User talk:Double sharp/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nucleosynthesis and stuff

Hi! R8R here. Tell me, are you good enough with nucleosynthesis and heavy elements formation? If so, I would really appreciate your help with lead. I want to write a para or may be two on that, and (of course) I want it to be technically correct. Since I never investigated the matter closely, it would be much easier if you supervised me writing the para before I publish it. If not, do you know anyone who could help me? Thanks--R8R (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I could check, but I'm currently away and editing from my phone, so it's rather difficult to research here. (Thank heavens for tabbed browsing!) I will be back next week. In the meantime, I think SBHarris can help you if he's around. Materialscientist appears to have a lot of sources: he may have some on this.

From memory: the s-process can go up to Bi and Po (thus including Pb), but it only goes that far in low-metallicity stars. Higher metallicity and it will stall around Sr or Y. There is also the radiogenic Pb from r-process actinides and transactinides. Proton capture does not contribute much if at all. And it is a crying shame that it is not so easy to find sources about nucleosynthesis since this is very interesting. At the very least, we should have a page listing the natural isotopes (and extinct ones like Nb-92) and their mode of formation. Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

'Kay, great, thanks. I hope I'll get some spare time anytime soon. Thanks for the info -- indeed, it is useful for me; I need to educate myself on th matter. Thanks again.--R8R (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Source for atomic weights

Hello, at cswiki we have got a mess in atomic weights in articles about chemical elements. I noticed you handle the periodic table templates here. What source of atomic weights would you recommend? --Dvorapa (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dvorapa: http://www.ciaaw.org/, absolutely! Double sharp (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, why not IUPAC, since everyone is so keen on IUPAC? I thought they were the standard for basically anything here.--R8R (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Because CIAAW is a part of IUPAC, and has been so since 1920. Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh; I must've not looked carefully enough. Sorry for the confusion :P then it's clear to me.--R8R (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! This is a source I've looked for. --Dvorapa (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Uranium page

Hi I see you have made plenty of changes over time to the Uranium page. And it is in great shape hence it is now semi-protected. So I am sending this to you in hopes you agree and can make the changes. The info bar is missing info on the crystallography of the alpha uranium phase It is base centred orthorhombic space group is Cmcm and the lattice parameters are a 285.37 pm b 586.95 pm and c 495.48 pm I have used this website for reference but will look for a proper journal article in time as well. http://www.periodictable.com/Elements/092/data.html

All the best, JEDarnbrough — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEDarnbrough (talk • contribs) 14:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Give me a couple of days - I'm currently away and it's annoying to do this sort of thing on my mobile. But I don't see a reason to exclude this if lattice parameters are in most chemical element infoboxes. Even if they're not, it makes sense to put it in the main article, like it is currently done for Th and Np (which I mostly rewrote). Don't worry about the journal source: the chapter on U in The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements should almost certainly have it (that's where I got it for Th and Np!). Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@JEDarnbrough: OK, I've added them at their first mention. Double sharp (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thank you very much. Do you work with Actinides or just a keen amateur?

@JEDarnbrough: Alas, the latter. They are cool but I really doubt I'll ever see any of them, save perhaps Th and U, in person. Most of my knowledge of the radioactives comes from books and journals. It's okay though. There are many other cool elements that don't need a security clearance to be investigated. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Digon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Digon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Th alphart.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Th alphart.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

the term "ancohemitonic"

Hi there,

I'm submitting a research proposal for a PhD scholarship, and its basically a compositional study of all 42 of the seven-note modes (excluding ones with consecutive semitones), as they are seen in the table on this page.

These scales are described as "ancohemitonic". I was wondering - do you know whose labelling this is? I can't find this term mentioned anywhere else on the internet.

If this is the widely accepted term for these types of scale, then it would be very helpful to me, as I can refer to the scales I wish to study in my PhD as heptatonic "ancohemitonic" modes.

Many thanks for your help,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.39.47 (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@82.37.39.47: The Wikipedia article on anhemitonic scales cites the term "cohemitonia" to Christ 1966, and the the term "ancohemitonic" to Tymoczko 1997 (both in the lede). Is that what you're looking for? I don't think there is any other standard term for this class of scale, so even if these are not widely accepted terms, they would still have brevity going for them, as opposed to circumlocutions like "heptatonic scales whose semitones are nonconsecutive (possibly vacuously)".

Good luck for your research proposal!

• Christ, William (1966). Materials and Structure of Music, v.1, p. 39. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice–Hall. LOC 66-14354.
• Tymoczko, Dmitri (1997). "The Consecutive-Semitone Constraint on Scalar Structure: A Link between Impressionism and Jazz", Intégral, v.11, (1997), p. 135-179.

Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead synthesis

Hi! I think I'll have some spare time ib January, so I think I may find some time to invest in lead. As such, I have two questions for you: will you be able to find some spare time to invest in the article as well, and, if so, could you please take care of the section on lead synthesis and occurrence. I have a plan on my mind, which is roughly outlined by hidden comments I left in it, but if you have any better ideas, they're welcome. Lead has a story behind it, and it is, of all elements, possibly most important for a good overview. It somewhat scares me away, so if you could take care of it, it would greatly appreciated.--R8R (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I will probably have some time in January. I'll give it a look and ask you if I'm unsure about anything. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Great to know; thank you.--R8R (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

the unfortunate thing about the English convention of transliterating Russian text in music examples

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at R8R Gtrs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ununoctium

Hi. Your vandalism has been reverted. Maybe you could raise your objections on the article's talkpage? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: That's an interesting mix of civility levels you've got there. Nevertheless, I have spelled out my reasons more fully on the talkpage for you. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And you have a sign on your talkpage saying don't be a dick. Maybe you should practice what you preach and assume some good faith too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: First "vandalism" (after an explanation in the edit summary), and then "troll". I haven't gone so far as to accuse you of anything malicious, and I believe you were acting in good faith and believed that your additions improved the article. Of course, I disagreed, as I have a right to. Doing so is not vandalism, nor trolling. Since, despite your own statements, you do not seem to be practicing what you are preaching to me by immediately jumping to the conclusion that I have ownership issues with the article and am acting in bad faith, I don't think I shall be wasting my time on you either. Double sharp (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing a good-faith edit with sourced content is vandalism. No discussion, just straight in with the revert button. Well done you. So when you stop being a dick and acting in bad faith, I might give a fuck what you say. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ununpentium

