User talk:Double sharp/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Double sharp. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

File:Chantal Akerman film posters.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Chigorin Chess for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chigorin Chess 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/Chigorin Chess 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Neptune XIV ---> Hippocamp.

Time to update everything again! ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 22:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Дрейгорич: Thanks for reminding me; many of them seem to have been gotten to already, but I did fix one. Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hippocamp - pronunciation.

Maybe you're right about the vowel reduction. I added the IPA assuming it would naturally be a blend of Hippo + camp, like the moon would be pronounced as "Hippo camp", like a camp involving hippos. Feel free to boldly correct me. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 15:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Element color/1

Template:Element color/1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Other deprecated Element color templates which you've created are also nominated. Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, 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 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 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your info. I have posted something for Fm so you should check it out! Also are you a chemist or a person who just really likes chemistry like me? Let me know please! Porygon-Z 20:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Porygon-Z 13:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Copernicium(IV) fluoride listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Copernicium(IV) fluoride. Since you had some involvement with the Copernicium(IV) fluoride redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Even polygon stat table

Template:Even polygon stat table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.

Hello Double sharp,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc ^connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uniform polyhedron navigator

Template:Uniform polyhedron navigator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Earth

Dear Double sharp, I caught your message, about my edit. First things first, sorry about that. When I read through the guidelines, I thought it meant don't make any inline changes to an article. So I should avoid the article space when doing jokes? Thank you, Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 15:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. In particular, as the guidelines explicitly note, notices should not be placed on an article if it is nominated for a joke AfD, and I see nothing indicating that a joke speedy deletion should be any different. Double sharp (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay then thank you for clarification.:) Zanygenius_{(talk to me!)(email me!)} 02:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Systematic Element Names 101–999 Citation Reminder

You on January 10, 2019 about the lack of a correct citation for the 101–999 restriction on systematic element names: "good point - the source is wrong; I need to find the actual IUPAC recommendation". It would be nice if you could do this. <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TynamoLitten (talk • contribs) 01:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added the actual IUPAC recommendation. That only elements with atomic numbers above 100 can be named this way is stated explicitly; that elements with atomic numbers above 999 are not covered is implied by the stated principle (iii): "The symbols for the systematically named elements should consist of three letters." Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Prometheum, the Element

As a Wikipedia editor since 2004 under a series of consecutive identities, from Sandover to ValleyOfTheSmalls, I am well aware of the prohibition against original research and the evolution of the “citation needed” tag to indicate a potentially unverified, or unverifiable, fact on the site. It is in that spirit that I invite you to review my partial restoration of my edit to this article and rhe obvious implication, for scientists among others, that the word “conserve” does not necessarily imply that the known laws of half-lives have been overturned by some sort of magical thinking. I wish only to note that tens or hundreds of kilograms of Prometheum have been produced since 1963, not what their specific use in nuclear weaponry or in offensive (poisoning) enterprises kight be.

Please know that I would not mind your reversing my edit, having made it myself (and under my own name) being a sharp enough punt in itself. Until and unless we have inspections of Dimona mandated, perhaps, by international treaty, we cannot fully answer the salient underlying question. Please know I am not being méchant in also mentioning Molybdenum, Aluminium, and Garnet in this same light, not trying to be Prima-Megaladonnish in insisting on any particular editorial outcome.

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia, and for consideration (in the future) of perhaps archiving your old Talk, fascinating as it may be, for the sake of helping those of us Peggy Sioux who ride only our own cellphones for Internet access. Many thanks from another Pegasousaphone, here’s hoping I won’t have my thimbs cut off like Jamal Khashoggi. And all the besht to my old stalker, BB, on the upcoming re-election this 9th Avril, Jane .... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table (p-block trend)

Template:Periodic table (p-block trend) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter 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 14 days of "earning" them.

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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Just checkin'

Hi! I just recalled our chat from last year. You mentioned that you'd be freed from your RL obligations early this year, so this got me wondering if we could resume our plans on FAing articles this summer. I'm not suggesting we do it now (I currently have my hands full, like a bit over-the-top full) but I should be in a much more relaxed condition in a month from now, so it'd be nice to know if you will be as well and if you're still up for the task.

