User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 probably 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).

I usually archive sections at the top when they have been inactive for over a month (a month is when I will do it, but I may do it earlier if it seems reasonable). This means that my talk page changes in length significantly depending on whether a section near the top is still generating replies. Each archive contains fifty sections, except of course the most recent one which may have fewer (and in that case it is still being filled up).

Contents

Christmas[edit]

Your comment on WT:ELEM made me want to share something I imagine you'd be interested to learn. You might want to know that apart from those deeply inchurched, the main celebration in winter in Russia is the New Year. The reason for that is that the communists abolished celebration of the Christmas (the state was officially atheist) and wanted to abolish the winter celebration at all, but many people were already so much angered with that the Christmas was abolished (as you may imagine, not everyone in thee country immediately followed the state in going atheist, especially those in the rural areas) and the idea of no celebration in winter at all didn't go well, so a celebration of the New Year was established. Maybe this was also a good time to check the progress on the current five-year plan and encourage the population to keep up their work. The plans were actually a lot more ambitious at some point, and a new calendar was considered, just like you may remember from the French revolution. Very ambitious indeed: public transportation was in Bolshevik-held Petrograd was free even under the heaviest conditions, after years and years of a great international and then a civil war, with roads broken and the city starving (you can't grow much food around Petrograd and food is tricky to deliver when a civil war is on and the outside powers are hostile to the Bolsheviks). Even the whole institution of families was considered outdated; communes were to take place. Remember the whole communism idea, which in great part rejected what had been built in the society before. (I have once been told that one could ask a girl to sleep with them all of a sudden in the late 1920s (not sure why late 20s, though. I'd say early 20s seem more plausible) and she could not refuse (if she was a part of the Komsomol movement which everyone wanted to be a part of anyway) because there was no longer any privacy and communism was on. I don't know if that's true, but I'm hands-down ready to believe that: communism was a really really revolutionary concept. I'm not sure if anyone saying they're communist thinks of such revolutions of everything today.) It is also true that such great changes of the society did not go well with everyone and twenty years later, many still silently refused the new order.

Anyways, I was talking about the New Year. I'm going to be away for a few days to celebrate it with my friends, so I won't be able to address the remaining FAC comments. I thought I'd have more time for that, but it was only yesterday when a passed my last test this December. Sorry to leave you at the time; I will be back in a few days.--R8R (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right, this was very interesting to learn! Have a wonderful celebration and hopefully you will have more time in 2018! Since the New Year is the real celebration, I'm still early! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I also find this interesting. My wife grew up on the other side of the equator and much closer to it. She finds Christmas lighting displays a bright spot in the midst of the otherwise dreary darkness of the northern winter. Much of your country is in even higher latitudes, and so I can well understand that the idea of no celebration in winter at all didn't go well. But the USSR did adopt a new calendar, albeit not with the French 10-day week, and not quite so revolutionary, as their adoption was a few hundred years behind much of the rest of the world. But even the British, whose calendar reform is commemorated in Unix, were 170 years later than Italy. But Russia was still ahead of Greece and Turkey. Enjoy your well-earned break! YBG (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
This O.S. and N.S. business was extremely irritating when I was writing up the composition summary with dates that is the first section of our article on Mussorgsky's opera Khovanshchina – I haven't seen anything like a consensus among musicologists whether to use Julian or Gregorian dates, and irritatingly which is being used is not always stated up-front. I've even encountered a book on Mussorgsky that uses exclusively New Style dates, even editing direct quotes, which to me seems perfectly ridiculous given that he died in 1881 and never left Russia, and would thus never have used the Gregorian calendar. Meanwhile our article on Tchaikovsky (which I guess should be better romanised without that T, but this is traditional) has a note saying "Dates are expressed here in the same style as the source from which they come", which seems to me even more ridiculous. Oh well, what can we do about that? Happy New Year! Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
That's not quite what I meant: the switch to the Gregorian calendar occurred years before the Soviet republics finally formed the Union. A far more revolutionary calendar was planned and even at some point used. It was particularly notable for its five-days-long week, with each category of workers having their own day free of work, all planned for maximum efficiency of production; and, of course, he who does not work, neither shall he eat. From what I recall, it did not last too long because the existing families (which the communists initially sought to abolish) often had their free days mismatch because their professions were different.
I see the argument about shorter daytime in the winter. It does not immediately pop up to my mind, but I clearly see why it could be relevant, especially in the countryside.
Thank you! I guess it's too late to say, "you too," but have a nice year nonetheless!--R8R (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@R8R: So does timeanddate.com have the Russian adoption of N.S. incorrect? They list it as Feb 1918, and I think the revolution was the year before, right? YBG (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
That is correct. To be precise, the Bolshevik historiography distinguished two revolutions, the February Revolution, which ended the monarchy in Russia, and the October Revolution, which put the Bolsheviks in charge in Petrograd, creating the Russian Soviet Republic. I am rather referring to the fact that the existing Soviet republics only formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in late 1922.--R8R (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, so both Feb 1917 and Oct 1917 Russian revolutions are before Feb 1918 calendar change, but Feb 1918 is in turn before the late 1922 formation of the USSR. Thankfully, our calendar change here occurred well before all of our significant events - the US Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Association, the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. But it did lead to the anomaly that our first President was born on Feb 11th (OS), but his birthday was celebrated for many years on Feb 22 (NS), until it was replaced by the third Monday in February, which is more utilitarian though a bit less romantic and more to the point, eliminates an opportunity to discuss the OS/NS distinction. YBG (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@R8R: Thank you so much for this information – so it's even more interesting than I'd thought! I just searched Wikipedia for something like this and I found a page for the Soviet calendar; is this what you were talking about? (I feel a bit of déjà vu when reading that article; I think I'd heard of the 5-day week thing previously several years ago but forgot about it, and I certainly wasn't aware of just how revolutionary communism was then. ^_-☆) Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the timing was tense. If any parallels at all are to be drawn, then October 25, 1917 (this day would later be celebrated in the Soviet Union, on November 7, of course, and only declared a working day in Russia in 2004 or 2005) for Bolsheviks was something like July 4, 1776 for the Americans but so many exceptions apply. Many Russians supported the Bolsheviks (who had such great slogans: "factories to the workers, land to the peasants, peace to the world." Generally, the story goes that the working class was oppressed by the capitalists, who the Bolsheviks called the bourgeoisie, with such long working days and low payoffs that many workers sought to support a pro-worker force. Many peasants were equally in favor of this) and many supported the White Movement, closely associated with the monarchy and establishing succession from the pre-February Imperial Russia (also, as it is so often the case with monarchies, the Tsar was deemed to the position by the God; naturally, they endorsed religion, which was very important for many Russians back then. Also, in general, the Whites opposed the Reds, who were seemingly trying to build an utopia), with the political divide often separating family members. In addition to that, the country had been well mismanaged by the Provisional Government and plunged into chaos, so elites in many borderlands tried to get hold on control (among many, I could name Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia; Ukraine was a particular mess, with several leaders having power at once; the Baltic states and Poland broke away, a process greatly aided by German occupation of the territory (World War I was still on) and so did Finland; the Cossacks contributed to the general mess; et cetera). Some of these tried to go democratic (if this causes particular sympathy in you, have in mind that democracy is extremely fragile and easy to corrupt when created in some conditions: for instance, Poland degraded from a parliamentary democracy to an autocracy during the 20 years of its interwar existence, and you know well to what degraded the unstable German democracy of the time; even Russia itself became very democratic after the February Revolution and basically went back from there even before the October Revolution occurred), some went autocratic; eventually, local communists won in all the breakaway regions except Finland, the Baltic states, and Poland and then they united as it was planned from the beginning. So if it hadn't been for all of this, everything would've fit before the calendar change.
I cannot help but feel great respect for Washington. I've read some information on his biography before typing this and I cannot help but respect that he not only built his country, but he also did not ruin it when he had the chance and rather kept on building it. (By the way, speaking of the early United States: when I was writing an essay on the topic "Are two-stage presidential elections democratic?", I found this article, which you may be interested to read. As for the question, my answer was, "no, but it is not by design, and the Electoral College was a check on democracy, since the U.S. state building was all about checks and balances and the Founding Fathers had no real reasons to rely solely on democracy anyway as there were no successful examples of a democratic state at the time." I also found that this is the only constitutional norm that the Americans consider not the best option possible, and a majority would've rather picked direct voting instead and that there is already a law already that, when ratified by states having a majority in the Electoral College, will oblige electors from those states to vote for the most popular candidate nation-wide, effectively installing direct voting.)
Yes, that's quite it. I completely forgot about the six-days-week, but of course it was there. Since the article on the calendar reminded me of the Paris Commune, perhaps I should add that among the first things the Bolsheviks did was the establishing of the metric system and the initial anthem was the Marseillaise. In its inception, communism was very internationalistic. Lenin, who was a great proponent of a world revolution, accepted Finland's departure in 1917 believing that the world would eventually follow them anyway (it was theorized that communism was the stage of development of a society following capitalism just as capitalism followed feudalism). The idea of "socialism in one country" would only appear years later.--R8R (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
(I haven't had time to write a proper reply to discuss this further, but in the meantime I want to say that this has been one of the most interesting conversations I've had in a while that isn't about the sciences. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: (pinging against my usual procedure since this is such an old section): Now I'm curious what you think of Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Communism! Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

0. I don't think that communism is a bad idea per se. I believe it is an utopia but we must be honest and admit that it is not necessarily something negative (unlike, say, Nazism).
1. To say that Wikipedia resembles communism, you need to oversimplify the ideas of both Wikipedia and communism. Saying that Wikipedia resembles communism is like to say that public transport resembles communism and thus everyone should use private cars.
2. Many of those criticisms seem to argue that you see, in some way, Wikipedia is actually a bit like capitalism, too, so never mind that. This seems like defense against the accusation that Wikipedia has something in common with something bad, which, as I said, I believe communism per se is not. (So I like the last line of defense: who cares, really?) Also, this sort of defense is actually as weak as is the original accusation (see 1.)
3. Communism is a very complicated concept, as all real life concepts are if you look into them. Actual Wikipedia is also not as plainly simple as it may sound from the "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" moniker. And these are actually very different things, as you would expect from a social and political regime on one side and an Internet-based encyclopedia and the community around it on the other (like, say, we don't trade, we have no legally binding mutual obligations, and so on). Again, see 1. POV 10 is great, too.--R8R (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I share your thoughts, which I might pithily summarise as "It's not accurate, it's not important, and it's not even a criticism". ^_^ I'll give a serious response to your above sharing when I feel I know enough to. Double sharp (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is a great way to put it.
Sure, I'll be waiting.--R8R (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hexamethylbenzene GA[edit]

Hi Double sharp, and thanks again for the GA review of hexamethylbenzene. I note that you commented:

I have read through the prose, and I find that if one reads it paying a reasonable amount of attention, it is actually very clear, with helpful links provided for the not so chemistry-savvy.

I very much appreciate that you find it clear and even an "extremely enjoyable read," that is gratifying to hear. I like to think my writing is clear (though overly technical at times), but with my background and knowledge base I recognise that what is clear to me may not be to a less scientifically knowledgeable reader. I wonder if you have any comments / suggestions on how to improve the clarity for so that it requires less attention be paid by a reader? I also wonder what you think about the article relative to the FA standards. I haven't been involved with FA for a while and know the topic is quite narrow. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@EdChem: Well, I'll take a look at this and hopefully get back to you within a few days, time permitting. ^_^ I have an ongoing chemistry FAC myself (though Th is certainly a much more general subject than C6Me6 – incidentally, I would greatly appreciate a review from someone with the chemistry expertise of yourself ^_-☆), so I think I can be helpful at making suggestions based on the FA criteria. Double sharp (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'll have a look at the thorium FAC. I've already had a quick read and it is looking good, though there are a few tweaks that are needed. :) EdChem (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
(Reminder to myself to get back to this now that EdChem is back! ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you ask ...[edit]

... here: Everyday speech does use the phrase "in a vacuum" quite commonly, but since WP:TONE says "Articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone", we aim for a more formal language construction (and which more accurately reflects the semantics). The article Speed of light refers to "speed of light in vacuum", not "speed of light in a vacuum", and this usage is typical in literature on the subject. You may be interested in discussions such as Talk:Speed_of_light/Archive 16#A vacuum vs. vacuum. —Quondum 17:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Quondum: I see; thanks for the clarification. Maybe we ought to put a hidden comment beside it to explain this briefly to others who might seek to change it, though; I've done this several times for facts that often inspire "corrections" (e.g. caesium being more reactive than francium), and it seems rather effective. Double sharp (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Quondum: OK, I've redone your edit and added an explanatory hidden comment beside "vacuum". Again, thank you for the clarification! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg – Yes, this is a particularly tricky one due to common usage, but is at least easily understood and already has a history. In some cases it can be difficult to agree on what the appropriate register/tone is. Some articles in WP appear to target very different levels of reader. The edit comment is a good idea. —Quondum 00:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on image at Talk:Earth[edit]

Hi Double sharp, would you consider adding your thoughts at a discussion about the inclusion of a phylogenetic tree image at Talk:Earth#Phylogenetic Tree image removed? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: I've responded there. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Dubnium[edit]

I've got some concerns re your recent edit. To begin with, why is it good to put nucleosynthesis information into the section dedicated to chemical experiments? If this information is to be added at all, I'd rather go with the section on nucleosynthesis (because the information is on nucleosynthesis), adding a note like, "these isotopes are good for chemical experiments; see below."

And even then, if we are looking to describe (which I don't think we should be doing at all; for one, I don't see how this could fit into the text) how the longest-lived (i.e., practically useful) isotopes could be produced, I really don't see the reason to include the impractical way (tennessine) to do so.--R8R (talk) 08:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I put it specifically because the reference listed a reason to consider using the heavy isotopes (to probe reaction kinetics for Db), which is rather chemical. I'm not opposed to moving things around; these edits were mostly just to throw in new information that I thought merited a place. ^_^ I'd think that this might be best placed after the studies mentioned with Db isotopes made as a daughter of element 115 (now Mc), since these are the same 267Db and 268Db; as you say, we could easily remove mention of 270Db. So we'd say that these isotopes may also be considered for future experiments probing reaction kinetics for Db thanks to their long half-lives, and putting it that way (I think) makes it feel more relevant for this section instead of the nucleosynthesis one. What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've moved it to the end of the penultimate paragraph (the one on identifying Mc through a chemical identification of Db as its descendant), saying "Because of their long half-lives, the isotopes 267Db and 268Db open the possibility of future experimentation on the kinetics of reactions involving dubnium.[33]" What do you think of this version, which I've tried to make focused on chemical experimentation over nucleosynthesis? Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
That's better but sounds so vague right now. "open the possibility"? could it be more specific?--R8R (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I haven't yet found anyone actually proposing to take some beam time to do this, but I'll look again. If it's not in any lab's immediate plans I'd probably go for the simple "...the isotopes 267Db and 268Db are ideal for future experimentation on the kinetics of reactions involving dubnium"; how's that? Double sharp (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
My immediate thought would be, "it's not in plans for a reason?" Again, we are writing an encyclopedia; as such, we should use facts, not labels. If there's a person/lab/etc. credible enough who said so, we could refer to the fact that they did it. Otherwise, it's not too big a fact to strive to squeeze in anyway.--R8R (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There are ideas to probe reaction kinetics for the 6d transition metals (well, Julia Even said so at the Nobel Symposium for superheavy elements back in 2016) – "Controlling the amount of carbon monoxide in the buffer gas will open the door for kinetic studies of the carbonyl complex formation of even the transition metals of the 7th period of the periodic table." (And since there are group 5 carbonyls, e.g. vanadium hexacarbonyl), I don't see why Db should be excluded; Walter Loveland specifically noted that this should work to experiment on Rf through Mt.) I don't see why the fact that none of the labs have put it on their plans yet would make it not worthy of inclusion, if the idea has been said to be possible by an expert in the field. I mean, no one's done the hassocene experiment either, and it looks like no one's going to in the near future anymore: still, isn't it interesting? It's not like there is much chemical knowledge about these transfermium elements, so I think this sort of planned stuff has a place. If it's different some more decades down the line, well, we can worry about it then. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's somewhat exaggerated logic. Dubnium should be concentrated on information directly related to dubnium. I don't at all say this is absolutely irrelevant as is, but not main-article-worthy, either. We most certainly shouldn't drop our standard for inclusion too low just because there's nothing to write otherwise; not only is this theoretical without any plans yet (again, the section is called Experimental chemistry), look, it doesn't even say the word "dubnium"!--R8R (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
All right, I'm convinced and have removed the sentence. Still, I guess it's good to have done a BRD on this (albeit more of a BDR in this case): that way, when someone does do the reaction kinetics experiments, we can bring it back out. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

When you've got a spare minute, please come check prose quality of dubnium. John opposes the article's FA status based on prose quality. There was probably something in his words. I looked at prose quality critically after his comments and found some room for improvement. Especially the last section will probably require quite some effort to get it well done. I'd love to hear your opinion, though. Just remember some small things that put you in a trap sometimes: if you can say something with fewer words and convey all the same factual information, you should do so and don't get too absorbed with small details. (By the way, consider this friendly criticism if you wish. Personally, I love it when people express friendly criticism and it helps you get better. Are you okay with this? Some people (maybe?) aren't, so I won't ever do it again if you ask me not to. But again, I think it's great help, so feel free to do it to me, even if you're not okay with it yourself.)--R8R (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Why, I'm absolutely OK with it; I find I often have to stop myself and think if something has just gotten disproportionate exposure. I will try to comment on Db tomorrow or Saturday. Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you look at Edwininlondon's comment re missing reference? I think you were the one to add that fact so maybe you know where it came from.--R8R (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added a ref. Double sharp (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

We made it! Great job on your part. Sorry if I haven't been as active during the FAC as I'd have loved to.

Speaking of which, I must be able to provide more comments for nihonium in a few days (as well as the response for #Dubnium). If you want to start the PR right away, feel free. Sorry that I happened to have miscalculated the amount of time I'd be able to invest in Wiki (speaking broadly) last week. FYI, I plan to submit dubnium to FAC in mid- to late February (because not sure I'll be able to consistently have enough time to respond to FAC comments throughout a month).--R8R (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring Thorium (estimated annual readership: 415,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! R8R (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I've started the Nh PR (linked on your talk page). In the meantime, I hope you don't mind that I moved this from the "Thorium" section into a subsection, because I'd like to archive some of this stuff now. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the "unsung natural radioactive metal (uranium gets all the press)"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Names of mineral species[edit]

" this is not the place to go into a long discussion on mineral notation, and #2 I think you'll find that most chemical references don't care one bit about it being -(Fe) or whatever else dominant, since the structure's the same)"

Please remember, that you write about discussion with the International Mineralogical Association, which was constituted many years ago exactly to set te correct names of mineral species. IMA does not recognize "tantalite", "columbite" or "polycrase" (IMA list of minerals can easily be reached in their webpage). The reverse action (as in the case of "barite") ultimately convinces me that - exactly, as you wrote - there is no place for (scientific) discussion in Wikipedia, and thus my time spent on these "changes" (actually error corrections) is simply wasted. I am a mineralogist/geochemist, but this (and this is not new to me) does not seem to be relevant.Eudialytos (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Eudialytos: I would be quite happy to use the names with the suffixes if these were mineralogical articles. However, they are primarily chemistry articles, with minerals mentioned peripherally are sources under "occurrence". And you will find that in chemistry articles these suffixes are paid pretty much no attention: here are two from the 2000s concerning themselves primarily with chemistry that simply ignore these extra suffixes. And even here, in a 2008 article in Chemical Geology, because the context does not necessitate going into detail on the distinction between the rare earths, the authors have no problem at all simply ignoring those suffixes. So it seems to me that what Wikipedia is doing here is perfectly normal in the literature: to ignore those suffixes when the distinction is irrelevant. It is of course regrettable if you feel that Wikipedia has no place for scientific discussion, but surely we must consider that the proper place for a detailed explanation of all these extra suffixes is certainly not the article on tantalum (for which all those varieties can serve just as well as sources for recovering Ta), but the article on those minerals. Going into detail on every topic tangentially related would give a long, rambling, and hardly on-topic article. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Mineralogy is also a science, but there is also geochemistry that is brought to life for a reason. Its quite thriving.Eudialytos (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
You wanted the paper - here it goes: http://elementsmagazine.org/archives/e4_2/e4_2_dep_mineralmatters.pdf There is such a science known as mineralogy. And it is very underestimated. And this is the reason of numerous mistakes (compared to sections like Chemistry, in general).Eudialytos (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

On gender essay[edit]

I'm not even sure on Wikipedia which editors are male or female unless their username makes it pretty obvious Most people's gender can be found out as they have selected How do you prefer to be described? in preferences. Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups is convenient as it shows that when hovering over someone's name. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I've edited my essay briefly about it: I should take a look at it again later. (I haven't read it for a while since I wrote it back in 2016.) Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sixfold[edit]

Hi Double sharp, mathematics is an exact science, and there's no ambiguity about the use of "sixfold", e.g. see sixfold and sextuple in Wiktionary. The only potential for ambiguity is when increases are given as percentage increases - see Percentage#Percentage_increase_and_decrease - "Due to inconsistent usage, it is not always clear from the context what a percentage is relative to". Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bahudhara: See Talk:Copper#"it increased sixfold", where I have responded. The possible confusion is exactly the same: do we mean that the final cost is six times the original, or if the increase is six times the original? Mathematics is surely an exact science, but language is not an exact medium for expressing it naturally. Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no confusion at all re the usage of "sixfold", it means six times the original, and it's a term used elsewhere in science, e.g. as in crystallography, the hexagonal crystal system is characterised by a sixfold axis of rotation. Bahudhara (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bahudhara: Indeed it means six times the original, but what is six times the original? The increase or the final value? That is the confusion; not the definition of the term, but what it is describing, particularly in conjunction with increased. I'm sure we can make very logical arguments on both sides for what "increased sixfold" should mean but I do not think we need to leave this wording in and let the reader stumble. In any case this is rather moot, since I removed the comparison (after all, it doesn't tell you much that the range of numbers doesn't already). Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Copper[edit]

Please, see this article talk page. Vikom (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vikom: Seen and responded. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, you are a polyglot, and a native speaker of two very different languages, plus FR-4, DE-2, PL-2... I'm impressed :-) Vikom (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Vikom: Thank you for the compliments, and you're very welcome! Double sharp (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Nihonium[edit]

I'm going to be away for a couple of weeks, so I may not respond to your comments or do so only briefly. Think you better hear that in advance. Probably I'll be back before the PR is over. No promises, though. (And I remember I have only briefly looked at what you wrote to me recently and still have to answer that. I'm sorry, I'll definitely look at it when I've got the time.)

