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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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

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.

Small neutrality check[edit]

Hi, I'd like to ask you to see if a para from an article on a Russain politician is neutral. Neutrality is not really an issue when you're writing about something like elements; but when it comes to people, things are different. Actually, I'd like to eventually ask you to help me check the article, whether it is neutral or not (but not now, since even just adding raw material is not over, or even close to that); could you help me with that? (In general, I want to do the whole check later, but that para just bugs me.)

Here is the para (second in the Election results subsection if you need context):

Many experts claimed the election had been fair, the number of irregularities was much lower than those of other elections held within the country, and the irregularities had had little affect on the result.[102][103] However, according to Andrei Buzin, co-chairman of the GOLOS Association, State Departments of Social Security added people who did not originally wanted to vote to the list of those who would vote at home, with the number of such voters being 4.5% of those who voted, and added this did cause questions if Sobyanin would score 50% if this did not take place.[103] Dmitry Oreshkin, leader of the "People's election commission" project (who did a separate counting based on the data from election observers; their result for Sobyanin was 49.7%), said now that the runoff election was only 1.5% away, all details would be looked at very closely, and added it was impossible to prove "anything" juridically.[104]

Also, since I came here: After I am done with adding content to the article (which will require some time, because when it comes to people, you have to do more research, I think), when it comes to polishing it, I may, if circumstances permit this, write an element article, or polish one. In particular, lead was on my mind; it is a GA we wrote. The GA reviewer said it was close to a FA (however, to be fair, I also remember being skeptical to that assertion, but we would check it anew anyway); so, would you be interested in FAing it, or a task like that? So, again, not now, and not within a month or two (or three, or even more, depending on whether I will be available for that or not)--R8R (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been doing so many scientific articles that I've gotten a little out of touch with this sort of thing...
At first glance, though, you've got over three times as much material on the "the irregularities may be significant" side than on the "they had little effect" side. The attribution for the "they're significant" side is solid. But perhaps it would help to state who the experts are who are claiming the election had been fair? That's the biggest thing I can see about this paragraph.
I'm a bit skeptical that Pb is that close to being an FA too, but it's a really important element, so I'm naturally very interested in doing a task like that! Double sharp (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem :)
Yeah, I was afraid it might look like that. My plan was, get a sentence for those who support the attribution "the election was fair," get a countering sentence, and get a sentence saying "things are complicated"; since it didn't look like that to you, I'll have to change that somehow. Thanks!
That's great to know :) hopefully, it won't take too much time to get contents for my current target.--R8R (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Recently, I stumbled on TCO's report on important articles and work on it (I've seen it a number a times, but it's a really strong convincing paper worth re-reading. Here it is, in case you haven't seen it). It gave me the idea we should go for lead without significant delays. My current target, well, is a long work ahead, which I'm willing to do not because it will greatly improve the encyclopedia (given its small number of views), but because I'm interested in the subject personally and want to understand the political situation in my country (because the general picture is clear to the most, but it's all about lenses you see it through, and the research is aimed at improving my ability to correctly perceive things; so many people fail at this), so it's supposed to be a long run.
So, are you available to start the work any time soon? On my first look, the article seems to be in a quite good shape.--R8R (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably won't have much time until July – or (better) August. But when I get time, I'll try to start (hopefully with you) without significant delays. Double sharp (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


@Double sharp Why did you delete my photo of francium? Yours Truly (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox francium, where I gave my rationale. Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


The image for Radon actually came from the same source as the image for Polonium (Ralph Lapp).

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

--LL221W (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@LL221W: Yes, but unlike the picture of Po, it does not actually show Rn. Rn is present in the picture, but you don't see it: the major visual effect comes only indirectly from Rn. Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Since radon is a gas, it is invisible. The image shows Rn's discharge colour, similar to all other noble gases.
{ping|LL221W}} How could it be Rn's discharge colour, when that is apparently red? The image just shows radioluminescence, but then that does not depend on the Rn so much as the radiation coming from it, i.e. tritium would work similarly well.
Re the point about gases: not all gases are colourless, although Rn is colourless. Additionally, a beautiful way to represent Rn would be to show the solid or liquid. Radon solid would look amazing, glowing red-orange (at low temperature) to yellow (just below the melting point). Double sharp (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Double sharp: No, solid Radon is too difficult to extract. --LL221W (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@LL221W: Solid radon has certainly been produced, or we would not know of its colour (which is stated in the article). So I don't see why it could not be photographed. It doesn't even require that low a temperature: radon melts at −71 °C. The chief problem is radiation, but you have that already with the gas, and in fact the solid would probably be easier to contain. Double sharp (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Curious to hear your opinion...[edit]

