User talk:Double sharp/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Something I accidentally stumbled on in ru.wiki

ru:Трансфермиевые войны#1974 год: "В 1974 году в США по инициативе IUPAC и IUPAP была создана международная ad hoc комиссия[b 2], которая должна была проанализировать все имеющиеся материалы относительно открытия элементов 104 и 105. Ею было установлено, что в 1964 году для элемента 104 советские учёные получили ненадежные результаты, а значит первенство в синтезе элемента 104 должно принадлежать американцам. В отношении работ по получению элемента 105 они также отдали первенство лаборатории Беркли, поскольку при почти одновременной публикации работ те выполнили все критерии, которые выдвигаются для подтверждения существования впервые синтезированных элементов[4]."

which Google Translate translates as

"In 1974, an international special commission was established in the United States on the initiative of IUPAC and IUPAP [b 2], which was to analyze all the materials concerning the discovery of elements 104 and 105. It was established that in 1964, for the element 104, Soviet scientists received unreliable results, which means that the primacy in the synthesis of element 104 should belong to the Americans. With respect to the work on the production of element 105, they also gave priority to the Berkeley laboratory, since, with almost simultaneous publication of the works, they fulfilled all the criteria that are put forward to confirm the existence of all synthesized elements [4]."

(sorry for not translating myself. Feeling a little lazy/tired at the moment)

Maybe you'll want to make something of it. I certainly do want to learn more on this and add some info to dubnium but just as certainly not now.--R8R (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Judging from the TWG report and the American response to it (plus available snippets of The Transuranium People at Google Books), I have a pretty good idea what this is about for E104, but I'll need to check some things for E105. I think the full E104 story is more a thing for that article (which needs a bit of work) and that a brief description as above would suffice for dubnium, but more details on the E105 story may indeed be included. Double sharp (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the article ru.wiki references is 10.1524/ract.1987.42.2.57, and it is in English. However, it explicitly says phrases like "in our opinion" and all four authors are Americans. So I guess it's not that 1974 ad hoc committee, and things now seem to make sense. You can read the summary of their arguments regarding element 105 starting on page 41/97 (due to lack of time, I only looked through). By the way, here's an interesting part I found: "He [Ghiorso] gave his reasons for disbelief in the correctness of assignment to 260 104 of the 300 msec, spontaneously fissioning isotope, reported by the Dubná group, but stated that if later work established the correctness of the earlier work by the Dubna group that he would withdraw his suggestion for the name and accept the name, Kurchatovium, put forth by the Russian scientists."--R8R (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It does seem to have started from that 1974 committee, though. From the first page: 'In 1974 IUPAC in collaboration with its companion agency, the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, agreed to appoint an international ad-hoc committee of neutral experts including three persons each from the USA and the USSR and three from other countries (including the chairman) "to consider the claims of priority of discovery of elements 104 and 105 and to urge the laboratories at Berkeley (USA) and Dubna (USSR) to exchange representatives and in their presence to repeat the experiments regarding these elements." The three authors of the present article were chosen as the USA members of this ad-hoc committee. ... This article had its origin in a 1975 request from the chairman of the committee that members of the committee "prepare a draft of the history of the work and respective views in the naming of these elements by the Russian and American parties." The committee carried on some informal activities to define the problem and to get better communication and agreement between the Berkeley and Dubna groups but it never completed its work nor issued a report. The present article, while it was stimulated by the committee, is entirely the responsibility of the three authors.' Incidentally, I like that tidbit, showing indeed that the American scientists themselves had no political objections to kurchatovium as an element name. Double sharp (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I'll look one more time at it then (well, I was going to anyway, but now I only want to do it more). As for kurchatovium, I remember seeing somewhere that scientists from both countries viewed their colleagues from across the Iron Curtain as fellow scientists first and foremost, both teams studying nature rather than throwing flags over the periodic table. I certainly remember reading that they shared their opinions on various problems; I even think I still have a book from the Soviet times on my computer saying that. So of course both teams would be respectful to each other's choices when they feel the other team has the right to make a choice. It appears to me that it was the United States itself (or actually the Department of Energy or whatever it was oversight over American scientific efforts and sponsored them) that added so much political flair into this controversy. This is interesting because I would expect something of that sort from the Soviet Union as well, but I haven't seen a single indication of that.--R8R (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we can do some research on the countries' viewpoints. ^_^ I do indeed share your impression that the scientists wanted to keep politics out of it. And it seems to me that we got a pretty much ideal solution out of it: I wonder if the reason why dubnium was used for E105 and not E104 is because IIRC the American team at least believed that the Soviets had seen E105, even if they didn't think that the Soviets had been the first to see it. Now that American and Russian scientists have been working together on the elements past copernicium I think we're back at the unity of the American team proposing mendelevium (in the 1950s, at that!), where we certainly ought to be. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to but I can't actually imagine that. What would that be like? I don't think that Ghiorso or Seaborg would say something like, "so these guys from the DoE told us to oppose kurchatovium and rather press on that we hold the absolute priority," and I don't even think the Soviet Union interfered at all. (Yes, the current collaboration is marvelous! It's also interesting that the Americans also collaborate with the Germans now. I hope this will lead to more discoveries and confirmations!)--R8R (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The Americans are collaborating with the Germans as well now? That's wonderful news, even if I feel somewhat ashamed that I don't remember hearing about it! Could you give me some links? And yes, I'm definitely hoping for more confirmations as we go further into the more and more difficult 8th period. I don't think you could get any reference saying anything like what you wrote, of course, but finding something saying that the rivalry was mostly a matter of politics and hardly existed for the scientists would be nice and seems quite doable. Double sharp (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I most certainly recall that it was a German--American collaboration that confirmed the results of the 2009--10 experiment in Dubna in 2014. You can see that in tennessine yourself, though I don't know if this is going to go for a long run like the Russian--American collab.

Yeah, that is doable. Please remind me when I have more spare time (probably next Tuesday; I am genuinely worried I may forget by then) and I should be able to locate a phrase like that.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you're right: I don't know why I keep forgetting about the targets. Which means incidentally that they definitely will go for a long run, as will the Japanese and the French (planning their experiments at GANIL), since we're going to need actinide targets for all the new discoveries past oganesson and those are surely going to be provided by ORNL. I certainly will give you a ping on the 24th! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about that last one, sounds great! This will keep me waiting, as I am so pro more major players in the field :) as for the ping, would you also remind me I have to continue the Nh PR from where I left off? I'm sure I won't forget (at least because I asked you :) but just in case?--R8R (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A planned French attempt at E120 for 2019–2020 is already at Unbinilium#Planned. ^_^ Sure, I'll remind you about the Nh PR too at the same time. Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Or maybe the American team changed its mind on the acceptability of kurchatovium. From Helge Kragh's From Transuranic to Superheavy Elements: A History of Dispute and Creation (p. 70):

Seaborg was for a time willing to consider kurchatovium for element 106, but only as a trade-off with the Dubna group if it admitted the Berkeley claim to the discovery of element 104. Yet, in a letter to Armbruster from the summer of 1992, Ghiorso and Seaborg made it clear that the name was unacceptable (Hoffman et al. 2000, p. 385): "We would never agree to the naming of an element after Kurchatov (anymore than we would to the naming of an element after an American inventor of the hydrogen bomb)—and certainly not to the naming of element 105 after Kurchatov!" This was also the message from Michael Nitschke, a German-born member of the Berkeley team (Armbruster and Münzenberg 2012, p. 285) (Table 5.1):

Jointly with our Dubna colleagues we would gladly suggest a name for element 104 in honor of a great Russian scientist with international reputation, as we did in honouring Mendelejev in the case of element 101. We cannot accept Kurchatov as meeting this criterion. If this suggestion is unacceptable, it is my impression that the negotiations have failed. In this case no American delegation will come to Paris.

Incidentally, the Dubna team did not object to seaborgium as a name for element 106. Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's very interesting, thank you for sharing. Do you, by any chance, want to try to rewrite the Transfermium Wars article? It would be cool to find a place for all of those discoveries of yours/ours in Wikipedia, and that seems the place where we would be bound by essentially no limitations whereas we would be bound by something in articles on separate elements. I'd considered doing that but I just don't seem to make myself actually do it on my own; it could be different if I had a partner on the task.--R8R (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll work on it! I think we have enough sources now to make it really great together. Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and I must say, I don't yet have a picture of what we should have in the end. I'm not a big fan of this, but we may have to work on it in the user space (mine or yours, doesn't matter) first until we figure it out. Now the most important questions are, when will you have more time and what would you like to prioritize? Speaking of me, I'm going to have more spare time from now on and I have three target articles at the time: aluminium, Transfermium Wars, and hassium, the latter being a project of yours that you've put effort in and I think it would be a shame not to finalize that effort by earning a bronze star.--R8R (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can work on it. I should have more time in the next few weeks. I think I'd rather go to aluminium first, since we have just been working on two superheavies in a row (dubnium and nihonium), but I will stick with our collaborations no matter which one you think is better to start with. ^_^ If I had a lot more time, like in 2016, I'd be writing a lot of GA's on the side to clean up that ugly yellow stain on our PTQ, but I don't think I'll have time for much of that until next year; so I'd like to focus on one article at a time and make it as good as we can get.

(P.S. If we're revisiting old projects, I'd rather get alkali metal done before hassium now, partly because we've been doing a few superheavies recently.) Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see. Yes, I like that, let's focus on aluminium. I will also note that you want to do alkali metal before going for hassium; however, I'll note I remember thinking that the latter is a much easier task. Let's just not forget to get both featured eventually.--R8R (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've given it some more thought. I've taken a look at it and it appears to me that hassium is not far from being featured! The only major problem I see is that we need to rewrite the History section, and that's not going to be particularly difficult; the rest of the article seems fine and the whole thing leaves the impression of a true FA (well, apart from History). You worked on this previously so I can't just go and pick it as if you weren't here but how about the two of us prioritize this for now? It feels like another bronze star is already within reach; I'm getting excited for this low-effort to-be-FA (we can probably prepare it for FAC in a week) and I'm hoping you can share this excitement. And after we're done here, which we should be quite soon, we can switch back to aluminium. What do you think?--R8R (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it won't take very long, then we can surely begin. ^_^ I think there isn't really a need to start a PR for Hs, so maybe we can put the last comments and to-do items on the talk page. Double sharp (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Great! I guess not, indeed, we can solve it on the talk page and the list of pre-FAC comments shouldn't be long. I'll start the review at Talk:Hassium shortly. Good job bringing the article to this quality, by the way.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I've written the comments. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find much info on the 1978 Dubna experiments other than the studied reactions and full citations available here. I just found one of the two reports online (in Russian), but I think I'll look at it another time. Generally, we need to make Hassium#Reports similar to Dubnium#Reports.--R8R (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I was able to deal with the article myself, even though I hope I can still count on a second opinion from you. Please read the article, especially the Discovery section, look through the comments on the talk page, and let me know what you think. Personally, I'm a little uneasy about how the article concludes with plans for an experiment that was apparently never held. Also would you please check if there are any recent experiments we should cover?--R8R (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

History of aluminium

Hi! I've got a small question. I've just added this phrase, "after stirring and priming the solution," and I would very much like to wikilink the word "priming" to something as I was unfamiliar with this meaning in English of the word but I can't see anything to link it to. Could you help?--R8R (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like priming (science), though that would make more sense if applied to the apparatus. Double sharp (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's about it, but not quite indeed as the article is focused on equipment rather than chemicals. That is a shame there's nothing to link to, I don't expect a casual reader to know this concept.--R8R (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess we could add a short parenthetical comment explaining what "priming" means here, which should help the average reader even without a link. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd think so too :) but my wording skills fail me on this. Could you help?--R8R (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I gave this a little more thinking and I produced this: "after stirring the solution and introducing a seeding agent to it." I need some judgment from you as a native speaker. Will common people understand what this actually means?--R8R (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think they will, now that I've linked "seeding" to seed crystal. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That's great to know, thank you!--R8R (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll really appreciate it if you give the article a review during its FAC :) --R8R (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm really going to ask for a review. The FAC is four weeks old now and hasn't gotten much attention so if you write on the FAC page something like "will review later" and then review it whenever you can, you'll do me a great favor. It'll be a shame if the article won't get promoted solely because too few people showed up at the FAC.R8R (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I've claimed a section on the review page already; I'll give the article a read through and fill it up. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Made up labels?

As I happened by the List of musical instruments by transposition in a long time I was struck by how ridiculous the table of contents looks. And those labels: "very low", "super low", "extremely low", "amazingly low", "inordinately low", "impossibly low"...! They look so totally ridiculous and made up. Don't you think it is high time they just went? It seems it would be a lot simpler to just say: "Written C₄ sounds D♭₅", etc possibly adding the size and direction of the transposing interval (even though that is already slightly redundant) like so: "Written C₄ sounds D♭₅ (transposing by m9 upwards)" For one thing the table of contents would certainly look better (in my opinion). What do you think? Basemetal 12:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: It seems those labels were invented by one user named Skiasaurus, and frankly, I think they deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs. Basemetal 13:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think your replacement is a whole lot better than these made-up labels. Please go ahead and change them if you like! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Which one? The short version or the long version? Basemetal 13:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of the long version, since I can see myself equally reasonably describing a transposition as "written C sounds the A an octave below" and as "down a minor tenth". I should note though that while using such names would introduce consistency, I don't think of intervals beyond a fifteenth by their number names very often. Beyond a seventeenth (two octaves plus a third) I need to count to figure out what they mean; I don't immediately know without thinking. Double sharp (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Then how about for intervals greater or equal to a 15th:

• "a 15th down" → "2 octaves down",
• "a 16th down" → "2 octaves and a 2nd down",
• "a 17th down" → "2 octaves and a 3rd down"

and so on...?

