User talk:Quilbert
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Ladonia
Hello and thank you Quilbert, Yes, you can see "Nimis" and "Wotan’s tower" in the aerial images available thru the links. Click on the coordinates in the "Ladonia" article, which takes you to the GeoHack page, then the link to "Sweden" and "map". Click on "Flygfoto", and zoom-in. I did not see "Gene" in the aerial imagery but it would not be far away. truthdowser (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merge of isotope tables
As someone who has maintained Isotope table (complete) and/or Isotope table (divided) in the past, your input is needed. User:Greg L is proposing (and prematurely executing) a merge of the two tables, each about 50k, into one table of over 100k. I am opposing it, and no other editors have commented yet. Please come to Talk:Isotope table (complete) and offer your opinion. Thanks, JWB (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merger
Quilbert: I see you voted for what is now option #2 on the vote page. What do you think about option #3, which would keep the best of both worlds and would leave only one article? In case other options get added and the numbering gets changed, here is a historical version to show which option I’m talking about. Greg L (my talk) 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn’t vote for that. You just moved my suggestion away from my vote! With a soft merge, the single venue for maintaining and discussing would be the template containing the data. --Quilbert (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I just don’t know how I managed to do that. Are you sure that the data is stored in a single template and that if it is changed in either of the two articles, the change will appear in both? I once changed a color code for the isotope half-life in one and it didn’t appear in the other. Did I just not wait long enough for the change to propogate or did I fail to refresh or something? Greg L (my talk) 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, that is right. Just as I stored the data for elements 0 to 29 in User:Quilbert/IsotoneRows. --Quilbert (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
I like what you’ve done at your proposal User:Quilbert/Experiment. Couldn’t your single-template method be implemented in a dual-view page like Isotope table (complete) currently is (which your Experiment page effectively replicates)? By combining both (your single data source, and the single page with both views), it would fix both my objections to the status quo: Having two places to edit data (errors) and having two venues to discuss issues (poor coordination). Greg L (my talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, that could be done as well. But, as stated above, coordination problems could also be solved by discussing data issues on the template’s discussion page and framework issues on the respective article discussion pages. --Quilbert (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it’s true that discussions can be directed to a single place and one way or another, that should be done. I guess there is a third issue that needs to be addressed: usability and convenience. When I added a link from Kilogram to these articles, I had to choose one article or the other. At the time, I chose “complete” because “divided” was hard to navigate. Of course, as has currently been done, advisos can always be posted within the articles providing a link to the alternative article. My reasoning was as follows: Why have two alternative places to go to? Many readers turn on their brain-filters and skim body text in order to quickly advance to the meat of the article; they don’t notice the availability of an alternative view.
Then I quickly got frustrated with all the two-axis scrolling required on “complete” so I modified it—as you’ve seen. Now, if the user starts to scroll, they immediately end up in the über scrolling world. If they use the TOC, they end up in a real handy segmented area with the new “ ← Previous | Next → ” navigation aids and other quick links (like to the periodic table where users can then hit their browser’s “back” arrow when they’re done with the periodic table). In the “segmented” section, users never have horizontal scrolling and have fast navigation to the periodic table and adjacent sections, and also have multiple color legends whereever they are (alll of which JWB copied the crap out of in only one day). With this method, users are immediately aware of the availability of both views and have handy access to both.
I very much like your single-database template. I’d propose that I add a hybrid option to the discussion page. I would dump my original vote and instead support the hybrid option. Would you be willing to support that new option too? Alternatively, we can keep our original votes and post an additional vote on the alternative option. Greg L (my talk) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it’s true that discussions can be directed to a single place and one way or another, that should be done. I guess there is a third issue that needs to be addressed: usability and convenience. When I added a link from Kilogram to these articles, I had to choose one article or the other. At the time, I chose “complete” because “divided” was hard to navigate. Of course, as has currently been done, advisos can always be posted within the articles providing a link to the alternative article. My reasoning was as follows: Why have two alternative places to go to? Many readers turn on their brain-filters and skim body text in order to quickly advance to the meat of the article; they don’t notice the availability of an alternative view.
-
- P.S. I went ahead and added the hybrid option (quick jump to voting page). I like the single database only too much. This will give others an opportuntity to throw weight behind it. Greg L (my talk) 22:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 209Bismuth
Quilbert: I stumbled across Table of nuclides, 73-96 and saw that 209Bi is listed as being a “stable” isotope. Its actual half-life, as you probably already know, is 19±2 × 1018 years via alpha decay. I was really close to just fixing this myself but have no idea what dependencies there might be on that cell so I decided to not take it upon myself to alter it.
