Talk:Tennessine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

please

Can we keep the discussion related to Ununseptium? It's already known that it hasn't been discovered, so we don't care.Therequiembellishere 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Properties

The article says it's physical properties will differ significantly from lighter halogens. My spidey sense tells me that it should be NOT differ significantly (other than what can be expected from rapid decay elements) from other halogens chemically. If that's accurate, it would be worthwhile to note why or cite an online source that can be further reviewed.

There is a cite to an online source (just search it for "117"). That online source is based on calculations (deriving properties from the physics - wave equations and such), rather than "spideysense". There might be better sources (for example, review articles are easier than primary sources, if we can find relevant ones). But there is no need to fall back on uninformed guesses, when people have been doing these kinds of computations for decades. Kingdon 20:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it goes against prima facie evidence or there is no explanation and it appears to be a typo. You haven't addressed the issue I've raised. The cited sources you mention actually agree with me that this element should behave like a halogen unlike what this article says. I was using a figure of speech and not being clear, granted, but I must say that there is a consistency issue based on what you mention. Johngagon 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I looked again at the article. At least the part I found (page 76), made a rather narrow prediction - about bond lengths - so I have revised the article to just talk about that and not discuss things we don't seem to have good sources for. Kingdon 20:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Retracted report of existence

There's been a claim made of the synthesis of Uus but it was later retracted. It's mentioned in the Uuo article, but is relevant here too. Not sure how to work it in. DMacks (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article includes a typo. It should read 116 not 117. Element 117 has not been observed or referred to as yet.--Drjezza (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Future experiments

The reference [1] given does not mention attempts to produce Uus next month, as far as I can see. Does someone have a valid reference for this claim? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Half-life

The introduction claims a half-life of three nanoseconds, whereas the main text says "0.1-40 ms". While I am not entirely sure how to read the second number, there appears to be a contradiction here. The 3ns is uncited. --KarlFrei (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ms = milliseconds. Someone the Person (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming

I can't find an article on IUPAC element naming for some reason. When this element is discovered and named, will it follow the "-ine" trend for all elements in the period, or have they stopped that? It'd be good to have in the article.--Tim Thomason 07:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Duly discussed and added --Drjezza (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Formula error?

In the formula, unless I'm misunderstanding, it lists element 116 as Uus. Isn't element 116 Uuh? Or is that supposed to be 294 over 117? --76.197.2.172 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, element 116 is Uuh and element 117 is Uus. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Discovered?

According to [this site], two isotopes of element 117 have been synthesised but I can find no other info. Can someone verify? Reyk 09:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Those entries are theoretical data. One can quite reliably infer some properties from systematic trends, these are listed here, it does not necessarily mean they're backed by experiments. Femto 12:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

When will ununseptium be discovered? Cosmium 22:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been discovered by somebody in Russia in 2009.58.187.27.21 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please quote a source if you update the article. William Avery (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It have been discovered. Where are you from, William Avery? If you are Russian you must know about that. I think you're American. Final sentence: element 117 have been discovered.58.187.50.32 (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In what reliable source can I verify your claim? William Avery (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times [1] has an article pertaining to its synthesis. The article has already been updated, not by me. Ovangle (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Discovery in 2010

The references given are only saying that they will have it untll end of the year 2009. --Stone (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ref3 : The new element is expected to be synthesized by the end of this year
• Ref4 : U400 and U400M ACCELERATORS OPERATING SCHEDULE 2010
• Ref5 : Russian physicists are trying to synthesize a new chemical element 117

So where is a ref for the fact mentioned in the lead?--Stone (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just added a reference which is an internal PAC report from Dubna stating that their scientists succeeded in discovering element 117. It does not say if it was in 2009 or 2010 but the experiment began in July 2009 and ended in Feb 2010 so it was almost certainly first detected in 2009. We will have to wait for more information.--Drjezza (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Soory, but this internal communication looks a little bit thin for a announcement here. No mainstream sites picked up the story yet.--Stone (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Although the sources may indeed be true, there is a slight problem with using only sources that were published by the synthesizing team: they have an obvious conflict of interest and they are not the ultimate authority to determine if their results are valid or not. If the only available sources supporting this supposed synthesis are internal, then we would be jumping the gun by definitively stating that the element had been synthesized. We would be much better off by simply stating that they have reported the synthesis and waiting until we hear more definitive news on the matter. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cryptic C62, we should not call Uus discovered until there is an independent source confirming it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, at the very least, a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Physchim62 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ununseptium has been discovered. Why is there still controversy? --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 01:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

NY Times announces that the pape has been accepted for publication. I've edited the article slightly to reflect that. Anyone interested in taking this to WP:ITN/C? howcheng {chat} 05:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't trust the NYT, go to the source: accepted papers on the physical review letters site.

Synthesis of a new element with atomic number Z=117

Yu. Ts. Oganessian et al.

Accepted Monday Apr 05, 2010

The discovery of a new chemical element with atomic number Z=117 is reported. The isotopes 293117 and 294117 were produced in fusion reactions between 48Ca and 249Bk. Decay chains involving eleven new nuclei were identified by means of the Dubna Gas Filled Recoil Separator. The measured decay properties show a strong rise of stability for heavier isotopes with Z 111, validating the concept of the long sought island of enhanced stability for super-heavy nuclei.

Setreset (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

atomic mass?

How can the atomic mass be known if the element has not been made? Olin

• Good question... But now it has been discovered and it was reported that 5 of the six observed nuclei had A=293 and one nucleus had A=294. Should we change "Standard atomic weight" to 293? -- Ace111 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The Standard Atomic Weight for a radioactive element is the mass number (or atomic weight) of the most stable isotope. For now, this is ²⁹⁴117.--Drjezza (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not

Uus is NOT discovered.--Daniel bg 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Now it is. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ionic

As this element would be a metalloid, could you get a positively charged ion and a negatively charged ion of it to form an ionic bond? 174.30.204.110 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We're not even sure if it would be a metalloid. Relativistic effects tend to override periodic trends in this region of the periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 17:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this one a look later tonight. In the meantime, I do notice that reference #3 is dead. Canadian Paul 17:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I simply removed the ref – the statement was cited by another, more reliable ref anyway. Double sharp (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce material that is not present in the body of the article. The fact that it is "is the second heaviest element of all created" is currently not in the article.
   •  Done Kept in the lead, also placed in the "Nuclear stability and isotopes" section. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
2. There's a deletion discussion going on for File:DecayChain Ununseptium.svg, which needs to be resolved prior to this article passing for GA status (unless the image is removed from the article of course)
   •  Done Original image deleted. Current one is a redraw (thanks Materialscientist!) of that image and is thus OK to use (as the data in that image is free and only the image itself wasn't). Double sharp (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Under "Pre-discovery", first paragraph, "The difference of 8 between the two kinds of nucleons is extremely rare for stable and near-stable atoms, with the next one being zinc-68" What do you mean by "the next one"? This could use some clarification.
   •  Done Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Please rectify all citation-needed tags (there's one in the first paragraph of "Pre-discovery")
   •  Done Cited. Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Under "Discovery", second paragraph, "²⁸⁹Uup, one of ununseptium's daughters, was created in a different way in 2011, however, yet it matched the claimed properties during the discovery." I find this sentence to be a bit confusing... what claimed properties is it matching? (Maybe just explain it here and I can figure out if it's me or the article that is confused)
   •  Done Decay properties – I've made it clearer. Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Under "Nucleus stability and isotopes", first paragraph, "While the first 40 elements may turn out to be perfectly stable, 40 more can decay, but still have at least one isotope not shown to decay, and another four certainly decay, yet are primordial (i.e., present on the Earth since its formation), the stability of nuclei decreases with the increase in atomic number greatly thereafter, so that all isotopes with an atomic number above 101 decay radioactively with a half-life under a day, with an exception of ²⁶⁸Db." This sentence is way too long and confusing. It needs to be split up into at least two.
   •  Done Cut the first part of the sentence. It wasn't really that relevant and was confusing. Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Under "Predicted atomic, physical, and chemical properties", first paragraph, "Certain chemical properties, however, are predicted to differ from what one would expect based on periodic trends from the lighter halogens because of relativistic effects" requires a citation as this is material that could be challenged.
   •  Not done Doesn't need a citation – the paragraphs below give (cited) examples. Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Same section, second paragraph, "In its free form the element is thought to form dimeric molecules, just like the other halogens." Since the average reader isn't going to know what "dimeric molecules" are, there should be either an explanation or some appropriate wikilinking here.
   •  Done Linked to diatomic molecule. Double sharp (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The article did need a major copyedit, which I performed, but I'll have to look over it again once the issues above have been dealt with. To allow for these issues to be addressed I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 23:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• THe article needs to cover this. Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done Added it. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed of course; was going to give that a check after the rest had been dealt with, but thanks for taking care of it! As for the nominator, just let me know when you want me to take another look. Canadian Paul 14:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Under "Discovery", I'd be interested in knowing what the "different way" of creating the daughter was, as well as why they chose not to submit a claim to to IUPAC, but of course I can't ask you to include information that's not available in reliable sources. If it is out there, however, that might be a useful addition. Also I noticed that you write "second heaviest" but "second-lightest" - the use (or absence) of the dash in these cases should be standardized in the prose. In any case, I now believe that the article meets the Good Article criteria and thus I will be passing it as such. Congratulations and thank you for all your work! Canadian Paul 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Actually, R8R Gtrs did most of the work, but stopped when the article seemed very close to GA to me, so I just fixed the remaining issues and asked for a GA review.

