User talk:Double sharp/Archive 2

Euler characteristic for higher-dimensional polytopes
Hi again,

As you know, in three dimensions the topology of any polyhedron is characterised by its Euler value &chi; and orientability. This is in fact a general property of closed surfaces (2-manifolds), they need not be polyhedral in nature.

For example a sphere has &chi; = 2 while a torus has &chi; = 0.

But this does not carry through to higher-dimensional manifolds. We get a hint of this from polygons - closed 1-manifolds or loops. Here, &chi; = 0 for any polygon or indeed any closed loop.

This carries through to the 3-manifolds which bound polychora. It is easy enough to calculate &chi; for something like a hypercube, and with a little effort you can join nine hypercubes in a loop to form a kind of 4D doughnut - it also has &chi; = 0 even though it is non-convex.

These turn out to be special cases of a corollary of the Poincaré duality theorem, that for any orientable closed manifold of odd dimension, &chi; = 0. And more recent work has shown that this is also true for non-orientable manifolds.

To dig any deeper you need a greater understanding of topology and such things as Betti numbers. I'd suggest Richeson's book, Euler's Gem (Princeton, 2008) as a good starting-point.

HTH &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference in alkali metal
Hey, I noticed in alkali metal you used a ref for covalent radius. I don't have access to the journal; does it include the values for the alkaline earth metals as well? If so, could you put them in the table in my sandbox? Thank you. StringTheory11 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All the values from the ref are here. Double sharp (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