Hi there, Double S, I see you undid my IPA attempt for Ununpentium— I had not seen the IPA in the infobox, but I am afraid I take issue even with this and want your thoughts on the following. I had got the pronunciation from Dictionary.reference.com. I will grant you outright that they are not really an authority on the issue, so let's put that aside. The YouTube video claiming knowledge of the pronunciation puts it (sort of) as you did: "yoon-oon-PEN-tee-əm" or "oon-oon-PEN-tee-əm". Let's admit that they are no real authority either. BUT, there IS THIS Youtube video of a man who DOES seem (?) to be an authority on the subject, and HE pronounces it "un-un-PEN-tee-əm". Putting him aside (for now), I looked at a lot of Internet sources to try to get a sense: this site mimics the first YouTube vid I mentioned. I found various Internet sources that advocated both the "un-un" and the "oon-oon"/ "yoon-oon" types of pronunciation, with little real consensus. You claim there is an official IUPAC pronunciation— I would love to see a link if you have one (do you have one?). Even putting THAT aside (so many asides!) I believe the convention in using the IPA is to use the schwa for most o, a, e, and u vowels in most unstressed syllables, in which case we end up with "oon-ən-PEN-tee-əm"/ "yoon-ən-PEN-tee-əm" rather than "oon-oon-PEN-tee-əm." But I am interested in your thoughts, and in particular that IUPAC reference. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: IUPAC makes the pronunciation they want pretty clear (here's a non-paywalled copy): "The root 'un' is pronounced with a long 'u', to rhyme with 'moon'. [Notice that it doesn't seem to depend on where it is, so logically IUPAC seems to want us not to reduce the vowel even if the syllable is unstressed.] In the element names each root is to be pronounced separately." If one were to reduce the vowels in such names, I think 110 and 190 would be difficult to tell apart. Granted, this is not likely to be a problem, but it appears that IUPAC would really rather we didn't reduce the vowels in these intentionally artificial-sounding temporary names. I don't think they should be treated as normal English words, but rather as things intended to be understood internationally. The normal English equivalent seems to be just "element 115" (which is used more often than the systematic name among scientists working in the field). Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't let Lemmy let you down

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

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

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

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

You're right. I should calm down. (Hence my failure to respond immediately; I tried not to think about the whole thing for two days.)

The only thing is that I remain uncertain as to just which element they want to be (ugh) "lemmium", and thus which article the mention ought to be on. As you can see on Talk:Ununoctium, I've found people thinking it's for any of the four remaining elements. Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I bet they don't care. There is no reason 113 would suit Lemmy better or worse than 115. They'd just want him to be somewhere in there.--R8R (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it makes it difficult to decide which article to put it in, if the petition doesn't say which. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We're free to say (hmm, I need to update ununseptium) something like, "when the four elements were recognized by the IUPAC in late 2015, a petition was launched to name one of the elements^{<possibly a note here telling it could actually be any of the four>} after Lemmy because he played heavy metal and the element is also expected to be a heavy metal. IUPAC has made no comment." We can put it in all of the four articles. Why not. Will work.--R8R (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I finally found their petition, which says 115 in the title. It's at https://www.changЯe.org/p/support-lemmy-tribute-name-newly-discovered-heavy-metal-lemmium (remove the Я; the link is blacklisted). I guess that resolves the question, although in the comments you will see some people arguing that it should be one of the others (usually 118). I don't think "heavy metal" usually includes the synthetic elements though. The article mentions that sometimes the term is capped at uranium. I was under the impression that one heard the phrase often in "heavy metal poisoning", and the transuranium elements, while also good at making people want to lie down and never get up, do not do it in quite the same way as mercury, thallium, lead, or even the not-very-radioactive uranium. (I didn't forget thorium, but its immediately decay products are hot enough that one actually has to pay attention, which is much worse than it is for depleted uranium.) Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to forget they're not doing it because of great love for science, but fandom/love/whatever for Motorhead, or their cultural impact, or that kind of music in general. Besides, loosely speaking, all of these (possible save for 117 and 118) may be called heavy metals because they're heavy (or even superheavy -- so heavy! *wink*) and they're metals. As for 115, given your link you provided at Talk:Ununoctium, we may say it was originally proposed for the element 115, but has been attributed to all four by someone in some contexts.

I'll give it a try at ununseptium; we'll see how it works.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

True. I suppose the entertainingly stretched interpretations of the IUPAC regulations that you will find in the comments (and really the entire premise, like buying the star name from a company that has nothing to do with the IAU and calling it an astrological [sic] object) do indicate that they are simply willing to interpret the rules however they wish to make their name supposedly proper. Then again, I suppose the whole spirit of disrespect for the discoverers makes it hard to think of it as anything other than fandom. I guess I am subconsciously unwilling to acknowledge that, but it's true.

I think that solution is perfectly fine, and I'll take a look at how it turns out on the element 117 article. In any case, I'm curious to see how fleeting this thing is going to be. They do seem to forget that even in the extremely unlikely event that the discoverers like their name and propose it to IUPAC, who then inexplicably decide to bend the rules to allow it, most scientists are not going to deem it fitting. There has already been a case in 1994 when scientists en masse refused to use the names IUPAC recommended for element 104–109. So there's yet another hurdle (as if there weren't enough already). Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

From the petition: "We believe it is fitting that the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry recommend that one of the four new discovered Heavy Metals in the Periodic table is named Lemmium." It's not said which one they have in mind. 115 is not unquestionably integrated into the title of the petition, either.--R8R (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I wonder, was the petition launched in 2015 or 2016?--R8R (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I learned a bit about the proposal; I think we should leave it exclusively for 115. One of the links that made me think so: here--R8R (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

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

I think they're all fine except the p-block, where the diatomic nonmetals are too close to the noble gases. It takes some time to work out which one H is (well, of course I mean the colour), because it's so far away. I think we need to go further into rose for the noble gases. In the extended PT, I am finding it really hard to tell predicted AEMs apart from predicted superactinides, and in the p-block, I find it hard to tell that E117 is only a predicted metalloid. Visually they are fine, emphasizing the spectrum, but I think we need to maximise the hue space between the colours a little more in the p-block. Double sharp (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

A great reception, thank you. I'll ask again when I think the colors have been improved.--R8R (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I must say I forgot to tell you I'd want to ask you about the colors quite often, which is why I'm not asking for long replies, until we got it right. (I think we'll make it soon, though.) Is that okay with you? Now, would you take another look at my PTs now that the colors have been altered a bit to match your reception?--R8R (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Diatomic nonmetals—noble gases are better, but still too close. I still can't tell which H is at a glance, but the F–Ne contrast is now obvious since they're right next to each other. E117 and predicted AEM/San are much better: I can clearly tell the difference now.