About your remaining points: changed to "second-heaviest" throughout. Any remaining instances of the unhyphenated version can safely be regarded as having been overlooked by me and can be changed. ;-)

Finally, you need confirmation to have a reasonable chance of getting the discovery officially acknowledged at IUPAC, which they didn't have until this year. See this paper by IUPAC for IUPAC's discovery criteria. I'll try to find the synthesis method for the daughter (Uup-289) and add it. Double sharp (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I found the synthesis method for Uup-289, but did not include it because it would clutter the article (the equations take up a lot of space, and the inline equivalents are hard to understand without explanation). The method was Am-243 + Ca-48 → Uup-289 + 2 n, and is on the ununpentium article already. Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Naming (again)

The article says that the name will probably end in -ium per IUPAC, but the linked article says that's the rule for metallic elements. Uus is a halogen, so the discoverers might go with xxx-ine. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The linked article does say that all new elements should end in "-ium" on its 4th page. (The article only quotes a 1953 convention that metallic elements should end in "-ium" (on 3rd page), but it makes up the more general rule later. It's a little confusing.) BTW, it's not clear if Uus is a halogen. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Uus is a halogen by definition, at least for the moment. We don't know if it's chemistry is similar to the other halogens, but I guess, one day, we might find out! Physchim62 (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's only a group 17 element by definition, this does not make it automatically a halogen, according to the article on Halogen:

"The halogens or halogen elements are a series of nonmetal elements from Group 17 of the periodic table, comprising fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I), and astatine (At). The artificially created element 117, provisionally referred to by the systematic name ununseptium, may also be a halogen."

(emphasis mine) - it's not known if Uus is a nonmetal. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Element117 is an odd Z element, and would accordingly have OE and/or OO isotopes, depending on the number of extra neutrons reemitted. The data shows isotope no 294, which would have 177 neutrons, and would thus be an OO and was reported to have the longest halflife. The 177 neutrons could also be counted as being 117 paired neutrons plus 60 extra neutrons. The alternative isotope was No 293, which would be an OE with 176 total neutrons and 59 extra neutrons.WFPM (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)PS It is, however, the next to the last element of the 2nd rare earth series (notwithstanding it's location in the standard periodic table) and is a cogener of 85At Astatine, and accordingly should be a nonmetal.WFPM (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Among the elements in general, it is unusual for an OO isotope to have a relatively high stability with relation to the other isotopes of an element. However in the case of the second rare earth series, several of the odd Z elements are noted to have a high relative stability. The last OO element with a long stability halflife is OO71Lu 176, which is the first element of the third transition metal series, and it is not as stable as it's lesser isotope OELu175, which has a 97.4% constituency.WFPM (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC

If a person wanted to speculate on a reason for the reported increased stability of OO isotopes in this heavy isotope area he might consider that the first stabilizing process occurring to the combined nucleus is that of physically dumping off of some of the loosest bound nucleons (the excess neutrons) in order to dissipate some of the excitation energy, and that this physical process might easier achieve a dynamic balance with an even A numbered OO isotope than with an odd A numbered OE isotope, and that this would be particularly true in the case of the large heavy isotopes.WFPM (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A perhaps simpler explanation is that for most of the superheavy elements, the heaviest isotope is reported to be the most stable, so even heavier isotopes may be more stable than the ones synthesised. It has been predicted (see the article) that by the time you get to the OE isotope Uus-337, the half-lives may even get to 10¹⁶ a! (Uus-337 would have 103 more neutrons than protons.) Double sharp (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

To do (from hidden comments)

• More about SO interactions (R8R Gtrs says he wants to do that)
• Why IUPAC defined halogens as only F, Cl, Br, I, At
• More about subshell splitting
• Explain terminology in "Chemical" section

Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts to explain the points, they were "notes to self" as of writing and don't contain all of the thoughts. Since you got into here, you should find out what I think about those:

Subshell splitting is a major consequence from SO interactions, another one being the extremely strong inert pair effect. I think it could take a whole separate subsection to explain it well (2-4 paras). To get a good explanation other articles (especially its neighbor, ununoctium) could be jealous of :) What worries me is that the Physical subsection may get too short otherwise. The neighbor is more studied :( the elements in the end of the period lose some researches compared to the mysterious 112, 114, 118 (thought to complain about it in the article, now think I won't). Also, if the inert pair effect is announced that early, we may lose a good surprise point further in the article (the one about five electrons in the valence core). Don't wanna move it either... These are in particular the reasons why this hasn't been done by now.

I didn't mean a IUPAC definition (they don't think it is a halogen because they don't even think it exists; we may reserve a sentence for that, though). More like in general. Again, have done some rethinkings. I think now we shouldn't call it a (potential) halogen, instead maybe even distinguish it from "the five halogens." Not get deep into the topic. Much would be emptier-than-seems text.

About terminology. You got it right (I think). I used to think we could utilize a big center-aligned table with properties of the halogens and 117. Don't want it now too, and it's not me being a lazyass. I think it should be too big to be fine, and small one doesn't draw the picture. Some of comparative examples (a reader is not expected to have an intuitive understanding what a Debye is) could be given right in the text, for example as a parenthesized note like (for comparison, that of ... Is ...).

Drawing

Copypasted here from talkpage User Talk:Double sharp [2]. -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, congrats about your Mt GAN coming successful. I wanted to know, can you draw me a graph for ununseptium? I would do it myself, but I can't reach the computer, and most probably won't be able to any soon. It doesn't have to be very cool or vector, but we gotta have a base, which can hang out for a while before we get an upgrade from the Graphic Lab. Just listen to what is needed. Not gonna be complicated. Basically, I need something like this ( http://books.google.ru/books?id=QbDEC3oL7uAC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=Re+trend+HI+HAt+H117&source=bl&ots=S4hksKcjBK&sig=bFbp0ra8N1qSHFVR_p-m2MV65hI&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=OsftT8G3IcSq-Abi2IS3Dg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=117&f=false , p. 146). That's a good base. We don't need Tl and 113, but At and 117 are what is needed. Then have a look at this paper ( http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/JCPSA6-ft/vol_115/iss_6/2456_1.html?bypassSSO=1 ), it has the data in Fig. 1 through 3, the rightmost column, of course (s and p being identical to what is given in the book, they cite this data, but I want d-electrons also. Dunno why. Think I'll mention them, in very short, so having them on a pic is fine as well. Just to draw a complete picture of the SO interactions.) This pic will have some useful data, like p1/2--p3/2 gap (I thought the figure in the article body would be too geeky, but a Neergal comment convinced me.) There's nothing else to write about anyway! They say, if you can contract a speech into a word, do it, but I don't take it. While there's no formal lower size limit for FAC, just mention the main things, I think that it should be, not formally, but... It just should. This also helps reader not to think of what it would be, but also why. And it matters. We can afford that, we got the room. And while this is kinda geeky, there are people who won't read the stuff anyway, running away, because they don't understand things like radioactive decay. I aim at readers one single level above that (most popular science authors do). Those who wanna learn not only about this only element, but the whole concept applying to the near elements also, while not expecting, and we're giving them the surprise. If they take it, they'll love it. This is helpful. (Wow, I have to write a single para more (or even less) and get one more pic, but need so many words... Could've done it by now maybe, but it's late (more chat-moody than wikiwork-moody) and will still need the pic anyway... What I was to, I'll try to have the writing done by the weekend)

So I need the pic to illustrate.. If you can't do it, then please outsource the work to someone else (DePiep may be helpful, not asking him in the first place, because doing this thing in a perfect way is an even harder thing, he won't do it any different, and I won't be able to pay him back. Choose whoever you trust.) Just without this skeleton, it may be imperfect, that's okay, it's gonna be a long thus hard task everyone's feeling to lazy to do. A "vectorize" request is easier to fulfill, we will need less time overall. And, well, the article won't even be bad without it... But will be slightly even cooler with it.

