![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Physical Review C: "Experiments on the synthesis of element 115 in the reaction 243Am(48Ca,xn)291–x115", Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkoy, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh. Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov, G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, A. N. Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, A. A. Voinov, G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagrebaev, M. G. Itkis, J. B. Patin, K. J. Moody, J. F. Wild, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, D. A. Shaughnessy, J. M. Kenneally, and R. W. Lougheed, Phys. Rev. C, 2004, 69, 021601(R). -- Stone 10:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22eka-thallium%22&btnG=Search should suffice as general confirmation. Specific inline citation doesn't seem necessary; I removed the citation request and included a link to eka. Femto 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Following periodic trends it is expected to be a soft, silvery highly reactive metal, rather like sodium.
Surely it should be more like thallium than sodium. Sodium is very active, thallium a lot less so.-- Syd Henderson 05:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the following text from the article to here:
First there is no source. Secondly, there is an issue of what is due weight. The opinions of the scientists who discovered the element are more significant than someone who has an idea but hasn't gotten much support for it. The latter might be worth mentioning if it has been picked up by enough places, however. Kingdon 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that this section often leads to a lot of debate. It's difficult to assess whether this section ought to be taken seriously, especially when the names are not referenced to the labs involved. However, it is understandable that people like to speculate on the matter and have a bit a fun, which I poersonally don't mind as long as they are sensible. As such, I written a new format for the above element name sections (excluding 118) and have written intros to indicate to users/readers the relative importance of the proposal, so readers can clearly differntiate between the two. I'll let others decide whether they like this proposal. I feel as though it keeps the article professional but also allows everyone to contribute in some way.-- Drjezza ( talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the arrangement of electrons per shell known or, like several of the elements over 111, merely predicted? 86.143.144.95 ( talk) 02:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Can't this be considered confirmed, and hence the sentence "Their discovery of the element still awaits confirmation" deleted? Olin 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The in-line pronunciation in the first sentence of the article is different from that located on the right side bar. Which is correct, oon-oon-trium or un-un-trium (sorry, I don't know IPA)? The incorrect one should be removed from here and probably the commons as well. The samr problem exists with ununpentium and ununquadium. FWIW, the article on ununhexium currently has only one pronunciation - the oon-oon- one. Brianski ( talk) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (edited Brianski ( talk) 04:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC))
Currently the article claims
Isn't that a slightly bizarre claim for an element whose longest-lived isotope has a half-life less than a tenth of a second? It makes it sound as though you could pick up a bar of the stuff, admire it, and dent it with your fingernail, when in reality, in less than a second, 99.9% of it would have decayed, releasing 10 MeV per atom and presumably vaporizing the decay products? -- Trovatore ( talk) 03:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention the name "becquerelium", and you can check that the Russian team proposed the name in honour of the famous French physicist Henri Becquerel on [ [1]]. "Becquerelium" does redirect here though. -- 121.7.203.206 ( talk) 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In 2011, the IUPAC has evaluated the 2004 RIKEN experiments and 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments, and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for discovery.
When will the next experiment be?? Georgia guy ( talk) 20:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
20 m - It could be 20 ms with the s missing, but I don't know. Its not minutes which uses min. Right now its meters which is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.60.248 ( talk) 14:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
please check the links, http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/7/7 isn't available anymore, http://www-cms.llnl.gov/e113_115/images.html is a 404
didn't want to just delete them, maybe there are cached versions or copies of the article somewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.139.66 ( talk) 10:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Google shows other results for this too. 76.181.82.108 ( talk) 22:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The second para of the lead is quite weak. It needs some examples to state the point. 6d may be a surprise, why not try?
The recent events in Japan are well described, but I'd separate them from a previous claim. This one may be successful, after all
The hot fusion section seems so small and lonely...
You have a section called Predicted properties. Predicted nuclear properties are also "predicted properties." You should either reorganize the big section or rename it, since it limits itself to physical, atomic, and chemical properties.