You should probably ask more people than just me, though, as we've already had a case where I thought the contrast was OK and Sandbh didn't. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I will, eventually; for now, I just want some quick re to develop the color scheme, and one second opinion should be enough. After I have one person (in this case, you) confirm it is alright, so I have a scheme on my hands, I can go hunt more opinions, but at that point, I'll only need to work some nuances.--R8R (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it. How come "Diatomic nonmetals—noble gases are better, but still too close," but "the F–Ne contrast is now obvious"? The point is, they should be distinguishable. Are they?--R8R (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

They are when they're next to each other, but not when they're far apart (which is a problem because of hydrogen). Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting; I didn't see that coming. (Now that I re-read your actual re, I see you said that; sorry.) I was looking to get away from the hydrogen problem with poly- and diatomic nonmetals. If I understand it correctly, that is the only problem with the current colors. Okay, I'll give it a try once I can reach my computer; I have a couple of ideas.

There is another issue I haven't mentioned yet. Do the current font colors (the ones for atomic numbers) look easy to distinguish from both each other and their backgrounds? I am especially interested in knowing if you can realize that red for gases and black for solids are different colors, and how easily if so. (The exact future shades will probably differ from the current ones, but not really significantly.)--R8R (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I think that it works now, and that it would be difficult to improve over this. I can easily tell the difference between red and black for gases and solids respectively. Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Great news. Thank you very much for quick res and the engagement.--R8R (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

This is getting dangerously into subjectivity, and what works for me may not work for other people: but for me, I think it's OK. Perhaps there could be a way to make the shades at the right end of the table easier to distinguish (it's possible now; but I just can't think of a way to make it even easier), but currently it's all right. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't be afraid about subjectivity: of course I know it is unavoidable. It is the reason why I call for a second opinion from you in first place before we not accept my scheme as the new scheme---before I put it for a wider discussion. And there should be a scheme by DePiep anyway. Yet two opinions are better than one at any point of time.

I'm glad you didn't mention the greens. Are they good? I lowered the difference in value from 3 to 1 for a better color harmony. If that doesnt hurt the distinguishability, great. The reds were one point of concern for me. I set them further apart than they were at the time of the previous request. Now what was the problem? Only red and pink, or does orange takes part in this not-so-easy distinguishability? Not much that can be done is not nothing. So pls let me know about these two issues.--R8R (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The greens are OK for me, though IIRC similar greens gave Sandbh problems with DePiep's table (which is why I pushed them to chartreuse at 90° and spring green at 150°, far away from green at 120°). I think it's only red and pink: orange is easy to tell apart, whereas for red and pink I need to think for a little while. Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I want him to provide a third pre-production opinion, so I'll be aware if a change is needed. Have no worries with that. :) Sixty degrees is somewhat extravagant, if you ask me. For that reason, I decided I was allowed to vary not only hue, but also both saturation and value, originally by five, but I was able to push myself into a tougher (and more color harmony-providing) restriction---three, and two may be a possibility. One percent of both s and especially v makes a great difference (for a single percent, at least). On the other hand, a color difference created by a three percent difference is not great enough for a color to stand out. (Fewer is better, though.) So if anyone decides the greens are too similar, I have that as an option.

Regarding the reds: I'll see what I can do later today or tomorrow. One important thing that limits me is, group 18 must be different from group 1, and these are far away from each other, which means a higher degree between them is needed. At the moment, it's forty degrees. Anyway, I'll take another look later; thanks for notifying me.--R8R (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you take another look now? I've changed the red colors a bit.--R8R (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference is very clear now, I think. Double sharp (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad to hear that; thank you.--R8R (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

CVP on Chu shogi

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

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

Chlorine

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

Advice needed

I presume you're at least to some extent familiar with the history of East Asia? If I'm not mistaken, then could you please answer a couple of questions (of course, this is researchable, but my initial research gave weird results.) A book says, "Lead metal was produced and used (as a stimulant in the court of the Emperors for example) by the Chinese prior to 3000 BC." But the article emperor of China says the first emperor even appeared millennia after 3000 BC. Could you clarify that? Maybe emperor referred to the pre-imperial times too, but our Wiki article says the first dynasty in China appeared still centuries after 3000 BC. Who could they serve then? Was there even a China to talk about five millennia ago? How would it be correct to call whatever state was there at that point?--R8R (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

For example, Indian history is very long as well, but there wasn't an India four millennia ago, as I put it. There was the Indus Valley civilization.--R8R (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This is really weird. For starters, the monarchs of China before 221 BC were called kings (王). (Then China separated into many Warring States, so that Qin Shihuang, who unified China, decided he'd like a new and better title.) Around 3000 BC there were the Yangshao culture and Longshan culture, but I don't see any reference in their articles to what they did with lead. There was definitely something around in China, but the chronology of that statement is really weird, and I don't know what was intended. Double sharp (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. But what about this statement: "The Chinese used lead to make coins 4,000 years ago, as did the ancient Greeks and Romans"? I have no doubt of ancient Greeks and Romans, but were there Chinese in 2000 BCE? Our China article says the word has been used for the country/nation/people (quite) for no longer than five centuries in English (and I see the Chinese word for "China" does not even sound like that English translation). I'm not sure, and I'm confused.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead currently says, "The Chinese used lead as a stimulant in the emperor's court,[57] a currency,[58] and a contraceptive;[59]". Is it correct to use the word "Chinese" for around 2000 BCE (as you see I'm staying away from using the word "Indian" for the same time, which could only be used because there is an India now and the Indus Valley civilization has some ties to the modern India, but it actually wasn't an India)? I think the "emperor's court" will become "royal court".--R8R (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I usually see and hear them called Chinese (though perhaps "ancient Chinese" is better). The exact dynasty seems to be more often specified, but it is clearly considered under the umbrella of Chinese history. (You can see for example that History of China always uses China for the country being ruled over by the kings and later emperors in the dynasties. Although I don't know why.) And yes, I think "royal court" would be safer, assuming that the dates are right. Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I assume it's okay to use the word "Chinese" in English for that period of time. Thank you very much. Last question: do you think I should use "Chinese" or "Ancient Chinese" in the article?--R8R (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

According to History of China (and also confirms what I remember seeing), anything from the first dynasty (c.2100 BCE) to the first emperor (221 BCE) counts as "ancient". Before that is "prehistoric" and after that is "imperial" until the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, after which I suppose you could say "republican". Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, sure, I just didn't know if that "ancient" should be displayed in lead; I guess I will add the label. Thank you very much.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! I think that, since it's only one word and it does some help to specify which giant slice of the gigantic sweep of Chinese history we're talking about, it ought to be displayed. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear synthesis and s- and r-processes

