User talk:Double sharp/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diaeresis (diacritic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noël. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That was intentional; I intended to cover all uses of the word, as there are multiple ones in which the diaeresis is used. Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium (in some time)

Hi, Double sharp. As you know, there's that At FAC going on at the moment, but, in some time, it will be over, and there's also that ununseptium article waiting for the spotlight. I came to ask some help from you with that, I hope it won't be too difficult for you (it shouldn't be, but there may also be those RL issues, that's why I'm asking some time before I could actually start).

I think the article is great. It was a FAC in 2012, but it was failed due to prose quality. It's, however, not 2012 now, and some work will be required. I would love you to help me check things against accessibility. I was writing that article with non-technical readers in mind (and it actually turned out to be among the easiest to do so among all superheavies). I don't really expect to get that "oh, wow, I knew nothing, but now I seem to get it" from all readers, but I want it to be at least a stable "well, it's not easy, but I seem to get it." I think History and Naming are fine, and so is Nuclear stability, but those last two subsections need some look at; some examples of what I want to improve are "the valence electron configuration is predicted to be 7s27p5" (because what does that mean? We need to explain it) and "1.67 D" (we say it's a "relatively small" value, but how small, really? Some examples should help a little bit). And also, maybe you've seen some superheavies predictions since then?

I will also check the data available. Wil think how to merge the German experiment into the story (I actually love the story of the discovery the way I wrote it). In the end, will ask for a thorough copyedit.

But that will happen later. Again, the start is not scheduled for tomorrow. What do you think, could you help me with that?--R8R (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help you! I remember how you wrote the discovery: it was really neat. I haven't gone looking for new superheavy predictions in a while, but I'll go looking for them and I'll see what I can come up with. Double sharp (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Gold

I'm pretty sure that I'm basically right. I just can't find my reliable references. If and when I find them I will reinstate my contribution. By the way, if you cube the ratio of the linear dimensions of lead/gold that you gave me, you get 0.55, and 11/19 = 0.58, which is pretty close. Garfield Garfield (posted 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of numeral systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nash. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of numeral systems, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Big Honking Table

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

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.wiki.x.io/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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

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 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 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.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

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)

A long overdue apology

Hi Double sharp. I'm sorry I abandoned the Radium GAN. I was in the process of full-on burnout over wikipedia (which may or may not be over, but at least I'm back editing now) and I left you hanging. I see the review was closed as failing, and that is completely my fault. You did good work there (as you've done in every article I've seen of yours) and it sucks that you'll end up having to take another bite at the apple because of me. I can't make promises to help in the future (c.f. the burnout) but please let me know if you need a hand with anything and I'll do my best to be of some use. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Protonk: It's as much my fault as yours: witness how slowly I was working on it near the end. I was getting a little burnt-out too (see the precipitous drop in edit count between September and October 2014), so I think we both get the blame for the article failing. When I feel more confident about it and have more time I'll give it another try, and if I need a hand with anything I'll let you know! Double sharp (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Take care, Protonk (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Small neutrality check

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)

Fracium

@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)

Radon

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

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...

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 ♭. How would that resolve anyway? Down to ♭ and then ? Or perhaps tying it enharmonically to ? I like the second option more, honestly.

In minor, though, I can imagine (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 you'd expect also to be able to find ♯ and ♯ 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 to V7 (in C minor)? (Two paragraphs up) Contact Basemetal here 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest

. Double sharp (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And your diminished 7th rooted in cannot be conceived as being actually a 9th chord (F♯-A♯-C♯-E♮-G) rooted in ♯ 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 ♯ and ♯? 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 is a semitone below the leading tone, but ♯ does not have that relationship with any scale degree. Now ♯ is just below the raised submediant, but that has the problem that and ♯ in minor are not as distinct in function as and ♯, and don't appear in V, so ♯ is going to get heard as 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 ♯ 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 ♯ 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♭, E, F, G...) 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

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

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 F as a lower neighbour between two G's, which are themselves appoggiaturas to A♯ (). The Alkan F appears within a V/iii in an F♯-major context. The 3rd of this chord is G, and Alkan adds F 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 C occurs when we have a sudden cadence in B♯ major, and is simply a lower neighbour to D, which is in this key.

The Roslavets B in the First Sonata seems to be coming from a chain of minor thirds up from F, without enharmonic change (F-A♭-C♭-E-G-B). But it will require more analysis (I don't really understand it yet). The Ustvolskaya A and B in the Third Sonata seem to come from notating chromatic scales purely with minor seconds and no augmented unisons (E♭ to A; F♮ to B). 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 etc would require the root of that chord to be F. 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 F in Alkan's Grande Sonate, Op. 33, 2nd movement – the passage is in E♯ major, with F as a lower neighbour to G, that is .)

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 F major, and the second section is in the parallel minor: so that makes the written C♭'s really D's, of F 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♯-F-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 G, for example). However everyone seems to agree that the symbol for the triple flat should be . Double sharp (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

How about getting rid of instead? 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)

Qualifying intervals in 24ET

I'm reacting here to something you said at the RD.

I don't know why there's no coherent accepted system for qualifying intervals in 24ET but I've noticed that naming intervals based only on their number of quarter-steps (as the table you referenced does) is as incoherent as doing the same thing in 12ET. Those who do seem to have overlooked the fact that an interval in a musical system is not only the physical ratio of the frequencies of two pitches but depends on the names of the pitches in that particular system and that the names are meant to convey more information than just pitch.

For example I don't think it makes sense to ask what the name of the interval made up of 7 quarter-steps is (which is what that table does). The name of the interval C-E cannot be the same as that of the intervals C-F or C-D even though they are all made up of 7 quarter-steps and that will be true as long as the system uses a naming scheme based on seven diatonic letter names (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) and their accidentals (, ♭, , , ♯, , etc) It would be different if the system was using 12 letter names or 24 letter names. Only in the last case would an interval have a unique name based on how many quarter-steps it spans. Whether a naming scheme (and more generally a notation system) is actually the best fit for the structure of the language, of the musical works, that's another question. (Btw did you note the inconsistency in the "music" template arguments? It should be either "halfflat"/"threehalfflat" or "quarterflat"/"threequaterflat" but they mix the two!)