Basemetal 13:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

And do you prefer "written C₄ sounds A₁" or "written C sounds A two octaves and a 3rd down/below"? Incidentally this second option combines note and interval in a "medium version". I find "written C sounds the A an octave below" sounds a bit ambiguous. You probably meant "sounds the A of the octave below (the written C)" but I think it is less ambiguous in that case to just say "written C sounds A a minor third below"... Basemetal 14:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a bad way of putting intervals from a 15th onwards; I understand this phrasing immediately. By "written C sounds the A an octave below" I meant "written C4 sounds A2" (hence I wrote "down a minor tenth"); OTOH, I can see how this could be ambiguous. I think it's easiest to just go for "written C4 sounds A1"; since each style is easily deducible from the other, I prefer the shorter one. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok then. I'll go for the short version. Btw there's only the two of us discussing here and we're already at the 7th level of indent. How about in the next conversation we try the Jerome Kohl zigzag? If the test proves conclusive we may adopt it on my talk page and your talk page, at least where's there's only the two of us discussing. I'm starting to like it. With that style you never go to a deeper indent level than the total number of interlocutors in the conversation. For more details on what I mean see here where I also transcribed in Jerome Kohl style a three way conversation we had on this page some time ago. Also, is it ok if I put this conversation in Jerome Kohl style? I won't touch your statements, just reduce the level of nesting, i.e. all my edits get no tab and all yours get 1 tab. Basemetal 14:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea, which is pretty interesting, but I think I might get a little confused because everywhere else on WP would use the "nested" solution, and that's what I'd be most used to. So I'll have to be no fun anymore, with apologies to Monty Python, and keep on trying to beat this 41-indent record. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Aww! So you mean you're able to speak two very different languages at native level and code switch at will, but you can't keep two straightforward elementary conventions straight without getting confused? What a wimp! I hope you never get into your head to go drive in a place where they drive on the other side of the road than what you're used to, cause you'd be a public menace Basemetal 18:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of how often the other convention gets used. I would have to use the standard nesting convention on almost all pages, and only use the Jerome Kohl zigzag when talking to you, so I don't think I'd really be able to get the immersion experience that you could get for learning multiple languages. Furthermore, anyone who wants to join in the conversation might not immediately understand what's going on. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but you could also get a lot of practice with Jerome Kohl. You haven't been communicating with him enough on his talk page anyway and he just loves to be interrupted I'm just giving you a hard time. I hope you understand I'm kidding you around. No one is obligated to try anything of course, but I thought it was funny how you who are able to juggle all those skills English, Chinese, chemistry, music, chess, and what not, and then suddenly you make yourself very very small and with a small voice say: "Poor little me, I don't think I'd be able to handle that, I'd get too confuuused..." I thought that was quite comical. Basemetal 15:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wouldn't you think the title List of transposing instruments would be better (not to mention shorter and simpler to understand) than the current title? No wonder some people think this is supposed to be a list of all musical instruments arranged by transposition including the null transposition, to wit including the non-transposing musical instruments. I wonder who came up with the stupid current title. I hope it's not me, when it was decided to split the list from the parent article. Basemetal 13:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC) It wasn't. Basemetal 02:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I've moved it! Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Great. Thanks. Basemetal 15:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Piccolos

We once had a long discussion on your talk page about piccolos. From what I remember it appeared there were also piccolos in E♭, F and G (besides C and D♭), but you never got around to adding that data to the list. Basemetal 10:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: If you intend to one day insert them, don't put the references from the discussion at the list article. Instead edit article Piccolo to add the new data, put the references at article Piccolo, add those instruments to the list article and link to article Piccolo from the list article, as that seems to be the usual MO there: as you can see there's no reference for anything at the list article. Basemetal 13:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, period 8)

Template:Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, period 8) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice

You can continue with this one, I was talking about 1982 formula 1 world championship GA review on the Teahouse.Kpgjhpjm (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Please continue the review. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

GA

@Double sharp:-Sorry for the inconvenience ,but can we please start the review for Tin. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: Yes, shortly. I have several other things to do at the moment. I will be willing to hold the review open as long as improvements are being made, as this is an important article, so there is no rush. Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: - Ok, but please note that i am unavailable between 18:30 and 01:30 (UTC). Kpgjhpjm (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Aluminum production breakthrough

At least, that's what this article I found today says. I haven't looked into it beyond this Popsci article yet but this may be of importance when we get to aluminum. I imagine the production part is somewhat interesting to you (am I right?) so I think you'd be interested to check it, too.R8R (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Diminished seventh

Is Diminished seventh on your watchlist? Basemetal 09:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, but judging from what I now see has recently been added to it, perhaps it ought to be! ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, and that's exactly why I'd asked you if it was in the first place. I had by accident stopped by that article and when I saw what was going on I thought, this is great comedy, Captain must see this. You'd better check now all the pages on altered intervals which happen to be enharmonic to non dissonant intervals. That "serious and established composer" from Romania might have been out to expose other "dissonance myths": I assume you've seen now the edit summary of his first contribution more than a month ago (yes, this has been going on for more than month). On top of that the guy was apparently winning as the other editors seem to have gotten tired of reverting him. Btw, regarding you Talk:Diminished seventh edit: Even though your edit summary makes it clear where you stand your indentation makes it look like you're agreeing with the "serious and established composer" and disagreeing with Wahoofive. Basemetal 10:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: Is "altered interval" used in English? I know "altered chord" is. Basemetal 10:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I should probably go and click through them. ^_^ OTOH, this may yet have been a strategic withdrawal. If I may be so bold as to link to my own essays, see User:Double sharp/Essays#How to befriend a troll. I've proceeded to clarify my indenting and my stand. P.S. I'd probably just say "augmented and diminished intervals" to avoid getting into unproductive tetrapyloctomy about whether the diminished 7th is actually altered in the harmonic minor scale when it occurs between and . Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Or whether the augmented 4th and diminished 5th are altered intervals when they occur between and of the major scale? In French they are indeed "altérés" which when used for intervals is exactly the same as "augmenté ou diminué". For chords the meaning of "altéré" is different: "accord altéré" means that the chord includes tones which are not in the scale. There's apparently no such distinction in English, where "altered" can only mean the latter? Basemetal 11:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure if the other meaning is acceptable as well, but I mentally think of "altered" as meaning "chromatically altered" in English. I'd just spell it out as "chromatically altered" or "augmented or diminished" to be clear. And yes, the A4 and d5 are obviously also examples, but given that we started with the d7, I decided to keep using it. Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a little trouble parsing your first sentence probably because of the "as well". Do you mean you think the "other meaning" may also be acceptable or may also not be acceptable? Basemetal 13:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. I would understand it if someone used it in English, but I'm also not sure if it's right. Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but forget the terminology question. What did you mean by "I'm not actually sure if the other meaning is acceptable as well"? Could you write it in French? Could you rephrase it in English? Here it's the English that's giving me problems, not the terminology. Basemetal 14:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant "I'm not actually sure if the other meaning is also acceptable". To rephrase the whole sentence; I'm pretty sure that "altered" meaning "chromatically altered" is all right in English, but I'm not sure that "altered" meaning "augmented or diminished" is (also) all right. In French, I guess I'd write something like À vrai dire, je ne suis pas sûr que l'autre sens soit également acceptable. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ach so. Danke. Basemetal 14:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Proszę bardzo. (And that's as far down my Babel list as I dare to write and not just read. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor Neapolitan chords

(Header added.) Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• While we're at it, how do people in general spell the minor Neapolitan chord, judging from the examples you've seen? I've just looked at all of the six examples at LQELQV and the only cases where the minor Neapolitan chord is spelled "theoretically" are the examples in Schubert's String Quartet and String Quintet (in the latter with an A♭ in E major). Otherwise either the 3rd of the root is spelled by enharmony, the chord getting an augmented 2nd instead of a minor 3rd with respect to the root (Schubert, Fierrabras), or the chord is spelled as a I♯ chord instead of as a II♭ chord (all of the other three cases; Schumann's chord is missing its 5th, incidentally). What other variant spellings have you seen? Have you often seen that it was spelled "theoretically" in major (like Schubert does in the String Quintet example), where that requires using degree IV♭ as the 3rd of the root? Basemetal 18:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you know, I don't think this chord actually comes up often enough for me to be able to tell you. It's kind of like starting a recapitulation in IV; it fits perfectly in the tonal system, but just never gets used very often (except by Schubert, who seemed to have had a predilection for this as well as the ♭ii chord). I think you could analyse this chord in two ways depending on its context: either as a modal substitute for ♭II (in which case the root is ♭), or as a mediant-like substitute harmonisation of (in which case the root is ♯). You will find lots of such substitutions (which on a large scale become a common-tone modulation of C major to C-sharp minor, for example) in late Schubert; applied to other chords as a colouristic effect, there's a great example in the Liszt B minor sonata where what should be a vi chord in D major is instead a ♭VI also harmonising the tonic, creating a plagal progression with a tritone (iv of vi – ♭VI) that is also how the sonata ends (with the cadence Am/C – F/C – B). Double sharp (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • So would you say example 2 (Schubert, String Quartet) and example 4 (Schubert, String Quintet) fall in your first group and example 3 (Schubert, Impromptu), example 5 (Schumann, Lied) and example 6 (Listz, Étude) fall in your second group? Basemetal 13:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I think the Liszt Étude is just spelt enharmonically; the Schumann example is the one where I think you could legitimately see the chord as ♯i as well as ♭ii. The Schubert Impromptu is also pretty ambiguous for me, because the bass descending by whole tones weakens my sense of whether a note is G♮ or A, until the augmented sixth resolution at the end returns to clarity. Such chords are so distant from the tonic that it's difficult to say which enharmonic spelling is the right one; sometimes I am not sure if the question makes sense. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
        • How about Schubert's Fierrabras (two examples in parallel keys): any particular reason he spells A not B? Basemetal 14:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
          • I think that's just for easy reading. There are many examples in Beethoven where double sharps or double flats are avoided (there's one in the slow movement of the First Piano Concerto, for instance, where what should be B is spelt A♮) and I think this is more of the same (well, that and the difficulty of hearing ♭ specifically instead of in a major key when they are enharmonically equivalent). Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
            • That second reason doesn't seem to bother Schubert in the String Quintet. And the first example in Fierrabras is in minor. So I'll take "easy reading". But I agree entirely that ♭ is, in major, a very very odd concept. Strictly speaking it shouldn't even exist: I mean where does an F♭ (supposedly a chromatic tone) in C major even go? What is it supposed to resolve to? Not to E♭ surely, because that's also a chromatic tone and since when can a chromatic tone resolve to another chromatic tone? But to get back to "easy reading" are Schubert and Beethoven averse to double accidentals? If they are, is it in general, or in some specific contexts? Basemetal 14:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
              • In the second movement of Schubert's String Quintet, the middle section is in F minor (which is reached from E major the same way) with a change of key signature from four sharps to four flats, which perhaps suggested consistency of notation. Beethoven and Schubert are not consistent about whether or not they avoid double accidentals, no, but I can think of many times in Beethoven's orchestral scores when they are avoided even if it means that a note is spelt wrongly (I'll give some examples later) and so it's not out of the question that Schubert might have thought the same way sometimes. I suppose you could get chromatic tones resolving to other chromatic tones by bringing in modal mixture – for example, V⁷/iv – iv – V – I in C major must have ♭ resolve to ♭ and only then ), but then I would consider that C minor is temporarily operative there even though it has not been established as a key. I would think of ♭ in major the same way; for it to make sense, the temporarily operating mode must be the parallel minor. Many of these examples leave the minor Neapolitan chord through a German augmented sixth, whose ♭ and ♭ can be brought forward as evidence of modal mixture. Double sharp (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
                • (An exception in major is the example from the Schumann Lied Mit Myrthen und Rosen, which simply moves straight to the home dominant. I find it ambiguous as the bass line suggests the obvious interpretation ♭–♭––, but in the absence of modal mixture the vocal line sounds like the F♯ is always that and never a G♭. I think that starting with the first Romantic generation harmony has really become 12-equal and there are many cases like this when neither spelling is totally reasonable by itself; I think I could easily find many more examples from Schumann if memory serves. You could also interpret this as simply alternating perfect cadences in D♯ minor and D major, reinterpreting the F♯ colouristically while the surrounding D major context makes it abundantly clear what key we are in. Perhaps it's best to think of it as all of the possibilities at once!) Double sharp (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • Great examples. Another question regarding "sloppy" spelling of accidentals I've wondered about (rewinding a little in other words). I've always conjectured there must be more cases of theoretical triple accidentals than are found in practice (e.g. in Don's list, but even assuming Don's list has not caught all of them, the total number is obviously tiny) but that probably the huge majority of them, probably almost all of them, except for a tiny number of oddities, are just respelled and that only a tiny number of sticklers have insisted on actually writing them out. Do you think that's a reasonable guess? Do you know, for example in Beethoven (or any other case you can think of) where a theoretical triple accidental has actually been sanely respelled? Sorry I got mixed up with double accidentals. Since F first occurs as ♯ in A♯ major and B first occurs as ♭ in E major they must not be that common after all Btw, the few examples that we know from Don's site are apparently not even in keys that remote, but those must be cases of ♯, ♯, ♭ and ♭ like the ones we talked about above, i.e. chromatisms that resolve to chromatisms? Basemetal 20:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • Actually, I think this is reasonable. Anything going in an enharmonic circle can easily go all the way to keys needing triple accidentals in theory (like the Appassionata sonata again), but I think this is where the 12-equal character of what you hear comes into play, so that triple accidentals are almost always not a distinction that can be made real by the composer (because you can't hear the difference between an A♯ major context and a B♭ major context). The Alkan example however has F as an appoggiatura leading to G, harmonised by V of iii in F♯ major. I think this one might be audible, since this makes A♯ minor a local tonic in which the G is diatonic. (Since the F♯ major has just come out of its parallel minor I would continue thinking in sharps.) Double sharp (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In Commendatore scene

You know, given how the site says Alors que l'accord napolitain se présente comme une variante, mais avec tension accrue, de la fonction II, l'accord plus-que-napolitain fait monter cette tension d'un cran, I really think they ought to have given as an example the earliest one I can think of – from the final Commendatore scene in Mozart's Don Giovanni. But that one demands a Roman numeral analysis that I need a bit of time to make in MS Paint; it should be here tomorrow! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. (But why couldn't you just use Wiki text? I guess I'll see tomorrow). I'm looking forward to it. Basemetal 18:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Something at that site confused me. At times they talk of functions II and IV as if they were separate. For example in the quote you mentioned above they talk of II only and don't mention IV. At other times they treat them interchangeably. Why can't they make up their mind? And where do you stand? Btw, there's an American theorist from the 19th c. whose name I forget whose position was that IV didn't even exist. What people had been analyzing as IV was to him (get ready, you're gonna like this) a rootless II⁷. Basemetal 19:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing that they can't make up their minds, because it depends on the context. The circle of fifths would have each of them take one and only one position, but II and IV are both predominant harmonies (like N or V of V) and can substitute for each other; indeed, in the major key, ii is the relative of IV. But when we are discussing the Neapolitan specifically, it is quite clearly an altered form of II and not IV (and here it makes sense to make the distinction; even if they have similar functions, they are made from different scale degrees, and that's what we're discussing here).

If you ask me, I think IV is the stronger function as it's the first one in the subdominant direction (while II, when unable to act as V of V, is its relative instead). As a major (minor) chord instead of a minor (diminished) one (read inside the parentheses for the minor mode), that in minor doesn't create a tritone leap between roots like the Neapolitan does, IV also seems more stable. In fact, given that the point of the subdominant direction is that it is an antidominant (with the tonic being the dominant of the subdominant), I think speaking of rootless ii⁷ is quite nonsensical as is a dissonant member of this chord; analysing vii° and vii°⁷ as rootless V⁷ and V⁹ is far more defensible (even if I still dislike it). I would treat vii° as having a similar relation to V as ii has to IV (you could bring the circle of fifths into this again, as their unions are V⁷ and ii⁷ respectively). Like I⁶
₄, vii° behaves like a normal chord in setting the harmonic rhythm, and not as a collection including non-chord tones, even though its function is the same as V and vii° moving to V is strictly staying in the same place on the circle of fifths. Because of this, I will sometimes be inconsistent and analyse it as V when it feels like a dominant substitute and vii° when it appears next to the true dominant triad or seventh chord.

Given this, I think I should probably start the analysis of the Commendatore scene from the beginning of the faster tempo and end it at the departure of the Commendatore. The first two harmonic units are (from memory; assume D minor throughout)

IV, V of III, V of VI, V of IV, IV, V, I, V (a circle of fifths with IV substituted for II and VII, III, and VI replaced by secondary dominants; V of IV is isofunctional with V of II).