Also, we haven't talked in a while. The least I could say is that I hope you've been fine :) --R8R (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: Nice to hear from you again! Sure, we should be able to get some stuff done this summer! I've indeed been fine. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Great to know :) I'll write you then roughly in a month from now and we'll see how we should proceed.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I just want to ask you if you still don't mind proceeding and if you are available at length now.--R8R (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: Sure! I haven't done much Wiki-chemistry in a while and it'll be fun to get back to it. Do you want to do Hs or Al first? The first seems from your 2018 talk-page comments as if it should be a very quick job to get back into the spirit of things. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It's good that you remembered about Hs because this is exactly what I had in mind :) We seem to need to only check if Experimental chemistry is up to date (could you do that?) and make a few secondary changes: that the prose is good enough, that all claims are referenced, and that all referenced are credible enough (I'll cover this one).--R8R (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: Yeah, something I noticed about the experimental chemistry is that later reviews of superheavy chemistry never seem to mention the metallocenes thing, so I'll have to substantially reword that bit (do you have any suggestions?). At least this 2015 review only mentions the HsO₄ stuff, and doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.09.012 also stops at 2004. It looks like later in the 2000s the only new thing that was done was to use HsO₄ as a way to separate Hs isotopes. All I've found since then are indications that the seaborgium carbonyl experiment may be extended to Bh, Hs, and Mt. This will be a strange update that accents the earliest stuff and downplays the stuff that back in 2012 we thought was worth including! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Re your edit summary: it depends on what precisely you meant, though I think I got the gist. "At length" in this context to me means something more like "at last" or "for a long time" – because you can't really be available in detail. ^_^ For that meaning I'd say "if you are available to work on the articles at length". Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, as for that rewording, we need to understand why this happened first, because what we want to tell the reader depends on that. It could be that simply nobody mentions that (maybe they're unfamiliar with the result) and that's all there to it. Maybe it seems unimportant (seems unlikely given the scarcity of data of any kind, but who knows). Maybe it was a second case of Ninov. Maybe there are some other considerations. I'll look into this myself and will ask you to keep doing the same. If our search proves unfruitful, we'll think about it then. But my presumption is that if this hasn't been challenged, then we should leave it in. Doesn't seem like this would be left out because it's unimportant anyway. We could also email the researchers and ask them directly. I actually did email a German researcher last year when working on history of aluminium (that was quite a refresher for my German), asking him to share an article of his (which was not available online, even for purchasing) and he did send me the article, and I even mentioned him directly in note b; you may recall I got a SHE chart from a researcher in Dubna, so emailing seems promising if we fail to find that out ourselves.

Do you mind reminding me what was it that we found wroth including back in 2012?

Well, what I meant was much like Collins's third point from "in American" (by the way, I absolutely love the antithesis between "in English" and "in American" xD): "for a long time and in great detail." I wanted to make sure that RL permits this for you and that you keep having the drive to do so :) Happy to have learned you do.--R8R (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic: speaking of aluminum, could you tell me why everyone calls aluminum vs. aluminium a spelling difference? It's not like sulfur vs. sulphur, where the difference is actually only in spelling; pronunciations also differ significantly.--R8R (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, come to think of emailing others: I also emailed Alcoa asking for a 1892 advertisement that is said to have used aluminum and thus paved the way to the spelling forever changing in American usage. They did get back to me in a month or so when I had already concluded they must have not cared enough to respond, and while they didn't have what I wanted, either, they sent me back some material, including Hall's patent, which is also now in the article.--R8R (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I will certainly keep looking for results on hassocene, though so far I haven't found the magic keywords yet. ^_^ (Since Düllmann is still active in the SHE field, I suspect that they just didn't get the beam time, as making Hs shouldn't have been the issue; but an email would be nice.) Also, sorry, I meant "I" when I gave the article a rewrite back in late 2012. (Wow, that was a while ago, wasn't it?)