Incidentally in my post at the RD I said that our usual notation system (7 letter names and their accidentals) with its accompanying system for qualifying interval and its overall logic presupposes a Pythagorean tuning. That was sloppy. In fact I don't think it has anything to do with tuning per se (well, at least, up to certain constraints, eg that system is not really designed to accommodate say two kinds of majors 3rds, eg 81/64 and 5/4): after all we're still using it even though we've moved essentially to 12ET for about 300 years. I think it has more to do with the naming scheme as I argue above. As long as we use our "diatonic" note naming scheme to name notes (that is only the diatonic tones of a key have their own names while the chromatic tones are named as "inflexions" of the diatonic tones), the intervals will have to be named using our usual system of name (unison, second, third, etc.) plus qualifier (major, minor, augmented, diminished, etc) whether we use 12ET or 53ET or a Pythagorean tuning, etc.

Contact Basemetal here 16:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on the names. Although one could plausibly ask what some of the possible names for a 7-quartertone interval are, so the table isn't completely wrong-headed if you look at it that way. You could interpret it as mentioning some quarter-tone intervals and noting how many quarter-tones each one spans.

I think the only constraint the naming system gives you is that you use meantone temperament, tempering out the syntonic comma 81/80. Once that's settled, I think you can just about do whatever you like to extend the system, and things will work out. For example, it doesn't care if you temper out 128/125 or not: the only difference that makes is whether C and B♯ are the same note. But failing to temper out 81/80 means that each position on the stave is ambiguous, and each interval must be marked as 3-limit or 5-limit.

Yes, it's obviously an inconsistency in the naming system. Although to be honest, it is a pain that a half-sharp raises a pitch by a quarter-tone. It's like pi vs. tau all over again, this time in music. Hence it is often called a quarter-sharp, but that's wrong. Double sharp (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Interesting that you mention 53-ET, for it exemplifies the point about meantone (53-ET isn't a meantone system). There is a natural desire to call the nearest approximation of 5/4 a major third. There is also a natural desire to take the nearest approximation of 3/2, call it a perfect fifth, and plod through the circle of fifths with it. But if you use that circle of fifths, the nearest approximation of 5/4 is written C-F♭, a diminished fourth, which is somewhat unsatisfying. Double sharp (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's something I've just noticed about 24ET. Maybe everyone has noticed it before except me:

Contrary to 12ET, 24ET cannot be generated as a stack of 5ths (or 4ths) since 14 and 24 (and 10 and 24) are not coprime. To generate 24ET as a stack you have to use generating intervals made up either of 5 quartertones (or 19 quartertones), 7 quartertones (or 17 quartertones), or 11 quartertones (or 13 quartertones). So in 24ET you have three unrelated choices. Plus of course the "silly" choice of a generating interval made up of 1 quartertone (or 23 quartertones). That "silly" choice exists also in the case of 12ET but I've never tried to see what kind of a naming scheme you would get if you took the 7 basic letters to be 7 pitches each a halfstep apart.

Now in our usual system the 7 letters are a stack of 5ths (F, C, G, D, A, E, B) or of 4ths (B, E, A, D, G, C, F). We use those letters plus the usual accidentals to give names to the pitches in 12ET. If you want to do something analogous for 24ET but not by using the letters of our usual system but by forming a new set of 7 basic letters by taking a stack of 0 to 6 iterations of the generating interval and bringing those iterations back into an octave (that is the ordering of those letters would not be determined by the number of iterations of the generating interval but by the relative pitch when you bring those iterations back inside an octave just as in the case of our usual 7 letters; that may not be essential but just to keep close to our usual system) and using those as the 7 basic letters then you get three independent possibilities, three sets of 7 letters, that you can use to name the pitches in 24ET. I wonder what the relation between those three independent schemes would be. For example you can look at the names of the 7 basic letters of one system when written with the 7 basic letters of another system. Now I was wondering would there be a "natural" way to define a "multiplication" between them so that (together with the "silly" scheme) those four schemes would form a group of four elements, and if yes which one would it be, cyclic ℤ₄ or a Klein four-group?

Contact Basemetal here 19:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, the 7-semitone interval in 12-ET is defined as a 5th and so defines the lettering as C to G. But how many staff positions would one of the coprime 24-ET intervals take up? Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll only do it for one case. Let's say I take the case where the generator is the interval spanned by 5 quartertones:

To avoid confusion I'm not gonna use the letters A, B, C, etc but Xn where n is the number of iterations of the generating interval of 5 quartertones. So they are (starting from the note C say): X0 = C, X1 = C + 5, X2 = C + 10, X3 = C + 15, X4 = C + 20, X5 = C + 25 = C + 1 (mod 24), X6 = C + 30 = C + 6 (mod 24).

If you put the letters in the order of rising pitch (after bringing them back into an octave) you get: X0 X5 X1 X6 X2 X3 X4 X0 X5 etc. So on a 5 line staff here's how they would have to be notated (I'm calling the bottom line 1st line, and so on, as is customary). The third column gives you the number of quartertones between consecutive staff positions. An odd thing is that the generating interval of 5 quartertones does not take a fixed number of staff positions: X0 to X1, X1 to X2, X4 to X5 and X5 to X6 span 3 staff positions but X2 to X3 and X3 to X4 span only 2 staff positions. So X0 to X1, X1 to X2, X4 to X5 and X5 to X6 would be "thirds" whereas X2 to X3 and X3 to X4 would be "seconds".

