User talk:Double sharp/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Per aspera ad astra

Finally, the FAC began. Waited for half a year for this. I thought, however, that I'd get at least a co-nom :)

While the FAC will remain the top priority, I'd want to take your two near-FA articles and bring them to their FACs. This isn't something I'd do without your approval; moreover, I'd want you to take part. On my first look, hassium seems to be the easier target: I only want to rewrite history; maybe there are other things, but they're going to be small pickings. Then (or at the same time) we could go for Th, which is a diamond waiting to be cut into a brilliant. Going to take some effort, but this can be handled. Would you want me to take part and, more importantly, take part yourself?--R8R (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm so sorry about the co-nom! I couldn't figure out how to do it, this being my first time over there. I'll be happy to edit the nomination statement to add you.

The other one is alkali metal, right? Yes, please, I'd love to do all three with you! Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries, it's okay. I'll get to display my star once we make it anyway, so it's not all that important.

Oh, right, I forgot about that one. A while ago, I got the feeling that you wanted to keep playing with it; something about how the life is a journey and not a destiny. I'd contract the article if I was to write it; and I will if I am. Are you okay with that?--R8R (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right that I'd like to tinker with it a little more (so it won't be the first we'll get to). Dunno about the contraction: what specifically would you contract? Usually I think of the group article as a place for the common properties of the group, but it's perhaps not the best approach because it leads to hilariously short articles for groups like the pnictogens and hilariously long ones on groups like the alkali metals and halogens. Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to dedicate a subsection for each trend---we'll do a better job by explaining how all trends change and why in one talk. We don't need to dedicate a subsection to each anion---we'll do a better job by explaining why alkali metal compounds are the way they are in general and how cations affect their properties. Would also contract the Pseudo-alkali metals (this shouldn't be a long section anyway).

The whole article currently looks too long.--R8R (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand about that. It does look rather frightening to the reader who hasn't already studied all of this. Maybe when we get to that article I'll create a subarticle chemistry of the alkali metals with the unabridged current version and leave a summary, like I did with Th. But that'll be later, of course. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

FAC chat

Can you take care of the remaining problems? Those "unreferenced para" claims that I did not object are especially important. Not sure if I'll be able to make further edits today.--R8R (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there's a good source for the "In space" paragraphs somewhere in my talk page archives (I think I might have mentioned it while talking to you about nucleosynthesis). I should be able to find that one very quickly; the others should come a little bit later. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal wants a talk about "double magic" numbers. One question that hasn't been clear to me anyway: how does this double magicity affect lead-208? It's the heaviest known stable nuclide, but still theoretically unstable and still there is a heavier practically stable one.--R8R (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

²⁰⁹Bi, I imagine, doesn't want to undergo alpha decay because that would breach the filled subshell as well as the single proton outside it; it is still single magic, after all. Double magicity is not a guarantee of stability: look at ⁷⁸Ni and ¹³²Sn, for example. All the shell effects in the world will not save you from having such a terribly mismatched proton–neutron ratio! ^_^ It does do a lot for its abundance; not only is there the cycling factor to deal with if anything does manage to pass Pb, but making ²⁰⁹Bi in the first place is not so likely because the double-magicity means that ²⁰⁸Pb has a very low cross-section for capturing another nucleon (and for this reason it has been suggested to use ²⁰⁸Pb as a neutron moderator and reflector). Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I got it why 209Bi is stable. Still, does double magicity do much in lead-208 given that lead-207 is stable as well? I checked and all even-numbered elements with Z>=70 have an even-even isotope as their most stable one; not just lead.--R8R (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it does much except make ²⁰⁸Pb significantly more common, since ²⁰⁷Pb is not unhappy to capture a neutron while ²⁰⁸Pb is (if I may personify the nuclides)! The footnotes give ²⁰⁷Pb a greater predicted half-life than ²⁰⁸Pb, after all, although both of them make Brahma seem like a mayfly. ^_^ I'm not sure what you mean by the "most stable" isotope if almost all the natural ones really are stable; if you mean the most common one, then Pt is an exception. Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, right. Wanted to say "all even-numbered elements with Z>=70 have an even-even isotope as their heaviest stable one." :)

Thank you for the reply.--R8R (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: I realise I never quite explained that feature of the nuclides chart: the line of stable nuclides does tend to look like a connected "continental shelf", with some double-beta-decaying islands off it (like ¹⁸⁰W on the proton-rich end and ¹⁵⁰Nd on the neutron-rich end). As for why these islands are exclusively even-even: if you plot binding energy against proton number for some consecutive isobars for A odd, you will alternate between even-odd and odd-even nuclei, so pairing effects will be similar for each, and that contribution can mostly be ignored as rather constant. So, bearing in mind the narrow range of beta stability, your graph should look like an upward-opening parabola with the minimum at the most stable nuclide of that mass number: for A = 127, you'd get it at ¹²⁷I, and for A = 105, you'd get it at ¹⁰⁵Pd. But the situation is slightly different for A even; then you alternate between even-even and odd-odd nuclei, so you alternate between having a double dose of pairing effects (which help stability) and having none at all (which clearly doesn't help). So you are going to have two parabolae, one lower down (for even-even nuclides) and one higher up (for odd-odd nuclides). This creates those islands; ²⁰⁴Hg cannot beta decay to ²⁰⁴Tl, even though both ²⁰³Tl and ²⁰⁵Tl are stable, because the distance between the parabolae is such that ²⁰⁴Tl is much higher on the graph than ²⁰⁴Hg, which is only a tiny bit higher than ²⁰⁴Pb. So the only decay open to it would be double beta decay, with the minuscule amount of energy released, and so it is no wonder that nobody has actually seen ²⁰⁴Hg decay.

Of course, this is the "normal" behaviour that things settle down to around the third period, when you first get these kinds of islands. Before that, the parabolae are very narrow, because there are very few protons and neutrons and having an imbalance is rapidly fatal to the newborn nucleus. For A = 2, there is only one parabola, and a rather degenerate one at that, because apart from deuterium no nuclide with A = 2 is even bound at all. Deuterium is very weakly bound – you cannot excite it without having it fall apart – but it is bound, so it is by default the nuclide with A = 2 of minimum binding energy, and much the same thing happens with A = 6, 10, 14. Pairing does progressively have more and more of an impact here: ⁶He and ⁶Be are both mayflies (actually the latter is not even bound), but ¹⁰Be is pretty stable, and ¹⁴C is even more so, until at last at ¹⁸O we get a truly stable nuclide. Furthermore, ⁴He is so tightly bound that A = 5 and A = 8 both have a big problem with staying stable, as they fall apart too readily. The most instructive (and perhaps saddest, if you like personifying the nuclides) situation is with A = 8; again you get the two parabolae (quite narrow ones), and of course ⁸Be is at the bottom, being quite tightly bound for its size. Alas, its half-life is a fleeting 70 attoseconds, because it breaks up immediately into two ⁴He nuclei which are together just a tiny bit more bound, a cautionary tale that demonstrates that you can only use these parabolae to examine beta decay, and not alpha decay or spontaneous fission.