Yup, RL is permitting me this for now and I'm quite motivated to get another bronze star on the main page. I also share your amusement with the English-American antithesis, although they don't seem quite sure whether the first one should be "English" or "British", using both on the page! ^_^

Well, the way I think about it is that extra i is a spelling difference; it's just that it's a spelling difference and then some. One might consider it a difference in vocabulary, but since they share the same etymological root (although I'll admit the British version messes it up) and all the other letters, I think most people wouldn't put it in the same category as vocabulary differences like lift vs. elevator. Now, if we ever succeed in creating a Unified English Spelling, I'll throw in my support for the etymological principle and swallow aluminum just as I have sulfur, as long as I can keep having my very learnèd-with-a-top-hat-and-monocle cæsium. ^m^ Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If you and R8R are working on Hs, I'd be glad to help out—in which case I might ask what sepcifically to focus on as I have not yet attempted an FA.

I do see one pressing concern in the atomic weight: there is no clear agreement as to whether ²⁶⁹Hs or ²⁷⁰Hs is more stable, although many of the more recent ones (including NUBASE) give ²⁶⁹Hs a longer half-life. If that is indeed so, several corrections are needed. ComplexRational (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. While I am grateful for your hint that we might need the isotope info more carefully, Personally, I don't think this is a particularly good idea, the sole reason for that being that the bulk of the work has been done already and very little is left. It just needs some checks here and there, but basically, it has already been completed. I will, however, write to you shortly to continue our discussion from May.--R8R (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: It seems from this 2019 book that the hassocene experiment wasn't done: "Regrettably, experiments with the transactinides are highly elaborate and time-consuming, and there has yet been no report of hassocene or any other divalent transactinide species." Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. A brief look suggests it was never claimed that hassocene had ever been formed; did we ever claim the opposite? If so, could you show me that?--R8R (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: No, we only claimed that the experiment was planned (since 2008...), but given this I'll just give it a quick update to say that it eventually didn't materialise. Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Great!

As a note to self (and also yourself as well), we may need to think how to distinguish the gas-phase chemistry we're dealing with here from usual chemistry for the reader.--R8R (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't mind me asking you, but do you think you could finish copyediting hassium any time soon? It's really the only thing that prevents from starting an FAC now, so I'd want that to be dealt with. If you can't, that's fine, but please tell me that so that we could ask somebody to help us out or possibly sign up into the GOCE queue.--R8R (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: From my experience with the previous FACs I find that copyediting is not exactly one of my strengths on this sort of material, as whenever others offer comments they tend to be about things I hadn't thought about, so I think it'd be better to ask someone else to help out. But I will give the article another read and say anything that does come to my mind, of course. Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I definitely appreciate a native speaker being able to recognize their own imperfections with language. Let's see whom I could ask to help us out (if you happen to know anyone capable of being able to help, please ask them, too). Will also reserve us a place in the GOCE queue. The key trick is not in just finding someone who understands this kind of the topic well and has mastered the language, but someone who can specifically speak British English and or at least keep in mind that the list of differences between the two is not exhausted after we're done with spellings.

Also, I've got a question in advance. Since we're practically done with hassium, I'd like us to go for another project together. The two things I've had in mind are aluminium and Transfermium Wars; we talked at some point about both as possible future targets in such a cooperation. Would you like to go for any of these two? I'm particularly interested in the latter but as I mentioned this is a question in advance; I expected myself to have more spare time for Wiki and I already have a cooperation on history of periodic table open. Presumably I'll have more time in a month, but that's not set in stone. So this again prompts the question of whether you have the time now. If you do, then aluminium would be great; I have worked on the article and it's rather decent now with all sections save for the two I specifically wanted you to work on, those on physical and chemical properties, respectively. If you do this job, we could go for GAN and then set ourselves up for a pre-FAC PR. If you lack the time right now, I'd love us to get to Transfermium Wars first when I have the time to actively engage in this. But what do you think?--R8R (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I should have enough time to draft those sections of Al in the coming weeks, so let's go for that. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Beethoven's mandolin