Can't really reach the computer. Didn't forget about your alkali metal request... I'm just busy, I remember, and when I have time, I'll help. Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll dive into this, by Ds request. Let us check:

• The first book drawing is fig. 330 on page 146. We leave out two column: (113) and Tl. Dimension and unit of the vertical axis is: "Energy (au)" right?
• How do the three data figures relate to the main one? E.g. in main the Al 6s bar is at about -95 (au?). Is that corresponding with the full line bar Spfr–DHF from figure 1?

we need the DHF values, and only them. The values in the book are exactly these DHF values, because they books uses the paper as a source.

• Do we use the L-L values at all? What with the forked lines, and the dotted lines in the figure?

The dotted or solid lines... The only thing they are useful for is that they mean what lines correspond to what elements (see Fig 3 for example -- we don't need the two upper lines, they are for Tl and 113. The lower ones are a solid one (At; the book has a bad font, but it's an "At," not an "Al.") and a dotted one (Uus or 117). We don't need the whole lines, only the values from the DHF column. For the currently missing d-lines, they would be 5d_5/2 (upper) and 5d_3/2 (lower) for At (6d_5/2 and 6d_3/2 for 117).) The lines, as you understand, are just links for a value to a value.

I see. Will add. -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed image name on WP: File:Valence nsnp atomic energy levels for group 13 and 17 atoms.svg (edit here while it's red).
• Energy: "au" is "Hartree atomic units"?
• Figure caption (in the graph): "Valance nsnp atomic energy levels"? And group number in column header, like "Al (group 13)")?
• Source: (to be completed later on) cite book: |url=[3] | title=Challenges and advances in computational chemistry and physics|editor= | author=J. Styszińsky | chapter=3| page=146

-DePiep (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC) More. -07:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Better take the Faegri paper instead (the book doesn't have the d electron value, the paper does).

Valence nsnp atomic energy levels for group 13 and 17 atoms

Refining questions.

• First drawing. Don't worry about font issues for now. First le's get facts & numbers right. The green numbers will go away.
• Bars to be added:

Al 6dx/y at ....

(117) 7dx/y at ....

• Vertical axis text is (quantity and unit):

-DePiep (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over again, man. Appreciate that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What more to change, what more to add? I cannot study the topic, a bit too much. -DePiep (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it took me some time before I got into the basics. I still don't get everything... But think it's okay, given purposes. So, it would need:

• d electron lines, of course
• a very minor thing: the fractions will need to be written in subscript
• don't forget to change those Al into At!
• you said the numbers would go, just putting into the list
• Pretty otherwise

Last one. Would it take much time to make me a horizontal-aligned copy? If yes, forget it. If no, then I'd love to have it even more than a vertical one (with a horizontal one, I won't need the vertical one, because then I can show it better (scale difference), but... If it's too tedious a task, I don't insist)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

So will have to expand to -2.0.

Horizontal would be a lot indeed, sort of redrawing.

Subscripts they will be, but that is a one-way finishing touch (so not in concept; Inkscape bug).

Sure the texts (axis, title) are OK? I took a thinking liberty. -DePiep (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick formatting comment based on various MOS guidelines and personal experience: the image would be more reusable if if the graph does not have a title. It represents more content that has to be translated in ordet to be fully usable in other languages (and doing so requires editing the image, which is often harder than editing normal WP content). And it also forces the reader to focus on certain relationships, which makes the image less useful to illustrate other ideas in other contexts. Descriptive text can easily be added in image-captions or other surrounding prose when the image is actually used. DMacks (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

While thinking about titles, it appears to be actually just elements At (I think it means) and 117, not group 13 at all (another remnant of the "Al" original?) and not the whole group 17. Might want to rename the file to be specific to that content in case someone wants to conjure up an image comparing other specific elements in these groups. It might be useful eventually to put together a graph of all elements in the group (helps illustrate various trends and patterns, rather than just one specific relationship among two)? DMacks (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I took the file name from the figure title. Changing the filename is OK with me. No title in the graph: I see your arguments, but very often the necessary additions in the text are forgotten. The file doc page has not standard structure to write that there. Apart from that, to keep any sense into it the axes (dimensions) must be defined. Best would be an internationa notation, using SI and SI-drived terms (not descriptive wordings). But even this source has no unit along the vert axis. To be clear: in general the axis should mention: Quantity [Unit], optionally (Quality symbol). This would also keep the translation problem away. As for clarity: maybe we could reduce (squeeze) the vertical height. From a layman in this: some hinting or connecting (colored?) lines could be added, e.g. grouping & marking the s-p-d orbits. But sure the article can now be written alright. -DePiep (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The graphic part is well done. Exactly what I wanted to have. I tip my hat to you.
I, however, just realized that we have a wrong image title. "Valence nsnp atomic energy levels" is not fine. Not because you got it wrong. I didn't notice originally as well. Since the addition of the (n-1)d electrons, it is nsnp(n-1)d now, and this looks too nerdy to get it in. Valence is since then also doesn't do -- d electrons are not valence electrons for 117. I can't come up with a good idea to get in instead immediately, though. "Highest" maybe, but this can be understood in different ways. Also, I wouldn't point to this anywhere outside Wiki, but since it's Wiki, we should probably have Uus instead of 117 inserted (also a belated flash, didn't get that earlier). Will add it to the article as soon as this is fixed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll remove the title and change "(117)" into "(Uub)". Your detailed physics (oops ;-) : that is, details into physical science) I cannot understand, but just tell me what to change and we both will be happy. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

New version (correcting eV, similar one for Tl and Uut)

See Tl and Uut file. Currently the image is under construction. When OK, I will splice them into the two files. When done, the future files (content) will be:

-File:Valence atomic energy levels for At and Ts.svg

-File:Valence atomic energy levels for Tl and Nh.svg

Changes:

• eV correct numbers ("-1.0" now is "-27.211" eV).
• Added Tl and Uut same way. -DePiep (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks very good to me. Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll switch the sequence: it will be At Uus Tl Uut. But in two separate files (so effect will be: Tl Uut). Again: the complete list of four will not remain. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Uploaded two files, in intended form. -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I've inserted the file into the element 113 article already. Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Will read soon

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/238757997_Experimental_studies_of_the_249Bk__48Ca_reaction_including_decay_properties_and_excitation_function_for_isotopes_of_element_117_and_discovery_of_the_new_isotope_277Mt

is it the 2012 experiment we mention in the article?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This could very well be it. Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Common sense was telling me the same (berkelium production is very difficult), just wanted to check the dates.

A very hardcore paper. Still, we may introduce it, I'll think about that in the evening.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

<ref>Oganessian, Yuri Ts.; Abdullin, F. Sh.; Alexander, C.; Binder, J.; Boll, R. A.; Dmitriev, S. N.; Ezold, J.; Felker, K.; Gostic, J. M. (2013-05-30). "Experimental studies of the ²⁴⁹Bk + ⁴⁸Ca reaction including decay properties and excitation function for isotopes of element 117, and discovery of the new isotope ²⁷⁷Mt". Physical Review C. 87 (054621). American Physical Society. Bibcode:2013PhRvC..87e4621O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.87.054621. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)</ref>

The 1981 data

We should add it.

This is an extrapolation thing (which we will point out), but what should we keep in infoboxes, what we have today or that extrapolation thing (tricky; I don't know)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm clearly biased towards relativistic data, because, well, it's relativistic, and relativity alters properties significantly in this region of the table. In fact, Bonchev and Kamenska themselves state that they think some of the data should be altered to correct for relativity (not all, though)! I kept the extrapolation stuff where there was no other data. We can of course talk about it in the article (even if you don't have the article, you now have the data from the history!) Double sharp (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool pic

Here, though we probably don't really need it. Double sharp (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