Also, as a general rule of thumb, if you happen to use an acronym in both the lead and the body, I suggest you introduce it both times separately. It is true that many readers don't read the article past the lead as they only want to know what a particular word or concept means; I wouldn't be surprised to learn they form an actual majority of readers. However, there are also readers who skip the lead and go straight to the body because the want to read the body and the lead is only a brief summary anyway; their share is notably smaller but not infinitesimal.--R8R (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I agree with what you say and will make the changes accordingly. Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I'd love you to get back on this. The reason for that is that the peer review may shut down any minute now and I'd rather want you to avoid any long pauses and to finish it off on the original page so that the project doesn't seem to be okay with delays over and over when you complete everything on your first try and don't hold anything up. I think that having completed others' recommendations, after you complete mine, you should be good for a FAC in every aspect possibly save for prose quality and referencing issues. (This is a friendly reminder rather than anything else.)--R8R (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
That should be ready in a bit! ^_^ Nh seems to have the richest chemistry among the 7p elements and I needed some time to understand what was going on (also developed in the conversations on WT:ELEM). Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's great, I'd love to see your response. By the way, you guys have such long discussions there; do you mind me asking you sometime later to brief me about what you were actually discussing and what that discussion has to offer for an observer? I am somewhat afraid to delve into that myself given its length and how actively it is updated.--R8R (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure, ask whenever you wish. ^_^ We started out discussing group 3 (again), but we have also been discussing some other things such as superheavies, rare oxidation states, and the metal–nonmetal border on the side. Some highlights (there are many) include results from some of Droog Andrey's own calculations on the superheavy elements, my own descriptive chemistry of elements 109 through 120, and myself almost being convinced by him to put Lu under Y (not quite yet, though). Next episode: a bit of devil's advocacy from me about putting helium over beryllium. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I'll take some time to prepare myself for that, though :)
By the way, I recall you argued that La should go over Y because in a periodic table, macroscopic properties should go over microscopic properties (I was somewhat doubtful that macroscopic properties lead to assignment of La's position above Y, but that was what you argued). Doesn't putting He above Be rather reflect microscopic, rather than macroscopic, properties?--R8R (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's why it's devil's advocacy: I don't really support it, but think the arguments are worth raising to see why our first reaction to He over Be is "that's not a good idea". ^_^ You can make several microscopic-style arguments for putting He over Be, and even a few vaguely macroscopic ones based on reactivity. First you have the argument that He is 1s2 and Be is 1s22s2 (just like H being 1s1 and Li being 1s12s1). Then you can look at the electronegativities, and then you see that putting He over Ne results in a trend like H over F (where the first element is not the most electronegative, as it is everywhere else in groups 13 through 18), but putting He over Be keeps the decreasing trend just like H over Li: in the metastable species (HeO)(LiF)2, the He–O covalent bond is polarised with the partial positive charge on the helium (ref, also discussing the placement of helium), and the structure of this species is more like that of the analogous Be species than the analogous Ne species. Additionally, He is expected to be less inert than Ne, breaking the trend, because of the greater valence electron density for Ne than for He (a product of the presence of a 2p orbital for Ne) leading to greater Pauli repulsion. Furthermore, putting He over Be creates a consistent set of first-row anomalies that tally with the important roles of radial nodes in the periodic system: in such a periodic table, not only is the first element in each group always the one experiencing the effects of a valence orbital without radial nodes, but it also results in a consistency where the magnitude of the first-row anomaly tallies with the screening ability of the subshell (1s >> 2p > 3d > 4f), as discussed here. Lastly one can argue that the visual shortening of period 1 clarifies the difference between the region of the duet rule (H, He, Li+, Be2+) and that of the octet rule, and extrapolating from the ionic radius of Be2+ gives a near-zero value for He2+ just as would have been expected. (Much of this paragraph is owed to the above-linked SciScoop guest post by Henry Bent, creator of Bent's rule, and this recent paper by Wojciech Grochala.)
Now I do agree that He over Ne is far better: both are rather inert, and comparing helium chemistry to beryllium chemistry based on one metastable He species is kind of like focusing on the 0.001% while ignoring the 99.999%. I think the strongest argument here, if anything, is the similarity of the He–Ne–Ar trend to the H–F–Cl trend and that of the He–Be–Mg trend to the H–Li–Na trend, and even that seems to be swamped by the sheer strangeness of calling He–Be–Mg a "trend". But it does raise interesting questions like: (1) how much stronger are the arguments for hydrogen over lithium? and (2) if we are willing to break blocks for the sake of helium chemistry, can we stomach doing the same for element 172? oganesson? actinium? Where do we draw the line as to when things have gone too far? Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. My first impression was a small desire to dismiss it as useless but a minute later, it occurred to me that there is some certain sense in these unobviously useful discussions, so I do hope you'll get some better understanding of the elements from it! After all, isn't that the goal of your lengthy discussion in the first place ^_^ --R8R (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It just occurred to me how close we are to this FAC, just addressing a few comments away. The FAC should be a success. Then will follow the FAC of history of aluminium. Well, given this and the two article promotions earlier, this year certainly started fine for our project, didn't it?

Actually what I wanted to say was a request to write something about alloys once you get to working on aluminium. This has been omitted in most our articles for no good reason I can think of. I remembered about it because since your PR is nearly over (please let's finish it asap), I've got something else to look forward into, and as I was thinking about it, this came up.--R8R (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll put those in too. This year has started very well indeed! I think we ought to be able to finish the nihonium PR in a few days. Double sharp (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if I'm being annoying, I'm just a little disappointed by how we're close to the target we're aining for and then just standing there without making the move for it. By any chance, are you struggling with spare time? This may explain your inactivity towards nihonium, as I sort of see that you may want to go for the star once you have enough spare time. If that is indeed the case, then first of all, let me reassure you there's no need to be waiting for spare time, as an FAC can easily be a background task of yours. So if you are having exams or about to meeting a deadline at work, know that the FAC won't require too much of your resources, especially given the relative obscurity of the topic at hand, plus I'll have your back and possibly so will someone else from the project. But if that's still not good enough and you really want to dive into the FAC (which, again, you don't really need to), then (and only then) may I go forward with history of aluminium? I'd still love the train of the Bronze Star Express to keep going while it can and if you actualy do happen to have to wait before you can fully come back, I'd love to see what I can do in the meantime. (Of course, I'd love you to go first more and if we are only to wait a few days before you can get things sorted out, then I'd love to wait for you to do so.)--R8R (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to wait until the Graphics Lab illustration request for the graph was acted on, but since this doesn't appear to be something that's going to happen soon, I will start the FAC now. I indeed have a spare time problem now, but like you say, it shouldn't deter us from starting. So onwards it is! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
And we launch! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
That's great! To be entirely honest with you, I did foresee that you would launch the FAC if I asked you to let myself go first because you were so close and apparently needed one final push to get there, and the message above was one for you just as I expected. I hope you're okay with that because the FAC is on now, one way or another! And I'm very sorry if you're not. I'll read the article one last time soon (possibly even today) and if I find anything that has not been covered by the peer review, I'll post it on the FAC page, otherwise I'll just support the nomination.--R8R (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'm just here to remind you to ask for a source review for the FAC as you've been suggested by an FAC coordinator. Alternatively, you could tell me to do it for you, and I gladly will, I just didn't think it was right without you agreeing first.--R8R (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Thanks for the reminder, and I'd be very grateful if you'd do it! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, it seems like I've unintentionally made my suggestion too promising. I'll be leaving my home for a couple of weeks tomorrow so I probably won't be able to make the source review. I've asked for one at WT:FAC though, as I originally intended.--R8R (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion needed[edit]

Hi! I've recently been introduced to this question and I have not come up with a definite answer yet, so I'd love to know what you think. In element articles, specifically in Chemistry sections, we commonly tell the reader a short story of the element's compounds. Would it not be reasonable to tell a short story of the element's alloys (presuming that the element is a metal) in the Physical properties section? I don't want to make this question Project-wide yet, just want to know what you think on this. Thanks--R8R (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi R8R! I think the whole point of chemical properties, even of the element, is that the element reacts, and then you don't have the pure element anymore; whereas you can talk about physical properties without that happening. I'd tend to want to consider intermetallic compounds under compounds; so why not alloys? Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@R8R: Ah, I remember that I used this organisation just last year at Silver#Intermetallic, putting Ag alloys and intermetallic compounds under the Compounds section. Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This seems an interesting suggestion; your example with silver is worth investigating into. Thank you. I'll give it some more thought.--R8R (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Good to hear! And after your success with Pb I'm inclined to believe that Ag is not too far from FA either. But of course, I'll finish addressing the last comments on Nh first and then ask for a copyedit of it. Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Group 3 again[edit]

I may post something here or e-mail you about this, soon(ish). It goes back to our old friend, the Madelung Rule. Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, what do you know; looking at the current lively discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Group 3 observations, it seems like the moment one of us steps back into the arena, the rest of us (along with possible newcomers) follow! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thallium Toxicity - Alopecia[edit]

You're spreading false information by implying that both acute and chronic thallium toxicity always presents with alopecia. This is not correct and should be changed back to the edited version or reconstructed so as not to confuse anyone looking for this vital piece of information concerning toxicity. It could actually save a life one day. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.162.56 (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not the one who reverted your edit; that was Materialscientist. Secondly, alopecia is certainly one of the most characteristic symptoms of Tl toxicity, being in fact pathognomonic for it, although it has a delayed onset; when it does not develop, this tends to be because such a large dose of thallium was given that it did not have time to, as noted at the main article thallium poisoning. So I have changed this to "Thallium poisoning usually results in hair loss, although larger doses kill before the onset of this characteristic symptom." Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why your name came up, but that is why I responded to your talk page. Thank you for editing the page. The fact remains, that is one case report. There are literally hundreds on this topic alone and many of them do not show alopecia as a symptom of thallium toxicity, even late in some acute cases. Yes, it is common. As with any foreign substance, not all bodies will respond the same way to heavy metal toxicity. This is why thallium toxicity is often misdiagnosed. This is even noted in several toxicology references on the subject of thallium toxicity. It is important to remember that, as I said before, it can save a life when the person experiencing toxicity symptoms dismisses thallium toxicity simply because they don't have alopecia. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.162.56 (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! Please do continue to improve the article further. Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I have allowed for more possibilities by rewording this further to "Thallium poisoning usually results in hair loss, although this characteristic symptom does not always surface." I think that gets the point that alopecia is common and characteristic but not present in all cases of Tl poisoning across. Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If it were up to you which one would you pick: a C0-to-C9 109-key grand piano or a C0-to-B8 108-key grand piano?[edit]

These guys are gonna produce a C0-to-B8 108-key grand piano in the coming months. From a purely visual point of view there's something to be said for a keyboard ending with either a C or an F key on the left and either a B or an E key on the right. But then again, there's something to be said, esthetically, for completing the octave ("from C to shining C"). Which way would you go? (Leaving technical issues aside) Basemetal 11:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go for completing the octave with a last top C9, of course! Where's the fun of the biggest scale run ever if you can't end on the high tonic? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Current normal keyboards and even their 102-key keyboard already end with those two slightly awkward looking white keys on the right. I told them but they won't listen. They'll have a few people asking: Why didn't you add a C9? There's this where they say that at C9 the string is at 90% (to keep enough length so that the hammer doesn't get stuck) and that's not enough margin. It's been only a few years that strings with the required tensile properties have become available. Maybe they should have waited a few more years. Basemetal 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by their idea of making a new standard of F0–F8 as the piano range. That would cover most of the "impossible" notes demanded or implied by the standard repertoire (e.g. Bartók piano sonata F0, Scriabin sixth piano sonata D8, a couple of G0's and G0's implied in Ravel; whether or not it includes all of them depends on whether you're including Busoni's transcriptions). Still, unless the notes are actually demanded or are obviously implied, I would be rather against adding the new notes willy-nilly to pieces that were not written with the expectation that they would become available; these things should be done on a case-by-case basis. Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying: Are pieces written with no expectation that they would one day be playable? And who is adding notes to pieces, except their composers? Not Stuart and Sons surely. They are only adding notes to piano keyboards. Basemetal 05:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No, of course just about all composers expect their pieces to be played, and provide makeshift solutions in the meantime (like A0 and A0 standing in for what should obviously be Fdouble sharp0 and G0 in some octave-doubling in Ravel's Scarbo). What I mean is a sort of analogical addition: for example, if I had a piano going down to F0, I would absolutely play the Fdouble sharp0 and G0 there even though they are not in the score, because it is obvious that Ravel would've written them if he could count on them being there.
There are a great deal of passages in early and middle Beethoven that imply this sort of analogy, as the piano range expanded from F1–F6 to C1–F7 over his lifetime. I'll give two examples: in op. 10 no. 1, there is a right-hand melody in octaves whose upper octave vanishes for one note when it would have to be the G6 he did not yet have, and in op. 90 there is a bass line in octaves that frustratingly cannot start from the low tonic because it would be the E1 he did not yet have. (I apologise for not providing music examples since that is difficult on my phone; I will put them up when I get home in some hours.) I would have no problem adding those notes, and since Beethoven rewrote his Third Piano Concerto to include the high notes up to C7 and planned to do so for his other early works, I think he would have agreed. But there are many cases where Beethoven has turned the limits of his keyboard into an advantage, either by expressively reshaping the line to avoid out-of-range notes (op. 31 no. 2), deliberately exploiting the frustrating disappearance and reappearance of doubling octaves to create an accent (op. 54), or by deliberately writing climaxes to reach the lowest or highest note on the keyboard (op. 106; I will provide the musical examples later). Since Beethoven deliberately avoided the E1 in op. 109/ii (despite having written a D1 in op. 109/i), I think he would also have agreed. The difficulty is deciding whether the music is more effective with or without the extra notes.
I suppose a slightly different thing would be if those unplayable notes were actually written into the score, presumably on the grounds of wishful thinking that they would soon not be unplayable. This has happened before: Schubert was evidently unsatisfied with the limit of F7 and wrote a G7 into the Piano Sonata D 625 of 1818, even though he did not have the note. (A decade later he was more prudent, writing a B6 into the Piano Sonata D 960 to instead of B7 implied by parallel passages.) The D8 in Scriabin's Sixth Sonata is the same sort of thing (the composer played C8 instead.) And then there are the works for 108-key piano listed in the pdf you link to, when the notes F8 through B8 (I still want a C9!) are not yet on anybody's piano (though they will soon come). But that is not so different; when the additions become standard, there is no need for all the guesswork I alluded to earlier, at the expense of forcing the performers to find their own makeshift solutions before that happens. Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. When you said "they won't listen", I'm curious: did they not reply to you, did they give technical justifications that C9 is too difficult to include, or did they give more personal justifications like how C0–B8 gives nine copies of each pitch class (as stated in the pdf)? Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
P.P.S. I'm still not terribly convinced by some of the extensions, because the highest notes like C8 already sound rather unconvincing to me (almost more percussive than anything else). Given that I can easily imagine a more convincing-sounding C8, I suspect that part of this is because these notes are too near to the edge, as noted in that pdf, but my inner ear has a terrible time imagining notes above about F8 as sounding musically useful for anything other than reinforcing the notes an octave below them, as indeed I feel for notes below about F0 (substitute "above" for "below"). But I think that at least the low F0 ought to be standard, and I wouldn't mind the high F8 either. Since I'd prefer that everything can be practiced on any piano (even if it doesn't sound as good), I must say I can't agree with the idea that pianos should gain more keys as they get higher-class, and would prefer to support a strict 8-octave range across all instruments as the standard of the future (since you can hardly put a C0 or a B8 on an average upright). I do admit though that "from F to shining F" doesn't work at all. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid "I told them but they won't listen" was just a joke. Something like: "I tried to tell Obama not to send in the SEALS but he didn't even return my call". I can only speculate but I would guess that the real reason they went for B8 rather than C9 was primarily technical. They might have tried to justify it a posteriori with that idiosyncratic "every note exactly nine times, wow" which is both anti-musical and anti-pianistic but I hope that's not the primary reason, because that would be sad. I think Stuart and Corbin are not pianists, but Paulello is. (Like, hello? You didn't know the piano was biased towards C major? Ever noticed all those white keys?) Btw, what do you think of Paulello's "parallel strung and bar-less concert grand", at least as an idea? Basemetal 13:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
PS: Regarding that test with that Omega 6 frame I was slightly puzzled by two things. The first thing was, why exactly did they have to test all of those 6 x 3 strings? Wasn't it enough to just test one string at the maximum tension they wanted to reach? (Besides Omega ⅓ is not a fatty acid, that's an added bonus. Or is it?) They were clearly testing the string not the frame, so... Or, if the reason was they wanted to test a range of values and gain some experience with how things go in practice (which would have been useful in case say B8 and Bb8 failed, contrary to prediction, but not A8, so they would know they could at least go to A8) it sounds even more useful to also test to a few values above B8, I don't know, F#8 to E9 for example (or whatever sounds reasonable, and avoids a fatty acid's name), in order to gain practical experience with the behavior above the theoretically predicted tolerance. It doesn't seem like it would have made the test a lot more difficult or expensive. (And is Omega 11 a fatty acid?) And the second thing is, how come their testing set-up didn't include the action of the hammer? Or is the wear and tear due to the hammer hitting the string negligible in comparison with the string staying constantly under tension? Basemetal 14:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm afraid I'm much more well-versed in piano playing than piano making (i.e. I know next to nothing about the latter), so all I can say is that the result sounds very good! ^_^ One idea I know enough about to certainly get behind is the nickel-plating of the piano wire; it's high time piano manufacturers adapted to string piano technique! The piano's bias towards C major is certainly obvious, and it makes modulation present to the pianist not only through the brain and ears but also through the fingers, as Charles Rosen has remarked in Piano Notes (not to mention making all those atonal works harder to play). The ω nomenclature only makes sense for positive integers after the ω, and properly refers to classes of fatty acids rather than single acids. I'll likewise have to bow out in the face of your questions and only nod and murmur in assent. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, here are the first two Beethoven examples I mentioned (where adding the missing notes is what I'd like to think every reasonable pianist would do). First Op. 10 No. 1 (missing high G-flat):

Beethoven missing high notes Op 10 No 1.png

and Op. 90 (missing low E):

Beethoven missing low notes Op 90.png

Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And now for some examples when adding the extra range is not advisable, or at least should not be done without thinking in the case of Op. 54. First from the finale of Op. 31 No. 2, where Beethoven reshapes the line expressively, repeating the high D6 for its pathetic effect:

Beethoven exposition Op 31 No 2.png

(the above from the exposition)

Beethoven recapitulation Op 31 No 2.png

(the above from the recapitulation). Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(Incidentally Henle Blog covers this issue, as does of course Rosen's excellent monograph Beethoven's Piano Sonatas: A Short Companion, who also uses the same examples of Opp. 31/2, 54, and 106.) And now the finale of Op. 54: should the octave marks really stop at the F1 (lending a weight to their return on the upbeat), or should we keep supplying them to the low D1? (I'm personally of the opinion that it's OK to continue adding them, but here the answer is not so simple):

Beethoven missing low notes Op 54.png

Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And from the fugue of the Hammerklavier Op. 106 (where I agree with Rosen that adding the low B0 is a mistake, because it spoils the climax on the dominant ninth on C soon afterwards):

Beethoven missing low notes Op 106.png

Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Whew! Captain double sharp at it again! But there's something I don't get. You don't have to use all the keys your keyboard has just because it has them. What do you mean by saying that those last cases are ones, not where it is not advisable to use the keys in the extra range, but where having the extra range at all is not advisable? Basemetal 17:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'm speaking imprecisely. There's no problem having the extra range on your keyboard; just don't add those notes to the scores without thinking. There is admittedly a little bit of effect that is lost when it's no longer clear that a note was then the highest or lowest on the keyboard, but increasingly in the later Beethoven these limits are implied by the music itself (hence that passage in op. 106 written to climax on the low C1, making the absence of the B0 not only necessary but also desirable; that is why in op. 109/ii the music clearly warns against using the low notes that actually were already on his keyboard). Sometimes difficulties do arise, though, as in the ending of Debussy's L'isle joyeuse, which may lose a bit of effect when that final A0 isn't the end of the keyboard; I presume this is the reason for those removable key covers. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. From Henle Blog again, here is the companion piece on Beethoven's extensions of range in the treble (the link I gave you first focuses mostly on the bass). Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to your information I have now added F8 through B8 to the list of Piano key frequencies on Wikipedia! Double sharp (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I've thanked Droog Andrey for reopening the discussion and now I can't help but feel I should say the same to you for not abandoning it. These efforts of yours are exactly the thing that keep the project go on. Thank you very much and please keep it up.--R8R (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! I certainly don't intend to stop. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello,your writing style is too good to read easily. I've a question related to wikipedia. Sonia magsi (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sonia magsi: I'm not sure if that's a good thing! Please do go ahead and ask me your question. I'll try to either answer or point you to somewhere you can get an answer. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Languages[edit]

