User talk:DePiep

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11 as User talk:DePiep/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Periodic table color in element pages

I have not been paying much attention to the extensive discussion of periodic table layouts, so please let me know if the following is part of one of them, or where else I should ask, but you seem to be doing a lot of work on these sorts of things. In the article for each element, the periodic table in the infobox, is color-coded according to a set of categories. The colors are defined in {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/elementcell}}. My problem is that the color of hydrogen makes its space virtually invisible against the white background on which it is displayed. |category=diatomic nonmetal gives color #e7ff8f, very hard  to  see or click the small space unless you know where to look. At least for the nitrogen and oxygen spaces, their locations are knowable from the surrounding darker colored ones on multiple sides. But hydrogen is fairly alone. I'd welcome any change of color but did not want to change it too WP:BOLDly..I'm not sure what other layouts are being kept in sync. DMacks (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

At enwiki We use a set of 11 colors for what we call "metallicity categories" in the periodic table (PT). See the legend in Periodic table. This set is the same over all PT's, both html tables and images. Could be a 40-50 together. Of course this consistency is very helpful in an already complicated topic. In specialised areas and in other topics (like blocks) a different legend-set is used.

Now you happened to walk into a new discussion about these colors (you have seen). Main issue with current set is bad contrast (re WP:ACCESS): background too dark. What you describe is an issue too (distinction from bg), and already mentiooned somewhere in there.

Now picking an other set (or just chaning one color in this case) is a huge process. There are many requirements to take care of , some even contradicting. There also is: contrast with fontcolors, distinction of neighbor colors, stressing main border area metalloids, colorblindness, and more. There is no single algorithm/process/recepy to reach an outcome; cyclic is better and still compromises might be needed. The problems are especially huge because of the number "11 categories": four would be a lot easier!

We have started the process by first focusing on: the 11 distinguishable background colors (status in User:DePiep/pt-2016). A lot of extreme errors are gone already. More tuning to do. Next step would be the other requirements like good contrast with fonts, and -- relevant for your point -- effects in big/small PTs, and re background. But today these 2nd set of checks is not processed at all. Also, I'd like to research more about such issues in the process (color perception).

So yes, this is a topic already in discussion, together with 20 other issues. To be a good website, we can not compromise on these access issues (but maybe elsewhere). And it takes loads of time. On my clock, and on the calendar. -DePiep (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sõ, there is no bold & quick solution b/c the color is embedded. Maybe, while working on this, I'll find a interim improvement. -~~

New colors for our PT

Hey, I just stumbled today on my proposal from the last year and I thought that it was certainly better than what we have today. I recall there are no immediate problems to solve before it goes live. I think it would be right to launch it into the main space as it is currently the only version that we have that complies with the color design requirements you introduced me to back then. I'm not immediately lauching it because you were to it as well and I wouldn't want this to create any uncomfortable feelings but you don't seem to be working on it at the moment, either. How about this: I'm launching my current version and then wait for you to finish yours; then when you do, I will stay away from the discussion on if we should use yours instead? (I want to make it absolutely clear this is not a competition to me and I am ready to step down when there is something to step down to.)--R8R (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

R8R The setup we reached last yer still have some flaws. I'm breeding on a new buildup of colors, but it requires much more checks & thoughts. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Are those prohibitively important flaws?--R8R (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No, but better do it right once. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• R8R Some issues, I think of now:

1. Testing for contrast: Still looking for a comprehensive template that does contrast-checking (W3C levels) easy & right.
2. Generate RGB <- -> HSV colors: still looking for acomprehensive template (convert color values both ways). Did not come to build it in Lua myself.
3. Whichever category colors we propose: must be checked for contrast against 1. font color black and wikilink blue 2. Also, against legend colors (we use for state of matter): red, green, grey. Legend colors may be changed too.
4. We use "lighter shade to mean: predicted". That may be too much of a requirement (reducing our degrees of freedom too much). Need arguing this into a different rule (on how to show predicted categorising).
5. Better check for: contrast with white-ish background (esp yellows are tricky; see current H cell in the infobox, unbordered).
6. Choosing a principle from left to right ordering in the PT: checkered = better border distinction in neighbouring categories versus gradual change to support the trend we're showing.
7. For options & solutions, I've bought a copy of colorbrewer (on map coloring), which has a whole new analysis and approach. Especially since we need to cover ten categories. Checks for colorblind issues required too.