I, II, V of IV, IV, N, V of N, n, V of N and V of IV of IV, IV of IV, V of IV, IV, V, I, V of V, V, I, V of V, V, I (a simple I–II–V–I cadence played thrice, the first time with an electrifying and remote expansion of the subdominant region. This is the point of the minor Neapolitan chord; it is a form of the subdominant, doubly so for being on the flat side and being a minor-mode phenomenon, but is so far from the tonic that it creates the effect of a remote excursion while not actually modulating, as we are never in doubt that D minor is the tonic of this passage. You will notice that all of these chords in between the I and the first V are subdominant-direction harmonies, but starting at II and ending at IV it is all running on the spot despite the electrifying intimations of the remote keys of E-flat minor and C minor.)

But I think this is far easier to read with a score, which I shall be providing in a few hours when I'm not on my phone anymore. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you're gonna annotate the score? Great! Looking forward to seeing that. Is it the "Don Giovanni a cenar teco m'invitasti e son venuto" scene? Basemetal 09:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am, and yes it's that scene. Looking forward to doing it too! Double sharp (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Here you go:

Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. In French, hunh? What is the difference between a V of N (m. 19) and a V of n (m. 21). N is borrowed from E♭ major and n from E♭ minor but the V chord of both is the same. Very elementary I hear you say. Yes, but I like to build from the ground up Your V of n is not a dominant 7th but a diminished 7th but first things first. Basemetal 15:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, though it unfortunately makes a small difference from the vocal line Mozart wrote! ^_^ I figured that since the C♭ = B♮ in that diminished 7th is diatonic to E♭ minor but not E♭ major, it makes sense to use the lowercase. Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You missed a question again, only this time you missed a whole edit!

Ah that C♭! Of course. Mozart, Mozart! Why did he write a B♮? And yes, now I think remember: the diminished 7th chord on ♯ can play the role of a V in a minor mode. Is that correct? Isn't that V actually a minor dominant 9th with a missing root? (I know you like missing roots). Basemetal 08:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! I agree with Mozart that B♮ makes sense, as it resolves to C♮ rather than to B♭. I'd say that VII can appear with the function of V, kind of like how II or N can substitute for IV in plagal cadences and IV can substitute for II or N as a predominant, but that this doesn't necessarily mean that IV and VII are incomplete II and V with the roots missing. Only in the full circle progression I–IV–VII–III–VI–II (N)–V–I are they really distinguished. I suppose that it is a little inconsistent to write "V" for VII when it has that function but not to write "II" for IV when it has that function, but it does feel reasonable because treating VII as a rootless V does not make any consonant notes in the chord into dissonances (which happens if you treat IV as a rootless II). Double sharp (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(P.S. And I just remembered that Leporello's "Sì! Sì!" is here taken by the Commendatore. Oh well. I couldn't find a better laid-out and unquestionably public-domain vocal score on IMSLP, so I think this will do as the harmony has remained unchanged.) Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not the Commendatore even in the Italian version? From what I remember it's Don Giovanni: "No! No!" and Commendatore: "Si! Si!" in the recordings I've heard. Which I thought sounded a teensy bit silly, like children going: "Repent!" "No!" "Yes!", but that would be Da Ponte, not Mozart. Well I'll have to listen to it again to make sure. Basemetal 08:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely Leporello joins in for the last one; here's the autograph.

Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I was wrong as to my particular memory as in the recording and libretto I was thinking of (Colin Davis's 1991 Philips Recording which I can't find on YouTube) Leporello does join in. But in Losey's movie Leporello doesn't as far as I could remember and as far as I could check on YouTube (but the audio is awful so it's hard to tell). Some people just don't follow Mozart-Da Ponte's intentions: some modern libretti do follow it (this one, this one) and others don't (this one). As to the recordings again some do and some don't. Here's a bunch of them (I'll add the time offset for the scene and whether they do or don't later): this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one. Incidentally I find the singing in some of these awful, e.g. the one at the Teatro La Fenice. Maybe some directors didn't know what to make of Leporello's joining in. What is your (dramatic) interpretation of the Commendatore's "Sì! Sì!" versus Leporello's "Sì! Sì!" and how do you interpret the Commendatore's "Cos'hai?" (in the exchange "Dammi la mano in pegno!", "Eccola", "Ohimè!", "Cos'hai?") Basemetal 10:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be hard to understand Leporello's joining in. After all, he has already sung "Oibò; tempo non ha, scusate. ... Dite di no!" I presume he has already suspected that his master would be damned if he continued his defiance (which he did): his "Ah padron! Siam tutti morti." comes pretty close. For all his bluster at the beginning of Act II, he clearly does care for his master and does not want to see that happen, not now when the threat is imminent. As for the Commendatore's "Cos'hai?"; I suppose that it makes sense to ask for an explanation of Don Giovanni's previous "Ohimè!", if only to confirm what it is (it seems to me that the cold is quite appropriate if è l'ultimo momento ^_^). Anyway, I think that The Magic Flute has already taught us all that even a completely inconsistent libretto is no obstacle to producing a masterly opera. As Charles Rosen remarked on p. 302 of The Classical Style: "The capacity of the sonata style to fuse with a dramatic conception as no other previous style had done was Mozart's historical opportunity. Without this complementary relation between musical style and dramatic conception, the greatest music cannot make an opera viable; with it, the most foolish libretto can barely undo one." Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I was just wondering why then some productions choose to not follow the autograph. My explanation is that the Commendatore's utterances are disturbing and ambiguous and Leporello, by chiming in, risks being carried to the "side" of the Commendatore. To me Leporello's "Sì! Sì!" is very different from the Commendatore's. It is an innocent and compassionate utterance. As you say he cares about Don Giovanni avoiding eternal damnation by repenting at the last moment, if at all possible, so he genuinely urges him to repent. But it's hard to maintain that implication when he's singing together with the Commendatore whose "Sì! Sì!" sounds very different to me. The Commendatore's "Sì! Sì!" to me sounds like "You will, motherfucker, you will ["repent" when you find out what's waiting for you down there]". Even though the Commendatore is the instrument of divine punishment, the Commendatore seems to be glad (as a matter of personal vengeance) that Don Giovanni will not only be punished but damned. To me that feels kind of disturbing because that puts the divine action in an ambiguous light. In the same vein I hear "Cos'hai" about as if someone'd shot somebody, and when they fell, they'd approached and sarcastically asked: "What happened?". What does the Commendatore mean by "Cos'hai?". It is his doing, so we can assume he knows exactly what's going on with Don Giovanni. He doesn't need to ask. So this "Cos'hai?" sounds sadistic to me. Anyway that's my take as to why some people do not have Leporello chime in. I hope it makes some sense. Is there a particular musical need for him to join in? Who's idea do you think it is? Basemetal 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Commendatore probably knows exactly what's going on. I confess that I always simply accepted the divine action as divine action, if through an intermediary who has a personal reason for vengeance, but after all, a masterpiece is not constrained by only one possible interpretation. I don't claim to know whose idea it was to have Leporello join in, but I think it was a good idea, at least dramatically even if I don't think you can find strictly musical justifications for it. ^_^ Thanks for your links, BTW! I'll listen to them in a day or two when I have the time. In the meantime, I think Ferruccio Furlanetto as Leporello in this 1985 performance conducted by Karajan succeeds at making his "Sì! Sì!" sound very different from that of Paata Burchuladze as the Commendatore. Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't watch them just yet (unless you want to watch eight times the whole opera which would be a bit much within a few days even for a Mozart lover) as those are links to videos of the full opera and I have not yet put the times of the Commendatore scene in the links yet. I'll let you know when I have. Or, if you want to go ahead and fast forward to the Commendatore scene in some of those links then, if and when you do, could you please add to that link the time of the Commendatore scene in that particular video? Thanks. Also, why don't you suggest to LQELQV to add that Don Giovanni passage to their "Lexique" under "accord plus-que-Napolitain" as one more example? Zviane's email is available at the site and you could send her your analysis. It'd be fun to see it there. Basemetal 17:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think LQELQV is pretty much a finished site, almost like a book except for being online. So I would dare to write to them if something needed an obvious correction, but not for adding an example like this when there are already a lot. Granted, it is a rare example of a minor Neapolitan six-four chord, but since there are already minor Neapolitan chords and minor Neapolitan six-four chords illustrated on the site it's not surprising that these can be combined. There are other things I disagree with, but those would simply be turning the theory into something else. The main one of those is that I agree with (I think) Rosen that major III masquerading as a dominant (the E major chord in C major and C minor) is better explained as either V of VI (with an elliptic resolution to I, bypassing all the intermediate steps) or a true mediant shift, rather than as V⁹ with an anticipation of the 3rd of the next chord or a lowered 7th. And I would follow the idea that a key is simply the expansion of a chord to analyse modulation on a large scale (and I should probably illustrate this with another analysis with the score – maybe another Mozart aria?). But again, if I were to do that, it wouldn't be Luce Beaudet's theory, it'd be mine that is heavily indebted to hers and Rosen's. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

PS I have just watched the scene in your link (Karajan's version) and you're very right. Even though that video's volume happens to be so low that I had to turn the level up three-quarters of the way, once I do that every part, including those of the orchestra, come out with great clarity. I wonder if the tempo is also not a bit slower because I can hear details I'm not used to being able to hear in other productions. In any case between the hieratic almost mechanical "Sì!" of the Commendatore and the pleading almost scream-like "Sì!" (which sounds like a final "Please!") of Leporello on the third "Sì!" there's a world of difference. I guess a great production such as this one is where those small details of the opera, libretto and music, come into their full significance. Unfortunately I couldn't find a full video of this production. I've just found a full video of this production. Great. Basemetal 17:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

My relationship with this production can best be described as "love at first sight", even if I still sometimes wish the additional arias from the Vienna version had not been included (as they mess up the tonal structure of the work; it's only sometimes, since I love them anyway as individual pieces). Indeed, the tempi are usually on the slower side, but you can really hear everything. Since this is Don Giovanni, we have a really good test of being able to hear everything, and it appears in the stupefying polymeter in the three on-stage orchestras of the ballroom scene in the Act I finale. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And now I've just realized this production is among the ones I inserted a link for. (The second one). Duh. Basemetal 17:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess I shall have to watch the other six, then. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Mediants in Romantic harmony

(Header added.) Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and this is the chord progression I was talking about in the Liszt B minor sonata (somewhat later on in the piece, so that this theme appears in A major and F♯ minor instead):

What would you consider to be the function of those F major chords? Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're curious, I think of them simply as colouristic alternative harmonisations of the A in the soprano, since the obvious harmonisation of these notes is indeed F♯ minor; while you could call these ♭I chords, I prefer to think of them as non-functional harmonic exoticisms emphasising the tritone interval so important to this work. Liszt's use of mediants is often so heavy that it is sometimes difficult to tell what is colouristic and what is not. For example, I hardly feel as though we have left E major at all in the following passage from Sonetto 104 del Petrarca, but how does one analyse all those augmented triads and mediant shifts without leaving E major?

So I think classifying remote chromaticisms functionally has its limits, and that their functions or lack thereof really depend on the work, though I'm really curious to see how you might analyse these two Liszt extracts. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I'll have to think. A lot. I'll let you know. Basemetal 14:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, you missed my question above! Basemetal 15:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

So noted and rectified. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. The moral of this is: don't write two contributions at two different places on a talk page in one edit. Do it in two edits, or the other editor is likely to miss it. I've known this for ages and yet I keep doing it again and again... Basemetal 10:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I hope you don't mind that I added a link to the LQELQV page in your post above to help anyone who might read this discussion and get a little lost. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course not. It was a good move. Thanks. Basemetal 09:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

On the correspondence between keys and modulations

And I would follow the idea that a key is simply the expansion of a chord to analyse modulation on a large scale (and I should probably illustrate this with another analysis with the score – maybe another Mozart aria?).

— me, earlier on this page

Well, you need wait no further: based on my comments above and LQELQV's conclusion, here is Dove sono from Le nozze di Figaro (with the introductory accompanied recitative). ^_^

The 2nd group is not literally resolved melodically, but is resolved harmonically (even melding seamlessly with a coda, which ends by resolving a little motif from the rewritten 2nd group), as can be seen from the return of the turn to the minor mode and the heavy emphasis on V of IV (or II). (The subdominant emphasis is in any case quite normal and necessary for a resolution.) Notice also that the sixths of la memoria di quel bene are outlined stepwise at mi portasse una speranza. I think this also well illustrates the fragmentary nature of an introduction, which, despite making total sense harmonically, weakens the sense of key by quickly moving away from the tonic major to either the parallel or the relative minor (or even starting there outright) and breaking the harmonic structural units up through copious rests and a free rhythm. Despite this, the tonic must remain very clearly defined by implication: Mozart quickly defines the tonic, dominant, and subdominant that are necessary to accomplish this (taking the relative minor as a substitute subdominant). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to follow. For the moment I'm still at the Commendatore. And this looks more complicated. I'm out through next Monday but I'm quite sure I'll have some questions come Tuesday Basemetal 19:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. I do have some questions. Well, I told you Seriously though, before I dive I'd like to understand what you say is the starting point of your analysis, namely the idea that (to quote you) "a key is simply the expansion of a chord". First of all you probably mean a major or minor key is the expansion of a minor or major chord respectively (not of any chord)? Is that correct? Second, what is this "expansion"? A random minor or major chord can be a chord in one of three major keys and two minor keys. So your "expansion" has to be driven by the ultimate goal of making the chord the tonic chord of the key. If that is the case then it seems to me the key does not somehow arise out of the chord but has to already exist, and if that is the case, then what exactly is the big idea? What original content does this idea have, I'm not totally sure I understand. I hope to be corrected though because I like new ideas. Finally, how does that idea influence your analysis? Basemetal 19:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a major or minor key is the expansion of its tonic chord. I'll quote p. 88 of Charles Rosen's The Classical Style: "The status of a subordinate tonality within any classical work is exactly the relation of its chord to the tonic triad." It is just that as a classical piece gets larger, so does the order of magnitude of its major harmonic landmarks. So, for example, in a short minuet or scherzo, we might end the first phrase with a half cadence on V without leaving the tonic; that would be the dominant used as a chord. In a slightly longer one one might have a tonicisation of the dominant, where it is not established as the new key but is established enough for secondary chords like V of V to appear. Still longer, and we have a full-scale modulation to the dominant; even longer, and the tonic and dominant chords of the phrase have expanded so much to become tonic and dominant areas, with a polarisation between them, and we have the harmonic course of sonata form. So what I mean is that you can look at harmony to different orders of magnitude in this way, by deciding if you are going to look at just significant tonal areas, or add some passing tonal areas that are not so firmly established, or look at every single chord. Passages in a different key from the tonic thus have both a "foreground" and a "background" reading: in the foreground, you hear the function as being I, IV, V, or whatever it is in the new key, but in the background you also have a sense of the original tonic and some consciousness that these are not I, IV, and V per se, but rather I of V, IV of V, and V of V. (Or whatever secondary key we happen to really be in.)

