User talk:R8R/Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dubnium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantum theory. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

superheavy chemistry

Do you by any chance have this? Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

sure: sci-hub.ac/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2015.07.013--R8R (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!! Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

regarding group 2

How would you refer to Ca, Sr, Ba, and Ra alone? I want to say "heavy alkaline earth metals", except that I can't really see Ca as heavy. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

don't know. Doubt there's a scientific term for that, so we'll have to use the means the English language provides us with. "Later AEMs," perhaps, since "later" is relative in English anyway.--R8R (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"heavier" in place of "heavy" would also do.--R8R (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think "heavier" will work; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome!--R8R (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, do you think you could take one last look at alkali metal after I work on Pb during your absence? I think it's relatively complete now. It would mean a lot to me, since I have been working on it for almost six years now. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"do you think you could" -- absolutely yes; not certain now when as I came back just a few hours ago. Ping me later, 'kay?--R8R (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Pb again

The Fe GAN just passed, and I got a comment that seems like it would be relevant to Pb as well: should we not look at the cultural and symbolic use of the metal? Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"should we" -- yes, we should. I've given it a lot of thought since I first came up with this idea. After all considerations, I think separate Culture sections are needed for iron, silver, and gold only (and maaaybe copper). This should be covered for other metals as well, but this wouldn't require as much action. For example, I already mention the density of lead as its well-known characteristic. What else is lead known for? Poison -- we have yet to write that section. Guns -- we mentioned that, sort of. What else?--R8R (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

a principle

The usual principle for deciding where to place compounds seems to be to just put them with their most electropositive element. Thus I'd put cyanides and thiocyanates down as carbon compounds. (I think the C article should focus more on inorganic carbon chemistry, since there is less of that, and give only a summary of the richness of organic chemistry, because that needs a link.) But equally clearly you have to compromise on this as you go to the right side of the table, or else the F chemistry section becomes empty. There are also unclear cases like nitrogen-phosphorus or nitrogen-sulfur compounds. So I think that if I write this up (I'm still thinking of writing a guide for new WP:ELEM editors), I will have to phrase it as a principle, and note "not so applicable to nonmetals!", while telling them that while starting with sulfur might be cool, it's not the best way to learn. (I would suggest starting with group 2 or group 17). Double sharp (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not just say that, say, sodium chloride is a compound of sodium and a compound of chlorine? That would be more accurate, by the way.--R8R (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is, but do you focus on it in the Na article or the Cl article? That's the issue I'm talking about. Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I realized that. But why don't you focus on it in both articles, since it's a major compound for both elements? Coverage in sodium doesn't prohibit coverage in chlorine and vice versa, and NaCl is important for both elements.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there are cases like that for important compounds like NaCl and H₂O, but even then it is mostly for simple compounds. I don't think anyone would cover EtOH in the O article; only the C article makes sense. Further, if I consider SCN^- as an anion, none of these three elements seems to have much of a claim to it. Double sharp (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I see now what you had in mind. "The usual principle for deciding where to place compounds seems to be to just put them with their most electropositive element" -- I think the reason for that is not linked to electronegativity: it just happens so that a nonmetal is more common in chemistry than a metal and that relative rarity is why the metal is more characteristic for a compound. Besides, for each element the element is the boss. There are many similar chlorides for chlorine but only one zinc chloride for zinc, so that compound gives more information for Zn than Cl, which is easy to describe with tons of other examples. I don't think there's a specific rule beyond this.--R8R (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, but then what do I do with compounds like IBr? I have a rewrite of Br in progress in my sandbox (on hold for the Pb chemistry section and responding to the group 3 debate). But I can't see if I should have IBr under "bromides", "interhalogen compounds", or save it entirely to the iodine article since it is iodine bearing the partial positive charge that gives its unique character; bromine just acts normally here. Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to tell. There are different ways to organize this sort of information to produce a good article. If you think iodine needs it, given the way you're writing the article, add it. If you think bromine does, mostly irrespective of what you've made with iodine, add it. However, I doubt you'll need the compound for both articles. It just depends on what you want to write to say which you you should choose.--R8R (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead: finally closing the chapter on sp³ hybridisation

From this paper:

Bonds with the resulting nonorthogonal hydrides [of the heavier main-group elements] tend to be relatively weak. This is important to realize when one wants to explain the inert-pair effect, that is, the increasing instability of the highest oxidation state of a p-block element when going down the group (compared to the state reduced by two electrons). Drago explained the trend by the generally weaker bonding with more diffuse orbitals, which are less and less able to compensate the required promotion energy to construct the hybrid orbitals needed. However, closer analysis shows that the "promotion" to the required valence state does not occur, or occurs only incompletely. The formed nonorthogonal hydrides make relatively weak bonds, and it becomes thus more favorable to remain in the lower oxidation state. Here, the valence s-character is concentrated in a free electron pair at the central atom, and the bonds acquire predominantly p-character. Electronegative substituents increase the size differences between valence s and p-orbitals at the central atoms. Hybridization defects are thereby enhanced, and the resulting covalent bonds are weakened. This explains for example, why organoelement compounds of the heavier p-block elements in their highest oxidation states are actually often quite stable (sometimes the lower oxidation states are even unknown or postulated only as reactive intermediates), whereas substitution of organic groups by more electronegative elements destabilizes the higher oxidation states. As a good example, we may note the relative stability of organolead(IV) compounds compared with the instability of typical inorganic lead(IV) species. Electronegative substituents increase the positive charge at the central atom. Bonds to it therefore tend to shorten when more electronegative substituents are present. As increasing hybridization defects tend at the same time to weaken the bonds for heavy maingroup elements, this may lead to the seemingly paradoxical situation that shorter bonds correspond to lower dissociation energies. A breakdown of the usually assumed correlation between bond length and bond strength results.

Finally I found an explanation we can use and be pretty sure the readers will understand! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Great! I love it. Waiting for this to go live.--R8R (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been shuffling and reshuffling through the Pb chem section offline, so when you do see it in a few days, prepare for a surprise... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

regarding why so many of our chem articles have lame to nonexistent history sections

I daresay I know why:

“ It is a melancholy experience for a professional mathematician to find himself writing about mathematics. The function of a mathematician is to do something, to prove new theorems, to add to mathematics, and not to talk about what he or other mathematicians have done. Statesmen despise publicists, painters despise art-critics, and physiologists, physicists, or mathematicians have usually similar feelings: there is no scorn more profound, or on the whole more justifiable, than that of the men who make for the men who explain. Exposition, criticism, appreciation, is work for second-rate minds. ” — G. H. Hardy, A Mathematician's Apology

(He makes it clear on the next page that he feels this applies in general to all "men of science".) I'm not sure I'd want to agree with this, but I cannot deny that it is a deeply ingrained feeling even as I want to protest that it shouldn't be that way. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. This can't be universally applicable. First of all, many great sources do take the time and go for history. That 2006 book, a great book on lead I have, a source I'll later want to use for aluminum. Second, now that I can bear the pretentious title of a published mathematian, I've been to a couple of conferences and seen many people. They (at least those who I have seen) have very great appeciation of those whose shoulders they stand on. What comes to my mind is that history of discovery of something is not the main point. This explanation seems much simpler and probably convincing to me.--R8R (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You give the explanation I want to believe. ^_^ Maybe views changed significantly about this between 1940 and 2016. Congratulations on the RL achievement, BTW!

Note that this may also be a cultural difference between my country and wherever your author comes from. Thanks!

He was English, if you were wondering. (Which does explain pretty well why I occasionally have a similar feeling, come to think of it, though it is very much muted since times have changed somewhat.) Good to know it is not like that everywhere – it's not a feeling I like having. Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I've got to ask something about Pb. How much comparison with the lighter group 14 elements do you think we should have? I'd want to mention some things like the stereoactivity of the non-bonding lone pair (reluctant to stay that way for Ge, causing significant distortion for Sn, and then not really at all for Pb). But at the same time I'm not sure Ge is so relevant here – it's fairly nonmetallic and there is not really a Ge²⁺ cation (and C and Si are even less relevant; I wouldn't even mention them). So mostly the comparisons would be with Sn, but in this case the differences mostly boil down to what Sn has that Pb doesn't. So what do you think? Perhaps only when talking about inert-pair effect down at the bottom of the p-block? Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should dig too deep into theoretical nuances for the purposes of here. Also, lead is a self-sufficient metal and many sources compare it only with other such elements. Had it been a rare element, I could change my position on this, but here, I think we should focus on properties someone actually finds useful for something. That applies to stereoactivity as well: if you can somehow link it to lead's behavior, than let's see.--R8R (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

article request

Hi, do you have access to this and this? Would be useful later when we return to Th, to talk about 5f involvement. Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

sci-hub works fine for the former article. There are some problems with the latter and my smartphone, but I presume it will work if I try to to access it from my laptop.--R8R (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thank you so much! I really should make a note of this wonderful resource. Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not to separate "experimental chemistry" as a section

I think there's a difference between elements from 107 onwards, where chemical knowledge is restricted to "one-hit wonder" studies of one compounds (BhO₃Cl and HsO₄) or the metallic state (Cn and Fl), and the multiple chemical experiments on the elements until 106 (we know aqueous Rf, Db, and Sg chemistry), after all. Personally I'd set the division at 106 instead of 103. Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've looked at the Db article. I'd rather not step on your toes right now while you're still writing it, but would you mind terribly if I took a look through and edited the prose after you're finished? (Oh, and the Pb sections are going live tomorrow.) Double sharp (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I wouldn't. However, I'd want to note the current text isn't meant to be the final version. I'm not even yet confident about its structure, let alone prose. You can, however, assume that the History and Isotopes sections are more or less complete and copyedit them if you want.

