User talk:Double sharp/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Found an interesting document on reported chemistry of superheavies

Think this may be interesting for you and your future SHE articles (including seaborgium): http://sci--hub.ac/10.1098/rsta.2014.0191 (you know how to correct the link so it works)--R8R (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Note, by the way, an experimental sequence that contradicts your theoretical one: "Adsorption enthalpies were determined which quantify the observed sequence in

volatility of MoO2Cl2 > WO2Cl2 ≈ SgO2Cl2" (also, I'd suggest separating theoretical predictions from experimental results).--R8R (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this in the Hoffman ref. Apparently there were two experiments, one following the theoretical prediction, and one giving your sequence. Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iron

The article Iron you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Iron for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Do be sure to ping me once you think you've addressed substantially everything, or in case you have a question or problem that needs my input. I'm pleased by what I see of your improvements so far. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much! Certainly, I will ping you when I think it is ready. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm still holding off on re-review, as I note you're still actively making changes. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So... any more forward progress on this? Is it ready for re-review? Are you ready for me to review another one of your nominated GA-candidate elemental articles? Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Should be done later today, I think. I have the material now and will write it out. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Chemical elements in East Asian languages

added a link pointing to Protium

Iron

added a link pointing to Stability constant

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed Double sharp (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Explain this to me please

However, the r-process does not directly form as much lead as the s-process, because neutron-rich nuclei with mass numbers 206–208 that would decay to lead are not magic, unlike those that reach the closed neutron shell at neutron number 126 and decay to the platinum group metals around mass number 194

--lead

Why is there that third peak near Os and Pt? why would they not just keep capturing neutrons and turn to lead eventually? so if we have, say, ¹⁹⁴Hf, of course, it will beta decay to osmium, but why wouldn't it just keep capturing neutrons? why does the article mention that as one of the ways to terminate the r-process? And if a 126-neutron nuclide beta decays, it no longer has 126 neutrons, right? (¹⁹⁴Pt, for example, has 116 neutrons)

What is happening is that mass numbers in the 190s are a stalling point for the r-process. Once the 126-neutron shell is filled, even for such an unstable nuclide, it is quite reluctant to capture more. And remember that nuclides are leaving the neutron spam in large quantities. If it were otherwise, everything would become thorium and uranium. Now since nuclides stay at N = 126 longer than any other neutron numbers in the 120s, they have a greater chance to leave the r-process thus, and only later beta decay back to the stability line. Double sharp (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand this sentence:

The nuclei that form with A = 206–208 nucleons in the r-process (i.e., those that will β− decay to the Pb isotopes) have neither a magic number of neutrons or protons, so they are produced in smaller relative amounts.

--reference from lead, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1963/meta;jsessionid=DABAC204E5A01AB7C60E29E1B6D168B8.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Why is that? So this magic 126 is more difficult to add to than a non-magic number, right?

Exactly. What matters is not whether the nuclide eventually decays to a magic one, but if it is already magic when it leaves the neutron spam in the r-process. Your example of ¹⁹⁴Hf is magic and will be preferentially produced, manifesting itself in an abundance of its daughter ¹⁹⁴Os. But, for example, ²⁰⁷Pt is not magic and therefore it is not produced in such large quantities, so we do not see much of its daughter ²⁰⁷Pb. The r-process can only really effectively make radiogenic lead, from the decay chains of nuclides such as ²³¹Pa and ²⁴⁷Cm. Double sharp (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain that to me. I want to write a readable article, but I don't understand it myself.--R8R (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a fine explanation. Only one question left: why are you saying that Hf-194 (Z=72, N=122) is magic?--R8R (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not. Sorry. I'm not entirely well at the moment and made an arithmetic mistake due to being very tired. Substitute ¹⁹⁴Er instead. Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of your reply, I've got another (very basic) question. You're mentioning that heavy nuclei leave the r-process (understandably); but do neutrons in these stars collide to create anything (maybe even protons), or are they left to hit heavy nuckei? I know what a dying star is ans have some basic under of the process, but I wonder if that process is at least partially self-refueling and not only has to deal with nuclei that were there at the beginning--R8R (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There is some "self-refuelling" indeed, but I don't know if the neutrons can crash into each other because they're so light, unlike what would happen if they crashed into a big, lumbering iron nucleus. Please note that the r-process is not as well understood as the s-process: we mimic the latter fairly well in nuclear reactors, but to create r-process neutron fluxes we currently need to detonate nuclear bombs, an experiment which is for obvious reasons seldom replicated today (thank goodness!). The "self-refuelling" I am talking about is what happens when A crosses 209 and goes into the region of the actinides, when absorbing neutrons will have a high probability of causing fission (like ²³⁵U – this is, I think, the explanation for why Th and U are so rare in the Solar System and in fact the Universe in general, that I should add to the Th article when I'm not so tired). Even if this hurdle is crossed, by the time you get to N = 175 and beyond in the transactinide range, the stability is so low because of incredibly high Coulomb repulsion between protons that the nuclei will spontaneously fission instead of beta decaying. This is what happens to Zagrebaev's predicted quasi-stable copernicium isotopes, ²⁹¹Cn and ²⁹³Cn (N = 179 and 181 respectively), which should have millenium half-lives but still be dangerously unstable to spontaneous fission. (In fact, the only reason why they should survive this long is because SF is most feasible for even-even isotopes, and the odd neutron hinders it.) The nuclides around here, like ²⁷⁹Mt, should undergo SF in a matter of seconds, with the aforementioned copernicium isotopes as grand exceptions. And their fission products would re-seed the r-process.

Here are some links: one two three. Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

One more. I see you added back the electron captures in this graph. I remember I asked you, but I forgot the answer: do electron captures actually happen in stars?--R8R (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they? The nuclei in stars are very rarely completely ionised. ²⁰⁵Pb⁸²⁺ just needs to find one electron to absorb into its K shell and capture later, which it can easily do due to its immense charge. Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If you look at Zagrebaev's paper (with predicted half-lives and decay modes for many of the very heaviest nuclides) you will see what I am talking about; the r-process there runs straight into a green sea of instability to spontaneous fission, and the fission fragments act as new seeds. Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

One more question (now in linguistics)

I tried to find any sources more reliable than Wiktionary for etymology of the word "lead" and I found this nice Proto-Germanic dictrionary. An entry reads:

*lauda- n. 'lead' - OE lead n. 'id.', E lead, OFri. liid n. 'id.', Du. lood n. 'id.' (LW). A loanword from Celt. *cploud-io-, cf. Mir. luaide m. 'lead' < *ploud-, which is connected to Lat. plumbum ( < *plumdh-) and Gr. µ6A.u�cSo<; (µ6A.L�O<;, var. µ6A.u�o<;, µ6A.L�Oo<;, �6A.u�ooc;, �6A.Lµo<;, �6AL�o<;). The same word through a different (Pre-lndo-European) route also served as the basis for *blfwa- 2 'lead'. The idea that the Greek word was borrowed from Lydian mariwda-, allegedly 'the dark metal', cf. CLuv. maryai- adj. 'black, dark-colored(?)' (Melchert 2008) is ingenious, but fails to explain how Lydian r could have given Greek A.

(page 368)

and another one reads:

*bliwa- 2 n. 'lead' - ON b!y n. 'id.', Far. b!yggj n. 'id.', OS bli n. 'id.', OHG blio n. 'id.', G Blei n. 'id.' => *m//uo- (NIE). A non-IE Wanderwort reminiscent of Myc. mo-ri-wo-do-, Gr. µ6A.u(3oo<;, µ6A.L(3o<;, (36A.Lµo<; m. 'lead' and Lat. p/umbum 'id.'. The Greek forms, with their interchange of initial µ and (3, are highly irregular and must be analyzed as borrowings from a Pre-IE source, e.g. *mo/ii(m)bd-. It therefore seems likely that PGm. *b/iwa-, too, goes back to a non-IE proto-form *mliuo- with initial m.

(page 107)

I can't understand the idea of what's written. So Celtic *φploud-io- comes from where exactly? What same word also served as the basis for *bliwa- 2? Do two different words evolve into one and then split into two again? Give me a second opinion on this, please--R8R (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Besides, how does the Wiktionary make the claim claimed to be supported by ref 2? Here's ref 2: [http://orientproject.ru/sites/default/files/library/65417659-LIV-Lexikon.pdf so need a fresh look on this--R8R (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This is way out of my knowledge. The good people at WP:LINGUISTICS would be far more able to help with this than I would – I only realised that such sections would be necessary for ancient metals. In the case of Pb, from the limited distance I got researching, the origins of the English word are shrouded in far greater mystery than in the case of Fe. If I had to write something, I'd probably simply write that Pb comes from Latin plumbum, and then note the proto-Germanic sources of the English word lead and mention that there may be a connection to plumbum as well, which itself seems to be a borrowing from some other ancient tongue. That, I think, would be all the detail I would expect or need for the general article on Pb. (But maybe this is because my main interest in any element is its chemistry, its personality if you like. Others may have very different needs.) Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I will write to them if I have to (thanks for the tip), but I assumed that a dictionary must be written in a way accessible to its readers and it's me who doesn't understand the written text being the problem rather than the text and maybe you can read what's written. Check the dictionary itself rather than what I blindly copied; maybe there's a chance you'll get it?--R8R (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I would expect that for a dictionary of a modern language, not of a reconstructed proto-language. But I will look again. Double sharp (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Caesium

V

Os

Co

Hi Double sharp, you know, fresh destilled high purity Cs is more silvery then golden! The golden color cames from Cs-suboxides, like Cs₄₉O and others ... I got a fresh destilled ampoule with 6N Cs for the NASA Ion thruster from a German manufacturer. The Cs was almost silvery, not golden! Depending on how old an ampoule with Cs is, the color will be much more golden. The Cs get the oxygen from the glass. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I know the oxides contribute to the colour, but I took the 'golden-yellow' description straight from Greenwood. The Chemistry of the Liquid Alkali Metals describes the solid and liquid as 'pale gold'; do you think that is better? Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I know all the chemistry books. All the authors never saw the true high purity fresh destilled "silvery" Cs ... but, ok: 'pale gold' sound better for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, changed to "pale gold". Greenwood attributes colours to some other metals as well, saying Co has "a bluish tinge", Zn and Cd have "a bluish lustre", and that Ca, Sr, Ba, Eu, and Yb are "pale yellow". What's your opinion on these colours? Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha: "Ca, Sr, Ba, Eu, and Yb are "pale yellow"" is wrong! High pure and not oxidized metals are: Ca silvery-white, Sr silvery, Ba "silvery-pale gold", Yb silvery-white. Co has not "a bluish tinge", Zn have "a bluish lustre" is correct, but not Cd. Cd is more silvery-white similar to tin + silver. Os is bluish-silvery, Ta is dark silvery-lilac. V is also bluish. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I suppose this means your picture of Sr is oxidised, because it looks pale yellow to me? (Also, you didn't mention Eu. I realise it oxidises really quickly, but since you've seen high-purity fresh Cs, you may have seen pure unoxidised Eu too?!)

P.S. Would love to see unoxidised ultrapure Ba from you (the current picture is so oxidised), as well as better pictures of Ca and Sr if that is indeed oxidised – it really is strange that I've never seen any of them really pure even though I've lost count how many times I've used their compounds. I haven't seen enough pure elements! Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Hi! I've got a question that I don't have an answer for off the top of my head. If you know some book to read on this, that would be especially helpful.

Do you know how the relativistic effects affect physical properties of an element? Of course, I see why gas was seen as a possibility for 114, and solid for 118. But what else is there? Talking about lead, in what ways could one non-relativistic lead differ from relativistic lead?--R8R (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The most important effect is that non-relativistic Pb would have a diamond cubic structure like the stable or metastable forms of its lighter congeners C, Si, Ge, and Sn, while relativistic Pb is fcc. The reason is that the diamond structure is stabilised by sp³ hybridisation and it is too energetically costly for Pb to promote one 6s electron to the 6p orbital. Here is a more detailed treatment. Unlike flerovium, there is no sizeable impact on the melting and boiling points of lead, because the 6p_1/2 electrons are not experiencing a mild inert pair effect yet (for example, bismuth greatly prefers the +3 state over the +1 state). Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

(Originally in the above post I didn't mention the increased results of the lanthanide contraction because this is a very weak factor from Hg onwards, but yes it is present too to a minuscule extent.) Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting. I've come to think your suggestion with a separate subsection talking just about electron config is reasonable. Yet now I wonder how should organize info in that section given what you say (of course, I'll use (later) trial and error, but for now I'm still dazzled about this)--R8R (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Also, it's not exactly physical, but the standard electrode potentials of Pb are also prominently influenced by relativity (link), leading to the funny quip "cars start due to relativity" (lead-acid batteries). Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There's some difficulty in saying any more for Pb because the relativistic effects in the 6th period are not actually that high; even the lanthanide contraction is mostly already expected (effective nuclear charge increases and the outer electrons are still in the same 5d and 6s shells), so relativistic effects here are merely quantitative. For example, you would have expected a low melting point for Hg with its 5d¹⁰6s² configuration anyway; you just might not have expected it to be this low. The inert pair effect is already observable in In and Sn, and you would have expected something like this to happen because bond energy decreases with size so that it's no longer worth it to get the s-electrons involved.

In period 6 relativistic effects rise very slowly from Hf to Ir, reach a very sharp maximum at Pt and Au, and fall down quite quickly after that from Hg to Rn. This is quite unlike period 7 where you have a large staircase climb from 104 to 112 and then a slow fall down to 118 (where it is still very high).

So the only cases where you really need to bring in relativity to understand what is going on in period 6 are Pt and Au. Non-relativistic gold would really be qualitatively different from relativistic gold, not just quantitatively; you wouldn't have aurophilicity and aurides if not for this, and you wouldn't be able to achieve such high oxidation states (relativity means that Au is reluctant to be oxidised in the first place, but when it is it achieves quite high oxidation states). Indeed non-relativistic gold would be a post-transition metal instead of a transition metal, and would have a much lower melting point than it does. (Despite our article, I cannot quite believe that relativity is responsible for the golden tint of caesium, since Thayer says that relativistic effects are unimportant for Cs which behaves pretty much as expected for the fifth alkali metal. If we believe Greenwood, a similar weak golden tint is also found in calcium, and I cannot believe that relativity is the cause of that either.) Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think for a second this would be a major thing to talk about. Still, it was a good idea to get a better coverage in my head so that it would be easier for me to think what the final product should be like.

As for color, yes, probably. I wouldn't think that copper is brown because of relativity.yo Too bad we won't see francium for comparison.--R8R (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"In period 6 relativistic effects rise very slowly from Hf to Ir, reach a very sharp maximum at Pt and Au, and fall down quite quickly after that from Hg to Rn." -- hmm, really? I assumed that relativity itself was increasing more or less gradually, it just didn't manifest itself as gradually as the background from non-relativistic elements changed. Am I not right here?--R8R (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The magnitude of the total effect depends a great deal on electron configuration. What is going on is that you have multiple effects that partially cancel each other out. Not only do you have a direct relativistic effect resulting in the nucleus being better-screened and Z_eff dropping, but you also have an indirect destabilisation effect (predominantly on d- and f-orbitals) in which all orbitals are energetically destabilised and expand. But as a result of this destabilisation of the d- and f-orbitals the s-electrons experience a greater Z_eff and experience indirect stabilisation! (Now you can see how many factors are working in opposition here!) The indirect destabilisation is dominant at the beginning of the 5d row with Hf, but as you fill in the d-subshell more and more the indirect stabilisation begins to overpower it, resulting in a huge stabilisation at the Au when we reach 5d¹⁰. When you get to Tl this effect ceases because 5d drops into the core. Please note that despite the impressive figures you will see for the relativistic effect on the 1s electrons (e.g. all the H-like atom figures in the superheavies), this is actually quite irrelevant for the chemistry. These elements don't use 1s electrons for bonding! Perhaps this book might offer some explanation.

Here's a presentation by Pyykkö on the subject, showing a graph of relativistic effects from Cs to Fm. The entrance to the "relativistic region" of the periodic table is quite abrupt and starts with Lu. The trend is quite normal, except that Pt and Au are serious outliers, having relativistic effects on the order of those of the late actinides. Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The first excited state of Fr is [Rn]7p, which is at the 12237 cm⁻¹ level. In comparison, silvery Rb has first excited state [Kr]5p at 12579 cm⁻¹, and golden Cs has [Xe]6p at 11178 cm⁻¹. This confirms that relativistic effects lead to the (n−1)d/ns gap closing and the ns/np gap widening. I might therefore hazard a guess (to you, not to the WP readers) that bulk francium is silvery with perhaps the slightest hint of yellow. (The alkali metal article says only "The stable alkali metals are all silver-coloured metals except for caesium, which has a pale golden tint". That was added a long while ago, though the fact that it could be cited in that form with the word "stable" makes me wonder if there is a relativistic study of Fr anywhere.) Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you take a look: Lead#Atomic_configuration? Is there anything I'm missing for the final story?--R8R (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I've made some changes. Double sharp (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well done! Are we done w/ that subsection otherwise? Is there anything big we could be missing?--R8R (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you also look at Lead#Bulk_properties? Is there anything I'm missing?--R8R (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, for a start, I mentioned on the talk page that I thought the "ductile" assertion needed to be more qualified. Also, why is the electrical conductivity so low? Calcium is also face-centered cubic and about the same size, and yet its conductivity is quite a bit higher than that of lead. Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally forgot about that note! I'll resolve that later.--R8R (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Now I'd like to ask you a question for which I don't know the answer. Not yet sure if this should be said in the article (leaning towards yes for now) but I definitely want to know myself (that's why towards yes). Why is lead not as dense as period 6 TMs? Osmium and iridium beat lead at density almost twofold while actually being lighter than lead.--R8R (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this very simple? It's because Pb has a much larger atomic radius than Os or Ir. Density is mass over volume, after all. As for why that is true, I imagine it's because 5d¹⁰ is stuck in the core at Hg, and 6p is relativistically significantly destabilised (you will notice the effect is much larger in period 6 than 5). Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The way you put it, yes, yes, it is. This makes me think we may not have to dig into this on the article. However, I am yet left unsatisfied: there must be some systematic reason why Pb is so big compared to the TMs but I seem to have temporarily forgotten it (or may be to not know in first place). Itself it's not as interesting a question but we mention lead being described as heavy (dense actually) and also mentioning there is a metal twice as heavy.--R8R (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

With regard to Tl and Pb being less dense than Hg, this should not be a surprise given that 6p starts filling, and thus we have more electrons going further from the nucleus (and with 6s being pulled increasingly into the core, such that by Po the group oxidation state is already not well-characterised, this effect is indeed very significant). What is slightly harder to explain (and is why I waited so long to respond to this) is the decrease in density with increase in Z from Rh–Ag and Os–Au, since Sc–Cu shows a trend of monotonically increasing density. Certainly the 4d and 5d electrons are being drawn increasingly into the core and contributing less to metallic bonding (certainly at Zn, Cd, and Hg we have a sharp "falling off the cliff" when they stop contributing to any significant extent – which is why I mentally think of them as "bad transition metals", with perhaps Hg having the most claim to the name due to size), but then it is not clear why 3d fails to show this effect. But this is not so relevant to the point we are trying to make about Pb. (It would be more relevant if I get back to my planned rewrite of Ag...) Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

the constitution of group 3 task force

I passed on your comments to Eric about this. He asked if you could read the final chapter of his VSI (very short introduction) book on the periodic table. He added that it was hard to follow what you were saying since many things seemed to be mentioned in the context of previous conversations. If you want to get through to him you'll need to start with him from the beginning. He said he was well aware of the split d block option and that it seemed like you didn't realise this.

I encourage you to follow up with him, since it would test his work on the task force and that'd be a good thing. Sandbh (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I read the chapter. Do you think the text below is better? I've tried to start from the beginning.

(1) My essential problem with the atomic number triads argument is that it does not seem to me to give the chemically ideal approach in some cases. For example, the triads seem to argue for H being placed over F as a halogen, when it absolutely does not fit the trends of that group. Hydrogen is not a strong oxidising agent and in fact is unable to form ionic hydrides with the vast majority of metals. The main shared property is that it forms diatomic molecules at STP, but the alkali metals do so too as gases. Hydrogen's chemistry as H⁺ is also far more important than that of H• (an unstable free radical that doesn't want to exist at STP) or that of the squishy and deformable H⁻ ion. When placed in group 1, hydrogen fits nicely as the least reactive member of the group (doesn't react with O₂ or N₂, or H₂O, and is only coaxed to do so by the halogens). Its proclivity for covalent bonding is easily explained by the fact that H⁺ would be a very small charge and that its formation is unfavourable, thus forming part of a "zeroth-row anomaly". Given that a Li-like model of chemistry is a better predictor of how H actually behaves than an F-like model, I think the concept of atomic number triads needs serious questioning if it recommends the latter, and that it is not a very strong argument for Lu fitting better under Y than La does.

(2) I realise that Prof. Scerri is well aware of the split d-block option, but the Chemistry International article does not seem to be aware of it. Indeed, it seems to think that putting La under Y implies the silly sequence with La between Lu and Hf that doesn't have the atomic numbers in sequential order, based on its wording and figures.

(3) The asymmetry of the split d-block option does not necessarily imply that it is false. Indeed group 3 and the lanthanides behave very much like their s-block neighbours, in that they are electropositive metals with only one important mostly ionic oxidation state (with a few exceptions, namely Ce, Sm, Eu, and Yb – and even then +3 is the most stable state in aqueous solution), and they all reduce water. This is quite distinct from the behaviour of group 4 (and even Th), for which the +4 state is too high to be ionic.; and though their low oxidation states are quite rare, they are certainly well-known in simple compounds (e.g. ZrCl₃ and HfCl₃). Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Do you think the above text would succeed in starting from the beginning? I also re-read through my original text at Talk:Periodic table#the constitution of group 3 task force and note that it does not actually assume knowledge of previous discussions. Certainly it raises that certain issues have been discussed before, but it summarises again those arguments. Chief I suppose would be my contention that the facts of chemistry should trump an ideal Platonic symmetry, whether it be putting Lu under Y or putting Cu, Ag, and Au in a supposed "group IB". Actually I think I should add:

(4) It is not clear how much the concept of a block actually means for the chemistry of an element. Despite being in the s-block, H and He are well distinct from any other s-block members, and Be and Mg are more similar to Al in the p-block and Zn in the d-block respectively, while Zn is quite distinct in the d-block (witness all the arguments against Zn as a transition metal), and Al is certainly quite different from Cl or Ar in the p-block. The first row of f-block elements behaves like the s-block elements (they are electropositive metals with only one main oxidation state), while the opening of the second row of the f-block acts as though it was a fourth row of the d-block. A desire to keep the d-block intact is all fine and well from the perspective of Platonic symmetry, but there is already an established precedent in breaking the s-block to prioritise chemistry over Platonic symmetry. The upshot is: are we drawing a table to make it look pretty and subdivide it into pastel-coloured rectangles, or are we drawing one to illustrate chemical similarities in the best way possible? Double sharp (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been busy with the HM FAC and still am. Ill see if I can look at this later and let you know if I can answer quickly or not. Sandbh (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

My work on the HM FAC is nearly done (I hope) and I'll be able to look at this after that. There are no quick responses I can give to you. I need to reread the sources, carefully reread your line of argument, and then give you a considered answer. Sandbh (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Have started looking at your text. On a first reading it flows quite well. Will now look more closely. Sandbh (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

These are fine words. The only bit I couldn't follow is where you say, "…and though their low oxidation states are quite rare, they are certainly well-known in simple compounds (e.g. ZrCl₃ and HfCl₃)." What was the point you were trying to make there? Sandbh (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that the group 3 metals do not show lower oxidation states than the group state in simple compounds (at least, that I know of), whereas the group 4 metals do. This is another way in which group 3 behaviour is distinct from even the immediate d-block neighbours. Do you have a suggestion for how to make this point clearer? Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to leave that bit out since it does't add much to your argument, and Wiberg gives the following LnX2 halides: CeI2, PrI2, NdCl2, NdBr2, NdI2, SmF2, SmCl2, SmBr2, SmI2, EuF2, EuCl2, EuBr2, EuI2, GdI2, DyCl2, DyBr2, DyI2, TmCl2, TmBr2, TmI2, YbF2, YbCl2, YbBr2, YbI2; not to mention NdO, SmO, EuO and YbO. Sandbh (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've struck out that portion. By the way, note that some of these (e.g. CeI₂, PrI₂, GdI₂) are actually Ln(III) electride compounds according to Greenwood and Earnshaw (p. 1240). In any case I do not think it weakens the argument appreciably because it concerns the lanthanides Ce–Yb, and certainly not La and Lu, the only two possible contenders for the coveted position under Y in group 3; and anyway Eu²⁺ and Yb²⁺ are quite well-known to be similar to Ca²⁺, Sr²⁺, Ba²⁺, and Ra²⁺, except for the lanthanides' possibility of oxidation. But I think it would sidetrack the point too much, and have deleted it. Double sharp (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Do you think the above text (including or not including (4)?) would now be suitable for sending to Prof. Scerri? (Also, I think it might be a bit better if you sent it, so that you could give context better by saying something like "after seeing your comments, I passed them back to DS, who has rewritten their arguments to start from ground zero", rather than coming straight from me without much context?) Double sharp (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's suitable, including (with one caveat) paragraph 4. In paragraph 1 you basically argue that H fits better in group 1 than it does in group 7, which is fine, and consistent with research findings I've posted in our project page on this point from time to time. But in paragraph 4 you say that, despite being in the s-block, H is well distinct from any other s-block members. I think you could try removing the reference to H from paragraph 4 without weakening your argument.

No, you should email Eric. You write well and your ideas will stand up well enough without me having to present them. And I'm sure he'd be interested in what you have to say. Just remember, as a matter of professional courtesy, to give him some context on your background. Sandbh (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm honoured!

How about this for (4):

"It is not clear how much the concept of a block actually means for the chemistry of an element. Helium is in the s-block, and yet its closest chemical cousins are the noble gases in the p-block. Be and Mg are in the s-block, but are more similar to Al in the p-block and Zn in the d-block respectively than they are to the heavier members of group 2. And it is well-known that Zn, Cd, and Hg, despite being in the d-block, do not show many of the characteristic properties of transition metals. Finally all these chemical similarities almost break down completely in the p-block: for example, B is not very similar to F at all. Since there is already a precedent for breaking the s-block to treat helium better chemically, I do not think there is any real problem with breaking the d-block if that results in treating La better. It may upset Platonic symmetry, but we are not drawing a table to reflect Platonic symmetry. We are drawing a table to reflect chemical properties."

