From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ununtrium)
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Nihonium 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 24, 2004 Articles for deletion Kept
December 20, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 3, 2016, and June 10, 2016.
Current status: Good article


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

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


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

Allowed Names for new elements[edit]

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 (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)


This article( 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 (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)

Japonicium, Moscovium, Feynmanium, Galileum...[edit]

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)

Name Confirmation?[edit]

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)

Edit request[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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

Pronunciation 2[edit]

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


I think it should be like this:

oon-oon-TREE-əm — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)

Requested move 15 October 2016[edit]

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)

UnuntriumNihonium – Name became official this month. (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.

Accepting "nihonium"[edit]

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: fluorogrol (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016[edit]

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. (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Done JTP (talkcontribs) 19:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2016[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)