User talk:Double sharp

This user is busy in real life until mid-June 2023 and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Happy New Year, Double sharp!

Happy New Year!

Double sharp,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Double sharp!

Happy New Year!

Double sharp,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moops: Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FY27's moon

As something to look forward to in the new year, you might want to keep an eye out for this. Could be interesting, since we don't have many data points in that size range. — kwami (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Interesting indeed! Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Size

Hi,

The page Periodic table now has reached 200+ kb. As a 2023 resolution, I propose that you aim to reduce this big time, while leaving a FA. It could be a WP:SPLIT of group 3 issue (into a dedicated article?), or parts of the atomic model?

Anyway, there is a need, and time. (But just think of what it would be if I were to do this ...) DePiep (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: A lot of this is markup and references: readable prose size is actually only 79 kB (12907 words). Per WP:SIZERULE, this falls under Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material). Personally, I think that the periodic law and table is so central to chemistry that this makes some sense. I think the main place where it could stand cutting is the "Periodic trends" section, which gives many examples – but even then, AR/IE/EA/valence/EN are extremely standard to give in introductory books, and metallicity is necessary to make sense of why categorisation is not simple (which is also mentioned). I have treated it in somewhat more detail than texts usually do, but this is mostly because the usual simplifications simplify things beyond the point of accuracy (hence the notes about how atomic radii vary in d and f elements). Maybe it is unnecessary to talk about categorisation (section 4), but this is common enough that I feel like if we don't have this short section, readers will start asking about it. Group 3 is pretty much all just in two sections: Periodic table#Group 3 (for the variation), and Periodic table#Electron shells (where it appears as part of the history of sorting out where exactly the rare earths went). It does not appear to be treated at too great a length.

Though I'd appreciate ComplexRational's opinion on length too. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no option chosen (yet), and I certainly don't want to cut every-fifth-word. It's just: this size is too big to be convincing encyclopedic article buildup. And there is time to step back three feet or one meter to glance at due weights, relative that is. (Must say, your mentioning "Periodic trends" to cut, as a first even, ... is triggering me; you did that on purpose did you not ;-) ?). DePiep (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance, maybe the history section can be condensed and some content split? For instance, the subsection Electron shells is as long as, if not longer than, the corresponding section in History of the periodic table. I don't have issues with the current length, especially considering that there aren't significant expansions to be done. ^Complex/_Rational 20:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Sure, condensing history seems reasonable to me. In fact I originally had condensed it even more, but it then got expanded again by others: if memory serves, the original version that I wrote only mentioned Mendeleev, not Meyer or Newlands. Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only came to this talkpage to note an issue softly & early, just to start the thinking. For actual discussion with consequences, we'll have to go to WT:ELEMENTS. Probably some useful posts from here be c/p into there then. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep: Sure, we're just throwing out ideas for now. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More Jupiter moons

Hiya, a new moon of Jupiter just dropped today: S/2016 J 3. As with last time, can you help update the other satellite pages? Thanks!

By the way, keep an eye on the Recent MPECs in case there will be more moon announcements! Nrco0e (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Oh my, and S/2021 J 1 too! Sure, I'll get to them. Double sharp (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, five more were just announced today... I wonder when Jupiter will hit 100? Nrco0e (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Created articles for today's and yesterday's (except S/2018 J 4 which you did). And updated the timeline and list. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. Nrco0e (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now, I have a feeling that S/2018 J 4 might actually be related to Carpo. Don't be deceived by its apparently low eccentricity--its high orbital inclination likely subjects it to the Kozai resonance, which causes its eccentricity to fluctuate wildly between 0.06-0.45. But that's a bit far into WP:OR anyway, so I suppose it would be best to wait for Sheppard to classify this one. I'm quite eager to see how this one will turn out. Nrco0e (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Interesting, I'm eager to know too. :) BTW, about how long would it probably take before we have new numberings? Some of those 2003 moons have languished for quite a while! Double sharp (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea honestly. The MPC doesn't really publish their Minor Planet Circulars nowadays with their bimonthly publishing rate, nor does it seem like they make moon observations, orbits, and numberings a priority. I've submitted some Pandia precoveries two years ago and the MPC still haven't published them in their Circulars, though they did publish my more recent S/2016 J 1 and Ersa precoveries in M.P.C. 141872 from 19 July 2022, oddly enough. Considering this month's deluge of new moons, I do have a bit of hope that the MPC will focus more on moons in the next scheduled Circular sometime in February. Nrco0e (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Thanks for the info!