I'll email him about this once you give your comments on this new (4). And actually, upon rereading this, I don't seem to have made my actual point clear about Sc/Y/La vs Sc/Y/Lu, so I should probably add something to the end of (3) like:

"It is well-known (cites Jensen's paper) that Sc/Y/Lu gives trends that are similar to those in the early transition metal groups, while Sc/Y/La gives trends that are similar to those in the s-block groups. Since the group 3 elements behave chemically more like their neighbours in the s-block than their neighbours in the d-block (indeed, arguments have sometimes been raised to exclude them from the transition metals proper), this would suggest that La is a more appropriate candidate for the third member of group 3." Double sharp (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(4) is fine. Your addition to the end of (3) duplicates, in part, what (3) already says. I'd like to see your complete new version of (3). Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Here it is: "The asymmetry of the split d-block option (Sc/Y/La) does not necessarily mean that it is false. It is well-known (cites Jensen's paper) that Sc/Y/Lu gives trends that are similar to those in the early transition metal groups, while Sc/Y/La gives trends that are similar to those in the s-block groups. To decide which trend is more relevant, we should look at the chemistry of group 3 and the lanthanides. We then find that they are all electropositive metals that reduce water and have only one important, mostly ionic oxidation state (and even for the few exceptions, Ce, Sm, Eu, and Yb, the +3 state is still by far the most important one in aqueous solution). This behaviour is much more like that of their s-block neighbours in groups 1 and 2, and is quite different from that of group 4 (and Th), for which the +4 state is too high to be ionic. This would suggest that La is a more appropriate candidate for the third member of group 3, giving an s-block-like trend that fits their chemistry." Double sharp (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Gtg (slang, meaning 1). Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thank you! I shall be sending him this soon. Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll drop a word as well, if you don't mind. Could you please assure me this statement is correct: "This behaviour is much more like that of their s-block neighbours in groups 1 and 2, and is quite different from that of group 4 (and Th), for which the +4 state is too high to be ionic"? I tried to check myself what the degree of ionicity of various oxides was and on a quick search I found one article suggesting that the ionicity in the K--Ca--Sc (same groups for periods 5 and 6) series falls quite linearly: 66--58--50 percent (other values for periods 5 and 6), with ionicity of TiO₂, as I found elsewhere, being equal to ~0.5, so no real reason to say that ionicity falls so suddenly after group 3. Moreover, I've found this old Soviet document which says the big drops in ionicity come after groups 4 and 5 (for example, period 5, groups 2 through 6: 93--87--82--63--39 percent). Have you mentioned some data contradicting this information I see, or am I misinterpreting it?--R8R (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I got the "too high to be ionic" statement directly from Greenwood. Admittedly the whole boundary between ionic and covalent compounds must be set in rather an arbitrary place (look at the indecision about things like BuLi), and even SF₆ can be well-accommodated by the ionic-bond model. But qualitatively, I do think you would see appreciably more hydrolysis of water from Ti⁴⁺ than Sc³⁺, and that the resulting solution would be quite acidic. In fact, you do not actually have aquated Ti⁴⁺ ions in solution like you do for Sc³⁺, but rather TiO²⁺, showing you how far the hydrolysis would have gone. Even Th⁴⁺ hydrolyses about as readily as Fe³⁺, so that you will only see the 4+ cation (large as it is) under really quite strongly acidic conditions. (I'm using Th as a proxy for Rf, since we can't really make statements about the latter.) Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't sent the e-mail yet, the only other thing I would say is that your line of argument seems to focus on the merits of -La-Ac, and doesn't give as much air time to the case for -Lu-Lr. If I recall correctly, the two options are finely balanced and I eventually went -Lu-Lr since that results in an overall better fit with idealised electron configurations. Sandbh (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you're not too late; I was going to send it today, but delayed it a little to respond to R8R's comment. The main reason I haven't included so much about the good points of -Lu-Lr is that I think Jensen covers them adequately: it does make admirable trends when the beauty ideal is the trend of the early d-block groups. I explicitly reference Jensen's paper, after all. It is also way better-written than any defence of Sc/Y/La/Ac I have seen before (Lavelle is pretty lame, as Jensen correctly points out), which is why I decided to focus on supporting Sc/Y/La/Ac hopefully more convincingly.

I think this point is somewhat addressed in my (4) – that these electron configurations are only idealised, and what they mean is not entirely clear. Remember that historically people didn't start with a big table of electron configurations and thought about what the properties of the element with [Xe]4f¹5d¹6s² would be. Instead, they looked at the chemistry and tried to guess electron configurations. It could then be argued that the configurations with 4fⁿ5d¹6s² instead of 4fⁿ⁺¹6s² are more natural as they nicely explain why the lanthanides all exhibit the +3 oxidation state mainly. It would thus correspond to the 5d and 6s electrons being removed, and 4f being stuck in the core like it really is. The latter (which is more often the truth) makes it harder to explain. So, if we are idealising electron configurations (like a hypothetical [Ar]3d⁴4s² for Cr, which would actually better explain why it doesn't just lose the single 4s electron than the real [Ar]3d⁵4s¹ configuration), it would seem that Sc/Y/La/Ac leads to "more ideal" idealised configurations.

Somewhat less lamely, if we look at the tripositive ions (which is really the main thing here that lets you see gradations of trends), starting at Ce means that the number of 4f electrons in the tripositive ion fits with the column numbers (Ce³⁺ is [Xe]4f¹, Pr³⁺ is [Xe]4f², and so on until Lu³⁺ being [Xe]4f¹⁴). Starting at La means you have to begin counting from zero. It then becomes kind of like looking at the dipositive ions along period 4 (I use +2 because they all show it, even if Sc can only do it in CsScCl₃ where the Cs⁺ ion has very weak polarising power): starting at Sc and going to Zn means it fits with the number of columns in the d-block (Sc²⁺ is [Ar]3d¹, Ti²⁺ is [Ar]3d², until Zn²⁺ being [Ar]3d¹⁰). Starting with Ca means you have to begin counting from zero. So, as I originally said (I wouldn't send it in quite those words): "The upshot is: are we drawing a table to make it look pretty and subdivide it into pastel-coloured rectangles [following ideal electron configurations], or are we drawing one to illustrate chemical similarities in the best way possible [following real electron configurations]?" Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The other reason I am uncomfortable with saying that La would ideally be [Xe]4f¹6s² is that if it truly were that, it would behave qualitatively differently from how it actually does. For example, the melting point of "Jensen's ideal lanthanum" ought to be lower, whereas that of real lanthanum continues the trend up from Sc and Y like you'd expect for a bona fide transition metal using d-electrons for metallic bonding instead of more unwilling f-electrons. Naturally 4f contribution would be expected in the spectrum, but when I consider that Ca, Sr, and Ba show spectral differences from Be and Mg because of the presence of low-lying d-orbitals in the former, I start to wonder if it's really not fair to look at what orbitals contribute in excited states. Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Right then. Time to email Eric! Sandbh (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I'll do it today! Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Oh, just to confirm: this is your article and name, right? (Because it does feel a little strange to call you "Sandbh" while writing to Prof. Scerri, since I have no idea if you use that alias elsewhere.) Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Sandbh (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Has it gone yet? Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Arguments 1–5

I've been thinking about this some more. It's annoying that it's taken me so long. I don't think it matters if you've already written to Eric.

I was just about to send it when I saw this, so I'll try to respond to this here and see if there is anything I would like to change before it goes to him. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This is being written in a rush so may be ragged. Some of these arguments you've seen before.

In terms of basicity it seems to me that Lu is more like Sc and Y, whereas La is more like Cs, Ba etc. So perhaps argument 4 doesn't hold up that well. In other words, Sc-Y-Lu fits nicely between Ca-Sr-Ba and Ti-Zr-Hf as a progression from groups 2 to 4, whereas La is a bit of a misfit in that it's closer to group 2 than it is to group 4.

Since Sc-Y-Lu gives trends that are similar to those in the early transition metal groups, while Sc-Y-La gives trends that are similar to those in the s-block groups, I'd take the following items into account to decide which configuration is more important:

1. In nature, Y is usually found with the heavy REE, including Lu.

Not surprising. This is a matter of size, once again. Similarly Li is usually found with Mg and not with the heavier alkali metals Na and K, and Be does not occur together with Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba. I don't think it is conclusive.Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it isn't surprising, and that it's a matter of size, and that it's not conclusive (by itself).

2. The (developing chemistry) of scandium is that of a slightly smaller version of lutetium. (according to Cotton)

I presume this is a quote from this paper. Yet Sc is still different because of the size. Lu might form 8-coordinate aqua ions (while La is happy with 9-coordination), but Sc is smaller still and forms 7-coordinate aqua ions. There are also differences in complex chemistry. For instance, Sc(NO₃)₃ does not bind directly to crown ethers, but M(NO₃)₃ (M = Y, La, Ln) do. Again, the size is a little too small for it to work the same way like Y does. It's worth noting that Cotton also said that the resemblance is incomplete, IIRC. Besides, I think "similarity in size" is a worse criterion than "size generally increases significantly down the table", as that is a more general trend. (Otherwise, why don't we put Be and Mg over Zn?) Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the right quote. I don't think size is the main consideration. I only quoted this one because Cotton chose to compare the developing chemistry of Sc with that of Lu, rather than Sc.

Similarity of chemistry may not indicate anything more than similar size and valency, though. Consider Ti, Zr, Hf, and Th: the last of these is not quite like the others despite its very similar chemistry, being an f-block element (despite having a 6d²7s² configuration, the Th³⁺ ion quite clearly shows 5f involvement by being 5f¹, though the metal does not show much if any at all). And the small size of Ti makes it act differently from the other three as well. So now we have Th similar to Zr and Hf but in a different group, and Ti not so similar but in the same group. Therefore, we must admit the possibility that this is so with La and Lu with reference to Sc and Y as well. Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, I like observing this argument from distance and not intervening, but this argument touched me. Its value is, I think, less than zero: it renders the whole argument useless. Indeed: if such dissimilarities are within the normal range, then how can you even expect this argument to ever result in a conclusive outcome, as it must work both ways? Then I would expect you to supplement this statement with amendments to make the -La-Ac option look good (maybe I'm overthinking this, but that's the impression I got), but why not do it in first place? Period 4 differing from periods 5 and 6 is an absolutely different issue than the uncertainty in period 6, as the two are caused by different reasons, and the Zr-Hf-Th similarity is different from both of these, and it only works in a way because element 104 is for some reason not considered (imagine we excluded either La or Lu from this argument and tried to prove the other one fits: that would be a very incomplete "proof"), which is expected to be much closer to the rest of group 4 than thorium.--R8R (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look at Rf because it's not known well enough, but what we do know indicates that it is also different. The point I am trying to make here is that similarity in chemistry (e.g Y-Lu, Zr-Hf, but more oddly Fe^III-Ga^III, Be-Al and Mg-Zn) is very much a function of size. Not all these pairs are even in the same group. Yet we put C and Pb in the same group despite their profound differences because they share something more than superficial similarities. You can talk about a trend from C to Pb where each element is more metallic than the previous one. Likewise you can talk about a trend from Sc to Ac where each element is more electropositive than the previous one. And that, I think, trumps superficial similarities. Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I see this as differing from what I originally responded to; be that truth or not, "size may look like more than it's worth" is a valid argument.--R8R (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is a valid argument, but my main point is that it seems to go against the guiding principle of the rest of the PT (increasing basicity as you go down a group) that leads to Be and Mg being placed over the heavy alkaline earth metals, instead of the more similar and also divalent Zn. So I am also citing precedents for Sc-Y-La by looking at how the rest of the table is organised, including telling decisions for those elements that are difficult to place. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

3. Scandium organometallic chemistry is generally similar to that of the later lanthanides. (ditto)

Yet there are also similarities to those of Ti–Co, e.g. 3-coordinate Sc[N(SiMe₃)₂]₃. I agree that it is a little large for a transition metal but it is also a little too small to really be "one of the lanthanides" like yttrium is. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we agree on this one. Any similarities to Ti-Co, however, aren't germane to what I was attempting to demonstrate, which was the greater similarity that Lu has to Y, than is the case for La and Y.

Certainly Y is the right size to act like a lanthanide, but Sc is far smaller than any of La–Lu. The point I was trying to make is that Sc sits uncomfortably with La–Lu (too big) just as it does with Ti–Co (too small), and is ambiguously poised between the lanthanide and 3d-transition-metal trends. So while I would say that yttrium is very similar to the later lanthanides, I would hesitate to say it for scandium. It doesn't even occur in the same minerals as yttrium, lanthanum, and the rest of the lanthanides! Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

4. Early period 5 and 6 transition metals show close similarities in properties, in contrast to their period 4 congeners

Mostly because of the lanthanide contraction. And if we are talking about that, the contraction of the 4f orbitals into the core happens after lanthanum. As well, it is not entirely sure that we should call group 3 transition metals: Cotton certainly doesn't, noting that "they resemble the group 2 elements in reactivity" (which is one of my points). If they are not transition metals, then this is a weak argument. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I need to take a rain check on this one.

5. The periodic law applies to physical properties as well as chemical properties.

Arguments 6–10

6. On the basis of 18 mainly physical properties, Lu is a better fit with Sc-Y- than is the case for La. See: Horowitz O & Sârbu C 2005, "Characterisation and Classification of Lanthanides by Multivariate-Analysis Methods", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 82 no. 3, pp. 473--483

Have you looked at Be-Mg-Ca vs Be-Mg-Zn? I usually cite this as an example similar to Sc-Y-La vs Sc-Y-Lu. In this case, Zn seems a better fit physically, since you cannot exactly use Ca as a structural metal. There are also significant chemical differences between Mg and Ca (look at their behaviour in ammonia solutions). And yet everyone is behind Ca, even though I could argue that Ca, Sr, and Ba show some transition-metal character in that the empty d-orbitals are low enough to contribute to excited states and even sometimes bonding (like how it is often argued that La "really" has f-orbital involvement). Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the Be-Mg- question is a bit of a side issue that doesn't diminish the contribution of Horowitz and Sârbu's findings to the overall Sc-Y- question.

What I was trying to say here is that if you look at primarily physical properties, Zn is a better fit with Be-Mg- than is the case for Ca. Yet nobody puts Be and Mg over Zn anymore, because Be-Mg-Ca shows simpler chemical trends. As such I find this a weak argument: since chemical properties seem to overrule physical properties in periodic table placement in the case of Be-Mg-Ca, why should it not also be the case for Sc-Y-La? Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If chemical properties trump physical then Lu has more in common with Sc and Y than is the case with La, does it not? This is not a trick question, I want to ensure our arguments are consistent, There are the two Cotton arguments, however weak, Nelson's carbonyl argument, the yttrium group argument, and the old separation group argument. Does La have better chemistry-based arguments for fitting under Sc-Y- than Lu? Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it is rather chemical trends that trump physical ones. Basicity and size usually increase down the table: that's why Be-Mg-Ca is preferred, since Zn is more like Be and Mg than Ca is, even chemically! (Be and Mg are class-b metals like Zn while Ca is class-a.) This is why I think La is better under Y, because instead of being confusingly similar, it continues the trend down group 3 (Sc to Y) of increasing size and reactivity. Double sharp (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also take a lesson from group 14 (the crystallogens: I love that name). Every adjacent pair of elements is similar, indeed similar enough that Mendeleyev had no problem predicting the properties of Ge based on what he knew about Si and Sn. But if we look at the extreme members of the group, C and Pb, we see that similarities have been swamped by trends. Both may be tetravalent main-group elements, but the recurring theme of increasing metallic character down the group has conquered all. Why should it not do so in its mellowed guise as increasing basicity down group 3, before the contraction of the 4f and 5d orbitals strikes after lanthanum? Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you once again tell me why the Be-Mg-Ca/Zn alternative (which draws a parallel with Sc-Y-La) is okay to consider but the B-Al-Sc/Ga (which draws a parallel with Sc-Y-Lu) isn't? I didn't understand it the last time.--R8R (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Because Be, Mg, Ca, and Zn all have an s² configuration, so the choice is not clear solely on that basis: we have to look at other properties. On the other hand, while B, Al, and Ga all have s²p, Sc has s²d, so the choice is clear. B-Al-Sc leads to inconsistent electron configurations that show up in broken trends in mp, for instance. Sc-Y-La is more like the former case because Sc, Y, La, and Lu all have an s²d configuration. Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't like this explanation. While Mendeleev and his contemporaries constructed the periodic table based on chemistry, we now know that the reasons the PT looks the way it does don't stop at chemistry and can be traced further to atomic configurations (which also help define chemistry). As such, we know that zinc has 30 electrons, not two, and that d-block does in fact play a role in period 4 (we even have an article on the topic), but these simplified valence configs don't acknowledge this. That is to say, ns² != ns²(n-1)d¹⁰ just as ns²(n-1)d¹ != ns²np¹. Frankly, I don't see how these two can be viewed as different situations.--R8R (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

But is 3d active in Zn? There is not even predicted to be any possibility of d-orbital involvement in the bonding of Zn and Cd; even Hg can only be coaxed to do it under extreme conditions. Just because zinc has 30 electrons doesn't mean all of them are active. Gallium has 31 electrons and has the inner filled 3d shell that aluminium (13 electrons) doesn't, and that makes a bit of difference for physical properties, but not for chemical properties: both have three valence electrons in s²p (whereas scandium is ds²). If we considered core electrons, we couldn't even put F and Cl above Br because the first two are s²p⁵ whereas the last is d¹⁰s²p⁵. But isn't that a bit silly, since 3d is not actually doing much in bromine? I know and understand that the 4f and 3d contractions have an effect in the following block, but these differences are mostly quantitative, rather than the qualitative differences between Sc and Ga. Double sharp (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what you define as "active." If you stop at just being valence electrons, then the next question would be, "So if the d shell doesn't matter as it doesn't openly participate in chemistry, then why is a lone np electron chemically (since that reasoning is based on chemical activity) openly different than a (n-1)d one?", and I don't know why. (And then I re-read what you wrote and saw you said yourself that they don't differ in that respect.) So it seems that debunking the legitimacy of the group III analogy also debunks the legitimacy of the group II analogy. I believe it was just bad debunking from the start, but I'd want to hear you out on this.

The difference is admittedly stronger the farther you get from the group II/III divide. In group IV, C and Si are certainly quite different from Ti, which now has real TM character. In group I, the filled p-shell of Na and K can't be breached while the filled d-shell of Cu can. Chemically B-Al-Sc, like Be-Mg-Zn, lead to reasonable trends, as reasonable as B-Al-Ga and Be-Mg-Ca. The problem comes when you look at physical properties, when you then see that the d-electron is more localised, resulting in breaks in the trends of mp, bp, and resistivity. Double sharp (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

mp, deg C

2	3	12	13
1287			2076
650			660
842	1541	419	29
777	1526	321	156

bp, deg C

2	3	12	13
2469			3927
1090			2470
1484	2836	907	2400
1382	2930	767	2072

Resistivity, 1×10⁻⁸Ohm

2	3	12	13
3.56			a lot
4.39			2.65
3.36	56.2	5.90	13.6
13.2	59.6	7.27	8.0

Let us leave out group I and IV. I know I'm up for detailed approach, but what do they have to do with the current groups II and III? Can this somehow be put to support either version?

It's the exact same thing at play: a p-electron is less tightly held by the nucleus, but the orbital is less diffuse than a d-electron. Group IV is just a little more obvious, but OK, let's look only at groups II and III. I look at your figures and I see that only in the group 3 column are d-electrons doing anything, so they always end up with the highest mp and bp, higher than anything in group 13 (more obviously in mp). (Boron doesn't count, since it's using covalent bonding instead of metallic bonding. Beryllium is likewise an exception because it's so small that even the s-electrons are very tightly held by the nucleus.) Boiling point shows weaker trends, because gallium is a bit like water: the solid arrangement is broken down in the liquid, which has lower interatomic distances, and so it actually contracts on melting. (Indium is also a bit like this, but not to the extent of contracting upon melting.) But it is still there, only with a few hundred degrees instead of a few thousand.

As for group II, I regret to have to say that there is no simple explanation for the variations in mp and bp. (Throws hands up in despair.) But both groups IIA and IIB are using only s-electrons for these, at least. So it is a different situation from that between group IIIA (using a d-electron) and IIIB (using a p-electron), for which you can see much larger differences. Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Now, I want to admit that your line of defense seems to change. You first said the 3d electrons didn't define chem in Zn and you're pushing for physical properties. Anyway, I collected all the data for the properties you mentioned. There are many small observations to be made, but I only want to point out one thing: only with resistivity—one of the three properties you've mentioned—I do clearly see your point. As for mp, the analogy between Be-Mg-Ca/Zn and B-Al-Sc/Ga (the original point of this discussion) can be drawn; as for bp, I wouldn't even put it into question.--R8R (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(Here DS was silent for a while trying to think of exactly what was the smoking gun here.)

Essentially, the issue is that the d-electrons are more localised and contribute much more to the metallic bonding in the group IIIA elements compared to the p-electron in the group IIIB elements. (I am using the old IUPAC system to make a point: here "A" groups are all on the left side of the table and "B" groups are all on the right side). You see the exact same thing when comparing group IVA with group IVB. Furthermore, whereas the group IIIB and IVB elements act like main-group elements, losing the p-electrons before the s-electrons (and only the p-electrons are delocalised for Ga, In, and Tl, as well as β-Sn and Pb), the group IIIA and IVA elements act like transition elements, losing the s-electrons before the d-electrons (and they are all delocalised). Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

But why does it prohibit drawing the B-Al-Sc/Ga analogy? Of course, if you have the idea that the Sc-Y-La is the version, than than a version, then it may seem justifiable to use this an a good reason to diminish the importance of the other analogy. Without any ideas to begin with, I don't think so. I do accept your point re ionization order, though I'd want to know how much energy it takes to get a Sc⁺ ion to have a config of a main-group element and a Ga⁺ ion to have a TM-like config, but I won't look now. Too tired after a night of coding. (I am inclined to believe in what you say re metallic bonding, as it makes sense, but I can't find any figures to directly assess the degree of this difference). Does that all make up for not allowing the B-Al-Sc/Ga analogy? While I can't say "definitely no," as it's a matter of taste anyway, I doubt it has been shown with the information examined by this point. So far, I don't know any difference in chemistry caused by the 21th electron being a d electron and the 31st one being a p one rather than the d-block contraction, and I assume that while this difference should exist to some extent, this extent is small, and we seem to have agreed on that. Then, moving on to the physical properties, the original analogies are evident in two properties of the three mentioned as prohibitive. Atop of this, some non-quantified information has been put, which I would want to quantify and which could be quantified, that prohibits the analogy in question. With all sincerity, I'm not satisfied by this point to say, "Oh yeah, you were right," though I admit you've made some points.--R8R (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

According to NIST, Sc⁺ needs 11736.36 cm⁻¹ to become [Ar]4s². Furthermore, [Ar]3d² is still lower in energy, with [Ar]3d¹4s² being of course the ground state.

I'm not entirely sure what a TM-like configuration for Ga⁺ would be. In the ground state it is of course [Ar]3d¹⁰4s². The next higher states are (in cm⁻¹): [Ar]4s¹4p¹ (47367.55); [Ar]4s¹5s¹ (102944.595); [Ar]4p² (107720.716); and [Ar]4s¹4d¹ (126187.61). Double sharp (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said, it was a long tiring night. My mistake.--R8R (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm against using simplified arguments when discussing a subtle question like the main "-La or -Lu" issue. Why are you leaving out all electrons that aren't as openly active but still important in some ways?

"but these differences are mostly quantitative, rather than the qualitative differences between Sc and Ga" -- can't assess this statement. Why are these "quantitative, rather than the qualitative," where lies the difference, and are these terms even important? can we just go straight to the business? To give context to these questions, I will say I try to minimize the number of questions I see in terms of binary alternatives. Bonding is not ionic, but mostly ionic, etc. This helps see some tendencies the may be overlooked by the superficial binary observing. As a historical example, I'll mention that not taking into consideration the reasons beyond valence (as they weren't yet known) made many people think that thallium was an alkali metal.

Ga is quite amphoteric, like Al and In, and also prefers covalent bonding in its compounds (it's not quite fair to include Tl because it wants to be univalent). Sc on the other hand is reasonably basic. Granted it still somewhat hydrolyses water, but only to the extent of Cr or Fe, and that is because +3 is already a high charge for an ion (you have to get to lanthanide-size like Y before you can really handle it and still be basic; even Th can't manage a true +4). Also, Ga has the textbook properties of a PTM (see Sandbh's article) while Sc is physically an excellent TM and is chemically similar to Mg. Double sharp (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I will also note that Sc and Ga are different not only by their last electrons, but also by a full d shell as well, and this adds a lot to the difference between them. Not sure if that contributes to your argument or mine, probably neither, but I can't leave it out for the sake of adequacy of this mini-argument.--R8R (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The effect of Ga having the filled d-shell is covered in the gallium article which I rewrote. But mostly, the effect is just that Ga is a slightly smaller atom than you would think (e.g. its EN is higher than Al's). In many respects, though, Al is more similar to Ga, In, and Tl than it is to Sc, Y, and La (see the group 13 section in post-transition metal). Double sharp (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If I haven't misunderstood your argument, it also seems to imply that Lu can't be placed under Y because ds² ≠ f¹⁴ds², just as Zn can't be placed under Mg because s² ≠ d¹⁰s². I don't think that's what you meant, so I have probably misunderstood something. Double sharp (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not arguing for or against any alternative; as I told you, I don't see the point. I'm just trying to raven your arguments that I find weak.

My idea was and is that these two approaches are equally valid, and it's not fair to put one over the other one.--R8R (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The main issue I find with the other approach is that while it gives the usual conclusion for Be-Mg-Ca, it does not do so for B-Al-Ga, because it privileges number of electrons outside the noble gas core (notwithstanding that 3d is also part of the core) over exactly what orbitals these electrons are. Note that I say this even though it supports my stand, because I don't find it convincing. (Sc: [Ar]3d¹4s²; Y: [Kr]4d¹5s²; La: [Xe]5d¹6s². You can't get much more consistent! All of them have three electrons outside the noble gas core, and two of them are in an s-orbital and one is in a d-orbital of the preceding principal quantum shell.) Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, let's put an end to this discussion with me here. I looked to understand the point of the staircase argument and I did; thank you for explaining it. Not that I am convinced, but I'm currently not looking to convince or be convinced; but at least I can now see the argument as valid in its way.--R8R (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay; thank you!

One last thing I should link to: the lanthanide and 3d contractions are in fact a general thing about how orbitals without radial nodes, and also affect 1s and 2p as well. Thus it is a geneeral thing you should expect. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

7. Sc, Y, and Lu have d-like conduction bands whereas La doesn't

Forgive me if I'm mistaken about what you mean (I am certainly more well-versed in chemistry than physics), but I was under the impression that the 4f electrons are not actually sufficiently spatially extended to contribute in most of the lanthanides (the exceptions being Ce, Pr, and Nd, which not coincidentally are the early ones where the nuclear charge is not so great and they can tolerate further ionisation to Ce⁴⁺, Pr⁵⁺, and Nd⁴⁺). The valence band is described here as being essentially s–d in character with those three exceptions. Or is that not what you meant? Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I read the paper by Merz and Ulmer (1957) again, "Position of lanthanum and lutetium in the periodic table". Their conclusion was, "This X-ray spectroscopic result shows clearly that Lu, but not La, has the typical behaviour of a transition metal in the structure of its conduction band [earlier in the paper they draw an analogy between the conduction bands of Lu and Hf]. Arrangements of the PT, which ascribe Lu to the transition metals and not the lanthanides, are therefore favoured by this isochromat spectroscopic investigation." Your link doesn't work for me---Google says I've reached my page limit. More later. Sandbh (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that the lanthanide metals tend to be trivalent [Xe]4fⁿ5d¹6s² where the 5d and 6s electrons are delocalised (= conduction band?) and the 4f electrons are localised (= valence band?). The two exceptions are Eu and Yb. Or have I misinterpreted those terms? Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, looking at noble metal, maybe I have (sorry, nowhere near as good in physics as I am in chemistry, though even there I realise I need to learn more). In that case I do think it is harder to make the Sc-Y-La-Ac case. Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

8. Nelson (2012) argues that the number of outer electrons possessed by an atom, and the number required for it to achieve an inert gas configuration exhibit an almost exact periodicity. Further, these two numbers correlate almost exactly with the highest conventional valency and the highest carbonyl valency exhibited by an element. For example in iron carbonyl, Fe(CO)₅, the carbonyl valency is taken to be 10 whereas Fe has a highest conventional valency of 6. Now, while Y, La and Lu all have a highest conventional valency of 3, Y and Lu require only 15 electrons to achieve an inert gas configuration whereas La would need 29. On this basis Nelson prefers Y-Lu rather than Y-La. I need to read Nelson's paper again but so far, it gets better each time I do. See: Nelson PG 2012, 'Periodicity in the formulae of carbonyls and the electronic basis of the Periodic Table,' Foundations of Chemistry, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 199–208.