One more question. This document says Hg-204 has only been created by the r-process. and not the s- one. Seems believable. However, it also says that Tl-205 has been created by both the s- and r- processes, and I don't get how it could result from the s-process. The Hg-204 -- Hg-205 -- Tl-205 route is blocked, since Hg-204 is created by the r-process only. The Tl-203 -- Tl-204 -- Tl-205 route seems very unlikely to play any significant role: a paper I read, the B2FH paper, says another capture in the s-process takes "from ~10^3 years to ~10^5 years for each neutron capture," and half-life of Tl-204 is less than 4 years, which means that in 10^3 years thallium-204 will decay away (10^3/4=250 half-lives). What am I missing?--R8R (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is probably from the decay of ²⁰⁵Pb with half-life 1.5×10⁷ years, since ²⁰⁴Pb is stable and can be made in the s-process. Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Isn't 1.5x10^7 years a little too long to play any significant role? even assuming that all nuclei last 10^5 years in the s-process, 1.5x10^7/10^5=150.--R8R (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I imagine the s-process takes some time. With decades going by between neutron captures, some of these ²⁰⁵Pb nuclei must get far enough away to stop capturing neutrons. (Otherwise, why doesn't everything turn into Pb and Bi?) Then much later they can decay. At least, that's what I think is going on. Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha, good point. I'll go with that.--R8R (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

^_^ Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why, thank you, and please pardon my initial inadvertence to say that earlier.--R8R (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

On a second thought, that may sound a little too pretentious. Still, indeed am I grateful for your tip.--R8R (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

One more thing. I just created a graph to display these nuclear processes: File:S-R-processes-atomic-mass-201-to-210.svg. (Unfortunately, it's not a work of art, though I hope that either readers won't mind or I'm just too critical to myself. On the other hand, it was never supposed to be one.) Could you please tell me how the r-process goes on from that point? At this point, it looks like both s- and r-process end there, but we know the r-process goes on from that point somewhere. We have natural uranium, after all. Do you know how exactly it processes from that point, and if so, would you have a source for that? There's no need to have sources for the whole A=210--238 chain, just the a couple of steps after Bi-209.--R8R (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the r-process happened so quickly that it would end up simply running straight up the neutron drip line, and only beta decaying once the neutron flux ceased. So you would indeed get beta decays to stable nuclides like Pb-208 or Bi-209, but it wouldn't make sense to have a predefined route in the sea of instability until you got to Th-232. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of that, you must be right. Thank you very much for the tip.--R8R (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Collab still on?

Hi, I just finished writing the History section for lead. Wow, it's been an interesting research! (And thankfully, it's over now.) I finally found a good book on lead history---just before I finished writing the section. I'd love you to take a critical look. (One thing that I particularly want to get opinions on: is it not too Eurocentric? I will ask for a PR once I finish the whole article)

Now, I'd want to know: is the collab still a thing? I may have to (not sure yet) slow down my research for Wiki. Do you still want this to be an actual collab? Or maybe a "I can't do full-scale research and writing, but I could help with some things" collab? That is, can I ask you to do small jobs for the article?--R8R (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

My reserve of free time is soon going to run out, but I should be fine to help with whatever things you request me to. Double sharp (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Great to know. :) Would you please review the section (general style of writing, Eurocentrism, facts not supported by refs, etc.) before I move on to another section? (I know there's a broken ref; I'll fix it later today or tomorrow.)--R8R (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: Sorry for the delay: I've been rather lacking in time and therefore have been concentrating on single-paragraph affairs (or things that can be copy-pasted.

Generally looks good and very readable. I don't have time to look through all the citations, but I assume they cover all the sentence between them and the previous citation: in which case, only the name of Sb in Central Asian languages (um, which ones? is it a specific language family like Turkic languages?) needs a citation (and I'm sure you could simply go to a dictionary?). It doesn't look too Eurocentric, but I'm not an expert on this sort of history-of-science topic (is there a WikiProject for this sort of thing? if so asking them might be helpful). (BTW, the Chinese had more uses of Pb; see this article for example. They also used it in Ancient Chinese glass in the Han dynasty. Sorry for only commenting about China, but I really do not know much about how it was used elsewhere.) Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The Shang dynasty may have also gotten the same Pb poisoning problem as the ancient Romans: see this article. Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Tajik isn't a Turkic language, yet it uses surma (except in Cyrillic script) for "antimony." Besides, Turkish sürmä means "galena." Think we'll have to go with "Central Asian." I decided a ref to a dictionary is useless, and the fact may stand for granted, this is just a language-to-language translation of a single word (not a phrase).

Thank you for these sources. I'll probably roll them in later. One thing I've wanted to add to the article, but couldn't find, is, what uses did the Chinese have for lead during the European medieval era? Why was that region a top lead producer? Could you help me find out?--R8R (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

seven-dimensional_space

Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at 125.239.14.29's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

first time user, broke the code of silence on this one.

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kyrie in D minor, K. 341, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Stephen's Cathedral. 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) 10:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sections for the 24-cell.

Since you were the only one to respond at the reference desk... Where did you get your information on the cross-sections and do you have any suggestions on where to do further research? (I own a copy of Regular Polytopes, which only contains vertex first and cell first).Naraht (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I got the cross-sections from Stella (software), but that's all I (currently) know about the topic. Double sharp (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanx, I'll keep looking.Naraht (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm ThePlatypusofDoom. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Quaternionic polytope, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Regular chiliagon.png

Thank you for uploading File:Regular chiliagon.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Regular polygon 120.png
• File:Regular polygon 360.png
• File:Star polygon 1000-499 zoomed.png
• File:Star polygon 120-11.png
• File:Star polygon 120-13.png
• File:Star polygon 120-17.png
• File:Star polygon 120-19.png
• File:Star polygon 120-23.png
• File:Star polygon 120-29.png
• File:Star polygon 120-31.png
• File:Star polygon 120-37.png
• File:Star polygon 120-41.png
• File:Star polygon 120-43.png
• File:Star polygon 120-47.png
• File:Star polygon 120-49.png
• File:Star polygon 120-53.png
• File:Star polygon 120-59.png
• File:Star polygon 120-7.png
• File:Star polygon 257-128 zoomed.png
• File:Star polygon 360-101.png
• File:Star polygon 360-103.png
• File:Star polygon 360-107.png
• File:Star polygon 360-109.png
• File:Star polygon 360-11.png
• File:Star polygon 360-113.png
• File:Star polygon 360-119.png
• File:Star polygon 360-121.png
• File:Star polygon 360-127.png
• File:Star polygon 360-13.png
• File:Star polygon 360-131.png
• File:Star polygon 360-133.png
• File:Star polygon 360-137.png
• File:Star polygon 360-139.png
• File:Star polygon 360-143.png
• File:Star polygon 360-149.png
• File:Star polygon 360-151.png
• File:Star polygon 360-157.png
• File:Star polygon 360-161.png
• File:Star polygon 360-163.png
• File:Star polygon 360-167.png
• File:Star polygon 360-17.png
• File:Star polygon 360-173.png
• File:Star polygon 360-179.png
• File:Star polygon 360-19.png
• File:Star polygon 360-23.png
• File:Star polygon 360-29.png
• File:Star polygon 360-31.png
• File:Star polygon 360-37.png
• File:Star polygon 360-41.png
• File:Star polygon 360-43.png
• File:Star polygon 360-47.png
• File:Star polygon 360-49.png
• File:Star polygon 360-53.png
• File:Star polygon 360-59.png
• File:Star polygon 360-61.png
• File:Star polygon 360-67.png
• File:Star polygon 360-7.png
• File:Star polygon 360-71.png
• File:Star polygon 360-73.png
• File:Star polygon 360-77.png
• File:Star polygon 360-79.png
• File:Star polygon 360-83.png
• File:Star polygon 360-89.png
• File:Star polygon 360-91.png
• File:Star polygon 360-97.png
• File:Star polygon 40-10.png
• File:Star polygon 40-11.png
• File:Star polygon 40-12.png
• File:Star polygon 40-13.png
• File:Star polygon 40-14.png
• File:Star polygon 40-15.png
• File:Star polygon 40-16.png
• File:Star polygon 40-17.png
• File:Star polygon 40-18.png
• File:Star polygon 40-19.png
• File:Star polygon 40-2.png
• File:Star polygon 40-20.png
• File:Star polygon 40-3.png
• File:Star polygon 40-4.png
• File:Star polygon 40-5.png
• File:Star polygon 40-6.png
• File:Star polygon 40-7.png
• File:Star polygon 40-8.png
• File:Star polygon 40-9.png

