User talk:Double sharp/Archive 18

Where was this article published? Sandbh (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: In the Belarusian journal Хiмiя: праблемы выкладання 1999, 5, pp. 102–109. Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. It's also on his website: spreads one, two, three, four. (But only as pictures and in Russian. So I haven't read it properly yet as using Google Translate to read it is a bit difficult, but do intend to try doing it soon.) Double sharp (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I inadvertently messed up some of your edits and have now tried to repair things. But please double check as I may not have done it correctly. Might have even made it worse. Sigh. YBG (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I've finally fixed it. This diff shows the changes between your last edit and my final fix, which include five changes by me and three by DePiep. This diff shows the changes between your edit just before my screw-up and the current revision. Thank you for your understanding. YBG (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Turns out my initial efforts at a fix were totally misguided. My edit, through the magic of WP had already included your latest changes, I was only making things worse. But now all is copacetic. Hopefully. YBG (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@YBG: All good, no problem! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Since I can not locate the single location at WT:ELEM for this topic, I write here (as if on WT:ELEM) ;-) :-)

I learned that you advocate to make our primary PT (we know) to have the blocks colored. Now I can understand your argumentation for this, and maybe somewhere else I might join this discussion blocks-over-categories.

• My point for now is: coloring the block has problems too. In short:

1. Like columns and rows, blocks are already present and visible in a PT, in its table structure. (Even in a b-and-w one)

2. Coloring blocks (or any set) distracks attention away from the main periodic features: groups/columns, periods/rows, and blocks ;-)

So I say: why cannot our primary PT be in b/w? And thereby explain everything the article wants to describe, primarily, just as well? All themes (blocks, cat's, m.p.'s, whatever) can have their dedicated place. Must say: for blocks in b/w, I'd want to make their borders thicker. So, more px for the borders between p-d elemnts etc.

Worth digesting? -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Busy today, but indeed worth digesting. I agree that blocks are already present and visible as you say in #1 – but only to some extent. Helium being in the s block means it's not quite obvious, and there doesn't seem a quite obvious way to present the block names. (And if Sc-Y-La persists on WP, then the split d block will not be quite totally obvious either.) So, while I agree with your #2 that those three are the only main periodic features, I sort of feel that blocks being one of them implies they should be called out. They are a main PT feature that everyone agrees on (that's something categories cannot claim at all) and there is some case for giving them attention and labelling them explicitly. Colouring is just a natural way to do it that many sources use when describing blocks, that's why I suggest it (and for Russian tables it is often the default categorisation.) But you have a point there and my preferences are indeed blocks-only > black-and-white >> any other colour scheme. Thank you for mentioning this as an option. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We have time. I was just planting a thought suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: And you did, and it was an interesting one to boot. Thank you! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Here are some templates you may find useful:

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gamma ray burst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am complaining because @Jehochman: has been causing trouble at Gamma ray burst in violation of WP:V, WP:VANDAL and WP:FRINGE. [1][2][3]

See how I can cover a lot of ground in a very small space? Before you even talk about your complaint, list the involved editors with all their links and also the involved articles. Then make a list of asertions with a few of the best diffs for each. That's the best way to get help. Make it easy so the reader can just click on the evidence and see exactly what you are talking about. Jehochman ^Talk 20:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I see, thank you for the explanation. So I should not explain how I feel the policies are violated, but leave it for the reader to deduce from the diffs? Double sharp (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If you diff includes a lot of content and you want to point to a specific, you can use {{tquote}} like this Don't raise the stakes.[4]. If readers don't understand, they'll ask. Try to choose examples that are self-evident. If your problem is subtle, such as somebody pushing pseudoscience and longer explanations are needed, you may have to take it to arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I see, thank you. I am afraid that at least part of the problem may be subtle (although not in the way you gave as an example) and need longer explanations, then. Do you have some similar advice on how to write when taking something to arbitration, as in that case the problem would be more difficult to describe succintly? I do think I would want to do that in this case. Double sharp (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Just file a noticeboard thread as best you can, or drop it, as you like. If you file a noticeboard thread, somebody will get peaved and summon all of you to arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jehochman: OK, thank you for your help. I will try to read up on the expected behaviour when filing an arbitration request and discuss and decide with other involved parties whether or not to do it. Double sharp (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a note, Double sharp, that arbitration cases have strict word limits unless you request and are granted an extension. If you are limited to 1,000 words and you write 3,500, the arbitration clerks will just lop off the extra 2,500 words. It's better to be succinct and make use of all of the diffs you are allowed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for telling me this. For now I've been discussing with User:EdChem on his talk page what to do next, since he has been trying to mediate the situation, and he suggested it may be better not to take it to ArbCom at this moment and that if he has time, he may try to start a process to see if WT:ELEM (the disputing project) can move forward productively. So, there is some chance this can be resolved. I will definitely keep your advice in mind and follow it if at some point we feel it's the best option to go there. Double sharp (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#An elementary issue and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Since it looks like this is going to be accepted, I have started drafting a statement offline. I see there's a 500 word limit and I'll make sure to stick to it. Double sharp (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Your statement can literally be a single sentence. Just say whether or not you think a case would be helpful. If you wish to add three or four more sentences you say the reasons why or why not a case would or wouldn’t be helpful. Don’t think about this too long or hard; just give the first honest answer that comes to mind. Jehochman ^Talk 00:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Jehochman, thank you for your advice. I notice also that one of the arbitrators (Maxim) has suggested writing a brief summary of the main points of the dispute there; I guess this might fall under the reasons you suggest if I add a couple more sentences? (I guess obviously with diffs to back up whatever I say.) I notice that Sandbh has commented on EdChem's talk page to say that he doesn't want to go to ARBCOM, but now that DePiep is also an extra party and some arbs have leant towards taking the case I am not sure what I should do next even if I originally didn't want to go here in the first place. In any case it's getting late in my time zone and maybe it will do me better to decide what I will post tomorrow morning when my head is clearer and less sleep-deprived. My apologies if this drags out the process a little bit. Double sharp (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Just say whether or not you think a case would be helpful" -- No, don't think arbcom is about just that. Somehow you are accused, and somehow you should take care of defending yourself and your case. Somehow. -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@R8R, DePiep, and EdChem: Well, let's see what has now happened.

1. DS, me, and DePiep are now involved.
2. The nuclear option of a blanket TBAN from chemistry-related topics—for all three of us—has been raised, "because this situation is not sustainable."
3. CaptainEek's list of other steps in the dispute resolution process has been taken out of context. He conflates (a) concerns myself and R8R had about DePiep, with (b) concerns DS and I have had with one another. (a) is closed AFAIK; it is only (b) that remains in contention (sort of).
4. CaptainEek does not know what is going on so his ARBCOM filing is flawed; OTOH I can see that given the number times we have been at WP:ANI, he has formed the view that there is an issue of some kind.
5. The only people who should file a report at WP:ARBOM, should we feel there is value in so doing, are you Double sharp, or me, since both of us know the history.
6. As discussed at EdChem's talk page, I don't wish to do so; I doubt you do.
7. We now find the three of us as proposed fodder in the spectator arena of WP:ARBCOM.
8. I was surprised to see you have a (now ancient) block record!
9. Let's keep talking to one another.
10. Remaining issues about the interpretation and application of WP:POLICY could be raised at the applicable policy talk pages, with scope for an RFC, if needed
11. EdChem was very gracious in his comments about what I have to bring to WP. You too have too much to bring to WP. Too much to merit leaving the project etc. Even though we sometimes have differences in philosophy. That is the beautiful contest of ideas that R8R has referred to. Sandbh (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh, WP does not justice or fairness. Not at ANI, definitely not at ArbCom. ArbCom is empowered to end the dispute in the best interests of Wikipedia to end the ongoing disruption to the project. No one has been charged, nothing needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, no one can go to jail. If ArbCom forms the view (collectively) that editing area A is better off without editor B, then they can issue a topic ban &nadsh; and everyone will assume that it had a valid basis / justification. This will happen no matter what you or any other participant believes. This is not a defect in the system, it is an integral and deliberate part of the system. CaptainEek's presentation may be utterly flawed, and that won't matter at all if enough Arbitrators come to the view that (a) there is a dispute / problem which they can help resolve; and, (b) the community is unable to solve it on its own. You may think / believe / want it to be otherwise, you can advocate for change, but at this moment and with a case request made, please accept that this is the way that it is. If you will allow a personal observation, it is my opinion that some of your comments here are coming from your personal beliefs and values about how things should be. Decision making should be fair to those involved, for example – that is a sub-text (IMO) to some of your ANI comments. The thing is, WP is not meant to be a social community (although it is) and editor-to-editor interactions are valued only to the extent that they promote the goal of high quality encyclopaedic content. I have strong feelings about fairness and justice and have certainly posted at times when I saw injustice, but I have learned to accept that part of being a Wikipedian is accepting the institutional view that the content is most important. If ending disruption advances content by a means that is also unfair to a particular editor, that can still be acceptable. For example, if there is warring at the Donald Trump article with three editors removing any suggestion that Biden won the 2020 election and three editors posting content about the result and one of them adding gloating content about Trump being a loser, banning the first three plus the gloater might be fair, but banning all six might be simpler and less open to criticism for bias... unfair to the extra two, but with plenty of others willing and able to add to that article, probably a good thing for WP. At ELEM, there are few editors. I don't want to see anyone removed, and I am glad to see your comments to Double sharp above. The problem is as I posted at my page, however – this case will be taken unless ArbCom is given an alternative. EdChem (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

About Ds initiative #Deciding_between_ourselves

• Double sharp, you have started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § Deciding between ourselves at WT:ELEM, as a ===-subsection of your earlier post. Could you clarify why you made this (TOC) setup? To me, it looks like the #Deciding between ourselves post already is wasted, yes, by a content thread. (That is, even if it stays about content). One visible effect is that Sandbh did not comment on the earlier post but did so in the second one. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding: And let's note that the issue Talk:Periodic_table#FA_status is ~equally important for the Project. I don't think this deserves such a subsection either (the horror). -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: You may move it to a == == level-2 section if you think the flow makes more sense that way. I did it that way because it seemed like a plausible compromise that might get everyone to stop talking about categorisation and move on to something more productive. That's just because EdChem suggested that those other issues are far more important and I agree with him. So I suggested return to 2002 (well, with the unanimous 2017 RFC to take away group 12 from transition metals accepted), because that worked for eleven years, there wasn't any serious drama about it, and frankly if it wasn't for astatine we probably would never have changed it away from that at all. Unfortunately it seems that no one is considering it. But even that is OK: if no one wants to consider a compromise, we will just get stuck with the status quo which may work fine too.

BTW, can I say that I think things were actually more reasonable pre-2012 when astatine wasn't an issue? Mostly because those categories worked fine. Yes, sometimes someone changed from La to Lu or maybe back again to La and with * appearing sometimes, but I don't recall very much in the way of long posts about it. Same thing with changes like "other metals" vs "post-transition metals" vs "poor metals"; yes it changed sometimes, but all in all it worked simply without long posts and just somebody or a couple of people thinking it's a good idea and just making the edits. Usually without objection. And yes, there was some inconsistency with the group 3 issue along the lines of * in 18 column and some La and some Lu tables around, but maybe that's exactly what kept the war in an equilibrium state with no one getting worked up. And in the end it seemed nicer and more informal as befitting this issue. Perhaps that was a better time and example of how to deal with categories. And maybe it is not a coincidence that the most productive years of our project were 2011 and 2012, when these issues were simply hardly discussed and the simple and only focus was content. In other words: maybe it was a mistake to ever try to improve on the 2002 thing. It worked well enough, any improvements at that stage will have problems getting a consensus, and updates could just be added case by case for superheavies. The worst case of At should maybe just have been handled with "halogen nonmetals". Ah well. Easy to say in hindsight, I guess? But maybe we can learn from it and say "what should we have done" and implement that and then keep it in mind and never speak of it again till the IUPAC project steps finish. Double sharp (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

re (ec, before the BTW-addition) I'm not here about the topic (but really, 2002? as a compromise?), unless the thread turns >>worse from current TL;DR. I was and am wondering how this subthread is related to your #Deciding post, what such a discussion could achieve for that post. And no I wont change the ='s -- in this question, it is strange that it is equal to you (IOW, discussion structure). -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Well, the idea I had was that the discussion was meant at stopping the fight, and so was this, which is why I put it together. But since you think it makes sense, I have made it into == ==. Double sharp (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding why 2002 as a compromise: because it was the longest-lasting of all category schemes here and never resulted from big discussions nor resulted in big discussions. Everything all worked. It is only astatine that means we cannot go back to it as one thing that worked uncontroversially. Frankly we've done nothing that big since then. Group 3 was mostly left undecided there with La, Lu, and * all popping around. Maybe we should have stayed with that rather than changing to Lu in 2014 and then to La in 2017 as "house style". From 2015 onwards we even had the excuse that IUPAC was going to say something. But, OK, it has been decided for now, it won't make any difference if we just wait. Group 12 is the only big change, that was decided in an RFC. Maybe that was a mistake, I am reminded of the old 2008 thread (first one on that page) that agreed not to change anything since IUPAC allows both definitions. After all, "transition = d-block" definition was primary in the Red Book, and the simplification is pretty common. But it's 50-50, who cares. Polonium was recoloured without drama, same with superheavies. Astatine caused all the dramas only because it failed to fit within the old categories, but with the addition of one word "halogen nonmetals" it became a perfect fit again. I am kind of kicking myself for not thinking of that and implementing it back in 2012, actually. All the categorisation threads sucked up a lot of time that was lost to articles, even if we did learn something from them.