This argument feels a bit weak to me because while the transition metals mostly do form stable carbonyls, the lanthanides don't. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't had time yet to eyeball Nelson's paper at some length. On the Ln he says, "The values…for the Ln and An are tentative. These are based on matrix isolation studies. I have adopted the formulae for the highest carbonyls suggested by workers in the field. Errors in these will not significantly affect the argument." I agree Ln don't form stable carbonyls, hence the reference to matrix isolation studies, but I don't think the instability of these compounds affects the merits of his argument, which is about carbonyl valency periodicity rather than stability. I'll try and catch up with your latest comments when I can. The exchange of perspectives is most helpful. Sandbh (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem I see with basing arguments on such unstable species is that many things that can be done there are not representative of the chemistry of the element being considered. I do not think the existence of iridium(IX) is particularly important when countering the generalisation that beyond group 8, the range of oxidation states shrinks. Jensen himself notes that the existence of mercury(IV) is just a tiny exception to the far more characteristic main-group chemistry of Zn, Cd, and Hg. Lastly the very existence of last actinides and the transactinides only occurs under very anomalous conditions: we wouldn't change the name "noble gases" even if element 118 (soon to be oganesson) acts like a reactive nonmetal, and already the halogens are often taken to end at iodine instead of the fugitive astatine. So while this might be true, I feel it has no more bearing on the placement of La than HgF₄ does on the classification of group 12. Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

9. The Russian authors, Landau and Lifshitz (1977, p. 273–274) wrote: "The filling up of the 3d, 4d, and 5d shells…[has] a characteristic feature of [of] "competition" between the s and d states…The filling up of the 4 fshell also occurs in a slightly irregular manner characterized by the competition between 4f, 5d, and 6s states…In books of chemistry, lutetium is usually placed in the rare-earth elements. This, however, is incorrect, since the 4f shell is complete in lutetium; it must therefore be placed in the platinum group…"[They refer to Sc–Ni as the Iron group; Y–Pd as the Palladium group; and Lu–Pt as the Platinum group]. They first wrote these words in 1956, which Scerri refers to as "one of the oldest categorical statements in favor of Sc Y Lu Lr" (pers. comm). I like the 'competition' metaphor and the simplicity of their assertion. See: Landau LD & Lifshitz EM 1977, Quantum Mechanics (Non-relativistic Theory), 3rd ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford

Why does this not apply to Yb then? It also has a complete 4f shell. Furthermore, we have Zn at the end of the d-block with a complete, inactive 3d subshell; does that mean it must be placed as an s-block element (involving only its 4s electrons)? We have Ne at the end of the p-block with a complete, inactive 2p subshell; where should it go then? I was under the impression that you had reached the end of a block when the electron shell had filled up and become mostly inactive, except in the s-block where there just haven't been enough electrons filled in for this to happen. By this viewpoint, Zn is at the end of the d-block (3d becomes inactive) and Ne at the end of the p-block (2p becomes inactive). Similarly, Yb looks a little odd at the end of the f-block since 4f is not yet inactive (Yb³⁺ is pretty happy to stay as it is), but Lu makes sense: 4f has become inactive (it's just too energetically costly to make Lu⁴⁺, so it is never seen), just like how the subshell being filled became inactive for Zn and Ne. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This actually makes an interesting analogy between the d- and f-blocks in the Sc-Y-La version. If you look at 3d, Cu is [Ar]3d¹⁰4s¹, with the complete d-subshell in the ground state, but which nevertheless can be breached easily in Cu²⁺, [Ar]3d⁹. Then we follow it with Zn, [Ar]3d¹⁰4s², where the d-subshell can no longer be breached: the highest oxidation state is Zn²⁺, [Ar]3d¹⁰. In the next row, 4d is more stabilised, and so neither Ag or Cd is particularly happy to breach the d-subshell, although Ag can be forced to form Ag²⁺ when strong oxidising agents like F₂ are around.

Now if you look at 4f, Yb is [Xe]4f¹⁴6s², with the complete f-subshell in the ground state, but which nevertheless can be breached easily in Yb³⁺, [Xe]4f¹³. Then we follow it with Lu, [Xe]4f¹⁴5d¹6s², where the f-subshell can no longer be breached: the highest oxidation state is Lu³⁺, [Xe]4f¹⁴. In the next row, 5f is even more stabilised near the end, and so nether No nor Lr is particularly happy to breach the f-subshell, although No can be forced to form No³⁺ when strong oxidising agents like Ce⁴⁺ are around.

Furthermore, I think there are good grounds for considering [Xe]4fⁿ6s² an anomalous configuration. In the metallic state, the electron configuration of all but two of fourteen lanthanides from La to Lu is undeniably [Xe]4fⁿ5d¹6s² (n = 0–14), as you would expect from their trivalence. The exceptions are the divalent Eu and Yb, which are stabilised by the half- or fully-filled 4f subshell, just like Cr and Cu are often said to be. (After all, Scerri has explicitly advocated using condensed-phase electron configurations, not gas-phase ones, since the former are more relevant to chemistry.)

We also know that the first subshell of a given angular momentum is usually odd in behaviour. But if you look at 5f, which penetrates less into the nucleus and participates more (at least, in the first half of the series; in the second half relativistic effects help strengthen the opposite trend), we get more of those configurations. Th is anomalous no matter how you look at it, but Ac, Pa, U, Np, Cm, and perhaps Bk show the configuration with 6d in the gas phase, while Pu, Am, Cf, Es, Fm, Md, No, Lr show the one without 6d. Furthermore, 6d is contributing in the metallic bonding in all the actinides from Ac to Cf in the condensed phase. You may get more than one 6d electron, but it's a bit difficult to speak of exact configurations at such high atomic number (there was, as recently as 2006, still a bit of a dispute on whether Pa was 5f¹6d² or 5f²6d¹); the main point is that 6d is involved in the early actinides like 5d was in the lanthanides. Now we count: out of the 30 lanthanides and actinides, 23 of them have a d-electron in their condensed-phase configuration against 7 which don't (Eu, Yb, Es, Fm, Md, No, Lr). Now which is anomalous? It's certainly more convincing and lopsided than the 16-14 split in 3d–5d based on Scerri's table (count either La or Lu – it doesn't matter, neither is anomalous). I think it's convincing evidence that when it comes to chemistry, we really do to a first approximation have one column of the d-block filled, the rest of the f-block intervening, and then the other nine columns of the d-block. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we know what the condensed phase electron confg of La is? If I recall this is not known for sure yet? I'd see if I could find this again myself but am sarch constrained right now. Sandbh (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Since 4f involvement for La is debated, it must be predominantly 5d¹6s² like the others: where else would the third electron go? The fact that the cohesive energy follows the trend line from Sc to Y supports this, since Al (with p instead of d) does not fall on this line and an fs² lanthanum also would not (there are differences in the cohesive effects of the p, d, and f electrons). It is not unusual for condensed-phase configurations to be a bit fuzzy: that of Ni is infamously so, with an about equal mix of 3d⁸4s², 3d⁹4s¹, and 3d¹⁰. But for 4f involvement in La to still be undetectable, even when many would be looking for it, strongly suggests to me that if it is involved at all, it is not so to any important degree. Double sharp (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

10. Only as a bonus, Sc-Y-Lu forms a triad whereas Sc-Y-La doesn't.

See my (1) ^_^. Also, despite me thinking this is a weak argument, Sc-Y-La does form an atomic number triad: 39 is in fact the average of 21 and 57. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Stephen Liddle seems to consider Sc and Y to be f-block elements, effectively privileging chemistry over electron configuration! (Similarly, the periodic table at the back of Clayden's Organic Chemistry, while being Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, floats H and He and colours them as apart from any block; I imagine the motivation is the same.) Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, and subject to your further thoughts, I'd tentatively conclude that Sc-Y-Lu looks better. Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I remain mostly unconvinced; but do you think any of the points I raise here are important enough to mention in the email, if they're not already there? (Perhaps my reply to 9.) Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

My internet access may be unpredictable for the rest of this week. I'll respond when I can. Sandbh (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Your trying argument

Elements with anomalous configurations (solid phase) according to 14CeTh; unknown past Lr {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/Sc-Y-La-Ac/sandbox|mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Cu,Mo,Tc,Ru,Rh,Pd,Ag,Os,Ir,Pt,Au,Eu,Yb,Th,Es,Fm,Md,No}} Trying...

(5) There are good grounds for considering [Xe]4fⁿ6s² an anomalous configuration. In the metallic state, the electron configuration of all but two of fourteen lanthanides from La to Lu is undeniably [Xe]4fⁿ5d¹6s² (n = 0–14), as one would expect from their trivalence. The exceptions are the divalent Eu and Yb with 4f⁷ and 4f¹⁴ respectively. (After all, you have explicitly advocated using condensed-phase electron configurations, not gas-phase ones, since the former are more relevant to chemistry.)

We also know that the first subshell of a given angular momentum is usually different in behaviour from the later ones. But if we look at 5f, which penetrates less into the nucleus and participates more (at least, in the first half of the series; in the second half relativistic effects help strengthen the opposite trend), we get more of those configurations. Th is anomalous no matter how one looks at it, but Ac, Pa, U, Np, Cm, and perhaps Bk show the configuration with 6d in the gas phase. Furthermore, 6d is contributing in the metallic bonding in all the actinides from Ac to Cf in the condensed phase. You may get more than one 6d electron, but it's a bit difficult to speak of exact configurations at such high atomic number (there was, as recently as 2006, still a bit of a dispute on whether Pa was 5f¹6d² or 5f²6d¹); the main point is that 6d is involved in the early actinides like 5d was in the lanthanides, and even to a greater extent. Now we count: out of the 30 lanthanides and actinides, 23 of them have a d-electron in their condensed-phase configuration against 7 which don't (Eu, Yb, Es, Fm, Md, No, Lr). This is certainly more lopsided than the 16-14 split in 3d–5d. I think it's convincing evidence that when it comes to chemistry, we really do to a first approximation have one column of the d-block filled, the rest of the f-block intervening, and then the other nine columns of the d-block. Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

What's your source for the condensed phase configs of the lanthanides and actinides? Sandbh (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is from The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (p. 1627), which contrasts the 5fⁿ6d¹7s² configurations of the trivalent actinide metals with the 5fⁿ⁺¹7s² configurations of the divalent ones, noting that what is at stake here is the 5f→6d promotion energy. It is stated there to be true for the lanthanides as well. Page 1586 (for example) specifically confirms that the condensed-phase configuration for Es is 5f¹¹7s², showing the latter. Cf is a strange case; it is near the borderline (like Sm) and you can thus get thin films of it to remain in the metastable divalent state.

You can see a graph of the f→d promotion energies for the f-block elements here. The graph is admittedly not indicative for the elements Th, Pa, U, Np, and Pu where the 5f electrons are delocalised anyway as if they were transition metals, but those are the only exceptions I am aware of (Th doesn't even have any 5f electrons). If you compare atomic volumes (again, ignoring Th–Pu which pretend to be transition metals), you see that the lanthanides are all about the same (trivalent) except Eu and Yb; then the actinides Ac and Am–Cf (and probably Lr) are with them, but Es (and probably Fm–No, but we don't know yet) are with Eu and Yb. The majority are trivalent metals (admittedly Ce is complicated; at room temperature the 4f electron is localised, but you can persuade it to leave under low temperatures or high pressures), showing that one f-electron has been promoted to the d-subshell. Thus, in the condensed phase, we have 19 trivalent metals (showing fⁿds²), 6 divalent metals (showing fⁿ⁺¹s²), and 5 that are neither (Th, Pa, U, Np, and Pu). That's a clear, almost 2/3 majority that have the d-electron. Now, while I don't think Sc/Y/Lu/Lr is completely wrong (and I could probably accept it, since it has sound physical reasons), I daresay Sc/Y/La/Ac may well be better at showing what is actually going on with the chemistry of these elements. Double sharp (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked up the paper mentioned at p. 1627 (Johansson and Rosengren 1975) and they confirm that in the solid phase most of the Ln have a 4fⁿ5d¹6s² config; Eu and Yb are the only exceptions. You should be able to see the front page of their article here. This now makes me think that Sc/Y/La/Ac appears to be more acceptable. Sandbh (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

What are the solid state configurations, as you understand them, for the An (aside from Es which you've mentioned above)? Sandbh (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, Ac is [Rn]6d¹7s² and Th is [Rn]6d²7s² (no significant 5f contribution, as shown by the boiling points). I haven't found explicit statements about Pa, U, Np, and Pu, because the complex interactions between the 5f and 6d levels makes it difficult to speak of exact configurations here and there seem to be multiple contributing configurations (kind of like the problem you get with some Ce compounds, if I understand correctly); but I imagine the main point is that there is undoubtedly 6d involvement here. Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf all have [Rn]5fⁿ6d¹7s²; Es, Fm, Md, and No all have [Rn]5fⁿ⁺¹7s²; and Lr has [Rn]5f¹⁴7s²7p¹. So it is less clear than in the lanthanides because 5f is no longer always a core level, but I think the main point about 6d starting to contribute before 5f does stands. Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

After consulting Prof Google, this article (if I read the graph right) gives the following f electron counts: Ac 0; Th 0.4; Pa 1.33; U 2.5–3.2; Np 4; Pu 5; Am 6; Cm 7. For thorium, f electron participation in its crystalline structure is shown in this paper. The implication of all this is that it supports the older contention that the ideal configuration of the f-block is [Noble Gas](n–2)f^x–1(n–1)d1ns² rather than Jensen's contention (in his 1982 paper re the positions of La and Lu) of [Noble Gas](n–2)f^xns². In other words, as you said, "we really do to a first approximation have one column of the d-block filled, the rest of the f-block intervening [starting with Ce and Th], and then the other nine columns of the d-block." [!] I'm going to sleep on this and review it to see that I haven't made any mistakes. Sandbh (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm outdated with regard to Th again. I really should relook at some of those radioactives if I want to keep arguing like this. But I seem to have been right on the money about Th, Pa, and U being complicated, although it doesn't apparently hold as far as Np and Pu (so the f-electrons become inactive earlier in the bulk metal than in compounds, where they still are active as far as Am and perhaps Cm).

Taking the fⁿd¹s² configurations as the theoretical ideal then, by my count, matches 13 of the 15 lanthanides (exceptions: Eu, Yb) and 7 of the 15 actinides (exceptions: Th, Pa, U; Es, Fm, Md, No, Lr), for a total of 20 out of 30. Taking the fⁿ⁺¹s² configurations instead matches 2 out of the 15 lanthanides (Eu and Yb) and 4 out of the 15 actinides (Es, Fm, Md, and No), for a total of 6 out of 30. (And I'm being mean to my favoured Sc-Y-La-Ac option, by counting Th, Pa, and U, even though they have too many d-electrons instead of the none at all that Sc-Y-Lu-Lr would presuppose!) Total score: Sc-Y-La-Ac 67%, Sc-Y-Lu-Lr 20%. I think the answer is clear, even if it doesn't look as neat. Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Some of these papers (even from 2009) on solid-state metals incidentally still consider Ac to not be an actinide (and La to not be a lanthanide), because of a complete lack of f-orbital involvement. As Greenwood and Earnshaw say, "the sudden contraction and reduction in energy of the 4f orbitals [happens only] immediately after La", and the same looks like it is true for Ac as well. When creating a periodic table, you're supposed to start a block when a subshell begins to be filled, and you end it when it is filled. In a Sc-Y-La-Ac table, you start the d-block in La, place it on hold as the d-electron remains, begin the f-block at Ce, and end it at Lu; then we resume filling the d-block till Hg. In a Sc-Y-Lu-Lr table, you start the f-block at La when there are no f-electrons and end it at Yb when the f-shell is not yet full and still chemically active. Isn't the former better? Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 100% agree. I think you're being too hard on Th, Pa, and U. I'd count them for at least 0.4, 0.33 and 0.85 of an f electron, which would bring the total up to 8.58 of the An, or 21.58 out of 30 = near enough to 72%. The case for Sc-Y-La-Ac now appears to be a winner. Sandbh (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I've sent a short e-mail to Eric Scerri asking him what he thinks about the Ln and An condensed phase electron configuration argument. Sandbh (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sandbh! I look forward to seeing his reply. You are always a wonderful breath of fresh air with your great ability to prove a point cogently and your astonishing knowledge of the relevant literature. I feel quite honoured to have succeeded in changing your mind in even one issue! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm very glad I could help to resolve—fingers crossed, touch wood—this long-standing, thorny and irritating ( in a good way) aspect of the periodic table. The exchange of ideas was a pleasure. Sandbh (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Electron configurations

What follows is from Inorganic chemistry (2014, 6th ed.) by Weller, Overton, Rourke and Armstrong (pp. 625–626, 629). Anything in square brackets, as aside from electron configurations, has been added by me.

[1] "The lanthanoids are electropositive metals that behave in many respects like Group 2 elements, as ionisation of the 6s² and 5d¹ electrons give rise to a stable cation (Ln³⁺)…"

[2] "The 4f orbitals make very little contribution to bonding; their radial distribution functions lie within the 6s and 5d orbitals from which electrons are easily removed to form the 3+ ion..."

[3] "Electron configurations of lanthanoids atoms [traditional gas phase] and corresponding Ln³⁺ ions [all of the form [Xe]4fⁿ, where n= 0 –14] are given in Table 23.3."

[4] "All Ln³⁺ ions have the configuration [Xe]4fⁿ6s² except Ce, Gd, and Lu, where a 5d orbital is singly occupied…"

[5] "Once the two valence 6s electrons and one further electron (from either the 4f or 5d orbital) have been removed, the remaining 4f electrons are held tightly by the nucleus and do not extend beyond the xenon-like core."

They start off OK but then seem to mix ideas.

[1] refers only to the ionisation of s or d electrons. Good.

[2] seems to confirm this impression. Fine.

[3] is confusing as (in 11 cases) the f electron counts given in Table 23.3 for each of the Ln and Ln³⁺ forms show a reduction of one i.e. an f electron has supposedly been ionised, contrary to what was said in [1].

[4] is wrong as all the Ln3+ ions shown in Table 23.3 have the configuration Xe4fn6s2, with no exceptions. Presumably this sentence is instead referring to Ln atoms.

[5], with its reference to removing an f electron, contradicts [1].

Part credit to the authors as it seems to be quite hard to find decent explanations as to why the Ln all like +3, and they've made a go of it. Looking at Ln gas phase configurations you'd in fact wonder why their most stable state wasn't simply +2, via losing their two 6s2 electrons. Sandbh (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, the problem has always been whether to treat 4f as being deeply stuck in the core (in which case the wrong +2 prediction is made) or otherwise (in which case you wonder why the lanthanides don't act like the actinides, in which you get transition-metal behaviour due to the larger extent of 5f that now participants actively in covalent bonding). (BTW, for the Ln³⁺ ions I think you mean [Xe]4fⁿ as the configuration, with n increasing smoothly from 0 at La to 14 at Lu.)

No, it is actually printed as [Xe]4fⁿ6s². Sandbh (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

An impressive typo, then! Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I emailed Overton, who is over here now, about the whole Ln config questions, but they're out of office. Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the bravest attempt I've ever seen at dealing with this problem, looking at just what is going on inside the [Xe]4fⁿ core, and arguing that 4f is preferentially removed over 5s and 5p as long as the nuclear charge is not too high (but it doesn't really answer the question of why it can be removed at all). However, it also admits that "in the case of the lanthanides, the internal structure of the core is very intricate and it is possible that another and better explanation may be found!" Essentially, their argument is that if you look at Sm (for example), it is relatively easy to get it to form Sm²⁺ (losing the two 6s electrons); now losing the two 6s electrons does not affect the effective nuclear charge on the inner 4f electrons so much, so you can lose one; but once you lose one, the effective nuclear charge on the remaining ones is increased so much that further ionisation just doesn't happen. The obvious question that is neatly sidestepped is that it is rather hard to believe that a single 4f electron could appreciably shield the other 4f electrons to such an extent.

I would personally explain it like this: in the solid phase, the 4f→5d promotion energy is low enough that one of the 4f electrons is promoted to 5d, which is well outside the core and can thus participate (even for Eu and Yb). If you look at lattice energies (similar to how you explain why group 2 don't show the +1 oxidation state), you will see that promoting one electron is always worth it, but promoting an extra one is almost always not (the major exception is Ce which, coming at the beginning of the lanthanide series, has a low enough effective nuclear charge to allow it with strong oxidising agents). This, I think, is supported by the fact that the trend line 3rd ionisation energy in the lanthanides follows their −ΔH_atom (i.e. [Xe]4fⁿ⁺¹6s²→4fⁿ5d¹6s²) very closely indeed. Double sharp (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Reserved for Sandbh response Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Landolt-Börnstein chemistry reference volumes on the electronic structure of solids (1989, 1994)
For the Ln, they distinguish between the electron configurations, and the spectroscopic ground states:

For Ln they give:

La	Ce	Pr	Nd	Pm	Sm	Eu	Gd	Tb	Dy	Ho	Er	Tm	Yb	Lu
4f0(5d6)3	4f1(5d6)3	4f2(5d6)3	4f3(5d6)3	–	4f5(5d6)3	4f7(5d6)2	4f7(5d6)3	4f8(5d6)2	4f9(5d6)2	4f10(5d6)2	4f11(5d6)2	4f12(5d6)2	4f14(5d6)2	4f14(5d6)3
1S0	2F5/2	3H4	etc

For An they give

Ac	Th	Pa	U	Np	Pu	Am	Cm	Bk	Cf	Es
5f0(6d7s)3	5f0(6d7s)4	5f2–δ(6d7s)3+δ ‡	5f3–δ(6d7s)3+δ ‡	5f4–δ(6d7s)3+δ ‡	5f5–δ(6d7s)3+δ ‡	5f6(6d7s)3 #	5f7 (6d7s)3 #	5f8(6d7s)3 #	5f9(6d7s)3 or 5f10(6d7s)2	5f11(6d7s)2

‡ = delocalized     # = localized     δ = delta

Very cool. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Physical vs chemical properties

I must be frank about one thing regarding these arguments: they work much better for chemical properties. When I look at those alone, it is very clear to my mind that lanthanum is the right choice; when I look at physical properties as well, things look somewhat less certain. I am nevertheless still on the side of La because the placement of H and He makes me think that today's periodic table is primarliy based on chemical properties. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I think I've said before that whether or not you side -La-Ac or -Lu-Lr depends almost entirely on whether you think group 3 is a main group or a transition group. Now, if you look at chemistry alone, where the chemically active electrons in Sc, Y, and the lanthanides are gone leaving an inert [Ar], [Kr], or [Xe]4fⁿ (n = 0–14) core, it is certainly a main group. But if you look at the chemistry of the actinides from Th to Am inclusive, you can no longer think of them as degenerate members of the d-block like you can for the lanthanides, and they deserve to be counted as transition elements. Finally, if you look at physics, where the d-electron is still there, group 3 really does show up as a transition group, with the d-like conduction bands of Sc, Y, and Lu, and the fact that Lu falls on a different trend line to the earlier lanthanides when you plot relativistic effects.

I think I can live with Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, then, looking holistically. If I was looking primarily at chemistry, there's a good reason for Sc-Y-La-Ac. But if we are trying to cover everything – Sc-Y-Lu-Lr doesn't really hurt the way you look at and cover lanthanide chemistry, whereas Be-Mg-Zn-Cd-Hg feels very forced when it goes from Mg (a good metal) to Zn, Cd, and Hg (which are pretty poor, to use that old imprecise term).

I still stand completely by my (1) and (2), though. The triad argument is lame and the atomic-number-sequence argument sets up a straw man. But Sc-Y-Lu-Lr does seem to be a good choice. (Nevertheless, there is no ideal periodic table for all purposes, so I may very well use Sc-Y-La-Ac to illustrate points where only chemistry is at issue.) Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S. My acceptance of Sc-Y-Lu-Lr as a sensible option (not stupid, like another proposal I have seen to move hydrogen to group 14) does not, incidentally, mean that I stopped supporting Sc-Y-La-Ac. I do support it. It's just that I think that neither is entirely misguided, and I support Sc-Y-La-Ac not because it is the only right option, but because it gives the right prediction more often. Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Lawrencium

Are you aware of any decent evidence substantiating a p electron for Lr in the condensed phase? None of the experimental evidence (enthalpy of vaporisation, and adsorption; attempts to obtain Lr⁺¹) appears to support this. Maybe it has a p electron in the gaseous phase, which might explain its low IE, but the experimental evidence seems to be more consistent with a d electron in the condensed phase, and it being analogous to lutetium. I also stumbled on this paper which suggests Lr acts chemically as a late actinide (instead of a thallium analogue, which I'd be more expecting if metallic Lr had a p electron). Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried to summarise nearly everything I could find about the matter in the lawrencium article. Calculations are fairly restricted to the gaseous phase, in which we indeed have a [Rn]5f¹⁴7s²7p¹ configuration, but I would be hesitant to conclude this for the condensed phase. As for the IE, I would note that Lu also has a very low IE compared to the previous lanthanides.

Silva in The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (p. 1644) notes that Lr's enthalpy of sublimation should be similar to that of Lu and predicts formation of a trivalent metal with a volume similar to Lu. This weakly suggests condensed-phase [Rn]5f¹⁴6d¹7s² to me, given the comparison with Lu. Lr is a period further down (and is only about the same size as Lu because the late actinide contraction is larger than the lanthanide contraction thanks to relativity), and since p-orbitals are less affected by relativistic effects a hypothetical s²p-in-condensed-phase-Lr should be larger than Lu.

There were earlier experiments that tried to exploit predictions that the estimated sublimation energy for s²d-Lr should be much higher than that for s²p-Lr. It was found that Lr was not a very volatile element, which seems to support [Rn]5f¹⁴6d¹7s².

I hope this helps, because I'm really not sure here. Should I make some changes to substantially de-accent the sureness of the s²p configuration? (Reminds me of when Rf was thought to be s²p², which didn't pan out.) Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. One very helpful assertion for my point incidentally from that paper is that the divalent lanthanide ions Ln²⁺ are mostly [Xe]4fⁿ5d¹, and that Lr is calculated to be just the same in forming [Rn]6d¹! And it also explicitly notes that all the Ln and An belong to group 3! ^_^ (Oh, and it also lists some -Lu-Lr and -La-Ac adherents, including Wikipedia on the former. Wanna side -La-Ac with such important organisations as the RSC and the ACS?) Forgive me for my enthusiasm; I'm just really amazed that they actually read our stuff. (Maybe they read my rewrite of the Lr article?!?) It seems in any case that in most chemically relevant compounds (i.e. Lr^III, not Lr^{something else}), Lr acts just like a lanthanide with significantly more d-involvement than p-involvement. Double sharp (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S. Please forgive my confused rambling and fangirling while not actually answering your question. I am painfully aware of this. I would plead that there seem to not yet be reliable sources giving answers. (Maybe we should write to the guy who wrote the paper on modelling the early actinides in the condensed phase to do Lr taking 5f, 6d, 7s, and 7p into account!) Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This is all very helpful. Here are the key points, as I conservatively understand them:

1. Lawrencium has an idealized ground state electron configuration of [Rn] 5f¹⁴6d¹7s².
2. A single (gaseous) atom of lawrencium is expected to have a ground state electron configuration, when relativistic effects are take into account, of [Rn] 5f¹⁴7s²7p¹.
3. On this basis, condensed lawrencium is thought to be a relatively volatile metal (due to weak bonding conferred by its p electron) and to behave chemically like thallium.
4. Evidence published to date has found to the contrary.
5. Lawrencium has a relatively low volatility, comparable to that of lutetium, and appears to behave chemically like a late actinide, or trivalent lanthanide.
6. Even if condensed lawrencium was found to have a p electron in its valence shell simple chemical modelling studies suggest it (Lr) will still behave much like lutetium.