The shear enormity of isotope data on the various Wikipedia pages boggles the mind. I can look up info on bismuth here at Isotope table (complete)#Isotopes for elements 75-89, and at Isotopes of bismuth (where the data is correct), and at Table of nuclides, 73-96 (where the data is incorrect).
Given that keeping all this data in synch is already a butt-itch*, I’m really rather astonished that there have been advocates who thought it was a good idea to maintain two identical articles (Isotope table (divided) and Isotope table (complete))—each with its own talk page! It seems that until you stepped up to the plate with a big bat, no one was willing to do what it really takes to keep all this data coordinated using a rational approach.
I suppose the thing to do now on Isotope table (complete), is just sit back and let it soak in for a while. Do you agree?
- * Butt-itch n.: That nasty little problem that won’t go away on its own and which can’t easily be tended to in public.
Greg L (my talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like the coloring is not yet optimal. Bi-209 is listed as unstable (compare to the stable Pb-208), and the template hasn’t changed since yesterday:
-
-
- I was wondering about all that extra repetitive text. It’s now 29,458 bytes. Talk about compact.
I’m not clear as to which article is supposed to appear like your above example. Is that what Table_of_nuclides,_73-96#Bismuth is supposed to look like? In your above example, I see a color-coded horizontal version of what one sees in a column on “complete”. Here’s what I see when I go to Table_of_nuclides,_73-96#Bismuth:
| 209Bi | stable | 9/2- | %Abundance=100 |
| 210Bi | 5.013 d | 1- |%β-=100, %α=1.32E-4 |
As you can see, the 209Bi is listed as stable and there are no colors and it’s just a plain B&W tabular table. It appears that way using Safari, Internet Explorer, and FireFox on a Mac. Greg L (my talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was wondering about all that extra repetitive text. It’s now 29,458 bytes. Talk about compact.
-
-
-
- Oh sorry, you are right. Somehow, I didn’t perceive that you were talking about that article. --Quilbert (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I fixed it now. You can edit those tables, they have no dependencies. By the way, we have to include these articles in our considerations when renaming our article ... Actually, in my opinion, they should be named Isotope lists and our table should be named Table of nuclides. --Quilbert (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Perhaps I’m not the best judge of the politics here. But it appears to me that opposition to what we’re doing here has largely collapsed since the advantages of what has been done are many and its disadvantages are non-existent. I would suggest the shortest possible filename for anything that repeats a hundred times in an article. As for the article name—“Table of nuclides”—if you think that is most technically accurate, then I would accede to your judgment. I would hope that you know how to simultaneously 1) handle the move so all the discussion transfer over, and 2) know how to simultaneously handle redirects on searches like “Table of isotopes (complete)”, “Lists of isotopes”, “Isotopes list”, “Table of isotopes”, etc.
On a separate subject, do you know how to add a colored border to one of the cells in Template:Isotope colour chart? In the introductory text, I’d like to specifically reference that example cell. Greg L (my talk) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I’m not the best judge of the politics here. But it appears to me that opposition to what we’re doing here has largely collapsed since the advantages of what has been done are many and its disadvantages are non-existent. I would suggest the shortest possible filename for anything that repeats a hundred times in an article. As for the article name—“Table of nuclides”—if you think that is most technically accurate, then I would accede to your judgment. I would hope that you know how to simultaneously 1) handle the move so all the discussion transfer over, and 2) know how to simultaneously handle redirects on searches like “Table of isotopes (complete)”, “Lists of isotopes”, “Isotopes list”, “Table of isotopes”, etc.
-
-
You could use this code:
{|class="wikitable"
| {{Iso2|91|Nb|G|I}}
| rowspan=2 | nuclides with nuclear isomers<br/>in different half-life categories
|-
| {{Iso2|94|Nb|Y}}
|}
becoming:
|
91Nb
|
nuclides with nuclear isomers in different half-life categories |
|
94Nb
|
The moving of the talk pages won’t be a problem. But let’s wait for a while until the discussion is settled before we move the articles around. --Quilbert (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Well, I tried this, but…
I tried placing this in the article but the resulting placement is left-justified. I’m no damned good with these things.
