User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:4)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipe-tan trifecta sign.png
"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! I also prefer to keep the conversation in one place and not split across multiple pages. Thank you.

The following users watch my talk page (feel free to add yourself to this list if you do so too).

References: have you seen or can you find something to support these statements as our current refs lack in credibility?[edit]

  • "Lead is a very soft material with a Mohs hardness of 1.5; it could be scratched with a fingernail." -- we had a ref, but it wouldn't stand a FAC
    • Mohs hardness is pretty useless in metallurgy (and it is so non-linear that it is not clear what "1.5" means). I'd use Vickers or Brinell here instead, actually. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Vickers or Brinell won't mean anything to most people. For the Moh's hardness of Pb you could use Samsonov GV (ed.) 1968, Handbook of the physicochemical properties of the elements, IFI-Plenum, New York, p. 432, ISBN 978-1-4684-6068-1. Sandbh (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Neither does Mohs, to be perfectly honest. How far are we going to go with this, anyway? Quite a bit of the chemistry section also won't mean anything to most people. With Vickers I can at least say the hardness is about a tenth that of Fe, a fifth that of Ag, and just below that of Sn, comparing quantitatively to some metals everyone's encountered. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I do like those comparisons. I recall Moh's is high school level, which helps. Saying something can be scratched with a fingernail tells me more than it's about a tenth that of Fe---few people will ever handle pure iron, pure silver or pure tin. Your call. Sandbh (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Was that in geography? ^_^ I get the impression it's more of a thing there. (Ah, another of those subjects I've forgotten completely about...) The fact that you can scratch it with a fingernail is a good visceral one that I am convinced now to keep. Though you do raise a good point that the pure metals Fe, Ag, and Sn are not something people will usually encounter: for Fe and Sn the dominant applications are for alloys, and pure Ag tends to be too soft for jewellery (though I personally think the impracticality should be somewhat offset by the undeniable coolness value of purity). Maybe Mg (from the first chemistry lessons) and Al (from aluminium foil) are better comparisons. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. This reminds me that my rewrite of the Ag article is languishing half-done, mostly because I'm too scared to go beyond chemistry there. I always did find it cool that the first three elements to be discovered were Cu, Ag, and Au, all in the same group. To some extent history there should overlap with production because of how the native nuggets get exhausted quickly; after a while it needed to be obtained from argentite by cupellation. And then we march on to the economic usage (in French, after all, Ag and money are called by the same name). Oh, and then there is all the cultural stuff (this is something our articles sometimes suck in; look at Hg!) I'm pretty sure the only reason I dared to take on Fe was because there was something reasonable in place already, that needed more citations. If there were not (the situation I'm in for Ag), I have to say to anyone who tries: "You are either very brave or very stupid!" But, I try anyway. I hope to not be the latter, at least. Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Pt is not a bad model for Ag. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Sandbh, please assure me that it specifically mentions the "can be scratched with a nail" part; the figure itself should not be difficult to obtain.--R8R (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
No it doesn't; it only gives the hardness numbers. I thought our Mohs scale of mineral hardness article would cover off on this, by referring to the fingernail–copper penny–penknife benchmarks, but I see it doesn't. Never mind. This reference says, "Lead is a soft malleable metal (it can be scratched with a fingernail)":
Vogel NA & Achilles R 2013, The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stained and Leaded Glass, U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 8, accessed 30 October 2016
Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • " The result is a stronger contraction of the 6s orbital than the 6p orbital, making the 6s orbital rather inert in ionic compounds.[2]" -- can't find anything to support this statement in the mentioned source: maybe you'll find it there or elsewhere? the source
    • Here you go: new source. 'Indeed, as the 6s-character of the bonds increases on average with increasing fluorine substitution, they become shorter, consistent with the smaller size of 6s- compared to 6p-orbitals. Yet the large difference in the sizes of 6s- and 6p-orbitals is at the same time responsible for the bond weakening. This leads to a breakdown of the frequently and implicitly assumed correlation between bond length and bond strength (in this case binding energy).' Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "□" -- this is not really related to references, but what's this strange symbol my browser does not recognize? can we use something more accessible for that instead?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    • It's supposed to be a blank square, symbolising a vacancy in the crystal lattice where you would have expected an oxygen atom. Should I get rid of it or explain it? Double sharp (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
