User talk:Double sharp/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Regarding A-sharp minor...

There might be works in A-sharp minor that the cisdur.de site has missed (I wrote to them about that):

• Bartolomeo Campagnoli, 30 Preludes in all keys (violin)

• Louise Farrenc, 30 Études dans tous les tons majeurs et mineurs (piano)

• Sebastian Lee, 30 Praeludien in allen Tonarten (cello)

I did not have to look very far: I found them in the Wikipedia article "Music written in all 24 major and minor keys".

Then there is the set of 111 two-and-three-part canons for the piano by Max Reger but I haven't looked through them so I don't know if they cover all 30 keys. The number 111 itself is rather quaint as it is divisible by neither 24 nor 30. I don't know what to make of it. The title says all keys but it's impossible to tell a priori if that means all 24 keys or all 30 keys. On the other hand the site shows that set includes pieces in C-flat major, so who knows.

In any case that site would already have to add three items to every one of their four lists.

Note however that all of the pieces in A-sharp minor (including the two they already have, the ones by Christian Heinrich Rinck) would still only be items included in collections that were written precisely in order to cover all of the 30 keys, and so the choice of A-sharp minor could not be called a real choice.

For the pieces in the next most uncommon key, C-flat major, they do have a few real pieces, but a couple of them are pieces for harp, so maybe not a real choice either.

Cheers,

Contact Basemetal here 18:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: C-flat major may be a real choice, but only for Alexei Stanchinsky's Op. 1 No. 7 and the trio of Frédéric Chopin's Contredanse (the overall key is G-flat major)! And I haven't seen collections of 24-key works that use C-flat major or A-sharp minor but not their enharmonic equivalents, so maybe they are really just useless keys that are only encountered as modulations (kind of like theoretical keys). Double sharp (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Campanelli: 30 keys.

Farrenc: 24 keys (six keys have two études each: C, D, E, Ab, Eb major, and D minor).

Lee: I don't know.

Reger: 27 keys (no G# minor, D# minor, or A# minor). Burzuchius (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these clarifications. I assume Campanelli is a typo for Campagnoli.

Note regarding cisdur.de: they mistakenly use parallel key for relative key (no doubt because that's how it goes in German).

Contact Basemetal here 09:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: (just in case you're not looking at this old conversation:) That particular mistake has been around for over a century: you can see it in the old Cotta edition of Beethoven's Rage over a Lost Penny... Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

FTC/GTC reviewing

Nice to see more Elements topics being made. Especially after the review for the Period One topic. I'm wondering if you would be able to review some of the other nominations on the board. Just to help get a consensus for them made. GamerPro64 22:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: All right – I'll give them a look through. Double sharp (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Periodic Table

Sorry i thought it would look better.

User:R. Portela F. 19:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ununpentium

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Radium

Hi, I am not aware of any application for radium. It looks like the production stopped a long time ago and other materials like tritium or americium took over. For me it looks like the other materials are not much different in production costs, so why the radium fell out of use except for the luminescent paint is strange. --Stone (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Extended Betza notation

I conceived a very simple ad-hoc extension of Betza notation, less powerful than my Betza 2.0 proposal, (which would require a separate article to explain), but sufficiently powerful to handle virtually all Shogi moves. It requires only a single new modifier 'a', for 'again', rather than the plethora of new ad-hoc modifiers that the Wikipedia Shogi articles introduce now. And it is rather easy to explain:

The notation xxxayyyK stands for an xxxK move followed by an yyyK move, not necessarily in the same direction. Larger numbers of 'legs' can be indicated by repeated application of 'a'. Directional modifiers on continuation legs must be interpreted relative to the previous leg, where 'f' means 'continue in the same direction'; default is 'all directions'. The default modality of the final leg is the usual 'mc', but on non-final steps also includes a hop over an obstacle, provided the path does not bend back on itself there. Other (combinations of) modalities would have to be written explicitly, where the power to hop over an obstacle at the end-point of the step is denoted by 'p'.

This extension reduces a complete Lion to just aK, because the first-leg default modality exactly describes Lion power. The Soaring Eagle becomes RbBfavF, the v=fb in the second leg enforcing linearity. The Lion Dog becomes KavKafavK, the Teaching King QavKafavK. Hook movers become RmasR (or, equivalently but more contrived WmaR) and BmasB, where the 'm' robs them of the Lion powers. This also works for area moves, e.g. Tenjiku Vice General BcppBWmaKmamaK.

Shall I replace the dd, dh, tt, th-based description by this in all large-Shogi articles? I think that descriptions like KdhKdh3Kc2tt[DW]c2tt[AF]HG are really requiring more explanation than they provide... — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.G.Muller (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@H.G.Muller: Yes, please! This is much more elegant than the current one! Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being so indecisive about this. I made the change, but now that I look at it I perceive a shortcoming. Although this new 'a' modifier allows very compact and elegant description of the Lion and such, the explanatory power has decreased to almost zero. You basically already have to understand the Lion before you can understand what aK means. To someone who had not digested the description at the top of the piece table, it would mean absolutely nothing. In the Chu-rules page on my XBoard website I describe Lion in Betza 2.0 as KNAD(cK-aK)(mK-bK), and this seems a much more intuitive description: all direct leaps, plus two special moves: capture as King followed by another (unrestricted) King move, and move (to empty) as King, and back, for a conditional null move. Even without going to Betza 2.0, using the 'a' modifier in stead, we could write a similar thing: KNADcaKmabK. This might seem 'needlessly' verbose to the equivalent aK, which makes use of the clever defaults of 'a' and the tricky use of (bent) hops to implement the KNAD. But to those not intimately familiar with these defaults, the verbosity is in fact a big help, explicitly attracting attention to what is possible, rather than hiding it. caK for capture and move again and mabK for move and move back is quite intuitive. The hook movers were already clear enough, as they made neither use of default modality of 'a' for the first leg, neither of default directionality for the second: masR. For the Eagle moves it might be better to write FAcabfFmabF, to stress the conditional null move as a move and back term, and the igui / hit-and-run as capture and then move again, back or further. Similarly, the Lion Dog could be written ADmabKcabfKpmcafpmcabfK rather than the maximally compact KavKafavK, for hop, move or capture, and then again hop, move or capture in the same direction, and finally move in or out. What do you think? H.G.Muller (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@H.G.Muller: OK, I think this is better and clearer for readers who don't already know much about these variants (i.e. most of them). I think it's also good to spell things out, so that readers can compare the notation with the text description next to it and understand even better. Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, 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 yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Livermorium

The article Livermorium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Livermorium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nikos Nikolaidis

