by YBG (talk • contribs) 04:12:54 October 9, 2009 (UTC)

I this was the beginning of my involvement in WP:ELEMENTS YBG (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Ignoble non-metals of the world, unite"
They already did. The result is called life. :-) Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ununpentium (fictional element)
Hi thanks for your suggestions before. As you have being involved, your opinions also would be appreciated over there. Also I´d like to suggest a quick look in the summaries of the article. Please see Articles for deletion/Element 115 in popular culture. Eka-bismuth (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I went through your comments on F
Probably need you to go through again after I get it cleaned up as there is some evolution.TCO (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks man
Edits look great. Very smooth.TCO (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fluorine peer review
Hi YBG. You gave us great advice, 90% of which was incorporated. Can you have a re-look please (at peer review).71.127.137.171 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Vote: Group 3 metals; group 12 as poor metals

 * Should our 18-column periodic table show lutetium and lawrencium under scandium and yttrium, instead of all the lanthanides and actinides?
 * Should scandium, yttrium and the lanthanides together be coloured as rare earth metals?
 * Should zinc, cadmium and mercury be taken out of the transition metals element category and placed as poor metals?

As a member of WikiProject Elements, you are invited to comment and vote here. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The table
Interestingly, mercury is an oddball in this table, as it is in the standard table -- but not because it is a liquid at room temperature. The classifying principle follows the three criteria I expressed in 2013 and most of the ones I added later: I'm leaving the classification rule unstated for a few days to provide some entertainment to those who have spent a lot of time discussing the classification of the elements. I know this is somewhat unorthodox and is skirting close to the limits of what is appropriate on talk pages. After a few days, I'll provide the answer. YBG (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  Clear -- but I don't think it is very obvious, hence an appropriate subject for a puzzle like this.
 * 2)  Unambiguous -- but the classification can change over time
 * 3)  Meaningful -- in Wikipedia-space, but it has no physical or chemical significance.
 * 4)  Referenced -- I am quite certain no reliable source would discuss this
 * 5)  Specific -- No catch-all classes like "Other X" nor even "Unknown"
 * 6)  Unique -- No overlap in classes, at least at a particular point in time
 * 7)  Complete -- Every element can be classified by this rule
 * You might be interested in this. Feel free to ping others. YBG (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments
You are welcome to add your comments here.YBG (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What theme are we talking about?
 * I reject each and every use of "category" outside of category-of-metalishness. Whatever yo want to say, find another word. (do not use "period", "group", "category"). -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've changed to use the word "class". My somewhat obtuse point here is that I have classified the elements in what I think is an interesting way and am wondering if others can guess the classification rule without me stating it.  If this is not your cup of tea, forgive me for wasting your time.  YBG (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, actually I like the puzzle (it's just that the earlier version triggered my PT-Nazi-pavlov-language reflexes). -DePiep (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume Hg is the exception because of the planet? (Is the god as significant of a factor?) Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I expect so. YBG (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We've marked bromine as liquid too. -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So Hg is even more exceptional in this table than in the standard one. All elements are unique, but some are more unique than others. YBG (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. 4 feet good, 2 feet better. Some elements sleep in human beds, you know? (btw, your Orwell quote is in two! handwritings. The latter half was added way after the AF revolution. That's what I enjoyed most of AF). -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about the two handwritings ... so much so that when I saw your comment in my e-mail reader, I though that you were talking about what I had written, and wondering what you meant by handwriting in talk page comments. Sigh.  YBG (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, it was you who started quoting AF! OK I'll link, but I was poking & notlinking by intention. -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll explain. You used the quote "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others", from Animal Farm. In the book, the first half "All animals are equal" was a rule written on the wall at the revolution. Then, after the revolution was done the pigs went sleeping in the farmers bed, some animal added the second half ", but some ...". That's with all Rules they made (I don't have my copy at hand). So it is about how the revolution ended. I liked that refinement, but it is not used when quoted. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, I got that. It was just that when I read the e-mail notification with your comment out of context, I didn't immediately figure it all out.  I had remembered that the 2nd part was added later, I just hadn't remembered that it was in a different handwriting.  Oh, and it took me a little while to disambiguate AF, though I managed to figure it out without referring to AF, which wouldn't have helped at all.  Go figure.  I suppose it only serves me right for having started this thread as a puzzle.  Turn about is fair play.  YBG (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments re hatnotes