      I think a notation should be clear: if we have to explain it, then what's the point? Probably get rid of it.--R8R (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
      Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
      I'll reserve an explanation for the main article on PbO2, probably. Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lead is not an abundant element in general—its per-particle abundance in the Universe is 0.06 ppb (parts per billion)[4] [...] Per mass, lead's abundance is 10 ppb[4]" -- that ref goes to webelements, against which we have decided long ago
    • How exactly do you measure universal abundances anyway? When writing Th I decided to just use the Solar-System one, because (1) it's actually known and (2) it should be representative. Our data page does not even give the universal abundances, but the Solar-System ones are present. Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
    Good one. One question: how do you get ppm/ppb from that data page, since it only lists relative abundance to silicon and not ppm? I realize this info is only arithmetic away, but some quite tedious arithmetic.--R8R (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    I got it from very annoying and very tedious calculator-spamming, which should be okay per WP:CALC. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    I didn't know there was a rule for that, but yes, it totally should. Where can I find the result of your calculation?--R8R (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
    Perhaps you missed this one; pinging you just in case.--R8R (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    I did it a while ago and I don't think I recorded anything past the final values for Th: sorry! (But I'll try to work it out again.) Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
    That's okay. The final values of thorium would also help: abundance(Th, paper, relative to Si)/abundance(Pb, paper, relative to Si) = abundance(Th, you calculated)/abundance(Pb, I want to get). Except where do I get it?--R8R (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    Ping.--R8R (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    OK, summing all the abundances from the data page gives 30744.02264761. So thorium is 1.5 ppt and lead is 100 ppt. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    Great, thanks! I'll add it soon. One last question: which ref is it? Y1? Y2?--R8R (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    Y1. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Typical background concentrations of lead do not exceed 0.1 μg/m3 in the atmosphere; 100 mg/kg in soil; 5 μg/L in freshwater and seawater." -- we don't have the page numbers. I remember this was added after I got to that section. I checked history and it seems the user who added this came here for a single purpose to fix a few sections in articles on elements.
    Don't think it's realistic to get that page number range. Hiding this info until we have a good ref.--R8R (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Lead was mined in Ancient China before 1000 BCE" -- we had a very poor ref
    • Do you think it's too much of a stretch to use this as the source when it only says that the Chinese used Pb for coinage as early as 3000 to 2000 BC? (Native Pb is too rare for it to be the cause of this.) Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
      Hey, I've got this book as a pdf file on my computer. It's great, actually. However, yes, I wouldn't be too comfortable. Surely this can be found; I'd be surprised if it couldn't.--R8R (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
      Or actually wait a second. They say China smelted lead then; does it necessarily mean they mined it? I just looked for the word "mining." However, you may get ore without mining if it, say, is just down there. This sounds unrealistic, but is it too unrealistic? So does "smelting" imply "mining"?--R8R (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
    Reworded this in a way that doesn't require us to say the Chinese mined lead, thus problem solved.
  • "Similarly to European industrialization, lead has a negative effect on health in the country." -- ref doesn't work.
  • "Some artists using oil-based paints continue to use lead carbonate white, citing its properties in comparison with the alternatives. Tetraethyl lead is used as an anti-knock additive for aviation fuel in piston-driven aircraft. Lead-based semiconductors, such as lead telluride, lead selenide and lead antimonide are finding applications in photovoltaic (solar energy) cells and infrared detectors."
  • "Acute lead poisoning is treated using disodium calcium edetate: the calcium chelate of the disodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). This chelating agent has a greater affinity for lead than for calcium and so the lead chelate is formed by exchange. This is then excreted in the urine leaving behind harmless calcium.[179]" -- ref has no page range