Since you have two native languages and know many foreign ones I can't help but wonder: do you not have such awkward moments when you want to say something but you've only come up with how to say it using a word or a phrase of another language and keep that embarrassing silence trying to figure out what that would be in the language you're currently speaking? I've recently noticed I run into this problem in my life: when talking in Russian, I come up with a good phrase to say but that phrase is in English and then I suffer for a few seconds trying to find a Russian equivalent or something close enough, fail to do so, and then just try to explain what I wanted to say. I guess my English is influencing my Russian in a bad way, after all. Speaking of which, what do you think: does my Russian negatively influence my English? Do I make mistakes in general often; if so, which kind? I know I'm not the one to judge on this, so a second party's opinion would be very welcome.--R8R (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Page stalker here. We'll let Captain double sharp sleep for now (he'll no doubt have things to say when he wakes up) and in the meantime I'll throw in my two cents worth. I hope that's ok with you. I'm barging in uninvited, even though you didn't ask me anything, so if it's not, apologies, and you are hereby invited to delete this whole post of mine. From what I've seen on this page I find your English very good. I've looked just now at your user page, and I can find almost no mistake. Here are the few things I would change:
  • "note for self" change to "note to self",
  • "have a calm chat to reach consensus rather than edit wars" change to "have a calm chat to reach consensus rather than engage in edit wars",
  • "a post [...] I wrote to Wikimedia" change to "a post [...] I wrote for Wikimedia".
As to the title of that post for Wikimedia, unless "periodically" was an intentional pun on the "periodic table", instead of: "Why I periodically write on the elements on Wikipedia" I would have written (too late now): "Why I regularly write about elements on Wikipedia". "On elements" rather than "on the elements" because it seems your contributions are more often to various articles each having as a subject an individual element rather than to articles dealing with the concept of chemical element, or the perodic table, say. Basemetal 19:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, indeed, you are correct. As for the title, it is indeed a pun on the periodic table but it also reflects how there often periods when I cannot very actively edit articles, like in 2014, 2016, or right now. I think the post must make it clear enough. Actually, it is the only thing in that post the authorship of which I cannot claim, so this one is not on me!
Thank you very much for willing to help and offer an opinion. It is very considerate of you to do so. I indeed do make such small mistakes sometimes, sometimes when I am suddenly puzzled how to write a phrase I would normally have no difficulty to write and sometimes when I just don't pay enough attention to my own writing.--R8R (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, if there were long periods when you didn't contribute and then you came back, and that happened with a certain regularity, then "periodically" is definitely the better adverb. I hadn't considered that possibility. My mistake.
I believe the best strategy for improving one's English (or any language) is to let it flow naturally and just say and write what comes to one's mind, and then rely on others to offer corrections, because if you constantly monitor yourself and check and recheck your writing, then that tension itself can stand in the way. Making mistakes is the way to learn, and while you're engaged in the act of writing or speaking is no longer the time for training. You just go. It's like the player of a musical instrument. You do your scales and exercises, and work on your technique, and on the pieces and their technical difficulties at home. When you perform you just have to think about the performance and not worry about technique, mistakes, and so on. So don't check and recheck you English. Just write and speak. Just ask people to correct your mistakes as they occur. That assumes of course you're surrounded with people who are willing to do that, which is not always the case, and it's not always easy to convince people to start doing it, if they don't do it of themselves. Also that doesn't mean you stop learning and "working on your technique": you should continue listening, reading, learning grammar and vocabulary, doing exercises, etc. But that should be kept separate from the actual "performance", i.e. using English in real life. When you speak or write forget about all those. The only goal now should be to express what you want to say, to "perform", and to hell with grammar, correction, and the like. At least that's how I see language learning. Basemetal 12:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. I've been through that period of being not confident in my English and at some point I realized this naturally. Learning German was easier in part because I had already learned that by the time when I picked it. And anyway, I am confident that my English now must be good enough not to embarrass myself even though my literary skills could probably use some improvement. I described my thought process quite sincerely: I noticed how I sometimes come up with good phrases in English when speaking Russian, decided to check if other people had this problem, too, wrote this question (unfortunately enough, most my friends don't even know English as well as I do, not to mention any second foreign languages; by the way, this also has helped me build confidence in my own English basically throughout my entire life, since I was three, I guess), and while I was at it, I also asked about my skills in general, it never hurts to know that. I appreciate you giving this advice though: it was really valuable to realize this so if it had only come just now from you, you'd have helped me a whole lot. So thank you very much for that.--R8R (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, I absolutely do have that problem sometimes, especially if I haven't been using a language enough recently. I find your English very good in general, though I tend to find mistakes on article usage more often than the others. I'll write a more detailed reply when I have time to look through dubnium (which realistically is going to be Friday or the weekend at least, along with more fixes to nihonium), which should give me a large chunk of your writing to examine. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This sort of mistakes seems quite natural when we're talking about foreign languages so I hope you don't mind me making sure: does this happen with your native languages as well?
Thank you! But I hope you don't mind me clarifying that: is it actually the case or is it the politeness the English language itself is almost obliging you to express? If the latter is the case and there is something more to it, I'd rather love to hear that. If you need some more time to give it a good thought, please take it.--R8R (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No, it really is the case. What you described does sometimes happen with my native languages, but definitely not as often as with foreign languages; it happens more often for Chinese than for English, because I don't use it as much. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, it's great to know. Eagerly awaiting your responses in the nihonium PR and dubnium FAC!--R8R (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
That can happen even with native speakers who are fluent at the highest level in their language. Especially when the various languages, be they ever so fluent, have a kind of division of labor, where one is used to use one in one domain and another in another domain. There's an anecdote about Blaise Pascal who was not only a native French speaker but truly one of the masters of French prose (Lettres provinciales, etc.) In a letter he was writing to Fermat who had asked him about a problem of probability theory he starts the letter in French and then after a short while switches to Latin writing (in French) "car le français n'y vaut rien" ("French is worthless for this", namely mathematics). When it came to mathematics Pascal apparently was only comfortable and at home thinking and writing in Latin, trying to express his mathematical ideas in French felt just too artificial and laborious, no matter how good he was with French otherwise. Basemetal 16:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding earlier. I've given your comment some thought and I absolutely see that. Discussing politics, for example, in Russian and in English would result in two different talks at all. Come to think of that, this has probably to do with the fact that Russian politics never (maybe that's an exaggeration. Very rarely, however, it was) was really defined by some elements so very common to the English language like liberalism or personal freedoms (or at least that's how people are used to think about it). Even talking about the same thing in these languages would probably feel different. Same probably goes with many things: not only does the language itself affect the talks, but so does the cultural context around it. And that's talking about two languages that, despite their differences, generally share most concepts or at least have similar ones when exact replacements are not available. By the way, have you read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four? The higher government in that book, Ingsoc, which controlled every aspect of their population---even thoughts---sought to reduce the original English language to a crudely simplified version of it, the so-called Newspeak, which would even have no concepts and no words at all for what the government did not want to even appear in people's thoughts, like revolutions or desire for more personal freedom, for example. This book really touched me when I first read it; I was sixteen or seventeen at that moment. Its very genre implies things are overly exaggerated but that aspect of it seemed plausible and for me, it still does.--R8R (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I've read through some of it (and really ought to get around to finishing it at some point), and I agree with what you say: it's no doubt quite heavy-handed, but has a great deal of force and really touches the reader. In the spirit of WP:WHAAOE, I'll link to linguistic relativity. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I am surprised to hear the book hasn't immediately gotten you to get it through yourself in its entirety! But yes, the book is absolutely worth it. By the way, while this book is indeed "heavy-handed," as you put it, if it gets you, you may want to try Huxley's Brave New World. It seems not nearly as "heavy" as Nineteen Eighty-Four, but very thrilling nonetheless and hitting you hard by the end. These two books belong to world classics and you may guess that is for a reason (even given the ambiguity of that claim). I actually know very few other books of that genre.--R8R (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
(Writing that to you actually prompted me to acquire another copy of Brave New World and begin to re-read it. I couldn't help but wonder where the sequence of events would actually lead me, even though I generally remembered the plot.--R8R (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of Silicon[edit]

@Double sharp: Seems like Legobot did not update you about the nom, and I'm here to tell you that I've took up the review and have left some comments on the review page. The article is currently on hold, and i hope that you would be able to respond to these issues. Regards, 1.02 editor (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: Working on it – although I am currently rather low on time, so I'd like to request that the review remain on hold for two weeks instead of the usual one (unless I somehow manage to get everything done early). Thanks for taking this. Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter[edit]

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

  • United States Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
  • Germany FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
  • India Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
  • United States Ceranthor, India Numerounovedant, Minnesota Carbrera, Netherlands Farang Rak Tham and Romania Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

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 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. 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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

To practice your French and have a laugh[edit]

If you want to practice your French and be entertained at the same time here's a lecture at the Collège de France you may enjoy (especially if you're a fan of the Second Viennese School). Basemetal 18:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC) PS: "The mistakes I will inevitably perpetuate"? Do you mean "perpetrate"? Face-confused.svg Basemetal 18:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be "perpetrate". This sort of thing happens when two words are fairly similar and I type one more often than the other: I'd never mess this up while talking, but I certainly would while typing. I'll check your link out! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I was kind of confused. I thought, hmm, "perpetuate" may mean what the captain was saying was some of the mistakes he makes in German or Polish have been with English speakers, or Chinese speakers, or his family, or whatever, for generations. But then again I thought, lighting my pipe: "Hmm, what mistakes could those be"? So then I decided it was a lot more likely it was a typo, especially as I noticed there was only one letter difference, those two letters were on the same row of a Qwerty keyboard, and are produced with the same finger of the right and left hand respectively, and the captain is possibly left-handed or ambidextrous. But just to make entirely sure, and especially to make sure I won't miss a possibly extremely interesting account of "inherited" mistakes in German and/or Polish among a group of Homo Sapiens speaking English or Chinese or both, I decided to ask the captain. Basemetal 07:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
A round of applause for your deductions! I regret to say that I am not left-handed (must...not...link...TV...Tropes) but right-handed, and although I find left-hand alone typing easier than right-hand alone typing that is probably because (1) my mouse would be in my right hand, leaving my left hand free more often and (2) most of the common letters are on the left side of the keyboard. The latter sort of reason (a layout giving a natural advantage for the left hand) is also why there are more pieces for piano left hand alone than piano right hand alone, because the stronger fingers of the left hand are playing the higher notes where the melody usually is. I also regret to have revealed your suggested interesting account to be only a beautiful dream; this almost made me want to reinstate the typo. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Did you finally check out the lecture? Basemetal 15:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
No, but I should have time to over this weekend. ^_^ Thanks for reminding me about this! Double sharp (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
You write on your user page: "I do not think my understanding of Webern's Variations improved that significantly after finding out what the tone row it used actually was". How did you find out? Basemetal 00:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure, since I first encountered that piece quite early (I think it might have been my first exposure to Webern). Either I looked it up or I was shown it when that work was used as an example for analysing a 12-tone piece; I certainly didn't analyse it myself to find out what it was. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Let us say two competent musicians familiar with the technique (let us assume they are themselves practitioners of that technique) analyze the same 12-tone piece, do they always come up with the same answer as to the tone row it is based on, or can there be (legitimate) differences of opinion? Basemetal 03:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you could have legitimate differences of opinion on the row itself; I suspect you might be able to argue about which form is the prime form, though there wouldn't be much point in doing that. Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
And is that analysis something that can be done by someone who just listens to the piece, on the fly? Basemetal 03:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I doubt it. But then again, I also don't think it has to be done if you just want to perform it effectively. When a competent composer wants analytical concerns to be an important part of the discourse for the listener (and not only for the analyst seeking to understand how it was done), he makes them audible. Double sharp (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Basemetal: I've started listening to the lecture (I'm a bit short of complete hours so I may have to split it over a few days). This is the same one discussed at fr:Jérome Ducrôs#La polémique du Collège de France fr:Jérôme Ducros#La polémique du Collège de France, isn't it? I think I can manage to be unbiased here: after all, I have written both tonal and atonal pieces, sometimes as part of the same work. ^_^ (Yes, I try to be as contradictory as Schoenberg!) Double sharp (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

All right, he's gotten ten minutes in (with his demonstration) and I already disagree. Here is, once again, the fallacy of assuming that pitch is the primary element of atonal music. It simply isn't. There are instead many elements working together, where pitch is only one of them of equal importance with texture and rhythm, which work together to recreate consonance and dissonance. So here are some relevant quotes from Charles Rosen's monograph on Schoenberg to illustrate this, because I can hardly do better (pp. 49–50):

...It is clear that wrong notes matter less in Schoenberg and in many of his contemporaries such as Richard Strauss [whose music, I should note, is for the most part categorisable as "tonal"] than they do in Mozart or Wagner: they are even in fact less noticeable. This does not mean that the music of Schoenberg does not sound a good deal better when it is played with the right notes and proper intonation, just as Mozart sounds best when played with the proper dynamics and a great sensitivity to tone color.

From time to time there appear malicious stories of eminent conductors who have not realized that, in a piece of Webern or Schoenberg, the clarinettist, for example, picked up an A instead of a B-flat clarinet and played his part a semitone off. These recurrent tales, often true, do not have the significance given them by those critics who believe that music should have stopped before Debussy, as each individual line in Schoenberg's music and even in Webern's later pointillist style defines a harmonic sense that, even when transposed, can fit into the general harmony of the work as a whole. (Here we must remember that harmony is conveyed as powerfully along a musical line as it is by a simultaneous chord.)

As a result, I will proudly say that I did not notice anything wrong, and applaud his performance of Schoenberg's op. 23 no. 5, which captured the charm of the Viennese waltz that it is wonderfully. Of course, I think it might sound even better if the notes had been right, but it is no more of an issue to me than the question of whether a phrase was played forte or piano in Mozart – which, I will note, Mozart seems not always to have been terribly sure about, looking at the differences between the autographs and the first editions of some of his works. (Incidentally, I think that he should have taken the Allegretto of Beethoven's op. 31 no. 2 slower, as Rosen suggests following what Allegretto meant for Beethoven, so that the tenor A is actually audible as a syncopated bass: but this is not obviously wrong, it just sounds better if you do it at the right tempo. That would have been a much better comparison with what wrong notes mean for Schoenberg – or Debussy, who I suspect many of those people who dislike atonality like.) Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Listening further, we come to Ducrôs' contention that in tonality we can distinguish possibilities from impossibilities, but in atonality anything is possible. It so happens that Rosen addresses this too (pp. 19–22):

...A musical system such as tonality provides a semblance of stability, a way of distinguishing musical sense from nonsense, while allowing that free play of meaning which makes the composer's work possible.

The so-called "breakdown of tonality" at the end of the end of the nineteenth century revealed to what extent this exterior stability was an illusion; more precisely, it was a construction that depended substantially on the individual works on of music much more than a linguistic system depends on individual acts of speech. ...

... the conditions for understanding [musical language] must—at least partially—be made evident in the work itself. The process of establishing the conditions for the intelligibility is as important in Mozart as in Schoenberg. But it is less visible in Mozart, whose work seems to refer to a stable outside system. Each composer, too, both establishes the structure of that system and, in many cases, transcends it by an extraordinarily free play with the elements of music. This free play is easily to be found in Schoenberg, but the explicit reference to an exterior and relatively stable system of meanings has almost vanished. ...

Between Mozart and Schoenberg, what disappeared was the possibility of using large blocks of prefabricated material in music. The meaning of an element of form in Mozart was given essentially by the structure of each work, but that element was sometimes a large cadential formula lasting many measures. ... The common language in music was, in essence, the acceptance of such very large units at certain strategic points—in general, the ends of sections, or cadences.

By the end of the nineteenth century, these blocks of prefabricated material were no longer acceptable to composers with styles as widely variant as Debussy, Schoenberg, and Skryabin. To employ these blocks of material resulted immediately in pastiche: giving them up, however, led to a kind of panic. It seemed as if music now had to be written note by note ... The renunciation of the symmetrical use of blocks of elements in working out musical proportions placed the weight on the smallest units, single intervals, short motifs.

The expressive values of these tiny elements therefore took on an inordinate significance; they replaced syntax. These expressive values were, however, derived directly from tonal music. And since they took a preponderant role in composition it was obvious that a composer would chose elements with the most powerful, even the most violent, values, as these small elements now had to do the work of much larger groups. ... In his sometimes obsessive and almost despairing reliance on the traditional expressive values to create works of music during this great period, Schoenberg was paradoxically more dependent on an exterior system, on a hidden assumption of a "common language," than Mozart, whose music does not refer to but conveys a traditional system of meaning while it creates a new one.

(I tried to cut down the quotes to the bare minimum to get the point across.)
And it does not matter so much if the listener cannot guess what is coming next, if the logic of what is going on is carried through so strongly, especially with the violence and power behind the expressive possibilities of these small elements that have replaced syntax, that the listener cannot help being moved along with it. Certainly this is most obvious in works with nonmusical impulses: Erwartung, Moses und Aron, the Music for a Film Sequence, or even the String Trio. But musical impulses can provide this needed force as well, as in Webern's absolute symmetry and Schoenberg's and Berg's long melodies imitating those of tonality. And it is certainly possible to distinguish between Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. If it is harder to distinguish many of the not-so-good composers writing in this style – well, Schoenberg himself wrote in Style and Idea: "Composition with twelve tones has no other aim than comprehensibility. ... But, though it seems to increase the listener's difficulties, it compensates for this deficiency by penalizing the composer. For composing thus does not become easier, but rather ten times more difficult. Only the better-prepared composer can compose for the better-prepared music lover." Certainly, there are many mediocre atonal compositions. There are also many mediocre tonal compositions – and, increasingly, we hear mostly mediocre neotonal compositions which pretend to be tonal and yet have no ability to give meaning to harmonic relations. But if this is so, it is not the fault of atonality; it is just that writing good music, that some amateurs will insist on hearing, requires a musical language that is capable of more than creating signature catchphrases. (And here I'll again recommend Rosen's monograph on Schoenberg with the highest praise: all of its 105 pages are of the quality of what you see quoted above, and I do not know of any better introduction to that master.) Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
LOL. I knew that you'd have a blast with this. I must insist that I have absolutely not even the tiniest pooch in this fight, it's just that enjoy watching pro wrestling, especially intellectual pro wrestling. Keep watching at your own leisurely pace ten minutes a day (I do that all the time, especially with Indian movies Face-smile.svg) and I'm eagerly waiting for more of your thoughtful and eloquent arguments. In any case your arguments (and Rosen's) so far are much better than some I've heard in France that sometimes were just grabbing at straws ("he on purpose chose tonal excerpts that were longer than his atonal ones") or were nothing but ad hominem attacks ("Ducros's and Beffa's music's mediocre anyway"). Well, ok, that's more the spirit than literal quotes, so don't hold me to them. By the way you misplaced your accent circonflexe: it's on "Jerôme" not "Ducros". I corrected what I thought were three typos. I hope they were and that it was ok. Thanks for the link to the French Wikipedia article, I hadn't even realized Ducros had a Wikipedia page, let alone that there was there a whole section about "la polémique..." Basemetal 17:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and sorry for accidentally misplacing the circumflex! Yes, those were typos and it's completely fine with me that you fixed them. I'll try my best to live up to your high expectations when I next write! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

An idea for you to think about[edit]

I am very curious if we can put it to work.

I am very proud of how I wrote lead. I'd want to make more stuff like that, and you know I've already chosen the articles I want to go for: aluminium, iron, and gold. This probably won't be happening in a few months at least, but I want to go there eventually. While working on lead, it occurred to me that as well as it went down, I think I could use a little more creativity on the "natural science" sections, namely Physical properties and Compounds and I think that's you should fit in so perfectly. Besides, a second pair of eyes on anything else shouldn't do any harm. Likewise, I'd want to watch out for you, too, because you sometimes seem to get overly excited over something and write on and on about it :) I guess I'd also want a say on structures of sections and the like; of course, you'll get that as well.

So I'd like to suggest we write those three together (or maybe let's start with one and see how it goes from there), with you responsible over those two "natural science" sections (and probably something else if you want) and myself responsible on "human importance" sections like History and Production (I feel you'll to keep an eye on this one as well; that's okay). As I said, this won't be happening for a few months at least, realistically not until June at the earliest, so for now, as you've seen in the title of this section, it's an idea to think about. But I feel that if you agree, that should be great!--R8R (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Why, I absolutely do like this idea, especially after thorium. ^_^ Since you've already started on Al, I'd probably start with that one soon. Fe is already a GA, so it's more a matter of improving what's already there (from what I remember I think I covered those sections reasonably well in 2016, although of course I could have overlooked something). I also like the idea of doing it for Au and finishing off the transition metals topic, which would give me a great motivation to actually go back and look through all of them: I keep forgetting about some of the early d-block metals like Y, Zr, and Nb. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm feel great about how you're into the idea. But as I said, I won't be able to really start for a few months at least and I'd hate to see this idea taking your attention from your current projects. I'd certainly want you to get nihonium featured before we begin, for instance, as this is an earlier project which you certainly should finish first (and it's a cool one, I think you wouldn't want to abandon it anyway, right?). In April/May/(June), I'd want to focus on a seemingly small task of getting history of aluminium featured and I've got another thing to do (more on that sometime later as I'd hate to talk about it without getting it done). To summarize it, I'm very glad you like the idea but I also want you to get your current tasks done first (which is totally fine since I won't be available for the task for a while anyway).
When we do begin, though, I'd indeed want to start off with aluminium exactly because I'd already started to work on it myself some time ago.--R8R (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course, Nh will be first, but it's close to FAC-ready and I don't think there's much resistance left in its path there. ^_^ I was speaking of the time after that one gets done (and if I have some spare time I'd still want to clean out the rest of our C-class articles like I started doing in late 2016). Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for misunderstanding. If there are no more active tasks of yours other than nihonium, then you're more than welcome to begin to work on aluminium after you have submitted nihonium to FAC! If you do, I'll try my best to hurry and catch up to you.--R8R (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I have some drafted rewrites of these sections at User:Double sharp/Aluminium. ^_^ It's still very much in progress (and nihonium comes first), so there is not actually a lot there, although I have some idea in my head on how the finished product ought to look. Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I see what direction you're trying to go; this reminds me of what I've done with lead. Probably this is indeed the best direction to go. Also, feel free to use my scribbles I wrote in the first section in the main article (I'm not asking you to do so, though, as I am not very pleased with it).--R8R (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I've been considering your scribbles. ^_^ I do want to ask one thing about them, though: are we sure we want to cover electron configuration under Physical characteristics? This and the ionic radius to me seem to segue more naturally into talking about chemistry as I've started doing (the main point it leads to for me is that the Al3+ cation is hard because it has a true noble gas core that shields the valence electrons well, but is also strongly polarising because it is small). Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems natural to me to go do so. I was actually having in mind the structure of fluorine as I wrote that. It also came out nicely, even if differently, don't you think? The structure seems good for a light element to me. And come to think of it, it sort of is a physical property as it is governed by the laws of physics rather than chemistry. However, as I said, you're in charge now :) If you think Chemistry will work better, you're more than welcome to give it a try. If it won't come out as well as you have wanted, we have backup options with the structures of fluorine and lead. And you may remember I have always preferred telling a story and then choosing headers for parts of that story to fixing some headers and then forcing a story to those headers.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Pythagorean scale and theory of intervals[edit]

What I call the common theory of intervals within Western theory is: interval designations (unison, 2nd, 3rd, and so on ad infinitum) along with modifiers (perfect, major, minor, augmented, diminished, twice augmented, twice diminished, thrice augmented, thrice diminished, and so on ad infinitum), where they fit on the circle of 5ths (of how many 5ths they are composed), the relation between simple and compound intervals, note designations (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) along with modifiers (natural, sharp, flat, double sharp, double flat, triple sharp, triple flat, and so on ad infinitum), and their intervalic relationships in terms described above. All this requires nothing but 2 and 3 and is in one-to-one relation with the Pythagorean scale and no other. I think what you say about the concept of enharmony requiring 12TET and concepts of consonance requiring just intonation and overtones (up to a point at least for the "natural" part of the justification and how far "natural" explanations go is a matter of debate) is true. They're just not part of the theory of intervals I'd say. Also "exotic" intervals such as major and minor tones, etc. are not really part of the common theory of intervals I'd say. Basemetal 08:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that interval names assume Pythagorean tuning. To my mind all they assume is some kind of 5-limit temperament where the syntonic comma 81:80 is set to zero. You could use our interval names just as well for quarter-comma meantone without running into any inconsistencies. Yes, in Pythagorean intonation C is higher than D, while in quarter-comma meantone C is lower than D, but there is nothing in the theory of intervals that passes sentence on this. So you have a continuum of possible tunings of the perfect fifth as given in syntonic temperament and all of them are consistent with our note names. Along the way you have some points where the fifth is an exact fraction of the octave and you get some equal division of the octave with exotic enharmonic equivalences, like 17 or 19 equal temperament: the limits are when the diatonic and chromatic semitones are set to zero and we get 5 or 7 equal temperament respectively. In particular 12 equal temperament is the singular point where the diesis is set to zero and C equals D: I agree with you in considering the setting of the diesis to zero to be something that is true in 12-TET but is a further addition over the intervallic names, which are syntonic temperament. There are other ways to consider 12-TET (it tempers out a lot of commas), but considering it as a form of meantone is indeed theoretically privileged, and this is I think because this way makes things as simple as possible, but not simpler. If you were shopping for syntonic temperaments, you'd want one that lets you actually modulate (so not 5-TET or 7-TET), but also doesn't force you to make distinctions because harmony favours a positive diesis and melody favours a negative one (so not 17-TET, 19-TET, or anything beyond), and 12-TET is the only one falling in the Goldilocks zone. Likewise, meantone is the easiest way to write 12-TET while retaining perfect triads as a basis (try writing it as a schismatic temperament to see what I mean). This is of course not the historical reasoning for 12-TET, but everything in music is necessarily overdetermined, after all. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Although I wonder if the lack of use of some interval names is precisely because 12-TET is used in practice, even if the theoretical basis is syntonic temperament. Do you ever hear about diminished seconds (dieses)? We hear about enharmonic equivalence indeed; we hear about both augmented seconds and minor thirds; but we don't hear very much about the diesis because you can hardly hear it as either a harmonic or a melodic interval in 12-TET. I wonder if it is really possible to imply in 12-TET a harmonic or melodic interval that is at least as far up the stack of fifths as the augmented seventh or diminished second; I think you might even be able to explain away the augmented third and diminished sixth. So all those doubly-augmented and doubly-diminished intervals are a theoretical conceit for 12-TET at best IMHO. Double sharp (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you do accept that in Western theory: (1) every interval has a given 5th content (i.e. can be placed on the circle of 5ths), and (2) there's no identification of any of those intervals (i.e. aug 4th is distinct from dim 5th, aug unison is distinct from min 2nd, etc.), but you're saying that nothing assumes that 5th is 3/2? Is that correct? And because of (2) that 5th would have to be such that it never folds into the 8ve. Correct? Basemetal 11:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I accept (1); for (2) I'm saying that the identification of the A4 with the d5 and all those other enharmonic equivalences are not part of how we name intervals, but that doesn't mean they're not part of Western theory, which is certainly more than just intervals. ^_^ To be clear I'll stick to the common theory of intervals and not go further than that for the rest of this posting. Now, I don't mean that A4 cannot equal d5; I just mean that it does not have to equal d5. There is no assumption that A4 = d5 and so on, but there is also no probihition on it being so. Nothing assumes that the 5th is 3/2, but nothing assumes that it isn't either. Nothing assumes that the 5th can fold into the 8ve, but nothing assumes that it isn't either. Things are perfectly consistent if A4 = d5, perfectly consistent if A4 < d5, and perfectly consistent if A4 > d5. To my mind, questions like "how large is the 5th really" and "where does the stack of fifths loop back on itself" are simply unanswerable in the interval-naming system, and require the postulation of enharmonic equivalence to answer; adding that postulate gives us the bedrock of full Western music theory. The relationship between the system implied by how we name intervals and 12-TET is thus kind of like that between absolute geometry and Euclidean geometry. Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Describing enharmonic modulations w/o mentioning enharmony[edit]