 * Some years ago, I worked with hatnotes and disambiguation projects here (from the guidelines and so). Now here I see there are dozens! of ...(disambiguation) pages for element names. But only mercury (element) has a (dab) added to its title for the Hg page (you follow?). In other words: all these other elements have their element status as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (good for us=WP:ELEM). Its a large number. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any glaring problems ... but it would be nice to ensure consistency between the pages, e.g., in ordering multiple ones and the like. And it might be worth considering whether it might be appropriate to create some more XXX (disambiguation) pages.  I gathered them all together so that they could be seen in one place and so that inconsistencies might be more obvious.  And, there should be some consistency between which hatnotes are present and whether there is a (disambiguation) page.  I spent all my time gathering up the data, haven't spent too much time thinking about how to make it better.  Incidentally, I gathered them up by using the "Edit" links shown and then I used the wikilink on element name to double-check stuff.  YBG (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Commendabele! This can improve out element pages.
 * Let me tell about hatnotes (informal). Originally, they were all about the "(disambiguation)" thing. It was the WP:DAB project commanding. In 9 out of 10 Category:Hatnote templates you still can see this. And also in you "YBG (disambiguation)" automated text, right? (Good & clear exception: main).
 * My advise: write your own hat text using hatnote (the anything-goes text template). Avoid each and every "(dab)" adding template, always write the hatnote yourself! -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that hatnote may be helpful in combining the multiple hatnotes to conform to WP:1HAT. I'm not sure what you mean by "Avoid each and every '(dab)' adding template". YBG (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally don't like these boilerplate templates, only to type the "(dab)" text automatically. Writing your own text can be more specific. More so in stacked hatnotes. But that's me. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