For example, in the aria above, we can take a detailed approach and look at every chord, like I did above. But let's take the really rough approach of observing only the most significant tonal areas; at that level, entire sections (not just phrases) take the role of bars, and keys take the role of chords. So all that meandering between I, II, and V for the most part in the tonic can be simply analysed as in the tonic: I as a key rather than a chord. Then we establish V as a secondary pole by giving it as much weight as the tonic. First we jump to it without preparation to start a new phrase: this caesura, combined with the pedal and heavy presence of V of V starts to convince us that it is being tonicised, and the shift to minor (and the move to the tertiary key ♭III of V and back) confirms this reading (as a minor chord cannot be an effective dominant, and creates a greater dissonance against the tonic key which we still unconsciously remember in the background now that chromaticism is introduced). The repeated cadences then do the trick. And then just like the V chord has to resolve to the I chord in the end, so everything exposed in the dominant in its capacity as a well-established secondary key must be represented in the tonic (which it is), with a full resolution with many cadences. So at the highest level, this is just like a I–V–I chord progression; we start from the tonic, leave it to get to a harmonic dissonance, and then resolve that. The introduction starts by implying the tonic and then weakening it without actually moving; that implies a minor colouring to destabilise it via modal mixture (which would usually be accomplished by the parallel or the relative minor), and that it must end with a dominant. And indeed, once the preliminaries of showing us the I and V chords are dealt with, that is exactly what Mozart does.

In a major key, V of V, V of V of V, and other such keys help establish the dominant, as they are on that side of the circle of fifths; IV is on the subdominant side and has a plagal, resolutory function (and can indeed substitute for the tonic), as do ii and vi; III, iii, and VI are on the dominant side and can substitute for V, while ♭III and ♭VI are allied to IV instead; and so on. Just as the function of a chord is fixed by its placement on the circle of fifths relative to the tonic, so is the function of a key. Indeed, they have the same functions, just on a different scale. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see. It's not that a key in the abstract arises out of a chord. What you mean is that in the "tonal plan" of a piece the new keys (modulations) are just like expansions of the native chords of the original tonality that correspond to those keys (i.e. of which they are the tonic chords). Basemetal 17:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Rosen gives a nice illustration of this with Haydn's Piano Trio in G minor, Hob:XV/19. The first movement is a set of double variations on a binary form of which the final variation has been expanded to a full-blown sonata form, and it is interesting to see the correspondences (brief tonicisations of V and IV become full modulations to those keys). Double sharp (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Are all your Rosen quotes and examples from The Classical Style? (I used to own Sonata Forms but I'd never actually read it and now I don't know what happened to it)

Not certain the answer to the following question is not somewhere in your explanations but I don't immediately see it so I'll ask it anyway and you'll just tell me if it is: What happens when the tonic chord of the new key is not a chord of the original tonality (e.g. C major to D major)? Now D major is of course the V of the tonality of G major but what does it mean in term of the supposed relationship between modulations and chords of the key? Would a modulation from C major to D major be seen as part of a "V area" even if no explicit intermediate modulation to G major intervened? Basemetal 06:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

D major (as the key of major II in itself, rather than as V of V) is actually a very remote key from C major, because it directly attacks the tonic. There are essentially three degrees of separation for major keys from a tonic: (1) those whose tonics form perfect consonances with the original one; (2) those whose tonics form imperfect consonances with the original one; (3) those whose tonics form dissonances with the original one. The first group contains the dominant and subdominant, while the second contains the four mediants. The triads of the third group are so distant that they are difficult to set up as opposing poles to the tonic; their precise relationship to the tonic is defined more by the context, which usually involves nested dominant/subdominant or mediant relations. So I hope you don't mind if I answer your question for the triads of the second group instead. ^_^

It's not necessary for a chord to be diatonic to the original tonality to have a function in it. The chords of major III and major VI can act as substitute dominants in a major key (in C major, these are E major and A major), and so their keys act the same way. They can be analysed as having leading tones through enharmonic tricks as LQELQV does (think of them as E-A♭-B and A-D♭-E, and they become altered incomplete dominant ninths with anticipations of the mediant of the tonic triad), and it helps that they are also V of VI and V of II and hence on the dominant side of the tonic. (Major III is helped further, as minor iii is the relative of V.) The last allows you to have progressions like III–I and VI–I that are essentially elisions of the steps we already know in the circle of fifths, that gain the weight of true dominants by the third movement in the bass being the next strongest possible after the fifth movement. They are thus the closest related dominant chords after the real dominant and can substitute for them, so you can have secondary mediants like III of III. (This is actually getting pretty close to how I would analyse mediant-heavy Romantic harmony like the Liszt examples above). I'd consider ♭III and ♭VI to be analysable as III m.m. and VI m.m.; they are subdominant harmonies, as the minor mode has a subdominant orientation. (In works that are already in the minor mode, III and VI usually instead act as dominants, though VI can be given a subdominant orientation as it is the relative of IV.) Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I realised I missed a question again, so: yes, the Rosen quotes and examples from above are all from The Classical Style. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

With all these clarifications I'm ready to take a look at your masterful analysis of "Dove sono i bei momenti". I'll listen to it a few times first of course. Good thing you're here to make my uncultered and primitive taste more subtle and sophisticated. Can you believe my favorite number in the whole opera is Barbarina's "L'ho perduta, me meschina"? Sheesh. This is where listening to commercial music all day leads you in the end Basemetal 15:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the compliments! But taste is personal and I certainly don't think yours is uncultured or primitive. I just like to explain the mastery that went into all these great works.

I realise I forgot to mention one thing, which is why I analyse the end of the recitative purely as V of VI leading to the I of the aria. The reason I don't write "V of VI = III" on the last chord is because the context of that E major triad is clearly in A minor, where it is V. I think this A minor is not a real modulation but a minor colouring of the C major. I'd write "III" if there is no suggestion of the key of VI. This is just a small thing and it's not very important: I think it's fine to write "V of VI = III" there. (I'm using italics to make it clear that these are not the ordinary III and VI, which are minor chords in a major key.) I think you can analyse the pairs II/IV, VI/I, and III/V as having a strong ability to substitute for each other, which would explain why V of VI leading to I is very common when we have just come out of the relative minor (see the end of lots of classical development sections).

P.S. Following LQELQV's glossary entry on the minor Neapolitan chord (n) I guess I should give a gallery of examples of III and VI. Oh, and I forgot; it is possible to make III m.m. and VI m.m. act as dominant harmonies in major. For examples, see Beethoven's Piano Sonata op. 49 no. 1, ii (G major; second subject in III m.m., with an intermediate section in I m.m. leading to it; resolved in I) and String Quartet op. 130, i (B-flat major; second subject in VI m.m., resolved by first playing it in III m.m. and then moving to I, similar to the way III is resolved by VI, then VI and I in the Piano Sonatas op. 31 no. 1, i and op. 53, i). Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Some examples of the III and VI chords: an attempt at a glossary of chromatic primary functions

Schubert, Piano Sonata D 850, i (III):

Schubert, Piano Trio D 898, ii (VI):

Schubert, Im Walde D 708 (secondary mediant, III of V):

Schubert, Im Walde D 708 (secondary mediant altered to form an augmented sixth chord, III of V):

Schubert, Piano Sonata D 850, i (mediants of mediants, III of III of V):

It shouldn't be too hard to find more in the first Romantic generation, but Schubert is usually the pioneer in these things, so I thought that the first examples should probably be the least complicated. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You will find a III m.m. in major (D minor in B major) in So lasst mich scheinen (D 877 no. 3). Double sharp (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If you haven't read it already, you should have a look at Jaroslav Volek's theory (link), which posits that the chromatic mediant is a fourth tonal function along with the tonic, dominant, and subdominant. I confess to having been unaware of this until today, but I like some of it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the italics are really a concise way to write (alt.), along the lines of LQELQV's "V de VII altéré" (a major or minor leading-tone chord). Then we can extend this to all mediants: italics change the quality (major to minor or vice versa), while "m.m." changes the root of the chord from being diatonic in major to being diatonic in minor or vice versa. So an E-flat minor chord in C major is III m.m., and so is an E major chord in C minor. (Assuming of course that they do have primary rather than secondary functions.)

I agree with Volek that mediants are a separate harmonic function. They can substitute for tonics, dominants, and subdominants, and Beethoven integrates them into tonality this way; but their ability to serve as colouristic alterations while remaining distinct chords suggests that they are something different, and Mozart's use is more similar to this (which the first Romantic generation took up, passing through Schubert). However, unlike him, I accept III and VI as mediants along with the chromatic mediants. In Classical tonality they are the same sort of thing: see Beethoven's Quintet op. 29, i, where the second subject shifts between VI and VI; and Piano Sonatas op. 31 no. 1, i and op. 57, i, where it shifts between III and III – the latter in minor rather than major. This is why I retain Beaudet's scale-degree analysis. As for II and VII; both clearly have independent functions, even when they are diminished chords – the Coronation Concerto example should have convinced us all that diminished chords can take secondary dominants – but as Volek says: "The set to which a given chord belongs is not unique, but depends on its usage in context. A given triad may be said to imitate the function of the triad a third above or below it; in particular, a VII chord may take on the function of a V chord; a II chord can take on the function of a IV chord." Since the third function is both predominant and subdominant, I follow Beaudet in distinguishing II and IV but do not really bother with distinguishing VII from V most of the time.

Which reminds me that I have not talked much about the other remote chords: the chromatic Neapolitan, supertonic, tritone, subtonic, and leading tone. That'll be next time. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Whew. You're hitting hard. Besides all this I'm trying to learn Python for some neat experiments with twelve tone rows it would be insane to even think of attempting by hand. I've got the feeling I'll be having a busy summer. Won't you be taking a few days off? Basemetal 20:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I tend to like to spam out a lot at once to avoid losing momentum till the end. ^_^ If it all gets a little too much for you you can always wait to catch up, since there will be more material being added at the end.

I'll have to do that won't I? Just don't archive this stuff until I am done. Yes I know I can always go to the archive but don't. I note you've managed to read Volek's 49 page article in a day. Or was it an hour? How long is your commute to work? Basemetal 15:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't actually finished it, but I've skimmed through it (using the expedient of looking near the end and searching for explanations further towards the beginning. So I haven't spent that much time on it, but I like what I've seen so far. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I had never heard of him. Did you discover him just now or did you know him from before? Basemetal 15:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I just discovered him. All this business about extra suggested harmonic functions like M (mediant), F (Phrygian), and L (Lydian) seems not to have diffused very far. Either that or I have just been looking in the wrong places for them. Anyway, my opinion of some of this tends to be a compromise: something like "I doubt if all of these are functions, but there's something in common about chords that supposedly belong to them". (Well, I'm still thinking about what rubric I want to consider the mediant under; its role changes between 18th- and 19th-century tonality.) Good music is usually overdetermined; there are multiple reasons for why things happen. Double sharp (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should answer why I'm covering all these really remote harmonies by taking examples from the Viennese Classics – which usually means Schubert for such chords, though I will try to let the other three join in the fun too. It may seem perverse, given that such procedures do not become harmonically normal until much later. The simple reason is that I know these composers the best, and in fact Schubert is the pioneer in most of such things. The more complicated reason is that after Schubert, the dominant-subdominant polarity loses its power, and by Wagner we cannot easily define a tonic for large passages, so that if we want to explain such remote harmonies in the fullness of classical tonality Schubert (and Brahms, who reconstitutes a lot of the classical practice) are the best possible guides, with a glance at Mozart and Beethoven at their most chromatic. And thank you for initiating this discussion: it's making me want to try and find Tovey's Tonality in Schubert again. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(I'm basically going to have to analyse parts of Tristan und Isolde if I'm going to keep on giving examples of remote chords, won't I?) Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hunh? Don't tell me the Classical Style also deals with Tristan und Isolde. I'm feeling quite dizzy here. My world is being turned upside down. Basemetal 15:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nah. It mentions it (of course), but it's mostly in The Romantic Generation, and even then mostly in relation to late Chopin (e.g. the Polonaise-Fantaisie). Double sharp (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

On the exotic functions

Before getting into any of this, I should note that the basic directions of dominant, subdominant, and mediant can be simply expressed through looking at the circle of fifths.

• The tonal (dominant) direction goes around the circle of fifths the normal way, and is the foundation of the system;
• The plagal (subdominant) direction goes around the other way;
• The mediant (modal mixture) direction does not really go around the circle of fifths at all, but runs basically on the spot (as it stems from modal mixture). However, the resulting triads can take a different place on the circle of fifths, and so mediant chords can also be used as substitute dominants or subdominants.

Now that that's sorted, I can think about this a lot more and then write another wall of text or two. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(Placeholder for discussing the function of V of V, its role as a substitute for dominants and subdominants, the predominant function, the general lack of difference between the two in very late tonality, explaining Lydian and Phrygian chords and the importance of the semitonal root movement even if they are not true functions, and the former's VII–I being similar to V–VI; the combined SD function of the "Phrygian" augmented sixth and plagal Neapolitan chords; and the chords IV of IV and M of M, M meaning any mediant function; further explaining the tritone function – look at the Liszt sonata – the "enharmonic tonics", C♯ minor in C major and C♭ major in C minor.) Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

(Darn it, Zarębski's Piano Quintet is still copyrighted in the USA. I'll have to find something to replace that example, since the WMF and the WP servers are there.) Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This thing has been growing in the telling for a while and it may not be ready for a bit longer, since I am currently still deciding what I think about many parts of it. In the meantime, though, here's a rough plan of what I plan to talk about here.

• The function of the major II chord (subdominant or dominant)? Elliptical resolutions down the circle of fifths to the tonic as well as the dominant (resolving V of V to I, or V of VI to I as an alternative explanation of III–I; this has limits though, as III m.m.–I still works as a dominant substitute – see Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata).
• Chords with multiple functions and the limits of going by the root (I⁶
  ₄, which is a separate chord going by harmonic rhythm).
• What are the roots of the augmented sixth chords? (Sometimes they act more like VI than like II or V of V).
• Is the minor mode a form of the mediant or the subdominant? And is the mediant a real function, or just a colouristic version of the other functions (therefore analysing V of VI to I as a perfectly orthodox cadence, simply slurring over the mediant distinction)? What then of the subdominant, which can substitute for the tonic and render a true tonic resolution superfluous (but then IV of IV can be a dissonance; the tonic minor can act both to create tension and resolution)?
• The Phrygian second degree (giving the augmented sixths a subdominant function combined with the dominant function) and the parallel motion inherent in resolving the chords on II (N) and VII to I; on why the augmented sixths are most commonly seen on the flat sixth degree (not the flat second), even if this makes them usually V of V instead of V. Does this have anything to do with modal mixture (and hence to mediants)?
• Quasi-functions (chord features that act to unify various functions, even if they may not add their own new functions)
• The augmented sixth chords on the fourth degree of the scale (IV, or V of III)? (Also possible as an altered vii°⁷/V without the sharp on the root.)
• Lydian chords: how to explain the VII–I quasi-deceptive cadence? (Common-tone diminished 7th chords will be included.) Also in these sections: harmony in the Phrygian and Lydian modes.
• The function of the ♯IV chord
• Root movement (and taking VII and II as substitutes for V and IV, even when unaltered)
• The function of the confusing enharmonic-third chords (in C major, D-flat minor; in C minor, B major). Good examples can be found of each in some Schubert four-hand works (the Grand Duo for the former, the Lebensstürme Allegro for the latter). Interpreting all these as "extended mediants", since mediants start out as (the sum of) half-step shifts that do not alter function (major to minor).
• I will respect the "key = chord" principle for the Classical language, so a lot of this will be from how Schubert uses these as key areas and chords in his later works.