This is 89.139.184.202, I simply have a dynamic IP address. I have attempted to add Nikolaidis' image and category to his template yet they only shows on Template:Films directed by Nikos Nikolaidis and do not appear on the individual pages contained therein. Could you please help me sort it out? Many thanks! 85.250.184.198 (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's already appearing on the individual pages. I think you need to purge the page (i.e. clear your cache) to get it to show up, though. Double sharp (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see it now too. Thanks! 85.250.184.198 (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the talk pages of each of the four existing articles about Nikolaidis' films request photos of their theatrical release posters. These are available at their respective IMDb pages which can be accessed in these entries' external links section. Would you it be possible for you to please kindly upload these poster images to Wikipedia when you have the time? Thanks! This is 89.139.184.202 again. 85.250.140.173 (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure: I will probably have some time this weekend. Double sharp (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! Please leave a message at my talk page once you are done. 85.250.140.173 (talk) 10:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here, by the way, are the direct links to the posters of Morning Patrol, The Loser Takes It All, Sweet Gang, and Singapore Sling. 85.250.140.173 (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies: I've been more busy than I expected I would be for the last few days. I'll try to get it to it today or tomorrow if it is at all possible, though. Double sharp (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Take your time. Nobody is in a rush. PS: If you will not be able to upload these posters via IMDb, they are also available at Nikolaidis' official website here, here, here, and here. 85.250.140.173 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My IP address was once again changed to the one following this message (even though I have absolutely nothing to do with the edits contained therein), so please leave a message at that address' talk page rather than at any of the previous ones' once you are done. Thanks again! 89.139.174.142 (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not but my IP changed once again within only a day! It might therefore be better in the current situation if you will just post your replies here once you are done rather than in any of my talk pages. Thanks and sorry for the mess. 85.250.131.248 (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

89.139.184.202 here again. IMDb's links seem to have disappeared so just use the second set. Thanks! It would also be great to have this photo from the Italian Wikipedia appear at the plot section of the Singapore Sling entry. 85.250.144.239 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

89.139.184.202 here once again. Seeing that you have been very busy lately I have decided to also post this request at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Hope you don't mind... Thanks again for all your help! 85.250.155.74 (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all. Thank you! Yes I have been very busy lately, but the storm has pretty much passed now. Given that this will now be taken care of by others, I'll focus on the GAN I left hanging since October. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

hey

I have a couple of words to say.

First, I finally realized I won't argue about how to build an FA. I can present my view on that, but there are other views on that which may still be right. Sandbh built metalloid a lot differently than how I would do it, and still succeeded (which is great). That is, you surely understand how I would write, say, alkali metal, but there's another reviewer and if you trust him or you believe him, do what he says. (This is more for me than for you, but I'm writing this anyway in case you want to, but are struggling to satisfy anyone)

Second, you're totally right about FAs. I don't expect our table to ever become ever-blue, but the most important articles should be blue. I'm glad you realize and support what I was getting at. Therefore, your offer on FAing Li or Be is very interesting for me. But

Third, I became very busy (thus tired when free) lately, and I don't expect that to change any time soon (speaking of years, not months). Last year was just the beginning. Plus, I'm losing my motivation. Worse still, I think this distracts me from what I really have to do (it's great to volunteer, but not when you have no spare time). I even think FAing At and 117 will be the last major changes done via this account, if I ever can get to that. If not, please do that. Both articles are only ref styling and copy editing away from getting their stars (astatine had a great CE in 2012, so no worries on that). They need no real work on them.

Fourth, you are a great editor and a great person to work with. I wish you luck for whatever goals you want to reach.--R8R (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your compliments! I will remember your words: you always make a lot of sense, no matter what you're talking about. (Yes, I was kinda trying to satisfy everyone, but I tend to believe him on the importance of chemistry as a section.) And sure, I will help you finish up At and E117 if you don't feel able to do it yourself anymore. (So I guess it means Al and Db are left to anyone who wants to do them, right?)

I wish you luck for everything you want to do, on WP as well as in real life. If you ever get enough time to come back regularly, please do! But even if you don't, you can always remember your work here by just Googling "fluorine", where your and TCO's FA is the top result. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice to know you're there to help when needed, and thank you for your words. I still plan to do those two myself (I don't mind some help on that; but I'm not yet asking for it either), but if I'm not able to, I'll let you know. Apparently, yes, I'll have to leave Db and Al.--R8R (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: (If you were wondering about the "I still got" that used to be here, this was something I started to type, changed my mind, and forgot to backspace; it's gone now.) Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Radium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Radium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Protonk -- Protonk (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Block (periodic table)

Your most recent edit to remove the clarification tag. Can you describe the, physical characteristic and reasoning, just briefly in a sentence or two, related to the group s2, without using numericals like code s1 in group 4x of configuration 92abf? It makes for much better content... I mean, if you said, "Heliums electrons spin counterclockwise unlike and so on..." And I know that's not it, but atomic spin is in the middle of much more complexity yet referred to and understood so easily. It spins. That spin varies. Each are categorised according to the variation of their spin. No b1s or c2s or xfs, just a load of c4? ~ R.T.G 16:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Replied at the Ref Desk (or rather, it soon will be: I'm composing the reply). Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Equal temperament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Beryllium toxicity and allergy past screwups

The problems with beryllium allergic disease (a.k.a. berylliosis, a.k.a. chronic beryllium (lung) disease), dates from April, 25, 2010 when user:Arcadian decided without discussion to carve a big chunk of the well-referenced material that had been recently added [1] to beryllium on "chronic beryllium disease", should be split out. He failed badly at WP:SS and left an inadequate summary in beryllium, which is why it all looks very mysterious there. Moreover, he didn't notice that there had been from 2008 already an article on berylliosis, so he moved the article material (including a lot of material much better on the topic of berylliosis than that already in berylliosis!) to a new article called beryllium poisoning, which now hides the best berylliosis info. This, even though berylliosis is NOT poisoning per se (chemical toxicity or poisoning), but rather the chronic allergic reaction. In March, 2011 the berylliosis talk page had a merge discussion in which a lot of people made various suggestions, but nothing happened. Most people working on beryllium don't even know there exists a beryllium poisoning article, and that this is where the info they are looking for on beryllium allergy, is hiding (some of it is even on the TALK page). All this due to very ham-handed editing.