Well, this was fun to write, although I'm not sure how much of it will be of use. If you need clarification for anything, or if you need me to go look for some of the sources I learned this stuff from, please, ask away. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Someone made an illustration of the parabolae for even A! Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I got it as I looked at the picture prior to reading your reply. :)

Yeah, I'm sort of uneasy about that now. Can't think of an application for this story off the top of my head.--R8R (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I can think of one article it does belong in: double beta decay. ^_^ Other than that, I agree, although some of it might belong in some of the nuclear physics articles. Even and odd atomic nuclei hints at this, but doesn't go all the way to the parabolae and the edge cases like I talked about here. Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And another one. N also added this comment: "I think fundamentally, it should be pointed out more explicitly somewhere that any heavier elements than Pb/Bi that existed when the solar system formed have decayed into Pb/Bi, except for the relatively small amounts of U and Th. it's a bit unclear right now to non-experts." I definitely think we should follow but haven't thought of a way to do so. Could you help me?--R8R (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd start by noting that all elements outside H–Mo, Ru–Nd, Sm–Bi, Th, and U have half-lives much shorter than the age of the universe, which easily accounts for their absence. The half-life of Th is about the same as the age of the universe, so there is no problem in explaining why it's still there, and U has only had time for three half-lives, so we should still have one-eighth of the original amount. (Of course I know they weren't created in the Big Bang, but the approximation is okay since the numbers are so large.) Their daughters are the elements in the gap of stability in between (Po–Ac and Pa in the main decay chains, with traces of Tc, Pm, Np, and Pu), which now only exist on the basis of secular equilibria with their parents. Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

This is an okay story for a general explanation, but as is it doesn't seem very suitable for lead as we have to keep the story focused on lead. Besides, we need to incorporate that into the current text somehow. Could you give it a try?--R8R (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

How about something like "Lead and bismuth are the heaviest practically stable elements. Thus, any heavier elements that were produced in the progenitor supernova of the Solar System have long since decayed to lead and bismuth, with the exceptions of thorium and uranium: alone among the heavier elements, they have half-lives comparable to the age of the universe and have thus not had enough time to decay away completely. As they continue to decay, the amount of lead in the universe is increasing, albeit very slowly." That could actually tie in well with the first paragraph of "In space", come to think of it. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. You helped me realize I don't want this talk in Isotopes at all. We'll get to discuss this in In space.--R8R (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for fixing the mass-number issue; it just gets too long. I suppose the real way to say it would be that any mass number not congruent to 1 mod 4 becomes Pb, and any mass number that is congruent to 1 mod 4 becomes Bi, but I think that's too much detail that distracts from the main focus. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's too complicated so I didn't bother.--R8R (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There are yet many points to reply to in the review, and while I could use some help with the load, I would especially appreciate your help with this one: Nergaal wants a talk about alchemy. I'd love you to bring it back into the article, but not limiting the discussion to the European tradition, but also extending it to the Arabian one. See also this.--R8R (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I know almost nothing about this, but I shall go do some research! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'm going not to edit Wiki for a couple of days. I've reacted to many points raised but I hope you help me finish the backlog while I'm away.--R8R (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I'll continue looking for a few sources about the Arabian alchemical tradition, but if I haven't got something about that written by tomorrow I'll work on the rest of the backlog first! Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: I don't find many differences between the Arabian tradition and the Western one in the practice, in part because so much knowledge from the latter came ultimately from the former (there were medieval forgeries of Geber, for example). Pb was certainly known to Geber (although he thought it was a combination of some ideal Hg and ideal S, and that transmutation would involve changing the quantities of each; but that links directly to the idea of the philosopher's stone and turning Pb into Au, and that is so basic that I feel confident in saying that we already have it without opening the Pb article in a new tab ^_-☆). The one distinct thing I can find in Alchemy and chemistry in medieval Islam is that Geber had some numerology of connecting the properties of an element to its name in Arabic, but it feels kind of unconnected to the rest, and some of the citations (e.g. Holmyard) seem to not lead to anything in the list of references(?!). So in general, I don't think it really adds all that much. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I learned from alchemy that there are other alchemies than the European and Arabian ones (which both descend from an Ancient Greek tradition if I got that right), but also Ancient Egypt and India. Given this, I don't think saying that hurts.--R8R (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, of course it doesn't hurt! ^m^ But I just thought that there might not be that much to add, even though we should have it there of course. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback from Scerri

Hi Double sharp; did you get my e-mail? Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I'm going through it and thinking about how best to respond. Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Sandbh (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thinking aloud before sending you an actually more definitive version:

Regarding the blocks, I suppose they are to some extent a useful fiction, but then so are a lot of things. I have a nice quote about this: "bonding is not an observable quantity; only bonding distancies and electron density are amenable to observation" (J. F. Lehmann, G. J. Schrobilgen, K. O. Christe, A. Kornath, R. J. Suotamo, Inorg. Chem., 2004, 43, 6905); as a result, even telling us which orbitals are involved in bonding (e.g. all the d-orbital explanations for hypervalence) is mostly of pedagogical value, and obviously a rationalisation of blocks based on that is stacking useful fictions on useful fictions. As p-block elements go, it seems to me that the noble gases are a massive outlier from the rest of the elements in their unwillingness to react, so saying that He fits better in the p-block obscures the fact that its whole group does not exactly fit well in the p-block or any block at all. (If I may speculate within parentheses, maybe the reason people are used to that is because the general unreactivity noble gases gets covered so early in chemistry courses!)

The next three are fine, and maybe we should note that even as group 3 gets ripped from the rest of the d-block, the elements in it are at least next to each other in the d-block, while He is not near any of the s-block elements.

Given how we are stacking useful fictions on useful fictions in creating the blocks, there surely cannot be a decisive argument; we can, at best, assign the blocks to create a compromise table that preserves as many advantages as possible, and when push comes to shove, the chemistry ought to win over the useful fictions, as they did with He, no matter how unnerving or unaesthetic the loss of symmetry might be felt to be. (When I actually send the final version this is surely not going to be one long sentence, but I think that is kind of the entire point we were trying to make; maybe I didn't phrase it well enough. Such are the pitfalls of having thought about things for too long; one's reasoning becomes crystal clear to oneself and to no others! ^_-☆) Double sharp (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This is timely. Your thoughts match my own. I'll probably be skyping Scerri next Wed arvo my time, to discuss the submission =:o so it would be good to get back to him shortly about his feedback. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

May I have that definitive version soon? It's Sunday morning here and I'd like to give Scerri some thinking time before I speak with him. Sandbh (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I was going to give it a last read through and send it today anyway. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

All right, I've sent it. I've been thinking for way too long on it, so I tried to clarify it several times. Now I'll get back to looking at the Pb FAC and fixing things... Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Seaborgium

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Congrats! And, to speak of the current problems, hopefully this will free you up for some FAC replies.--R8R (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably would; the hilarious problem with Sg is that I wrote it so many months ago (August 2016?!) that I forgot most of it and link rot happened in the meantime. Thankfully there wasn't much to change. ^_^ Hopefully you don't have to wait so long for Db! Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seaborgium

The article Seaborgium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Seaborgium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Translations

Hello again. You helped me translate several film entries from the French wikipedia in the past (e.g. The Angel). Would it be possible for you to please kindly translate these two short articles from the French wiki? If that would be possible, could you please also upload here these films' posters? Many thanks!--79.179.101.6 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It should be done by this weekend, I think. Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks!--79.179.101.6 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

First one is up: Reconstitution (1970 film). As always, if I messed anything up, please do not hesitate to correct it. I haven't put in the sources yet. The next one will come tomorrow, I think. Double sharp (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Please also do not forget about the posters. I will work on enlarging it now.--79.179.101.6 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The first is at File:Reconstitution film poster.jpg. I shall upload the other one when I translate that article – otherwise it'll get deleted without an article using it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so very much once again for all this work!--79.179.101.6 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you too for improving Wikipedia's coverage of Greek films! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Argh, I've been rather short on time today, so you might have to wait a day longer. I wonder though: is it really okay that the sources for Reconstitution are listed in French and Greek? They might be a little more difficult to find for English speakers without a translation (or in the case of Greek, a transliteration). Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words earlier. I have no problem with waiting another day, please take your time... As for listing sources in languages other than English with no translation given, do you know if there is an official Wiki policy? In books, at least, this stays the norm.--79.179.101.6 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain, but for music articles (an area I am more active in) it does seem to be the case on Wikipedia that an English translation is always given (e.g. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five, in which the Russian is not even given in Cyrillic, but in transliteration). Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I will insert translations in brackets.--79.179.101.6 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I checked WP:HOWCITE: yes, one of the items listed as typically included for WP is "translated title of the book in square brackets after the title if not in English". Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, edit conflict. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You're most welcome.--79.179.101.6 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The other one is ready: Days of '36. The poster will be uploaded in a moment. Double sharp (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