I have many examples ready, so by the time I finish this you should have reading material for a few days. ^_^ (I was carrying this list in my head yesterday, but it has now gotten so bloated that that is no longer a wise idea.) Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The difficulty of explaining everything by three or four functions

As I've said, a key is the expansion of a chord, at least for classical tonality. Thus, we get vital information about the function of a chord from how its corresponding key functions in the tonal discourse. This immediately distinguishes three classes of chords, that we may consider to be something like functions:

• The tonic, which is the only pure consonance and the only chord and key that the piece can end with; either a perfect major or perfect minor triad on the first degree of the scale. (If the tonic is minor, the piece may end with the major tonic instead.)
• The dominant, which is the strong direction of tension. As Rosen remarks on p. 24 of The Classical Style, "The structure [of successive triads going up and down a ladder of fifths] is unbalanced, because harmonics all rise from a note, and the dominant or sharp direction, based on the successive second overtones of the previous note, outweighs the subdominant direction, which descends. The subdominant weakens the tonic by turning it into a dominant (that is, by using the tonic note not as the root of the central triad, but as an overtone.)" The Classical style exploits this to create a polarity between tonic and dominant, elevating dissonance to the level of structure.
• The subdominant, which is the weak direction of resolution (by the same token).

Unfortunately, outside the triads of I, IV, and V themselves, everything becomes problematic. It is true that keys on the sharp side are usually dominants (the mediant and submediant are good examples), and that keys on the flat side are usually subdominants (the flattened mediant and submediant are good examples). However, things are more complicated than just looking at the circle of fifths, because one must also take into account the intervallic relation between the tonic of the secondary key and the background tonic. The general rule is that the more dissonant this interval, the more dissonant the tonality. Thus the following hierarchy presents itself, taking C major as the home key:

• The unison: C major itself
• Perfect consonances: G major, F major (the dominant and subdominant)
• Imperfect consonances: E major, A major, E-flat major, A-flat major (the four mediants)
• Tone-related keys: D major, B-flat major
• Semitone-related keys: D-flat major, B major
• Tritone-related keys: F-sharp major

The two places where distance by harmonic consonance does not coincide with distance by the number of 5ths are the major 2nds and minor 7ths.

On the circle of 5ths:

... - diminished 5th - minor 2nd - minor 6th - minor 3rd - minor 7th - 4th - unison - 5th - major 2nd - major 6th - major 3rd - major 7th - augmented 4th - ...

While for the distance by harmonic consonance according to your scheme:

Minor 7th gets pushed two slots to the left and major 2nd gets pushed two slots to the right. Or is the major 6th and major 3rd that're pushed to the left and so on?

Also: is there any ground for distinguishing (in this context) between the four imperfect consonances (two on the right: major 6th and major 3rd, and two on the left: minor 3rd and minor 6th), e.g. that a modulation to E major is "more remote" than one to A major etc. or vice versa? Basemetal 16:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could, but it doesn't seem to accord very well with practice. In Classical harmony III and VI seem to be pretty much equidistant from the tonic, as are their flat versions; Beethoven treats all mediants in about the same way, and while ending a development with V of VI is a very common trope, ending it with V of III sounds pretty normal too (the finale of the Jupiter Symphony does that, for example). BTW, this isn't my scheme; it's taken directly from Rosen in one of the essays in his collection Freedom and the Arts. (In The Classical Style he simply lumps the last three rows of dissonant tonalities into a set of keys that need context to establish their relation to the tonic, though to some extent even the mediants already need such context.) I agree with you: it mostly does follow the circle of fifths, except that the tone-related keys are much more dissonant than you'd expect. Double sharp (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But it is not clear which of these keys are dominants and which are subdominants. Take the supertonic, for example. It is the dominant of the dominant, and while in that role it is often preparing the dominant as a tonality and therefore not functioning in direct relation to the tonic, its position on the circle of fifths certainly suggests to us that it should be able to substitute for the dominant. And indeed, this is correct:

Beethoven, Piano Sonata No. 30 in E major Op. 109, ii

Mozart also uses V of V as a dominant substitute in the C minor Fantasy, KV 457: there the dominant itself (G major or minor) has been too weakened by the preliminary modulations to actually use it as a secondary tonality, and so its dominant D major takes on this role. (Similarly, IV of IV, B-flat major, is used as a subdominant substitute for the central episode.) We should note though that in its weakening the tonic so early, this work is, as Rosen puts it on p. 92 of The Classical Style, "truly abnormal by classical standards". But wait: Beethoven also uses the supertonic major triad as a subdominant substitute, in this very famous secondary development from the Eroica Symphony (I give the score in Liszt's transcription):

Beethoven, Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major Op. 55, i

Here, the F major is approached and left as F minor, which is of course perfectly orthodox; the key sequence is I, II, VII m.m., V of I, I, which naturally goes round the circle of fifths with II substituting for IV. (Here VII m.m. is acting as IV of IV, and serves as a resolving intensification of the subdominant that also has a mediant relationship with II.) Only it is major II, instead of minor II, which is a sharp-side harmony! It's only that the way Beethoven approaches it makes it not feel like a dominant but a subdominant harmony. Schubert does the same thing on a smaller scale, as we would expect from his love of the major–minor effect:

Schubert, Im Frühling, D 882

Here we have Schubert's characteristic dwelling on the subdominant area of a phrase and expanding it in preference to the dominant area (stopping there and tonicising them, whence chords like IV of IV and II of II that act as an expansion somewhere between just interpolating a secondary dominant and actually modulating to the new key). Naturally, the supertonic alternates with the subdominant – except that, at the first outbreak of past-tense material (memory: wo ich beym ersten Frühlingsstrahl einst, ach, so glücklich war), it is the major supertonic. And we cannot even always analyse the supertonic major triad as V of V when it occurs together with II or IV as a predominant before V, because sometimes the supertonic major comes first and so we cannot interpret it as part of a tonicisation of V:

Beethoven, Piano Sonata No. 27 in E minor Op. 90, ii

I think it is therefore clear that we cannot easily classify the supertonic major triad as either a dominant or a subdominant one. It can be either depending on context, as can its key, because the "leapfrogging" of mediant-like parallel-key relationships across the circle of fifths means that minor II is a subdominant-side key while major II is a dominant-side key. And this is not a terribly remote key in the first place; consider how the mediants can act as dominants, subdominants, or even usurp the role of tonics in 19th-century tonality. (See Chopin's Second Ballade in F major–A minor, Scherzo Op. 35 in B-flat minor–D-flat major, and Fantasy Op. 49 in F minor–A-flat major, where the tonic and mediant are pretty much the same key, related as major and minor rather than as tonic and mediant as Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven would do. This isn't even a mediant-only phenomenon: the Fourth Ballade treats the tonic F minor and its subdominant B-flat minor as being the same key.) So while we can indeed say that there are dominant, subdominant, and mediant directions going out from the tonic, this does not mean that we can assign one function to any one chord out of context. It may function mostly as a dominant or mostly as a subdominant, but aside from V and IV themselves, these are only true to some extent; and in fact, for some common chords, the reading by functions can be very incomplete. (VI in minor, despite its TS label, can act as a dominant and allow polarisation from the tonic: observe its use in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, i and Beethoven's Piano Sonata Op. 111, i.)

So what are we left with? It seems to me that the model of analysis by scale degree is more complete as it is able to make more distinctions, with the ideas of tonal and plagal linkages (the dominant and subdominant directions), as well as pleonastic linkages (mediants, such as I and III or II and IV). I would not object, in fact, to reusing the symbols T, D, S, and M for these directions away from the tonic (with the T symbol necessarily being rather restricted to the case where a tonal area is defined, rather than one tonality; this is common from the first Romntic generation). But I think the Riemannian idea that one chord has only a limited number of functions, and that only T, S, and D can be functional, does not work as well as the Stufentheorie (essentially similar to LQELQV's model, giving each degree of the scale its own function through the circle of fifths; of course, a complete theory will note the possibility that a function can act as a sharp-side or a flat-side chord, along with more possible functions that I will expound upon). And, well, since Schenker and Schoenberg used the Stufentheorie, I think I am in good company here. Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Just a quick ping to reassure you that I haven't disappeared completely and will gather my notes into some more coherent text once the current slam of IRL projects subsides! I may depart a little from the topics I said I would cover earlier, as I think there may be quicker routes to get through all of this, but we'll see. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

An interlude

Since you seem to be in an analytical mood and assuming you don't mind getting away from your dear Viennese for a few minutes, I've been curious about the analysis of Bach's A minor partita for flute solo BWV 1013 where the harmony is all implicit in the melody. If you've only got one minute you could consider doing the Sarabande. Basemetal 10:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been happy with most of the IMSLP scores (the one I really want is copyrighted in the USA), but I think I can probably get this done (if necessary by doing a re-typeset from the sole manuscript source, which is available on IMSLP). So you might see this tomorrow. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Don't re-typeset it. I would feel very guilty if you did. Can't you just insert your analysis into the facsimile score? Basemetal 16:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There's not enough space between the staves to do that, and it can be a bit difficult to read the notes. So I might actually have to do the re-typesetting. (And sorry for missing a day; I've been rather busy, which is why the above is on hold for a moment. I will try for tomorrow, though.) Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Take your time. I'll be very grateful whenever it is you manage to do it, really. There's absolutely no rush. To type the whole thing in that's a lot of work really, even though you are I'm sure you're very fast. How about this: annotate the modern edition, the one that is still copyrighted in the US and that you don't wanna use on WP. When you're done you set up two windows one with your annotated modern edition and the other one with the autograph. The problem of reading the autograph disappears since you follow on the modern edition you've already annotated. Then you annotate the autograph while looking at your annotations of the modern edition. It's true there's very little space between the staves, but if you use red-on-black and a very small type you can annotate the autograph (it doesn't matter even if your annotations run over the staves) not so that someone reading it can follow the analysis on the autograph itself but so that someone following on the modern edition can make sense of your annotations of the autograph and transfer your analysis to the modern edition, doing, in other words, what you did, but in reverse. The annotations of the autograph (especially if you manage to do them in red as I said) will just be a guide to the analysis of the score of the modern edition. What do you think of this idea? Surely this will take less time than re-typing the whole thing. Basemetal 21:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not really that much work to type a single line in MuseScore (which I use for IMSLP re-typesets), because you can input the notes from a keyboard (letter keys A–G give the notes, with the other letters being mapped to various other signs or add accidentals; arrow keys change the octave; number keys change the note value). And then I won't have to put in the analysis in Paint separately because I can use text annotations. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

And here you go. Since a melodic line in tonal music implies its harmony to a certain extent, through resolving its dissonances in terms of the triads that are present within it, it is actually not very hard to do something like this. If you try making an accompaniment for this melody, forgetting for a moment that that is gilding the lily, the harmonisation is almost forced on you; maybe you can substitute a few mediant-related triads from what I gave, like using II instead of IV or I instead of VI (in ambiguous cases I chose to follow the circle of fifths if possible), but that's about it.

Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is great. Thanks a lot Captain Basemetal 17:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

In preparation for a return...

@Basemetal: I notice you haven't been editing since last July, so I'm not sure if you'll read this, but I have restarted working on that long exposé. ^_^ In the meantime, I have up my sleeve an appetiser, consisting of proving that Mozart did everything better than everything else as usual, with Haydn's Op. 50 No. 6, Mozart's KV 533, and Beethoven's Op. 81a making an appearance. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but you might have to refresh my memory. What long exposé? Basemetal 16:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Basemetal: The one starting at #On the exotic functions. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Basemetal: OK, since the music examples are taking a bit of a while to make, here's the summary first. The problem in general in focusing on functions exclusively is that any chord can, in the right context, take an unusual function even if they are harmonies in the key themselves. We have seen above the shenanigans that composers have gotten up to with the major supertonic chord, which can act as a form of D of D, a form of D, and a form of S. And it's not that this is a problem that appears as chromaticism becomes more and more widespread, because as Rosen writes on p. 78 of The Classical Style, "The classical style is a style of reinterpretation. One of its glories is its ability to give an entirely new significance to a phrase by placing it in another context." Of course, it becomes easier to achieve this kind of blurring as time passes, when mediant harmonies become more and more ambiguous in their meaning (are they simply chromatic forms of the tonic? are they forms of the relative minor? are they dominants or subdominants? I could multiply examples for each possibility, and there are many ways to analyse them as one thing or the other). So we cannot really make a list of 12 major chords on every chromatic degree and say "this is the function associated with each of them", because there can be many – yes, even for the tonic itself. So the answers to most of my questions above are really "all the possibilities I list are possibilities and they have happened". For sure, "quasi-functions" in the sense of contrapuntal possibilities for resolution (e.g. augmented sixths), strong tendency tones (e.g. upper leading tones in Phrygian chords), and analogical resolution (e.g. ♯IV–I paralleling N–V) also exist, too. You just have to analyse them all in a case-by-case basis. Music is an overdetermined system, and if something is to be made intelligible, it will be justified somehow. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. In some sense, perhaps when M is not being a substitute for D, it is being a form of S; something that does not conflict with the tonic but clearly isn't it. The minor mode can, after all, substitute for the subdominant in its position in the recapitulation. Not only that, but just like the four mediants, the subdominant triad has a note in common with the tonic triad, and its harmony thus does not act as a fundamental dissonance acting as an opposite polarity from the tonic. This also happens because the major scale includes five notes on the sharp side of the tonic but only one on the flat side; the minor scale then shows itself as a form of the subdominant because modulating from major to minor pushes more diatonic notes to the flat side. In this sense not only mediants but subdominants can be seen as potential changes of mode too! Double sharp (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No rush. Take your time. Basemetal 11:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Basemetal: That's very kind of you when I've already taken so many months! My excuse is that such exotica do not appear often (otherwise they wouldn't be exotica) and therefore there is a grave danger that whatever you analyse for one piece, even if it is correct, is not applicable to another one: this is what keeps me from considering such tonalities arising from chains of modulations (in one case a tritone might be N of IV, in another case it might be VI of VI, and so on). So really I have to think of direct modulations by semitones and tritones that aren't purely usages of the Neapolitan as an appoggiatura, and not only are there not that many in the Classical period (who would have thought), the standard piano-four-hands secondo-primo facing page layout makes it a royal pain to use the otherwise obvious example of Schubert's Grand Duo. But I will try to get something out that I can be sure I won't want to recant the next week! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, so what exactly are those functions?

This section is inexcusably late. You can help by applying a halibut to its writer. (Seriously, I got sidetracked by the problem that exotic harmonies more often appear as exoticisms than as truly functional chords, which makes it quite difficult to assemble enough examples.)

@Basemetal: Now, while I think the above has quite sufficiently made the point that reducing everything to a few functions is much too rough-and-ready, and that it makes more sense to consider at least every scale degree to have its distinct rôle – after all, you can hear the difference between a supertonic and a subdominant, even if they are both subdominant-side keys, and a composer may surely want to make use of that difference – we have not considered two things:

1. Even if it doesn't make sense to decree a list of chords that can fulfil a particular function and then say "and there shall be no more or no less", nevertheless there's something that II and IV have in common that makes them able to substitute for each other. In other words, there are unifying features common to a group of chords that means that in some contexts, they can all play a similar role, something like how II, IV, N, V of V, and the augmented sixths are all plausible predominants.
2. The Stufentheorie may itself run into difficulties when it is not clear what root to assign a chord.