5th line	X5
		1 quartertone
4th space	X0
		4 quartertones
4th line	X4
		5 quartertones
3rd space	X3
		5 quartertones
3rd line	X2
		4 quartertones
2nd space	X6
		1 quartertone
2nd line	X1
		4 quartertones
1st space	X5
		1 quartertone
1st line	X0

Contact Basemetal here 15:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, that is a weird result with the steps ranging from 1 to 5 quartertones, though it is generated logically! The generating interval (5 quartertones) can be notated as C-D. The scale defined by going up the staff (in standard notation) is C-C-D-E♭-F-G-B♭-C. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Inserting some remarks on the above and then reacting to your observations within your own post.

I'm adding:

Since in all cases those "seconds" and "thirds" contain 5 quartertones they would be enharmonic. But I haven't worked out the qualifier system for intervals in this system. And I haven't even said anything about the system of accidentals that would have to go with this system, which you should not assume would be the same as that of our usual system. Contact Basemetal here 18:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it won't: I'm just translating it for reference to our usual system. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, I wasn't referring at all to the way you wrote your scale C-C-D-E♭-F-G-B♭-C when I wrote "And I haven't even said anything etc which you should not assume etc". Of course it was clear there you were simply using the usual letters A, B, C, etc and the usual accidentals, especially since you were obviously not using X0, X1, X2, etc based naming. Sorry about the misunderstanding. That bit about the accidentals which would have to accompany the X0, X1, X2, etc based naming being different from our usual ones had nothing to do with something you wrote. I was talking to myself and thinking again about what I found to my surprise when I tried to name the tones of 12ET using only 5 letters. Contact Basemetal here 12:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if you wanted it to look nicer, along the lines of 12-ET, you'd force the series of generators to continue past X6 so that the scale generated is more evenly spaced. But then the question is, where to stop? In 12-ET we start at F and go up by fifths to B; any more would generate cohemitonia (two of the smallest interval in a row). That seems to tell us to stop at X9 here. The scale that results alternates quarter-tones and whole-tones, and finishes off with a three-quarter-tone. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Another criterion for stopping would be to try and get a ladder where the rungs are spaced according to only two kinds of width (1 and 4 quartertones) instead of three (1, 3 and 4 quartertones as in this (X0,...,X9) 10-tonic system of yours or 1, 4 and 5 in the (X0,...,X6) system). That would happen for a 9-tonic system (X0,...,X8) where the spacing would be 1, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 1, 4, 4. Note by analogy that if you wanted to base a naming system for 12ET on a pentatonic system of 5 letters originating in a stack of 5ths (inside an octave: C, D, E, G, A), that would be a pretty natural system if you think about it. In such a system 5 of the 12ET pitches would be "diatonic" while 7 would be "chromatic", so 7 pitches would have to be expressed as "inflexions" of the 5 basic ones. In such a system the rule of avoiding two consecutive occurrences of the smallest interval between the basic letters is not verified since the smallest interval (our major 2nd) occurs between C and D and then between D and E. On the other hand the rule that there be only two kinds of width on the ladder (2 and 3, that is major 2nd and minor 3rd) is verified. Take your pick. Btw I've screwed around with naming the pitches of 12ET based on such a 5 letter pentatonic system. There's some weird shit. See below. Contact Basemetal here 18:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I think the main reason why 7 semitones is the generating interval chosen in 12-ET is not so much because 7 is coprime to 12, but because 2^7/12 ≈ 3/2. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Needless to say. But it was very lucky that the (approximation) of the 5th was also an interval that could generate the whole of 12ET. That's what allows us to pick any of the pitches of 12ET as a tonic and move between all of the various keys by modulating on the circle of 5ths. That feature gives tonal music based on 12ET a strong cohesive structure. That can't happen for 24ET at least using the 5th. With respect to the 5th the tones of 24ET are in "two parallel universes". If that's what you want, then fine. You can use say two pianos or two orchestras tuned a quartertone apart and play on that "two parallel universes", quasi timbral, feeling, and still write tonal music. But it's not the same. Whether those other generators (those intervals spanning a number of quartertones that's coprime with 24) can replace our good old 5th to give a 24ET based music the same sort of cohesion is doubtful. I don't know what overtones they would approximate anyway but how could anything compete with the 5th anyway? But it could be fun trying. Maybe based on a scale with 9 or 10 "diatonic" tones (note such scales contain several 5ths) and 15 or 14 "chromatic" tones like the ones you and I mentioned above. Contact Basemetal here 18:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The 5th is really hard to compete with. In fact 12-ET has a lot of coincidences in its favour: (1) it's the smallest ET that does justice to the first six harmonics (ten if you think C-B♭ is good enough to be a harmonic seventh, which entails tempering out 36/35); (2) it's the only really accurate ET with a composite number of tones below 72-ET (a lot bigger!), thus allowing symmetric divisions of the octave; and (3) notwithstanding 12 being a highly composite number, the backbone of harmony 3:2 happens to coincide with 7 out of 12, one of the very few numbers below 12 that are coprime to it. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, using this logic on 24-ET just gives the standard notation, with the problem: harmonically, you can't use the quartertones as they are completely separate from the 5-limit system. To modulate freely in 24-ET using quasi-tonal harmony, you need your basic chord to be something like 8:10:11:12 (C-E-F-G), making use of 24-ET's excellent approximation of the eleventh harmonic. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this partially answers the question I've just inserted just now although I'll have to think about why you came up with the 11th harmonic. Again, do you have an idea what overtones would be connected with (approximated by) the various generators which are "coprime with 24"? Contact Basemetal here 18:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

24-ET really nails the eleventh harmonic, getting it right to about a cent. Even better, 11:8 is approximated by C-F, which is 11 quartertones, and 11 is coprime to 24! 5 quartertones (C-D) is also pretty close to 37:32 (the 37th harmonic), 13 quartertones is close to 93:64, and 19 quartertones is close to 111:64, but these surely are getting into the realm of "too high to use". Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

