Talk:Nihonium/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Electrons per shell

Is the arrangement of electrons per shell known or, like several of the elements over 111, merely predicted? 86.143.144.95 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

IUPAC has not officially confirmed its discovery, though; the article on Ununbium says that Uub is still the highest element recognized as confirmed by IUPAC. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation?

The in-line pronunciation in the first sentence of the article is different from that located on the right side bar. Which is correct, oon-oon-trium or un-un-trium (sorry, I don't know IPA)? The incorrect one should be removed from here and probably the commons as well. The samr problem exists with ununpentium and ununquadium. FWIW, the article on ununhexium currently has only one pronunciation - the oon-oon- one. Brianski (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (edited Brianski (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC))

Good point. The IUPAC source that we use (see References) recommends "oon", as in "moon", which makes the intro pronunciations (with their associated IPA and respellings) correct, and the right sidebar ones incorrect. Lfh (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

A stable isotope (or meta-stable isomer, a la Ta-180m or Bi-210m) may be discovered in the future, although this is highly unlikely. I don't think it'll follow periodic trends exactly: my hypothesis is that spin-orbit coupling will stabilize the 7p_1/2 subshell (half-filled in Uut), increasing Uut's electronegativity with respect to that of thallium, and thus allowing it to form stronger metallic bonds. That, and the fact that it is expected to show only the +1 (or perhaps -1) oxidation state, would seem to imply silver- or gold-like physical and chemical properties. There would also be electronic interband transitions (7p_1/2 to 7p_3/2 or 7d_3/2) which, if in the visible range, might impart a visible color to the metal. It's really too sad that there aren't any stable, naturally-occuring stable isotopes of this element; it'd be quite an interesting element to study. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: In the past few days I've been working on writing a paper (based on empirical evidence and basic logic/math/physics) describing my prediction of what Uut's physical properties will be in elemental form. I hope to submit this paper to a physics journal as soon as I've finished it. Once (and if) it gets published, I might provide a link on this talk page, although I won't add it to the article myself since that would violate WP: COI. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Becquerelium

The article doesn't mention the name "becquerelium", and you can check 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)

But the symbol "Bq" isn't likely to be accepted as "Bq" already means the SI unit becquerel for radioactivity. --121.7.203.206 (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added it, thanks. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It says...

In 2011, the IUPAC has evaluated the 2004 RIKEN experiments and 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments, and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for discovery.

When will the next experiment be?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Error with half-life of uut 287

20 m - It could be 20 ms with the s missing, but I don't know. Its not minutes which uses min. Right now its meters which is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.60.248 (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed that entry as it appears vague and uut-287 is not mentioned anywhere around. Materialscientist (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Late reply, and I didn't add it, but m = minutes (it can't be anything else, can it?) Over at copernicium last year I changed all occurrences of "m" to "min" to preempt confusion, but neglected to do it at the other transactinides. (BTW, Uut-287 hasn't been synthesised yet AFAIK, but is a prediction, and so it should be removed anyway.) Double sharp (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

links don't work

please check the links, http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/7/7 isn't available anymore, http://www-cms.llnl.gov/e113_115/images.html is a 404

didn't want to just delete them, maybe there are cached versions or copies of the article somewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.139.66 (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

RIKEN claims discovery (September 2012)

• http://www.science20.com/news_articles/element_113_conclusively_found_japan_will_get_name_it-94515
• http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/09/28/elusive-element-113-finally-created-researchers-say/?intcmp=related

Google shows other results for this too. 76.181.82.108 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment, it's important to note that the researchers themselves caution that their work is not formally published, therefore not peer-reviewed yet.

(e.g. http://www.slashgear.com/scientists-in-japan-claimed-to-have-synthesized-element-113-27249421/ )

It might be worth noting in the article now anyway, but I wouldn't do it without also noting that their claim is preliminary and could be found to be premature. Flj529 (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Fox News article is wrong. Element 113 is not a new discovery. The Japanese claimed to have synthesised it in 2004 as well. The Russians also did it in 2004. This experiment is just confirmation of the Japanese synthesis of the isotope ²⁷⁸113. AFAIK, the Russians haven't done another experiment yet, so it looks likely that the Japanese will get to name element 113. They are thinking of "japonium" or "rikenium" (after their institute), although I'd personally prefer the former because it would finally give us a J on the periodic table. :-) Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts based on one read (not a full-sized review)

The second para of the lead is quite weak. It needs some examples to state the point. 6d may be a surprise, why not try?

