From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ununpentium)
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Moscovium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Un-Ununpentium? Deleting popular culture[edit]

User DeltaT deleted this portion of the article. On what basis do we decide that "popular culture" issues do not properly belong in this or any article? But I would say it belongs particularly here as otherwise practically no one would ever come to this article.

To reply to "Aluminium is mentioned in popular culture, but does that matter to the enc. article?", I would say that if Aluminum was virtually unknown to the general public except where it was featured as a mysterious material in books and magazines, such a section should also be in an article on Aluminum.

Let's admit "Element 115" has been brought to popular attention by Science Fiction and restore the deleted material to this article. Headline the article as "Ununpentium in Science Fiction" if you like Carlw4514 (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the popular culture is citeable, it should be here too because someone might wonder. We shouldn't trying to spoonfeed people what we might think is relevant according to a "serious" (narrow) world view, we should neither give popular culture undue weight. Some mention and some inwiki link could be relevant. I think an inlink to Stargate SG-1:s Naqahdah and an inlink to Bob Lazar's UFO allegations. At least SciFi is a great inspiration giver to Science, maybe some degree of UFOlogy too, although most UFO-like aircraft designs have failed. Inspirationstrangling positivism/cultism is not an entirely scientific nor philosophically sane concept. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Because popular culture is relevant to an encyclopedia (wherein the purpose is to contain a collective snapshot of information regarding a particular topic), and because ununpentium is so prevalent in Western sub-cultures, I move that the "Popular Culture" section be re-inserted into this article. The function of Wikipedia is not solely to provide scientific information. It is also to provide any significant cultural details about a certain topic, and ununpentium in popular culture is undeniably significant in both fiction and conspiracy literature. There is no reason to remove this section. Please re-insert it. Any discussion on this request is welcome and encouraged. (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree this article should have full coverage of the popular culture subjects. The article on Gold has a large section on "Cultural History" which includes material on alchemy, numerous religious references and childrens fables. Gold also has a separate section on "Symbolism". The science fiction/UFO conspiracy references and specifically the Bob Lazar story are relevant to this element. In fact the only practical use for Moscovium today is through references in popular culture. Repeatedly whitewashing this from the article reeks of NPOV violation. Being a scientist offended by pop culture misappropriation of an element is not a valid reason to exclude those topics from the article. I am also disappointed that the Talk page has significantly more useful information (such as discussion of Mc-299 being the most likely stable isotope) than the article itself. Gravitium (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The fact that you consider that discussion to be useful information, despite it being totally uncited, I think speaks for itself with regard to the usefulness of this criticism. The idea that the symbolism associated with Au is in any way similar to that associated to "element 115" (which, given its purported properties, cannot possibly be Mc) is also quite silly. This belongs in Materials science in science fiction, not here. Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's a credible source (from an APS website no less) (referencing a NOVA video interviewing scientists) which mentions the potential island of stability "with nucleons totaling slightly under 300" that could provide half lives of "Minutes to millions of years." The Element 115 in science fiction and UFO conspiracy theories unambiguously refers to an atom with 115 protons (i.e. Mc). The extent to which the predicted or fantasized properties match later observations does not affect their relevance as a cultural phenomenon. Even the APS page acknowledges Element 115 "pervades science fiction, video games, and some conspiracy theories" Gravitium (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Links to Bismuth and diamagnetism[edit]

Element 115 is in the Bismuth group, and therefore is expected to have unique diamagnetic properties. I mentioned this to some degree in the article. Keep in mind that this hasn't been confirmed emperically, but neither has its color or melting point :-) netdragon 29 July 2006


Decumanus, if you don't restore the excision elsewhere, as your description led one to believe, I'm going to disagree strongly with your edit if not revert it. The discussion is germane to the thread, -- and it's not like it is not clearly identified as not widely accepted science at this time. In fact by virtue of its physics relevance, it's clearly topical to Uup and not to your proposed location. I don't see a valid objection. Chris Rodgers 10:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The articles on chemical elements center on their physico-chemical properties. Kooky fantasies don't belong here. I second Decumanus' edit on this page, and wouldn't mind losing the excised text altogether.
Herbee 12:22, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)
I third Decumanus' suggestion.
Darrien 12:50, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)
I disagree that articles must only contain their physical and chemical properties. (The article does already centre on these.) Historical and cultural information (this would count as cultural) is certainly relevant - David Gerard 13:11, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
You are right up to a point. But consider this: you don't have to stuff everything into one article! If tangentially related material starts to overshadow the original purpose of an article, it's better to start a new article. Quite possibly, Chris Rogers would enjoy writing UFO propulsion (or whatever) better than quarreling with a bunch of 'science types' here. Wikipedia has room for all!
Herbee 23:31, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)
I'd almost have considered it, but you failed to disprove my argument the discussion had legitimate place here (see David's culture point above), and your assumption the world neatly divides into conspiracyheads versus "science types" is hopelessly naive. My training is entirely intact, as are those of many beside me who, by arbitrary chance, happen to have observed these "nonexistent" craft flying around in their "impossible" instantaneous changes of directions in nothing more than my "kooky fantasy" imagination (weather balloons and Venus my a**feathers ;-) ).
You forget, a little arrogantly if I may note so, that science is about method, not dogma; once upon a time it was also fixed orthodoxy that the world is flat. Where phenomena may not be examined in a lab, science must employ holistic cross-dimensional techniques, and that's life. Herbee, the problem is, you -- and any who delete away articles without bothering to post so little as a defense or rationale -- are, like it or not, ideologues and fail, unscientifically, to discern that very defect. 90% of science was "kooky" and fringe and baseless at one time. Your failure at NPOV is that if an unorthodox position fairly acknowledges itself as such, yet remains NPOV, you believe you can still pretend it ceases to exist and presume to deny it a voice. Unfortunately for you, there exist literally tens of millions of the great unwashed masses in this country who are aware of the very element I wrote of (having probably never heard the names of commoner elements) even for no other reason than the one I very neutrally described. In fact I bet many more have heard of Lazar than Kuhn; would it kill you to live with a little honest, methodical treatment of the subject? You simply believe you can effectively dispose of views you disagree with by trying to preempt even discussion of them and pretending they don't exist, instead of discussing them so far as possible on their merits. Need I remind you that attitude really has no place on wikipedia? Oh, and did I mention the dishonesty of Decumanus' claiming something was just being "moved" instead of excised as it was? Er, yeah, stellar scientific method and ethics, guys -- not. -- Chris Rodgers 08:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You obviously didn't comprehend what Decumanus wrote. He said that he moved it to a different article. Also, your entire argument is awash with logical fallacies. You should read up on logic before you start claiming to understand it.
Darrien 11:37, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)
You seem to not understand the term "obvious". I specifically mentioned the fact he had at that time not moved the full text to the article he claimed he was going to (and still appears not to have to date). As for logic and fallacies, I'm well enough versed in both to observe that, citing no examples, you are arguing from mere force of assertion. Perhaps a dose of your own advice? Chris Rodgers 06:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My apologies, I assumed that because of your belief in the paranormal that you wouldn't understand how to properly present an argument.
Now this, even concealed in a false humility, DOES reek of plain ad hominem.
Here you go:
"My training is entirely intact, as are those of many beside me who, by arbitrary chance, happen to have observed these "nonexistent" craft flying around..." - Faulty generalization.
Not at all. Neither of us can prove anything regarding the others' scientific qualification on the strength of assertions alone (though you appear to have tried just above). I just answered your (erroneous) assertion with a counterassertion. My suggestion for a dose of your own advice stands.
"You forget, a little arrogantly if I may note so, that science is about method, not dogma; once upon a time it was also fixed orthodoxy that the world is flat." - Red Herring.
Wrong again. The method versus dogma point is relevant scientific axiom; my historical example simply sustains it.
"Herbee, the problem is, you -- and any who delete away articles without bothering to post so little as a defense or rationale -- are, like it or not, ideologues and fail, unscientifically, to discern that very defect." - Argumentum ad hominem
Not per se. If I had simply impugned your person instead of the imho root of your objection, this might be true. Oddly, the reasoning itself was sound but the premise apparently invalid (you miss even the argument's real weakness). True, my assertion doesn't prove you an ideologue, but consistent with my preceding discussion, it's a necessary explanation of counterrationale. I can validly believe you are an ideologue; it simply remains unproven between us.
"90% of science was "kooky" and fringe and baseless at one time." - Red Herring
Untrue. It refutes your line of argument that appeals to say Occam's razor alone as proof rather than preliminary guide. See my point on the once dogmatic assumptions that a round earth was self-evidently lunacy.
"Unfortunately for you, there exist literally tens of millions of the great unwashed masses in this country who are aware of the very element I wrote of" - Argumentum ad populum
That would certainly be an ironic technique after my erring masses point preceding, but I simply suggested it to you as not evidence but useful illustration why even "fiction" bears note.
"In fact I bet many more have heard of Lazar than Kuhn" - Red Herring
Darrien 15:36, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)
Same thing again. You keep missing my points; here, that even where you dismiss something, its prevalence alone may validate discussion in wiki. See my earlier argument that your disagreement alone would be insufficient ground to go deleting lengthy discussions of religion or fiction. And not that it matters, but eppur si muove: my sighting was real, something powered them, and wouldn't it be a kick if it proved something much more potent than kerosene ;-) Chris Rodgers 07:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who considers UFO-spotting to be largely a realm of crackpottery, I still don't see this small note, verging on trivia as it may be, as doing anything other than enhancing an otherwise desperately dry article - David Gerard 08:26, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
I've just made a section called "Ununpentium in popular culture" and put the UFO fuel bit in there. - David Gerard 08:35, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
Two issues. First, I doubt you'll accept my say-so, but I assure you crackpottery they are not. I don't do drugs, I watched three of them fly around in daytime with the instant right-angle turns for easily fifteen seconds. Start getting yourself used to it, they are indeed real.
Second, for the popular culture fix, the "in popular culture" header is more than adequate to satisfy anyone put off by mere allusion to UFO's, but there is NO reason not to restore the text. If you want to dismiss it as fiction, I wrote it (as one quite versed in the skeptic angle) flawlessly NPOV and still plan to restore the original fuller text. If someone believes their disagreement alone is enough to justify excision, they thereby claim they can go deleting lengthy entries merely discussing conspiracy theory or religion or even discussion of literary figures who do not "exist". No one here has supplied any valid reason for it not to, under the useful pop culture header, be restored in full. Chris Rodgers 06:58, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Your text was never deleted. It was moved to the Bob Lazar article.-- Decumanus | Talk 07:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the lead, the edit comment left me rechecking for it under UFO's. Chris Rodgers 07:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Chris Rodgers wrote above:

once upon a time it was also fixed orthodoxy that the world is flat.

No it wasn't. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth as early as 240 BC. Only superstitious ignorants (like sailors) took kooky fantasies about "the edge of the world" seriously. We can hardly blame them—they had neither the scientific method nor Wikipedia.
    But I'm not comparing Chris to those sailors. I'm still inviting him to write about UFOs and Uup as their fuel. The fact that I don't believe in them is just that—a belief of mine. If Chris believes something else that is fine with me. As a science fiction fan, I would probably enjoy Chris' contributions.
    My point is just that the Ununpentium article is not the right place for UFO material, just as the carbon article is not the place to discuss petrol and automobiles. I'm not unhappy with the current article, by the way.
Herbee 20:31, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with Eratosthenes and his technique, yet that fails to alter my point that large masses in Europe and elsewhere clung nevertheless to the flat earth for centuries beyond. Don't miss the point, which is both legitimate and illustrated by my example: what is "obvious" today may yet fall tomorrow. Ergo my reiteration that science is not dogma nor position, but method and tool. As for siting the text here, I still hold this is the apter location, since the subject is not Lazar but Uup itself, but fine, maybe at least the link can work. Chris Rodgers 07:28, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see—it's a joke. Silly me. Invoking the scientific method, yet insisting on taking Uup as UFO fuel seriously "because Lazar says so". Great sense of humor, Chris!
Herbee 23:33, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)
Should I really be surprised you keep insistently misrepresenting my position? I already alluded to the reach of the guy's claims in popular subculture as the primary basis of my argument, not the fiction you twisted it into. You force me to question your commitment to presenting straightforward info from the NPOV. I suppose I could try to keep trying to explain that scarcity of evidence is not evidence of scarcity and that where you dismiss saucer craft out of hand, I and plenty of perfectly credible (and credentialed but mostly timid-of-peer-ridicule) people have observed them directly, at which point the implausibility barriers for explanations like Lazar's fall not completely but significantly. Just as it'd be wrong for some fundamentalist to go wiping every entry on evolution as illegitimate, your disagreement alone (didn't I say this like twice or thrice already?) does not alone constitute argument for wipe either. And it seems you either missed or keep ignoring even the cultural angle I discussed before too. You make it sound like you feel you could constructively wipe even the Lazar entry itself since it's all about "just one guy's claim". So no need for detailed discussion of counterclaims to e.g. research objections into his background, his Navy MJ W-2 etc., it's all nothing but allegation, end of story, kill it. Like your distortions of my argument, a neither terribly useful nor wiki attitude. Chris Rodgers 09:42, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
What's an MJ W-2? Some kind of UFO engine part?
Herbee 17:09, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)
Herbee, you give the consistent impression in your posts to date here, the above being a passable example, of being vastly more interested in juvenile posturing and sounding clever than in any kind of serious exchange, but I'll answer your question anyway. W-2 refers to the standard United States Internal Revenue Service earnings statement, which Lazar provided as partial evidence of his work under the arm for the United States Navy (which has a counterintuitive connection to unusual craft). MJ, as any researcher in this area knows, alludes to the two letters' (for Majestic-12-related) appearance on the form as a classification.
Permit me to suggest however that rather than getting embroiled in lengthy debates over Lazar, which will likely alter neither of our views, we stick to considering the general epistemological points from each perspective above. Chris Rodgers 06:58, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I guess that the above exchange is an example of bad interaction between defense mechanisms. I find it impossible to discuss ufology or similar fringe belief systems seriously, and I don't feel bad about poking some fun at such subjects. It's just one of my defense mechanisms—but possibly (as Chris implies) out of place in an encyclopedia.
On reflection, I realize that people can react strongly when their belief system is under attack. Let's just say that I happen to think that science is the best belief system ever invented. I may react strongly when it is threatened.
Herbee 00:24, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)
Despite that, it's still a belief system, and empiricological positivism is inferior to ontological constructivism.. uh, metaphysics. I really wanted Chris to discuss what he learned about Element 115. lysdexia 09:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Lazar thing[edit]

Lazar portraits this element to be stable and have unusual properties. A super heavy element which has the gravity A wave extend past the core of the atom. Hereby allowing some form of technology to access and amplify this gravity wave to circumnavigate the cosmos :) If you're going to ignore the Bob Lazar/UFO thing completely (I think it should be mentioned -- breifly) you should remove the otherwise cryptic link at the bottom of the page. Basesurge (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Bob Lazar link - the article doesn't even mention ununpentium/ element 115. Thanks for noting. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems the article has information about his claims regarding Ununpentium. Also, I might point out that its a little beyond wikipedia's scope as NPOV to put his claim under a fictional heading. I'm not saying I believe it. I'm no scientist. But some people do ... and therefore the biased view are that it is fictional / non-fiction.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a way to demostrate that Lazar's claim is actually fiction? (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
That isn't my point. I don't know anything about the science. But it is POV to claim that someones claim is fictional.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that including the Lazar's claim under "Fictional Uses" probably violates NPOV. While I agree that it's fiction, it's not Wikipedia's place to make that judgment for it's readers. Would any object to simply renaming the section to something like "Cultural References"? YardsGreen (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made the change, since no one has objected. YardsGreen (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (forgot to log-in the first time)
Collapse list of unreliable sources peddling Lazar's nonsense. Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While Bob Lazar's theories have never been proven, they have also never been disproven. His take on Element 115 is notable and there should be some mention of his claims in this article! Wiki ian 09:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC) - (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC) - (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC) - (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC) - (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
from - (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"The currently available isotopes of Ununpentium, 287, 288, 289, and 230 each have 172, 173, 174, and 175 neutrons. HOWEVER, since Ununpentium has 115 protons, which means Z=115, the neutron number, N, has to be equal to 184. Therefore, for Ununpentium to be stable, or at least to have a half-life over a day, it has to have the atomic mass of 115+184=299. Ununpentium-299 is too heavy to be created in cold fusion AND hot fusion laboratories today. So if we add a proton, p, to Uup-299, we get, Uuh-300. A proton breaks down via the inverse beta decay. P -> n + e+. P is proton, n is neutron, and e+ is a positron, an antimatter. Then, the free neutron, n, created from the previous reaction (decay) does a b- beta decay, turning back to a proton and releasing an anti electron neutrino and an electron. (n -> p + e- + (-ev)). Without furthur ado, we get: Uup-229+p -> Uuh-300 -> Uup-300 + e+ -> Uuh-300 + e+ e- + (-ve). 1. The e+, positron antimatter, crashes into e-, electron, 100% annihilating into energy. 2. The -ve, the anti electron neutrino, hits a proton in the uup nucleus, manually causing an inverse beta decay (p+(-ve) -> n + e+: the reaction that happened at the beginning of the process) 3. Since -ve is generated, the process is repeated until 100% of uup-299 is converted into energy"


@Czolgolz: "irrelevant" -- I beg to differ. Not that I like the idea of some people who have no relationship with the element's discovery coming and saying, "thanks for making it, now hand it over and we'll name it," but this is notable enough to get in. This has gotten some media coverage, and this has attracted much attention at one time, getting 150k signatures in 11 days. The superheavies should also allowed to have their cultural impact. Even if it wouldn't last.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@R8R:I'm not going to make a stand on this and I won't revert it again. But we've been through this with the super heavy elements and their mentions in video games, science fiction, and conspiracy theories. Just what makes a mention notable, and what makes it irrelevant? Czolgolz (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Czolgolz: The fact that unfortunately, reliable news outlets (one two three four) have stooped to cover this hopefully ephemeral trash. If it weren't for that, I'd be among the first to throw it out. Double sharp (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The main is that: UIPAC-naming process as PDF-file. No other nonsense! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
We'd mention that not because we actually think this will have some impact on the IUPAC or the discoverers. (For the record, I wouldn't want it to be different than that.) We'd mention that because it had some cultural impact, see the media.
As for notability, I'd say the difference with the previous non-scientific material and this lies in two important points: a) this one actually has to do with the element 115, and not just the concept of it, or even an even more generalized concept of unknown matter, and b) this one has its reliable sources and 150k people who signed this.
I'll get it back now, adding that IUPAC hasn't reacted to the petition.--R8R (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
IUPAC has, in fact, reacted to the petition. You just happen not to know about it since the response was not made public. User:J.meija —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
@J.meija: Indeed; would you mind sharing the info with us?--R8R (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this just as silly as Bowie fans trying to get Mars or a constellation named after him [1]? What are we to expect when the next pop star passes on? AstroLynx (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I quite agree; they ought to stick to nameless insignificant asteroids. (Oh, where were all you reasonable people when this happened at Talk:Ununoctium?) My original argument was that neither IUPAC nor the discoverers care about this enough to comment, and they are the ones calling the shots on what the element finally gets named; therefore, it should not matter, and it can be revisited in the unlikely event that the discoverers decide against the symbolic name of moscovium they had been thinking about for a while in favour of this trash. However, the consensus there was against this (6–1). Now that another three people have shown up on the "don't put this rubbish in" side, we're now at 6–4 for its inclusion. So maybe it is worth looking at it again. Double sharp (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@AstroLynx: I think we can expect an initiative to name a month or a day of the week after them. By the ridiculous arguments that have been put up, they certainly qualify as gods worshipped by a minority of the population. (I'm not even making this up. Though I did make it more accurate by showing that as gods, they don't really have a sizeable market share.) They certainly act that way, after all. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion this kind of non-notable trivia (which hardly anyone will remember a month from now) does not belong here but could be added to Lemmy's page. AstroLynx (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Makes a lot of sense. After all, this event says a lot more about Lemmy than it does about element 115. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand why people may not want this to be here at all. But the thing is, while this is a clearly scientific topic, it doesn't mean it should be limited to science. The Large Hadron Collider article, for example, has its section "In popular culture"; we may establish on here as well, since it is not related to actual naming of the element.
I don't see why we should keep scoring how many say yea and how many say nay. We're having a discussion right now. We won't count votes anyway, because WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. No other article is currently in question, so this is the best place for such a discussion. You may leave a note for anyone who could take part in any relevant place.--R8R (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it does serve as a rough way to gauge things. If things are at 6:1, then the result is obvious: there is clearly a consensus. If things are at 6:4, then obviously discussion needs to be reopened. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it important to know that Motorhead had a name proposal for ununpentium? My opinion ansolutely no. It is 101% irrelevant for our article Ununpentium. It is better to remove this irrelevant information from this article. My name proposal now: Alchemikium or Pniokium ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:TRIVIA can offer some guidelines on how to decide this issue. AstroLynx (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
My opinion would be yes, but only because the thing became so huge at one moment, and important for many people at once. You may say it's unimportant for you, but then you can't deny it is important for others, even if only at one point. Again, we have sources and stuff. I think we may add your proposals once they get similar resonance among the public.
I checked the guideline, and I think it unfortunately does not provide an unambiguous solution to our problem.--R8R (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It isn't important for the article about Ununpentium. Perhaps for Motörhead, but not for this article here. Motörhed has nothing to do with the element ununpentium. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

We're running in circles. I'll stop for now and wait if there will be any further reaction.--R8R (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

During the last two days, the "lemmium" proposal has been added twice to the article. While none has come to continue the discussion, it has not ended with a definitive result, and given the latest events, it may be the best time to restart it. The topic is important for others, and Wikipedia's main idea is to write about whatever is important for a reader. Nobody even suggested this could actually become the future name for element 115, and I haven't seen anyone write it in the article (and we should abstain from that). Nobody suggests a detailed coverage (which would be out of place here). My sincerest belief is that we may not exclude facts because we don't like them when writing Wikipedia.--R8R (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant is here still irrelevant and nonsense is here nonsense. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that the concept of naming a new chemical element after a recently deceased pop star sounds pretty daft. How do you think the project leader of the group who discovered this element will justify this? – "Yes, we spent millions of dollars/roubles/euros of taxpayers' money to make a few atoms of this element but rather than naming it after our country/research institute/famous national scientist we decided to name it after a foreign pop star." AstroLynx (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Only this here: Ununpentium#Naming has a valuable content. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
(Given the locations of the institutes involved, we probably need to add yen to that list of currencies for E113.)
Not only is it daft, but it is just not a possibility under the IUPAC criteria. Thus there are two massively improbable hurdles such a daft name would have to climb, and not one, squaring its unlikeliness. Double sharp (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
After I re-read the discussion, I have realized the reason the proposal is met with such rejection. Editors on this page mainly view Lemmium against the scientific criteria, which (of course) the proposal does not fulfill. However, the importance comes not from any scientific basis, but rather a cultural one, and the proposal needs to be viewed as a cultural event for ununpentium, not a scientific one. It has very little chance to ever succeed in adding Lemmy to the PT, of course; but this also has reasons to be mentioned in the article, as Sandbh pointed below. If the article had a "In popular culture" section, it would naturally belong there, I presume, but at the moment we don't (should we create one?), and in that case, "Naming" is the best place of what remains for choice.--R8R (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reinstated the footnote on the following grounds. The article has a naming section. The proposal has been mentioned in reliable sources. Although it is unlikely to succeed it is not in breach of the IUPAC naming conventions. As noted in this week's New Scientist it will be compliant provided there is astronomical object named after Lemmy. The proposal, at least in part, seeks to make chemistry have more "market appeal" to younger audiences—which is where the STEM disciplines, at least, in the West, have been suffering from declining university graduate numbers. It is supported by some reputable members of the scientific community. It is probably the biggest naming "controversy" since the argy-bargy about the early transactinides (I'm foggy on the details about the latter but Double Sharp will be familiar). I believe this proposal has prompted some further debate about the narrowness of IUPAC's naming conventions, which is a good effort by itself for an out of the box suggestion. Petitioners now exceed 150,000. Yes it will most likely fail but not for want of trying nor boldness nor potential cultural impact. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, given the current lack of an astronomical object named for him (no, buying star names from unofficial companies don't count), it actually doesn't meet the IUPAC criteria. This is absolutely not anywhere near as important as the Rf-Mt controversy. That one was between different discoverers: this one is from people who have no say officially. Double sharp (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
So, are you now inclined to delete or keep? As the first(?) attempted use of social media to influence the naming of an element I think it has some noteworthiness. Sandbh (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
It is only an absolutely irrelevant for the element 115, it is a fan call for a popstar, similar to facebook lieks Facebook like thumb.png. We have here an article about the element 115. Put this info to his own article Lemmy and Motörhead. I'm still missing this there! I dislike this info Not facebook not like thumbs down.png in our article about the element 115. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I was always inclined against including such material, but would bow to whatever the consensus is. I do not think it has any noteworthiness unless IUPAC actually acknowledges the petition in any way. We do not (at least, I hope not) mention that even stranger proposal to rename Mars after David Bowie in the article on Mars. Double sharp (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Why I can't read something about the "petition" here Lemmy and here Motörhead, if it is soooooo important??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It's there now, in the Lemmy article. Let's see, as per Double sharp, if IUPAC acks the petition in any way. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Or not. It's just been reverted (as trivia). Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Ha, ha, ha, I can hardly believe it ;-) But it will be important for the Ununpentium article ... ??? It says to me much more: trivia and irrelevant for our Ununpentium article. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
So, if it's trivia on Lemmy's own article, how can it magically be worth mentioning on element 115's article? Logically it ought to be even less notable! Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
More about the namig "Lemmium" can be read here: Talk:Lemmy#Element_115. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

See, someone added a mention of lemmium back. I remember leaving the discussion after the proposal was disliked, which was an argument I didn't have enough stamina to overcome. But you see, people, too, find this can have some historical importance. This doesn't deserve a long discussion, and a brief mention would be enough here. Don't know (or care) about Lemmy or Motorhead: them are them and us are us.
Genuinely, I don't see why you guys resist a brief mention.--R8R (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect name[edit]

This article really needs to be fixed. This is not the proper name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4280:1050:C1D2:2B91:9605:84A1 (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes it still is, until around November. Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Moscovium and the other new names are now official: fluorogrol (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

IE (1st and 2nd) and EA (1st) of Bi, Po, At, 115, Lv, 117[edit]

Paper! Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please add a hatnote for "Uup"

{{redirect|Uup|other uses|UUp}}

-- (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER 07:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I think "Uup" shouldn't actually redirect here anymore, since now that the element has a permanent name it is no longer a primary use of "Uup". So I've redirected "Uup" to "UUp" and removed the hatnote. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)