I must add, that last months I was distracted onwiki too much by petty issues... (bad). Also, RL occupations left little time for setting up this list of requirements and further argument.

-DePiep (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There are many converters online. I have built {{HSVtoHEX}} in-Wiki. May also build {{HEXtoHSV}} if you want me to.

My current colors pass contrast test against black and wlink blue. Green for liquids is difficult to get contrast with other colors with, so changed it to blue. Also used a darker shade of red for gases for the same reason.

Lighter colors seem fine to me. They are auxilliary to the main colors anyway. If we put apart cyan and green (etc.), this should be no problem at all.

Seem to have agreed on color order over time. Maybe not even checkers (not too pleasing aestetically for me at least), but a more distorted order. See even the main-page color preview at colorbrewer.

I may dive back into it and try a new approach sometime soon (well, I hope I may). Should I, since you've been so busy lately?--R8R (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're free to go any route you like. It's just, I want to (planned to) check against points I just mentioned, and more.

The help template is not core of course, they are just to check. But to check every single set (10+1 backgrounds) against two text colors + four SoM fontcolors is = 66 checks. Before checking, one needs to develop (compose) colors, systematically. Is what HSV is useful for, but that must be converted to RGB too. That's 11+4 color developments per proposed set. Then there is the order variant proposals (AM-NG). So a templates would be helpful, as automation.

The lighter prediction colors are a reduction of freedom. If we keep that principle, ~each bg color must have a 2nd color, tested. (maybe not all - that's analysis to do). INstead, we could skip this test requiremnents by thinking of an other predicted-marking.

And this: in yellow hues, there is only one option for its lightness (too difficult to distinguis two yellows; the other hues can have 2 or 3). For this reason, I thought of using the yellow one for metalloids (unique hue, for unique & border category). btw, yellow probably should have higher V per colorbrewer (may stand out this way).

Need to analyse bordering colors (bordering categories). Bad situation today: group 3, with 3 reds! More such tricky ppints?

Sequence AM-NG should be checked being circular (eg, next to NG, AM returns as in Janets Left Step).

Can we use same x-S-V for all? Colorbrewer analysis (legend type). Does the grey (unk) conflict with other grey meanings & colors? Why does colorbrewer use brown?

note to self: check other wikis FA-periodic tables. Is our categorisation scheme stable? (current NNNM talk is OK -- note that new category==new color).

And this is just from the top of my head. Colorbrewer and access-colorblindness could jeopardize any setup. So I wanted to build all these arguments from scratch.

-DePiep (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

To illustrate the process. this article (+talk) has this color-development history (I did with YBG). The issue was way more simple, and still many angles had to be checked & improved. A dozen colors sets were needed for a final one. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I came as far as this: User:DePiep/PTCC -DePiep (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• See User:DePiep/PTCC. I've added basic content. Needs a setup for systematic color creation & checking (like contrast), to manage multiple lists. That's checking templates and color-building descriptions (motivations) needed.

You're invited to improve this setup. Once the setup is stable, it should go to WP:ELEM project (subpages).

This implies renewed development, a restart from the 2016 setup. I'm not sure if I've convinced you yet. I also looked at the one you made in 2016: colors look bleak, and therefor more difficult to distinguish. (colorbrewer has different solutions, given the higher number). -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems I'm more busy than I'd thought I'd be. Alas.

If you write an extensive list of the templates you need in Wiki code, I'll probably write them over time.