I will take the second case first. When is it not clear what root to assign a chord? Well, sometimes that happens in cases of polyvalency, when there are two roots:

Beethoven, Piano Sonata Op. 81a, i

Here we have enjambment of tonic and dominant harmonies (the horn-call theme obviously alternates I and V in harmony, only now two statements are going on at once); there isn't really a sensible way of analysing this except by saying that in this exceptional moment the functions I and V are both simultaneously active (there's another famous example at the end of the development of the Eroica). While this is a stretch of the theory, it has to be admitted that this isn't terribly difficult to stomach. A bit more trouble comes from cases when a chord is only implied rather than outright stated. Take the first theme from Mozart's Piano Sonata KV 533, for example:

Mozart, Piano Sonata KV 533, i

From the harmonisation of the second half of the main theme, and the fact that the B♭ that is the top note of the tritone interval outlined by the first bar is given the strong beat, we are tempted to take the first bar as outlining V. And indeed, since the retransition ends as we would expect with an arpeggio on V⁷, that is how we hear it then. Except that that B♭ can just as well be taken with context as a long appoggiatura to the A, and indeed that is the new harmonisation we hear it with in the transition between the first and second subject groups. (It is also the one we hear in the theme's more active appearance in the development, and in a passage of secondary development where it reappears in the middle of the second subject group's resolution in the tonic, which is not surprising as this harmonisation has double the harmonic rhythm.)

Mozart, Piano Sonata KV 533, i

This surpasses even Haydn: the Quartet Op. 50 No. 6 in D major presents us with a weird unharmonised E that due to its presentation pretends to be part of the tonic chord, before running down to a G which gets sensibly harmonised by V⁷. Of course when you take the repeat, you arrive at it from A major, and now it is part of the tonic chord; but this is simply a witty use of pivot-chord modulation that seems to begin in medias res, whereas the Mozart sort of implies two roots at the same time as possible readings, and Beethoven drags you by the scruff of the neck and forces you to hear both. These can be accommodated into the theory by accepting that an unharmonised passage can admit several interpretations; this is simply a form of how the classical style treats and develops motifs, although a form that starts chafing at attempts at harmonic analysis (generalisations of pivot chords aside, it starts getting fishy when you have different triads at once in a way that it doesn't even when the same diminished seventh is V of V and V of VII). A stronger challenge comes from passages like this in Beethoven's Op. 110, where Charles Rosen has remarked that any harmonisation of that bare octave D♭ sounds completely inadequate:

Beethoven, Piano Sonata Op. 110, i

the octave doubling down to the deep bass makes a diagnosis of V⁷ unlikely, but anything else doesn't make much harmonic sense between a V and a VI. And then we have the horror story where we have a complete chord, but diagnosing its root would be quite the task. We already have, to some extent, this problem with I⁶
₄; by harmonic rhythm this is often a separate chord even when it can be explained as a double appoggiatura. A clear example is in Mozart et les fonctions harmoniques III (the Lacrymosa from the Requiem):

Mozart, Requiem KV 626, Lacrymosa

Since the harmonic rhythm has been accelerating, we really want it to keep going faster until the end of the phrase, but if you consider I⁶
₄ and V as one chord, it suddenly stops early. And then we have arpeggiations and passing chords: well, if something is valid with the ⁵
₃ and ⁶
₃ positions, why shouldn't it be valid in the ⁶
₄ position? LQELQV mentions this for sequences, but we don't even need those for it to work:

Schubert, Rosamunde D 797: Entr'acte to the 1st Act

(The VII really should be "VII m.m." but I didn't have space for that)

(I still believe this is really the finale of the Unfinished Symphony, BTW!) The phrasing ending on the II⁶
₄ makes me strongly think that this is legitimate; in analogy with all the other phrases with upbeats I have also allowed the passing V⁶
₄ to get its own chord. But the real horror story is the augmented sixth chord, which I will treat in the next update, which you certainly will not have to wait this long for. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Great. But I've got to read the whole thing from the beginning, i.e. I assume the whole of the section oddly titled "Diminished 7th" (what was that?), cause I've completely forgot what it was all about. Basemetal 22:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC) PS: my notifications and some other things seem to be broken when I use Chrome (but not when I use other browsers).

PS Wikipedia got suddenly fixed for (my) Chrome. Odd. Went to Don's site recently. Basemetal 22:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Wonderful, so I can quickly explain what happened with the augmented sixth. ^_^ Basically, you can think of it in major as an alteration of IV m.m. or VII of V in its Italian form (F-A♭-C → F♯-A♭-C or F♯-A-C → F♯-A♭-C), in which case the German form simply adds a seventh (E♭); and as an alteration of II⁷ or V of V in its French form (adding D). (In this case we need to appeal to the mediant linkages and say that IV/II and VII/V are more or less interchangeable and pleonastic, of course. Explanations in minor mostly amount to removing the "m.m.".) And you can probably multiply lots of examples in music where it is approached through such chromatic alteration. The trouble is that the augmented sixth – especially the German sixth – sounds its most tertian if you put the A♭ on the bottom, and then it sounds like a dominant seventh. (In the Italian form it has a missing fifth and in the French form a diminished fifth that forms another "double leading tone"). Then it sounds like VI m.m., and indeed you can cadence to it:

Mozart, Violin Concerto KV 219, i

(And of course, what happens after that is a bog-standard I⁶
₄–V–I resolution – my use of the 6/4 being partly because it is a tonic triad, never mind that the root is in a dissonant position, and it therefore doesn't sound quite like a dominant: it usually needs an intervening V, as if it were a predominant.) Here Mozart introduces the D♯ needed for the augmented sixth only on the second quaver beat (I treat the third quaver as a passing chord, partly for reasons of space, and partly for the harmonic rhythm). But this demonstrates one important thing about the augmented sixth: its chromaticism has an essential similarity with the minor mode, and especially with the Phrygian/Neapolitan upper leading tone. Mozart, in KV 533, alters a scalic figure to accommodate this chord with a rather modern-looking Hungarian minor scale:

Mozart, Piano Sonata KV 533, i

The A♭ included in it gives it more than shades of the minor mode (and so does the E♭ when it is there): in the form where it is on the subdominant, it calls up the relative minor for similar reasons (incidentally, this is how III probably came about as a substitute, through an elliptical resolution (*) of V of VI to the tonic – compare the retransitions in the opening movements of Haydn's String Quartets Op. 33 No. 2 and Op. 54 No. 3; VII and to a small extent VI come up similarly), and in the form where it is on the flattened supertonic, it calls up Phrygian harmony with its diminished v° chord (when it is a French sixth, e.g. Schumann, Piano Quintet Op. 44/ii, ending) and heightened plagal semitonal Phrygian cadence N–I (when it is a German sixth, e.g. Schubert, Piano Sonata D 959/i, ending). (I'll upload those two as music examples later). I even suspect that the alliance with the parallel minor (the most related minor key in Classical tonality) is why the form on ♭ is the most common, even if then it looks like V of V instead of just V. If we stick to uniting various chords under one function we should never get all these nuances sorted out because the augmented sixth can seem to be just about anything: it's a tonic substitute (you can cadence to it), it's a subdominant substitute (because it's on that direction of the circle of fifths and it sounds a bit like N), it's a dominant substitute (it sounds like V of N in a lot of retransitions – thinking of the one in the String Quartet KV 499/i at the moment, no doubt there are many others; frankly when it is used to the tonic it is both a subdominant and a dominant chord, the former because of the flattened second degree, the latter because of the seventh), it's a mediant substitute (because it sounds like VI in its common form), it's a Phrygian substitute (as the German sixth resolves totally by semitone downward). With a little bit of effort I am sure we can make it a Lydian (vii) substitute under Šin's definition cited in the Volek essay above (the hypothetical form A♭-B-D-F♯ looks promising and I am sure we can find it somewhere). So I prefer to just mark roots, as those have some acoustic reality, mark "=" between some other ones when multiple ones are implied, forget about the distinctions only when they're not relevant (like the strong V function subsuming the weaker VII much of the time in a major key), and let the functions simply be unifying features. With judicious use of the equals sign, this little challenge thrown at the Stufentheorie can be met just like how it deals with pivot chords. And, after all, the root is one step closer to reality than some unifying features, even if we equivocate about it for vii° sometimes. ^_-☆

Now, something that does intrigue me a little is the use of Phrygianness and Lydianness; these are the two modes with perfect triads whose alterations are not diatonic to the major or minor scales (♭ and ♯). So I will add an addendum giving examples of the rare times these modes pop up in the common practice (Phrygian examples include Night on Bald Mountain and Chopin's Mazurka Op. 41 No. 4; Lydian examples include the Heiliger Dankgesang and Chopin's Mazurka Op. 24 No. 2). Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Basemetal: (*) By this I mean a progression that "jumps" from somewhere in the sharpward direction of the circle of fifths directly to I, in about the same way that any function on the circle can jump straight to V. This is most common for V of VI and V of III because of the mediant relationship of VI and III to the tonic, but others are also possible (V of V going straight to I was illustrated above from Beethoven's Op. 109). Note that this s often not the only operative reason; the mediant relationship also plays a role, and makes something like III m.m. going to I also possible; you can even in this way have an "Aeolian" cadence, like the wonderful ♭VII⁷–I cadence in B♭ major that ends Schumann's Humoreske Op. 20.

In particular V of III going to I is also VII (major) going directly to I which can be analogously treated also as a Lydian resolution by semitone upwards to the tonic (similar to the Phrygian one downwards). Remember, root movement is also a factor that strengthens these semitonal progressions, that lets us use VII and II/N as substitutes for V and IV even without chromaticism! (I consider ♭ an "honorary diatonic" degree in most cases. Actually all the flat notes from ♭ to ♭ can be treated as honorary diatonicisms; they are like the minor mode, as they do not deny the tonic, just make it unstable. The sharp notes create a temporary tonic, as they are the signals of secondary dominants.) And yes, you can also explain common-tone diminished 7ths this way (e.g. D♯-F♯-A-C to E-G-C and C major); they are real chords, as you can use them as pivots! Chopin did so in the E minor concerto Op. 11/i near the end of the development: we move from F-sharp minor to E minor, because VII of V (B♯-D♯-F♯-A) of the former is enharmonically a common-tone diminshed seventh applied to VI of the latter (it moves to C-E-G).

Basically when you have an exotic chord like this you must look at its relationship to what comes before and after as well as what it is by its root: so for example the I–vii–V scheme of the exposition of Schubert's Reliquie Sonata D 840/i can be treated as I being N of VII (that is how we get there, with V⁹ of i = extended German sixth of vii), but also with VII being III of V. This then explains the scheme of the recapitulation of (IV–I)–vi–I; III of V is balanced by VI of I, as dominant is resolved by tonic, and mediant by submediant (the latter being close to Beethoven's practice in Op. 31 No. 1 and Op. 53; III is resolved by VI going to vi going to I). (I write (IV–I) because Schubert blurs the exact start of the recapitulation in D 840 and D 845, as he can do because strictly speaking, it is unnecessary to repeat all of the tonic material of the exposition in the recapitulation – but instead of omitting some pleonastic bits from the middle as Mozart does in KV 515, Schubert omits it from the start and is evasive about what his harmonic goal is. Beethoven had tied together a development, or rather a retransition, with a recapitulation very strongly motivically as well in Op. 110, but Schubert in D 840 and D 845 is evasive harmonically in a way Beethoven does not attempt.)

P.S. And just to bring home the point that all these chords are really overdetermined and there are arguments for every assignment of function, even the inconsistent ones: here we have a bog-standard chain of augmented sixths in sequence – only one of them is rooted on ♮VI instead of ♭VI! (Liszt Transcendental Etude No. 3, "Paysage"; scroll down to the top of p. 11. I wanted to use Busoni's edition as it's very good, but he died in 1924, so I can't upload it.)

I think I have managed to cover everything in my bullet point list apart from tritone root movement and the enharmonic muddled functions (i.e. from C major, how to explain a tritonal F-sharp major or minor chord, or a C-sharp minor triad in a semitonal relationship that Schubert was particularly obsessed with.) That will be for next time, but I plan to produce this last episode soon. I apologise for my slipping update schedule! There's also a brief omake planned re modal harmony – but that will probably end up just as quotes and stating the obvious (I need to add the Et incarnatus est from the Missa solemnis to my list above). Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. @Basemetal: I'm going to put this to the archive because my talk page is getting really long with this at the top. I'm also not sure when I will have time to do it properly. But I will just add that a lot of explanations come from things like treating analogous minor and major chords as the same function (e.g. V of II can legitimately resolve to N, creating a root movement by an augmented fifth, which appears IIRC in Liszt's Funérailles). This can also theoretically lead to diminished-fifth root movements. Tritones can be seen as mediants of mediants, as can those semitonal relations (which are also common-tone chords and Neapolitan pathetic appoggiaturae, explaining their shock value in late Schubert). Anyway in practice all these exotica need to be analysed in their context, both local and global in the piece, which is why I have mostly avoided offering generalities (the main reason why this thing keeps taking inexcusably long, outside other RL commitments). Exotic relationships can be classically lucid (e.g. vii in Op. 110/iii), but when they become so, it is because they are explained and resolved step by step (the shock that brings us there is by V⁷ becoming a German sixth, but we get out of VII step-by-step through vii, iii, V, and thence to I: every relationship a close one, but the augmentation and distant total relationship letting everything happen in a miraculous slow motion that is usually so difficult to achieve with the classical style). Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

metal ions ...

I placed Al in group 3 because, in this context of ions in solution it makes more sense. This is not the normal layout convention, but then, neither is the long-form periodic table. Further, there is an explanation in the article, copied below, as to why Al may be considered together with Sc rather than with Ga in terms of periodicity.

"By convention aluminium is placed in group 13, with gallium, indium and thallium. Nevertheless, a comparison of aluminium and scandium aqua ions illustrates a trend between the congeners Na⁺/K⁺, Mg²⁺/Ca²⁺ and Al³⁺/Sc³⁺ which depends on the increase in size on going from rows 3 to 4 in the periodic table. Shannon radii for 6-coordinate Al³⁺ and Sc³⁺ are 54 and 74.5 pm. Ga³⁺ has a Shannon radius of 62 pm, only about 13% larger than that of Al³⁺. This is due to the presence of the ten elements between scandium and gallium, which make an additional contribution to the general decrease in size across all rows of the periodic table."