How does that look? Sandbh (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks right. BTW, I think that means the Lr article has it a little backwards. I'll fix it. Double sharp (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I may have partly jumped the gun gazumped you on this ^_^ Sandbh (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Silva (the source) is confusing here, as he says that s²d has a higher sublimation energy but is expected to be more(?!?) volatile. I'm more inclined to believe the former, since group 13 tends to have much weaker metallic bonding than group 3, and he gives quantitative values for sublimation energy. Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I reckon he meant to say "less" volatile. Eichler and Hübener, here, specifically say Lr(p) would have a higher volatility. BTW do you have access to Haire? Sandbh (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do: I'm reading it now. Double sharp (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I see he confirms the differences in gas phase/condensed phase electronic configurations for the An, apart from Lr where he gives d or p? (p. 65). At p. 66 he says it is very likely that the enthalpy of sublimation of Lr will be in line with that of Cm, depending on which electron configuration is accepted for Lr (i.e. one of the two he lists at p. 65.) Since Cm has a d electron this is nigh on tantamount to saying Lr would have one too. Sandbh (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

From what I gather, the argument against [Rn]5f¹⁴7s²7p¹ in the condensed phase is that this would result in a monovalent metal with only the p-electron ionised, like Tl, which is not likely to happen. So, this seems to support that, like Cr, Lr has an anomalous configuration in the gas phase that stops being anomalous in the condensed phase. I think we can safely record it as "Lr: condensed, [Rn]5f¹⁴6d¹7s²; gaseous, [Rn]5f¹⁴7s²7p¹". [Similarly, the calculated values for Rf and Db provided suggest that they are tetravalent and pentavalent metals respectively, continuing to fill the 6d shell.] Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Pardon my intruding into this discussion, but let me ask a question in hopes that I might learn something. Sandbh says above "A single (gaseous) atom of lawrencium ..." Is "gaseous" in parens to indicate that a single atom of anything can only be considered gaseous? YBG (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, single atoms or molecules cannot be anything else but gaseous. When something is liquid or solid it is so because of intermolecular forces between its constituent molecules: when there's only one molecule around, these are obviously absent and so it must be a gas. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! YBG (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I add that ground state electron configuration, like the ones we have in our element info boxes, is a property ordinarily informed by the gas phase of these atoms. Once I was reminded of this (by Eric Scerri or Double sharp) it got me going again on looking closer at the Sc-Y- question since our current choice of Sc-Y-Lu-Lr turned on Ln and An electron configurations in their gas phases. Sandbh (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, even with gas-phase configurations it is not entirely clear. In the condensed phase all four of La, Ac, Lu, and Lr have a 5d or 6d differentiating electron; it's only in the gas phase that Lr becomes 7p. The main reason to look at condensed-phase configurations is rather that they are more representative of the element in a chemical environment, and that most of the lanthanides and actinides show an fⁿd¹s² configuration that accords with Sc-Y-La and not Sc-Y-Lu. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked up the paper where they tried to determine if Lr was highly volatile by adsorbing it onto quartz or Pt. Of course we know this experiment found no such thing. The interesting thing is that in the last paragraph they speculate as follows:

These experiments, however, do not allow us to exclude the existence of Lr(p). It is still possible that in the presence of the column surface because of the higher adsorption enthalpy of Lr(d) with respect to Lr(p), the [Rn]5f¹⁴7s²7p_1/2 configuration promotes to [Rn]5f¹⁴6d7s² which is predicted to be only about 93 kJ/mol higher in energy [25].

What they say is consistent with what we have been discussing i.e. Lr(p) gaseous; Lr(d) solid. It's small beer but I missed it the first time. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Very cool! So I think we can now safely say "in the condensed phase, Lr is no longer anomalous and behaves like its lighter congener Lu as the last actinide". Double sharp (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The Lanthanum Manifesto

Can be found here now. Cut drastically to only the two main points: condensed-phase electron configurations (clearly advocating Sc-Y-La-Ac) and chemical trends down the table (suggestive of Sc-Y-La-Ac). Double sharp (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a mistake in your manifesto where you refer to Yb having a d electron in the condensed phase. Yb is 4f146s2 in the condensed phase. This knocks out the Yb --> Lu differentiating argument. Sandbh (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I'll have to rewrite that bit. I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking there. Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: Your triad argument is astute. Sandbh (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

PS2: Calling Sc-Y-La-Ac ugly seems unwarranted. The universe would be boring if it was uniformly symmetrical. "Nature's laws are beautiful because they strike a compromise between boring symmetry and confusing asymmetry, physicists say." See here. Sandbh (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, how sure is the [Xe]4f¹⁴6s² condensed-phase configuration for Yb? Is there any mixing with [Xe]4f¹³5d¹6s². Greenwood and Earnshaw write "With the exception of Yb their [the lanthanides'] reactivity apparently depends on size so that Eu which has the largest metal radius is much the most reactive." This seems to fit what actually happens reasonably well: the order of corrosion that I am aware of is certainly Eu, La, Ce, Pr, and Nd (and after that would surely be Pm if not for the fact that I can't get it, and Sm if I could wait for a year or two – I'm told it does corrode eventually). Is it possible that Yb is kind of like Ce in only "half-heartedly" donating the last electron, which would explain why it falls off the trend? (It would make sense since Ce is denser than it "should be" looking at the trend line.) Double sharp (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes!! Yb intermetallic compounds show trivalent Yb!! There is a variable valency of the Yb metal that is generally 2 in the Yb-rich region and 3 in the Yb-poor region. Furthermore, like Ce but unlike Eu, variable valency is a thing for Yb (after all, Yb³⁺ is the hole analogue of Ce³⁺; both thus exist, but both tend to mix it with the valence one lower or one higher). Double sharp (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you look here you will read on p.129: "In cerium and ytterbium, the same peculiarity related to their electronic configuration exists. In cerium, Ce³⁺ is more stable than Ce⁴⁺. The number of 4f electrons remains always close to unity even in the absence of magnetic ordering and with the formation of heavy fermions. In ytterbium, the number of holes in the 4f sub shell is also close to unity. The valence change is larger and the ytterbium configuration is close to Yb³⁺ 4f¹³. Variation of the pressure and the atomic surroundings induces changes in the character of the 4f electrons of these two elements." I knew it!! (Pardon the excited fangirling and exclamation marks.) This is also possible for Eu, but that is more difficult to accomplish (it's easier to do in intermetallic compounds and there is no appreciable mixed-valency in the metallic state at standard conditions, unlike Ce and Yb). Thus I'd write for these two elements (the penultimate rare-earth flanks) for their electron configurations in the solid phase: Ce, [Xe]4f¹5d¹6s² (extent of 4f delocalisation variable); Yb, [Xe]4f¹⁴6s² with some [Xe]4f¹³5d¹6s² participation (I might be daring and write [Xe]4f^~13½5d^~½6s².) Thus Lu does have "half a 4f" differentiating electron over Yb and in that sense is more a member of the f-block than the d-block. Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(You are excused) since this is: Extraordinary! Superb! Fascinating! To think that Yb could act according to its idealised configuration of f¹³! The "half an 4f differentiating electron over Yb" argument is delightful. Bravo Double sharp! Sandbh (talk) 04:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Our IUPAC submission

Double sharp, would you work with me (our RL obligations permitting) on a submission to Eric Scerri's IUPAC task group? We could develop the draft in a dedicated sandbox. Sandbh (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it would be a problem. After all, though I might have started this, you have certainly contributed a great deal in propping up the -La-Ac case to the current level – maybe even more than I have. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. I believe we have most of the arguments for and against La-Ac v Lu-Lr, so hope it will largely be matter of compiling and tidying all of these, working out what gaps we have, filling these in, and then formatting the thing according to IUPAC submission requirements. To think I was once in the Lu-Lr camp, switched to La-Ac, went back to Lu-Lr, and have finally arrived back at La-Ac. None of where we have arrived would've been possible with out our exchange of ideas. A real example of 1+1=3. Sandbh (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Subpage launched; see here. Sandbh (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Requiem (Mozart), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ludwig Berger. 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) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Seaborgium

Have you seen a declaration by either team that they won't name the newly created element 106 in the seventies? I think I've seen both one from Ghiorso and one from Ogannessian, but now I can't find either.--R8R (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved. By the way, maybe you'll be interested in this story from the 1970s telling about the discovery of a new element, element 106: http://n-t.ru/ri/ps/pb106.htm -- just run Google Translate.--R8R (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Extremely interesting! Sorry for not getting back to you – I had hoped to when I found a source, but you seem to have beaten me to it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you get a notification I had mentioned you in my sandbox?

I transferred some stuff from my talk page to my sandbox that had other people's signatures attached. I got rid of people's signatures since I wondered if that might not cause them to be notified that I had "mentioned" them in my sandbox. Did you get one such notification? I might have overlooked one of yours. Basemetal 15:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, but I saw your recent contributions and was interested by one of the old conversations found there (the one about double accidentals in Bach). Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Cancelling a sharp with a flat sign and vice versa?

This was getting too long so I divided it into subsections. I hope that's ok. Basemetal 14:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Cancelling a sharp with a flat and vice versa

Have you encountered by any chance in any of the autographs of the 48 any place where a flat belonging to a key signature is cancelled not with a natural but with a sharp sign or conversely a place where a sharp belonging to a key signature is cancelled not with a natural but with a flat sign? Basemetal 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not in the 48 that I know of, but this sort of cancellation (a flat cancelling an earlier sharp to a natural) appears in BWV 1021 from 1732 (albeit in figured bass). Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but in figured basses that used to be common, e.g. the raised 3rd was always notated with a sharp sign, no matter what the signature of the key was, until some pedants in Germany decided that they would use naturals instead if the note was flat in the signature. And that then spread from Germany to other fools. Of course the idea is the same, but I've been chasing for years for examples of another (and in my opinion more logical) convention for notating accidentals in scores that might have existed in the 17th and 18th c. The results have been mixed so far. Yet that convention was truly more logical and I can defend that statement. Basemetal 15:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As a pianist and singer, instead of as a theorist, I would disagree on that convention being more logical. I would prefer D-sharp to always look like a D affected by a sharp (either next to it or in the key signature), instead of its appearance changing depending on whether we are in E major (in which case we see a natural), C major (in which case we see a sharp), or A-flat major (in which case we see a double-sharp). I'm not saying the current convention is more logical, but I do think it is just as logical, though it prioritises absolute pitch over relative functions. Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let's not argue. To some extent it depends on what one is already used to and since you're such a voracious score reader you may feel that the convention you're so used to is more natural. I'll just note a triviality namely that to interpret a note without an accidental you obviously already need to take the signature into account, since that is what a signature is for to begin with, so I don't think it would be such a big jump to apply the same sort of mental mechanism to notes with accidentals. Also you may argue that in that other convention there is no way to use cautionary accidentals, but in fact you can systematically use the natural sign as a cautionary accidental if you need one (since in that other convention the natural sign means the note is to be played or sung with exactly the same accidental it has at the signature) and it would work about the same once you get used to it. Basemetal 16:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'd like it more as a proposal if the absolute accidentals in the key signature didn't look exactly the same as the relative accidentals in the musical text. Unimaginatively imagining up- and down-arrows for absolute accidentals does make me more sympathetic to the idea. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The other problem I have with your proposed convention is that it seems to imply that accidentals in the key signature must be interpreted absolutely while those in the actual musical text must be interpreted relatively, despite them looking exactly the same. I think this is too confusing. I appreciate that the point I raised above is weaker, since different clefs already mean that notes do not always look the same at first glance (for example, E4 is on the bottom line on the treble staff but on the fourth line on the alto staff). The one case I think your proposal would be a great bonus is in sight-transposition. Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the "algorithm" for sight transposition with signature and clef (change clef, change signature, done) would be a piece of cake (well, ok) whereas it gives me a headache just to think of the "algorithm" one has to use now. The mere difference in the simplicity of the "algorithms" I think already says a lot. Basemetal 16:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sight transposition and clefs I

• So you've practiced clefs and transposition with (change of) signature and clef (I mean imagining a new clef and signature). That tells me you're probably not from North America because Jerome Kohl told me it was not very common for that to be seriously studied there. (Although he told me he personally did by himself). I know a guy who went to Juilliard and who told me they did practice it some there, but never actually practiced all seven clefs very seriously! How useful! I'm curious, did you guys use "3rd line F clef" or "5th line C clef"? Basemetal 16:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I used 3rd line F clef. Mind you, there are no common instruments in G, so that particular one has gotten quite rusty since the "serious" practice. Double sharp (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have never personally even seen a solfeggio using 5th line C clef even though I'd much prefer that. When the exercise is entirely in 3rd line F clef throughout its not so bad but in exercises full of clef changes I had a tendency to confuse 3rd line F clef and 4th line F clef. How much trouble that gives also depends on how difficult the music is and how good you are in the first place of course, but overall 5th line C clef is less "confusable" (to coin a word), in my opinion at least. Basemetal 13:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I do find it easier to distinguish between different positionings of the C-clef than of any other clef, though this is perhaps only because it is the only one of the three main clefs that is still moveable. A lot of it also depends on just how much stuff you get to read in each clef. I am certainly very fluent in the four modern clefs (treble, alto, tenor, and bass), as well as the old soprano clef, since that is still used in many old scores. (I sometimes do in fact anachronistically use the C-clefs for vocal music or counterpoint exercises just to practice this, for example using the soprano clef as a standard "one-size-fits-all" clef the way normal people would use the treble clef.) But my tastes in music tend not to extend very much before J. S. Bach, and so I have never gotten much practice with the mezzo-soprano and baritone clefs outside those exercises. I can still read the mezzo-soprano clef reasonably well because of modern horns in F, but since there are no common modern instruments in G, the baritone clef is very rusty for me today. (And given how the B-flat clarinet seems to be increasingly the default instrument in modern music, I am pretty confident that the soprano clef would also be rusty for me if not for its prominent past use in vocal music.) Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No alto flute in the scores you read? Basemetal 14:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not so common an instrument. Also, if it is used, we are probably looking at a score for a large orchestra, and there may be cue lines for other instruments in case it is not available (e.g. in Holst's Planets). It doesn't provide anywhere near enough practice for me. Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed the clefs used in harmony exercises are not equidistant. The clefs used for the tenor and the alto are closer to each other than those used for the bass and the tenor and those used for the alto and the soprano. And that goes beyond harmony exercises: the old tenor viola (or tenor violin, tuned like a violin but one octave down) used to be written in tenor clef, the (alto) viola used to be written in alto clef (and still is): those two clefs are a 3rd apart, while the alto clef and the treble clef used for the violin are a 7th a part even though the distance between the instruments is about the same. In some places (France?) the usual clef for the violin even used to be the 1st line G clef, a 9th higher than the alto clef. Are these just some of those irrational kinks you often find in music notation or is there some real justification here for a change? Basemetal 10:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

These "standard" distances were already noticed in the 1760s; see chiavette. Although I don't remember seeing anything since the 1760s using anything other than chiavi naturali (soprano-alto-tenor-bass) for four-part polyphony exercises, so this is probably another case of theorists' anachronism (for a particularly egregious example, see Gustav Schilling's Musikalische Dynamik, published in 1843, yet still listing the minuet, the forlane, and the folie d'espagne among modern dance forms). Double sharp (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What was done when the work was say for 6 distinct voices (soprano, mezzo, contralto, tenor, baritone, bass)? Was a 6 clefs system used? Otherwise (i.e. if not) where would the names "mezzo clef" and "baritone clef" (never used in French) come from? Could they be entirely arbitrary and conventional, having never really been used for the mezzo and baritone voice? Incidentally when did those middle voices begin to be distinguished from the other four and given their own names? 15th century? 16th century? 17th century? 18th century? Basemetal 13:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually know about the usage before the common practice period, which is not conducive to answering this question because you will not find the mezzo-soprano and baritone clefs before then. Then again, given the routineness of clef transposition (chiavette) so that you could mentally reimagine a work for a lower or higher vocal ensemble, I would not be surprised at all if these names are indeed just arbitrary. In the Classical era (my favourite time period for anachronism), and the Baroque era, I get the impression that mezzos and baritones are not really distinguished from sopranos and basses respectively. For example Mozart writes Papageno in the bass clef (except when he blows his pipes in treble clef), even though he very rarely goes below the middle line (and, actually, his part fits the tenor clef better). Something that also should be noted is that the modern treble clef actually fits the soprano voice better than the soprano clef does. With a centre on G4, and one ledger line taking you to G5 at the top and G3 at the bottom, it actually fits altos and countertenors surprisingly well. You would've thought that someone would have realised this, especially since Mozart seems to take every opportunity to fly high above the soprano staff, culminating in five-ledger-line hell in KV 316. So the distinction of the mezzo and baritone voices must have been later than all the possibilities you suggest, certainly by the 19th century (Berlioz explicitly asks for mezzos and baritones in Les nuits d'été of 1843). Even then it is blurry: Musorgsky calls Marfa in Khovanshchina a contralto, but her tessitura seems to climb from the true contralto it is in the first acts to a strong mezzo-soprano (usually with down-stemmed notes in the treble staff) in the final immolation scene, complete with a sweet and soft G5 (with a fermata!). Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sight transposition and clefs II

• Look what I've found! Apparently an American organist trying to convince other Americans to use clef transposition. Alleluia! It would make Jerome Kohl very happy (not to mention this, presumably Czech, family managing to keep a hacek (caron) in America). I've just browsed through it but one thing I already disagree with is his advice to learn fixed Do. For the following reasons: First of all fixed Do is a form of child abuse. (I was raised on fixed Do!) Second, fixed Do doesn't force you to take into account the signature and accidentals when naming the note since you sing D double sharp, D sharp, D natural, D flat and D double flat on the same syllable "re". If pitch is all that matters then you might as well use movable Do or even vocalize on la, la, la. But finally, and probably the most important, you don't even need to sing and get hoarse to learn sight transposition, you can do it on an instrument and it's as good or even better. Basemetal 10:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC) PS: Turns out this document actually recommends movable-do too. It's just that the author doesn't realize it because he doesn't seem to know the difference between fixed-do and movable-do. It's obvious from this (section 4), elsewhere on his site, that what he describes as fixed-do is actually movable-do. His mentioning the Do-Re-Mi song in this context is also a sure giveaway, as the song obviously refers to movable-do: not only is the song in B♭ major (a fixed-do practitioner would sing B♭-C-D as si-do-re), but it uses the syllables "so" and "ti" which only movable-do does. Of course in the midst of all this confusion there's no hope of figuring out which flavor of movable-do he is actually recommending, but one thing is obvious, he is not recommending fixed-do. Basemetal 08:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yay!
  • I don't particularly mind singing for this. (Then again, I would be biased, wouldn't I?) But yes, I think fixed-do is a bad idea. Actually, I think moveable-do would be better for sight transposition. It's how I think. Consider the example from Fingal's Cave (p. 21 of the pdf). What I do is indeed to visualise the soprano clef and two-sharp key signature, but instead of mentally adjusting each accidental one-by-one, I also use the fact that the music is tonal. So, no matter what key it is in, I should sing the opening as so-mi-so-do-re-mi-mi-la-mi-mi-fa. Now if I start on F♯ (a minor third lower) instead of A, I've accomplished the transposition without thinking. Isn't that better? Sometimes (in cases like the hymn on p. 30) I might completely forget about doing the clef transposition and just think of scale degrees and chord functions, thus getting everything into the higher key without really thinking. (This is how I tend to handle old natural horn parts, BTW: when you see C and E together, you know that it must be the tonic and mediant of the key, whatever it actually is.)
  • Regarding moveable-do, since this is also apparently a controversy (see this), I strongly prefer that the tonic always be "do" no matter what the mode is. Thus, in C minor, the tonic is still "do", not "la". I know that that site argues that having the tonic be "la" is better to preserve the relationships between syllables like ti→do and fa→mi, but I feel that having the tonic be "la" does us a disservice, because it treats the subtonic (B♭) as more fundamental than the leading tone (B♮). That's not how it works in common-practice tonality, which simply does not work without leading tones in dominant chords. I would actually argue that the basic form of the minor scale is not the natural minor but the harmonic minor. The melodic minor then simply is a case of chromatic alteration of and to avoid the augmented second when its high expressivity is not desired; since this happens often, it signifies that chromaticism and the minor mode are closely related. (I suppose this means I find that a minor key is more related to its parallel major than its relative major. This may not be universal. What do you think?) Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. When I do want to sing notes without implying any harmonic functions as moveable-do solfège does, I tend to sing German note names instead of fixed-do. They fit in one syllable (at least, they should; why would someone write atonal music with double-sharps and double-flats?). Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Do you know what they call a Czech-American who's kept a caron in his surname? A "Hat Czech"! a! a! a! (That's LOL in archaic Spanish spelling ). Hysterically funny, isn't it? I've gotta tell Jerome Kohl this one! Oh, how I hate people who laugh at their own jokes! But to get back to do (movable or otherwise) I'm surprised that as a singer you don't mind wasting your voice on exercises that tend to come from instrumental music. In fact modern solfeggios (as opposed to the Italian solfeggios of the 18th c. that were specifically exercises for singers) such as those used in French and Belgian conservatories were considered so ill suited for singers that singers were exempted from the regular "solfège" classes and had their own special "solfège pour chanteurs". Even though I am not familiar at all with movable Do I wanted to know how it worked (I even imported chunks from the Solfège article to my sandbox to summarize it to myself) I did become aware of the religious divide between the "do as a tonic always" school and "do as a tonic for major, la as a tonic for minor, mi as a tonic for phrygian, etc." school. Jerome Kohl is also from your school of thought btw, but ultimately, as my grandmother used to say "what's easy is what you're used to". Both systems at least are logically consistent (which can't be said of fixed Do, even on its own proclaimed terms). I've met a few movable Do practitioners from Europe but I've never thought of asking them about that "Do always" and "Do for major, la for minor, etc." divide because I was not aware of it at the time. In many places in central Europe they call it the "Kodály method" even though Kodály never invented it. Do you know by any chance (if you know anything about the "Kodály method") if it is "Do always" or "Do not always"? I've once met a Croatian girl who did exactly what you do i.e. "movable Do" when it's not impractical (with the caveat that I never asked about the "Do always" vs the "Do not always" thing since as I said I had no idea about it at the time) and "German names" (modulo enharmony to avoid two syllable names) when it was. There's a funny story she told me that has nothing to do with movable Do but something with the German note names: she was an undergraduate majoring in physics at MIT in Cambridge, Mass. and she was in choir. At one rehearsal she was standing next to a little Chinese girl (little size-wise not age-wise, obviously, since she was also a student at MIT) and she heard her sing a B-flat when she should have sung a B-natural. They were singing the same part, soprano. So she (the Croatian girl) tells her "here you're supposed to sing an H not a B". The little girl says nothing but looks at my friend in a funny way. Next time around the little girl sings B-flat again. So again my friend says "you're supposed to sing an H not a B". So the girl looks at my friend with a piercing glance and says very slowly: "There is no such thing as an H". That really cracked my Croatian friend up because, one, that other girl had said nothing the first time and, two, she had kept looking at my Croatian friend the whole time as if she was dealing with a demented woman and my friend finally understood why that was only the second time around. Basemetal 14:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      • It's probably because I spend much more time as a pianist and composer than as a singer, despite having gotten some training as all of these; if it were the other way round, I would surely think like you'd expect me to. Also I don't really mind if it's not particularly well-suited; I rather enjoy seeing how perversely unidiomatic you can go before it actually becomes impossible (repeated octave leaps, anyone?). (Evidently I am rather an outlier here.)
      • I dunno about "what's easy is what you're used to" here. After all, I was taught with "do for major, la for minor, etc.", but never liked it or found it intuitive and kept accidentally singing "so" for the dominant of a minor scale instead of "mi", etc. Dunno about Kodály; our article says it uses scale degrees for tonal function, but what that implies depends on what you think "tonal function" entails.
      • And yes, your story amuses me very much, mostly because I've done exactly the same thing before and gotten reactions ranging from confusion to "there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-H". (I even do it in writing, because "gis" is easier to write in one motion than "g♯".) And I have also ended up calling B♭ "B" and getting "corrected". The perks of musical code-switching! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      • P.S. Do you have a link to where Jerome Kohl says this? Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        • (I assume you mean that he's for "Do only as a tonic" not about the "hat Czech" cause he didn't, it's my joke...) Yes I do because it was a conversation I had with him here, but I'll have to look for it which might take a little because I've conducted conversations with Jerome not only on his talk page but on other people's talk pages (such as Hyacinth and Antandrus). Basemetal 15:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Here it is Talk:Properties of musical modes#Regarding the transfert. Whew. I got lucky. I was kind of (as it turns out wrongly) recalling Jerome made that statement on some user talk page where I'd asked him some question. But it turns out that was off by a mile. It was on an article's talk page. So it's entirely, wholly, completely and totally by accident (I'm one lucky dog, am I not!) I stumbled on this talk page from an article since cancelled and made a redirect where Jerome says what I said he said. Whew. Now you can be friends. Basemetal 16:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Was that what you wanted? (The use of "transfert" was a joke) Basemetal 05:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Yup! I see we agree that "do" should always mean . BTW, does anyone else think (like I said above) that the harmonic minor is the basic form of the minor scale as it is used in common-practice tonality? Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
          • BTW, I find it hilarious that this site ("Write Like Mozart") recommends that you avoid augmented seconds to achieve that goal. This is rather obviously not true... Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
            • BTW, does anyone else think (like I said above) that the harmonic minor is the basic form of the minor scale as it is used in common-practice tonality? I for one and 80 million French speakers. I wasn't taught anything other than that. Take a look if you've got a chance (maybe it's already at Archive) at the old theory by Chailley & Challan or at the (relatively) new book by Claude Abromont (around 2000). How many V-i cadences you've seen in common-practice minor where vii wasn't raised to vii♯? French terminology is as follows: the harmonic minor is the basic form, the melodic minor is an "inflexion" of the harmonic minor and it has two forms, the ascending one (raising vi♮ to vi♯) and the descending one (lowering vii♯ to vii♮). In the context of common practice the natural minor is never called natural minor but only descending form of the melodic minor. (Another quaint French bit of terminology for you: the harmonic minor is sometimes called "mineur à 3 demi-tons" and the melodic minors, both ascending and descending, "mineurs à 2 demi-tons".) The natural mineur scale as such is considered to be a modal notion somewhat outside common practice, for which the terms "gamme mineure naturelle" or sometimes (maybe an older terminology) "gamme mineure (de type) antique" are used. I don't know where you were brought up that this would be such a surprise for you . Basemetal 09:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
              • In British (and as far as I know, American) practice it's more usual to take the natural minor as the "ideal" and consider the harmonic minor a patch to fix its lack of a leading tone. (The melodic minor is then a patch on top of a patch to fix the harmonic minor's augmented seconds.) Thus we arrive at a conception of a "fuzzy" A minor scale with variable sixth and seventh degrees, that are ostensibly F♮ and G♮, but in practice often become F♯ and G♯. I never did think it was logical for tonal music; it might parallel historical development from the modes, but seeing ♮ leading to is indeed very rare (I can't think of an example, but there certainly must be a few outliers around). It should lead down away from the tonic to ♮ instead (and I'd argue that VII chords in minor keys are usually just V/III). I suppose, following such thinking, you could also see as a variable scale degree in minor keys. In A minor it would usually be B♮, but to avoid the diminished triad (ii°) it may become B♭. Maybe a truer criterion is whether the chords can fulfill their function with or without the alteration. iv is somewhat weakened as IV because that is higher up the circle of fifths, whereas the subdominant should be relaxed and lowered, but it can work (see the opening of Mozart KV 488/ii). ii° may be unstable as a diminished triad, but ♭II is so far away from the tonic (not to mention the tritone leap needed to get to V) it is unstable in itself as well and adds a great deal of pathos. It is only V that cannot retain a similar function when altered to v.
              • Although one thing that the natural-minor-first approach does address is this question: if the leading-tone is diatonic, why isn't it in the key signature? Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
                • But those who argue the key signature of a minor key "shows" the natural minor is the "basic" form seem to be assuming that if the common-practice period had really thought of the harmonic minor as the basic form they would have added vii♯ to the signature. But who says? Our signatures based a sequence of 5ths should be seen as a pragmatic choice. Any signature that breaks that sequence is hard to use and makes transposition harder. Those old guys did in the beginning fumble a bit with signatures, for example using a dorian signature instead of a minor signature (but only for minor and only in the flats, for some reason, if I recall correctly), looking like they didn't know exactly how to make up their minds as to what the "right" signature was, but they never (again, as far as I know) broke the sequence of 5ths. From a theoretical point of view (I'm switching back to our point of view) it could simply be seen as a recognition that the 12 diatonic sets are never supposed to represent the constitutive pitches of any key except by chance. When you choose one (by choosing one of the 12 standard signatures) you simply give yourself a frame against which modes deviate (or not). But harmonic minor is hardly unique in that. Btw I don't know why I don't like the idea of a "fuzzy" mode with variable degrees or might as well you go all the way to the full mixed major-minor mode with variable about everything. I like to think of the alternative pitches vii♮ and vi♯ more as "inflections" of the basic pitches vii♯ and vi♮. You may say this is just words but note at least that you don't have vi and vii freely variable each on its own, as vi is raised only when with vii raised. Btw I don't know what you're saying about ii♭. Do you mean in contexts other than Neapolitan chords? Have you, by any chance heard of minor Neapolitan chords? On that Canadian site they call it "l'accord plus-que-napolitain". I'll be taking a look at IV in minor below. See my notes there. (Later, not now). Basemetal 14:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
                  • Alkan once experimented with "harmonic minor key signatures" (e.g. F♯ and D♯ for E minor) in his two-piano fantasy on Don Giovanni. But that seems to have been a one-off experiments; he never tried it again. (I suspect because it gets irritating to read if you're not already accustomed to such a convention).
                  • Yes! There are minor Neapolitan chords! I immediately thought of the ones at the end of Schubert's D 810/i (the Death and the Maiden quartet; ♭ii⁶ in D minor), D 899/iii (the G-flat impromptu; ♭ii⁶ in G-flat major, respelled enharmonically for sanity), and D 956/ii (the String Quintet; ♭ii in E major). Ah, I see the site also mentions the opening of Fierabras D 796 (♭ii⁶ in F major). There is also a more iffy example of a ♭ii⁶
                    ₄ in D 911/v (Der Lindenbaum).
                  • Then again, Schubert is rather well-known for causing analytical monstrosities. (See the opening of D 879, with its "Italian sixth of an Italian sixth".) Consider also D 911/vii (Auf dem Flusse). See it here. When we shift from E minor to D-sharp minor and back in the first verse, you can think of it perhaps as purely colouristic alternation, as in the development sections of D 959 and D 960, so that E minor is primary (we start there and leave the alternation there). But when we return to this later, D-sharp minor has become a tonal area of its own, and even resolving to its subdominant G-sharp minor – before the tonally hard-to-explain but contrapuntally impeccable progression D♯⁴
                    ₂−B⁷!
                  • I know that Canadian site would explain the first chord as really A♯⁶
                    ₅ with a lowered fifth (actually a seventh, since vii°⁷ chords get analysed as rootless V⁹ chords). But I'm not sure looking at it this way illuminates it better than simply looking at intervallic resolutions. You can analyse b.10–15 of Mozart's Fantasy KV 475 this way, but maybe it is more interesting to see the 7–6 progressions. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue with moveable-do

I suppose it would be an interesting opportunity to study how people react to modulations. Let's use KV 488/ii yet again!