|
91Nb
|
Yellow border: Isomer half-life 10–100 days |
|
94Nb
|
|
|
102Rh
|
Using this code:
{|class="wikitable"
| {{Iso2|91|Nb|G|I}}
| rowspan=3 | <p style="line-height:180%">Yellow border: Isomer half-life 10–100 days<br/>
White border: Isomer half-life <1 day<br/>Lt. green border: Isomer half-life 100 days–10 yrs</p>
|-
| {{Iso2|94|Nb|Y}}
|-
| {{Iso2|102|Rh|B|B}}
|}
…but it didn’t quite work out like I planned. The line spacing must be managed to get it to line up but if I use the full amount of line spacing to make it really line up well, I end up with this:
|
91Nb
|
Yellow border: Isomer half-life 10–100 days |
|
94Nb
|
|
|
102Rh
|
You get the idea of what I’m after. Maybe we can try it later as you are frying bigger fish right now. Greg L (my talk) 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] try this
I see what you want. I suggesgt this code:
{|align="right" class="wikitable"
| {{Iso2|91|Nb|G|I}}
| Yellow border: Isomer half-life {{Iso/I/text}}
|-
| {{Iso2|94|Nb|Y}}
| White border: Isomer half-life {{Iso/-/text}}
|-
| {{Iso2|102|Rh|B|B}}
| Lt. green border: Isomer half-life {{Iso/B/text}}
|}
|
91Nb
|
Yellow border: Isomer half-life 10–100 days |
|
94Nb
|
White border: Isomer half-life < 1 day |
|
102Rh
|
Lt. green border: Isomer half-life 100 days – 10 years |
--Quilbert (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Placement control
That’s what I’m looking for. Thanks. I’ve taken your code and tried various layouts in a so-far vain effort to obtain a layout that looks good regardless of page width. There’s not a lot of text at top and the page flow makes for weird and ugly looking results in most cases. Is there a way to “join” the two tables so they can’t break?
Novices like me would think that the following code…
{{isotope colour chart|}}{|align="right" class="wikitable"
| {{Iso2|91|Nb|G|I}}
| Yellow border: Isomer half-life {{Iso/I/text}}
|-
| {{Iso2|94|Nb|Y}}
| White border: Isomer half-life {{Iso/-/text}}
|-
| {{Iso2|102|Rh|B|B}}
| Lt. green border: Isomer half-life {{Iso/B/text}}
|}
{{for|an overview of available representations|Table of nuclides}}
The various isotope tables below (scroll down) show the known [[isotope]]s of the [[chemical element]]s.
<ref>The data for these tables came from [[Brookhaven National Laboratory]] which has an interactive
[http://www-nds.iaea.org/nudat2/ Table of Nuclides] with data on ~3000 nuclides.</ref> They are
arranged with increasing [[atomic number]]s ([[proton]] numbers) from left to right and increasing [[neutron]]
numbers from top to bottom.
For convenience, two different views of the data are available here: ''“Segmented tables,”'' and a single
''“Unitized table (all elements).”'' Choose…
…would put your little three-row table below the colour chart. But here’s what I get:
| 145Gd | < 1 day |
| 146Gd | 1–10 days |
| 149Gd | 10–100 days |
| 153Gd | 100d–10 years |
| 148Gd | 10–10,000 years |
| 150Gd | 10k–103m years |
| 152Gd | > 700m years |
| 158Gd | Stable |
|
91Nb
|
Yellow border: Isomer half-life 10–100 days |
|
94Nb
|
White border: Isomer half-life < 1 day |
|
102Rh
|
Lt. green border: Isomer half-life 100 days – 10 years |
The various isotope tables below (scroll down) show the known isotopes of the chemical elements.[1] They are arranged with increasing atomic numbers (proton numbers) from left to right and increasing neutron numbers from top to bottom.
For convenience, two different views of the data are available here: “Segmented tables,” and a single “Unitized table (all elements).” Choose whichever one you need from the table of contents, below. The unitized table allows easy visualizion of proton/neutron-count trends but requires simultaneous horizontal and vertical scrolling. The segmented tables permit easier examination of a particular chemical element with much less scrolling. Links are provided to quickly jump between the different sections.
Note the example color legend shown at right. These legends are provided alongside each table below. Cell color denotes the half-life of each isotope. If you’ve scrolled so a color legend is not in view, allowing your cursor to dwell over a cell will cause a pop-up text box to indicate that isotope’s half-life. If a cell is two-colored, dwelling over it will also disclose the half-life of the most stable nuclear isomer state.
It looks like the colour chart has “administer privileges” that gives it priority to be at the top. So I just moved your new three-row table as far down as I can go. Check out Table of nuclides (combined) to see what I’ve managed so far. I’m not entirely happy with the way the page elements flow but can live with it. I’m hoping you know of a way to keep that three-row table below the top one and nailed against the right edge.