I won't undo your edit; please do so if you can accept the motivation for putting Al in group 3 rather than in group 13. Petergans (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Petergans: I confess I don't find this argument convincing. Indeed, Na⁺/K⁺ have Shannon radii 1.02 and 1.38 Å respectively (ratio 1.35), Mg²⁺/Ca²⁺ have Shannon radii 0.72 and 1.00 Å respectively (ratio 1.39), Al³⁺/Sc³⁺ have Shannon radii 0.535 and 0.745 Å respectively (ratio 1.39), while Al³⁺/Ga³⁺ have Shannon radii 0.535 and 0.62 Å respectively (1.16). This is, as you say, because of the d-block insertion between Sc and Ga. But look at the fifth and sixth periods. Rb⁺/Cs⁺ have Shannon radii 1.52 and 1.67 Å respectively (ratio 1.10), Sr²⁺/Ba²⁺ have Shannon radii 1.18 and 1.35 Å respectively (ratio 1.14), Y³⁺/La³⁺ have Shannon radii 0.90 and 1.032 Å respectively (ratio 1.15), Zr⁴⁺/Ce⁴⁺ have Shannon radii 0.72 and 0.87 Å respectively (ratio 1.21), while Zr⁴⁺/Hf⁴⁺ have Shannon radii 0.72 and 0.71 Å respectively (ratio 0.99). Again, this is because of the f-block insertion between Ce and Hf. So it seems to me that this argument suggests that we consider Zr with Ce instead of Hf in terms of periodicity, and if that's undesirable then I don't see why its case for putting Al in group 3 should be any better. Also, since Sc³⁺, Y³⁺, and La³⁺ are not actually hexacoordinate in aqueous solution, whereas Al³⁺, Ga³⁺, In³⁺, and Tl³⁺ are, I think Al fits better due to size with its usual group 13 congeners, while noting that it has the hardness of a group 3 ion. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a periodic table! In this context, the unconventional layout for the metallic elements is better suited to the subject matter of the articlec. Petergans (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And that's what I'm disputing. First of all, the aqueous Al³⁺ ion has a structure more similar to Ga³⁺, In³⁺, and Tl³⁺ precisely because the group 13 ions are smaller than the group 3 ions and can only coordinate six water molecules unlike the bigger Sc³⁺, Y³⁺, and La³⁺ ions. As a result, it is questionable at best if moving Al to group 3 is an improvement even given the subject matter. Second of all, in periods 5 and 6, the lanthanide contraction is so big that Hf⁴⁺ is smaller than Zr⁴⁺, but no one is advocating putting Ce⁴⁺ under Zr⁴⁺ instead; at least Ga³⁺ is still bigger than Al³⁺. I don't see why we should make an exception from the effects of inserting the d- and f-blocks just for aluminium. That, to my mind, is not better suited to the subject matter, particularly when it is not and cannot be carried out consistently, and when the similarities of Al³⁺ to Ga³⁺ are not appreciably weaker than those of Al³⁺ to Sc³⁺. Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, I disagree that this is not a periodic table. If it were not, it would not be formatted like one. A list of metallic elements to be discussed would look like:

• lithium
• beryllium
• sodium
• ...
• oganesson

and not be any more useful at organising anything than an actual periodic table. A normal periodic table is useful as always, as suggested immediately by the group-based organisation of "Solvation numbers and structures" (except for putting Al in group 3, which in this context is even stranger because the Al(H₂O)₆³⁺ solvation number and structure is the same as that of Ga³⁺ through Tl³⁺, not Sc³⁺ through La³⁺). Frankly, given this and the other question about what this argument would do to the case for putting Ce and Th in group 4, I think moving aluminium around raises more questions than it actually answers. Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(The discussion continued at Talk:Metal ions in aqueous solution#Periodic table.) Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Radium

The article states that melting point is disputed , I thought a bit improvement can get it to GA status , but this will not work . Can you help fix it ? Regards , Kpgjhpjm (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few things needed to improve the article to GA status, many of which are at Talk:Radium/Archive 1#Review by R8R (from 2015). The disputed melting point is not among them. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Upside down bishops shown as elephants

The black ones haven't been fixed:

Can you sort them out? Can't do it myself (no account). 88.144.172.207 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for alerting me to this. Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Cake

Kpgjhpjm (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Kpgjhpjm (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Einsteinium compounds

Template:Einsteinium compounds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A moment of pedestrianism...

If I may be forgiven for bringing you down from those lofty heights, I'd like to ask you a very simple question I've never been able to answer for myself, namely the odd way some people spell the chromatic scale of a major key. I don't remember right now what they do for minor keys but it's not that important right now, since, if I understand this oddity in major, I may perhaps get the general point. The way I spell the chromatic scale in C major, and most sensible people do too (if I may presume to place myself among those sensible people, albeit by mere coincidence ) is we just use (for the chromatic tones) all five sharps going up and all five flats coming down. But some less sensible people use B♭ instead of A♯ going up and F♯ instead of G♭ coming down. Have you ever seen that sort of thing? If you have, do you understand the point? If you do, could you share it with me? Thanks. Basemetal 17:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it a lot (source: pick just about any Mozart piece, really). I think it's mostly a matter of picking the less remote accidentals. It's also not too uncommon to use even more flats when going up (E♭, A♭, maybe D♭), because the chromatic scale is then seen as a union of the major and minor modes (I guess with the Neapolitan being seen as an honorary diatonic note), and using F♯ not only uses the closer accidental but leaves the fifth inviolate. But this is just off the top of my head and I don't quite remember what explanation I was first given for the harmonic and melodic chromatic scales. ^_^ I also doubt it matters very much, since composers are usually inconsistent, and the only rule that seems to be followed with any sense of consistency is not to write the same letter name three times in a row. Double sharp (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Aluminium

When you can, please review the History section. I have just completed Natural occurrence and it seems to me that the result is a good section with a high density of information in it and I'd love to make History something just as informative and not too long. Working on Natural occurrence has given me some ideas, which I've tried to implement, but I'd like a second opinion from you on whether we could cut more, especially the part on the 20th century. We've got everything covered in the subarticle anyway.--R8R (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I haven't had time to give it a solid read earlier, but at first sight I think there's not very much left to cut. Maybe the list of figures is a bit redundant next to the graph, but then again not everyone will be able to see the graph, and it isn't really all that long. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Great! thanks for letting me know.--R8R (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you come up with a good caption to this picture? Somehow, I'm having problems doing that; my captions seem flawed somehow.--R8R (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: In this case I can't think of anything better than taking almost the whole image description from the file description page; there is a lot going on in this picture and I think the reader would benefit from knowing exactly what is pictured (I certainly wondered about that when looking at the picture with the current caption in the context of the article ^_-☆). Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I know what you mean; that's a part of why I can't seem to do it on my own. Still, would you give it a shot and actually try to compose a caption?

Would you take a look at Aluminium#Biodegradation? I cannot decide whether we need this section at all in our overview article and I could really use a second opinion on this one.--R8R (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look at these. Double sharp (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I don't mind having this material (provided it is proportionately covered compared to the rest of the article; at one paragraph I do not find it problematic), but I don't think it should be a distinct section; a brief mention in the flow of the "Environmental effects" section seems sufficient. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Good thinking; thank you.--R8R (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there's a small debate at Talk:Aluminium#Coins; could you participate and help resolve it?--R8R (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've weighed in over there. Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?

Hi Double sharp,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Bach Sarabande analysis.png

You uploaded or restored , File:Bach Sarabande analysis.png, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work, please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, then please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

It's okay to remove or strike this message once the issue has been resolved :).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science

I was just published in WikiJournal of Science -- a Wikimedia scientific journal. I chose an article of mine (lead), it was copied and pasted there, underwent a review from actual professionals in the area, got improved per reviewers' comments, and released as such as a published article of the WikiJournal as well as those improvements were carried over to Wikipedia. That seemed like a great thing and I'd very much love to repeat this with my current targets, starting with aluminium once we get to the FA status; yesterday I asked a coordinator about this and he said they would be welcome. What do you think? I figured you'd like the idea but there's the requirement of the article authors to use their real names. You haven't been sharing information about the RL yourself all that actively so I think you might need some time to consider the idea. If you could consider giving your name for an actually published article (with a DOI), that would be great! I actually think we'll produce something you'll be proud to put your name on. Please let me know what you think of this.--R8R (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've already been contacted by email about this; I don't feel comfortable sharing the details here, but I shan't be participating in it (though indeed I like the idea). I'm really sorry to have to give this response and I hope it doesn't affect our collaboration on our projects! Double sharp (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course, it does not affect our collaboration though I must say I am sorry to hear that. I still want to use the chance though, and while I'd love to do so with you, how about I go for it alone as if you weren't there? This way, we get the review and you won't be forced to reveal your identity. I'll give you a special thanks and mention your role in the Acknowledgments section of the WJS article where you'll be fine to go under your Double sharp alias. Would that be okay with you?--R8R (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't have time for a complete response right now, especially because I think I'd rather continue this in email where I feel more comfortable giving more explanation and I want to spend a day or two to think about it; but you can definitely go for the WJS review alone when the article's ready. I'll write an email to you this weekend. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me go for the review; I'm relieved now. Of course, I'll be eagerly awaiting your email.--R8R (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your nice edits at Chopin

Your discussion on the Talk page there I found to be persuasive. Separately, I have learned that you were involved in some Featured Articles for Wikipedia and that you have some interest in science. I have been spending some contribution time thinking about whether the film article for 2001 is nearing something close to a FA nomination and am wondering if you might read through the article and mention to me if there are any pressing issues needing attention prior to further enhancing the article. This is the 50 year commemoration year for the film and it might be nice to improve the article further. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Well, I am really not sure how much help I can be of here. Films are definitely outside my expertise: all I have done in this topic is occasionally translate short articles from French on request. While I would probably be able to read it over for clarity, I would have much difficulty going beyond that, as discussing what has been omitted or could be covered better would require me to have some familiarity with the subject. I have given the article a cursory look and don't see anything unclear about it, but I think it might be better if you asked some editors with more expertise in films. Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. My own reading of books about this film have been on its artistic value, and given your background in some of the science articles for Wikipedia it seemed like you might be a good person to give a read-through of the 2001 film article for its science content, especially its "Design" sections. Separately, on your nice Chopin comments at the GAN for Sonata No 2, it appears that the nominating editor there is taking his article even further into Beethoven territory even though 2-3 editors have mentioned that this seems to already be WP:Overstate and overlooking issues of balancing multiple reliable sources which are not always in agreement. If you have an opinion on the Bach and Beethoven influences, then I'm sure it will be appreciated on the GAN review page for the Chopin sonata. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@JohnWickTwo: Your allegation that I am “taking my article even further into Beethoven territory” is not at all true. I stated that I am “still determining that if the op. 111 allusion is WP:UNDUE”; you’re right, it has been scarcely mentioned in other sources. James Huneker, who wrote an influential biography of Chopin (The Man and his Music), mentions that he feels that the opening of Chopin’s op.35 alludes to Beethoven’s op.111. Furthermore, almost all of the sources cited in the article mention Beethoven’s op. 26. Also, if you discuss my editing with other editors, please mention my username or ping me so I’m aware I’m being discussed: not doing so comes off as uncourteous. Thanks. Zingarese talk · contribs 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The current material on Beethoven runs two full paragraphs in the Influences section and seems far too long. See my comment on the review page for the Sonata on this length issue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A question about double sharps

How come double sharps are written using an x-like symbol instead of two sharps next to each other, like a double flat? (i thought you would be an expert on this lol) ShangKing (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually I don't know for sure, but I can make some guesses before I do the research. ^_^ The sharp sign used to often be tilted about 45°, which makes it look quite like the modern double sharp sign. Since accidentals were at first often used relatively (so that if you wanted an F-natural after an F-sharp with an empty key signature, you wrote a ♯ on the first F and then a ♭ on the second), and relative accidentals make double alterations almost always unnecessary, this could be where the modern double-sharp shape came from. Some early double-flats incidentally looked like a Greek β (which, as the equivalent of Latin b, fits in with the derivation of the flat, natural, and sharp signs from that letter). I think the current scheme persists because it takes a lot more strokes to write two sharps than two flats. ^_^ But, as I said, some research is needed so that we can put the real story (not my guesses) into WP. Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ten new satellites of Jupiter, want to help?

Info at https://sites.google.com/carnegiescience.edu/sheppard/moons/jupitermoons

Also, one might have gotten named! S/2016 J 2 ---> Valetudo (no number yet). Dreigorich (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool! But I should note that the name Valetudo is not yet official, but only proposed, so I would not use it yet as the article title. As you can see, it is not yet present in the MPEC. I will do some quick edits. Double sharp (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I thought this was a case of a name being official, yet not numbered for some reason, which felt odd. Nonetheless there are a lot of tables that need updating. Dreigorich (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm pressed for time right now, so for now I'll just make little stubs for the new moons. If no one has gotten to updating the table by tomorrow, I'll be on it. Double sharp (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Same here. I have an essay to write. Dreigorich (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've created the stubs. Still to be updated are the tables at Moons of Jupiter and Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Dreigorich (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Exoplanetaryscience! Now I'm hoping at least some moons get their numbers in the next MPC, which should come out around the full moon at the end of this month. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(Reminder to self to update the tentative groupings of the lost moons based on Sheppard's site.) Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done (a while ago, but I forgot to update this); now keeping an eye out for the next MPC where some will almost certainly get Roman numerals. Double sharp (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we'll be waiting till the September full moon then! Double sharp (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

A little edit war by edit summaries is not transparent to anyone looking. I suggest you revert to before your first change, to be consistent with the Main page. (I can't do it, as I am on a voluntary 1RR even for the articles I wrote. Sometimes, it hurts.) If you feel strongly about the English version, go to Main page errors and have it changed there. Tomorrow, we can talk again, splitting more hairs, if you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I have reverted back to the original, pending future discussion (which I will start when not on my mobile ^_^; I'd already gone to Main page errors about the English version). And yes, let's talk about it, perhaps over at WT:CM to discuss similar naming issues more generally. Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this is an exceptional case. Usually I refer to an opera by the title it has on the English Wikipedia, which is in most cases I see the original title. I refer to an opera performed in Germany in German by it's German name, if that is not German pipe-linked to the original title or as a valid redirect. Opera has been sung translated to German in the 1950s, but it gradually changed towards the original language. - This case, that the opera's original name was changed, is rather rare, no? - I am sure that readers will understand the name even with a w and an extra s. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: The thing is, though, the opera was mostly not sung in German; only the parts of the Poles were translated into German. From the source: "Die Polen sind hierbei die Deutschen, die ihr Herrschaftsgebiet auf Russland ausdehnen wollen. Dafür hat Kupfer gemeinsam mit seinem Dramaturgen Norbert Abels die Textpassagen der Polen ins Deutsche übersetzt." Hence the header gives "in russischer und deutscher Sprache mit deutschen Übertiteln". So while it was performed in Germany, I would dispute that this is enough to change the title to German (and even if it was sung in German, I'd prefer to say "a German-language production of Ivan Susanin). I also don't think that it's necessary to follow the source's spelling, since it had of course no problem transliterating Иван Сусанин into German, and those who reinstated the original title during the Soviet period certainly had no qualms about lopping off the final mute yers that Glinka undoubtedly wrote. ^_-☆ The fact that the opera's title was changed is indeed significant, but to me it simply means that there are two clear ways in English to refer to it: A Life for the Tsar and Ivan Susanin. The latter, to me, bears the connotation of Gorodetskiy's revised Soviet libretto being the basis, so it makes sense to me to use that name here. I still don't see a strong case for using the German name here; though I agree that readers are unlikely to be confused by it, the same is true for Mussorgskij and Schostakowitsch. Though these are not confusing, they are not the standard English names for those composers, and I don't see a reason to employ a foreign name when we have a commonly used English one. (To take another Russian opera to illustrate this, of course I would support writing Khovanshchina instead of The Khovansky Affair, but certainly not Chowanschtschina. If we were writing in German, then it would be a different story.) Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for making you reply to something I didn't say. The "sung in German" thing is the usual thing, - this one sung in two languages - is already an exception. I used the name as it appears in the opera house's announcement, program and reviews, in this case, to make a connection to the references used in the article. - I just read a quote in Debussy in which Debussy mentions "Moussorgky", - which seems comparable. We could add that the Opera announced it like that, if it helps, but somehow all this seems undue detail in a singer's bio. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Having the opera be sung in German is hardly the usual thing today when its original language was Russian, surely? That's why the review focuses on the fact that some parts of it were translated to German. I understand that it was different before, but that's another thing altogether. I agree that Debussy referring to Moussorgsky is comparable, but in both cases I think the solution is the same. If we are quoting him directly, in French, it makes sense to use Moussorgsky, as that is what he wrote. But if we are paraphrasing him, it does not make sense to maintain his spelling, because the English name of the composer is Mussorgsky. For that reason, if we were translating his quote, I would also use Mussorgsky rather than Moussorgsky (or indeed Moussorgski, which is the usual spelling of his name in French today). We are surely allowed to make such changes without jeopardising connexions to the references. I have no doubt that a production of The Magic Flute produced in China would announce it as 魔笛 Módí on the announcement, program, and reviews; and if we were quoting someone talking about the production in Mandarin Chinese, I would of course retain that, as would I if I was quoting a hypothetical Chinese composer who said that it was one of his favourite works in Mandarin Chinese. But it does not follow that we have call it that in an English-language article, even if it was costumed in the style of Chinese opera and had the spoken dialogue done in Mandarin rather than German. I think omitting that language issue would sever more connexions with the references than translating the name of the opera back into English (or, in the lack of an English name, whatever the native name was). So it is with Ivan Susanin. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