(Guess how many times I wrote "h" for the B♮s and "his" for the B♯, before backspacing them!) The first line is straightforward. But do I move b.5–6 into A major (changing the tonic), or remain in F♯ minor for what is clearly just a tonicisation (IV/III-V/III-III)? Similarly for the VI = V/♭II in b.8; after all, we stay on that ♭II for quite a while.

Then later we get:

When would you make the modulation from F♯ minor to A major? (I'd sing "do" for the last note of b.24 and "la" for the last note of b.25, but this may not be where people would universally do it; after all, when reading through it first, you may think it is first a tonicisation and not change "do" yet, like in b.5.) And if you use "la" for the tonic in minor, when would you change from A major to A minor? (In fact this is the sort of passage that I tend to take out when arguing against "la" for the tonic in minor, since here the shift of mode simply heightens the sense of tension without actually changing the meaning of any note.) Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if I agree. But first tell me this: Have you cheated? Have you really looked only at the right hand? In any case, that work must be so well known to you that you probably cheated even if you didn't mean to. Well, I will read the right hand first without referring to the rest (and I don't have that concerto in my head) and see what I think and then both hands (and the strings also come in at some point in your excerpt) and see if it makes a difference. Basemetal 14:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I would probably have unintentionally cheated, though I tried not to think about the harmonisation I know. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding bb. 1-12, sorry if I'm completely off (again, I don't know movable Do) but I don't see why one should be dogmatic. The way I personally would practice it, if I did, would be to go by instinct, not by theory. Also to decide if something is just tonicization you have to look ahead. How is that compatible with an instinctive use of the method, especially on a first reading? But my opinion doesn't count. Jerome Kohl might have an interesting view to share with you on this. (What is a change of tonic called in movable Do? A mutation?) Btw, where exactly is that IV for iv in the opening that you mentioned above (iv is somewhat weakened as IV [...] but it can work (see the opening of Mozart KV 488/ii))? And where (exactly) is that IV/III - V/III - III? I do understand it is bb. 5-7 but how far and where exactly is each chord. (Did you really mean IV - V - I or IV - I - V - I?) Finally you say b. 8 is V/II♭, bb. 9-10 is II♭ and finally bb 11-12 is i again, right? Evidently I musta ruind my ears with pop, Bollywood and hip hop. Shoulda listened to Mozart more . Haven't looked at bb. 20-35 yet since the issue with movable Do (and how it would work in its two flavors) seems to be a bit more involved so I still have to understand what it is. As a general caveat, my notation can be confusing: I sometimes without realising it use lower case and upper case not only to distinguish minor and major chords but also to distinguish degrees of the minor and major scale. That can lead to confusion when I say a Neapolitan on ii♭ where I don't necessarily mean the chord is minor (unless I do as when I specifically asked about minor Neapolitan) but simply that I am on the lowered second degree of the minor scale. Just so you know. But I wish the notation distinguished between the degrees of both scales because the intervals between the degrees is different. Your "hat above Arabic numeral" notation for scale degrees doesn't do that either since unfortunately there are no upper case and lower case Arabic numerals. Is there some way to use something like the "hat" with Roman numerals? Basemetal 12:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, now that you've read the right hand alone, here's the full score. My analysis of the opening solo and ritornello is as follows, and you may wish to compare it with Zviane's (and I love that iv face, even if I can't stop laughing at the V/V and V/iv faces). (The rest is left as an exercise for the reader!)

f♯: i (b.1) – ii^ø4
₂ – V⁶
₅ (b.2) – i – i⁶ – iv – ii°⁶ (b.3) – i⁶
₄ – V (b.4) – VI⁶ = IV⁶/III – vii^ø7/III (b.5) – III – i (b.6) – IV⁶
₅ – V⁶ (b.7) – i – VI (b.8) – ♭II⁶ (b.9–10) – i⁶
₄ – V⁷ (b.11) – i (b.12–3) – V⁶
₅ (b.13) – i⁶ [I'd normally use figured bass to emphasise the harmonic rhythm – this acts like two chords] (b.14) – iv – ii°⁶ (b.15) – V⁷ – i (b.16) – V⁶
₅/V – vii°⁴
₃ (b.17) – V⁶
₅/iv – ♭II⁶ (b.18) – V⁶
₅ – V⁷ – i – VI – ii^ø6
₅ – V⁷ (b.19) – i (b.20).

This melody is really beautifully constructed. We have two descents in F♯ minor in the right hand, one going down from , the other from . But the top one skips past to ; this is remedied by the bottom one going down to the . Then in b.5 we finally get the resolution of that hanging , back to , and the entire line is retraced down in b.7–8 (a diminution of b.1–3) back to . The phrase then closes melodically as ♭–. Echoes of this resonate through the following: the next orchestral phrase is a descent from to , and the next piano solo combines this with a rise from to .

We also see, by the way, the difference between the ninth and the seventh as a dissonance for Mozart. The latter is a part of the chord; the former is an even more painful dissonance that has to be resolved before the chord does. (Even merely evoking it can be painful; see KV 595, which miraculously evokes all of those dissonances as false relations, narrowly avoiding actually playing them.) Of course, for Beethoven later V⁹ is just a chord like any other, that can be harped on for a long time before exploding into the release of the tonic (see op. 31 no. 1 and op. 53). Double sharp (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Great. Thanks. Basemetal 09:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Something about that site I

By that site I mean LQELQV aka "that Canadian site" aka "Luce Beaudet's site" etc. If you look at this page, just above the section about the minor Neapolitan, they have a table of various chords and their possible functions. They've got the augmented 5th chord as a dominant chord! Can you explain? Basemetal 09:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

(walks over to imaginary piano and plays)

Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This is also possible in minor keys, but then instead of being a passing note (with the original elided away), the raised 5th has to be thought of instead as an enharmonically written anticipation. Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S. I was trying to be amusing and juxtapose this with my verbosity in the previous comments, but I can't help but wonder why (V) is in brackets for the minor chord. OK, an actual "v" chord with dominant function is rare in tonal music (and would often be exoticism), but surely the following is pretty common:

(That is, iii⁶–I, where iii⁶ acts as an incomplete V¹³.) Double sharp (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In 4-part you'd have the tenor and bass in unison on C in the first chord in both examples? Basemetal 11:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Double sharp (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In the second progression you'd get a "quinte directe" (English?) between the alto and the bass (neither moving by step) on the last chord. Just sayin. Basemetal 18:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In English, hidden fifths. Admittedly I wasn't really thinking about that, but if it bothers you, imagine the bass an octave lower. I never thought about that because no one seems to agree on exactly what the prohibition entails. Alto-bass is unacceptable under some stricter definitions, but is okay under some more relaxed definitions (where only soprano-bass is forbidden). Besides, if Mozart can get away with writing a chord progression like IV–iii–ii–I (all in root position with parallel fifths), I suspect the only real rule ought to be "if you can hear it and you don't like it, don't write it". Double sharp (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

(pursuing in "a still small voice" (1 Kings 19:12)) Clearly. But I've gotta have examples I can show my curmudgeonly uncle Albert. Just. Kidding. No, the only reason I've mentioned this is because school harmony is one of the few things I remember (a little) so I always check things from that point of view. For once I can have something to say... It wasn't so much critiquing as checking with you, as I like to use your impressive stores of knowledge and wisdom. Are you so wise as to know the difference between knowledge and wisdom? I was gonna drop the bass an octave of my own accord. The only reason I didn't is I couldn't remember the interval allowed between bass and tenor. The general idea is clear as every fool knows things can be more tightly packed higher up. That's why I've always thought sextets with two cellos could sound a bit bottom heavy and it must take some skill to avoid that. Basemetal 09:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it depends on whether or not your desired goal is to imitate the spacing of the harmonic series. Bottom-heaviness can be fairly effective – I daresay the most striking example is in Beethoven's Op. 110/iii. That's why when I learned it, you had to keep the top three voices no more than an octave apart from each other (consecutively), but the bass and tenor could be quite far apart, even more than an octave. Double sharp (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you didn't answer I'll tell you: "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato (an olive, an avocado, etc.) is a fruit. Wisdom is being wise enough not to put it in a fruit salad". LOL. Kind of a boring kinda wisdom, but I like the pithiness of that whatchacallit (quip? funny saying?). I love spicy ice cream so I wouldn't mind olives or even chili peppers in fruit salad. Regarding bottom heaviness you're ultimately right of course (as usual) but, it's easier to take on a piano than when two double basses compete for air, maybe because of the slow beats, and the way string only chamber ensembles (except for the string sextet) are put together seems to follow by and large that idea, while it is true on the other hand that the ensemble that would follow the closest the natural spacing namely 1 cello, 2 violas and 3 violins is probably the rarest among usual string ensembles. Basemetal 15:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's also a userbox. Actually I've seen it before, but didn't want to respond since I wasn't sure it was what you wanted. Another ensemble I've been curious about is a string quartet with 1 violin, 2 violas, and 1 cello. It does seem like an interesting idea: the spacing is rather similar to the normal combination, a little more bottom-heavy without being overbearing. Of course there are historical reasons why that never happened, but it seems like something that could be tried today. I think the problem with having two cellos and two violas in the same work is that it's not entirely clear who's going to be the lead tenor to the first violin's lead soprano, since they can sing effectively in about the same register: the cello's A string corresponds reasonably to the viola's D and A strings. Although this gives you a free storyline for programme music should that be your cup of tea, the textural problems are interesting to deal with. Of course, when I say "soprano" or "tenor" for ranges, I would clarify that instrumental ranges tend to be not only larger but also higher than the corresponding vocal ranges; for example, the rondo theme of the finale of Mozart's Oboe Concerto is in C major, and it goes down a fourth to become the opening of Blonde's aria in Die Entführung. One thing I do find about the string quartet is that it sounds to me more like an SSTB group than an SATB group, mostly because the two violins are actually the same instrument type. Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The term for such phrases is (as I've just learned) aphorism. This one was coined by Miles Kington and its exact version goes as follows: "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad". As it turns out Miles Kington was (among other things) a double bass player! I'm telling you, we've gotta look for another universe, cause in this one reality is getting too crowded. Basemetal 17:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: What were the ranges that were assumed for the different voices in scholastic harmony wherever it is you learned harmony? Basemetal 19:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly: soprano C4–A5; alto G3-E5; tenor C3–G4; bass F2–D4. Of course, if the given extract contained notes outside this range (that happened once), you could continue with the wider range assumed. Double sharp (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Now how about a diminished 5th chord and a half-diminished 7th chord as a VI? (Btw how do you force LilyPond to give you both an upward and downward stem on a note?) Basemetal 12:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The half-diminished seventh is similar. For most questions about LilyPond, try the LilyPond Notation Reference. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For the half-diminished case like this

with a unison between alto and soprano on the second chord and between alto and tenor on the third chord (to avoid parallel unisons)?

And it's a sixth degree chord? Even though it's on a raised sixth degree? Are there such things as rootless IV? Basemetal 14:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that works. I think it's OK to consider it as such: after all, it is written there that "l'accord napolitain se présente comme une variante, mais avec tension accrue, de la fonction II", so clearly ♭II is considered to have the same meaning as ii. Thus, similarly, ♯vi° should be able to act as VI. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I never really bought "rootless chords". To my mind the chord can only be defined by what is there, not what isn't, and therefore the root must be there. If ii and IV can be synonymous despite their wildly differing placements in the circle of fifths, I don't see why V and vii° can't be. Apart from Goetschius, we don't try to explain IV as a rootless ii⁷ (which is historically suspect, as well as fails to take into account the vastly differing character of IV, as being exceptionally on the other side of the circle of fifths from the tonic from all the other chords in the major scale). So why explain vii° as a rootless V⁷? If you do that, you're going to have a hard time explaining why vii° is somehow unstable with the bare tritone with the bass, but somehow V⁶
₅ adding a major second on top of that tritone is less unstable. And I wouldn't want to explain vii°⁷ as a rootless V⁹, when the concept of inverting the latter is a little shaky. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Something about that site II

• When you listen to the recordings of examples 3, 4 and 5 here can you hear any chords? I can only hear the bass and the soprano. Is that possible? Basemetal 22:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I can hear the chords perfectly well (usually realised in a 3-part texture). Naturally four parts are not really necessary here, since the seventh has not yet achieved the status of a fundamental dissonance: only when it does some decades later will three part writing become a true tour de force (e.g. Mozart's String Trio KV 563, which miraculously avoids double stops for the most part). Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. When you get a chance could you write the realization you hear, let's say for the example 3 (where the pianist is only realizing 2 bars). If I see it in writing that will allow me to "look" (with my ear that is) for the inner parts I can't hear at the moment and start hearing them. It's a method that works. Basemetal 08:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

      Here's the inner part:

      

      Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

      P.S. Sorry for the alto clef if you saw the previous version. I tend to automatically use it for parts in the range around middle C, which sometimes results in problems because tenor clef is more common in practice. (Incidentally, I realise we can't go back to the old soprano-alto-tenor-bass clef arrangements for SATB vocal music – the last example I know is in Schoenberg – but sometimes I think treble-alto-alto-bass might be a good idea. It doesn't seem very efficient to me to look at alto choral parts and see how nearly all the notes are down-stemmed or even below the staff. Additionally it brings home the point that "high tenor" tends to overlap significantly with "low alto" in range, though obviously not in sound quality.) Some of this dislike for vocal octave-treble clef for tenors may come from reading too many quartet scores: because if you use octave-treble clef instead of tenor clef for the cello, you're deprived of the usual treble clef when you really need it to go that high. Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Basemetal 11:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• At example 1 at the same page. Bar 3: For most of the bar the chord is obviously I⁶
  ₄. What are the F and A♭ of the last eighth-note in the alto? Should that be taken as a V⁷
  ₊ on the last eighth-note? If not, i.e. if the F and A♭ in the alto are non-chord tones, what kind of non-chord tones are they? Bars 9-12: For each bar she writes V-V-I, but why not just write V-I? What's happening there that she repeats the V? Bar 12: Isn't that a IV⁹ on the last beat? She writes I. If the A♭ and F in the alto are non-chord tones, what kind are they? Basemetal 22:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I must confess that I don't see the A♭; but these seem to me to be simply echappées with Austerzung (hooray for macaronic technical vocabulary!).
    • Sorry. I meant D and F. I must have read the alto part, or at least those notes, in bass clef. But then, if I believed those were F and A♭ why didn't I write V⁹
      ₊? In any case I take it what you're saying is that there is no dominant chord there on that last eighth note of the bar and it's all a I⁶
      ₄ all through the whole bar. What is Austerzung? Or what are échappées with Austerzung? Basemetal 11:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Austerzung denotes doubling another part with parallel thirds (e.g. the viola and violoncello at the beginning of the Quam olim Abrahae fugue in the Domine Jesu of Mozart's Requiem). Double sharp (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I imagine V-V-I is written because the offbeat reappearance of the outer parts is a significant musical event, and figures into the harmonic rhythm.
    • I was wondering if that had not something to do with the syntactical method of analysis she adopts. Later on she defines something called a USH as the basic harmonic building block of any tonal musical text. One basic feature of her USH is that V can only appear in it at most once (and must appear at least once, except for so called plagal USHs). So I was wondering if she did not put V twice in a row to signal that at that location we actually have two different USHs, in other words to signal the two V belong to two different USHs (as they must). Basemetal 11:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Assuming you mean b.13, these are changing tones. Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I did mean b. 13. Thanks. Basemetal 11:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ninths

This reminds me: can you tell me as simply as you can, as if you were talking to some retarded person, how, given the principle of octave equivalence, there can even be such things as 9th chords? Just want to hear your knowledgeable and wise opinion. Basemetal 09:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can always interpret the 9th as a 2nd, creating an almost secundal tone cluster that only by octave-equivalence can you also see as a stack of thirds. Some harmony books will tell you that V⁹ is not a real chord, because you can't invert it without the supposedly unmusical effect of discord against resolution when the latter is not in the bass. I say, tell that to Schubert. So I tend to see V⁹ as a sort of intersection of secundal and tertian harmony in this way, in which the 9th acts a painful, colouristic addition to the dominant, which is possible since they are both going the same way. Double sharp (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever encountered the following 9ths anywhere: (e.g.) D-F-A♭-C-E and/or (e.g.) A♭-C-E-G-B? Basemetal 17:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't remember (you might have more luck looking in Brahms, which isn't one of my specialties), but I can totally see the first acting as ii^ø9 (with a II function, resolving to V⁷) and the second as ♭VI⁺⁹ (with a VI function; essentially a chromatic vi⁹, resolving to ii^ø7 or perhaps directly to V). In the first, D and F stay where the are, A♭ goes to G, C goes to B, and E goes to D or F. In the second, resolving to ii° (maybe "VI m.m."? ^_^), A♭ and C stay where they are, E goes to D, G goes to F, and B goes to C. (Maybe it is better to think of such chords as agglomerations of tendency tones that happen to keep being tertian. This also gives you a way to have functional "split chords", for example with both a major and a minor 7th; just let everything resolve stepwise to something not quite so painfully dissonant. Already Mozart anticipates this idea in his late style, e.g. KV 593, 595, 614...) Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this is more Beethoven's thing, but you can find it already in Mozart. Double sharp (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, were you also taught a classification of the 9ths into ten species? Such a classification is common in the Francosphere and maybe elsewhere. As far as I can recall there are ten "espèces" of 9ths the first two being the dominant ones and the eight others the "neuvièmes d'espèce" so called. (Incidentally those two above are not part of that classification) Basemetal 12:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Never heard of that before. To be honest, I think that in tonal music function is more important than intervallic ocntent. If you want to focus on intervallic content, do a non-tonal analysis.

I also see the French Wikipedia refuses to analyse vii° and vii°⁷ as such, but rather as V⁷ and V⁹ without their roots. I still insist that this is nonsense (along with what I remember being taught), because the root is supposed to define the chord; therefore it logically cannot be absent. Nothing is stopping ii from taking on the function of IV, and likewise nothing is stopping vii° from taking the function of V. (Then again, I was taught that there are only three real functions, tonic, predominant, and dominant, which you can identify with I, IV, and V. Chords with roots a third apart share a function and may be fused to form seventh and ninth chords.) And I find the supposed "tonic 11th and 13th chords" listed on French Wikipedia to be ridiculously convoluted names for V⁷ and V⁹ over a tonic pedal, which is what they really are. Ever seen either of those chords with the 3rd of the tonic triad? Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually the article also mentions their use as "accord à retards simultanés" and "accord à appoggiatures simultanées" (besides that of "accord sur pédale inférieure" which you mentioned). Maybe that's why French conservatorial tradition found it convenient to give them a name. Regarding that scholastic classification of the 9ths I don't think it is meant to replace the functional analysis, which indeed may be different for the same chord according to the context. It is just a way to label things, just because it is convenient to have a way to do so, with no further analytical implications.

When you have combinations of appoggiaturae that can make vertical tertian combinations (but no taller than 9ths in the Classical period), the line between true chords and simultaneous non-chord tones is blurry. A lot of it depends on the context: for example I⁶
₄ often should be considered a real chord IMHO to better fit the harmonic rhythm (easy examples are in the Lacrymosa from Mozart's Requiem). But there are often times when the harmonic rhythm dictates otherwise; this is so for many V⁶
₄'s where analysing them as separate I⁶
₄s leads to a ludicrous quickening of the harmonic rhythm. I think you'll find that these chords, along with "I¹¹" and "I¹³", either appear as changing harmonies above a tonic (e.g. I^{6–5–4–3}
) or dominant pedal (e.g. V^{8–7–6–5}
_{6–5–4–3}), or as quick appoggiaturae that for the sake of uniform harmonic rhythm shouldn't be considered real chords. After all, do you consider it a "I⁹" in a case like this (Schubert, Auf der Brück; the piano in the second bar simply plays A-flat major triads)?

So how is I¹¹ any different, except with more appoggiaturas piled on? I think "simultaneous 9–8, 4–3, 6–5, and 7–8 suspensions on I" should be adequate to cover the case of "I¹³" should you really need to be specific (and you shouldn't often need to do so). Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: You use British terminology and conventions, if I've understood correctly? Basemetal 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to be a partisan of full status, equality and citizenship for vii° have you ever encountered a V/vii°? How about a V/ii° in minor? Not arguing. Just curious. Basemetal 18:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a V/ii° in D minor in the retransition to the recapitulation of Mozart's Coronation Concerto KV 537 (B major acting as dominant to E diminished). Double sharp (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A more precise reference: KV 537/i, bb. 263–8. Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Sorry for all these questions. I'm working on regaining some reading chops just so I can follow your analyses. In return I can introduce you to Bollywood songs if you want . Can't be worse for you than Japanese anime . Basemetal 22:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea... (#^.^#) Double sharp (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Shy? Basemetal 05:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, there's a V/vii in the finale of Haydn's Piano Trio in C major, Hob:XV/27. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Basemetal: (For what it's worth, I offered this kind of as a substitute, as I have just not found any examples of V/vii resolving to vii° instead of vii. The secondary triad V/vii certainly occurs – there's another one at the start of the coda of Schubert's D 946/3 – but although the progression is really plausible, e.g. F-sharp major to B diminished in C major, I just cannot seem to find it ever happening. Nonetheless, the tritone-related V/vii does work as a dominant substitute – it's the mediant of V/V – which is one of those things that I'm going to talk about in that megaposting about exotic functions.) Double sharp (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Turns out it was right under my nose all along – there is one on the last page of Beethoven's Op. 2 No. 3 sonata, even followed by a diminished vii° triad. Yes, it's part of a sequence, but then so is the Mozart, and the function vii° is sufficiently weak (it's five fifths away from the tonic) that you will usually find it as such (rather than as substitute for V) in a circle-of-fifths progression, which is something like a sequence anyway. Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a beautiful complete inverted ninth in KV 514, b. 89 (D minor: V⁷
₆, with C♯, E, G, B♭, and A together). (The Schubert example I gave earlier is not complete.) Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

By "the Schubert example" you mean this one? You analyze that (bar 2) as V⁹ in 3rd (1st beat) and 2nd (3rd beat) inversions? Or IV⁹ in root position then V⁹ in 2nd inversion? Btw, French WP (fr:Accord de neuvième de dominante avec fondamentale, fr:Accord de neuvième d'espèces) does accept all inversions of all 9th chords except the 4th one. Some French harmony treatises (Marcel Dupré, "Cours d'harmonie analytique") accept even the 4th inversion at least according to this page. I don't understand "discord against resolution when the latter is not in the bass". Basemetal 16:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

That might be a British thing, but one of the few things I remember from the harmony textbook I used (apart from its laughably awkward examples of secondary 7ths) is that you somehow weren't supposed to do that. The idea is that in a chord like B-G-D-A, you've already preempted the resolution of the top A. This is somehow supposed to be OK in the bass, so G-B-D-A is fine (a 9–8 suspension or appoggiatura). No, it never did make a whole lot of sense, but it is true that such "preempting" of resolutions is indeed more common when the preempting is in the bass.

Because of the dominant pedal, I tend to hear this as a V⁹ throughout. Double sharp (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If you analyze the C-C octaves as a dominant pedal than what happens to the 9ths? Aren't you supposed then to analyze the two chords below it simply as ii° in root and first inversion? I thought a pedal was considered a non-chord tone? Basemetal 08:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It does appear to be that way from Ravel onwards where you can have just about anything above a pedal, and the pedal retains a function even when what happens in the top has very little to do with functional harmony (e.g. in the Menuet sur le nom d'Haydn). In Debussy, forget about even assigning a function to the pedal (e.g. see the first movement of Ibéria). However, I very much doubt that pedals actually work that way in the Classical period. I daresay the most common thing to happen above a dominant pedal (source: just about any retransition in a Haydn or Mozart symphony) is spicy vii°⁷/V dissonances enhancing the dominant with its own dominant, or trundling back and forth as V^{5–6–7–6–5}
_{3–4–5–4–3} (e.g. the end of the Lacrymosa). The most common thing to happen above a tonic pedal should be plagal-style reinforcement of the resolution through V/IV and IV (e.g. the end of Haydn's 46th symphony). In both cases, the pedal is still the chord tone (and the root) of the function it is trying to get across (V or I – you don't have IV pedals because it's not exactly a forceful function), and the chords above it reinforce it even as they play V/V or IV instead.

