Talk:Unbitrium

upgrade

I would like to request that this page be upgraded to match the rest of the element pages or be removed.

Ummm....I think you'll have to wait for that to happen.Vancouverguy 01:34, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This should be removed, up to Ubn is fine but beyond that is far into the future and predictions. -fonzy

94.36.22.169 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)I upgraded the page to make it look like other element pages. Check it out! 94.36.22.169 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it gives a lot of facts about hypothetical unbitrium) --94.36.20.252 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Are the facts sourced to reliable sources? Or are they just original research and original speculations? Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (chemistry is interesting and people may want to know about unbitrium.) --94.36.20.252 (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Chemistry is certainly interesting, but nothing is known about unbitrium. Nothing solid even seems to have been predicted by reliable sources. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

94.36.22.169 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Well, it will give hypothetical info about unbitrium94.36.22.169 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

94.36.22.169 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)And, properties of unbitrium are predicted by those of protactinium94.36.22.169 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

For those who wish to comment on whether this article should be a redirect to Extended periodic table there is a dicussion at WT:ELEM#Ubt recreated about this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

94.36.22.169 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)I think "unbitrium" should stay94.36.22.169 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unbitrium creation underway

Gcchemistry (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)I've made an article "Unbitrium" in my sandbox, and I asked a reviewer to check it. If it is created, please create "Infobox unbitrium". See the disccussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Ubt_recreated. Check out my sandbox! By the way, I put references to external sources. Gcchemistry (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't make unbitrium from lawrencium and calcium

The extreme rarity of ²⁶²Lr and ⁴⁸Ca means making of ³¹⁰Ubt is nearly impossible. It would cost $25,000,000,000 to make such amount of lawrencium and it would decay before enough is created. And there would be only 0.05 picobarns of the result. That's not enough.