You have actually convinced me that there could be improvements to be made. I think I could (if I had time) try to build a better scheme. I'll list some comments on my current scheme anyway (so you could learn something from my experience you could use when you try to make a better version):

1. The scheme complies with all color contrast standards.
2. The scheme is a constant x-S-V. I couldn't increase S much and V is already at its highest (and lowering only produced even bleaker colors). A major limitation is the wikilink color, being so light. I think we don't need to keep S and V constant (if we do, we can't have brown, for example). Maybe we'll need to employ a different standard (darkness, for example).
3. Another limitation is the need to show the colors for states of matter; we could have better colors if we didn't have that limitation. Green for liquids is so prohibitive I couldn't keep it (used dark blue instead). If there are any limitations to get rid of, I'd suggest this (not too important in my opinion anyway) and not lighter colors for "(predicted)".
4. We will definitely do better if we get rid of colors sequenced as either a straight circular sequence (my current suggestion) or a checkered one (yours). Your work w/ YBG shows that very well.
5. A new scheme should indeed pick the darkest colors for all borderline categories. The current scheme is very weak. Mine also could use improvements (boron and hydrogen, for instance).

I think codebrewer uses brown because it's a very distinct color. Better than two reds, for instance. I guess that's also with their pink is so much brigther than their red: so it stands out more.-R8R (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

ColorBrewer daringly uses colors with different x-S-V values (unlike we do in the 2016 proposals, as I advocated). Especially when 9 or 10 colors used. It has the advantage that colors are more outspoken and so more recognisable. (It also may be required once colorblindness is taken into account: that sort of forbids certain colors).

Maybe a good test wqould be: crete a blind (text-less) PT, see if one can bring home the colors. Or a randon colored PT (because we two are too familiar with location-category, which makes bad testing).

Templates I'd like:

• RGB <---> H-S-V values calculation (both ways).

Because: when we pick colors, they may be construed in H-S-V, and otoh we might have colors in RGB.

RGB best be the 6-digit triplet; H-S-V can be °-%-% (?), and 3-parameters input? (or °-255-255 (more precise).

• Analyse color. in: RGB, out: contrast number by W3C (and Y or N check), for colors:

1. Black, 2. Wikilink blue

Also, optionally: ~four font colors (current SoM).

• I'd combine those into a complete set (10+1 categories defined & analysed). -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Useful templates

Let me relist the useful color analysis templates.

• From RGB (hex triplet) to HSV

Format: hex triplet can be/must be: #hhhhhh or #hhhhhh (e.g. from {{element color}}, this is to prevent the # creating numbered list in the template).

Format HSV tbd, could be a string °-%-% or °-1/255-1/255.

See {{RGBtoHSV.H}}, {{RGBtoHSV.S}}, {{RGBtoHSV.V}}. Do you need me to rework that to {{HEXtoHSV.H}} etc. or is what's been made okay as well?--R8R (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I created {{RGBtoHSV.HSV}} and {{RGBparse}}, not sophisticated but working well in User:DePiep/PTCC/2013. -DePiep (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• From HSV to RGB

Input HSV format tbd, 1 or 3 parameter values?, string as produced in previous template?

{{HSVtoHEX}}? Is there anything you need that this template does not address? (My PT color sandbox is one example of that template in use if you need one.)--R8R (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Shows how off I am in this... -DePiep (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Input RGB, check contrast (W3C) with fontcolor (default=black, optional), return number & pass/fail

Also, will be used with fontcolor Wikilink blue (RGB=...), and SoM colors.

These are core templates, I'll combine them to describe & analyse any color set.

{{Color contrast}}. Good enough?--R8R (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This whole template writing is such a bummer. I've got it and only then look closely and see there are these templates already. I have only myself to blame.--R8R (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Very well. I'll do it as soon as I have time for Wiki.--R8R (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no argument to speed you up — at all ;-) -DePiep (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• R8R I've made additional templates. See User:DePiep/PTCC/newcolors#R8R-2016 ;-).

R8R -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at my sandbox. I've just set up a color contrast check table in my sandbox. Possibly you'll find use of that yourself, so feel free if you want to.--R8R (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The merged nonmetal version looks better to me, since the other one has all the greens starting to run into each other (important since H is next to those active metals). Note that this is not an argument to merge them, just an observation on the current schemes proposed. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I am not proposing either of them at the moment. This thread contains some useful advice, which I have not followed or even taken into consideration; I just threw colors around so they're all good for the table. I am certainly not proposing the split nonmetal table because frankly, I have not even tried to make it look good. I have also not even tried to take predicted colors into consideration yet. However, I also think we should agree not to use different colors for different states of matter (for a good scientific reason: this is a periodic table of the elements, not of the simple substances). It could be we could even talk about aesthetics of this table then. And I, again, have not even checked this new color scheme against DePiep's suggestions. --R8R (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@R8R and Double sharp:. That's an important table, and it shows what we are up against. Now I'm only talking not acting, but I'd subdivide the quest into subtopics like "fontcolors" (now SoM), "categories", "border" (now ocurrence), "background", "unknown status" (in multiple properties). And apart from contrast requirements, we could add colorblindness check (exponentionalise the possible conflicts...). AFAIK, colorblindness awareness says to not use certain colors together, and with 10+1 categories start using different shades. (I have a hardcopy of [1], did not find this issue yet on the net). -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Found this: Colorbrewer section 3, and [2]

Reverts

If you want to engage in an edit war regarding rare-earth stuff, at least do not revert legitimate edits, as you did here and here. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The factual assumption you make here is not correct, and so your opinion is not correct either. Nor is the tone. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

• News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

• Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

• Humour: Guys named Ralph

• In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

• Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

• In the media: Facebook and poetry

• Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

• Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a pic we somehow missed in the last element-naming last year

File:Molar volumes of liquid and solid phase of elements.jpg: could I humbly ask you for another demonstration of your excellent standards of vectorisation and element-symbol replacing for ₁₁₃Nh, ₁₁₅Mc, ₁₁₇Ts, and ₁₁₈Og? Thank you! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Great graph, wonderful!-DePiep (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages/Articles

Does this page (and others like it) have any purpose? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: As its parent page describes: used in {{Recent changes in Academic Journals}} (more similar in Category:Recent changes boxes (9)). I guess you'll recognise the usefulness, and the drawbacks. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The pages are so massive they pretty much can't load and produce a crap ton of 'what links here' results. I remember there's a better way of getting a recent change list, which can be updated live. I'll try to recall it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion. My solution works well, but only in the talk namespaces. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. Note that the page size in bytes is no issue in actual usage (the page is not loaded into the browser, it stays on the server side). Manual update is biggest issue (especially because more recent articles are most interesting). I don't see the issue with WLH. I did the talk/nontalk completing using WP:AWB. Big WikiProjects (like WP:MEDICNE, 15k+ articles) not only need a split for page size reason (<1 megabytes), also the edits per day exceeds 500, so even a daily check (1x/24h) would miss many edits.

I remember last December there was a invitation to list desired technical improvements (for the 2017 budget or so), where an expanded Related Changes was mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Page size is an issue in that these pages take forever to load. As for the WLH clutter, I do cleanup on a lot of journal citations, and I'll update links from bad spellings to proper spellings, and I can land on those pages several times per day by accident. It's particularly bad if on my laptop. It'll freeze for a minute or two before I can do anything else. Desktop only freezes for a few seconds (which is still annoying AF). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That's bad, esp the accidental freezing. Sure mw could make better options (while today, the newest RC Special page can be slow anyway, IMO). For now, I'd say not enough reason to delete these. -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah not for now, but if that ticket gets adopted/rolled out and better RC support, then we can get rid of those pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what does this page provide that a category couldn't provide? YBG (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Both talkpage and subjectpage, showing all activity. 2. All in one list (RC can read only one page to process). (and 3. Tailored when needed eg subset in larsge projects like WP:MEDICINE). -DePiep (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC) YBG -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IsNumber