There must be a way to describe what goes on in an enharmonic modulation w/o using the fact that when you write it down in the common notation system you need to respell certain notes. After all you can hear an enharmonic modulation. Your hearing doesn't depend on whether the work is written as a score in common notation, or in 12 tone notation, or as a piano roll. How would you do it? Basemetal 08:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it's possible or desirable to do that. First of all, I need to clarify that there are two sorts of enharmonic modulations. The first sort is when the harmony can be explained without invoking enharmonic equivalence, but doing so would take us into inconveniently double-sharped or double-flatted keys. What 12-TET does there is identify enharmonic notes so that the submediant of A-flat minor is not only F-flat major but also E major, which becomes the same thing. Now, if you exit this theoretical-key region by the same way you came in, there is no problem and you can simply analyse the section as F-flat major spelt as E major for convenience. But if you keep going that way round the circle of fifths and return to the tonic key, as in the first movement of the Appassionata, then you are forced to admit that E and F-flat mean the same as tonics, as the alternative is to admit that the principle of unity of key is overthrown and that we start in F minor and end in A-quadruple-flat minor, which is absurd. If you like, E-natural and F-flat have a different meaning if we are in a D-flat major context; the first is a form of the supertonic while the second is a form of the mediant. But there is no difference between an E major context and an F-flat major context.
The second sort is when explaining the harmony requires a single note to play the role of both enharmonic versions. Modulating via the augmented sixth chord is as good an example as any: C–G7–F7–B takes you from C major to B major, and in the second chord the seventh is approached as F and quitted as E. But this is simply the same principle as the first, only on a smaller scale. Sure, there is a difference in meaning between E-natural and F-flat, as stated above. But the important thing is that they are realised as the same frequency, and therefore it is possible to use that frequency in such a way that it could have either meaning. This is really no more mysterious than using a single note so that it could imply multiple triadic harmonisations. It's the same thing as I said about 12-TET being aware of its Pythagorean heritage: the distinction between enharmonic notes never exists in terms of pure frequencies (at least ideally), but whether it exists in the notes' meanings depends on context. Writing a note as E-natural or F-flat is simply a way of writing down which meaning it has within the context of diatonic scales, and the different appearances are simply forced on us if the system is to remain constant no matter which note you are starting from at the moment. Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Your first kind of enharmonic modulation I don't consider to be really an enharmonic modulation at all. Every modulation in the chain could be a plain vanilla neighboring key diatonic modulation with a pivot chord such as to the key of the dominant. During no modulation in the chain would you hear the sound of a real enharmonic modulation. In such cases the enharmonic respelling is just a matter of convenience. You can avoid if, as you say, you're ready to go with cumbersome notations involving remote accidentals. For example you could rewrite going around the circle of 5ths from C to C as a modulation from C to B. You'll see that is not true of the second (true) kind of enharmonic modulation.
The point you make for the second kind of modulation is well known. Except I don't understand your actual example? Where is the German 6th? You wrote two dominant 7th chords. What you wrote looks to me like a chromatic modulation. Could you make the voice leading explicit? (Incidentally I'd always thought in the case of enharmonic modulation you only need one chord, not two). In any case, to make my point about the fact that in a true enharmonic modulation there's always gonna be some respelling (which explains why enharmonic modulations sound the way they do), here is an example. Take this modulation from C major to F major (I'm giving the voice leading, in 4 parts; of course it's in only one chord, a German 6th in F. I'm just making explicit the respelling from the dominant 7th of C major):
E - F = E - F
G - B = B - A
E - D = D - C
C - G = G - F
Now watch what happens when I rewrite this as a modulation from C major to G major:
E - F = F - G
G - B = C - B
E - D = Edouble flat - D
C - G = Adouble flat - G
The F no longer needs to be respelled, but now it is the B that must be respelled as a C. I think that is the mark of a true enharmonic modulation: the note that is respelled will be different when you rewrite it, but there will be some note you need to respell. Those modulations have a characteristic sound.
Incidentally your use of the word "quit" in "the seventh is approached as F and quitted as E" sounds French to me ("la septième est approchée en tant que fa bécarre et quittée en tant que mi dièse"). I might be wrong, and of course "quit" does have the meaning "leave" in English too, but I've never seen it used like this in English. Have you been hanging out with French speakers or French treatises lately?
But to get back to my question, you say it is neither possible or desirable to do what I asked. But which is it? Not desirable or not possible? If it's not possible the matter of desirability becomes moot.
Basemetal 06:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The voice leading between the dominant sevenths (the first one being reinterpreted in hindsight as a German sixth) goes down in parallel semitones. (Yes, yes, I know it creates parallel fifths, but hey, if Mozart uses them, they must be OK, and you have them in your example as well! ^_^) When you hear the G7 the top note is obviously F; but after the F7 and B you're forced to mentally reinterpret it as having been E all along. "Quit" can certainly be used this way in English; Ebenezer Prout did it, after all.
I think the only thing that distinguishes enharmonic modulations is indeed that you need to assume 12-TET enharmonic equivalence for them, which is why I said that the basic scale of Western music is a 12-TET that is very much in touch with its Pythagorean heritage. All modulations force a reinterpretation somewhere along the line. Because it takes time to confirm the new key as more than a passing chromaticism, you do not hear modulations except in hindsight. Then what distinguishes enharmonic modulations is that you can reduce them down to the rewriting of one note: instead of saying "vii°7/V of F minor became vii°6
5
/V of D minor", you can just say "A became G", whereas you'd be hard-pressed to do something like that for an absolutely simple modulation to the dominant (something like "I of D major became IV of A major" does not actually involve any respellings, even in 5-limit just intonation). But this is possible because our notation is overdetermined for chromatic notes. How do we know that a note is a G and not an A? To the extent that this question makes sense at all (it is obviously nonsense for an atonal work), it is because even though they are realised as the same frequency, writing the note as G implies a different function for it than writing it as A. And we know that it has a different function because of where it goes: if I were to play a B and a G simultaneously in isolation (nothing before or after it), you would have no way of knowing that I meant it as an augmented sixth instead of a minor seventh. But every temperament entails this kind of thing: if in quarter-comma meantone I were to play a C and an A simultaneously in isolation, you would have no way of knowing if I meant 27:16 or 5:3 in the underlying just-intonation structure, and indeed if I were to play a I–vi–ii–V–I progression in C major that A would have to be approached as 5:3 and quitted as 27:16. And how do we know that a note is 5:3 and not 27:16? It seems to me that we know that through their different functions: the former is a minor third below the tonic while the latter is three perfect fifths above it. It seems to me that this means that mediant relationships in meantone or Pythagorean tuning (which is aware of its 5-limit just-intonation heritage) are completely analogous to enharmonic modulations in 12-TET (which is aware of its meantone or Pythagorean heritage). Mediant relationships force us to temper 5 to accommodate 3 (tempering out the syntonic comma 81:80); enharmonic relationships force us to temper 3 to accommodate 2 (tempering out the Pythagorean comma 531441:524288). And indeed, while we don't mark mediant relationships out explicitly, you can hear a mediant shift as something different from a simple and straightforward modulation to the dominant or the subdominant. But all these 5-limit just intonation or Pythagorean theoretical structures are not what you actually hear; you hear their 12-TET realisation, where all these commas that are slight differences of pitch simply become taken over by difference in function (which is just as well, since expressive vibrato will make anything smaller than about a quarter tone inaudible if it wasn't already). In other words, a difference in function is no longer achieved through a direct change of pitch, but by manipulating the context to force you to reinterpret something you have heard. In other words, while 12-TET is quite clearly based on Pythagorean intonation (though perhaps meantone is a better candidate for this slot), which is quite clearly based on 5-limit just intonation, it also quite clearly deforms these bases for its own purposes, so that you are not forced to make all the distinctions those larger systems force you to make. Certainly we may conjure up these ghosts of distinctions and make them seem real if the context emphasises it: take for example this modulation from Schubert's Rosamunde Quartet:
Schubert - op. 29, D.804, I, mm.144-49 enharmonic modulation.png
I won't deny that you hear something special going on here even if the strings all play exactly according to 12-TET, because Schubert has sat on that diminished seventh chord for so long that he emphasises that something extraordinary has happened, and the difference between G and A in the cello is conjured up even if there is no acoustic reality behind it. But take a passage like this, from Chopin's Third Piano Sonata:
Chopin Op 58 III modulation.png
(We've just exited from E major, so that first chord should be thought of as vii°4
2
. Incidentally I think that the Gdouble sharp in the turn at the end of the trill in the fifth bar of this extract should really be a Gtriple sharp on the basis of parallel passages, and that's how I play it; since so far the most remote accidental from good old C that I know of is a Ctriple sharp, it's nice to see this even as a missed opportunity!) How do you analyse that modulation? With all those enharmonic changes through fleetingly tonicised keys I don't really hear most of these changes as anything terribly special in context; indeed to me it's now the perfectly diatonic (except for that G) last bar of the first line that sounds emphasised, when (the tonic) B major is finally clear. I think that this is simply a case of pure 12-TET harmony that isn't shackled to what can be done in Pythagorean intonation. That's the great thing about 12-TET: it lets you choose whether or not you want to respect Pythagorean limits or not, and gives you degrees on how far you rebel against them. So I think there is nothing special going on with the enharmonic modulations here and that it's therefore not possible to draw attention to it, let alone desirable. When the enharmonic modulation is something to be heard as special, then the composer must have made it special himself. Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your example I still don't get it: there's no E in B major or in F7. Sorry, I may be a peasant, but in my village F7 is F - A - C - E. There is no E involved. Could you clarify? Basemetal 15:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It's in the G7, where it's written as F. When you hear it it is interpreted as G-B-D-F; after you hear where it resolves (E going to E and then D), it is reinterpreted as G-B-D-E. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Really? Why? At the end of it all we're in B major. Basemetal 15:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Here it is in score:

\relative c' {
  \key c \major
 <c e c' g'>1 \afterGrace <g d' b' f'> eis''4 <fis,, cis' ais' e'!>1 <b b b' dis>
}
(Unfortunately enharmonic ties don't seem to be automatically supported by LilyPond.) Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok. If you say so. I still see this example as a chromatic modulation ("par glissement chromatique" as the LQELQV site would say) not as an enharmonic modulation. I guess it must just be a matter of terminology. At least you must concede that your example is a bit different from mine. Basemetal 15:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess you could consider it both ways. You can think of it as simply a chromatic modulation, or you can analyse the G7 as a pivot chord that acts as both V of C major and V of V (as a German augmented sixth) of B major. If you prefer I can add a 6
4
chord:

\relative c' {
  \key c \major
 <c e c' g'>1 \afterGrace <g d' b' f'> eis''4 <fis,, dis' b' fis'>1 <fis cis' ais' e'!> <b b b' dis>
}
Now it gets harder to say that we are going par glissement chromatique, and from the fact that V, V7, and V8−7
6−5
have the same function I think that our examples are not so different. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see. What can I say, you've got a very sophisticated sense of hearing. I noticed you've got a friend called "Droog Andrey". Do you think he's Russian (like many of your other friends), or a fan of nadsat, or a Russian fan of nadsat? Basemetal 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I happen to know his real name (it's not that hard to find; he has a website with a lot of his stuff with his real name on it) and that he's a chemist from Minsk, Belarus. Presumably the last option is the most probable then. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Basemetal: I still think the two sorts of enharmonic modulations I described above are quite similar and both truly enharmonic, because a key is just the expansion of a chord. So in the second sort, you can arrive at an F-sharp and leave it as a G-flat, and in the first sort, you can arrive at F-sharp major and leave it as G-flat major (and by both of which I mean that the same note or chord is heard with a different function coming and going). Since either way you have to respell some notes to be coherent (unless you want to start the first movement of the Appassionata sonata in F minor and end it in A-quadruple-flat minor, which is absurd), I claim that they are both true enharmonic modulations. Double sharp (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Basemetal 01:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Og[edit]

[1] Really, three abbreviations/institutes in the lede? About the naming? - DePiep (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. All were involved and simplifying it to IUPAC alone is not accurate. The discovery of new elements today is more physics than chemistry. Double sharp (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course they were involved. But why in the lede? - DePiep (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Because reducing it to only IUPAC is inaccurate. I am all for keeping it simple but not so simple that it stops being true. Both IUPAC and IUPAP were involved and I do not think that that is so complicated that one of them should be removed for the lede. Double sharp (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A weird convention? Or crass ignorance?[edit]

I've seen someone use the following convention when they transcribe Indian (Hindustani) music into Western notation: to them this

\relative c'{\omit Staff.TimeSignature fis fis}

means an F followed by an F. (E.g. https://ibb.co/dM4ehH and https://ibb.co/bVzqpx: the Indian notation below the Western staff notation makes it clear they intend the F without a sharp to mean F even when it immediately follows an F with a sharp) Are you aware of any genre/field of music/musicology where Western notation is used, where such a convention would apply? I'm very skeptical. My first thought was: "What a moron!". But since I don't know everything I thought I'd ask you (who do Face-smile.svg). I could imagine there could be people who do not rely on the usual convention and always write the second accidental explicitly: that is, they always write either this

\relative c'{\omit Staff.TimeSignature fis fis!}

or this

\relative c'{\omit Staff.TimeSignature fis f}

But I can't imagine that anyone (except an idiot) would rely on a convention that directly contradicts the usual one. What do you think? Are you familiar with enough genres and fields to be positive about this? Basemetal 17:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't claim to know everything, but I think I can point in the direction of an answer. ^_^ In J. S. Bach's time accidentals only lasted for one note, unless that note was immediately repeated. So if you had an F, and then after some intervening passagework you wanted another F in the same bar, you had to write the accidental again; if you wanted F, then you didn't need to write anything. However, the exception for repeated notes means that this doesn't allow your example (which would still be read as two F's), and of course Bach was sometimes inconsistent about his own usage. This suggests to me that not repeating the accidental on repeated notes is a rather obvious thing to do, since that bit of our modern convention existed before the other bits; perhaps one might find examples of the usage you mention before Bach, though I personally doubt it. Double sharp (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually I was not thinking historical obsolete usage but about some current usage in some obscure out of the way genre of music or field of musicology. (But, like I said I was highly skeptical) So, do you believe you have enough familiarity with enough domains to be able to state categorically the guy is not following some obscure usage but is just a run-of-the-mill cretin? Basemetal 05:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not; the domain of my familiarity pretty much starts with J. S. Bach and doesn't expand much past the Western classical canon. ^_^ With the standardisation that tends to occur across history I would be quite sceptical indeed that any subdiscipline could maintain a notation that is not compatible with the standard, but I still don't really dare to say it categorically. Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. I'll ask Jerome Kohl too. Between you and him, if neither is aware of such a usage anywhere then I think I've got my answer. This is how concerned I am to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and not diss people for no reason Face-smile.svg Basemetal 11:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Something I accidentally stumbled on in ru.wiki[edit]

ru:Трансфермиевые войны#1974 год: "В 1974 году в США по инициативе IUPAC и IUPAP была создана международная ad hoc комиссия[b 2], которая должна была проанализировать все имеющиеся материалы относительно открытия элементов 104 и 105. Ею было установлено, что в 1964 году для элемента 104 советские учёные получили ненадежные результаты, а значит первенство в синтезе элемента 104 должно принадлежать американцам. В отношении работ по получению элемента 105 они также отдали первенство лаборатории Беркли, поскольку при почти одновременной публикации работ те выполнили все критерии, которые выдвигаются для подтверждения существования впервые синтезированных элементов[4]."

which Google Translate translates as

"In 1974, an international special commission was established in the United States on the initiative of IUPAC and IUPAP [b 2], which was to analyze all the materials concerning the discovery of elements 104 and 105. It was established that in 1964, for the element 104, Soviet scientists received unreliable results, which means that the primacy in the synthesis of element 104 should belong to the Americans. With respect to the work on the production of element 105, they also gave priority to the Berkeley laboratory, since, with almost simultaneous publication of the works, they fulfilled all the criteria that are put forward to confirm the existence of all synthesized elements [4]."

(sorry for not translating myself. Feeling a little lazy/tired at the moment)

Maybe you'll want to make something of it. I certainly do want to learn more on this and add some info to dubnium but just as certainly not now.--R8R (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Judging from the TWG report and the American response to it (plus available snippets of The Transuranium People at Google Books), I have a pretty good idea what this is about for E104, but I'll need to check some things for E105. I think the full E104 story is more a thing for that article (which needs a bit of work) and that a brief description as above would suffice for dubnium, but more details on the E105 story may indeed be included. Double sharp (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the article ru.wiki references is 10.1524/ract.1987.42.2.57, and it is in English. However, it explicitly says phrases like "in our opinion" and all four authors are Americans. So I guess it's not that 1974 ad hoc committee, and things now seem to make sense. You can read the summary of their arguments regarding element 105 starting on page 41/97 (due to lack of time, I only looked through). By the way, here's an interesting part I found: "He [Ghiorso] gave his reasons for disbelief in the correctness of assignment to 260 104 of the 300 msec, spontaneously fissioning isotope, reported by the Dubná group, but stated that if later work established the correctness of the earlier work by the Dubna group that he would withdraw his suggestion for the name and accept the name, Kurchatovium, put forth by the Russian scientists."--R8R (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It does seem to have started from that 1974 committee, though. From the first page: 'In 1974 IUPAC in collaboration with its companion agency, the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, agreed to appoint an international ad-hoc committee of neutral experts including three persons each from the USA and the USSR and three from other countries (including the chairman) "to consider the claims of priority of discovery of elements 104 and 105 and to urge the laboratories at Berkeley (USA) and Dubna (USSR) to exchange representatives and in their presence to repeat the experiments regarding these elements." The three authors of the present article were chosen as the USA members of this ad-hoc committee. ... This article had its origin in a 1975 request from the chairman of the committee that members of the committee "prepare a draft of the history of the work and respective views in the naming of these elements by the Russian and American parties." The committee carried on some informal activities to define the problem and to get better communication and agreement between the Berkeley and Dubna groups but it never completed its work nor issued a report. The present article, while it was stimulated by the committee, is entirely the responsibility of the three authors.' Incidentally, I like that tidbit, showing indeed that the American scientists themselves had no political objections to kurchatovium as an element name. Double sharp (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I'll look one more time at it then (well, I was going to anyway, but now I only want to do it more). As for kurchatovium, I remember seeing somewhere that scientists from both countries viewed their colleagues from across the Iron Curtain as fellow scientists first and foremost, both teams studying nature rather than throwing flags over the periodic table. I certainly remember reading that they shared their opinions on various problems; I even think I still have a book from the Soviet times on my computer saying that. So of course both teams would be respectful to each other's choices when they feel the other team has the right to make a choice. It appears to me that it was the United States itself (or actually the Department of Energy or whatever it was oversight over American scientific efforts and sponsored them) that added so much political flair into this controversy. This is interesting because I would expect something of that sort from the Soviet Union as well, but I haven't seen a single indication of that.--R8R (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, we can do some research on the countries' viewpoints. ^_^ I do indeed share your impression that the scientists wanted to keep politics out of it. And it seems to me that we got a pretty much ideal solution out of it: I wonder if the reason why dubnium was used for E105 and not E104 is because IIRC the American team at least believed that the Soviets had seen E105, even if they didn't think that the Soviets had been the first to see it. Now that American and Russian scientists have been working together on the elements past copernicium I think we're back at the unity of the American team proposing mendelevium (in the 1950s, at that!), where we certainly ought to be. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd love to but I can't actually imagine that. What would that be like? I don't think that Ghiorso or Seaborg would say something like, "so these guys from the DoE told us to oppose kurchatovium and rather press on that we hold the absolute priority," and I don't even think the Soviet Union interfered at all. (Yes, the current collaboration is marvelous! It's also interesting that the Americans also collaborate with the Germans now. I hope this will lead to more discoveries and confirmations!)--R8R (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The Americans are collaborating with the Germans as well now? That's wonderful news, even if I feel somewhat ashamed that I don't remember hearing about it! Could you give me some links? And yes, I'm definitely hoping for more confirmations as we go further into the more and more difficult 8th period. I don't think you could get any reference saying anything like what you wrote, of course, but finding something saying that the rivalry was mostly a matter of politics and hardly existed for the scientists would be nice and seems quite doable. Double sharp (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I most certainly recall that it was a German--American collaboration that confirmed the results of the 2009--10 experiment in Dubna in 2014. You can see that in tennessine yourself, though I don't know if this is going to go for a long run like the Russian--American collab.
Yeah, that is doable. Please remind me when I have more spare time (probably next Tuesday; I am genuinely worried I may forget by then) and I should be able to locate a phrase like that.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes, you're right: I don't know why I keep forgetting about the targets. Which means incidentally that they definitely will go for a long run, as will the Japanese and the French (planning their experiments at GANIL), since we're going to need actinide targets for all the new discoveries past oganesson and those are surely going to be provided by ORNL. I certainly will give you a ping on the 24th! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know about that last one, sounds great! This will keep me waiting, as I am so pro more major players in the field :) as for the ping, would you also remind me I have to continue the Nh PR from where I left off? I'm sure I won't forget (at least because I asked you :) but just in case?--R8R (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
A planned French attempt at E120 for 2019–2020 is already at Unbinilium#Planned. ^_^ Sure, I'll remind you about the Nh PR too at the same time. Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Or maybe the American team changed its mind on the acceptability of kurchatovium. From Helge Kragh's From Transuranic to Superheavy Elements: A History of Dispute and Creation (p. 70):

Seaborg was for a time willing to consider kurchatovium for element 106, but only as a trade-off with the Dubna group if it admitted the Berkeley claim to the discovery of element 104. Yet, in a letter to Armbruster from the summer of 1992, Ghiorso and Seaborg made it clear that the name was unacceptable (Hoffman et al. 2000, p. 385): "We would never agree to the naming of an element after Kurchatov (anymore than we would to the naming of an element after an American inventor of the hydrogen bomb)—and certainly not to the naming of element 105 after Kurchatov!" This was also the message from Michael Nitschke, a German-born member of the Berkeley team (Armbruster and Münzenberg 2012, p. 285) (Table 5.1):

Jointly with our Dubna colleagues we would gladly suggest a name for element 104 in honor of a great Russian scientist with international reputation, as we did in honouring Mendelejev in the case of element 101. We cannot accept Kurchatov as meeting this criterion. If this suggestion is unacceptable, it is my impression that the negotiations have failed. In this case no American delegation will come to Paris.

