User talk:Double sharp/Archive 20

Proposed deletion of File:Nitrogen electrode potentials.png


The file File:Nitrogen electrode potentials.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned in mainspace. Corresponding vector image is based off of the source of this image, not this image itself, so it is not needed for attribution."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HouseBlastertalk 15:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

"Hecatontagram" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hecatontagram and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Heptagrammic antiprism (7/2) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heptagrammic antiprism (7/2) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Heptagrammic antiprism (7/2) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Heptagrammic antiprism (7/3) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heptagrammic antiprism (7/3) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Heptagrammic antiprism (7/3) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Heptagrammic crossed-antiprism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heptagrammic crossed-antiprism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Heptagrammic crossed-antiprism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Dodecagrammic crossed-antiprism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dodecagrammic crossed-antiprism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dodecagrammic crossed-antiprism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Dodecagrammic antiprism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dodecagrammic antiprism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dodecagrammic antiprism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Dodecagrammic prism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dodecagrammic prism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dodecagrammic prism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Enneagrammic prism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enneagrammic prism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Enneagrammic prism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

♁ in astrology?
Hi DS. Do you know of any astrological sources which use ♁ for planet Earth? I've seen a fair number of astronomical (mostly old), and have seen plenty of 🜨 in both, but don't recall ever seeing ♁ in astrology (not that I'd necessarily notice if I did). — kwami (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen this either, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be astron only, then. I've asked astrolog. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I'm going by memory, and I don't think I ever looked very hard for it. But yeah, I don't think I've seen it. Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wondering whether in should be included in our list of astrol symbols (both had been removed), or given the label 'astrol.' on Wikt. — kwami (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, found a recent use of ♇ for Pluto: Boblest, Müller & Wunner (2015) Spezielle und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, p. 19. Wonder if they inherited it from something one of them wrote earlier, because although they do call Pluto a DP in the caption, it's the only DP they show. (They also have the Moon.) Notice also that, at the top of that page, they use M♁ when giving masses of the planets as multiples of Earth mass, as we might expect from a German source. — kwami (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Curium target livermorium.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Curium target livermorium.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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 ( d c̄ ) 22:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent refs for Sedna as a DP?
Sedna's up for FAR, and Renerpho's asked if there are any recent RS's of Sedna as a DP beside Grundy 2019. Did you find any? I forget where you kept your list. — kwami (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Double sharp/Dwarf planets, although all before 2019. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, found one from this year. Another few from last year: one, two, three. Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks! I was just hoping for what you already had in your collection. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Most welcome and happy editing! Volten 001 ☎ 04:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hidden template names in custom uw templates
Hi, Double sharp, and thanks for your custom uw templates (mentioned here). Can you please adjust the hidden text in these templates, so that they are traceable? For example, your uw-v1 contains, which refers to a different template. I recall tearing my hair out trying to find the origin of a subst'ed template (not one of yours) that had an inaccurate or missing hidden text element, and it drove me crazy. Having the correct name substed would be a big help. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! I've corrected them now. Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate it, and the rapid response. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Seltzer symbols
Hey. Looks like there are 3 TNO symbols by the same guy, Henry Seltzer. His Eris made it into Unicode, but he also created  Makemake and  Haumea. Solar Fire based its Makemake symbol on Seltzer's (p.c. that they didn't invent it, just took the one they liked best, though they added s.t. to the bottom, maybe a cross bar or arrow). Don't know that we want to include Seltzer's designs anywhere, just thought I should keep you up to date, though I suppose they're as notable as any non-Unicode symbols. — kwami (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Seltzer's Makemake, which IMO is attractive, might make a nice symbol for MK2, though it's pretty much an allograph of the old 8 Flora symbol [[file:Flora symbol (simple, fixed width).svg|22px]]. I don't like his Haumea, though. Feels awkward. — kwami (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Images
I think it's reasonable to include symbols for objects with upcoming space missions, like Apophis. But not a biggie either way. — kwami (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the Apophis symbol, but it's not exactly anywhere near standard enough, is it? If anyone objected to it, I honestly can't see how I could possibly argue for its inclusion in a way that respects policy here. I can argue pretty well for the dwarf-planet symbols that are about to be in Unicode, at least, so I've stuck to trying to keep those around with Unicode as the citation (e.g. Sedna). Double sharp (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  16:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Astatine and oganesson
Hi there! I hope you remember me :P I was blocked in the Turkish Wikipedia for like 6 months and I returned on February. So, I was checking both articles if there were any updates.
 * 1) I saw that you removed 295Og from the infobox, so I did the same.
 * 2) This was added to the astatine infobox, but I am not sure if it's a reliable source on this manner. Should we add this to the article too? And also you updated the phase section, which is already mentioned on the article, so it seems fine.

More possible updates than the two of them?

Please ping me when you respond. Cheers! Nanahuatl (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's reliable. The source writes By combining density functional theory and structural selection methods and accounting for relativistics physics Hermann et al. 2013 have indicated that the correct room temperature structure is the metallic form and is probably face-centered cubic (cF4) with an estimated lattice parameter of 0.539 nm (Hermann 2014) which leads to the estimated crytallographic properties given in Table 85, so it is a value founded on the latest assumption that solid At is metallic. I've put it into the article.
 * The Arblaster source has some interesting stuff, but I'll need to read it first. Not a fan of the Fr melting point value there (that's just periodic-trend extrapolation neglecting relativistic effects). Double sharp (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair to me. Then we can add the estimated molar volume value, right? Nanahuatl (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the infobox. Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A little bit late but thanks! And I see that many predicted properties of oganesson are mentioned in the infobox but not in the text: density, heats of fusion and vaporization, atomic radius etc. Since the infobox is a part of the lead section which should serve as a summary of the article, shouldn't we mention them in the text too? Nanahuatl (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's surely a lot of values commonly listed in element infoboxes that don't appear in the article. Take for example tungsten – there's heat of fusion, heat of vaporisation, molar heat capacity, vapour pressure, atomic radius, speed of sound, thermal expansion, thermal conductivity, etc., and they're all not in the article. But it's a good article. :) So I think it's more an issue to be discussed in general rather than one that's specific to Og. Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I commonly see the claim that policy requires infoboxes to be summaries of the text and to not introduce extraneous data, but that's not actually WP policy. We often have data in the infobox that are not fleshed out in the text, and as long as they're reliably referenced, WP is fine with that. This is common with topics where refs provide a lot of detail in table format, and where more than a simple mention in the info box would be of little interest. Some editors copy all that data into prose in the text, but unless there's a real chance it will be expanded into something more, that's little more than busy work. There's also the problem that the info box is more likely to be updated, so when we do that the sections of the article tend to get out of sync. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a general situation, exactly. Per Manual of Style/Lead section and Manual of Style/Infoboxes, we should mention them in the article. I don't really want to intervene to the English Wikipedia articles to be honest, but since chemistry is not my area, I'd be pleased to see a content that's added by an experienced user like you, and then add it to my local Wikipedia. Nanahuatl (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And also, I have noticed that we should remove the critical point from here since we have updated the preticted melting and boiling points. Nanahuatl (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Manual of Style/Infoboxes already says As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ISO 639 codes in and most of the parameters in. I feel like is close enough to  in spirit, and I personally don't see the point of just repeating everything as sentences "The [data] of element X is [blah]". :)
 * Removed the data from Eichler, because it seems to be based on the assumption that solid element 118 is bound mostly by van der Waals forces, contradicted by latest theorisations. Double sharp (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I will have to update element 114 now. Latest prediction says it is a semiconductor(!!). Double sharp (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Now I understand that it's really difficult to have "perfect" articles about them :D I'd also like to mention about the ionization energies of oganesson. THe first one is a prediction from a 2013 source, and the second one is from a 1975 source. At least the second one should be removed in this case, right? Nanahuatl (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good catch. I've removed the second; it's older, and the value it gives for the 1st IE is different from the 2013 one.
 * (I am still not sure if I believe that 112 is an insulator! But I'll read the 114 paper, first.) Double sharp (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another thing, is it really necessary to mention about the former boiling and melting point predictions? It looks like those values change all the time, not only for those features but for others too. So "This accurately determined melting point for oganesson is very different from the previously estimated values of 263 K or 247 K for the boiling point" part seems unnecessary to me (there are other former predictions as well, why not mentioning about them?). Nanahuatl (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the precise exact values are not needed, and have removed them. I guess the point was to stress that Og is probably not a gas at STP like most people used to think, but the next sentence already says that. :) Double sharp (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we add the electron affinity value per here? It's the "calculated" value, not "predicted" value I assume. Nanahuatl (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This article also mentions some related values. Nanahuatl (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And for the density, this source says "6.6 for the liquid phase" and "7.4 for the solid phase". And in the infobox, you put "6.6–7.4", but 6.6 is not for the room temperature. I think we should change that part as "7.2-8.126", as the source says. What do you say? Nanahuatl (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Density fixed in infobox. :) As for electron affinity, I've asked at WP:REX for the second article you linked. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added the ionisation potentials and electron affinities to the Og article. I've also updated the Fl article. :) Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Asteroid
Hey, I saw the great work you did for a Planet FAR! If you are interested, I'm trying to bring Asteroid article to GA, and I'd appreciate if you can look through it. Artem.G (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but Planet itself has already turned into a whole lot of work! I'll see what I can do, time permitting, but it may not be too much. Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! And no pressure, of course :) Artem.G (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

New Saturnian moon names
Sheppard recently updated his list of Saturnian moons to include some of the new names chosen from the 2019 contest. Too bad some of the moons haven't been followed up and numbered, so there won't be any formal announcement any time soon. I guess he's had enough waiting :) Nrco0e (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice! I guess we can add them as proposed names to the articles with this source, but not move them yet. Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you help with the pronunciations? :) Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a start on the moons of Saturn table, but I'd only take them as tentative yet. Maybe tomorrow I can dig into them more deeply. (Please ping me again if you need to.) We're probably going to have to go by analogy with existing names for a lot of them. There's also the question of whether we want an approximation of Old Norse, e.g. where 'g' is reconstructed as /g/ whereas a more current pronunciation might be /j/. — kwami (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I dunno, in English we traditionally pronounce Greek names in some ways like Modern Greek (theta, phi) and in some ways like Ancient Greek (beta, gamma, delta). Is there a tradition on how to pronounce Old Norse mythological names in English? I personally try to read the not-so-famous ones as Icelandic, as the closest living language, but somehow I don't see many people agreeing to read Kári as "cowrie". :) Double sharp (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Greek is assimilated through Latin as source of loans, Norse isn't. It would be interesting if we could find a pronunciation guide for Norse mythology that provided English pronunciations rather than just an attempt at approximating some 'authentic' pronunciation, but I don't know if there is such a thing. — kwami (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems these names are on NASA-JPL now. Double sharp (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And USGS, so I guess we can move the pages. Double sharp (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, here's the confirmation that they are official. Dated 24 August 2022. Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I moved them all and updated some lists and tables. Double sharp (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI date of Pluto monogram on NASA site
NASA posted this table of planetary symbols, including Pluto, in 2018. However, Commons has an Afrikaans translation, file:Alle_simbole.jpg, that was uploaded in 2005 and attributed to NASA. I don't know if they supplied the original URL, because the file history was deleted when it was moved to Commons, but regardless it appears to predate the 2006 IAU ruling. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Uploaded [[file:Mercury transit symbol.svg|32px]] and [[file:Venus transit symbol.svg|32px]], in case you have any use for them. — kwami (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I like them but wonder how exactly they can be justified for en.wp inclusion if the one source I'm aware they occur in is self-published. I reinstated and then re-removed Apophis for exactly that reason. :(
 * I'd also like the remaining three Moskowitz TNO symbols (since at least that Unicode document references them and notes that some independent use exists). But "personal communication" for Latin Salacia raises obvious WP:V questions. Double sharp (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * These are iconic enough there's little originality -- just Venus and Mercury crossing the Sun, which anyone could've come up with if they wanted to illustrate the event schematically, which is the kind of thing ppl do on WP all the time. Apophis and Varuna are creative symbols, and so quite different IMO. — kwami (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good argument! I'm not sure having a huge icon on the page is necessary, but I can see using it in tables here, then. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Free to move it somewhere less intrusive. I didn't see a good place.
 * (I didn't want to specify a size in px, as that overrides user prefs, but we could have upright=0.5 instead.) — kwami (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, upright=0.5 looks alright to me. Reinstated them. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is obscure! and not legible at small size: [[file:Earth transit symbol.svg|32px]]
 * A transit of Jupiter would look good, but there's probably no point. — kwami (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We used to have articles for every transit combination of the big 8, but they were deleted. They all exist on Chinese Wikipedia, so I guess other wikis might want to use them. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 木星凌日. — kwami (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks! :) Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For 天王星凌日 (海王星), would the platinum symbol be better? I didn't want it to get confused with Mars. — kwami (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess both variants make sense. If Uranus is being referred to with the platinum symbol in a work, then I'd expect a platinum symbol when it's transiting too. Ditto for the H+o symbol. Anyway, the angle of the arrow should differentiate it from Mars already. Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. I created both, and linked the files as variants. I can't get Neptune to look good, but again no need. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But the problem with the platinum symbol is that it looks a bit like a Phobos transit, [[file:Phobos transit symbol.svg|32px]]. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I found a Mariner Jupiter-Saturn patch. Not sure if it's original or a recreation, but if the latter it's a close copy so they don't own the copyright. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Uploaded Seltzer's Haumea and Makemake symbols, to go with the Eris down-arrow symbol. They're not particularly notable, but then his Eris symbol's not that notable either, apart from getting into Unicode. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * With Stenzel's (nearly an anagram of Seltzer!) adaption of alt Pallas for 93 Minerva, got two more moons: aegis symbol (fixed width).svg Aegis and Gorgoneion symbol (fixed width).svg Gorgoneion. Plus Emma symbol (fixed width).svg for 283 Emma, seemingly the largest asteroid remaining. (Steltzer hasn't proposed a symbol.) — kwami (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I modified Fides to have solid dots on the arms. (You might need to refresh cache.) How's that? — kwami (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better. Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Just in case you don't have pings enabled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"Huygens (chess piece)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Huygens (chess piece) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. (notifying you because you were involved in the AfD a while back) ChromaTK (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

2019 article "Wohin mit dem f-Block"
On User:Double sharp/Group 3 sources you are asking for a copy of 10.1002/nadc.20194086536. I have access to this through the Wikipedia Library and have downloaded the .pdf. I can email it to you but the on-Wiki system doesn't allow attachments. So, if you would like it, go to my User Page and use "Email this user" to send me your own email address (note that you have to explicitly add it to the text of the message, as the system otherwise keeps it confidential) and I'll send it to you directly. Regards. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sent you an email. :) Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ... On its way. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record (if you were curious about it), it doesn't take a side: it says that IUPAC and GDCh have 15-element f-block rows, but that both La and Lu have a claim to be d-elements because they're d1s2, and that there is a controversy. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of World Chess Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tripoli.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Pinging you since you did comment on the second FAC, in case you have suggestions for resolving the issues noted there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Spanish orthography
The page needs to be protected: edit war. Burzuchius (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me, but I'm not an admin. I've requested it at WP:RFPP. Double sharp (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Though I have been editing Wikipedia for already 10 years, I did not know about the page WP:RFPP. Burzuchius (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was declined. Double sharp (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Double sharp/Group 3 sources
Re "Smith (1927) (still looking for a fulltext)", here it is:


 * Smith JDM 1927, "CCLXVII.—The electronic structure of atoms. Part I. The periodic classification", Journal of the Chemical Society (Resumed), pp. 2029–2038,

Sandbh (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! :D Double sharp (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Some more interesting relativistic chemistry predictions
Still a preprint, but this predicts that E119 might achieve +5 (e.g., in $119\text{F}_6^-$, which might resemble group 15 compounds) and E120 might achieve +6, and these high-valence states could even be possible for Fr and Ra! Complex / Rational 21:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've previously seen a draft of this paper thanks to ; nice to see it as a preprint. I've added the conclusions to the articles on Fr (as a prediction), 119, and 120. As for Ra, since that could be investigated for real and it's probably not going to be just RaF6 (will probably need special ligands, and they don't say what those should be), I left it out for that slightly more practical radioelement. :)
 * I don't think this really means periodicity ends: after all, the same sorts of anomalies are expected in the 7s and 8s elements, which are congeners. After all, the noble gases go up from 0 to +2 to +8 in maximum oxidation state as we go from Ar to Kr to Xe, so the core-valence distinction is also shifting within the well-known area of the PT to some extent. The reason why the trends go "alkali metal to noble gas" is that the s orbitals are usually more similar in energy to the next n + ℓ group, per V. N. Ostrovsky 1981 (and also mentioned in Ostrovsky 2001), whereas the others bunch up with the correct n + ℓ group: so we have mixture of (6s 4f 5d 6p) from lanthanum to ytterbium, for example, and not (4f 5d 6p 7s). So it seems that relativistic effects correct this little exception and muddy the periodic divide a bit, but that's quite like how Hg is a kind of pseudo-noble gas. For the "end of periodicity", I'd rather look towards what happens after 120, where blocks and filling orders are so mixed that they become very formal (well, they may make sense again at 157–172); we really do need more calculations there. :) Double sharp (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this might interest you too. :) Double sharp (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, even D4d-symmetric [CsF8]– should be metastable :) Droog Andrey (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I put it in mostly because it's a referenced prediction, but it just seems too high an oxidation state for me to believe. I think maybe 119(III) is more plausible than 119(V), since 1st and 2nd ionisation energies predicted for 119 at molar ionisation energies of the elements are somewhat comparable to Mc, but I won't be surprised if it's extremely oxidising like Ag(III). There's still some predictions of Nh(III) at nihonium, but at least it remarks that they're all probably highly unstable (except maybe and very-maybe ). :) I have seen some articles that suggest Fr and Ra 6p valence involvement might be possible, but without too-high oxidation states: one (FrO2; superoxide of course), two (RaF2), three (RaAt2). All with the same first author, though. Double sharp (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I archived this, but: now I really want a rerun of the RaF2 computations to see if the authors are right that 6d really cannot explain it. Double sharp (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There's also been an interesting conference program from this year (go to p. 4 for the SHE stuff). Sadly, only titles. I did find an abstract for another Sakai talk with the same title, though. Double sharp (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Brown's "Dice-nomia" pronunciation
Do we have any refs for this, either verbal or sound/video? Some of our old refs are dead. asking on my talk page. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Found this 2011 talk by Mike Brown where he pronounces Dysnomia just like the footnote. Problem solved now! Nrco0e (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, glad to hear that it's been settled before I saw this. :) Do we have any source for the assertion in Dysnomia's infobox that it's tidally locked to Eris? I mean, it's obviously quite likely, but has it been observationally confirmed?
 * Since this recent investigation suggests Dysnomia's density is high, perhaps we should add it back to the planemo-moon lists. Double sharp (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added Dysnomia to the planemo-moon lists. Now it's a bit of an awkward blank in the tables at Planet, because Eris never got a one-letter abbreviation, but that's not so important.
 * P.S. The density given at 's page is different from the one given at List of Solar System objects by size. Double sharp (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The latest ref concludes that D and E are in mutually synchronous orbit, because the new rotational figure for E is 16 days and they doubt it could be coincidence. Density figures are from what would be required for gravitational dissipation of E's rotation. — kwami (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * AZ84's density in the list is unref'd. — kwami (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added it to tidal locking as a double tidal lock (like Pluto-Charon). Also made D the 20th planemo moon throughout (or at least as far as I could tell), because with such a high density, it's surely solid.
 * Now I really want an Eris probe... Double sharp (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * AZ84's density had been adjusted to fit the radius we used; I changed it to the ref. On its page I added Johnston Archive's radius and density, and the masses calc'd from both sources. But with such low densities, it's not going to be in HE, so the assumption used by the occultation ref is invalid. — kwami (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Should we change it to the Johnston Archive's value at List of possible dwarf planets too? Double sharp (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably. I don't know how recent their data is though. — kwami (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like we made the changes together. :) Double sharp (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to label Dysnomia in the tables at Planet? Since Eris doesn't really have a one-letter abbreviation (it'd collide with Earth). Double sharp (talk) 01:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ⯰1. — kwami (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. For consistency I've relabelled everyone else with symbols (using bident for Pluto as DP, per the NASA poster). Double sharp (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm used to seeing them with roman numerals (JI, JII, etc.). Does that make any difference? And while I personally like ⯓ over ♇, in small print it's difficult to distinguish ⯓1 from ♆1. It might be easier to keep it the way it was and leave the abbreviation for Eris I blank. — kwami (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen both Roman and Arabic numerals for this. John S. Lewis' Physics and Chemistry of the Solar System uses Roman without space as you wrote, but it's possible to find older sources with Arabic numerals (e.g. here). I admit that I've not really seen Arabic numerals combined with planetary symbols. Did we ever even find a case of things like "♃ IV" for Callisto, anyway?
 * Anyway, I've swapped the Pluto symbol (bident to monogram). I wouldn't mind reverting to the initial letters, but then we don't really state whose satellite Dysnomia is in the table. Double sharp (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find anything like "♃IV", but that's not something that works well with search engines. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suspected. If it's been used, then I'd think that looking in 19th-century almanacs, books, and papers would be a good start. I have no idea where to start, but we might run across an occurrence while trying to find something else. Double sharp (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The closest I recall seeing is the Kirkhill Astronomical Pillar. — kwami (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Eris's axial tilt
If they're mutually tidally locked, wouldn't the axial tilt have to be perpendicular to the plane of Dysnomia's orbit? — kwami (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you should probably ask who made the change at List of planemos. I just propagated that change to make Planet consistent. :) Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ixion
Saw your edit summary that "we now know it's smaller." Is that relevant to Tancredi et al. concluding it was a DP, or was their conclusion based more on light-curve data? — kwami (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I just made a change for grammar: previously it gave an old estimated large size and said that that "would make it larger than the dwarf planet Ceres and comparable in size to Charon", but since we know it's not big anymore, I changed it to "would have made it larger than...". Tancredi used ~450 km diameter as the limit on the low end, so not relevant for accepting or dismissing Ixion. It would be relevant for Huya, which he accepted (but I see we already mention that at 38628 Huya). Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox group redesign
Could you take an early look at this?

Infobox periodic table group (eg ) needs a redesign. I am working on:
 * Use infobox, not a brick wikitable (responsive, better mobile view; or an other, more tabular infobox form)
 * Only add group-related data, and present that useful (visual overview of group properties; keep IB small)
 * In article body, add a Data Table (~standard for all 18), or ==Data Sheet==

 has example groups, both IB and Group Table. I'd like to hear first comments (before I post these in WT:ELEM). For now, it is about data design not spelling details. The data split is a tough issue. DePiep (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What I see looks very good! I'm quite busy for the rest of today, so more detailed feedback may have to wait till tomorrow. One thing I might change are the black and grey boxes for the groups: they look like a 0th row of the PT showing elements before hydrogen. So maybe they should be something other than boxes, maybe filled and unfilled circles.
 * Is "shell filling" following the Janet table? If so, then I'd give an advance warning for group 18: Ne and beyond are p6, but He is s2. All other groups have just one value of this. Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, right. Actually these boxes are new since yesterday. btw, we can take weeks. The big plan is 2y old. DePiep (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We could use a good plan on what to put in the infobox for the member elements. Image is less relevant (except for halogens) but catchy. What about: period, Z, symbol, name, (boring), elconfig (imo the most interesting, showing the group pattern!). -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For this same reason (pattern visible in column), I'd like to show the relation (simply by columnising) between these:
 * No. of electrons/shell
 * Electron configuration
 * This same could also be helpful in regualt element infobox. -DePiep (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I like those ideas. Perhaps for the clear periodic trends (and their relevance for a lot of chemistry), covalent radius and ionisation energy could be included as two sample properties showing periodicity down the group; but unlike elconfig, they aren't actually defining.
 * Columnising that relation may be difficult – scandium has configuration [Ar]3d14s2, but by shell that's 2, 8, 9, 2. The 9 in the third shell comes from summing 1 electron in 3d with 6 in 3p and 2 in 3s, but those aren't obvious because they're in the argon core.
 * Personally, I think only the subshell count configuration is important (e.g. [Xe]4f145d106s1 for Au, not "2, 8, 18, 32, 18, 1"). That's because the last "18" there mixes core (5s and 5p) and valence (5d) electrons, when only the valence electrons matter for the groups. Greenwood & Earnshaw only give the subshell count. I think the table at Group 3 element is good, showing the analogous configurations, though IMO the valence shells should be bolded. So scandium [Ar] 3d1 4s2, Y yttrium [Kr] 4d1 5s2, Lu lutetium [Xe] 4f14 5d1 6s2, Lr lawrencium [Rn] 5f14 6d0 7s2 7p1. Perhaps the Madelung anomalies (like Lr) should be highlighted, though perhaps not since it doesn't make a difference for chemistry (and it would be a bit odd for group 11, where the majority have a Madelung anomaly!). Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Regular pattern (I like it in the data page), then the exceptions. Graphic Challenge! We could start with a crude form (to have a better infobox asap). Of course, the Group Data Table is available too for these. (Personally, I was glad to see the config trend pattern in a wallsize PT). I will study this. DePiep (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of my post to Template talk:Periodic table: Difference between revisions
Double sharp, consistent with WP:BRD, I write in connection with your revert of my post to Template talk:Periodic table.

I posted my comments, as an opinion, in response to your immediately preceding post. WP:NPOV also comes to mind.

Presuming I am entitled to express my opinion on this talk page, as you were, I seek your agreement to reverting your revert.

I ask you to please give my request careful thought as I feel your revert was hasty and not well-considered.

thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have considered it. IMHO I would rather not fragment the discussion on multiple pages, so I have not restored your comment. For consistency, I have also removed mine from November 2022. Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

O2
ffs stop doing content discussions on usertalkpages. also stop giving oxygen to obvious personal smearing attacks by making it discussable or however. DePiep (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Organoargon chemistry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Organoargon chemistry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Organoargon chemistry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Fram (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Jupiter moons
Hi, can you update the other articles that mention or list Jupiter's moon count? Two new moons of Jupiter were just announced today, bringing the total to 82. Thanks! Nrco0e (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! I'm currently on my phone, so the big ones like the discovery timeline will have to wait a little, but I'll update some easy ones I find first. :) Double sharp (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the new moons to List of natural satellites and Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. The former possibly needs more updates: Jupiter LIV was listed as being three times its latest known size, and S/2003 J 24 had a diameter–radius confusion. Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

 * Thank you! Best wishes to you too! Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Small complex rhombicosidodecahedron for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Small complex rhombicosidodecahedron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Small complex rhombicosidodecahedron until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Energy eigenvalues superheavy.png


The file File:Energy eigenvalues superheavy.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused, superseded by File:Energy eigenvalues superheavy.svg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 05:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Double sharp. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ADouble_sharp granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Heptagrammic prism


The article Heptagrammic prism has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "(as an alternative to WP:G14). Nominated consistent with Heptagrammic antiprism. 'Heptagrammic' is not mentioned at Prism"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the deletions for both the prism and antiprism pages (in fact, since the pages being disambiguated have been deleted, they appear to be clear-cut G14 cases). Double sharp (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Double sharp!


Happy New Year! Double sharp, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Double sharp!


Happy New Year! Double sharp, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 05:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 05:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

FY27's moon
As something to look forward to in the new year, you might want to keep an eye out for this. Could be interesting, since we don't have many data points in that size range. — kwami (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed! Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Size
Hi,

The page now has reached 200+ kb. As a 2023 resolution, I propose that you aim to reduce this big time, while leaving a FA. It could be a WP:SPLIT of group 3 issue (into a dedicated article?), or parts of the atomic model?

Anyway, there is a need, and time. (But just think of what it would be if I were to do this ...) DePiep (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of this is markup and references: readable prose size is actually only 79 kB (12907 words). Per WP:SIZERULE, this falls under Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material). Personally, I think that the periodic law and table is so central to chemistry that this makes some sense. I think the main place where it could stand cutting is the "Periodic trends" section, which gives many examples – but even then, AR/IE/EA/valence/EN are extremely standard to give in introductory books, and metallicity is necessary to make sense of why categorisation is not simple (which is also mentioned). I have treated it in somewhat more detail than texts usually do, but this is mostly because the usual simplifications simplify things beyond the point of accuracy (hence the notes about how atomic radii vary in d and f elements). Maybe it is unnecessary to talk about categorisation (section 4), but this is common enough that I feel like if we don't have this short section, readers will start asking about it. Group 3 is pretty much all just in two sections: Periodic table (for the variation), and Periodic table (where it appears as part of the history of sorting out where exactly the rare earths went). It does not appear to be treated at too great a length.
 * Though I'd appreciate 's opinion on length too. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no option chosen (yet), and I certainly don't want to cut every-fifth-word. It's just: this size is too big to be convincing encyclopedic article buildup. And there is time to step back three feet or one meter to glance at due weights, relative that is. (Must say, your mentioning "Periodic trends" to cut, as a first even, ... is triggering me; you did that on purpose did you not ;-) ?). DePiep (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From a quick glance, maybe the history section can be condensed and some content split? For instance, the subsection Electron shells is as long as, if not longer than, the corresponding section in History of the periodic table. I don't have issues with the current length, especially considering that there aren't significant expansions to be done. Complex / Rational  20:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, condensing history seems reasonable to me. In fact I originally had condensed it even more, but it then got expanded again by others: if memory serves, the original version that I wrote only mentioned Mendeleev, not Meyer or Newlands. Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I only came to this talkpage to note an issue softly & early, just to start the thinking. For actual discussion with consequences, we'll have to go to WT:ELEMENTS. Probably some useful posts from here be c/p into there then. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, we're just throwing out ideas for now. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)