Template:IsNumber has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Christian75 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Term symbol sandbox page

That looks good for the term symbols it has. Thanks. I presume you got them from the little discussion in the term symbol article. However, that's as far as we can go. Groups 3, 4, 9, 11, 12 plus 9/14 lanthanide/actinide 2-columns, have the same term symbol. But in the other columns/groups, it varies and will need addition by hand. But will all the edit buttons I see, I can't do it. The ones you have must be transcluded from yet someplace ELSE. And we're reaching the limit of how far we can push that. SBHarris 01:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. As I just wrote elsewhere, you can edit page Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-term-symbol‎. In QM, I am blind but I do can publish stuff ;-). I suggest you improve that page, and blank the groups/elements that do not have such a value. Please continue this at Template talk:Infobox element, I prefer (being central). -DePiep (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Image-(re)numbering

Thanks for getting things in order:) DMacks (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I'm checking the use of high-numbered images (LR3, LR4, 4). See if any infobox has/needs so many images. When they are not used, we can remove them from chembox code, reducing the number of parameters. In the process, I renumber them preferably 1-2-3, corresponding with the image row they make. This is for the editor's eye, and gives an easier check on input completeness. Also, I check the image sizes. (In the end, we want to use default sizes & upright scaling, not fixed px any more). -DePiep (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017 WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017 WikidataCon 2017 group photo Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries. WD-FIST explained And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there. Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands. Links Wikidata statistics I4OC progress in its first year, with 47% of scientific citation data now open (announced two days ago) The flowering ORCID, Magnus Manske blogpost on identifying authors of scientific papers @querybook, a Twitter feed devoted to SPARQL queries Massive progress on Wikidata coverage of the UK parliament Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

• News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

• Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

• Technology report: Searching and surveying

• Interview: A featured article centurion

• WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

• In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

• Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

• Featured content: We will remember them

• Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

• Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Nowrap/convert

Thanks for dealing with the typos. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise there were so many, is there some way to find them automatically? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I discovered this tool: Template parameters! For example, for {{abbr}} it lists all parameters used + their value. So I saw that list of "abbr=on" used in this template, so something was wrong. I then use WP:JWB (like WP:AWB, but in-browser script), to look at each page. The tool updates at the beginning of every month (nex on Dec 3 or so, for the Dec 1 situation). Need more info? (BTW, ask if you now about more templates that should be analysed that way). -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The tool (monthly analysis) is triggered by the TemplateData in template documentation: see Template:Abbr#TemplateData (there is the external link in line 3). Keith-264. -DePiep (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I prefer not to make mistakes but where I do I like to remedy them. I'm looking at your links but as usual they are written for people who know far more about computers than me. I'll keep going though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• One more try.