You didn't understand my argument as I meant it but don't want to blow it up more. It's my fault, I guess. (Just wondering: I said that from the 1950s on, opera in Germany got more and more performed in the native language, - didn't I?). - I follow what you say about quoting. I'll try to word the fact with more clarity for the stage director - as his decision. But for a singer, I really don't see enough of an issue. If she sang in Beijing, I'd have Chinese and English opera title, but to have both with these little changes is nothing I'd be comfortable with. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood your comment 'The "sung in German" thing is the usual thing, - this one sung in two languages - is already an exception.'; I took it as meaning that singing an original Russian opera in German would be usual and singing it in Russian would not be (which was no doubt true seventy years ago, but as you say, it has changed since then). I agree that of course such a bilingual production is a singular case, and of course the many changes (turning the Time of Troubles to World War II, the Poles to the Germans, and the Russian language to the German language in only some specific parts) are impossible to summarise; they can only be listed, and such a list is off-topic in my opinion. But I don't think it is quite enough to change the opera's name; especially in this case, it is indeed not much of an issue when the subject is the singer and not the opera. Instead "a mixed German- and Russian-language production of Glinka's Ivan Susanin" seems to explain enough while not going off-topic. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Vivaldi's Gloria

Hi Double sharp

In Gloria by Antonio Vivaldi, there is a passage that goes, "Gloria, gloria, in ex-cel-sis Deo…". Would you happen to now how the "cel" is supposed to be sung? Is it sell, chell, shell, or kell? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Excelsis is "ek-shel-sis" in Italianate Latin, which is standard for choral works (especially in this case because Vivaldi was Italian). Citations for this pronunciation are in Latin regional pronunciation. Double sharp (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

9 years of editing

Hey, Double sharp. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 02:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: It's should have been seven years , I forgot that you were inactive between 2009 and 2011 . Kpgjhpjm 03:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: Nine is actually right – I used other accounts between those years, but only use this one now. Double sharp (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Alternative accounts or sockpuppetry ? Kpgjhpjm 03:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: Considering that I started out as an immature vandal, you can probably guess. ^_-☆ It was the second indeed, though when I started doing it I had matured enough that I was actually contributing constructively with those accounts; that's pretty much why I was unblocked when I confessed to what I'd been doing in 2011, albeit with a one-account restriction (not a big deal; I suppose I could easily get it lifted now if I had a good reason for having an alternative account, but I've never encountered the need yet). So I hope I've made a good case study of a former silly Uncyclopedia-type vandal who became a writer of many GAs and FAs, even if the route I took from one to the other is not one I would recommend (and really, I would recommend that people just start with the latter to begin with ^_^). Double sharp (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Is this link useful ? Kpgjhpjm 03:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kpgjhpjm: Indeed, some of it is described over there. Double sharp (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thanks for your nice conversation and sorry for what happened in May . Happy Editing . Kpgjhpjm 04:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday

Hey, Double sharp. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 03:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

still interested in Miranda (moon)?

It may not be FA yet, but it's at least an article now. Still need to get it up. Serendi^podous 13:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Thanks for reminding me about this! I'll definitely try to spare some of the little time I have right now for this. Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

-999 (number) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect -999 (number). Since you had some involvement with the -999 (number) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

About element 173 (Unsepttrium)

Hello, Double sharp/Archive 15. You have new messages at zh:WP:VPD.
Message added 10:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Interwiki talkback}} or {{Itb}} template.

Excuse me. "element 173 is expected to be an alkali metal" can find from any papers? Yu-Fan 宇帆 (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I responded over on the Chinese Wikipedia discussion. Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Yu-Fan 宇帆 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Mercury apparent magnitudes

Out of curiosity, why do you feel that the mean maximum and minimum apparent magnitudes (this edit) are not important compared to the extreme max and mins? It seems to me the "average" values would be a more useful measure, and showing both sets even moreso. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Huntster: I've reinstated mean apparent magnitudes around superior and inferior conjunction. I originally thought it might have been a bit excessive, considering that we also gave the mean apparent magnitude over all parts of Mercury's orbit, and also because the averages are significantly dependent on the limits of phase angle we are willing to consider Mercury as potentially visible in. (The maxima and minima shown are for phase angles 0.7° through 179.2°, but that is from extrapolation. If we exclude extrapolations, and use only 2.1° through 169.5°, Mercury never gets as faint as that listed mean at inferior conjunction!) All those faintest magnitudes contribute disproportionately because the apparent magnitude of Mercury fades very quickly near inferior conjunction, when you can't see it anyway because it's so close to the Sun. In principle Mercury can even be fainter than Neptune in such conditions, but at some point you have to draw the line for conjunctions – and it is not very obvious when. So thank you for alerting me to this: I think I will have to expand the section a bit to explain these matters! Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you explaining it here. Yes, an expansion of these concepts in the article would be very useful. Over time, perhaps the same can be done for other articles. As a preliminary, I might take the current format that you've laid out and replicate across the other planet articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Translations From the French Wiki

Hi. You translated several film-related articles for me from the French Wiki in the past. Wonder if you are still up for translating two further rather short ones (plus this rather short article about a composer)? I will expand them further after they are done. DVD cover for both is here. Thanks! P.S.: Mind having a look at a film article I just translated (and submitted for approval) from the Hebrew Wiki (DVD cover is here)?--87.71.98.19 (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I have time (probably within a few days). Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A great many thanks once again! P.S.: You can skip the composer, not that important, just my sub plus the two film articles that need to be translated from the French (and/or Italian). Someone just approved my sub, so all that is left to do with it is to upload the DVD cover so work on it is done.--87.71.98.19 (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick note that my IP just got changed into--87.70.97.132 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see it is taking some time, so, how about this: I will use Google Translate (and correct any grammar/syntax errors) and submit it with my expansions, while you will help me with approval, uploading the DVD cover, and linking to foreign-language Wiki articles on the left?--87.70.97.132 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait! I've posted the first one; the other should come soon. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah – I see you've started a draft of the other one. When you're done, I'll approve it and move it to the mainspace for you. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Great! That should save me some work! Thanks!--87.70.97.132 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do not forget about the linking to the foreign-language articles on the right.And can you check my latest footnote in my draft? I cannot seem to get it to work. Thanks.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

And here is the submitted draft: Draft:Esther (1986 film).--87.70.97.132 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Just saw you did. Great!--87.70.97.132 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I have managed to locate several photos of Victor Nord. Can any be uploaded to his article? Thanks.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Would appreciate your opinion re some copyrights issues with photos here. Thanks! The person in question, to my knowledge, is still alive.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have weighed in there. Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. To be fair, it is all in Russian, so, not being able to speak the language, I have no clue regarding the copyrights status. The Hebrew sources do not mention anything related to copyrights and such.--87.70.97.132 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I have now translated another film-related article from the German-language Wikipedia at Draft:Debris documentar (original is de:Debris Documentar and DVD cover is here). Was wondering if you could take a look. Thanks! P.S.: Do you think it:The Kingdom 2/pl:Królestwo II/sv:Riket II, being partially covered under The Kingdom (miniseries), should be translated? I am also asking this about it:Trilogia del cuore d'oro/it:USA - Terra delle opportunità (the individual films, though not the trilogies themselves, are covered under Breaking the Waves/The Idiots/Dancer in the Dark/Dogville/Manderlay/The House That Jack Built (2018 film)). 87.71.94.101 (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that as I have little expertise on these film-related matters, I cannot really offer a useful opinion on whether the articles would be notable. Since other WP's see fit to have them, there should be no strong objections, though. Double sharp (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. So, if you could translate them, that would be great, and, I would expand them.--87.71.94.101 (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

My Italian is nowhere near good enough to do this without a lot of help from dictionaries, but if you can't find anyone, I am willing to give it a try. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, someone recently created Category:Armenian art films, Category:Czech art films, Category:Greek art films, Category:Norwegian art films, and Category:South Korean art films, all including entries already present in Category:Art films. Can they (these new subcategories) be deleted? Nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 14. Hope I did it right.--87.71.94.101 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

And, if it is not too much trouble, would be great if you could also translate, in your free time, fr:Là-bas (film), fr:De l'autre côté (film, 2002), and fr:Sud (film, 1999). Thanks. DVD cover for all three is here. Would tell you if and when they approve my translation so that you could upload the DVD cover.--87.71.79.183 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have been a bit short of time recently and was spending most of the last few weeks settling other stuff that I left hanging on WP (mostly at WT:ELEM), but I should be able to translate the French ones within a day or two. BTW, did you manage to find a translator for the Italian articles? Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Kind of. One editor (User talk:IvanScrooge98#Translations From French/Italian Wiki; see also User talk:WhisperToMe#Submission and User talk:KGirlTrucker81#Draft) told me he might look into it when he will get the time. Will keep you updated. Thanks and please tell once you do!--87.70.143.226 (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I've created the first one at Là-bas (film); I should be able to do the other two tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Great! I should be able to start working on its expansion within several hours. Now the DVD cover and link to original Frecnh Wikipedia article. Thanks a million! P.S.: The original English-language title of this film, Down There, is the only official title. Can you please move it?--87.70.143.226 (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Great! Will start expanding in a few hours!--87.70.143.226 (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I have created the other two articles at De l'autre côté and Sud (1999 film). Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Will start expanding in a few hours. Many thanks once again.--87.70.143.226 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, my submission Debris documentar just got approved, if you have time to upload the DVD and link to the German-language original (de:Debris Documentar) on the left. Thanks!--87.70.143.226 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Still no news re the other contributor and the Italian articles. Just wanted you to know my current IP is--87.71.116.21 (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nihonium

I nominated Nihonium, a recently Featured Article, to be on the main page. Because I see you've done a substantial amount of improvements to that page, I would like your input at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Nihonium. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at Moons of Saturn.

An IP has started an edit war over the claim that all irregular moons of Saturn are small, claiming Phoebe is not a large moon. No source was cited, which led to a rollback. Your input is appreciated on the talk page. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 00:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regular polyhedron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypercycle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Nihonium scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Nihonium has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 17 November 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 17, 2018. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for "the first element recognised to have been discovered in Asia, and we can hope that there will be more in our march to the end of the periodic table, wherever that happens to be"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Double sharp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Double sharp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you kitten me?

Thanks for helping me understand chemistry!

Porygon-Z 04:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ionization energies of Fm, Md, No, Lr

Fm: (6.52±0.13) eV

Md: (6.59±0.13) eV

No: 6.62 (+0.06 -0.07) eV

Lr: 4.96 (+0.05 -0.04) eV

Source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.8b09068

Burzuchius (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll give the article a read. Double sharp (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

B-double-flat major listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect B-double-flat major. Since you had some involvement with the B-double-flat major redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. There are 15 other redirects for keys starting on double sharps or double flats that I nominated under the same rationale. ComplexRational (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Element 185 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Element 185. Since you had some involvement with the Element 185 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

		Military history service award
		For you work on Thorium, which has nuclear weaponry applications, you are hereby presented awarded this Military history WikiProject Service 1 stripe. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		For you work on Thorium, which has nuclear weaponry applications, you are hereby awarded The Left Half of the Half Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame that the barnstar is only divided into halves; if the five-pointed star could actually be divided into five parts I'd say you clearly deserve no less than three--R8R (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC).

Images about curium and protactinium

Do you happen to remember, where exactly did you originally found File:Protactinium.jpg and File:Curium self-glow radiation.jpg? I uploaded copies to Finnish Wikipedia and now they are proposed for deletion. It would help, if could prove the images were taken more than 50 years ago. (There are differences in copyright law, both U.S. "fair use" and Finnish law must be considered for my case). The protactinium crystal image has external link to a site with a different looking image of the same object. jni^{(talk)(delete)} 13:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jni: They are from Nucleonica Wiki. I got the Tc, Pa, and Cm images we currently use on English Wikipedia from this page. Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll contact Nucleonica with OTRS permission request. jni^{(talk)(delete)} 18:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Janet's 1930 paper

I've been asked by Philip Stewart, creator of the Periodic Table Galaxy, if I knew anyone who might be able to translate Charles Janet's 1930 paper (in French):

• Janet, C.: Concordance de l’arrangement quantique de base des électrons planétaires des atomes avec la classification scalariforme. hélicoïdale des éléments chimiques. Beauvais Imprimerie Départementale de l’Oise, Beauvais (1930).

It's 50 pages long, and there is no English version. Sound like a lot of work to me.

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but I almost certainly don't have the time to translate 50 pages with any speed, especially not content this specialised and pioneering. As I understand it, Philip Stewart has written a paper on Janet's articles (10.1007/s10698-008-9062-5), which suggests that it is full of specially coined terminology. So I think I have to regretfully admit defeat here and suggest that you try to find someone more used to translating this sort of specialist content if you can. m(_ _)m Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! We may try crowdsourcing the funds for a professional translation. The RSC and ACS might be able to help here too. Sandbh (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

On 124 and 126

I noticed that you commented (though on Tatyana Day) in User talk:R8R#Update on 124 and 126; as the drafts are in your sandboxes, do you have any comments in addition to those from R8R? ComplexRational (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it sometime next week; my time today unfortunately evaporated. T_T Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Well, I took a look at both of them and didn't find anything important that R8R didn't already mention, so I think we're good to go with mainspacing them once R8R reads 126. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

But I have read 126? My comments are right there.--R8R (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: Yeah, I see you did; my apologies for not noticing that. m(_ _)m Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)