³³⁷Uus

It is said that ³³⁷Uus has a calculated half-life of 10¹⁶ years, although it is only an alpha decay half-life and :does not take into count other types of decay. I think that ³³⁷Uus is highly unstable to beta decay, so its actual half-life is only in the milliseconds or less instead. The most stable isotopes between alpha and beta decays would be in the region of ³¹⁵Uus to ³¹⁹Uus. I'll say that ³¹⁹Uus is really the most stable isotope against both beta and alpha decays with a half-life of 3 years, based on the graph. Should we mention beta decay instability in the article? PlanetStar 21:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, there's a mistake in the caption (but labeled correctly on the pic), it's the total half-life graph. Please don't add anything about 319Uus. Also, there's just no info about beta alone. Even alpha (and SF, K-decay, etc.) data is unknown on its own. The article in fact doesn't go that deep ('cause it is technical and lacks data). So there's no reason for that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Atoms containing too many neutrons relative to the number of protons undergo beta decay while too few neutrons relative to protons under alpha decay. Alpha decay half-lives does increase generally with neutron number, but beta decay half-lives generally decrease with increasing neutron number, which is the opposite of alpha decay. For example, ununseptium-294 has an alpha decay half-life of 78 milliseconds, but the beta decay half-life of this isotope can be at least a trillion times longer than the age of the universe. So there should be transition zone for isotopes between alpha and beta decays somewhere between ³¹³Uus and ³²⁹Uus, which corresponds that the most stable isotopes are within this range. Consider that ³³⁷Uus has an alpha decay half-life of 10 quadrillion years, but the real half-life of this isotope should be lot shorter because it undergoes beta decay far before undergoing alpha decay. So do you think that heaviest Uus isotopes tend to undergo beta decay? The study of predicting half-lives only use alpha decay, cluster decay, and cold fission as partial half-lives. The total half-lives on the graph mean that they use only these three modes of decay and does not include beta decay. Hopefully future calculations should include beta decay and predict exactly which isotope is most stable and its half-life. PlanetStar 02:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Beta decay is probably somewhat inhibited for superheavy elements due to the Pauli exclusion principle: see Talk:Ununpentium#Stable E115. It is interesting to note that no isotope of any element beyond Db is known to undergo beta decay. Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting, but not really surprising, since all created isotopes for very high Z are neutron-deficient. And even an "inhibited" beta decay could easily have a half-life of less than billions of years...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm (ab)using the term "beta decay" to mean "β⁺, β⁻, or ε". Double sharp (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutron-rich isotopes undergo beta decay, but for superheavy elements, neutron-rich isotopes are more stable because beta decay is somewhat more difficult since the electron cloud is denser closer to the nucleus, so it requires isotopes to be more neutron-rich in order to undergo beta decay. So I estimate the lightest Uus isotope to undergo beta decay is around ^325–327Uus, so although ³³⁷Uus has an alpha decay half-life of around 10 quadrillion years, its half-life to beta decay would be lot shorter, perhaps from minutes to days. Look at isotopes of astatine in the alpha decay characteristics table and you'll see the differences between real half-lives and alpha decay half-lives. The most stable alpha decay isotope on that table is ²²¹At, which is experimentally stable, but its actual half-life is only 2.3 minutes and undergoes beta minus decay. The most stable astatine isotope to all modes of decay is ²¹⁰At, whose real half-life is 8.1 hours, but its alpha decay half-life is 193 days. It tells that this isotope almost alway undergo a different decay mode, which is beta plus decay. For superheavy elements, beta plus decay is virtually inhibited, and several of the eka-astatine isotopes may be more stable than astatine-210. The most stable ununseptium isotope to all modes of decay would have a half-life ranging from 1–300 years for ^324–326Uus. PlanetStar 19:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Undoing for now. While everything you say may make sense, these are only your estimates and your changes thus seem to violate WP:V and WP:OR. I am thrilled by how such a heavy nuclide could be so stable, but this is the only paper that discusses such heavy isotopes of elements 105-130 (around so). The paper is googlable (look for the ref in the pic for the title). In the document, it is stated those are "total half-lives." I assume (I don't think there's anything else that can be assumed) it includes the beta decay. While we may doubt that data, those guys whose names are right under the title sure were suspicious as well. And they got published. We are even not saying they're the truth. What we're saying is, a team from a Brazilian university has made up some data, here's what they say (especially mentioning the source of data in the text, in popular science literature this is often done to show the hypothesis isn't yet considered the truth, but may turn out it to be it (not always it is used for that purpose, but very often)).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks that ³³⁷Uus is too neutron-rich to have half-life this long. According to Brazilian source, they study isotopes only using alpha decay, cluster emission, and cold fission, but it doesn’t mention anything about beta decay even when talking about neutron-rich isotopes, see [4]. Future studies may constrain the half-lives of neutron-rich isotopes better because it'll eventually implement beta minus decay mode. So imagine if we study astatine using these decay modes, the Brazilian team would determine that ²²¹At is the stable isotope without taking into account beta minus decay, which think that astatine should be as abundant on Earth as lead or uranium, but in reality astatine is the rarest element. Its actual half-life is 2.3 minutes when taking into account beta minus decay, same dispute would most inevitably occur for ³³⁷Uus. PlanetStar 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Heil to you, a cautious reader, I never noticed that "counts only for alpha, clusters, cold fission" disclaimer. I should be more cautious as well. I'm not sure to make a good wording right now (we should slightly push accent away from the report to be more rational, we should abandon the university's name, and about beta decay we should write something we could cite and not just state "may be stable, maybe not," it just never looks like good prose and this is an A-class page) Do you have any ideas how to make it?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I searched on Google about beta decay of ununseptium and I didn't find anything, so we have no idea how to accent it. The only time we'll know the idea is in the future when scientists develop a theory about beta decay for superheavy elements including ununseptium. PlanetStar 20:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If there's nothing available on beta decay, we must simply state that the report's results exclude it. I'd agree to substantially reduce the accent on the report given its lesser relevance; I'll try to reword it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Things that may need clarification

So we could make the article understandable for everyone.

elements beyond copernicium -- do you mean, "beyond"?

got it

halogen, whose elements -- whose? just rephrase that

sure

a valence electron configuration of ns2np5 -- what does that even mean

spelled out; a second look would be welcome

small dipole moment for TlUus, only 1.67 D -- small, you say? how small, exactly? 1.67 D is nothing to me, neither small nor great, examples, please

Here's the template for the ref: Lide, David R. (2003). "Section 9, Molecular Structure and Spectroscopy". CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (84th ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. p. 9-45. ISBN 9780849304842.

I have added a number of examples. If you think, some other examples would be better, let me know. This might help; I have access to the whole book, so I may see more. (I could try to send it to you if you want me to.)

I think the writing is otherwise fine. Double sharp (and anyone), if you have anything to add, please, do. I will fix these problems anytime soon, or you may if you can do it. That does not reflect grammar and prose and stuff, which will be done in the end of the pre-FAC work.

Note: we will also need to integrate the German experiment into the text. Also, we may need a new subheader for that section, because is it still the discovery?

Pls, if you have any ideas on further improvement, write them down.--R8R (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, references, check them--R8R (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The talk about σ and π bonding in (117)₂, At₂, and (117)Cl – is there any way to clarify this and explain what it means? I know there's a lot of links, but the information content is so dense that we're basically having to give the lay reader an introductory course through the links. Double sharp (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Good one. I added it; pls check if it was good enough (I feel I have oversimplified things, which is fine for this very context, but still, give it a look.)--R8R (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we're fine now (although I added a little bit re antibonding, which wasn't explained). Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression the term "antibonding" spoke for itself :) --R8R (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. We might want to go find someone who knows very little about this stuff and get them to read the article, and see what confuses them – I fear we might miss some things because we already know about this stuff. Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had the idea for a while. Then I realized our copyeditor might be such a person (this is what you generally expect, given people familiar with even the school course of chemistry (not to mention nuclear physics) are not rich in numbers these days; astatine was an example of how you get a copyeditor not skilled at chemistry and then this helps you write a better article.--R8R (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an approximate order of processing things as I see them:

1. make the potentially unclear things clearer;
2. the German experiment;
3. check the references;
4. get this copyedited.

Agreed. Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we're done with #1 and #2 for now (except I don't like the "which underwent spontaneous fission" repetition, but no better wording comes to mind, and this will be copyedited away anyway).--R8R (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I must admit, I am poor at reference formatting. I think things look fine; if you disagree, pls let me know. If you agree things are fine, then I'll go request some help from the GOCE.--R8R (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I checked the info, but I am still uncertain, what do you do with a ref if the original web news agency we cite has since then turned into a quite different company?--R8R (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the original still available at the Internet Archive? If so, I think we can cite that (isn't that one of the parameters in the cite template)? Double sharp (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

yeah, I know about web archiving and stuff, I mean the two links to RIA Novosti we use used to be links to rian.ru pages (the pages are in English, so we are okay with that), but some time after we added them, the agency has been transformed into a new one, called Sputnik, and the links are now redirects to their site. The articles are still there, except they are now Sputnik pages. Is it right to use the Sputnik pages (if not, why?), or should we stick to web-archieved RIA Novosti ones, and if the latter is the right option, what exactly parameters for {cite web} should we use (for example, |dead-url= , yes or no? the url is not really dead)?

If the new one has exactly the same article, I personally don't see any problem with changing the cite to the new one. Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sure, let's go with that.

I've added a request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, so all we can do now is wait, I think (unless we get big news or some new theoretical data).--R8R (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Decay chain differences between Dubna and Darmstadt

@R8R Gtrs: re reverting decay chain details: my goal was not to emphasize Lr-266, but to clarify the paragraph text, which took me several readings to decipher. Perhaps after my changes to the paragraph it is clear enough, but I still think the formulas are helpful to a first-time reader. You and others are free to decide; I just wanted to explain the reasoning for my addition. YBG (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I get what you mean. As I said in the edit comment, it was a fair try to add them. But Lr-266 still got emphasized (unintentionally), because a larger portion of the article referred to that isotope.

My basic idea is, we shouldn't focus on this too much. It's a by-the-way fact. Like when the text contained a graph with half-lives predicted by one study, but then I learned beta decay was not considered, so while we could keep it, its significance significantly fell, and the graph was removed.

Also, I am uneasy about how six alpha particles disappeared in those equations, which could either require the more sophisticated ²⁹⁴Uus(-,6α)²⁷⁰Db(-,α)²⁶⁶Lr notation (which we would then need to explain), or break the equations into two lines each, so it would take even more space? I don't like either solution.

I think the text is clear the way it is now, but I won't judge. If it is too difficult to get it anyway, I think we would do better without it at all. As I said, this is a non-essential detail.--R8R (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Energy-levels image (encore)

File:Valence atomic energy levels for At and Uus horizontal.svg has faint gray vertical gridlines every 10 eV. They are so light, it took me a few reloads and resolution-changes to realize what I was seeing was real (and then to look for meaning) rather than a monitor or browser bug. Since the whole data content and rest of the axes and labels are 100% black, any objection to darkening these lines a bit? DMacks (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Better now? (I hope so, as I would not want to make the lines bring too much attention)--R8R (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! DMacks (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --R8R (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Bk isotope choice

The article says Bk-249 was used because it has the right number of protons (it's the right element), and that one practical difficulty was its short half-life (a feature of this isotope of Bk). Was this isotope chosen because it has the longest half-life of all known Bk isotopes? Or because it was the easiest to make? Or for some reason related to the intended/expected nuclear reactions they were going to perform? DMacks (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Since Dubna favored Ca-48 and Bk was a no-brainer, one would assume they would want to attempt the experiment with the heaviest Bk isotope available, so they could get closer to the island of stability. And indeed, this is the second most stable isotope of Bk; any heavier isotope has a half-life of under a day, not enough for the experiment.--R8R (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like 249 is the third most stable among the isotopes of berkelium:) Obviously it was some combination of accessibility of the material, likelihood of the fusion working, and practicality of observing results (closeness to island of stability, decay products, etc.). I guess all we can say is that they "chose to use the specific isotope Bk-249". I think we should say that they actually chose a certain isotope (obvious, requires no cite) rather than suddenly jumping from "they used Bk" to only talking about one isotope thereof. DMacks (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, maybe :) But I don't think we suddenly jump from "berkelium" to "berkelium-249": we only mention "berkelium-249" once in the text, and also twice in the reactions, and we present it as "the produced isotope of berkelium," so the jump, even if there is one, isn't all that sudden after all. Am I missing anything?--R8R (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason may well be a lot simpler: ²⁴⁹Bk is simply the only isotope of Bk you can produce in weighable quantities, as it is the only one you can get by prolonged neutron irradiation of Pu, Am, or Cm. I put that in with a cite. Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. DMacks is right, ²⁴⁹Bk is the third-most stable isotope of Bk, after ²⁴⁷Bk and ²⁴⁸Bk. But the first can only be produced by irradiating ²⁴⁴Cm with alpha particles (not anywhere near as high yield as neutron irradiation), because you can't wait for ²⁴⁷Cm to decay to it in a nuclear reactor (its half-life is too long and so it will probably absorb another neutron instead). As for ²⁴⁸Bk, it is apparently so hard to produce that the Bk article does not even mention it: its half-life is not known very well and could be anywhere from 9–300 years. Double sharp (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I learned that while looking for the answer for the question in the previous section, a few hours after I wrote my initial answer. Still, I think that if there was a chance to get a heavier isotope, they'd go for it, and that is enough to explain the choice. They surely wanted to use the heaviest isotope that was available and useful (not decaying away too quickly and possibly having also some nuclear properties), and of the assortment of one, the decision was pretty easy to make. But indeed, you are totally right.--R8R (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"cooled in 90 days"

In Ununseptium#Discovery, it says "The berkelium was subsequently cooled in 90 days", which is in agreement with the cited ref that says "had to be cooled for three months". What does this "cooling" really mean? It was only 22 mg, so it doesn't seem like it should take more than a few seconds or minutes for pretty much any amount thermal change. Were they waiting for some other isotoptes to decay (radioactively hot)? Or was the small amount of the product dispersed in a large target that needed to cool (again presumably radioactively not simply thermally)? DMacks (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Our berkelium article explains pretty well how Bk-249 is made, and by making it, you also make a few by-products, which you would want to decay away. Since by this point, the target had not been installed on the titanium film and was free from a larger holder body (we even have a nice pic of Bk in solution), no such body could not create problems, and I assume the synthesis by-products were the reason why this cooling had to take so long.--R8R (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, to the layman reading the article, "cooling" would be instantly taken as meaning thermal cooling, which is not what is meant. So this probably needs to be explained quickly in the article. Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is exactly thermal cooling we're talking about. Actually, I can relate to the feeling, but I can find a proper reference. I tried to do so when the issue was first raised and I'm trying to do it now. If I find anything suitable, I'll add the fact.--R8R (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know. I've spent some time looking for a reference, and I can't find anything. Radioactivity generates heat, that's simple. Nuclear reactors do that as well, that's not too difficult, either. However, saying that is like going idiot-proof. Anything related to synthesis of actinides either only mentions something related to heat, but not how you need to cool the thing because it's radioactive, because any high-level literature views this as obvious (I think). If we could go without in-line referencing, then the issue could be worked around. But we can't, and we're trapped. Even our californium article -- a current FA -- does not even mention the whole cooling thing.

Actually, I won't feel bad about not explaining this, because cooling of berkelium is like a super-secondary thing for the story of how element 117 was first created. (The JINR press report does agree with this, giving cooling less than one sentence.) Personally, I couldn't even notice the issue before this question was even raised. So for now, we'll go without explaining this fact. Of course, if a good reference has been found, then this issue could be revised (but I've got a feeling it won't be).--R8R (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops! Yeah, this is thermal cooling, so it is exactly what the layman would think it is. So I don't think we really need an explanation. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

what does "semimetallic appearance" mean

This is in the infobox, cited to Fricke (who uses exactly that word), but I am somewhat concerned that it might not be clear what he means by it. Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe this ambiguity in the book is intentional. It's a 1975 book we're talking about, itself referring to a ref within a 1968 article, so the original source is even older. Given how much theoretical info is available on the element in general, I would not think there is a detailed explanation of what "semimetalicity" in element 117 is all about, especially assuming Fricke would surely include any noticeable fact.--R8R (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Slight Header Problem

Anyone else seeing this Occupy Wall Street-tier billboard at the top of the page? dT (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

nvm it's been fixed dT (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Explaining the name

In the first sentence should there be a quick note explaining the name, since the article will be read by a number of students who won't instinctively understand the meaning of it. Maybe the lede should begin with something like this: "Ununseptium (literally, one-one-seven) is a superheavy artificial... "

As far as splitting infinitives goes, could, "Unlike the halogens, ununseptium is likely to neither commonly form anions nor achieve high oxidation states," be changed to, "Unlike the halogens, ununseptium is not likely to form anions or achieve high oxidation states."

__209.179.0.121 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not "Unlike the lighter halogens"?? It's a member of the halogen family; element 118 is a member of the noble gas family. Georgia guy (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am under the impression however that a halogen must be a nonmetal, and it is not yet known if element 117 is one. I may be wrong about the former. Double sharp (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Astatine is a semimetal, and extrapolation of the pattern suggests that ununseptium is also a semimetal. Georgia guy (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(When you say semimetal I think of the physical definition first, but all right.) Firstly, astatine as a semimetal (metalloid) is not a universally agreed-upon classification, although it may be the best (and is IMHO). Secondly, I think you'll find that, for obvious reasons, most studies on the halogens focus on F, Cl, Br, and I, and only mention At peripherally, if at all. (Really. Or pick up Greenwood and Earnshaw which addresses At only at the very end of the chapter on the halogens for a few pages and keeps it separate from everyone else, unlike the treatment for Po and the heavier chalcogens.) Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

How about "Unlike the other members of the halogen group, ununseptium is neither likely to form anions or to achieve high oxidation states." It retains the neither/nor construct for a pair of negatives but avoids splitting infinitive (each item is a complete infinitive-verb phrase). And it avoids declaring that Uus is a halogen, merely that it is part of the group that is them (or could simply say "group 17"). DMacks (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

But why is it called "group 17"?? It's really the 31st group because the f-block (online rather than in books) is now commonly put in its proper position. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Group-17 per halogen, which cites it to IUPAC. Astatine is in the same situation, being the 31st element in its period, but likewise is described as group 17. DMacks (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing that's surprising is that the IUPAC doesn't think about this question. Georgia guy (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Why avoid splitting the infinitive at all? Split infinitive have been a part of the language since the 14th century and cause no comprehension issues. The prescription has been criticized since its introduction (without justification) in the 19th century. Wikipedia should not promote language myths. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 16:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well sure, we have a whole article about Split infinitive:) We should strive for commonality among many different language backgrounds and direct, easily-understood writing. So if a sentence is convoluted, or can be simplified, or can be written in a way that is less objectionable to some without making it more objectionable to others...that's the goal of the editorial process even if some of us individually don't think there is a problem. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not about commonality. It's a myth in every variety of English, and we should not pander to those who can't even rationalize what they're objecting to. The sentence is unproblematic. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Re "one-one-seven": first of all, the closest to th IUPAC name would be "one-one-seven-ium"; but that's a side issue. I think we should not do that for the same reason the article on the Netherlands does not start with "The Netherlands (lit. "the low lands"); "ununseptium" is a name; a generic one, yes, but first of all, it is a name. W explain the generic nature later. One could say this could be mentioned somewhere in the lead some space after the very beginning (see the said Netherlands article for an example of what I mean); I think this is worth considering. I'll think about that (and everyone is welcome to do so). (And it's also difficult to make many edits from a mobile device at once.)

Re "is ununseptium a halogen": researchers in the field of superheavies commonly use the term "halogen" not as an alternative name for group 17, but as a name of a group of chemically similar elements which share common characteristics, with high electronegativity and likeliness for singly charged anion formation above all. Ununseptium is not expected to be good at either. That said, for any practical purpose, there is no ununseptium; there are exactly zero ununseptium atoms on Earth as of writing, and we haven't had even a hundred; we're very far from that. As such, it does make sense to name the group 17 the "halogen group"; still, that is not precisely accurate and very far from the point in th context of the element 117. Extrapolations may not be accurate; even the current prognoses may not be; but since we happen to choose between the two, current prognoses are more reliable up to this point, since they also include the factor of relativity which is ignored by simple extrapolations; although I've one seen a book saying ununseptium's status of a halogen could be contested even if there was no relativity, since this far down the table, electronegativity and likeliness for anion formation would sink low anyway. (For the same reason, ununoctium is not a noble gas for now.)

"Group 17" is a IUPAC term. Even the 31th column, it is still group 17. Long story short, blame IUPAC and chemical tradition.

Re prose: splitting the infinitive is a thing that makes English prose beautiful, at least in my point of view. But the more important thing is, "commonly" is an important word here: it is not stated there will be no ununseptium anions at all, they just won't be bery common. --R8R (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

As for your "blame the IUPAC" statement, let me explain why it's so surprising IUPAC didn't resolve that statement.

Initially, the groups were named 1A to 8A and 1B to 8B in Europe; while in the United States the A's and B's for the groups 3 through 8 were switched. The IUPAC resolved the problem by inventing a new 1-18 system.

The group numbers date to 1985, when the Internet was not popular. In books, the f-block is placed below the main table to keep the table from being too wide. But now we have the Internet, where a wide periodic table with the f-block inline is valid because of the concept of scrolling images, which is not valid on paper. Thus, the problem needs to be resolved again. It's surprising the IUPAC didn't resolve this part of the problem. Georgia guy (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay; but I'd like to counter your theses.

First of all, it must be noted Wiki is supposed to redlect the reality and not affect it (in any way other than being a sociocultural phenomenon), so this discussion won't have an effect in the article.

Second, there is still life beyond the Internet. Starting from schoolbooks and the PT poster in the chemistry class. (However, now that I'm saying that, I'm not 100% confident -- do American kids still use paper books in schools?) And if th change happened, then IUPAC would have to pick a side on the group 3 issue, which it well avoids at the moment. Plus even if IUPAC was to number columns for the f block, I suggest one would use the 1-2-19-...-32-3-4-... numbering system, because, say, when I think of group 17, I think of halogens (and ununseptium, if we're talking about it at the moment), and not rare earths, which would make numbering confusing. Besides, do you really miss numbering for the f block, from any practical point?--R8R (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"reflect the reality" is just as well done by having the f-block inline as Georgia guy notes. Even better, because the cutout disrupts the view and the fact that the f-block has period 6 and 7 elements. To draw that table differently does not "change" reality or the periodic table. Putting elements into a footnote was only an editorial choice, born from the pre-Seaborgian periodic table (when f-block was unknown, think 1940) and conveniently supported ever since by the book page ration that expects a more square periodic table.

Drawing the f-block in line (into a 32-column PT) is an editorial choce, just as we are free to pick out font and pick the background colors to indicate "alkali metal". Writing Hg or Hg or Hg does not change the temperature nor its measurement in an oldfashioned thermometer. Tiresome that people keep repeating that while an editorial choice was made in the 1940s, it must be OK today (I suspect that is because old people can not get used to a change and therefor impose it on young ones).

Even better: time to stop bothering young scholars with that sherded IKEA table (mind the holes and double parts, plus the manual required): it always takes an extra step to understand it (the rest of their lives). -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In the f-block, the row trends are more important than the group trends; of course they would be, since the rows have 14 elements and the groups have but 2! Learning the chemistry of Nd can tell you quite a lot about that of Pr or Pm, but it is not going to help you on U. (U, a pseudo-group-6 element, is more related to W). In the d-block, the group trends are still important. As a result, I'm going to have to classify breaking out the f-block groups as a nice, symmetrical, but ultimately needless idea. They are so similar to each other that the footnoting actually makes some sense, so that in the main table they don't take up too much space. Then you have either all of them in one cell (IUPAC – yes, I'm going to mention that one as a respectable variant, because it is despite your efforts to maintain it isn't so) to underscore this, or you have one as a representative (either La or Lu; La is the historical and traditional choice, but Lu has better arguments going for it). Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

different name proposal

There is a petition

to name element 117, recently confirmed by the International Union of Applied Chemistry, as 'Octarine', with the proposed symbol Oc (pronounced 'ook'), in honour of the late Terry Pratchett and his Discworld series of books.

-- Thnidu (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Will the glut of silly petitions suggesting silly names that don't conform to IUPAC recommendations ever end? Sigh. I would not include this unless multiple reliable sources unfortunately picked up on it, and only as a footnote putting it in perspective (like in ununoctium). Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry. The best thing to do would be to write an FAQ regarding adding proposals on new names (possibly one question long) that quotes the corresponding rules, and delete the proposals, pointing to the FAQ.--R8R (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I imagine the rule would be:

Proposed names for as-yet unnamed elements should not be mentioned unless:

(a) they come from the discoverers, in which case they should be in the main naming section;

(b) they do not come from the discoverers, but (unfortunately) have been picked up by multiple reliable sources, in which case they should be left in footnotes that explicitly state that IUPAC only accepts the discoverers' suggestions (and also a statement about the IUPAC recommendations for naming elements, should the proposed name not fulfil them).

Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was not proposing that this be added to the article, but mentioning it here on the Talk page as a matter of amusement. Although as a Pratchett fan I'd love to see this go through, as a practical matter I know it never will. --Thnidu (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016

add proposed name moscovium instead. Edoera (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverting edits made today

@PanchoS: I have reverted the edits you've made. The rationale is too long to fit into an edit summary, and I want it to be clear as possible, and I am inviting you for a discussion following the WP:BRD guideline if you disagree.

First of all, the element is proposed to be named after the region of Tennessee, not the U.S. state, says the IUPAC release. The difference is that a region comprises a territory and all of its inhabitants (human and non-human), as well as their heritage (economy, culture, scientific labs, and so on). State is an... uhm, organization? entity? that is concerned with taxes, police, laws, and so on. A local government (or any structure of a similar purpose) is a part of what is a region. This is a quite subtle difference, and many people don't get it. Specifically, the IUPAC mentions the labs that helped develop the whole nuclear thing -- a part of what is a region, but not exactly a part of the state, even if they are funded by the state (see, a subtle difference).

Second, the original lead had a defined structure. The short first para defined what "ununseptium" is, the second para told its history, the third para discussed its properties. The change resulted in mixing up info in the first two paras for no good reason (as I see it; if there was a reason, please let me know).

(BTW, "Confirmation" is a good title, thank you.)

Naming was originally a separate section before I started to work on this article. I merged it with History because the whole naming process (giving a new name, getting it approved) is exactly the element's history. A new element's history is usually relatively simple: synthesis, independent confirmation, recognition of synthesis by the IUPAC (or non-recognition; then repeat from the confirmation part), naming, establishing the new named element. I don't think we should rip off the story with another subtitle and two (!) paras of context not too closely related to the story itself (1979 rules, 2016 rules).

If you think I didn't get something, please let me know. I certainly don't want to look over-protective on the article; I just don't see benefits of the changes made at this point.--R8R (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of a difference between the region of Tennessee and the U.S. state! Is there any area (e.g. metro Memphis, western North Carolina) that belongs in exactly one of these?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The difference is not in geographical borders (they are identical), but instead in the very concepts of a state and a region. According to state (polity), "A state is a type of polity that is an organized political community living under a single system of government," while, according to region, "In geography, regions are areas broadly divided by physical characteristics (physical geography), human impact characteristics (human geography), and the interaction of humanity and the environment (environmental geography)." Do these definitions explain the difference clearly or should I explain it?--R8R (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: Sorry, but it indeed looks like you are "over-protective" on this article. I considerably improved the article, and if you disagree with one or the other point, you can fix (or change) details, instead of reverting several edits as a whole.
Frankly, the original structure of the lead section wasn't very good. It gave (and now again gives) unreasonable weight to aspects that are neither defining nor interesting for the casual reader. The WP:LEADPARAGRAPH should avoid being too specific, and rather "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Basic information about the original discovery, the recognition status and the proposed permanent name clearly belong to the most general information a casual reader wants to know. IMHO, my edits accomplished that. Secondly, confirmation and naming are two largely separate aspects that occured in a different timeframe. Early names were given to the still undiscovered element, while the permanent name is only assigned in 2016. People who want to understand the name, don't necessarily want to know about the tedious process of confirmation, and the other way around. Three (not two, as you said) paragraphs each are a reasonable amount of information not to merge two distinct sections.
I don't care too much about the, IMHO slightly absurd, question of whether Tennessee may be regarded as a "region" instead of a U.S. state. But I'm expecting either you or someone else to restore the rest. --PanchoS (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Need to add proposed names for elements 113,115,117,118 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edoera (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As much as I like serving casual readers (and a few other editors can confirm this), this is an encyclopedia. That said, if a reader doesn't want the predicted chemistry or stuff, that's fine, but it doesn't mean the other don't. This is basic information just as well. (Otherwise I don't understand it, what exact aspects do you think are given overdue weight?) The lead section is meant to provide the whole basics of the article's subject in a few paragraphs and is treated as a single unit, being itself a summary of what follows next, with chemistry and history and naming, and can't focus on just some of these aspects.

I do see your point on naming. Give me a day or two, and then we'll figure it out, ok? (Two paras separated 2015 and 2016 in your revision.)--R8R (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 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: moved by Materialscientist. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Tennessine → Ununseptium – Well, in the case of Dnipropetrovsk renaming to officially adopted name was rejected bacause new name is not yet commonly used. Here is not yet officially adopted name. Is it already commonly used? Anatoliy (Talk) 22:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Move And I might add, the name tennessine has not yet been officially adopted. It has merely begun a 5-month public comment period. YBG (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  Here is a WP:RS clearly indicating that tennessine is merely a proposed name. YBG (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Move Agree, move back to Ununseptium as other three elements have systematic names too (tenessine is only a proposed one). Maybe to add protection so only administrators can move these four elements (there might be other users who will move the page in future, so to prevent this...).--Obsuser (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  Comment. To clarify what you mean; although the story where the name is officially adopted is a possible true story of November 2016, so is the story where the name is defeated. Any proposed chemical element names that were defeated?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  See the list of chemical elements naming controversies. I'm not sure any of them are directly comparable, but it does remind us that an encyclopedia should be cautious. YBG (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Move (back) to Ununseptium. Nergaal, who moved it, should be more careful knowing that this is up for discussion (not a move to be claimed by an es only). Then stating in the intro that "The name will become formally accepted in November 2016" [5] is OR (crystal ball). In short: the name is proposed, not decided. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that Nergaal moved the page with the marking "minor" [6]. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 11 June 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.

"The element was named for the region, not the state, of Tennessee"

Regardless of what the above discussion says, I have a big concern that people will take this statement literally and interpret as meaning that the region and the state have different boundaries. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually concerned, too. I just don't have any good ideas.--R8R (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Just say "named for Tennessee". I suspect it's just lost in translation. How about "named for the oblast of Tennessee"? After all, moscovium is named for the Moscow Oblast in the announcement itself, but the same source says named for the city of Moscow. 130.111.163.179 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

And 'region' is apparently used to translate 'oblast' in the unofficial translation of the constitution of the Russian Federation. See Federal subjects of Russia § Terminology. So I vote for the oblast of Tennessee. YBG (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

PS, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek, in case it wasn't obvious. YBG (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I did try just "Tennessee." Then someone specified it was the region, not state, then someone else refused to believe in existence of a region of Tennessee. I guess we'll have to wait until people care less.--R8R (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The current wording seems pretty good: "named after Tennessee, United States". Kaldari (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The symbol Ts

Ts usually indicates the tosyl group in organic chemistry. Has IUPAC noted this? Double sharp (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay, they have: "NB: We are aware of the fact that Ts is often used as abbreviation for the tosyl chemical group. However, this was not considered to be a valid objection, given the fact that we also use the symbols Ac and Pr for chemical elements, while chemists also use these as abbreviations for the acyl and the propyl groups. Very common items like AcOH and PrOH are usually not taken for the hydroxides of actinium and praseodymium and a possible confusion with the tosyl group seem extremely low." This seems to imply that the problem with Cp was not cyclopentadienyl but rather cassiopeium (though who actually uses that name today?). Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that just because the IUPAC followed a particular line of reasoning in 2016 that IUPAC would have necessarily followed the same line of reasoning in 2009-2010. But see Copernicium § Naming and the references cited there.

But then again, they might decide to follow precedent. If they delayed their 2010 announcement until Copernicus' 537th birthday, might they decide to wait to make their official announcement on a significant date - or maybe four such dates? That may mean that we should have the move restrictions last beyond November. YBG (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the move restrictions are tied to the decision, not to a date. That's the easiest part of this ;-). -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello DePiep! Thanks for adding the proposed names to the infoboxes for these four elements, incidentally: I was thinking that that would be a good idea, and lo and behold you made it possible. (^_^) I don't suppose that you could also add the possibility for pronunciation entries for proposed names? Periodic Videos already has a video about this, so I could transcribe Prof. Poliakoff's pronunciation. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I think the standard term for the final name is trivial name, not "formal name" as we currently have it. I realise that this makes them sound a little lightweight and silly, but that's what IUPAC says they're called: "These [systematic] names are provisional and are replaced as soon as a given element is prepared and unequivocally characterized. Perhaps unfortunately, the unambiguous systematic name is then replaced by a trivial name suggested by the scientists who first prepared the element." Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Double sharp, good to hear we had the same thougth :-).

About adding the 2nd pronunciation: I think that is not MOS-like, and I don't like it myself. The MOS WP:PRON is not clear on this, it is not explicit on which words should have pronunciation. Of course the titleword can have it (currently systematic names then), but for the rest that MOS is saying like: "do not over-add pron". That certainly would apply to non-title words. As for me, I don't like the pronunciations at all because it clutters the view (how glad I am we moved them from lede to the infobox). This view (the appearance of a text/page before reading words) is very important to make reading pleasant for The Reader. Then adding a non-Latin alphabet(!) text, as IPA is, is off-putting so we better prevent that. Of course, the respelling in regular alphabet ('MER-kyə-ree) is only allowed after an IPA text.

In November, after the name swapping, it will be solved of course.

Next, I prefer not to use the phrasing 'trivial name' for this, for as you write: makes it sound too leightweight. Given the confusing situation re the status of the names, it's good to use a stronger term. I'll throw in an other RS: the IUPAC June 2016 publication. It says: "new names", "proposals", "names for new chemical elements", "proposed name", "Recommendations", but not "trivial" (or should we point out to them that they are inconsistent in this ;-) ?). -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I can understand, of course. It's just that the pronunciations of these names are not obvious and they are fast becoming almost alternative not-yet-official names for these elements (since WebElements, for example, has jumped the gun and started using them, and it seems the media has not made it clear that they are not yet official – or else it would be hard to explain the number of edits installing the new names that have to be reverted), so it makes some sense. But I can wait. (^_^)

I can accept "formal name" for those reasons. Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

But we don't have the official pronunciation rules yet! So we would guess them, and any reader can do just that.--R8R (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we even have them for the named elements, actually? If we don't, as I suspect, then I think that the closest thing would be to see what chemists with English as their native language say. (We probably need some notion of correctness, or else where would we be with darmstadtium and roentgenium?) Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If we don't, then, again, why can't we let the reader figure it out themselves, since we don't have any better proof than nothing?--R8R (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We could add pronunciation to List of elements (all). Whether the new names are in there, or in a separate section (keeping the systematic names for now), prononciation(s) can be added. btw, does one of you know what the native (Russian) pronunciation is of Yuri Oganessian? We could start with that (esp the stressing). -DePiep (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Russian pronunciation would be "YU-riy Tsoh-LA(like in "LArge")-koh-vich Oh-guh-nes-SYAN("s" pronounced softly, "y" omitted)".--R8R (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Then for Oganesson, that would be like: oh-guh-nes-SON? Interesting. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Dear Double sharp. Please stop referring to the prof & the PT videos. Nice, when you're 12 yo, but even this year he keeps using a 1970 PT. See how he introduces period 8 in [7]: not even explaining the presence of those elements at position 121?! Misleading all novice interested students 13+ yo. A waste. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Since just about everyone is still using the 18-column PT in education, I would not fault him for it. Besides, given that this is meant to cover the news of the elements 113, 115, 117, and 118 being confirmed, I do not see why he would need to go into detail on elements 121 and above when the next elements being considered for synthesis are only 119 and 120. He has a different video about Pyykkö and his model, where he indeed talks about elements 121 and above now that they are relevant. Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was rather expecting them to go with Tn for a symbol rather than Ts. Is there an organic group that uses Tn, or other conflict? (I am guessing it's thoron which used Tn, as actinon used An, and radon Rn). So, I guess it will mean Ts won't align tennessine with the standard abbreviation for the state of Tennessee (TN). Not unlike how California is Ca not Cf like californium, BUT if you look at the side of a boat registered in California, you'll see CF, not CA. Interesting parallel that it's in the halogen row though with Fred Allison's commonly-considered mistaken 1930's discovery of astatine, which ACS accepted the name alabamine, with symbol Ab (rather than Al -- because aluminum!). Other states that almost made it I know include virginium (miscovery of francium) and illinium (miscovery of prometheum). 66.186.163.112 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thoron was the reason. Double sharp (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

a more complete orbital energy level diagram

Here is one that shows Cl, Br, I, At, and 117. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

why I moved the graph to the right

MOS:IMAGELOCATION suggests right-aligning images in general. Does it run into the XF₃ images on your screen, R8R? Double sharp (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was me who moved it there. I remember I replaced a centered pic with a side-aligned that you showed me a long while ago, I just didn't remember if I shifted it left or right. The two looked close enough for me to want to separate them with some space. Anyway, I moved the large pic up a para. Right alliance should be OK now if you want to implement it. No big deal for me.--R8R (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, done. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Change name?

Tennessine 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) 09:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Converted

Elementbox converted 12:21, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 17:58, 2 June 2005).

Vote for Deletion (2004)

---

from VfD:

Delete. Fancruft. Stub about an element that has not been discovered and about which nothing is known. Trollminator 17:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep official IUPAC assignment - therefore something on wich the whole chemical science community agrees - therefore legitimate. --Musschrott 18:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't make it notable for the vast majority of users. There are other places for sciencecruft fans to talk about this. Trollminator 19:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"sciencecruft"? Strong keep. It's an accurate factual summary of the current state of knowledge regarding an unsynthesised element. Elements are inherently encyclopedic (although you could possibly argue for a single page on "miscellaneous transuranics"); it "exists" in that we know it to be possible, we have a broad idea of its properties, we have an offically-standardised name for it. Shimgray 19:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Simply being factual is not enough to demonstrate notablity. In any event, this element does not exist. It's pure speculation by fans. Non-notable. Trollminator 19:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep, it's on any good periodic table. -- user:zanimum

Keep DCEdwards1966 19:49, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Very weak keep.delete I didn't find any authoratative hits (EG university, international standards organization, or government site) until page NINE of the google hits, where I found it on a periodic table from the University of South Dakota[8]. Note that page 4 of the hits had it used in a work of science fiction. Niteowlneils 20:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Note that it is NOT on this Canadian gov't periodic table[9], tho' Ununoctium is. Niteowlneils 20:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. "Fans"? I do believe the poster is living up to his or her name. --jpgordon{gab} 20:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is sciencecruft. The 'whole chemical science community' does not agree. An element cannot be officially named until it is discovered. This has not been, it is someone's speculation about what it might be like if it was discovered. Trollminator 20:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Try Googling 'IUPAC Ununseptium' - all you get are Wikipedia mirrors - there are no official or credible sites reporting this. Trollminator 20:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • So, to be credible... you know, there's a reason no-one uses "ununseptium", and that's that there are other, simpler, ways of referring to it. [10] - Physical Review C, where the first paper listed was published, is certainly a reputable journal. Why would a site have to use the specific terms "IUPAC" and "ununseptium" to be valid? You can have a perfectly reputable discussion of a minor asteroid, by name, without ever mentioning the IAU or the Minor Planets Center... Shimgray 21:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Note that none of these "unun___" placeholders appear on the IUPAC periodic table[11], and searching the Official IUPAC site gets zero hits for "ununseptium"[12]. Niteowlneils 21:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. Not sure what Trollminator is up to, but don't care. I don't believe it's sciencecruft, because by and large I think science is encyclopedic. I am, however, concerned that it is describing something that is as of yet theoretical, and unlike some other parts of science that speculate on the unverifiable, this is not an essential piece of theory that fits into something else. I'm not sure that, as it stands now, it merits an encyclopedia article with speculations on its characteristics. If you think you have a good argument as to if it should stay or go, note that it might not be hard to convince me to change my vote. Note that I wanted to make a joke about unobtainium, but I couldn't figure out how. *sigh* --Improv 21:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Possible ways of looking at it (I'll agree that element-117 is the weakest) -

a) several papers have been published on it (I can find half-a-dozen on a quick glance through scholar.google.com, but a proper lit search would find more) - do we have articles on other predicted-but-not-yet-found things? Not sure.

Sure do. Try e.g. 2010 or 22nd century. And then at Sasquatch and Loch Ness Monster. Undiscovered (in same cases merely unnamed) chemical elements trump each of these in terms of established acceptance in the field. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 22:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'd forgotten those obvious examples... Higgs boson and graviton as well. It's also notable that the criteria apparently being applied is "has it been formally named by IUPAC yet", which would mean that Roentgenium magically became notable a month ago despite nothing new being known about it - there's functionally no difference between our level of knowledge of Rg or Uub, and an arbitrary classification like this isn't helpful. The name does not make the man, as it were... Shimgray 23:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

b) we're being asked to establish a threshold of notability for elements. As it is, all elements are treated as notable, including those which have not yet been synthesised but will (plausibly) be soon. So we're going to end up with a list of elements with almost everything broken out, but two or three - like this - which aren't notable enough... so what do we do with them? There's some information here, not much... but we have been able to broadly predict (or decent) characteristics of these high-number elements, and that information ought to be kept along with that of the lower ones. In a way it seems simpler just to keep (uninformative) pages for these ones than to try and establish a critera (note that we're also being asked to consider elements synthesised several years ago, detected by independent groups, about which a moderate amount is known as unencyclopedic). Shimgray 21:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I had two others, but have forgotten them. Updates may follow. <g>)

• • I disagree. To suggest that element 117 cannot or may not exist would contradict established assumptions about atomic structures. There is no scientific reason that it would not be a feasibly created element. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 00:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 21:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Take a look at the last section of these IUPAC recommendations: 4.4 Interim names Prior to and during the naming process, the element may be referred to by its atomic number, as in ?element 118? or by its provisional systematic name, ?ununoctium?. If a symbol is needed, the systematic, provisional three-letter symbol should be used --jpgordon{gab} 21:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and note statement at IUPAC: Until discoveries are confirmed, elements are provisionally designated in terms expressing their atomic numbers in Latin, for example "ununnilium" (one-one-zero for 110), "unununium" (one-one-one for 111), and "ununbium" (one-one-two for 112). from [13]. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 22:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Summarily cancel all similar VFD submissions for articles on as-yet-unnamed chemical elements and other accepted chemical theory by Trollminator. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 22:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, although this is clearly not as notable as many things that do get deleted. Do not remove vfd notices before the normal period however, unless you want other (cough) controversial deletions also removed. There is a process, let it run. Mark Richards 22:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep fvw* 23:06, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
• Keep, quite encyclopedic indeed. Antandrus 00:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep althought article could describe better the element's so far theoretical nature - Skysmith 08:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly encyclopedic. Abuse of VfD. jni 09:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the article. Delete the VfD kiddie. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jayjg 21:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. How is this fancruft?! --Idont Havaname 01:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep for the same reasons mentioned by me in ununbium. --Andrew 20:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:37, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. ("Fans"?) —tregoweth 18:32, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Time to print up some Ununoctium T-shirts! Who's with me? - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 22:22, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep --Blade Hirato 03:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Scientific elements are noteworthy, even the ones not discovered yet. Besides it is only a question of time before this is discovered. Once a better name than "ununseptium" is assigned this element, (e.g. Meitnerium used to be called "unnillenium") redirect to the new element name. 129.177.61.124 09:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion