YBG

Hi, I hope you can help me out as I have nominated this image to become a Featured Picture and now there is some questions about this image.
I hope you have the knowledge to provide answers to the questions at this link. The questions are;
1) This representation is different to all the others I've Googled. Does it have Academic authentication?
2) But could you add to the description about which colors are which elements.
I'm a graphic worker and have no knowledge of this subject.
I really hope you can help me or tell me someone else who might be able, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have got the needed information from another user so this is   Done, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

My edit was to get Template:List of aqueous ions/header out of Wikipedia:Database reports/Invalid Navbar links when it next runs. Your revert will mean that it remains in the report. Please also note that the namespace prefix is unnecessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Redrose64, I saw you did the same in here. But actually, the v-t-e links should lead to the templatepage with the content. The database report title is wrong in these cases. I have no idea on how to prevent these, eh, incorrect edits. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why is a navbar needed anyway? How often is an edit to Template:List of aqueous ions required, for which a navbar would make that edit easier to carry out? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is an unrelated question. (The answer is in the wiki principles). -DePiep (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Redrose64: Excluding navbars from infrequently edited templates could be misunderstood as a claim of WP:OWNership. Including them is a subtle way of inviting editors to collaborate.

I have modified the parent template to pass the navbar in as a parameter so that it only appears in the parent template, and not when the header appears independently or as a part of testcases. This should remove it from next month's report. @DePiep: perhaps this same technique could be used in {{ISO 15924 script codes and related Unicode data}} and its /header sub-template.

In my opinion, the process that generates these reports should explicitly recognize the template-header pattern and make provision for it, not by excluding them as it apparently does /sandbox templates, but by stripping off the /header (or perhaps /anything) before making the comparison.

In an unrelated side note, so that the content inside the template or block is more easily editable in situ where it was found, without having track it down through examining transclusion code. (as it says in {{navbar}}, I had contemplated making the edit link point to the /data subtemplate, which I expect would be the most likely place editors would wish to make changes.

YBG (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Needslessly complicating (isn't this why the header is separated in the first place?), and only use would be to mislead a non-understanding administrative bot. -DePiep (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, needless. But it looks like most of the errors found by the bot are things that can and should be fixed, e.g., typos like "Hungaru" instead of "Hungary" (which I just fixed) and obsolete links left over from page moves. So to help editors like RR64 focus on things that really make a difference, I don't mind a little bit of complication. It's my little bit to facilitate the overall improvement of the encyclopedia. An even better solution would be to make the bot smarter, but that requires more research and time than I'm willing to invest. YBG (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not jumping for joy, but I think it is OK if editors like Redrose64 understand this database-dump-limitation quirk and so can edit/notedit accordingly.

BTW, I met this solution I already employed (the table rows are in-article today, so no top-v-t-e-links useful): {{Isotopes table}}. Looks nice imo. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello, YBG,

It seems that you added a CSD tag to Template:List of aqueous ions/row/sandbox which has now caused every template that includes this one to have a speedy deletion tag on them. Are all of the templates in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user supposed to be deleted? Can you fix this? If you have a template you want deleted, maybe approach an administrator so that the CSD tag doesn't get transcluded on other templates. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Liz: Thank you. I meant to change the calling template before adding the CSD tag. It should all be OK now. YBG (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, templates are an area I don't understand so thank you for fixing the problem. The templates are gone from the CSD category now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The data from Hawaii from the NOAA page, as per "Unreferenced data assumed to be from NOAA" --Jbaranao (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Jbaranao: Thank you for the explanation. Feel free to restore your edit, but please make sure you include an edit summary. Edit summaries are always a good idea, but especially when doing something that could be viewed some skepticism, such as removing a reference. I occasionally forget to include an edit summary myself, and so I have selected the preference that reminds me when I forget. Thank you for your contributions, and happy editing. YBG (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I'm following up on some interest you expressed on the Dutch Bros Talk page. I responded to your comments about my History request but didn't hear back, so I thought I’d reach out a little more directly. If you feel I didn't quite address your concerns, I'm happy to discuss further. Otherwise, any additional time and input you might be willing to give to help me with my draft is much appreciated. Thanks in advance! Hillaryjbrown (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.

The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Swearing in of John Adams and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26#Swearing in of John Adams until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

 Template:List of aqueous ions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:List of aqueous ions/row/cell has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:List of aqueous ions/notes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:List of aqueous ions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here’s what I had in mind to replace the picture and quote is at Nonmetal § Halogen nonmetals

 

 

 

sodium (Na),chlorine (Cl), and table salt (NaCl)
Corrosive chlorine, a halogen nonmetal, combines with highly reactive sodium to form stable, unreactive table salt.