Incidentally, the Dubna team did not object to seaborgium as a name for element 106. Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thank you for sharing. Do you, by any chance, want to try to rewrite the Transfermium Wars article? It would be cool to find a place for all of those discoveries of yours/ours in Wikipedia, and that seems the place where we would be bound by essentially no limitations whereas we would be bound by something in articles on separate elements. I'd considered doing that but I just don't seem to make myself actually do it on my own; it could be different if I had a partner on the task.--R8R (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I'll work on it! I think we have enough sources now to make it really great together. Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this and I must say, I don't yet have a picture of what we should have in the end. I'm not a big fan of this, but we may have to work on it in the user space (mine or yours, doesn't matter) first until we figure it out. Now the most important questions are, when will you have more time and what would you like to prioritize? Speaking of me, I'm going to have more spare time from now on and I have three target articles at the time: aluminium, Transfermium Wars, and hassium, the latter being a project of yours that you've put effort in and I think it would be a shame not to finalize that effort by earning a bronze star.--R8R (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure, we can work on it. I should have more time in the next few weeks. I think I'd rather go to aluminium first, since we have just been working on two superheavies in a row (dubnium and nihonium), but I will stick with our collaborations no matter which one you think is better to start with. ^_^ If I had a lot more time, like in 2016, I'd be writing a lot of GA's on the side to clean up that ugly yellow stain on our PTQ, but I don't think I'll have time for much of that until next year; so I'd like to focus on one article at a time and make it as good as we can get.
(P.S. If we're revisiting old projects, I'd rather get alkali metal done before hassium now, partly because we've been doing a few superheavies recently.) Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I see. Yes, I like that, let's focus on aluminium. I will also note that you want to do alkali metal before going for hassium; however, I'll note I remember thinking that the latter is a much easier task. Let's just not forget to get both featured eventually.--R8R (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I've given it some more thought. I've taken a look at it and it appears to me that hassium is not far from being featured! The only major problem I see is that we need to rewrite the History section, and that's not going to be particularly difficult; the rest of the article seems fine and the whole thing leaves the impression of a true FA (well, apart from History). You worked on this previously so I can't just go and pick it as if you weren't here but how about the two of us prioritize this for now? It feels like another bronze star is already within reach; I'm getting excited for this low-effort to-be-FA (we can probably prepare it for FAC in a week) and I'm hoping you can share this excitement. And after we're done here, which we should be quite soon, we can switch back to aluminium. What do you think?--R8R (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, if it won't take very long, then we can surely begin. ^_^ I think there isn't really a need to start a PR for Hs, so maybe we can put the last comments and to-do items on the talk page. Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Great! I guess not, indeed, we can solve it on the talk page and the list of pre-FAC comments shouldn't be long. I'll start the review at Talk:Hassium shortly. Good job bringing the article to this quality, by the way.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I've written the comments. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find much info on the 1978 Dubna experiments other than the studied reactions and full citations available here. I just found one of the two reports online (in Russian), but I think I'll look at it another time. Generally, we need to make Hassium#Reports similar to Dubnium#Reports.--R8R (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like I was able to deal with the article myself, even though I hope I can still count on a second opinion from you. Please read the article, especially the Discovery section, look through the comments on the talk page, and let me know what you think. Personally, I'm a little uneasy about how the article concludes with plans for an experiment that was apparently never held. Also would you please check if there are any recent experiments we should cover?--R8R (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

History of aluminium[edit]

Hi! I've got a small question. I've just added this phrase, "after stirring and priming the solution," and I would very much like to wikilink the word "priming" to something as I was unfamiliar with this meaning in English of the word but I can't see anything to link it to. Could you help?--R8R (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like priming (science), though that would make more sense if applied to the apparatus. Double sharp (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's about it, but not quite indeed as the article is focused on equipment rather than chemicals. That is a shame there's nothing to link to, I don't expect a casual reader to know this concept.--R8R (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess we could add a short parenthetical comment explaining what "priming" means here, which should help the average reader even without a link. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd think so too :) but my wording skills fail me on this. Could you help?--R8R (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I gave this a little more thinking and I produced this: "after stirring the solution and introducing a seeding agent to it." I need some judgment from you as a native speaker. Will common people understand what this actually means?--R8R (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I think they will, now that I've linked "seeding" to seed crystal. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
That's great to know, thank you!--R8R (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll really appreciate it if you give the article a review during its FAC :) --R8R (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm really going to ask for a review. The FAC is four weeks old now and hasn't gotten much attention so if you write on the FAC page something like "will review later" and then review it whenever you can, you'll do me a great favor. It'll be a shame if the article won't get promoted solely because too few people showed up at the FAC.R8R (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@R8R: I've claimed a section on the review page already; I'll give the article a read through and fill it up. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Made up labels?[edit]

As I happened by the List of musical instruments by transposition in a long time I was struck by how ridiculous the table of contents looks. And those labels: "very low", "super low", "extremely low", "amazingly low", "inordinately low", "impossibly low"...! They look so totally ridiculous and made up. Don't you think it is high time they just went? It seems it would be a lot simpler to just say: "Written C4 sounds D5", etc possibly adding the size and direction of the transposing interval (even though that is already slightly redundant) like so: "Written C4 sounds D5 (transposing by m9 upwards)" For one thing the table of contents would certainly look better (in my opinion). What do you think? Basemetal 12:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: It seems those labels were invented by one user named Skiasaurus, and frankly, I think they deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs. Basemetal 13:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think your replacement is a whole lot better than these made-up labels. Please go ahead and change them if you like! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Which one? The short version or the long version? Basemetal 13:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of the long version, since I can see myself equally reasonably describing a transposition as "written C sounds the A an octave below" and as "down a minor tenth". I should note though that while using such names would introduce consistency, I don't think of intervals beyond a fifteenth by their number names very often. Beyond a seventeenth (two octaves plus a third) I need to count to figure out what they mean; I don't immediately know without thinking. Double sharp (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Then how about for intervals greater or equal to a 15th:
  • "a 15th down" → "2 octaves down",
  • "a 16th down" → "2 octaves and a 2nd down",
  • "a 17th down" → "2 octaves and a 3rd down"
and so on...?
Basemetal 13:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
And do you prefer "written C4 sounds A1" or "written C sounds A two octaves and a 3rd down/below"? Incidentally this second option combines note and interval in a "medium version". I find "written C sounds the A an octave below" sounds a bit ambiguous. You probably meant "sounds the A of the octave below (the written C)" but I think it is less ambiguous in that case to just say "written C sounds A a minor third below"... Basemetal 14:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not a bad way of putting intervals from a 15th onwards; I understand this phrasing immediately. By "written C sounds the A an octave below" I meant "written C4 sounds A2" (hence I wrote "down a minor tenth"); OTOH, I can see how this could be ambiguous. I think it's easiest to just go for "written C4 sounds A1"; since each style is easily deducible from the other, I prefer the shorter one. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok then. I'll go for the short version. Btw there's only the two of us discussing here and we're already at the 7th level of indent. How about in the next conversation we try the Jerome Kohl zigzag? If the test proves conclusive we may adopt it on my talk page and your talk page, at least where's there's only the two of us discussing. I'm starting to like it. With that style you never go to a deeper indent level than the total number of interlocutors in the conversation. For more details on what I mean see here where I also transcribed in Jerome Kohl style a three way conversation we had on this page some time ago. Also, is it ok if I put this conversation in Jerome Kohl style? I won't touch your statements, just reduce the level of nesting, i.e. all my edits get no tab and all yours get 1 tab. Basemetal 14:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea, which is pretty interesting, but I think I might get a little confused because everywhere else on WP would use the "nested" solution, and that's what I'd be most used to. So I'll have to be no fun anymore, with apologies to Monty Python, and keep on trying to beat this 41-indent record. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Aww! So you mean you're able to speak two very different languages at native level and code switch at will, but you can't keep two straightforward elementary conventions straight without getting confused? What a wimp! I hope you never get into your head to go drive in a place where they drive on the other side of the road than what you're used to, cause you'd be a public menace Face-smile.svg Basemetal 18:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's a matter of how often the other convention gets used. I would have to use the standard nesting convention on almost all pages, and only use the Jerome Kohl zigzag when talking to you, so I don't think I'd really be able to get the immersion experience that you could get for learning multiple languages. Furthermore, anyone who wants to join in the conversation might not immediately understand what's going on. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, but you could also get a lot of practice with Jerome Kohl. You haven't been communicating with him enough on his talk page anyway and he just loves to be interrupted Face-smile.svg I'm just giving you a hard time. I hope you understand I'm kidding you around. No one is obligated to try anything of course, but I thought it was funny how you who are able to juggle all those skills English, Chinese, chemistry, music, chess, and what not, and then suddenly you make yourself very very small and with a small voice say: "Poor little me, I don't think I'd be able to handle that, I'd get too confuuused..." I thought that was quite comical. Basemetal 15:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't you think the title List of transposing instruments would be better (not to mention shorter and simpler to understand) than the current title? No wonder some people think this is supposed to be a list of all musical instruments arranged by transposition including the null transposition, to wit including the non-transposing musical instruments. I wonder who came up with the stupid current title. I hope it's not me, when it was decided to split the list from the parent article. Basemetal 13:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC) It wasn't. Basemetal 02:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Piccolos[edit]

We once had a long discussion on your talk page about piccolos. From what I remember it appeared there were also piccolos in E, F and G (besides C and D), but you never got around to adding that data to the list. Basemetal 10:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: If you intend to one day insert them, don't put the references from the discussion at the list article. Instead edit article Piccolo to add the new data, put the references at article Piccolo, add those instruments to the list article and link to article Piccolo from the list article, as that seems to be the usual MO there: as you can see there's no reference for anything at the list article. Basemetal 13:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter[edit]

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
  • Republic of Texas Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
  • India Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
  • Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
  • United States Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
  • San Francisco Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
  • South Carolina Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. 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. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

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) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, period 8)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, period 8) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

You can continue with this one, I was talking about 1982 formula 1 world championship GA review on the Teahouse.Kpgjhpjm (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Please continue the review. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

GA[edit]

@Double sharp:-Sorry for the inconvenience ,but can we please start the review for Tin. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kpgjhpjm: Yes, shortly. I have several other things to do at the moment. I will be willing to hold the review open as long as improvements are being made, as this is an important article, so there is no rush. Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Double sharp: - Ok, but please note that i am unavailable between 18:30 and 01:30 (UTC). Kpgjhpjm (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Aluminum production breakthrough[edit]

At least, that's what this article I found today says. I haven't looked into it beyond this Popsci article yet but this may be of importance when we get to aluminum. I imagine the production part is somewhat interesting to you (am I right?) so I think you'd be interested to check it, too.R8R (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Diminished seventh[edit]

Is Diminished seventh on your watchlist? Basemetal 09:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, but judging from what I now see has recently been added to it, perhaps it ought to be! ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, and that's exactly why I'd asked you if it was in the first place. I had by accident stopped by that article and when I saw what was going on I thought, this is great comedy, Captain double sharp must see this. You'd better check now all the pages on altered intervals which happen to be enharmonic to non dissonant intervals. That "serious and established composer" from Romania might have been out to expose other "dissonance myths": I assume you've seen now the edit summary of his first contribution more than a month ago (yes, this has been going on for more than month). On top of that the guy was apparently winning as the other editors seem to have gotten tired of reverting him. Btw, regarding you Talk:Diminished seventh edit: Even though your edit summary makes it clear where you stand your indentation makes it look like you're agreeing with the "serious and established composer" and disagreeing with Wahoofive. Basemetal 10:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
PS: Is "altered interval" used in English? I know "altered chord" is. Basemetal 10:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I should probably go and click through them. ^_^ OTOH, this may yet have been a strategic withdrawal. If I may be so bold as to link to my own essays, see User:Double sharp/Essays#How to befriend a troll. I've proceeded to clarify my indenting and my stand. P.S. I'd probably just say "augmented and diminished intervals" to avoid getting into unproductive tetrapyloctomy about whether the diminished 7th is actually altered in the harmonic minor scale when it occurs between scale degree 7 and scale degree 6. Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Or whether the augmented 4th and diminished 5th are altered intervals when they occur between scale degree 4 and scale degree 7 of the major scale? In French they are indeed "altérés" which when used for intervals is exactly the same as "augmenté ou diminué". For chords the meaning of "altéré" is different: "accord altéré" means that the chord includes tones which are not in the scale. There's apparently no such distinction in English, where "altered" can only mean the latter? Basemetal 11:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure if the other meaning is acceptable as well, but I mentally think of "altered" as meaning "chromatically altered" in English. I'd just spell it out as "chromatically altered" or "augmented or diminished" to be clear. And yes, the A4 and d5 are obviously also examples, but given that we started with the d7, I decided to keep using it. Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I have a little trouble parsing your first sentence probably because of the "as well". Do you mean you think the "other meaning" may also be acceptable or may also not be acceptable? Basemetal 13:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. I would understand it if someone used it in English, but I'm also not sure if it's right. Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but forget the terminology question. What did you mean by "I'm not actually sure if the other meaning is acceptable as well"? Could you write it in French? Could you rephrase it in English? Here it's the English that's giving me problems, not the terminology. Basemetal 14:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I meant "I'm not actually sure if the other meaning is also acceptable". To rephrase the whole sentence; I'm pretty sure that "altered" meaning "chromatically altered" is all right in English, but I'm not sure that "altered" meaning "augmented or diminished" is (also) all right. In French, I guess I'd write something like À vrai dire, je ne suis pas sûr que l'autre sens soit également acceptable. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Ach so. Danke. Basemetal 14:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Proszę bardzo. (And that's as far down my Babel list as I dare to write and not just read. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor Neapolitan chords[edit]

(Header added.) Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • While we're at it, how do people in general spell the minor Neapolitan chord, judging from the examples you've seen? I've just looked at all of the six examples at LQELQV and the only cases where the minor Neapolitan chord is spelled "theoretically" are the examples in Schubert's String Quartet and String Quintet (in the latter with an A in E major). Otherwise either the 3rd of the root is spelled by enharmony, the chord getting an augmented 2nd instead of a minor 3rd with respect to the root (Schubert, Fierrabras), or the chord is spelled as a I chord instead of as a II chord (all of the other three cases; Schumann's chord is missing its 5th, incidentally). What other variant spellings have you seen? Have you often seen that it was spelled "theoretically" in major (like Schubert does in the String Quintet example), where that requires using degree IV as the 3rd of the root? Basemetal 18:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Do you know, I don't think this chord actually comes up often enough for me to be able to tell you. It's kind of like starting a recapitulation in IV; it fits perfectly in the tonal system, but just never gets used very often (except by Schubert, who seemed to have had a predilection for this as well as the ii chord). I think you could analyse this chord in two ways depending on its context: either as a modal substitute for II (in which case the root is scale degree 2), or as a mediant-like substitute harmonisation of scale degree 3 (in which case the root is scale degree 1). You will find lots of such substitutions (which on a large scale become a common-tone modulation of C major to C-sharp minor, for example) in late Schubert; applied to other chords as a colouristic effect, there's a great example in the Liszt B minor sonata where what should be a vi chord in D major is instead a VI also harmonising the tonic, creating a plagal progression with a tritone (iv of vi – VI) that is also how the sonata ends (with the cadence Am/C – F/C – B). Double sharp (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
      • So would you say example 2 (Schubert, String Quartet) and example 4 (Schubert, String Quintet) fall in your first group and example 3 (Schubert, Impromptu), example 5 (Schumann, Lied) and example 6 (Listz, Étude) fall in your second group? Basemetal 13:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I think the Liszt Étude is just spelt enharmonically; the Schumann example is the one where I think you could legitimately see the chord as i as well as ii. The Schubert Impromptu is also pretty ambiguous for me, because the bass descending by whole tones weakens my sense of whether a note is G or Adouble flat, until the augmented sixth resolution at the end returns to clarity. Such chords are so distant from the tonic that it's difficult to say which enharmonic spelling is the right one; sometimes I am not sure if the question makes sense. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
          • How about Schubert's Fierrabras (two examples in parallel keys): any particular reason he spells A not Bdouble flat? Basemetal 14:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
            • I think that's just for easy reading. There are many examples in Beethoven where double sharps or double flats are avoided (there's one in the slow movement of the First Piano Concerto, for instance, where what should be Bdouble flat is spelt A) and I think this is more of the same (well, that and the difficulty of hearing scale degree 4 specifically instead of scale degree 3 in a major key when they are enharmonically equivalent). Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
              • That second reason doesn't seem to bother Schubert in the String Quintet. And the first example in Fierrabras is in minor. So I'll take "easy reading". But I agree entirely that scale degree 4 is, in major, a very very odd concept. Strictly speaking it shouldn't even exist: I mean where does an F (supposedly a chromatic tone) in C major even go? What is it supposed to resolve to? Not to E surely, because that's also a chromatic tone and since when can a chromatic tone resolve to another chromatic tone? But to get back to "easy reading" are Schubert and Beethoven averse to double accidentals? If they are, is it in general, or in some specific contexts? Basemetal 14:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
                • In the second movement of Schubert's String Quintet, the middle section is in F minor (which is reached from E major the same way) with a change of key signature from four sharps to four flats, which perhaps suggested consistency of notation. Beethoven and Schubert are not consistent about whether or not they avoid double accidentals, no, but I can think of many times in Beethoven's orchestral scores when they are avoided even if it means that a note is spelt wrongly (I'll give some examples later) and so it's not out of the question that Schubert might have thought the same way sometimes. I suppose you could get chromatic tones resolving to other chromatic tones by bringing in modal mixture – for example, V7/iv – iv – V – I in C major must have scale degree 7 resolve to scale degree 6 and only then scale degree 5), but then I would consider that C minor is temporarily operative there even though it has not been established as a key. I would think of scale degree 4 in major the same way; for it to make sense, the temporarily operating mode must be the parallel minor. Many of these examples leave the minor Neapolitan chord through a German augmented sixth, whose scale degree 3 and scale degree 6 can be brought forward as evidence of modal mixture. Double sharp (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • (An exception in major is the example from the Schumann Lied Mit Myrthen und Rosen, which simply moves straight to the home dominant. I find it ambiguous as the bass line suggests the obvious interpretation scale degree 6scale degree 2scale degree 5scale degree 1, but in the absence of modal mixture the vocal line sounds like the F is always that and never a G. I think that starting with the first Romantic generation harmony has really become 12-equal and there are many cases like this when neither spelling is totally reasonable by itself; I think I could easily find many more examples from Schumann if memory serves. You could also interpret this as simply alternating perfect cadences in D minor and D major, reinterpreting the F colouristically while the surrounding D major context makes it abundantly clear what key we are in. Perhaps it's best to think of it as all of the possibilities at once!) Double sharp (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • Great examples. Another question regarding "sloppy" spelling of accidentals I've wondered about (rewinding a little in other words). I've always conjectured there must be more cases of theoretical triple accidentals than are found in practice (e.g. in Don's list, but even assuming Don's list has not caught all of them, the total number is obviously tiny) but that probably the huge majority of them, probably almost all of them, except for a tiny number of oddities, are just respelled and that only a tiny number of sticklers have insisted on actually writing them out. Do you think that's a reasonable guess? Do you know, for example in Beethoven (or any other case you can think of) where a theoretical triple accidental has actually been sanely respelled? Sorry I got mixed up with double accidentals. Since Ftriple sharp first occurs as scale degree 6 in A major and Btriple flat first occurs as scale degree 5 in Edouble flat major they must not be that common after all Face-smile.svg Btw, the few examples that we know from Don's site are apparently not even in keys that remote, but those must be cases of scale degree 7, scale degree 3, scale degree 4 and scale degree 7 like the ones we talked about above, i.e. chromatisms that resolve to chromatisms? Basemetal 20:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
                      • Actually, I think this is reasonable. Anything going in an enharmonic circle can easily go all the way to keys needing triple accidentals in theory (like the Appassionata sonata again), but I think this is where the 12-equal character of what you hear comes into play, so that triple accidentals are almost always not a distinction that can be made real by the composer (because you can't hear the difference between an A major context and a B major context). The Alkan example however has Ftriple sharp as an appoggiatura leading to Gdouble sharp, harmonised by V of iii in F major. I think this one might be audible, since this makes A minor a local tonic in which the Gdouble sharp is diatonic. (Since the F major has just come out of its parallel minor I would continue thinking in sharps.) Double sharp (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In Commendatore scene[edit]