Hello, Quite a while ago, you suggested I take the material about Beethoven's mandolin, cut from the main Beethoven article, and create a separate article. I finally did so, Beethoven's mandolin, and wondered if you would have a look. It isn't finished, but I am pausing for the moment. It will never be more than a stub, but the sources for the recording (especially media notes) gave some understanding of where Beethoven was in his life, when the mandolin wandered by. Jacqke (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jacqke: I think it's a very interesting and good article, even if it's still short. ^_^ I do think that since it is more about Beethoven's works for mandolin than about his mandolin, perhaps a better title would be Beethoven's mandolin works. Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I like that, thank you.Jacqke (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Tripper (chess) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tripper (chess) 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/Tripper (chess) 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. JBL (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reviewing articles under pending changes protection. Thank you PATH SLOPU 14:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chess diagram 24x24

Template:Chess diagram 24x24 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 217.117.125.72 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Inspiration?

Hi. You're the person who immediately came to mind for this... We're struggling for 'inspiration' in this conversation at Commons, and I wondered if you might take a look. No worries if you can't help, but another pair of eyes often helps. Thanks. -- Begoon 05:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I replied over on Commons. Double sharp (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Curium-250

Here's a very interesting paper [1] describing the hypothetical production of curium-250 (in large explosions) and other exotic actinide isotopes (up to ²⁵⁸Md!). I mentioned it at the reference desk, but I think the thread got archived only a few hours later. I hope you are intrigued as I was. ComplexRational (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: I have no words but "wow", especially for the prospect of a ²⁵⁸Md target! Thank you and hopefully these predictions will indeed come to pass by 2039 (I see some already have)! Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, and let's hope so! Maybe ²⁵⁷Fm + ⁴⁸Ca will yield E120 one day (and ²⁵⁸Md for E121?)... ComplexRational (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Pa-231 Tengwar.png

The file File:Pa-231 Tengwar.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by File:Tengwar.svg.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: You can go ahead and have this deleted; that was just some fun from over nine years ago to give myself a userpage logo, IIRC. Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll G7 it, thanks :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Ten 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) 12:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Double sharp/Archive 16,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thank you for the invitation! I've added the Ten Year Society userbox to my userpage. Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible SHE in nature

Hi, I just found about this experiment in which three SHE with 105 < Z < 130 were seemingly detected in cosmic rays, and may indeed lie within the island of stability: [2] and arXiv:1902.02931. This would be quite something to marvel at if it turns out to be true - but we'll have to wait and see! ComplexRational (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: I think I remember this one: AFAIK it has not yet been independently confirmed (although it would be very cool). (And come to think of it, if you haven't seen that link yet, I think you'd like it. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I figured it was unconfirmed, but this link explicitly says so. I do find that article fascinating so far; it will be an interesting read in its entirety, thank you ;) ComplexRational (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Zn–Kr

For putting my thought in period 4 element upside up. Nice to see peer-review after myself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Beat me to it.

Thanks for updating those articles. I'm still getting used to spelling and pronouncing Philophrosyne so I haven't had the time. (No, actually I found out the news a few hours ago from Wikipedia! You guys update articles so fast it's scary.) ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 18:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. 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 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 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 Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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. 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, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"Flerovium-283" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Flerovium-283. Since you had some involvement with the Flerovium-283 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"Thenium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thenium. Since you had some involvement with the Thenium redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Ferminum" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ferminum. Since you had some involvement with the Ferminum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reuse a named ref over multiple pages (Hs example)

Hi, about our edits like these in Hs: using <ref name=emsley> in multiple pages like infobox, datalist and article. (I'm sorry if I might be over-explaining to a baker how to make bread ;-) ).

That same Emsley reference is used in multiple pages like Hassium, Template:Infobox hassium and Template:../symbol-to-oxidation-state (Hs). Other sources in that list are reused in multiple element pages: e.g. <ref name=Haire>, ref #1, is used in 20 element infoboxes!

To prevent ref errors like "ref name=xxx is defined multiple times differently", "ref name=xxx was invoked but not defined", I have discovered this solution:

Define that ref name in every page with exactly the same source text. That is: copy/paste the whole <ref name="xyx">{{cite book|...}}</ref> for every separate instance.

Recently I have (tried to) set all these same named refs in all pages into <ref name="Emsley2011">. However, I forgot to check article hassium, which resulted in the error message you saw and corrected.