I am coming close to the end of the list of references: it's less than one section left, and I hope I'll get it done today or tomorrow. Then, there will be one thing (possibly two) left before the FAC: we'll have to resolve these {{cn}} tags recently I've added. (I also asked Sandbh to copyedit the article, since I admire his sense of English, but a) I am confident he'll do it and have no worries about that; and b) this may happen during the FAC if we have to do it this way, though I wouldn't want to time-press him on that. Anyway, even waiting for something you can't directly affect will be much different than waiting while I have yet to do something.)

So, I need to ask you to try to get those references. I'll join the quest, too, once I am done with unfinished formatting.--R8R (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Also it will be appreciated if you help me with ref formatting. I just do what the {{cite xxx}} templates have to offer. As for minor things, I do expand page number ranges (i.e. "267--269", not "267--9"), use |first= and |last= parameters for authors, display three authors per ref (|display-authors=3), and contract all first and middle names to initials (thus "Pauling, L.," not "Linus Pauling"). And I also try to provide wlinks to authors (|author-link=) when possible and remove cites of publication. I am going down from the very beginning, you could probably take it from the end and move up.--R8R (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I just added more pics to the article. Now it looks consistently colorful and shiny; I'll take it as a good thing. I only lack one pic, one for the uncommon oxidation states of lead. If we get one, I'll assume our picture pack is complete. Can you help me imagine anything worth adding? (I considered adding a pic of PbCl2 structure because Ba2Pb also has it, but I am uncomfortable telling people that acidic green is barium. I just downloaded the molecule drawer. Maybe I'll learn how to draw one later, but this is not too likely to happen anytime soon.) Possibly a photo of a mixed oxide? Anything could do, actually.--R8R (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would perhaps be better at Talk:Lead. Double sharp (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cerium[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Cerium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Yes, even late Beethoven is Classical[edit]

Thank you for all that interesting knowledge you put forth on my user talk page!

Anyway, I've been assuming Beethoven was Romantic from his middle period onward (starting with his 3rd symphony and the piano sonatas no. 21 & 22) due to the following reason: the way his music sounds, rather than its form and the way it is structured in mathematical terms, as in what you put forth. Whereas the music of Haydn, Mozart, and early Beethoven sounds a lot like the music of their Classical era predecessors such as CPE Bach and Gluck, Beethoven's middle and late period music sounds more like the music of composers such as Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Brahms than it does Haydn and Mozart.

While you likely have a very good point describing the way Beethoven's music as a whole is structured and how it uses Classical form, it seems to me like you're largely overlooking the way music sounds. Not only that, but I'm thinking you've also overlooked in part the fact that the rules for Romantic music are indeed much looser than the standard rigid ones for Classical-era music.

You see, Classical-era music has its own kind of rigid forms of melody and harmony riddled in its idiom, while Romantic music is characterized by a great emotional and lyrical quality as shown even in the music of composers such as Beethoven (in his middle and late periods), as well as in that of most of Weber, Rossini, and Schubert. We can also see those kind of Beethoven, Weber, Rossini, and Schubert-like styles of emotional quality in the string symphonies of a young Felix Mendelssohn.

I hope this helps in your understanding of where I'm coming from in regards to considering that Beethoven was a Romantic composer. Good day to you. Classicalfan626 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Classicalfan626: I agree that Beethoven's music is certainly Romantic in its emotional climate, but if so he seems to be a Romantic who sticks dogmatically to the Classical rules. I can do no better than to quote The Classical Style (p. 509) again: "Beethoven's innovations in harmony, phrase structure, large form, and even in emotional expression are analogous to his straining against the limits of the keyboard. He destroyed no part of his heritage. He continued to employ the conventions that he learned as a child even when he expanded them almost beyond recognition, because he knew what they meant and he understood how much energy they could release, how much expressive power they contained. His world was no longer the world of Haydn and Mozart, but we misconceive his achievement if we fail to recognize how much of their thinking is preserved within his and how much he attempted to retain their ease and grace. In this last matter his success was bound to be incomplete, but it was still formidable." Weber, Rossini, and Schubert break these conventions (Schubert eventually comes back to them, but not as completely as Beethoven; for him it seems to be just one of many modes of expression to assimilate, whereas for Beethoven it seems to almost be inherent in the nature of Classical tonality). In any case, both viewpoints are pretty common ones for which prominent adherents can be named, so it seems to me that any statement that hinges on Beethoven being Classical or Romantic needs qualification (as I've now provided for the Schubert Unfinished). But thank you; this has been a most enjoyable conversation! Double sharp (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
More interesting points indeed! My only remaining concern here is whether or not Beethoven was the only Romantic composer to "stick dogmatically to the Classical rules". I tend to doubt it, since there are so many composers out there, and it appears to me that Brahms was a lot like Beethoven in that respect. I must admit, however, that I likely don't study the workings of musical compositions as deeply as you do. What's your opinion on Brahms? And do you know of any other Romantics besides Beethoven that "stick dogmatically to the Classical rules"? Classicalfan626 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Classicalfan626: Brahms' practice, as I see it, is quite different from Beethoven's, because while Beethoven reshapes the conventions for his style, Brahms picks and chooses only the conventions that are most congenial for his style, for which Classicism was not the bed: he simply selects the ones that are "best suited to the richer texture of [his] music and its greater tendency to a syncopated interweaving of phrase structures." (Rosen, Sonata Forms, p. 395).
What is key here is that in the Classical period, where harmonic structure was thought of as primary, sonata form was just the natural way one composed and did not need to be codified; but in the Romantic period, thematic structure became primary and now it did. As a result, Brahms' major works are very often based on specific Classical models, but the forms are not usually implied by the material in the way that Beethoven's massive coda in the Eighth Symphony finale is implied the moment you hear the C (you hear a huge dissonance and thus it needs a huge resolution). They are rather imposed on it in a sort of academicism that consists of referencing exact models to quote from and take the structure from, and basically using that structure as a mould for completely different material (neglecting that it was the shape it is only because of the original material). This is something you do not find in Beethoven from the middle period onward (although you do find incomplete traces of this sort of thing in the early works, such as the Quartet Op. 18 No. 5 and the Concerto Op. 37), but which you find as an integral part of the style of Schubert and the other post-classicists (although he tends to disguise his quotes instead of display them for "any ass [to] see that"!). (To a certain extent the religious works of Mozart also fall into this kind of academicism, this time being more for monumentality than pathos, by being more Baroque than Classical. But by 1791 he begins to abandon this practice in favour of strict classicism in the Ave verum KV 618 and the Kyrie KV 341 – yes, it's misdated in the catalogue.) Double sharp (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Wow, you really think into classical music in such depth! You're giving me a whole lot of your personal knowledge to sift through. So, if Beethoven was Romantic, you think he was completely unique compared to all the other composers that were Romantic, or at least labeled Romantic? Classicalfan626 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Classicalfan626: Yes, he stands alone in this respect. Perhaps if Schubert had lived longer he would have joined him. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?[edit]