If you-all want, I'll be WP:BOLD and fix it by moving the allergy info to berylliosis, and putting some summary of it back into beryllium. Or, do it yourselves. I had a lot of arguments at the time with some editor who had decided beryllium wasn't really an antigen, and prevented me from doing anything. User:Sbharris 00:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you forgot radium

You left the radium GA nomination hanging! How can you ignore your own nomination? Parcly Taxel 00:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't forget it, I just really do not have enough spare time at the moment to address the rest – many of which will require some research. The easy things have largely been done. If I get nine or ten moments I can do it, and I hope I can get that within a few days. Double sharp (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious

elements
Thank you, Ds, for quality articles on chemical elements, such as Alkali metal and Darmstadtium (Ds), for gnomish care for them, for sharp subpages and the goal to translate Am Brunnen vor dem Tore, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 652nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the great honour! Double sharp (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How about the translation, editor of the week? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Oh dear...I still want to do it, but I'm not sure I'll have time for it... Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Understand, I always have too little time, - also I love red links, see my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Red links are wonderful things. :-P Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Missed high F

In your edit summary at I puritani, are you referring to Cesar-Antonio Suarez' 1977 career-ending disaster in San Francisco? But seriously: it might be worth mentioning there that many accomplished tenors these days sing a high D in chest voice instead of a falsetto F. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Yes, definitely! (That cat picture makes it really hilarious.)

Yes, most sing the high D-flat instead (and I think some bring the first one down to A-flat or something, so that it doesn't sound too anticlimactic). A list of those who do take the F would be a cool addition – thankfully there's a YouTube compilation. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: OK, looks like one of the more common adaptations used is

This keeps the high D-flat, but not the high F. Double sharp (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup award

Awarded to Double sharp for participating in the 2014 WikiCup. J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 21:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

• Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
• Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
• Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• 12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
• Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
• Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 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. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Nobelium

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Lawrencium

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Gulliver Suite

Have you seen this?

Aren't these 256ths? (Didn't check if they were correct though).

Contact Basemetal here 07:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Perhaps they are written as 256ths (I lost count of the beams!), but since there are 12 in a bar, they are equal, and the time signature is 3/32, they must actually be 128ths with erroneous extra beams. Double sharp (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I said I didn't check if it fit. But erroneous or not they're still 256ths! Or he may have intended 3/64! You never know with those musical jokes. An "extreme" of notation all right. Contact Basemetal here 11:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: All right, I see your point. In the editions I checked they are corrected to 128ths though, so some clarification such as "(only in autograph)" is needed. Beethoven's third piano concerto (2nd movement) has the opposite case, where Beethoven notates 128ths when 256ths are necessary (b.63, piano part). Double sharp (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd never (before now) noticed your request to be pinged. Sorry about that. I'd always assumed if someone left a message on my talk they'll be watching it especially since leaving a message automatically adds it to their watchlist. Sorry again. From now on I'll pinging you when the conversation takes place at my talk. Contact Basemetal here 09:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Specifying tempo in Hz

Those 256ths made me think of something: Have you ever seen a suggestion to measure tempo in Hz: 60 bpm = 1 Hz, 120 bpm = 2 Hz, 30 bpm = 0.5 Hz, etc. In any case it seems to me it would probably make more sense from a practical point of view to graduate metronomes logarithmically. Contact Basemetal here 08:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Come to think of it: temperature also, so there wouldn't be this silly notion of "absolute zero", but that's another story. Contact Basemetal here 08:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I just wanted to let you know I responded to your suggestions on my Talk page. You said to add

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

, but where/how? Sorry, I've always been a casual editor; this is the first time anyone's tried to discuss anything with me via my talk page. --DonAByrd

Speedy deletion nomination of File:DU06 facets.png

A tag has been placed on File:DU06 facets.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:DU23 facets.png

A tag has been placed on File:DU23 facets.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

File:DU01 facets.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DU01 facets.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Piccolos in E-flat and F

Albert Lavignac mentions the existence piccolos in E-flat and F here. Ouch. Contact Basemetal here 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Definitely a fair assessment! Ouch! If I remember correctly there's also a clarinet in high F for military music – I've seen a copy of a score using it, but unfortunately the name of the composer got chopped off! Double sharp (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Lucky guy. In the military it could have been an arm or a leg. Contact Basemetal here 05:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: I shall have to find that piece again... :-)

You know, I've been thinking of a records page for the first use of each instrument. This would of course be most interesting for rarities like the high piccolos you mentioned, although it could be interesting for instruments that took a while to get accepted, such as the contrabassoon.

If you mean earliest scores where that instrument appears that would be very interesting. And for obsolete instruments also the last score where that instrument appears (e.g. ophicleide, or tenor violin, or whatever). The problem for having folks accept that as a WP page is that it is hard to prove that a given occurrence is really the earliest (or last). It's only first or last until you or someone else finds an earlier or later occurrence. You'd need a secondary source stating explicitly: "This score is the earliest where this instrument appears" for this to meet WP standards. Another problem in some cases is identifying what instrument is meant in a given score (see for example discussion here) Contact Basemetal here 15:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Another fun one is the "Gran Fagotto" in Mozart's Maurerische Trauermusik, which perhaps is, but is not known certainly to be, a contrabassoon – and there is debate on whether the part is written at concert pitch, or with the octave-down transposition currently used today... Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, are these fair game for list of musical instruments by transposition? Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think so. Why shouldn't they be? There's a reference, isn't there? Contact Basemetal here 15:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding the article you mention, do you know if the terms "regular, high, low, very, super, extremely" (and their particular definitions) are standard or were they made up by someone who worked on the article? Contact Basemetal here 21:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Other than "high" and "low", I think they're made up: "super" sounds a little frivolous! High and low are definitely traditional, e.g. corni in B alto (high B♭, down a major second) / B basso (low B♭, down a major ninth). Double sharp (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand your 'corni' example. If transposing a maj 2nd down is high and transposing a maj 9th down is low, where is regular? This seems to me to be a parallel classification. Regarding the classification used in the article, is the cut off point between regular and high and regular and low also traditional? For example the article calls an instrument in D that transposes a major 2nd up high and would call a (so far undetermined) instrument that transposed a minor 7th down regular. But the opposite would seem just as or even more logical, i.e. to call the first regular and the second low. Is that choice also traditional? Same thing with instruments in D-flat that transpose a minor 9th up being called very high where they could as easily have been just high. Same thing with instruments in E-flat, E, or F. It seems a priori (leaving aside tradition which I'm not entirely up on) that any instrument transposing a 2nd, 3rd or 4th up or down would more logically be in the regular group and the other categories (high, low, etc.) be defined going from there. But (as I said) I don't know exactly what's traditional and what's not. This's why I'm asking you. I ain't proposing to mess with the article at this point. I'd just let it be. But I'm curious. Contact Basemetal here 08:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: I wrote this post and then realized that I was mixing German note names and Italian instrument names for no good reason. LOL. My excuse is that this is what all those Breitkopf & Härtel complete editions do. Perhaps I ought to have written "B hoch" and "B tief" instead of "B alto" and "B basso", though!