The effect of having both <ref name="Emsley2011"> and <ref name=emsley> on the same page is no error message allright, but also two separate references in the footer with the same source.

Of course this is a major maintenance issue: keep all named references identical over all pages (while there is no listing available).

TL;DR: About reuse of a single named reference in multiple pages (articles, templates): copy/paste a single <ref name="xyx">{{cite book|...}}</ref> code into all usages. That way, rendering a page will treat them nicely as one single reference, as intended. For example, <ref name="Emsley2011">...<ref> is copy/pasted into Hassium, Template:Infobox hassium and Template:../symbol-to-oxidation-state.

-DePiep (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: Yes, I understood this already. ^_^ Thanks for the explanation, though! Double sharp (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aluminium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amalgamation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Everything is gone now and the page looks kinda empty :(

So I'm going to relieve the page from its emptiness. I have just read your touch of Aluminium#Chemistry and I think it's a marvelous read. I really enjoyed it and I internally praised myself for asking you to do it. Very well done. I didn't even expect it to turn out that good in the end, I didn't suppose that could be at all, and by saying this I'm not just flattering you and am absolutely sincere at this.

That being said, however, I have two concerns. One is that the section looks rather long compared to the other sections. My laptop has the screen resolution of 1920x1200 and it's 17 inches and the section is over two screens long. Generally, I consider one screen with these parameters to be the limit for a section. I suppose it could be a little extended here, given that it's on chemistry of a chemical element, but still, over two is too much. So I suggest either of us copy everything you wrote to a subarticle and then I cut it to have a more bearable length (it should be easier for me, since I have less attachment to the text, but if you want to, you can also do it instead). The second could also be partially addressed by this move, and that is that this style contrast perhaps too much with the previous section, and those two are the most basic ones and I suppose them to be written in a similar fashion. The Physical characteristics section is more of a takeaway, here's the basics you need to know, and here's why it is the way it is. The Chemistry section, however, is longer and goes into greater detail. This is to be balanced better. I suppose my idea of trimming Chemistry should help but even with that, do you not think there'll still be some dissonance? (This is an open question; maybe trimming will do the job perfectly.)

So, is trimming fine with you? I'd like to start with that and see from there.

I'm also eagerly awaiting your comments on other sections. Come to think of it, the lead section is still to be written; I'll try to manage that but I'm not sure about it just yet, so please feel free to give it a shot.--R8R (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! I was a little bit worried because I don't think I've actually done some proper chemical element article writing since Ca last year. ^_^ (*) Sure, we can go ahead and trim it. There are a number of things in Greenwood that I thought would be too much for this main article, so a subarticle would be splendid. I suppose we can both think about how to do it.

Maybe I'll try writing a lede indeed in the next few days! ^_^ I think I did not do such a bad job at nitrogen back in 2016, so if that uber-important element can be handled, Al should be fine too. Doing it properly will also entail reading the rest, though from what I remember skimming through it there shouldn't be much to complain about at all. ^_-☆

(*) P.S. If I get some extra time beyond what's needed for Al, I am highly tempted to try doing Mg to get back into the habit of knowing what to do with these things. After all, it is the other magnificent light metal: Li and Na are unusable and Be is super-toxic. ^_^ Heavily contingent on the "if", of course! And after that, maybe Sn as DePiep reminded me of recently? Double sharp (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, great! So, for starters, just copy everything from that section and recreate it in a new article, except the headers are now one level higher. Then you'll find that what you just got is actually very close to a GA (which is actually the case), and you can get a green plus without too much effort there. Then you can also go for a DYK and then maybe you'll figure that an FAC was also within reach and just expand the topic at your leisure until you've decided that there must be an end somewhere and it's time to push for the bronze star. (This is a brief history of me getting the bronze star with history of aluminium---I originally didn't even aim for GA.) You can also claim a Four Award then if you want to. Why not.

After the subarticle has been established, the trimming may commence. I really like your general talk and if anything, I'd look for the compound info first, trying to bring the text to its dense essentials. The general talk could use some small trimmings here and there, but there's nothing big that comes to my mind right off the bat. Probably that won't be enough, though, and we'll have to take a closer look then.

