Talk:Element 0

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Video games

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Felix LaHaye (2 participants)
Pokémate (1 participant)
List of Pokémon books (2 participants)
Pokémon Diamond and Pearl Adventure! (1 participant)
VG247 (2 participants)
Roblox Studio (8 participants)
Playware Studios (3 participants; relisted)
Fields of Mistria (8 participants; relisted)
Romhacking.net (2 participants; relisted)
Grove Street Games (4 participants; relisted)
List of Luigi video games (16 participants; relisted)
The Podcats (2 participants; relisted)
Inter-Services Public Relations media productions (12 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Element 0

I would like to have it expanded. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic deals with a nomenclature curiosity and does not make much sense from a strict chemical point of view, nor is very notable. Neutron is an elementary particle of short lifetime (mean lifetime: 885.7(8) s (free)). To the best of my knowledge, an atom of an element to make a chemical bond with another atom requires at least one electron to be shared with it. We are here at the boundary between pure physics and chemistry. It is a pure view of the mind without real added value for the chemist. Better to let it to Science Fiction or to astrophysics if you would like to consider that a neutron star is one big and ultra dense atom. I would propose not to further develop such a page from a chemical viewpoint: indeed, it could be misleading for people lacking sufficient basis in physics and chemistry and has no impact on chemical nomenclature. Have also a look here at Neutron#Stability_and_beta_decay and here Neutron#Neutron_compounds. Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if you think it is or not, I'm simply trying to clarify the usage of this term - how some use it to refer to neutron substances. Why do people think it my ideology whenever I mention it? Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear and to avoid any confusion. There is no objection to develop the history of this term or to illustrate it with appropriate references and examples if available (and it can be pleasant or fun). Moreover, it is already explained on the Neutronium page and on other related talk pages where it is criticised. However, what inspired my doubt and some new fears was a sentence in one of your previous edits (already cancelled by someone else) dealing with IUPAC nomenclature:

Using the IUPAC systematic element name algorithm, its placeholder name would be Nilium.

I understand well the reasoning (and the meaning of all the terms used, including the use of the conditional tense) which is quite logical and also correct from the formal viewpoint of a purely axiomatic-deductive reasoning. And it is not a problem per se. However, to the best of my knowledge, presently nobody uses the term Nilium to name the possible placeholder of a neutron in the periodic table (absence of proton: atomic number = 0), and it is also not very useful. So, why to promote such an exotic use on Wikipedia? This can only be misleading for the inexperienced reader or novice students.
I would rather suggest to priviledge the inductive approach and to start from the real use or existing current habits in chemistry to name elements. Neutron is not a chemical element, it is a nucleon and cannot be presently isolated in the lab as a substance, even if it is the main constituent of massive neutron stars in the Universe. Nothing more.
This is not the first time such a discussion arises about a pseudo-IUPAC term/name (Nilium), or new terms for molecular geometry (nihilohedral or nilhedral) you invent and promote.
Most Google results with "element zero" or "element 0" return to gaming or science fiction, or to this Wikipedia page, but not to a convincing scientific article, nor to a commonly used textbook in the field of physics and chemistry.
At the best, Google Scholar points to books of mathematics. That is all, but please, do not take it personally, the discussion is wider. Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former discussion about tetraneutron

A very similar topic has already been discussed previously elsewhere: Talk:Tetraneutron#Ridiculosium and say nearly the same as mentioned here above about the chemical point of view for the unproved concept of Tetraneutron, never confirmed and only suggested via one single empiric test that could never be reproduced. Shinkolobwe (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation or redirect?

There seems no question that the article could be a disambiguation page, between neutronium (treated as an element), and the unrelated substance in Mass Effect. We could argue whether it should be a redirect to neutronium, with a hat note (formerly present) pointing to Mass Effect, or a disambiguation page.

Furthermore, the version of the page I'm supported meets the manual of style (WP:MOS) on disambiguation pages, having only one link per line. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]