Ah well. Easy to be wise with eight years' hindsight, eh? But maybe you need the experience to see it. Like Physchim62 said on that 2008 thread: Yes, my own opinion is that it's one of those debates that creates more heat than useful work! Maybe all of the categorisation talk was that and shouldn't have been done. Double sharp (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You know what, maybe this is interesting talk. Maybe I'll collapse that proposed compromise and look more at the approach "suppose we never started talking about this, we had the 2002 colouring, and we were confronted with the issue that astatine is probably not a nonmetal again. What would we do then"? And maybe let sleeping dogs lie after that. Thanks for making me think. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Re your "BTW, can I say that ..." comment. While innocent on this page, to me it signals a big flaw: you are mixing up talkpage discipline and content talk (even without any PA-like edits). Our acute problem is the talkpage behaviour: editor interaction, discussion flow, reaching conclusions, RFC-ing every question, and TL;DR by now is WP:INCOMPETENCE full stop. (Again: this is without PA-like issues). IMO it is useless to start or develop a content discussion under today's circumstances. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(minor note) I think the collapsing is a good idea, esp to focus attention elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: That's why I'm rambling on my own talk page instead of polluting ELEM. It's a step up. Sorry for exposing you to it, but since the result on ELEM is better, maybe it's a needed intermediate step. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I feel safe this way this page. We're working in the right direction. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be right about it being useless to start a content discussion now. So I guess a sensible compromise might just be to stick with what we currently have. Maybe, in a year or so, I might suggest "back to 2002" again. Or maybe only until IUPAC decides on something for group 3 which should help un-poison the atmosphere. We'll see. Definitely not now at any rate. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"in a year" is far away, but let it be "in 2021" ;-) -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Maybe! Hopefully! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Seriously, were you dealing behind my back these days? Really? Circumventing your own proposal? -DePiep (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: I decided to try a calculated risk and changed my mind, based on comments by other editors (don't remember which exactly). So far I've been changing my mind on exactly what is required on just about everything in favour of whatever keeps the peace the best. Since the overall result has surprisingly enough been positive and without any serious problem it seems to me that the calculated risk paid off. But if you prefer, I can inform you exactly what I'm planning before doing anything. Double sharp (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah without even pinging me. Great. -DePiep (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Duplicity is the word. You could have informed us in your WT:ELEM proposal. 48 hrs. -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Well I'm sorry you feel that way. I agree I could have informed you a bit better and started it later, and I'm sorry for it, but I'm not sorry that stuff is getting done that is resulting in what seems to be looking to a quick end to the whole categorisation thing. Double sharp (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Outsider observation to all (and to no one in particular) (after (edit conflict)): May I just observe that, in a time of heightened emotions / sensitivities and as conflicts are being resolved, there is desirability in avoiding steps that may inadvertently cause angst by going for over-inclusiveness and extra politeness? It is very easy at such times to cause offense inadvertently or to give the impression of rudeness / disrespect where none was intended. When such events do occur, assertively (but not aggressively) registering that one is upset (or whatever) and hopefully receiving an explanation / apology (as appropriate) is desirable for preventing a small event growing into or reigniting a larger conflict. EdChem (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Then EdChem, what do you advise me? This is duplicit, already 48hrs, full stop. -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And don't forget my position is at stake, that is: directly involved, and being played with. 'excuses' while not reverting/retrackting is idle. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: That's what I've been trying to do. For the record, I am not pleased with DePiep's statements, since I pinged everybody involved at WT:ELEM including him. (And for the record, I chose to do this to end things quickly since it seemed that Sandbh still intended to continue with his recategorisation RFC, and I thought that this might be a way to avoid one following DePiep's own statement to avoid RFC-ing every question and instead resolve things nicely within a few days to a week and get everyone focused on something more productive.) However, I agree with you that the most important thing now is to resolve the dispute with extra politeness, and that is why I am not making and don't intend to make any fuss over it. Double sharp (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears from DePiep's new ArbCom statement that this is not after all what he was talking about, and that it is instead about me talking to Sandbh of my own accord on his talk page rather than on the main ELEM page. Against the charges of duplicity I only wish to say that I did what I did with the aim of restoring the peace, and it seems to have succeeded with Sandbh on his talk page as well as R8R and YBG on theirs. If DePiep wishes to see it in a negative light, that is his right. Double sharp (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec, re Ds) ... at the cost of other editor(s). Did you ping me from WT:ELEM about #Deciding_between_ourselves from a content thread or so, and now say "you knew"? That exactly is part of the problem, already identified as WP:CIR. You have been played. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

After (edit conflict): Ok, Double sharp and DePiep, first, can we please stop for a few minutes? I saw the comments here this morning and made a general comment in the hope that there was an inadvertent issue here. Evidently that was incorrect. DePiep, I see that you are aggrieved and am glad you are seeking advice... so could you please outline (succinctly) what you see as duplicit, because I am confused. Double sharp, would you please let DePiep reply and for me to understand his concern before putting in your perspective? Thank you. EdChem (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec, re Ds) The "negative light" is not my observation, it is actual actions. Your actions were factually duplicit. (need diffs?). You were dealing in two separate places full stop. You "restoring the peace" (and keeping ELEM alive) was done at the cost of others. But hey, let's not get "emotional". -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: I would like the diffs, if you don't mind. I just answer that because I understand that EdChem also wants to know what your concern is, and so do I. Double sharp (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Double sharp, I think my 01:21 post below describes best. Mainly, it comes down to two threads not diffs. -DePiep (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yikes! I fear I made things worse by injecting myself into a conversation between DS and Sandbh when it popped up on my watchlist. Please forgive me. YBG (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

After (edit conflict)s: Ok, I see that the joint statement posted at A/R/C is agreed by Double sharp and Sandbh only. In my original suggestions at my talk page, my intent was that the joint statement involve all the ELEM editors if possible, or at least all those named as parties at the case. DePiep was added as a party after the case request started but should, IMO, be included in developing any joint statement for it to really cover the topic that ArbCom need to consider. By the time the thread at Sandbh's page was started, DePiep had already been added as an involved party and, inadvertent though I hope it was, it was inappropriate to develop and post a statement without him. Yes, it was headed in such a way that did not represent itself as having included DePiep, but not including him does not show to ArbCom that all of the parties are on board.

Double sharp, I suggest that you and Sandbh post to A/R/C that DePiep was not involved in developing your joint statement, that you see a statement that includes all parties from ELEM as desirable, and ask for a brief pause. Then, the two of you should approach DePiep and try to form a statement that all of you can agree to and sign.

DePiep, for myself, I apologise for not recognising that you were not invited to and participating in the discussion of a joint statement. I suggested it be done on a user talk page as a less formal venue than WT:ELEM, and one that allows the exclusion of those who are not directly involved... but I did not consider nor recognise that implicit exclusion of you as a party directly involved had occurred. I hope that you can all find a way to produce a consensus statement as I have been very encouraged by recent developments; all of you are significant contributors to ELEM and assets. I hope that what happened was mistake and lack of consideration rather than deliberate duplicity. EdChem (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @EdChem: 00:49:

1. Double sharp proposed #Deciding_between_ourselves, to which I 'signed' and elaborated. 4/5 signed, just Sandbh missing so far. Here, Fri 13 Ds supported me to not respond immediately (no emotional reflexes), ok. Saturday I had more side-talks with Ds in this very thread, named #About Ds initiative #Deciding_between_ourselves. I replied ELEM today, Sun 15 16:30 UTC. I then also made my statement at arbcom/case. So far, all fine.

2. Later, from the 'joint statement' post by Sandbh, I learned that they had discussed this for days, deviating from Ds's #Deciding... declaration into a separate statement: User_talk:Sandbh#Regarding_solving_the_issue_between_ourselves. All this over days, not hours.

3. By this, Double sharp has mislead me in the ELEM#Deciding discussion, and making a deal with Sandbh is effectively throwing me under the bus (we are skipping involvement of R8R for now). Their "I have pinged you" claim does not make sense. Why did Double sharp leave their own proposal? Why was Sandbh not asked/expected to sign up? (A great disappointment, Double sharp.)

Switching off for the night. -DePiep (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, you can blame me for some of that, it connects with advice that I gave on my talk page. I did not, however, intend the discussion of a joint statement to exclude you, and I did not realise that that was happening. As you can see above, I have already suggested that a statement including you be developed (either to come from all ELEM editors named as parties at the case request page, or from as may ELEM editors as are willing to sign) to replace the present one. You have every reason to be aggrieved that a statement that should have included you was developed without you. I truly hope that this was not deceptive / duplicitous in intent and I hope that an inclusive statement that you support is possible. EdChem (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I confirm there was no intent to deceive. I simply wanted a resolution with everybody, and that is why I informed Sandbh on his talk page. I continued with him there only because that is where he replied. I am sorry that you feel that me dealing with Sandbh regarding my own previous issue with him alone throws you under the bus, and like EdChem, I hope that something including you can be developed. Double sharp (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem and Double sharp:. I'm not looking to blame, it is just a factual situation we have arrived at, and damage assessment. First a detail. I note that R8R (who somehow is still not listed as involved while, for example, being active in many of the ANI's), did actually not sign the #Deciding_between_ourselves, or did so with reservations. I might have missed posts, but I have not found any explicit self-reflection, while he is asking others for it. Next, not a detail. The battlefield reply by Sandbh to the #Deciding proposal is very clear: not agreeing with the initiative, no change of attitude as needed, and the certaintee of continued/repeated ANI-style editor judgements not content discussions. Since you, Ds, left asking Sandbh to sign it, this outcome was made possible and forseeable. Since a #Deciding_between_ourselves was rejected, I have asked to accept the case. -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I add that I have no doubt that both EdChem and Double sharp were working in good faith in both locations (discussions). It happened to be that the combined result did not end up well, but this outside of their commendable input. (I missed this observation initially, obviously). -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

DePiep, thank you for your kind words. Double sharp (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way--Oldboltonian (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oldboltonian: OK, thanks. Just wanted to clarify since I didn't understand what you meant. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I reckon I could support this one, provided Po is shown as an other metal.

What say you?

Oh, and will we still have an article on other metals, and will we presumably have one on other nonmetals? Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well that's a pleasant surprise, Sandbh!

I'm actually willing to compromise on Po. I could, after all, see an argument that indeed Po is not as often included as the other six, and refer to the lists of metalloids for justification. And we did have it as a metal since 2012. My worry, however, is that since some part of the argument for the rest of the scheme is "well, ACS and LANL do something almost like this", it may dilute the support for it because it may look to others that I'm not consistently following my own arguments and that they're fighting against each other. If I presented the RFC option with Po as a metalloid, would you be OK with supporting with the caveat that you prefer Po to be a metal?

I don't think other metal works as an article title. It works in the legend because we have the other categories there, so you know what the other types of metal are, but it doesn't really work standalone. I think this is the situation alluded to in WP:NOTNEO: In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. That is, we don't have a really standard title for this (post-transition metals comes closest but some people in the literature squabble about Al). So we should probably use a descriptive phrase like metals other than the alkali, alkaline earth, lanthanide, actinide, and transition metals. As for "other nonmetals", since there are that much fewer of them anyway, I think that is OK redirected to nonmetal since that article is organised by group anyway (so the halogens and noble gases got their own brief sections). What say you? Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Polonium

I wouldn't support an RFC with Po as a metalloid. Enough is known about Po such that calling it a metalloid is a needless textbook error, of which there are already too many in chemistry texts. The RFC seems moot. Who would care if we rolled back to the 2010 version, as long as we explained our rationale?

I may email LANL about their multiple errors, including Po.

I'd be OK with linking other metals to our PTM article, and renaming it p-block metals. And we have redirects for the other alternatives.

The other nonmetals merit a link to an article, e.g. Hydrogen and the group 14–16 nonmetals. There certainly has been enough written about e.g. the biogeochemical aspects of these nonmetals, including Se. Ditto a redirect for e.g. other nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a way ahead? Going to sleep on it now. Sandbh (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Then I guess we're back where we started. I don't agree that calling Po a metalloid is a textbook error is appropriate for WP, because there's not really a generally accepted definition of what a "metalloid" is, per your Metalloid#Definitions. If there was such an accepted one, that Po failed to fulfil, then yes, I would agree. But there isn't, so there we are. So I don't think it's our place to say that calling Po a metalloid, or indeed calling Sb a metalloid, is a "textbook error" even though we both agree about it for Po and you know that I think so for Sb – on the grounds of our own definitions of what a metal should be, which as we know are not the same. (And even speaking with the educator's hat on, I have a hard time believing in Po and At as metals if Sb is not also one. See YBG's talk page for why.)

I'm not really in favour of a separate article precisely because there are so few of those nonmetals and multiple ways to split them in the literature. We are already splitting the nonmetal article by group, and if we speak about biology, the halogens (or at least Cl and I, maybe Br) have significant biological roles too. But it is something that can be discussed if the proposal passes.

The reason I want an RFC is to have a clear idea of a consensus beyond the project. (Weren't you concerned about our project alone deciding on things before, IIRC? Or have I misunderstood?) That way, once we have a scheme, we have some discussion to point to for why we have chosen it as a "house style". Again, that's based on comments by Jehochman and others on the ArbCom case page. Moreover, this will guarantee something stable that we will not have to discuss again and again unless the literature changes are really obvious. Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

While I like the term p-block metal, I can see the risk that it appears to be a neologism. So I would suggest "metals in the p-block" or "metals in the p-block of the periodic table" or "metals in the periodic table p-block" or something similar that clearly appears to be a descriptive phrase rather than a neologism. As for the nonmetals, what about "nonmetals other than noble gasses and halogens" or "Non-noble, non-halogen nonmetals" (NNNHNM for short)? This recalls the comment by Double sharp back in 2012, preserved at User talk:YBG/Archive 2 § "Ignoble non-metals of the world, unite", which was in response to this comment of mine. YBG (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

YBG, my main issue with that is that while we would in the 2010 scheme be using something consistent with that, in the main article we would have to consider all significant views and some of them include group 11 and 12 as well, which are in the d block. As for myself, I have said enough about the insidious tendency of any short phrase in English to start sounding like a term if it is repeated often enough, even if it is purely descriptive (try it for example with "chemically weak metals" or something like that, and you'll probably start hearing it that way too). Which is why I've been supporting such long titles to make it clear to everyone that they are not terms and avoid any hint of neologising. That said, I am not even sure those leftover nonmetals (and that's a descriptive phrase, not yet another term) really need their own article separate from nonmetal when there are not that many nonmetals on the PT in the first place and most of the trends and properties continue down into the halogens and noble gases too. Double sharp (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well said. Re metals, I hadn't considered the d-block aspects. Re nonmetals, I was not focusing on the appropriateness of having an article, but rather on the selection of a title for such an article - or, truth be told, on the trip down memory lane linked in my final sentence. Despite my epynomous rules, I am beginning to see the wisdom of having leftover categories. The question becomes, what section in nonmetal should be the target of the "other nonmetals" legend key? Is there enough information from secondary or tertiary sources describing the train wreck that is nonmetal classification? If so, a short section about that could well be the appropriate link target. YBG (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, YBG, my first idea was just to link "other nonmetal" that way. Double sharp (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course! Much simpler than my complicated ideas. And it has the added advantages of making it obvious that the category is a leftover one and the label is description not a term. Brilliant!! YBG (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The main issue

I can comment briefly for now.

Seemingly, the main issue is the merit of restoring the halogens (F to Ts), and the other nonmetals.

This could be relatively easily done. There’s no need for an RFC for the reasons following.

1. There is no need for concern about defining what a metalloid is. The literature tells us the elements commonly recognised as metalloids are B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te. Separately, the lists of metalloids article confirms this.

2. All other issues about Po, Sb, and At, and names of articles are distractions.

More later. Sandbh (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

2010 revisited

@Sandbh: Let me just clarify if you don't mind. ^_^ In the OP you mentioned that you could support 2010 provided Po was a metal, right? So would this be OK with you?

(I took the one at User:Double sharp/RFC and just recoloured Po to what you wanted.)

Yeah, I would personally be OK with this one, since there is a reasonable source-based argument for it (i.e. metalloids are shown as the usual six; other categories mostly follow IUPAC + what's common; Po is normally excluded from metalloids by higher-level texts, and for an element that is hard to study those will be more reliable; At is agnostically displayed since its status as metalloid/metal is not clear and it is usually discussed with the halogens). My worry was just with drumming up support for it RFC-wise. But if you don't think an RFC is needed, and we can agree on this scheme, then I don't think there's actually any problem and we can probably launch it. As you said, thinking about the article titles and other things now is perhaps a distraction. If it is really needed, we can think about it later.

The PT looks good. I recall a past reference to our colour scheme as a hybrid, which I took to mean it was a combination of metallicity- and group-based. Thus: “…Wikipedia uses the below hybrid system in its periodic table subgroupings.” Does the halogen category then become an old style hybrid category, given the certainty of the nonmetal status of F–I, the ambiguity of the status of At, and marginal uncertainty re Ts? For groups 13–16 I guess this is not so much of a deal given the metal status of Tl, Pb, Bi, and Po.

As far as implementation goes I expect there’d be a need for some substantial editing of our articles on (1) the PT; (2) nonmetal; and (3) names for sets of chemical elements. Just as our PT map increases its coverage, I feel the accompanying text needs to be more explanatory and nuanced. (4) A rationale for our changes also needs to be written.

For the PTM I suggest Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals. For the other nonmetals, Nonmetals other than halogens and noble gases.

I’d like our PT to flag the more notional nature of the colour categories for At, Cn, Ts, and Og, and that predictions of their metallic (At, Ts, Cn) or non-metallic status (Cn, Og) have not been experimentally confirmed.

I’d like for these accompanying changes to articles to be ready to go at the same time as we launch the comprehensive PT.

I’m not sure what to do with the current RFC, I’ll think about that some more. Courtesy ping @YBG: Sandbh (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Brief answers:

1. If you mean "is halogens not a metallicity category", then that's correct. Same with "noble gas". They then become simply group names that take in anything in group 17 resp. 18 without regard to metallicity. That's how people in the English-language literature seem to be using them for the most part (it is something I wish they would stop doing, but there it is).
2. I think that for these rare elements, flagging out the category issue in the main PT template is perhaps too much. It is after all simply a navigational aid. Currently, we do not flag out the group 3 issue, after all. And I think that's correct for much the same reason: unless you are reading about an element that is directly affected, the general answer is "who cares"? Not that I like it mind you, but it is how it is. This being said, I am ready to be convinced otherwise.
3. I do not think we actually need to write a rationale for our change. For one thing, we don't usually list what we used to have. (Is there anywhere on WP where we actually explain why we stopped using polyatomic vs. diatomic nonmetals?)
4. I agree that the periodic table article will need to mention this issue, but probably it will be put under the section on categorisation.
   • Firstly, we could say that while the trend towards metallicity is known to exist in groups 17 and 18 just as it does for the previous groups, due to the intense radioactivity of the elements concerned it is not known for sure exactly where this creates elements that conduct electricity like metals.
   • Then mention that the short half-life problem makes it quite difficult to study astatine and the elements beyond 108. (Astatine because you cannot get enough and, unlike francium, there is no 100% effective congener to carry it with.) Just mention that the experimental results are inconclusive and that the category scheme shown is based on what is usually done by sources showing such schemes, which is to simply extend the categories by groups. Say that there are some theoretical indications that things may behave differently down there due to relativistic effects: At and Ts are likely metallic, Cn may be an insulator, Og may be a semiconductor. I don't know if we should mention the predictions too much beyond a single sentence. There have been multiple predictions in the past and each one got better than the previous one. It may be better to adopt a "wait and see" approach for these issues. (Something it would be interesting to know: if the properties of Sn were calculated the way those of Og were, would one expect a structure more like grey or white tin?)
5. Personally I think what we have currently, while not ideal for this new scheme, is at least serviceable as a stop-gap. Therefore I don't see a problem with launching it early and then fixing the problems later. After all: when element 119 gets discovered, we're not going to have a preparation phase to update everything, it will just have to happen as it happens.

Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I could live with Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals and Nonmetals other than halogens and noble gases, though for the former I'd suggest also considering Metals close to the nonmetal border.

Another thing to consider: if we gain WP:ELEM consensus on the 2010 option, I think we'd like it to stick around for a while. One of the arguments in the past for an RFC has been that it would encourage stability for a while. That should be considered in deciding whether this should be implemented via RFP or via ELEM-BOLD. YBG (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I share your thoughts, YBG. I am OK with any title that is obviously descriptive and is long enough not to be taken as a new term, anyway, and Sandbh's fit the bill well enough to my liking.

I also agree that if the 2010 option is considered acceptable, it should stay for a while. It's nice to have stability. Obviously, if the sources change en masse to the extent that it doesn't reflect them well anymore, we should do something, but if that happens at all I doubt it'd be quick. I also think that eventually, we should think about putting it into the MOS: as a stable thing to refer to like WP:ALUM, to tell us how by default we should draw our periodic tables on Wikipedia. However, I think there are several issues waiting before we should do that. First of all there is the colouring issue; we still do want to update those 2002 colours, don't we? Frankly I have no strong opinions and think that what R8R has is already going to be a good start, but we need to decide on one in order to say "on WP, as a default, use this". And secondly there may be a group 3 (layout issue) rerun sometime in the near future as the results of the IUPAC process are released to the public, and I would not like anything about that to be set in stone as an official WP convention until the process finishes somehow and the results are publicly released. True, just IUPAC saying something does not mean we have to decide to follow them, but whatever they say must be taken into account. Therefore I feel we should wait till the process really finishes. Till then we are working with incomplete information when we will have complete information if we just wait a bit longer. So, it is an eventual goal, but for now I would argue to wait and leave it as an ELEM thing only both because of internal (recolouring once categories are settled) and external (IUPAC) matters: I don't think it will do any harm if the colour scheme becomes somehow officially stabilised as WP convention later rather than sooner. In the meantime, we can perhaps update Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines to have the colour-scheme information. Double sharp (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Since element 119 may well come next year: just to cover those edge cases, I will say that under this scheme, whenever discovered, element 119 will get coloured in as an alkali metal and element 120 as an alkaline earth metal (so just like for Og, we will not be waiting for chemical investigation). They will appear in row 8 where you'd expect them as eka-Fr and eka-Ra. So now I've said it and we will be ready. What happens after that can be left for the future. Double sharp (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright. There is much goodness here. YBG

Thanks for clarifying the nature of the halogen category.

I’ll post some more about flagging out e.g. At, Ts, Og.

The proposed rationale for change, in summary form, is for convenience. There is one explaining why we ditched polyatomic and diatomic.

I’m not fussed about the actual colours. I thought R8R’s was quite good.

Stability is antithetical to the nature of WP as an encyclopaedia based on continuous improvement, so I don’t see a valid reason to embed this, but YMMV.

I’ve w/drawn the RFC. Sandbh (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sideshow: The buzzy fly that is astatine

This continues my comment re flagging At, Ts, etc. Courtesy ping YBG.

The context for my post is that Po is normally excluded from metalloids by higher-level texts, and for an element that is hard to study those will be more reliable.

OTOH, colour coding Cn, At, Ts, and Og as a PTM, halogens, and a noble gas, without any flags, ignores what higher level sources say.

Higher level sources point to At as a metal. For Ts, the case for metal status is stronger, as noted in its article. For what it is worth, the RSC refers to Ts as a metal.

So, if we acknowledge higher level sources are more reliable for hard-to-study elements, I’d like to flag Cn, At, Ts, and Og, whilst retaining their colour categories as PTM, halogens, and a noble gas, per introductory sources.

Certainly our PT is a navigational aid. Along with our colour categories, a few flags would enhance an appreciation of the metal-metalloid-nonmetal landscape. Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "higher-level texts/sources"? YBG (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

YBG, I take it to mean advanced level sources, that are not normally taken account of by introductory level general chemistry text books. For example, the 1940 announcement of the synthesis of At which referred to it as a metal; Batsanov’s 1971 article predicting a band gap of 0.7 for At; and the 2013 relativistic modelling study that predicted a band gap for At of 0.68 eV, but a fully metallic fcc structure once all relativistic effects were taken into account. A similar thing happened when the Curies wrote, in 1898, that Po was a metal. AFAIK introductory level general chemistry textbooks do not mention such things. Sandbh (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, it does not necessarily rule against what higher-level sources say. Greenwood & Earnshaw calls At a halogen, and so does Holleman & Wiberg. Here's a source focusing on superheavy elements and their properties that does call Ts a halogen: [5]. I think it comes down to just that there are two ideas of what "halogen" means: one demands being a nonmetal, the other does not and simply asks that you be in group 17. And in fact, by calling "halogen" a group name in periodic table, we're implicitly using the second definition. So even if reliable sources do expect At, Ts, and Og to be more metallic, that will not necessarily mean they have to stop being halogens and a noble gas.

The situation with Ts and Og is only predicted. The predictions have changed in the past for Og, and I think that predictions should not be given the same weight as experimental knowledge. Indeed we already don't give them that in the current scheme: we just tell them "unknown chemical properties". As for At and Cn, there are relatively clear predictions too, and there are experimental results, but the experimental results are not so clear yet. I think that means we should wait. There is also the question on whether English-language sources will actually care even if Og is conclusively shown to be a semiconductor; will they keep calling it a noble gas anyway for simplicity, accepting that it becomes just a name, just like how "alkaline earth metal" includes Be and Mg which don't fit the name? And will primary and secondary sources do different things here? I think flagging this out will be too complicated for a navigation box since the higher-level sources are not agreed for these four elements: remember that the Cn experimental results were interpreted by the experimenters as signalling that Cn was a metal, and it's only the recent theoretical reappraisal that pointed out that it was also consistent with Cn as an insulator. And I think that simply explaining it in article text is probably for the best, to say that the trend towards metallicity also exists in groups 17 and 18, but it is not experimentally sure yet how it goes exactly. Double sharp (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC status

One question. You still have an RFC ongoing at Talk:Periodic table about splitting the nonmetals. Do you think it needs to be resolved before we do this? Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh and Double sharp: The RFC says it will run until closed by an admin after (a) 30 days or (b) WP:SNOW. IMO there are 9 logical possibilities:

Result of current RFC	Action after current RFC
	Make no changes	Propose change via RFC	Change via ELEM consensus
Consensus on 3 (ie, a change)	1. (3→NC)	2. (3→RFC)	3. (3→ELEM)
Consensus on 2 (ie, no change)	4. (2→NC)	5. (2→RFC)	6. (2→ELEM)
Closed without any consensus	7. (0→NC)	8. (0→RFC)	9. (0→ELEM)

This gives us a number of options to think about. If we at ELEM decide on a change other than the ones under consideration in the current RFC, it would probably be best if that RFC ended with no consensus. Toward that end, I think it would be best if there were a Neither of the above option in the current RFC. Would anyone object if I added such a section? YBG (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@YBG: I would not object, but I think it would rather be up to Sandbh to decide. Double sharp (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I can see two alternatives, both of which I believe require your action, as RFP originator. (1) You withdraw the RFP (not sure if that is allowed). (2) You add a "neither of the above" alternative and see if it garners adequate support for a consensus on "non-consensus". YBG (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@YBG: Withdrawing an RFC is definitely allowed: I did that for my group 3 one this year. Whether or not Sandbh wishes to do that is naturally his prerogative. Double sharp (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Launch

Seeing that Sandbh and YBG seem to be OK with the 2010 scheme now that it has been amended to show Po as a metal, and that Sandbh seems to be OK with an ELEM consensus rather than putting it up to an RFC: as expressed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Launch_of_revamped_2010_category_scheme, I have decided to WP:BOLDly start the launch of this new scheme.

Naturally, there are several pending issues that need to be discussed. However, since none of these impact whether or not the scheme is supported, my personal call is that it is better not to wait in order not to jeopardise things from getting done when there is some reasonable agreement on them.

Also naturally, as a BOLD action, all of this may be reverted and discussed. Double sharp (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As a temporary stopgap, the lede of post-transition metal has been rewritten slightly, and the article moved to Sandbh's preference metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals. More work can be done later, I expect. Double sharp (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The Elements case request, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I’ve been wondering if you have a spare minute to help me out with your comments at Talk:Aluminium. You may have noticed I haven’t been active last few weeks; I’ve been preoccupied with RL stuff and I’ll likely be preoccupied with it for a little longer still. I hope I may be at least partially back around western Christmas, but I’m not sure whether this will actually be the case. Not to mention that your comments, particularly those related to chemistry, haven’t all been that easy to crack with reliable sources, so I could use some help anyway.

I’m asking you this because I assume you are still interested in seeing this article getting promoted in the end of the day; is that correct? If not, I won’t really insist on getting help and will try to resolve the issues myself in 2021.—R8R (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: I must admit that recent events make me unsure if the sort of generalisations I mention are really common enough in English-language sources to be able to find them easily. At least, generalisations seem to be hard to find in English-language sources outside maybe Wulfsberg's textbooks (BTW, do you have any way to access them? I've been looking all over.) Not to mention whether or not they would be DUE ways to think about it. I am theoretically interested in seeing an eventual promotion indeed, but let's say for this reason that unless we can get them from Wulfsberg's text I'm willing to waive my chemistry comments as not too important: if you analyse anything too hard here you see some glaring things, but if no one else sees them we should just move along. Or unless we can get them from Droog Andrey, maybe in Russian sources. My impression from his talk about general trends and what he has on his website was that the situation in Russian sources and textbooks for chemical generalisations may be better, but you and he would know better than I. He would also probably critique the chemistry better than I. ;) But again, I'm totally OK with ignoring my comments if they turn out to demand more logic and rigour than is typically encountered here. At least my experience with periodic table suggests to me that trying to cover generalisations well and yet stay true to DUE wrt the English literature is almost impossible, so we shouldn't try for WP even if we should if we were writing anywhere else. ;)

I think I'm likely to be quite busier in 2021 than I was in 2020, alas. But we'll see then what we can and can't do. I'd say: don't expect too much, even if I might manage something, because then you can only be surprised, not disappointed. ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for a belated reply. I have a lot of catching up to do (the red number in the top right corner of this page reads "67").

I couldn't find Wulfsberg's Inorganic Chemistry, except for previews by Google Books and Amazon. If you can extract any point from there you want me to add to the article, please let me know.

Okay, got it. Thank you. Best of luck with your RL affairs!--R8R (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

If this were a periodic table, I would agree with you, but it is not: it is a table showing which elements are metallic, as its title specified. In this context, placing Al, on its own, above Ga looks odd, and there is nothing in the article text to explain why it is there. At User:Petergans/sandbox I have toyed with the idea of using a standard layout and colouring the non-metallic elements red, but everything I tried was unsatisfactory in one way or another. Petergans (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Petergans, the thing is that every other element there is placed where a periodic table would put it. So, when looking at the table I'd mentally read it as "aha, this is a PT with the nonmetals erased". And then putting Al in an unusual place makes me wonder what's going on. That being said, if it causes confusion, maybe the best thing to do would be to just make it a normal PT and mark the nonmetals in some other colour – similar to what you did in your sandbox, but with the usual gap so that Ne and Ar go above Kr. Such a table would still list the metallic elements, but it wouldn't cause this conflict of interpretations, I think. Double sharp (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments. A revised PT is in my sandbox. There is no mention an aqua-ion of Sb³⁺ in my inorganic text-books (G&E, C&W, H&S), but that's not conclusive. Petergans (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Petergans: Yes, I like what you have. It agrees pretty well with the article's topic, that is the aqua cations rather than the metals. I decided I liked your sandbox table enough to just put it in.

Having said that, I made two changes: the H/He row is now included (all red of course), and some elements near the boundaries. At⁺ seems accepted from recent studies: solvation number not really confirmed but seems very low from what I gathered elsewhere. H/He just completes the table (I added a line about how transactinoids are excluded because there's little to no experimental data), and they're red anyway.

Ge²⁺ and Sb³⁺ should exist in water according to theoretical studies. See [6] and 10.1021/ic901737y for Sb³⁺, see 10.1002/jcc.21315 for Ge²⁺, they study the hydration structure. Of course, strongly distorted due to the lone pair, and basically on the edge of hydrolysis and only stable at very low pH, that well explains why most textbook sources hesitate to mention them. Experiments in perchloric acid media (weakly complexing) confirm Ge²⁺ by production of germanous perchlorate: see 10.1002/jccs.196400020. As for Sb³⁺, solutions of antimony perchlorate can similarly be prepared, and we know that metal salts there are mostly present as aqua cations (well, here cites it to Gmelin and mentions Sb and Bi explicitly). Both cations seem about equally unstable and near the edge, but real and within the norm for p block cations with the lone pair and very prone to hydrolysis (cf. Sn²⁺). Au contraire, Ge⁴⁺, Sn⁴⁺, Pb⁴⁺, As³⁺ were investigated (first link, for As³⁺ also 10.1016/j.cplett.2009.03.011), and it turns out those hydrolyse immediately without being given a chance to exist. I am OK if they are removed as too far away, but given that W³⁺ and such are probably even more unstable due to tendency towards polycation formation, I think it will rather hurt less to just be as open as possible for the lede graphic. After all: not every element on that table is discussed later, and it is probably easier to just be accepting in the lede graphic and not worry about whether to include or exclude borderlines when they will be justly be given little screen time later anyway. But if you don't agree, I won't mind too much if Ge, Sb, and At go red. It is not an important issue; at this stage it comes close to angels dancing on the head of a pin. Double sharp (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Double sharp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of uniform polypeta by Goursat hexateron".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Double sharp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of uniform polytera by Goursat pentachoron".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with British press (at first, I confused the Daily Mail for the Daily Mirror, which is, as I recall, a yellowish newspaper), and my first instinct when you mentioned the newspaper was to check the guide to British newspapers set up in the BBC show Yes Prime Minister :)

I'm absolutely stunned how this criticism of national media and their readership can be filmed and paid for with taxpayers' money! I also positively like how the final joke about The Sun readers was delivered (I know what The Sun is like). It was a bold joke for a public show to say the least, and the show immediately backtracked on it somewhat: the prime minister furrowed, and the civil servant hung his head down, and this only made me appreciate the joke more. As long as I recall, there's no other joke like that in the entire series, which is good, because I'd think that taxpayers' money is really spent the wrong way, but for a one-timer it's really outstanding. Something like that wouldn't be produced by a state-owned TV channel around here, for the better or worse.

As to why you mentioned the newspaper in the first place, I suspect the material was made pretty much because it could have that headline rather than because the readership cared about sort of stuff. But that is, of course, only my speculation, and I don't aim to convince you that is indeed the case.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Are the s-block elements on the second column the alkaline earth metals or the alkaline earth metals and helium?? The color you're giving to helium makes it look like it really should go above beryllium. Georgia guy (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Helium is s-block, because its electron configuration is 1s² with no p orbitals within reach. It just happens to also be a noble gas, because it's in the first row and that makes it have a full shell.

There are a number of chemists who think as you are currently thinking, that helium really should go over beryllium. See Grochala and Kurushkin. But currently most don't. Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote at WT:ELEM, Periodic_table_(micro)#Group_3_variants can be used. For example in your User:Double sharp/Group 3 element page. Marking and extending should work.

Todo: update 4th form Sc,Y,*,**. This is the user-friendly box template, with title option etc. The technical pages are here (with the bare PT {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)}}). -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

About electron configuration

In User:Double_sharp/Group_3_element#Characteristics, you use the table for elconfig. As always with this topic, I try to find the pattern & exceptions re shell filling etc (lots to learn for me). Even more so in the f-block of course. So my first response is, to redraw the table to make (ir)regularities show themselves, instead of me looking for them.

In my page User:DePiep/elconfig (edit) is an experiment. If this is a dead-end street, no need to spend much time on it ;-) -DePiep (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: For a while I was trying to put the big table in User:Double sharp/Group 3 element#Dispute on composition, because it illustrated the points that were being made there. But it seemed to make the section feel bloated because it's so big. Maybe, there is a solution. ;)

I think your ideas are pretty good. For example, maybe there can be some bold marking or underlining for the valence shell (e.g. Lu: [Xe] 4f¹⁴ 5d¹ 6s²). Or any other graphic presentation that you feel might be better. For irregularities – yes, I think some sort of marking of them is needed. They definitely exist in the atomic ground state that is nearly universally quoted (there is nothing much better). That being said, it is also true that the irregularities don't matter for chemistry (the layman TL;DR explanation: those irregularities are tabulated for the case of an atom sitting alone by itself, and an atom involved in chemistry is not sitting alone by itself). But I think that is something better handled by the text (as I tried to do in this case for Lr). Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Will think about this (need more hours..). About the big table: we can make a cutout of the 4 elements (or 6, and setup comparision re the group 3 options?). And maybe add more elemetns (eg, neighbours) that illustrate the periodicity/grouping? -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Up to you to c/p the new setup as you like. -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Well, the points made are about the anomalous configurations of the f-block and what happens going down each d-block group. As well, the configurations of Cs and Ba are mentioned. So I am afraid you would probably need to include everything from the fourth row onwards for an illustration, except for the p-block which can be cut out... Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I just boldly edited my latest version into your sandbox, see my 'PQR'. All fine & free, so far. I work by desktop only. But when checking the mobile view, your earlier version looked better (my tabular effects do not show well in mobile). What to do? DePiep (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Busy today, so short comment: I love it. ;) Although maybe the different types of orbital should line up (so 3d, 4d, 5d, 6d vertically together) for clarity? Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. While we talk visualisations

I would like to have something like the ones on van der Krogt's website for the history, to illustrate "the children of yttrium". That and a similar figure for "the children of cerium" would be great for a history section on pretty much every rare earth (except unstable promethium of course). Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting & saved but cannot digest this. Ping me in ten months for this please. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl was on the Main page today, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know what happened to your comments added to one or both of the threads I recently started at WT:ELEM. Apparently I started these threads in the wrong place on the page and I was asked to move them. Well, I did move them - I moved them to the archive. That was simpler. Hope you don't mind. YBG (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your services. You've served Wikipedia well. I don't really know what this feature of Wikipedia is exactly, but it sure is something. Kittens are cute! Yeah! The Internet is for kittens! What is it, 2005? Well, in any case, have fun with whatever it is that's happening in 2021. Yep.

ISaveNewspapers (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with something Wikipedia-external when you might, as mentioned on your page, otherwise be busy, but i noticed you were a significant contributor to the articles detailing Betza’s notation: I’m not sure there’s enough on Wikipedia alone for me to understand, so I’m seeking someone who could help me with defining the complicated pieces in my chess variant according to the standard Betza scheme and any of the other subsequent versions mentioned in the relevant articles whereto you contributed, and thought i might as well ask, not knowing where on Earth to find people who might be up to the challenge. Best regards :) —8enTalk    19:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@8en: Sure, go ahead and ask. User:H.G.Muller may also be helpful. You might like to try starting an account at The Chess Variant Pages too: it's the main site for chess variants. Double sharp (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you – i didn't know about that site so i'll try any future appeals for aid there. My principal issues are with how to express:

• promotion to a specific piece at the eighth rank
• the behaviour of my Empress piece, which can, for this move, only capture by leaping in one direction two K-steps, where the square she leaps over is occupied by her own-colour Guard piece and the square she lands on is the enemy piece she captures; after this, she can optionally continue n> non-leaping as many squares as she likes, potentially thus capturing another enemy piece in the same move and stopping on that square
• the movement of the Guard when the Empress makes the above move—still in the same move, the player may move the Guard to any unoccupied square that is of the three one K-step behind her
• the attacking behaviour of the Guard, which, when one K-step from the Empress, captures a piece also one K-step from the Empress by swapping places with her

I recognize some of this behaviour is quite complicated and that expressing it all in notation might be too lengthy a task so am thankful for any form of help —8enTalk    18:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@8en: Oh boy, that's tough. I don't currently remember very well how Betza notation works for this sort of thing – maybe principally because my attitude even when I was more active with chess variants was that at some point, text becomes easier for the first-time audience when a piece move is really quite unusual. You might like to ask H.G.Muller for this or go to CVP. There is quite a lot of recent activity there in comments. Again, sorry that my response is "I don't really know and would probably express it in words"! XD Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

At least this affirms I’m not just being slow and that it is actually difficult! Thank you anyway – i’ll go to CVP and hope someone there can do it lest i have to victimize someone else on Wikipedia lol—8enTalk    17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bohrium hassium meitnerium ceremony.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fricke periodic table 172.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you point me to that discussion, please? I opened the same topic in the german wikipedia and would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks! Tinux (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tinux: Sc Y Lu Lr was discussed here; was changed because of the IUPAC preliminary report this year (for sure also, almost everyone who focused on this question in the literature came to this conclusion since 1948, but this is the first time we can say it is on the way to officialdom). Chemical categorisation and replacement with blocks: was most recently discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#The_chemical_categorisation_(2021) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#What_to_do_with_categories:_the_infoboxes, but I think there are links to earlier discussions (mostly lamenting the problems of explicit categorisation). The problem even dates back to 2012 because of astatine (halogen by group, so normal categorisation implies nonmetallicity, but it's known to be quite metallic in character; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 15). After a lot of going round and round we eventually decided that there wasn't anything better, since sources never really defined what a metal was and they didn't even agree what elements counted near the boundary. If time permits, I can go to dewiki and explain, hopefully with as few mistakes as possible in my German. ;) Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick and detailed reply! Here you can find the german discussion if you want to join in. Tinux (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tinux: I replied. Hopefully with as few errors as possible after going through dictionaries and grammar-checkers several times. XD Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	I really appreciated your essay explaining the difficulties of having a Wiki without non-free images on the Veganism parable! Although long, your essay was really well done and helped me to better understand why the free vs. non-free images debate is such a double-edged sword. :) ChasingFeathers (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@ChasingFeathers: So someone did read it after all! Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of our PTs look a bit like checkerboards, with the width of the boundary between consecutive periods identical to that between consecutive groups. It seems to me that a slight tweak could subtly indicate that there is more cohesion within groups than within rows. Not of course so extreme to make things look like 18 or 32 separate towers. The new PT draft might be a good place to introduce such an innovation. If don't think this has any merit, that's fine. If you think it has merit, then I leave it to you to decide whether to first seek comments at WT:ELEM. YBG (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@YBG: Interesting idea. Let me think about it. ;) Double sharp (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Another possible way to implement this would be to shift the occurrence border from top and bottom to left and right. That might provide sufficient visual cue to make the columns hang together even if the white space should be identical. As a WP:ELEM historical note, I recall that we decided to put the occurrence border on just the top and bottom to buy us some real estate so that our tables would be less wide. Anyway, have a think on it and ping me if you want to chat some about it. YBG (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@YBG: I wonder about the premise. Is there more cohesion within groups than within rows? Normally yes in the sense that chemistry texts normally talk about elements group by group. But in practice there are two major exceptions. Firstly, the f-block is pretty much always treated by rows. Secondly, in practice first-row anomaly means that hydrogen, boron, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen have to be discussed separately from the heavier members of their group. (There are similar differences for fluorine and neon too...) Also, I wonder about "cohesion". The general thing that happens down a group is not everybody behaving similarly, but a gradual change (think carbon, silicon, germanium, tin, lead, flerovium). Each step makes sense by itself, but if you compare the elements at the start and end, the result is really weird: carbon as graphite or as diamond, either way is far from mercury-like flerovium. Is that what you'd normally call "cohesion"?

So I am not quite convinced that the change is worth doing. Maybe I will be. ;) Double sharp (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Double sharp. The boiling point, the crystal structure and maybe some other characteristics of the astatine are contradicts in the infobox and the content of the article. Can you fix that? Or any recent articles to use them as a source?--Nanahuatl (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Hi again. ;)

The trouble is, we don't know. In some sense all this should be taken with about a mole of radioactive salt, because no one has actually had enough astatine to measure anything clearly. From what I know, the infobox crystal structure (fcc) is the latest calculation from 2013. The article lists both this and an earlier prediction, because we don't actually know: probably the latest one is more correct, but it is all up in the air without an experimental value. Same thing is going on for the boiling point; in the infobox we pick what seems to be the only experimental value (yet it is still not directly measured, and may not be reliable depending on whether At₂ exists in the measured conditions per Gmelin handbook, volume on astatine, p. 117), but in handbooks you will often find only extrapolations from the halogen trend. The 2013 calculation for astatine should be freely accessible here. The boiling point determination is here (let me know if you can access it; if not, I can send you a copy like last time). Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's actually surprising that you remember the last conversation :) If you can just send me the source, I'd be glad. I am not an chemisty expert, so forgive my ignorice please. So the thing is, we don't know which one is correct (or any of them). On that case, shlouldn't we give the both values in the infobox? Or is it more convinient that we choose the latest predictions?--Nanahuatl (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Just sent you the sources. Please tell me if you got them. :)

I think that we picked whatever value was latest. From what I understand, previous calculations on At structure were not so complete as this one, so this one is likely to be more reliable. Like I said: experiment awaits. As for 1982 value, it may be criticised, but it is again the only one with an actual experiment backing it up, so I feel that by default it should win just for that. If I had to give values, I would thus give those. But maybe there is a good argument to say "we don't know, the text will explain it". I think it's your call. In the article text, I feel predictions ought to be mentioned, because otherwise there's not much left to write for such an element. ;) Double sharp (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. If you've not seen it, this talk by Randall Munroe may amuse you. He discusses the problems of building a periodic table with samples of each element. Astatine is definitely an entertainingly described problem. ;) Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Received them, thanks a lot! I am just translating the article into Turkish currently and after that, I'll just check the sources and see if I can add anything (as I did in oganesson). Thanks for all the information, so basically I chose a difficult element to create a featured article :D As you said, I can say "look at the section" in the infobox, or just remove those parameters. Giving all predictions is another option as well. I'll also watch the video, after I complete the translation so I can have some information at least. Thanks a lot again for your time :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: No problem. ;)

The video is mostly for amusement, I guess. ;) Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi again. So I have completed the translation of the English article into Turkish, now I can focus on details :) As far as I can see, Otozai source gives 503±3 K for the boiling point of At₂ while Hansen source gives 337 °C for At. And the source they used in Hansen source is this one, but this source doesn't give any boiling point for the element (actually the source is the 64th edition, this one is the 93rd edition). So what do you say? If we can reach to the 64th edition and check the value, we can maybe add this estimate. But if the source doesn't mention that and it's just a error, so what?--Nanahuatl (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nanahuatl: Unfortunately, I don't have the 64th edition. But FWIW, it was not in the 84th edition (which only gives melting point of 302°C, not boiling point; of course, that's higher than Otozai's boiling point, so maybe also wrong...). It's not hard to find the 337°C value (it's scattered across many books and websites), but I begin to wonder if there was ever any real determination behind it. Maybe mention that the value is often encountered but that the one experimental determination we seem to have contradicts it? Double sharp (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This Hansen (2009) source gives tha value and for the source, it indicates the 64th edition of the CRC Handbook. There is a clear contradiction as you said, but the question is, what is this Hansen book just made an error? Or the newer editions of the CTC Handbook just removed the value. On the other hand, this source (2020) gives the melting and boiling points as 302°C and 337°C, respectively, but again no source (I have checked the source #32 just in case, no information). Here is another source, and it actually shares some experimental results and gives a value for the boiling point. As I said, I am not the expert, that's all I could find :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Well, I am not either. I think you will probably find it hard to get an expert on astatine chemistry on WP. Or maybe anywhere really. ;) I'd probably stick with what is currently said in the English article: "Often encountered estimates are 575 and 610 K (302 and 337 °C; 575 and 638 °F), respectively.[18] Some experimental evidence suggests astatine may have lower melting and boiling points than those implied by the halogen trend; a chromatographic estimation of the boiling point of elemental astatine in 1982 suggested a boiling point of 503±3 K (about 230±3 °C or 445±5 °F)." So, giving both values, and not clearly saying which is right. As for the infobox: I still like the Otozai value better because it clearly explains the experiment, but I must say this is making me consider more and more the idea of just not giving any values the infobox. ;)

I should note that if metallic At is close-packed as expected, then naïve chemical intuition suggests a high boiling point because of the strength of the metallic bond (think of Pb). That, however, contradicts everybody. So either this analysis misses something (quite possible), or astatine is not that metallic IRL (at least in trace quantities), or all the values are wrong and we'll never know it. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha I had no idea about this element before I start writing! So I literally chose one of the hardest elements to write about. I like what the article says, I made some changes as well. For the infobox, I am still confused so... Maybe it would be a better choice for me to remove that part.--Nanahuatl (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Yes, I'd say you did. ;) Out of curiosity, why'd you start with it?

I'm convinced by Gmelin handbook to remove the b.p. value for the infobox. So I just did it. Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If you take a look at my user page, I enjoy creating featured content. Lately, I have been working on some "more encyclopedic" articles, such as cultural heritage, physics (more relevant with my area) and chemistry. I saw that this article was already translated from the English article, and I thought that it would be easier to work on it and promote it to a featured article. After I started, I noticed that there are tons of translation mistakes, so it took more time that I "predicted" :) Since I started, why not completing that? Here I am, trying to create a "real" featured article by trying to read as much as possible, take some help and reach more sources than the ones are already given in here 😅

Thanks for the b.p. tip, I'll do the same.

Now, the crystal structure. It seems like we have a similar situation, so let's just remove that too from the infobox? Articles related with biographies, social sciences, sports etc can have differences in different language versions of Wikipedia but for chemistry, I personally prefer that those differences are minimum :D --Nanahuatl (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Well, the situation with the b.p. is that the value got published, and then later got criticised. In the Gmelin handbook it reads "The T_b value determined by these authors is significantly lower than those given in Table 5/8 and does not seem to be reliable because of the uncertainty of the existence of At₂ (see Sections 5.7.2, p.110, and 10.2.1.3.1, p. 224) under the given experimental conditions." To my knowledge, no one is currently disputing the recent At paper, with deeper calculation than any preceding sources and two of the three authors with WP articles (Roald Hoffmann, Neil Ashcroft). So I think the situation is different. If we cut that out on those grounds, then I think superheavy infoboxes will have little left, which I guess is no fun... Double sharp (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am able to reach to the Gmelin source. So, should we add that critisitation to the article as well? I think we should...--Nanahuatl (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have just noticed that the Gmelin source gives many values for the melting and boiling points. I don't know what to do now :D--Nanahuatl (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: They seem to be all predictions for At₂. And At₂ is not expected to be the main form of solid astatine anymore. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Great to know :D Although, 1982 value is also for At₂.--Nanahuatl (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Oh, you're right. Well, you might like how Astatine#Physical reads now, then! Double sharp (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Great! So we actually corrected that mistake that has given by some sources. Wow... So we should add the other and only value to the infobox then, right?--Nanahuatl (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: But they're not real values either (these are also predictions for At₂). Originally I left them because they are the most common ones (even if they are not real). But seeing this, maybe it's best to avoid confusion, so I cut them too. Double sharp (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

OK awesome! I think that's all for those values :D This article can be useful, can you reach it?--Nanahuatl (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Sent it to you. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• So, what about the vapor pressure, density, molar volume and heat of vaporization values on the infobox? Shouldn't we remove them? I couldn't find the source for vapor pressure, and the other predictions are for At₂.--Nanahuatl (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nanahuatl: Removed the ones for At₂. Vapour pressure is from Vapor pressures of the elements (data page), so from CRC. So I left that one first, but I need to check Gmelin and CRC for how real it is – I'm not optimistic of course.
  • This really might be the hardest natural element to write about!! So many predictions masquerading as real values. Francium is the runner-up. ;) Double sharp (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help again. As I said, I had no idea about the element before I start writing about it. I just like to write FAs and give the correct/updated information. Francium had a FA status in the Turkish Wikipedia, but like a day ago I nominated to delist the article for a few reasons. I don't personally have any facourite element or any attraction to any of them, just saw that one and started. At least many corrections are made, thanks to you. Be ready for further questions please, such as the covalent radius, the Van der Waals radius and the thermal conductivity (as far as I can see, we don't even know if it's a semiconductor or a superconductor but still giving that value!) values :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Here I mostly wrote superheavies (where everything is predicted only), or normal elements (iron, silver, even thorium is almost normal). The closest I got to this region was radium (which I never really finished). So, I didn't expect the situation of astatine and francium to be this bad indeed. :) I think Gmelin will be your best source for what's real here and what isn't. Double sharp (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Purged everything. Covalent radius was unsourced, van der Waals radius was calculated, thermal conductivity would require bulk, and vapour pressure is too low for an fcc metal and is weirdly complete for something we do not even know the boiling point of (it is actually filled in better than polonium, which is strange). But, fcc calculation is DFT, which is the best so far but still not totally secure for such a big change (scalar-relativistic calculations are weaker but give only semiconductor). So, I prefer to leave it to text.

As for phase at STP, I used to prefer to follow handbooks, but it seems everyone is making stuff up. So, it will be unknown too.

I should really do the same for francium one day, but I need that Gmelin volume. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Gmelin does not include vapour pressure or thermal conductivity data. Radii are all calculated or extrapolated. So, it looks like I was right.

I must somehow find the Gmelin volume on francium... Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

OK great, I'll follow your guideness :) Do you think this articleis notable? I don't think so. Walter Minder too, all the independent sources I was able to find about him are related with the discovery of the element 85, nothing more.--Nanahuatl (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Same impression as you. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Both articles have been nominted for deletion! Nanahuatl (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: It seems Minder later went into dosimetry [7]. Fontani et al. in The Lost Elements claim he is most known for this work, but it seems he tends to appear more often in historical summaries as one of the doomed seekers of element 85. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. I was checking the ionization energy value but I couldn't encounter with that in the source. Besides, where can we add this info in the article? Because the infobox is like a summary of the article and the article itself doesn't give that information :) Nanahuatl (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: It is in the source, just with different units. The source gives 9.31751(8) eV for an atom; you can check here that it converts to the correct value in kJ/mol. I've added a sentence about this to the end of "Chemical". Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Great! Litertally my favourite user type, a user that takes action! Thanks a lot. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Another thing... Isotopes of astatine says there are 23 metastable excited states while astatine says there are 24. Which one is correct? Nanahuatl (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: It said 23, but listed 24 in the table. :) Now it says 24. Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The last thing... By following the seperation methods, can't we just find out the vaporization value? Nanahuatl (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In the mean time, this source mentions about another wet extraction method (I added to the Turkish article) and this one is recent work about its medical use. It'd be a good idea to use them to improve and update the article in here. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Sorry, I've been very busy IRL and probably will be for the next few weeks. I'll try to give a good reply when I can. :( Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem, it comes first :) See you soon! Nanahuatl (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nanahuatl: Hi! Sorry for taking so long.

Unfortunately, I couldn't really figure out what exactly the obstacle towards finding the vaporization value is from reading the sources. So, I think we'll have to leave the mystery until I or you figure it out. :(

I'll add your sources probably in a day or two to the English article. Thanks a lot for them! :) Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, clearly I still haven't. I'll just archive this for now and eventually update when I both remember that this is a thing I should do and have time to do it. Double sharp (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In your revert of my revert you asked: "why? it seems to definitely be him - on Springer he is linked to Kurnakov Institute of General and Inorganic Chemistry, where Nefedov worked." Yes, it's him. I decided to remove the link because I started to think this wasn't the best place for it, plus the Russian Wikipedia article is extremely short—basically, a stub. But if you think it's useful, then it's fine. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

• The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
• Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
• Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
• Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
• Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
• Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey. This is a notice and a request for assistance. I started Uranium-214 earlier today since it was published recently. I also nominated it for ITN (Major science discovery, so it has a chance to be accepted), but it needs help since it is a small stub with just over 2k bytes in size, and that is including references and the infobox. Feel free to help it out! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your contribution on the article solar system. I was in awe when I saw your user page. I don't really know my way around Wikipedia, can we be friends and then you'll show me around? EnnyIzzy123 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@EnnyIzzy123: Sure, why not, although my available time does tend to fluctuate unpredictably. :) But what contribution are you talking about? I don't recall having done anything major to the Solar System article recently. Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Double sharp: it might not be a major contribution, but for a newbie like me, it might have been a major. EnnyIzzy123 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to add @Double Sharp .Still a newbie 😂 EnnyIzzy123 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to add @Double Sharp .Still a newbie 😂 EnnyIzzy123 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

• The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
• Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
• Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
• Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
• BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space colonization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Double sharp, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up about Mercury. While we're talking, would you mind taking a look at the intro to the DP article? There've been complaints that a para, on why DPs are of interest to planetary geologists, isn't very good. Can you think of a way to rephrase or rewrite entirely? I think it's important to have something in the intro that explains why we're having this fight over planethood in the astronomical community -- which is the reason we have such a long article on DPs in the first place, -- but there are probably better approaches. — kwami (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Here's a first try...

The category dwarf planet arose from a conflict between dynamical and geophysical ideas of what a planet should be. In terms of the dynamics of the Solar System, the major distinction is between bodies that gravitationally dominate their neighbourhood (Mercury through Neptune) and those which do not (such as the asteroids and Kuiper belt objects). However, a celestial body begins to display significant internally driven planetary geology when its self-gravitation is enough to make it nearly round. Because this requires a smaller threshold than clearing the neighbourhood, this results in an intermediate class of bodies that are large enough to have planetary geology, but not large enough to be gravitationally dominant, such as Ceres and Pluto.Dynamicists usually prefer using gravitational dominance as the threshold for planethood, because from their perspective such bodies are better grouped with their neighbours, e.g. Ceres as simply a large asteroid and Pluto as a large Kuiper belt object. However, geoscientists usually prefer roundness as the threshold, because from their perspective the internally driven geology of a body like Ceres makes it more similar to a classical planet like Mars, than to a small asteroid that lacks internally driven geology. This necessitated the creation of the category of dwarf planets to describe this intermediate class.

Most of it can be cited to the Planetary Society's article on what a planet is, I think. (And if we want to expand on it in the body with a case of dynamicists ignoring the point that geophysicists have in their own field, here's Jewitt and Luu calling the 'dwarf planet' class "unnecessary".) Though somehow I also think the last paragraph about Eris could be improved (maybe it should be mentioned that Pluto was considered a planet before 2006?). Double sharp (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A bit long for the lead, though, so probably better in its own section, and leave the lead more or less as it is? Do you want to add it? — kwami (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I added it to "Characteristics", before clearing the neighbourhood and being round are discussed. So now that lede paragraph works as it is, I think. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you can help me out as I have nominated this image to become a Featured Picture and now there is some questions about this image.
I hope you have the knowledge to provide answers to the questions at this link. The questions are;
1) This representation is different to all the others I've Googled. Does it have Academic authentication?
2) But could you add to the description about which colors are which elements.
I'm a graphic worker and have no knowledge of this subject.
I really hope you can help me or tell me someone else who might be able, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have got the needed information from another user so this is  Done, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Technetium.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(Isn't templating yourself fun?) Double sharp (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

How nice of Double sharp to notify Double sharp so graciously! How respectful of Double sharp to respond to Double sharp so politely! If only all interactions on WP could go so well! YBG (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Alas, I had failed to read #10 at WP:FfD. So, it turns out that this was totally unnecessary. Which, come to think of it, I probably ought to have realised. But hey, at least it was funny. :) Double sharp (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring that. Don't know what I was thinking. Meters (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I might've given you the wrong ref, and now I've forgotten where that discussion was. I think I mixed up two of Grundy et al.'s articles, and now can't find the one that called Orcus a DP. I remember that some of the larger objects in the list were not called DPs -- that seemed taken for granted. I did add a quote from the one source to the DP article, where they single out Orcus and Charon as probably fully melted, but Varda and Salacia as not. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. This isn't the one I was thinking of, but it's better: it has a section that starts with "The dwarf planet Orcus". They say that Salacia is "a large, dwarf-planet sized TNO", which is consistent with the ref I was thinking of.

Mutual orbit orientations of transneptunian binaries. Grundy, Noll, Roe, Buie, Porter, Parker, Nesvorný, Levison, Benecchi, Stephens, and Trujillo (2019). Icarus 334, 62-78.

— kwami (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Nice, thanks. But this is also the article in which Salacia is determined by them to be denser, and they still don't call it a DP, only DP-sized. Maybe they're being cautious and leaving it open, given the low albedo. Double sharp (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be possible near the upper end of the transition range for the interior to get crushed solid, but for that process not to reach the surface. It would explain Salacia's high density (but still less than the larger TNOs) but dark surface. Orcus is a bit funny, though (it has only Salacia's density). Double sharp (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, on all three points. I'd expect to Salacia might have the compression faults they predict for interior collapse but a pristine surface. And yeah, that's why I find Orcus dubious as a DP. It does have a fairly high albedo. Brown et al 2018 give twice the error bar for diameter as the ref we use for the albedo. Given that p ~ 1/D^2, that shouldn't make a huge difference, but its albedo is already close to Grundy et al's preliminary transitional value (which they probably chose with Orcus in mind, so that reasoning is a maybe a bit circular).

Within 1 sig, Salacia might be 1.38 g/cc and Orcus 1.68 g/cc, and of course they could be outside that range. Perhaps that would explain it. Or, Orcus is a plutino. Perhaps plutinos tend to have had a more dynamic thermal history; Orcus's large moon might be a product of that. If Vanth were the product of a collision, like Charon, but Actaea formed with Salacia -- like Arrokoth without contact -- then we'd expect Orcus but not Salacia to have been resurfaced. Charon's density is only 1.7, in Orcus's upper range, and it's 2-1∕2 times as massive, which might be expected to correlate to higher density (just as Pluto is denser still). Or perhaps Orcus is just a bright sub-DP. I expect in this transitional size range, individual histories are going to be quite important. Note that Quaoar might have half the albedo of Orcus, and within 1 sig could easily have the same or lower density, despite being over twice as massive. That seems problematic for HE as well. If we were going to stick to a strict HE definition, I'd only accept Pluto and presumably Eris among TNOs. (which your NASA source called the 2 "known" plutoids. I wonder how intentional that wording was? 5 have been "accepted" by the IAU, but only 2 are "known" to actually quality? -- Ah, nope, elsewhere all 5 are "known" to be DPs.) But if we're going to accept anything that looks like it should be a planet, like Charon, then I'm happy to accept Orcus until we know better. And I added Salacia to the tables in the DP article just to be safe. Possibly MS4 or something is also in that range, but without a moon we can't tell.

@Kwamikagami: Well, Umbriel is darker and less dense than Grundy's thresholds. :)

Yes, I've wondered about how we treat MS4 (it really deserves a name, doesn't it). For all we know it could be a Salacia-like case. In list of planemos (can't remember the real title XD) I said that we just included Sedna and Salacia as stronger candidates (bright enough or dense enough respectively); so if MS4 turns out to have a higher density, then it'd go in, but as long as we don't know it, it's not a strong candidate yet.

If Orcus got whacked, then I wonder about Vanth. It is dark though. Would probably need its density to wonder more effectively. ;) Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Umbriel more icy, though, maybe because it's a 2nd-generation satellite? Saturn's moons have a low density because they're nearly all water ice, not because they're not solid. That's how Brown explained the density of the mid-sized TNOs, he just had no explanation for how they could be so icy when smaller and larger bodies had more rock.

But yeah, in this transition area, I expect we're going to see a lot of variation depending on thermal and collisional history. Smaller objects may be solid and larger ones porous. Dark and in HE vs bright but not. Grundy et al. are a preliminary observation that should guide our expectations, but there will almost certainly be exceptions. (If nothing else, maybe rocky bodies ejected from the inner system?) I'll be impressed if it works 85% of the time. — kwami (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's likely that Umbriel is quite icy. But I wonder about how dark it is. If it were just one side, bombardment from the Uranian magnetosphere would explain it (like Tethys but worse), but its surface is uniformly dark. Except for the albedo spot at Wunda. We suspect from Rhea and maybe Callisto that even larger satellites can fail to differentiate, which is quite interesting because water ice should be weaker closer to the Sun, and because Rhea is so icy. So, it makes me wonder about Umbriel. Alas I shall probably have to wonder until we get a Uranus orbiter. And likewise for some large TNOs. (What you said about Quaoar is also true for Gonggong!) Double sharp (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Uranus orbiter, pshaw! What a waste. Much better to spend our money on bombers that we park in the desert because no-one wants them. — kwami (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: If we launched a probe now, we'd arrive more or less in time for the other hemisphere to have its solstice. How time flies! Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't make me cry. By the time we get around to it, we'll be back to the same hemisphere again.

BTW, Levine got back to me on updating the albedo for Ixion. Quite helpful. (Dropped from 14% to 10% for the new size estimate.) — kwami (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: At least that'll give us the other hemisphere of Triton. Though maybe I'm being hopelessly optimistic, still.

Good to know about Ixion! Double sharp (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Really, that we've lived through such an age of discovery is astonishing. Amazing how we can take such wonders for granted, and be disappointed that we didn't get more. But I'm greedy. I want orbiters for every planemo and large TNO in the SS, and at least minisat flybys for the larger asteroids and centaurs, though for the mid-sized moons, I'd settle for an orbiter skipping from one to the next like Dawn. I want an orbiter skimming over or embedded in Saturn's rings. Rovers on the Galileans and Triton and a boat in Kraken Mare. And if I got all those, I still wouldn't be satisfied. — kwami (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: No love for the inner solar system? Let's throw in Mercury and Venus rovers while we're at it! As for the outer solar system, I'm surprised you didn't ask for probing the oceans on Europa and Enceladus. ;)

I think my response to getting all these and yours would be delight and astonishment. At least for a few days before I start wishing for the next one. ;) Double sharp (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'd be happy for more than a few days. As long as new observations were pouring in, and a bit beyond that.

The inner SS is quicker to get to, so it can wait. The Eris and sednoid probes need to be launched now. But yes, if I were making funding decisions and someone designed a rover that would survive on Venus's surface (if only for the repercussions here on Earth), or a drill that could place a probe under Europa's icecap (sample-return mission, sample-return mission!), I'd break the bank to fund them. Food? We don't need no stinking food!

Or a swarm of minisats to Alpha Centauri, for that matter. But I didn't want to seem unreasonable.

And an orbiting telescope that could take the spectra of the atmospheres of Earth-size planets in the habitable zones of stars within 100 or so ly -- that at least we could do with current tech. — kwami (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Unfortunately it seems like the thick-ice model is right for Europa, which is why I also suggested Enceladus (perhaps going down through the south-pole geysers).

As for Venus, I wonder how much it would help to specifically pick Maxwell Montes as the landing site. Then we have only(!) 45 bars and 380°C rather than 92 bars and 460°C. Maybe that little bit more leeway in picking materials would be very helpful. :) Also, is it that much more horrible than an Io rover? Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That should make it much easier, actually. But it will probably need legs rather than wheels, in that terrain.

I don't know which would be harder to overcome: the Venusian temperature or the Ionian radiation. The radiation's more important. I'd like us to be able to do both. — kwami (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Cool! Do you know what in particular makes it much easier? I'm afraid Cytherean surface conditions are not something I've ever developed an intuition for. :)

There's already a Venus rover concept floating around, so with some luck, we might get to do at least one of those. I have to admit that reading the papers makes me quite excited about the sheer coolness factor of landing on such a terrible place. ;) Double sharp (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything. But if that was your idea, it's a good one. The reduced pressure would certainly help, but I suspect that the 80 kelvin diff in temperature would make the materials science much much easier if you were going to build an active bot, or even something like Zephyr. Zinc melts in that temp difference. (And sulfur boils, or it would at 1 atm.) I suspect that's enough to do all sorts of nasty things to the kind electronics we've developed over the last century or so. Combined with the need for corrosion-resistance (which I presume would increase drastically with increasing pressure and temp), that 80K might be the difference between something being possible or not.

Zephyr's a cool concept. I presume the lack of engine is due to the environmental conditions, so they're getting around the problem that way. — kwami (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Not my idea, alas. I've seen it suggested on blogs for the rather more futuristic idea of Venus surface colonisation, e.g. here and here. (As if cloud cities high in Venus' atmosphere weren't already futuristic enough, which is probably why this is on blogs and not journal articles.) But reading it did make me wonder if it might provide just enough extra useable materials to allow a rover (well, more of a climber).

Probably some tracer components should be mentioned in Atmosphere of Venus article, BTW. Seems odd that ferric chloride is not mentioned, though the sulfuric acid clouds probably contain ~1% of it dissolved. There have been suggestions of perchloric acid in the clouds as well (as if Venus needed to get any worse), but not sure what became of that (it explains some things but presents some difficulties). Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

BTW, concerns have been raised at the DP article about it no longer being FA quality. We should probably spend a little time on it. The Pluto controversy being so far removed from the history section is indeed odd, but move it up and the article becomes top-heavy. Better IMO to have the basics of what DPs are before getting into the history and controversy of the topic, but that may require moving the name and history sections down, which would also be at odds with most of our articles. Or perhaps, given that it's been 15 yrs, it's time to reduce the controversy section (and that part of the history section) to a shorter summary of the main articles. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yes, I agree. Though I favour your second option, since it has indeed been fifteen years since the definition. And probably the talk about HE (in its own section) needs to be reworked, now that we're not focusing on that. Double sharp (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I favor that as well. There was a comment on Talk that the article is a bit short for an FA, but FA's don't have to be long. Much of the extended content is already split off, and it would be a distraction if it were all included, so I don't see why it can't be on the short side. — kwami (talk) 04:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any idea about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Relaxation_time_vs_diameter_of_craters_in_ice? When Serendipodous said with such surety that smaller craters relax faster than larger ones, I thought he must know what he's talking about, or that it was covered in his source, and I was wrong. But he seems more sure than knowledgeable, so that was a bit silly of me. I don't actually know, though, it's just counter-intuitive. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC) (Ah, never mind. Going over the ref, it's clear they're just saying that Ceres' craters are <300km in diameter. — kwami (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC))

BTW, I have no problem with A801AA as an alt des for Ceres (unlike the numbers for mis-ID'd objects), but if we do that, to be consistent we should do the same for Vesta and all the rest, and I rather doubt it's worth the effort. — kwami (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I made redirects up to 333 Badenia = A892 QA yesterday from the A-numbers. I didn't bother after that because then there actually were formats in use at the time of discovery, e.g. 1892 A = 333 Badenia, 1892 L = 334 Chicago, etc. And I didn't bother with the mis-ID'd objects either. Probably even this was not worth it, as I don't see anyone using them nowadays. Maybe it is better to not be anachronistic and admit that from 1 to 332 there were not yet any contemporary provisional designations (well, except for misidentified 330 Adalberta). :) Double sharp (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if the MPC used them, I'd add them as a matter of course, probably tagged (retroactive). But without that, there doesn't seem to be much point. — kwami (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The MPC is not even consistent about the A-scheme: they give 1910 CB for 330 Adalberta, which being a pre-1925 designation really ought to be A910 CB (as in Lutz D. Schmadel's dictionary of MP names). And similarly they have 1899 OF rather than A899 OF for the mis-ID'd object that turned out to be Ceres. So I agree that there's no point to it. I'm not sure why the JPL uses them even past 332. For Pluto, I can sort of understand the invention of 1930 BM if they just expect there to be a provisional designation no matter what for their computer systems. (I guess the history of Eris suggests that if Planet Nine were discovered, it'd get a minor-planet-style provisional designation first.) Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I wonder if these sub-transitional range TNOs might look like rockier super-Hyperions. Since that's how it plays out among Cronian almost-pure-ice moons (Iapetus, Tethys, Mimas, Hyperion), it would seem somewhat logical to play out that way again at a larger size in the rockier Kuiper belt. :) Double sharp (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect they're mostly less battered. After that, no idea. What happens if you just scale up Arrokoth? — kwami (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: True, TNOs should be much less battered. But might what depressions they have look similar for other reasons? Arrokoth has a lot of small pits, maybe from terrain collapse, or maybe sublimation or venting of volatiles. And impacts on Hyperion tend to collapse rather than excavate terrain, too. Also, Hyperion (~270km) : Mimas (~400km) is similar to UX25 (~660km) : 1000km (Grundy upper limit of transition range), and both smaller ones in these ratios are very porous, while larger ones should be near the minimum for solidity. So again it may be interesting to see Nereid (~350km), since it might be the sole survivor of the original Neptunian satellites, and therefore be comparable to the icy-moon situation. That is assuming we don't get lucky and find out more about TNOs in the transition range, of course. And of course all this is a ton of speculation, since nobody expected Arrokoth to be so flat. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Huh, Nereid seems to have deep craters. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you provided that nice source for the planetary symbols being used for the days of the week, I was wondering if you ever came across the symbols of the zodiac being used for the months. — kwami (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't. Not sure I like that as much, given that the zodiac dates don't match the (Gregorian) months as well. Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

True, but I have seen the signs associated with individual months, so this would just be taking it a step further. I thought I'd add them to Wikt if that were the case. — kwami (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

A couple variants of Interamnia, Europa & Bamberga are now up at Commons. Made s.t. a bit nicer for Phobos and Deimos, which are used on a few other WP's. — kwami (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the Ceres FAC is on hiatus for a few weeks, this might be a good time for the move requests. — kwami (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Done at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)#Requested move 2 October 2021. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I split this up because it's a different topic. Double sharp (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

We might need to split that up. The opposition centers around adding long strings of numbers to the front of the names.

BTW, the 2nd source for the constellation symbols isn't self-published. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if any of the other early asteroids (e.g. 2 Pallas) would ever pass an RM to move them to their current location if they hadn't already been there for years. Double sharp (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. It was a mistake to move Ceres to its current location. I can see the objection for Eris, Haumea and Makemake, but we have no problem with the same for Gonggong, Orcus, Quaoar, Salacia, etc. — kwami (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You're probably right that today an RFC to move Vesta->4 Vesta would likely fail. Indeed, I suspect an RFC to move 4 Vesta->Vesta (asteroid) would probably pass. The terminology of "number name" for minor planets is well understood inside astronomy, but isn't useful for the rest of the world. This being Wikipedia, WP:COMMONNAME would generally preclude jargonish article names - and nothing is more jargonish than a name preceded by an arbitrary number. A final point, prefixes are more problematic than suffixes - typing "ceres" in the Wikipedia search field will immediately bring up "Ceres (dwarf planet)" as the top suggested option (it outnumbering other uses by a huge margin), while typing "Vesta" will not bring up "4 Vesta" under any circumstances. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 21:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Your last claim doesn't seem to be true. If I type "ves" in the search window, the first return is "4 Vesta". So search seems to work just fine with prefixes. — kwami (talk) 09:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

That's strange; it doesn't work for me! For me it works like Tarl N. says: when I type "ves" into the search window, I don't get "4 Vesta" at all.

I definitely agree with Tarl N. that an RFC to move 4 Vesta → Vesta (asteroid) would pass, looking at how things have gone at the Ceres RM. However, that would entail rewriting WP:NCASTRO and changing what must be at least thousands of minor planet articles. In fairness, the four moves I proposed would also have entailed rewriting WP:NCASTRO to remove the special provision for IAU-recognised dwarf planets if they passed, which they almost certainly won't. So maybe it's not worth putting it up to further discussion now that the convention has been stable for so many years... Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Kwamikagami Sorry, forgot to ping you. Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it matters which browser we're using? I'm on FF. Maybe it remembers that I've been to the Vesta article a lot. — kwami (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Kwamikagami I'm on Edge. That seems possible. Double sharp (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Kwamikagami I'm on Safari, Chrome and Firefox. None of them give me "4 Vesta" as an option when I type "Vesta". They all do give me the disambiguation page. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, then. That would certainly make '1 Ceres' an inconvenient title. Maybe it would be best to move it to 'Ceres', since the god isn't particularly important. (And eponymous Haumea is displaced by the planetoid even though she's still culturally relevant.) — kwami (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I split this up because it's a different topic. Double sharp (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, where was the discussion where you gave that ref to the Icarus article that used the planetary symbols? That would be nice to include in the astro symbol article. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: It's on your talk page at User talk:Kwamikagami#DP astrology symbols. The arXiv link is here. Double sharp (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. — kwami (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I split this up because it's a different topic. Double sharp (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Look what I found! File:Planetary ring symbol.svg. Erskin used the same symbol for all the moons of the SS, so I'm interpreting this as a symbol for planetary rings in general. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice. So, seems the moon symbols were Luna's symbol with a number, the planet being implicit from the earlier rows. :) Double sharp (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you see better than I can at File:1777 Kirkhill Astronomical Pillar, Almondell Park. View from the west. Moved here from Kirkhill House.jpg what the shape is? It almost looks like Galileo's sketch, File:Anillos de Satruno - Galileo Galilei.png, but people knew better than that by 1777. I'm assuming from Uphall's symbol that there is a zigzag line, but maybe that's a complete fabrication? I've given it another attempt, but am not very confident about it. It might be a crude rendition of Huygen's File:Huygens Systema Saturnium.jpg, with circles rather than an ellipse, as circles are easier to carve. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: It looks more like Huygens' to me, though with the rings visible in front of the planet. I can kind of see how Uphall might have imagined a zigzag on top, but it looks to me like it could just as well have been a scratch in the rock. Such things are pretty visible in quite a few of the digits, so I suspect it was just that this symbol isn't common, so he didn't know what was really part of the symbol and what wasn't. Besides, one would have to explain the detail of why the zigzag seems to exist on the top but not on the bottom; such detail would seem to me to imply that one was trying to follow the shape of the real ring, but it's clearly not like that. So I kind of suspect the shape is simply an orb with an elliptical ring superimposed, though for maximum sureness I suppose one would have to examine the pillar in person. Double sharp (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This image is clearer. It's clearly an ellipse superposed on a circle. — kwami (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, that settles it indeed. :) Double sharp (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder if this pillar's use of the Luna symbol and a number for the moons (e.g. Callisto as 4 , with Jupiter implied as it's above) makes me want to mention how other moons were symbolised. How were they usually symbolised when planet symbols were more common, anyway? Moskowitz claims it was just the planet symbol plus the roman numeral, e.g. Callisto as IV. I can recall seeing J-IV and J IV from the 20th century (must say, these are some quite late holdouts in terms of refusing to use the Mayrian names), and of course the J could be dropped also when it was understood; but maybe I need to find some 19th-century papers to see the usage Moskowitz mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The pillar has "ALL ♃S [obscured by lichen]" for Jupiter's moons. I suspect the IAU's "JIV" prior to the adoption of the modern names was a replacement of "♃IV", but would need to dig a bit to confirm. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to say "ALL ♃S [lichen] E P. OF THE ECLIPTIC NEARLY", so I'd guess that Uphall was basically right, just expanding out whatever abbreviation was there. I share your suspicion. Double sharp (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm getting zero hits on GBooks for ♃ or ♄ plus a roman numeral. Even though Google counts 'Jupiter' and 'Saturn' as hits for ♃ and ♄. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that does seem to be a strike against our suspicion. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I rather doubt that GBooks digitization would recognize ♃ or ♄ except in ebooks. — kwami (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, searching for ♃ ♄ without quotes for the date range 1600-1960 gets one hit, and that's an ebook reissue. 2 more 1960-2000, both ebooks. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, there are zodiac signs on the Kirkhill pillar. I don't see Aquarius, but there are at least a couple others. — kwami (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I split this up because it's a different topic. Double sharp (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder about some of the additional symbols at astronomical symbols. Pluto has 4 or 5 in Unicode, but AFAIK only 2 have been used by astronomers. So e.g. the alt Eris, Astraea and Hygiea symbols. On the other hand, AFAICT the original Astraea and Hygiea symbols aren't used by astronomers at all, just listed as historical curiosities, so maybe the astrological ones are ones we should list. But what's the dividing line between those and all the alt Pluto symbols that we don't list? — kwami (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was just about to add all the other Unicode Pluto symbols, on the grounds that being in Unicode was certainly an illustration that they were some kind of standard. I think what spurred me to make these additions was Pholus being in Astrolog (so if we include Gonggong, we can hardly deny it), and then you reminded me that Nessus was also in Unicode. That and the fact that our Hygiea article gives infobox pride of place to the astrological symbol instead (even though it is the classic confusion between the caduceus and the Rod of Ascelpius), which is even in Unicode. Anyway, isn't Vesta a similar case to Astraea and Hygiea, since the form that's actually in Unicode was invented by astrologers?

The line I was thinking of is "can we reasonably claim that these are standard"? For the dwarfs, OK, we have the NASA JPL one and also fonts like Astronomicon, and in some cases Unicode. For the historical symbols, we have the original publications and those dictionaries back when they were in some kind of actual use, so that's also OK. I mean, the way I was convinced to add those symbols was by thinking of them as just planetary symbols, which in general are mostly used by astrologers nowadays, so it didn't really matter what they were as long as they are or were clearly some kind of standard. Whereas something like Moskowitz's Galilean symbols would not make that cut because there's no evidence of them being generally understood as a standard among those who actually use those symbols. Of course, for this article, I'd add a proviso that the bodies being symbolised should actually exist (no Lilith, Vulcan, etc.).

Although I'm not sure the rings symbol is any kind of standard by that measure, admittedly. Or maybe we should just accept it on the grounds of age. :) Double sharp (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, added the other Plutos. (Which are anyway rarer than the bident and P-L ones, and mostly not used by Anglophone astrologers.) Double sharp (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I split up the discussion with some headers to make the topics more obvious; hope you don't mind. Double sharp (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The rings symbol is minor, to put it mildly, but it is astronomical. Maybe tag it as 'rare'? The alt Pluto symbols are purely astrological. To me there's a difference between a single symbol used by everybody like the Pluto monogram (invented for astronomy, used in astrology) or Vesta (invented for astrology, only symbol now used in astronomy). But when we have an astronomical symbol that's still in use, and a bunch of alt astrological symbols, I don't see how we can call the latter 'astronomical'. I'd rather remove the centaurs than to include the alt astrological symbols for Pluto. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: That's a convincing and defendable line, so much so that I've just reverted myself and removed the three other alt Pluto symbols again. (Besides, their use mostly comes from non-Anglophone astrologers.) But do you have an example of modern astronomers using the Vesta symbol? (I wouldn't be surprised, because Dawn, but would like to see it.) And how about Astraea and Hygiea? If they ever get symbols nowadays, it's presumably the astrological ones, not the historical astronomical ones.

I would be comfortable with removing all symbols with no evidence of astronomical usage, which presumably means all three included centaurs, plus the other Astraea and Hygiea symbols. Maybe also the modern V-shaped Vesta symbol, unless there's some astronomical use. That'd presumably get rid of Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, and Gonggong as well, though. But I still feel that, if they are legitimised by Astronomicon, then it is difficult to make an argument against Pholus; so either both should be in or both should be out.

P.S. Tagged the rings symbol as rare. Double sharp (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I was convinced by this distinction about 'astronomical' vs 'astrological', so I did a wholesale purge of the astrology-only symbols. After all, we do not really talk about the astrological characters of the planets in their pages; we simply put a see also to things like Pluto in astrology Planets in astrology#Pluto. Presumably this is where those symbols belong, too: places like astrological symbol. So of the DPs, only Haumea, Makemake, and Eris are left, plus the alternate Pluto symbol, because there is evidence of astronomical usage. Maybe that was a bit harsh, but really I suspect this is where we'd have ended up anyway if someone else had questioned it, and it's at least a more consistent line IMHO than including Gonggong (in Astrolog but not Unicode) but not Pholus (in both). I held off on Vesta, since you mentioned that it had been used in astronomy, though I'd still want to see that. Double sharp (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the centaurs. Those are the only common symbols, and are now in Unicode, so if anyone wanted to use a symbol in astronomy, it would be those. As for Vesta, I don't know about actual use, but I thought it'd been used in tables of symbols in astronomical sources. Astraea's weird (is it just a % sign? Shift-5 on the keyboard for asteroid 5?), and of course Hygiea's was made in error, but the original symbols are obsolete. I don't think I've ever even seen Hygiea's (snake and star), just the verbal description. So those would seem to be equivalent to Vesta, if not as common. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Early asteroid symbols are drawn in Lutz D. Schmadel's Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, as the symbols used "in ancient times". All the ones we gave are there, except for some reason 18 Melpomene and 19 Fortuna. Vesta is drawn in two old ornate forms. So my suspicion is that when astronomers do use those symbols, it is only to record the antiquarian ones, and whatever the astrologers are now using does not interest them. John S. Lewis' Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System, 2nd edition (2004), uses the planet symbols in a chart on p. 425, including for Luna and Pluto, but uses just plain numbers 1, 3, and 4 respectively for the asteroids Ceres, Juno, and Vesta in the same chart. (The five other large moons are simply labelled J1, J2, J3, J4, and S6.) That kind of suggests that even now those symbols don't really interest astronomers either and are treated as purely historical. So I'm not that convinced that astronomers would use the astrological Vesta form, if for some reason they wanted a Vesta symbol. Perhaps they might resurrect Gauss' easily drawn form precisely to distinguish themselves from astrologers. ;)

Funny conjecture about Astraea, BTW. :) Double sharp (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I think we should therefore mark all the asteroid symbols as rare (except the PL symbol for Pluto), because in modern usage, they are. Even Pluto's status might have changed since it was demoted: the paper I sent you that used the symbols for the 8 planets does not use the Luna and Pluto symbols, even though their data points also appear in the graph. (Needless to say, Eris isn't given its symbol there either.) Double sharp (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Replaced the astrological Vesta symbols with Gauss' form. Double sharp (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

For the 'planets' article, the DPs are planets to a large number of astronomers. Since we're showing how the conception of planet has changed over time in those tables, I think it's important to show that aspect as well. Indeed, the fact a table would become overwhelming is one of the arguments for the IAU definition -- the geologists just don't care about that. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed that mostly because some had symbols used in astronomy and some didn't, and per the above, I wasn't comfortable with a line that included astrology-only symbols. I've restored it, but without the harder-to-defend symbols for Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, and Gonggong.

That said, geologists would presumably include the planemo moons too, no? I'd expect that astronomers who care about planetary geology as a reason to reinstate Pluto should presumably not want to leave Enceladus in the lurch. Geologically speaking, Luna is obviously a small terrestrial planet. And isn't it not that uncommon to speak loosely and include Vesta as the smallest terrestrial planet too? So, seems to me something else is needed if that's the idea. Double sharp (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, added a planemo moon table and a sentence about those geologists who would like to reinstate Pallas and Vesta too. Double sharp (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I would've bought the objection that such a table would be overwhelming back in 2006 when things were still being figured out, but now that we know how few TNOs actually surpass the barrier, I don't really have a problem with fewer planets than elements. A bigger objection for me would be the issue with transitional bodies: to me, a geophysical classification ought to acknowledge Vesta's past geologic activity. I would not be surprised if some or all of Salacia, 2002 MS4, 2002 AW197, Ixion, Varda, Dysnomia, 2013 FY27, and 2003 AZ84 display some evidence that differentiation started but never reached the surface, and then I'd want to acknowledge that too. My taste is for Margot's idea, where "planet" refers to dynamical concerns, and "world" refers to geophysical concerns. (Not DP, because once you agree not to care about the fact that a body orbits in a belt, it's difficult to make a coherent argument about why you should nonetheless care that it's in orbit around another planet. Pluto and Triton are clearly in the same geophysical class, as are Mercury and Luna.) But of course, due to the above concerns, I'd probably just say that we are pretty sure that at least 8+9+19=36 bodies are worlds stricto sensu, that there might be a few more, and that there are a bunch of smaller objects like Pallas and Vesta that have some weaker worldlike qualities. Double sharp (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be easier if we called worlds (which I think was also one of Stern's terms) that are not planets "planetoids", as Brown suggested. Planetoid moons? "Planemo" hasn't caught on, but "planetoid" is easily comprehensible. And then didn't insist on a specific number. At least with a dynamic criterion for 'planet', we can say how many planets there are in the SS.

Adding the moons to the planet article helps, thanks. — kwami (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can get behind "planetoid" for Titan. At least planetoids would be closer to being planets than asteroids are to being stars. And it gives an excuse to be vague and speak of the small terrestrial planetoids Pallas and Vesta. ;) Double sharp (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that as a benefit too. Just how oidy does an object have to be to be an oid? I hope we get that minibot to Pallas, so we know a bit more, but I certainly think 'planetoid' is a good label for Vesta. — kwami (talk)

@Kwamikagami: That's an interesting comment. Does that mean that there's something that, if it were discovered to be true about Pallas, would make you not consider 'planetoid' a good label for it anymore? Sounds like an opportunity to sharpen oidiness. :) Double sharp (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Not really. I expect it to be a world / planetary embryo, and in my own mind I call it a 'planetoid'. I can't imagine why it wouldn't be. It may be icy enough that it's more like Miranda than Vesta. But we tend to be surprised when we get up close. — kwami (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see then. Indeed, Miranda itself was most surprising when we first got up close! :) Double sharp (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Double! I'm trying to revive What the Wikipedian saw. Take a look! Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 11:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice. I haven't yet gotten inspiration for an amusing continuation, though. :) Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I updated it... It seems you aren't watching the page anymore, so I had to alert you manually. https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=User:Darkside2000/What_the_Wikipedian_saw&oldid=1051071641 Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 12:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Added a continuation. ;) Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)