You know, given how the site says Alors que l'accord napolitain se présente comme une variante, mais avec tension accrue, de la fonction II, l'accord plus-que-napolitain fait monter cette tension d'un cran, I really think they ought to have given as an example the earliest one I can think of – from the final Commendatore scene in Mozart's Don Giovanni. But that one demands a Roman numeral analysis that I need a bit of time to make in MS Paint; it should be here tomorrow! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. (But why couldn't you just use Wiki text? I guess I'll see tomorrow). I'm looking forward to it. Basemetal 18:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Something at that site confused me. At times they talk of functions II and IV as if they were separate. For example in the quote you mentioned above they talk of II only and don't mention IV. At other times they treat them interchangeably. Why can't they make up their mind? And where do you stand? Btw, there's an American theorist from the 19th c. whose name I forget whose position was that IV didn't even exist. What people had been analyzing as IV was to him (get ready, you're gonna like this) a rootless II7. Basemetal 19:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a good thing that they can't make up their minds, because it depends on the context. The circle of fifths would have each of them take one and only one position, but II and IV are both predominant harmonies (like N or V of V) and can substitute for each other; indeed, in the major key, ii is the relative of IV. But when we are discussing the Neapolitan specifically, it is quite clearly an altered form of II and not IV (and here it makes sense to make the distinction; even if they have similar functions, they are made from different scale degrees, and that's what we're discussing here).
If you ask me, I think IV is the stronger function as it's the first one in the subdominant direction (while II, when unable to act as V of V, is its relative instead). As a major (minor) chord instead of a minor (diminished) one (read inside the parentheses for the minor mode), that in minor doesn't create a tritone leap between roots like the Neapolitan does, IV also seems more stable. In fact, given that the point of the subdominant direction is that it is an antidominant (with the tonic being the dominant of the subdominant), I think speaking of rootless ii7 is quite nonsensical as scale degree 1 is a dissonant member of this chord; analysing vii° and vii°7 as rootless V7 and V9 is far more defensible (even if I still dislike it). I would treat vii° as having a similar relation to V as ii has to IV (you could bring the circle of fifths into this again, as their unions are V7 and ii7 respectively). Like I6
4
, vii° behaves like a normal chord in setting the harmonic rhythm, and not as a collection including non-chord tones, even though its function is the same as V and vii° moving to V is strictly staying in the same place on the circle of fifths. Because of this, I will sometimes be inconsistent and analyse it as V when it feels like a dominant substitute and vii° when it appears next to the true dominant triad or seventh chord.
Given this, I think I should probably start the analysis of the Commendatore scene from the beginning of the faster tempo and end it at the departure of the Commendatore. The first two harmonic units are (from memory; assume D minor throughout)
IV, V of III, V of VI, V of IV, IV, V, I, V (a circle of fifths with IV substituted for II and VII, III, and VI replaced by secondary dominants; V of IV is isofunctional with V of II).
I, II, V of IV, IV, N, V of N, n, V of N and V of IV of IV, IV of IV, V of IV, IV, V, I, V of V, V, I, V of V, V, I (a simple I–II–V–I cadence played thrice, the first time with an electrifying and remote expansion of the subdominant region. This is the point of the minor Neapolitan chord; it is a form of the subdominant, doubly so for being on the flat side and being a minor-mode phenomenon, but is so far from the tonic that it creates the effect of a remote excursion while not actually modulating, as we are never in doubt that D minor is the tonic of this passage. You will notice that all of these chords in between the I and the first V are subdominant-direction harmonies, but starting at II and ending at IV it is all running on the spot despite the electrifying intimations of the remote keys of E-flat minor and C minor.)
But I think this is far easier to read with a score, which I shall be providing in a few hours when I'm not on my phone anymore. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you're gonna annotate the score? Great! Looking forward to seeing that. Is it the "Don Giovanni a cenar teco m'invitasti e son venuto" scene? Basemetal 09:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes I am, and yes it's that scene. Looking forward to doing it too! Double sharp (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Here you go:

Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. In French, hunh? What is the difference between a V of N (m. 19) and a V of n (m. 21). N is borrowed from E major and n from E minor but the V chord of both is the same. Very elementary I hear you say. Yes, but I like to build from the ground up Face-smile.svg Your V of n is not a dominant 7th but a diminished 7th but first things first. Basemetal 15:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, though it unfortunately makes a small difference from the vocal line Mozart wrote! ^_^ I figured that since the C = B in that diminished 7th is diatonic to E minor but not E major, it makes sense to use the lowercase. Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
You missed a question again, only this time you missed a whole edit!
Ah that C! Of course. Mozart, Mozart! Why did he write a B? And yes, now I think remember: the diminished 7th chord on scale degree 7 can play the role of a V in a minor mode. Is that correct? Isn't that V actually a minor dominant 9th with a missing root? Face-smile.svg (I know you like missing roots). Basemetal 08:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry! I agree with Mozart that B makes sense, as it resolves to C rather than to B. I'd say that VII can appear with the function of V, kind of like how II or N can substitute for IV in plagal cadences and IV can substitute for II or N as a predominant, but that this doesn't necessarily mean that IV and VII are incomplete II and V with the roots missing. Only in the full circle progression I–IV–VII–III–VI–II (N)–V–I are they really distinguished. I suppose that it is a little inconsistent to write "V" for VII when it has that function but not to write "II" for IV when it has that function, but it does feel reasonable because treating VII as a rootless V does not make any consonant notes in the chord into dissonances (which happens if you treat IV as a rootless II). Double sharp (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(P.S. And I just remembered that Leporello's "Sì! Sì!" is here taken by the Commendatore. Oh well. I couldn't find a better laid-out and unquestionably public-domain vocal score on IMSLP, so I think this will do as the harmony has remained unchanged.) Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure it's not the Commendatore even in the Italian version? From what I remember it's Don Giovanni: "No! No!" and Commendatore: "Si! Si!" in the recordings I've heard. Which I thought sounded a teensy bit silly, like children going: "Repent!" "No!" "Yes!", but that would be Da Ponte, not Mozart. Well I'll have to listen to it again to make sure. Basemetal 08:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Definitely Leporello joins in for the last one; here's the autograph.
Commendatore autograph.png
Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I was wrong as to my particular memory as in the recording and libretto I was thinking of (Colin Davis's 1991 Philips Recording which I can't find on YouTube) Leporello does join in. But in Losey's movie Leporello doesn't as far as I could remember and as far as I could check on YouTube (but the audio is awful so it's hard to tell). Some people just don't follow Mozart-Da Ponte's intentions: some modern libretti do follow it (this one, this one) and others don't (this one). As to the recordings again some do and some don't. Here's a bunch of them (I'll add the time offset for the scene and whether they do or don't later): this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one. Incidentally I find the singing in some of these awful, e.g. the one at the Teatro La Fenice. Maybe some directors didn't know what to make of Leporello's joining in. What is your (dramatic) interpretation of the Commendatore's "Sì! Sì!" versus Leporello's "Sì! Sì!" and how do you interpret the Commendatore's "Cos'hai?" (in the exchange "Dammi la mano in pegno!", "Eccola", "Ohimè!", "Cos'hai?") Basemetal 10:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be hard to understand Leporello's joining in. After all, he has already sung "Oibò; tempo non ha, scusate. ... Dite di no!" I presume he has already suspected that his master would be damned if he continued his defiance (which he did): his "Ah padron! Siam tutti morti." comes pretty close. For all his bluster at the beginning of Act II, he clearly does care for his master and does not want to see that happen, not now when the threat is imminent. As for the Commendatore's "Cos'hai?"; I suppose that it makes sense to ask for an explanation of Don Giovanni's previous "Ohimè!", if only to confirm what it is (it seems to me that the cold is quite appropriate if è l'ultimo momento ^_^). Anyway, I think that The Magic Flute has already taught us all that even a completely inconsistent libretto is no obstacle to producing a masterly opera. As Charles Rosen remarked on p. 302 of The Classical Style: "The capacity of the sonata style to fuse with a dramatic conception as no other previous style had done was Mozart's historical opportunity. Without this complementary relation between musical style and dramatic conception, the greatest music cannot make an opera viable; with it, the most foolish libretto can barely undo one." Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Well I was just wondering why then some productions choose to not follow the autograph. My explanation is that the Commendatore's utterances are disturbing and ambiguous and Leporello, by chiming in, risks being carried to the "side" of the Commendatore. To me Leporello's "Sì! Sì!" is very different from the Commendatore's. It is an innocent and compassionate utterance. As you say he cares about Don Giovanni avoiding eternal damnation by repenting at the last moment, if at all possible, so he genuinely urges him to repent. But it's hard to maintain that implication when he's singing together with the Commendatore whose "Sì! Sì!" sounds very different to me. The Commendatore's "Sì! Sì!" to me sounds like "You will, motherfucker, you will ["repent" when you find out what's waiting for you down there]". Even though the Commendatore is the instrument of divine punishment, the Commendatore seems to be glad (as a matter of personal vengeance) that Don Giovanni will not only be punished but damned. To me that feels kind of disturbing because that puts the divine action in an ambiguous light. In the same vein I hear "Cos'hai" about as if someone'd shot somebody, and when they fell, they'd approached and sarcastically asked: "What happened?". What does the Commendatore mean by "Cos'hai?". It is his doing, so we can assume he knows exactly what's going on with Don Giovanni. He doesn't need to ask. So this "Cos'hai?" sounds sadistic to me. Anyway that's my take as to why some people do not have Leporello chime in. I hope it makes some sense. Is there a particular musical need for him to join in? Who's idea do you think it is? Basemetal 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Commendatore probably knows exactly what's going on. I confess that I always simply accepted the divine action as divine action, if through an intermediary who has a personal reason for vengeance, but after all, a masterpiece is not constrained by only one possible interpretation. I don't claim to know whose idea it was to have Leporello join in, but I think it was a good idea, at least dramatically even if I don't think you can find strictly musical justifications for it. ^_^ Thanks for your links, BTW! I'll listen to them in a day or two when I have the time. In the meantime, I think Ferruccio Furlanetto as Leporello in this 1985 performance conducted by Karajan succeeds at making his "Sì! Sì!" sound very different from that of Paata Burchuladze as the Commendatore. Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't watch them just yet (unless you want to watch eight times the whole opera which would be a bit much within a few days even for a Mozart lover) as those are links to videos of the full opera and I have not yet put the times of the Commendatore scene in the links yet. I'll let you know when I have. Or, if you want to go ahead and fast forward to the Commendatore scene in some of those links then, if and when you do, could you please add to that link the time of the Commendatore scene in that particular video? Thanks. Also, why don't you suggest to LQELQV to add that Don Giovanni passage to their "Lexique" under "accord plus-que-Napolitain" as one more example? Zviane's email is available at the site and you could send her your analysis. It'd be fun to see it there. Basemetal 17:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think LQELQV is pretty much a finished site, almost like a book except for being online. So I would dare to write to them if something needed an obvious correction, but not for adding an example like this when there are already a lot. Granted, it is a rare example of a minor Neapolitan six-four chord, but since there are already minor Neapolitan chords and minor Neapolitan six-four chords illustrated on the site it's not surprising that these can be combined. There are other things I disagree with, but those would simply be turning the theory into something else. The main one of those is that I agree with (I think) Rosen that major III masquerading as a dominant (the E major chord in C major and C minor) is better explained as either V of VI (with an elliptic resolution to I, bypassing all the intermediate steps) or a true mediant shift, rather than as V9 with an anticipation of the 3rd of the next chord or a lowered 7th. And I would follow the idea that a key is simply the expansion of a chord to analyse modulation on a large scale (and I should probably illustrate this with another analysis with the score – maybe another Mozart aria?). But again, if I were to do that, it wouldn't be Luce Beaudet's theory, it'd be mine that is heavily indebted to hers and Rosen's. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
PS I have just watched the scene in your link (Karajan's version) and you're very right. Even though that video's volume happens to be so low that I had to turn the level up three-quarters of the way, once I do that every part, including those of the orchestra, come out with great clarity. I wonder if the tempo is also not a bit slower because I can hear details I'm not used to being able to hear in other productions. In any case between the hieratic almost mechanical "Sì!" of the Commendatore and the pleading almost scream-like "Sì!" (which sounds like a final "Please!") of Leporello on the third "Sì!" there's a world of difference. I guess a great production such as this one is where those small details of the opera, libretto and music, come into their full significance. Unfortunately I couldn't find a full video of this production. I've just found a full video of this production. Great. Basemetal 17:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
My relationship with this production can best be described as "love at first sight", even if I still sometimes wish the additional arias from the Vienna version had not been included (as they mess up the tonal structure of the work; it's only sometimes, since I love them anyway as individual pieces). Indeed, the tempi are usually on the slower side, but you can really hear everything. Since this is Don Giovanni, we have a really good test of being able to hear everything, and it appears in the stupefying polymeter in the three on-stage orchestras of the ballroom scene in the Act I finale. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
And now I've just realized this production is among the ones I inserted a link for. (The second one). Duh. Basemetal 17:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess I shall have to watch the other six, then. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Mediants in Romantic harmony[edit]

(Header added.) Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and this is the chord progression I was talking about in the Liszt B minor sonata (somewhat later on in the piece, so that this theme appears in A major and F minor instead):

Liszt sonata tritone.png

What would you consider to be the function of those F major chords? Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're curious, I think of them simply as colouristic alternative harmonisations of the A in the soprano, since the obvious harmonisation of these notes is indeed F minor; while you could call these I chords, I prefer to think of them as non-functional harmonic exoticisms emphasising the tritone interval so important to this work. Liszt's use of mediants is often so heavy that it is sometimes difficult to tell what is colouristic and what is not. For example, I hardly feel as though we have left E major at all in the following passage from Sonetto 104 del Petrarca, but how does one analyse all those augmented triads and mediant shifts without leaving E major?
Liszt Petrarch sonnet mediants.png
So I think classifying remote chromaticisms functionally has its limits, and that their functions or lack thereof really depend on the work, though I'm really curious to see how you might analyse these two Liszt extracts. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I'll have to think. A lot. I'll let you know. Face-smile.svg Basemetal 14:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Looking forward to it! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Hey, you missed my question above! Basemetal 15:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
So noted and rectified. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Great. The moral of this is: don't write two contributions at two different places on a talk page in one edit. Do it in two edits, or the other editor is likely to miss it. I've known this for ages and yet I keep doing it again and again... Basemetal 10:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I hope you don't mind that I added a link to the LQELQV page in your post above to help anyone who might read this discussion and get a little lost. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. It was a good move. Thanks. Basemetal 09:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

On the correspondence between keys and modulations[edit]

And I would follow the idea that a key is simply the expansion of a chord to analyse modulation on a large scale (and I should probably illustrate this with another analysis with the score – maybe another Mozart aria?).

— me, earlier on this page

Well, you need wait no further: based on my comments above and LQELQV's conclusion, here is Dove sono from Le nozze di Figaro (with the introductory accompanied recitative). ^_^

The 2nd group is not literally resolved melodically, but is resolved harmonically (even melding seamlessly with a coda, which ends by resolving a little motif from the rewritten 2nd group), as can be seen from the return of the turn to the minor mode and the heavy emphasis on V of IV (or II). (The subdominant emphasis is in any case quite normal and necessary for a resolution.) Notice also that the sixths of la memoria di quel bene are outlined stepwise at mi portasse una speranza. I think this also well illustrates the fragmentary nature of an introduction, which, despite making total sense harmonically, weakens the sense of key by quickly moving away from the tonic major to either the parallel or the relative minor (or even starting there outright) and breaking the harmonic structural units up through copious rests and a free rhythm. Despite this, the tonic must remain very clearly defined by implication: Mozart quickly defines the tonic, dominant, and subdominant that are necessary to accomplish this (taking the relative minor as a substitute subdominant). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to follow. For the moment I'm still at the Commendatore. And this looks more complicated. I'm out through next Monday but I'm quite sure I'll have some questions come Tuesday Face-smile.svg Basemetal 19:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, take your time. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Great. I do have some questions. Well, I told you Face-smile.svg Seriously though, before I dive I'd like to understand what you say is the starting point of your analysis, namely the idea that (to quote you) "a key is simply the expansion of a chord". First of all you probably mean a major or minor key is the expansion of a minor or major chord respectively (not of any chord)? Is that correct? Second, what is this "expansion"? A random minor or major chord can be a chord in one of three major keys and two minor keys. So your "expansion" has to be driven by the ultimate goal of making the chord the tonic chord of the key. If that is the case then it seems to me the key does not somehow arise out of the chord but has to already exist, and if that is the case, then what exactly is the big idea? What original content does this idea have, I'm not totally sure I understand. I hope to be corrected though because I like new ideas. Finally, how does that idea influence your analysis? Basemetal 19:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a major or minor key is the expansion of its tonic chord. I'll quote p. 88 of Charles Rosen's The Classical Style: "The status of a subordinate tonality within any classical work is exactly the relation of its chord to the tonic triad." It is just that as a classical piece gets larger, so does the order of magnitude of its major harmonic landmarks. So, for example, in a short minuet or scherzo, we might end the first phrase with a half cadence on V without leaving the tonic; that would be the dominant used as a chord. In a slightly longer one one might have a tonicisation of the dominant, where it is not established as the new key but is established enough for secondary chords like V of V to appear. Still longer, and we have a full-scale modulation to the dominant; even longer, and the tonic and dominant chords of the phrase have expanded so much to become tonic and dominant areas, with a polarisation between them, and we have the harmonic course of sonata form. So what I mean is that you can look at harmony to different orders of magnitude in this way, by deciding if you are going to look at just significant tonal areas, or add some passing tonal areas that are not so firmly established, or look at every single chord. Passages in a different key from the tonic thus have both a "foreground" and a "background" reading: in the foreground, you hear the function as being I, IV, V, or whatever it is in the new key, but in the background you also have a sense of the original tonic and some consciousness that these are not I, IV, and V per se, but rather I of V, IV of V, and V of V. (Or whatever secondary key we happen to really be in.)
For example, in the aria above, we can take a detailed approach and look at every chord, like I did above. But let's take the really rough approach of observing only the most significant tonal areas; at that level, entire sections (not just phrases) take the role of bars, and keys take the role of chords. So all that meandering between I, II, and V for the most part in the tonic can be simply analysed as in the tonic: I as a key rather than a chord. Then we establish V as a secondary pole by giving it as much weight as the tonic. First we jump to it without preparation to start a new phrase: this caesura, combined with the pedal and heavy presence of V of V starts to convince us that it is being tonicised, and the shift to minor (and the move to the tertiary key III of V and back) confirms this reading (as a minor chord cannot be an effective dominant, and creates a greater dissonance against the tonic key which we still unconsciously remember in the background now that chromaticism is introduced). The repeated cadences then do the trick. And then just like the V chord has to resolve to the I chord in the end, so everything exposed in the dominant in its capacity as a well-established secondary key must be represented in the tonic (which it is), with a full resolution with many cadences. So at the highest level, this is just like a I–V–I chord progression; we start from the tonic, leave it to get to a harmonic dissonance, and then resolve that. The introduction starts by implying the tonic and then weakening it without actually moving; that implies a minor colouring to destabilise it via modal mixture (which would usually be accomplished by the parallel or the relative minor), and that it must end with a dominant. And indeed, once the preliminaries of showing us the I and V chords are dealt with, that is exactly what Mozart does.
In a major key, V of V, V of V of V, and other such keys help establish the dominant, as they are on that side of the circle of fifths; IV is on the subdominant side and has a plagal, resolutory function (and can indeed substitute for the tonic), as do ii and vi; III, iii, and VI are on the dominant side and can substitute for V, while III and VI are allied to IV instead; and so on. Just as the function of a chord is fixed by its placement on the circle of fifths relative to the tonic, so is the function of a key. Indeed, they have the same functions, just on a different scale. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh I see. It's not that a key in the abstract arises out of a chord. What you mean is that in the "tonal plan" of a piece the new keys (modulations) are just like expansions of the native chords of the original tonality that correspond to those keys (i.e. of which they are the tonic chords). Basemetal 17:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant. Rosen gives a nice illustration of this with Haydn's Piano Trio in G minor, Hob:XV/19. The first movement is a set of double variations on a binary form of which the final variation has been expanded to a full-blown sonata form, and it is interesting to see the correspondences (brief tonicisations of V and IV become full modulations to those keys). Double sharp (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Are all your Rosen quotes and examples from The Classical Style? (I used to own Sonata Forms but I'd never actually read it and now I don't know what happened to it)
Not certain the answer to the following question is not somewhere in your explanations but I don't immediately see it so I'll ask it anyway and you'll just tell me if it is: What happens when the tonic chord of the new key is not a chord of the original tonality (e.g. C major to D major)? Now D major is of course the V of the tonality of G major but what does it mean in term of the supposed relationship between modulations and chords of the key? Would a modulation from C major to D major be seen as part of a "V area" even if no explicit intermediate modulation to G major intervened? Basemetal 06:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
D major (as the key of major II in itself, rather than as V of V) is actually a very remote key from C major, because it directly attacks the tonic. There are essentially three degrees of separation for major keys from a tonic: (1) those whose tonics form perfect consonances with the original one; (2) those whose tonics form imperfect consonances with the original one; (3) those whose tonics form dissonances with the original one. The first group contains the dominant and subdominant, while the second contains the four mediants. The triads of the third group are so distant that they are difficult to set up as opposing poles to the tonic; their precise relationship to the tonic is defined more by the context, which usually involves nested dominant/subdominant or mediant relations. So I hope you don't mind if I answer your question for the triads of the second group instead. ^_^
It's not necessary for a chord to be diatonic to the original tonality to have a function in it. The chords of major III and major VI can act as substitute dominants in a major key (in C major, these are E major and A major), and so their keys act the same way. They can be analysed as having leading tones through enharmonic tricks as LQELQV does (think of them as E-A-B and A-D-E, and they become altered incomplete dominant ninths with anticipations of the mediant of the tonic triad), and it helps that they are also V of VI and V of II and hence on the dominant side of the tonic. (Major III is helped further, as minor iii is the relative of V.) The last allows you to have progressions like III–I and VI–I that are essentially elisions of the steps we already know in the circle of fifths, that gain the weight of true dominants by the third movement in the bass being the next strongest possible after the fifth movement. They are thus the closest related dominant chords after the real dominant and can substitute for them, so you can have secondary mediants like III of III. (This is actually getting pretty close to how I would analyse mediant-heavy Romantic harmony like the Liszt examples above). I'd consider III and VI to be analysable as III m.m. and VI m.m.; they are subdominant harmonies, as the minor mode has a subdominant orientation. (In works that are already in the minor mode, III and VI usually instead act as dominants, though VI can be given a subdominant orientation as it is the relative of IV.) Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, and I realised I missed a question again, so: yes, the Rosen quotes and examples from above are all from The Classical Style. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
With all these clarifications I'm ready to take a look at your masterful analysis of "Dove sono i bei momenti". I'll listen to it a few times first of course. Good thing you're here to make my uncultered and primitive taste more subtle and sophisticated. Can you believe my favorite number in the whole opera is Barbarina's "L'ho perduta, me meschina"? Sheesh. This is where listening to commercial music all day leads you in the end Face-smile.svg Basemetal 15:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, thank you for the compliments! But taste is personal and I certainly don't think yours is uncultured or primitive. I just like to explain the mastery that went into all these great works.
I realise I forgot to mention one thing, which is why I analyse the end of the recitative purely as V of VI leading to the I of the aria. The reason I don't write "V of VI = III" on the last chord is because the context of that E major triad is clearly in A minor, where it is V. I think this A minor is not a real modulation but a minor colouring of the C major. I'd write "III" if there is no suggestion of the key of VI. This is just a small thing and it's not very important: I think it's fine to write "V of VI = III" there. (I'm using italics to make it clear that these are not the ordinary III and VI, which are minor chords in a major key.) I think you can analyse the pairs II/IV, VI/I, and III/V as having a strong ability to substitute for each other, which would explain why V of VI leading to I is very common when we have just come out of the relative minor (see the end of lots of classical development sections).
P.S. Following LQELQV's glossary entry on the minor Neapolitan chord (n) I guess I should give a gallery of examples of III and VI. Oh, and I forgot; it is possible to make III m.m. and VI m.m. act as dominant harmonies in major. For examples, see Beethoven's Piano Sonata op. 49 no. 1, ii (G major; second subject in III m.m., with an intermediate section in I m.m. leading to it; resolved in I) and String Quartet op. 130, i (B-flat major; second subject in VI m.m., resolved by first playing it in III m.m. and then moving to I, similar to the way III is resolved by VI, then VI and I in the Piano Sonatas op. 31 no. 1, i and op. 53, i). Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Some examples of the III and VI chords: an attempt at a glossary of chromatic primary functions[edit]

Schubert, Piano Sonata D 850, i (III):

D 850 mediants 2.png

Schubert, Piano Trio D 898, ii (VI):

D 898 submediant.png

Schubert, Im Walde D 708 (secondary mediant, III of V):

Im Walde mediants.png

Schubert, Im Walde D 708 (secondary mediant altered to form an augmented sixth chord, III of V):

Im Walde mediants 2.png

Schubert, Piano Sonata D 850, i (mediants of mediants, III of III of V):

D 850 mediants.png

It shouldn't be too hard to find more in the first Romantic generation, but Schubert is usually the pioneer in these things, so I thought that the first examples should probably be the least complicated. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You will find a III m.m. in major (D minor in B major) in So lasst mich scheinen (D 877 no. 3). Double sharp (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If you haven't read it already, you should have a look at Jaroslav Volek's theory (link), which posits that the chromatic mediant is a fourth tonal function along with the tonic, dominant, and subdominant. I confess to having been unaware of this until today, but I like some of it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the italics are really a concise way to write (alt.), along the lines of LQELQV's "V de VII altéré" (a major or minor leading-tone chord). Then we can extend this to all mediants: italics change the quality (major to minor or vice versa), while "m.m." changes the root of the chord from being diatonic in major to being diatonic in minor or vice versa. So an E-flat minor chord in C major is III m.m., and so is an E major chord in C minor. (Assuming of course that they do have primary rather than secondary functions.)