...and  Done Double sharp (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful! Will start enlarging it soon...--79.179.101.6 (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, one last thing: Can you please make sure all foreign-language Wiki articles about this film will appear on the left? Thanks.--79.179.101.6 (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks once again!--79.179.101.6 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I have four submitted drafts waiting for approval. Once these (hopefully) go through (two in fact already have), would you be able to please kindly upload here their theatrical release posters, available at their IMDb pages? Thanks.--79.179.101.6 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The last two articles are now up, so, when you get the chance, I would highly appreciate it if you could upload the aforementioned posters. Thanks again!--79.179.101.6 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Did you see my latest messages?--79.179.101.6 (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I've just been a little bit busy IRL, so my WP time for the previous two days has mostly been focused on the chemistry-related replies I left outstanding for a while. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Just wanted to know that you have no objections to doing so.--79.179.101.6 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've uploaded all four and put them in their respective articles. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! And, now, for the time being, I am done...--79.179.101.6 (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem! If you need anything in the future, of course, my talk page is always open. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Some more help needed: First, could you please help me fix the citebook code here? Nothing seems to work. After that, would it be possible for you to please kindly upload the film's DVD cover from its IMDB page? I have also written an article about the film's director. Given that he is dead, I am assuming there shall be no problem with uploading a photo, so just pick any from Google Images. Finally, given that he has only directed one film in his lifetime, do you believe a Category:Films directed by Jacques Katmor is warrented? Many thanks once again. My current IP is--79.183.25.113 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, Hebrew text sure is difficult to edit as RTL in an LTR context. You may need to ask at Wikipedia:Help desk for this... Double sharp (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. I asked it here.--79.183.25.113 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

And they managed to fix it! PS: Do you know if the infobox person ethnicity category was abolished? It seems not to work...--79.183.25.113 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it Category:Infobox person using ethnicity? Sorry, I may be completely wrong about this; this is really far from the areas of Wikipedia I usually work on, which tend to have very little to do with categories. Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. What I meant was that when I add "|ethnicity=" to the infobox, with all the information, it does not appear within the mainspace.--79.183.25.113 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, {{infobox person}} does not appear to have an expicitly defined "ethnicity" parameter. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it used to have one in the past as I included in some earlier articles I wrote (e.g. Lydia Zimmermann) yet now it disappeared from there too, so it must have been abolished. Please let me know when you are ready with the uploads.--79.183.25.113 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow should be fine, I think. Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Great! And, when you have the time, please also say whether you think creating a category is appropriate given the aforementioned conditions.--79.183.25.113 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Katmor's Hebrew-language Wikipedia article, which I translated in order to create the English one, also contains a photo taken during a retrospective held in his honor at the Nahum Gutman Museum of Art in 2012. Do you think this picture also deserves to be included in his English-language article? Thanks. If so, can you please also upload it here?--79.183.25.113 (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've uploaded all the pictures and created the category you suggested. Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A great many thanks for all your invaluable assistance!--79.183.25.113 (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Silver

added links pointing to Salt water, Caustic, Silverware and Amalgam

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead

We should go for another FAC soon. (I plan to add the magic number thing you brought up tonight.) I think I'll lead this one myself (I definitely don't see myself as an "outside" reviewer supporting it). It's up to you to think if you want to join Sandbh's "one nominates, others support" plan. --R8R (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, you should be the one nominating it; you've done the most work on it of anyone here! I shall restrict myself to giving a support, with perhaps a few minor points if I do find some (shouldn't be any at this point, of course, thanks to all of our work with Sandbh). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your understanding. Further comments during the FAC will be quite welcome.

I've had a plan in mind to begin after Nergaal checks I resolved their comments but I get no answer. A week since I wrote to Nergaal ends at 4 p.m. (UTC), and at this point I'll feel free to go for FAC anyway.--R8R (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Nergaal's last contributions, s/he seems to have been in some sort of dispute, and then moved his/her user page to User:Nergaal/dead; so I'm not very hopeful that s/he will reply. I doubt it'll be a problem to start it now. Double sharp (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be available before now anyway; but still, I find it important to wait a week. It's polite to do so: anyone should be given enough time to respond before we can go on. I find a week an appropriate term.

Anyway, we're going off any minute now. Stay tuned.--R8R (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lead/archive2!--R8R (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Element 117, 2012

Could you please explain this to me? There is an article from a Russian state-run media dated June 25, saying that the 2010 ununseptium experiment has been reproduced. At the same time, the scientific paper lists all decays chains with registration times (see doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.87.054621), and the earliest date listed is August 8. I wanted to blame those media, but then there is also an article from Smithsonian from June 26 saying essentially the same; besides, the Sputnik article says the official application had already been filed by the time their article was published. Could you help me find out how come and what triggered the claim "reproduced"? --R8R (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The deadline for submission for the JWP that culminated in the official approvals of elements 113, 115, 117, and 118 was 31 May 2012. Since no post-deadline submissions were entertained, this must have included the Russian claim for element 117. I note nevertheless that later experiments were sometimes included (e.g. 2013 for ^287,288Mc); presumably this only applied for discovery claims, not confirmations.

The Dubna team did two confirmationary experiments in 2012. One was from the purported "cross-bombardment"; they repeated the ⁴⁸Ca+²⁴³Am experiment, and assigned some of the produced nuclides to ²⁸⁹Mc via the 2n channel, which would be the daughter of ²⁹³Ts. Another was a repetition of the ²⁴⁹Bk+⁴⁸Ca reaction, which produced more chains of ²⁹³Ts and ²⁹⁴Ts. (They did it again in 2013. Now that they have the recognition, and given the trouble with handling ²⁴⁹Bk, I think they'll save those targets for the element 119 attempts with ⁵⁰Ti projectiles. Although I am not really sure how much this is necessary; it should not make all that much difference if the odd proton is in the projectile instead of the target, as in RIKEN's proposed ²⁴⁸Cm+⁵¹V reaction.)

All the details are in the JWP paper I linked above for Nh, Mc, and Ts; the second is also in the paper for Og, because of the decay of the ²⁴⁹Bk target resulting in the ²⁴⁹Cf(⁴⁸Ca,3n)²⁹⁴Og reaction taking place. While those two reports have scientific inaccuracies, as the papers I linked to you earlier from Lund University pointed out, they are certainly reliable as to the timeline of the experiments that were done and reported by the various groups. Double sharp (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, the word "congruent" lies in the top 20% of English words! So it's not as hardcore as I thought :)

Uh huh, I got it, thank you. Will add this sometime soon.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(Of course, when I say "save those targets", I do not mean the specific targets, but rather their usage. The short half-life of ²⁴⁹Bk makes it impossible to keep them for very long. Still, the targets I'm looking forward to seeing being used are the long-lived and more neutron-rich ²⁵⁰Cm, ²⁵¹Cf, ²⁵⁴Es, and with a lot of luck perhaps someday ²⁵⁷Fm! ^_-☆) Double sharp (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Not so strong Sandbh

The group 3 question discussion thread is still in my inbox but my attention to it keeps getting distracted by the illusory siren call of the metalloids… Sandbh (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the feeling. Please, take your time to think about everything with your characteristic thoroughness - far better to be late but ripe, than early and not ready! ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

After lead is completed

I have a good feeling about this one.

Then, I would want to go for Th. I'd want to spend some time of mine on it, but I'm busy making initial notes (still a long way to go because I feel I'll have to reshuffle it all and write all the positive thoughts which I, for some reason, don't even bother to write down) for a reply for Sandbh. After you're done with your participation in the Pb FAC, if you plan to take part, could you go and begin to complete the rest of the ideas from the PR?