I notice Exoplanetaryscience's graphic File:Jupitermoonsdiagram.png shows S/2018 J 4 in the Carpo group; should we adopt that classification then, for consistency? Double sharp (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of it. They are visually close enough together we might as well assume they are. Saying S/2018 J 4 is its own J4 group is as much WP:OR as saying it's part of the Carpo group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience: Good enough for me. Done. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a ref for estimated numbers of moons in one of your comments. I think those numbers would be useful in the leads of the Jupiter etc. moon articles. We present how many moons have been discovered, but readers are more likely to want to know how many moons there are. The number 14 for Neptune is therefore misleading, especially given that a lot of readers of these articles are likely to be quite young and might take that number as the actual number of Neptunian moons. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Sorry, I'm not sure which comment and ref you mean. But I agree with putting in those numbers. Double sharp (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: Do you know the paper I'm talking about? I think you were one party in the discussion. I remember there was an absolutely enormous estimated number of Neptunian moons > 1km (in the thousands if not more), but I didn't read carefully and don't recall anything specific. — kwami (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I did link these references in my comments about the irregular moon populations of Jupiter and Saturn. Ashton et al. (2020) estimate 600+600
−300 retrograde Jovian irregular moons with diameters >0.4 km and apparent magnitudes <25.7, while Ashton et al. (2021) estimate 150±30 Saturnian irregular moons with diameters >2.8 km and apparent magnitudes <26.3. I've already added these references in their respective moon lists.

For better interpretation of Jupiter and Saturn's irregular moon population counts, see Figure 3 (2020) for Jupiter only and Figure 5 (2021) for Jupiter & Saturn. These graphs show the size frequency distributions of each planet's irregular moon populations, which count the cumulative number of moons larger than a minimum diameter specified along the x-axis.

Figure 5 (2021) is especially nice for clearly showing how Saturn's irregular moon population outnumbers that of Jupiter's, and continues growing sharply as the minimum diameter becomes smaller. Saturn initially outnumbers Jupiter's irregular moon population by factor of 1.5 starting at diameters >5 km, then increases to a factor of 3 at diameters >2.8 km. The data doesn't extend far enough to indicate how many >0.4 km irregular moons Saturn has, but it most likely amounts to way more than a few thousand, if you assume that it maintains its steep distribution slope down to this diameter.

For Uranus and Neptune, we don't have a good estimate for their irregular moon populations yet. We currently know too few to accurately infer what their size frequency distributions look like. Nicholson et al. (2008) estimate at least 100 irregular moons >1 km in diameter for each of the four outer planets, but there isn't really any rigorous justification other than inference from an incomplete inventory of their moon populations at the time. exoplanetaryscience did mention Neptune having over a thousand >1 km moons, but that is merely an educated guess. Nrco0e (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added the number to the lead of the Saturn article. Still thinking about Jupiter; it would be nice to have comparable numbers, but it looks like we've discovered close to their estimate for the number of Jovians of D > 3km, so I'm uncertain it would add much. — kwami (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention perhaps my real reason for looking forward to more Roman numberings: I really want to see the large numerals used for something that isn't a date. We already have enough to get C in use; for D and M, we'll have to wait a while. :D Double sharp (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: S/2016 J 4 Double sharp (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pandia (moon) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pandia (moon) 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/Eirene (moon) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Championship 2023

Hello @Double Sharp I would like you to help me in keeping updates on the upcoming Chess Championship matches , I have tried to improve the page myself but I would like you to consider my contributions to the page if anything is not right please remove it ,Thank you for your time . SHU KURENAI 23 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital period

I did a brief calculation that suggested the orbital period of 2.04 years is equivalent to ~ 743.778 days given the known semimajor axis. 108.160.120.57 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital period in days is already given as "P/d 743.69" in the MPEC source. Nrco0e (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll probably have time to finish it off tomorrow, then. (Unless you beat me to it. :D) Double sharp (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: As it turns out, I didn't, but thanks for beating me to it! :D Double sharp (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nrco0e: I noticed that Scott Sheppard's site mentions Moons without names and have been numbered have well determined orbits, but they are too small to be named by the International Astronomical Union. Do you know what the size requirement is? Double sharp (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IAU-WGPSN's Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature page says no Jovian moons fainter than H ≥ 18 (diameters ≤1.6 km for albedos ≥0.04) shall be named unless it is of "special scientific interest." Nrco0e (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electron

Hi! So the magnetic moment value of electron has updated in 2018? And also the Bohr magneton value? Nanahuatl (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]