I agree with Volek that mediants are a separate harmonic function. They can substitute for tonics, dominants, and subdominants, and Beethoven integrates them into tonality this way; but their ability to serve as colouristic alterations while remaining distinct chords suggests that they are something different, and Mozart's use is more similar to this (which the first Romantic generation took up, passing through Schubert). However, unlike him, I accept III and VI as mediants along with the chromatic mediants. In Classical tonality they are the same sort of thing: see Beethoven's Quintet op. 29, i, where the second subject shifts between VI and VI; and Piano Sonatas op. 31 no. 1, i and op. 57, i, where it shifts between III and III – the latter in minor rather than major. This is why I retain Beaudet's scale-degree analysis. As for II and VII; both clearly have independent functions, even when they are diminished chords – the Coronation Concerto example should have convinced us all that diminished chords can take secondary dominants – but as Volek says: "The set to which a given chord belongs is not unique, but depends on its usage in context. A given triad may be said to imitate the function of the triad a third above or below it; in particular, a VII chord may take on the function of a V chord; a II chord can take on the function of a IV chord." Since the third function is both predominant and subdominant, I follow Beaudet in distinguishing II and IV but do not really bother with distinguishing VII from V most of the time.

Which reminds me that I have not talked much about the other remote chords: the chromatic Neapolitan, supertonic, tritone, subtonic, and leading tone. That'll be next time. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Whew. You're hitting hard. Besides all this I'm trying to learn Python for some neat experiments with twelve tone rows it would be insane to even think of attempting by hand. I've got the feeling I'll be having a busy summer. Won't you be taking a few days off? Face-smile.svg Basemetal 20:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I tend to like to spam out a lot at once to avoid losing momentum till the end. ^_^ If it all gets a little too much for you you can always wait to catch up, since there will be more material being added at the end.
I'll have to do that won't I? Just don't archive this stuff until I am done. Yes I know I can always go to the archive but don't. I note you've managed to read Volek's 49 page article in a day. Or was it an hour? How long is your commute to work? Face-smile.svg Basemetal 15:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I haven't actually finished it, but I've skimmed through it (using the expedient of looking near the end and searching for explanations further towards the beginning. So I haven't spent that much time on it, but I like what I've seen so far. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I had never heard of him. Did you discover him just now or did you know him from before? Basemetal 15:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I just discovered him. All this business about extra suggested harmonic functions like M (mediant), F (Phrygian), and L (Lydian) seems not to have diffused very far. Either that or I have just been looking in the wrong places for them. Anyway, my opinion of some of this tends to be a compromise: something like "I doubt if all of these are functions, but there's something in common about chords that supposedly belong to them". (Well, I'm still thinking about what rubric I want to consider the mediant under; its role changes between 18th- and 19th-century tonality.) Good music is usually overdetermined; there are multiple reasons for why things happen. Double sharp (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I guess I should answer why I'm covering all these really remote harmonies by taking examples from the Viennese Classics – which usually means Schubert for such chords, though I will try to let the other three join in the fun too. It may seem perverse, given that such procedures do not become harmonically normal until much later. The simple reason is that I know these composers the best, and in fact Schubert is the pioneer in most of such things. The more complicated reason is that after Schubert, the dominant-subdominant polarity loses its power, and by Wagner we cannot easily define a tonic for large passages, so that if we want to explain such remote harmonies in the fullness of classical tonality Schubert (and Brahms, who reconstitutes a lot of the classical practice) are the best possible guides, with a glance at Mozart and Beethoven at their most chromatic. And thank you for initiating this discussion: it's making me want to try and find Tovey's Tonality in Schubert again. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
(I'm basically going to have to analyse parts of Tristan und Isolde if I'm going to keep on giving examples of remote chords, won't I?) Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Hunh? Don't tell me the Classical Style also deals with Tristan und Isolde. I'm feeling quite dizzy here. My world is being turned upside down. Face-smile.svg Basemetal 15:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Nah. It mentions it (of course), but it's mostly in The Romantic Generation, and even then mostly in relation to late Chopin (e.g. the Polonaise-Fantaisie). Double sharp (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

On the exotic functions[edit]

Before getting into any of this, I should note that the basic directions of dominant, subdominant, and mediant can be simply expressed through looking at the circle of fifths.

  • The tonal (dominant) direction goes around the circle of fifths the normal way, and is the foundation of the system;
  • The plagal (subdominant) direction goes around the other way;
  • The mediant (modal mixture) direction does not really go around the circle of fifths at all, but runs basically on the spot (as it stems from modal mixture). However, the resulting triads can take a different place on the circle of fifths, and so mediant chords can also be used as substitute dominants or subdominants.

Now that that's sorted, I can think about this a lot more and then write another wall of text or two. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(Placeholder for discusisng the function of V of V, its role as a substitute for dominants and subdominants, the predominant function, the general lack of difference between the two in very late tonality, explaining Lydian and Phrygian chords and the importance of the semitonal root movement even if they are not true functions, and the former's VII–I being similar to V–VI; the combined SD function of the "Phrygian" augmented sixth and plagal Neapolitan chords; and the chords IV of IV and M of M, M meaning any mediant function; further explaining the tritone function – look at the Liszt sonata – the "enharmonic tonics", C minor in C major and C major in C minor.) Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(Darn it, Zarębski's Piano Quintet is still copyrighted in the USA. I'll have to find something to replace that example, since the WMF and the WP servers are there.) Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This thing has been growing in the telling for a while and it may not be ready for a bit longer, since I am currently still deciding what I think about many parts of it. In the meantime, though, here's a rough plan of what I plan to talk about here.

  • The function of the major II chord (subdominant or dominant)? Elliptical resolutions down the circle of fifths to the tonic as well as the dominant (resolving V of V to I, or V of VI to I as an alternative explanation of III–I; this has limits though, as III m.m.–I still works as a dominant substitute – see Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata).
  • Chords with multiple functions and the limits of going by the root (I6
    4
    , which is a separate chord going by harmonic rhythm).
  • What are the roots of the augmented sixth chords? (Sometimes they act more like VI than like II or V of V).
  • Is the minor mode a form of the mediant or the subdominant? And is the mediant a real function, or just a colouristic version of the other functions (therefore analysing V of VI to I as a perfectly orthodox cadence, simply slurring over the mediant distinction)? What then of the subdominant, which can substitute for the tonic and render a true tonic resolution superfluous (but then IV of IV can be a dissonance; the tonic minor can act both to create tension and resolution)?
  • The Phrygian second degree (giving the augmented sixths a subdominant function combined with the dominant function) and the parallel motion inherent in resolving the chords on II (N) and VII to I; on why the augmented sixths are most commonly seen on the flat sixth degree (not the flat second), even if this makes them usually V of V instead of V. Does this have anything to do with modal mixture (and hence to mediants)?
  • Quasi-functions (chord features that act to unify various functions, even if they may not add their own new functions)
  • The augmented sixth chords on the fourth degree of the scale (IV, or V of III)? (Also possible as an altered vii°7/V without the sharp on the root.)
  • Lydian chords: how to explain the VII–I quasi-deceptive cadence? (Common-tone diminished 7th chords will be included.) Also in these sections: harmony in the Phrygian and Lydian modes.
  • The function of the IV chord
  • Root movement (and taking VII and II as substitutes for V and IV, even when unaltered)
  • The function of the confusing enharmonic-third chords (in C major, D-flat minor; in C minor, B major). Good examples can be found of each in some Schubert four-hand works (the Grand Duo for the former, the Lebensstürme Allegro for the latter). Interpreting all these as "extended mediants", since mediants start out as (the sum of) half-step shifts that do not alter function (major to minor).
  • I will respect the "key = chord" principle for the Classical language, so a lot of this will be from how Schubert uses these as key areas and chords in his later works.

I have many examples ready, so by the time I finish this you should have reading material for a few days. ^_^ (I was carrying this list in my head yesterday, but it has now gotten so bloated that that is no longer a wise idea.) Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The difficulty of explaining everything by three or four functions[edit]

As I've said, a key is the expansion of a chord, at least for classical tonality. Thus, we get vital information about the function of a chord from how its corresponding key functions in the tonal discourse. This immediately distinguishes three classes of chords, that we may consider to be something like functions:

  • The tonic, which is the only pure consonance and the only chord and key that the piece can end with; either a perfect major or perfect minor triad on the first degree of the scale. (If the tonic is minor, the piece may end with the major tonic instead.)
  • The dominant, which is the strong direction of tension. As Rosen remarks on p. 24 of The Classical Style, "The structure [of successive triads going up and down a ladder of fifths] is unbalanced, because harmonics all rise from a note, and the dominant or sharp direction, based on the successive second overtones of the previous note, outweighs the subdominant direction, which descends. The subdominant weakens the tonic by turning it into a dominant (that is, by using the tonic note not as the root of the central triad, but as an overtone.)" The Classical style exploits this to create a polarity between tonic and dominant, elevating dissonance to the level of structure.
  • The subdominant, which is the weak direction of resolution (by the same token).

Unfortunately, outside the triads of I, IV, and V themselves, everything becomes problematic. It is true that keys on the sharp side are usually dominants (the mediant and submediant are good examples), and that keys on the flat side are usually subdominants (the flattened mediant and submediant are good examples). However, things are more complicated than just looking at the circle of fifths, because one must also take into account the intervallic relation between the tonic of the secondary key and the background tonic. The general rule is that the more dissonant this interval, the more dissonant the tonality. Thus the following hierarchy presents itself, taking C major as the home key:

  • The unison: C major itself
  • Perfect consonances: G major, F major (the dominant and subdominant)
  • Imperfect consonances: E major, A major, E-flat major, A-flat major (the four mediants)
  • Tone-related keys: D major, B-flat major
  • Semitone-related keys: D-flat major, B major
  • Tritone-related keys: F-sharp major
The two places where distance by harmonic consonance does not coincide with distance by the number of 5ths are the major 2nds and minor 7ths.
On the circle of 5ths:
... - diminished 5th - minor 2nd - minor 6th - minor 3rd - minor 7th - 4th - unison - 5th - major 2nd - major 6th - major 3rd - major 7th - augmented 4th - ...
While for the distance by harmonic consonance according to your scheme:
Minor 7th gets pushed two slots to the left and major 2nd gets pushed two slots to the right. Or is the major 6th and major 3rd that're pushed to the left and so on?
Also: is there any ground for distinguishing (in this context) between the four imperfect consonances (two on the right: major 6th and major 3rd, and two on the left: minor 3rd and minor 6th), e.g. that a modulation to E major is "more remote" than one to A major etc. or vice versa? Basemetal 16:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could, but it doesn't seem to accord very well with practice. In Classical harmony III and VI seem to be pretty much equidistant from the tonic, as are their flat versions; Beethoven treats all mediants in about the same way, and while ending a development with V of VI is a very common trope, ending it with V of III sounds pretty normal too (the finale of the Jupiter Symphony does that, for example). BTW, this isn't my scheme; it's taken directly from Rosen in one of the essays in his collection Freedom and the Arts. (In The Classical Style he simply lumps the last three rows of dissonant tonalities into a set of keys that need context to establish their relation to the tonic, though to some extent even the mediants already need such context.) I agree with you: it mostly does follow the circle of fifths, except that the tone-related keys are much more dissonant than you'd expect. Double sharp (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But it is not clear which of these keys are dominants and which are subdominants. Take the supertonic, for example. It is the dominant of the dominant, and while in that role it is often preparing the dominant as a tonality and therefore not functioning in direct relation to the tonic, its position on the circle of fifths certainly suggests to us that it should be able to substitute for the dominant. And indeed, this is correct:

Beethoven, Piano Sonata No. 30 in E major Op. 109, ii
V of V Beethoven.png

Mozart also uses V of V as a dominant substitute in the C minor Fantasy, KV 457: there the dominant itself (G major or minor) has been too weakened by the preliminary modulations to actually use it as a secondary tonality, and so its dominant D major takes on this role. (Similarly, IV of IV, B-flat major, is used as a subdominant substitute for the central episode.) We should note though that in its weakening the tonic so early, this work is, as Rosen puts it on p. 92 of The Classical Style, "truly abnormal by classical standards". But wait: Beethoven also uses the supertonic major triad as a subdominant substitute, in this very famous secondary development from the Eroica Symphony (I give the score in Liszt's transcription):

Beethoven, Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major Op. 55, i
Eroica secondary development Beethoven.png

Here, the F major is approached and left as F minor, which is of course perfectly orthodox; the key sequence is I, II, VII m.m., V of I, I, which naturally goes round the circle of fifths with II substituting for IV. (Here VII m.m. is acting as IV of IV, and serves as a resolving intensification of the subdominant that also has a mediant relationship with II.) Only it is major II, instead of minor II, which is a sharp-side harmony! It's only that the way Beethoven approaches it makes it not feel like a dominant but a subdominant harmony. Schubert does the same thing on a smaller scale, as we would expect from his love of the major–minor effect:

Schubert, Im Frühling, D 882
Im Frühling Schubert.png

Here we have Schubert's characteristic dwelling on the subdominant area of a phrase and expanding it in preference to the dominant area (stopping there and tonicising them, whence chords like IV of IV and II of II that act as an expansion somewhere between just interpolating a secondary dominant and actually modulating to the new key). Naturally, the supertonic alternates with the subdominant – except that, at the first outbreak of past-tense material (memory: wo ich beym ersten Frühlingsstrahl einst, ach, so glücklich war), it is the major supertonic. And we cannot even always analyse the supertonic major triad as V of V when it occurs together with II or IV as a predominant before V, because sometimes the supertonic major comes first and so we cannot interpret it as part of a tonicisation of V:

Beethoven, Piano Sonata No. 27 in E minor Op. 90, ii
Op 90 Beethoven supertonic.png

I think it is therefore clear that we cannot easily classify the supertonic major triad as either a dominant or a subdominant one. It can be either depending on context, as can its key, because the "leapfrogging" of mediant-like parallel-key relationships across the circle of fifths means that minor II is a subdominant-side key while major II is a dominant-side key. And this is not a terribly remote key in the first place; consider how the mediants can act as dominants, subdominants, or even usurp the role of tonics in 19th-century tonality. (See Chopin's Second Ballade in F major–A minor, Scherzo Op. 35 in B-flat minor–D-flat major, and Fantasy Op. 49 in F minor–A-flat major, where the tonic and mediant are pretty much the same key, related as major and minor rather than as tonic and mediant as Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven would do. This isn't even a mediant-only phenomenon: the Fourth Ballade treats the tonic F minor and its subdominant B-flat minor as being the same key.) So while we can indeed say that there are dominant, subdominant, and mediant directions going out from the tonic, this does not mean that we can assign one function to any one chord out of context. It may function mostly as a dominant or mostly as a subdominant, but aside from V and IV themselves, these are only true to some extent; and in fact, for some common chords, the reading by functions can be very incomplete. (VI in minor, despite its TS label, can act as a dominant and allow polarisation from the tonic: observe its use in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, i and Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op. 111, i.)

So what are we left with? It seems to me that the model of analysis by scale degree is mostly correct, with the ideas of tonal and plagal linkages (the dominant and subdominant directions), as well as pleonastic linkages (mediants, such as I and III or II and IV). I would not object, in fact, to reusing the symbols T, D, S, and M for these directions away from the tonic (with the T symbol necessarily being rather restricted to the case where a tonal area is defined, rather than one tonality; this is common from the first Romntic generation). But I think the Riemannian idea that one chord has only a limited number of functions, and that only T, S, and D can be functional, does not work as well as the Stufentheorie (essentially similar to LQELQV's model, giving each degree of the scale its own function through the circle of fifths; of course, a complete theory will note the possibility that a function can act as a sharp-side or a flat-side chord, along with more possible functions that I will expound upon). And, well, since Schenker and Schoenberg used the Stufentheorie, I think I am in good company here. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Just a quick ping to reassure you that I haven't disappeared completely and will gather my notes into some more coherent text once the current slam of IRL projects subsides! I may depart a little from the topics I said I would cover earlier, as I think there may be quicker routes to get through all of this, but we'll see. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

An interlude[edit]

Since you seem to be in an analytical mood and assuming you don't mind getting away from your dear Viennese for a few minutes, I've been curious about the analysis of Bach's A minor partita for flute solo BWV 1013 where the harmony is all implicit in the melody. If you've only got one minute you could consider doing the Sarabande. Basemetal 10:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been happy with most of the IMSLP scores (the one I really want is copyrighted in the USA), but I think I can probably get this done (if necessary by doing a re-typeset from the sole manuscript source, which is available on IMSLP). So you might see this tomorrow. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. Don't re-typeset it. I would feel very guilty if you did. Can't you just insert your analysis into the facsimile score? Basemetal 16:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
There's not enough space between the staves to do that, and it can be a bit difficult to read the notes. So I might actually have to do the re-typesetting. (And sorry for missing a day; I've been rather busy, which is why the above is on hold for a moment. I will try for tomorrow, though.) Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Take your time. I'll be very grateful whenever it is you manage to do it, really. There's absolutely no rush. To type the whole thing in that's a lot of work really, even though you are I'm sure you're very fast. How about this: annotate the modern edition, the one that is still copyrighted in the US and that you don't wanna use on WP. When you're done you set up two windows one with your annotated modern edition and the other one with the autograph. The problem of reading the autograph disappears since you follow on the modern edition you've already annotated. Then you annotate the autograph while looking at your annotations of the modern edition. It's true there's very little space between the staves, but if you use red-on-black and a very small type you can annotate the autograph (it doesn't matter even if your annotations run over the staves) not so that someone reading it can follow the analysis on the autograph itself but so that someone following on the modern edition can make sense of your annotations of the autograph and transfer your analysis to the modern edition, doing, in other words, what you did, but in reverse. The annotations of the autograph (especially if you manage to do them in red as I said) will just be a guide to the analysis of the score of the modern edition. What do you think of this idea? Surely this will take less time than re-typing the whole thing. Basemetal 21:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not really that much work to type a single line in MuseScore (which I use for IMSLP re-typesets), because you can input the notes from a keyboard (letter keys A–G give the notes, with the other letters being mapped to various other signs or add accidentals; arrow keys change the octave; number keys change the note value). And then I won't have to put in the analysis in Paint separately because I can use text annotations. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

And here you go. Since a melodic line in tonal music implies its harmony to a certain extent, through resolving its dissonances in terms of the triads that are present within it, it is actually not very hard to do something like this. If you try making an accompaniment for this melody, forgetting for a moment that that is gilding the lily, the harmonisation is almost forced on you; maybe you can substitute a few mediant-related triads from what I gave, like using II instead of IV or I instead of VI (in ambiguous cases I chose to follow the circle of fifths if possible), but that's about it.

Bach Sarabande analysis.png

Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is great. Thanks a lot Captain Face-smile.svg Basemetal 17:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

metal ions ...[edit]

I placed Al in group 3 because, in this context of ions in solution it makes more sense. This is not the normal layout convention, but then, neither is the long-form periodic table. Further, there is an explanation in the article, copied below, as to why Al may be considered together with Sc rather than with Ga in terms of periodicity.

"By convention aluminium is placed in group 13, with gallium, indium and thallium. Nevertheless, a comparison of aluminium and scandium aqua ions illustrates a trend between the congeners Na+/K+, Mg2+/Ca2+ and Al3+/Sc3+ which depends on the increase in size on going from rows 3 to 4 in the periodic table. Shannon radii for 6-coordinate Al3+ and Sc3+ are 54 and 74.5 pm. Ga3+ has a Shannon radius of 62 pm, only about 13% larger than that of Al3+. This is due to the presence of the ten elements between scandium and gallium, which make an additional contribution to the general decrease in size across all rows of the periodic table."