List of hatnotes
This table lists the hatnotes that exist on WP pages about the chemical elements.
 * Note: the redlinks shown here as " (disambiguation) " appear in hatnotes as blue-links " Element-name (disambiguation) " using the actual element-name. YBG (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The rows are colored the same as the PT above. OK, its ugly, but it communicates.  Hope to change to just coloring the '*' column. YBG (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the colors back and am now just coloring one cell. YBG (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just curious: YBG, what is your impression with these hatnotes? Any itching or ideas? -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals
Improvements are very good; the colour scheme is insipid, noting this came with the template. Can you do better colours? I thought black, grey and white, although so much black in the metals column, with white text, might be overpowering. Sandbh (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have chosen those colors, but I do really like using the same colors as the template; then it ties in with the mini-PT in the lead. Whatever insipidness is in the tables on this page, is also present in the mini-PT.  So I'd recommend changing the template colors and letting them propogate.  I reckon that the color choices were probably based on what I think is a false assumption -- that the metal (and nonmetal) color of Element color#Metal–nonmetal categories, reduced set must necessarily be highly distinct from the corresponding colors in Element color#Metal–nonmetal categories.  YBG (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Mini-PT is an image that can easily be updated. First thing to do is pick the colour scheme. White (metals)-Grey-Yellow? Sandbh (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I have in mind is modifying the color scheme itself. I think the hierarchy is something like this:
 * (Transition metals that are not inner transition metals)
 * It seems to me that the colors ought to thematically 'roll-up' -- so I'm thinking the metal color ought to be something on the warm end of the spectrum, the nonmetal, on the cool end, and the metaloid something in between. The three colors generally seem to satisfy these criteria, and I think any change ought to remain within these parameters -- at least unless a wholesale revision of the scheme is being considered.  I'm not pushing for change, I'm OK with how the colors show in the article.  But then my sense of color composition is pretty appalling. YBG (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm getting used to the colour scheme in the main tables. But the way these colours look in the lede table is stil unsatisfactory. The table is so small that they run into one another. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better for the lead to use Periodic table (metals and nonmetals). YBG (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (Transition metals that are not inner transition metals)
 * It seems to me that the colors ought to thematically 'roll-up' -- so I'm thinking the metal color ought to be something on the warm end of the spectrum, the nonmetal, on the cool end, and the metaloid something in between. The three colors generally seem to satisfy these criteria, and I think any change ought to remain within these parameters -- at least unless a wholesale revision of the scheme is being considered.  I'm not pushing for change, I'm OK with how the colors show in the article.  But then my sense of color composition is pretty appalling. YBG (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm getting used to the colour scheme in the main tables. But the way these colours look in the lede table is stil unsatisfactory. The table is so small that they run into one another. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better for the lead to use Periodic table (metals and nonmetals). YBG (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the colors ought to thematically 'roll-up' -- so I'm thinking the metal color ought to be something on the warm end of the spectrum, the nonmetal, on the cool end, and the metaloid something in between. The three colors generally seem to satisfy these criteria, and I think any change ought to remain within these parameters -- at least unless a wholesale revision of the scheme is being considered.  I'm not pushing for change, I'm OK with how the colors show in the article.  But then my sense of color composition is pretty appalling. YBG (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm getting used to the colour scheme in the main tables. But the way these colours look in the lede table is stil unsatisfactory. The table is so small that they run into one another. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better for the lead to use Periodic table (metals and nonmetals). YBG (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the colors ought to thematically 'roll-up' -- so I'm thinking the metal color ought to be something on the warm end of the spectrum, the nonmetal, on the cool end, and the metaloid something in between. The three colors generally seem to satisfy these criteria, and I think any change ought to remain within these parameters -- at least unless a wholesale revision of the scheme is being considered.  I'm not pushing for change, I'm OK with how the colors show in the article.  But then my sense of color composition is pretty appalling. YBG (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm getting used to the colour scheme in the main tables. But the way these colours look in the lede table is stil unsatisfactory. The table is so small that they run into one another. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better for the lead to use Periodic table (metals and nonmetals). YBG (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the colors ought to thematically 'roll-up' -- so I'm thinking the metal color ought to be something on the warm end of the spectrum, the nonmetal, on the cool end, and the metaloid something in between. The three colors generally seem to satisfy these criteria, and I think any change ought to remain within these parameters -- at least unless a wholesale revision of the scheme is being considered.  I'm not pushing for change, I'm OK with how the colors show in the article.  But then my sense of color composition is pretty appalling. YBG (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm getting used to the colour scheme in the main tables. But the way these colours look in the lede table is stil unsatisfactory. The table is so small that they run into one another. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better for the lead to use Periodic table (metals and nonmetals). YBG (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm getting used to the colour scheme in the main tables. But the way these colours look in the lede table is stil unsatisfactory. The table is so small that they run into one another. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better for the lead to use Periodic table (metals and nonmetals). YBG (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Give metalloids a border
Here's an idea: The general idea is to make the metalloids stand out by giving them a border that the metals and nonmetals lack. Since the metalloids generally form the boundary, that might be enough to keep things from running together. What do you think of this?
 * (By the way, the top and bottom rows seem to be a bit thinner than the other rows; I'm not sure if this is an optical delusion or result of my formatting, but I think you can get the general idea) YBG (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's give that a go! Sandbh (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation and further thoughts
Shall I join in about the colors? -DePiep 23:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure!YBG (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that there are more than one issue
 * (1) What are the best colors to use for,  , and
 * (2) What is the best way to color the PT in Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals
 * (3) What is the best way to emphasize similarities & differences in the Comparison tables
 * IMHO, it is very important that (1) and (2) be the same, but there are other ways of doing (3). If shading color is used, I think it very advantageous to use the same color scheme as (1) and (2).  But there are other possibilities that could be used in conjunction with or in place of the current scheme.  I'm going to try some. YBG (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I promised
 * {|class="wikitable"

! scope="col" style="width:15em; background:;" | Property ! ! scope="col" style="width:30em; background:;"    | Metals ! scope="col" style="width:30em; background:;" | Metalloids ! scope="col" style="width:30em; background:;" | Nonmetals


 * - valign=top
 * scope="row"| Prop1
 * style="background-color:" | Prop1a
 * style="background-color:" |Prop1b
 * style="background-color:" | Prop1c
 * style="background-color:" | Prop1c


 * - valign=top
 * scope="row"| Prop2
 * style="background-color:" | Prop2a
 * style="background-color:" |Prop2b
 * style="background-color:" | Prop2c
 * style="background-color:" | Prop2c


 * - valign=top
 * scope="row"| Prop3
 * style="background-color:" | Prop3a
 * style="background-color:" |Prop3b
 * style="background-color:" | Prop3c
 * style="background-color:" | Prop3c


 * }
 * The color boxes could be in addition to or in place of the shading. Sorting could be worked out to allow sorting by typology, which amounts to sorting by the matallicity of the metalloids, and then re-sorting back to the normal order.  I don't think there is much advantage to sorting by the right three columns.
 * Another possibility: leave out the shading and removing the vertical bar on the left of the Metalloid column when metalloids are like metals and removing the bar on the right when metalloids are like nonmetals.