On Periodic table
We should talk about this indeed. This revert by you is good anyhow anyway. Then, I thing adding /doc to a template is an improvement where I did it, and unrelated to WP:ELEM. (e.g. this one shows a /doc is not empty). So far for your talkpage. For the other issues, I will take time and meet you at WP:ELEM or related pages. -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And, to be clear, I have moved Janet's into and another one into . Now if you know a second PT please provide a source. Or else, we agree on a single one (with variations). Oh and by the way, they are within view now. How else could one find them? -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * re this . I think you know more about Periodic Table than I do. Still, the way to organise our WP:-templates in such a well-defined environment, I claim you do not get the overview. I repeat: yo do not have the overview to get templates right. There are about 100 PT related articles and templates and legends-for-templates. And I claim: there is no structure. Even footnotes are however-one-edited. (e.g. Periodic table (large version) has the state of matter legend -- with no state mater reference (color) present at all). This is why I edit PTs (did yo notice I did not alter a PT content at all? You think I played Einstein?). Another thing is: apart from you, no editor dropped by in our exchange. -DePiep (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to remove the docs anymore, since I really don't feel like wasting time on that small issue anymore, since the most likely people to go directly to the template pages are editors anyway. I'm also not going to change Periodic table back, since all these are minor issues and editors and readers will probably find it fine either way. However, I do disagree with you that there is only one PT and all others are mere variants. Even the standard PT has many problems of its own - issues over H, La and a few other elements. Now, which do you propose is the true PT? IMO, there are many PTs, and all these are some different PTs. I would think that a PT is an organisation of the elements. Since there are many such organisations, they are all different PTs. (Of course, periodic table has now become virtually synonymous with the most common PT - the 18-column table.) I welcome all additions to Periodic tables footer. Double sharp (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, please note that there seems to be a general consensus not to link directly to templates in Periodic tables footer (with Periodic table grandfathered in as an exception, apparently): I've tried doing that before, and got reverted every time. Double sharp (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, there is the question on whether Periodic table is truly a template or a list. It was, for a long time, at Periodic table (standard). Double sharp (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this reply. To me, PT is the thing with "H" in the uper left corner etc. Mendeelev only found one PT. Now the set we use is all details/variants/zoomin/out of that same PT by Mendeelev. That is my view. (Also, the main WP article is called Periodic table singular for good reason). When we, WP-editors, want to refine that PT (e.g. by writing long name instead of 2-letter abbreviation), we create a variant of that same simple PT. "H" or "Hydrogen" is the same PT.
 * Now how to work ahead? I don't know exactly, but for starters I separated article space template (content space) from template overview ) (technically, template-space only).  should become the navigation box  for the topic "Periodic table" (named:, ideally), and the other one should be the overview in Template space only (and including technical templates such as the Key). That is what I am working like. From this same line of thinking I say that there is no "Compact periodic table", but preferably a . They are all TPs.
 * I can illustrate that already I turned two hard-coded PT tables (in WP-article page) into a PT-template. That is the way to keep general legend over the these pages. Template:Periodic table (atomic weight) (! did not exist yet?!), Template:Periodic table (dietary elements).
 * I agree we should not link to a template (WP-wide), but the current PT-world here is so diffuse, we should allow for some leeway. And also I will argue to allow, just for completeness & maintainability, a single template to be used in only a single page. That is great with me. (that is the way to get similar style over WP). So for PTs, I accept a situation 1-template for 1-page. There is enough elsewhere to take care of elsewhere (eg good legends for PTs)-DePiep (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with you that the set of PTs you have referred to are variants. However, I would think that the Janet PT is a different PT from the Mendeleev PT. I think "compact periodic table" is short for "a compact variant of the periodic table", though, and should be OK. BTW, I've added more links to the Periodic tables footer. Double sharp (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your Janet thing, and won't battle. I just want all PTs to look alike (in eye & template &tc). -DePiep (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think that would be a great thing to strive for for the PTs. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You (too) think it is OK to take out the templates? Like I did with )?. To me, that is the way to get the overview/list. It gives a cleanup. Cannot remember from which page, but now it is general. -DePiep (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's OK to do so. In fact, I've done similar things before. Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * pls don't worry too much about the /documentation I am adding. It gives us control & overview over thesetemplates. e.g., I discovered and . Otherwise maybe invisible. Once we have the list, we can treat them all alike. -DePiep (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to worry any more about them, as they're not the most important issue anyway. Double sharp (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary said : "(yes, we treat group and period differently, and that's a good thing: see WT:ELEM)" Could you please specify? For now still, to me, in this, column and row are alike. -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the end of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Double sharp (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Email
Hi DS, if you set up an email with your account, this form can be used to send emails to you, without anyone knowing your actual email address. Special:EmailUser/Double_sharp Tom Ruen (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer keeping WP away from real life (like Nergaal). If there really is something that important, you can put it on your or my talk, or if you can't, you can just give the main details. Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, mainly wanted to share an email reply from Norman Johnson. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you put it on your talk page (or perhaps here), if it is OK to do so? Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could, but uncomfortable sharing emails too muuch. No big deal in this case. I'm just looking at the Johnson new names, listed at MathWorld, and the 2006 email on my talk page. You should really consider asking for access to the private polyhedron email forum at I've not been active recently, but you can also search and read a decade of discussions there. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Double sharp. Thank you for awarding me a barnstar. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and contributions in general, including your work on the metalloid article. I was also pleased with your WP:PR request to try and get FA status for List of oxidation states of the elements. That's an interesting off the beaten path article, with good potential. Sandbh (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Be-7 decay
Well, two things about your edit summary here: --Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Eventually, an electron is going to collide with it.
 * 2) Positron emission can't be ruled out in that situation, can it?
 * Sorry - I meant when the Be-7 nucleus has been ejected from the star (e.g. in a supernova) while still fully ionized (as it would be in the star), and not while the nucleus is still in the star. See Electron capture. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But does that rule out positron emission?--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the energy difference between Be-7 and Li-7 is less than 1.022 MeV, positron emission cannot occur (there's not enough energy for it). Is that the case? Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It does appear to be more than that in File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg, but all this would be OR in any case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * β+ is not mentioned as one of the decay modes for Be-7 in Isotopes of beryllium, which only gives EC. (I wouldn't use that binding energy curve picture: it only gives common isotopes, and Be-7 isn't really a common isotope - it's just a trace radioisotope. There's nothing directly above Be-7, which you can see for H-3 and He-3, so I think you accidentally compared Li-7 and Be-9.) Double sharp (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with OR. But this would make an interesting DYK if DYK accepted non-new articles.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we could expand the article fivefold first, thus making it eligible for DYK. Didn't this happen with Actinide? (However, we would need to cite this first. Also, I'm not sure if the hook needs to be something added in the expansion, rather than some info that was already there and was later cited.) Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk at WP:Elements
Regarding your reverts and edits, I have started some talks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements (possibly referring to your edits individually). I understand you follow that page; I could be more specific here when I use your name, would you prefer that. -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why the .png
If I am right, you upload regularly the File:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG. I suppose this image is derived from the most recent version of WikiProject Elements/Articles/Periodic Table by Quality, the editable page.

To be short: I propose to finish these updates. Let's not add things that do not help. For example: suppose a reader (or even an editor) arrives at that image. Then what? Nothing left to click. Better it is, that reader can not arrive there at all. Because: there is already a good and more actual table that helps that same user out.

All in all, adding that image does not help, the better base table is there already. The image can only be late, and less usefull. Shall we drop it? -DePiep (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the image has been in use for so long (since 2008!) that it has pretty much become our logo, e.g. it's used in the userbox, the project banner , and the main project page. And there's one thing about an image which you can't easily do with a template: you can easily resize it for any purposes (the userbox, the project banner can have it small, but the main project page and the articles page can use the large version).


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 11 for more information (Archives 10 and 11 contain a lot of interesting stuff). Briefly, the template PTQ was originally considered to be a dumping ground for new changes before they got updated on the image PTQ, and only later was it that they became to have equal statuses. Nobody – not even me (as Lanthanum-138), who started the template PTQ in the first place – considered the template PTQ as a replacement for the image PTQ, but rather as a supplement.


 * In addition, I would dispute your statement that the template PTQ is "better" than the image PTQ: neither PTQ would be useful to the reader, only the editor, and only an editor in the project (or at least, one who works a lot on the articles). Besides, although the image PTQ doesn't have links (but note the SVG version, occasionally updated by User:Stone, does), it gives the full name of each element for the reader to type into the searchbox.


 * Finally, the image PTQ allows one to look at the version history much more easily, as thumbnails are displayed, and so are the edit summaries, so you can see at a glance what has changed a lot more easily. You can even trace the qualities of the articles back to 2008, when the PTQ was first uploaded by Cryptic C62!


 * So I would propose to keep both PTQs. In summary: "I would still keep an image around for the wikiproject template", (Nergaal) and if you're going to have an image version of the PTQ, you might as well update it regularly. Double sharp (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this answer. It gives a nice reading in the backgroup & history of this Project. And I agree on the usefullness as an icon logo even in the project. A well-chosen & iconic representation of the project, by Article Quality.
 * So Keep, for the icon usage. Less so for the overview & edit usage I'd say, because updating is out of reach for editors (e.g. group 8). And the out-of-dateness stays an issue, with so many variants (five?) of the same content around.
 * I am not happy with the argument It is around here a long time so ... (I rephrase), because that would make a page stale, and inhibit serious improvements. Four years is a long time at WP. A bit of the same is for the general argument It is intended as ... (I rephrase), because that we have no access to -- it in history and in some editors mind. What counts is: actual & potentional usage, that is what we can talk about & improve on.
 * I can only add: I wrote better because a wiki template is clickable, which trumps reading & retyping the element name to me. Also, the template is editable by more people, which is the Wikipedia essence. I agree, this only pertains to an editor, not a reader (... which makes link & click & edit even more relevant ;-) ).
 * btw, for the actual QA status of pages, is the main source the bot-maintained page Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chemical elements articles by quality log? -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally we just update the template table just after changing the quality of the relevant article. With the image one, I do look at that page. Double sharp (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

About. I see it little or not usage (Project AQ page only), it is less complete as the big table is (less articles), and it requires a second update maintenance task (so it is likely to be old-tdated often). You think we can drop this one? -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really mind dropping it. Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking to ELEM/PTQ or the QA table
I have moved the PTQ table into template. The reasoning is: there are multiple transclusions of that page (which currently just reproduces the table, since there is not much more on the page). Now that it is a template, we can add more to the page without disturbing pages that expect the single table (after adjusting their call, from the page to the template). The page can become the full-topic page. I plan to add more to it, e.g. the image ;-). The link to the page is in the template title (pages that prefer a shortcut can add the box).