I won't undo your edit; please do so if you can accept the motivation for putting Al in group 3 rather than in group 13. Petergans (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Petergans: I confess I don't find this argument convincing. Indeed, Na+/K+ have Shannon radii 1.02 and 1.38 Å respectively (ratio 1.35), Mg2+/Ca2+ have Shannon radii 0.72 and 1.00 Å respectively (ratio 1.39), Al3+/Sc3+ have Shannon radii 0.535 and 0.745 Å respectively (ratio 1.39), while Al3+/Ga3+ have Shannon radii 0.535 and 0.62 Å respectively (1.16). This is, as you say, because of the d-block insertion between Sc and Ga. But look at the fifth and sixth periods. Rb+/Cs+ have Shannon radii 1.52 and 1.67 Å respectively (ratio 1.10), Sr2+/Ba2+ have Shannon radii 1.18 and 1.35 Å respectively (ratio 1.14), Y3+/La3+ have Shannon radii 0.90 and 1.032 Å respectively (ratio 1.15), Zr4+/Ce4+ have Shannon radii 0.72 and 0.87 Å respectively (ratio 1.21), while Zr4+/Hf4+ have Shannon radii 0.72 and 0.71 Å respectively (ratio 0.99). Again, this is because of the f-block insertion between Ce and Hf. So it seems to me that this argument suggests that we consider Zr with Ce instead of Hf in terms of periodicity, and if that's undesirable then I don't see why its case for putting Al in group 3 should be any better. Also, since Sc3+, Y3+, and La3+ are not actually hexacoordinate in aqueous solution, whereas Al3+, Ga3+, In3+, and Tl3+ are, I think Al fits better due to size with its usual group 13 congeners, while noting that it has the hardness of a group 3 ion. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a periodic table! In this context, the unconventional layout for the metallic elements is better suited to the subject matter of the articlec. Petergans (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
And that's what I'm disputing. First of all, the aqueous Al3+ ion has a structure more similar to Ga3+, In3+, and Tl3+ precisely because the group 13 ions are smaller than the group 3 ions and can only coordinate six water molecules unlike the bigger Sc3+, Y3+, and La3+ ions. As a result, it is questionable at best if moving Al to group 3 is an improvement even given the subject matter. Second of all, in periods 5 and 6, the lanthanide contraction is so big that Hf4+ is smaller than Zr4+, but no one is advocating putting Ce4+ under Zr4+ instead; at least Ga3+ is still bigger than Al3+. I don't see why we should make an exception from the effects of inserting the d- and f-blocks just for aluminium. That, to my mind, is not better suited to the subject matter, particularly when it is not and cannot be carried out consistently, and when the similarities of Al3+ to Ga3+ are not appreciably weaker than those of Al3+ to Sc3+. Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, I disagree that this is not a periodic table. If it were not, it would not be formatted like one. A list of metallic elements to be discussed would look like:
and not be any more useful at organising anything than an actual periodic table. A normal periodic table is useful as always, as suggested immediately by the group-based organisation of "Solvation numbers and structures" (except for putting Al in group 3, which in this context is even stranger because the Al(H2O)63+ solvation number and structure is the same as that of Ga3+ through Tl3+, not Sc3+ through La3+). Frankly, given this and the other question about what this argument would do to the case for putting Ce and Th in group 4, I think moving aluminium around raises more questions than it actually answers. Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(The discussion continued at Talk:Metal ions in aqueous solution#Periodic table.) Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Radium[edit]

The article states that melting point is disputed , I thought a bit improvement can get it to GA status , but this will not work . Can you help fix it ? Regards , Kpgjhpjm (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few things needed to improve the article to GA status, many of which are at Talk:Radium/Archive 1#Review by R8R (from 2015). The disputed melting point is not among them. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Upside down bishops shown as elephants[edit]

The black ones haven't been fixed:
Chess edl45.svgChess edd45.svg
Can you sort them out? Can't do it myself (no account). 88.144.172.207 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for alerting me to this. Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Cake[edit]

Kpgjhpjm (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Einsteinium compounds[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Einsteinium compounds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 15:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A moment of pedestrianism...[edit]

If I may be forgiven for bringing you down from those lofty heights, I'd like to ask you a very simple question I've never been able to answer for myself, namely the odd way some people spell the chromatic scale of a major key. I don't remember right now what they do for minor keys but it's not that important right now, since, if I understand this oddity in major, I may perhaps get the general point. The way I spell the chromatic scale in C major, and most sensible people do too (if I may presume to place myself among those sensible people, albeit by mere coincidence Face-smile.svg) is we just use (for the chromatic tones) all five sharps going up and all five flats coming down. But some less sensible people use B instead of A going up and F instead of G coming down. Have you ever seen that sort of thing? If you have, do you understand the point? If you do, could you share it with me? Thanks. Basemetal 17:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it a lot (source: pick just about any Mozart piece, really). I think it's mostly a matter of picking the less remote accidentals. It's also not too uncommon to use even more flats when going up (E, A, maybe D), because the chromatic scale is then seen as a union of the major and minor modes (I guess with the Neapolitan being seen as an honorary diatonic note), and using F not only uses the closer accidental but leaves the fifth inviolate. But this is just off the top of my head and I don't quite remember what explanation I was first given for the harmonic and melodic chromatic scales. ^_^ I also doubt it matters very much, since composers are usually inconsistent, and the only rule that seems to be followed with any sense of consistency is not to write the same letter name three times in a row. Double sharp (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Aluminium[edit]

When you can, please review the History section. I have just completed Natural occurrence and it seems to me that the result is a good section with a high density of information in it and I'd love to make History something just as informative and not too long. Working on Natural occurrence has given me some ideas, which I've tried to implement, but I'd like a second opinion from you on whether we could cut more, especially the part on the 20th century. We've got everything covered in the subarticle anyway.--R8R (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I haven't had time to give it a solid read earlier, but at first sight I think there's not very much left to cut. Maybe the list of figures is a bit redundant next to the graph, but then again not everyone will be able to see the graph, and it isn't really all that long. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Great! thanks for letting me know.--R8R (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you come up with a good caption to this picture? Somehow, I'm having problems doing that; my captions seem flawed somehow.--R8R (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: In this case I can't think of anything better than taking almost the whole image description from the file description page; there is a lot going on in this picture and I think the reader would benefit from knowing exactly what is pictured (I certainly wondered about that when looking at the picture with the current caption in the context of the article ^_-☆). Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I know what you mean; that's a part of why I can't seem to do it on my own. Still, would you give it a shot and actually try to compose a caption?

Would you take a look at Aluminium#Biodegradation? I cannot decide whether we need this section at all in our overview article and I could really use a second opinion on this one.--R8R (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at these. Double sharp (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@R8R: I don't mind having this material (provided it is proportionately covered compared to the rest of the article; at one paragraph I do not find it problematic), but I don't think it should be a distinct section; a brief mention in the flow of the "Environmental effects" section seems sufficient. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Good thinking; thank you.--R8R (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there's a small debate at Talk:Aluminium#Coins; could you participate and help resolve it?--R8R (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've weighed in over there. Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?[edit]

Hi Double sharp,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter[edit]

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • South Carolina Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
  • Scotland Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
  • Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. 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. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

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), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Bach Sarabande analysis.png[edit]

You uploaded or restored , File:Bach Sarabande analysis.png, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work, please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, then please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

It's okay to remove or strike this message once the issue has been resolved :).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science[edit]

I was just published in WikiJournal of Science -- a Wikimedia scientific journal. I chose an article of mine (lead), it was copied and pasted there, underwent a review from actual professionals in the area, got improved per reviewers' comments, and released as such as a published article of the WikiJournal as well as those improvements were carried over to Wikipedia. That seemed like a great thing and I'd very much love to repeat this with my current targets, starting with aluminium once we get to the FA status; yesterday I asked a coordinator about this and he said they would be welcome. What do you think? I figured you'd like the idea but there's the requirement of the article authors to use their real names. You haven't been sharing information about the RL yourself all that actively so I think you might need some time to consider the idea. If you could consider giving your name for an actually published article (with a DOI), that would be great! I actually think we'll produce something you'll be proud to put your name on. Please let me know what you think of this.--R8R (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've already been contacted by email about this; I don't feel comfortable sharing the details here, but I shan't be participating in it (though indeed I like the idea). I'm really sorry to have to give this response and I hope it doesn't affect our collaboration on our projects! Double sharp (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course, it does not affect our collaboration though I must say I am sorry to hear that. I still want to use the chance though, and while I'd love to do so with you, how about I go for it alone as if you weren't there? This way, we get the review and you won't be forced to reveal your identity. I'll give you a special thanks and mention your role in the Acknowledgments section of the WJS article where you'll be fine to go under your Double sharp alias. Would that be okay with you?--R8R (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I unfortunately don't have time for a complete response right now, especially because I think I'd rather continue this in email where I feel more comfortable giving more explanation and I want to spend a day or two to think about it; but you can definitely go for the WJS review alone when the article's ready. I'll write an email to you this weekend. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me go for the review; I'm relieved now. Of course, I'll be eagerly awaiting your email.--R8R (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your nice edits at Chopin[edit]

Your discussion on the Talk page there I found to be persuasive. Separately, I have learned that you were involved in some Featured Articles for Wikipedia and that you have some interest in science. I have been spending some contribution time thinking about whether the film article for 2001 is nearing something close to a FA nomination and am wondering if you might read through the article and mention to me if there are any pressing issues needing attention prior to further enhancing the article. This is the 50 year commemoration year for the film and it might be nice to improve the article further. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Well, I am really not sure how much help I can be of here. Films are definitely outside my expertise: all I have done in this topic is occasionally translate short articles from French on request. While I would probably be able to read it over for clarity, I would have much difficulty going beyond that, as discussing what has been omitted or could be covered better would require me to have some familiarity with the subject. I have given the article a cursory look and don't see anything unclear about it, but I think it might be better if you asked some editors with more expertise in films. Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
That's a fair comment. My own reading of books about this film have been on its artistic value, and given your background in some of the science articles for Wikipedia it seemed like you might be a good person to give a read-through of the 2001 film article for its science content, especially its "Design" sections. Separately, on your nice Chopin comments at the GAN for Sonata No 2, it appears that the nominating editor there is taking his article even further into Beethoven territory even though 2-3 editors have mentioned that this seems to already be WP:Overstate and overlooking issues of balancing multiple reliable sources which are not always in agreement. If you have an opinion on the Bach and Beethoven influences, then I'm sure it will be appreciated on the GAN review page for the Chopin sonata. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@JohnWickTwo: Your allegation that I am “taking my article even further into Beethoven territory” is not at all true. I stated that I am “still determining that if the op. 111 allusion is WP:UNDUE”; you’re right, it has been scarcely mentioned in other sources. James Huneker, who wrote an influential biography of Chopin (The Man and his Music), mentions that he feels that the opening of Chopin’s op.35 alludes to Beethoven’s op.111. Furthermore, almost all of the sources cited in the article mention Beethoven’s op. 26. Also, if you discuss my editing with other editors, please mention my username or ping me so I’m aware I’m being discussed: not doing so comes off as uncourteous. Thanks. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The current material on Beethoven runs two full paragraphs in the Influences section and seems far too long. See my comment on the review page for the Sonata on this length issue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A question about double sharps[edit]

How come double sharps are written using an x-like symbol instead of two sharps next to each other, like a double flat? (i thought you would be an expert on this lol) ShangKing (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually I don't know for sure, but I can make some guesses before I do the research. ^_^ The sharp sign used to often be tilted about 45°, which makes it look quite like the modern double sharp sign. Since accidentals were at first often used relatively (so that if you wanted an F-natural after an F-sharp with an empty key signature, you wrote a on the first F and then a on the second), and relative accidentals make double alterations almost always unnecessary, this could be where the modern double-sharp shape came from. Some early double-flats incidentally looked like a Greek β (which, as the equivalent of Latin b, fits in with the derivation of the flat, natural, and sharp signs from that letter). I think the current scheme persists because it takes a lot more strokes to write two sharps than two flats. ^_^ But, as I said, some research is needed so that we can put the real story (not my guesses) into WP. Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ten new satellites of Jupiter, want to help?[edit]

Info at https://sites.google.com/carnegiescience.edu/sheppard/moons/jupitermoons

Also, one might have gotten named! S/2016 J 2 ---> Valetudo (no number yet). Dreigorich (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool! But I should note that the name Valetudo is not yet official, but only proposed, so I would not use it yet as the article title. As you can see, it is not yet present in the MPEC. I will do some quick edits. Double sharp (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I thought this was a case of a name being official, yet not numbered for some reason, which felt odd. Nonetheless there are a lot of tables that need updating. Dreigorich (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm pressed for time right now, so for now I'll just make little stubs for the new moons. If no one has gotten to updating the table by tomorrow, I'll be on it. Double sharp (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Same here. I have an essay to write. Dreigorich (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I've created the stubs. Still to be updated are the tables at Moons of Jupiter and Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Dreigorich (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thank you so much, Exoplanetaryscience! Now I'm hoping at least some moons get their numbers in the next MPC, which should come out around the full moon at the end of this month. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(Reminder to self to update the tentative groupings of the lost moons based on Sheppard's site.) Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done (a while ago, but I forgot to update this); now keeping an eye out for the next MPC where some will almost certainly get Roman numerals. Double sharp (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks like we'll be waiting till the September full moon then! Double sharp (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

A little edit war by edit summaries is not transparent to anyone looking. I suggest you revert to before your first change, to be consistent with the Main page. (I can't do it, as I am on a voluntary 1RR even for the articles I wrote. Sometimes, it hurts.) If you feel strongly about the English version, go to Main page errors and have it changed there. Tomorrow, we can talk again, splitting more hairs, if you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I have reverted back to the original, pending future discussion (which I will start when not on my mobile ^_^; I'd already gone to Main page errors about the English version). And yes, let's talk about it, perhaps over at WT:CM to discuss similar naming issues more generally. Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I think this is an exceptional case. Usually I refer to an opera by the title it has on the English Wikipedia, which is in most cases I see the original title. I refer to an opera performed in Germany in German by it's German name, if that is not German pipe-linked to the original title or as a valid redirect. Opera has been sung translated to German in the 1950s, but it gradually changed towards the original language. - This case, that the opera's original name was changed, is rather rare, no? - I am sure that readers will understand the name even with a w and an extra s. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: The thing is, though, the opera was mostly not sung in German; only the parts of the Poles were translated into German. From the source: "Die Polen sind hierbei die Deutschen, die ihr Herrschaftsgebiet auf Russland ausdehnen wollen. Dafür hat Kupfer gemeinsam mit seinem Dramaturgen Norbert Abels die Textpassagen der Polen ins Deutsche übersetzt." Hence the header gives "in russischer und deutscher Sprache mit deutschen Übertiteln". So while it was performed in Germany, I would dispute that this is enough to change the title to German (and even if it was sung in German, I'd prefer to say "a German-language production of Ivan Susanin). I also don't think that it's necessary to follow the source's spelling, since it had of course no problem transliterating Иван Сусанин into German, and those who reinstated the original title during the Soviet period certainly had no qualms about lopping off the final mute yers that Glinka undoubtedly wrote. ^_-☆ The fact that the opera's title was changed is indeed significant, but to me it simply means that there are two clear ways in English to refer to it: A Life for the Tsar and Ivan Susanin. The latter, to me, bears the connotation of Gorodetskiy's revised Soviet libretto being the basis, so it makes sense to me to use that name here. I still don't see a strong case for using the German name here; though I agree that readers are unlikely to be confused by it, the same is true for Mussorgskij and Schostakowitsch. Though these are not confusing, they are not the standard English names for those composers, and I don't see a reason to employ a foreign name when we have a commonly used English one. (To take another Russian opera to illustrate this, of course I would support writing Khovanshchina instead of The Khovansky Affair, but certainly not Chowanschtschina. If we were writing in German, then it would be a different story.) Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for making you reply to something I didn't say. The "sung in German" thing is the usual thing, - this one sung in two languages - is already an exception. I used the name as it appears in the opera house's announcement, program and reviews, in this case, to make a connection to the references used in the article. - I just read a quote in Debussy in which Debussy mentions "Moussorgky", - which seems comparable. We could add that the Opera announced it like that, if it helps, but somehow all this seems undue detail in a singer's bio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Having the opera be sung in German is hardly the usual thing today when its original language was Russian, surely? That's why the review focuses on the fact that some parts of it were translated to German. I understand that it was different before, but that's another thing altogether. I agree that Debussy referring to Moussorgsky is comparable, but in both cases I think the solution is the same. If we are quoting him directly, in French, it makes sense to use Moussorgsky, as that is what he wrote. But if we are paraphrasing him, it does not make sense to maintain his spelling, because the English name of the composer is Mussorgsky. For that reason, if we were translating his quote, I would also use Mussorgsky rather than Moussorgsky (or indeed Moussorgski, which is the usual spelling of his name in French today). We are surely allowed to make such changes without jeopardising connexions to the references. I have no doubt that a production of The Magic Flute produced in China would announce it as 魔笛 Módí on the announcement, program, and reviews; and if we were quoting someone talking about the production in Mandarin Chinese, I would of course retain that, as would I if I was quoting a hypothetical Chinese composer who said that it was one of his favourite works in Mandarin Chinese. But it does not follow that we have call it that in an English-language article, even if it was costumed in the style of Chinese opera and had the spoken dialogue done in Mandarin rather than German. I think omitting that language issue would sever more connexions with the references than translating the name of the opera back into English (or, in the lack of an English name, whatever the native name was). So it is with Ivan Susanin. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
You didn't understand my argument as I meant it but don't want to blow it up more. It's my fault, I guess. (Just wondering: I said that from the 1950s on, opera in Germany got more and more performed in the native language, - didn't I?). - I follow what you say about quoting. I'll try to word the fact with more clarity for the stage director - as his decision. But for a singer, I really don't see enough of an issue. If she sang in Beijing, I'd have Chinese and English opera title, but to have both with these little changes is nothing I'd be comfortable with. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I must have misunderstood your comment 'The "sung in German" thing is the usual thing, - this one sung in two languages - is already an exception.'; I took it as meaning that singing an original Russian opera in German would be usual and singing it in Russian would not be (which was no doubt true seventy years ago, but as you say, it has changed since then). I agree that of course such a bilingual production is a singular case, and of course the many changes (turning the Time of Troubles to World War II, the Poles to the Germans, and the Russian language to the German language in only some specific parts) are impossible to summarise; they can only be listed, and such a list is off-topic in my opinion. But I don't think it is quite enough to change the opera's name; especially in this case, it is indeed not much of an issue when the subject is the singer and not the opera. Instead "a mixed German- and Russian-language production of Glinka's Ivan Susanin" seems to explain enough while not going off-topic. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Vivaldi's Gloria[edit]

Hi Double sharp

In Gloria by Antonio Vivaldi, there is a passage that goes, "Gloria, gloria, in ex-cel-sis Deo…". Would you happen to now how the "cel" is supposed to be sung? Is it sell, chell, shell, or kell? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Excelsis is "ek-shel-sis" in Italianate Latin, which is standard for choral works (especially in this case because Vivaldi was Italian). Citations for this pronunciation are in Latin regional pronunciation. Double sharp (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

9 years of editing[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg 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!
Kpgjhpjm 02:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg
@Kpgjhpjm: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Double sharp: It's should have been seven years , I forgot that you were inactive between 2009 and 2011 . Kpgjhpjm 03:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Kpgjhpjm: Nine is actually right – I used other accounts between those years, but only use this one now. Double sharp (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Alternative accounts or sockpuppetry ? Face-smile.svg Kpgjhpjm 03:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Kpgjhpjm: Considering that I started out as an immature vandal, you can probably guess. ^_-☆ It was the second indeed, though when I started doing it I had matured enough that I was actually contributing constructively with those accounts; that's pretty much why I was unblocked when I confessed to what I'd been doing in 2011, albeit with a one-account restriction (not a big deal; I suppose I could easily get it lifted now if I had a good reason for having an alternative account, but I've never encountered the need yet). So I hope I've made a good case study of a former silly Uncyclopedia-type vandal who became a writer of many GAs and FAs, even if the route I took from one to the other is not one I would recommend (and really, I would recommend that people just start with the latter to begin with ^_^). Double sharp (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Is this link useful ? Kpgjhpjm 03:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Face-smile.svg
@Kpgjhpjm: Indeed, some of it is described over there. Double sharp (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thanks for your nice conversation and sorry for what happened in May . Happy Editing . Kpgjhpjm 04:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday[edit]

Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Hey, Double sharp. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Kpgjhpjm 03:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Nuvola apps cookie.svg
Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

still interested in Miranda (moon)?[edit]

It may not be FA yet, but it's at least an article now. Still need to get it up. Serendipodous 13:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Thanks for reminding me about this! I'll definitely try to spare some of the little time I have right now for this. Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter[edit]

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

  • South Carolina Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
  • Hel, Poland Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
  • Scotland Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
  • Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Marshall Islands Nova Crystallis, Republic of Texas Iazyges, Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, Wales Kosack and United States Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

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 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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, and let the best editor win! 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) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

-999 (number) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect -999 (number). Since you had some involvement with the -999 (number) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

About element 173 (Unsepttrium)[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at zh:WP:VPD.
Message added 10:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Interwiki talkback}} or {{Itb}} template.
Excuse me. "element 173 is expected to be an alkali metal" can find from any papers? Yu-Fan 宇帆 (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I responded over on the Chinese Wikipedia discussion. Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, Thank you. Yu-Fan 宇帆 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Mercury apparent magnitudes[edit]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel that the mean maximum and minimum apparent magnitudes (this edit) are not important compared to the extreme max and mins? It seems to me the "average" values would be a more useful measure, and showing both sets even moreso. Huntster (t @ c) 18:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Huntster: I've reinstated mean apparent magnitudes around superior and inferior conjunction. I originally thought it might have been a bit excessive, considering that we also gave the mean apparent magnitude over all parts of Mercury's orbit, and also because the averages are significantly dependent on the limits of phase angle we are willing to consider Mercury as potentially visible in. (The maxima and minima shown are for phase angles 0.7° through 179.2°, but that is from extrapolation. If we exclude extrapolations, and use only 2.1° through 169.5°, Mercury never gets as faint as that listed mean at inferior conjunction!) All those faintest magnitudes contribute disproportionately because the apparent magnitude of Mercury fades very quickly near inferior conjunction, when you can't see it anyway because it's so close to the Sun. In principle Mercury can even be fainter than Neptune in such conditions, but at some point you have to draw the line for conjunctions – and it is not very obvious when. So thank you for alerting me to this: I think I will have to expand the section a bit to explain these matters! Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate you explaining it here. Yes, an expansion of these concepts in the article would be very useful. Over time, perhaps the same can be done for other articles. As a preliminary, I might take the current format that you've laid out and replicate across the other planet articles. Huntster (t @ c) 02:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Translations From the French Wiki[edit]

Hi. You translated several film-related articles for me from the French Wiki in the past. Wonder if you are still up for translating two further rather short ones (plus this rather short article about a composer)? I will expand them further after they are done. DVD cover for both is here. Thanks! P.S.: Mind having a look at a film article I just translated (and submitted for approval) from the Hebrew Wiki (DVD cover is here)?--87.71.98.19 (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have time (probably within a few days). Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
A great many thanks once again! P.S.: You can skip the composer, not that important, just my sub plus the two film articles that need to be translated from the French (and/or Italian). Someone just approved my sub, so all that is left to do with it is to upload the DVD cover so work on it is done.--87.71.98.19 (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a quick note that my IP just got changed into--87.70.97.132 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I can see it is taking some time, so, how about this: I will use Google Translate (and correct any grammar/syntax errors) and submit it with my expansions, while you will help me with approval, uploading the DVD cover, and linking to foreign-language Wiki articles on the left?--87.70.97.132 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait! I've posted the first one; the other should come soon. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah – I see you've started a draft of the other one. When you're done, I'll approve it and move it to the mainspace for you. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Great! That should save me some work! Thanks!--87.70.97.132 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Please do not forget about the linking to the foreign-language articles on the right.And can you check my latest footnote in my draft? I cannot seem to get it to work. Thanks.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
And here is the submitted draft: Draft:Esther (1986 film).--87.70.97.132 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Just saw you did. Great!--87.70.97.132 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I have managed to locate several photos of Victor Nord. Can any be uploaded to his article? Thanks.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Would appreciate your opinion re some copyrights issues with photos here. Thanks! The person in question, to my knowledge, is still alive.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I have weighed in there. Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. To be fair, it is all in Russian, so, not being able to speak the language, I have no clue regarding the copyrights status. The Hebrew sources do not mention anything related to copyrights and such.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Nihonium[edit]

I nominated Nihonium, a recently Featured Article, to be on the main page. Because I see you've done a substantial amount of improvements to that page, I would like your input at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Nihonium. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at Moons of Saturn.[edit]

An IP has started an edit war over the claim that all irregular moons of Saturn are small, claiming Phoebe is not a large moon. No source was cited, which led to a rollback. Your input is appreciated on the talk page. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 00:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regular polyhedron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypercycle (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) 08:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Nihonium scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that Nihonium has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 17 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 17, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for "the first element recognised to have been discovered in Asia, and we can hope that there will be more in our march to the end of the periodic table, wherever that happens to be"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter[edit]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is South Carolina Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

  1. South Carolina Courcelles (submissions)
  2. Wales Kosack (submissions)
  3. Hel, Poland Kees08 (submissions)
  4. Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce (submissions)
  5. Scotland Cas Liber (submissions)
  6. Marshall Islands Nova Crystallis (submissions)
  7. Republic of Texas Iazyges (submissions)
  8. United States Ceranthor (submissions)


All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

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.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Double sharp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Double sharp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you kitten me?[edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Thanks for helping me understand chemistry!

Porygon-Z 04:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ionization energies of Fm, Md, No, Lr[edit]

Fm: (6.52±0.13) eV Md: (6.59±0.13) eV No: 6.62 (+0.06 -0.07) eV Lr: 4.96 (+0.05 -0.04) eV Source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b09068 Burzuchius (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)