Even if it doesn't work out for some reason, which is a possibility I always have in mind, an early push for Th by you should be a good help.--R8R (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll comment on Pb by the end of this week: it's just that I've been really tired and haven't had enough time to do much of anything (and what little I have done was mostly replying to Sandbh on the project page). After that I will indeed go back to thorium and go for it! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Good! We're not in a particular hurry, but I think we should plan ahead anyway.--R8R (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

One small thing for lead

In our Isotopes section, we mention how magic numbers provide some special stability but we never explain what's so special about the stability. I want to shortly mention that in a note (energy it takes to remove one neutron and so on); and then I suspect this would be a thing you'd want to cover (also, you'd probably get it better than I).--R8R (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem; I'll work on it tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: (pinging you because this is really cool): P.S. The best quote is from Oganessian: "Lead is stable element because it double magic. Without this effect, it could be radioactive: there is no lead." (He says it somewhere between 20 and 22 minutes into the video.) Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I tend to think this is an exaggeration. We still don't know if this is a thing for sure, right?--R8R (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, everything beyond 40 is theoretically unstable with a very long half-life; the decay is energetically allowed. I can quite well believe that the shells are what makes it take so long, like Th and U near a semi-closed shell. Besides, I am not sure if we will get many papers for "counterfactual physics". ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

I feel I might be biased here, so please take a look at this edit: [1]. Do we really need this here? Is this not misplaced?--R8R (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

TBH I don't feel that it is a problem: it is quite related to Pb poisoning and cites a prominent recent set of reviews on the subject. Double sharp (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nobelium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dipole moment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Need your help!

Hi, I undrestod you're expert in chemistary, please check my post in science project, there is a link to my sandbox too, i hope you can help me to finish it. i coudn't find anyone in wikipedia to helping me, i means all suitable members are offline for a few month or i don't know where find them!Polonium talk 23:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Silver

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Silver you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Diamagnecity

Hey. I see you wanted to take your time to think about superconductivity and diamagneticity. I am not too sure I want the former, but the latter seems okay. However, we don't have the references! I can't think of how I would alter the article to add the facts and be sure it's absolutely well-referenced.

May I ask you to provide some suggestions? Feel free to experiment in the article; if you go too long, I'll contract the text later. Is it okay for you?--R8R (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! I'll think about it for a moment and give it today or tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, waiting!--R8R (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It'll probably be tomorrow, since when I got back today I spent most of the time citing and adding all the cool nuggets for the superheavies. Maybe we can have an element 121 article back soon – RIKEN and JINR appear to have plans for it in the not-so-near future (2020s?), and there are now some theoretical chemical studies. Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added it, rather tersely. I cannot find sources which explain both steps together, but the important step alone is there: things with unpaired electrons are almost always paramagnetic, and things with paired electrons are almost always diamagnetic. (I say "almost always" to take care of the odd cases of ferromagnetism among the elements: Fe, Co, Ni, and at lower temperatures Gd, Tb, and Dy.) Double sharp (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, there is an interesting footnote here regarding what exactly the magnetic ordering of Gd is. I'll have to research on it for the article, of course. Double sharp (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be an interesting fact for gadolinium and maybe even group 3 element, but here, it's a little off-topic.

Also, as for Th: what I would hate the most is that you can burn out before you get to move to the star. I sort of share that feeling that adding another thing that seems cool is awesome but I am concerned about how this is not the most productive way to move towards the target. What I'd want to happen now is a rewrite of Production, which, frankly, isn't all too difficult given you have Ullmann and examples to follow. In my experience, all sections past History are more or less easy. Production is easy because you have good sources to follow. Uses is easy because you don't even need to go in detail; all you're required to do is understand what the element is used for and why. Biology requires some effort, though, but often, you already have the info (that was the case with lead; I only had to read it, understand it, make it easier for me to understand, and answer all questions I had left. That's the basics; some minor work will follow up but only because it'll feel natural). We'll also have to explore why India is so keen on having thorium power, that's Th-specific. And then see what else is left (I remember we didn't check for nuclear weapon history and I wanted to think about Bulk, which I have thanks to my work on lead). Then will follow a general review of what we have and then work on refs and such subtleties. And then the FAC will follow.

Also, I'd love you not to push that the lanthanide series or the f block begins with thorium. Personally, I've pushed my pro-Lu-Lr stance before and I am weary of an opportunity of anything of that sort ever happening again. This is even being investigated by the IUPAC right now. We can wait until they conclude one way or the other before having to think if we should act. (Probably not whatever the decision; this is not quite the point here, unlike the general articles like actinide.)

(a side note -- if you think this makes sense, you're welcome to make a subpage "continuing" the PR to help motivate yourself and me to do the work.)--R8R (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It's mostly because most of the edits coming from me in the mornings (except of course the weekends) are now from my phone, where it's rather difficult to do the serious stuff, so here it's mostly adding a few cool things that don't require much effort. As for the f-block/d-block thing, it is kind of unavoidable when talking about the metals because 4f and 5f aren't really doing anything in La and Ac – and because Bohr wrote it that way in period 6 of his table, which was what I was going for – but I'll try to rewrite that bit quickly to look less like -La-Ac promotion. ^_^

Also, for Gd I meant the main article on gadolinium, not anything else. I agree that it's too much weight there, although since nickel has the lede boldly state the four ferromagnetics as Fe, Co, Ni, and Gd I should edit it there to the three metals known for sure to be ferromagnetic.

I'll try to make a subpage for it copying the later sections of the PR. Double sharp (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I rewrote the thing to make the implied shape of the periodic table less clear. I shall work on the remaining sections when I get back today and then onward through the weekend. I do not want to burn out either, of course. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, Talk:Thorium/PR continued should work. Double sharp (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Th nightmare.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Th nightmare.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Silver

The article Silver you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Silver for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbiunium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unbiunium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Geojournal -- Geojournal (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Neodymium

Since you've just nominated Pr for GAN, could I ask you to treat Nd as a reservation of mine? There are few plans that I have (Fe, Al, Au, also Th and Hs with you), and I'd want to add Nd to that list. I'll get there one day; I just want to enjoy to build it from scratch rather than having in mind some previous construct (sort of like what happened to Db). There are still many lanthanide articles out there, so I hope this will be okay with you.--R8R (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem: I get kind of bored writing most lanthanides actually, because the chemistry (which is what I care about the most) tends to be very repetitive. The ones I'm more interested in that no one's taken are gadolinium and terbium; I don't think anyone wants those at the moment, so we're probably fine (and I like Tb more because of the vague +4 chemistry, which is why I took Pr and not Nd after all).

Regarding Al, have you seen any sources discussing how it often acts more similarly to group 3 than group 13? This is a cool point which I think may make the Ln feel more accessible to high-school chemistry students, who would have dealt with Al and Sc but not Y or the Ln. Double sharp (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I would be very happy to work with you on Au – let's get the last ugly patch of yellow out of the d-block and have a transition metal GT! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

P.P.S. I also feel like reviewing Db, but I don't want to pile on too much stuff at once, so I'm waiting for the Pb FAC to finish. (After all, I do keep updating the superheavies every so often the moment something new appears, so I sort of feel an amusing duty to do it. I realise that that turn of phrase sounds a bit odd, but I'm not sure how to describe something that you feel you should do but you also want to do!) Double sharp (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd normally say, "it's up to you, and the FAC currently doesn't require much action on my side anyway," but then I remembered I'm going to have some RL issues which may either take most of my spare time or actually give me more of it! Not sure about it, so let's say, "it's up to you from around May 25."