I haven't said anything yet as I'm still thinking about how to proceed, and have looked up a few more refs. I suspect a low level of interest from other editors. If I recall right, when we moved to Lu-Lr nobody (well, with one exception) noticed. Sandbh (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Somehow, when we proposed it at WT:ELEM and invited people a great deal more people noticed than when we simply did it to get rid of Sc-Y-*-**. Of course, you know which I would prefer. ^_^ Is there anything else you think I need to address on the issue? Double sharp (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I think we're good for now. Sandbh (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Goals for WP:ELEM[edit]

If we're getting lead featured anytime soon, I'll switch to aluminium and work to make an FA of it. Leave it to me or join me in this quest; whatever your decision, we still have lead to get done (it's only references left; I think the layman review, if it happens, can occur during the FAC). Then, of course, there will be thorium, but it'll be fast enough. I hope to get to iron after that; if I am still around by the time we finish it (I don't plan to leave, I just expect a lot of changes in the coming years and can't set up Wiki plans too far away from now), I'll want to go for gold.

So you're free to join me if you wish or, well, just be aware.--R8R (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC

Working up to more and more scary targets, are you? ^_^ I'm not sure I can promise to join you for Al, but if you need anything you can ask me, of course. (Reminds me once again how much period 3 needs work on WP, mostly because it is full of elements people care about.)
On the other hand, if/when you do get to Au, please consider my participation a given! ^_^ (In the meantime I'd like to also build up solid GA foundations for the other ancient metals Ag and Sn that are not in your plans, mostly because in my experience for group 1 and Th it feels less intimidating for me to have GA-level style first before I go crazy adding all the information in the world.) Double sharp (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd want to get silver. It's a safe #4 in my plans. Should you go for FA with it, I'll be there if you want me to and I wouldn't want that article to remain a GA.--R8R (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it's gonna be great if you supply the references we still need for lead. And a pic that we need would be great; more than that... magnificent!--R8R (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the pic: do you think one of those Zintl clusters would work better? I can't find a good structure for the mixed oxides (I imagine because the O vacancies are buried deep within the lattice, so you can't see them). Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
For example, something like this one (from an Angewandte Chemie abstract, hence the awful puns). Double sharp (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, if we can get anything larger than 125x162 :) --R8R (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results[edit]