Anyway, I think there are multiple ways to look at this passage tonally precisely because it is in so few parts and yet implies dissonant cluster harmonies. Either you think of the C's as a dominant pedal and get ii°⁶–ii°–V⁶ or you treat it as the real bass (now in the alto) and think of it as V⁹ throughout in various inversions. Actually, I think I might think of it as both at once... Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to show you how crowded reality has gotten, a few weeks ago I made a note to ask you about 9ths in 3 voices. I promise, it's true. I had noticed that since if you wanna use a 9th in 3 voices you have to take out two chord tones, if you take out the 3rd and the 5th, or the 5th and the 7th, you get a chord whose very root is unclear. (Of course if you take out the 3rd and 7th, you do not know if your chord is major or minor) Do you have more examples of 9ths in 3 voices? And do you know of any "choral style" works in 3 voices? I'd be curious to see what "choral style" in 3 voices looks like. For one thing you have a choice of taking out either an outer voice, or the high inner voice, or the low inner voice. (Is that a word? I don't mean the voice of your own conscience) Basemetal 09:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have enough examples of weirdness! I should start a list, like Brahms' collection of composers indulging in parallel fifths...

When I learned this stuff, three-part exercises were always SAB for voices and violin-viola-cello for strings. (No other instrumental combinations – that fell under orchestration.) This of course follows harmonic-series spacing; I imagine five parts would be construed as SSATB. Double sharp (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

At least the very few examples I've seen all are (note however this), e.g. Wer weiß, wie nahe mir mein Ende? BWV 27, Der Himmel lacht! Die Erde jubilieret, BWV 31 and Gloria in excelsis Deo, BWV 191. The first one ends with chorale in 5 voices (not actually by Bach). The second one also ends with a chorale, but I don't remember if it's in 4 or 5 voices. I've seen once that Brahms collection. He was also explaining what he thought of those 5ths and why. The manuscript was published in a music journal but it looked more like a fat book. I even xeroxed it (meaning to read it "at some later time"... LOL) but I don't know what happened to my copy. Yeah you most certainly should start a list like that. If anyone should do it, it's clearly you. This is quite distinct from Don's oddities of notation so you shouldn't be concerned that you'd be competing unfairly. From now on make a note of it. Do you know the earliest example of a German 6th an Italian 6th? Basemetal 10:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The earliest I know of is in William Byrd, Ne Irascaris Domine (1589), b. 96 (G-B-E♯). Double sharp (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

According to fr:Jacques Chailley's "Traité historique d'analyse harmonique", another book I xeroxed once (to read "at some later time"... re-LOL) that I don't know where it went, there's one in a piece included in the "Octonaires de la vanité du monde" (1582) by fr:Paschal de l'Estocart. At IMSLP they have the parts (are you able to read the individual parts and then put it all back together in your head? ) but not the full score, and even the parts I wonder how complete they are, as there's only four parts, yet I believe some of those pieces may be for up to 6 voices. But keep apart in your collection the weirdnesses of Pascal de l'Estocart, Byrd, Gesualdo and other musica reservata weirdos from the weirdnesses that honest hard working common practice composers came up with. Basemetal 13:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's not bad at all, being only seven years late! Indeed Gesualdo is a good choice. From the 5th and 6th books of madrigals, Tu m'uccidi and Io pur respiro contain German augmented sixths. (The latter has both the normal variety and the inverted variety with the sharp note in the bass.) But, those are from 1611 (he claimed they were from 1596, but I'm not sure I believe that). (But maybe they are the first German sixths?!) Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: I know I'm gonna get on your and Franz's nerves, but... isn't a perfect 4th with the bass (3rd beat of bar 2) a dissonance supposed to be prepared and resolved, at least as long as you haven't graduated? Basemetal 19:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it is technically prepared. Also, since the bass is just arpeggiating through the notes of V⁹ (and this is three-part work, basically), it's probably OK for the sake of the bass line. Double sharp (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly it is (technically?) prepared since the fourth (the C) is heard just before. Is it resolved? And if you take the Cs to be a dominant pedal, how is a pedal supposed to be resolved? Basemetal 08:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In this case, he simply keeps the C pedal and later resolves the harmony to F minor. Then what he does is sharpen the third to A♮, simultaneously remove the tonic, and we cadence in A minor (♯iii). Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If we go all the way to "late functional tonality", incidentally, you can find a great deal of ninths and elevenths in various inversions in Poulenc's Quatre motets pour un temps de pénitence. (I need better terms for the different sorts of tonality in early 20th-century music. Obviously we have "atonality" for Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern; but there's a big difference between the "tonality" of Stravinsky, which tends to reorganise tonal elements in a very anti-tonal way, and the nostalgic but true use of functional tonality by Poulenc and Milhaud, even until the Oboe Sonata. I suppose it also fits with their differing sorts of "neoclassicism".) Double sharp (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A quick question about figured bass

I seem to remember that figures are with respect to the signature, not with respect to the key. For example if you have a three sharp signature and a raised third over an A in the bass and you happen to be in A minor you do not have to figure a sharp since the signature already takes care of that (even though you're in A minor), whereas if you do not want a raised third you do have to put a natural (or in the old days a flat) to signify that. Is that correct? And if it is, have you, nonetheless seen examples of people figuring with respect to the key not the signature (so in those two examples that would be putting a sharp in the first case and nothing in the second case)? Basemetal 18:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be too confusing, although many slips of the pen are undoubtedly of this nature. Double sharp (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Example: Mozart, Requiem KV 626, Introitus, b. 30. The movement is D minor, but we are currently in G minor, so the E needs to be flattened. Thus, on the last G in the instrumental bass part, Mozart should have written ^♭6
₄. But, evidently he forgot the flat. This can't be his usual practice: in b. 36 he marks the B♮ even though we are now in A minor (the key signature is still one flat). He also carefully marks the disqueting modulations in the Oro supplex (b. 25–40 of the Confutatis), including even a 6 figure (when we wander into G♭ minor), with only one slip of the pen of this nature (forgetting that the B needs to be flattened when he exits into F major). Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Great examples. Thanks a lot. What is a "disqueting" modulation? Or is it just "disquieting"? Basemetal 22:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a typo for "disquieting". Oops. Double sharp (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: Do Brits ever use the phrase clef signature at all, for example to indicate the signature you've got is not that of the key you happen to be in? Basemetal 18:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Never heard of that phrase, but I like it. Double sharp (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

For some reason I thought I had seen it in the 1911 Britannica but I can't find it anymore. Must have imagined it, and this is all the more probable that I've just found that phrase used in an entirely different meaning in the title of two articles ("The Evolution of Clef Signatures") in the Musical Times of 1908 and 1909. Indeed those articles have nothing to do with key signatures, they just deal with the shapes of the clefs. So, unless the usage in those articles of 1908 and 1909 was completely non standard, that seems to preclude that "clef signature" in the sense that I meant above could have been used in the Britannica of 1911. Btw, if you've never opened a volume of the "Musical Times" it is pretty quaint. Takes you back to Old England, Victorian times, Anglican church music and the British Empire. Here's a copy of the 1905 volume, here's one of the 1908 volume and here's one of the 1922 volume and you can find unbound copies (it used to be a monthly) from as early as the 1850s or 1860s here. Basemetal 22:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool! Double sharp (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

On chords without roots

I do not mean to suggest that rootless chords are impossible, but I think they are really a rare phenomenon, and it doesn't do justice to the real cases to consider vii° and vii°⁷ as such.

For what I think may be a real example, see b. 22 of Der Greis, Hob:XXVc/5. Previously, the forte octave-unison has clearly outlined IV of D major. Now the women's voices sing B, D, and F♯. But can we analyse this two-part harmony as ii? Surely not! That would be pleonastic with the previous IV, and it could not effectively lead to the I clearly sung by the men's voices later in the bar. (It would also lead to parallel fifths.) Since this resolution is not ineffective in practice, I would posit that here we really do have an incomplete vii^ø7 with the root missing, so that the progression in this phrase is the more sensible A: IV–vii°–I–V–I–V. But this is exceptional, because there are only two voices. (Similarly, I have no doubt that you could find examples of first-inversion tonic chords in two parts with the root missing.) Double sharp (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You probably mean "the forte octave-unison has clearly outlined IV of A major". How can simply analyzing B-D-F♯ as a rootless vii^∅7 make the parallel 5ths B-F♯ and A-E disappear? Does the trick of hitting the 3rds on successive beats "Him-mel" make any difference? I doubt it. In any case a mere difference in analysis surely is not something that can make any difference as no one hears an analysis. "Gleim" must be Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleim. People should use the full name. It's more respectful . A bizarre thing happens when I click on the link. Once in a while I get transferred to the main page at CPDL instead of the PDF file. I then have to explicity copy the PDF link, open a new tab and go there manually. Have you ever gotten something like that? This is more likely to have something to do with WP or the browser, than with CPDL. Basemetal 14:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean that. What I meant is that I do not hear it as a ii–I, but as a V–I. Thus I want to analyse it that way to match what I hear. (Also, I'd rather not accuse Haydn of parallel fifths – at least not unless he explicitly notes it himself.) Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Then what "would also lead to parallel fifths" and what parallel 5ths? Basemetal 15:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

If you hear it as vii°–I, then it becomes easier to think of the B leading to C♯. Indeed the fifths are B-F♯ to A-E, though the way they're voiced helps disguise it if the basis of the progression is truly ii–I. The main upshot is that I don't hear this bar as having a predominant-to-tonic function, but instead a dominant-to-tonic one. Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd understood that. You call ii a "predominant"? Another Limey thing? Basemetal 15:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's an American term that I stole as being actually pretty useful. Sometimes one needs an umbrella covering ii, IV, vi, the augmented sixths, V/V, vii°/V, ♭II, and I⁶
₄, among other things. It just means "anything that can lead sensibly to V". I didn't want to use "subdominant function" because IV can do more things than lead to V, and I wanted to emphasise the latter. Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There's even (gasp) an article on that! Live and learn. I think that's what the French call an "accord préparatoire". That IV, which is "on the other side" can serve (also) as a predominant is of course one of those deep mysteries. I wish we lived in a Lydian world. What were our ancestors thinking? Basemetal 16:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that there is a very good reason why we don't live in a Lydian world, as that mode places the tritone on the tonic, where it destabilises the key itself. Yes, it can be made to work (Beethoven Op. 132/iii, need I say more?), but in that case the Lydian-ness becomes a dissonant feature that you have to deal with in some way. Ionian works better as a "neutral" thing where you can take the scale for granted; the tritone is helpfully placed as part of the leading-tone chord vii°. (In the harmonic minor scale, the two tritones are just as helpfully placed as part of vii°⁷.) The other modes have the tritone in weak positions that don't involve any leading-notes, or in an inappropriately strong position like Locrian. (Phrygian may have it in a passable position, but Ionian is probably stronger, where both notes must resolve.)

Also, it's quite useful to have a chord on the other side. You do not strictly need it to be IV, but having a plagal function as well is very useful, to set its weakness against the strength of the dominant function. (Among the more likely substitutes you could find for IV are VI in the Waldstein sonata, ♭VI in the Hammerklavier, vi in Schubert's Reliquie sonata, i in Haydn's Quartet Op. 64 No. 4, ♭VII in Mozart's Fantasy KV 475, and astonishingly II in the Eroica symphony.) In a Lydian world, there would be no such dualism. Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course you're right. I was being facetious, or at least not totally serious. There are of course reasons why things happen the way they do. I was just referring to the apparent difficulties of the theorists regarding IV, which can serve both as a predominant chord (to use a term I've just learned) and a cadential chord, but w/o the latter role being able to structure the whole set of chords of a key into a "plagal order" I-V-II-VI-III-VII-IV-I, like V is able to do. But that's their problem. The theorist was made for the facts, not the facts for the theorist. Basemetal 15:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

(In the following, I use capital letters throughout to avoid having to change things for major and minor modes.) The way I tend to save this problem is by noting that chords a third apart tend to be similar in function and can to some extent substitute for each other, with I, IV, and V as the "strong" functions that are the centres of these tertian spheres of influence. Thus, IV is the weakest function and can effectively be substituted for by II (higher up in the circle of fifths than V, so IV gets this function back from it; in fact, this means that II becomes a little stronger than IV in the authentic use, while IV is unchallenged in the plagal use). V is stronger and can only less effectively be substituted for by III or VII. Finally, I is the strongest function, and when it is substituted for by VI or III, we create a dissonance that must be resolved, even though it works from a voice-leading and harmonic-rhythm sense. (OK, so I have not found the V–III cadence my theory supposedly predicts. I suspect this is because III is also a satellite of V, so V–III does not quite go anywhere because we still have the V ringing in our years. Similarly, VI is more of a satellite of I than one of IV, because the former is a stronger function.) Anyway, as far as I know, it's my theory (and what it is, too ^_-☆), although I did take a big inspiration for this from Hugo Riemann.

^_-☆ eh? Your kaomojis are getting more and more abstruse. Are you making them up as you go? I couldn't find a translation this one anywhere. Btw I've just discovered WP gives the one you used a few weeks ago (#^.^#) the meaning both of "shy" and "normal laugh". That seems a bit unlikely to me, but you never know. That would mean it originated twice independently. In any case that Japanese site doesn't seem to know anything about the second meaning. I don't know if this was the right time to drop the distinction between I and i. That II is higher up the cycle of 5ths than V is clear, but it is not II that is the substitute of IV but ii. I always thought the "strong" chords can use as substitute chords a third apart simply because they share with those chords the greatest number of common chord tones. Otherwise I don't see any explanation. It looks like divine law. For example the major and minor triads line up like this (uppercase for major triads, lowercase for minor triads, in bold the triads of the current major key): .... - i - III♭ - v - VII♭ - ii - IV - vi - I - iii - V - vii - II - iv♯ - VI - .... (Note by vii I do not mean the diminished triad on vii but the minor triad on vii, etc so not a chord of the key). The only chords that are chords of the current major key (leave minor out of this) are those in bold: namely ii, IV, vi, I, iii and V. The point is every chord has on either side a chord whose root is a 3rd apart and with which it shares a maximum number of common chord tones. I thought that was why those chords can substitute. With actual notes a section of that sequence (which extends at infinitum both to the right and the left) is (I put in bold the chords of C major, again upper case for major triads and lower case for minor triads): .... - c - E♭ - g - B♭ - d - F - a - C - e - G - b - D - f♯ - A - .... Of course this scheme doesn't apply to the 7ths, but that should be ok if you assume that the ability to substitute is determined by the lower triad which is the stable part of the 7th chord. Basemetal 20:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a wink!

The meaning of a chord does depend somewhat on how it is approached. Beethoven succesfully turns major II into a subdominant substitute in the Eroica Symphony, because he approaches it as though it was going to be minor ii. Although yes, I do believe you've hit the nail on the head (to continue quoting that particular Python sketch). It's just that I think the "strong" chords are best at doing it because their functions are pretty clear anyway: iii⁶-I sounds like a perfectly normal cadence, and so does vii°–I. Whereas, the mediant function is sufficiently weak (far away from I) that substituting it with I or V gets it drowned in those strong functions. Also, I'd argue that the spiral should wrap around with vii° replacing both ♭VII and vii – because the moment you use either of those, you've gone far enough to leave the key. Double sharp (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A wink? A wink at the sketch then, not at the theory? A meta-wink so to speak? (You think anything I can do, you can do meta? ) Had you not mentioned Monty Python I'd never have recognized you as Miss Anne Elk. Otherwise you're again very right. The sequence of "chords by thirds" I mentioned is just one structure to keep in mind. There are many other tricks that can interfere (Picardy thirds, secondary dominants, lowering the sixth degree in major, altered chords, Neapolitans). So when I said "it is not II that is a substitute of IV but ii" I only meant "a substitute by virtue of being to the right or the left in that sequence". It of course wasn't a blanket statement about II. As to what you mentioned goes on in Ludwig's 3rd, wherever it is, I'm curious if there we're talking a subdominant role as a predominant (since II is often V/V), or some cadential role, or something else. Basemetal 11:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I meant it as II taking on the resolutory role of a subdominant, distinct from its predominant function (which is what you'd expect II to do). This particular II has no desire to act as V/V, and instead continues the trail of thirds down to ♭VII and then V and I! It forms part of the standard turn to the subdominant area (the "other side" of the circle of fifths) in a Classical recapitulation, only this time we find ourselves on the "other other side", so to speak. I suppose Beethoven's later use of ♭VI as a dominant key in the Quartet Op. 130 is the inverse case of going to the "other other other side". (This nomenclature is getting too silly!) Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Because of you I've just finished watching Monty Python sketches on YouTube for three hours. My abdominal muscles are hurting and my cats are hungry. Basemetal 20:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Admittedly that's probably not a good thing, but they are really funny. Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've been looking around for early secondary sevenths besides V⁷ and II⁷, and I was amused to see a IV⁷ in b.123 of KV 499/iv. Oh, that movement is also interesting because the developmental fragmented texture continues even after the recapitulation has begun, thus having a beautiful desynchronisation of textural and harmonic resolution. Anyway, the way I would look at seventh chords under this theory is as "triad fusions", where the bass dictates what function "wins". Which nicely explains why V⁷ and II⁷ are the most common ones, enhancing the V and IV functions (the latter having been hijacked a little by ii). (I⁷ doesn't happen so much because the tonic is supposed to be stable, not a dissonant seventh chord! I've never seen half-cadences on V⁷ either, outside some very early Schubert.) As for the others: VII⁷ is about as effective as V⁷ because it keeps the tritone and may add another, while IV⁷ loses the possible tritone in II⁷. Similarly III⁷ is nowhere near as effective as V⁷ because the bass wins; VI⁷ is similarly much weaker as a tonic than I and tends to fall downward towards II. Thus we see how the circle-of-fifths theory is upheld, but with a huge number of "warps" connecting I, IV, and V to their satellites a third away (also corresponding to major-relative minor pairs, thus incorporating that along with the obvious major-parallel minor pairs). Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This work is also a good illustration of another point I think I've made before: in the Classical style, when dramatic complexity is not required (i.e. outside a first movement), actual modulation to V is not necessary (though tonicisation of it still is). Pianists may prefer the more accessible examples from Mozart of KV 570/ii, KV 570/iii, and KV 576/ii. These works all have a far more prominent emphasis on IV (or, in the case of KV 576/ii, vi; but that is still in the subdominant region anyway). Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A Phrygian-based tonality?

My above answer gives me an idea for a Phrygian-Mixolydian system as a weak alternative to the major-minor system. The Phrygian mode is the next-best after the Ionian among the modes in its position of the tritone, as part of the v° chord, giving an upper leading-note to the tonic. This of course favours a subdominant function: notice that Phrygian is similarly placed on the opposite side as Ionian on the circle of fifths, with nearly all subdominant functions (iv, vii, III, VI, II) and just one triad on the other side (v°).

Furthermore, the minor mode is similar to the subdominant (all the altered notes come from that direction). So, just like we alter Aeolian in the major-minor system to give it the leading note, we can alter Mixolydian to give it the upper leading note, by flattening the second degree! When the augmented second is not wanted, we can always flatten the third degree as well. Admittedly this changes the quality of the tonic triad from major to minor, so that this may not always be a good idea (context is key). Perhaps a little bit of major-minor thinking may be enforced here by permitting a Picardy-third I to bleed from Mixolydian to Phrygian, instead of the other way round.

This is such a cool idea that I would not be surprised if someone has already used it. Actually, wait, Musorgsky already did at the end of Night on Bald Mountain. (Look for rehearsal letter Y!) I suppose this proves the viability of this system, even if its plagal inclinations make it a weak alternative to its mirror-image Ionian-Aeolian. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What's going on at IMSLP/Petrucci Music Library?

Several of my links to documents at IMSLP do not work any more. On top of that they are asking me for money. Is anything going on there? Are we gonna lose free access? Basemetal 15:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

They still work for me even when logged out of IMSLP. This is quite an old thing from last year. You do not need to pay if you don't mind waiting the full 15 seconds for each download. And in the case of the 48, you can quite hilariously exhaust these 15 seconds just by opening as many of the files as you can in separate tabs, and then going through them all again. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Was Don ever on the faculty at his school?

Don's page seems to say he's on the faculty. But if you look at the personnel page of that school his name does no longer show up? (Did it ever?) Do you have an explanation? I hope we're not gonna lose that site if Don runs away to Bolivia or Colombia or something. All that hard work for nothing! (Especially you!) Basemetal 15:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't remember having checked that beforehand, but even if he does leave for elsewhere we at least have copies archived by the Wayback Machine. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but you see the problem: the archived copy is from March 2016 whereas there is already a revision from August 2016. Maybe the best idea would be that you make a personal copy and store it some place safe (maybe on WP in your user space). Another advantage of that idea: you could include actual pictures illustrating the various cases: that would be a lot more useful than people having to themselves go and look those examples up (whereas Don's site is exclusively text based and only gives you a pointer to the examples). Maybe there could even be a WP page with essentially the material that is at Don's site. Btw, not only is Don a bit slow in including the examples sent to him but there is a document (mentioned I think at his page) that also contains examples of the same order and that is years old and that was never integrated and is still not included in the main list. Basemetal 16:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, not a bad idea. But would he be okay with that sort of duplication? I don't think he'd mind if I limited its scope somehow, like perhaps "things you never expected to see from Mozart" (such as polytonality, whole-tone scales, polymeters with non-coinciding barlines, tone rows, six-flat key signatures). But copying the whole of his list and adding further examples smacks of competition and plagiarism to my perhaps over-sensitive conscience. Double sharp (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then, make a copy and only make it public if Don's site happens to disappear one day. Basemetal 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC) PS: And of course, if that were to happen, you would completely credit the old site and acknowledge it was the first to come up with the idea, etc.

"RVV"?

"Revert Vandalism"? Why did you revert that editor's work?[1] Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because it duplicated the history section and deleted the occurrence one. Double sharp (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 2601:240:C400:D60:2D79:52FD:9844:581F (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears that my unintentional sins of immaturity have risen once more before me. Anyway, I !voted in favour of deletion. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

LOL! Immaturity is no sin! A facetious side to a serious WP contributor. Were there ever Easter Eggs at Google Translate? I don't remember ever encountering one. Basemetal 15:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was. This one was rather well-covered in 2010. If you typed the aforementioned text into Google Translate and set it to translate German to German, it would produce beatboxing. It doesn't work anymore.

Man! How was that ever discovered? What was the probability someone would both try that very string and then try to translate it German to German (which you can only do, at least these days, by tweaking the link manually as the interface won't let you set the same language on both sides)? Clearly American teenagers have got too much time on their hand. Either that or there was a leak from Google somewhere, albeit possibly with only partial information to encourage said teenagers to have a go and try out stuff without giving them the whole thing just to increase traffic which is ultimately the goal of all those gimmicks ("Don't be evil"). Basemetal 15:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a more complete list here. The original string was indeed "pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch", but other possibilities also work. Perhaps that one was leaked and people experimented around?! Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my more improbable sides, I seem to be the only intersection of Category:WikiProject Elements members (chemistry) and Category:Wikipedians who like Madoka Magica (I really don't know what to say about that, other than that someone recommended the show to me IRL, I humoured him, and amazingly actually ended up enjoying it). Double sharp (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And a 少女アニメ on top of that! Well, I am a fan of the Russian cartoon Маша и Медведь (ah the quiet life in the middle of Siberia next to a track of the Transiberian) but I do enjoy (in moderation) manga and anime and also live action movies spun-off from mangas as they like to do in Japan from time to time. Even from 少女漫画. Do you know the movie ラブコン? I've always found the karaoke scene hilarious. Basemetal 15:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I've heard of it, but haven't yet watched it. I haven't been into Japanese media for very long – mostly only since last year (and like I said, I place the blame squarely on some of my friends...). That's been long enough at least to notice the trend of spinning off live-action movies from mangas – at least, I rather liked the few I did watch so far (and yes, not all of them were from 少女漫画 or アニメ). Also, thanks for allowing me the precedent of using the original writing system – I can't type "anime" without "amine" coming out, which I suppose somewhat redeems this lack of seriousness.

In retrospect, I suppose part of my actual enjoyment of this particular 少女アニメ could be traced back to its many references to Goethe's Faust (which I would know, being such a prominent thing in the history of music) and its Monty-Pythonesque levels of surreal animation. Also, since this was a major dividing point in the fandom, I should probably add to be specific that I thought the third movie was brilliant – although I do wonder how on Earth one could sensibly continue at that level of inspiration after it, and would rather it stopped there. Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This section title makes the history look absolutely ridiculous and I love it. Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been relatively well behaved on WP but I remember in my younger years adding a sarcastic comment to an editor's user page, which he reverted angrily as vandalism. (I had thought it was humor!). Then, shortly after that, he blanked his own user page. I thought I had been the cause of his decision to ditch his own user page so I felt guilty and apologized (a year later!) but he told me that I shouldn't worry about it as it wasn't my fault. Basemetal 17:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

PS: There are 44 people who watch your talk page but only 4 dare acknowledge it. Clearly that must be because of "Pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch". Basemetal 18:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The next time I pass by the parts of the planet where these drinks are popular, I really should get some of the yellow ones and make the most tasteless PMMM reference ever. (You should probably just move on.) Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does it have to be yellow? Since I don't now anything about PMMM all I could guess after looking around a bit is that Mami Tomoe was decapitated and (maybe?) she liked wearing yellow? So that a Mogu Mogu bottle would be like her decapitated body? The link between the drink brand name would be that "mogu mogu" is also Japanese for "chomp-chomp", that is the 擬声語 (giseigo) indicating chewing? Basemetal 10:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

...close enough. (Ah, how can I explain any more without giving away all the spoilers ever?) Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You worried about spoilers? Cmon bro! This is Wikipedia. Who's worried about spoilers around here? Basemetal 16:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that spoilers are not a thing to worry about in articles, but do you really expect a fan of the show to give you all the spoilers before you've watched it? ^_^ That's not what we're supposed to do! Then again, after getting you to waste lots of time watching Monty Python, it would be remiss of me to get you to watch all twelve episodes on Crunchyroll. So, if you really want to spoil it for yourself, you could take a long wiki walk. (If anyone asks, I did not recommend you do this.)

Hello? This ain't no help. I was already aware of that site. (Seen my links?) I'll go do something else. Basemetal 04:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably for the best. ^_^ Still working on that Mozart-sacred-works study, incidentally. Reminds me how much K⁶ needs an update – KV 341 should really be something like KV 618^a. The trouble with looking at Mozart genre-by-genre as Rosen does is that outside the genres that he was the first to make great (piano concerto, string quintet, and comic opera), he's not the best genre composer. Want six mastery string quartets? Ask Haydn. Want a quintet for flute, oboe, viola, cello, and glass harmonica of all things? Ask Mozart (KV 617). But that makes it more difficult to trace his development.

