Talk:Systematic element name

Elements Start‑class Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Why not just adopt this system permanently?

Does anyone know why the IUPAC doesn't just adopt this system permanently for all the elements? It's certainly better than having to go through the stupid naming controversy again for elements 112-118. Also, it's so much easier, makes so much more sense, and you can tell how many protons an element has by its element name without having to refer to a periodic table. Perhaps the most common elements (H, C, O, etc.) can retain their common names, but change everything else to the systematic names. They are superior in every way.

169.229.99.156 03:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number	Name
0	nil
1	un
2	bi
3	tri
4	quad
5	pent
6	hex
7	sept
8	oct
9	enn

Did everyone in the IUPAC flunk Latin and Greek and want to flaunt it? Once upon a time Archie Bunker said there are two reasons form something he proposed (I don't remember what). He listed the reasons:

(a) Because .... , and

(2) Because .... .

"(a) and (2)". That's what this sounds like.

un is Latin; bi is Latin; tri is either Latin or Greek; quad is Latin; pent is Greek; hex is Greek; sept is Latin; oct is Latin; enn is Greek. Did they toss a coin for each one separately to decided which to use? Is such coin-tossing considered "systematic"? Michael Hardy 20:29, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe they wanted to recognize the value that both Latin and Greek have had in the scientific community. Or maybe they were scientists and not linguists. -Branddobbe 07:58, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

The systematicity (?) is obviously not in the origins of the system, but in its application: the six possible translations between atomic number, element name and element symbol can be done mechanically. And although not systematic, the system's origins are not without logic. It's easy to list some of the design goals that had to be met.

The system must be easily recognizable to the majority of the world's scientists. Greek and Latin are both traditional sources for newly coined scientific terms.
For aesthetic reasons, each root must be monosyllabic. That rules out mono and nona, for example.
No two roots must start with the same letter, to avoid ambiguous symbols. Given quad, quint is ruled out.
It must be possible to chain the roots into pronounceable words.

Notice that most of these requirements are linguistic in nature; the IUPAC system is linguistically sound. Given constraints like the above, the IUPAC system may be near-optimal. Just try and come up with a better proposal. :–)

—Herbee 02:19, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

The prefixes for 5, 6 and 8 match those used for alkanes. 1-4 are not numeric. 7 is heptane and 9 is nonane, both of which violate your hypothetical rules. As for why don't we use just this? Because it'd be awful and lend itself to misunderstanding; "Did he say enn or un? It's hard to tell with his accent". Why not simply call them "Element 1", etc. if stark's what you're after--belg4mit 2006-01-27

7 wouldn't be heptane, it would be septium. 9 would be ennium, and same for the others. If you had read the article carefully, you would have seen that the suffix -ium overrides any traditional chemistry rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.23.16 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That particular confusion may be averted by pronouncing "un" as /uːn/ "OON" and "enn" as /ɛn/ "EN". Double sharp (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just call it Indo-European, and all these silly "Latin Season, Greek Season" debates quickly vanish. After all, PIE counted something like: oinos, duo, tri, kwetwor, penkwe, sweks, septm, octo, novn... --Sturmde 03:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if we had this, then a neutron would be renamed nilium.

Humans remember meaningful words better than numbers. I, for one, would only get confused if iron was named "bihexium" or gold was named "septennium". JIP | Talk 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Is octium correct for IUPAC? Wouldn't it be Nilniloctium, (Nno) ? The trivia section should be expanded to include all IUPAC temporary names assigned to elements how having real permanent names. 132.205.15.43 23:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope, it's Element 8, not Element 008. Octium would be correct. (Would that make nitrogen eligible for jamesbondium? Hmmmm.) However, Bium for Helium and Trium for Lithium do have some humour there. And Intel might be annoyed by Beryllium's new name! --Sturmde 03:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Intel would be affected by boron new name. The new name of boron would be "Pentium" Polonium 02:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IUPAC recommendation is only valid for new elements with Z>100, your speculations are WP:OR and should thus NOT be added to the article. One might consider adding a list of those elements which did have a systematic name for some time, which I think would start somewhere between Z=104 and Z=109.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or Niloctium (No) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.23.16 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that would mess up things when referring to old sources before the systematic-name move as No is now the symbol for nobelium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Element Ennseptnilium (Esn)

Have scientists found the 970th Element? Or was it an Example of a not discovered (yet) element. 9, 7, 0, & 2 are my favorite numbers. When I saw the example for Ennseptnilium (element 970), I was shocked. I just want to know, is the 970th Element known? -- Hurricane Devon (Talk) 16:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. The highest known element currently is ununoctium, element 118 (even that may be a fraud, making it element 116). Due to proton repulsion and decreasing nuclear binding energies, it is very unlikely that element 970 will ever be made. Polonium 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it isn't worth the bother trying to think what they will do when they run out of three-digit atomic numbers after ennennennium (Eee)? JIP | Talk 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Isaac Asimov said the highest element possible is 156. Tragic romance 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov is a good source for the well known, but he had a tendency to extrapolate erroneously; the kind of stuff that leaves Adam Savage asking if the depleted uranium is sorted under "D" or "U". I recall his calculation of the rotational speed of the Earth four billion years ago. If he'd applied his logic to Jupiter, he would have gotten a negative rotation period, but for Earth he got three hours, and used it. If Asimov cited a source for 156 that's a source, but Asimov himself is not a source. Even if Asimov had a source, we're talking twenty plus years ago, so it's probably not current.

In fairness, Asimov made it pretty clear when he was extrapolating. He didn't just write nonsense, he always carefully explained how his nonsense was derived. Randall Bart Talk 19:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the element after ennennennium (Eee) is unnilnilnilium (Unnn). Randall Bart Talk 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. The IUPAC recommendation is explicitly only for three-digit atomic numbers, excluding 100. Hence elements 1000 and above are effectively unnamed – not that it matters, since they are almost certainly impossible. Double sharp (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can go past Period 8. Period 9 - maybe 169 and 170, but probably no more. (Apisidium lists up to 226 - "bibihexium" - but it's just mindless extrapolation, and even that extrapolation depends on the Madelung rule.) Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 08:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and don't forget the elements TNT and PSP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.23.16 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) and also don't forget pentoctoctium (Poo) and pentennennium (Pee). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.218.229.130 (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious, but unfortunately, the limit of elements seems to be ₁₇₂Usb Unseptbium or ₁₇₃Ust Unsepttrium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for this in Extended periodic table. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial

I haven't studied chemistry since secondary school, but the first couple of sentances seem odd. What does 'trivial' permanent name mean? Do big numbered elements get a significant name too? I would have thought that the situation might be that elements have a 'trivial' name until someone actually synthesises them and then can call them whatever they like. As I said, I'm pretty ignorant about this sort of thing. Thanks. 89.100.9.164 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, elements with large atomic numbers also do get permanent names. So here's the story about why they don't do it like you simply have the first person to discover an element get to name it whatever they want.

Before the 1990's, that principle did apply in which if you first find it, you name it. But what happened was with elements 104-109, research labs in America, the Soviet Union, and Germany all claimed to have created these elements first, so as you can imagine, the all started quarreling with one another over who discovered the element first and who had the rights to name it. So each nation would just name it whatever they liked (for element 105, the Americans called it hahnium (Ha), the Soviets called it dubnium (Db), and (I think) the Germans called it joliotium (Jo).)

Eventually, the IUPAC was getting fet up with all the arguing and sometime in the 90's they came up with the systematic system using Greek and Latin numerical prefixes. They gave element 104 the name of unnilquadium, 105 the name of unnilpentium, and so on, up to 109 (unnilennium). Then, in 1997, they decided on the names these elements have today. The same thing happened with elements 110 (ununnillium/darmstadtium) and 111 (unununium/roentgenium). Right now, Russia, America, and Germany still argue over elements 112-116, 118, while 117 and Period 8 still lays hidden. This system still applies today, in which as soon as a nation claims to of made a new element, the IUPAC decides who really did make the element* and then decides who gets to name it.

Regarding dubnium, still to this day, we don't know who made it first. So I believe that since America got what they wanted with 104, they just decided the Soviets deserved at least one transactinide for them. Also, the IUPAC is INTERNATIONAL (that's what the I means), and wasn't biased towards either side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venusium112 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joliotium was actually Jl. It wasn't discovered by the Germans. Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 08:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I planned on creating pages for elements (see my user page, second headline), but starting with Ubp (125), I found that it redirects to this page. I can assume that all the other elements do this too. So under what conditions can I put information back into the pages, or should I abandon the idea entirely? W1k13rh3nry 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I did a google search for the elements and found that a lot of the other language Wikipedias have articles on these elements... should en follow suit? W1k13rh3nry 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good article on all yet unknown elements with a list of all the postulated properies would be better than several articles with minimal usefull information.--Stone 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deca??

I'm removing the "deca" entry for ten in the table, because it just makes no sense. Just to be sure, I checked that it does not appear in other references. It's been there 5 months... Such are the limitations of Wikipedia, I guess Ratfox 19:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I at first thought 120 had to be "unundecium". Now I know better. ;-) Hexadecachoron ^talk _contribs 08:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsepttrium or Unseptrium

Does anyone know which of Unseptrium or Unsepttrium is correct, because I have seen conflicting sources. I know that according to the rules, Unsepttrium would be correct, but it just sounds awkward. Does anyone know anything about this. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be spelled Unsepttrium but pronounced Unseptrium. 13:43 11 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.210.145 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only elision rules that depart from the expected spelling reduce double -ii- (which would occur if the last digit is 2 or 3) to single -i-, and triple -nnn- (which would occur if a 0 immediately follows a 9) to double -nn-. Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a Naming Rule

Isn't the list of naming rules missing the rule "If 'quad' is followed by '-ium', the result is 'quadrium' and not 'quadium'?" 24.6.51.234 (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)cbishop[reply]

No, that is wrong. E.g. it's ununquadium, not ununquadrium. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The names of elements

Why the element "gold" isn't called "septnonium" (Sn), silver isn't called "quadseptium" (Qs)? And a neutron can be called "nillium"? The element 115 isn't "ununquinium" why? And the element 999 is "nonanonanonium", 1000 is "Unnillnillnillium"? Why element 20 is "binillium", instead of "vingtium", and 100 is "Unnillnillium", not "centium", why? If the end is 4, it won't be "-quadrium", and if 5, it isn't "-quintium", why?

0 = nill 1 = un / mono 2 = bi / duo 3 = tri 4 = quad / tetra 5 = quin / pent 6 = sex / hex 7 = sept / hept 8 = oct 9 = nona / enn 10 = dec — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.126.202.81 (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not applicable because of the certain IUPAC. If you don't agree with these, complain it with the IUPAC. Plus your suggested quad and quin is not allowed to be in because the first letter is the same, for example if your system is used the systematic name for element 54 and 45 will be the same. 08adamsm (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not to name all elements with IUPAC?

I suggest to keep the names of ancient elements (Ex: gold, silver, copper, iron, tin), and other elements can be named as their atomic number (Ex: hydrogen is "unium", helium is "bion", lithium is "trium", etc.), if not, why element 53 is "iodine", it should be named "quintrine", why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.126.202.81 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is because this system was invented for unconfirmed elements, so that academic papers, research journals, etc. have a name they could refer to. The use of the IUPAC name implies that the element is unconfirmed, so they don't need to write (unconfirmed) next to a hypothesized element. Unconfirmed means the element hasn't been reproduced in multiple laboratories around the world & scientifically validated. Once an element is confirmed to exist, the IUPAC needs to come up with yet another name to distinguish it from unconfirmed elements, this is where the politics come into play. 98.210.60.236 (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover it wouldn't work in Chinese. Each time an element is named, the Chinese create ONE character for it, so it fits in the table. A compound of syllables would be up to three numbers and therefore three characters. Besides, who do you think you are? Your suggestion doesn't interest anyone.--2.246.35.171 (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could work as a character with a multisyllabic pronunciation (this is not unheard of, e.g. 吋 cùn or yīngcùn, although this is very rare nowadays): a possible concept would be to have the "metal" radical (traditional 釒, simplified 钅) on the left side, and then the characters for the digits, stacked. (For readability's sake, zero would probably have to be 〇 rather than 零.) The characters for 1, 2, and 3, being 一, 二, and 三, would need some means of character separation: maybe they would alternate between horizontal and vertical orientations if they succeed each other immediately. Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the first few, you could use Suzhou numerals. — Sebastian 17:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'd probably just use them for the otherwise ambiguous cases of 1, 2, and 3, to alternate between horizontal and vertical strokes. (And also, thank you for demonstrating that piping trick that avoids explicitly displaying the ping!) Double sharp (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be ignoring two important parts of this system.

1) It is intended to provide temporary names for elements which don't yet have permanent names. Thus you don't call boron "pentium", because it already has a name.

2) Even if you forgot the name for boron, it isn't "pentium" or "nilnilpentium", it simply doesn't have a systematic name. The system is explicitly for transfermium elements, ie, elements past 100. Even using "unilnilium" for fermium is wrong, because this is for elements after 100. Randall Bart Talk 19:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are right (though I didn't ignore it, but instead gave a suggestion as to how this concept would work in Chinese). The original IUPAC article restricts it to Z ≥ 101, and notes that it is only from Z ≥ 104 that they became the only recognized names (in 1979) and not "minor alternatives to the trivial names" (mendelevium, nobelium, and lawrencium). Furthermore, since they say that the symbols must have 3 letters, it would appear that this recommendation only applies to 101 ≤ Z ≤ 999 (not that we'll ever get anywhere near that far, IMHO).

OTOH, if you have forgotten the name for boron, but know its atomic number, I think "element 5" should work all right. (Although it sounds really odd for such a light element.) And indeed you can often see "element 115" used instead of "ununpentium". Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would "U" stand for? -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic?

Instead of systematic names, shouldn't the name of the element just be the atomic number of the element? 108.71.123.46 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example

Out of curiosity, what would the name for an element with the atomis number 9,999 be? Sea Captain Cormac 17:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

9999. 108.66.234.139 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Example #2

What would the name for an element with atomic number 1000 be, because it is a 4 digit number? 108.66.234.139 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. The system is only for elements with atomic numbers between 101 and 999 inclusive. Anyway, it's not particularly likely that such an oversize atom could exist. Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Series

If the G block starts with an element with atomic number 121, what would the first row of the G block be called? 108.65.81.68 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the 3rd row of the F block starts with an element with atomic number 139, what would that row be called? 108.65.81.68 (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]