Also, I've re-read the Th PR and looked over the article itself and the review was pretty decent! I also loved it that I left myself a sketch of a "To do" plan to help myself (and you) dive into this again. Speaking of Th, check your email.--R8R (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, May 25 it is then! Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Silver

The article Silver you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Silver for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Polyanskiy

If you could help me out with that one, it will be greatly appreciated.

Axl is right on that we should try aim for an English-language source. Perhaps all of these facts could be sourced with such references. (Well, except for that olovo fact.) Maybe. Well, I hope so. But I expect to busy quite busy with the source check and I'm going to be short on time soon, so, again, help here would come super handy.--R8R (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go looking! Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, in addition to that, could you please confirm ref 6 (DeKock) in the article? I think you added it (correct me if I'm wrong) and that ref causes questions at FAC.--R8R (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, IIRC it only says the bit about paramagneticity and diamagneticity correlating to whether or not you have unpaired electrons, so it only confirms half of what it is cited for. We need something explicitly on relativistic effects and the inert pair in Pb, which would give the closed-shell issue: this should not be too hard to fine. Maybe later today when I'm not editing from my phone. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could take it on within this week. I hope to be fully back soon, but not yet.--R8R (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I can, but only if the weekend counts. Sorry for the wait; I haven't had much time to do actual research for WP, which takes a good deal more time than getting info straight out of G&E. Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That's alright with me. Thanks in advance.--R8R (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking with not very much success; I will keep trying, though. (At least this isn't so bad because such sources are acceptable in the absence of anything better, but I would rather not have to plead that.) Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Base 62

The article Base 62 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

OR/not notable. No evidence this exists outside of some trivial programming examples.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Base 62 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Base 62 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base 62 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Liszt

The article indeed sucks - but every time I try to steel myself to deal with it, my heart aches and a drowsy numbness pains my sense (I'm sure you know the feeling).--Smerus (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I know it rather too well. Unfortunately it is hardly alone among composer articles in sucking, what with the lapsing of the Schubert article into tabloid-speak and the confused-first-year partial summary of Haydn's musical style in his article (I'm almost afraid to look at those for Mozart and Beethoven). Well, I suppose we have to start somewhere, although looking at the impressive bibliography list for the Chopin article I am not sure how much help I could be for fixing up the Liszt article!

(It is hardly a problem confined to music, BTW; the phosphorus article is about as terrible, and despite having written many chemistry articles on Wikipedia I still can't bring myself to actually deal with that one. I was hoping to escape that for a moment by looking at my other interests on WP; obviously it didn't work.) Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well at the moment I have promised to try to improve Claudio Monteverdi - and then I will have to resume Johannes Brahms where I've done the life but can't face the music......so FL and the others will have to wait a bit.......Smerus (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

For sure, Brahms is pretty difficult to write about: I am still not sure I understand his music well enough to write a lucid, sourced exposition about it. I have made some brave noises about rewriting Haydn (which I think I understand better), but it would also be my first time actually writing something biographical and it certainly still scares me a little, even though I logically know that that's a rather silly reaction. Still, the work that has been done on the already-FA composers makes me confident that when I run into problems on that (and I certainly will when I get around to it), there will be a great deal of help coming my way. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep me in touch.....Smerus (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But of course! Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Smerus: If I had to put a finger on just one thing I've been sorely missing in some of the composer articles is a sort of "what-to-look-for-in-the-style" guide – the composition sections tend to look like a list of works and when they were written with nothing else. I certainly like that information, but I almost think I'd want to know something about "signature" elements of their style in the sense of the principles that tend to be at work in their music, hopefully with some illustrative musical examples. Even an FA like Francis Poulenc is not exactly forthcoming about this: it tells us the main aspects but I almost wish there was a musical example or two in there to see it for myself – and now I start to wonder why nothing is said about why he is categorised as a "neoclassical" composer (the term isn't even used once in the article proper!). I don't claim to be an expert on Poulenc's music, but when I finally get around to courageously tackling Haydn I shall try to address this – I am pretty sure I know what is going on there, at least, and know where to find sources for it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I tried to do something on these lines in the Chopin, Alkan and Meyerbeer articles, and am still pondering how to deal with this for Brahms having rewritten the biography section.Smerus (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Smerus: Chopin's been treated well, of course (though may I suggest a quotation from the end of Op. 50 No. 3 for his chromatic harmony? ^_-☆). I think another difficulty in Brahms is just how many allusions there are in his music to earlier composers (and any ass can see it): many times it feels like one needs to understand how some conventions are being honoured almost in the breach (and the ones played straight are so outdated that they actually sound new). So explaining some of what he was doing ends up going on about what the earlier convention was, which seems to create a problem of how not to go off-topic. Double sharp (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thorium

Active work on lead finished for now, and I'd want to tackle on thorium. Now is the time to begin with. (Or next week at worst.) I've shortly listed what we need to do at Talk:Thorium/PR_continued#Road_map_towards_FAC. Are you ready to go on?--R8R (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm ready! (Oddly enough I didn't get the "new messages" orange bar for this, which is why I'm slightly later than usual at replying.) ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a little aworried about me not getting back to it. I want this one done; I feel like I could've done it a while ago already but there just always seems to be something that could be done instead; sometimes, in retrospect, I think I could allow myself to invest this time into Wiki. I also want to get you to do it as well becuase you've repeatedly indicated you wanted to do it as well :) So how about I set up some weekly tasks to be done, for example, to stimulate you and myself? Or maybe you have some better suggestions?--R8R (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Weekly tasks will be fine and good; in fact, the main reason I haven't got back to it is that you seem to be working on one bit of it at intervals yourself, and I didn't want to jump in there too without knowing what you were trying to do yet. With those tasks made clear I do believe I shall be able to contribute to finishing it up properly. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Delighted to read that. In part, I've moved slowly recently because the Production part has never been particularly interesting to me. At first (back in the fluorine times), I just tried to avoid it. Now... it seems dealable, very much so; but this dealing is very dull. I get to learn a practice, which is usually easy; and then I have to do some mind athletics to tell that story in your own (different) words. Usually, one or two good sources are enough. So it is easy and boring. It doesn't have to feel this way, though: I was feeling this way about History first and now it seems one of the, if not just the, most interesting sections in an article.

Maybe you could help me out or even take this on? Especially if you find a way to add creativity to this writing, this should be good and interesting. It has happened between me and History, so it is certainly possible. Maybe you're even reading this thinking "come on, what is there not to enjoy about industrial production?" ;) There is Ullmann to begin with; then I'd just recommend checking if any more recent sources have anything to add and that should be it. You can see lead for a recent example of a good Production section. This is easy, as I said.

If you agree (which I sincerely hope you do), I could go for applications. Even if just the non-nuclear ones, for now, at least.--R8R (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll check out the sources later today when I get back and see what I can come up with for production... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So, how did it go?

As for myself, I think I may be able to finish off the Applications section today.--R8R (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've got to digest it a little more, but I think I can get it done tomorrow. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be good. I'm afraid I'll have to postpone the description of the non-nuclear applications until sometime soon; I hope that "soon" will be tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2017‎ (UTC)

I should really stop speaking of exact dates on WP, because then things emerge and they get pushed back. >_< In the meantime, I have a question: from your summary and the original Stoll chapter it seems like acid digestion is a rather old-fashioned method today among the main Th producers, perhaps because of its lack of selectivity: it certainly gets the Th out, but then you need to purify all the lanthanides out as well. And the purification aspects tend to go into a lot of detail on specific compounds, because of the different complexing abilities of Th⁴⁺ and UO²⁺
₂. So I'm wondering if we need to give long, separate sections on each of them following Stoll's original order; I might consider instead talking about the main current method and its chemistry in detail, and then briefly summarising some important historical or lesser-used ones. But I'll wait for your feedback on this. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We certainly don't need long sections; that never was the plan. The length of Concentration should be about same as that of Lead#Primary (or maybe even less than that); same for subsections. If the book itself summarizes the lengthy descriptions, for the purposes of Wikipedia writing, you don't need (though, of course, you still may) to look for the details. As for order, I presume the general order is fine. While the newer method is more appealing technology-wise, the older one is cheaper. This is why it is still used (according to Stoll) and we should follow. Remember you don't need to make the text long; you only need to describe the basics. Details could be mice if they matter; I think you'll feel it if they are. Compare this line from lead: "During initial processing, ores typically undergo crushing, dense-medium separation, grinding, froth flotation, and drying." with what it could be: "During initial processing, ores typically are usually crushed to obtain a powder of a small grain size. Then the powder is introduced into a dense medium, in which the lighter parts of the ore float while the heavier drown; this removes some impurities. Then [I'll stop here, you get the idea]."