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Regular polygon 360.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Regular polygon 360.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Regular polygon 120.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Regular polygon 120.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter

FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:dual number

Hi, You posed some remarks at Talk:Dual number, I posted a reply that I hope you will enjoy. (talkback doesn't work on article talk pages) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@67.198.37.16: Yes, thank you: I read your reply and indeed enjoy it very much. (Now if only those delights were at least referenced in the article, instead of giving the impression that their use stops at real differentiable functions. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Thorium crystal.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Thorium crystal.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Protactinium.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Protactinium.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a thing I'd want you to check for

Just to start with, I've seen the note about how you're not currently able to spend much time for Wiki. Neither am I, at least for now. But let's leave it there for a while. And maybe if you have some spare, say, five to ten minutes, could you please check for that. (Quick fulfillment of my request would be appreciated, but not required, and this could easily wait a month.)

I'm up with lead again. We have a para in the History section that deals with the Middle ages and the Renaissance era, but from that description already you can see how it is focused on Europe, even though we have this phrase: "lead mining in Europe in general fell into decline, and the largest lead production was conducted in South and East Asia, where lead output underwent a strong growth." I'd want to add something about lead in that region during that time, but it is difficult to find something worthy in English (in great part because the word "lead" is easily taken in a search query for the verb of that spelling). You seem to have some skill in Chinese, could you check and find something worthy for the purpose? It would be totally great, as I don't want the text to be too Euro-centric (even though to some extent, it will be, given Rome and the Industrial Revolution, so this would be especially useful for introducing the Western reader into some new information and just for diversity in general).--R8R (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, I only just realised you'd written to me – I had my talk page open on my phone, so the orange bar didn't show up and I didn't scroll down to the bottom. I'm really sorry about this! <m(__)m>

Anyway, I'll check and probably get back to you about this in the next week, I think. 铅 in Chinese is unambiguous, so it should not be a problem. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. :) Please let me know when you've found something.--R8R (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

A thought

I think it's not necessarily a good thing to go for GAs.

A plus de facto ensures this article will hardly ever be significantly improved beyond what it was on getting its green plus. Especially given (I think) it closes the window of opportunities for near GA-class articles. I think (on my first look) that gallium almost qualifies for a weak GA. If it becomes one, it will remain a weak GA that nobody will ever improve (see half the transition metal GAs, hafnium, for example). Not only does that spoil the somewhat utopian idea of having an everblue PTQ (naive, but I still like it), it does decrease the chance an enthusiastic editor will later further improve it in the long run, because they'll probably look for a B/C/Start-class article, and surely the first few articles of a new interested editor will be articles with a clear potential for improvement (that is, weak quality).

Indium is okay, but if GAed, it's going to be okay forever.--R8R (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am still not totally convinced (sorry!), because I don't see many new people coming to a project with high-profile articles like ours and sticking to it. So in that sense to me it feels like sacrificing current readers for future editors, which, while nice, doesn't quite sit well with me because we know the first group exists while we keep waiting in vain for the second. GA might be a level everything stagnates at, but only when an article gets there does the reader get a coherent experience. I can definitely feel the difference between As and Se, for one. (I can also totally feel it between Tl and Pb.)

Yeah, I see your point, I've had that idea before writing to you. What I want to draw your attention to is that it mostly doesn't matter to a reader if the article is a GA or not, it matters mostly to the editors---those who may improve it. My point is, if it doesn't require much to make an article a GA, then it's generally good already for a reader, even if not so for an editor. So the reader already has the benefits and the window of opportunities is not closed.

Well, it didn't require much to make In a GA (only a few hours), but I do not think a reader could have done it. As it stands he or she would have gone off thinking that those lab techniques were actual applications on a par with the huge semiconductor industry! (So maybe it is not so much GA I care about as a sticker but as a marker that things are all right and there is nothing too wrong.) Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I am not convinced this green plus is worth much. It's a review by one person, some more valuable than other. They don't immediately show things are okay. I plan to use them as a pre-PR review: just one person's opinion, because when you have a good article you know it's good, right? Besides, a reader can't be expected to do anything, maybe they'll correct typos, and nothing more. They're readers. And there's nothing bad with improving an article; I just think that getting a green plus discourages any future editor who may come any day now (there was another Russian editor who came around to ELEM just recently whose username started with a B; unfortunately, he didn't pick an article (yet?), maybe because the project appeared half-dead, but it's not like nothing will ever happen) will not want to improve that page any further.--R8R (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I phrased that badly...I meant, what the readers would learn from the article, what they would get from it. I want them to walk out of the metaphorical wikiclassroom with an understanding of the chemistry of the element in question (like how everything about La makes sense the moment you consider its atomic radius and electron configuration), its history, its properties, what it is good for, etc.! And not a mess of disconnected factoids like they would get currently from Ce, or something like In before yesterday which emphasised unimportant applications. Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That is understandable.

What I may be missing, though, is that these green pluses may be nice to have. I don't value them much, because the standard is low, but I see you could disagree. Anyway, I think by the time I stopped making a good article I find good, it wouldn't be far from the FA status, and I'd go for it. Things may be different for you.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The standard is low, but adequate. That is what I care about.