18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New suggestion
I have slightly modified the Isotope color chart to allow for extensions. Maybe this is what you’re looking for?
| 145Gd | < 1 day |
| 146Gd | 1–10 days |
| 149Gd | 10–100 days |
| 153Gd | 100d–10 years |
| 148Gd | 10–10,000 years |
| 150Gd | 10k–103m years |
| 152Gd | > 700m years |
| 158Gd | Stable |
|
91Nb
|
Yellow border: Isomer half-life 10–100 days |
|
94Nb
|
White border: Isomer half-life < 1 day |
|
102Rh
|
Lt. green border: Isomer half-life 100 days – 10 years |
{{Isotope colour chart|
PLUS = {{!-}}
{{!}} {{Iso2|91|Nb|G|I}}
{{!}} Yellow border: Isomer half-life {{Iso/I/text}}
{{!-}}
{{!}} {{Iso2|94|Nb|Y}}
{{!}} White border: Isomer half-life {{Iso/-/text}}
{{!-}}
{{!}} {{Iso2|102|Rh|B|B}}
{{!}} Lt. green border: Isomer half-life {{Iso/B/text}}
}}
--Quilbert (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
or so:
| 145Gd | < 1 day |
| 146Gd | 1–10 days |
| 149Gd | 10–100 days |
| 153Gd | 100d–10 years |
| 148Gd | 10–10,000 years |
| 150Gd | 10k–103m years |
| 152Gd | > 700m years |
| 158Gd | Stable |
|
91Nb
|
Yellow border: Isomer half-life 10–100 days |
|
94Nb
|
White border: Isomer half-life < 1 day |
|
102Rh
|
Lt. green border: Isomer half-life 100 days – 10 years |
{{Isotope colour chart|
PLUS = {{!-}}
{{!}} {{Iso2|91|Nb|G|I}}
{{!}} rowspan=2 {{!}} Yellow border:<br/>Isomer half-life {{Iso/I/text}}
{{!-}}
{{!}}
{{!-}}
{{!}} {{Iso2|94|Nb|Y}}
{{!}} rowspan=2 {{!}} White border:<br/>Isomer half-life {{Iso/-/text}}
{{!-}}
{{!}}
{{!-}}
{{!}} {{Iso2|102|Rh|B|B}}
{{!}} rowspan=2 {{!}} Lt. green border:<br/>Isomer half-life {{Iso/B/text}}
{{!-}}
{{!}}
}}
--Quilbert (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Great. I’ve revised “(combined)” with this. The new legend no longer resembles the actual ones used below and is much wider now. However, I’ve confirmed it works well on 800-pixel monitors. I’ll keep it here for a while and see if I warm up to it. Do you like the new look? We can easily go back to what I had. Sometime, I wish you’d explain how you got so good at templates. Is there a place on Wikipeida to read up on this? If so, I haven't found it yet. Besides, I’d never have the patience to try to learn all the tricks. Thanks so much. Greg L (my talk) 01:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: I compacted the isomer text some (no need to name the colors). In a two-step process, I also changed to 198Au, so the border now progresses white, pink, yellow and the resulting “V” text takes up less room. I’ve really warmed up to the new look quite a lot now that it’s more compact. Do you like? Greg L (my talk) 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that looks reasonable. Maybe we could even leave out “Border” and “half-life”?