YBG (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Periodic table (list of metalloid lists) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Kjerish (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Metal/Nonmetal articles

358  234  (metal per se) - includes metallic
 18  246  “nonmetal” - includes nonmetallic
  9   53  “metalloid”
  3    2  “metallicity”
387  536  “metal” total

Other article pairs for comparison

Vertebrate/Invertebrate articles

126   17  (vertebrate per se)
  6   93  “invertebrate”
133  110  “vertebrate” total

Rational/Irrational number articles

110   46  (rational per se)
 12  104  “irrational”
122  150  “rational” total

Algebraic/Transcendental number articles

65   53  “Algebraic”
 6  106  “Transcendental”
71  159  (total) 

YBG (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sandbh: As an aside, I’m wondering if you could speculate why “metal” is mentioned so much more in nonmetal than “vertebrate” is in invertebrate, or “rational” in irrational, or “algebraic” in transcendental number? Can you think of any other similar pairs of opposites worth comparing? YBG (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In chemistry, the properties of nonmetals are often understood in terms of how they differ from metals. This contrast is fundamental to explaining what nonmetals are, hence the frequent mention of "metal" in the context of "nonmetal." On the other hand, terms like "invertebrate," "irrational," and "transcendental number" are defined by the absence of certain characteristics (backbones, rationality, algebraic properties) but do not always require the direct contrast to their counterparts for their definition or understanding.

Metals were known and used since antiquity, so much of early chemistry was focused on metals. As a result, when nonmetals were studied, they were often described in terms of how they differed from the already familiar metals. In education, students typically learn about metals before nonmetals, so the teaching and discussion of nonmetals often references metals for context.

Other similar pairs: acids and bases; cations and anions; matter and antimatter; conductors and insulators; day and night. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sandbh: Thank you, this stimulates more thinking. In retrospect, another significant difference occurs to me: in the other pairs (vertebrate/invertebrate, rational/irrational, algebraic/transcendental), there is a clear single-property that distinguishes the two: the presence of a backbone, being equal to the ratio of integers, and being the solution of a polynomial with integer coefficients. I suspect that if there were a universally accepted single-property distinction between metal and nonmetal, the comparisons would have seemed significantly less necessary. If you were to create a table to contrast the other pairs, it would end up being something rather trivial:

• (has a backbone) vs. (lacks a backbone)
• (equals the ratio of two integers) vs. (not the ratio of any two integers)
• (equals the solution to a polynomial with integer coefficients) vs. (not the solution to a polynomial with integer coefficients)

You might be able to add another row or two to such tables, but it would certainly not be anywhere near a interesting or necessary as the contrasts between metals and nonmetals.

Thanks! YBG (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Surely there are nonmetallic elements, such as carbon and sulphur, that were as well known to the ancients as gold and copper. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

In terms of physics, there is a clear single property: (has a Fermi surface) vs. (lacks a Fermi surface). It's just that physicists would be more interested in classifying simple substances than abstract chemical elements, so allotropy in C and As poses a problem if you want to apply it to chemical elements. With that said, physical and chemical properties of elements change under pressure too (e.g. polyhydrides showing unusual valencies), so chemistry also inherently has this issue.

In education, metals and nonmetals are surely introduced at about the same time. After all, nonmetals are the majority if you stick to the first three rows, where beginning chemistry courses usually start. I would need to research more to say anything about the history, but something that might be relevant is that the elemental gases H₂, N₂, and O₂ were not really identified correctly until Lavoisier's time. Double sharp (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem is a lack of a “universally accepted single-property distinction” between metals and nonmetals. YBG (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, that definition is universally accepted by physicists. So, it seems to me that the issue is that there is a single-property distinction accepted by one field using the term but not another. Double sharp (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yup. That’s the problem when universal ain’t really universal. YBG (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

 

Happy New Year!

YBG,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
^Complex/_Rational 03:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

^Complex/_Rational 03:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, @ComplexRational! Same to you and yours! I note that you still have a few minutes left of the old year, but I still have over three hours. Your Atalanta BC has been enjoying the new year for nearly six hours, and @Sandbh for nearly 16 hours. YBG (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year! Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any suggestions on how the tables at Candidates Tournament could be made clearer? Double sharp (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’ll have a look. YBG (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Those tables are complicated! I’ll start to nibble around the edges. YBG (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: I did some initial tweaking, replacing punctuation in all numbered lists with simple newlines so that the numbers line up. I’d be interested to know what you think.

