This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Under § Predicted structures of an extended periodic table it is explained that in literature, non-IUPAC named elements are usually referred to as, for example, "element 164" with symbol "E164", "164" or "(164)", rather than "unhexquadium" or "Uhq".
This rule seems to be followed in most of the article, except in the section § Searches for undiscovered elements where the exact opposite is done, despite it being a more 'literature-like' part of the article. Personally, I also find the chemical reactions (and to an extend the text as well) way less comprehensible when "Ubu" and "Ubb" (respectively "Unbiunium" and "Unbibium") is used instead of the much clearer "E121" or "(122)" (respectively "element 121" and "element 122").
Should the used naming convention in this Searches section be changed? Vannieljevla (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is element 172 the only element whose chemical symbol (Usb) deserves a {{Not a typo}} template?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would otherwise get "corrected" into USB. So far there does not seem to be such a collision for the other hypothetical elements mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue for E157 (Ups) vs. the United Parcel Service (UPS), but on Wikipedia UPS is a disambiguation page, and such examples would likely be subject to geographical biases of editors, unlike USB which is universal AFAIK. There could be others as well – this was just the first to come to mind – but if they aren't an active source of confusion, no need to make them into one. ComplexRational (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I think element 128 will be extremely radioactive[edit]
My main reasoning is because 126 being a magic neutron number makes isotopes with 128 neutrons extremely unstable (e.g. 212Po), shouldn't 126 also being a proton magic number make element 128 extremely radioactive? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that 126 is a magic proton number in the first place. It's quite possible, based on current models, that proton shell closures only give a weak effect here and that it's the neutron shell closure at 184 that really matters for SHE stability. OTOH, I agree with the general idea: we are probably going to have a hard time once N = 184 is passed. Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
The redirect Draft:Unbitrium has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30 § Draft:Unbitrium until a consensus is reached. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)