YBG (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick first replies:
 * For starters, we (you) are free to choose the three key colors for the three classes. So far, they were used rarely, so have not been scrutinized yet. Some guidance exists though:
 * The brown for metalloids now is the same as in the regular category legend. Would be good if we can maintain that (enwiki-wide), but - see below.
 * The yellow and blue (metal, nonmetal) were chosen for being very apart in the three-set. Also they better not associate with an existing category-color (eg,. should not look like the Ln pinkish).
 * Being a bg color, they need to be light for contrast (black font, wikilink blue font). We could make a notch lighter colors for the big table background, and darker ones for the mini PT tables.
 * The brown for metalloids is a horrible color to use as a key. We inherited it from the early PT days on wiki. More bad colors in the category legend (Template:Periodic_table_legend, 12 key colors + grey for unk): alkali red is too dark; PTM: grey should be for unknown and table borders; metalloids brown is off; not evenly spread (many reds, few yellow/blues). Fixing this is an effort I have on my list, but its big. The 12 keys leave few degrees of freedom (ad we the need for (predicted) variants).
 * Brown in this three-set also turns out bad: Sandbh needed to stress them with borders!
 * re YBG stating that the three should be related to the 12 categories: good idea, but keep that secondary impotrtance. These color sets rarely show on the same page. This could be too much of a requirement. Also, the 12 categories are colored uneven, and so today are a bad base.


 * Colortech talk: The lightness for a chosen "color" (=point on the rainbow) is more easily set using HSV not RGB color space (it's a calculateable conversion). Because, "H" is the rainbow-color number, and S,V set the lightness (see table in Help:Using_colours). Inversely, if you keep S,V the same with different H-colors, their shade is nicely alike. End of Colortech talk.
 * I suggest: Yes keep (1)(2)(3) rules. Maybe leave the brown for metalloid, because it is too indifferent. (can change if the 12-cat colors have been redesigned). Think of lighter shades in the table (but with the same Hue-color). Forget mostly about the "link to 12-cat colors", but maybe use "reddish-yellowish!-blueish" (btw, isn't blue-greyish not nicer for metals?). -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Shorter, 1st question: shall we drop the brown=metalloid for this PT and select three good colors, or keep that connection with the general PTs? -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of having the mini-PT use the standard legend colors for metal/metalloid/nonmetal. My preferences would be
 * (a) change nothing; keep the colors as they are
 * (b) change metal/nonmetal; keep metalloid (this has relatively little impact)
 * (c) change metal/metalloid/nonmetal; keep the rest of the color scheme unchanged
 * (d) rethink the entire color scheme
 * The reason for this order is that right now, I'd prefer not getting into the longer, more drawn-out deliberations that could be involved further down the list. But if anyone has some ideas about what the color scheme ought to be in the long run, it would be good to let that inform what we do in the short term.  I have a few ideas about what I'd like to see in a major re-think of colors, but I won't muddy the waters now. YBG (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The 12-category colors are not up for change here. It just explains where the brown comes from. So (d) is out of the question here.
 * Option (b) or (c) are both easy, because this set of three is only used within this topic. If you change brown-metalloid (c), you can end up with a better color but loose the 1:1 connection with the other templates. Any color preferences for the two/three, if change one at all? -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that (d) is off the table; it certainly makes things much easier. Implied in all 4 options (a), (b), (c), and (d) is that the mini-PT displayed at Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals should be coded to use these three colors: ,  , and  .  The difference between these options is what specific colors are used by element color to represent metals, metalloids, and nonmetals.  YBG (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, is where the color will be entered. Any change you prefer? Or keep current? (yellowish too light imo). -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not pressing to change them; they can stay the way they are. I think had two concerns:
 * (1) colour scheme is insipid (but he later said he was getting used to it)
 * (2) mini-PT didn't have enough differentiation (to be resolved with borders on the metalloid cells)
 * So it seems to me that the main issues have been resolved. I say, leave it as is, but if others disagree, I'm also fine with making changes. YBG (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or if we do change, one choice would be to use a light bluish-silvery-grey for metals and a yellow for nonmetals. YBG (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Color scheme is OK; wouldn't mind seeing what light bluish-silvery-grey for metals and a yellow for nonmetals would look like. Sandbh (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the color used for metals is closer to the metalloid brown than the color of nonmetals, but both should be equally distant from it. Not that I was thoroughly checking against that (that would be pointless), it just caught the eye too easily. I guess because brown is the dark yellow? Hasn't that occurred to anyone else? --R8R (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As said, within some guidelines the yellowish and bluish were picked at random. I don't have enough time to make new proposals now. Note that this is secondary to (merged) article quality. Spend time elsewhere? -DePiep (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's not the top priority or anything. I thought it was worth noting, but if it's just me, I'll easily deal with it. If not, I don't know. At least it was stated and we are aware of it and right, it's still a secondary thing. I wouldn't sit down and think what colors would be better either.--R8R (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Received well, R8R. Just showing my anger at myself for not being able to give this topic a rest ;-). -DePiep (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Groups
Pls take another look at Group (periodic table). As you left it, "Old" IUPAC now numbers 1--18, and "New" IUPAC has A-B subdivisions. -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. It has now been fixed. YBG (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metals etc
I think I have it now. Created a new article: Heavy metal (chemical element); changed the title of the old Heavy metal (chemistry) article to Toxic heavy metal. Sandbh (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a great solution, especially since it allows light and heavy metal (chemical element) to be contrasted nicely. By the way, it might be nice to expand  with historical sidelights, for example the failure of early Kangaroo Island settlements due to a deficiency of copper. YBG (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Uus FAC
Hi! I know you're aware the Uus FAC is on, and you can see it's not really active; I'm afraid to see it close without getting just enough reception to stand a chance of getting promoted, again. Could you please review the thing? It would be so helpful for me right now; a favor in return would be on me.--R8R (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Periodic table / other arrangements URL broken
Hi, this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Periodic_table&type=revision&diff=696923579&oldid=696921424 broke the URL on the 'lemniscate' in the shaped like ... listing of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#Other_arrangements. I can't fix it since the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:105f:3:d887:1880:19fc:30 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was fixed by these edits. Thanks! YBG (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Block (periodic table)
Are you interested in writing it to eventually get a GA? I'd be glad to help you with that. I think this would be interesting for you as well.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thought I had already replied to this, but apparently I failed to hit the "Save" button. Sigh. Long story short: sounds like an interesting project, but right now I'm fairly busy IRL and so I'll have to take a rain check. Feel free to go ahead without me if you wish; I've got it watchlisted and will chime in as my bandwidth allows. YBG (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'll go alone: I have a project to work on at the moment (lead), and I don't have too much time I could afford spending on Wiki. But I'm ready to provide a rain check when you're ready to take one.--R8R (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll let you k ow. YBG (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

