User:Double sharp/To do

The cobwebs are showing...

Chemistry

I honestly don't know if I'll have time to get back to some of these projects, but hey, we already have done a lot in the past. ^_^ Some of this to-do list is very old and some of it may actually have been finished without me having remembered to update this...

excellent stuff from Droog Andrey: [1], [2], [3]

respond on talk pages for Ts, Mt

Review Cr

First priorities work on Al and Hs, then PR Fe. Then work with R8R on Au and then I'll run around fixing some of the other articles (Gd and Tb for some easy lanthanides to get into shape, then Mg to finish the column, then I promise to finally fix Ra and groups IIA and VIIB so that I can create good topics, and fix Sn on the side as the ancient metal no one seems to like. Did I mention P and S too?)

I think sulfur will be first among the total rewrites, followed probably by magnesium, phosphorus, and tin (maybe not in that order). I may then similarly clean up some of the first few...lithium FA still is a goal! (Well, really, the siren call is to FA the entire 2nd period, but that may be a while away. ^_^)

rm some false precision at Molar ionisation energies of the elements - other languages (e.g. frwiki) and at Extended periodic table

Mine 10.1088/1402-4896/aa53c1 for superheavy history. Add 10.7566/JPSJ.86.085001 and fix that bare URL cite on Nh

10.1002/ejic.201600146 for Cn and Fl valence states; 10.1016/j.cplett.2016.11.023 for Ts and TsH properties

Measuring electron affinities of Po and At

2017 conference

10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19981002)37:18<2493::AID-ANIE2493>3.0.CO;2-F (stability of the +4 state from C to Fl)

look again at bismuth; explain why Bi³⁺ isn't anywhere near as basic as its size would predict (there was something in G&E about this, and yes I know that ionic radius alone doesn't determine basicity but does suggest it). also hora hora

RM groups 13 and 14

Argh, I'd better finish radium too (10.1002/14356007.o22_o15 Ullmann is lame, but contains a few things; Gmelin should have more except that I don't have it T_T)

Update lutetium with the cassiopeium campaign (hey, Bohr got behind it, even from behind the scenes)

Update User:Double sharp/Jmol colour scheme
get that picture of Morita's team (http://www.nishina.riken.jp/labo/superheavy_product_e.html)
Kouji Morimoto, Kosuke Morita, ???

???, ???, ???

Rare earths: 10.1002/14356007.a22_607

mention somewhere how aluminium is almost a "group 3 element" continuing the trend up from Sc, Y, La, and Ac, probably with less lame arguments than in that other paper I remember seeing

Maybe add blurbs on Se and Te to post-transition metal. Blurbs currently at /sandbox

on nonmetallicity: relate acidity/basicity of oxide to hydrolysis (from hypothetical "aquated ions" to hydroxides, following that article's organisation, calling even the acids involving the p-block elements hydroxides)

Some of our old GAs suck (carbon, thulium, I am looking at you) and will have to be fixed too. Actually most of the old transition metal GAs fall into this class. And fix that sucky section on hydrogen in the group 1 article!!!

Articles for which I have done some rewriting, research, or both have a red outline for the cell.

Those in violet have not yet been released to the mainspace, since they are in progress (or are just plans).

I suppose technically I should put the hypothetical elements 119, 120, and 121 on the table as they have articles which I largely rewrote, but I am quite loath to do it if they haven't yet been discovered. (121 would be awkward to add anyway.) Predictions have been used for categorising Mt through Og (except Cn); that I can stomach since the elements themselves are known.

Explanations of the table: see User:Double sharp/Idealised electron configurations. ^_^

The next ones will probably be the really famous elements in the first 20. The ones left are Mg, Al, Si, P, and S. And I had better rewrite the chemistry sections for B and C; they are not too well-cited. Well admittedly carbon is difficult to treat, but O is a good model for such a common element.

I suppose the element-by-element way of looking at thing is a very inorganic-minded approach. I would do it differently for organic compounds, except that since we look at individual elements so early in chemistry teaching I think it's a good approach to clear out the famous elements first. Maybe we'll move on in a few years?

By the way, why do so many People capitalise the Names of Elements? Surely we are not speaking German, and they are not Proper Nouns.

Reminder to self: go through IAEA's nuclear data and add all those more recent heavy isotopes which NUBASE doesn't have to the isotope articles.

To do

Also discuss whether we really listen to music by thinking of possible harmonies, as this neglects motivic construction, and also notes that we don't just use the past to predict the future, but also use the future to explain the past, plus intelligibility and the need to modulate to V in the Classical era. (I am sure Charles Rosen has said all of this somewhere already.)

https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/13322/is-there-any-position-where-not-promotingillegally-would-be-the-best-move http://www.matplus.net/start.php?px=1513463660&app=forum&act=posts&fid=prom&tid=2097

http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/chem/ptable/dications.html

Music

Mostly, in this field I write about the First Viennese School, as that is the music I grew up with and that I love the most. I have an almost equal love for the Second, as well as many of the other 20th-century composers active in Western Europe, but I do find it more difficult to understand despite being impressed by how beautiful it sounds. This is not a criticism: the latter is already a great victory for the composer, and I think that perhaps in some time I shall be able to naturally understand it more quickly. (And, after all, I do not think my understanding of Webern's Variations improved that significantly after finding out what the tone row it used actually was, because it is already so expressive regardless of that and perhaps a conscious understanding of those elements is neither necessary nor altogether desirable – if you play enough Chopin, you will know what I mean!) As would logically follow, I also love anything overtly neoclassical (referring back to the actual Classical era), ranging from Ravel to Hindemith with a stop at Mahler along the way. ^_^ (Well, I was thinking of the Fourth when I wrote that, but who can deny the power of the 580 + 1572 measures of the Eighth?)

(Of course, I love J. S. Bach as well – that goes without saying – but I find that I love him even more when I play him instead of just listening to him. There are many things that only become obvious when they are under one's fingers, and remain out of reach when they are under one's nose. And just about all the other greats, really.)

This of course does not stop me from loving other composers. I can surely love them before understanding completely why I do. It is just that the latter is needed for writing intelligently about them.

Note to self: look at chromatic scale WP history

I should really go fix up a composer article. How about Bellini for a start? The life's been done already, but his style needs a separate and longer section, not to mention his influence...or indeed Schumann, that one needs some work