The recent events in Japan are well described, but I'd separate them from a previous claim. This one may be successful, after all

The hot fusion section seems so small and lonely...

You have a section called Predicted properties. Predicted nuclear properties are also "predicted properties." You should either reorganize the big section or rename it, since it limits itself to physical, atomic, and chemical properties.

I'd recommend to reorganize it anyway. There are moments when the reading doesn't seem to go straight. Think of para organization. Don't be afraid that could change the way it reads. Small paras are fine here, since the things are not common for a regular reader. I see more in this section not only because it's a question I had to learn recently because I was writing the Uus article, but it also seems the weak one.

For example, ununtrium "belongs to the boron group... Will show the differences". Text organization I'd use is: First tell how they will be similar, and then go to the differences. It's common for rhetoric of text writing: first pros, then contras.

Contracted by 380 pm-- I think this one is a mistake. The longer than the bong length in Hg2.

Sometimes you make the conclusions that are not the next chain in the logical sequence. For example, 1st Ionization energy should be highest, thus +1 is the most favored state. This seems OK, but isn't fine somehow. Excluding the nonexistent as of writing ununtrium, this is true for boron-- and the +1 chem is very small compared to the +3 chem.

Never heard of that Fl and 115 are going to use 6d electrons for chem. Can I have some refs?

Haire says this in the entry for 113, but makes no further mention of it in the Fl and 115 entries. Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't see it, could I have a quote? (Doesn't seem like you should trust it, on first assumption)

"However, destabilization of the 6d levels would contribute to a more transition element character for the earlier 7p elements." It's not made clear just when this ends, but it can't mean just 113 because it says "elements", and this is just under a section header for 113 to 115. Double sharp (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And for 113, you could make a heavier accent on that.

I think you in generally have wrong accents on the stuff here. Chemistry points: should make mostly +1, may make open d-shell +2 and +3 thanks to the easy d10s1--d9s2 jump, there may be one more true valent pair affecting shape of tribal idea and even making +5. The first one's okay, the second two are revolutionary and you mention them more by the way than make accent on it. Change your priorities here. Forget about accessibility for some time. Fix this first. And only then an accessibility check.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

+2 state? Why? And also, refs are again welcome.

Haire says this (it uses the 7p_1/2 electron and a 6d one), but doesn't say why. Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more density because of atomic size than vice versa.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ununtrium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not reviewed a element article before, so please bear with me if I ask any silly questions.

• Why do the second steps of the two Dubna–Livermore collaboration decay chains not balance? (eg mass numbers 288 + 3*1 → 284 + 4 doesn't balance). Is this just how decay chains are written, ignoring "side" products?
  • It's how they're written. Once some particles are emitted, they're ignored. See also the alpha decay chain in the "RIKEN" section. This way, we don't have to keep writing the emitted particles in each step of the decay chain. Double sharp (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• " measuring SF activities" - SF should be written in full, but can be abbreviated the second time (RIKEN section)
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Is there a reason for the unexpectedly high electronegativity of Uut?
  •  Done Good catch! Double sharp (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• "This is because it is estimated to have an atomic radius of about 170 pm" - has this been measured, or predicted?
  •  Done Predicted. Double sharp (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• (On my laptop, at least) the note is broken into three. Since there is only one note, why not simply leave in the default formatting, so that it appears unbroken?
  • Hmm – it works OK on my computer. I used the default "<ref group="note">" formatting, so I'm not sure what could be done to make it display properly on your laptop. Double sharp (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• While not part of GA criteria, I suggest you take a look at the formatting of references. For example, #2 publisher could be wikilinked to, #3 lacks an access date, and #10 could use {{cite press release}} (which would also remove the incorrect italicisation and capitalisation of "press release".

Very good article, I'd just like a few questions answered before I pass. —Andrew_stalk 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Passing now. Good work. —Andrew_stalk 05:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Long-lived isotope

Why doesn't the IUPAC recognise ununtrium if it's longest isotope is ~20 sec? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.213.79 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Uut-287, with an estimated half-life of 20 m, has been documented, although its decay energy is not yet known. See [2].