To sum up, I don't think we need to add much text; certainly, we need to add less than one screen (my laptop has a screen resolution of 1600x900).--R8R (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've done it! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice!

Content-wise, here's what I think we have yet to do: we should specify in Applications that the tungsten alloying is the only use that hasn't had thorium replaced by other elements. Haven't written that myself because I'm not entirely sure if that's true. That's what our lead says, though, so we definitely need to check on that. Toxicity/Chemical is very weak. Perhaps you'll want to add a sentence or two on Th's physical and/or chemical characteristcs in the lead section (you don't have to, though, but you can). That should be it.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like lanthanum has finally replaced thorium even there, based on some recent welding books I found on Google Books. T_T Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It also seems like the reason why the chemical toxicity of thorium is not well-studied is because it hydrolyses too readily to form the insoluble hydroxide, in which form it just passes through you for the most part and comes back out intact. As a result, if you have ingested enough thorium that chemical toxicity would manifest itself, it should not be your primary concern, because radioactivity (especially from the daughters) would already be causing significant damage. One interesting tidbit I did find is that the poor solubility of Th also does delay excretion, but even that does not seem to impact health detectably in plausible amounts. I have added some of this information to the article, but I am not sure the section can be expanded much further because of this reason. You're better off worrying about the radium, radon, and maybe also actinium that are among its daughters. So now I'm wondering: should we go into detail about that? In one sense it is deeply related to Th, as most of your radiation intake comes from the Rn, Ra, and Ac that come out, which because of their chemistry enter the body much more easily than Th itself. But they are not Th isotopes, so I'd like to hear your take on this and how much we should write on that. Something like Radon#Daughters perhaps, if at less length? Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I see our job as to write an encyclopedia article about thorium. I take that as an outright requirement to stay focused on thorium. We do already mention that thorium emits these dangerous daugthers in the section on radiohazards. It would perhaps be okay to mention this again in a single sentence like "The main chemical threat comes again not from thorium, but from its daugthers radium, radon, and actinium [by the way, do we use the serial comma or not?], which may do X and Y." That's where I'd stop because we're writing an encylopedia article (and an overview article), not a safety sheet or something, which would of course go into greater detail and discuss the daugthers; we, in contrast, should only mention; we have those articles on radium and radon.

Thanks for doing the job, by the way. Sorry that I can't as of yet join in; at least you do it well.

A couple more questions: are those fluoride and nitrate uses still active uses? Did we cover why thorium ignites and what real-life conditions can lead to that (why did that 1956 fire happen?)? And while Hazards/Biological looks fine now structure-wise, that why tag still needs to be addressed. When we're done with those, we will be able proceed to the steps after content: ref formatting and then prose quality (we'll discuss those separately).--R8R (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Pyrophoricity is not that unusual for fairly electropositive metals: even Fe and Al are when powdered. This is fairly obviously because of the increased surface area, and is not unique to Th (its lighter congener Ce does the same thing, which explains its use in ferrocerium lighters). The 1956 fire happened while thorium powder was being reprocessed and burned, as we say, which in hindsight is a terrible idea. ^_^ I will check the fluoride and nitrate uses. Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of this, but I assume many readers are not. This is good enough for Chemistry to be expalined, let alone Hazards.--R8R (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. However I think it'll be difficult to find a source specifically saying this for Th; I think the most we can do is have it there for electropositive metals, and note (from another source) that Th is one. Double sharp (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Even that could be good.

Here's some thorium-specific info: [2]--R8R (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this! It shall indeed be most useful. Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ping! Hey, I'm sorry that I can't join in and keep on going. Been absolutely busy lately. Maybe it'll get better soon. Maybe not. I can't find a minute to finish the content task we're on. We're so close; so sorry I can't yet. Judging from my watchlist, you're still sort of around, though; could you gradually get it done? I know I could find a few minutes on many days from September on for activities not requiring much thought such as reference formatting, but we need to get there first. Is there a chance I could get you to do it in the coming days?--R8R (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I am indeed sort of around, but the problem with being sort of around is that one then has little time to do much more than brainless tasks like reverting IP vandals on my watched articles. ^_^ But I may have enough time this weekend to get something out. Double sharp (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That'd be great. I'm now looking for it, too. I'm not even sure this has been explained anywhere; maybe we'll have to make do with the simple mention that we have now. Also, quite some time ago, I have decided that maybe we don't need to explain the details of pyrophoricity. Still, I am worried about the short Hazards/Chemical section. Any ideas on if there's anything to add?--R8R (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The irritating thing about more detail is that the link you gave me on the 1st shows that there is a good deal of inconsistency in different people's estimation of the risks involved. Some seem to consider Th to have severe pyrophoricity, whereas some note that there are a number of mitigating factors (e.g. perhaps it needs to stay at the high temperatures required for a while). The precise nature of the risk would have continued nicely on from what we already have, but there is disagreement there, and summarising the disagreement essentially boils down to "some say it's pretty bad, some say it's the opposite", which is almost like zero information in the absence of any clear distinction between the weight of the two groups of sources. Double sharp (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It is of course very possible that this lack of imagination merely reflects the length of time that we have been working on this article and that we need an outside source to pour a bucket of cold water above our heads and make us see the obvious. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have a spare minute, could you take care of the remaining why tag? This book has the info.--R8R (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Where the monoxide suggestion came from anyway? Can't find it in either source. The source I provided just above does not mention any monoxide at all.--R8R (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we're good with content by now. We were just a couple short steps away and now we're there.

Please check the referencing style in lead. Do you find it okay to follow here as well (maybe except the whole "all references in bibliography" theme) or do you have any other suggestions?--R8R (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I find it okay. Double sharp (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That's the attitude! (I think this is exactly how much thinking it deserves.)

So, I suggest I go from the first reference and format all to the standard. You at the same time go from the last ref. (Or vice versa: I go from the last ref and you go from the first.) This should be doable in small steps (so if you've got just a minute, you can do an easy job in that minute). Sounds good?--R8R (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I think I shall start from the last ref as you suggest. Double sharp (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! Here's a reminder on reference styling.--R8R (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, please remember to have 13-digit hyphenated ISBNs. There are many online tools that add hyphens (there is actually some meaning in location of the hyphens, so you can't just do it yourself all the same way) and transform ISBNs to the 13-digit format.--R8R (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And omit all locations of publishers for consistency.--R8R (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you take a look at Thorium#Potential use for nuclear energy? It feels like something's missing but I can't realize what. I don't want to tell the whole story of what a nuclear energy station is, becuase we're talking about a very particular case, but it may be incomplete somehow still. Could you tell what?--R8R (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Taking a cursory look, I agree but still cannot quite put my finger on what exactly is lacking. With some luck this shall come to either of us soon in a flash of insight. Perhaps I shall look at what the old version said, to see if it said something that would address this and might be salvaged from the former quasi-shipwreck. Double sharp (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Langue sacrée, langue parlée

Hello. You have translated several film articles from the French for me in the past. Would it be possible for you to please kindly translate this one too? The poster is here. Many thanks! Current IP: 79.182.75.201 (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OK: it looks fairly short, so I may be able to get it done today (but note the may ^_^). Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Great. Please feel free to take your time. Nobody is in a hurry.79.182.75.201 (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