For the next step, I’d suggest working on the last three columns. The candidates winners and the seeded into final conveying the same type of information: finals contestants and how they qualified. I’d suggest combining them into two pairs of lines: yyyy champion: / name / candidates winner: / name. The last column includes (1) venue, date, format then (2) results. It is possible that this could also be combined with the info in the previous columns, but I can’t tell for sure.

After regularizing the format of the last three columns into one or two new columns, only then do I think it would be time to start thinking about the previous columns.

— YBG (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sandb: I think this little table is superior to the prose note in nonmetal, but I can’t figure out how to get it into the note and I don’t think it belongs in the main text.

YBG (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It should probably be noted that this is in the in-plane electrical conductivity for carbon. Perpendicular to the planes its conductivity is lower than any metal.

Is the thermal conductivity supposed to be for graphite or diamond? We should probably say which, though both are high. But in fact this has nothing to do with metallicity: all the network-covalent nonmetals join the true metals. (Se and Te are a bit below the range of metals, but there is a big gap between them and the molecular nonmetals. For black phosphorus, see these papers.) I guess the major factor here should be large lattice structures reducing phonon scattering. Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: The thermal conductivity for C is as graphite, in the direction of its planes. This is stated in the associated part of the article: "Among nonmetallic elements, good electrical and thermal conductivity is seen only in carbon (as graphite, along its planes), arsenic, and antimony." --- Sandbh (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't see that YBG had already mentioned this to you. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sandbh: Yes, all has been clarified. But thanks for the ping regardless! Double sharp (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ Double sharp: This table is intended to replace note 8 which currently says

Thermal conductivity values for metals range from 6.3 W m−1 K−1 for neptunium to 429 for silver; cf. antimony 24.3, arsenic 50, and carbon 2000.[30] Electrical conductivity values of metals range from 0.69 S•cm−1 × 10⁴ for manganese to 63 × 10⁴ for silver; cf. carbon 3 × 10⁴,[31] arsenic 3.9 × 10⁴ and antimony 2.3 × 10⁴.[30]

The note is attached to this sentence:

Among nonmetallic elements, good electrical and thermal conductivity is seen only in carbon (as graphite, along its planes), arsenic, and antimony. which covers your concerns.

However, I think it would be better to move the weasel words into the note and shorten the in-text sentence.

I propose changing the sentence to say:

Among nonmetallic elements, only carbon, arsenic, and antimony are good conductors of both heat and electricity.

then change the table header to

Nonmetals with good electrical and thermal conductivity

and add a footer to the table:

Carbon values are for graphite which conducts electricity well only along its planes.

and finally, fix the refs; I incorrectly assumed all electrical values were from one ref and all thermal from the other.

YBG (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. Thanks Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you tell me what this phrase in your edit summary means? Thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Johnjbarton It is a typo. I meant to say "see hatnote and talk page. Does that explain things? YBG (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks, plus now I know what a hatnote is. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, I hope you are doing alright. I am messaging you because I noticed that a new IP user Special:Contributions/1.165.87.45 started editing today on chemistry pages, and they've been quite disruptive. Most of their edits have been reverted already, but as I am going through the rest I am also realizing that I need to revert more of them myself. Among them were edits made on metalloid and Template:Periodic table (metalloid), basically changing what elements count as metalloids without any references or discussion, which is pretty major ; I am contacting you specifically because I see that they did the same on Lists of metalloids, but there you made an edit going in their direction (merely finishing a color change to match what they did). I was planning to revert to before their first edit, but I figured I would contact you first. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 09:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Choucas Bleu: Thanks for your watchful eye. My first reaction to this IP editor was to roll them all back, but then I looked closer and (mistakenly) thought that these edits were merely making the coloration of the table match the legend for percentages, so I made further changes along the same line.

I have now reverted Lists of metalloids to the status quo ante.

Thank you for assuming good faith on my part and kindly bringing this to my attention. YBG (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is understandable indeed. You're welcome! Choucas Bleu (T·C) 16:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@YBG Well, unfortunately it looks like the same editor is back at it, under a new IP. Both IPs being from Taiwan, and the edits and interests being almost identical, I think it's safe to say it's the same person. It looks like it might become a recurring problem. I had to revert (almost) every new change they made again. I am unsure what the way forward should be on this one. Semi protection request of some of these pages maybe? Choucas Bleu (T·C) 09:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear page watchers,

Do any of you have an opinion about the WM board elections? If so, please email me with who you are voting for and why.

i value your opinion and plan to read every response into consideration.

Thank you.
—— YBG (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I withdrew the discussion as you suggested, where do you think I should put the move request for the new discussion to shorten the page names? Should I use the standard templates? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TheTechie: Maybe List of MAX Light Rail stations? YBG (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm opening the discussion, please feel free to join. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 01:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply