Talk:List of chemical element naming controversies

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elements 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Some of the older controversies[edit]

There was not really much of a controversy over this, as del Río did not pursue his priority even after Wöhler proved that he had been right all along. Additionally, the controversy of elements 70 and 71 was closed once with priority to Urbain (recognising Marignac for 70), but was reopened in the controversy for element 72, when it became clear that Urbain had misidentified pure lutetium as 72 because his 71 was a mixture of ytterbium and lutetium; thus there was a campaign (with such names as Hevesy, Coster, Paneth and Bohr supporting it) to grant Auer the priority and reinstate his chosen name cassiopeium for element 71. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the element 70 and 71 controversy listed should really extend to 72. It even became one of the longest-running naming controversies, rivaling (IIRC) the transfermium one. (It's just that it's no longer recent enough for many to remember, even if relooking at the evidence with modern-day knowledge does generally lead to the conclusion that cassiopeium should have triumphed instead of lutetium.) Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermium Wars[edit]

The 102-109 section of this article is trying to cover the same information as the page on the Transfermium wars, but editing to one page doesn't always reach the other, etc, and this section has needed additional work for over a decade now per it's tag. I found it confusing to go back and forth to piece things together. What do people think about having a brief overview here and then merging the rest of the information here into the main transfermium wars page? Heliopolisfirebirdii (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]