Greetings: I've often been puzzled I've had to argue with people who were otherwise extremely musically sophisticated, much more musically sophisticated than me in fact, regarding what I nonetheless regarded as an elementary and obvious fact which is that functionally there can only be 17 scale degrees. Namely in major (in the order of the circle of 5ths): V, II, VI, III, VII, IV, I, V, II, VI, III, VII, IV, I, V, II, VI, and in minor: vii, iv, i, v, ii, vi, iii, vii, iv, i, v, ii, vi, iii, vii, iv, i. Which is not to say that in C major (for example) a consistent spelling scheme might not require you to use (for example in some chromatic sequences) note spellings like F, C, E, B. But to say this therefore requires one to accept (in major) scale degrees IV, I, III, VII seems to me to be an absurdity. What do you think? Contact Basemetal here 15:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of any case where F, C, E, and B could be functional roots in C major, but I guess you could use them in chords like vi (containing C) and ii (containing F). In the latter case, if we use ii as a substitute for the Neapolitan II, then it really has to include the F, although I'm not sure if it is functionally acting as scale degree 4. How would that resolve anyway? Down to scale degree 3 and then scale degree 2? Or perhaps tying it enharmonically to scale degree 3? I like the second option more, honestly.
In minor, though, I can imagine double sharpscale degree 6 (in C minor, A) as a root of a diminished seventh (which would be a triple appoggiatura to V7). Double sharp (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Right, the diminished seventh. But if in minor you can find double sharpscale degree 6 you'd expect also to be able to find scale degree 5 and scale degree 2 which are less remote. Can you think of any possibilities? Contact Basemetal here 19:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
If we're going to allow modal mixture, we can just look to V/iii and V/vi. But perhaps that's cheating, as iii and vi are not very common borrowings. Double sharp (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
How do you write the resolution of that diminished 7th on double sharpscale degree 6 to V7 (in C minor)? (Two paragraphs up) Contact Basemetal here 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest 
\relative c'' {
 \key c \minor
 <ais cis e g>2 <b d f g> | <c! es! g>1
. Double sharp (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
And your diminished 7th rooted in double sharpscale degree 6 cannot be conceived as being actually a 9th chord (F-A-C-E-G) rooted in scale degree 4 with a missing root? Contact Basemetal here 21:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought about that, but adding the F creates parallel fifths (F/C to G/D). Is that a problem? Also the ninth (G) doesn't resolve to the octave; instead it is the root that gives way by moving upwards. But you have a point: Schubert uses this resolution of the ninth chord early in the B major sonata D 575, for instance. (He omits the fifth, so there's no parallel fifths, and the resolution is displaced by an octave, but it's the same chord progression.) Double sharp (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You are a musical encyclopedia. Btw, how are your V/iii and V/vi (five paragraphs up) rooted in scale degree 2 and scale degree 5? Those are the 3rds of the chords. Contact Basemetal here 22:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I think I misunderstood your question, then. You're talking about roots and not chord tones, right? I think the problem is that in minor double sharpscale degree 6 is a semitone below the leading tone, but scale degree 2 does not have that relationship with any scale degree. Now scale degree 5 is just below the raised submediant, but that has the problem that scale degree 6 and scale degree 6 in minor are not as distinct in function as scale degree 7 and scale degree 7, and don't appear in V, so scale degree 5 is going to get heard as scale degree 6 in the absence of very strong cues (and I'm not sure how to make them). But all this is just my speculations.
P.S. The diminished seventh scale degree 2 could be used similarly in minor as a triple appoggiatura to I (with a Picardy third). But this might be considered cheating. Similarly, you can get scale degree 5 involved in this game: its diminished seventh is a triple appoggiatura to major IV, which is less of a cheat: major IV is at least diatonic to the melodic minor. Double sharp (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, I've got a cheaty solution: chains of German augmented sixths resolving to each other. If spelt correctly, the roots have to be separated by minor seconds, which makes them get silly quickly (e.g. C, D, Edouble flat, Fdouble flat, Gtriple flat...) But this may be considered cheating, as I've never seen this carried out to a significant extent. The most I've seen is one level (German sixth of German sixth), which you can find for example in the introduction to Schubert's Sehnsucht, D 879.