One opinion requested
I remember you're American? If I'm not mistaken, then I'd like to ask a question re U.S. geography. Please tell me, from a perspective of a person who lives in the Western hemisphere, how well-known is the toponym of Ozarks? Is it universally understood throughout the U.S.? Any chances to estimate if it's recongnizable for people in Canada? Mexico? South America? I am quite familiar with the major landmarks in Europe and, in part, Asia, but I lack any knowledge of North American physical geography. I'm writing the history section of lead, and it mentions the Lead Belt in Missouri, but I'd like to get away from any states or stuff like that. There even wasn't a Missouri in 1700!

So, will the Americans (both the U.S.-born people and born elsewhere in the Americas) understand the toponym?--R8R (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * One more question: could you make similar estimations for the "Iberian peninsula" and "Anatolia"?--R8R (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ozarks should be fairly well understood in the US and probably in Canada, but I'm less certain about how familiar it would be to folks from Central or South America. Note that although it extends both north and south of the AR-MO state line (and, I see, even into OK and KS), I associate it mostly with Arkansas. It was a surprise to me when I read the article to see that there is a larger area in MO than in AR. But I'm not certain whether this is unique to me or if it extends more broadly. This could be related to the fact that its familiarity -- to me, and I believe in general -- stems mostly from being a very distinct cultural region, rather than being a geographical region.
 * Iberian peninsula is immediately understandable to me, perhaps because of studying Spanish in middle and high school. Anatolia, when I first saw it was familiar but I couldn't quite place it -- then as soon as the hovercard popped up, I slapped my head "Oh, yea, I should know that".
 * With regard to using toponymns, another alternative is to use phrases like "present-day Turkey" or the like.
 * Oh, and by the way, only the first opinion requested is free. Thereafter, the price of each subsequent opinion doubles. Cheers! YBG (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I know that zero doubled is still zero :) Still, thank you very much for your cooperation.
 * Yes, I absolutely expected it to be culture-dependent. I just consulted a map, and it says my home city of Moscow is closer to Tehran than to Madrid; yet I know the geography, history, and culture of Spain a little, and I don't know any of these for Iran (I just know they're a very old civilization, with their origin dating back to well before the Common Era started. I also couldn't remember the name of the mountains Tehran stands on until I googled. Too bad). I know the U.S. and Canada are a common cultural space, with some exceptions both within and throughout the two countries, and I expected South America to be completely different than both, still... Mexico? As you can see, I'm not very well aware of how deep mutual cultural penetration in the Americas is. Hence these questions.
 * While I like the idea of maximum understandability (I always try to implement that in my Wiki-writing), I don't think it is right to say "modern-day Turkey" or the like. There was no Turkey back then, and I don't want to get it into the story, as it strays the reader from the main event sequence. I could even bear the Ozarks, which I had never heard of before this Friday. (Luckily, the Ozarks are no longer needed, as there was an earlier lead mine in the New World -- which I also don't want to call "the Americas" because "New World" seems to be a better choice for a discussion of the age of colonization of the Americas. "Colony of Virginia" should be okay for everyone, I think.)
 * Also, I stand corrected -- there was a Missouri in 1700. I forgot there was a river of that name. :) --R8R (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Could I borrow ten minutes of your time to ask you to give the History section a read and see if the geography (and language) is understandable? (I can't alter the geography, of course, but I can add wikilinks, or specify things, or something else). Of course, it's not complete, but the time span yet to be covered should be easy enough for me to make judgments about accessibility myself.--R8R (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar periodic table
I don't get what you are doing with Sidebar periodic table, but it does not look good. For example, using hr is out of date, and stacking effects too. OTOH, my /sandbox thing is really great and faultless and brilliant (... or at least you could take a look). DePiep (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted everything except the swap of alternative and extended. I was just experimenting and hit "Save" without intending to. Sigh. If I'd been working in the sandbox, this wouldn't have happened. Thanks for the gracious response to my clumsiness. YBG (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All fine. Now pls take a look at my brilliant /sandbox version :-) -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Doing that as we speak. YBG (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Did I mention I made a devastatingly good improved version? How cold I forget. Maybe I'm too shy. -DePiep (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Shy" and "DePiep" form a contradiction. Shall I add my comments here ... or at the template talk page? YBG (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see Template Talk is redirected to the project talk page. YBG (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Nah, just copy into the main template what you like. No time for talks. When I say I trust your judgement, I suppose you give a good eye to the proposals (... and then blindly copy my wonderful improvements into live). -DePiep (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll move over the changes I'm ready to accept. Here's a somparison: YBG (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: Something about including this inside a table seems to have interfered with the center justification, but eliminating the class=wikitable has fixed it. YBG (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks fine. I'm not into perfecticising this one, keeping relaxed. -DePiep (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

