User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Lanthanum-138)
Jump to: navigation, search
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I may not watch your talk page and I will likely unintentionally IGNORE your reply if you do not ping me in it, use Template:Talkback, or copy it to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.
I strongly oppose the Foundation's actions with regards to MediaViewer and superprotect. If you do too, please sign the petition at m:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer


This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Double_sharp.

I archive resolved material or bot messages: each archive contains exactly fifty sections (save the most recent one, which of course can contain less until it fills up). Unresolved material is archived when it is over a month old. When moved to the archives, sections are kept in chronological order (so if an early thread is still active and generating replies this page might swell larger than usual.)

I know that the following users watch my talk page, so I will not use {{talkback}} on them. If you watch my talk page, feel free to add yourself to this list.

Big Honking Table[edit]

Hi, do you do those tables all at once, or a piece at a time, or what? I'm trying something similar with tai shogi, a little at a time. OneWeirdDude (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Check the history of User:Double sharp/Maka dai dai shogi. Basically I first decided on a layout of pieces – in my case, I went by position in the initial setup, and further sections of promoting, non-promoting, and demoting pieces – and then went down two at a time. Doing it all at a time may be possible for the smaller variants, but I don't think it can be done for tai (unless your sleep–wake cycle goes way over two dozen hours). Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Precision in half-life of Thorium-230 isotope[edit]

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

Concerning this undo action: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_thorium&oldid=654788639&diff=prev Indeed, writing out unprecise digits is not correct. But replacing them by zeros (i.e. rounding off) is neither. Both 75380 y and 75383 y are incorrect. You may at most say that the former may suggest exactness in the last digit... though only with a probability of 90%.

In doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.11.001 I found 75.38(30) ky. I do not know where I got that extra '3' from; I may have read it wrongly, or I saw a different paper on this. Following this paper, correct would be writing 75.38(30) ky. I don't know if this notation is universal enough. A reminder for any reader of this page: this means 75.38±0.30 ky. The latter notation may clutter the info box too much. One may write 75.4 ky. Realising the uncertainty in the last digit, one may write 75 ky, but that throws away information.

What to do in cases like this: leave it as is, use parentheses, or use two or three significant digits? I'd choose the first in the main text, but there may be guidelines concerning the readability/simplicity for infoboxes?

Thanks for your critical undo: otherwise I would not have found out that the changed digit was not only unprecise but simply nowhere reported (I think). Hulten (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hulten: Wow, this is interesting: the Wickleder source I was using just silently omits the uncertainty (30). Sneaky! That's where I got my (erroneous) info from: thanks for the correction. I'd give parentheses, probably: detailed uncertainty figures aren't banned in infoboxes, cf. e.g. {{infobox ununseptium}}. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hulten: I've trimmed the infobox figure to 75400 y; the alternative with parentheses, while more accurate, made that entry a lot wider than the others, and it didn't look very nice. (And at this timescale, 20 y doesn't make much difference for a quick overview, which is what the infobox is meant to give anyway). Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
You could write 75.4 ky to be more correct without a wider infobox, but then the unit falls a bit out of place compared with Th-228 and -229. But it doesn't matter so much indeed. Let's leave it as it is. Thanks for your efforts (also for being a far more active wikimedian than I am)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulten (talkcontribs) 17:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hulten: Yes, I generally try to avoid unit confusion by not mixing units. Thank you for bringing up this problem! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium[edit]

Hi. As you might've seen in your watchlist, astatine has been promoted (yay), which brings us back to ununseptium. I want you to help me check the article for accessibility (well, we actually agreed to that some time before). I've got a couple of further thoughts for this article, which I'd like to discuss after the check is done. So, I would love to know whether you are available to start off any time soon (say, in Russia, there are many holidays in early May, so I can't be sure it's not the case in your country, plus you might be busy and stuff). Also, didn't you check if there are some new/other SHE reports?--R8R (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly: I'll take a look now. Also, how's this and this? (The second one doesn't concern E117, but would be helpful for Rf to E115.)
I also found this and this for Rg – chiefly interesting as the second one contradicts what I put there (Thayer thinks Rg+ is going to be a soft base, while this guy thinks it'll be a soft, strong acid). I've added this to the Rg article. Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That is great to know :) I can't access the former, and while it would be good to know what is there, it is not crucial since we have such a report in (but you have the access, please, let me know). There is quite some stuff on this matter, as I just googled, but it does not regard element 117, which is sad (but understandable).
I will write down the things of poor accessibility on Talk:Ununseptium, and I would love you to do the same, and I suggest we move the further discussion there.--R8R (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I don't have access either, but the abstract looked promising, and I was hoping you did have access. I guess it's not necessary since we have one of these in (although it would have been nice to know how closely they agreed with the one we have).
I of course agree with your suggestion. ;-) I'll try to write as soon as I can (i.e. when I have time and have convinced myself re exactly what we need, looking at the comments at the previous E117 FAC among other things). Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

About new way to show hexadecimal digits[edit]

If criteria to shown proposals in Wikipedia is acceptance in public, then proposal by Bruce Martin should also be excluded as this proposal also is not widely accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdisvi (talkcontribs) 15:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter[edit]

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by India The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Belarus Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)