You see, I don't feel strongly about every one of the 118 elements, and I expect you don't either. In was not on my mind before yesterday, and is again not on my mind today. Oh, sure, I expect everyone feels strongly about the first 20, all the halogens, all the ancient elements, and the few other culturally significant ones (definitely Pt, U, and Pu), but after that it's a question of what niche you've put yourself in. But the readers deserve a coherent, reasonably written, accurate piece about it nevertheless, regardless of our fancies. Especially regardless of my f-block-loving tendencies, which clearly many of our readers do not agree with! (^_^)

I don't expect to have the same drive to take In to the high quality I have for Th, for instance. (I knew it was important and scary, but the f-block devotion outweighed it.) But it makes me happy that the readers have something better, and it makes me even happier when the reviewer says something like you can see at Talk:Group 12 element/GA1.

And maybe, one day, someone will come who is really passionate about indium, or I can find enough to feature it regardless. Then we get to a great article both ways, but this way the readers get an okay one for longer, no? (I mean, I don't think many people will read the whole of an FA, right? They will usually just look up what they need for their current task, like a paper encyclopaedia.) Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The previous paragraphs quite made me see your point after some thinking, but here, you're oversimplifying things. "And maybe, one day, someone will come who is really passionate about indium" really passionate about indium? that's already questionable, but a GA status will almost certainly deter them: "yeah, it's a GA, okay then." You even say "maybe, one day," which I take for you find that implausible yourself. "I mean, I don't think many people will read the whole of an FA, right?" -- I disagree. Many don't, but if, say, 1 in 10 do, that's a lot, right? (see, that "right" again, because neither of us is really confident.) Also, the phrase "the Wikipedia effect" didn't come out of nowhere. Besides, having improved the whole thing to FA status also means improving each aspect to the FA status (duh), and everyone is still served.--R8R (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I dunno, Axiosaurus has a userpage list of things to do with the rare earth articles, including complaints about Sc (GA) and Y (FA). He did do some work on lanthanide to fix that, but he's not really around now.

I suppose it boils down to "I like decorating my userpage with pretty green pluses and it makes me happy". The fact that chalcogen is a GA and yttrium is an FA, and that nobody has successfully challenged them, seems to tell me that it's silly and that it doesn't actually reflect actual quality. But it does look pretty. If someone knows enough to see that it's wrong, he or she will be able to tell that despite the little green plus, not everything is right. Double sharp (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fair and I can't really counter that. (And I'd missed that for a long part of this discussion how the pluses are editorial motivation, even if not so much for me.) I think, however, that bronze stars are a lot more rewarding, and I suggest you try to get one first to see if you'll agree. (We still have a collab on lead, right?)--R8R (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, definitely: these few things (120, In, La) were me procrastinating on doing work on Pb (though I have a few ideas to be done next week, since real life is going to catch up with me in a few hours). Maybe I will FA lanthanum later though. The main reason for doing so would be that our current flagship for the rare earth metals (Y) leaves something to be desired. It's okay but it's not really FA-quality because it lacks a proper compounds section. (Of course I agree that bronze stars are more rewarding, but they take longer and GA lets you quickly get more articles to an okay level, leave them for a while there, and then come back like we are doing for Pb.) Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about the GA stagnation thing though. But this is not something we can fix by not making GAs; rather we can fix it by featuring old GAs. We are already doing Pb, for one, and I plan to continue with W. Actually, I know I wrote it as a GA, but I almost think I could take Th to FAC pretty soon if I got back to it now. (Bronze star opportunity!) There is a big difference between a current-standard, okay GA (look at Se for instance) and an earlier-standard, not-okay GA (Sc, Hf, or Tl).

You and I, yes, but who else?

Despite my comments after the first two paras of your re, I don't mean to force you into my thinking. The title "A thought" implies what it says---"give it a thought, not necessarily agree with me right off (though, of course, I'd love you to agree later, but it's up to you)."

I'm pretty much resigned to it being just the two of us doing it. Yes, it was great in 2011–2, but that's not going to happen. If it's only two people, so be it: we can make the most of it. Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No one knows what the future brings. Don't give up so easily. Maybe Nergaal, Mav, and Stone didn't expect we'd come in around 2010.--R8R (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Besides, it's not just two of us: there's Sandbh and DePiep and YBG and maybe others(?).--R8R (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't given up, but I'm not holding my breath either. I would love it if it happened, but would also plan in case it continues like it is today.

I know the others are there, but DePiep and YBG seem more on the maintenance and template side, and Sandbh does great work, but more on categories. So the core 120 are not really changing. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's a thought for you: WP Chemicals refuses to recognise GAs and FAs in its banner. If we did this, we could look at a GA and assess it honestly. For instance, Tl would be rated B, chalcogen C for missing the point entirely, and carbon C. Even He (an FA) has a severe citation drought and may be thought of as A for this purpose. (For the writing, not the citing.) This way we keep external assessments, but also are not deluding ourselves into thinking that everything is all right in Transitionmetalsville. What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, I like it. Then we could also rework our PTQ, and these weak TM GAs may be yellow wearing those pluses, themselves indicating something's not alright. Would you propose that on WT:ELEM?--R8R (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will.

P.S. I am kind of struggling with writing lanthanum, but it's working. Unfortunately today and yesterday were exceptional in amount of time I have, so it will proceed painfully slowly. But I do plan to add stuff. Next is history (and this is why La – it was one of the first). Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I think history is the easiest and most fun section of all.--R8R (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. It's the earlier and later stuff that require more research. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for a late re (I forgot). What I forgot to mention about the GA--break--FA scheme you proposed is that you have to make a decent GA. Otherwise, as in my current case with lead, you'll have to re-research everything (well, maybe except physical properties, they are easy to get right the first time). For maybe a year before the F FAC started (which itself happened because of the push by Freywa; I was uneasy about that initially, but grateful in the end), it was near-FA quality, like, one step away from getting the star. If that's the GA you make a break with, then sure. Otherwise, this improvement is not much help in the long run: you'll still have to research for stuff and think how to include new stuff and think what to leave out---basically everything you do when writing an article.

What I want to point out the History does require a lot of research to get it done well (when you aim for FA), too. Apart from Lead#History, which I consider to be fine except for the part I want your help with (by the way, I still do), one striking example (see ununseptium) is how, despite everyone saying thinking about names before getting recognition was a no-no, one professor (Hamilton; he wasn't even apparently involved into colliding the nuclei, he simply did organizational work like getting the stuff for others to work with) said he would name it. I can't help the feeling it was a bit douchy, but that is absolutely great to have in your article. I got a similar feeling after you posted that link about naming and the Transfermium Wars and how we got the unun- names and so on. And when you told me Dubna felt dissatisfied with element 113. This requires research, but this makes the content you make great.

