Talk:Nihonium

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ununtrium

Elementbox converted 11:10, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 19:48, 7 June 2005).

I'm fiddling slightly with the wording on this whole set of entries; comments please. (E.g., "temporary" before "name", link to element and transuranic (the latter I found with one bracket after and none before).

In particular, "the Latin for that number" isn't quite right: it's a deliberately ugly Latinate for "one-one-three", not Latin for "one hundred thirteen". Vicki Rosenzweig

Confirmed?

Can't this be considered confirmed, and hence the sentence "Their discovery of the element still awaits confirmation" deleted? Olin 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess so. Gone. Femto 12:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eka-thallium

This http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22eka-thallium%22&btnG=Search should suffice as general confirmation. Specific inline citation doesn't seem necessary; I removed the citation request and included a link to eka. Femto 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following periodic trends it is expected to be a soft, silvery highly reactive metal, rather like sodium.

Surely it should be more like thallium than sodium. Sodium is very active, thallium a lot less so.--Syd Henderson 05:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic trends aren't really enough: see the papers cited at element 112 and Hassium. I wish I knew more of this, but what I have been reading makes it clear to me that we can't just make stuff up based on periodic trends and expect to be close. Kingdon 06:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ref

Physical Review C: "Experiments on the synthesis of element 115 in the reaction 243Am(48Ca,xn)291–x115", Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkoy, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh. Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov, G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, A. N. Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, A. A. Voinov, G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagrebaev, M. G. Itkis, J. B. Patin, K. J. Moody, J. F. Wild, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, D. A. Shaughnessy, J. M. Kenneally, and R. W. Lougheed, Phys. Rev. C, 2004, 69, 021601(R). --Stone 10:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I will decide to name this element Japonium (Jp) after Japan. Cosmium 20:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I've moved the following text from the article to here:

Calacium, symbol Pn [for little one in spanish] is another name suggested by Falmouth, MA, USA citizens.

First there is no source. Secondly, there is an issue of what is due weight. The opinions of the scientists who discovered the element are more significant than someone who has an idea but hasn't gotten much support for it. The latter might be worth mentioning if it has been picked up by enough places, however. Kingdon 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Names Section for Z=112,113,114,115,116 and 118

I've noticed that this section often leads to a lot of debate. It's difficult to assess whether this section ought to be taken seriously, especially when the names are not referenced to the labs involved. However, it is understandable that people like to speculate on the matter and have a bit a fun, which I poersonally don't mind as long as they are sensible. As such, I written a new format for the above element name sections (excluding 118) and have written intros to indicate to users/readers the relative importance of the proposal, so readers can clearly differntiate between the two. I'll let others decide whether they like this proposal. I feel as though it keeps the article professional but also allows everyone to contribute in some way.--Drjezza (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed Names for new elements

I've written to Prof West at IUPAC requesting a statement listing the names disallowed under current IUPAC rules. This is especially important given the indication that Dubna want to call element 118 (or another) flerovium, which has been previously suggested (by IUPAC apparently!) for element 102.I'll let people know the result.--Drjezza (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

soft, silvery metal

Currently the article claims

Following periodic trends it is expected to be a soft, silvery metal.

Isn't that a slightly bizarre claim for an element whose longest-lived isotope has a half-life less than a tenth of a second? It makes it sound as though you could pick up a bar of the stuff, admire it, and dent it with your fingernail, when in reality, in less than a second, 99.9% of it would have decayed, releasing 10 MeV per atom and presumably vaporizing the decay products? --Trovatore (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed that there was a half-second isotope. Still. --Trovatore (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becquerelium

The article doesn't even mention the name "becquerelium", and you can check out that the Russian team proposed the name in honour of the famous French physicist Henri Becquerel on [[1]]. "Becquerelium" does redirect here though. --121.7.203.206 (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]