I'd recommend to reorganize it anyway. There are moments when the reading doesn't seem to go straight. Think of para organization. Don't be afraid that could change the way it reads. Small paras are fine here, since the things are not common for a regular reader. I see more in this section not only because it's a question I had to learn recently because I was writing the Uus article, but it also seems the weak one.
For example, ununtrium "belongs to the boron group... Will show the differences". Text organization I'd use is: First tell how they will be similar, and then go to the differences. It's common for rhetoric of text writing: first pros, then contras.
Contracted by 380 pm-- I think this one is a mistake. The longer than the bong length in Hg2.
Sometimes you make the conclusions that are not the next chain in the logical sequence. For example, 1st Ionization energy should be highest, thus +1 is the most favored state. This seems OK, but isn't fine somehow. Excluding the nonexistent as of writing ununtrium, this is true for boron-- and the +1 chem is very small compared to the +3 chem.
Never heard of that Fl and 115 are going to use 6d electrons for chem. Can I have some refs?
And for 113, you could make a heavier accent on that.
I think you in generally have wrong accents on the stuff here. Chemistry points: should make mostly +1, may make open d-shell +2 and +3 thanks to the easy d10s1--d9s2 jump, there may be one more true valent pair affecting shape of tribal idea and even making +5. The first one's okay, the second two are revolutionary and you mention them more by the way than make accent on it. Change your priorities here. Forget about accessibility for some time. Fix this first. And only then an accessibility check.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
+2 state? Why? And also, refs are again welcome.
I think it's more density because of atomic size than vice versa.
Good luck with that.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adabow ( talk · contribs) 23:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have not reviewed a element article before, so please bear with me if I ask any silly questions.
Very good article, I'd just like a few questions answered before I pass. — Andrew s talk 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the IUPAC recognise ununtrium if it's longest isotope is ~20 sec? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.213.79 ( talk) 21:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Uut-287, with an estimated half-life of 20 m, has been documented, although its decay energy is not yet known. See
[2].
This is quite exciting, actually; Uut-287 has a half-life almost two orders of magnitude longer than Uut-286, and the half-lives of successive Uut isotopes appear to increase exponentially with increasing atomic mass. If this trend continues, the half-lives may well run into the thorium-232 or even bismuth-209 range once we get to around Uut-305 or so. Of course, there is always the chance that this trend won't continue, so we'll have to wait until we actually synthesize Uut-305 to be sure. We may well have found the island of stability. Stonemason89 ( talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Ununtrium → Element 113 – This request is an outcome of a multi-part discussion conducted in WikiProject Elements, part one, part two. – R8R ( talk) 00:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Japanese Wikipedia also mentions another proposed name ユカワニウム, after Hideki Yukawa (so presumably yukawanium?), with symbol Yk. Annoyingly not referenced. Double sharp ( talk) 04:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any news (yet), except
this tweet from a person who obviously was present at the summit (as I can see from the timestamp of the tweet), and he says, "News expected this fall." So no news is available right now.
As a side note, many Russian news agencies published yesterday a note element 115 will receive the name of "moscovium" (familiar, isn't it) after the
Moscow Oblast, as sort of gratitude for how the region helped fund the research (also, that's the region where Dubna is located). The scientists find it "symbolic" moscovium decays to dubnium. Here's one ref in Russian:
[3] (this one even says this was suggested by the head of the JINR's Laboratory of Nuclear Research), here's one more:
[4] (this one mentions all aspects I've mentioned and also mentions how this name was originally suggested for element 116). Unfortunately, I can't find any news in English, which also means the exact spelling in English is still not revealed--
R8R (
talk)
11:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
When should there be information about what the permanent name of this element will be?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
In 2011, the IUPAC has evaluated the 2004 RIKEN experiments and 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments, and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for discovery.