How about the generator of 7 quartertones (C-E) or 17 quartertones, its inversion? Contact Basemetal here 12:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rather obviously, every interval is near some harmonic: but the ones for 7 or 17 quartertones are so high that they're really not useful, as they'll be interpreted as a simpler ratio that is pretty close as well. For one, C-E has a much simpler interpretation as 11:9. Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If you really wanna nail 11-limit just intonation and keep the standard 12 notes, go straight to 72-ET (the twelfth-tone system). 3:2 is 42 steps, 5:4 is 23 steps, 7:4 is 58 steps, and 11:8 is 33 steps. Of these, only 5:4 works as a generator of the whole scale. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As a historical curiosity, Neo-Byzantine music has been using a 72ET framework since 1883. See Neobyzantine Octoechos. Btw WP is starting to have some good articles on Byzantine Music. That Platonykiss guy is really working his ass off. He writes articles faster than I can read them. Contact Basemetal here 12:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. There is of course a meantone system (hence supported by standard notation) that allows for quasi-undecimal quartertones (though it doesn't beat 24-ET's accuracy). Simply map the note names to a circle of fifths as per 12-ET. Then taking 1:1 = C: 3:2 = G, 5:4 = E, 7:4 = A♯, and you can choose between 11:8 = E or 11:8 = G. (Neither is particularly useful in common-practice music as these are such remote relations, but could conceivably be useful in some sort of undecimal tonality that keeps a lot of the older traditions). You can even avoid the choice by making E and G enharmonic, which results in exact 31-ET.

P.P.S. Given what I said above about chords in Alkan that use intervals like A7 and d9, perhaps one should try them in 31-ET. There's even a simple way to do this: AFAIK he never writes enharmonic dieses, so you could do this by playing his music on a keyboard and allowing the pitch of every note (not repeating at the octave) to be individually adjusted. That way you could have an F in one octave and a G♮ in another. Les Enharmoniques (Op. 63 No. 41, p.78–80 of this pdf) would be very interesting – in 12-ET it is just eye music; but in 31-ET the complex notation would have an audible effect! Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm finishing with the results of my screwing around with the idea of expressing the tones of 12ET (and Pythagorean and 53ET) based on the 5 letters C, D, E, G, A. Here's the weird stuff I got: The system looks like a mirror image of what you get when you name the tones based on a system of 7 letters. For example the flat keys go in the direction of rising 5ths whereas the sharp keys go in the direction of descending 5ths. Also the system of accidentals is weird. A♯ is attracted downwards to A and A♭ is attracted upwards to A (whereas our usual system A♯ goes towards B and A♭ goes towards G). That's because the "sharp" and "flat" of that system are not identical to the normal sharp and flat. If you want (to keep things simple) to put it in the language of 53ET, in that system "sharp" raises the note by 4 (Holder) commas (not 5 as with our usual sharp) and "flat" lowers by 4 (Holder) commas (not 5 as with our usual flat), so they're not the same sharp and flat as our usual ones. Contact Basemetal here 18:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Beyond the theoretical curiosity one can wonder what kind of musical language such a system would be a good fit for. Pure pentatonic seems harmonically rather devoid of resources. Even musical languages that melodically have pentatonic tendencies (like say the blues) use the normal chords of the tonal system because otherwise you'd get stuck with only two (diatonic) chords for any pentatonic key. So it is not clear to me that, in such a context, next to the 5 basic tones, the other 7 would really have the status of "inflexions" of the 5 basic tones. On the other hand, you could stubbornly avoid "pentatonic melody over heptatonic chords" and expand the vocabulary of diatonic chords in another direction by using suspensions. For example in C major pentatonic, besides the usual triads C-E-G and A-C-E (and their inversions), you could use D-G-C, E-A-D and A-D-G (and their inversions) which are of course "triads" in a purely pentatonic world. I wonder if you've ever heard music based on such ideas? Contact Basemetal here 18:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard stuff based on this idea, but it is very cool! And logically these are indeed triads in pentatonic. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Treating 24-ET as a 19-limit system that does not handle the primes 5, 7, or 13 (i.e. 2.3.11.17.19), the quarter-tone scale is: 1/1, 33/32 or 34/33, 17/16 or 18/17, 12/11, 9/8, 22/19, 19/16, 11/9, 24/19, 22/17, 4/3, 11/8, 17/12 or 24/17, 16/11, 3/2, 17/11, 19/12, 18/11, 32/19, 19/11, 16/9, 11/6, 17/9 or 32/17, 33/17 or 64/33. (This scheme is from Xenharmonic Wiki, although I added 24/17.) Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Double sharp. I'm just posting to let you know that Moons of Neptune – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 7. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: That's a nice sixth wiki-birthday gift! Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is kinda an off-topic question, but...

I wanted to know your opinion on something. If vulcanoid asteroids were to be discovered, would that result in Mercury being reclassified as a dwarf planet due to failing to "clear the neighborhood" of debris?DN-boards1 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

They're expected to be small (between 1 and 6 km in size), and not that close to Mercury's orbit. (Mercury's gravitational influence would force them to be less than 0.21 AU from the Sun, or else they get perturbed into Mercury-crossing orbits over about 10⁸ years. In comparison, Mercury's semi-major axis is 0.39 AU). So I don't think it would result in such a reclassification, as Mercury is clearly the dominant gravitational influence here (obviously, other than the Sun) and there are no other bodies of comparable size there. Double sharp (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up! What are the odds that we even find any vulcanoids anyway? DN-boards1 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know: I'm not an expert on this, and haven't found any expert giving an estimate. Double sharp (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Pallas and Hygiea being dwarf planets