This is quite exciting, actually; Uut-287 has a half-life almost two orders of magnitude longer than Uut-286, and the half-lives of successive Uut isotopes appear to increase exponentially with increasing atomic mass. If this trend continues, the half-lives may well run into the thorium-232 or even bismuth-209 range once we get to around Uut-305 or so. Of course, there is always the chance that this trend won't continue, so we'll have to wait until we actually synthesize Uut-305 to be sure. We may well have found the island of stability. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this half-life has not been measured, it is only estimated from neighbouring isotopes' values, as the "#" before the value indicates. So they don't confirm such a trend, but assume it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Ununtrium → Element 113 – This request is an outcome of a multi-part discussion conducted in WikiProject Elements, part one, part two. – R8R (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: How to name the elements above 112 has been discussed at WT:ELEM but I don't yet perceive a consensus. We can hold a formal move discussion to get the final answer. Besides the move of Ununtrium, the proposal at WP:RMTR asked for moves of elements 115, 117, 118, 119 and 120. Please consider those elements to be included in this move request as well. I'll leave a note at WT:ELEM to get the attention of those who may be interested. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose it appears on periodic tables in this manner, by far the most published name for this element. The only other form you could use would be "Uut" which also appears on the same periodic tables, in textbookx, etc. The most recognizable form would be the one that you can easily find, which is the current name, or the abbreviation, Uut. And unlike the IUPAC name, "element 113" has no indication it is about a chemical/nuclear element. The term element is inherently vague. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually "ununtrium" is by far not the most published name for this element: "element 113" is. On Google Scholar, "element 113" gives 4060 hits: "ununtrium" gives only 330 hits, and many of them seen on the first few pages are from a single series of papers, one for each isotope of element 113. I think it is safe to conclude that "element 113" is in fact the most used name for this element. If disambiguation is a problem, we could always use element 113 (periodic table): but note that mercury (element) uses simply "element" to disambiguate that the page is on the chemical element Hg (perhaps it should really be mercury (chemical element)?) Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • No, check how many English-language chemistry text books and periodic tables are published every year. That far exceeds the number of times all those papers combined are published. Every high school student has a periodic table and another in their chem text with Uut. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I've seen both "element 113" and "ununtrium" being used in periodic tables and chem texts, and in the practice questions given in some high-school chem texts I looked at, the "element X" form prevailed. (Though this may well be very dependent on which text I look at.) chemistry.about.com agrees: "If you look at the Periodic Table, you'll see some of the higher numbered elements either have no names (only numbers like 118) or else their names are just another way of saying the number (e.g., Ununoctium)." So both seem to be in use. Also it may well be country-dependent – according to R8R Gtrs, "113" is the form you will usually see in Russian texts and periodic tables. I don't know if this is conclusive. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose moving this way. As EdJ pointed out, there are more articles involved. Then there is changes in text (all texts mentioning these articles), formulae and tables (including periodic tables). Also, I expect post-move opposition since this involves IUPAC standard, though not a rule (systematic names is allowed but not an obligation). That would mean a period of limbo for all related articles. For both reasons I suggest, again, that this be fleshed out in a concluded MOS for unnamed elements. (Must say, I can understand this step by R8R, given that the talks are about a year old). -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per DePiep. I support the move, but oppose the way it is being done (although I can understand why R8R chose to do it this way). Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per both 65.94.169.222 and DePiep. --IJBall (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Naming (again)

Japanese Wikipedia also mentions another proposed name ユカワニウム, after Hideki Yukawa (so presumably yukawanium?), with symbol Yk. Annoyingly not referenced. Double sharp (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the Japanese Wiki, it also says the results on whether the IUPAC/IUPAP group recognizes elements 113, 115, 117, and 118 will be announced soon, and a document has been added to the article (I removed it, as it'll be gone in a few days anyway, but took note) that says this will happen around 15:20, August 12 (Korea Standard Time, UTC+9). So we'll have to check the news on Wednesday. If the element is recognized, we'll get a better material to work with sometime soon.--R8R (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

How did I miss that?!? It was right there! Wow, this is very cool. We'll be checking tomorrow, I guess! (I'm pretty hopeful for 113, 115, and 117, given all the recent confirming experiments; but not 118, given that ²⁸²Cn isn't yet a well-known nuclide AFAIK. What would be really interesting is who gets the credit for 113 – and I will decline to speculate on that.) Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any news (yet), except this tweet from a person who obviously was present at the summit (as I can see from the timestamp of the tweet), and he says, "News expected this fall." So no news is available right now.
As a side note, many Russian news agencies published yesterday a note element 115 will receive the name of "moscovium" (familiar, isn't it) after the Moscow Oblast, as sort of gratitude for how the region helped fund the research (also, that's the region where Dubna is located). The scientists find it "symbolic" moscovium decays to dubnium. Here's one ref in Russian: [3] (this one even says this was suggested by the head of the JINR's Laboratory of Nuclear Research), here's one more: [4] (this one mentions all aspects I've mentioned and also mentions how this name was originally suggested for element 116). Unfortunately, I can't find any news in English, which also means the exact spelling in English is still not revealed--R8R (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

[5] Still no official news, but chances are, three elements are waiting to be named--R8R (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Permanent name to be revealed...

When should there be information about what the permanent name of this element will be?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

IUPAC will tell what. They don't publish the date beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell right now, the element's recognition may take some time, say, a few months, and we may get it in mid- or late 2016. (But I won't take this onfo for granted, so no guarantees.) Then the element, if recognized, will be recorded as discovered by the Russian-American collab, and it may or may not take them some time to reach some agreement. See the story of elements 114 and 116?--R8R (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see it's already recognized; then I suggest taking the story of elements 114 and 116 as a reference.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding...

In 2011, the IUPAC has evaluated the 2004 RIKEN experiments and 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments, and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for discovery.

What will be the next year for RIKEN experiments?? 2004 was a long time ago. Georgia guy (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot that this is the same question I asked 5 months ago just 2 sections up on this talk page! Georgia guy (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49180454/ns/technology_and_science-science/ Gershake (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this means that in a year or 2 from now there should be evidence that this element should soon have a permanent name. Georgia guy (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

114 and 116 were officially recognized in 2011 based on submissions with a deadline of 2007 (extended to 2008), and were named in 2012. Thus if 113 does get officially recognized, then it will probably be in around 2015 and only be named the next year :-(

(But I personally think that 113, 115, and maaaybe 117 will be recognized around the same time. 118 depending on if a ²⁸³Cn event of confirmation happens for ²⁸²Cn.) Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks like my prediction was right! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Defining Asia

About 75% of Russia is in Asia. Recently, an edit was made to this article saying that for most purposes, Russia is 0% in Asia. Any sources?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I specifically said, "when it comes to every other aspect than geography," and now you're trying to kill me with a geography thing (and note I did not specifically say "0%", either). There are also things like culture (the culture of the ethnic Russians, who make up 80% of Russia's population) is nearly identical with those of the neighboring Ukraine and Belarus (many Russians even still believe the Ukrainians and the Belorussians are kind of sub-nations of a greater Russian nation), which are indisputably European, as are all the other Slavic nations. Around 80% of Russia's population lives in the European part of the country. Historically, Europe still had the greatest influence on Russia (say, the Russians are a Christian nation, just like (almost) every other European nation), especially during the last three centuries. Even the Russian government specifically said Russia is a European country this year in the context of the war in Ukraine. So I am declaring Russia is a European country advancing well into Asia. The Asian part of Russia has had no specific influence on the Uut discovery, so the context doesn't change the thing. Also, it doesn't even sound nice. "Asian nation (excl. Iran)" doesn't sound nice, either.

Tl;dr there's more in life than just geography, really.--R8R (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Asia is a continent, and continents are defined geographically, not politically. Countries, states, and cities are defined politically. Georgia guy (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

continents are defined geographically, not politically—what a silly thing to say. What divides Europe from Asia if not culture and politics? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, the whole portion of Russia which is geographically in Asia is essentially a colony that just was never decolonised. Russia is, at best, a transcontinental country whose effective centre is in Europe, since it has spread out from there and its seat of power remains all in the European part. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Calling Russia an Asian country is like calling France a South American country only because a large part of it is in South America; French Guiana is not a colony, but technically part of the motherland, an overseas department, so France technically borders Brazil. Even if French Guiana was larger than the European part of France, you wouldn't call France a South American country. Nor would you call the US an Oceanian or Polynesian country because Hawaii is in Oceania and Polynesia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Should I say the whole Europe--Asia border is a cultural divide, not a geographic one (there are no oceans or even seas, it's not how you normally define continent borders).--R8R (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

...and despite the geography, Armenia and Cyprus are usually considered European. Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

That 2012 ununtrium atom

Since it survived and was not cut off by spontaneous fission, it was last seen as a ²⁵⁰Cf atom. After that no doubt people have gotten rather tired of sitting around waiting for it, but it would then undergo three more alpha decays before joining the uranium series. Double sharp (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

I am New To Wikipedia And i do not know whether im supposed to do this like this but can you change the heading to Nihonium?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cervon Wong (talk • contribs)

 Not done @Cervon Wong: This name has not been officially finalized by IUPAC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation 2

The pronunciation 'respelling' bit on the right is like this:

oon-oon-TRY-əm

I think it should be like this:

oon-oon-TREE-əm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.159.44 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It is rather difficult to say which is the correct pronunciation because the scientists who actually work on synthesising the transactinides would call it "element 113" instead (at least, until November, upon which they would start calling it "nihonium"). I could imagine myself saying either if I needed to refer to the systematic names, but I would probably just say "element 113" otherwise (which is why I don't have a strong opinion on the pronunciation of "ununtrium"). Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Japonicium, Moscovium, Feynmanium, Galileum...

Apparently, this video has prompted multiple people or perhaps the same person to edit the Ununtrium, Ununpentium, Ununseptium and Ununoctium pages to add their future name. Could we have these pages semi-protected until permanent names are officially given? Dhrm77 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Important note: because of confusion with gallium, I strongly doubt the last of those 4 names will be accepted. Any thoughts on this statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We already have magnesium and manganese (which everyone seems to trip over at first in my admittedly limited personal experience), as well as the more obscure yttrium and ytterbium. It would be a good choice for a deserving scientist, but there are many other possibilities, and it is not my place to speculate on them. (Neither is it yours, unless you are on the discovery team.)

Incidentally, the suggestions listed for 113 and 117 have appeared on The Periodic Table of Videos IIRC, which is probably a factor driving people to include them. Not that it means anything, since nobody has a say in this, save the discoverers only. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Galileium was considered by the GSI team for element 112, but the team finally agreed on Sigurd Hofmann's suggestion of copernicium. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Another note: the same video is also saying that element 120 will be easier to create than element 119. Is this video a reliable source for this statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I just watched the video. The answer would be "No," for two reasons: I doubt if a video can qualify as a reliable dource in first place, except for videos from Dubna/Darmstadt/etc., and this one does not come from a great expert on nuclear physics, as it appears to me; and, which is more important, the video doesn't even say that. It says that researchers may go after 120, because it is even-numbered, thus presumably more stable, thus more interesting for the researchers. (Can't say at the moment if the statement is correct or false: that would depend on parameters of the reactions and the stabilities of the projectile atoms.)--R8R (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I think feynmanium at this point needs to be reserved for element 137. Double sharp (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not yet. Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Ununtrium → Nihonium – Name became official this month. 108.71.123.163 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Temporarily oppose. I thought it wasn't until November. Georgia guy (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't find anything to prove that. Can you provide some proof?--R8R (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now, until there is an official statement from the IUPAC, at which point WP:ELEM will have a fair deal of work to do, not only moving articles, but also re-writing lede paragraphs and other parts of articles. YBG (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

On June 8, the IUPAC stated (on their website):

The IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division has reviewed and considered these proposals and recommends these for acceptance. A five-month public review is now set, expiring 8 November 2016, prior to the formal approval by the IUPAC Council.

As I read this, what happens on 8 November is the close of the public review period, which does not make the names official. Rather, the names become official upon "formal approval by the IUPAC Council." Consequently, until that formal approval has occurred, I oppose moves and any material containing the new name that does not clearly state its provisional nature. This goes no only for Uut, but also Uup, Uus and Uuo. As November draws near, it may be good to place some sort of protection on these and related articles. YBG (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The name is not yet official. This should be speedy closed. The same individual has repeatedly made the same request at different articles (Talk:Ununennium#Requested_move_20_September_2016 and others) and they have been soundly rejected for the same reason. This appears to be just trolling at this point. ChemNerd (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. support a move on Nov 8 if made official.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name Confirmation?

The IUPAC says they will confirm the name 8 November, 2016. See here. I think it's best to wait until then. (YourAuntEggma (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

Of course. Note that they don't say this will happen on November 8; they only say the 5-month term for public commentary collecting ends at this point, and that it should end before the names could be formally approved by a council.--R8R (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't catch that. Thank You. YourAuntEggma (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

If the namings of Cn, Fl, and Lv are anything to go by, there will be an official announcement on IUPAC's websites when the names become official. Until that appears, no moves should take place. Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Naming

This article(http://www.riken.go.jp/engn/r-world/info/release/news/2004/nov/index.html)says that Uut will be named either Japonium (Jp) or Rikenium (Rk) but when will that happen? Is the IUPAC Naming Committee already on that, or does RIKEN have to produce the element again? Scince 2004, when that article was written, have they produced it? 8:48, 2 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.210.145 (talk)

Usually another team has to reproduce the element for the discovery to be eventually acknowledged by IUPAC (which is the prerequisite for naming). To give a perspective: For ununbium it took 13 years between its discovery and it being named "copernicium".--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What year would it have to be for this element to take 13 years?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2016 or 2017, according to the article's info on the discovery date. Let's hope IUPAC will be faster this time... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: Ununquadium would already be due in 2011 by this reasoning. It's already been independently verified AND does only have one claimant discoverer, so I think that will be the next element to be named, not ununtrium. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Uuq is first (together with Uuh). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Roentgenium111 appears to have been exactly right here! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

The peer review is over for Ununtrium so the part where says it is now set should be made into the past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.88.28 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

We still have to wait for the final Recommendations to be published in the IUPAC journal Pure and Applied Chemistry before they become official! Double sharp (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Why, the comment is absolutely correct. The five-month term is over and thus a past event; therefore, we can use paste tense to refer to it.--R8R (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I mistakenly thought s/he was referring to the "is set" in the lede instead. Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Accepting "nihonium"

When will the IUPAC accept nihonium?? It's November now. Georgia guy (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Was it so hard to read the previous section and wait till the 8th (or maybe a few days later)? Have patience! Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure of the exact day. Georgia guy (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Prepare for even more patience as that won't just happen on Nov 8. This date will only mark the end of the term for comment collecting. Then there will be another meeting finally approving these names, which will happen if no new information that would prohibit using them comes up (which is highly unlikely, but this is a IUPAC internal rule), and only this meeting will officially result in naming these elements. No exact date for this meeting has been specified to my knowledge.

(I am amused by how this was explicitly written in a June 8 release and how people went renaming these articles citing that release, apparently not even having finished reading it or not having understood its contents.)--R8R (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Part of the problem is of the IUPAC's making. The headline in their announcement said "IUPAC is naming the four new elements nihonium, moscovium, tennessine, and oganesson". English tense in headlines being somewhat ambiguous, this could be read either as present tense or future tense. Many of the articles in the popular press appear to have gone with the present tense, apparently not bothering to mention the details about the process. So maybe we who understand the process should be a bit patient with the impatience of those who want to change it right away. YBG (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Nihonium and the other new names are now official: https://iupac.org/iupac-announces-the-names-of-the-elements-113-115-117-and-118/ fluorogrol (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

At the end of the first paragraph in the lead, there is a stray space between references: "On 28 November 2016, the name became official.[8] [9]" Per MOS:REFPUNCT, it should be deleted. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2016

In the 'Stability and half-lives' and 'Predicted properties' sections, there are several references (six by my count) to 'Uut' which should be changed to 'Nh' now that the name Nihonium is official. References in the 'Naming' section should not be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffMuller (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Done I didn't change the appearance of "Uut" in the image link. Otherwise, outside of the Naming section, all changed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Half-lives: a contradiction ?

At the beginning of the article, it is said that the most stable known isotope, nihonium-286, has a half-life of 20 seconds. But in the box at right side of the article page, the half-life of the same isotope is reported as 8 seconds. Which one is correct? Ekisbares (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The latter figure is more recent. Changed; thanks! Double sharp (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yet, in the article, the figure of 20 seconds is still being reported for the half-life of isotope 286, both in subsection “Stability and half-lives” of “Isotopes” section, and in table “List of nihonium isotopes” just at their right side.Ekisbares (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have changed those too. Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

debate

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

Elementbox

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

Miscellaneous

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

Orphaned references in Nihonium

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nihonium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hofmann":

• From Unbinilium: Hofmann, Sigurd (2013). Overview and Perspectives of SHE Research at GSI SHIP. p. 23–32. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00047-3.
• From Melting point: Philip Hofmann (2008). Solid state physics: an introduction. Wiley-VCH. p. 67. ISBN 978-3-527-40861-0. Retrieved 13 March 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed (should have been "Hofmann2016", sorry). Double sharp (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A rather new article on the events that took place in Japan

Very cool! Double sharp (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This might perhaps also be of use. Double sharp (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Nihonium and Fukushima

News article (will also look for more stuff in the Japanese press). Double sharp (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

And the nihonium trail in Wakō (where RIKEN is located). Double sharp (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Looking at this early revision, it appears that this article was written in British English ("synthesise"). --John (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Burzuchius (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)