User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Professor Fiendish)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipe-tan trifecta sign.png
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I may not watch your talk page and I will likely unintentionally IGNORE your reply if you do not ping me in it, use Template:Talkback, or copy it to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! I also prefer to keep the conversation in one place and not split across multiple pages. Thank you.

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

Don't let Lemmy let you down[edit]

I have seen throughout the Web posts like "if they don't name element 113 Godzillium, I'll be disappointed" (this one is from nature.com, I think). Don't take it too closely. Yes, they don't know what they're talking about; yes, they'll take a laugh or two now and forget it then; yes, it is even quite disrespectful to come by and say, "you made it? Great. Now I want it named my way." So what? There have been such people around throughout the planet, and they'll keep up coming.

For you as an editor, your best bet may be being calm now and keeping your head cool. This will be a great help when you come later to search for justice with this :) whatever this justice will be. For you as a person, your best bet will be not letting Lemmy's fans let you down. This is the human nature of them people; just take a breath.

For one, I don't think Lemmy can't be mentioned in the main text. We may just say it's just an online petition launched by fans, and a previous mention of how the names actually come up should do the job. No big deal, since this appears to be important (145k signatures in two weeks!). Apart from science, superheavies should also be allowed to have their cultural impact, even if such an effect is only a one-timer.

Things must be okay in a month.--R8R (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I should calm down. (Hence my failure to respond immediately; I tried not to think about the whole thing for two days.)
The only thing is that I remain uncertain as to just which element they want to be (ugh) "lemmium", and thus which article the mention ought to be on. As you can see on Talk:Ununoctium, I've found people thinking it's for any of the four remaining elements. Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I bet they don't care. There is no reason 113 would suit Lemmy better or worse than 115. They'd just want him to be somewhere in there.--R8R (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it makes it difficult to decide which article to put it in, if the petition doesn't say which. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
We're free to say (hmm, I need to update ununseptium) something like, "when the four elements were recognized by the IUPAC in late 2015, a petition was launched to name one of the elements<possibly a note here telling it could actually be any of the four> after Lemmy because he played heavy metal and the element is also expected to be a heavy metal. IUPAC has made no comment." We can put it in all of the four articles. Why not. Will work.--R8R (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I finally found their petition, which says 115 in the title. It's at https://www.changЯe.org/p/support-lemmy-tribute-name-newly-discovered-heavy-metal-lemmium (remove the Я; the link is blacklisted). I guess that resolves the question, although in the comments you will see some people arguing that it should be one of the others (usually 118). I don't think "heavy metal" usually includes the synthetic elements though. The article mentions that sometimes the term is capped at uranium. I was under the impression that one heard the phrase often in "heavy metal poisoning", and the transuranium elements, while also good at making people want to lie down and never get up, do not do it in quite the same way as mercury, thallium, lead, or even the not-very-radioactive uranium. (I didn't forget thorium, but its immediately decay products are hot enough that one actually has to pay attention, which is much worse than it is for depleted uranium.) Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
You seem to forget they're not doing it because of great love for science, but fandom/love/whatever for Motorhead, or their cultural impact, or that kind of music in general. Besides, loosely speaking, all of these (possible save for 117 and 118) may be called heavy metals because they're heavy (or even superheavy -- so heavy! *wink*) and they're metals. As for 115, given your link you provided at Talk:Ununoctium, we may say it was originally proposed for the element 115, but has been attributed to all four by someone in some contexts.
I'll give it a try at ununseptium; we'll see how it works.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
True. I suppose the entertainingly stretched interpretations of the IUPAC regulations that you will find in the comments (and really the entire premise, like buying the star name from a company that has nothing to do with the IAU and calling it an astrological [sic] object) do indicate that they are simply willing to interpret the rules however they wish to make their name supposedly proper. Then again, I suppose the whole spirit of disrespect for the discoverers makes it hard to think of it as anything other than fandom. I guess I am subconsciously unwilling to acknowledge that, but it's true.
I think that solution is perfectly fine, and I'll take a look at how it turns out on the element 117 article. In any case, I'm curious to see how fleeting this thing is going to be. They do seem to forget that even in the extremely unlikely event that the discoverers like their name and propose it to IUPAC, who then inexplicably decide to bend the rules to allow it, most scientists are not going to deem it fitting. There has already been a case in 1994 when scientists en masse refused to use the names IUPAC recommended for element 104–109. So there's yet another hurdle (as if there weren't enough already). Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
From the petition: "We believe it is fitting that the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry recommend that one of the four new discovered Heavy Metals in the Periodic table is named Lemmium." It's not said which one they have in mind. 115 is not unquestionably integrated into the title of the petition, either.--R8R (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Now I wonder, was the petition launched in 2015 or 2016?--R8R (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I learned a bit about the proposal; I think we should leave it exclusively for 115. One of the links that made me think so: here--R8R (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion needed[edit]