Mentioning Haydn and Mozart in a section called "Pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch..." looks really weird (not to say sacrilegious) Basemetal 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is their style above all others that most naturally accommodated the popular tunes of their time! Granted, those are nothing like the popular tunes of our time, so maybe it is a little sacrilegious... Then again, I've already gotten chemistry, anime, Russian cartoons, beatboxing, Haydn, and Mozart into one section. Certainly we could continue down this unlikely path of intersections. (Hmm, where to go next? Ah, here's a link to a mathematical analysis of Madoka population dynamics.) Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Great, though I did not delve into the mathematics. Reminds me of the equilibrium between lemmings and arctic foxes. To stay somewhat closer to melodies, I did suggest Bollywood but you said you were too shy for that. It is true there's nothing more extrovert than Indian culture. How about enka then, a style of songs that was mostly popular in Japan between 1960 and 1985, which was the golden age of enka. As they come from a much more introverted part of the world they may suit your taste better, although this is very far indeed from Haydn, not to mention Webern, so you'll have to switch to another mode in your brain. Since we were talking about "mogu mogu" these two songs also feature extended "sound imitation" though not grammaticalized "gitaigo" or "giseigo" but pure sound. As a reader of Japanese manga you must be familiar with Japanese onomatopoeia but these examples are different from that too, maybe of a kind you find mostly in songs. I'm sure you'll pick them up. I could never get the meaning of the first one (if you've got a Japanese speaker within reach you may ask them and then tell me) but the second one is most likely the cry of the swallow. Anyway, the first one is 石狩挽歌 ("Elegy from Ishikari") here, originally recorded by 北原ミレイ in 1975, this version is by 水森かおり, who is not the woman in the video which incidentally has absolutely nothing to do with the song and was probably put together by some YouTube schmuck cause I've seen it used for other Japanese songs although I'd like to know who that woman is, and the second one is 越冬つばめ ("Wintering swallow") here originally recorded by 森昌子 in 1983 (the song was composed by a guy whose name is (gasp) "Madoka"), and interpreted in this version by 坂本冬美 and 藤あや子 in a duet of sorts. This version of the same song, sung by 森昌子, the original singer, is famous not because it is so good but because she breaks down half-way. I think she pulled that stunt a coupla times. Some of the Japanese WP articles have Chinese language WP versions, so, you're proficient in Chinese, you may wanna go there when you can. Some of them may have English WP versions too. Basemetal 12:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I was indeed thinking of episode 3, and that's all there was to it. Double sharp (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Crossovers with this show might also help my old idea of chemical-element personifications – evidently the non-primordial elements, having decayed away completely, have "witched out"! Double sharp (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this is still on my talk page has led me to imagine complete designs for the witch forms of the group VA elements (V, Nb, and Ta). Basemetal, you should send some help! Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean led you to imagine imagining? Otherwise, where are your complete designs? Are your personifications of chemical elements characters? Do they have anything to do with those witch forms of chemical elements? If yes how? And what are non-primordial elements? And you obviously don't mean having decayed away naturally (or mostly decayed, like Tc), so what do you mean? If you're gonna mix chemistry and PMMM there's still a few missing pieces. Basemetal 09:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Still in my head, since my drawing skills make Alphonse Allais look like a great artist. Yes, I have long had this idea to make chemistry a little more accessible-looking to beginners by personifying elements into human characters. I suppose these would come from a universe where these personifications became Magical Girls and fell to despair.

Originally I had the idea to equate "falling to despair" with "decaying away radioactively until it was no longer to be found in nature", which is what happens to non-primordial elements like plutonium (their half-lives are too short to have survived to the present, even though they were formed in the primordial supernova that was the precursor to our Solar System just like the 83 primordial elements). To a certain extent it fits: the way Soul Gems naturally deteriorate over time in PMMM remind me quite a bit of natural radioactivity, that you cannot stop (yes, I know you can delay the PMMM version, but let's handwave that away), and Witches are not really a natural occurrence. But on the other hand, synthetic elements tend to have unimaginative names (come on, technetium "artificial element" or astatine "unstable element"), so I tried to let everyone have a go. Also, I liked group VB for its mythological theme-naming (as well, Niobe as a name seems to fit...) Double sharp (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Great idea but how am I supposed to be able to send help? Basemetal 06:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC) PS: My drawing skills make Helen Keller's look like the Caravaggio's.

Out-of-universe, you could advise me to do something more useful; in-universe, you could spare me a few Grief Seeds... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A fuzzy question for a lazy Sunday afternoon

Here, my friend, is a question one can only ask on a Sunday afternoon, and since it is Sunday I hope you will forgive me. So here goes: In the classical period modulations from a major key to the major key a 5th up and modulations from a minor key to its relative major appear in similar contexts. This may come from the asymmetry between major and minor in that period (I mean major being the senior partner) and from the way it was felt that the feeling of "brightening" you get when you move from a major key to the major key a 5th up and the feeling of "brightening" you get when you move from a minor key to its relative major were felt to be related. So my question: Must this way those two kinds of feeling of "brightening" were considered not equivalent but of the same order be considered entirely a cultural artifact specific to the music of that period (and those styles of music influenced by it) or is there some objective explanation for it? Basemetal 13:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This has a lot to do with how the Classical style views the minor mode as essentially unstable, which is why so many pieces in the Classical era that start in a minor key end in the parallel major (most famously, Mozart's KV 516). When this does not happen, there must be a textural or formal reason why, with an added simplicity of phrasing or texture: for example, KV 491 ends in the minor, but has a simple variations-finale. Similarly, KV 550 is very square in its phrasing in the finale. Haydn's F-sharp minor trio likewise ends in the minor, but has a minuet for a finale. Haydn's quartet Op. 50 No. 4 looks like an exception, but to some extent this extraordinary work is a deliberate anachronism since the finale is a fugue (and also could be said to fit: after all, isn't a closing fugue an illustration of compositional virtuosity?)

Like the subdominant, the minor mode tends to weaken the tonic, and plays a similar role. (For example, if one moves from I to v instead of V, the dominant is indeed established as a tonality, but the relation to the tonic is weakened and more strained: this is very much a dramatic thing.) Hence, in this system, moving to the relative major key increases the tension just as going to the dominant does in a major key. This is also helped by the increasing animation of phrasing and texture that always occurs in a Classical sonata, whether or not it is in the major or minor. For an easily spotted example, see KV 516, where the second subject takes a more expressive arcing form after the modulation from G minor to B-flat major is finally won. For a more subtle example, see KV 388, where the unease of the opening in C minor carries forth into the second group in E-flat major, with the increasingly irregular phrasing, as well as the bald juxtapositions of piano and forte outbursts on augmented sixth harmonies.

As for how this changed over time, I cannot do better than quote Charles Rosen's The Classical Style (p. 26): "In the early part of the [eighteenth] century, the secondary key to C minor, for example, could be either the dominant minor (G minor), or the relative major (E flat major). But the dominant minor triad can never have the force of the major chord, and this weak relation almost totally disappeared by the end of the eighteenth century. The relative major now reigned alone as a substitute for the dominant in the minor mode. This situation, too, could not remain fixed for long. By the time of Schumann and Chopin, the minor mode and its relative major are often identified, considered as the same key, so that any polarity is no longer possible (as in the Chopin Scherzo in B flat minor/D flat major or the Fantasy in F minor/A flat major.) The instability of the function of the minor triad is clearly a force for historical change." So, indeed, this is a classical thing.

The great frustration behind most Romantic sonatas in the minor (and yes, most of them are in the minor) is that Classically, they need to go to the relative major, but by the Romantic aesthetic that would be very much like the Red Queen, running to stay in the same place. Since the weight of tradition was still in force, though, what with the giant lumbering behind, most of these sonatas try to create a chromatic blur between the two key areas, such as Chopin's Op. 58. Of course, the problem here is that since the first group is agitatedly trying to go somewhere and the second group is so much more relaxed in its discursiveness (this sonata is very Italian...), the discourse almost feels over at the end of the exposition.

A few works do try to take the Romantic aesthetic to its logical extreme: one of the interesting ones is the Alkan sonata, with its interesting key scheme of i-(VI-iv)-IV in the exposition and i-(V of III)-III in the recapitulation. Notwithstanding the general vulgar virtuosity of much of the development, I somehow doubt this scheme could have been invented without the clear programme stated ("Quasi-Faust": the characters are even given their own key areas as well as themes when first exposed, with Faust in i, Mephistopheles in VI, Gretchen in iv then IV, and God as a dominant pedal leading to III for the reprise of Gretchen's theme avec bonheur). It does work well: i-IV has the pull toward the subdominant beloved of the Romantic period while still increasing the energy by moving to a sharp-side key, and the move from i to III is polarised and dramatised by a huge dominant preparation (marked Le Seigneur, even). But this work is very exceptional due to its programme, as I mentioned. We must not forget also that Alkan was one of the pioneers of progressive tonality (consider the Symphony in c-e♭ and the Concerto in g♯-F♯), so that I would classify his practice here certainly not as a return to a Classical spirit, but simply as one among many ways to create one of the dramatic programmatic structures he loved so much. [Though I have my doubts whether they always work beyond the programme or novelty effects, outside the wonderful Cello Sonata Op. 47 that is an unacknowledged masterwork – though maybe the reason I think so is that it is very Classical in spirit, even in the programmatic slow movement.]

OK, this seems to have expanded way beyond what I wanted it to be. I tried to stick with examples that I actually have memorised; they ought to be representative. Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Whew! Lots of stuff here. Thanks mate. I'll copy this to my sandbox. A lot to think about. You say: "the Classical style views the minor mode as essentially unstable". Is it again the same old old story that the minor chord is not a natural resonance or was it something entirely different? On a related note: When you personally hear a modulation from minor to relative does the brightening feel less, more, or equally intense than for a modulation from major to dominant? Or is there no way you can give a general answer and it depends on the actual modulation? Basemetal 15:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It really depends on the style. In a Romantic sonata form, I tend to find the brightening very intense (for example in both sonatas of Chopin), even more intense than a major mode going to the dominant. In a Classical sonata form, I tend to find that the composer has muted it so that it has equal weight. I'll consider my beloved Haydn Quartet Op. 50 No. 4 in F♯ minor (if you don't know that quartet, you should!). The opening minor feels really unstable, as though it is crying out to be resolved. The syncopations continue through even when A major is reached, and so do the forzato outbursts within a general piano dynamic, and the whirling accompaniment feels disqueting to me. The lurch of this second group into D major at the start of the development feels more defiant, but it's not complete for me yet because it's not in the home key and the tonality slides away from D quickly. The tension keeps going through the recapitulation, with foreboding unisons. And then, the first subject reappears midway through the recapitulation, again forte, but now falling onto A♯ instead of A, and now the second group is shouted forte from the rooftops, we are in the home key, and this shift is the one that to me feels like the initial minor-relative major shift in a Romantic sonata form! (You really see here how, while for Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven C minor is most related to the parallel C major, for the next generation of Romantic composers it is most related to the relative E-flat major!)

There has been much theoretical talk about the relative stability and naturalness of the major and minor modes, even if we restrict it to the period we are talking about (so taking the 1770s as an approximate cut-off). Frankly, I'm not sure I believe any of them, and I'm not sure if Haydn or Mozart did either. What I do find real is a difference of mood, that the major really does feel less clouded than the minor, and I am personally quite convinced that Haydn and Mozart would have felt that and used that in their music – consider how the greatest expressions of despair in Mozart are all in minor keys (to name a few: the C minor slow movements from KV 271 and KV 364; the F-sharp minor slow movement from KV 488; the G-minor string quintet KV 516; Pamina's G minor aria from Die Zauberflöte – and she prepares to commit suicide in the same key). I don't think this affect of the modes is really subverted until we get to Schubert, as Wittgenstein pointed out, most famously in Die schöne Müllerin. (For a less famous example that I love, try Heiss mich nicht reden, D 877 No. 2.) I'm not sure how much of this is because he is helped by the text, but a purely instrumental example occurs in the third movement of Haydn's Emperor Quartet Op. 76 No. 3. Perhaps that example helps me put a finger on how this happens – a purely expressive alternation, when you are sure, despite the sweetness of the music, that the major mode is a fiction that will pass. When hearing the major-mode section in the trio, you know that Haydn must return to reprise the opening period, and that he cannot stay in that heaven, and that impermanence makes that glimpse all the more bittersweet. Melodies of utter simplicity can have this effect too: I am affected somewhat that way by the slow movements of Mozart's concerti KV 595 and 622 (the clarinet one), as well as Haydn's Emperor Hymn (also in Op. 76 No. 3) and the Piano Trio Hob:XV/14. All are in major, but I find that they can induce tears. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

By "put a finger on how this happens", you mean "put a finger on how this affect of the modes is subverted"? Basemetal 15:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Double sharp (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Which Wittgenstein? Basemetal 19:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ludwig, in his Culture and Value. Double sharp (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you point out one lied of the Schö. Mül. to listen to? Did that Wittgenstein mention one particular number? The cycle? Basemetal 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

He didn't mention either, but #19 (Der Müller und der Bach) is probably the most famous example. It is the last five songs that have the most complex tonal relationships, and Rosen claims that they form a group tonally centered around E minor:

16. Die liebe farbe, b (B)

17. Die böse farbe, B (b)

18. Trockne Blumen, e–E–e

19. Der Müller und der Bach, g–G

20. Des Baches Wiegenlied, E

This major–minor contrast has already been intimated, for example in #6 (Der Neugierige), #10 (Tränenregen), #12 (Pause), and #15 (Eifersucht und Stolz). In #16, the song is in B minor, with B major being used for memories. In #17, the song itself is in B major, but elements of B minor keep forcing themselves in in forte and fortissimo (for instance, the piano introduction has I brutally cut off by i, and the song's first modulation is to v instead of V). In #18, the E major is used for a fantastic future vision of self-pity, before we are brought back to reality by the dying away in E minor. #19 then starts in G minor, the largest harmonic distance between any two songs in the cycle. The confirmation of the miller's decision of suicide crucially happens in G major, though, which lets it stay in the E minor area. Finally #20: I can do no better than to quote Rosen, who says "The modal purity of the last song is a consolation, the lullaby that the stream sings as a requiem." Double sharp (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thing about minor-key sonata forms

@Basemetal: If you are like Mozart, you probably want to save the major-key resolution to the finale (e.g. KV 388, KV 421, KV 466, and KV 516). So you then need to turn the major-key second subject to the minor mode in the recapitulation, and it will not accept this without a reformulation. (For one, tonicisation of ii is impossible in the minor, at least in the absence of an incredible amount of chromaticism to make the ♯ seem normal – for example, KV 312.) Fine examples of how to do this may be found in most of Haydn's double-variation sets. I would recommend the first movement of the C minor Piano Trio, Hob XV:13, except that that's the opposite way (minor to major). Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again . Basemetal 18:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

A very weird trope connected to this is a recapitulation, in a major-key work, that starts in the parallel minor. This one died out fairly quickly: the only Mozart example I know of is in KV 9/i, and since he was but eight one cannot help but wonder if it was Leopold's idea. The only two Haydn examples I can think of are the Symphony No. 47/i (1772) and the Quartet Op. 76 No. 4/ii (1797). (One might playfully consider now the idea of a website entitled "Sonata Tropes", including such things as "Development Ending in vi", "Development Ending in i", "Recapitulation Starting in i", "Modulating Second Theme" [e.g. KV 493, KV 516]...) Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There could be a bunch of such tropes already collected as examples in Rosen's Sonata Forms possibly? Have you read it? I haven't read it, although I used to own it . Basemetal 10:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, many of them are there, although the collection is fairly heavy on Haydn and Mozart. It would be very nice to have a statistical analysis of the usage of these tropes in the second half of the 18th century, but unfortunately too much of the material is too hard to access, and the datings of many works are not secure. It could be a good lifetime project... Double sharp (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

PS: Have you read Goldman's Harmony in Wester Music? If you have, how does its analyses compare with the ones on the site? Basemetal 10:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Another interesting effect, incidentally, is what happens when the opening key is ambiguous between major and minor. The reason: ♭III (for example) has dominant character towards i, but has subdominant character towards I. For example, Schubert's D 887/iv (a very difficult work to understand, it must be admitted) plays on this: when we reach ♭III, we are not sure if we have reached the second group, or if this is just more of the first group (it turns out to be the latter). Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever been here?

Do you know this site? And this? Then you probably know who Sylvie-Anne Ménard is. Basemetal 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know of her and this site. I might use that one to illustrate the point sonata expositions going to the relative major – there is always some increasing animation to compensate to the reduce in harmonic tension, which can come either from a more animated texture or a faster harmonic rhythm (in this case, both). I'm not so sure I agree with her "V" faces, though. Maybe the face would be right for one of Beethoven's V⁹ explosions (e.g. Op. 7, Op. 31 No. 1, Op. 53, Op. 57), but probably not for a graceful Mozartian V⁴
₂. I would also prefer to see some of the increased relaxation of IV in ii and vi as well (all having subdominant character). But I like how I⁶
₄ gets its own face. No doubt people will scold me for it, but to me, it needs to be a separate chord for the consistency of the principle of increasing harmonic rhythm before a cadence. It may arise from a vertical combination, but it is also a chord in itself that mixes the I and V functions (see for example Beethoven's eighth symphony, or Mozart's Fantasy KV 467 for examples of I⁶
₄ used alone). Although I think that if it deserves a separate face, vii°⁷ deserves one separate from V as well!

Have you seen the earlier instalments? She's also done the piano sonata KV 545, the opening of the "grieving and despairing" slow movement of the piano concerto KV 488, the Lacrymosa from the Requiem KV 626. I do find the faces a little too obvious in their expression, though – I'd prefer them more controlled, not forgetting how beautiful Mozart's grief tends to sound. Maybe I wouldn't mind so much for a song (may I recommend KV 523?) or an aria (may I recommend Pamina's from Die Zauberflöte?). Double sharp (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused that they don't use lowercase for minor chords, but generally speaking how do you like their analytical model? In the beginning Luce Beaudet says it is based on Richard Franko Goldman's Harmony in Western Music. Btw, have you seen this? Basemetal 08:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Not using lowercase for minor chords is rather a European thing. I got used to it. I actually quite liked the analytical model when I first read it, as it seems to hold up quite well in practice. But I haven't read it recently so I'll have to reread it to fully answer your questions. BTW, for a nice example of the parallelisme d'accords de quinte...imagine le beau lot de quintes consécutives!, see Mozart's(!) Piano Concerto KV 595, ii (b. 104–106), in which we have a nice series of horrifying consecutive fifths between the first violin and the solo piano (look at the sixth page of the pdf). Another equally horrifying(?) case is in the Sanctus of his Requiem (yes, I know it's Süssmayr, but it is good enough to be Mozart). Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, here's one thing I really do disagree with: the case of the omnibus progression, discussed as hors-tonal. This feels nothing more than like a sequence where various tonalities are implied, but left before they are confirmed, in the Chaikovsky example given. As a simpler example, imagine a chord progression like B⁷-E⁷-A⁷-D⁷-G⁷- going round the circle of fifths; each chord could imply the key that it is the dominant of, but it is simply passed through without being confirmed. As for the Beethoven Op. 111 example, it's not long enough that I feel the tonality has really been held in abeyance. In b. 1–2 we are in C minor; in b. 3–4 we repeat it a fifth up in F minor. So the repetition in b. 5 feels like it starts in B♭ minor, upon which i⁶
₄ of B♭ minor transforms into ii⁶
₄ in A♭ major, and then I simply hear (all in A♭ major) V⁶
₅ going to I going to ii⁶
₄/IV, then vii°⁷/IV, and then IV, vii°⁷/V, and I⁶
₄. Then we tonicise vi, which turns out to be just iv of the original C minor. I don't feel that we have left the sphere of tonality for a second, but merely have been bouncing around the subdominant area (iv, iv/iv, and VI). I feel the same way about the other Beethoven example. Similarly, the Mozart example looks odd with such resolutions as A⁷-Fm/A♭, but is that not simply a case of, as they said in a previous page, a V-I in F minor where the 7th has been lowered (B♭ to B = A)? So this is just a modulating sequence (rare in a Classical piece, but the Fantasy KV 475 is extraordinary). Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(BTW, historically this progression, like E major-C major, does not derive from any sort of "anticipation" of the 3rd of the following chord, but rather is a case of ellipsis. It was a common trope in the early Classical era for developments to end by going to the relative minor and then lead back to the tonic without much further ado, and this progression, being V/vi–I, is simply one way to play with the trope – by saying "we know the middle already". It also helps if the theme that starts the recapitulation begins on , of course. It is by no means the only way to play with this trope. Mozart in KV 543/i plays with it in another way, by giving us the V/vi, but then giving us a bar of silence instead of the vi, and then leading us through a sequence: V/ii-V/V-V-I, and we have arrived. Of course, since this sort of use of "prefabricated material" and "tropes" is quite alien to us after the death of Beethoven, after which we start expecting everything to be derived using the hallowed process of motivic development, it stands to reason that it would not be considered in a survey today. Although to some extent vi and I can substitute for each other, so perhaps it should not be surprising even so.) Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah ben batêche! When I'll have read and painfully analyzed all this clearly je vais me réveiller moins niaiseux. I wish they had provided MIDI files (at least of the piano reductions if not of the full orchestra scores) besides those piano recordings, so I could slow things down. Merci encore mon ami . This looks like a symbol for a crusader. You could have T-shirts made with this. But maybe you don't want your friends IRL to know you are Captain Double Sharp, dit "El efe", the masked avenger, leaving an sign with his sword wherever he goes to fight injustice. What a pity you can't make it your signature. Basemetal 14:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to originally, but it's a picture, so it wouldn't be allowed. The Unicode character is not visible on all platforms and mine is among the unfavoured ones. Also, as my userpage frankly admits, "This was always intended to be a temporary username, until I thought of something better. Alas, I never did." Maybe it's not that bad after all, though. The symbol certainly gives a different sense than the name does. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I needed to Google your colourful language to understand it, hilariously confirming the statement at the end of the lede of Québec French profanity: "For other French-speakers, sacres may have no meaning at all." Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you now see the potential for Captain Double Sharp? His trademark is that he is ambidextrous and fights with one sword in each hand. What's sharper than a sharp sword? Two sharp swords!! The character could become more famous than Doctor Syn (especially since, besides shooting, fencing, riding, dancing, somersaulting, etc. he can also analyze the most difficult and intricate piece of 20th c. atonal music and play it on a church organ!) if only this was 1915. Alas, this is not 1915! Today's children probably laugh at Doctor Syn. I listened two years ago on BBC radio to a reading of a abridgment of that series of novels (of course not to the whole thing but I happened to catch one installment by chance and I fully agree with them, as I've never in my life heard something so silly) but that was probably meant for people who used to be children in 1915. Basemetal 20:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

interesting fact

Just a quick copy-paste-GT from what I found in the Internet, which maybe shows us another interesting aspect of the ultimate end of the Transfermium Wars (or maybe not):

In August 1997, the statement took representatives of the countries - members of the IUPAC Committee proposals. Russia, just a few days before the meeting made their membership fee and only then admitted to the vote, was not able to defend their rights and interests to the fullest. The overwhelming majority of votes (with two votes "against") Committee proposals were approved and became effective for use worldwide.

Anyways, I'm leaving Moscow until very late September or early October; hope you'll be done with lead when I'm back!--R8R (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, do you know why the Dubna team wanted to name element 105 nielsbohrium rather than just bohrium? An easy suggestion would be the striking similarity between, say, bohrate and borate, with that slightest difference completely lost in the Russian language due to a different writing script, but is it possible to prove this statement with references?--R8R (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have the original papers from the Dubna team mentioned in the TWG report? That might offer an explanation. If not, we could always use one from the German team proposing nielsbohrium for element 107. I'm not sure they would mention it though, since the reason would be pretty clear: no one wants to have two unrelated elements called бор and борий, and the oxyanions would be pronounced the same.

(By the way, the situation is even worse in Polish, where boron and bohrium are bor and bohr respectively: this is so bad that it is recommended that the h in the latter be pronounced.) Double sharp (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What moved and what stayed

You say: "If you are wondering why this table, contrary to all others in WP, has lanthanum under yttrium [etc.]". The way you put it sounds like you moved yttrium but left scandium stay where it was, or worse, that you actually moved lanthanum. Of course a quick peek at the table will show you didn't, but it may be clearer to say: "If you are wondering why this table, contrary to all others in WP, has yttrium and scandium above lanthanum [instead of lutetium, etc.]". Just saying. Please ignore my comment if you don't think it useful. Basemetal 00:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that is a good point. Changed according to your suggestions! Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Double sharp, you now say:

If you are wondering why this table, contrary to all others in WP, has scandium and yttrium above lanthanum (instead of lutetium), it is because La under Y is consistent with electron configurations and does not show an exceptional "kink" in the trend towards increasing basicity, electropositivity, and size down the periodic table. For Hf under Zr, there is no choice, but there is one for what to put under Y. Lu under Y works somewhat because of the lanthanide contraction, but if we are going to start arguing by similar size, instead of trends, we need to put Be and Mg over Zn as well, and I don't think anyone wants that now. Besides, Sc still shows differences from Lu, so the argument is suspect in the first place. Notice that I value chemical properties over electron configuration when deciding where to place elements.

Comment in passing: This reads like you are mixing arguments and being selective about which ones to count. Saying "La under Y is consistent with electron configurations" is inconsistent with saying "I value chemical properties over electron configuration". It also results in more electron configuration anomalies compared to Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, as explained here. The "exceptional "kink" in the trend towards increasing basicity, electropositivity, and size down the periodic table" for Sc-Y-Lu-Lr is an unavoidable outcome of the lanthanide contraction. And that is not a size based argument but an acknowledgement of the existence of the 5f metals. Same thing happens with Hf under Zr, as you say. It's fine to show Sc-Y-La-Ac, and I suggest your current rationale (which is nicely concise) doesn't do you proud. Sandbh (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's very confused because it was a failed attempt to summarise the whole thing into one paragraph, which I doubt is actually possible. I was dissatisfied with it, but hadn't come up with a plan that fully satisfied me, so I let it stand. Since this is my userpage, I've edited it to "If you are wondering why this table, contrary to all others in WP, has scandium and yttrium above lanthanum (instead of lutetium), it is because that's how I first saw it. Since this is a periodic table of where I have been on WP, it simply reflects how the mental one burned in my head for years looks. There are other reasons, but I could not possibly do them justice in a single paragraph (I tried; it didn't work very well)."

If I was trying to one-paragraph summarise it (which maybe I will attempt again later), I would probably say: "the main reason is that Sc-Y-La-Ac gives a trend that looks like the s-block groups while Sc-Y-Lu-Lr gives a trend that looks like the d-block groups. I favour the former because the chemistry of these elements is much more like the s-block metals than the d-block metals." The electron configuration thing is frankly just a sanity check that I think we can do without: nobody complains about Ni (d⁸s²), Pd (d¹⁰), and Pt (d⁹s¹) in the sme column. But frankly, for my userpage the sentimental rationale (that's how it appeared in the textbooks I learnt from) is more honest. Double sharp (talk) 04:44, 14 September 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. Leyo 12:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The best article lead in all of WP

The lead to article Everyday life in early 19th-century Spain shrewdly notes that "the early 19th century [...] happened in Spain as well as several other countries" and adds the pertinent observation that "at that time it was usual for most people to have an everyday life". What can I say? It made my day. I am greatly tempted to read the rest of the article but on the other hand I am a bit reluctant to as I am afraid I'll be disappointed, since not many people can keep this level of inspiration for long. Whoever wrote that lead is a true comic talent. Basemetal 08:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole article does have a distinct tendency to read like a charmingly incompetent school project. The weird link placements are also jarring. Indeed the lede seems to have backed unwittingly into being actually amusing, but such frank statements of the obvious could hardly continue being funny if they lasted significantly longer. Originally the lede read "The Romanticism was a cultural movement that spread throughout Europe from the end of the XVIII century until the first half of the XIX century.", which I suppose was also incongruously funny in the sense that it promised much but failed to deliver. Oh, another strangely amusing bit is "The best moments to talk to the girl you liked were during mass. But until the boy could come to her house, he had to pass an exam in which the family asked a lot of questions." Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Encouraged by your bold example (Be bold!) I've read it! That's exactly what I think it is, a school assignment. From the name of the article creator she is Spanish or at least a Spanish speaker. She's got no other contribution to WP. She's just registered to be able to create this article. I remember reading on the talk page of some article once a comment left by a high school student that they had to write an essay and upload it to WP: IOW the assignment was, besides writing it, to upload it. Why? I'm really puzzled as to what school teachers think WP is. Here the assignment went one better: the essay had to be written in English by this Spanish speaker and uploaded to the English WP. She writes "at night people used to break into their houses because there was no lighting". She really seems to mean they broke into their own houses. Reminds me of A Fish Called Wanda. "So the Urban Police Rules recommended painting the entrance of the houses purple". Since purple is your favorite color (now that reminds me of Monty Python, except there it was blue), maybe you can explain to me why purple is more visible in pitch black than, say, white. Not to mention that the pigment must have been astronomically more expensive than simple whitewashing. "The other floors were usually bedrooms where the owner of the house’s family used to live before they died". Obviously life after death does require some adjustments. "Nobody came there afterwards because of the smell". "When children were born, they dressed themselves with diapers". Some cynical 21st century editor linked the phrase "conquer a girl" to article Sexual assault. Sheesh. "(to shave themselves) they used water, soap, blowtorches, and knives" (!). "When they [women] went shopping they covered their heads with feathers or thongs" (!). The same editor (probly) linked "thongs" to article Thong (clothing). Is that nice? She's just a poor middle high school girl trying to comply with an idiotic assignment. Basemetal 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Another masterpiece of cynicism in the text is "Like the servants, [men] were in charge of controlling the people who enter and exit the house and of course his wife (especially the wife)." Certainly this reminds me of this passage from I Am A Cat:

“ Pythagoras says that there are three evils not to be suffered: fire, water, and a woman."

