User talk:Galoomba

Formatting

Why revert to an inferior formatting? I already restored the previous version, but I'm curious what was the reason. Confocal (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to revert some of the changes in the LCM oscillators section (like STOP) and didn't realise there were other changes. --Galoomba (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As for the two columns: you seem to be the only person who has a problem with that. Two columns fit even if I set my screen to 720p. Just zoom out in your browser. --Galoomba (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding STOP for LCM section, I think it's a good idea. There are several viewers on the page, hence it seems better to not make all of them continuously running animation, unless necessary.
The number of columns in table-based galleries is already discussed on Tiki bar (LifeWiki:Tiki bar#Single column vs Two columns of EmbedViewer). Confocal (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, to me it seems better to have them running.
Yes, the number of columns is discussed in the Tiki bar, and 3 people prefer multiple columns, while you are the only one saying it should be a single column. --Galoomba (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What about something like Century hassler? Should viewers there remain all stopped, or become all animated, or something else? (That might be a relatively clear-cut case due to large number of viewers, but the idea is that some dividing line should exist.)
In the 42P38 case, one animated pattern is shown in the infobox and several other LCM oscillators using the same pattern are shown in the gallery. I think in this case there's not much advantage in animating the LCM oscillators.
The number of columns depends on whether or not there's the infobox to the right. Is it possible to ensure that the gallery in question appears below the infobox anyway, without creating empty space before it? Confocal (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Even with the infobox, two columns should be fine. Again, you're the only person having a problem with that. --Galoomba (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Again: can you ensure that the gallery in question on the 42P38 page appears strictly below the infobox anyway, without having empty space before it?
Content to the left of the infobox has less screen width available to it, due to the presence of the infobox. "Ideally", there should be some guidelines that acknowledge this, instead of just pretending that there's no problem.
The reference to the number of people participating in the discussion so far misses several points ("complaining about a problem" does not equal "having a problem"; discussions can take time and not everyone here is active at the same time; the discussion happens on Tiki bar, while the question is about reader's experience, rather than an active editor's experience). Confocal (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's below the infobox or not is irrelevant. 2 columns fit to the left of the infobox on any reasonably-sized screen (other than mobile). --Galoomba (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a non-mobile screen and two columns do not fit. They would fit below the infobox; presence of the infobox reduces available width. Regarding mobile devices, see a short archived discussion on Tiki bar: LifeWiki:Tiki bar/Archive/2022#Mobile LifeWiki. Confocal (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

You can always just zoom out in your browser. --Galoomba (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be nice to hear from more people what they prefer. One column looks very awkward to me, and while more could fit on my screen, two seems like a good compromise until someone figures out a more responsive format.
Also, we should probably move this discussion to the Tiki bar. --Galoomba (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

If the goal is to let more people participate in the discussion, I suggest to continue the discussion on the forum. That would remove the dependency on having a LifeWiki account with trusted flag. For example this forum thread, since the discussion is directly related to infoboxes. Confocal (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the "STOP" command for anything that doesn't escape the viewer box. It just looks jarring for it to run and then suddenly stop. If you need the background color but don't want it to run, maybe use STARTFROM? (I don't know if this actually works.) HotdogPi (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I just replaced "AUTOSTART STOP" with "STARTFROM" on the 42P38 page -- does it look like an improvement? Confocal (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does. HotdogPi (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I added several examples to LifeWiki:LifeViewer cheatsheet for LifeWiki articles. If someone can double-check that "STARTFROM" examples are likely to be better and are unlikely to be worse "from a reader's viewpoint", then "AUTOSTART STOP" examples can be removed. Confocal (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

ZOOM 64

THUMBSIZE 3 does not divide ZOOM 64. I would rather use ZOOM 60 for very small patterns -- divisible by 12, hence by 2/3/4. Confocal (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I thought default THUMBSIZE was 2. I'll fix. --Galoomba (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

SL-related edits

I reverted the change in {{CatagolueSLRarity}} since it breaks existing transclusions.
For some reason, this edit replaced "13" by "11" in the link. Confocal (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

First is me forgetting how templates work, should be fixed now. Second is just a copy-paste typo. --Galoomba (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I just fixed two more similar probable copy-paste errors from recent changes: one, two. I also fixed formatting in several cases (including unwanted markup in section headings, missing references section where footnotes exist, longer displayed link text, etc.)
IMO it would be helpful to prefer quality over quantity (and that's leaving aside the question of how far to go with all these pages). Confocal (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Oof, I'll be more careful. --Galoomba (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Repeated modification of replies by other people in discussions