And apparently I jinxed myself by saying that, so that I suddenly found that I needed to do something new IRL. I will try to finish it sometime early this week, at least. Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem.--79.182.75.201 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have submitted a draft for another one of her films here. After it is approved, could you please also upload the DVD cover? Many thanks once again!--79.182.75.201 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem, although that will have to wait for it to be approved to meet WP:NFCC. Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Great!--79.182.75.201 (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, any chance for you to approve the submission? And, after both articles are ready, would it be possible for you to also create a Category:Films directed by Nurith Aviv plus a Template:Films directed by Nurith Aviv? Thanks! Current IP:--79.179.204.145 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly well-versed in the AfC process; how would I go about doing this? Does it suffice to simply move the article into the mainspace, since it seems to be ready already? Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You could ask here. I think these are the instructions.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Traduire article approved!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Just making sure you haven't forgotten about the requests :)--79.179.204.145 (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, thanks; there's been way too much stuff coming over this week. I'll do it now. Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Superb.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks so very much. Now just the template for her three films. I'll expand the article now.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, now that's done too. Double sharp (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks once again!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and, of course, the link to the French Wikipedia article should appear on the the left. I can't manage to figure out how to do so myself. Thanks.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

One more thing, if that's not too much of a burden. I've written an article about a poem: could you, please, upload its book cover? A great many thanks, again!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

And, can you please also upload the cover for this book, too? Thank you.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen my latest message?--79.179.204.145 (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have. It's just that I can't upload it from my phone, so it will have to wait for about another hour or so. Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. Just wanted to make sure you haven't missed it. Thanks again.--79.179.204.145 (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--79.179.204.145 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Praseodymium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Praseodymium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Praseodymium

The article Praseodymium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Praseodymium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

On dynamic groups and reclassifying Jupiter's irregular moons.

I apologize for the long message.

Here, I decided to help you along in reclassifying Jupiter's irregulars. I ran a computer program with the definitions of each group, throwing each moon at it with its orbital elements (mostly inclination and eccentricity) and letting it classify it as Ananke, Carme, or Pasiphae group based on that. In weird cases, I used common (not-so-common?) sense to figure out where it most likely belonged.

Feel free to leave your comment below.

Here are the results.

Themisto - ?!?!

Leda - Himalia

Himalia - Himalia (duh...)

Lysithea - Himalia

Elara - Himalia

Dia - Himalia

Carpo - ?!?!

S/2003 J 12 - ?!?!

Euporie - Maybe Ananke/Pasiphae, but I can't find any relation to either. My program also gave up on this one. Seems to be who knows?!?!

S/2003 J 3 - Most likely Ananke, as an outer member.

S/2011 J 1 - ?!?!

S/2003 J 18 - Ananke/Pasiphae (mixed) The eccentricity is a bit low for Ananke. Also a bit close in to be Pasiphae.

S/2010 J 2 - Ananke

Thelxinoe - Ananke

Euanthe - Ananke - WHY ARE YOU SAYING PASIPHAE ON WIKIPEDIA?!?!?! It's probably a member of Ananke, just on the outer edge.

Helike - Ananke/Pasiphae (mixed results) More likely Pasiphae due to its low eccentricity.

Orthosie - Pasiphae. Its low inclination relative to the Ananke group suggests Pasiphae.

S/2016 J 1 - Pasiphae

Iocaste - Ananke

S/2003 J 16 - Ananke

Praxidike - Ananke, but my program suggested Pasiphae. The eccentricity is a bit low for Ananke.

Harpalyke - Ananke

Mneme - Ananke

Hermippe - Ananke

Thyone - Ananke

Ananke - Ananke (duh...)

Herse - Carme

Aitne - Carme

Kale - Carme

Taygete - Carme

S/2003 J 19 - Carme. Outer edge, though. My program suggested it didn't belong to a group.

Chaldene - Carme

S/2003 J 15 - Pasiphae. With such an extremely circular orbit, it's obvious.

S/2003 J 10 - Carme

S/2003 J 23 - Pasiphae

Erinome - Carme

Aoede - Pasiphae. A bit (or far?) too elliptical for the Carme group.

Kallichore - Carme

Kalyke - Carme

Carme - Carme (duh...)

Callirrhoe - Pasiphae

Eurydome - Pasiphae

Pasithee - Carme

S/2010 J 1 - Carme

Kore - Pasiphae

Cyllene - Pasiphae

S/2011 J 2 - Pasiphae. Its eccentricity and inclination match those of an Ananke group member close to the edge. But it's way too far away.

Eukelade - Carme

S/2017 J 1 - Pasiphae

S/2003 J 4 - Pasiphae. Only choice. Why do you have it marked with a question mark on Wikipedia? It's definitely Pasiphae.

Pasiphae - Pasiphae (duh...)

Hegemone - Pasiphae

Arche - Carme

Isonoe - Carme

S/2003 J 9 - Definitely Carme. Nothing else fits.

S/2003 J 5 - Carme

Sinope - Pasiphae

Sponde - Pasiphae

Autonoe - Pasiphae

Megaclite - Pasiphae

S/2003 J 2 - ?!?! There doesn't seem to be anything for this one. Maybe a more distant member of the Pasiphae group at best, but it does seem to orbit eerily alone.

Hope this helps you. ;-). 8.40.151.110 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not my classification for some of the odd cases, but directly from Sheppard's website; after all, he is the discoverer of many of these tiny moons. The question marks for some of the unnamed moons are because their orbits are not known very well yet; so even though some look like really good members of their groups now, this could change (perhaps in 2018 with the next round of observations). Incidentally, the Pasiphae group is more like a case of "no strong dynamical clustering" than a real group.

Euanthe is indeed an Ananke group member and I am sorry for introducing the confusion; I must have made a copy-and-paste blunder and then propagated it everywhere. Well, time to change it now! Double sharp (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, wait: I did mark Euanthe correctly as an Ananke group member in {{Moons of Jupiter}} and the main article. Are you sure you didn't make a little slip-up there? ^_-☆ Of course, I greatly appreciate the work you have done here! Double sharp (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked your list against Moons of Jupiter and Sheppard's website. Every case matches, except for the question marks I applied to the "lost" moons (Sheppard even more prudently does not categorise them, since their orbital elements are not known well enough to use them as the primary basis for grouping). Thank you for all your hard work on this! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem! And the Euanthe confusion was because I accidentally read the next row. (See my talk page.) I guess you really did classify all of them correctly. Now to update the articles of some of these moons, some of which still have the wrong classifications on them. I mean, I would do it, but I don't have that kind of patience. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that many changed, so I may have gotten all of them already: but I'll go through and check them all again. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done They should all be correct now. Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@8.40.151.110: In case you're still interested in this, it might be interesting to try factoring in a (semi-major axis) and ω (argument of pericentre) – the first is essentially the only way to make sense out of the Uranians, and the second is also involved in Lidov–Kozai oscillations. Double sharp (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On reclassifying the nonmetals

		Fluorine Award
		In recognition of your formulation of the principle that a category must be definable without making reference to another category, thereby completely ending the debate on reclassifying nonmetals in favour of the status quo. The End. Parcly Taxel 06:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Rejected proposals for superheavy names

Here. It was a surprise to me the Dubna team didn't give up of russium and kurchatovium from the past. Though I think the rules are overly strict: for one, I have never heard of "leosium."--R8R (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit sceptical of this, to be honest. How come flerovium was okay for element 114 but not for element 116? Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought so, too. Maybe they went pushy on that one, though? Also, I remember that O wanted to name an element after Flerov and the element was named after the Flerov Lab, so that could be a compromise?--R8R (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The compromise idea makes sense. I'd want to know where these guys got their info from before feeling completely comfortable about reporting it, though. Double sharp (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbiunium

The article Unbiunium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unbiunium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Geojournal -- Geojournal (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Systematicelementname

Template:Systematicelementname has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Manganese

I think you revert was fine, but I'd like to let you know of another class of Mn(VII) compounds, namely there are imido complexes of heptavalent manganese. For example chloro tris (tert-butylimido) manganese. For more in formation see Non-oxo chemistry of manganese in high oxidation states. Part 1. Mononuclear tert-butylimido compounds of manganese-(VII) and -(VI) http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/1994/dt/dt9940001037#!divAbstract OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the paper! This is quite cool, though I still think it may be more important to make it clear that Mn^VII and high oxidation states like that mostly have only oxo chemistry; it's not like Tc^VII or Re^VII. I'm still thinking if there may be a place to cover this: I think the chemistry section is a little small and could be expanded to discuss Mn complexes in each of its oxidation states. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

New messages.

