User talk:Milton Beychok: Difference between revisions
imported>Peter Schmitt m (forgot to sign) |
imported>Milton Beychok m (→Property list: More dialogue with Peter Schmitt) |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I would guess that those 10 subpages you mentioned are for elements. I think there would be less chance of causing problems if they were separately replaced and deleted. I haven't done any checking, but it would appear to me that all of the CZ articles on elements (perhaps 90 plus in total) will need reworking or replacing of their Elem Infoboxes. I really think that on the elements, you should consult with David Volk and work closely with him rather than me. He would be much more knowledgeable on that subject than I am. | |||
:Look at the Elem Infobox in [[Oxygen]] for example. In the top block, all I recognize is the 15.9994 as the atomic weight. All the rest of that block is Greek to me. In the next lower box, all those little squares arranged in the manner of the Periodic Table of Elements ... I don't understand what the color pattern of those squares is meant to convey. But I am sure that Volk would know ... and perhaps Paul Wormer as well. Those Elem Infoboxes were all developed by David Yamakuchi (I believe) and he has not been active for some time. The info in those top two boxes are not usually needed in my field of expertise (Chemical engineering) but I am sure that they are important to chemists. For all I know, those two upper blocks in the Elem Infobox may be okay as they are. But the next block on "Properties" definitely needs to be expanded. As for the lower boxes on "Uses" and "Hazards", they need to be deleted in my opinion because uses and hazards should be covered in the main article text. | |||
:I apologize for not being more helpful about the element Infoboxes. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:27, 2 November 2009
Where Milt lives it is approximately: 10:14
Property list
Milt, I have taken your list from water and made a template Template:PropList which generates such a list.It can be used flexibly. To show the possiblities I have treated some of the properties as "requested", some as "optional", and the rest as "free". Do you think that this approach can be useful (after some adaption)? Peter Schmitt 02:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Peter, your template is excellent! I do have some minor edits to suggest and will do so later this evening or tomorrow sometime. I have something that I must finish at the moment. Thanks, Milton Beychok 02:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- This was a very quick response -- no hurry! (I am overdue for bed now ...) Peter Schmitt 02:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Peter, I would suggest that the optional arguments use capital letters as well as the requested arguments; that the boiling point be above the density; and "property1" be changed to "Other property 1" as shown below:
{{PropList | N = "Common name" | I = "IUPAC name" | C = "CAS number" | F = "Molecular formula" | M = "Molecular mass" | B = "Boiling Point" | D = "Density" | "Other property 1" | "value" ... | "Other property 9" | "value" }}
The "Example" was confusing because the items were not in the same order as above and the boiling point was given twice (perhaps you intended that to show that the template would straighten those out, but it confused me). I suggest that it be revised like this:
{{PropList | N = water | I = oxidane | F = H<sub>2</sub>O | M = 18.0153 g/mol | B = 373.15 K (100 °C) at 1 atm | D = 0.998 g/ml for liquid at 20 °C, 1 atm | Critical point | 647 K (374 °C), 22.1 MPa | Melting point | 273.15 K (0 °C) | [[Specific heat]], c<sub>p</sub> | 4.184 J/(g·K) for liquid at 20 °C | Heat of vaporization | 2257 J/g for liquid at 100 °C | Heat of fusion | 333.55 J/kg for solid (ice) at 0 °C | Viscosity | 0.001 Pa·s for liquid at 20 °C | Refractive index| 1.333 for liquid at 20 °C }}
If you don't like having capital letters for both the requested items and the optional items, then you could use bold capitals or red capitals for the requested items to differentiate them from the optional items.
That is the extent of my suggestions for the "Usage" and for the "Example". Again, I think your template is excellent. Milton Beychok 05:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am glad you like it. I have made the changes you suggested. My choices were arbitrary and intended to test and show the functionality.
(Yes, I wanted to show the reordering effect in the example.) There may be more changes for further improvement.- Of course, more arguments (of all types) may be added, and their names could also consist of more letters.
- I intend to add an optional parameter for the width of the columns.
- And the name of the template is also available for change.
- Peter Schmitt 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see someone willing to do something positive without first polling everyone. Thanks, Peter. Milton Beychok 03:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have added the arguments for setting the width. But it seems to be better to avoid them if possible. I have taken the initial settings from your "water" table and always wondered why one entry wrapped. Because of the current discussion on skins I tried others (Monobook and Modern -- I never changed the default): The line was not wrapped in these skins (Probably because a smaller font is used.) So these settings depend on skin and possibly also on the browser. Peter Schmitt 10:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- That strengthens my suggestion on the forums that we should have only one skin available, so that we all see articles the same way (other than whatever differences are cause by different browsers). I agree that perhaps it would be better to avoid setting the width. Just set an initial width that works in the current Pinkwich (which I think is dreadful) as well as Monobook and let it go at that. The setting now in Water works in my IE6 and in my Firefox 3.5.4. Also, have you noticed that (in Water) I nested the table in another table so as to avoid text impinging on the table? Milton Beychok 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I started with the table as you constructed it, but later simplified it. I did not know much about tables, but learned a lot from this one. I think that it is best to set no width as a default because it may also depend on browser settings (at least, I think that it may).
Next, I shall look on properties of elements and try to include this list, too.
Are you aware that there are still about 10 subpages listing single properties but are no longer used? Such subpages exist in many cases. Should they stay until the list templates are replaced? This would require to request deletion separately. Or is ist easier to delete all of them in one step, and teplace the data from other sources?
Peter Schmitt 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would guess that those 10 subpages you mentioned are for elements. I think there would be less chance of causing problems if they were separately replaced and deleted. I haven't done any checking, but it would appear to me that all of the CZ articles on elements (perhaps 90 plus in total) will need reworking or replacing of their Elem Infoboxes. I really think that on the elements, you should consult with David Volk and work closely with him rather than me. He would be much more knowledgeable on that subject than I am.
- Look at the Elem Infobox in Oxygen for example. In the top block, all I recognize is the 15.9994 as the atomic weight. All the rest of that block is Greek to me. In the next lower box, all those little squares arranged in the manner of the Periodic Table of Elements ... I don't understand what the color pattern of those squares is meant to convey. But I am sure that Volk would know ... and perhaps Paul Wormer as well. Those Elem Infoboxes were all developed by David Yamakuchi (I believe) and he has not been active for some time. The info in those top two boxes are not usually needed in my field of expertise (Chemical engineering) but I am sure that they are important to chemists. For all I know, those two upper blocks in the Elem Infobox may be okay as they are. But the next block on "Properties" definitely needs to be expanded. As for the lower boxes on "Uses" and "Hazards", they need to be deleted in my opinion because uses and hazards should be covered in the main article text.
- I apologize for not being more helpful about the element Infoboxes. Milton Beychok 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)