Pallas and Hygiea are most certainly dwarf planet candidates. -Images of Pallas taken by Hubble show an ellipsoid. It is a rounded object it seems, the question is whether it's in HE. -Both Pallas and Hygiea are of suitable size to be in HE, therefore they are most likely in HE. The only exceptions IIRC are Iapetus and Proteus. All other objects of ~400km or greater IIRC are rounded by their own gravity or at the very least round (not necessarily HE). The odds are that Pallas and Hygiea are indeed dwarf planets. I do not understand why you continue this debate with me. It is generally accepted that Hygiea and Pallas are the most likely asteroids to be dwarf planets. DN-boards1 (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pallas is noticeably egg-shaped (≠ ellipsoid) in the Hubble picture in its infobox. Significantly, it's in the same size range as Vesta, which isn't round either. And if they aren't round why should Hygiea be round? You also cannot really compare rocky with icy objects – rocky objects (like the asteroids) need to be bigger to be in HE, as ice doesn't withstand gravity as well as rock. Brown thinks 900 km is a good HE cutoff for rocky objects, and also says that "In the asteroid belt Ceres, with a diameter of 900 km, is the only object large enough to be round" (so obviously Pallas and Hygiea don't count). It is not generally accepted that Hygiea and Pallas even have a chance at being dwarf planets (or ever were, unlike Vesta which probably was at some point). And BTW, Iapetus is pretty round, but isn't in HE. Proteus is a lot farther from being round. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Fiery furnace

I asked recently at the Reference Desk (section Humanities because it was about a movie) if the melody of the song in the fiery furnace in Eisenstein's film "Ivan the Terrible" Part Two, was written by Prokofiev or was the traditional tune of a pre-existing Orthodox hymn. According to an article in the Pravda, one respondent supplied the link to, the words of the song are not traditional but were written by Eisenstein, hence I concluded Prokofiev wrote that tune, as he could have borrowed the melody only if the prosody of Eisenstein's text closely matched that of a traditional hymn, which would have been quite a coincidence. However it is obvious Prokofiev wanted his tune to sound like a traditional hymn. When you listen to it, is there something you've heard elsewhere it reminds you of? If you've never heard the tune in Eisenstein's film, the links are here. Contact Basemetal here 19:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't remind me of anything else at the moment. (Perhaps it does and I just can't think of it at the moment, in which case the section will mysteriously become active in a few months. (^_-)-☆) Double sharp (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

octagon

Example of internal and external angles (I couldn't find one showing an octagon, so have a pentagon instead: the idea is the same). Double sharp (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The internal angle of an octagon is 135°, so the external angle (in my understanding) is 360° -135° = 225°, and the sum of the external angles is 8 x 225° = 1800°. Have I missed something? HuPi (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@HuPi: Yes, you've got a wrong definition: the external angle is not defined as 360° minus the internal angle, but rather as 180° minus the internal angle. Think of it as the angle formed from one side and the extended adjacent side. See internal and external angle. So for a regular octagon you get each external angle as 180° − 135° = 45°, and 8 × 45° = 360°. Double sharp (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand corrected after nearly 70 years living with a misapprehension. HuPi (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@HuPi: You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I don't think I'll get too much time to improve the article anytime soon (who knows, though), but to make it easier (at least for me, but surely this'll help you as well if you're in), we would need to conduct a review and see what exactly needs to be done, and I'd love to do it sometime soon. Even if something changed so much you're going to say you'd love to work on this article, but aren't able to (yet I hope this is not the case), I'd still use your help with reviewing it. As Henry Ford once said, "Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs," and to get this one done, I would really use breaking the task into pieces. When this is done, it'll be easier to edit the article, and we won't be limited to lengthy sessions, for which we may have no available time, and maybe we'll even able to edit it on the go, if we wish to do so. Are you able to take part anytime soon?--R8R (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

...you know what, why not, small edits are totally fine even with my present everything-would-be-falling-apart-at-the-speed-of-light-if-not-for-me-staying-off-WP-mostly schedule (no longer than a paragraph or two at once, though!).

(P.S. And after mooching off .pdfs for so long of it I now have real dead tree versions of both editions of Greenwood & Earnshaw, yay.) Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad to know you can take part. (Congrats on obtaining the G&E book!)--R8R (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Translations

About a year ago you helped me translate this article from the French Wikipedia (I have a dynamic IP). Hope all is well. I am currently starting a new film-related project here. Would it be possible for you to please kindly translate these two short articles from the French Wikipedia? Thank you so very much. 46.116.193.166 (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll get to it this weekend. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks once again. 46.116.193.166 (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you can also find a photo of Bokanowski here and of the poster of his film here, for inclusion in the entries after their creation. 46.116.193.166 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

My IP address got changed again. Just so you will know how to contact me: 46.116.224.135 (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@46.116.224.135: I've got the first one done for you at The Angel (1984 French film). As usual with these articles, I don't know anything about cinema, so I may mess some things up. Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

...and the other at Patrick Bokanowski. I didn't translate the reference titles, because the French article didn't translate the few English reference titles. Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you once again so very much! Please just add Mr. Bokanowski's picture to his article and, as before, I will soon ameliorate and augmente these entries. 46.116.224.135 (talk) 09:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can upload the picture of Bokanowski, though: he's still alive and so we need to ensure that it is free, because it would not satisfy WP:NFCC (as technically anyone could still photo him). Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, it is not necessary. You might want to check Google Images though for other pictures of him. Just make sure that the link to the French Wikipedia entry appears on the left under Languages. 46.116.224.135 (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Right (and thanks for reminding me about that: I'd forgotten!), the link to the French WP entry should show up now. Double sharp (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see it now. By the way, according to IMDb, the film was first released during 1983, so you will have to change the entry's title. 46.116.224.135 (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Right, done. (Although why does the French WP's entry on Bokanowski give its date as 1982 then?) Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure but Wikipedia usually goes by the first date given on IMDb. Could be referring to the year of shooting and production. Due to the moving of the article it lost the link to the French entry on the right. Thanks again! 46.116.224.135 (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the link now. Thanks for the clarification about the date, and you're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, thank you so very much for all you did. 46.116.224.135 (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have been right about the film being released in 1982 rather than 1983 or 1984. This is confirmed by the official website of the Cannes Festival. Would it be possible to move the title once again? I will change its name on other entries myself once this is done. Thanks! 46.116.224.135 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved it. You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks once again! 46.116.224.135 (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I found three more photos of Mr. Bokanowski. Do you know whether one of these can be added to his page under Wikipedia's rules? My IP address got changed again: 46.116.230.76 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know, as the licensing of these images is not stated. So I think the safe assumption is no, unless we ask the sites to release the pictures under free licenses so we can use them and they say yes. Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Having a picture is not a must. 46.116.230.76 (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume the same goes for this one? Thanks in advance. 46.116.230.76 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have to assume so, in the absence of a clearly marked notice of a free license. Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. 46.116.230.76 (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, would it be possible for you to create a category called Films directed by Patrick Bokanowski? 46.116.230.76 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just saw you did. Thanks! 46.116.230.76 (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Shot in the dark

Are you at ACS 2015 this year? I'm giving a talk later today and figured you might actually be in the audience. This can also be chalked up to my gross over-estimation of how many people go to discipline specific conferences. :) Protonk (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not actually in the US (although I guess it is hard to discover that if you don't obsessively analyze my timestamps – I have not been very specific about RL matters on WP, after all). But I'd love to hear your talk! Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It was one in a set of 7-8 talks for a symposium on chemistry in Wikipedia organized by ChemLibrarian and Walkerma and sponsored by CINF. Apparently the ACS is like major league basebal--no recordings etc.--but ChemLibrarian will have the slides up later. Quite a neat session actually. I'll point you to the slides when they're up. Protonk (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

All right...eagerly awaiting them! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Uus FAC

It's on! I hope to get a comment form you.--R8R (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading through the article now! Double sharp (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ununennium

Do you plan to go for FA? On my first look, this wouldn't require much work, given the current state of the article! (Maybe the most difficult part would be to get anyone attracted to review it during the FAC :) I'm currently planning to go hunt some reviewers during the third decade of the month, if nobody shows up.)--R8R (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, why not: it's not like there's much more to write about an element that is not even known. The structure is based on E117's, but without anything related to discovery (for obvious reasons). I plan to get E120 as well while we're at it. I doubt we'll see predictions on the superactinides that are quite as details, at least not until E119 and E120 are synthesized. They're like the modern E117: the next undiscovered spaces, that even more teams are looking at than for E117 IIRC. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. The first trickle of E121 and E122 predictions seem to be coming in: [1] (2015 paper, stopping at E122!) and [2] (despite the title saying only Ln and An, also includes the "eka-actinides" E121, eka-Ac, and E122, eka-Th). And there is this old article on E121. So, maybe we can soon restore the E121 and E122 articles, if the recent 2015 paper contains enough predictions. But I don't think even GA would be a possibility for them right now even if they still existed – not enough predictions yet! It'll be talking about almost nothing but the electron configuration, with the chemistry section being basically "eka-actinium. eka-thorium". Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I must say, you managed to do it anyway. The synthesis intro you give is great; the only thing that bugs me is, it doesn't have two important sub-headers. I just added them; feel free to find better titles, etc.

Just to make sure: you do have access to the 2015 article, right? (just in case) (But I haven't read it, either. Yet) Huh, I see you made it in just one day. Great! (It does need some polishing, but that would be exactly polishing.) Hope your work on E120 won't be much time-wasting, either.--R8R (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see that! Thank you so much for that link! (Yeah, E115 and E119 were written in a day.) I doubt E120 will waste too much time either: I'd imagine another day? Double sharp (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I saw you finished the Ra GA comments. LOL about the tabloid: I don't think I wrote that (as you can see I haven't been looking at it since a year ago, when I got it from C to B-ish). That should be my next project, after we see what happens with E119 (and maybe E120) GANs. (One step closer to making every radioactive element a GA!) Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that, I don't remember you do such writing. :) Well, I hope to see you make it to radium in a not so distant future.--R8R (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Square number, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zeroth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact, that was exactly what I meant. Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(P.S. I know it's a bot, but I usually "reply" to these messages to remind myself, in case I forget if I've addressed it.) Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could ...

re: Talk:List of monarchs in Britain by length of reign § Llywelyn of Gwynedd, maybe we should write 1995-01(12)? YBG (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@YBG: Um, that notation isn't quite transparent to me. What is it trying to say? I think it needs an explanatory note. Double sharp (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say 1195-01(12). By analogy to citing the mass of H as 1.00794(7), it is meant to mean +/- 12 months. But perhaps 1195-06(6) would be better. It was all tongue-in-cheek. YBG (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the original is better, as it could have been 1194 as well. But this is kinda confusing with the mixed bases. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you help me find an old discussion?

Uus FAC is kinda on, and Nergaal writes, "The isotopes numbers in the infobox are lacking a ref." I am confident this has been discussed before; and it was decided to assume the refs are in the main Isotopes of... article. But I can't find it. Do you remember it? Could you help me find it?--R8R (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Something like that is on Talk:Polonium/GA1. Double sharp (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It also mentions the discussions there were prior to that moment :) These are what I wanted to find.

By the way, don't you happen to remember whether I posted the link to the news on how they don't disclose the element's name? I can't find neither via my user contributions nor via Google (the latter is especially sad). If only there was a search through contributions!

Also, before Sergei Dmitriev spoke aloud how Dubna wanted to name 115 "moscovium" (on Aug 10), there was a suggestion it could be called "langevinium," after Paul Langevin (one link, just in case -- here).--R8R (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The symbol Ln looks like a recipe for disaster, if you ask me! (^_-)-☆ I'll add it to the E115 article.

I think I asked you on your talk page; however, I don't remember there having been a link. Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, chances are, the symbol would be "Lg" :) I suggest you specifically say the Lg proposal came before the "moscovium" one (for element 115). "But for some reasons, the creator of the theory of diamagnetism and paramagnetism was decided to move aside," as I found another news article comment the "new" "moscovium" proposal  :)

I can't find it there, either :( I could've decided to not include the link, since the text was probably in Russian, but at least, I want to find where it could be.--R8R (talk) 06:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, they say "ланжевений (Ln) в честь известного французского физика-теоретика прошлого столетия Ланжевена": I assumed that Ln was meant to be a symbol. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait, do you have the link to the Aug 10 Dmitriev "moscovium" thing? Double sharp (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yeah, then that would be a disaster :) _{(given the symbol actually came from Dubna and not the website)}

Not a primary source link, I haven't looked for it yet. (Should I?) But many news agencies, even including a few I know, published short articles on the "moscovium" name on Aug 10/11/12, quoting how Dmitriev said it, or quoting none at all. Do you need such a link?--R8R (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please! I'd like to have such links to add to the E115 article now.

Been re-looking at alkali metal since yesterday. Hmm maybe we are not too far off again. (Hopefully FA doesn't get further like it did the last time.) Double sharp (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here is an example of the Aug 10 thing (it could even stand as a source for the date). Here's a quote mentioned by almost every source reporting the fact: "We express gratitude to the government of the Moscow Oblast for the provided financial support. In acknowledgment [of that], we would like to name one of the already discovered elements Moscovium after the Moscow region — the land the element has been discovered on. It would be symbolic if the 115th element of the Mendeleev's table, which decays into dubnium, would be named Moscovium." I think the link is okay to support the fact. (If you need anything else, let me know.)

I hope so; want me to give it a look sometime later?--R8R (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you for the E115 ref! (Goes to add it.)

Sure, would love to hear your alkali metal comments. (This is already my third or fourth push, isn't it?) Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Near future

Hi! I got a few points:

• first of all, what are your wiki plans fir the nearest future? You've got your eye on Uue, Ra, and alkali metal, and there's also the Pb article we wanted to do a collab on. If I find out about your plans, I could see how I could distribute my wiki time. (In particular, I want to see when I should start to read alkali metal and when I should start to implement the Pb ideas. I've got little spare time, so this is important.

• second, when you decide it's the highest time for me to come and give alkali metal a read, ping me. There might be a chance I would be caught with my current businesses... I think I could manage to do that sometime if I knew when, especially if in advance, without this interferring with my RL affairs. But as I can see, you've got some work on articles other than Ra, which I've reviewed, now... So when the time for me to get in comes, ping me, best in advance.

• also, I want to inform you (basically to motivate myself) that I want to go hunt reviewers anytime soon, hopefully during this weekend... It's just I have little time, this is the main problem... Is there a chance you know anyone who could come?--R8R (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Near future: Uue and Ubn (the undiscovered elements) are first, as they're easy pickings. Maybe alkali metal after that, although I feel a little guilty about leaving Ra dangling. I have your comments (thankfully) so I can address them later if I have other things. Also in that category are things like Np and Bk FAs (though really Th would be awesome). Pb any time. Ubn will be a one-day affair, like Uue.
  • I'm tempted to say to hold off on alkali metal until I really have the fixing going, as now it's not too different from last year yet.
  • Reviewers for Uus? I dunno. Jasper Deng reviewed some of my SHE GANs; I asked him for Uue but he hasn't responded. Basically I'm not sure who would care about it, though maybe other reviewers of old SHE GANs would be.
  • I also really really want to finish the SHEs and bring that to GT (I need the main article, and then Db, Sg, and Bh), like I did for the actinides. That's been a thing for just a year less than the alkali metals.
  • What to do after those two old goals are done? (It'll be at least 2016, and that's an optimistic estimate.) Maybe I will remember my old plan to do Sr, stealing the layout of Ba. If I want something huge and important after that (like the old alkali-metal spamming), maybe the halogens? Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Though TBH I think I'd go to the other old goal instead, to FA Li and Be. Double sharp (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • so is it like you'd go for Li and Be instead of Pb? This is important for me, as I am busy IRL but would gladly take part in a collab. Taking an article on my own would be difficult now due to my real-life activities. A second opinion isn't as available, which, apart from helping build the article, motivates to do the work. And you don't get to do less work. One example is my work on Alexei Navalny -- the idea to work on it came out of nowhere, the topic seemed intriguing, (I did fulfill my original goal to educate myself about our national opposition,) and then that's it. The article's been improved much (nowhere near even GA, there are like empty sections, but the improvement is still huge. But there wasn't anyone to work with. I'm not complaining (by no means I am), but I would greatly appreciate the fact there is someone who's interested, too. In a life where I have so little spare time, it would greatly help me to go on. (If RL issues were too important, so important I couldn't spend time for Wiki, I would ditch it for a while anyway.)
        • No it's not, it's more like I'd go to Li and Be first before halogens, but I will do Pb before any of these. Maybe even concurrently with alkali metal. Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • You, in particular, seem to be a person worth doing a collab with -- of all WP:ELEM editors, ST11 is going for astronomy now, DePiep doesn't do content work, and Sandbh does his work so fundamentally I'm afraid I can't keep up. not to mention you're a good person to work with :) Speaking of Pb, I don't really want to keep it where it is now. If it wasn't for the comments that are already there, then yeah, but now it would feel wrong. Basically, I think lead could be improved per our comments within couple of weeks/a month at worst, and then we would be open for a PR. I do want to motivate you to go for Pb FA, as I think that it is not too difficult (like we got a plan), and after the PR starts, there is a high probability we'll be open for a second task, which could be either Li or Be.
        • Sure, don't worry: we'll do Pb together. Thank you for thinking so highly of me, though I'm not sure I deserve it! o_O
        • Not sure which of Li and Be to do first. I like both very much. But if I had to pick one, it would be Be. It's a really interesting element. What a pity that it is extremely toxic. Double sharp (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • when you do decide to finally go for the last SHE articles, call me. I do want to go for FA with dubnium, maybe you even remember that. If you want to simply GA the other two, okay then, but let's go for a star with Db. (I assume you would take part?)
        • Definitely: thanks for reminding me! Sg and Bh will probably just be GAs.
        • (Although is there really a difference between GA and FA for these articles? I mean, looking at E115, I think I've got practically everything that's been written on it, which is still not much. If so, then they all could become FAs with minimal work. If this isn't true, the ones to FA specifically other than Db are still Hs, Cn, and Fl.) Double sharp (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Halogens seem to be intriguing, even for a possible FT, but that's a future so distant :) actually, I don't set plans about as far away myself. I still have aluminium on my mind, and that's it.--R8R (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Very distant, indeed. But given that I seem to take forever to get any of my goals achieved (otherwise, why is alkali metal not an FA yet? (；一_一)), I think it's not bad to plan that far ahead! (^_^) My favourite among them is iodine, mostly because it isn't trying to kill you as much as the others in elemental form. Double sharp (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Natural isotopes of actinides

If you list ²⁴⁴Pu, ²⁴⁰Np, ²⁴⁰Pu, and ²³⁶U as existing, than ²⁴⁰U exists, too.

If ²³⁷Np exists in nature, than the Np series should exist, too, though in extremely negligible amounts. The data from 1952 seem to have identified ²³⁷Np, ²³³U, ²²⁹Th, and ²²⁵Ac.

²²⁶Th and ²³²U may be double beta decay products of ²²⁶Ra and ²³²Th, but the article Double beta decay does not state anything about them.

²³⁷U is sometimes mentioned as an intermediate in the chain of ²³⁷Np formation, e.g. [3] (in Russian).Burzuchius (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burzuchius: Right, I forgot about ²⁴⁰U. Thanks for that data; I'll add back the Np series isotopes, then. I'll still leave out ²²⁶Th and ²³²U, as the double beta decay of their hypothetical parents is apparently not known yet. Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burzuchius: The other discrepancies with the old list were its inclusion of ²³⁵Th, ²³⁵Pa, ²³⁶Pa, ²³⁸Np, and ²⁴²Pu: do you have any information about the possible natural occurrence of these isotopes? Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burzuchius: Huh: the "isotopes of X" articles list double beta decay from ²²⁶Ra, ²³²Th, (²³⁶Pu), and ²⁴⁴Pu! This would add back ²²⁶Th, ²³²U, and ²⁴⁴Cm (making curium natural). But the only source I found for ²⁴⁴Pu double beta decay was a negative detection... Double sharp (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ununennium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ununennium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

For your edit to my sandbox re transition metals. It occurred to me this morning that some of the platinum metals aren't known for their structural strength so I'll have to fix that. It is surprisingly hard to summarize what the transition metals are without immediately talking about d orbitals. Sandbh (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2147483647, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Clausen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

talk:Makemake#mass

Please see my comment on your edit on the discussion page, thanks! Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied. Double sharp (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ununennium

The article Ununennium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ununennium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Isotopes of copernicium

At 12:41, 15 September 2013 and 12:20, 15 September 2013, you made two consecutive edits to Isotopes of copernicium. You added a new <ref name=04Og01> on top of the existing one, and then ref'd it more (<ref name=04Og01/>). It would be difficult for any other user to sort out this mess. Would you kindly clean this up? —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: OK, I think I've fixed it. Thanks for notifying me! Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it so quickly! Also, I am baffled because I was editing the article at the time, and after I saved my changes I could not figure out how it was that I didn't stomp on your changes, since I started before you. I guess it will remain a mystery. —Anomalocaris (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Hall of the Mountain King

Look at the article. It's saying that the piece actually changes key rather than just a chord change. Georgia guy (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: I am seriously inclined to doubt the article, as F♯ major is never established the way B minor is at the start through a V-I cadence. Also, if it starts in B minor, and retains that key signature through supposed F♯ major sections, that is not unusual – you will find instances of the opening key signature being retained after modulation in every Mozart sonata. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Uus FAC over now

The FAC is over (I got the star, yay! thanks for your input); do you think you'd be able to slowly (or quickly, which would be even better) fix lead and the issues raised on its talkpage soon?

I am going to be seriously pressed for time in the following weeks, but I think I can get some of those things done with the help of Greenwood & Earnshaw. Double sharp (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Great; then I'll save some effort for this as well.--R8R (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, during the FAC, the question of "element X vs. ununsmthium" has been raised again; I admit I was disappointed after the request of renaming per consensus was brought down to regular requests and everyone opposed, even those who would support it otherwise, so I gave up. Now may be a time to reconsider this; what would you say?--R8R (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about this anymore – the trouble is that the "unun-" names are widely used everywhere outside the field, while they are almost absent within it, so that almost everyone knows the elements first as "unun-" in the English-speaking world. And it does help that their symbol isn't the same as their atomic number now, so that we don't have atrocities like ²⁹⁴
₁₁₈118 written in equations, or ambiguities like 118Cl₂ vs. 118 Cl₂. Maybe we ought to leave well enough alone (and wait for the next JWP paper, which ought to be coming soon). Double sharp (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I see; if I wanted to argue, I think I could counter this, but I don't. What's that about the JWP paper; mind sharing the info?--R8R (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember this tweet? You linked it on Talk:Ununtrium. The last time there was an announcement, there was a JWP paper to go with it. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I remember that one, but I thought you might've gotten some updates since then (I just checked, I can't see any). Anyway, we'll get something soon. Congrats on your new awards!--R8R (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Copernicium (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununbium) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Ununtrium (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununtrium) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Deletion to Quality Award

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring Flerovium (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ununquadium) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Cirt (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Triacontadigon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isogonal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Inv

I started the work on lead; for now, I am concerned with chemistry. Are you ready to join me (with chemistry or anything else, since I already outlined the future structure of the section; however, feel free to tell me if I am taking too many cherries from the pie)?--R8R (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I can get something done soon – if not today (which seems increasingly likely), then tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 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.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award

Awarded for participating in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ununennium

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)