Now one more thing. I'd love some help with colors and perception; a second opinion, that is. Could I ask you to come and look at the sandbox and get some short reply (like "fantastic," or "cool, but these two look too similar," or "this doesn't work and I think it won't work," or maybe a couple of lines, but not necessarily much to stay interactive)? If so, could you please take a look (User:R8R Gtrs/PT search for colors, link for the extended PT is inside if you want to take a look as well) and tell if the current colors work? I think s, (g,) f, and d blocks are okay (are they?); now I wonder what you would say about the p block and the three reds in it? Are they easy to tell apart? Visual aesthetics is secondary, but if you have a spare minute, I'd love to read your opinion on that as well. Cheers--R8R (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I think they're all fine except the p-block, where the diatomic nonmetals are too close to the noble gases. It takes some time to work out which one H is (well, of course I mean the colour), because it's so far away. I think we need to go further into rose for the noble gases. In the extended PT, I am finding it really hard to tell predicted AEMs apart from predicted superactinides, and in the p-block, I find it hard to tell that E117 is only a predicted metalloid. Visually they are fine, emphasizing the spectrum, but I think we need to maximise the hue space between the colours a little more in the p-block. Double sharp (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
A great reception, thank you. I'll ask again when I think the colors have been improved.--R8R (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Now I must say I forgot to tell you I'd want to ask you about the colors quite often, which is why I'm not asking for long replies, until we got it right. (I think we'll make it soon, though.) Is that okay with you? Now, would you take another look at my PTs now that the colors have been altered a bit to match your reception?--R8R (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Diatomic nonmetals—noble gases are better, but still too close. I still can't tell which H is at a glance, but the F–Ne contrast is now obvious since they're right next to each other. E117 and predicted AEM/San are much better: I can clearly tell the difference now.
You should probably ask more people than just me, though, as we've already had a case where I thought the contrast was OK and Sandbh didn't. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I will, eventually; for now, I just want some quick re to develop the color scheme, and one second opinion should be enough. After I have one person (in this case, you) confirm it is alright, so I have a scheme on my hands, I can go hunt more opinions, but at that point, I'll only need to work some nuances.--R8R (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't get it. How come "Diatomic nonmetals—noble gases are better, but still too close," but "the F–Ne contrast is now obvious"? The point is, they should be distinguishable. Are they?--R8R (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
They are when they're next to each other, but not when they're far apart (which is a problem because of hydrogen). Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Interesting; I didn't see that coming. (Now that I re-read your actual re, I see you said that; sorry.) I was looking to get away from the hydrogen problem with poly- and diatomic nonmetals. If I understand it correctly, that is the only problem with the current colors. Okay, I'll give it a try once I can reach my computer; I have a couple of ideas.
There is another issue I haven't mentioned yet. Do the current font colors (the ones for atomic numbers) look easy to distinguish from both each other and their backgrounds? I am especially interested in knowing if you can realize that red for gases and black for solids are different colors, and how easily if so. (The exact future shades will probably differ from the current ones, but not really significantly.)--R8R (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a few changes; would you please take another look.--R8R (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that it works now, and that it would be difficult to improve over this. I can easily tell the difference between red and black for gases and solids respectively. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Great news. Thank you very much for quick res and the engagement.--R8R (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I've had the colors checked by Sandbh, and on the same day he agreed they were fine, I decided there was a way to improve them. I like the new result, but I can't be to judge, since I'm so used to them. :) So I'd like to get some reception from you; now, I'm interested not only in color distinguishability (it shouldn't be doable, it should be easily doable), but also in their aesthetics ("I think that color would look better if it was a little brightened," for example. one thing that especialy interests me is color harmony; do they look okay altogether and next to each other?).--R8R (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This is getting dangerously into subjectivity, and what works for me may not work for other people: but for me, I think it's OK. Perhaps there could be a way to make the shades at the right end of the table easier to distinguish (it's possible now; but I just can't think of a way to make it even easier), but currently it's all right. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't be afraid about subjectivity: of course I know it is unavoidable. It is the reason why I call for a second opinion from you in first place before we not accept my scheme as the new scheme---before I put it for a wider discussion. And there should be a scheme by DePiep anyway. Yet two opinions are better than one at any point of time.
I'm glad you didn't mention the greens. Are they good? I lowered the difference in value from 3 to 1 for a better color harmony. If that doesnt hurt the distinguishability, great. The reds were one point of concern for me. I set them further apart than they were at the time of the previous request. Now what was the problem? Only red and pink, or does orange takes part in this not-so-easy distinguishability? Not much that can be done is not nothing. So pls let me know about these two issues.--R8R (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The greens are OK for me, though IIRC similar greens gave Sandbh problems with DePiep's table (which is why I pushed them to chartreuse at 90° and spring green at 150°, far away from green at 120°). I think it's only red and pink: orange is easy to tell apart, whereas for red and pink I need to think for a little while. Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I want him to provide a third pre-production opinion, so I'll be aware if a change is needed. Have no worries with that. :) Sixty degrees is somewhat extravagant, if you ask me. For that reason, I decided I was allowed to vary not only hue, but also both saturation and value, originally by five, but I was able to push myself into a tougher (and more color harmony-providing) restriction---three, and two may be a possibility. One percent of both s and especially v makes a great difference (for a single percent, at least). On the other hand, a color difference created by a three percent difference is not great enough for a color to stand out. (Fewer is better, though.) So if anyone decides the greens are too similar, I have that as an option.
Regarding the reds: I'll see what I can do later today or tomorrow. One important thing that limits me is, group 18 must be different from group 1, and these are far away from each other, which means a higher degree between them is needed. At the moment, it's forty degrees. Anyway, I'll take another look later; thanks for notifying me.--R8R (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Would you take another look now? I've changed the red colors a bit.--R8R (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The difference is very clear now, I think. Double sharp (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Glad to hear that; thank you.--R8R (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

CVP on Chu shogi[edit]

Hi, in the Chu shogi page, you cite the "CVP" for your changes about "queens"; what is CVP? Thanks. (It would also be appreciated to learn how to "tag" people so that I can have conversations on one talk page.) OneWeirdDude (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@OneWeirdDude: (is that what you're talking about? You can use {{ping}}.) It is The Chess Variant Pages. The idea is that since the piece has a well-known Western name, it should be used as it would be more familiar. We do not use the literal translations for 飛車 and 角行, after all, preferring to carry over the names of their Western equivalents (the rook and bishop). You can see the discussion I had with H.G.Muller about this at Talk:Dai dai shogi. Double sharp (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Chlorine[edit]

Hi Double sharp, can you please write your opinion here too. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)