User talk:R8R/Archive 3

F talk page
Hey, I manually archived a lot of the old talk (that was resolved). Left everything where there was a to do. Some of the items still remaining are things where we had reccommendations and decided not to follow them (e.g. some of the hidden comments). Will leave them on talk so there can be discussion. If no interest, will eventually archive those also. No big deal and still working my way down the article, first.TCO (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, that is a good thing, thanks for telling me and not just making me face the fact and wonder about rationale.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm done for today
If you want to mess with the article, feel free. I will be out today. Of course if you are working on studies, earning money, or social life...that is preferable!

TCO (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

On break

 * Hey Russki. I really don't mean to make your life harder with this "is he here or not", but I think I may need to tone down my time on Wiki (take a break).  I find it a time suck and would be better off working out or doing paid work or just organizing my life and getting health and all.


 * The place is so massive and unfinished that it sucks you in to want to fix it all. I really don't know how to disengage as finishing everything (fluorine, the subarticles, my project to upload and organize all de re metallica images) is like a lot of work.  And there's always stubs that need starting, new ideas to try for pictures, a featured list on fluorite production by country [with new data and charts and graphs to make them think about alternate structures...not just some rote formatting brushup and get a star], etc.


 * I really think I should just take a break. The bottom line is no one is paying me so they don't love/need me that much.  And I could be doing things to help people in the real world instead of this faux academic work on the Internet.


 * Anyhow, you are a kind soul and thank you for the friendliness.TCO (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * P.s. I don't think it is critical to GA the subarticles, but if you want to, that's great.  I would probably try to constrain it to just eliminating inconsistencies between the subarticles and the main article, as well as a very light formatting brushup.  The former of those does a real service to the readers.  But I would not go down the rathole of fully developing and fleshing out those articles (lets say to FA standards), its just too much research.  Do that if you ever want to FA them though.  As it is, they already show some extra work above just writing a summary main article.TCO (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)}}


 * Real life goes first. Wiki is kinda hobby, a pseudoscientific, pseudosocial one. Go improve your life and don't feel bad...this place won't die.
 * If you ever read this, you taught me a lot. Thank you, and also, just do what you want.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh. I GAN'd them all. :-P Will work on Origin and occurrence of fluorine soon (intended today, but it looks like it will be postponed one more day to tomorrow :-
 * Ah, fluorine, when willst thou get FA? Thou hast worked way too long on it already and still.
 * Oh yeah, and on those profuse numbers of citation needed tags: they are a complete eyesore, and that is good. Because it actually gets people to, you know, fix them, perhaps?! :-) rather than just assume they are cited? Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

alkali metal
at this rate will probably soon need Chemistry of the alkali metals subarticle? Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * >152K! yay! Double sharp (talk) 06:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'll actually finish the history and etymology sections first BEFORE I start a large-scale moving of content. :-) After all, it is something people want to know! Double sharp (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * +1--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

hassium
I finally got around to starting to act on your comments. :-) so far: nucleosynthesis nuked, doing natural occurrence first (it looked easiest lol)

feel free to continue, I'm running out of easy parts ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ (srsly, even if you do, I will still do the rest of it naturally, but...yeah, I really want to know what you think about the rest. you probably know how I am more interested in superheavy chemistry than synthesis, which is why I'm more interested in what you think for that (though of course will not ignore your comments for the physics)!) Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * oh, and sorry about bothering you with this at the moment (hope you don't mind) since I can see you're not very active at all at the moment, but your comments are just SO GREAT :-) that I'd rather you continue than get someone else!!! (though I did ask for a PR for 117, just so that SOMEONE can go through all the nits and we can actually work on them and some people will not make such a big fuss at FAC2).


 * (btw, planning to finish up astatine after you're finally done with fluorine? because if not then I will try to do it for you)


 * p.s. my unusually lazy capitalization here should be taken as a sign that I also have a severe lack of time at the moment. ok not at the MOMENT, more of in general, I'm just frenzy-ing this particular week (and will probably pay for it :-( :-( :-(, but at least some stuff will have improved.)


 * p.p.s. now starting to think that 113-118 are more interesting than 104-112 chemically, the lighter SHEs don't really do anything unexpected or terribly interesting (Hs as the somewhat shining exception). Stupid predictable elements. *starts sulking and planning an article on element 164* Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't mind that, I check my watchlist sometimes. I just dealt with tough things IRL, and made a decisive change in my life. Everything's okay now, so I now have time :)
 * Good to know you do this stuff, yeah, this element is like, interesting, more than its neighbors (although I would say this is because of its physics, not chem). Indeed, I'm flattered! About terms for further review. In around a week, I'm going to an Internet-less place. I'll make some screenshots and write a review then, since I have a lot of free time there, and in two weeks or so I'll be back with a review. Okay for you?
 * About 117. I'm glad you did this not because you want to play w/o me. That one should be easy; I approve this. I'll watch the review. Also, tell me when you feel like another FAC, okay?
 * I won't be discussing SHEs at ELEM talkpage, but generally, that's understandable :) This curiosity is essentially what drives the whole science, so... keep it on.


 * P.S. I always thought missing caps meant being too lazy to press Shift, since cells do capitalize letters after a period :) (I practically neglect the key when I use social networks)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem about Hs.
 * Forgot to switch keyboard from Cyrillic to Latin? :-) Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * that was intended to say "doesn't say this directly; whatever", right? Double sharp (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Is there a program that converts texts written using the Russian keyboard to as if the same keys were pressed, but with English layout on? (Come to think of this, it would be useful)
 * Also, re astatine (sorry, I forgot about this question when writing my first answer). Yes, thereafter I would love to FA it, but I don't mind a collaboration (actually, that could be super awesome given I will experience a significant lack of time since September). If you start working on it, I'll probably take part as well. Otherwise, I'll wait for fluorine. (Oh, I'll need to get back deep into it, so I'm not sure when this happens. Hopefully soon enough.)

definite articles
Does Russian have definite articles (like English "the")? If not, it would explain a lot of the mistakes still on Copernicium :-). Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, no articles at all. (Yeah, some of my older prose seems even to me very poor, I hope someone can fix it up over time. I hope I can master the language a little better now, though my English is still far from perfect).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't worry...you are indeed improving :-) Double sharp (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

history sections
This is really not my best point, and I tend to have trouble writing it, but I tried to write a properly interesting and dramatic history section at Flerovium... Double sharp (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll check out someday soon.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * and yeah, I'm well aware that the current nuclear properties section is horrible. I will rewrite it soon. Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So, as I see, you're serious about it? Do you want to GA it or FA it?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't originally mean to be serious about it, but yeah, why not. It is one of the most interesting 7p SHEs after all. (And if I'm going to do this, 115 and 116 do not get enough love. 115 got confirmed independently recently, looks like Russia will have moscovium :-))
 * (Tangent about 115: if Russia does get moscovium, what will IUPAC do about 113? Because if they recognize 115, then they have to recognize its decay product 113. Though the Japanese 113 data is seriously solid and as it stands could already fulfill the discovery criteria. What will happen? Shared credit perhaps? And does anyone speculate about this? I mean, the decay chains of everything except 118 has anchors to otherwise known isotopes...) Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a thing: Fl is interesting. I was just asking. Actually, I think you could FA it relatively easy (won't be that difficult after you promote Hs). I fairly believe FAing it would make 115 and 116 easier for whoever else. Like, some time ago, all our lanthanide article were the same, just with varying figures, because someone wrote one of those and worked on others to match the structure. I mean, eventually some new editors will love to write FAs, which will be easier when you have an example to follow (which'll be very helpful). It's a unknown-term investment. Maybe none will buy it, so I don't insist.
 * I haven't been watching the topic closely lately, but yeah. Yeah, shared credit seems like an easy way out. None will complain (you are recognized, be noble, they worked hard as well), I believe. Also, they're not fighting for money (in some way, they are, but if you get the credit, any proportion, the states will grant money if they can), at least they practically can't take away money from others. (Because, say, if they give the credits to Russia and only Russia, our state will probably give them money less reluctantly for new Russian projects; if they give the credits to Russia and Japan, our state will still probably give them money less reluctantly for new projects, and I suspect no less than if they did it alone; but the Japanese will get some money from their government as well. No expect at this, though, I just think this is how it probably is. Ask an expert to be sure.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh. I have a rather pessimistic view about such long-term investments. Nobody has laid hands on those articles since 2006 or so, and I don't see that changing immediately! :-) But you do have a point there.
 * (BTW, in case you're wondering, iron FA is still something I would love to do sometime. I know Au was previously suggested, but hey, Fe is one of the most important metals to us, both inside and outside the body, whereas Au is just pretty :-P) Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. just curious: is redirected becquerelium for element 113 just random OR, or did the folks at JINR seriously consider that? (but that's kinda unlikely, don't they think it's bad karma to discuss naming in advance?) Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That won't change immediately, but when we show we can actually write SHE FAs w/o Nucleosynthesis sections when even we have enough material for those, then maybe, over time... now, it requires a more or less acknowledged editor like you, and the barrier to entry can be lowered. Someday, this'll pay off.
 * Me too (I'm mostly thinking about aluminum, though, but we can take any important metal). But F first. Actually, would you wanna work on F (say, after 117 FA), so we finish it sooner? I can be so busy it'll take an eternity with me alone.
 * I couldn't trace that name to anything. But I can tell you, during the 117 experiment, an American scientist described the naming question as a question everyone was thinking of a lot, but none brought up not to split the team on anything, including this very question before they actually synthesize it. The French have a sweet idiom for that (which we borrowed), "don't sell the bear's skin before one has caught the bear," that was the feeling.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling that Drjezza was looking at the SHEs from primarily the physicist's perspective while we are looking more from a chemist's perspective. :-) Double sharp (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. should we kick nucleosynthesis out of GAs Mt–113 and near-GA Bh? Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Flerovium has a decent History section. No major problems. Although, I still insist on adding an Intro section (I'll help when I find time), and some intro info from Pre-discovery will be there. For now, though, pretty good. Re nucleosynthesis. In general, yes, we can kick'em out, I don't think we're losing anything.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot Rf! I took nucleosynthesis out of Bh and all the GAs. I left them in No, Lr, Db, and Sg because those are so bad that they are frankly better currently with nucleosynthesis than without. The bot will come fix the orphaned refs soon. Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that sometime later I shall have to go back through all these older GAs and expand on history. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A good decision.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

still wondering after the Čerenkov/Cherenkov incident
What's your preferred romanization of Russian? Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm translating this name (Черенков) into English, so, if possible, I should try to use only the letters English already has. Because, say, some monolingual person would not know how to read this letter. Especially given it's from Czech? Croatian? Polish? Anyway, not a very popular language.


 * If this Cherenkov was an actual (say) Czech, so in his native language it would be with that ticked C (a Latin letter), then it's best to leave it unaltered. For some reason, you don't change the writing of names if you translate from one Latin-based language to another.


 * But since you're changing a writing system here (Cherenkov was Russian, Russian is Cyrillic-based), I'd stick to the rules of the language you're translating into (English). Which has no ticked C.


 * If I was translating this into Czech, I would definitely use that letter, since it's completely normal in Czech.


 * Tl;dr Cherenkov is more accessible to monolinguals and seems more natural in English.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * (P.S. In Cyrillic-based languages, you normally try to match the pronunciation when you translate, not the way it's written. Dunno why. Maybe because this is much easier in our languages, when one sound mostly corresponds to one letter, unlike say, English (ch, sh, ng, etc.) or German (ch, sch, tsch, etc.). Maybe because Latin-based languages are more closely integrated. I don't know.)


 * P.P.S. I'm unfamiliar with rules for exotic languages, like Mongol, so the text above has to do only with European languages.


 * Yeah, it's a Czech and Croatian letter. In Czech he's called "Pavel Alexejevič Čerenkov", just as I wrote before you told me not to, because apparently scientific translation of Russian is based on Czech and Croatian. I tended to use it but replacing "ë" with "jo" (yo) and "x" with "h" (kha). But now I think I would change j to y and all the haceks to following h's, like in English. Any ideas for what I should use for э? (Scientific transliteration uses è, but now I want to avoid all accents.) Double sharp (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(Oh, and for sounds that have no good English approximation, diacritics are a good idea so that English speakers know that something's up and they have to find out how to pronounce it. Preferably these diacritics should correspond to something English speakers have a generally high awareness of such as French, German, or Spanish, though this is very often not possible for exotic languages!) Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I use e for both е and э. Actually, э is a closer match for the Latin e, but somehow (maybe because of the same letter shape) е (Cyr) is often used in loanwords from French/German/English for the sounds э normally represents (компьютер). е (Cyr) is ye after vowels and signs (hard sign, soft sign), and e (Latin) after consonants, with the being actually softened (compare low (hard) vs. lean (soft)).