For horns it's usually like this: C alto is non-transposing, B alto is a major 2nd down, and from then on there is no alto/basso qualification (so you have "corni in E" = minor 6th down) until you get to C basso (octave down) and B basso (major 9th down). Things outside this range are not common: exceptionally in Mozart's 19th symphony he uses "corni in e la fa alto" (= Es alto) for minor 3rd up, and "corni in e la fa basso" (= Es basso) for major sixth down, what we would usually call just "Corni in Es". Also, you very occasionally see corni in A basso (minor 10th down) or As basso (major 10th down), but you never see "alto" for minor or major 3rd down (corni in A, As). Horns and trumpets seem to be the first place to look for such things, because they came in the largest number of keys and some disambiguation would be needed.

P.S. Here's some works that use the very rare horn transpositions: corni in As (Schubert, D. 417); corni in Fis (Haydn, Farewell Symphony); corni in Des (I haven't seen this, but I hear Strauss used it); corni in H (Haydn Symphony 46, as well as a Brahms work I can't remember the title of); corni in A basso (Rossini and Verdi used it; I haven't seen it); corni in As basso (same as corni in A basso). It looks like everything from low A♭ (major 10th down) to high B♭ (major 2nd down) has been used, as well as high C (non-transposing) and high E♭ (minor 3rd up). Oh, and "corni in Fis" is a very rare example of transposing instruments using the sharp instead of the flat – although I suspect this is because the movement they appear in is written as F♯ major instead of G♭ major. Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a very rare example of a transposition at the aug 4th/dim 5th, whether written G-flat or F-sharp. I think I contributed to that article the bit that "There are no instruments in G-flat except horns with crooks that can come in any key". I didn't realize how right I was . Any key really seems to mean any key, including sharped keys. In that case the observation that "names of transposing instruments always use flat never sharp" would have to be amended with "except, again, for horns with crooks". However, once we recover from the shock of such a transposition, the simple fact that the part is notated in C (as expected from a F-sharp instrument) as opposed to B-sharp (as would be expected from a G-flat instrument) is I think entirely normal. The article Transposing instrument says that: "Transposing instruments' names always use flat, never sharp [...] In practice [however] the actual transposition in the score may (for the convenience of the player) depend on the key of the music. For example, in a section in C major an E♭ alto saxophone part will of course appear in A major (three sharps). But in a section in concert B major it would be impractical to notate the sax part in G♯ major part (a key with eight sharps, i.e. six sharps and one double-sharp). Instead their part would appear in A♭ major (four flats), just as if they were playing a D♯ instrument.". I even think I wrote this bit, typos and all (I've just cutandpasted). On an apparently remotely related but actually entirely irrelevant note, someone told me (I have not been able to verify that) that Mozart in one of his letters to his father refers to a work of his in E-flat as a work "in Dis". They told me also that Germans were, for the longest amount of time, pretty cavalier in confusing enharmonic flats and sharps when using their literal notation in casual conversation or writing. Of course this doesn't have anything to do with how actual scores are notated. Contact Basemetal here 10:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

IIRC the Eroica was also advertised as a symphony "in Dis". Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: I found one of these! :-D The piccolo in high F (sounds a perfect twelfth above written) appears in Mozart's Die Entführung aus dem Serail. You can hear it quite easily in Hogwood's recording – it must be very ouch-worthy indeed close up! Double sharp (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you go looking for them or was it chance? Where in the opera? What's its highest note? Contact Basemetal here 14:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: I didn't actually go looking, it was by chance. It appears in the overture, "Solche Hergelauf'ne Laffen" (the ending in A minor – incidentally this aria begins in F major and ends in A minor), the chorus of Janissaries in the first act, the duet "Vivat Bacchus! Bacchus lebe!" in the second act, "O, wie will ich triumphieren", and the final vaudeville and chorus of Janissaries. The highest note is written F6, that is sounding C8(!).

Incidentally Mozart also used the regular C piccolo (though not in this opera), for example in "Ich möchte wohl der Kaiser sein", K.539.

(P.S. The musical text of Die Entführung has a rather confusing number of alternative versions, involving alternative readings and cuts (sometimes together). Some of the NMA's solutions for notating them all would be worthy of Don Byrd's page. :-D Another fun one is in "Ach Belmonte! Ach, mein Leben", b.214–235, which has Blonde singing in 12/8 and everyone else playing/singing in 2/2! The obvious way to notate this seems to be just triplets, but that would need broken triplets (by which I mean any configuration other than three equal notes): were those really not invented yet? Maybe so, because later in an early Schubert lied he resorts to changing the time signature halfway to write this rhythm – although a few months later he seems to have discovered broken triplets.) Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

An instrument in F sounds an F for a written C. That should give an 11th above what's written. A written F6 should sound a (B-flat)7, shouldn't it? Contact Basemetal here 12:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Argh! I made a mistake! It's actually a piccolo in high G (in the NMA). Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

So it's even higher! Oh boy! Regarding the triplets, it's (pun alert ) odd. (Not certain but "unequal triplets" maybe more common than "broken triplets"; something to ask at the Tuplets talk page or at WP:RD/E).) I tend to doubt that from the moment equal triplets were first used it could have taken very much time for unequal triplets to come into use also as it is a natural extension. That a young Schubert was not a theoretical maven that wouldn't surprise me. I can imagine a friend tell him: "Franz, you dummkopf, you don't need to change time signature here; you can write it this way." But Mozart was very knowledgeable about theory and seem to have had fun with intricate stuff. I think there is a place in an opera of his where three orchestras play in three different time signatures. When he was a kid he loved arithmetic and stuff. And in any case the Mozart example is the weirder of the two. Could it just be a prank? (BTW, is this how the Mozart and the early Schubert examples are still commonly printed today? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm not very knowledgeable about musical textual criticism.) Contact Basemetal here 13:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Hmm...according to the WP article on this opera, the part was meant for a recorder, but is now played on piccolo. Regardless, the transposition (high G) still stands for the original part. Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is that info credible? It was added w/o any source: see here. And the guy who added it was talking about a recorder pitched a 5th above the normal flute i.e. a 4th below the piccolo in C. So the transposition would be different. What's going on? Is there no other source for this that the statement added by that guy? And what is the real note sounded? Contact Basemetal here 13:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's complicated. The gory details are discussed in the NMA foreword to the Entführung on pages XIV (bottom right) & XV. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Since this conversation is mainly about transposition, the mention of "c' (Klang g'')" settles the matter in favour of high G. The compass Mozart writes for it in the opera is written c'–f''' (2¹/₂ octaves), or sounding g''–c''''. Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Basemetal: Here's an article about this: Triplet Assimilation in the Music of Schubert: Challenging the Ideal by David Montgomery. In D.97 Schubert changes between 4/4 and 12/8 to avoid unequal triplets (sometimes in the middle of a bar!): in D.100 he has discovered unequal triplets (and in b.1 of the vocal part weirdly writes in a triplet spanning a quarter note: the obvious way to notate this seems to be just a quarter rest)... Sorry, the only score I have for these works are the old Breitkopf & Härtel complete edition on IMSLP, so I don't know how this is typeset today (I imagine Schubert's odd notation would be kept). There are apparently thousands of examples of broken triplets in Schubert's music (one of the most famous being in the Wanderer Fantasy), so I guess they must have been around since almost the beginning.

There's another example of this in the finale of Mozart's Oboe Quartet, K.370: at one point in the finale the oboe is playing in 4/4 and the strings in 6/8. Here, to express Mozart's intentions without the polymeter would require quadruplets and octuplets, so it's more understandable – when were those first encountered? (They're probably less common than triplets).

I think the opera you are thinking of is Don Giovanni (the ballroom scene: 3/4 against 2/4 against 3/8), and it is on Don Byrd's CMN Extremes page. Note that this example is more radical than the others I mentioned, because the barlines do not coincide: here we have two 3/8 bars = one 2/4 bar = two-thirds of a 3/4 bar. (It also presumably makes a mess of the bar numbering: I'll go look and see how the NMA numbers the bars here.)

(P.S. This has almost certainly been pointed out before, but this is too weird to avoid mentioning: why is it that a duplet fitting into a dotted quarter note is notated as eighths, but a quadruplet fitting into a dotted quarter note is also notated as eighths? Surely the duplet should use note values twice as long as the quadruplet?) Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(P.P.S. The back of that Montgomery article has a table at the back showing when various unequal triplet rhythms became common. Some of them were already common in the late 18th century, though took a while longer (19th century). Subdividing the triplets further, creating rhythms like . , only stopped being rare by the late 19th century. The table gives more details that would be hard to go into here.) Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that David Montgomery article (I suppose that's him). Very interesting. You should mention it to Don. You note that in the article he, just like you, uses '"broken" triplet' (broken in quotes though). Do you think Montgomery could have adopted that phrase from a non-English speaker? Do you know what they call them in German say? I'm not completely confident about "broken" vs "unequal", but while I'd heard "unequal" before this is was the first time I'd heard "broken". Contact Basemetal here 14:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything You've Always Wanted to Know About Spc, But Were Afraid to Ask

Hi Double. Re your recent editsum (why isn't there a consistent format across WP re the spacing? (1.d4 vs. 1. d4)), WP:CHESS seems averse to establishing any convention re it. (There're some discussions in WT:CHESS archives, part of one on WT:MOS, but same -- not enough care to establish any convention.) So anything goes. (When I first saw with no space, "1.d4", it seemed alien, and especially "5.0-0" was confusing at first -- I thought it looked like "5.0 [dash] 0". But w/o the space is massively used in articles already, especially gamescores. I've gotten to accept it and even like it OK -- it does make complete gamescores more compact vs the expansion resulting from using the space, and I don't see any downside [other than maybe the "5.0-0" example]. The deal is though, when moves are bolded, if the space isn't used, series of moves and especially a complete gamescore [for me at least w/ my default Ariel font & pt sz], it's then hard to read, even hard on the eyes, because of the crowding due to thickened black strokes and no spacing. [Try it sometime. Take a game from World Chess Championship 2014 and take out the spaces, and compare readabilities.] So for me at least, a simple convention might be no space when non-bolded [1.d4 & 1...d5], and add space when bolded [1. d4 & 1... d5]. Simple enough; easy to apply. However, some complexity arises when one asks: "What are gamescores w/ no annotations bolded for anyway?" [Good question, since in books and also at WT:CHESS there was thought that bold s/b reserved for main lines, and non-bold for the annotations within. But not only at World Chess Championship 2014 but in many other articles, gamescores w/o annotations are often bolded. {I've actually unbolded a few of those, to lower excessive bold in some articles. It worked. But would it work for the games in World Chess Championship 2014 if all the games are non-bold? Maybe. But maybe bold there emphasizes and renders the games more readable when playing thru!? I think it may be true; if true, then bolding even when no annotations would seem to have its own purpose. Doing a side-by-side is always the best way to decide for oneself of course.}])

The convention idea to always use a space (whether bold or non-bold) works for me too; except that as mentioned, non-bolded gamescores are more compact w/o the space, and there are already massive numbers of articles w/ games & analyses not using the space. And all that precedence has won me over to thinking the space isn't really necessary either -- but again for me, I think it doesn't work well for readability when bolded. The only possible downside I see to always adding space when bolded, is in section titles consisting of moves as they're represented in the TOC (e.g. a secname like 5. d4 perhaps looks confusing in the TOC when the TOC adds the section number and you get "4. 5. d4" in the TOC [vs "4. 5.d4"]).

After all the above I'm curious what you think! (Doesn't matter; a category six earthquake would be insufficient to shake the indifference re making a convention!) ;) p.s. Here is a weird one: for Millennium 3D Chess, notation for pawn moves starts w/ the level number the pawn finishes on. So I added space even though non-bolded, because "24. 2e3" looked less confusing than "24.2e3". (A rare bird indeed!) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: Regarding Millenium 3D Chess: suppose on White's board (board 1) there are two white knights, one on 1g1 and one on 1g3. If White takes the knight on 1g3 and moves it to 1e2, how do you notate that? "N31e2"? Confusing, isn't it!? (According to my interpretation of the rules this move would be legal.) Personally I'd have chosen to use another index for the levels that doesn't already mean something else, maybe lowercase Greek letters. An 8×8×8 board would then use α β γ δ ε ζ η θ, with αa1 as the down-south-west corner and θh8 as the up-north-east corner. (I originally went for capital Greek letters for contrast with the files, but that creates problems as capital beta looks just like B.) Higher-dimensional boards could use Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arabic, etc. (and quite honestly I think 6 dimensions are more than enough for any human-playable game).

I think in section titles you really do need to omit the space. Other than that, I like your proposal: no space when not bolded, space when bolded. Castling is a bit confusing, but after while I guess you get used to it.

I think the thinking behind bolding non-annotated games is just consistency, as well as making the job easier if annotations then get added. To me it makes the game stand out more from the surrounding commentary, but I could live without it.

(P.S. Is Betza's 3D Chess notable enough for an article? It's my favourite!) Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Re Betza's 3D, there's no entry in ECV or CECV. I can't find a CV article either w/ specific rules, where are they exactly? [2] Betza is a recognized expert of course so he is good to go as a primary ref. (But re notability, that's a trick Q for lotsa CVs me thinks -- even those w/ ECV & CECV entries. So I don't really know.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There are four possible rulesets, all described as [3]: they only differ in the knight and pawn moves. (My personal favourite is the first one, where knights are just (0,1,2), and pawns move straight forward in 1D but change file or level when captured: thus a pawn at 4e4 can move to 4e5 and capture to 4d5, 4f5, 3e5, or 5e5.) Double sharp (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for outstanding work on chemistry articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:StringTheory11 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I have worked with Double sharp before, and (s)he always is the epitome of thoroughness. After being indeffed for silliness in 2009, this editor has really turned it around, and has worked to bring a huge number of our chemical element articles to GA-class. Since the elements are some of the most-viewed articles, his/her work has an enormous benefit to readers. But that's not all; (s)he makes sure that absolutely nothing important is missed, and is always thorough and benevolent in his interactions with other editors. In short, user Double sharp is constantly improving articles while avoiding unnecessary drama and keeping a good sense of humor, and would be a great candidate for the EotW award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Double sharp

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 30, 2014

Improves articles on chemistry, geometry and classical music. Uses humorous edit summaries when reverting vandals. A great editor and a great person to work with.

Recognized for

Notable work(s)

Strong chemistry-related contributions

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 17:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your efforts are appreciated. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the honour! Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

When you get back, you may be interested in this...

WP:RSC Gold. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

	You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology
	Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Radium

The article Radium you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Radium for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Protonk -- Protonk (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Protonk: This was still on?! :-O But I think this is a good thing – it will mean that I can fix it up in my own time, and not create GAN length records. See you at GAN once it's actually ready. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unfinished creative work, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Levin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Conversations re shogi variants

Note I finally answered your messages on my talk page. (I had just left for holiday when you posted those, and my wife broke her leg during it, which has kept me quite busy since then...) H.G.Muller (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@H.G.Muller: Thanks for your response. I'll read them when I'm not as busy as today. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Star polygon

Thank you very much for dropping by. However those images are creeping back at Star polygon and Tom remains very confrontational. I have dropped him a warning on his talk page but he is unimpressed. Do you have any suggestions for the best way forward? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I added digon compound images, as requested. Not a single old image was added, except in someone's over active imagination. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I requested the digon compounds, although perhaps one or two would be enough to show the idea. (They are degenerate cases after all: maybe we don't need to give more examples of them than the non-degenerate compounds.)

As for the star polygon pictures at the top, I guess leaving them up to {12/5} is OK, as beyond that they don't have articles. If this is too much, then I guess four examples would do (probably the simplest: the pentagram, the two heptagrams, and the octagram). Double sharp (talk) 13:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, he has now accused me outright of lying. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tom Ruen warring with gross incivility. Thank you.

Tetracomb table

Hi, I saw your work at {{Regular tetracomb table}}. Cool stuff! I noticed that q and s can also be represented in headers, and created {{Regular tetracomb table/sandbox}} to reflect that. What do you think? I'm also thinking if there is a better way to present the classification you have now only in colors. For accessibility, it's often a good idea not to only convey meaning through color, and I think we could write out or have a letter for each classification for each cell. Does that sound reasonable? Regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: I really like what you did for q and s in the sandbox. As for the colours (this is also the case for the lower-dimensional {{Regular hyperbolic tiling table}} and {{Regular honeycomb table}}), while this is covered in the article list of regular polytopes and compounds, I agree that there should be a letter as well for classification. How about "S" for spherical (red), "E" for Euclidean (green), "H (c)" for hyperbolic compact (blue), "H (pc)" for hyperbolic paracompact (purple), and "H (nc)" for hyperbolic noncompact (cyan)? Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I've written it out in a next attempt which is clearer than just a letter, and is small enough for the non-hyperbolics, but not for the hyperbolics. How about "hyperbolic (c)", "hyperbolic (pc)" and "hyperbolic (nc)" for those? Or maybe just plain "hyperbolic" for the noncompact? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: I think (c), (pc), and (nc) work better. The noncompact ones are the most numerous, but they are also kind of weird with parts in a sense going past the ideal hyperplane at infinity; the compact ones are the easiest to understand, I think. Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I have difficulty understanding any of them; To my great regret I'm not so good at maths - but user interfaces is more manageable. My reasoning was that when we don't say that something is compact or paracompact, it can be assumed it is non-compact. We would sacrifice some completeness there, but nothing that isn't already implied, just like in the current table it is implied that the paracompact ones aren't compact. Does that make sense. Then again, my knowledge of the subject matter is too small to make a good editorial call on either; if you have a strong preference for another form, please do ignore my less-informed suggestions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra:Yes, there are lots of noncompact ones not in the table, like {6,7,8} etc. Anything outside the table is noncompact, so maybe you're right and it should be treated as default. (And yes, the paracompact ones are not compact. You can think of the compact ones as the well-behaved ones, where everything is accessible: the paracompact ones have infinite elements, and the noncompact ones in some sense go past infinity. For understanding it's probably a lot easier to start with lower-dimensional cases, as seen at list of regular polytopes and compounds: these are tilings of 4-dimensional space and naturally they would be hard to understand at first!) Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly of the hyperbolic ones, the paracompact ones form a subset of that, and the compact ones form a subset of all paracompact ones. To me, it makes sense to label them with the most specific thing. So there is no need to label things "paracompact and compact" because that is true for all compact hyperbolic ones. That means there is also no need to label anything "paracompact and not compact", because it's implied that the paracompact ones that are also compact are all labeled compact. To me, logically, there is no need to label anything noncompact, because if they hadn't been, they would have been labeled compact or paracompact. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: I wouldn't call the compact ones paracompact: to me paracompact implies there are elements at infinity, and compact implies there are not. So I think the best is a three-way distinction between compact (nothing at infinity), paracompact (things at infinity), and noncompact (things past infinity): and all these cases are subclasses of "hyperbolic". That's what I was trying to show, at least. "Hyperbolic" would work instead of "noncompact", but since the two words are about the same length, I'd prefer being precise about it: a noncompact honeycomb must be hyperbolic, but a hyperbolic honeycomb doesn't have to be noncomapct (it could be compact or paracompact). (Are my attempts at explanation too confusing?) Double sharp (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Double sharp. It's not that your explanations are too confusing, just that I may be phrasing myself poorly - and go in to too "hypercorrect" while I'm trying to say we don't need to be hypercorrect. I completely agree with you that calling compact ones paracompact is, while technically correct, a terrible idea. By the way, is it correct that non-hyperbolic ones are always compact? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: Regardless, I'll still try to help clarify myself. :-) Also, I wanted to say that compact ones are not paracompact, but it appears I didn't say that clearly enough. Agreed that it's a terrible idea, though. :-)

Non-hyperbolic ones can probably be noncompact: the example that immediately springs to my mind is the order-2 apeirogonal tiling, {∞,2}, where the two apeirogons each fill a half-plane each (and so basically stretch to infinity). It's just that no such cases actually appear in the table. They would be things like {4,3,4,2} and {2,4,3,4}, which I didn't include because their symbols contain 2 and so they come out rather degenerate. (If it helps; {2} literally refers to a two-sided polygon, and it should be clear that such a shape would be markedly uninteresting on a flat plane.) Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's good to know that non-hyperbolic ones can be non-compact. Our article on Paracompact space does define any compact space as being a paracompact space by definition. Is there a subtle nuance there where a paracompact tesselation and a paracompact space that I'm not understanding? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Martijn Hoekstra: Oops. I meant to say "paracompact" in that last reply, not "noncompact"! The noncompact ones would seem to me to need to be hyperbolic.

I have no idea about what is going on with the terminology, but I think the word means something different when applied to tessellations instead of spaces. I don't know very much yet about the latter usage, though. Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

element 119

Okay, lightest makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silhouette119 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Silhouette119: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Regular polyhedron may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |[[File:Spherical pentagonal hosohedron.png|100px]]<br>Pentagonal hosohedron]]<br>{2,5}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Even/odd polygons

I removed the quasiregular forms (for even tables) since the stat tables said "regular polygon". Tom Ruen (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

But that's the thing: they may be constructed as quasiregular, having alternating-coloured edges, but these are perfectly valid subsymmetric ways to construct these polygons. If you don't remove constructions like s{2,4}, sr{2,2}, and h{4,3} from tetrahedron, and even more pertinently r{3,3} from octahedron (which for the record I think is a bad idea), then it seems to me illogical to remove the quasiregular constructions. t{2} doesn't mean the alternating edges have to have different lengths; it's just that {4} forces it as a square, and t{2} has the square as the canonical (Archimedean) truncation, although one could easily envision a non-Archimedean truncation (i.e. a rectangle). Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd lean towards clarity there too, putting subsymmetry of regular forms into a special section, including tetrahedron. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the infobox is supposed to be complete, and I think it should probably give the nontrivial forms. (I doubt we have to include the construction s{p} = {p}, though, since it is so trivial; although h{p} = {p/2} might perhaps merit inclusion. At least the truncation only works as an alternate construction for even polygons!) For sure, you could include {3,3} at the top, and relegate the subsymmetric constructions in the next row of the infobox, but since it's only a question of a single line so far for the polygons, and I already put them on the next row, I don't think this is too problematic. Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I still now lean for a special section as better, not in stat table, like 5-cube shows the excessiveness. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

For the higher dimensions, I think your idea makes sense; that is indeed rather ugly. But given that it's just a single line for the polygons, I think the judgement call is much less clear there. And for the polyhedra and perhaps polychora, I find constructions like r{3,3} = {3,4}, s{3,4} = {3,5}, and r{3,3,4} = {3,4,3} really exemplify how closely related the different families are, and these is interesting to me in a way that the prismatic constructions for the hypercubes like {4,3}×{4}={4,3,3,3} just aren't. Maybe we could have a strict line of separation: nonprismatic Wythoffian constructions (including alternations for polyhedra and above) always get admitted to the infobox, but prismatic constructions don't, unless of course they are the only ones (e.g. {5,3}×{4} and other not-too-interesting polytopes). Double sharp (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. On a lighter note: I just tried to get Tyler to draw the regular 65537-gon. After a minute or so of grumbling, it acceded to my request. Alas, it was too big to see in its entirety even at maximum magnification, so it was rather in vain, although I did spend some time clicking and dragging my way across the boundary. Ah well. I guess we could just draw a circle, but that feels wrong to me as we explicitly compare these huge polygons to circles, and while I get that nobody really can see the difference I feel that we're kind of cheating the comparison. I think it's far better to actually illustrate a true 65537-gon side-by-side with a true circle, and then remark on how giving this as a "spot the difference" puzzle to children would be a creative form of torture. (Well, not in those words.) Double sharp (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice new 257-gon picture, Tomruen! Would you mind making similar pictures for {1000}, {65537}, and {10⁶}? Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see you beat me to {1000}. Well, I can't seem to make the other two within a sane amount of time, so if you feel mad enough to get them done, please feel free! Double sharp (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My JavaScript is strangely slow, but 65537 seems doable with a little wait, and thin thin lines. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

All right, thank you! So we'll just have to wait a little for {65537}. Given its slowness, I think perhaps we ought to forget about {10⁶}, unless you decide to leave it running while you go AFK (away from keyboard) for a long while! Then again, the {10⁶} picture would probably only satisfy my being uncomfortable with the present situation at megagon. Double sharp (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately FireFox won't zoom even a 10000-gon SVG enough to show points with radius small enough to see line segments. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh well. I guess it doesn't really matter all that much – it'd look like a circle with countless red points on it, all blending into each other. (Actually, come to think of it, that would be a cool illustration of {65537}, although I think we can now officially give up on {10⁶}!) Double sharp (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, 10000 actually works in my IE11, so I uploaded it. [4]. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Now I'm scared of how, or indeed whether, {65537} will come out. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Can your broswer zoom reasonably on the 10000-gon? Tom Ruen (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It works fine, but I think that's because I'm using IE11 too. Ah, I see Chrome handles the myriagon fine as well. However, it doesn't seem to want to show as anything other than a red circle (T_T). Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