1. {{Infobox military conflict}} has documentation with Template:Infobox military conflict#Template data. There, the second line has this external link: monthly error report.
2. This report (green page) says, in top: "Pages: 14847, Transclusion count: 14946" for the infobox. That is: 14847 articles have this template, and some 99 have two of them (making 14946 templates in articles).
3. It also lists all parameters that are used (in the lefthand column).
4. For example, down the page you can see parameter |casualties1=. Its row says "Y" (Yes, a correct parameter), then "10792" being the number of templates that have this input. Then: "> 50 unique values" (in those 10,000 inputs).
5. That row also has: (page links). That leads to a page that lists all those pages! This is a known, OK parameter.
6. Back to the the top, the first row. It says there is also parameter ") result" (?!). Only one time used, and its value is: "Seljuk victory.Crusader withdrawal (etc.)". Obviously, this is a wrong parameter. If you click on the "(page list)" link, youĺl see that article listed.
7. How was this wrong parameter entered? Well, for a template, everything before the "="-sign is a parameter name (so we write: |casualties1=10.000. In this bad case, someone wrote: {{Infobox military history|) result=Seljuk victory.[[Crusades|Crusader]]}} (note the ")" and the "="-sign!). You can open that article to edit, search for ") result", and remove the typo ")".
8. One more thing. There is also parameter "1" listed in the lefthand column, second row. This is the first, unnamed parameter: when entered {{Infobox military history|blabla}} (no "="-sign there!, so "blabla" is the value of unnamed parameter "1", like |1=blabla). It is a bad parameter ("N"), and 121 pages have it. Now you can open "(page links)" to see those 12 articles listed. And maybe you want to edit them out. (This is where I would use WP:AWB to automate this job).
9. Hope this helps. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It would if you were here to point it out ;O) I found one that I edit (Arras 1917) which either had a wrong nowrap or convert but I couldn't find it, even by copying into word and searching for both.... With this stuff I need "first you do this, by pressing X...then this, by pressing Y...then this, by pressing Z....";O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this is too far off. In short:

Step 6, after clicking the "(page links)" links, about a parameter named ") result" (?!?). It links to [3]. That lists article Battle of Shaizar. Go to article and open edit screen.

Then, in my browser, I can "search" (Ctrl+F, often key F3) for the text ") result". Found (I did not edit now).

But I'll leave it with this, you probably better spend your time doing other edits good & fast. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your last edit

I can understand the notion on overlinking. But what's wrong with articles?--R8R (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you refer to lead. All elements have that similar opening sentence. In there, symbol is such a common word, there is no need to link it. That it is a chemical symbol is clear from context. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That is clear and not argued with. But the sentence was

"Lead is a chemical element with the symbol Pb (from the Latin plumbum) and the atomic number 82"

and now is

"Lead is a chemical element with symbol Pb (from the Latin plumbum) and atomic number 82."

What was wrong with the removed "the"s? Maybe you can explain that grammatically but I'd love to be sure that the very first sentence of an article is correct, so in that case, please do.--R8R (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I can not describe (prove) it gramatically, but I have the impression that "the" is not needed in there. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reformatted R8R's note above so that I can easily read and compare them. They both read well to my en:us ears. But I think either of them would be better without the "the" before "Latin". YBG (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you know the grammatical background to add/remove the the? -DePiep (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, that's good to know. I cannot decide which one seems right and I am not sure about grammar behind this, so that's a relief to know both seem okay to you. If you know which is not only okay but right, please let us know.--R8R (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I learned a new term today: the "zero article" which is when English does not use any article (a/an/the) in front of a noun. On this web page, it says When we use a noun with a preposition we often do not use an article (that is, we just use the noun on its own). In the above lede sentences, the preposition "with" governs both "symbol" and "atomic number". Note that the reference says we often do not, so it seems to me that we are free to use either the definite article or the zero article. Always nice to learn something new! YBG (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. I can actually recall the concept of the zero article. I can't say I am familiar with it, but after I read these words from you, I remembered how my teacher tried to explain it to us when I was around the age of ten, which in all honesty she should not have even tried: we were children learning a foreign language, not a bunch of linguists. In the end, we came to a consensus: it didn't really matter and we could think of no article rather than a zero article if we wished (which we did).

Thank you for tackling the problem! It's great to know we can use both.

P.S. I am really fascinated by the ambiguity of the English grammar: you can do this or you can do that. I remember wondering why nobody or nothing ever taught me the English punctuation, for instance, and when I tried to learn that myself, I found out that you have to put a comma between two adjectives (which makes sense) but you don't have to if the two are short and you don't really feel like it. After the strict grammar/punctuation rules of my native language, that seemed very bizarre. I tried to find out what adjectives are even short but it seems I am left to my own thinking. It took me some time to get used to the idea that some grammar or punctuation was up to my judgment. :) --R8R (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, DePiep. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)