"I don't know", said Singleman, "that any Greek philosopher was responsible for such an ill-conceived apothegm. If you ask me, none of them are evil: one can enter fire and not be burnt, enter water and not be drowned, enter..." Here he got stuck until Waverhouse helped him out by adding, "And entertain a woman without being bewitched, eh?

”

P.S. Since that particular article of clothing is mentioned in the text: I have wanted for a while to write an article entitled corset effect (chemistry), but got stymied because there are just too many side effects associated with the real article of clothing, not the metaphorical one. In the meantime, tetrahedrane at least offers a vague impression of what this mysterious effect is (and should give you a picture of why it's called that). Double sharp (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Well can't say I completely understood but I noticed that all Google hits for "corset effect" refer to tetrahedranes. Was the concept invented for such compounds? Does it occur elsewhere? And is that effect understood? I noticed the article says the mechanism involves "Van der Waals strain". Is it by definition? But the lead also seems to say this was only a suggestion by Günther Maier. Of course that was in 1978. Btw, I love "I Am A Cat". And I love Natsume Souseki. IMHO together with Tanizaki they're at the top. Btw Natsume Souseki died too young, but Tanizaki, should clearly have been the first Japanese awarded the Nobel but he died before those idiots in Stockholm got around to it and they don't do posthumous you see. Kawabata is ok, but there's just no comparison. Basemetal 11:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

C₄(t-Bu)₄

Yes, IIRC it was first discussed in Maier's 1978 paper about his synthesis of C₄(t-Bu)₄. The idea behind the corset effect, expressed as simply as I think I can make it, is that although the bonds in the tetrahedrane core would normally be quite happy to break, they cannot because the tert-butyl groups are too bulky. If the core bonds broke, the t-Bu groups would be shoved into each other (hence the van der Waals strain), and that's even less nice than the strained tetrahedrane structure. (Do you see how it got its name now? ^_^) I really love these highly strained yet beautifully symmetric compounds – one of these days I should try to rewrite tetrahedrane... Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, maybe corset effect (chemistry) would do better as a redirect to an appropriate section of tetrahedrane. Except that there isn't really one yet. It should be noted also that this effect will only go so far: already C₄(t-Bu)₃SiMe₃ is significantly less stable. On the other hand, we have already gone tantalisingly down the route to unsubstituted C₄H₄, since C₄H(SiMe₃)₃ is known. C₄H₄ is certainly a very interesting molecule because (1) it is pretty (always an important factor); (2) it poses challenges to theory – how strained can a molecule get?; (3) will be hard to synthesise (you don't say); and (4) may have truly strange properties, both because of the very high symmetry and also because of all the strained cyclopropane rings stuck together. Finally, (5) if it could be made and is stable, it would be one amazing jet fuel. AFAIK, though, we still haven't been able to get rid of the need for the corset effect entirely, and we are still nowhere near figuring out how to make C₄H₄ itself – although it is predicted quite widely that it should be fairly stable once formed, being trapped in a deep energetic well that forbids isomerisation to cyclobutadiene. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbinilium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unbinilium 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) 22:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far--Lead and references needs work, some prose can be tightened or clarified, but it's not going to be a herculean effort. Hopefully this one won't attract the "helpful" attentions that Iron did. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iron

The article Iron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Iron 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Iron (estimated annual readership: 1,000,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The only other element articles that could possibly get Million Awards are aluminium and gold (hmm, next projects?) Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I please finally turn your attention to lead, which must be close to the FA quality? I'd wanted to know it would be finished by now. The collab isn't going really collab-y, but I'd still want to give it one last chance, as it's (I hope) still not too late to give it a final try.--R8R (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I still have a few doubts about the organisation of the chemistry section. For one, I'd personally have organised it by type of compound rather than oxidation state (thus: hydrides, halides, oxides and hydroxides, oxoacid derivatives, anything else simple like chalcogenides, catenae, complexes, organometallics). This is mostly because the attempt to split things dogmatically into Pb²⁺ and Pb⁴⁺ runs into the problems that (1) the latter is not really ionic, so we've been telling the reader that Pb(II) is more stable and then suddenly the organometallics look odd, and (2) this doesn't really help you handle the catenation, where oxidation states are only formal. (BTW, yes it is a general thing in groups 14–17; see J. D. Corbett, Prog. Inorg. Chem. 21, 129–155 (1976). This is why I really would stress it here – this is an important feature of post-transition metals, and Pb is no exception.)

Also, from my experience writing a few other famous elements (mostly iron and iodine for now), I remain uncertain on whether you should talk about the element together with the rest of its compounds. I just looked at those two, and I did not feel the need to have a section on reactivity. This is because (and I tried writing it on Pb too) the natural place I would want to talk about lead's reacting with F₂ and Cl₂ to give only the dihalides is in the "halides" section. After all, when you react Pb with something, you get a Pb compound, so it seems like a good way to segue into the next thing you want to talk about.

So while I think it is mostly there (even bio looks OK to my non-specialist eyes – it explains chemically nicely what the problem is, which is mostly binding to the –SH groups and being a bad analogue of Ca²⁺, Fe²⁺, and Zn²⁺), we do not have enough about the compounds and chemistry. (For instance, Pb₃O₄ is used to protect iron from corrosion: for why, check E° values. Also, consider ferroelectrics, many of which are mixed lead oxides.)

But – and this is the thing – given your responses to my statements on the talk page (e.g. the chalcogenides, the Zintl ions, etc.) – you might not agree completely with my wish to expand the chemistry focus before I dare to call it an FA (which, to me, means that really everything I can think of is there, like alkali metal). So I'm not sure what to do. Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you organize it your way, then? It's free to try and I can't insist my idea was the best thing possible (though I would want to keep a section on reactivity, everything can be put into question. Maybe you'll get it better.).

Re Bio: haven't even read it closely yet, but it looks like something heavy and difficult to read simply because of para length.--R8R (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, if you do (please do!) take on Chemistry, would you mind also finding good pics for it? The rest of the article is (mostly) rich in them.--R8R (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on the chemistry. Perhaps in a sandbox first, so I can show it to you before I put it into the article. Regarding pictures: we do have quite a few, but many Pb compounds are colourless (for obvious reasons) and so it might look a bit boring. But I suppose PbI₂ could work. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ball-and-stick models and such structural images are fine as well.--R8R (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll want to go for PR after being done after we're done with lead, just in case. Hopefully the title would give us some more attention than you would normally expect for an element.

Anyways, I think it's only your input to the Chemistry section that keeps me from going there and I do want to see what your ideas will look like. Also, since you do like the subject in question, may I hope it wouldn't take too long to initiate the work?--R8R (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I shall start tonight. I reread the Greenwood chapter on Ge, Sn, and Pb over the last few days. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry if I'm being pushy: it's been nearly done for quite a while by now and I just want to get it done already.--R8R (talk) 10:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gallium 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbinilium

The article Unbinilium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unbinilium 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	The other half is a Dutch Barnstar (not yet created); great work on your edits Double Sharp, you make the Molybdenum Double Mint...well, Mint. The Apollo Seed (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallium

The article Gallium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gallium 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iodine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fractional crystallisation and Monoisotopic. 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) 10:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Indium 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) 12:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indium

The article Indium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Indium 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) 19:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monovalent. 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) 10:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Indium has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Double sharp. Indium, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Half-lives: more than mathematics?

Hi, I've got a question re half-lives.

So there was an experiment in 2003 that produced three atoms of element 115, all of which later decayed to dubnium. The atoms lasted 16.80 h, 23.54 h, and 28.69 h.1 Then I found another paper, which said:

The half-life of the spontaneously fissioning final nucleus 268Db was estimated from the three observed events to be T_1/2= 16⁺¹⁹_-6 hours 2

How could they jump to that conclusion? I thought they could only apply mathematics to estimate half-lives based on the lifetimes of the three nuclei, and the result should've exceeded 16 h?--R8R (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: (talk page stalker) Those were the times it took for those atoms to completely decay. To see this, note that the fraction of atoms remaining after a given period of time $t$ is given by $e^{-t\ln(2)/{t_{1/2}}}$. The average time to decay thus is given as $\int _{0}^{\infty }te^{-t\ln(2)/{t_{1/2}}}dt/\int _{0}^{\infty }e^{-t\ln(2)/{t_{1/2}}}dt=(-{\frac {t_{1/2}}{\ln(2)}}te^{-t\ln(2)/{t_{1/2}}}-({\frac {t_{1/2}}{\ln(2)}})^{2}e^{-t\ln(2)/{t_{1/2}}})\Vert _{0}^{\infty }/({\frac {t_{1/2}}{\ln(2)}})={\frac {t_{1/2}}{\ln(2)}}$, so the half life can be recovered by multiplying the average decay time by the natural logarithm of 2. The average of the decay times of those three nuclei is ${\frac {16.80+23.54+28.69}{3}}={\frac {69.03}{3}}=23.01$, and multiplying this by the natural logarithm of 2 gives 15.95 hours - very close to what they calculated.

This is a simplistic calculation based only on the definition of half life, and their value probably included other considerations too, but this should clear it up conceptually.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

What he said. ^_^ (And do you mind if I add you to that list on the top of my talk page? It's rather convenient in obviating the necessity of pinging.) Double sharp (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I don't plan on commenting that often.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you anyway! Double sharp (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Right. I knew that, it fell out of my mind somehow. This is math, after all. Thanks!--R8R (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty picture

Hope I didn't step on your toes too badly as I tried to make sure the pretty picture was as pretty as possible. YBG (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

A pinch of radioactive salt? Would that be FrAt? Or ²⁴Na³⁶Cl? YBG (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of ²⁴NaCl, but the doubly-labelled version is fine too. The convenient thing about ²⁴Na is that Na is monoisotopic and so you can make it simply from neutron activation of natural Na. ³⁶Cl is not quite as convenient, since (1) it won't be generated pure and (2) its half-life is quite long. Though it was intended firstly to be funny and only secondly to be plausible scientifically. Double sharp (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

And it was taken in exactly the way intended! YBG (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean to

Did you mean to add "±" before a section header in this edit to your talk page? Just wondering. YBG (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course not (and thank you Basemetal for fixing it!). It was accidental. Double sharp (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't know (or probably forgot) where to look for info

Hi! Emsley says that Db-268 is expected to be the most stable isotope of dubnium of all. I wonder where could I look for any info to prove or disprove his words?--R8R (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Does he? I see only "The longest-lived isotope is dubnium-268 with a half-life of 29 hours. (No isotope has been theoretically calculated to have a longer half-life.)" So maybe it just hasn't yet been calculated. I do note that his predictions tend to be strikingly similar to the old NUBASE ones.

Since I can't find sources for this, I'll give you three cool recent articles: one two three. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I assumed that was exactly the same in that context, but maybe you're right.

I just remembered about that graph from Dubna, here (graph 2). Seems they just translated this data to half-lives which is apparently easy to do. I'll need to check how to do that to get numeric results. Do you happen to know?--R8R (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't (the problem is that past Z = 100 chemistry becomes a sub-discipline of nuclear physics). But maybe someone at WP:PHYS does? Double sharp (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Indium

On 13 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Indium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that if you bend indium it might cry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Indium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Indium), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

An idea: thorium

It's come to my mind that thorium is currently not developing, even though it's of near-FA quality. I think you'd want to get this done and go for FA after we're done with lead; I'd be interested to take part if you don't mind (more to get sure this will get to FAC rather than anything else; also, I like that article).--R8R (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would. It's just that Pb is first. Double sharp (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Dubnium

One short q: please give the current Nuclear section a look, it's quite short. What else would I want to investigate for (as for nuclear physics)? I'm consciously skipping the stats part (has n isotopes, m meta states), this info is useless anyway. I've still got a few ideas to add some telling here, but I want to get your look on the technical part.--R8R (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Technically, it looks quite good already. It's not like Hs or Fl which have the shell-effects stuff, so I don't think there's that much more to add. Double sharp (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had in mind that there are those two things left: I need to add that 268Db is the most stable isotope by prediction and mention the island of stability somehow. For the former, I'll need a proof (which is going to be complicated), for the latter, well, possibly something can be made. (Writing this here mostly to ensure I won't forget it.) I also just got a cool graph for it (similar to that in ununseptium, but without unnecessary details and in vector). But otherwise, yes, I can't think either what else I would want.--R8R (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

If we want to be really picky, the Dubna graph only proves there are no Db isotopes of comparable stability until ³⁰⁹Db or so, but I think the sane reading should prevail. (Incidentally, do we have any idea on where the neutron drip line is supposed to be in this region of the nuclear map? And where do the proton and neutron drip lines finally intersect and put a final end to the periodic table? Does this happen before or after Z = 173? I am really curious for extended periodic table.) Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm all up for sanity checks. As for neutron drip line, I don't know. Are you even sure they will intersect? The island of stability was also sorta unexpected at one point.--R8R (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

They probably should, because if they don't the immediate implication is that an infinite number of nuclides are possible, which sounds outlandish. Though it should be noted that the precise location of the neutron drip line is not known experimentally past fluorine (³¹F), so extrapolating it to the superheavy region requires a tremendous amount of faith. That being said, I did find a graph to Z = 120 and N = 300. The precise location of the drip line earlier is important for astrophysicists, but in the superheavy region it is not of so much relevance because SF tends to be the result of neutron capture; hence the paucity of studies. Double sharp (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Another fair pearl in my diadem
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Pluto, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 178.42.217.228 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

When I collect enough of these accusations from vandals I might start an ironically-named subpage for them... Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I suppose such badges of honour from vandals should go in User:Double sharp/Fair pearls and actual barnstars from good editors should go in User:Double sharp/Fairest pearls, if we go by the rather sentimental lyrics of KV 523. (Which reminds me that I should go back and remove the Campe attribution from my edition at IMSLP – he doesn't deserve to be saddled with such texts. Although I must admit that Mozart's music rescues it completely, it is fair to note that such exaggeration usually goes down better in song anyway.) Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Current problem

• I would like to archive my talk page, because it's even longer than the alkali metal article
• Except that section 2 is still active and generating replies, so I can't archive anything below it because I want everything to stay in order
• And posting about this here only makes it worse
• But I don't want to discourage conversations

Result: slightly unsure what to do (but not like Sgt. Duckie) Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iodine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iodine 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) 05:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead section for lead

I assume you'd want to write a separate para on chemistry and decided not to take it from you in case you actually do. So if you do (or if you don't), please let me know, so I wait for you or do it myself.--R8R (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll post it this week, probably on the 26th. Is that fine with you? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wanted to say "yeah, sure" and then I saw we're past that date already. Anyway, it can wait for another couple of days as long as it's not "dozens." I only want to warn you to be modest and not aim for or produce a long para. Space is meant to be limited. For comparison, industrial output spans over only a single sentence.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, I thought you meant the main chem section. Give me a moment now... Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, how's this? Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Not so sure about Pb being much more abundant than "similarly-numbered elements". On Earth Tl (8.1 ppm) is not that far behind Pb (13 ppm). I think that if you're going to keep that statement, it needs a qualifier that this is about universal abundances or something. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine, except I'd want to cut the sentence on inert pairs.

As for abundance, I don't go for "much more abundant"; I go for "more abundant." Does the reality contradict such a statement in any way?--R8R (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to read "more abundant" as implying that it is significantly higher, and I'm not sure Tl is far enough away on Earth. But I think it can stand. Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. Can I remove that sentence on inert pairs?--R8R (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I do believe I just did. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh great, I saw you already did that. :) then I'll wait for you to signal that we can go for a review by a non-profi. It's only that and ref formatting, about which I forgot, that we have left.--R8R (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I do believe we can probably do that now, since my only issue previously was the chemistry (now fixed). Double sharp (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Great. I contacted John. Meanwhile, I'll get to references (not right now, but hopefully soon enough).--R8R (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cerium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cerium 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) 13:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iodine

The article Iodine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Iodine 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) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month

Collapsing large box with very garish formatting

Wikipedia Asian Month Based on your interests here on Wikipedia, you've been invited to join Wikipedia Asian Month! Wikipedia Asian Month is an annual online edit-a-thon aimed at enhancing the understanding among Asian Wikipedia communities. Taking place through November 2016, the purpose of Asian Month on the English Wikipedia is to improve the quantity and quality of articles about Asian countries and regions. Last year, over 7,000 articles were contributed in 43 languages in Wikipedia Asian Month. As a symbol of friendship between Wikipedia's Asian communities, each participant who create at least Four (4) articles that fulfill the criteria will receive a special designed Wikipedia postcard from Asian participating countries. Wikipedians who create the most articles on each Wikipedia will be honored as "Wikipedia Asian Ambassadors". Sign up now Thank you for considering! AddisWang (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I imagine this is for my work on Japanese chess variants, because I struggle to think of anything else major that I have contributed about this. OTOH, the need to create new articles may be an issue here. Double sharp (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2016‎ (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cerium

The article Cerium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cerium 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) 09:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

fr:Liste des éléments chimiques

Hi,

I read Actinium#History and it's really clear : "Debierne's chosen name for the new element was retained because it had seniority.[8][9]" . Giesel had re-discover the same element, what importance ? this element was discover by Debierne. Regards --Titou (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that "Debierne's results published in 1904 conflict with those reported in 1899 and 1900", as stated in the same section. Given what we know today of the chemistry of actinium, it is clear that Debierne's 1899 and 1900 substances, reportedly similar to titanium and thorium respectively, could not have been due to element 89 (an eka-lanthanum), whereas Giesel's was. Kirby and Ross in their chapter on Ac in The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements make it quite clear: "[Debierne's] claim was accepted uncritically at the time, but, in the light of what we now know of the chemical and nuclear properties of actinium, it is clear that his 1899 preparation contained no actinium at all and that his 1900 preparation was a mixture of several radioelements, possibly including actinium as a minor constituent". Contrast Giesel, who "correctly established many of its chemical properties, including the important fact that it followed the chemistry of the cerium group of rare earths". So I think it is not fair to give Debierne credit for anything before 1904, where he finally agrees with Giesel on having found an eka-lanthanum. (Kirby and Ross further suggest denying him any credit at all since this postdated Giesel's paper, but that's a little confrontational and a bit of a minority view. Most historical studies such as Weeks and Leicester and Adloff give both men credit.) Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

References: have you seen or can you find something to support these statements as our current refs lack in credibility?

• "Lead is a very soft material with a Mohs hardness of 1.5; it could be scratched with a fingernail." -- we had a ref, but it wouldn't stand a FAC
  • Mohs hardness is pretty useless in metallurgy (and it is so non-linear that it is not clear what "1.5" means). I'd use Vickers or Brinell here instead, actually. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Vickers or Brinell won't mean anything to most people. For the Moh's hardness of Pb you could use Samsonov GV (ed.) 1968, Handbook of the physicochemical properties of the elements, IFI-Plenum, New York, p. 432, ISBN 978-1-4684-6068-1. Sandbh (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither does Mohs, to be perfectly honest. How far are we going to go with this, anyway? Quite a bit of the chemistry section also won't mean anything to most people. With Vickers I can at least say the hardness is about a tenth that of Fe, a fifth that of Ag, and just below that of Sn, comparing quantitatively to some metals everyone's encountered. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I do like those comparisons. I recall Moh's is high school level, which helps. Saying something can be scratched with a fingernail tells me more than it's about a tenth that of Fe---few people will ever handle pure iron, pure silver or pure tin. Your call. Sandbh (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Was that in geography? ^_^ I get the impression it's more of a thing there. (Ah, another of those subjects I've forgotten completely about...) The fact that you can scratch it with a fingernail is a good visceral one that I am convinced now to keep. Though you do raise a good point that the pure metals Fe, Ag, and Sn are not something people will usually encounter: for Fe and Sn the dominant applications are for alloys, and pure Ag tends to be too soft for jewellery (though I personally think the impracticality should be somewhat offset by the undeniable coolness value of purity). Maybe Mg (from the first chemistry lessons) and Al (from aluminium foil) are better comparisons. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This reminds me that my rewrite of the Ag article is languishing half-done, mostly because I'm too scared to go beyond chemistry there. I always did find it cool that the first three elements to be discovered were Cu, Ag, and Au, all in the same group. To some extent history there should overlap with production because of how the native nuggets get exhausted quickly; after a while it needed to be obtained from argentite by cupellation. And then we march on to the economic usage (in French, after all, Ag and money are called by the same name). Oh, and then there is all the cultural stuff (this is something our articles sometimes suck in; look at Hg!) I'm pretty sure the only reason I dared to take on Fe was because there was something reasonable in place already, that needed more citations. If there were not (the situation I'm in for Ag), I have to say to anyone who tries: "You are either very brave or very stupid!" But, I try anyway. I hope to not be the latter, at least. Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Pt is not a bad model for Ag. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sandbh, please assure me that it specifically mentions the "can be scratched with a nail" part; the figure itself should not be difficult to obtain.--R8R (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't; it only gives the hardness numbers. I thought our Mohs scale of mineral hardness article would cover off on this, by referring to the fingernail–copper penny–penknife benchmarks, but I see it doesn't. Never mind. This reference says, "Lead is a soft malleable metal (it can be scratched with a fingernail)":

Vogel NA & Achilles R 2013, The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stained and Leaded Glass, U.S. Department of the Interior, p. 8, accessed 30 October 2016

Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• " The result is a stronger contraction of the 6s orbital than the 6p orbital, making the 6s orbital rather inert in ionic compounds.[2]" -- can't find anything to support this statement in the mentioned source: maybe you'll find it there or elsewhere? the source
  • Here you go: new source. 'Indeed, as the 6s-character of the bonds increases on average with increasing fluorine substitution, they become shorter, consistent with the smaller size of 6s- compared to 6p-orbitals. Yet the large difference in the sizes of 6s- and 6p-orbitals is at the same time responsible for the bond weakening. This leads to a breakdown of the frequently and implicitly assumed correlation between bond length and bond strength (in this case binding energy).' Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• "□" -- this is not really related to references, but what's this strange symbol my browser does not recognize? can we use something more accessible for that instead?--R8R (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's supposed to be a blank square, symbolising a vacancy in the crystal lattice where you would have expected an oxygen atom. Should I get rid of it or explain it? Double sharp (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

    I think a notation should be clear: if we have to explain it, then what's the point? Probably get rid of it.--R8R (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

     Done Double sharp (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

    I'll reserve an explanation for the main article on PbO₂, probably. Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Lead is not an abundant element in general—its per-particle abundance in the Universe is 0.06 ppb (parts per billion)[4] [...] Per mass, lead's abundance is 10 ppb[4]" -- that ref goes to webelements, against which we have decided long ago
  • How exactly do you measure universal abundances anyway? When writing Th I decided to just use the Solar-System one, because (1) it's actually known and (2) it should be representative. Our data page does not even give the universal abundances, but the Solar-System ones are present. Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

  Good one. One question: how do you get ppm/ppb from that data page, since it only lists relative abundance to silicon and not ppm? I realize this info is only arithmetic away, but some quite tedious arithmetic.--R8R (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  I got it from very annoying and very tedious calculator-spamming, which should be okay per WP:CALC. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  I didn't know there was a rule for that, but yes, it totally should. Where can I find the result of your calculation?--R8R (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps you missed this one; pinging you just in case.--R8R (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  I did it a while ago and I don't think I recorded anything past the final values for Th: sorry! (But I'll try to work it out again.) Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  That's okay. The final values of thorium would also help: abundance(Th, paper, relative to Si)/abundance(Pb, paper, relative to Si) = abundance(Th, you calculated)/abundance(Pb, I want to get). Except where do I get it?--R8R (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  Ping.--R8R (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  OK, summing all the abundances from the data page gives 30744.02264761. So thorium is 1.5 ppt and lead is 100 ppt. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  Great, thanks! I'll add it soon. One last question: which ref is it? Y1? Y2?--R8R (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  Y1. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Typical background concentrations of lead do not exceed 0.1 μg/m3 in the atmosphere; 100 mg/kg in soil; 5 μg/L in freshwater and seawater." -- we don't have the page numbers. I remember this was added after I got to that section. I checked history and it seems the user who added this came here for a single purpose to fix a few sections in articles on elements.

  Don't think it's realistic to get that page number range. Hiding this info until we have a good ref.--R8R (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Lead was mined in Ancient China before 1000 BCE" -- we had a very poor ref
  • Do you think it's too much of a stretch to use this as the source when it only says that the Chinese used Pb for coinage as early as 3000 to 2000 BC? (Native Pb is too rare for it to be the cause of this.) Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

    Hey, I've got this book as a pdf file on my computer. It's great, actually. However, yes, I wouldn't be too comfortable. Surely this can be found; I'd be surprised if it couldn't.--R8R (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

    Or actually wait a second. They say China smelted lead then; does it necessarily mean they mined it? I just looked for the word "mining." However, you may get ore without mining if it, say, is just down there. This sounds unrealistic, but is it too unrealistic? So does "smelting" imply "mining"?--R8R (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

  Reworded this in a way that doesn't require us to say the Chinese mined lead, thus problem solved.

• "Similarly to European industrialization, lead has a negative effect on health in the country." -- ref doesn't work.
• "Some artists using oil-based paints continue to use lead carbonate white, citing its properties in comparison with the alternatives. Tetraethyl lead is used as an anti-knock additive for aviation fuel in piston-driven aircraft. Lead-based semiconductors, such as lead telluride, lead selenide and lead antimonide are finding applications in photovoltaic (solar energy) cells and infrared detectors."
• "Acute lead poisoning is treated using disodium calcium edetate: the calcium chelate of the disodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). This chelating agent has a greater affinity for lead than for calcium and so the lead chelate is formed by exchange. This is then excreted in the urine leaving behind harmless calcium.[179]" -- ref has no page range

I am coming close to the end of the list of references: it's less than one section left, and I hope I'll get it done today or tomorrow. Then, there will be one thing (possibly two) left before the FAC: we'll have to resolve these {{cn}} tags recently I've added. (I also asked Sandbh to copyedit the article, since I admire his sense of English, but a) I am confident he'll do it and have no worries about that; and b) this may happen during the FAC if we have to do it this way, though I wouldn't want to time-press him on that. Anyway, even waiting for something you can't directly affect will be much different than waiting while I have yet to do something.)

So, I need to ask you to try to get those references. I'll join the quest, too, once I am done with unfinished formatting.--R8R (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Also it will be appreciated if you help me with ref formatting. I just do what the {{cite xxx}} templates have to offer. As for minor things, I do expand page number ranges (i.e. "267--269", not "267--9"), use |first= and |last= parameters for authors, display three authors per ref (|display-authors=3), and contract all first and middle names to initials (thus "Pauling, L.," not "Linus Pauling"). And I also try to provide wlinks to authors (|author-link=) when possible and remove cites of publication. I am going down from the very beginning, you could probably take it from the end and move up.--R8R (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I just added more pics to the article. Now it looks consistently colorful and shiny; I'll take it as a good thing. I only lack one pic, one for the uncommon oxidation states of lead. If we get one, I'll assume our picture pack is complete. Can you help me imagine anything worth adding? (I considered adding a pic of PbCl₂ structure because Ba₂Pb also has it, but I am uncomfortable telling people that acidic green is barium. I just downloaded the molecule drawer. Maybe I'll learn how to draw one later, but this is not too likely to happen anytime soon.) Possibly a photo of a mixed oxide? Anything could do, actually.--R8R (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would perhaps be better at Talk:Lead. Double sharp (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)