This is ComplexRational's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes ScottishFinnishRadish Staxringold Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes Cyberpower678 CheckUser changes GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
• Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
• Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news

• The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

• Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
• A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
• The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous

• An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
• You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
• An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
• Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Hello, thank you so much for helping me review one of the pages I've created! Since you're definitely more experienced than me, I also wanted to ask you some tips in regards to draft and article creations.

Lately, I've been working on some drafts about footballers at the start of their respective professional careers: I usually try to stick to the page scheme you already saw for Panada as a general model, so I can add all the necessary data and links. However, while a couple of my drafts did get approved, some have been rejected due to a lack of significant coverage and/or reliable sources, even though I felt like I did my best at adding sites and articles I could trust fully.

[Actually, I should admit, one of those players hasn't even made his professional debut, yet, so that might have been part of the problem...]

I've already had some helpful conversations with other users, but I'm still confused about the general coverage criteria, so I wanted to ask you: how can I make sure my sources are as high-quality as possible? And, which is the minimum standard of information/statistics I should aim for while creating a new page (or draft)?

I hope I've articulated myself as clearly as possible. I'm keen on working on full pages more and more in the next future, so every type of help is hugely appreciated! : D

~~~~ Oltrepier (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oltrepier,

Since the deprecation of the notability guideline for footballers earlier this year, footballer articles are required to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, i.e., to have citations to multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Although it's written to be objective, there tends to be some room for interpretation, but a common standard is 2–3 reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the subject and unrelated to each other that dedicate at least several paragraphs, if not their entire length, to the subject.

To answer your questions more directly, a source is usually high-quality if it has some standard of editorial review and is widely considered a "go-to" source. And for article development, you'll want focused coverage – brief mentions in headlines, lists, or statistics in databases are not sufficient coverage by themselves. For instance, for Italian footballers, publications such as La Gazzetta dello Sport, Corriere dello Sport, and Tuttosport are pretty mainstream and reputed (notwithstanding some degree of bias), so detailed coverage in those is generally enough to sustain an article. Conversely, one-sentence market rumors or club press releases stating a transfer and nothing else are not significant coverage, nor are stats pages (though those are useful for adding content to an article whose subject is already demonstrated to be notable), so an article sourced entirely to those has little chance of being published or kept.

The article I reviewed, Simone Panada, just about has enough in my opinion, and as his career blossoms, more sources will certainly be published. And you are correct – even prior to the deprecation of the more specific deadline, players who have yet to make their professional debut were generally not considered notable, except in the rare cases that enough sources existed and/or they are notable for reasons other than being a professional footballer. Usually, players who only appear in lower divisions or haven't yet made their debut won't have much written about them (as Panada did not when making several bench appearances for Atalanta); the longer their career in top leagues, the more sources will exist, and the more an article on Wikipedia can develop. Were there specific declined drafts you had in mind?

Thanks for your creations! I hope this explanation is helpful – and feel free to reach out again if you have additional questions. Happy editing, ^Complex/_Rational 02:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational I was thinking about this draft (which is the one about the player who hasn't still made his debut) and this other one, specifically. I didn't mention them before, because I thought it would have been quite shameless...

Understood, but I've still got one more question: is it possible to propose new sites to be added to the database of "reliable sources"? I know there's an open window for discussions on that front, but I don't know where to find it.

Anyway, thank you very much: you've been hugely helpful! : )

~~~~ Oltrepier (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: For the two drafts you linked, I can see why they've been declined. I would indeed recommend waiting a bit until they accumulate more appearances on the field and more coverage in reliable sources, especially because it's generally harder to come by for Serie B and the Cypriot top tier than for Serie A and other top European leagues.

Regarding the database of reliable sources, are you familiar with these lists? I'm unsure what the standard procedure for proposing additions is, but a good place to start might be the discussion page of WikiProject Football.

Good luck, ^Complex/_Rational 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational Right. Once again, thank you for your support, I really appreciate! Oltrepier (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ComplexRational,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Sat Oct 29: Wikidata Day in NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for Wikidata Day in NYC, an event marking the Wikidata 10th Birthday with a celebration and mini-conference. The all-day event will feature beginner workshops, keynote presentations, breakout group discussions, lightning talks and yes, CAKE. It is inspired by such past events as the Wikipedia Day tradition in New York City. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. Saturday October 29 Wikidata Day in NYC (RSVP on-wiki). 9:30 am - 5:30 pm (Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn) P.S. Three days before, October 26 will be October Online WikiWednesday

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ComplexRational. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Volten001 ☎ 06:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ^Complex/_Rational 17:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi ComplexRational! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A day late, but thanks! ^Complex/_Rational 13:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given to ComplexRational for collecting more than 25 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Worm Gear Award
		This award is given to ComplexRational for collecting more than 7 points per week doing reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zippybonzo: Thank you! ^Complex/_Rational 12:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually like to see ²³¹Pa+⁴⁸Ca, probably producing ²⁷⁵Rg or ²⁷⁶Rg, for completeness' sake. The odd proton should help against SF, and they might have a solid chance of closing the gap between hot and cold fusion isotopes and decaying to known regions of the nuclide chart. JINR already did ²³²Th+⁴⁸Ca and ²³⁸U+⁴⁸Ca, so this should have a cross-section large enough to achieve something. And as for the target, they already did ²²⁶Ra+⁴⁸Ca. (Not to mention using ²⁴⁹Bk and ²⁴⁹Cf.) There's not much point to ²²⁷Ac+⁴⁸Ca, as the half-life's shorter and it'd just end up one alpha down on the decay chain.

JINR already did ^239,240Pu+⁴⁸Ca, so it makes sense to continue the light-isotope campaign. ²³⁵U+⁴⁸Ca takes you one alpha down, but that might still be useful as ²⁸⁴Fl just decays instantly by SF (and they never found ²⁸³Fl). Cross-section probably worse though. ²⁴¹Am+⁴⁸Ca and ²⁴³Cm+⁴⁸Ca would seem quite reasonable tries, per the old Zagrebaev paper. Returning to ²⁵¹Cf+⁴⁸Ca would be something too, though with current US-Russia relations I fear the prospects for using Bk and Cf at JINR may not be good. And, if I might as well keep dreaming, ²⁵⁴Es+⁴⁸Ca. It would probably be worse than ²⁴⁹Cf+⁴⁸Ca, but it probably has a better chance than anything else to make 119. (Incidentally, if JINR gets stuck at Cm, they'd be doing the same reactions as Riken. Riken has been trying since 2018 of course, but who knows, maybe they will break the world's worst cross-section record in a few years.)

All a dream of course, but they fulfilled part of my previous dreams by trying ²³²Th+⁴⁸Ca and ^239,240Pu+⁴⁸Ca. :D Double sharp (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re history, though, this might interest you (1981 attempts at deep inelastic reactions). Double sharp (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, an interesting read. I could also claim to have a wishlist... will we see ²⁹¹Fl or more neutron-rich isotopes anytime soon? Still hoping they do ²⁵⁰Cm+⁴⁸Ca for those, but that leaves out the odd-Z elements unless electron capture can compete with alpha decay/spontaneous fission in even-Z elements.

And here's one more thing I found, and will add in some capacity soon. One of the talks discusses theoretical cross sections for E121 in the reactions ^252,254Es+⁵⁰Ti and distant pipe dream ²⁵⁸Md+⁴⁸Ca (!!!), though it won't be a dream worth pursuing unless the cross section record is improved by at least an order of magnitude. ^Complex/_Rational 19:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted ²⁵⁰Cm too, but making it is an issue. :)

Yeah, looking at these cross-sections fills me with pessimism about the 8th row. Double sharp (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes

• 
  • Isabelle Belato
  • Whpq
• 
• 
  • Atama
  • Astronautics~enwiki
  • Athaenara
  • Eddie891
  • GraemeL
  • Marianocecowski
  • Natalya
  • Pratyeka
  • SB Johnny

Interface administrator changes

• TheresNoTime
• Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

• 
  • Blablubbs
  • Firefly
• Joe Roe

Oversight changes

• DGG

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like ((rangeblock|create=yes)) or ((uw-ublock|contains profanity)).

Hello, ComplexRational. You have new messages at Talk:TRAPPIST-1.
Message added 09:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

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

Sat Nov 12: WikiConference North America in NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for WikiConference North America in NYC, as a local satellite event and celebration of the primarily online WikiConference 2022 (Nov 11-13). The Saturday in-person event will feature beginner workshops, keynote presentations, breakout group discussions, and lightning talks. It is inspired by such past events as the Wikipedia Day tradition in New York City. In keeping with the online conference's partnership this year with Mapping USA and theme of "open knowledge allies", we are highlighting OpenStreetMap NYC efforts and other local organizing around various communities of practice. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. Saturday November 12 WikiConference North America in NYC (RSVP on-wiki). 9:30 am - 5:30 pm (Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that ⁶⁰Fe, ¹⁸²Hf, and ²³⁰Th probably deserve full articles. Maybe also ¹⁰⁷Pd? (I'd suggest also ²³¹Pa, except that since that's basically 100% of natural Pa, the protactinium article already effectively discusses it.)

Not sure if they deserve ones (maybe just sections in their articles), but the long-lived neutron-poor ¹⁴⁸Gd, ¹⁵⁰Gd, and ¹⁵⁴Dy are intriguing. Double sharp (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: This could indeed be an interesting project when I have a bit more free time. I'm pretty sure significant coverage exists for these particular isotopes – for instance, the former two are noteworthy for being extinct radionuclides (I've definitely read full papers in the literature about ⁶⁰Fe and ¹⁸²Hf) and ²³⁰Th has a more unique history of discovery as well as use in uranium–thorium dating – and depending on what sources come up, articles could definitely be written. There are definitely some other isotopes as well for which enough coverage exists to justify standalone articles, such as those with important roles in stellar nucleosynthesis. I remember that I wrote a section long ago about ⁴⁴Ti, though I was unsure whether it was enough to split into a standalone article. ^Complex/_Rational 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you know of an actual scientific reason why Pa has an atomic weight from CIAAW and Ra doesn't? The situations strike me as similar, both with one isotope dominant, and long-lived enough to be usefully gotten from nature. I know that in 1969 Tc, Ra, Pa, and Np were given as the radioactives were getting more common in the lab and they all only have one important isotope, but at some point they were taken out. In 1983 they are all gone, but in 1981 Tc is gone but Ac is added, so I'm not sure what was changing. Double sharp (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure about this. I discovered this BNL document that agrees with the 1983 report, but doesn't treat Ra or Pa specifically. My best guess is based on the line the Commission decided that radioactive elements were considered to lack a characteristic terrestrial isotopic composition, from which an atomic weight value could be calculated to five or more figure accuracy, without prior knowledge of the sample involved in the BNL report. Namely, I suspect that since ²³¹Pa and ²³⁴Pa/^234mPa all occur predominantly in uranium ore (there's no Pa isotope in the thorium series) and the half-life of ²³¹Pa is more than seven orders of magnitude longer than that of ²³⁴Pa, we don't need "prior knowledge of the sample involved" to work out the isotopic composition of Pa. Conversely, for radium, the half-life of ²²⁸Ra is not negligible (about 1/300) with respect to ²²⁶Ra, and the former is the dominant isotope in thorium-rich deposits while the latter is the dominant isotope in uranium-rich deposits, so we need knowledge of the sample to determine whether ²²⁶Ra or ²²⁸Ra is more abundant. In the case of actinium, indeed ²²⁷Ac is much more abundant than ²²⁸Ac in general, but one could argue that the former only occurs in uranium ore and the latter only in thorium ore (again, prior knowledge of the sample is important, though the half-life difference is greater than for Ra isotopes). I also suspect that Tc and Np are too rare in nature to make extraction feasible.

I have one related question. Might you know why so many PTs classify Tc and Pm as "synthetic" (or even worse, in lieu of solid/liquid/gas) but not At and Fr? I believe none of these occur in appreciable quantities in nature, so are synthesized for almost all purposes, and consensus in the literature is that At is the rarest naturally occurring element. (Also, 1 ng ⁹⁹Tc in a kilogram of uranium ore suggests a much greater abundance on Earth than 0.1 ng ²¹⁵At in the entirety of the North and South American crust, and I doubt ²¹⁸At and ²¹⁹At are abundant enough to compete with Tc.) IMO it would make much more sense to only label elements with Z > 94 as synthetic. ^Complex/_Rational 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion, but not a sourced answer. I think it's because Tc and Pm only occur as spontaneous fission products, whereas At and Fr occur in the alpha/beta decay chains of Th and U. So if you just look at the decay chains in handbooks, you'll find At and Fr and call them natural, but you won't find Tc and Pm. That would also explain why natural Np and Pu are also generally forgotten. I agree with you (though I suspect some interstellar ²⁴⁷Cm may be found someday, which would bring it up to Z > 96). I could see calling Tc, Pm, At, Np, and Pu synthetic because they were discovered that way, but calling At synthetic but Fr not is a bit silly IMO. Both of them occur in quantities too small to be useful.

Personally, based on discussions with DA, I suspect that all the synthetic elements up to 120 are solids at STP, except liquid metals Cn and Fl. (119 should go above Fr, since ns should be held tighter.) Above 120, obviously calculations are not complete, but the usual thing in the 8th period is heavily blurred blocks, so there wouldn't be much chance for a liquid metal. Maybe at most 172 as a xenon analogue, but I suspect it's rather an "inert solid". Though this is obviously complete speculation. :)

Tc and Np are so rare that I suspect that they were based on what you'd get from artificial synthesis. For Np, ²³⁷Np is the most stable and most common isotope, and it's the only one that can be created by neutron capture. And you can't make the more stable Tc isotopes lighter than ⁹⁹Tc from fission because the beta decay stops at stable Mo isotopes. Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. ¹⁴⁷Pm would also appear from the decay of natural ¹⁵¹Eu, but that was only discovered in 2007. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is a neutral opinion, because this man is standing with his people and 90% of Iranians love him,saying my opinion isn't neutral is like saying hitler wasn't evil. 5.134.180.58 (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then add a reliable source (such as a reputed newspaper) substantiating your claim – which if true, should be relatively easy to find. Otherwise, as you wrote it, it's nearly impossible to distinguish from a personal opinion. I should also say that such an addition would belong with appropriate context in the body rather than the short description, as it creates an impression of bias or undue weight in its brevity. ^Complex/_Rational 18:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know more about where this would come up on WP than I do, but the alpha decay of ¹⁸⁴Os has needed updating since 2014. :) Double sharp (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few places I'll look and tidy up (basically anywhere saying that there are ≥252 stable nuclides now), though now I'm second-guessing my counting ability :) I hope there aren't too many similar updates that have been collectively missed. ^Complex/_Rational 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just Ctrl+F'd my way through NUBASE to cross-check the list of stable nuclides. The correct number is indeed 251; I should note that NUBASE2020 incorrectly lists ⁷⁸Kr, ¹²⁴Xe, and ¹³⁰Ba as stable whereas observations of their double electron capture have been published in the literature. Off to correcting I go... ^Complex/_Rational 22:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that's cleared up! I was rather worried once I realised that we'd somehow overlooked one for over eight and a half years. There's a review of searches for such slow decays from 2019.

Indeed, I was worried about that myself. It would definitely be prudent to semi-regularly check the literature for new observations of slow decays. And since this list of theoretical slow decays includes essentially all the nuclides stated to be observationally stable on WP along with predicted half-lives, do you think it would be helpful to include it as a citation? ^Complex/_Rational 19:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Double sharp (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we seem to have a better determination of the ¹⁷⁴Hf half-life from 2020.

Updated, good catch. ^Complex/_Rational 19:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in list of nuclides the primordial Yb isotopes should be moved to having lower limits on the half-life as of 2022.

(Still hoping for the day we get to move ^180mTa to the radionuclides, of course! :D) Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And by "too fast to die", I assume you're referring to the high spin of ^180mTa? ^Complex/_Rational 19:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. :D Double sharp (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 30: WikiWednesday @ BPL + on Zoom

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Brooklyn Public Library by Grand Army Plaza, in the Central Library's Info Commons Lab, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! We are proud to announce that monthly PIZZA has returned! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Brooklyn Public Library encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. Wednesday November 30 WikiWednesday @ BPL (RSVP on-wiki). 6:30 pm - 8:00 pm (note modified time) (Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn) Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a natural trace radioisotope? ((Infobox promethium)) and ((Infobox promethium isotopes)) claim it is, but not the main table at Isotopes of promethium. Double sharp (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Apparently I added that back in 2018, mentioning spallation as the probable source. I can't remember what source I was using for this; we should probably both go look. :) Double sharp (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll research this within the next few days; the answer depends on whether any RS describes ¹⁴⁵Pm occurring in nature in noticeable quantities. Spallation and neutron capture reactions could theoretically generate a lot of radionuclides in trace quantities that are otherwise entirely synthetic, and we can't realistically keep track of every nuclide that would be produced by such means. And let's not even get started on fission products :) ^Complex/_Rational 23:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be proton capture by Nd, listed by this article (but in stellar atmospheres). Double sharp (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find anything on this for Earth? (The source I found for stars isn't enough, or we'd have to mark natural elements to Es thanks to Przybylski's star.) Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not even anything suggesting that it's a significant fission product. Proton capture on ¹⁴⁴Nd (or, for that matter, neutron capture on ¹⁴⁴Sm) is nowhere near significant enough, also considering the vastly different conditions in stellar atmospheres. Also, by that logic, we ought to include any isotopes producible following p, β+ or n, β−, for which I doubt consensus exists, just as Emsley's claim about natural ²⁴⁹Bk is unsubstantiated. I also don't think stellar atmospheres or otherwise off-Earth abundance is enough – and what if somehow SHEs are found somewhere in the cosmos? ^Complex/_Rational 00:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, took it out.

(I find Przybylski's star somewhat tantalising evidence of SHEs in the cosmos, honestly! If they exist, they probably cannot be made by a "normal" r-process because neutron capture should cause fission before you get there. If they can be made by some process, it should be rare, and you'd only see them in a few stars that passed through one of the events that made them, or formed from a nebula arising from the right type of supernova, pretty much as suggested here.) Double sharp (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, you might want to consider writing an article on him (ru:Гольданский, Виталий Иосифович); Ghiorso and Seaborg suggested him as a possible Russian scientist to name an element after instead of Kurchatov (Gamow and Landau were the other floated possibilities; see The Transuranium People, p. 385), and I feel like that's already evidence of notability since only very eminent scientists were considered.

(And yes, I really would love goldanskium, gamowium, landauvium. Especially Gamow's element: his books really inspired me as a child. :D) Double sharp (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That entry for his birthplace in the infobox is not a typo: in 1923 Vitebsk was in the RSFSR. It was transferred to the BSSR the next year. Double sharp (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Started working on it, User:Double sharp/Vitalii Goldanski. But probably will be slow. Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes

• Eddie891
• Euryalus
• TheresNoTime

• Alex.muller
• Excirial
• RedWordSmith
• Ron Ritzman
• TheresNoTime
• Stephen

Interface administrator changes

TheresNoTime

TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

Fig. 1 here has a nice chart. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't think E117 could be produced at a rate of ~1 atom/day! And it looks like indirect synthesis is considered fair game in that plot (the half-lives match those of ²⁸¹Rg and ²⁸⁵Cn, for instance), while many sources suggest that indirect synthesis methods are unfavorable for chemical investigations.

Also, IMO, the chart would be even nicer if the half-life plot also were logarithmic on the y-axis. But I admit I've developed some bias towards log plots as of late. :D ^Complex/_Rational 05:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, both Cn and Nh were investigated by producing them as daughters of Fl and Mc respectively. (And as Yakushev notes, Mc itself should soon be accessible for investigation.)

Yes, Ts surprised me very much! (Perhaps it reflects what the SHE factory can do?) Og appears to be 1 atom/month or thereabouts. Maybe 119 will be quite within reach if an Es target becomes feasible. Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should upload the figure? Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess we should update articles like Darmstadtium that still say that indirect synthesis isn't as favourable. Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I might also like to see sources specifically mentioning Ds, for which the main hurdle would then be short-lived isotopes. Maybe another reason against indirect synthesis (again, need a source for this) is branching ratios, i.e.. only a minor alpha decay branch leading to the desired nuclide, which effectively reduces its production by a considerable amount. ^Complex/_Rational 14:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to see a full updated review. By periodicity there are probably volatile enough hexafluorides of Mt and Ds, but I doubt anyone would want to use a fluorine gas atmosphere to get at them! Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Google Translate is good enough with Japanese, you'd probably enjoy this. Double sharp (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you done with the new lanthanide isotopes? Because I'd like to update this table according to the main "isotopes of X" lists. Double sharp (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some heavy isotopes of 3d metals have been missing since 2010 apparently. Or are they unconfirmed? For now I'm just following our "isotopes of X" articles.

Also, how long should a nuclear isomer live before it gets included in our table of nuclides? Double sharp (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, finally made it to the halfway point (Z = 59, Pr). It really is badly out of date. :( Maybe I'll get to the other half soon, or you might beat me to it. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I overlooked this thread. That last round of partial updates was solely to include information from that one journal article.

A lot of the "Isotopes of X" articles need to be updated both to NUBASE2020 and additional publications; I haven't had time lately to do this manually and I haven't been able to find a way to semi-automate it. What frustrates me is the fact that NUBASE sorts isotopes by mass number whereas we sort isotopes by element, which makes manual updates incredibly tedious and time-consuming, and conversion to CSV or otherwise extracting the raw data from the NUBASE files is not at all trivial. Admittedly, I probably lack the technical expertise to implement a better method; might you have any suggestions?

And regarding isomers, I feel inclined to use the threshold of 10⁻⁹ seconds described in Nuclear isomer (As a result, the characterization "nuclear isomer" is usually applied only to configurations with half-lives of 10−9 seconds or longer.)), though would be more comfortable doing so if this is the threshold used by reliable sources. Exceptions can be made for noteworthy excited states provided their properties are well-documented. ^Complex/_Rational 16:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that there is any standardisation. To quote Dommelen: But some­times a nu­cleus gets stuck in a metastable state that takes far longer to de­cay. Such a state is called an iso­meric state. Krane [31, p. 174] ball­parks the min­i­mum life­time to be con­sid­ered a true iso­meric state at roughly 10⁻⁹ s, Bertu­lani [5, p. 244] gives 10⁻¹⁵ s, and NuDat 2 [[12]] uses 10⁻¹ s with qual­i­fi­ca­tion in their poli­cies and 10⁻⁹ s in their glos­sary. Don’t you love stan­dard­iza­tion? In any case, this book will not take iso­mers se­ri­ous un­less they have a life­time com­pa­ra­ble to 10⁻⁹ sec­ond. Why would an ex­cited state that can­not sur­vive for a mil­lisec­ond be given the same re­spect as tan­ta­lum-180m, which shows no sign of kick­ing the bucket af­ter 10¹⁵ years?

Sorry, no technical expertise on this either, though maybe WP:HD could help us. Double sharp (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I found it in the 1985 paper, but I want to know how the LBNL attempt to make 119 produced enough Es for a target. Because right now our article on ununennium first says you can't make enough Es for a target, and then that it was done in 1985, which requires an explanation.

I'd really rather know this well in advance of the inevitable surge in views the 119 article will get when somebody discovers it. Who knows, maybe it can be the first element on WP to be an FA (it's already GA!) before it's discovered! Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that when ²⁵⁴Es was used as a target, only a few micrograms were available at a time, which is quite a bit less than the tens of milligrams of Bk and Cf. While the cross section does not directly depend on the amount of target material, the reaction rate does (and is directly proportional). This distinction is why micrograms are considered "not enough" to produce SHEs with low cross sections: the reaction rate would imply the time to produce one atom (on average) exceeds the duration of the experiment. I'll see if I can find a source that clearly explains this for the E119 article to cite. ^Complex/_Rational 15:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they must've used less than a microgram, rereading the 1985 paper carefully: The LEAP proposal for the production of 40 μg of Es would make possible a target 100 times larger than that used in our experiments. Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also you've probably seen this (from last year), but in case you haven't, I'm posting it on your talk page. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I have not (at least, not that I remember). I've been looking for something like this to read for a while, thanks!

On a first pass reading, it seems like ²⁵⁴Es is still only available in tens of micrograms, which as I alluded to above, might not be enough to have a real chance of observing E119 or E121 :( ^Complex/_Rational 15:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-sections go down so quickly in just a few elements that we'll probably not have anything like the 1999–2004 harvest at Dubna. :( Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written by me. Please help me to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManishPanwar (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheManishPanwar: The language of your page needs some work, seemingly due to a rough translation; one thing that stands out is the varying pronouns used (his, she, they) – the subject is a woman, and unless uses different pronouns by choice, the correct pronouns (grammatically) are she/her. Additionally, the language used is very informal (e.g., formidable force to be reckoned with) and has a strong positive tone (e.g., artist par excellence who has selflessly taken, which makes it read more like a fanpage or promotional piece than an encyclopedia article. In general, formal, neutral language with no loaded terms should be used. Similarly, her achievements and influence should be presented in a matter-of-fact way with citations to reliable sources, especially as verifiability is of utmost importance in articles about living people. At present, there is only one inline citation – that's nowhere near enough – and social media sites usually are not reliable sources. I'm not familiar with the subject, so can't say much in terms of content; I advise trimming/rephrasing the text to address the concerns I mentioned and adding citations. ^Complex/_Rational 19:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on your RfA! :) Sarrail (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarrail: Thanks! ^Complex/_Rational 15:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise! Double sharp (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ^Complex/_Rational 02:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I hope you are doing well. Just a gentle ping that there're questions at your RfA waiting to be answered, including mine. Best, — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on them and am aiming to post them by tonight. Thanks for the ping, though. ^Complex/_Rational 22:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fingers crossed for your RfA. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Have a wonderful holiday season filled with peace, joy, prosperity and wonder.
	Hi ComplexRational, Thank you for all your contributions during the year. I'm grateful to you for helping me out with the curation toolbar bug. Good luck with the RFA, you've got a ton of well deserved support! May your 2023 be filled with creativity and good health. Image: Egrets in Snow, Ohara Koson, 1927 Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, Netherzone, and happy holidays to you as well! ^Complex/_Rational 02:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...on a very successful run - have fun with the tools. I'm sure you have a list of people you can turn to if you have any questions, but feel free to put me on it. name on your list of people you can turn to if you have any questions. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your words and your offer, Girth Summit! Some questions and curiosities are inevitable as I figure things out... ^Complex/_Rational 16:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed your RfA as successful. Good luck with your new tools. Maxim_(talk) 17:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Congratulations! Sarrail (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A baton for you!

Continuing the tradition originally started by Tamzin for DanCherek's RfA, I'd like to pass the baton to you as Wikipedia's newest administrator. Well done on your RfA! Good luck, and long live the baton! Many congratulations for an unopposed RfA—it was a pleasure to support it. Best of luck with the tools, and here's hoping that the baton gets passed on again in the not-so-distant future! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]