- I have been programming for quite some time. That is learning by doing. Once you get to know how computers “think”, such things are learned easily. If you want to learn more, the natural place to go would be Help:Template. --Quilbert (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- You’re right. None of the other cells had the words “half-life.” I substituted “is.” I left the words “Border” and “Isomer” because we authors get darn familiar with these articles and it’s easy to think that all new readers must do is read a little body text. A picture of a colored border is a huge help for first-time readers; of that, I’m certain and I’m very appreciative you took the time to modify the template to support this feature. It takes imagination, but I try to pretend I’m a new reader visiting the article for the first time (which isn’t hard because I can still remember almost everything that initially confused me). I don’t think I’m unusual in my reading habits and know I’m horrible about skipping over introductory text and going first to pictures, captions, and the ‘meat & potatoes’ of articles. This is a byproduct of the Internet where one can quickly explore a lot of information. If I can get a caption fully self-explanatory and tight, that’s good. If I can get a caption fully self-explanatory and really pithy and tight, that’s great. Greg L (my talk) 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Isotope tables templates
Thanks! The templates you made were a good idea too. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Table of nuclides
Hi! I'm not sure why you picked me out, especially as I've been away for a couple days now. :-) Either way, another admin's taken care of it. Happy editing! east.718 at 05:47, February 27, 2008
- Hi, thanks, I just picked someone from Recentchanges who obviously had administrator priviledges … It seems you were using a bot then, I didn’t notice that. Regards, --Quilbert (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
 |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For your huge effort on all the “isotope” templates (like Template:Isotones to name just one), which are used in articles such as Table of nuclides (combined), Table of nuclides (complete), Table of nuclides (segmented, narrow) and Table of nuclides (segmented, wide). Template authors are the unsung heros of Wikipedia. Thanks. Greg L (my talk) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) |
If ever I've seen someone who deserved a barnstar it would be Quilbert for all his effort to the Isotones article! --Rebroad (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:142.33.207.9
Have you received any reply from the school's administration yet? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Drip lines
Quilbert, I see here on the table of nuclides that there is a new feature on the nuclides chart. I am referring to the “drip lines”, the heavy gray dashed border in the low-mass area. I want to touch upon this in the introductory part of Table of nuclides (combined) but want to clearly understand it myself. Apparently, the drip-line border represents both the proton drip line and the neutron drip line. In which direction is an element “beyond” these drip lines? Specifically, which isotone, hydrogen-5 or helium-6, leaks protons? Which isotope, carbon-8 or carbon-9, leaks neutrons? Another way I could ask this question is this way: Do most nuclides leak or not leak? I would appreciate it if you responded on my talk page, or, if you respond here, leave me a quick note on my talk page alerting me to your answer. Greg L (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. I think I understand it well enough to add a short explanation. Greg L (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "the important thing is that usage should be consistent"
I have explained my reason for removing this sentence here. – flamurai (t) 05:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: My request
My apologies for not responding sooner. It's been a bit of a crazy week. I understand your concerns and I apologize for the inconvenience. Those talk pages won't be deleted again. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfC
I agree that this is less a debate about Greg’s conduct but about IEC prefixes.
It's entirely about Greg's conduct. Yes, we are involved in a dispute about SI prefixes, but it's the conduct of the users involved that's preventing us from reaching a consensus. Several users avoid the talk page altogether because of the hostile atmosphere, so Greg ignores their opinions and tries to drive off the rest who oppose him with personal attacks and mocking. Aluvus and SMcCandlish attempted informal mediation but gave up in disgust.
So I decided to go after the root of the problem, which is Greg's incivility and disregard for the opinions of others, instead of wasting my time on the talk page repeating the same arguments over and over to people with their fingers in their ears. If he was cooperative, we could reach a real consensus, instead of just spending all our time trying to prevent him from pushing through new policies based on stacked 7:5 votes. Should I behave like him and notify only the 20 people who originally voted in favor of IEC to override his votes? Of course not. This sort of thing needs to be decided based on good reasons and consensus. The guideline should only make a recommendation on this issue if that recommendation has wide agreement among all editors. If it does not have wide agreement, it should be removed, as I have repeatedly tried to do. — Omegatron (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- OK, whatever that RfC is about … it is my honest belief that consensus is unreachable in that matter. Whether Greg is around or not. Sadly, enwiki seems to have no polling mechanism that would enable a poll with at least a hundred participants. So what can we do? I as a pro-IEC candidate will always dislike the “current literature” practice, as current literature is being inconsistent. Others will never get used to the “Kibi kindergarten”. How is that ever to lead to a consensus? --Quilbert (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I still have faith that consensus can be reached, but not without Greg changing his behavior. This is not a case in which there are two "sides" that must battle each other to the death, and then the side with a 1% majority gets to run all over the other. There are several different positions here (pro-SI, anti-IEC, pro-IEC), and a variety of different solutions, and they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. But when Greg refuses to consider the viewpoints of others, declares that he'll "stop at nothing" to push through his agenda, pisses people off and polarizes the discussion, he prevents any progress from being made.
You say, "I am really sure that he only fights for the better of Wikipedia and should not be accused for his temper in this way." I agree with you 100% that he's only fighting to improve Wikipedia; we all are, and I agree that he's sometimes a productive editor, but being belligerent to other users is never acceptable, no matter what you're fighting for. That's the whole point of Wikipedia:Civility. "Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. ... avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible." Calling other editors "extremists" or "space cadets" is never acceptable on Wikipedia, no matter how spacey and extremist you might think they are. — Omegatron (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