Great! I'll give way for you to go for the lead section then.

After we're done, I actually wanted to recruit you for my next project, which as you may know, will be iron. But I understand if you're not up in the mood for some transition metal chemistry. Regardless, we have a lot of work here yet: after we've gotten the article written, we've trimmed the Chemistry section, you've reviewed the rest of the article, and so on, then it will be time for GAN, then I intended to go for a PR, and finally, another FAC. A lot still lies ahead with aluminium.--R8R (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, compounds of aluminium is up! I guess I will add in a few of the things in Greenwood that I took out and then submit it for GA. ^_^ BTW, do you have a good source for concentrated H₂SO₄ not dissolving Al well? (I know why, it's an oxidising acid; HCl is fine. But I can't remember seeing it in G&E; maybe it is in the S chapter instead of the group 13 chapter.)

Yes, a lot is in the future for Al. I was more thinking of something I could get a GA plus as a solid base first; I've been annoyed by Mg and Sn being low-quality and really important for a long time. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Great! Turns out we have quite a number of Compounds of X articles. I suppose it would be a good idea to create a navigational template for this class of articles. Shouldn't be too hard, but I'm about to leave my computer.

Yes, Ullman, "Aluminum," p. 5. "Large pieces of aluminum of purity greater than 99.95 % resist attack by most acids but dissolve in aqua regia. Therefore, aluminum is used to store nitric acid, concentrated sulfuric acid, organic acids, and many other reagents."

Oh, okay then. But please do consider iron as a future FA goal!--R8R (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the source! I also notice that we don't have a consistent format; we have compounds of zinc but berkelium compounds. A navigation template would be useful – although I almost think that we ought to have such an article for all the elements, actually. (Why isn't there compounds of tungsten, say?!) Yes, Fe will be the next FA goal; as I said, these are just GA goals (though we may revisit them later like we did for Pb). Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added the statement with the oxidising-acids-create-the-oxide-layer explanation, but I still need a cite for that; I will look, but if you find one, feel free to add it~~ ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made a draft for the navigational template, here. There are two things to do here: all names must be checked (what if there are other cases of names like berkelium compounds) and a proper documentation must be written. And then we could release it.

Okay, I'll have this in mind. If I find anything, I'll add it.--R8R (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hs FAC