What will be the next year for RIKEN experiments?? 2004 was a long time ago. Georgia guy ( talk) 16:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49180454/ns/technology_and_science-science/ Gershake ( talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
About 75% of Russia is in Asia. Recently, an edit was made to this article saying that for most purposes, Russia is 0% in Asia. Any sources?? Georgia guy ( talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Since it survived and was not cut off by spontaneous fission, it was last seen as a 250Cf atom. After that no doubt people have gotten rather tired of sitting around waiting for it, but it would then undergo three more alpha decays before joining the uranium series. Double sharp ( talk) 16:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am New To Wikipedia And i do not know whether im supposed to do this like this but can you change the heading to Nihonium?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cervon Wong ( talk • contribs)
The pronunciation 'respelling' bit on the right is like this:
I think it should be like this:
Apparently, this video has prompted multiple people or perhaps the same person to edit the Ununtrium, Ununpentium, Ununseptium and Ununoctium pages to add their future name. Could we have these pages semi-protected until permanent names are officially given? Dhrm77 ( talk) 11:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Important note: because of confusion with gallium, I strongly doubt the last of those 4 names will be accepted. Any thoughts on this statement?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Another note: the same video is also saying that element 120 will be easier to create than element 119. Is this video a reliable source for this statement?? Georgia guy ( talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I think feynmanium at this point needs to be reserved for element 137. Double sharp ( talk) 15:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not yet. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Ununtrium →
Nihonium – Name became official this month.
108.71.123.163 (
talk)
17:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The IUPAC says they will confirm the name 8 November, 2016. See
here. I think it's best to wait until then. (
YourAuntEggma (
talk)
22:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC))
This article( http://www.riken.go.jp/engn/r-world/info/release/news/2004/nov/index.html)says that Uut will be named either Japonium (Jp) or Rikenium (Rk) but when will that happen? Is the IUPAC Naming Committee already on that, or does RIKEN have to produce the element again? Scince 2004, when that article was written, have they produced it? 8:48, 2 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.210.145 ( talk)
Roentgenium111 appears to have been exactly right here! ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I've written to Prof West at IUPAC requesting a statement listing the names disallowed under current IUPAC rules. This is especially important given the indication that Dubna want to call element 118 (or another) flerovium, which has been previously suggested (by IUPAC apparently!) for element 102.I'll let people know the result.-- Drjezza ( talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review is over for Ununtrium so the part where says it is now set should be made into the past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.88.28 ( talk) 23:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
When will the IUPAC accept nihonium?? It's November now. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Nihonium and the other new names are now official: https://iupac.org/iupac-announces-the-names-of-the-elements-113-115-117-and-118/ fluorogrol ( talk) 09:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nihonium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the first paragraph in the lead, there is a stray space between references: "On 28 November 2016, the name became official.[8] [9]" Per MOS:REFPUNCT, it should be deleted. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 15:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 'Stability and half-lives' and 'Predicted properties' sections, there are several references (six by my count) to 'Uut' which should be changed to 'Nh' now that the name Nihonium is official. References in the 'Naming' section should not be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffMuller ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
At the beginning of the article, it is said that the most stable known isotope, nihonium-286, has a half-life of 20 seconds. But in the box at right side of the article page, the half-life of the same isotope is reported as 8 seconds. Which one is correct? Ekisbares ( talk) 07:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ununtrium
Elementbox converted 11:10, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 19:48, 7 June 2005).
I'm fiddling slightly with the wording on this whole set of entries; comments please. (E.g., "temporary" before "name", link to element and transuranic (the latter I found with one bracket after and none before).
In particular, "the Latin for that number" isn't quite right: it's a deliberately ugly Latinate for "one-one-three", not Latin for "one hundred thirteen". Vicki Rosenzweig
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nihonium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Hofmann":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Very cool! Double sharp ( talk) 02:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
News article (will also look for more stuff in the Japanese press). Double sharp ( talk) 10:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this early revision, it appears that this article was written in British English ("synthesise"). -- John ( talk) 20:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Physical Review C: "Experiments on the synthesis of element 115 in the reaction 243Am(48Ca,xn)291–x115", Yu. Ts. Oganessian, V. K. Utyonkoy, Yu. V. Lobanov, F. Sh. Abdullin, A. N. Polyakov, I. V. Shirokovsky, Yu. S. Tsyganov, G. G. Gulbekian, S. L. Bogomolov, A. N. Mezentsev, S. Iliev, V. G. Subbotin, A. M. Sukhov, A. A. Voinov, G. V. Buklanov, K. Subotic, V. I. Zagrebaev, M. G. Itkis, J. B. Patin, K. J. Moody, J. F. Wild, M. A. Stoyer, N. J. Stoyer, D. A. Shaughnessy, J. M. Kenneally, and R. W. Lougheed, Phys. Rev. C, 2004, 69, 021601(R). -- Stone 10:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22eka-thallium%22&btnG=Search should suffice as general confirmation. Specific inline citation doesn't seem necessary; I removed the citation request and included a link to eka. Femto 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Following periodic trends it is expected to be a soft, silvery highly reactive metal, rather like sodium.
Surely it should be more like thallium than sodium. Sodium is very active, thallium a lot less so.-- Syd Henderson 05:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the following text from the article to here:
First there is no source. Secondly, there is an issue of what is due weight. The opinions of the scientists who discovered the element are more significant than someone who has an idea but hasn't gotten much support for it. The latter might be worth mentioning if it has been picked up by enough places, however. Kingdon 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that this section often leads to a lot of debate. It's difficult to assess whether this section ought to be taken seriously, especially when the names are not referenced to the labs involved. However, it is understandable that people like to speculate on the matter and have a bit a fun, which I poersonally don't mind as long as they are sensible. As such, I written a new format for the above element name sections (excluding 118) and have written intros to indicate to users/readers the relative importance of the proposal, so readers can clearly differntiate between the two. I'll let others decide whether they like this proposal. I feel as though it keeps the article professional but also allows everyone to contribute in some way.-- Drjezza ( talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the arrangement of electrons per shell known or, like several of the elements over 111, merely predicted? 86.143.144.95 ( talk) 02:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Can't this be considered confirmed, and hence the sentence "Their discovery of the element still awaits confirmation" deleted? Olin 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The in-line pronunciation in the first sentence of the article is different from that located on the right side bar. Which is correct, oon-oon-trium or un-un-trium (sorry, I don't know IPA)? The incorrect one should be removed from here and probably the commons as well. The samr problem exists with ununpentium and ununquadium. FWIW, the article on ununhexium currently has only one pronunciation - the oon-oon- one. Brianski ( talk) 04:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC) (edited Brianski ( talk) 04:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC))
Currently the article claims
Isn't that a slightly bizarre claim for an element whose longest-lived isotope has a half-life less than a tenth of a second? It makes it sound as though you could pick up a bar of the stuff, admire it, and dent it with your fingernail, when in reality, in less than a second, 99.9% of it would have decayed, releasing 10 MeV per atom and presumably vaporizing the decay products? -- Trovatore ( talk) 03:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention the name "becquerelium", and you can check that the Russian team proposed the name in honour of the famous French physicist Henri Becquerel on [ [1]]. "Becquerelium" does redirect here though. -- 121.7.203.206 ( talk) 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In 2011, the IUPAC has evaluated the 2004 RIKEN experiments and 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments, and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for discovery.
When will the next experiment be?? Georgia guy ( talk) 20:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
20 m - It could be 20 ms with the s missing, but I don't know. Its not minutes which uses min. Right now its meters which is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.60.248 ( talk) 14:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
please check the links, http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/7/7 isn't available anymore, http://www-cms.llnl.gov/e113_115/images.html is a 404
didn't want to just delete them, maybe there are cached versions or copies of the article somewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.139.66 ( talk) 10:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Google shows other results for this too. 76.181.82.108 ( talk) 22:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The second para of the lead is quite weak. It needs some examples to state the point. 6d may be a surprise, why not try?
The recent events in Japan are well described, but I'd separate them from a previous claim. This one may be successful, after all
The hot fusion section seems so small and lonely...
You have a section called Predicted properties. Predicted nuclear properties are also "predicted properties." You should either reorganize the big section or rename it, since it limits itself to physical, atomic, and chemical properties.
I'd recommend to reorganize it anyway. There are moments when the reading doesn't seem to go straight. Think of para organization. Don't be afraid that could change the way it reads. Small paras are fine here, since the things are not common for a regular reader. I see more in this section not only because it's a question I had to learn recently because I was writing the Uus article, but it also seems the weak one.
For example, ununtrium "belongs to the boron group... Will show the differences". Text organization I'd use is: First tell how they will be similar, and then go to the differences. It's common for rhetoric of text writing: first pros, then contras.
Contracted by 380 pm-- I think this one is a mistake. The longer than the bong length in Hg2.
Sometimes you make the conclusions that are not the next chain in the logical sequence. For example, 1st Ionization energy should be highest, thus +1 is the most favored state. This seems OK, but isn't fine somehow. Excluding the nonexistent as of writing ununtrium, this is true for boron-- and the +1 chem is very small compared to the +3 chem.
Never heard of that Fl and 115 are going to use 6d electrons for chem. Can I have some refs?
And for 113, you could make a heavier accent on that.
I think you in generally have wrong accents on the stuff here. Chemistry points: should make mostly +1, may make open d-shell +2 and +3 thanks to the easy d10s1--d9s2 jump, there may be one more true valent pair affecting shape of tribal idea and even making +5. The first one's okay, the second two are revolutionary and you mention them more by the way than make accent on it. Change your priorities here. Forget about accessibility for some time. Fix this first. And only then an accessibility check.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
+2 state? Why? And also, refs are again welcome.
I think it's more density because of atomic size than vice versa.
Good luck with that.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adabow ( talk · contribs) 23:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have not reviewed a element article before, so please bear with me if I ask any silly questions.
Very good article, I'd just like a few questions answered before I pass. — Andrew s talk 00:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the IUPAC recognise ununtrium if it's longest isotope is ~20 sec? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.213.79 ( talk) 21:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Uut-287, with an estimated half-life of 20 m, has been documented, although its decay energy is not yet known. See
[2].
This is quite exciting, actually; Uut-287 has a half-life almost two orders of magnitude longer than Uut-286, and the half-lives of successive Uut isotopes appear to increase exponentially with increasing atomic mass. If this trend continues, the half-lives may well run into the thorium-232 or even bismuth-209 range once we get to around Uut-305 or so. Of course, there is always the chance that this trend won't continue, so we'll have to wait until we actually synthesize Uut-305 to be sure. We may well have found the island of stability. Stonemason89 ( talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Ununtrium → Element 113 – This request is an outcome of a multi-part discussion conducted in WikiProject Elements, part one, part two. – R8R ( talk) 00:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Japanese Wikipedia also mentions another proposed name ユカワニウム, after Hideki Yukawa (so presumably yukawanium?), with symbol Yk. Annoyingly not referenced. Double sharp ( talk) 04:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't find any news (yet), except
this tweet from a person who obviously was present at the summit (as I can see from the timestamp of the tweet), and he says, "News expected this fall." So no news is available right now.
As a side note, many Russian news agencies published yesterday a note element 115 will receive the name of "moscovium" (familiar, isn't it) after the
Moscow Oblast, as sort of gratitude for how the region helped fund the research (also, that's the region where Dubna is located). The scientists find it "symbolic" moscovium decays to dubnium. Here's one ref in Russian:
[3] (this one even says this was suggested by the head of the JINR's Laboratory of Nuclear Research), here's one more:
[4] (this one mentions all aspects I've mentioned and also mentions how this name was originally suggested for element 116). Unfortunately, I can't find any news in English, which also means the exact spelling in English is still not revealed--
R8R (
talk)
11:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
When should there be information about what the permanent name of this element will be?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
In 2011, the IUPAC has evaluated the 2004 RIKEN experiments and 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments, and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for discovery.
What will be the next year for RIKEN experiments?? 2004 was a long time ago. Georgia guy ( talk) 16:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49180454/ns/technology_and_science-science/ Gershake ( talk) 16:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
About 75% of Russia is in Asia. Recently, an edit was made to this article saying that for most purposes, Russia is 0% in Asia. Any sources?? Georgia guy ( talk) 19:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Since it survived and was not cut off by spontaneous fission, it was last seen as a 250Cf atom. After that no doubt people have gotten rather tired of sitting around waiting for it, but it would then undergo three more alpha decays before joining the uranium series. Double sharp ( talk) 16:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am New To Wikipedia And i do not know whether im supposed to do this like this but can you change the heading to Nihonium?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cervon Wong ( talk • contribs)
The pronunciation 'respelling' bit on the right is like this:
I think it should be like this:
Apparently, this video has prompted multiple people or perhaps the same person to edit the Ununtrium, Ununpentium, Ununseptium and Ununoctium pages to add their future name. Could we have these pages semi-protected until permanent names are officially given? Dhrm77 ( talk) 11:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Important note: because of confusion with gallium, I strongly doubt the last of those 4 names will be accepted. Any thoughts on this statement?? Georgia guy ( talk) 13:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Another note: the same video is also saying that element 120 will be easier to create than element 119. Is this video a reliable source for this statement?? Georgia guy ( talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I think feynmanium at this point needs to be reserved for element 137. Double sharp ( talk) 15:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not yet. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Ununtrium →
Nihonium – Name became official this month.
108.71.123.163 (
talk)
17:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The IUPAC says they will confirm the name 8 November, 2016. See
here. I think it's best to wait until then. (
YourAuntEggma (
talk)
22:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC))
This article( http://www.riken.go.jp/engn/r-world/info/release/news/2004/nov/index.html)says that Uut will be named either Japonium (Jp) or Rikenium (Rk) but when will that happen? Is the IUPAC Naming Committee already on that, or does RIKEN have to produce the element again? Scince 2004, when that article was written, have they produced it? 8:48, 2 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.210.145 ( talk)
Roentgenium111 appears to have been exactly right here! ^_^ Double sharp ( talk) 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I've written to Prof West at IUPAC requesting a statement listing the names disallowed under current IUPAC rules. This is especially important given the indication that Dubna want to call element 118 (or another) flerovium, which has been previously suggested (by IUPAC apparently!) for element 102.I'll let people know the result.-- Drjezza ( talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The peer review is over for Ununtrium so the part where says it is now set should be made into the past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.88.28 ( talk) 23:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
When will the IUPAC accept nihonium?? It's November now. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Nihonium and the other new names are now official: https://iupac.org/iupac-announces-the-names-of-the-elements-113-115-117-and-118/ fluorogrol ( talk) 09:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nihonium has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of the first paragraph in the lead, there is a stray space between references: "On 28 November 2016, the name became official.[8] [9]" Per MOS:REFPUNCT, it should be deleted. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 15:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 'Stability and half-lives' and 'Predicted properties' sections, there are several references (six by my count) to 'Uut' which should be changed to 'Nh' now that the name Nihonium is official. References in the 'Naming' section should not be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffMuller ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
At the beginning of the article, it is said that the most stable known isotope, nihonium-286, has a half-life of 20 seconds. But in the box at right side of the article page, the half-life of the same isotope is reported as 8 seconds. Which one is correct? Ekisbares ( talk) 07:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ununtrium
Elementbox converted 11:10, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 19:48, 7 June 2005).
I'm fiddling slightly with the wording on this whole set of entries; comments please. (E.g., "temporary" before "name", link to element and transuranic (the latter I found with one bracket after and none before).
In particular, "the Latin for that number" isn't quite right: it's a deliberately ugly Latinate for "one-one-three", not Latin for "one hundred thirteen". Vicki Rosenzweig
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nihonium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Hofmann":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Very cool! Double sharp ( talk) 02:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
News article (will also look for more stuff in the Japanese press). Double sharp ( talk) 10:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this early revision, it appears that this article was written in British English ("synthesise"). -- John ( talk) 20:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)