This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
half-life not long enough for chemical and some physical properties to make sense
I've deleted the following entries from the elementbox. Not only could I not find evidence for them in the cited sources, but it seems dubious that something with a half-life of 22 seconds could form crystals, molecules, etc, enough to measure these.
appearance : unknown, probably silvery
white or metallic gray
Don't know if it is necessary to issue a (partial) correction after so many years, but forming compounds and crystals is possible in a lot less than 22 seconds. It is fine to list things like that if we have sources, and we don't just blindly follow periodic trends (which can be affected by things like relativistic effects). Kingdon (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I (as a Russian) suspect Russians/Germans suggested the name Nielsbohrium to the element not only "to signify", but because Rissians drop most Latin endings in most Latin-based names, and totally change some, so "Boron" in Russian is undestinguishable from "Bohr" (ru:Бор). Latin "-um" in the element names is usually not dropped but transformed, usually to "-iy". Two unrelated elements called "Bor" and "Boriy" would be very confusing. 220.127.116.11 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Troublesome, this. But then again the Russians may try something special for Bohrium, after all there is a special sign ю which is very suitable for the prps. Said: Rursus☻ 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And the situation in Polish is even worse because the Latin termination -um is always dropped in case of chemical elements, so we have "bor" and "bohr", which are pronounced identically, so far :( Pittmirg 15:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittmirg (talk • contribs)
Yes, it's a similar situation in German, where boron is called "Bor" and spelled exactly the same as "Bohr".--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Isotope 274Bh was recently added to this article with a half-life of 1.3 min. However, the source given for it only seems to refer to a "lifetime" of 1.3 min for the single nucleus of this isotope that was produced. This would translate to an expected half-life substantially lower (1.3 min*ln(2)≈1 min) (with large error bars, of course), not making it the longest-lived isotope. So I think this should be corrected. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is it "*ln2"? If you think you are right, then feel free to go ahead and change it. I am not aware of the conversion details from one event to a population average, so I trust your judgement on this one. Nergaal (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
ln2 is a conversion factor between the half-life (1/2 intensity decay) and lifetime (1/e intensity decay). I am going though articles which used that reference and correcting the values. Materialscientist (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I never noticed the subtle difference until now, but you are right. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The beginning is decently polished. That part is GA-worthy. If I rewrote the Chemical properties section and added physical and atomic properties it would be comparable to the Hs article in current quality. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)