Hi. I'd like to ask you to check the remaining ref issues at the FAC. In the meantime, I'm trying to preemptively go and resolve the problems with the other half of the reference list. I might need assistance with ref 35.--R8R (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm also having a similar problem with ref 40. But more than that, are we entirely confident that osmium is the densest element? According to Lide, that would be iridium. Is there an ultimate source that would resolve the dispute between CRC and Lide? If not, we'll have to write a note about that.--R8R (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems that Os and Ir are very close, but it seems like what we cite from 1995 is the latest study according to this 2012 article on Os in Nature. Anyway, they are so close (only 1% of difference) that in some sense it does not really matter; Hs is much denser than both Os and Ir. Double sharp (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I definitely share your "it doesn't really matter" attitude; the question merely is, in which words we describe that in the article. It currently says, "Just as osmium is the densest element of the first 6 periods, its heavier congener hassium is expected to be the densest element of the first 7 periods." It'll take some rewording and a note to make the proper impression of insignificance of it, but we still need to be accurate.--R8R (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is the latest paper I could find (2014). Apparently Os is the densest metal at STP (the author cites five sources dating from 1979 to 2013, of which four are by himself), but Ir is so close that increasing the pressure above 2.98 GPa makes it win. Below 150 K it is not clear which is denser due to lack of information on the low-temperature thermal expansion of Os. I guess the fact that Os and Hs being congeners is not so important; the most dense element in the first 8 periods is predicted to be E163, which is dvi-iridium. (Actually E162 and E164 should both beat Hs in density too.) The important thing is that Hs should have a huge lead on whatever the elements that we can actually see can muster. So I have removed the sentence you quoted; I guess we can also add one of those notes that make an article look well-researched ^_^ saying that Os and Ir are very close in density and have traded places several times according to the state-of-the-art measurement, and that in fact changing the conditions can change which is in first place. All the more reason to end the quarrel by hitting the island of stability and finding long-lived isotopes of Rf through Cn... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(I guess that now has to be "Rf through Rg" – see the next section. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the note, BTW! I've expanded it a little to underscore just how close Os and Ir are (mostly based on my comment above). Double sharp (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dvi-iridium = eka-meitnerium, yes? They refer to the same thing, yes? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 00:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dreigorich: Yes: I just called it dvi-Ir instead of eka-Mt because we were talking about Os and Ir earlier rather than Hs and Mt. Double sharp (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thanks. I blanked out on the structure of the periodic table and was just making sure I had my groups correct. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 12:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I could also add to this that there's seemingly a very subtle difference in accents: dvi-Ir is an attempt to link this unrealistic from any practical viewpoint concept to any sort of reality, even if the link is a distant one, whereas eka-Mt is purely a theoretical construct.--R8R (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this too. Double sharp (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made a small altering to your edit, leaving only the very essentials. I think it is important that the story look well-researched and is complimented by such notes when necessary but I also think that it should be clear that these notes are supplementary and should not drag the reader's focus from the subject, unless it tells a wholesome story that you clearly can link to the main topic. The question of whether osmium is denser than iridium or vice versa is hard to immediately link to hassium, so we shouldn't go into too close detail here. That's why I will also recommend to leave out the 7d metals (a purely theoretical exercise if anything) here. I hope you don't object my rationale.--R8R (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't object: I didn't put the 7d metals info in the article, anyway. The important thing I wanted to say is that Os and Ir are so close that changing the conditions changes which one is denser, and what you've trimmed it down to keeps that. Double sharp (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. So far, I'm nonplussed by how the FAC is going. First of all, there's this stray opposition---it says, "oppose," but doesn't provide many instructions to resolution of this opposition. You wrote a good reply, I wanted to write something of that sort but you beat me to it. Given the GOCE edits, this certainly has come out of nowhere. I'll see if I can do anything about the text (I don't expect much from myself, but let's see if anything could be done. I can recognize good prose, after all, and I think I'm not too bad at writing when I actually try).

But what's bugging me more is the source check. I think I've done quite some work to fix the problems that have occurred and may occur, but that still leaves me with these four unresolved refs: 2, 3, 33, and 40. I suppose even that refs 3 and 33 will need replacement, and you are better suited to find the good replacements, so could you please do it? Given the said opposition, we'd need some swift moves right now to turn the FAC in a more constructive direction and not have people discouraged from reviewing and thus giving our bid more legitimacy.--R8R (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @R8R: I can say right away that ref 33 is a tough one to replace. It is embedded in {{Isotopes summary}} (though I suppose it could be re-added manually if necessary), and the given page range encompasses three tables with explanations, so it cannot be narrowed there. Rather than categorized by element, the discovery reactions are grouped by type (light-ion, cold fusion, hot fusion), so there are three tables with several pages in between. If you believe this is what is highlighted at the FAC, I can split the ref such that each page is cited separately. ComplexRational (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

3 is an extremely short ref (only 4 pages). The figure being cited is on the second page, so I've changed it to specifically say page 2 only. The links come automatically from the DOI and Bibcode. If you have access, the full text appears on the abstract page anyway, and there is a link to the pdf. Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref 40 (open access, link added) is likewise only 4 pages and the statements it cites come from all four, so I don't see a reason to reduce the page range. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, we use Ref 3 multiple times (five, to be exact) and I can't verify all instances of its revocation. Can't find, for instance, the 1.59 figure.--R8R (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I found the right ref (same author): I'll add it. Double sharp (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Done Double sharp (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: thanks for your comment, it prompted me to check ref 33 more carefully. It does the trick. I condensed the range in the template; is there not going to be a problem with that for other articles? I presume not, but it's better to make sure.--R8R (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: Yes, that works fine; I don't think there will be any problem. All information used in other articles comes from the same tables on the same three pages, so it actually makes those citations better as well. ComplexRational (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That was my expectation; glad to have it confirmed.--R8R (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