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

  • Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
  • Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
  • Featured List – England Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
  • Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
  • Featured Portal – Yakutsk SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
  • Featured Topic – Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
  • Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
  • Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
  • In The News – India Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and New York City Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
  • Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
elements
... you were recipient
no. 652 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice to see cerium on the Main page today, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
Symbol support vote.svg

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Election[edit]

Is this it? Its over Trump has won. What do we do about his page and Obama's? He's number 45. Jupiter Europa (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jupiter Europa: I should add that I do not have much experience with what happens regarding US election coverage on Wikipedia, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean. However, I do agree that "It's over" is a very fair assessment of the current situation. The only positive side I see now is that I called it IRL after Brexit and now have some bet-claiming to look forward to ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cerium[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Cerium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Red boxes[edit]

The PT on your user page needs a legend explaining the red boxes. I guess its the ones you've significantly improved, so please brag! YBG (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

At the bottom: "Articles for which I have done some rewriting, research, or both have a red outline for the cell." Though maybe I should make it a single paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I tweaked the legend - and then reverted it. You can restore it or modify it if you like. YBG (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I like it! Restored. Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Strontium[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Strontium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Duality[edit]

I saw and approved of your recent edit to dual graph. I agree that an important aspect of a dual relationship is that it is indeed, um, "dual". So I would be interested in your opinion of the article Duality (mathematics), where the second "introductory example" is of a relation that is not dual. Maproom (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maproom: That is strange! If it is true (as I would expect) that most dual relationships are, well, symmetrical, I would support setting this somewhat apart from the others as an example of something that is called "dual" in common parlance despite not really being so. Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Strontium[edit]

The article Strontium you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Strontium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Actinium into Group 3 element. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Sorry for being forgetful! Double sharp (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Cerium[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 19 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cerium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cerium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cerium), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bromine[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bromine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bromine[edit]

The article Bromine you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Bromine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Your periodic table[edit]

The periodic table on your user page looks just so. Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, though there is still a lot of work to do! Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Double sharp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators Noticeboard[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Nomination of Ten-dimensional space for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ten-dimensional space 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/Ten-dimensional space until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spike789 🇺🇸 23:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nitrogen[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nitrogen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Update on periodic table by quality[edit]

Done
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Stone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Symbols in historical nuclear reactions[edit]

The point is that I'm trying to write a story I can immerse into and hopefully help others do the same. I don't want to use Ts because it's not a part of that story yet. We introduce that symbol later as a brand new thing, but it's happening later. To summarize it, I want to be consistent.--R8R (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree for the text, but for the equations I tend to see that as a retrospective explanation of what actually happened, gotten from data analysis. (After all, there have been wrong mass-number assignments in the past.) That's why I only changed it for the "Bk + Ca → Ts + x n" equations. Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Explain this to me please, revisted[edit]

Double sharp, I'm copyediting lead and have run into some confusion in the Origin and Occurrence section, 4.1 In space. I asked R8R about this, here, and he referred me to a thread in your archive, here. Having read your answer, I still don't understand. Does the beta decay sequence of N=126 nuclides largely stop at the platinum peak because Os, Ir and Pt happen to have stable isotopes? Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

As you know, the r-process runs mostly up the neutron drip line, but tends to stall around the neutron magic numbers like 126, which in the r-process path (running up the neutron drip line) will correspond to Z in the fifties and sixties. In particular, nuclides with Z in the low sixties and N = 126 that are produced in the r-process, such as 188Sm and 194Er, will be produced in large quantities because they have very low neutron-capture cross-sections, smaller than anything with more neutrons; and these will keep beta-decaying until they reach the line of beta stability, becoming 188Os and 194Pt. It doesn't matter that these are not magic nuclei, because they're not being generated directly, but as the daughters of magic precursors. Whereas if you want to make 208Pb, you're going to be starting from a nuclide like 208Yb which is not doubly-magic. Double sharp (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
That's good; I think I can do something with it. Sandbh (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so my next question concerns this sentence: "The r-process does not directly form as much lead as the s-process, because neutron-rich nuclei with mass numbers 206–208 that would decay to lead are not magic, unlike those that reach the closed neutron shell at neutron number 126 and decay to the platinum group metals around mass number 194."
This seems to explain why the r-process produces more Os-Ir-Pt than Pb, rather than why the r-process does not form as much lead as the s-process. Have I got that right? Sandbh (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, true. But I think we already explained why the s-process produces so much Pb and Bi, because of the "cycling factor". Double sharp (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)