Talk:Extended periodic table/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Extended periodic table. 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Inconsistent approach to naming?
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)
- @Vannieljevla: Makes sense to me. Changed it. Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Not a typo
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)
- 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)
- 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)
"Draft:Unbitrium" listed at Redirects for discussion
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)