More predictions of Cn chemistry

I stumbled upon this new article – doi:10.1002/anie.201906966 (free PDF available at [3]) – that contains more predictions of copernicium's chemical properties, including melting and boiling point (which agrees with experimental chemistry), triple point, heat of fusion, and several others. Though I added some of the more basic info to the article and infobox already, I thought it might interest you and have more in-depth content that you may enjoy writing about. ComplexRational (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Thank you! Indeed this does interest me, and so I've done some small updates. As the experimental boiling point is also calculated from adsorption data, I've felt free to replace it with the calculated value in the infobox as well. Double sharp (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the updates! It's especially surprising to see that Cn may only be slightly denser than Hg... ComplexRational (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: What most surprises me is the prediction that Cn will be an insulator like Rn! Though it has in the past variously been predicted to be a semiconductor and a noble metal, so I wonder if this will be the last word. What an interesting element it would be to study in bulk! Double sharp (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tutti-Frutti Chess

The article Tutti-Frutti Chess has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient evidence of notability. The Chess Variant Pages is a specialised encyclopaedia, English Wikipedia cannot be expected to have an article on all variants it catalogues.

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. LukeSurl^{t c} 16:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Question about Uranus and Neptune temperatures.

The Wikipedia page for Uranus says that it is the coldest planet, whereas the temperature for Neptune (in its article) listed at 1 bar is slightly lower than Uranus, though the mean temperature listed at 0.1 bar is slightly higher than Uranus. I've heard both Neptune and Uranus argued as being the coldest planet elsewhere; it seems that the difference between them is only a few degrees at best. This is just a really confusing situation and I'd like this to be clarified somehow. What's going on here? How is the coldest planet determined? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 03:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Дрейгорич: Unfortunately, I really don't know the answer (I've been trying on and off to find it since you asked). T_T Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Completely okay. I was hoping you'd have some insight. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 03:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"Twelfty" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Twelfty. Since you had some involvement with the Twelfty redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 18:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Polyhedra db templates

Hello, I found your polyhedra db series of templates (for example {{Regular polygon db}} and {{Prism polyhedra db}}) and was wondering what they do and why you created them. They look really weird from a template point of view with unmatched braces, but I guess they may work if put inside a switch block or something. Would you like to enlighten me? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: These are meant to be used in conjunction with {{Regular polygon stat table}} and {{Prism polyhedron stat table}} respectively; the database templates feed into here. When you type something like {{Prism polyhedra db|Prism polyhedron stat table|P5}}, it basically tells the stat table (infobox) template to read the info under "P5" in the database and populate itself with that info, as at Pentagonal prism. So this way, you can monitor all the data at once (since it is frankly rather repetitive) on the db template. I think the original one of this series was {{Polyhedra DB}} made by Salix alba, who can probably tell you more (all I did was copy and tinker with the code to make it work for other polytope infoboxes). Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

They are quite old, from a time before we had Help:Conditional expressions like {{#ifexpr: expression | value if true | value if false}}. The only way to do any sort of logic was using parser trick where an alternative argument would be evaluated if the first one was nullalternate value. You can see some of the techniques used mw:Help:Advanced templates. Indeed that page gives this template as an example of using Variable parameter name.

To be honest these template were an experiment in how far it was possible to push the limited template syntax. Now days there are much simpler methods using the Lua scripting language. --Salix alba (talk): 16:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Salix alba, thank you so much! I Learned a lot and I think I almost understand how these templates work. Amazing how much you could do without parser functions. Happy holidays to both of you and again thank you! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Vector space

In re this: Euclidean space is not a vector space (it has no origin nor an additive binary operation on points; Euclidean_space#Technical_definition). Of course if you fix a point to call the origin then that induces a vector space structure. --JBL (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: Yes, you're right. I've added a postscript fixing my error. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Tennessine revertion?

I understand what you mean but it just doesn't look right. I was just making it somewhat clearer and directing it towards who said it. What do you think? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RTG and RDMA

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RTG and RDMA. --Jasper Deng (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Double sharp, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
ComplexRational (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@ComplexRational: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)