(This is a continuation of the discussion from Tiki bar. I'm replying here, since the linked discussion is about an unrelated issue.)
In almost all cases, the basic rule "do not modify others' posts without their permission" seems to be a good simple rule. Doing otherwise is likely to be controversial, even for issues that may appear to be "minor".
If you're going to re-format just one reply, then I think you should leave an informative edit summary (an edit summary that explains why you're editing a reply by someone else, and what is changed). You should not insist on the change, if there are any objections. (Even if it seems "minor" to you, it might be a significant change to other people.)
In this case, you're editing not just one reply, but rather editing multiple replies by several other people, without much explanations: example 1, example 2, example 3. Instead of doing all that large-scale mass-editing yourself, an existing alternative is to suggest (and explain) the change on the talk pages of the involved members, so that everyone can edit their own replies. (Futhermore, everyone involved seemed to be active at the time when you decided to do the "fixing".) An argument "more consistency without negative consequences" is usually convincing enough, as long as it is stated at all. Confocal (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for clarification / discord crosspost

(From LifeWiki talk:Did you know/78)
Is there a completed proof given/announced on the page linked from this edit summary? If so, can the related information be cross-posted to a forum thread, to be accessible for everyone?
Note that I reverted the "Did you know" page to the form with the word "known" present -- as the statement was there for five years, I think one can give some more time, until it becomes clear whether or not there is a proof (and if so, until there is a page that can be linked to). Confocal (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

14-cell still lives

Hello. It seems you have created a series of pages for non-notable 14-cell still lives. HerscheltheHerschel (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Some of those might be notable, but that remains to be shown. E.g. if there are unique catalyses, or even unique reactions where the still life is consumed, or if someone collects and documents a few glider syntheses with discovery information for them, or if there is a rare property, and so on. Confocal (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revert of rewording

Regarding your revert of my rewording in Pi orbital: if you disagree with my rewording, please explain what is wrong with it at least in edit summary. (This also applies to any other edits.)
Re: "external links" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOELBODY which is a reasonable guideline, even though it lives outside LifeWiki. Normally, the body of an article should contain only internal links to other wiki pages, and external links should go to footnotes/external links section. Confocal (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that a "pi orbital" is a specific thing, but now I realised that it's actually called "p orbital". This is a mistake on my part.
I'm not sure if Wikipedia's policy applies here, especially since we're linking to Wikipedia itself. But regardless, maybe it would be better to move the entire etymology to a footnote, as is done on some other pages. --Galoomba (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"just because you disagree"?

You reverted my edits without giving any adequate explanation other than "don't remove move proposals just because you disagree". In fact I did not -- in both cases (one, two) I wrote edit summaries to explain why exactly the existing names should be kept. Swapping names here without swapping them on Catagolue and everywhere else is bound to cause confusion. OTOH your reverts are not well-explained. Confocal (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

No one actually moved the page though. It's a move proposal. It's there to alert people that there is disagreement about the name that should be discussed. On Wikipedia, such templates have a disclaimer along the lines of "do not remove this notice unless a clear consensus has been reached" - that does not appear to be there on this wiki, but the policy should still be somewhat similar. --Galoomba (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what I already wrote regarding these two pages specifically: do you suggest to discuss basically the same issue on two different talk pages? Will it have consequences beyond these two pages? Or maybe it would be better to discuss all similar issues collectively in a forum thread? Confocal (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing target objects from syntheses

There's been an objection on the forums to the idea of removing the Niemiec-style sample objects from various syntheses. I haven't done a survey yet to see how common the sample-object motif is in synthesis examples across all article pages. In advance of getting those statistics, my general idea would be that if there are enough syntheses showing sample objects, it makes sense to take that as a LifeWiki standard and keep things as they are.

Conversely, if there are only a few articles where sample objects have been included, maybe it makes sense to remove them. I think of them as "standard practice", from long experience with Mark Niemiec's database, and confocaloid seems to have a similar opinion. But I do seem to remember that some people have found the presence of in synthesis patterns has been found to be confusing in the past. There's a new standard that has evolved since Niemiec's database was assembled -- Catagolue's "at least twenty empty columns between synthesis steps" -- which means that many "standard" Niemiec-style syntheses will instinctively be interpreted as a synthesis of a second copy of an object in close proximity to an existing copy.

What's your take on all of this? It looks like you're making quite a few of these changes; have you done enough of a survey to have a sense of the overall statistics I mentioned above? Thanks -- Dvgrn (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of this point is happening on the forums. Dvgrn (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)