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at 8.40.151.110's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reverts

Hi Double sharp, sorry about the reverts. I haven't finished my response yet to your first comments (for which, thank you!). I can't finalise my own line of thinking, at the same time as responses come in to my unfinalised thoughts. (Actually, I probably could but I feel that the quality of the exchange would deteriorate markedly). I hope you can understand. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course I understand; I just inattentively didn't notice your note at the top. In any case, my comments are there in the history, so they're not lost. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought that might be the case. I'm thoroughly enjoying the discourse. I'll let you know when my response is ready. At least you will have done half of the work in formulating a reply already! Sandbh (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course. You're very welcome! Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Good news; my response has been finalised, and is ready for your consideration. Sandbh (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calcium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Calcium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Calcium

The article Calcium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Calcium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Parcly Taxel -- Parcly Taxel (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Progress meter

Not sure what you had in mind here, but it gives rise to the following: Our various Periodic Tables by Quality tell us that the current state of things, but it might be nice to see something about the progress over time. Maybe a series of graphics showing PTQ at 6-month intervals, perhaps, or a stacked bar graph that shows the number of project articles at each level of quality over time. Not sure if this is the sort of thing you had in mind, but it's what came to my mind. YBG (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking of a sort of "thermometer" where the mercury (lol) would rise higher and higher as whatever article I was working on got closer and closer to its mainspace launch – perhaps to persuade myself that User:Double sharp/Silicon is actually coming soon (it's a huge and important element and despite having started in earnest on its GA push almost a whole month ago, I am still not very happy with how it is at the moment in the sandbox – the minerals are important and scary!). So it was more intended as a personal thing.

Mind you, I rather like your idea too, although getting back the really ancient history (like the first periodic table FA) may be difficult. Even for the first PTQ revisions, I think there was no such thing as C-class back then, and for a long while (up to 2011?) we had A-class between B and GA rather than GA and FA, so the scale is not directly comparable. You can at least look at the file history of the PTQ image to see some of it – despite my caveats, it is nice to look at how it looked at the close of 2010 (just before I joined in January 2011) and see how far we have come since then. (My personal goal is still a completely green PTQ before the decade is out... ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Think we can launch this one before the start of August if everything goes according to plan – failing which it shall likely become my eighth wiki-birthday present, so either way, it'll be fine. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you, and I am likewise honoured to have gotten the chance to join 314 others in supporting such an excellent candidacy as yours! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Group 12 as post-transition metals

Hi Double sharp

Do you feel like putting this up as a proposal? We don't need to wait for the complete rewrite of the TM article in my view. There is enough support already in the literature to do this, given: the literature is about 50/50; the incorrect conflation by the 50% that get it wrong of the TMs with the d block metals; IUPAC accommodates this configuration; and the way our categories operate is along chemical properties based lines. And we can still include group 12 as PTM, in the TM article, for comparative purposes. Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have wanted to do it for a long while, but have been worried about having two active proposals (nonmetal recategorisation and group 12) open at once, for a project like ours which is running on only half a dozen active members (and often less). If you think it is not a problem, I can start it this week. Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is a problem. You're among friends. The nonmetal article rewrite will take longer. Sandbh (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've done a quick version of this. I tried to cover the important things briefly, since I am rather pressed for time. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't able to follow up as immediately as I would have liked for the above proposal because I'm currently suffering the collateral damage of an autoblock, but as usual your excellently thought-out summary has made that quite unnecessary. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I am mostly just talking to myself here to pass some time until the blocking administrator logs in again, but I will add here a preliminary response to DePiep's query on Cn: "Yes, Cn will fit OK as a PTM, because chemical experiments have shown that it behaves like a typical group 12 member, and by the group-based definition group 12 would be a PTM group. There was originally room for doubt based on the expected existence of Cn^IV, but given that newer calculations have refuted this (see copernicium) that has vanished." @DePiep: If you would like to copy and paste this for me into the actual discussion, given that I am currently stuck under some collateral damage, I would greatly appreciate it: if not, I shall only be able to do it myself when I get home by 12:00 UTC. Double sharp (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!! Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Autoblocked

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Double sharp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

180.255.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

This network has been used improperly by someone on your network. It has therefore been blocked as a precaution to prevent abuse and damage to Wikipedia.

• Blocking administrator: Ks0stm (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: see User talk:Ks0stm

I am not editing from home at the moment, so I may be able to edit normally again later today (from about 11:00 12:00 UTC, give or take some minutes). But given that I shall be and have been by necessity editing from this range on weekdays I would like to request that this remain open even so. (Or it might not work that way; I don't really know, since I have not been affected by this before.) In any case, please do take your time, as I cannot say I am not enjoying this unplanned wikibreak. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(Meanwhile I still need to add something about how the numberings of natural satellites have been covered in the MPCs since 9 June 2017, along with some assorted grammar fixes to one of those articles about standard atomic weight. I'd have done it earlier today if not for this; anyway, I'm leaving them here as a reminder to myself.) Double sharp (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(OK, I am certainly not enjoying it anymore. I would also most humbly suggest that the part of the automatic notice that says that registered users are still allowed to edit ought to be fixed – its truth seems to be very doubtful, though I am still not certain what it depends on.) Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, it looks like the autoblock only affects me on mobile. Which poses a problem because nowadays I am usually on mobile, so I'll request to leave this open for now even though I just managed to edit my userpage back home on my desktop. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I will see if this happens again tomorrow; if it doesn't, I will withdraw this request. Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup: I am on mobile once again (unwillingly) and once again I get hit by the autoblock. Double sharp (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And now WP is in an incorrect state again from the addition of Hg^IV to list of oxidation states of the elements from old papers and I cannot correct it based on the newer ones because I am still autoblocked. And because it is sourced it will most likely get overlooked as there is nothing that obviously shows that the experiment has been repeated and the results were never reproduced. Sigh... Double sharp (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I should really add a note about this to the list, like for some of the other claimed but unconfirmed oxidation states. That might dissuade newbies from adding it, as it is a subject (like Fr) that tends to attract their fancies. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I shall also need to undo this later... Double sharp (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it now that I'm at home. Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I seem to be able to edit from my mobile now, though I am not currently at the same location I was at when the block first hit; so I will keep this here until Monday. Thank you for your help! Double sharp (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be OK now; thank you Jpgordon and Ks0stm! Double sharp (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Eight years of editing!

Hey, Double sharp. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thank you very much! Double sharp (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For being an outstanding and helpful Wikipedian! Nathan.aur8 (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Electron affinities

Hi Double sharp

Do you know of any predicted values for 104 to 112?

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't: this is one of those things I have been looking for for a while. It seems that people are more interested in 118, because it is surprising that its EA is positive. Double sharp (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Mind you, I do have them for 112 to 118, which at least slightly overlaps with what you want! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! So now the hunt is on for the missing figures. I haven't looked that hard for them yet---they must be out there somewhere. Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)