User talk:Kwamikagami
Your comments may be archived here after 48hrs |
Word/quotation of the moment:
Astrology has no effect on reality, so why should reality have any effect on astrology? – J.S. Stenzel, commenting on astrological planets that astrologers acknowledge don't really exist
(Previous quotes)
|
---|
|
Happy New Year, Kwamikagami!
Kwamikagami,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! — kwami (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you too! Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.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) 18:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it's since been replaced by better images from Hubble, so no longer needed. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:2003 EL61 Haumea, with moons.jpg
[boilerplate notification]
- Just notifying you as a courtesy after see your post on the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the courtesy, but I made that comment because I don't contest deletion. When I uploaded that file, there were no PD equivalents. Now there are, and the (c) file is no longer needed, indeed is not in use on any Wiki. Therefore there's no issue with deleting it. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
unified English spelling
Well, IUPAC usage is indeed aluminium, but it is also caesium, for what that's worth. And etymologically speaking, the oxide is alumina, so the metal should be aluminum (just like ceria → cerium, but lanthana → lanthanum). :) Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Point. But we don't say *sodum. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Soda and potash are carbonates, not oxides (which is part of why they are not on Lavoisier's 1789 list of elements), so they are different cases. Or at least, that's what they meant around the time when Davy named them: our article calls K2O potash too now. Anyway I feel like the point of Unified English spelling was to have some kind of informed reasoning for preferring one spelling over another, rather than to create spellings that never existed. Otherwise, I should like to borrow Russian magnij (don't have Cyrillic on my phone) as "magnium", which is what Davy named it, to avoid the Mn-Mg confusion. And fix the fact that H and O have the names that would make more sense for each other. And change the suffixes of helium, germanium, selenium, and tellurium to -on (as was done for Si). :) Double sharp (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- P.S. Incidentally, I believe the history of the Czech element names might interest you. There were attempts at mass calquing in the XIX century, but aside from the most common elements, they did not survive.
- One day I'd like to expand chemical elements in East Asian languages with history as well, but can't find the sources I remember seeing for it. Okay, I only have seen much for Chinese and Japanese, but some expansion is better than none. Double sharp (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- It would be worth doing, I think. The Czech stuff too. I imageine there was quite a bit of calquing in the early days. — kwami (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- We do have an article on the Czech stuff (quite short though): Czech chemical nomenclature. Saving the link here so I know where to find it again. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- It would be worth doing, I think. The Czech stuff too. I imageine there was quite a bit of calquing in the early days. — kwami (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, there's not only variation in English for element names. The German de:Liste der chemischen Elemente always surprises me a little bit because it is closer to the Latin forms – I myself remember learning it with k and z for c often, e.g. Silizium, Kalzium, Zäsium, Aktinium, Wismut, Jod (but on de.wp it is given as Silicium, Calcium, Caesium, Actinium, Bismut, Iod). Personally I fail to see the point, as in Spanish one still writes escandio, in Italian afnio, in Polish ren and iryd, in Turkish tulyum, and it does not seem to cause undue confusion. And that's not even getting into reasonably common languages for chemical scholarship that use different scripts altogether (Russian, Chinese, Japanese spring to mind). But well, it is not my native language or even the language I write chemistry stuff in, and thus not really my business to give an opinion, just my business to describe. :)
Something interesting I found on the chemical elements in East Asian languages page is the recent reforms for Korean (e.g. using Koreanisations of sodium and potassium since 2014, rather than natrium and kalium). Like I said, when I have time, I'll do some research. :)
P.S. vi.wp has yterbi for ytterbium, but en.wikt has ytecbi. Probably another matter of how much to Vietnamise foreign names and words (e.g. Einstein vs Anhxtanh), but I guess the en.wikt list should be checked. Double sharp (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at variations in the articles of de, es, and it.wp, it appears that there's significant variation in many of the languages commonly used for chemical publications. Not all though: fr, pl, and ja are pretty standardised on this end. For ru, there are a few elements that may vary (iodine, flerovium, tennessine – though flerovium is a case of using yo or not), but most don't. For zh, it is rather a case of two separate standards. Much of it rests on how much to nativise (e.g. Italian kripton vs kripto vs cripto), so like that Vietnamese variation I pointed out above. A Wiktionary appendix, sort of like wikt:Appendix:Planets, would be a nice end goal, but with 118 elements I guess it would start looking incredibly wide. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Danish also has variation in element names: Retskrivningsordbogen gives the spellings litium, karbon, fosfor, klor, krom, kobolt, zirkon(ium), molybdæn, jod, cæsium, tallium, bismut (formerly vismut), but Dansk kemisk nomenklaturudvalg gives lithium, carbon, phosphor, chlor, chrom, cobalt, zirconium, molybden, iod, caesium, thallium, bismuth. Burzuchius (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for this, the Scandinavian languages are a major blank in my knowledge. :)
- Turkish Wikipedia has tr:Lavrensiyum, but the Güncel Türkçe Sözlük only recognises lorentiyum. Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Nanahuatl: maybe you could help us on this? :D Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! To clarify, do you ask proper sources for the names in Turkish? Nanahuatl (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Nanahuatl: Yes indeed. :) Double sharp (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Some of the elements are not even mentioned in academic sources :/ But the best source, the source that our society follows is this @Double sharp:. Nanahuatl (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Nanahuatl: Yes indeed. :) Double sharp (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! To clarify, do you ask proper sources for the names in Turkish? Nanahuatl (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Nanahuatl: maybe you could help us on this? :D Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Same sex marriage
Why did you revert my second edit which was NOT in the lede it was in the history section. The section mentions Nero and some others from early history the person to sign the first same sex marriage legalization merits inclusion. Rote1234 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- You implied if Jim Obergefell was mentioned, we should mention Queen Beatrix as well. But we don't mention Jim Obergefell. Also, Beatrix's signature was a formality. If you're now going to compare her to Nero, she didn't actually do anything. We don't mention who wrote or sponsored the legislation, or even mention the first SSM twenty years earlier. So yes, Beatrix's involvement is trivia. — kwami (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- The LGBT community deserves to know the leaders that were involved in such a historical achievement. But if you allow mention of Nero, then other historical same sex marriages from centuries ago should merit mention as well.Rote1234 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Then why not mention the leaders involved? Did Beatrix initiate or champion this legislation, that she's one of the leaders?
- You can take it to Talk. Two editors have judged this to be trivia. If the broader response agrees with you, it will be restored. — kwami (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- The LGBT community deserves to know the leaders that were involved in such a historical achievement. But if you allow mention of Nero, then other historical same sex marriages from centuries ago should merit mention as well.Rote1234 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)