Since you link to the page on your Userpage, I suggest you change the transclusion into, and maybe add (as said, the tabletitle has the same link). You can also keep it, which will result in more PTQ-page content on your Userpage. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll keep the link and look at all the lovely PTQ formats. :-) I'd also add a note to the template saying something like "For history before 12 June 2012, see WP:ELEM/PTQ", so that it's still easy to find older changes. Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Added to the /doc page. Double sharp (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the history. I coiuld have moved the page, but that is a bit tricky being different spaces and so, I could not guarantee good workings afterwards. And yes, your Userpage looks more more brilliant now! Lots of qualities. -DePiep (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "your Userpage looks more more brilliant now!" In my opinion it's a complete mess, actually! I'm flattered. :-) My old userpage at User:Lanthanum-138 was nicer, but when I retired (to come back later as Double sharp), I db-g7'd it. :-( Double sharp (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on Astatine monoiodide
You nor Whoop whoop pull up aren't near 3RR yet but there's a talk page available for a reason. Use it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thx
Thank u! (Morphy vs The Duke.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

p.s. If you have time and want to, could u weigh in at MoS Talk item 'm' (and 'n' too) b4 becomes archived. (Thx!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I weighed in at h, k, m, and n. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have the correct electron figures, you are wrong.
Here is an education lesson.

Electron configuration is in order from the greatest energy level nothing else not by the numbers of the n 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f, 6d, and 7p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeps (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Aufbau Process

Aufbau comes from the German word "Aufbauen" which means "to build". When writing electron configurations, we are building up electron orbitals as we proceed from atom to atom. As we write the electron configuration for an atom, we will fill the orbitals in order of increasing atomic number. However, there are some exceptions to this rule.

Example

If we follow the pattern across a period from B (Z=5) to Ne (Z=10) the number of electrons increase and the subshells are filled. Here we are focusing on the p subshell in which as we move towards Ne, the p subshell becomes filled.

B (Z=5) configuration: 1s2 2s2 2p1

C (Z=6) configuration:1s2 2s2 2p2

N (Z=7) configuration:1s2 2s2 2p3

O (Z=8) configuration:1s2 2s2 2p4

F (Z=9) configuration:1s2 2s2 2p5

Ne (Z=10) configuration:1s2 2s2 2p6

Exceptions

While Aufbau process is an accurate in determining the electron configuration of most elements, there are some notable exceptions that occur within the transition metals and heavier elements. The reason these exceptions occur is because some elements are more stable with less electrons in some subshells and more electrons within others. A list of the exceptions to the Aufbau process can be found below. Period 4: Chromium: Z:24 [Ar] 3d54s1 Copper: Z:27 [Ar] 3d104s1

Period 5:

Niobium: Z:41 [Kr] 5s1 4d4

Molybdenum: Z:42 [Kr] 5s1 4d5

Ruthenium: Z:44 [Kr] 5s1 4d7

Rhodium: Z:45 [Kr] 5s1 4d8 Palladium: Z:46 [Kr] 4d10

Silver: Z:47 [Kr] 5s1 4d10

Period 6: Lanthanum: Z:57 [Xe] 6s2 5d1 Cerium: Z:58 [Xe] 6s2 4f1 5d1

Gadolinium: Z:64 [Xe] 6s2 4f7 5d1

Platinum: Z:78 [Xe] 6s1 4f14 5d9

Gold: Z:79 [Xe] 6s1 4f14 5d10

Period 7:

Actinium: Z:89 [Rn] 7s2 6d1

Thorium: Z:90 [Rn] 7s2 6d2

Protactium: Z:91 [Rn] 7s2 5f2 6d1

Uranium: Z:92 [Rn] 7s2 5f3 6d1

Neptunium: Z:93 [Rn] 7s2 5f4 6d1

Curium: Z:96 [Rn] 7s2 5f2 6d1

Lawrencium: Z:103 [Rn] 7s2 5f14 7p1

Please read all of the cited source and be able to actually comprehend it before disregarding future posts. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeps (talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I do in fact comprehend the source. However, please note that:
 * [Rn] 7s2 5f4 6d1 is equivalent to [Rn] 5f4 6d1 7s2;
 * Writing the 7s first, followed by 5f and 6d, is based on an over-enthusiastic application of the Aufbau principle, but is unfortunately too common nowadays. Consider that the actinides start filling 6d first, then "correcting" themselves into 5f. In fact, since 5f starts filling later than 6d, it may be argued that it is more logical to put 6d first! Thus, it is better to simply write them in increasing order. Double sharp (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, User:Materialscientist has already addressed this issue in the talk page of one of the first-row transition metals (I can't remember which one). Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (@OP) It is important to realize that the electron configurations are written in the leaving order, not the filling order. For example, 4s electrons should leave before 3d, even though 3d is filled after 4s.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed – and besides, the filling order has its own problems with the lanthanides and actinides, as I pointed out above. The problem with the filling order is that it only makes sense when you move across elements, but the leaving order makes complete sense with regard to only one element (it just represents which electrons leave first when forming ions). Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

PR done
Peer Review is finished at Peer review/Berkelium/archive1. --Noleander (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Polonium dioxide GAN
I've posted first comments in Talk:Polonium dioxide/GA1. Materialscientist (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELEMENT Header
The header was junk (and again it is). The ToC only 33% wide, taking three rows for a simple talkpage section title? Archives for gods sake next to the TOC? Who needs the archives this close at hand? Why do we need the Archives in the top screen? Amd ten of then were red links. And what is the AQ-list doing in this page? That is not a Talk issue. The project has other pages for that. That is why. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree! Firstly, the longest one there only takes two rows. And yes, we might need the archives close at hand, to refer to when someone refers to them (10, 11 and 12 are particularly needed). Only the last six (13 to 18) are red links for future use, but I wouldn't mind getting rid of them. "Why do we need the Archives in the top screen?" It's like the archive boxes on talk pages. Your edits made the header very long and ugly (you needed a large amount of scrolling to get past it, and no normal talk page requires that!) The AQ-list being here is because the talk page is a very commonly visited page of the project and it reminds us of our progress. Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On my screen the TOC was squeezed into illegible (three rows). The Archives now take up a whole column (only partly filled/used), and can be lower. Will be visiting it less often I guess, for being uninviting to me. But alas, I'll leave it. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to sort it out – I do agree with you that the archives take up too much space. (Perhaps it is the article alerts taking too much space though – too many old ones are still up there!) Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried putting on the page. Might need a, but looks good in preview. Or you could flip the top two boxes, putting the noticebard second. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Barium
The article Barium you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Barium for things which need to be addressed. Tea with toast  (話)  03:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Great work on alkali metals
I can see how much you have done. Kudos.64.134.168.97 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Hard to believe it's already over a year since I first laid my hands on the article...much has happened since then, including officially getting un-permabanned. It's obviously grown a lot since then after 2 GANs and 2 PRs...once I finish writing the last two empty sections I'll probably ask for another PR and get some comments from you and R8R after your beloved fluorine is done (I ought to work on an actual element next). After alkali metal becomes an FA I'll just go down the remaining main groups (that's just groups 14 to 17) aiming for GA (and, if I get interested enough, FA). (And I can't believe that I still haven't bothered to mention the alkalides yet. Expect that to be rectified shortly.) Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Major-thirds tuning: From sharp minds, come sharp edits
Thanks for the edit, replacing the keyboard # with a musical sharp. You did inconsistently place the apostrophe after the sharp in some places, leaving other places with the sharp after the apostrophe. Which is preferred?

Following your example, I replaced the keyboard #s with musical sharps in augmented-fourths tuning; its DYK has been approved and it should go on the main page in a few days.

Thanks again! Kiefer .Wolfowitz  08:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The apostrophe goes after the sharp. That's how I've always seen it. (I accidentally didn't notice some that were the other way round.) Nice pun, BTW. Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to credit Sharp Electronics for "From Sharp minds come sharp products". Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  09:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Chess
Sorry about my stupid chess move e5 earlier; one of the worst moves I've ever made. I'm usually pretty competent at chess, but sorry about that. StringTheory11 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's OK...do you want to revert it? (You can regain the pawn with the skewer 3...Qe7, anyway.) Double sharp (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake; I pay for it, no reversion is necessary. I may take the skewer offer though.... StringTheory11 06:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, in effect, this is a weird response to 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3. Black doesn't really need to defend the e-pawn, because 3...Qe7 will regain it after 3.Nxe5. But because of 2...c5, Black now has holes on d5 and d6 that I am currently eyeing. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not very familiar with the sicilian; I don't play it often. StringTheory11 03:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got a wild game going! But how does the world make the next move to take the knight?WFPM (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the history; it will hopefully shed some light on how to move the pieces. Double sharp (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see StringTheory11 has just taken the knight for you. Time to start bashing the king. Double sharp (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't play the game to win. I'm a defensive player who always plays black and looks for a maximum strategic defense against White's inevitable overpowering strategy. That way I get the most information about the matrix of possibilities.WFPM (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but I do. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you ought to play a defensive player every once in a while. Because it takes about 10 plays to even get set up, and we're pretty guarded about the setup sequence.WFPM (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

104 Rutherfordium
Appreciate the additional isotope info. But have to reference my structural models to explain the problem with the accumulation of extra neutrons in this area. Plus have to have additional extra neutrons to be able to discard some of them to get rid of some of the extra kinetic energy contained in the merged composite nucleus.WFPM (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, you might note that that the area (number of positions) of your chess board is the same as the area (number of positions) of the top of the structure of the atom (64 positions), And with the red (yellow?) squares being the proton positions and the black (green?) squares being the neutron (and extra neutron) positions. But in the atom, the extra neutron accumulation positions are on the bottom as well as the top.WFPM (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I hope that you will note that the chess board is a set of nested squares (4 squares inside of 16 squares inside of 36 squares inside of 64 squares) And that the incremental number of paired square increases from the center out is 2, 6, 10, and 14, which is the same number as that of the incremental increases in the (paired nucleons ((deuterons))) of the elements contained in the increasing series of the Janet periodic table.WFPM (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC) And if you want to know how adjacent nucleons physically interact with each other, you need to have some cylindrical Neodymium magnets and try putting them together because the nucleons go together the same way as do the cylindrical magnets. I note your interest in elements 117, 118, 119, and 120, and you can much better visualize the atoms of these elements if you model them with cylindrical magnets. The main question in my mind is how an interior proton is able to manage the activities of an external and remote "orbital?" electron. And if it doesn't, how do you know that there are the same number of electrons as there are protons?WFPM (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC) You can use a standard red and black checker board to represent the atom by preparing cutouts to represent the deuteron additions and some black checkers to represent the extra electrons. And you'll immediately run into the important questions about the accumulation process like why the numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7 deuterons are stable within the nucleus whereas the odd numbered 9 and above want to be changed into 2 extra neutrons et cetera. And you can certainly visualize the situation better in this simplistic manner. You'll note that isn't discussed in Electron capture, at least in a simple manner.WFPM (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ununseptium
Hi, I have reviewed Ununseptium and placed it on hold for up to seven days with some concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Ununseptium/GA1. Canadian  Paul  23:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Strontium
I did what you asked for. --Stone (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've rerated it back to C, in view of your review. Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The criteria to be B-Class as an Elements article are high, higher than in other projects, but after the GANs are through there is a chance to get the missing points into the article.--Stone (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll probably help with it. Double sharp (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nickel shells
Hi! Somebody reverted the Nickel change I made the other week. I'm hesitant to change it back, but if you want to, or want to contact the user that reverted, this is just a heads up. :)  Nik Naks  talk - gallery 11:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed back with a note in the summary. See Nickel. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Chess
Your move ' Ankh '. Morpork  11:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Graphics Lab
Roshan (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Icons
Hi Double. IMO the chess font icons in User:Double sharp/Chess diagram, are superior to the default WP icons for chess diagrams (which keep changing, and, not for the better). I'm not sharp on that stuff, is there any way to change WP default to those nice (and more standard) icons? (I s/ ask first, do you agree they look nicer?) Cheeers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. Previously (the template we use for all our diagrams) used PNGs (see this link for the syntax), but it was changed as SVG is the image wiki-gods' favourite child. :-( IMHO, the PNG images look a lot nicer. The SVGs are somewhat degraded in quality, particluarly for the knight and bishop. Double sharp (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Update of Periodic table by article value
Hi, thanks for your update! One question why is Barium, Lead and Bismuth in the Mid Quality range? --Stone (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I based the table on the June 2012 statuses. I didn't use July's, because we don't have a complete month of page views for that month yet. Double sharp (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * right after I asked I thought about that too.--Stone (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Re predictions sections
I left a long edit summary about my worries on the predicted hexafluorides. These edit summaries can sound weird depending on one's mood. So let me explain, beginning with a thank-you for your excellent and careful contributions. This debate is healthy for us all.

Basically, I think that sections on "predictions" are a form of synthesis and/or original research. I can see the appeal to adding such (they are fun to write), but it opens the door to increasingly risky assessments and prognostications by editors, which is a dangerous direction that leads editors away from facts. Already, I have shown that the term hexafluoride is far broader than intended by those minding this article, and now one would need to add all sorts of predictions about predicted hexafluoride anions and cations, things like [M2F6]2-, etc.

One guideline, mine at least, is that a article on a chemical concept should not be in Wikipedia unless the topic is the focus o a major review or book. (compounds are different - their notability is easily measured and we now have thousands of articles on individual compounds). That is my complaint about hexafluoride itself. It is a topic that was synthesized by well intentioned editors who had a certain scope in mind (but were doing WP:SYNTHESIS) but once they launched the article, others (me) showed that the topic is far broader than intended.

Similarly with predictions, IMHO. You could imagine that some eager editor could add predicted XYZ near the end of many articles and, if they had the time and resources, they could certainly find sources to support the predictions (hence the beauty of WP:SECONDARY - it disciplines us all). One thing that you probably know is that theoretical chemists write papers on all manner of compounds and shapes and charges. Good and essential stuff in research, but those papers contain a lot of hyperspecialized ideas that should not be cited to support predictions.

Well enough rambling, I wanted to explain and soften my comments. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Argh...I wrote the predictions section. :-( Yes, you're definitely right. Do you think that section should be deleted? Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
' Ankh '. Morpork  19:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

cube/octahedron hybrid vs octahedron
Hi,

I put up a citation tag on "cuboctahedron" in the Regular polytope article. Explanation on the talk page at cube/octahedron hybrid vs octahedron. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21
Hi. When you recently edited Wazir (chess), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rook and Endgame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Miscoloring?
I think you miscolored polonium on File:Periodic_table_by_article_value.PNG. StringTheory11 03:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the June statuses, since we don't have a complete month for July yet for the views. Polonium was then C. Double sharp (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Chromium(VI) fluoride
Would you please write an article about CrF5? I don't have access to some related papers. -- Makecat  Talk  09:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll probably write an article on it soon. Double sharp (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would chromium vi fluoride be CrF5?WFPM (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because chromium(VI) fluoride (CrF6) was once reported, but was later proved to be a misidentification of chromium(V) fluoride (CrF5). Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My Pauling shows 24Cr with stable oxides (and ions) at 0, 2, 3, and 6, but doesn't mention anything at 5. And you have an explanation for that?WFPM (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Greenwood & Earnshaw (1997) show +5, known in CrF5 (the only Cr(V) binary compound) and potassium tetraperoxochromate(V). Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Chinese numerals
Regarding your recent edits, I think some of them might belong under #Numbers from Buddhism. 涅槃寂靜, 阿摩羅 and 阿頼耶 certainly are Buddhist numbers. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 08:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought so too. We should break the "Numbers from Buddhism" section into large and small numbers. Double sharp (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would make sense. The Buddhist numbers aren't just large numbers, but small ones too. Both large and small numbers can fit within a section on Buddhist numbers once things shuffle around a bit. I first kind of suspected those small numbers to be Buddhist because 涅槃 means nirvana, and the other two sound like old transliterated Indian names. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 08:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

10,000 edits
Only 11 more edits to go, according to popups! StringTheory11 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you include deleted edits, then I already have 10,000. Also, if you add up all my edits (even those I made with my old usernames), then I currently (as of this edit) have 18,650 edits. :-) Double sharp (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you were right when you made that comment, then I now have 10,000 edits. :-) Double sharp (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 29 833. Keep plugging! —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI-notice Isotopes
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANI/Incidents#Index to isotope pages, moves and a deletion ended incorrect.The discussion is about the topic Index to isotope pages. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

75+1?
—Tamfang (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * U1 to U75, plus Skilling's figure. Double sharp (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

shogi variants index/summary table
The is a cool table, and some var articles definitely have the whitespace to accomodate, but, 1) I'm not sure it belongs in each var article, perhaps only in Shogi variants, w/ 'See also' in the var articles; and 2) that table is not gonna get shorter thru time, but rather (vertically) longer, & longer, & longer, & ...! Thx for consider, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a navbox version to put at the bottom of articles that can't acommodate the shogi variants table? Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like that idea. (A horizontal application will always fit, even short articles. And a bottom summary reference seems more appropriate for the individual var articles. [Would there be a way to have one central list used/picked up by two box styles? 'Cause I think the vertical application is still right for the mother article.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. It would be possible to force it, by introducing an extra parameter into shogi variants, which could take the values "vertical" (which would give the vertical template) or "horizontal" (which would give the horizonal template), but you still don't have one central list, just two templates forced into one. Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I did it (!) as a single Navbox that can be passed parm for either horizontal or vertical (I think vertical can be default, if passing null |style=; parm works like I think it will). Can you take a peek in my sandbox here? (As mentioned I think horizontal at bottom has advantage for specific var article, so all the summary data doesn't distract from article topic.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ben Yates image
Excellent find! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  12:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A metalloid barnstar! :-).
 * But hey, isn't this a cheat? Must we add another category to the periodic table? ;-) -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What does that refer to? Double sharp (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The file is named file:Working Man's Barnstar Hires.png. But hm, me having to explain it says it's not very funny then. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understood that, but the meaning of "Must we add another category to the periodic table? ;-)" was somehow lost on me. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that would add not metalloid but sort of "Working Man's Barnstar Hires" as a element category. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for explaining the joke. Double sharp (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

★
Thanks for [ fixing my typo]. Probably, it was a contamination by "dioxine". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Double sharp (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. When you recently edited Xenon hexafluororhodate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Bartlett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Berkelium
Hey there, I wrote you a review, here. Hope you'll find it useful. Don't be afraid of first sections' length: it'll take some time, but certainly not months. I got you a few tips also. Good luck--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll start working on it shortly. Double sharp (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)