User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:4)
Jump to: navigation, search
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I may not watch your talk page and I will likely unintentionally IGNORE your reply if you do not ping me in it, use Template:Talkback, or copy it to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.
I strongly oppose the Foundation's actions with regards to MediaViewer and superprotect. If you do too, please sign the petition at m:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer


This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Double_sharp.

I archive resolved material or bot messages. Unresolved material is archived when it is over a month old. When moved to the archives, sections are kept in chronological order (so if an early thread is still active and generating replies this page might swell larger than usual.)

I know that the following users watch my talk page, so I will not use {{talkback}} on them. If you watch my talk page, feel free to add yourself to this list.

Your reversion to a standard infobox at Oxygen[edit]

Is objected to by this professor of chemistry, for its being done without discussion, and for the pedagogic reasons explained at the article Talk page, including the fact that appearance of liquid O2 at the fore of the article removes that image from text material that explains what the reader is seeing with regard to this condensate, later on in the article, and adds otherwise nothing to the fundamental understanding of the element being introduced—i.e, that at STP, the condition at which readers experience it, it is a colorless diatomic gas. Molecular formulae of sucrose and penicillin are standard and preferable in their infoboxes for the substantive information these convey, over pictures of near-indistinguishable white powders. In the same way, we need to relax from whatever self-imposed convention is being followed that says a picture of a non-standard state of an element, as abstract and foreign to experience as it can be, is more meaningful as the picture in an infobox than a standard molecular representation (here, of the homonuclear diatomic, O2). Please, put a representation of diatomic oxygen into the infobox, and then put THAT infobox back into the Oxygen article (so we can put the liquid O2 image back with its text information, later in the article). Alchemist's argument that having an image of oxygen as a blue liquid helps readers understand the origin of blue colouration in the atmosphere is theoretically and otherwise specious. Please, revert your reversion. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: "...done without discussion..." I saw discussion on the Talk page, 2–1 against changing the infobox. Granted, that is not conclusive, but it does show that there is disagreement; thus, I think the article should default to the status quo before the disagreement started while this is resolved.
Liquid oxygen might be foreign to experience, but the idea certainly isn't new to most people, as liquid nitrogen is famous. So I think it is better than the gas discharge tube, although an explanation of course should be put in. I'm not opposed to the use of the molecular representation in the infobox, and would be very happy to see it in there as well – as you mention, it is of great pedagogical value – but I think that the infobox should, if possible, also contain an actual picture of the element. Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you saw, but my point is that you acted without your taking the time to enter into the discussion, to ensure our positions were clearly understood, and your position clear. Perhaps I or the others would have been persuaded, had you taken the time. Did you see that one of the opposing arguments was that O2(l) was a good opening picture, since the blue of it was useful to readers in understanding the blue of the sky (which stands contrary to physical truth that even the article already contains)? Or that their issue with the diatomic was that it was bulbous, and red (because they did not understand space filling representations, or CPK coloring)? Versus mine, that placing images disconnected from content or pedagogy was problematic? A deeper look would have seen that the conflict with the other two editors arose when an image of a discharge tube was placed into the article, without any edit to the article to give the image understanding or context. I (graciously) placed the image into Talk, explained the removal, and asked it only be returned with text edits to match. It was thereafter replaced—my edit reverted—with no text work.
Understand, the later infobox edit from me, that you reverted, was simple, but took quite some time (for this subj. matter expert): I had to locate the source markup for the info box, move the LOX image down into the text to where LOX was discussed, tidy it up in terms of size and position, put a standard O2 diatomic image into info box, and otherwise tidy up the article (which I had come to, because the MO subsection was in a sorry state). Your revert undid the hard work, without addressing the substantive underlying chemical questions.
I personally find the religious effort by a couple of regular chem contributors to make all element info box structures uniform to the pictorial periodic table they've created—see [1]—is logically inconsistent/falacious (using STP forms for some, "prettier" non-STP forms for others), and stand in the way of articles being pedagogically useful and readily understood by lay readers. But life is too short for me to argue this further. I would just ask that you, as a clearly esteemed and knowledgable editor, first enter the discussion, rather than reverting in quick fashion without engaging the concerned (and in this case, best informed) editors. In my perspective, you took the wrong side of this stick, joining the side of a pair of editors that have limited depth of chemical knowledge, poor written English skills, and that are following a misguided and very personal set of priorities in their editing (e.g., making all element info boxes present their chosen pictures).
This is now yours to deal with. Just, please, engage the informed—recall I moved a discharge tube image, created a Talk section, at the start of all of this—as well as remaining committed to adjudicating in support of a majority. The latter is not always right, and your deeper look might have led to a better article, via a different consensus opinion. Kudos, cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: Ah, I see – that's really not good. Yes, I should have come back to read the whole thing carefully: I'll try not to do things too quickly in future!
I'll be rather busy this week, but I'm currently thinking of editing the infoboxes to show both the molecular representation of the most common allotrope (first) and an actual picture of the element (second). That should make it better follow standard presentation and be pedagogically helpful, and at the same time also show what the element looks like in some state (preferably the standard one, unless that would be silly, and if it's not the standard one a detailed caption should be provided). Do you think that solution would be good for all the elements? Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Vesta as a former DP[edit]

Hey,

I removed Vesta from the DP nav box for consistency: Vesta certainly was a DP, but then so was Phoebe. And there are asteroids that are the cores of shattered DPs. I don't know how we could be consistent with this. But if you want to start a thread discussing how being consistent, I won't oppose restoring Vesta. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diaeresis (diacritic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noël (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That was intentional; I intended to cover all uses of the word, as there are multiple ones in which the diaeresis is used. Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium (in some time)[edit]

Hi, Double sharp. As you know, there's that At FAC going on at the moment, but, in some time, it will be over, and there's also that ununseptium article waiting for the spotlight. I came to ask some help from you with that, I hope it won't be too difficult for you (it shouldn't be, but there may also be those RL issues, that's why I'm asking some time before I could actually start).

I think the article is great. It was a FAC in 2012, but it was failed due to prose quality. It's, however, not 2012 now, and some work will be required. I would love you to help me check things against accessibility. I was writing that article with non-technical readers in mind (and it actually turned out to be among the easiest to do so among all superheavies). I don't really expect to get that "oh, wow, I knew nothing, but now I seem to get it" from all readers, but I want it to be at least a stable "well, it's not easy, but I seem to get it." I think History and Naming are fine, and so is Nuclear stability, but those last two subsections need some look at; some examples of what I want to improve are "the valence electron configuration is predicted to be 7s27p5" (because what does that mean? We need to explain it) and "1.67 D" (we say it's a "relatively small" value, but how small, really? Some examples should help a little bit). And also, maybe you've seen some superheavies predictions since then?

I will also check the data available. Wil think how to merge the German experiment into the story (I actually love the story of the discovery the way I wrote it). In the end, will ask for a thorough copyedit.

But that will happen later. Again, the start is not scheduled for tomorrow. What do you think, could you help me with that?--R8R (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help you! I remember how you wrote the discovery: it was really neat. I haven't gone looking for new superheavy predictions in a while, but I'll go looking for them and I'll see what I can come up with. Double sharp (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Gold[edit]

I'm pretty sure that I'm basically right. I just can't find my reliable references. If and when I find them I will reinstate my contribution. By the way, if you cube the ratio of the linear dimensions of lead/gold that you gave me, you get 0.55, and 11/19 = 0.58, which is pretty close. Garfield Garfield (posted 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for March 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of numeral systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)