As you know, I think the reason to write articles for me is not to blindly get stars, but to produce content I would consider fine. Research to get those things that get the reader on is essential (as I see it; some would disagree, but I think we are not Encyclopaedia Britannica and are absolutely allowed to differ from them because of the very nature of Wikipedia). It's just the things being the easiest to imagine and variability of what you may write higher/wider(?).

P.S. Ping me in a week if you want to to take part in thorium PR.--R8R (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If we were Britannica, our La article would stop at the lede, so I'm glad we're not.

Regarding Th, this is what I would consider a "decent" GA, although I am still unsure about how much "history" should include. Certainly the discovery and first isolation, and then what? With Pb we have a long history of course, and with Au we would need a separate "cultural importance" section, Np becomes a history of transuranium elements and Ra becomes a history of radioactivity. But something like La would just trail off after that, as it wasn't really useful for a long while (and won't uses overlap with applications?). (Even today, the problem with writing a lanthanide article is that applications tend not to be specific to them, so by default they get put on La and Ce as the most common ones!)

Currently my Th history structure is 1815 false discovery; 1828 real discovery; periodic table placement; radioactivity; first application. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Talking about milestones, I think what you'd have to have except I would try to write more on everything: a little more on 1815 (for one, who and when showed there was no new element in that ore from Falun (where is that?)? and was there a controversy?), a little more on 1828 (no substantial comment for a quick look right now, but could you please explain: according to Google Maps, Løvøya is a peninsula, despite its article saying otherwise. Which of these is wrong? Also, it'd be cool to state location somehow so I wouldn't want to check what that is, like "Løvøya, an island/peninsula off the western coast of the Oslofjord [I think Oslofjord is okay, since it's the largest fjord in the Scandinavian peninsula and is clearly seen even on a contour map of the peninsula -- R8R], Norway"), more on PT location (for example, why was the whole actinide concept established decades after the corresponding lanthanide concept?), much more on radioactivity (new concept, new elements found from decay of thorium, for example), much more on applications (what many applications? how was thorium being phased out in the 20th century? etc.). Note this is my first brief look; I'll take a closer look in a week. I'll read the whole thing then.--R8R (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Except maybe sub-headings would change too, but these come and go, anyway.--R8R (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there was no controversy: Berzelius found out himself (presumably upon more careful analysis) ten years later and retracted his own finding. (The Fontani ref I added for this says Berzelius did not publicise a name for it, contradicting Wickleder and the old bastion Weeks; perhaps Berzelius privately thought of the name "thorium" at this time, but had doubts that the 1815 discovery was real. But I have not yet found a source saying this.) Also, there are multiple places in Norway called Løvøya, but it seems that this is the one we are talking about, near the town of Brevik (which I added). I added a little more detail on why the actinide concept took so long to figure out (because the naturally occurring elements for all intents and purposes stop at U, and you only get the wake-up call at Np and Pu that something is wrong). I fixed these first: the others will take a little more time. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Still, is there a better way to state the location? Of course, it is close to that town, but the town has a population of only two thousand something and is hardly a point helping anyone from at least 100 km away from that place to find it. Either a geographical toponym or an administrative unit will do the trick as long as it unambiguously defines that very island.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to reference the county of Telemark, which is what the island's article also does in the title. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lanthanum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qualitative analysis. 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) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Star polygon 120-11.png

Thank you for uploading File:Star polygon 120-11.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Star polygon 120-13.png
• File:Star polygon 120-17.png
• File:Star polygon 120-19.png
• File:Star polygon 120-23.png
• File:Star polygon 120-29.png
• File:Star polygon 120-31.png
• File:Star polygon 120-37.png
• File:Star polygon 120-41.png
• File:Star polygon 120-43.png
• File:Star polygon 120-47.png
• File:Star polygon 120-49.png
• File:Star polygon 120-53.png
• File:Star polygon 120-59.png
• File:Star polygon 120-7.png
• File:Star polygon 257-128 zoomed.png
• File:Star polygon 360-101.png
• File:Star polygon 360-103.png
• File:Star polygon 360-107.png
• File:Star polygon 360-109.png
• File:Star polygon 360-11.png
• File:Star polygon 360-113.png
• File:Star polygon 360-119.png
• File:Star polygon 360-121.png
• File:Star polygon 360-127.png
• File:Star polygon 360-13.png
• File:Star polygon 360-131.png
• File:Star polygon 360-133.png
• File:Star polygon 360-137.png
• File:Star polygon 360-139.png
• File:Star polygon 360-143.png
• File:Star polygon 360-149.png
• File:Star polygon 360-151.png
• File:Star polygon 360-157.png
• File:Star polygon 360-161.png
• File:Star polygon 360-163.png
• File:Star polygon 360-167.png
• File:Star polygon 360-17.png
• File:Star polygon 360-173.png
• File:Star polygon 360-179.png
• File:Star polygon 360-19.png
• File:Star polygon 360-23.png
• File:Star polygon 360-29.png
• File:Star polygon 360-31.png
• File:Star polygon 360-37.png
• File:Star polygon 360-41.png
• File:Star polygon 360-43.png
• File:Star polygon 360-47.png
• File:Star polygon 360-49.png
• File:Star polygon 360-53.png
• File:Star polygon 360-59.png
• File:Star polygon 360-61.png
• File:Star polygon 360-67.png
• File:Star polygon 360-7.png
• File:Star polygon 360-71.png
• File:Star polygon 360-73.png
• File:Star polygon 360-77.png
• File:Star polygon 360-79.png
• File:Star polygon 360-83.png
• File:Star polygon 360-89.png
• File:Star polygon 360-91.png
• File:Star polygon 360-97.png
• File:Star polygon 40-10.png
• File:Star polygon 40-11.png
• File:Star polygon 40-12.png
• File:Star polygon 40-13.png
• File:Star polygon 40-14.png
• File:Star polygon 40-15.png
• File:Star polygon 40-16.png
• File:Star polygon 40-17.png
• File:Star polygon 40-18.png
• File:Star polygon 40-19.png
• File:Star polygon 40-2.png
• File:Star polygon 40-20.png
• File:Star polygon 40-3.png
• File:Star polygon 40-4.png
• File:Star polygon 40-5.png
• File:Star polygon 40-6.png
• File:Star polygon 40-7.png
• File:Star polygon 40-8.png
• File:Star polygon 40-9.png

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to care since there are already SVG replacements, but FWIW, they have been okayed by Sfan00 IMG for Commons based on being PD-simple. Even if I was not the one who had created them (and I was), I do not see how such a regularly symmetric geometric arrangement of lines could possibly be copyrighted. I already reverted all the warnings the first time this happened: I guess I will wait and see if I still care enough. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Since you created the images, I think it is only fair that you are credited as the author. May I tag the files with PD-Self, and remove the no-source tags? -FASTILY 06:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Great,  Done! -FASTILY 20:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead, again

Hi, I just tried to fill in the Lead#Production section with details (for another time) but finally realized I can't keep myself uninterrupted writing this very section (one reason why that I can think of is that maybe I'm just looking for too detailed sources). It's strange: it should not specifically difficult. You said quite recently you'd join soon; could you take this section?--R8R (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments

We used to have a system which was supposed to collect comments from readers, separate from talk pages; is it still available? If so, how?--R8R (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it this? If so, it's gone. (Really: even links to previous comments, even the fondly remembered "the same in Spanish please!" one in At, don't work anymore.) Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't find it myself. Too bad it's gone.--R8R (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Does this help: WT:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5/Archive 5 § Wikipedia Article Feedback corpus? YBG (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I read that but forgot to say "thanks": thank you!--R8R (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bohrium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dipole moment. 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) 09:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead on hold?