Another cheaty solution is chains of V/V/V/V... The record in this kind of thing is surely Alkan's Morte, Op. 15 No. 3, with at b.369 and following in my edition (available on IMSLP) goes through a full circle of fifths starting and ending on E-flat. (That piece also has tuplets over the barline: b.223-224 and 303-304.) Double sharp (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you take a simple melodic motif such as say { \time 3/4 <c' a f'> <c' a ges'> <c' a f'> <d' f' b'> <d' f' ais'> <d' f' b'> } and write a sequence made up of this same motif transposed upwards (resp. downwards) half-step by half-step over a rising (resp. descending) chromatic scale you're bound to get very remote accidentals, while never getting out of C major, don't you? Contact Basemetal here 00:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but if the sequence lasts that long, it's hard to get a firm sense of C major, is it? Double sharp (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Finish like this { \time 3/4 <c' a f'> <c' a ges'> <c' a f'> <d' f' b'> <d' f' ais'> <d' f' b'> <c' e' g' c''>2.} Face-smile.svg But seriously, I'm not very good with LilyPond or I would have written something better. The point is it is in no other key either, is it? I was just trying to get very remote accidentals using a very simple melodic device. Btw, this reminds me. Have you ever looked at some of those scores that contain triple accidentals? If yes, what keys are those passages in and how are those triple accidentals analyzed? Contact Basemetal here 01:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The Reger is in F major and uses Ftriple sharp as a lower neighbour between two Gdouble sharp's, which are themselves appoggiaturas to A (scale degree 3). The Alkan Ftriple sharp appears within a V/iii in an F-major context. The 3rd of this chord is Gdouble sharp, and Alkan adds Ftriple sharp before it as an appoggiatura. The Reicha is a very strange piece! It is based on that chain-of-augmented-sixths harmonic progression I mentioned earlier, and periodically cadences in very distant keys. The Ctriple sharp occurs when we have a sudden cadence in B major, and is simply a lower neighbour to Ddouble sharp, which is scale degree 3 in this key.
The Roslavets Btriple flat in the First Sonata seems to be coming from a chain of minor thirds up from F, without enharmonic change (F-A-C-Edouble flat-Gdouble flat-Btriple flat). But it will require more analysis (I don't really understand it yet). The Ustvolskaya Atriple flat and Btriple flat in the Third Sonata seem to come from notating chromatic scales purely with minor seconds and no augmented unisons (E to Atriple flat; F to Btriple flat). Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
A passage in A minor where the composer would use the chord progression that you described above with a diminished 7th over double sharpscale degree 6 etc would require the root of that chord to be Ftriple sharp. Maybe works in A minor are not that common but passages in A minor should be quite a few. As to the examples of triple sharps found one example (Reicha) is a legitimate chromatic tone in the key that's used (B major) simply because that key is so remote (12 sharps) and the Alkan and Reger examples are roughly of the same order namely lower neighbor or appoggiatura to a legitimate chromatic tone in the key they're using. The triple flats examples from what you're describing are actually different and they may be odd but are similar to each other: a rising sequence of one interval (minor 3rd or minor 2nd) stubbornly written over and over (and you didn't mention a key for those which suggest a key can't easily be identified?) Have you ever encountered places where a strict spelling would require a triple accidental but the composer chose enharmony in order to stick to a "simpler" notation? Contact Basemetal here 13:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
(I forgot the Ftriple sharp in Alkan's Grande Sonate, Op. 33, 2nd movement – the passage is in E major, with Ftriple sharp as a lower neighbour to Gdouble sharp, that is scale degree 3.)
I cannot easily identify a key for either of the triple-flat examples. The Ustvolskaya is on YouTube with a score: I won't link to it because of copyright concerns, but it's easy to find with Google. This paper on Ustvolskaya says: "In his view, the consistent pulsation of crotchets in Ustvolskaya’s music represents the ‘heartbeat of Humanity’; a frequent appearance of double and triple flats and the overall flattening of melodic modes reflected Ustvolskaya’s desire to communicate the suffocating atmosphere of the time". Maybe it is an intention to write chromatic scales in a diatonic way? I can't decipher the footnote in the score (p.30): that is my guess at part of its meaning.
As regards your last question: well, Beethoven's Appassionata (1st movement) would go to quadruple flats if spelt correctly, and in general anything that goes through an enharmonic circle is a good candidate for this sort of thing (e.g. Schubert D 557 2nd movement, where the first section literally goes through an enharmonic circle from E to Fdouble flat major, and the second section is in the parallel minor: so that makes the written C's really Dtriple flat's, scale degree 6 of Fdouble flat minor). Double sharp (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Alkan's rigour in enharmonic spellings sometimes carries itself to extremes. Early on in the Concerto for solo piano he essentially writes a dominant ninth chord with diminished eleventh (D-Fdouble sharp-A-C-E-G; the passage is in G minor), because the left hand is arpeggiating V7 while the melody of the right hand is going up diatonically D-E-F-G. Yet this is sometimes accompanied by sudden unnecessary enharmonic shifts: even earlier in the Concerto, we have one bar when the left hand is in G minor and the right hand is in A minor (the left hand is the correctly spelt one). The combination of rigour and abrupt shifts like this make me wonder if Alkan is mentally imagining a tuning where G and A are different notes, even if this is of course impossible to achieve on a standard piano. Double sharp (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── H-Pi incidentally, in their exposition of 41 equal temperament, suggests yet another symbol for the triple sharp: ∗ (thus F∗ is a minor second below Gdouble sharp, for example). However everyone seems to agree that the symbol for the triple flat should be triple flat. Double sharp (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

How about getting rid of double sharp instead? Face-smile.svg An aside: when you read music, do you read it at the keyboard or away? Contact Basemetal here 14:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes at the keyboard, sometimes away. Double sharp (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)