In case you're interested, here's Conway's system from 1997: Tom Ruen (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is my edited system. It consistently uses the neuter forms, although non-neuter ones (such as "triskaideca" and "diacosio") have also been used. The components for the separate decimal digits are combined in the same order as in English, so that a polyhedron with 12345 faces would be a myria-kai-dischilia-kai-triacosia-kai-tetraconta-kai-pentahedron! 1-10 11-20 21-30 21+ 100s 1000s 1 mono hendeca icosikaihena 2 di dodeca icosikaidi icosa/icosi diacosia dischilia 3 tri triakaideca icosikaitri triaconta triacosia trischilia 4 tetra tetrakaideca icosikaitetra tetraconta tetracosia tetrakischilia 5 penta pentakaideca icosikaipenta pentaconta pentacosia pentakischilia 6 hexa hexakaideca icosikaihexa hexaconta hexacosia hexakischilia 7 hepta heptakaideca icosikaihepta heptaconta heptacosia heptakischilia 8 octa octakaideca icosikaiocta octaconta octacosia octakischilia 9 ennea enneakaideca icosikaiennea enneaconta enneacosia enneakischilia 10 deca icosi/icosa triaconta hecto chilia myria

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Radon.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Radon.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Radon.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Radon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Icositetragon

added a link pointing to Isogonal

Tetracontagon

added a link pointing to Isogonal

Triacontagon

added a link pointing to Isogonal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Double sharp (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Important note

I have the following concern:

A newly registered or un-registered Wikipedian who notices the megagon article for the first time and is excited to hear that it has a name and Wikipedia article will likely create a bevagon article (with this being their term for a polygon with 1,000,000,000 sides.) Please do whatever you can to make sure no one does this, unless you can find official citations for the term "bevagon" (or whatever term someone might expect for such a polygon.) Georgia guy (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: No problem: if such a thing appears and I notice it will surely get {{db-g3}} slapped on it. Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Recruitment for Wikipedian Interview

Hello Double sharp,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Celebrimbor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinda. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion to a standard infobox at Oxygen

Is objected to by this professor of chemistry, for its being done without discussion, and for the pedagogic reasons explained at the article Talk page, including the fact that appearance of liquid O2 at the fore of the article removes that image from text material that explains what the reader is seeing with regard to this condensate, later on in the article, and adds otherwise nothing to the fundamental understanding of the element being introduced—i.e, that at STP, the condition at which readers experience it, it is a colorless diatomic gas. Molecular formulae of sucrose and penicillin are standard and preferable in their infoboxes for the substantive information these convey, over pictures of near-indistinguishable white powders. In the same way, we need to relax from whatever self-imposed convention is being followed that says a picture of a non-standard state of an element, as abstract and foreign to experience as it can be, is more meaningful as the picture in an infobox than a standard molecular representation (here, of the homonuclear diatomic, O2). Please, put a representation of diatomic oxygen into the infobox, and then put THAT infobox back into the Oxygen article (so we can put the liquid O2 image back with its text information, later in the article). Alchemist's argument that having an image of oxygen as a blue liquid helps readers understand the origin of blue colouration in the atmosphere is theoretically and otherwise specious. Please, revert your reversion. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: "...done without discussion..." I saw discussion on the Talk page, 2–1 against changing the infobox. Granted, that is not conclusive, but it does show that there is disagreement; thus, I think the article should default to the status quo before the disagreement started while this is resolved.

Liquid oxygen might be foreign to experience, but the idea certainly isn't new to most people, as liquid nitrogen is famous. So I think it is better than the gas discharge tube, although an explanation of course should be put in. I'm not opposed to the use of the molecular representation in the infobox, and would be very happy to see it in there as well – as you mention, it is of great pedagogical value – but I think that the infobox should, if possible, also contain an actual picture of the element. Double sharp (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you saw, but my point is that you acted without your taking the time to enter into the discussion, to ensure our positions were clearly understood, and your position clear. Perhaps I or the others would have been persuaded, had you taken the time. Did you see that one of the opposing arguments was that O2(l) was a good opening picture, since the blue of it was useful to readers in understanding the blue of the sky (which stands contrary to physical truth that even the article already contains)? Or that their issue with the diatomic was that it was bulbous, and red (because they did not understand space filling representations, or CPK coloring)? Versus mine, that placing images disconnected from content or pedagogy was problematic? A deeper look would have seen that the conflict with the other two editors arose when an image of a discharge tube was placed into the article, without any edit to the article to give the image understanding or context. I (graciously) placed the image into Talk, explained the removal, and asked it only be returned with text edits to match. It was thereafter replaced—my edit reverted—with no text work.

Understand, the later infobox edit from me, that you reverted, was simple, but took quite some time (for this subj. matter expert): I had to locate the source markup for the info box, move the LOX image down into the text to where LOX was discussed, tidy it up in terms of size and position, put a standard O2 diatomic image into info box, and otherwise tidy up the article (which I had come to, because the MO subsection was in a sorry state). Your revert undid the hard work, without addressing the substantive underlying chemical questions.

I personally find the religious effort by a couple of regular chem contributors to make all element info box structures uniform to the pictorial periodic table they've created—see [5]—is logically inconsistent/falacious (using STP forms for some, "prettier" non-STP forms for others), and stand in the way of articles being pedagogically useful and readily understood by lay readers. But life is too short for me to argue this further. I would just ask that you, as a clearly esteemed and knowledgable editor, first enter the discussion, rather than reverting in quick fashion without engaging the concerned (and in this case, best informed) editors. In my perspective, you took the wrong side of this stick, joining the side of a pair of editors that have limited depth of chemical knowledge, poor written English skills, and that are following a misguided and very personal set of priorities in their editing (e.g., making all element info boxes present their chosen pictures).

This is now yours to deal with. Just, please, engage the informed—recall I moved a discharge tube image, created a Talk section, at the start of all of this—as well as remaining committed to adjudicating in support of a majority. The latter is not always right, and your deeper look might have led to a better article, via a different consensus opinion. Kudos, cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Ah, I see – that's really not good. Yes, I should have come back to read the whole thing carefully: I'll try not to do things too quickly in future!

I'll be rather busy this week, but I'm currently thinking of editing the infoboxes to show both the molecular representation of the most common allotrope (first) and an actual picture of the element (second). That should make it better follow standard presentation and be pedagogically helpful, and at the same time also show what the element looks like in some state (preferably the standard one, unless that would be silly, and if it's not the standard one a detailed caption should be provided). Do you think that solution would be good for all the elements? Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Vesta as a former DP

Hey,

I removed Vesta from the DP nav box for consistency: Vesta certainly was a DP, but then so was Phoebe. And there are asteroids that are the cores of shattered DPs. I don't know how we could be consistent with this. But if you want to start a thread discussing how being consistent, I won't oppose restoring Vesta. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)