This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello! Your submission of Cerium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Re: Yes, even late Beethoven is Classical
Thank you for all that interesting knowledge you put forth on my user talk page!
Anyway, I've been assuming Beethoven was Romantic from his middle period onward (starting with his 3rd symphony and the piano sonatas no. 21 & 22) due to the following reason: the way his music sounds, rather than its form and the way it is structured in mathematical terms, as in what you put forth. Whereas the music of Haydn, Mozart, and early Beethoven sounds a lot like the music of their Classical era predecessors such as CPE Bach and Gluck, Beethoven's middle and late period music sounds more like the music of composers such as Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Brahms than it does Haydn and Mozart.
While you likely have a very good point describing the way Beethoven's music as a whole is structured and how it uses Classical form, it seems to me like you're largely overlooking the way music sounds. Not only that, but I'm thinking you've also overlooked in part the fact that the rules for Romantic music are indeed much looser than the standard rigid ones for Classical-era music.
You see, Classical-era music has its own kind of rigid forms of melody and harmony riddled in its idiom, while Romantic music is characterized by a great emotional and lyrical quality as shown even in the music of composers such as Beethoven (in his middle and late periods), as well as in that of most of Weber, Rossini, and Schubert. We can also see those kind of Beethoven, Weber, Rossini, and Schubert-like styles of emotional quality in the string symphonies of a young Felix Mendelssohn.
I hope this helps in your understanding of where I'm coming from in regards to considering that Beethoven was a Romantic composer. Good day to you. Classicalfan626 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Classicalfan626: I agree that Beethoven's music is certainly Romantic in its emotional climate, but if so he seems to be a Romantic who sticks dogmatically to the Classical rules. I can do no better than to quote The Classical Style (p. 509) again: "Beethoven's innovations in harmony, phrase structure, large form, and even in emotional expression are analogous to his straining against the limits of the keyboard. He destroyed no part of his heritage. He continued to employ the conventions that he learned as a child even when he expanded them almost beyond recognition, because he knew what they meant and he understood how much energy they could release, how much expressive power they contained. His world was no longer the world of Haydn and Mozart, but we misconceive his achievement if we fail to recognize how much of their thinking is preserved within his and how much he attempted to retain their ease and grace. In this last matter his success was bound to be incomplete, but it was still formidable." Weber, Rossini, and Schubert break these conventions (Schubert eventually comes back to them, but not as completely as Beethoven; for him it seems to be just one of many modes of expression to assimilate, whereas for Beethoven it seems to almost be inherent in the nature of Classical tonality). In any case, both viewpoints are pretty common ones for which prominent adherents can be named, so it seems to me that any statement that hinges on Beethoven being Classical or Romantic needs qualification (as I've now provided for the Schubert Unfinished). But thank you; this has been a most enjoyable conversation! Double sharp (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
More interesting points indeed! My only remaining concern here is whether or not Beethoven was the only Romantic composer to "stick dogmatically to the Classical rules". I tend to doubt it, since there are so many composers out there, and it appears to me that Brahms was a lot like Beethoven in that respect. I must admit, however, that I likely don't study the workings of musical compositions as deeply as you do. What's your opinion on Brahms? And do you know of any other Romantics besides Beethoven that "stick dogmatically to the Classical rules"? Classicalfan626 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Classicalfan626: Brahms' practice, as I see it, is quite different from Beethoven's, because while Beethoven reshapes the conventions for his style, Brahms picks and chooses only the conventions that are most congenial for his style, for which Classicism was not the bed: he simply selects the ones that are "best suited to the richer texture of [his] music and its greater tendency to a syncopated interweaving of phrase structures." (Rosen, Sonata Forms, p. 395).
What is key here is that in the Classical period, where harmonic structure was thought of as primary, sonata form was just the natural way one composed and did not need to be codified; but in the Romantic period, thematic structure became primary and now it did. As a result, Brahms' major works are very often based on specific Classical models, but the forms are not usually implied by the material in the way that Beethoven's massive coda in the Eighth Symphony finale is implied the moment you hear the C♯ (you hear a huge dissonance and thus it needs a huge resolution). They are rather imposed on it in a sort of academicism that consists of referencing exact models to quote from and take the structure from, and basically using that structure as a mould for completely different material (neglecting that it was the shape it is only because of the original material). This is something you do not find in Beethoven from the middle period onward (although you do find incomplete traces of this sort of thing in the early works, such as the Quartet Op. 18 No. 5 and the Concerto Op. 37), but which you find as an integral part of the style of Schubert and the other post-classicists (although he tends to disguise his quotes instead of display them for "any ass [to] see that"!). (To a certain extent the religious works of Mozart also fall into this kind of academicism, this time being more for monumentality than pathos, by being more Baroque than Classical. But by 1791 he begins to abandon this practice in favour of strict classicism in the Ave verum KV 618 and the Kyrie KV 341 – yes, it's misdated in the catalogue.) Double sharp (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Wow, you really think into classical music in such depth! You're giving me a whole lot of your personal knowledge to sift through. So, if Beethoven was Romantic, you think he was completely unique compared to all the other composers that were Romantic, or at least labeled Romantic? Classicalfan626 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Classicalfan626: Yes, he stands alone in this respect. Perhaps if Schubert had lived longer he would have joined him. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?
I haven't said anything yet as I'm still thinking about how to proceed, and have looked up a few more refs. I suspect a low level of interest from other editors. If I recall right, when we moved to Lu-Lr nobody (well, with one exception) noticed. Sandbh (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Somehow, when we proposed it at WT:ELEM and invited people a great deal more people noticed than when we simply did it to get rid of Sc-Y-*-**. Of course, you know which I would prefer. ^_^ Is there anything else you think I need to address on the issue? Double sharp (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I think we're good for now. Sandbh (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Goals for WP:ELEM
If we're getting lead featured anytime soon, I'll switch to aluminium and work to make an FA of it. Leave it to me or join me in this quest; whatever your decision, we still have lead to get done (it's only references left; I think the layman review, if it happens, can occur during the FAC). Then, of course, there will be thorium, but it'll be fast enough. I hope to get to iron after that; if I am still around by the time we finish it (I don't plan to leave, I just expect a lot of changes in the coming years and can't set up Wiki plans too far away from now), I'll want to go for gold.
So you're free to join me if you wish or, well, just be aware.--R8R (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC
Working up to more and more scary targets, are you? ^_^ I'm not sure I can promise to join you for Al, but if you need anything you can ask me, of course. (Reminds me once again how much period 3 needs work on WP, mostly because it is full of elements people care about.)
On the other hand, if/when you do get to Au, please consider my participation a given! ^_^ (In the meantime I'd like to also build up solid GA foundations for the other ancient metals Ag and Sn that are not in your plans, mostly because in my experience for group 1 and Th it feels less intimidating for me to have GA-level style first before I go crazy adding all the information in the world.) Double sharp (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd want to get silver. It's a safe #4 in my plans. Should you go for FA with it, I'll be there if you want me to and I wouldn't want that article to remain a GA.--R8R (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, it's gonna be great if you supply the references we still need for lead. And a pic that we need would be great; more than that... magnificent!--R8R (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the pic: do you think one of those Zintl clusters would work better? I can't find a good structure for the mixed oxides (I imagine because the O vacancies are buried deep within the lattice, so you can't see them). Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
For example, something like this one (from an Angewandte Chemie abstract, hence the awful puns). Double sharp (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, if we can get anything larger than 125x162 :) --R8R (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.
Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Is this it? Its over Trump has won. What do we do about his page and Obama's? He's number 45. Jupiter Europa (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jupiter Europa: I should add that I do not have much experience with what happens regarding US election coverage on Wikipedia, so I'm not entirely sure what you mean. However, I do agree that "It's over" is a very fair assessment of the current situation. The only positive side I see now is that I called it IRL after Brexit and now have some bet-claiming to look forward to ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Cerium
Hello! Your submission of Cerium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Red boxes
The PT on your user page needs a legend explaining the red boxes. I guess its the ones you've significantly improved, so please brag! YBG (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
At the bottom: "Articles for which I have done some rewriting, research, or both have a red outline for the cell." Though maybe I should make it a single paragraph. Double sharp (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I tweaked the legend - and then reverted it. You can restore it or modify it if you like. YBG (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I like it! Restored. Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Strontium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Duality
I saw and approved of your recent edit to dual graph. I agree that an important aspect of a dual relationship is that it is indeed, um, "dual". So I would be interested in your opinion of the article Duality (mathematics), where the second "introductory example" is of a relation that is not dual. Maproom (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@Maproom: That is strange! If it is true (as I would expect) that most dual relationships are, well, symmetrical, I would support setting this somewhat apart from the others as an example of something that is called "dual" in common parlance despite not really being so. Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The article Strontium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Strontium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Actinium into Group 3 element. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, no problem. Sorry for being forgetful! Double sharp (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 18 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
On 19 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cerium, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cerium. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cerium), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bromine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The article Bromine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bromine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Your periodic table
The periodic table on your user page looks just so.Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, though there is still a lot of work to do! Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Double sharp. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ten-dimensional space until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spike789🇺🇸 23:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nitrogen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Update on periodic table by quality
Done
Hello, Double sharp. You have new messages at Stone's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Symbols in historical nuclear reactions
The point is that I'm trying to write a story I can immerse into and hopefully help others do the same. I don't want to use Ts because it's not a part of that story yet. We introduce that symbol later as a brand new thing, but it's happening later. To summarize it, I want to be consistent.--R8R (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I would agree for the text, but for the equations I tend to see that as a retrospective explanation of what actually happened, gotten from data analysis. (After all, there have been wrong mass-number assignments in the past.) That's why I only changed it for the "Bk + Ca → Ts + x n" equations. Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Explain this to me please, revisted
Double sharp, I'm copyediting lead and have run into some confusion in the Origin and Occurrence section, 4.1 In space. I asked R8R about this, here, and he referred me to a thread in your archive, here. Having read your answer, I still don't understand. Does the beta decay sequence of N=126 nuclides largely stop at the platinum peak because Os, Ir and Pt happen to have stable isotopes? Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
As you know, the r-process runs mostly up the neutron drip line, but tends to stall around the neutron magic numbers like 126, which in the r-process path (running up the neutron drip line) will correspond to Z in the fifties and sixties. In particular, nuclides with Z in the low sixties and N = 126 that are produced in the r-process, such as 188Sm and 194Er, will be produced in large quantities because they have very low neutron-capture cross-sections, smaller than anything with more neutrons; and these will keep beta-decaying until they reach the line of beta stability, becoming 188Os and 194Pt. It doesn't matter that these are not magic nuclei, because they're not being generated directly, but as the daughters of magic precursors. Whereas if you want to make 208Pb, you're going to be starting from a nuclide like 208Yb which is not doubly-magic. Double sharp (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
That's good; I think I can do something with it. Sandbh (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so my next question concerns this sentence: "The r-process does not directly form as much lead as the s-process, because neutron-rich nuclei with mass numbers 206–208 that would decay to lead are not magic, unlike those that reach the closed neutron shell at neutron number 126 and decay to the platinum group metals around mass number 194."
This seems to explain why the r-process produces more Os-Ir-Pt than Pb, rather than why the r-process does not form as much lead as the s-process. Have I got that right? Sandbh (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, true. But I think we already explained why the s-process produces so much Pb and Bi, because of the "cycling factor". Double sharp (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you have a look at the "In space" section of lead? I trimmed it savagely. And restructured it too, so that each paragraph more or less covers one idea unit. I basically need to know if you're OK with what it looks like now compared to what it looked like before I got stuck into it. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It is much more readable now, although I would like the citations to be declared more obviously (already it gets remarked on when I put a citation only at the end of a long paragraph that totally refers to that source, because the middle looks unreferenced; I think this is very silly, but I can't really argue with the consensus).
I think we need to note the consequences of the Pb-Bi cycle, which is that their abundances from the s-process are far greater than those of the preceding elements (because the fraction that normally would have captured more neutrons and gone to the next elements Po and At would in this case just alpha decay back to Pb and Bi). Essentially, what happens is that your heavy nuclides keep absorbing neutrons, but once they pass 209 nucleons, even though the neutron flux is still the same, they can't hold any more without some nucleons leaking out. If you let it happen for long enough, eventually everything would have 206 to 209 nucleons and be lead and bismuth, but there's not enough time to make that happen; so the actual difference between Hg/Tl abundances and Pb/Bi abundances depends on conditions. This would add on to the magic-number explanation (208Pb and 209Bi, having 126 neutrons, are not particularly willing to capture more.)
I would also say a little more about how 204Pb is less common than the other three, because each reason ties into a nucleosynthetic pathway. (1) It's not part of the end cycle involving 206,207,208Pb and 209Bi, with 210Po decaying back to 206Po; (2) it can't be made in the r-process at all because anything neutron-rich with A = 204 becomes stable 204Hg instead; and (3) it's not at the end of any of the natural decay chains, which again only lead to 206,207,208Pb and 209Bi. Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
it's Greek to me
A regular pseudogon, {iπ/λ}, the Poincaré disk model, with perpendicular reflection lines shown, separated by length λ.
Hi. Recently, I finished writing dubnium. As I expected, there's little to write and the task was easy. I want to rewrite the part on experimental chem, and once I'm done with it, I'll aim for GA and eventually FAC. Don't even know what principially important improvements I could make, if any at all. Will check for any newer experiments from later than 1999, of course, and see if I can find anything worthy.
This reminded we have a nice gem yet without a star: hassium. Unlike Db and Ts, it's not gonna be a just-because-there's-nothing-really-to-write-about-it FA, but a solid one. Want to go for FA with it, but will not without your approval, since you did much writing there. Would want to you to at least co-nom. If you want to go for it alone, I'm fine and won't object. So, are you in?
(And then there's also Th, I remember.)--R8R (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, why not? (Although it's a little funny, because I wrote this 4 years ago and I can't quite remember what I've written sometimes ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Wouldn't call Db and Ts "nothing-really-to-write-about-it". At least Db has enough known chemistry and Ts is interesting (halogen or metal?) to predict about and has a good story. The really awful ones are Mt, Ds, and to a lesser extent Rg which no one seems to care much about and for which there was no media-friendly controversy. (I suppose it's part of human nature that scandals are the best ways to attract interest, but I can dislike it anyway.) Bh is kind of like that too, but at least something is known. All I can say is, a good way to detect that kind of element is when the interwiki links go all the way down past the content and into the references. Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Into the stadium
There's only one question for you re how does the eka-actinium paragraph look now? I reckon we then go to the "ask for comments" phase. ^__^ Sandbh (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it looks mostly fine! BTW, did I show you the paper comparing, I think, (E121)F with NhF and AcF? (It mentions in the first paragraph, IIRC, that the raison d'être for their study is the recent completion of the table with Ts in 2010 and Og in 2006, using those names even before 28 November 2016!) Because I can't find it now, which makes me sad T_T, because I'd want to cite it... Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chlorine 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 Icebob99 -- Icebob99 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.
For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
First place – $200
Second & Third place – $50 each
Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.
Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.
After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.
The article Chlorine you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chlorine 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 Icebob99 -- Icebob99 (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The article Nitrogen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nitrogen for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bohrium 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back
On the the day before Xmas, my time. Sandbh (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The article Bohrium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bohrium 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 25 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I could think of worse things to be drowned in (like a sea of bills, a sea of irrelevance, or a sea of libraries closed over the new year break) That aside, I take it as a sign of good wikipedia friends. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, though when I look at my closest Wikipedia friends in WP:ELEM it seems that the number of disagreements we've had tends to correlate well with closeness today! ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I didn't see this (I was away for most of December, remember?). But this is nice! I particularly like the statement that using a 15-element f-block from La/Ac to Lu/Lr makes perfect sense if you count the f-elements from f0 to f14. (Though I would argue that we don't start any other block with 0 electrons occupied.) Prof. Pyykkö does raise a good point that by the time the g-block starts there is so much overlapping between 5g, 6f, 7d, and 8p that the block assignments get blurred: so I'd probably put E121 below Ac and then unfold the rest of the series to E155, E157, or whatever. I only wish that he had done a little more comparing of the models beyond oganesson. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The article Nitrogen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nitrogen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh my, I just sent it. Going to have a lie down now. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hooray! It was a great pleasure working with you and R8R to write it. Double sharp (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations! Good work! YBG (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you YBG. Scerri has acknowledged our submission, commenting that it was a "great piece of work which will be extremely useful at the IUPAC meeting in San Francisco" (April 2–6). Woo-hoo! ^_^ Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Great to know. Looks like you'll at very least get a sensible response, which I am happy about.--R8R (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Dubnium
As I said, I won't argue. I'll just share my concern that the section still talks a lot about "element 105." It seems natural to me to call it "element 105" in the 1970s. (In fact, I would be okay with "ekasilicon oxde" given appropriate timing.) Should be all or nothing. It seems unnatural to do the change to me.
Would love any input from you, response or action.--R8R (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I find it natural to call it element 105 when we follow the discoverers and get into their mind, but in that section, we're discussing chemical properties. To me those are timeless, and while it is interesting to see when we discover them, the chemical properties are always the same, no matter if they are discovered on Earth now, or a long time ago in a galaxy far far away (sorry, couldn't resist). But that's just my opinion and others might not agree. Maybe we should discuss it on WT:ELEM as a general question of style applicable to all elements (except the really old ones like Fe)? Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We may. I'll type this response and temporarily leave the computer, but I'll take part later if you initiate the topic there. Nonetheless, we still have to do something about dubnium. I won't insist it should be my way (I'm not into defending myself on this). I just want some consistency. What would you suggest?--R8R (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would personally suggest following chronology for only the history section, as I think I did for nobelium, but that's just my preference and I'd follow whatever consensus decides on it. Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Sandbh is leaving comments to work on on tge talk page. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days. Could you take care of them? --R8R (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll go through them tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sandbh's pre-FAC review is almost over and should end in a few days at worst per my estimate. I'm asking you to initiate the FAC once it is over.--R8R (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem! Thank you for allowing me to do the honours! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Great. So the main obstacle for now is to find some sources of quality to replace both major refs in the second para of Lead#Elemental form (the one about bullets). Will you take it on?--R8R (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I can't find anything to help us cover the principal claims: that bullets are now pointed and jacketed with, for example, copper and that lead is often alloyed with tin and/or antimony to enhance some properties.--R8R (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, it certainly says "Modern lead shot has 1–2% antimony to increase hardness.", and just before this it talks about adding As helps get the bullet into shape. So Sb and As are citable. I'm still looking for something on Cu and Sn... Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you happen to know a source to have some per-particle abundance figures for lead in the space?--R8R (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know of any, and I can think of a reason why: the trouble with abundances in space is that stars vary a lot in metallicity (and that changes with time too) and so there really isn't a generic set of abundances for elements beyond H and He unless you resign yourself to considering only the Solar System. Abundances vary significantly across the Milky Way galaxy, not to mention other galaxies. Double sharp (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Believable. How do you think Webelements can provide figures for "the Universe"?--R8R (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Our article Abundance of the chemical elements conflates Solar-System abundances and universal abundances in the first paragraph, so maybe the same thing has happened. For the ten most common elements, it's plausible that this might be measurable, but Pb is much further down, so if I saw a value I would be really curious as to how it was obtained, and would be quite suspicious if it came without such an explanation. Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I see. Another question: am I right in assuming that nobody actually checked even the Solar System abundance and only make their educated guesses based on meteorites?--R8R (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, most of it comes from solar spectroscopic studies, according to this paper. Meteorites do help too, as does the nearby interstellar medium, but while the latter is useful for our home region it may not be too reliable extended outside it (which is the problem I related earlier about universal abundances). Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems we're only one reference away (replacement for "About Us"). Please find a good replacement and then you may start the FAC.--R8R (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Pretty! Saved me the effort, thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome! But I'm not sure adding At is safe. NIST indeed gives a positive standard reduction potential for At+/At, but (IIRC from my note) the one given for At/At− is also positive, so I'm not sure if it would correlate well with reactivity in this instance. (Unlike for Po, which does not really "want" to be reduced to Po2−). But, this is a minor quibble: there are other instances where something else is clearly going on (my favourite is how Eu is marked differently from the other lanthanides even though it's by far the most reactive of them).
The At thing was to remind me that I regarded it as a metal. Given I'd expect it'd be a post-transition metal I wasn't fussed about it showing as a noble. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
BTW, does anyone know why Yb isn't very reactive? The reactivity of the lanthanides correlates very well with their metallic radius, with the gross exception of Yb. Double sharp (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, but due to changes in real-life workload I have found that I have far less time available for Wikipedia. Since I anticipate this will continue for at least a couple more weeks, in fairness to you I have deleted the GA review subpage I started and put the article back in the queue. I apologize for the inconvenience. –Grondemar 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
As for me, thank you for letting me know. Good luck with your RL workload!--R8R (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Radium
Hi "chemical" colleague. I've found your edit about number of radium isotopes whose have longer half-life than nuclear isomer Ra-205m. I think it's 24, not 34.--C3r4 ((ask me)) 19:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@C3r4: Thanks for spotting my accidental arithmetic error! I've corrected it now. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seaborgium 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Cerium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Cas Liber (submissions)
MPJ-DK (submissions)
Adam Cuerden (submissions)
Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and 
Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
; see Talk:Strontium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Actinium into Group 3 element. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nitrogen for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