One more question re cultural differences
There is one more thing I would like to know about the American perception of things. What do you and other Americans think of when they hear the word "ton(ne)"? How much is that? Does the article ton correctly explain the differences? In scientific contexts, do people ever think of tons as of metric units, or only when it is clearly stated, "metric tons"? How would you think of "ton" in this document?--R8R (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And, of course, the question I forgot: if we say "metric ton" once, is it okay not to say the "metric" part in every consequent occurrence of the term and expect people to realize we're still talking in the metric unit?--R8R (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The article ton seems to accurately reflect my understanding. I would presume the USGS article refers to 2,000 lb short tons.  As to not repeating the 'metric', I'd have to think about that.  One idea would be to say 'metric ton (tonne)' or something similar the first time and then say 'tonne' subsequently. Just a thought. Probably ought to consult WP:MOS for guidance and if there is none, then draft something to be included there. YBG (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. My intention is to write articles accessible to most people in general. As one example of that, the article ununseptium (which I've brought to the FA status) introduces the reader into a few terms; this does make the article easier to read for those who aren't very good with the topic already, although another editor could assume the reader should know them or learn them elsewhere, given the technical nature of the article. I will check the MOS; if there's nothing useful, I'll probably want to ask you more about the alternatives.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, is "tonne" okay for AmE? I assume the Americans understand a vast majority of specifically British words and vice versa, but I still intend to write in AmE, even though I like to use words common for both AmE and BrE rather than AmE-specific ones when both kinds are available (again, accessibility), and if that word is not common in AmE, I'd rather stay out.--R8R (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't know if this is merely idiosyncratic, but I put ton/tonne in a category with pound/kilogram rather than with center/centre or hood/bonnet or the like.
 * I'd be more than happy to weigh in on MOS alternatives. YBG (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I am a little confused now, because the article tonne says, "In the United States metric ton is the name for this unit used and recommended by NIST; an unqualified mention of a ton almost invariably refers to a short ton of 2,000 pounds (907 kg), and tonne is rarely used in speech or writing." (By the way, I assume the USGS article refers to the metric tons. I wondered for a while as well after I first saw the paper; but then I noticed the note that says, "Data in thousand metric tons of lead content unless otherwise noted".)
 * Unforntunately, the MOS has nothing to offer in this case at the moment. We're on our own.
 * It appears to me we'll have to go with "metric tons" (which is okay; everyone should be able to understand the term, be they British, American, or from elsewhere), but I am still uncertain whether we can skip the "metric" part in non-initial occurrences, and if so, if we should do so.--R8R (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * re USGS, if the footnote says they are referring to metric tons, then I believe them. But I didn't read the footnote, so I assumed short tons.
 * Yea, I suppose that it would be unusual in the US to say "tonne" instead of "metric ton", but I was suggesting that we use "metric tonne" as it would no doubt be highly approved by the Department of Repetitive Redundancy Department. By using "tonne" in subsequent mentions, it would be immediately understood by non-US readers and it would alert US readers that it was not what they would usually expect.
 * Here's some ideas for first and subsequent occurrences:
 * {| class=wikitable

! # !! first mention         !! thereafter               !! comments
 * 1 || metric ton (tonne)    || tonne                     || (what I suggested above)
 * 2 || metric ton (tonne) || tonne || (with wikilink & abbr
 * 3 || metric tonne || tonne || (eliminating the initial parenthetical aside)
 * 4 || metric ton        || ton   || (eliminating the tonne spelling)
 * 5 || metric ton        || ton        || (additional option)
 * }
 * I personally favor #2, but I expect you would favor #4. YBG (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 || metric ton        || ton   || (eliminating the tonne spelling)
 * 5 || metric ton        || ton        || (additional option)
 * }
 * I personally favor #2, but I expect you would favor #4. YBG (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally favor #2, but I expect you would favor #4. YBG (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I hoped you'd miss the note, so I could get the initial thinking about tons.
 * It appeared to me first, and still does so after I read the description page of abbr, that it would not be right to use the template for ton. It also looks like an over-complication: we're talking about a common material, and the template makes the article look more difficult than it is. Besides, I wouldn't want to use it because of accessibility problems (touchscreens). Since you say "tonne" would be unusual in the context of AmE, it shouldn't be used (not to say some Americans can surely be unfamiliar with the fact "tonne" is actually different from "ton". I actually think it's safe to say many people won't think tonne/ton is not just a spelling difference). I guess we'll have to go with "metric ton/ton" if you agree too much "metric" won't be great.--R8R (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow! So I passed the test because I didn't look closely. Now that's a switch!
 * Re spelling differences, I don't think the initial U.S. reaction to tonne would be "Oh, a spelling difference". I might be wrong, but I'd guess most are only aware of the er/re and or/our differences.
 * It's almost enough to make me want to switch the entire article to BrE.
 * To be realistic, in dealing with such large quantities, the 10% difference between the two ton and tonne isn't very significant.
 * Re using abbr, I know it has accessibility issues; I've run into this before when I wanted to (ab)use it. Sigh.
 * I've added another alternative to the above table. This also crosses the line a bit as it could be considered overlinking to use ton multiple times, but I think this might be one of the situations where it would be appropriate to WP:IAR. YBG (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for a late reply.
 * There was no test; but this attitude is also fine :)
 * 10% is significant. Not when you say speak about tons in general ("produced tons of lead," for example), but consider this sentence from the article: "World reserves—resources ready to be mined for which that would be economically feasible—totaled 89 million tons in 2015, of which Australia had 35 million, China had 15.8 million, and Russia had 9.2 million."
 * I think I came up with a great solution after I first read your reply. I speak about tons in two relatively short subsections: On Earth and Production and recycling. I can mention the units as "metric tons" at first occurrences in both sections, and use "tons" thereafter. Should be easy to read for American and British people alike, and no overlinking is needed. What do you think?--R8R (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! YBG (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)