I saw you wondering on your user page. The answer is yes. Except no. Maybe...

You see, I am a little short on time. I have more time at the moment than usually, but also other stuff comes in. I am currently devoting the time I have to your review of thorium. After it's over, I'll switch back to lead. I'm unable to take both at the same time. Unfortunately, I am limited to the time when I'm at home, since editing from my cell phone is sometimes super difficult (the cursor ·jumps around the wikitext when I'm typing something via my cell phone). I have a few ideas for thorium. Keep up. I hope my comments have been good so far. As for me, I like to see the changes as you're making them.

Speaking of the review. I've had the idea for a while to write a guide to FAs written in my style. However, I'm not all that sure someone will actually use it. :( besides, this consumes time which I'd want to spend for writing articles (lead is on, and I'm excited to eventually get to dubnium). What do you think?R8R (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, write it if you think it's worth it! ^_^ I do not really have a clear idea what FA quality is yet, so I just improve every little thing until it seems to be complete. Doubtless you could explain this much better. Double sharp (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit worried that if I only get one reader for that time-consuming guide, I might better explain things to you individually. In general, FA quality is an article that a) you're content with, b) has nice prose (I always get a go from the GOCE to get this one), c) has everything important in due weight, d) has nice details and (ideally) points a direction to research in to get comfortable with the topic (for which you need prose, notes, and wikilinks), and e) interconnection of stuff, so a reader has to make some thinking themselves, even if (or maybe preferably) it's just following what you've written (so the reader pays attention). I have my hopes to provide a complete understanding of this via the review.--R8R (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to spam sections on the same problem over and over, so I'll use this one.

May I please get you to continue our collab on lead? We're almost there already, there are only 2 sections left: Production and Bio. Production needs some info on recycling; I haven't looked closely at Bio yet. Can I ask you to get to write some stuff on recycling? A couple of paras should do, I think, mentioning what is lead recycled from and specifics of tat (maybe something else I'm missing at the moment). Shouldn't be too difficult, right?--R8R (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, R8R! I'll do some research. Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice to know, thank you.--R8R (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lanthanum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lanthanum 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thorium review

One question: do you want me to complete it so you get the comments and implement them later or do you want me to go along you editing it? Either is fine, but the latter is better because now that I've read them just recently, I have more ideas in my mind and can provide quick response. Don't want to see these comments covered in dust. Besides, doing things in one shot is better: you have the thing in mind, and you don't lose time catching up. I don't an immediate recipe for a specific FA, but I know my principles. I may have cool ideas that depend on what you add (I do have a couple) and then forget them waiting for a reaction (I already am forgetting them :( )--R8R (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you go along as I edit them, like you say you prefer. Double sharp (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Great! Then I think I'm done with general description of what should be done for History. As soon as you'll make some edits in thorium or the review page, I'll get back to check and when you tell me to, continue with the next section.--R8R (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, congrats with the recent La GAN success!--R8R (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Regarding thorium, I fear you may have to help me do some of the research...I am finding some difficulties finding details on what exactly happened in the early history of the element in the 19th century. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but could you be a little more specific? What can't you find and want to?--R8R (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Basically, the stuff near the beginning that you raised that I can't answer to my satisfaction, such as what Berzelius did to the 1815 and 1824 rocks, why he was looking for rocks in 1815 in the first place, how long it took for thorium to be recognised as an element, etc. (The last one I can sort of guess – shouldn't have taken very long, given how respected Berzelius was then, and how he himself had noted that the previous "thorium" was a shaky claim – but can find no source for, alas!) Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

R8R, thank you so much for your rewrite of the history section! It really looks good now, and I've been fixing most of the points you raised. (I also finally noticed your call for more discussion on trends across the actinides as opposed to single properties of Th.* Alas, there are some problems with this: for example, it's difficult to compare Th metal with Pa and U because of differing strutures.) So I think you can now carry on to the next sections of the review as we work together to polish this radioactive diamond to the FA standards of Tc, U, and Pu (the most well-investigated radioactives, with Po and Np close behind). Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

*And I still mentally think of Th as the first actinide, along with Greenwood. This may be a naughty, but there is more reason for it here than in the lanthanides, because Ac only has 3 valence electrons and thus is very similar to the lanthanides, so it is more allied with the late actinides from Am to Es. So we have three groups with two singular cases: Ac, Th–Pu (early, quasi-transition metals), Am–Es (late, quasi-lanthanides), Fm–No (last, lovers of the +2 state), and Lr. But where to explain this here? Do we even need to, or just imply it by predominantly comparing Th with Pa and U (with some glances at Np and Pu)? Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed this reply. I'll continue the review in the coming days.--R8R (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked my edit. It's not like I did much, I just shifted accents and added a little little nice stuff. In general, yes, I do like the section now (except for the missing nukes and reactors -- that does concern me, as you might've noticed). But I only helped shape the idea of what it should be---you've done most of the work.

Did I actually call for that? I'll check my previous comments in the review tonight/soon; I forgot the context. I'll write back my ideas on that then.--R8R (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I just took a look, I even said "You're not writing actinide, you're writing thorium." Personally, I think there are a couple of places that may benefit from comparison with neighboring elements (whether you call actinium an actinide or not), but I generally think Th is a self-sufficient element and does not need other actinides to get into this. Vertical relationships may even be more interesting in some contexts (bulk properties, for example). Horizontal relationships... not even sure they're needed. Maybe something related to bulk/chem properties... not sure yet, we'll see. But in general, I don't call for more actinides to get involved.--R8R (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lanthanum

The article Lanthanum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lanthanum 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thorium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Newlands. 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) 10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Thorium half sandwich.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thorium half sandwich.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Graphics Lab

Your Graphics Lab request has been completed. If satisfied please place a resolve tag on your request entry here, so we may close it. – Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iron

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iron 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)