I wouldn't use diacritics not present in a language you're translating to. Maybe you would go check out what sound this is, but most people don't. I've seen a very cool blog recently, where one of the new Moscow-Metro scheme designers, aside from drawing the scheme itself, also discussed with his colleagues how to transliterate the station names (you need to do that because of tourists, businessmen, and other foreigners unfamiliar with our script who are still in need to use the scheme...well, it should be clear to you), and at some point the best thing would be to try their versions on native speakers. When they tried diacritics, barely anyone notices something fishy is going on, they just read it as normal letters. (And I'm telling you what, some of those complicated codings are just ugly to my eye, and probably unreadable to native script users)

ы is tricky (which is the reason it is in my last name maybe). So I just do the same thing as with my foreign passport, which also don't use diacritics, guess why (because people at customs, foreign police, etc. need to be able to read that correctly), I use an y. i is also fine by me. Maybe it's even better, maybe not, dunno. Besides, for Russian, you can easily do without diacritics. (I'll you you what, when I saw French alphabet two weeks ago, I didn't not how to pronounce some letters)

Seriously, I would avoid that as long as possible.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. (Starts eschewing diacritics throughout transliterations from Russian.) I should stop assuming that people will care about diacritics, really. Listen to all those American manglings of Polish names... Double sharp (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Boric acid
Hi. I hope you remember helping me with Russian sources for the articles on Klechkowsky and Usanovich. This time I have a question about boric acid, where another editor has recently cited a Russian article. It does have an English translation which I have read, but it has limited information and cites three other Russian sources for more information which might be helpful. Please see Talk:Boric acid for details on the questions, and it would probably be better to reply there so that the information will be available to all editors interested in boric acid. Dirac66 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Make group 12 poor metals
You are invited to comment on this suggestion (Zn, Cd, Hg → poor metal; Cn → only predicted; 113 → predicted transition metal) at WT:ELEM Double sharp (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Debates on nucleosynthesis section
It appears that my actions have started a debate at Talk:Meitnerium. Since you first had those strong views, you might want to pop in. Oh, and I hope you don't mind if I quote or reuse your original arguments. :-) Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to quote whatever I say, you don't need a permission for that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, you say right things about them goals. But before you're onto it, finish an FA of yours. (Wish I had more time for that...)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Uurrrgghhh, at the rate I work on them it'll probably take another few years. :-P I'll try to do another edit-spam on alkali metal and come to Hs and Fl. But you will probably have to wait till late next month for it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I read through the TWG paper
on the discovery of the elements Z = 101–109 (mentioned but did not support claims for 110–112 yet). I get the feeling that the Dubna group was under-credited. IMHO looking at it the results should have been: 101 Berkeley, 102 Dubna, 103 Dubna, 104 Dubna, 105 Dubna, 106 Dubna, 107 Dubna, 108 Dubna, 109 Darmstadt, (110 Darmstadt, 111 Darmstadt, 112 Darmstadt), looking at how they awarded credit for 114 and 116! Double sharp (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I had that impression as well, but I thought it was just patriotism inside of me.
 * Maybe politics played a role. (It looks like it did for 104-106, who would ever share the credit between two unconnected teams, with one succeeding a year after another?) And 108, as for the article, it says, the Soviet team did it and repeated it before the Germans did... either the article isn't right or politics played a role again. Cold War, remember? It was finally over only 10 years ago. Before that, Russians were really mistreated in anything, such as sports, etc. Not everybody was unfair, but it was common.
 * (In some sense, it still isn't over, but that's more of Putin's fault, with state-run channels accusing America of thinking in terms of the Cold War, with our country almost always provoking shit. Minus Obama. He's represented as just a weak leader ruled by Jews, gays, or whoever else is world's evil today (both). I vote against him and this shit, on my part. And during the war, even when America kicked European communists (who were elected) out of their parliaments, we were just as bad, if not worse (I don't want to leave an impression I'm blind patriot, which I'm not. Both parties were really bad guys.) That heat (take Munich '72 as an example) cooled down only in early 2000s... it's still hot in some regions (that "no inch eastwards" NATO part)) What I'm talikng about is, I would easily expect a '97 paper to be biased. (Even today, Russia promotes Gagarin and the U.S. promotes Armstrong as a "man of the space," Russia claims it was the most important country for the WWII victory and the U.S. says it was, etc. so biases are still alive today, they've simply shifted from worldwide to regional. Things were different in '97... I was very young at that point, but I remember that national paradigm shift after Putin's reign started, and soon the same happened in the West, for some part at least, as I can say today)
 * Or maybe I'm just talking nonsense and we misunderstand the point. Sorry then. I haven't seen that paper. Don't take this as a viewpoint, just as information to think about (Politics is just easier to brag about. I really haven't seen the paper).

F peer review
R8r, I have started a peer review for Fluorine.98.117.75.177 (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Very impressive, with all of those people you've called for the party (I watch some of them). The top 3 of Elements articles is amazing: 166 edits Fluorine, 15 edits Sulfidation, 9 edits Magnesium. All those thing you and other people are doing... I have no time (RL) to help it, but I really am amused.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. So far the only other article I've ever seen reach such ridiculous (>100) edit levels is alkali metal (last year? the year before?). Congratulations. Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

extreme oxidation states: tetroxides
Hi, I found some recent reports by Domanov (sometimes et al.) on unstable FeO4, PuO4, CmO4(!!!). 2002 PuO4, tentative; PuO4, presents as sure. Believing in FeO4, but in 2002: what did Riedel say about it? (The link's dead; all I remember that he was rather strongly against Fe(VIII).) This year, CmO4! (They reported CmO3 earlier, but at least Cm(VI) was previously known as .) I wonder how this will turn out? Should I add it? Double sharp (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair they do mark it as uncertain, though the fact that they're willing to make such claims at all instead of dismiss it as a lower oxidation state does make me believe them more...I added Cm(VI) and Cm(VIII). Cm(VI) looks pretty certain as it is not the first report of that state (though it is the first of the trioxide) and has homologues in AnO3 (An = U–Am) that aren't from them. Cm(VIII) is based on comparison with Pu(VIII), which they synthesized themselves, though it's interesting to note that nobody has contradicted them.Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. RhO4 is probably coming Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nobody has proven their results either (that is, that proves nothing...maybe they had no impact). Although, cool, yeah, I'd wait for confirmation (could be very interesting when it is proven)
 * The most useful thing to do now, in my opinion, would be to try to summarize all of this and put it in maybe a separate section in oxidation state.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool about rhodium, Riedel will surely have a say. Check out Riedel's website, by the way, some publication names are there (easy to google)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I read a few more papers – most seem to take the claims seriously and believe in Pu(VIII), even if not PuO4 specifically. So I would keep mentioning that state as unstable. Also speculated is beta decay of forming.
 * CmO3 – I have not seen anyone else's paper on this. Nevertheless in 1978 was synthesized in aqueous solution reportedly; their mechanism (beta decay of 242Am) seems plausible. I would trust it: Haire is very neutral about it and doesn't dismiss it out of hand and theory predicts Cm(VI) to be more stable than Am(VI). And the reason why it's not made from oxidation of Cm(III) and Cm(IV) makes sense (Cm(V) very unstable, high IP). Besides it's old and in 1985 the same Russians taking about PuO4 treat Cm(VI) as confirmed. I would trust it.
 * CmO4 is way too new and I have not seen any responses. Just because it behaves like PuO4 supposedly does is not strong enough IMO especially when people are still debating over the existence of PuO4. In its favour Cm(VIII) is predicted to be more stable than Am(VIII), but that's not saying much since Np(VII), Pu(VII) and Am(VII) are already very unstable. Besides they only advance it as a possibility, in contrast with CmO3 and PuO4 being thought of as sure.
 * Net, net: I would write Pu(VIII) and Cm(VI) as the highest known oxidation states. Cm(VIII) is too new and not certain enough. Though we can by all means mention it, I'm just not altogether comfortable with making it a standard value. Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speaking of high oxidation states that get replaced by alternative more plausible interpretations: Pr(V) was claimed until around 1940s (?; I'm not sure exactly when. Langmuir claims it in his oxidation state pic, I've seen it in a rather old Bagnall-style-typeset book) to explain the non-trivalent Pr compounds. Now we know it is just Pr(IV).
 * (Actually, yeah, now I'm wondering: what is it that stops Pr from forming Pr5+ and the f0 configuration? Ce can form Ce4+, after all...) Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As for actinides: tell readers the whole story, a para per article just as you wrote to me should be just fine (both a interesting piece of text and letting the reader make conclusions... I'm not 100% sure if it's been seen, but whatever, just explaining this possibly controversial moment will be the best... it's a good reader for some people who appreciate it anyway. And maybe we get a lengthy comment on the talkpage in 10 years... :)


 * As for Pr(V): Ce(IV) and Pr(V) are maybe like Mn(VII) and Fe(VIII), I wouldn't ask, "Ce(IV) exists, where's my Pr(V)?". I guess (n-2)f electrons are too deep. I actually find this question interesting and tried to look for the answer some time ago. I didn't find a serious answer (a paper on that or a book mentioning that), but I think I saw a few claims of Pr(V) compounds in Soviet literature of sixties, but you know, a lot of claims were made then, not all got proven since because of unreliable methods used back then. Or my memory serves me wrong (I'm pretty sure it did happen, but I noticed my memory lies to me when it comes to events distant in time).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This might be helpful in explaining the behaviour of the 4f electrons in the lanthanides. Double sharp (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly how I imagined it if the paper is right. In either case, I would prefer a paper talking about Pr(V) as about a main investigation object, but I'm not sure if such a paper exists :( --R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I found this old 1950 book. See chapter VIII on the lanthanides (p.101+). But it's rather skeptical about Pr(V), which was then suggested. It does believe in Re(−1) in Re−, that turned out to be (I wonder how that idea survived for so long?). Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts on group 3
I've been thinking about it yet again. ;-)

It is a really tough decision. Group 3 certainly acts like a main group in that its elements almost exclusively form the +3 state. The choice of Sc/Y/Lu/Lr is closer to the transition metal groups; that of Sc/Y/La/Ac is closer to the main groups (specifically 1 and 2). As you know I was originally a Sc/Y/La/Ac proponent; you and Jensen may have converted me, but that's not going to stop me from reëxamining the matter!

I'm beginning to feel that the group actually bifurcates into 3A (Sc/Y/La/Ac) and 3B (Sc/Y/Lu/Lr), just like how group 2 bifurcates into 2A (Be/Mg/Ca/Sr/Ba/Ra) and 2B (Be/Mg/Zn/Cd/Hg/Cn). Parallels may be drawn with how the d- and f-block insertions in 2B cause kinks in the trend in density there, whereas the absence of them at 2A cause a smooth trend in melting point like you have in group 1; similarly the f-block insertion in 3B causes some trends to go wrong (e.g. density) and some to go right (e.g. melting point). I may make a huge table like I did at group 12 element to illustrate this.

Jensen's main argument for choosing 3B as the real group 3 is that group 3 should be counted as part of the transition metals. This is not a universal definition, and I do not agree with it because of their distinct physical and chemical properties: I consider the transition metals to only span groups 4–11 (4–7 early; 8–10 middle; 11 late). And while 3B fits the trends better in groups 4–10, 11 bucks some of the trends, and 3A shows a kinship with 1 and 2A.

I'm not too sure where B and Al fit into this. Maybe there are two bifurcations, into 3 (B/Al/Sc) and 3' (B/Al/Ga), and then into 3A (B/Al/Sc/Y/La) and 3B (B/Al/Sc/Y/Lu)? Off to do some more reading on the matter. Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have an opinion, promise to write something later on--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As promised.


 * Group 3 certainly acts like a main group... yeah. Same is true for group 4. (Funny diacritics, by the way. I thought only snobbish NY Times writers of all English speakers used these :)


 * Bifurcates? Depends on your viewpoint. I remember seeing a 80 years old PT sketch, with all eight groups being shown as bifurcating (that's a funny word), between periods 3 and 4, and 18 groups doing the same thing between periods 5 and 6. I can't find it now (but a search made me want a new geeky tie. Seriously, the argument is just as good for group 4.


 * "I consider the transition metals to only span groups 4–11." This is the funniest part. The fun is, "transition metals" are just two word, a term you assign a meaning to. And people assign it different meanings to it. (Thinking about this makes me wanna listen this song over and over, especially the first two lines.) The funniest thing is, people often don't notice a difference. Remember HgF4 synthesis and the pretentious title of that article, "Mercury Is Now a Transition Metal: Bla Bla Bla"? And then Jensen came up and told them it didn't make Hg a TM. This happened because they were thinking of different definitions of TMs. I like to think of TMs being equal to d-block because if you throw away Y through Cd, Sr-In is an okay transition to me, but a new whole cycle rolls in, (Y thru Cd), so they are all in this transition, see my point? They tell you a whole story that suits in but kinda can be removed (2Sr-(3Y-4Zr-5-6-7-8-...-1-2Cd)-3In), the Y--Cd sequence can be cut off and the story still sounds okay. (same works for f-block. this is basically why I think Lu is in the d block. But what is d block anyway? It is a matter of discussion) But that is my point of view on what this term should mean. As you see, there are at least two different ones and I would not be pretending mine is the best (the best one can't exist). Just consider this. Take a wider look on things.


 * It's also funny that the related term "lanthanides" could've affect this battle. Lanthanide, or lanthanoid was meant to mean "lanthanum-like," and many editors decided to use this term for elements 58 through 71 around forties or fifties (lanthanum is not lanthanum-like! It is exactly lanthanum!). And this was maybe when the term "f-block" and "lanthanides" began to share a meaning. The version "Lu is a d-block element" arose some ~30 years later as a prominent one. Okay, that's just a guess, but I'm pretty sure some secondary research could prove it right. So if you have a spare weekend... :)


 * I hope my true argumentation re La/Lu/group 3 and TMs is not disappointing, I used the best of my primitive language. Sandbh would be mad at me, because it's my impression. But whatever. There can't be a right thing until (almost) all people start to think about TMs in the same way. The best real-life analogy I can produce is grammar. Produce or produze? The first version is "right," because people are used to this. If usage ratio changes, the "right" spelling can be "produze." Or "produkjkcwdkjcbdjbckcksejcvwcce". This is how a language works. And so do any scientific classifications.


 * Also, re PTs we discuss. I don't want a "right" one (there is no such thing), I want the least controversial one (among readers, not editors).


 * About the diacritics thing (diëreses), I mainly do it because I don't want to waste a character on a hyphen and because the digraph "ee" has a typical meaning in English that "eë" avoids. I know this usage is dying a painless death...
 * Ehh. Chemically I would say that group 4 acts like a main group. Physically I am not sure. Sc, Y, La, and Ac are all soft and reactive metals with typically high melting points (that continue the in-period trend up from groups 1 and 2 pretty well, and also fall going down the group like groups 1 and 2). And they all have electrons relatively far from the nucleus like groups 1 and 2. Lu and Lr have electrons held closer and thus Lu behaves more like a transition metal physically (Lr is predicted to be like Lu). Sc, Y, and Lu are reactive but form stable oxide layers like Mg and Al; La and Ac's oxide layers are only somewhat effective in preventing corrosion temporarily. OTOH Ti, Zr, and Hf are all hard and refactory with high melting points and the oxide layers are all stable and they are all similar (no clear trend going down them).
 * Hmm...if you think of bifurcating groups, then you have a sequence Rb, Sr/Cd, Y/In, Sn, Sb, Te, I, Xe. The story still sounds OK, just not as neat. But hey, if putting multiple elements in the same slot is good enough for Mendeleev (cf. the iron triad and the platinum group metals), it's good enough for me :-P
 * I personally consider it this way and think it's a good definition. What I am not suggesting is that it's the only or best version. I'm sure all the 3–11 and 3–12 people have their good reasons, like you do – it's just that I think mine are more convincing :-P
 * And, well, putting group 12 in the transition metals is a 50-50 thing. So we really don't have much choice but to choose. The same with Sc/Y/La/Ac vs. Sc/Y/Lu/Lr. (P.S. The Haire book on the actinides uses the former but still calls Ac an actinide and La a lanthanide.) Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (P.S. and the group 4 elements have other common and stable oxidation states besides +4, most notably +3 in Ti and Zr. In this state they exhibit more transition-metal-like behaviour, while the group 3 elements don't exhibit a lower oxidation state that's actually stable in aqueous solution. Granted Sc(II) exists stably, but only as salts like CsScCl3, not in aqueous solution, and there is Sc–Sc bonding involved, so I would treat this more like Ga(II).) Double sharp (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I know what diacritics are for (I've stumbled on one extra point over "i" in "naive" a few times, and at some point I checked what was going on :)

I know about Ti(III), but can you name a few examples for Zr(III)? Zr(III) actually reduces water (says Greenwood)... not so stable. But I don't know what counts (is Hg a TM? ;)

Okay, you must be right about physical properties. Some graphs in Greenwood's book also show your point nicely.

re Haire. Of course, it's a recent book. Check some books of seventies.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, was not so clear about it. Zr(III) reduces water (so does Ti(II)). But then ZrCl3 exists and is stable and water-soluble, that's more what I was thinking of. To my mind the fact that that's a stable binary compound is significant: the only stable low oxidation state among group 3 is Sc(II), and even that is not as easily prepared as Zr(III) (which can be prepared by simply reducing ZrCl4 with Zr metal). Hf(III) is just the trihalides. They reduce water, but they're stable in the solid state as simple salts. And Sm(II) and Yb(II) reduce water too, yet no one denies that they are important parts of the chemistry of those lanthanides. ;-)
 * P.S. Greenwood admits that there are arguments for classifying Sc etc. as not transition metals. But they than go on to deny that it works for Ti etc. And it also uses Sc/Y/La/Ac, though claiming that La and Ac are not lanthanides and actinides (1st and 2nd editions). Even Haire first edition (OK, I guess that's Seaborg, not Haire) uses Sc/Y/La/Ac, but includes Ac as an actinide. This is from 1954. Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Late P.P.S: It occurs to me that classifying Ac as not an actinide makes more sense than classifying La as not a lanthanide, because the actinides are destabilized and thus have greater variety in oxidation states, while the lanthanides are not. But nobody really does that except Greenwood, I think. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

I just realized the problem with writing too many superheavy element articles
You begin to have "predicted" overload, and sooner or later when you raise such elements as examples you forget to include it (because you figure that it's implicit), and soon the questions start coming ;-) Double sharp (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We already get complaints, there'll be no perfect way out. Also, superheavies aren't all that impornant when it comes to a whole table IMO. I'll be okay with them colored however you (or anyone) want.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are not too many of them in the standard table, and the ones that are there are relatively uncontroversial. We can start worrying about the more controversial ones in a few centuries. ;-) (I'm not actually sure when, of course, but current technology can't go past 119 and 120. Increasing detector sensitivity is only going to bring you a little further out. So I feel confident in declaring that we won't get past the superactinides (E155) this century. Let's enjoy our complete all-periods-filled-completely periodic table while it lasts!)
 * (It gets funny though when you find properties that are actually known experimentally, like Cn's boiling point!) Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If they're already thinking about making Cn is microgram quantities, then probably element (say) 125 is also reachable. Let's hope they'll come up with a way to synthesize it :)
 * Cn bp data is a dissapoitment. With their error margin, we can't even say for sure if it is going to be a gas or a solid/liquid.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, the Fr problem all over again...I suppose it's understandable due to extreme radioactivity. The paper was published in 2008: hopefully they're planning more experiments to nail down the b.p. further.
 * The problem I see with reaching E125 is that if we keep going on the line of nuclei we've discovered, the half-lives are getting way too short. I think around here we need to finally stop running away from the problem of how to add more neutrons. Radioactive ion beams, quasifission reactions – there must be some solution.
 * (P.S. It seems that the b.p. data was calculated from the measured volatility. So, not quite micrograms yet, I guess.) Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the microgram method has not been tried and relies on a new technology (I saw it somewhere on the Internet in a .ppt presentation by some (don't remember which) research facility). It also promised progress in new SHE discoveries (at least 120 should be easy enough), because it could be a way to handle the problem. It was in a 2012 (maybe 2011, but not earlier) presentation, where it was claimed to be a new method.
 * Yes, but they could say that from the very beginning (it was clear enough) and do whatever else, but they wouldn't. You know why :)--R8R (talk 16:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Vote: Group 3 metals; group 12 as poor metals

 * Should our 18-column periodic table show lutetium and lawrencium under scandium and yttrium, instead of all the lanthanides and actinides?
 * Should scandium, yttrium and the lanthanides together be coloured as rare earth metals?
 * Should zinc, cadmium and mercury be taken out of the transition metals element category and placed as poor metals?

As a member of WikiProject Elements, you are invited to comment and vote here. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK problems: help
Hi. Now I know this is probably not really something you'd be terribly interested in, but I just created Symphony, D. 708a (Schubert) and am really struggling trying to create a non-lame DYK hook. (I settled for one on Way of the Knight last year and felt terrible about it, especially after hearing what you said about how en.wiki's DYK sucks and realizing that I wasn't really helping.) Because I can't think of much else interesting about it except that it was abandoned because of orchestration problems. Ugh. Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I expanded the thing. What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's become a lot better (really, a lot). I'll give it another thought. I've made a small correction in the lead, please correct me if I've made a mistake.--R8R (talk 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The numbering scheme for Schubert's symphonies is a total mess – No. 7 has meant D.708a, D.729, D.759 and D.944 at varying times. en.wiki uses the convention where No. 7 is D.729 as that's what you'll usually find in English-language sources. The situation is different in German sources, where apparently there is so much confusion that de.wiki doesn't even provide numbers, just nicknames and keys.
 * TL;DR: I think it can stand this way. We can discuss the screwed-up numbering system on a page dealing with Schubert's symphonies. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think the article is reasonably complete now. Comments, please? (I'm still thinking of possible hooks.) Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Fluorine
If you see some edits, it's me having a go at copy editing this article. I see it's been to FAC three times. The content looks like it's all there. Just needs some work on the prose, in my view. Sandbh (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's actually two FACs, the first one wasn't treated like a real one. Nonetheless, thank you, for both copyedit efforts and pleasant feedback. I hope to find some time for it in the third decade of the month, but there's little hope--R8R (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I'll continue this thread on the Fluorine talk page. Sandbh (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's ready for FAC! Shall one of us nominate it? Sandbh (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

more Russian romanization silliness
In English articles on Russian music, you are likely to find ы transliterated as ї for some reason. Personally, I'll stick with y. (i might be better, but it's already being used for и.) And after thinking about it, ye seems better for е than Latin e. This frees up Latin e for э.

(BTW, what's up with ъ = ie in 2013 ICAO passport romanization?!? I don't see how that works.) Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have never seen ы transliterated as ï. This is confusing, don't do that yourself. I wouldn't get it. As for me, it adds some Ukrainian accent into a word (Україна, Київ are Ukrainian for "Ukraine" and "Kiev," correspondingly). Please use "y". "i" is also acceptable.
 * Re Cyrillic е: depends. After vowels and both hard and soft signs, it sounds like йэ, and I would transliterate it as such ("ye"). After consonants in Russian words, it softens the previous consonant and sounds like э (it is normally transliterated as "ye" as well, so American or British accent in Russian features that mispronunciation, but if we used just "e", it would be not so great either. Would sound like Turkish accent to me :). After consonants in Western European-borrowed words, it just sounds like э, so is normally transliterated as "e", a practice that should be continued.
 * Re ъ: I don't know. That is not useful for writing. Actually, the letter is just a rudiment in the language. Before 1917, it was used in the end of every word ending with a hard consonant. Now it is very rare. In many regions, it's even pronounced like ь now. In a century, it will die and be replaced with ь, for happiness and joy of everyone, and you will use "y" then (yogurt, this kind of "y"). (In 1964, they tried to remove it, but it was a part of a reform that contained other questionable points and people are normally very conservative when it comes to their language.) I would be using "y" without waiting that to happen.--R8R (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ye is tricky. It's kinda context-dependent. I'm still thinking that it should be "ye" whenever it more accurately reflects the actual pronunciation, though.
 * Our WP article says "The consonant before the hard sign often becomes somewhat softened (palatalized) due to the following iotation. As a result, in the twentieth century there were occasional proposals to eliminate the hard sign altogether, and replace it with the soft sign ь, which always marks the softening of a consonant. However, in part because the degree of softening before ъ is not uniform, these proposals were never implemented. The hard sign ъ is written after both native and borrowed prefixes. In recent years, it has sometimes been seen in borrowed words before the letter и, to mark a greater separation of the constituent syllables. Such written usage has not yet been formally codified". Although if it's there to separate the consonant from the iotated vowel, the fact that the consonant still gets palatalized makes me think that it's not serving any useful purpose. Double sharp (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Per my experience, the hard sign does sometimes soften the consonant, but not always. In Rostov-na-Donu, where I was born, and surrounding regions, including Krasnodar and near-border Sochi, it softens the consonant very often, if not always. In Moscow, where I live now, it does so very occasionally. In St. Petersburg, it almost never does. (In St.P., the soft sign is also often ignored at the end of words, especially by older people). As for me, I only pronounce some borrowings in that way. The difference in actual speech is not as great as you might think (they way most people pronounce it, of course exceptions apply), so it doesn't sound strikingly wrong.


 * The correct version (per grammar books) would be to never soften the consonant.


 * Actually, you've made me read about reforms planed in the language after the 1918 reform (I was surprised there was another successful reform in 1964). As you maybe noticed, the difference between the so-called "literature language" and how people actually speak (and write). Given that, I could accept most 1964 rules. Sigh. Whatever.--R8R (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid FAC
Hi R8R

I've renominated it here. A few people watching this time: John; Dirac66; 99of9. Should be good I hope. Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

on 6d electrons being used for chem in the 7p elements
I finally found a source. Apparently it's only 113 and Fl: while 113's +2, +3, and +5 states should be quite stable (the last only in ), apparently Fl's +4 and +6 (really!) would only be stable in fluorides (FlO2 and FlH4 would spontaneously decompose.

There's even an old study by Jørgensen and Haissinsky predicting the Fl would behave like an alkaline earth metal: Fricke sounds sceptical already in 1974, noting that it's very far from Keller's results. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I've read the part of the Fricke '74 paper that discusses this. Note the +6 state is not said to exist, it just might exist: "Thus, one cannot exclude the possibility that a volatile hexafluoride might form." (Which I would reflect in the article of flerovium, if I were you.) Still, it's interesting, given that already the +4 state won't be easy to reach; but we can't draw a conclusion whether it exists or not. Still, there's a lot of time to pass before anyone can check this experimentally (or at least write a more up-to-date document :) --R8R (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote it as just potential/possible, although I accidentally forgot to do so in the part I copy-pasted and changed from ununtrium, which I've corrected. Double sharp (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, do you have any advice on how I should write on the nuclear properties of flerovium? That's the last section I need before I put in a GAN. Double sharp (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. Have a look at how I wrote the Ununseptium section and the Ununoctium section I based it on. Because really, that's what someone would want to read. Rewrite what you have now to make it more readable to a normal person not aware of these nucleus shells and stuff, without trying to cut the subsection into subsubsections. Let's look at the current flerovium section and analyze what info we have today would be useful for that.


 * Chronology of isotope discovery -- of what the notability is this? why not mention every time they made at least a single nucleus of Fl? What does it add? If it adds anything important, you need sources for each isotope. Even if you have them (but I think it's reasonable to give up now), then it's still a better idea to have it as a side table. It's not too monumentally important.


 * Retracted isotopes -- well, that's more of a history thing, and it's not notable there, therefore for sure not notable here.


 * Nuclear isomerism -- Bwah. Sure, it does have its facts, but they're a close detail and this is an overview article.


 * Decay characteristics -- theory supports reality? really? (The second sentence, I don't mind having it. See if you need it after the rewriting.)


 * In search for the island of stability: 298Fl -- this is good and notable, just polish the prose and remove too much text (keep in mind average readers). This might (or might not) deserve its separate subsubsection, you'll see after you rewrite the thing (but all of the other text goes straight under the subheader, with no subsubheaders).


 * Evidence for Z = 114 closed proton shell -- merge with the above


 * Difficulty of synthesis of 298Fl -- deserves a mention in the section you got after merging the two above, but not more.


 * After that, add introductory info, see first para of the element 118 article. That's how I would write it having normal people in mind. This is not a super-specialized article, so that's how I would do it, and that's my advice.


 * Also: we had a talk at WT:ELEM about such article titles (element 118 vs ununoctium), and the first version was adored (but then I suddenly disappeared from Wiki (and uni) for a few months and could not do what I wanted to). Now would you help me make such titles real, and, after that, get the through MOS if I tell you the details?--R8R (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I started a new thread on WT:ELEM. Maybe we should do an WP:RM for 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 127 (I think that's all the unnamed elements articles we have: maybe 125 is notable though, I did find a paper discussing chemistry e.g. +6 as main oxidation state) to get more feedback from non-project members, though. It should be stressed there, I think, that we are not proposing to suppress the existence of names such as "ununtrium" until the element gets named; we just want to make "element 113" the main name, with "ununtrium" listed as an alternative in the lede. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 121, 122, 124, 126, 127 no longer have articles: they've been merged into extended periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Back in August 2013, when I was thinking about how to accomplish this, I thought that a good idea would be to accent mainly on the island of stability, and get rid of the rest. Then I would mention Fl's significant position in the middle, the approach to the island, the difficulty of getting to 298Fl, etc., etc. We appear to agree; always a good sign. :-) Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

IUPAC report on SHE chemistry
Do you know where I can find the promised Part II (to cover Bh and Hs) of this? Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As for me, I haven't seen it. Moreover, I'm not sure it exists. At least, the IUPAC site doesn't have it (at least, I was unable to find it).--R8R (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither have I. I don't know if it was ever written: I think I searched all over the IUPAC site for it two years ago. Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

neptunium
I'd like to take it to FA later: do you have any comments? Double sharp (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, but right now I've got too little time on my hands plus an FAC which may inflame at any time. But if you contact me once again in August, when the FAC is over, I'll see if I can help (actually, I hope I won't forget myself, but do that just to be sure).--R8R (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

alkali metal
I finally started the history section. :-P Doing so also alerted me that I forgot to mention Cu, Ag, and Au under "Other similar substances", so I've rectified that omission (this is seen in the group IB in 8-column tables).

(Is there a name analogous to pnictides, chalcogenides, and halides for the group 14 elements?)

Previously the "Characteristics" section seemed heavily bloated, so I split it up. Now the sections seem more even.

I've also removed the headers under "Discovery". Next step will be to check how Greenwood does it, as you suggested, and see where the term "alkali metal" fits in. After the discovery, doesn't it spread somewhat into productions and applications? Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I checked how Greenwood does it: Na+K, Li, Rb+Cs, Fr. So I structured in that way. Not sure where "alkali metal" fits in, though: I don't even know who came up with the term. I merged it into the paragraph on top, though.
 * Also mentioned Mendeleev's group IA/IB. Maybe I went too much into Cu/Ag/Au, those should perhaps go into the "other similar substances", but it is there now. Important thing is that the medium-long form tears IA and IB far apart. I also mentioned Mendeleev's indecisiveness about whether to have a IB, or put those in VIII in "other similar substances". But maybe this is more for group 11. Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked the section briefly. Seems mostly fine, even though I would suggest placing the periodic table info between Rb+Cs and Fr, to keep things in chronological order.

After 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev proposed his periodic table -- You don't mention the difference between IA and IB before you talk about them (not even what they are), otherwise copper group info in that section is fine, I think.

I haven't noticed any other mistakes too bad after a brief look.

Also, I wouldn't even use the name "pnictogen" too often, it's not too heavily used (compare: "halogen" is extremely common). I can say that when talking to you, because you would understand me, and vice versa. But in a normal text... heavily depends on context.--R8R (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Better? Talked about IA and IB when the Cu group is first mentioned. Though I'm not sure if I'm right, I think it's to parallel with the prominence of the +1 state in the Li and Cu groups, right?
 * Placed PT info between Rb/Cs and Fr. Also placed Döbereiner chronologically, between Li and Rb/Cs. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pnictogen is obscure (it's not in my autocorrect, and neither is chalcogen, though halogen is), but after a certain point it gets tiring calling them group 15 element compounds or nitrogen group compounds (and the latter is ambiguous) and pnictide has greater specificity (i.e. P4O10 and K3P are both group 15 element compounds, but only the latter is a pnictide). Maybe this is a lame reason, though. I really should explain what pnictogen and chalcogen mean first in the article, but I'm still thinking of a good place to do so. Argh. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Do-see-do (F FAC4)
You live in Germany, I live in Singapore. Two very opposite ends of the world, in other words. Which gives me this idea for fluorine's FAC4: every day I resolve some issues and leave the others, you fix these unresolved issues and leave some for me, cycle repeats. and the other members of WT:ELEM can only facilitate this process. Parcly  Taxel  01:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a plan I can agree with; let's do it.--R8R (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * R8R, I thought you lived in Moscow? Double sharp (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I live in Moscow; it's, however, still in Europe, so it's not a too great mistake.--R8R (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You asked me why you were to blame for the refs on F? Well it's because you and Sandbh were the two principal ref-finders for the article. But alas, no consistency check was performed, so we have all the ref issues to fix. Parcly  Taxel  05:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your technical move request for high-numbered elements
Please see Talk:Ununtrium. I converted your technical request into a full move discussion due to a guess that this may be controversial. It is helpful that some discussion has already occurred at WT:ELEM but I didn't notice any closure there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Lanthanides' +3 state
(Postscript to above)

Fricke and Waber in their 1971 paper writes on p.438: "...in lanthanum, a d-electronic state is occupied before the 4f shell starts to fill. But although the atomic configuration of most other lanthanides is pure 4fn6s2, they form mainly trivalent ions because in the +2 ionization state, the configuration is 4fn−15d and the 5d electron can readily be oxidized." A simple explanation if there ever was one! :-) Double sharp (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

From rereading Fricke's paper
The way he describes E164 as a noble metal and compares it with Pd and Pt, compares the 7d transition metals to the groups two before the ones he places them (he calls E157 a IIIB element but places it in VB, and so forth), and how he says chemically E165 and E166 may be more IB and IIB than IA and IIA (the latter is suggested through physical and atomic properties), it makes me think that he could have chosen to present his table this way for a more chemical perspective:

Also, here's a cool link:. And another: Double sharp (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and one more:.

I find Indelicato's statement that E173 is the end of the periodic table odd, given that he then goes on to say that it is not known yet precisely what happens when 1s dives into the negative continuum (which happens at E173). Probably it is best to just say in WP articles that the negative continuum thing happens at E173, while noting that it's not certain if this means the end of the line for the PT.

(For a practical chemist's point of view, the PT ends at Es and Fm anyway!) Double sharp (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Mmmm. I still think the format used in the Dubna presentation is the easiest to use: 139's latest electron (i.e., the difference between electron shells of 139 and 138) is a 8p electron, so it would be the most convenient to look for it in the first 8p position. 157 is in the 8d1 position, so it all makes sense to me. (Also, I still think 171 is probably is a metalloid.) Also, can you clarify your point on 173? As I see it now, it is somewhat similar to non-Einstein thinking about what happens if you travel with the speed of light. He says, "the time stops. And you need infinite energy to do that. Oh, this is absurd and thus impossible" And everyone agreed. Opposition claiming we don't know that for sure and just saying the infinite energy thing happens at v=c is not mainstream (thus is not listened to). Correct me if I'm wrong about what you say.--R8R (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the differentiating electron for E139 vs. E138 is 8p1/2; but then you get into all sorts of cans of worms with earlier elements (differentiating electron between La and Ba is 5d, as it is for the Gd/Eu and Lu/Yb pairs! But we can't have both in the position under Y.)
 * As for E157, isn't the valence electron configuration 7d3? If so then it should behave like group 3 elements. (This agrees with what Fricke and Pershina say, but not with what Pyykkö says. But then he predicts more valence electrons, not less.) I think the problem is the proximity of the orbitals again making placement in a simple table very problematic: after all E164 should have similarities to groups 10, 12, 14, and 18!
 * On E171 being a metalloid, I'm not so sure. Fricke et al. say in one paper that (171)− is a hard base like Cl− and in another that it is a soft base like I−, IIRC. What clinched it for me was that they compared its multiplicity of oxidation states from −1 to +7 to the halogens, instead of to metals (many transition metals have similar or greater ranges, e.g. Re or Ir). But it is kind of unlikely that E170 is a PTM (they say the most common state is +6) and E171 has suddenly become a halogen. If it was like period 2 or period 3, then I'd expect E170 and maybe E169 or E168 to be more metalloidish or nonmetallic in character.
 * Walter Greiner seems mainstream (he wrote the paper with Fricke), and he says that E173 is not a limit. The 2010 RSC article even stated what he thinks happens for elements above E173, citing a book he wrote with Reinhardt in 2009: 1s would dive into the negative continuum, but things would stay bound (1s + negative-energy sea of electrons forming a bound ersonance) as long as it stays there (with some freaky things happening if it ever gets ionized, though). And if we say E173 is the last then it becomes problematic to work in Fricke and Penneman's predictions re E184 (which were restated as late as Pershina et al. 2006). From reading it, I think the jury is still out there, with some scientists on both sides. And then of course you have articles claiming that neutron stars are the real heaviest elements, and surely they have Z >> 173. :-P (That's not exactly mainstream: the previous stuff seems to be so, though.) Double sharp (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I admit not having read this lengthy reply yet, but I am making it clear I haven't forgotten about it. Will reply in a week or so.--R8R (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, now it goes.


 * The Ba/La (or Eu/Gd, or No/Lr) pair is a lot different than the 138/139 one. The former is an exception to the rule following elements follow, the latter obeys the rule and not an exception for it.


 * Okay, let's assume 157's valence config is 7d3. One would therefore expect to find it under 6d3 in the PT -- in other words, in the group we call "group 5." However, three (and not five) valence electrons in group 5 are fine. Same works for 117, for example: it is not expected to use its 7s electrons for bonding. Yes, the table after element ~164 (or even 120) doesn't look too simple. Aufbau works in a new way, a more complicated one. We'll have to have faith and work out somehow -- and I'm just telling you my way out.


 * Yes, I'm looking at the 1975 paper (the link is for easier orientating), which I read before, thee he says 171- will be much like I-. I would be grateful if you showed me the link to the other paper. Comparison to halogens is easy, given it was and is expected to be in group 17, I believe that's the reason, it tells us not too much. 170 tells us being metalloid is the most probable option for 171, too.


 * I can't find that paper, and I remember it poorly. I must admit I was like, "I'll never use that anyway, nor am I learning the basics of that edge of physics," and thus never gave it a deep thought. (Calling neutron stars nuclei, I think, fails the whole idea of a nucleus, I don't think it's right to generalize the idea that way. That seems like cheating to me.)--R8R (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is Fricke's other paper, where he compares 171− to Cl− instead.
 * Am not completely sure if +6 being 170's main oxidation state means it's a post-transition metal, also: isn't that also true for some lighter chalcogens? Po is the only chemically characterized metallic chalcogen, and for it +6 isn't a main state anymore.
 * Here's the paper that calls neutron stars nuclei. But then gravity becomes the main force, not the strong force. I would expect radically different behaviour. Unsure about the choice of Z = 1138; is that because it would be the seventeenth noble gas if the Aufbau principle held that far? Double sharp (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Oh and about Aufbau – AFAIK nobody has succeeded in deriving that rule ab initio. In K and Ca it predicts that 4s is lower in energy than 3d and hence should fill first: this is correct. But in Sc it predicts that 3d has now become the energetically favoured orbital. This is also OK, but then why are we assuming Ca's configuration of [Ar] 4s2 and adding a 3d electron to it? Shouldn't we be assuming Sc+'s configuration of [Ar] 3d1 4s1 and adding a 3d electron? In fact, why don't ALL three valence electrons just enter 3d and give [Ar] 3d3? The problem is that the energies have crossed. At Ar 4s is higher than 3d; at K and Ca the opposite is true; and at Sc it is back to 4s being higher than 3d. Relativistic ab initio methods can predict this for Sc: but it has to be done case-by-case for each Z, and to date AFAIK nobody has come up with a general rule that predicts everything. (Relativistic ab initio calculations fail to predict Cr, Ni, and Cu's anomalous configurations, if you're curious.) So I'm of the firm opinion that chemistry should be the main thing to look at, not electron configuration: placing more trust in the latter leads to absurdities like putting He with the alkaline earth metals and tearing group 10 apart (Ni is s2d8, Pd s0d10, and Pt s1d9!) I recommend this article by Scerri. Double sharp (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Postcard from Mt FAC

 * Indeed, much work. Much more than I originally expected, being new to Wiki; still, I regret nothing. The last step would be a TFA (and I will give the star to TCO, he deserves it no less than I do, even if he never sees it); after that, I can easily conclude the most interesting part of this fascinating story would be over. Thanks for sharing this moment with me.--R8R (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I should try to make something as good as that ziggurat in Autodesk Maya. Of course grats on the fluorine FA; certainly deserved, man. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Congrats for F, as well. Double sharp (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (I don't know why, but I keep reading the "Mt" in the section title as meitnerium instead of "Mount". In fact at first I was wondering when you started working on Mt! Then I realized what it meant and laughed at my funny misinterpretation.) Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (I must say I didn't get it as well until I was explained :P Yeah, that was quite clear, I'll try not to repeat that miss)
 * Thank you very much; I will later try to repeat that success--R8R (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Future plans
OK, I'll reserve Db for you.

(I did do some very preliminary research on it, and I realized this question, which I think you should probably want to answer in the article: who came up with the idea for the name "dubnium", and what's the reason for its acceptance? Neither the American (hahnium) nor Russian (nielsbohrium) proposal were used; the latter would be confusing with element 107, and the Americans already got Rf and Sg. Is this a IUPAC thing, or was it originally proposed for another element by a team, not IUPAC? Joliotium and rutherfordium were proposed by Dubna for elements 102 and 103, and IUPAC proposed flerovium for element 102.)

Re your other goals: yes, At and E117 are close, and as they are radioactive I feel more able to work with you to put in the final touches like I helped earlier with E117. Al is important: might want to ask Stone and G. C. Hood for a collaboration, who I understand wanted to GA it a short time ago.

Gold and silver are scary. I'd rather do the former, but both are OK. But I think, for this we need to get everybody to say they are willing. It can get almost too scary for one person working alone. That's the problem I kind of have with iron. Might want to ask Thingg again after I worked with them on Np. Double sharp (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip about the name (that's a good tip, really; I don't know the answer, will google sometime). But I intend to promote At and 117 first, so it would take some time before I start work on that (not to mention I don't have too much spare time).


 * I have a nice book on aluminum, which can be helpful for many aspects not related directly to chemistry (but is nice on history, uses, etc), but it's in Russian. That book also has an English edition, but I couldn't find it. It's called Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element, if you wonder. I will gladly ask them (again, thanks for the tip) if/as soon as I can find time for actual editing. (BTW, I'll have to stay away from Wiki activity for a month or so from today on.)


 * I think gold is an interesting challenge (really, I gave it a look, and there's so much to be done, I wouldn't be scared, I would be intrigued what I could make of that). If the project starts to work on it, I will try to help. At least give some tips, reviews, etc. At best, I would try to look for sources and info and do such stuff, but I'm not sure time would permit. Also, I think iron wouldn't be any more difficult than fluorine (there are just a few elements that are not okay with the normal structure, gold is one of those. Also silver. Hydrogen, helium... it's not too easy to come up with examples, as they're not numerous), except for history and maybe uses, just give it a try when you're done with your current projects. (Also, I am sympathetic about you, and want you to get your stars; as I promised, I'll review Np when I'm back (October or so; if I forget, ping me), and I hope that would help you to move towards the Np star, after getting which getting the star for alkali metal should be easier. Let me know if you need any assistance; I can't promise I'll help, but will try to.)--R8R (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't worry too much about me: I have a bronze star too! Two things are slightly unfortunate about it, though: (1) it's not an FA but an FL and (2) it's not part of WP:ELEM (it is Moons of Neptune, FYI). :-P Much of the ref infrastructure was already in place, though, and what I mostly did was add the final touches needed for FL (where the previous writer seemed to have abandoned it some years ago).
 * You give me motivation for Fe. I should start it! It would be my first nonradioactive element. :-P (Carbon doesn't count, it's a weak GA and I mostly did cleanup. Now I think it is really more of a B. To be fair it was my first GA that I did work on as opposed to just nominated. I started alkali metal earlier, but the GA came later and mostly from StringTheory11.) Double sharp (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, you have a star, but it's not like you can't try to get some other stars you have been trying to get closer to :) I've just given alkali metal another quick look, almost all, if not all, info you need is there, you only need to trim your first two sections, balance Applications, and then a quick check (not sure if a prose check if needed, I am not an expert on that) would probably lead you to a FAC (say if you need a closer look). Waiting to see that.--R8R (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I want to trim the first two sections, I just got told by Axiosaurus to expand them further. :-O I moved "periodic trends" into a subarticle periodic trends in the alkali metals, as most of this is covered in the first table and the paragraph immediately after it in condensed form. But I still think Axiosaurus has a point when they want the chemistry to be primary and the history to be secondary – it is a group noted primarily for its chemical similarities (only really rivalled by the halogens and noble gases, I think). Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutron article - help from Russian speaker needed
Hello R8R Gtrs. I wonder if you could look at the Neutron article and its talk page. The section Neutron cites a 1930 paper by Viktor Ambartsumian and Dmitri Ivanenko, and the talk page now has a big discussion about the contents of this paper. But the discussion is all by editors who cannot read Russian and are guessing what they think the paper probably says. So it would help if you could read the paper and help answer the questions which have been raised. The paper is now available on-line from footnote 21 of the article, and it is only 3 pages long. Dirac66 (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to say I had replied there. But luckily you already know :) --R8R (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

for when you next log in

 * Thanks for your kind words. It's nice to know my input was appreciated. It's been a while since I actively worked on whatever. I wish I had an opportunity to come back and spend time on editing or anything I would do just for my own amusement. And I still have stars to get :) If I am lucky, I'll get some time in late January--early February. However, things IRL may turn out to be too difficult to deal with in one take. In that case, it will have to wait until March, April, or even July. I don't know yet. RL is the top priority, and I don't how much it will take in 2015. 2014 was very harsh on me.
 * I think I need some last minute check on astatine. I'm confident it's a go, just need other editors to confirm it's still fine just in case something's been missed or anything. Then I can fix ref issues and nominate it on my arrival. Will ask for it when I think I'll come back soon.
 * But unfortunately not now.--R8R (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Shpolsky Sokolov Ternov
Hello, R8RGtrs! I have seen that you are a Russian speaker. Can you help in finding a piece of info mentioned in a classical book Atomnaia fizika by Eduard Shpolsky 1951 (which had translations in Romanian and other languages) about the radius of the electron which send to a reference analysis of the problem by Arseny Sokolov and Igor Ternov in their book Klasicheskaya teoria polia which might have an English translation.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! Sure, I'll try to help. Let me just clear it out: you want me to check if Atomnaya fizika discusses the electron radius? Okay, I seem to understand it, but what about the second book? Do you want me to check it as well, and if so, against what? (Also, are you 100% sure about the authors of that one? I can't find the book of that title written by Sokolov/Ternov, but it's easy enough to find a book of that very title by Ivanenko/Sokolov, however, it is a university student book)--R8R (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A error has occured concerning one author, indeed the second book is authored by Ivanenko and Sokolov, not by Sokolov and Ternov. Thanks for the offer to check the original Russian edition of the two books on electron radius.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Has this second book an English translation? On the other hand, I see that there is a 1955 Romanian translation of the second edition from 1951 of Klasicheskaya teoria polia available to me which begins with Chapter I The general theory of (Dirac) delta function. However Shpolski must have reffered to the first 1948 Russian edition of the book by Ivanenko and Sokolov. It is useful to check the details.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

About the status as university student book I notice from Romanian translation of the second edition that the first edition (1948) has in the preface the specification that "Through this, our book can serve -on one hand- as an addition to known courses of electrodynamics and field theory, and -on the other hand- it represents a an introduction to modern theory of elementary particles, which in its development is based on quantum mechanics."--193.231.19.53 (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 2nd edition of Atomnaya fizika has it, in the volume I dated 1949 (the volume II is dated 1951). It says (approximately), "The hypothesis stating, all of the mass of an electron is determined by its electromagnetic field, allows the calculation the so-called 'classic radius' of an electron." Then they (long story short) state the structure of an electron is not yet known (this discussion is a part of larger one, so what is not known will be explained after they find the "classic radius"), but no matter the structure, the formula defining the radius is the same, differing only by a constant number (2/3 or 4/5), so assuming it's 1, we find the "classic radius" is e^2/(mc^2)=2.8*10^(-13) cm. The books also says there is no experimental means to check this. Later the book concludes, the assumption of the electron being an electric charge contained within a sphere is not tenable because electrostatic repulsion of charge would "explode" an electron, and concludes that not all mass is determined by electromagnetism, but some of it "undoubtedly" is.


 * The book has no shown references to anything, and there's no list of those at the end of the book. The book's title page, along the author, name, and such, also says (more or less literally), "Approved by the Ministry of Higher Education of the USSR as a textbook for higher educational establishments [i.e., universities and institutes]." The other book also had this tag on its title page, hence my assumption it was a uni student book. It doesn't make the book worse or not eligible to be a citation source, or, well, anything. Students can learn from good books. Just that now you're aware.


 * I hope it is what you wanted. If not, let me know. I will examine the second book later, I don't have too much time on my hands. Hopefully on Monday or Tuesday.--R8R (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The second book has similar (although shortened) discussion on the classic radius (this book doesn't use the quotation marks for the term). In addition, it also (very quickly, compared to how the previous book held such discussions) calculates that since the field mass of an electron is mel = 2/3 * eφ0/c2 = 1.2361... * e2/(c2r0), where r0 is the effective radius. Calculations show it is ~3.5 cm. Then the book tells how nonlinear electrodynamics (used in this calculation) is superior to the standard one.


 * Okay, I think this is it. Tell me if this is what you wanted. Cheers--R8R (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I think it is useful to compare versions and translations of these books. The Romanian Shpolsky 1954 translation of the first volume says in the end of the first chapter on electron that if electron is a point particle, the self energy of the electron is infinite, on the hand, if electron is not a point-like particle, an inconsistency to the premises of the relativity theory occurs. And then a footnote on the last page of the first chapter mentions Ivanenko Sokolov Klasicheskaia .... There is also a quotation from Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-criticism about matter as objective reality. I've also browsed some pages from Ivanenko Sokolov book about electron as superficially charged electric sphere and its consequences. I must check pages.
 * I think it is important to check if there are some English translations to these books, especially to the second book. These translations in English would be very useful to a wider wikiaudience to be discussed and used as source for some wikiarticles.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad to have helped.
 * Oh, well, I just gave it a closer look, the Russian version of the book says that too. And - wow, how could I miss that - it also refers to Ivanenko/Sokolov. Lenin, I remember. But didn't mention that because that was not exactly what you'd asked for and in fact, it's more of philosophy than science.
 * If you need it, the Russian titles literally translate to "Atomic physics" and "Classical field theory," respectively. But a quick check has shown that (I found one for both, two total) English-language books refer to the original Russian books and not some translations. (Which in itself proves little, but those books aren't too easy to find in English (I've failed). But as I said, it was just a quick check). Lastly, Shpolsky's last name is often spelled Spolsky, if you need that. (I don't know why. That's reminiscent of German and it was a very widely taught language in the Soviet Union, maybe that's why.)--R8R (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer. I have understood those titles in Russian easily due to international status and similarity of those words. The only word not easy recognizable is polia which is not an international word, but has similarities in other Slavic languages. (I think Russian is an interesting language and I have some very shallow familiarity with it (and other Slavic languages like Czech and Polish) due to exposure to scientific content of books presented also in Russian like Osnovyi teoryi iadernye fiziki or Osnovyi teoryi metalov et splavov. A collaborator of mine knows Russian quite well and he used it many years ago when searching in Referativnyi Zhurnal.) I have also noticed a German 1975 translated edition of Shpolsky in which the mention of Lenin is omitted, I think undeservedly.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have also not been able to easily find an English translation of IS book which makes somewhat more difficult the use and check of it as a source here on en.wp.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll stay away from discussion of Leninism. I'm not old enough to have grown back in Soviet times, Leninism is a thing I never learned. I know a couple of things he said, and I find them interesting, but you need to know the whole story to judge it, which I don't. :)
 * If you need to know it, there was an article I brought to FAC (or GAN, or a pre-FAC peer review), and the article heavily relied on a book in Russian. I was asked if there was a way to avoid non-English books, and I said the book was great (it really was) and it had no translations into English, and I went out with that. And I should've, the rules on references say so. So, while it is great to use only references in English, it is not a strict requirement. (It's great if you knew it, but just in case you didn't, here you go)
 * Indeed, Russian is a very beautiful language. (However, I'm obviously biased on this one.) And it kinda touches to know there still are people abroad who possess some knowledge of it. But after learning German, I found German is a very very beautiful language as well. Aren't most languages when you get some actual understanding of them?
 * If you ever need more help with Russian books, just let me know.--R8R (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving another example of use of non-English sources on en.wp. I've heard about some article about Lithuania (history of Lituania I think) written predominantly with Lithuanian sources. The book by Ivanenko & Sokolov is useful as source in some articles (about electron, etc) and will (have to) be cited based on Romanian and Russian versions. In this situation the issue is how users who can't access the book in the languages mentioned to be able to check the statements in it. Perhaps we should ask feedback from a (Swedish) editor physicist like user:Ulflund to see how he can deal with the situation.
 * (About Lenin I also do not enter in the ideological issue associated with him, just wanted to say that his Materialism and Empiriocriticism is a standalone valuable philosophical and scientific product regardless of other aspects.)--193.231.19.53 (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You can find the wikipedia policy on non-english sources here: WP:NONENG. Ulflund (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Further adventures in Russian romanization
When copying a music example from a source (with lyrics), I changed the romanization scheme used as you told me some time ago that ï was confusing for ы. :-)



(From Mussorgsky's The Fair at Sorochyntsi, Act 1, no. 3) ;-) I also found a score with the original Russian text at, but it's old enough to predate the 1918 spelling reform. Hence it has forms like такъ and мнѣ, which I silently updated.

(Incidentally Romanization of Russian tells me to simply ignore the soft sign ь at the end of words, but since the usual romanization seems to be an apostrophe per Romanization of Russian, I decided to keep the apostrophe instead.) Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Good job. I had no problems reading the text, which wouldn't be the case if it had that ï in.
 * I agree with that, at least in this particular case, you were right to add the apostrophe. When it comes to how you pronounce things, which is certainly a part of what the lines under the notes are for, you should show that. It could be argued they should be dropped when the words containing ь are meant to be put into a context of English language (which affects how you should pronounce the word; also, that may be the reason why the guideline advises to drop the signs), but when you're not bound to that, I would have them in for clarity.--R8R (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks!
 * I would love to do something for the article for this opera (Сорочинская ярмарка): I heard it recently and rather like it. Unfortunately that would have to rely a lot on Russian sources, and I don't understand Russian (yet!)... :-( Double sharp (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would help you, but I still can't find as much time as I would love to. However, if you need me to read some Russian sources and look for some info therein, just let me know.--R8R (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

NONENG sources
I see that the use of non-eng sources has been mentioned here in previous section. I see that you were involved in neutron talk. I bring to your attention that the wikieditor Bdushaw is seemingly irritated by the mentioning of a non-eng book by Vonsovski in neutron magnetic moment, translation of a Russian book.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User Bdushaw unreasonably says that I'm a troblesome editor because I mentioned that source in that article and brought to his attention the relevant policy.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I checked your discussion and stepped in. You seem to be right there.

Hi! I ask your input as a native speaker about the Russian word uchenie which is contained in the original Russian title of the disputed non-eng book at neutron magnetic moment. This word is given the equivalent theory (teorie, teoria in Romanian) in Romanian translation (Teoria modernă a magnetismului). Google translate display some meanings, among them teaching as English equivalent https://translate.google.com/#ru/en/%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5.--5.15.53.245 (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The closest, literal if you wish, translation would be "teaching." Uchit, the verb from which the word uchenie stems, means "to teach."--R8R (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed something
About the proposals that existed to remove $\langleъ\rangle$ (and replace it everywhere with $\langleь\rangle$, IIRC), that would actually have been kinda convenient because that would have left exactly 32 letters in the Russian alphabet, or hexadecimal 20 (a power of 2). This would have made things cleaner for the early encodings like CP 866 and Windows-1251. Whereas if you look at the layouts for the encodings, they snipped off $\langleё\rangle$ from its position in the alphabet and stuck it somewhere else, therefore needlessly complicating sorting.

(Does the replacement of $\langleе\rangle$ for $\langleё\rangle$ happen for foreign names too, like Роберт Бёрнс? If so, does that cause any mispronunciations?)


 * I read about that reform project from either Khrushchev or very early Brezhnev era. It was aimed on making Russian easier to learn (Russian was the main language in the very ethnically diverse country of the Soviet Union; in fact, even the Russian Federation of today is still hugely diverse even if we only include native peoples and no immigrants. Plus, Russian has a quite high number of relatively minor rules so not all native speakers can write perfectly; even I sometimes make minor mistakes when I just don't remember the exact rule, even though, I believe, my Russian is pretty good).
 * While I would accept the removal of the hard sign from the alphabet (many people pronounce it as a soft sign anyway, in Moscow and south from it; that's not the case for St. Petersburg, however, and I can't tell you anything about how how they speak east from the Volga river), it was not the most radical part of the reform. It proposed to change many spellings, which were rejected for two reasons (I think): first, many of those new proposed spellings were/are considered to be errors only a small child could do, which, of course, would cause rejection from people, and, second, it would make the language look less beautiful, because, aside from the first thing, beauty is in complexity when it comes to a language. You may read any novel of a great English/American/etc. writer and see that many things make the text interesting to read aside from the plot: lexicon, grammatical tricks (tenses, for example, the "to " construction, etc.), and so on, and that shine would be partially lost because of this. Add to that people's initial resistance to reforms and conservatism and you get why it was rejected.
 * Ah, that's really familiar: the usual reaction to English spelling reform proposals are usually firm rejection, because the proposed new spellings always tend to look like misspellings. I think very small changes like abolishing $\langleъ\rangle$ might have worked, though. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We've made computers so they serve us, not the other way around :)
 * Fair enough. ;-) But it does save time if you don't have to fight against it all the time. Whenever I type music I waste a lot of time fixing things the computer should know but doesn't, and it would be nice not to have to do this every time. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, е is used instead of ё whenever you want (just be consistent). A good guideline suggests either using ё every time it could be used, or only when not using it could cause mispronunciations (geographical places, names, etc.). Russian Wiki, for one, allows both, but suggests you use ё; е could be changed to ё when the change is valid, but the reverse is prohibited.
 * There were precedents when this е/ё thing altered the way how people's names are pronounced; for example, the French-Mordovian actor Gerard Depardieu should have ё as the last letter of his name, but historically, the dots were omitted and the pronunciation changed (far before he got a Russian passport). Another example is Nikita Khrushchev, who is actually Хрущёв (Khrushchyov), but, if you omit the dots, you get Хрущев, hence the common name in English. So yes, omitting the dots may be confusing.

P.S. And unfortunately, the exact same sort of thing is going to endlessly annoy me when attempting to use my beloved base 12, because the Unicode characters for single-digit 10 and 11 are U+218A and U+218B (which look like 2 and 3 ). These are very far away from the standard ten Hindu-Arabic digits at U+0030 through U+0039, and are also a lot harder to type in without copypasting. As it stands, I usually just use X and E instead for ten and eleven, and mark the number as base 12 with an initial asterisk. Well, at least their numerical values are correct in Unicode, unlike the hexadecimal digits A through F. Double sharp (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Argh, this explains a lot about the base-12 (duodecimal) digits: they're not available yet, but will be when Unicode 8.0 comes out in June 2015. So I guess if I keep putting in these particular characters, there will come a day when people will be able to read them without them both looking like identical squares. Double sharp (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really know about base 12. I assume there are 36 digits: 0, 1, 2, ..., 9, A, B, ... , Y, Z, and you just pick the first n ones, depending on how many you need. I don't really know how they do base 60. Also, I don't get it, why are X and E or upside-down 2 and 3 okay for 10(12) and 11(12), I think they would, at least initially, confuse me? And why an asterisk? I was taught you normally do that like 1012 (but never really learned aside from that; in practice, I use only base two, in which numbers look like 10011(2) or 10011b if you use an Assembler language, base eight (C-style 0762), and base sixteen (again, C-style 0x23A4) (and base ten, of course). C-style 0- and 0x- are widely understood even by those who never learned C/C++/etc. as a language, and, in fact, most people who need other bases than base 10 and who are not pure mathematicians did learn a C-based language.)--R8R (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for base 12 (dozenal or duodecimal): it has been advocated many times because it has many factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. In fact, it maximizes factors for its size; and this means that the common fractions (halves, thirds, quarters, and sixths) are very simple (0.6, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2), unlike in decimal where you've got 0.5, 0.$\overline{3}$, 0.25, and 0.1$\overline{6}$, which aren't as simple and are prone to rounding-off errors. Another nice consequence is a very easy multiplication table. (Sorry if this isn't convincing. I discovered the advocacy for it three years ago, and had to think about it for that long before concluding that it was indeed a good idea in principle.)
 * To me, it seems to be a change from a good base to a (possibly) even better one (this is a rational mathematician speaking in you, and a rational mathematician in me understands you, but remember when you were two or three, it was very useful to have 10 fingers and (what a coincidence, wow) 10 digits to get the very basic idea of numbers and having 12 digits may make things a bit more difficult... however, I don't claim anything, this hypothesis would need to be actually tested somehow). But even if we get some actual benefits in a long run, the run would have to be very long (or the whole idea of changing a base to a new one is just asking for too much effort to get used to this), not short enough to convince people to go for it, like the U.S. is still not metric, none has metric time, Esperanto is used by approximately no one, etc.
 * Also, while "ten", "eleven", and "twelve" are much different words, "thirteen", "fourteen", etc. all basically are "something plus ten." This would also be an obstacle if we seriously consider this shift: Change names for them, making "thirteen" mean what we now call "fifteen," and invent "oneteen" and "twoteen" for 13 and 14? Now that's just getting really difficult for actually do in your everyday life. Leaving the name "thirteen" for 11(12) is just going to make things really complicated. This all would need to be considered for some applied thinking on the idea of changing bases... hopefully, it's not just killing fun :)
 * Yeah, I know about the fingers advantage. That is important: it's true that it's only useful for the beginning, but the beginning is crucial. I've seen a proposed scheme of counting on finger segments: on each digit (except the thumbs) you have 3 segments, making four times three, which is twelve. But I can see a problem with this: it's not clear what order to assign the numbers in, whereas it's really clear from finger-counting just what number you're holding up. Nevertheless, if the Babylonians succeeded in using base 60 together as a civilization, digits be damned, I think that the problem can be resolved. (I am pretty sure the eventual mathematical advantages would outweigh it in the long run.)
 * That is way more difficult than doing the usual ten-fingers counting: For some people, it is not nearly as easy to bend fingers in their joints. (For example, I can't do this) For others, it is still not as easy anyway. With base 10, you show a finger, add one. So eight is denoted by eight fingers. Whatever problems with their joints, (almost) everyone can do something about it. With base 12, what would 8 be? I mean, some people would be challenged by this; moreover, it's not obvious, which already ruins the idea (because if you need to use a non-trivial thing, chances are, you can add/subtract numbers that small anyway, and if you can't... fingers won't help, you're lost, sorry). Also, Babylonian system wasn't used by everyone, only a very small portion of population, who needed sciences, which also showed you're the elite, so they had to struggle (for those who it even was a struggle for). A majority didn't care about being able to do numbers the way we are today. So while we could do the 12-fingers counting if it was just for mathematicians, engineers, etc., we need to have in mind everyone, that is, everyone. I recently saw a woman in her 50s trying to remember the number of businesses yet to be done (talking in a bus via a cell); if doing that just using your mind is too difficult (and you're in your fifties!), would you like to bend your fingers to know the exact number instead of the binary finger straight/finger bent? And you won't explain those advantages to women (and men) like this. They will be a major obstacle to this change. And you will have this resistance from people of every age, young or old, because why would they have to struggle? For example, if you're not a mathematician, what do you get? One third is no longer an infinite fraction? Does that outweigh the frustration you get every time you have to work with numbers (and for some, working with base 10 is already frustration)? The finger obstacle (losing a huge advantage), the initial difficulty, and the length of a run are the three major factors most people would find this too difficult.--R8R (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant pointing to the finger segment you needed, not bending it, which should be easier to do: but still, it's hard to tell what number is being pointed to. This is probably the biggest obstacle to any proposed base change: we lose the finger-counting advantage of decimal, and the benefits of the two choices that could be improvements (12 and 60) are slight enough that the mathematical motivations to change do not overcome this. Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah... you feel me :) --R8R (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * About language: English has it easy, because we have words for the first few powers of twelve: "dozen", "gross", and "great gross" (which some have called "grand", although that is more usually a decimal thousand). So we can count one, two, three, ... ten, eleven, dozen, dozen-one, dozen-two, ... dozen-eleven, two-dozen, ... three-dozen, ... ten-dozen, ... eleven-dozen, ... gross, ... two gross, ... eleven gross, ... grand. (Actually, doesn't Russian also have special words for the powers of twelve? Wikipedia tells me a dozen is "дюжина", a gross is "гросс", and a great gross is a "масса". Do people actually use these when talking? In English dozen-counting sounds reasonably natural, but only because "dozen" is actually still used today. If the words are archaic, it might be more of a problem.)
 * Ah, that does seem okay. Russian "дюжина" is understood by everyone, although I haven't heard it being used for some time; I think it should be used more widely in small towns and villages. "Гросс" is never used (I'm sure none will understand what it even is), and "масса" is sometimes used, but not as 1728, but as just "a lot."--R8R (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd never consider using the name "thirteen" for what we now call "fifteen"; it's just too confusing. (It has been suggested, but I think it just screams "bad idea" all over it.) I think that if a shift happened, we would need new names to avoid complete chaos. Otherwise, we're going to have Mars Climate Orbiter for bases. :-P Double sharp (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. About ten being a good base: in fact I think it's the second-best choice! I have a long summary of the properties of the bases 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 at User:Double sharp/Number bases (to explain my userbox), and I think it clearly demonstrates (to me) that 12 is optimum, followed closely by 10. (And I wrote that because I like 12, wanted to explain it, and defend it against every other commenter who suggests 16 without really examining it: it's good for computers, but not so much for humans.) Double sharp (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave it a read, and, you know, not it's not so obvious to me given we're not about to start using mathematics and digits, but to switch from one well-established base to another (so my criticism is not applicable to the "We're leaving the Earth and settle on another planet... which base shall we choose?" scenario). For starters, "Halves, thirds, quarters, and sixths are all simple: these are the most common fractions": people (bad at math) see halves not as 0.5, but as 1/2 anyway, so a huge portion of people will miss this benefit. Additions tables are easy for all bases. Multiplication tables and a dense network of regular numbers are some benefits, yes, but they a) are not too huge (most people will be able to use either both or none), and b) people start to abandon the whole idea of calculating the way it was before, thanks to computers. Other points are true, but still too minor in everyday life: How often do people have to see if a number is divisible by 8? "Is small enough that the divisibility test for five is still easy": this is arguable, the test is not too difficult, but not too easy either, so many people will miss this out. Many divisors... yeah. But many will use a calculator and miss this anyway.
 * So I don't want to be all that skeptic, but, really, for a decision like this, the new base would really have to offer benefits, but the ones on offer are quite limited if you don't work with numbers or have no computer (and you miss the finger counting). As for me, if I was forced to switch (for example, if the state declared we start to use base 12 since tomorrow), I could follow. Won't be too difficult for me, but that is, for me, a student of the Faculty of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics (all I want to say is, it will be much more difficult to switch for almost everyone else, because I specialize at this). I remember the struggle it takes to teach an old person to use MS Office. If already that is a task so difficult, why would they choose to ruin the whole idea of numbers to build a new one.--R8R (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if people thinking of 1/2 instead of 0.5 is universal? I've heard about cases where people latch onto the decimals and don't understand the fractions, and also cases where people latch onto the fractions and don't understand the decimals. If nothing else, I guess some effects of the benefit can be seen in all the percentage discounts encountered in shops: in base 12 the half is 60%, the third 40%, the quarter 30%, and the sixth 20%.
 * Of course, it's not. When I was ten, I was all pro-decimal fractions, now I find either way equally easy and can think in any one, and I'm sure that if I was/am like that, there are others who also were/are. But people who are bad at math generally find 1/2 easier to understand than 0.5 when it comes to something not related to numbers otherwise. Of course, shops are different: numbers are everywhere, so you may pick a game yourself to attract a customer (for example, selling a thing for $99.99 instead of the normal $100: people actually buy the idea this is cheaper). Percentages allow more games: -15% is okay, but who would buy -1/7? why use -1/9 when you can use -11%? People get the general idea of percentages, but they certainly don't think in sevenths and ninths, and halves are so rare, so people expect percentages.
 * I haven't ever seen 11%! 15% is more common, but I have to wonder if it's being thought of as 1/7 or as a decimally clean 3/20 by the people setting the discounts. And, for all that decimal dislikes that particular ratio, 33% is pretty common. In duodecimal they all come out clean. And that might help: the meaning of 0.75 isn't as clear as that of three-quarters, but in duodecimal the common ratios just come out as single-digit twelfths, like decimal 0.5 for 1/2. Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have :) things are really different when you leave the city (not sure about your case, just covering Moscow): people think a bit differently there than those who live in a city, less formal language, more straightforward talking, etc. I think that's why pushing not just beautiful numbers, but financially better ones (one of the things that shows us why they are worse at marketing than those city people).
 * Yeah, sure, everyone will agree 15% is 3/20, and not 1/7 (both mathematically and intuitively). But my point was, if you can either have something cheaper, would you prefer fifteen percents off or one seventh off? 15% is easier to get, because you are intuitively better at percentages than at fractions with such great denominators, so you would like it better (leaving your ability to easily see this is a slightly better offer aside). I think 33% is common because percentages are common in general (I just tried to explain why, in my opinion, they are), so this just follows suit. Of course, I agree *40% is better than 33% (even if it wasn't actually 33.333333333...%), I have little to add on that.--R8R (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I should go to see that sort of thing more often! ;-)
 * Feel free :) be aware that only small businesses may make such an offer.
 * I do agree that 15% is easier to get, but it does show a snapping to fifths, tenths, and twentieths, because they come out nicely in decimal, even though thirds, sixths, and twelfths would be more common otherwise. We cannot step around 33%, though: it is needed to often, and so it shows up even though it's ugly as a decimal.
 * True
 * Here's an interesting proposal to fix decimal when it comes to percentage fractions: don't use a scale out of 100, use one out of 120 (weaving a twelve and a ten together). This keeps duodecimal cleanliness for the basic fractions (1/2 = 60%; 1/3 = 40%; 1/4 = 30%; 1/6 = 20%; 1/8 = 15%; 1/12 = 10%); but we don't lose the fifth, like we would in pure duodecimal (1/5 = 24%, 1/10 = 12%), it's just not quite as nice as the other fractions. We even have pretty good approximations in 1/7 ≈ 17%, 1/9 = 13$1/3$%, and 1/11 ≈ 11%, reserving these for less common fractions rather than 1/3. I think this replacement (100 → 120; 1000 → 1200), sticking in duodecimal benefits while still keeping decimal around, would be a lot easier to get behind than changing the entire number base. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a fair try, but I would stand against that. While, yeah, we get divisibility by 5 and stuff, 120 equals *A0 (I keep forgetting if X is 10 and E is 11, or vice versa, so I'll stick to the model I'm used to, if you don't mind) and one may be like, "yeah, cool, *A0ths... why not *100ths, again?" Like we have this 24-60-60 time, but if this isn't bad enough, we can compare U.S. units (1 mile is 5,280 feet, such a nice number, and 1 ft = 12 in) and the metric system (1 km = 1000 m, 1 m = 100 cm), and admit sticking to powers of 10 is better. I'm sure few people will actually (beyond that "hmm, looks neat") care about fractions with denominators greater than six. Having that recurring duodecimal fraction for 1/5 is the price one will have to pay for making percentages easier otherwise. For most people, it'll be "close to *0.25," rather than *0.(2497) anyway. I think it's worth it (if we choose between 1%=1/*A0 and 1%=1/*100).--R8R (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd intended that 120 (*A0) be used in a decimal context, not a duodecimal one. Duodecimally, *A0 has the problem I mentioned earlier: the fifths (*20, etc.) are cleaner than the thirds (*34 and *68), which isn't really ideal. Decimally it works as intended: the thirds (40, 80) are clearner than the fifths (24, etc.). I agree that nobody really would care very much about fractions with denominators over six.
 * First of all, sorry for not having instantly replied, I checked it, took my time to consider it, and forgot about it :(
 * Second, unlike ancient civilizations, we today do not have to work only with rational numbers. Those who use the percentages professionally would be fine in however many part you have to divide one to get a percent. Those who don't, well, still do realize what is going on. While I do think 40% is better than 33.3333333...%, well, those who see the latter still get it. Either way, no one remembers more than a few digits after the decimal period (may be as few as three, one, or zero). And it's not so important how exactly close we are, for most practical percentages are easy to write, and, which is more important, to approximate. Which, I think, diminishes the whole idea of redefining "percent" (or introducing a new similar term). If it's going to be complicated (and it, for most cases, is), it doesn't matter, but even if we get some advantage... well, approximation will help. Of course, we will lose some accuracy for some multiplications... still, it won't be worth it. Even less than the whole base change. (So pessimistic, again :
 * I do agree though that 120 not being equal to either decimal 100 or duodecimal *100 is a major sticking point against it: it results in the question "why the funny number"? (Although Microsoft appears to think the same way regarding using 120 in decimal!) I'd agree that this is a terrible idea for decimals, losing the decimal-point shifting: but as a scale like percent or parts-per-million, where that isn't quite as urgent a matter, 120 might be able to work. (After all, we still have 60 minutes in an hour and 360 degrees in the circle, more on which see the next paragraph...)
 * Note MS regards an application for which divisibility would be more important over the simplicity of the whole idea (1/100, whatever base, is easy and super intuitive), which is quite rarely the case IRL, not the whole idea in general.
 * 24-60-60 time is so old and has survived so many attempts to make it consistent with our base: I doubt it will manage to go away. I suspect this is so because the numbers it involves are so highly divisible: in purely decimal time, you wouldn't be able to talk about a third of an hour exactly, and so I think this convenience of speaking tends to override the inconvenience of conversion. (It could be worse – at least 60 ends in a zero, and at least 24 and 60 have more divisors than any lower number! I guess this use of 60 is something like the idea of using 120 for percent.) But if we were using duodecimal, I think we'd finally be able to get rid of it and make it consistently *10-*10-*10.
 * I don't think it has to do with numbers. it must have played a role in establishing the system, since, you know, ancient math found divisibility important and stuff (since they didn't have the awesome concept of real numbers; also, the ancient mathematicians left us this not-so-easy-to-learn time), but it no longer matters now: I have never ever heard of someone speaking of a "third of an hour," it's always "20 minutes." "Half an hour" is okay, a quarter is fine, too, but that's just it. I am not sure, it may be different in different countries... But in the languages I know, Russian, English (I know the language, but am poor at writing), and German (used to be quite good at speaking, currently trying to come back to that shape), I never heard anyone use it. (Oh, well, all three are European languages, yes, things may be different elsewhere, I agree)
 * An interesting point regarding decimal is that trying to pick a large number that covers the factor three will let you pick the smallest one (the superior highly composite one), because there's not much need to cover more than one or two powers of three, and then the result looks nice in decimal, emphasizing thirds over fifths. In duodecimal this doesn't work if you want to pick a large number that covers the factor five (*180 seems the best possible, and even that isn't anywhere near as good as 360 in decimal). (To be fair, this isn't an advantage purely for decimal: base-14 gets some of these benefits, and amazingly base-15 seems almost as good as decimal when picking that sort of large number (4015, 8015, and 19015 all work very well). I guess it's the numbers deciding to throw base 15 a bone, after noting that it fails badly at most other things because 15 is odd.
 * Not too surprising about base 15: 15=3*5, so you just have to multiply by two a couple of time, and three you if want. Base 14? Well, I guess, 110(15) should be good, but it's already large. Why is 14 (=2*7) good, again? You have to get a 5 anyway, since you have 7 for some reason, which complicates things... And why is not *260 (=360) just it?
 * As for 5280 (25 × 3 × 5 × 11) feet in a mile: I'll confess that I've never understood this one. If it were 5040 (24 × 32 × 5 × 7), then it would make some sense: even as that number meshes terribly with decimal, it has a bucketload of factors that seem to make up partially for it. But 5280 is just weird. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear you. I googled it (and stumbled on Wiki, of course), see Furlong if you're interested. Still looks weird to me.--R8R (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree about computers, but not everyone is going to have one with them all the time. And after all, it's very important to know that you're not putting rubbish into the computer and getting rubbish results. In base 12, because regular numbers are denser, we have more snapping points for estimation; and because they're regular numbers, using them to compute estimates is easier than the base-10 equivalents like 12.5 (ten and a quarter of ten; the dozenal equivalent is just *13, a dozen and a quarter-dozen). But I do wonder if the computation advantages will be realized by most people. Will the added ease of the product lines in base 12 make the proportion of people who are bad at math a little less? Or will it simply not make any substantial difference? (This is where ideally I'd be able to test this instead of just speculating mathematically and ignoring the humans. Unfortunately, the necessary experiment seems to be rather substandard in the ethics department!)
 * "I agree about computers, but not everyone is going to have one with them all the time.": this is quite questionable, since we have smartphones as cheap as $50 (maybe there are cheaper ones, that one is from an ad I saw yesterday), and now there's that Apple/Google watches competition. And I certainly don't think understanding arithmetic (fractions and stuff) will be much improved by a new base: the thing is, it's either interesting for you or not, just remember how things were when you were ten. So I would estimate, the improvement would be within the statistical error. I had the best grades at biology, but it wasn't interesting for me, so it was just "learned it, got a mark, forgot it," and I remember very little, so little a person impassioned by the science would be amazed I am so bad at it now. But it was different with math (which is why I have no problems with numbers in my everyday life, and I can always calculate or at least estimate something from everyday life accurately enough. Not even all mathematicians can do that, because they have no interest at being able to do that. Luckily, my abilities at math are not limited by this :).
 * As far as I can see, this is the main advantage for base 12, and it's quite good. Could it happen many people will find the rules so easy they will stick in their heads? Who knows. Some people, having grown old, forget the multiplication table. And there will be such people even if we switch to base 12. But will their percentage shrink, at least a little? I think, a very little (most statistical errors I see IRL are close to 3.5%, I don't think it will so greatly affect more people because it's not just about the base, it's also about you, willing or not willing to be good at arithmetic).
 * Fair enough about the interest: however, the duodecimal multiplication table having more nice patterns might mean that it would take less time to teach it. I mean, in decimal, you typically cover 1×, 2×, 5×, and 10× easily through patterns (the divisors). But in duodecimal, you would knock out all of 1×, 2×, 3×, 4×, 6×, and *10× the same way. And the decimal 9× pattern (ones go up, tens go down) transfers straightway to duodecimal E×. That actually covers a large proportion of the facts through simple patterns. (8×, 9×, and X× also have fairly clear patterns, but I'm not sure your average kid would spot them. The only really hard ones are 5× and 7×, and they've been covered by everything else, so the only things needed are three facts: 52 = *21, 5 × 7 = *2E, and 72 = *41.) This may be an advantage in speed, if nothing else... Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole multiplication table thing is an advantage for base 12, yes, no question on that, but be fair: if you say (using the XE notation) Xx is a trend (X, 18, 26, 34, 42, 50), then we have decimal 4x, 6x, and 8x, all requiring just five (yeah, 10/2=5) multiplications to finish the cycle, which is fewer than six (*10/2=6). Can an average kid spot those cycles? (I think, yes, once presented the table, but some will forget about that until explicitly reminded ("Oh yeah, right").)
 * It's not "my average kid" I'm talking about, it's about actual kids I used to study with, I'm trying to remember how they were and why (it is easy to remember how they are at math and why, because I was good at it). That is the best I can think of (aside from taking tests on actual kids, which I have no resources for). Maybe once I'm, say, eighty, it will be much more difficult because I have forgotten that experience by then, but now I can still remember something.--R8R (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear, I should have compared that. :-( So duodecimal 8×, 9×, X× take the place of decimal 4×, 6×, and 8×, and decimal 3× becomes like duodecimal 5×. X× is like 2×: duodecimal adds one more even digit, so the patterns becomes {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, X} and backwards. Still, I'm not sure one more even digit would have a measurable effect: if it were any more, I think it would, but a group of six seems to be just small enough to stay in memory, and zero is kind of exceptional here (six digits to memorize is in the range 7 ± 2, which I guess you could extrapolate to say that memorizing the evens would start becoming a problem for most people from tetradecimal – where a few would have a problem – to vigesimal, where everyone would). In the end I think duodecimal still wins because of its divisors (the simplest cases), though: they manage to confine all the harder products to the bottom-right half of the table, except for 52 = *21.
 * One can memorize six digits, yes. especially if they follow such a common rule (being even). But five is still better than six. :) (and again, I think, outside of theoretical mathematics, these sequences in multiplication are not so important for laypeople). Decimal 1/3 is 0.(3), which is simple, while duodecimal 1/5 is *0.(2497), so many people will remember it as close to *0.25 (as 1/7 is commonly ~14%, instead of 0.(142857)).--R8R (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure about the recognizability of the decimal 4×, 6×, and 8× patterns, because I haven't actually seen documents aimed at teaching multiplication tables to young children that list these patterns as mnemonics. But I'll take first-hand evidence from you over that! Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess that's because none really defends base 10. It's there anyway, and we're not actually about to change it, so why defend it. Base 12, instead, tries to get more supporters, so it tries to make use of its every advantage.--R8R (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * About the test for 5 in duodecimal: I think it depends on how often it is needed. The test for 3 in decimal is so often needed that people end up knowing it; while the test for 11, which is still not too bad, is much less well known. If 5 is really an important and commonly encountered number even outside its decimal context (which I think it is), I think the test would end up being known: and it does seem to be not too hard to teach. But all this is just my conjecture.
 * I just checked the divisibility by 7 test (I never knew it, or forgot completely), and I don't think divisibility by 5 is base 12 is much easier than this. (I don't have much more to say other than speculations, and yeah, I would prefer to test it instead of just talking about it, because I am quite unsure.)
 * About the test for 8: there are three factors working against it, I guess. One is that it's really hard to apply in decimal. Another is that it can be easily stepped around: just halve the number mentally (the easiest mental long-division), and then test for 4. And the last is that I am not sure if it comes up often enough to merit a test. It is kind of on the borderline. I've never wanted to test for 16, but apparently some people say they have, so I put it down. Actually divisibility tests have a problem that they don't give you the quotient, and when was the last time you wanted to see that a number was divisible by 8 when you didn't want to divide it by 8 in the first place? For factorization purposes, testing for 16 is a bit silly because you'll have to divide by 16 again later to make the rest of the tests easier. So they really need to be fast if they're going to be remembered. I think the decimal tests for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 25, and 30 (giving just the small numbers) pass the speed requirement: they are easy and pretty efficient. By the time we get to 8, I am not sure it is more efficient than long division. In duodecimal, the tests for decimal 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 24, and 30 are easy to use in the same range. So it seems it just swaps an easy 8 and 16 for easy multiples of 5. I'm not sure which is more useful.
 * Inertia and the finger-counting advantage are probably the biggest obstacles conspiring against base 12. Another one is probably that base 10 seems to be second-best base, and 12 doesn't seem to beat it by very much, although the advantage is present. Hence, the benefits do not really outweigh the costs. If we were using base 14 today and some people wanted to move to base 12, I think that would actually have a chance at passing through, because the finger-counting advantage would disappear, and base 14 is much worse than base 12.
 * The page User:Double sharp/Number bases was intended to summarize arguments I've read, as well as ones I came up with. So feel free to add counterpoints: currently it's much too focused on the mathematical side. :-) I am not sure that the tests for 8 and 16 are important but some people I read feel this way, so I put it down. That's why I refrained from giving a numerical rating: I just provide arguments and you can weight them as you see fit. At least, that was my intention. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can only be like, "I think so" and hardly ever "I can prove that" when it comes to bases (not divisibility tests, I mean the reaction of people to different bases, which is the primary concern for me). I mean, it's like, to be sure, we have to weight each point's influence on people, and it's not going to be the same for all people, so, to be precise, we have to collect some stats, which, I think, neither of us will do. I am just applying some common sense, at least, my common sense :)
 * However, this being such a good idea, it's been proposed many, many times, even before the letter-digits became common. So many different groups used ad hoc symbols, although now it looks like 2 and 3 are emerging as a standard: this is a very old proposal from the 1860s, so it does have the advantage of history and recognizability.) X and E are a different proposal, but have the distinct advantage of being typable, which always helps (remember what I said about not having to fight against the computer all the time?). ;-) The asterisk is a marker I've seen often for base 12 in the context of its advocacy: I'm not sure why it's used though. Another marker I've seen is bracketing the number with a "z" before the bracket, hence z[18] = 16.
 * A huge problem would be that upside down 2 and 3 look not just like digits, they specifically look like the digits 2 and 3. I don't see those to be separate digits (yet). (6/9? maybe, but it's already problematic and those digits are common; if we introduce upside down 2 and 3, they will be a huge source of confusion, at least initially, as many people will have no idea about what's going on or will just find it very difficult to accommodate with these new numbering system.) If the idea was put for actual analysis, we could find reading small pieces of upside down text/numbers in tables is doable now, but would be really difficult after the shift (6/9 aren't all too great here, either).
 * I've read a note on this from a psychologist, that says that to most people the inverted 2 and 3 look like an inverted 2 and 3, and don't suggested ten and eleven. Maybe some of it is because currently inverted 2 and 3 aren't actual digits, but I think it is probably a problem. (6 and 9 are just one pair, which is tolerable, I guess: if 6 and 9 were also digits, I think we'd be utterly lost.)
 * I have thought about Ϫ (I'd write it with a curly bottom) for ten – like the Roman numeral, suggesting two hands joined – and 7 for eleven, as reflections should probably not be as bad as rotations: upside-down is more common than reflected, I think.) But the trouble is that now that there is an actual consensus behind inverted 2 and 3, along with Unicode digits, it's going to be hard to shake that. (I don't follow that in writing, myself: I tend to use inverted 2 for ten, but reflected 7 for eleven, and I try to make adjustments. My 2 has a loop, but my 2 doesn't; my 7 is crossed, but my 7 isn't. That might help! I already sort of do this with 6 and 9: the top of my 6 curls, but the bottom of my 9 is much straighter. So if the canonical forms had this difference, we might be OK.) Double sharp (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (I think A and B would be recognized too, now that that convention is common: but a common criticism is that they don't look like digits, they look like letters, while the turned 2 and 3 do look like digits. And this is important because hexadecimal with A–F is intended for niche computer purposes, whereas these societies advocate switching the entire civilizational base from ten to twelve. Now, I really doubt that will ever happen, but to be consistent with that goal the digits should probably look like natural digits.)
 * If we're really going to do a shift that large, we might just draw new digits for 10 and 11 by the time some state would actually implement the idea. Memorizing two new symbols wouldn't be nearly as difficult as just starting to think in base 12.
 * I agree: I think thinking in the new base is the chief problem, and while digit design is a problem, it's a much smaller one. You can in principle get by with whatever symbols you like: but learning to think in the new base is crucial. (The only way I could do it is by forcing myself to say base-12 "25" as "two dozen and five" and not "twenty-five": after that I could finally learn it. In languages without the advantage of such a word for 12, conversion should be even harder.) Double sharp (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As for base 60, the usual way to do it is to write each digit in decimal and separate them with commas. The sexagesimal point is a semicolon. So 1/8 = 0;7,30, for example. This kinda mimics the way we use base 60 for time. Yeah, it's not really pure sexagesimal when you do it like that, but I don't think anyone really advocates using it, so I think we're OK. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. I read a book that said (if my memory serves me right) this is how researchers write the Babylonian numbers instead of using the peg notation.--R8R (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Alexei Navalny
 * added a link pointing to Maryino


 * Astatine
 * added a link pointing to Electron orbital

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Голи́цын
(or, the story of Double sharp trying to write about Russian opera)

I have absolutely no idea what is going on with the transliteration of that name as stated in the article. If WP policy is anything to go by, Prince Vasily Galitzine would usually appear that way (French-influenced, I think?). Unfortunately, as a historical character in the opera Khovanshchina he never seems to get transliterated that way; instead I find a lot of other transliterations, and I'm really not sure which is the most common.

I've been reading a lot about the Khovanshchina recently (and the accompanying trying to make sense of 17th-century Russian politics), and have started working on that article. Somebody's evidently worked on it before and abandoned it, looking at the hidden Russian text under "Performance history": if you have time, I'd really appreciate a translation of what's been written there. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, these are French spellings. I know little about French myself, but I can assure you this spelling is French, I have seen a number of such spellings (especially notable for the final "e"), all presented as French transliterations. French had great influence over Russian since at least 17th century and until around WWII. So transliterations into English won't feature the final "e".
 * Sure, no problem. I wanted to start right away, but there are so many abbreviations (and I don't know what most of them even mean, we would need a musician or, at least, a list of their abbreviations), I'll have to wait until I have more time. Meanwhile, I can tell you this is a plain list of performances (I guess, the list is incomplete; maybe it only includes some very notable performances?) of this opera in Russia, Paris, London, and the U.S. oh wait, you could figure it out, too, sorry
 * (I am quite certain this won't happen, but if you see me do some activities on Wiki, seeming to have forgotten about this, just ping me.)--R8R (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I will use this page as the place where I would store the translation.--R8R (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the square bracketed notes I leave as I translate this. Note this is a literal translation, rather than a good text in English (which would take more time).--R8R (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say the job is done (somehow). Note I used the word "riflemen" for streltsy. Russian "артист" stands for any person who does some kind of art, not just painting, as does the English word "artist." I translated it as "actor," because that seemed the most appropriate to me; you're free to change it to anything you want (but now you're aware), and in fact, you can now turn the whole thing into a good text. I am not too good at English, I think (too bad I can't review the English I produce here at Wiki fairly), and translating into English is harder than just writing in English. I could do it better, but I wanted to do it fast (so if you see poor grammar, that's because it was okay in Russian, but it's not in English, and I didn't change it; also, I don't guarantee all spellings are correct; it doesn't even follow a particular English variety, but we got the job done in one day).--R8R (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for doing this, and so quickly! Double sharp (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure :) If you ever need me to translate anything else, just let me know. I assumed you would check the info yourself later, which is why I tried to get it done fast, rather than spent more time on it to get it presented in a nice way. If it won't be the priority the next time, again, just let me know :) --R8R (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1886, Saint Petersburg&mdash;World premiere

The St. Petersburg and world premiere took place on 9 February 1886 at Kononov Hall, using the Rimsky-Korsakov edition. Eduard Goldshteyn (Goldstein) conducted a cast of amateur singers.
 * 1892, Kiev&mdash;Professional premiere

26 October 1892, Kiev City Theatre, produced by I. Setov, cast included I. Tartakov (Shaklovitïy)

November 1892, Moscow, by actors of Pryanishnikov's entreprise [this French word means "theater" and similar buildings];

27 October (8 November) 1893, St. Petersburg, theater of former Kononov [I don't know what this means, but I can't find the answer online either; Kononov is likely to be a surname], performed by actors of the Russian Opera Partnership [I guess]. Conducted by S. M. Beznosikov. Directed by V. K. Travsky. Lead singers: G. Kassilov (Prince Vasily Galitsyn), I. V. Matchinsky (Dosifey), G. Nivinskaya (Marfa), K. L. Arsenyev (scribe);


 * 1897, Moscow&mdash;Shalyapin as Dosifey

The Russian Private Opera staged its version on 12 November 1897 at Solodovnikov Hall in Moscow. Production personnel included Savva Mamontov (producer) and Mikhail Lentovsky (stage director). E. Esposito conducted. The cast included Anton Bedlevich (Ivan Khovansky), Pyotr Inozemtsev (Andrey Khovansky), E. Karklin (Golitsïn), I. Sokolov (Shaklovitïy), Fyodor Shalyapin (Dosifey), Serafima Selyuk-Roznatovskaya (Marfa), A. Rubinskaya (Susanna), G. Kassilov (Scrivener), V. Antonova (Emma), M. Malinin (Varsonofyev), Nikolay Kedrov (Pastor), and Mikhail Levandovsky (Kuzka)

28 September 1907, St. Petersburg, the	Great Hall of Conservatory, by artists A. N. Drakuli's entreprise. Conducted by A. A. Bernardi. Directed by N. N. Arbatov. Lead singers: Moskalev (Prince Ivan Khovansky), V. I. Lazarev (Prince Ivan Khovansky), N. V. Andreev (Prince Vasily Galitsyn), Borisov-Malsky (Shaklovity), A. N. Drakuli (Dosifey), N. M. Kalinina (Marfa), Vladimirov (scribe);

1909, Paris, Chatelet theater, by Russian actors, directed by A. A. Sanin;

15 September 1910, Moscow, Solodovnikov's theater, by actors of Opera of S. I. Zimin. Conducted by I. O. Palitsin. Directed by P. S. Olenin. Lead singers: K. D. Zaporozhets (Prince Ivan Khovansky), A. V. Sekar-Rozhansky (Prince Vasily Golitsyn), N. A. Shevelyov (Shaklovity), V. N. Petrova-Zvantseva (Marfa);


 * 1911, Saint Petersburg&mdash;Mariinsky Theatre Premiere

The Mariinsky Theatre premiere took place on 7 November 1911. The Rimsky-Korsakov edition was performed. Production personnel included Fyodor Shalyapin and P. Melnikov (stage managers). Albert Coates conducted. the cast included Vasily Sharonov (Ivan Khovansky), Andrey Labinsky (Andrey Khovansky), Ivan Yershov (Golitsïn), P. Andreyev (Shaklovitïy), Fyodor Shalyapin (Dosifey),Yevgeniya Zbruyeva (Marfa), Yelena Nikolayeva (Susanna), Grigoriy Ugrinovich (Scrivener), M. Kovalenko (Emma), and V. Losev (Kuzka)

12 December 1912, Moscow, Bolshoi theater. Conducted by D. I. Potikhonov. Directed by V. P. Shkafer and F. I. Shalyapin. Lead singers: K. D. Zaporozhets (Prince Ivan Khovansky), A. M. Labinsky (Prince Andrei Khovansky), A. P. Bonachich (Prince Vasily Golitsyn), F. V. Pavlovsky (Shaklovity), F. I. Shalyapin (Dosifey), E. I. Zbruyeva (Marfa), E. A. Podolskaya (Susanna), E. I. Gremina (Emma), A. M. Uspensky (scribe), A. Gerasimenko (Varsonofiev), P. P. Figurov (Kuzka), S. Trezvinsky (rifleman #1), Kh. Tolkachev (rifleman #2), M. Tolchanov (rifleman #3);


 * 1912, Moscow&mdash;Bolshoy Theatre premiere

5 June 1913, Paris, Théâtre des Champs-Élysées, by actors of S. P. Dyagilev (in Russian) [this is supposed to mean Dyagilev was for them kind of like a coach for a team; at least, I would expect that to be the case], as a part of the 8th Russian season in Paris. New version and instrumentation by Igor Stravinsky and Moris Ravel. Conducetd by by E. A. Kuper/Cooper. Directed by A. A. Sanin. Lead singers: K. D. Zaporozhets (Prince Ivan Khovansky), V. P. Damayev (Prince Andrei Khovansky), N. V. Andreyev (Prince Vasily Golitsyn), P. Z. Andreyev (Shaklovity), F. I. Shalyapin (Dosifey), E. F> Petrenko (Marfa), E. N. Nikolayeva (Susanna), M. I. Brian (Emma);


 * 1913, Paris&mdash;Rimsky-Korsakov-Ravel_Stravinsky Version

1 июля 1913, London, Drury Lane Theatre. New version and instrumentation by Igor Stravinsky and Moris Ravel. Conducetd by by E. A. Kuper/Cooper. Directed by A. A. Sanin. Lead singers: same as those on 5 June in Paris;


 * 1913, London&mdash;United Kingdom premiere
 * 1928, Philadelphia&mdash;United States premiere

18 April 1928 Hammerstein's Metropolitan In English The cast included Marek Windheim
 * 1931, New York–

The first New York performance, in Russian, took place at the Mecca Temple Auditorium on March 7, 1931.
 * 1950, New York&mdash;Met

English translation, Feb. 16, 1950, Emil Cooper conducted. The cast included Risë Stevens, Polyna Stoska, Charles Kuhlmann, Jerome Hines and Lawrence Tibbett.
 * 1985, New York&mdash;

orchestration by Dmitri Shostakovich. Neeme Järvi, conductor; production by August Everding; sets designed by Ming Cho Lee; At the Metropolitan Opera. Ivan KhovanskyAage Haugland MarfaHelga Dernesch DosifeiMartti Talvela GolitsynWieslaw Ochman

TFA to "Astatine".
I have nominated an article you have added the most to according to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-articleinfo/index.php?article=Astatine&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia#. Here is the page: Today's featured article/requests/Astatine. TVShowFan122 (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious
  Astatine and Alexei Navalny

Thank you, editor proficient in languages and chemistry, for quality articles on chemical elements such as Astatine, Barium and Fluorine, and Alexei Navalny, for, for the outline of your plans including an essay about (the missing) orientation towards readers, as You Can't Spell Slaughter Without Laughter, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why, I am plesantly surprised :) thank you!--R8R (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC) ≥
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services