Can't look at the moment at all these transfermiums. What division do you have in mind?--R8R (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to the fact that (for example) lawrencium doesn't separate experimental and predicted chemistry, while copernicium does. I wrote seaborgium in the former style but bohrium in the latter style because I felt there was more experimental stuff in Sg to justify it, whereas Bh chemistry is restricted empirically to one known compound. Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I see. The first thing to come to my mind is that practical results are the real deal and should be treated separately from theoretical predictions. I'll, however, make a decision once I get to experimental chemistry.--R8R (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

But is the demarcation really that clear? For an element, we would want to explain its chemistry in terms of its electron configuration, which is all very well. But for elements 103 and up, the exact electron configuration is not clear. (Lr is s²p in the gas phase, but is calculated to prefer occupying the d-orbital when chemically active in compounds like LrCO.) So I want to start by saying "a seaborgium atom has 106 electrons arranged in the configuration [Rn]5f¹⁴6d⁴7s²", but we don't know that. I want to give standard electrode potentials confirming how experiments could not get Sg in any oxidation state other than +6, but they are theoretical. (Same with Lr already, in fact.) At least up till element 106 we have a sizeable empirical chemistry that we can explain through predictions. It's only from element 107 onwards that the empirical chemistry known is very limited, and predictions are predicting new compounds instead of the stabilities of known compounds. Double sharp (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say there is no demarcation other than what's been written by authors. As an author, I probably wouldn't want to have one in first place and rather have all chemistry of all superheavies (past what? That could be a thing to have a demarcation for) divided into predicted and experimental. (As you've had a chance to notice, I have quite retouched my view on how much depends on an author here, in Wiki, too. Don't want to label my writing as mine forever, but do want keep my writing in a good shape. If it doesn't read like mine anymore, but is still good, so be it. What would be the point of Wikipedia otherwise?)

As for element 106, I wouldn't want to start off with "has an electronic configuration of..." if we haven't measured that yet. That sort of contradicts the scientific method that stands behind the modern science in general.--R8R (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I seem to be out of date now about electron configurations, since NIST provides them up to Hs without any of the old qualifications they used to have for Lr and Rf being tentative. Double sharp (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen your post at WT:ELEM. I did a very brief look at the source the pdf referred to and I couldn't find anything; the look was very brief and I remained silent. Later I found it there, so yes, probably it can be seen as confirmed now.--R8R (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Pb chem section

I've tried to make a reasonable compromise between our preferred formats (now live). Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks fine! I'd, however, want to note a thing: it is a little strange to have a subsection called Properties/Chemical and directly after that a section called Chemistry.--R8R (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe I'll move it up to between "physical" and "isotopes".

P.S. AcO⁻ is one of those annoying compounds that people don't seem to agree on whether or not they are organic. Where do you think the Pb salt should go? Double sharp (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd still love you to look for more distinguishable titles for the header and subheader. It's always better when you can easily tell the difference just by looking at the title. My initial suggestion would be to rename the subsection to Chemical reactivity or the like. There were a few mistakes I'll later correct (and again, you're free to undo my changes). Then we can invite the "casual non-chem-profi" reviewer.

As for the compound, the easiest way, which I would've probably gone if I had been writing this, is to skip the compound altogether so nobody is confused. If you, however, do want to add that compound (probably please don't overlook it), then there are two options to choose from: say that the compound is not organolead (no Pb-C bonds, and lead is the star of this show) and go for the subsection on lead(IV). Or just see what story you want to tell and tell it.--R8R (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a pretty important reagent in organic chemistry, so probably the organic section would be more suitable in my opinion. Double sharp (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's probably not the thing I would do, though if you do feel like that's the right to do, go for it. Just add some context (half a sentence should be enough; "It's a pretty important reagent in organic chemistry" is quite it).--R8R (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

condensed-phase studies on Db

Well, there is one. From the thermochemical data, Db is expected to be a pentavalent metal with electron configuration [Rn]5f¹⁴6d³7s², with the 6d and 7s electrons delocalised (the valency increases straightforwardly from divalent No to pentavalent Db as you add 6d electrons). Double sharp (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Does it explicitly say that? Point me to that, please.--R8R (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not completely explicitly, but Haire gives predicted enthalpies of sublimation, vaporisation, and adsorption of the elements 95–105. Es to No fall on the divalent line, but Lr falls on the trivalent line like Cm. He also writes "Included in this figure are also the values estimated for the first two transactinide elements (elements 104 and 105), which presumably have 'effective' metal valances above three." Looking at the trend line, since No and Lr are explicitly stated to be divalent and trivalent metals respectively, Rf would have to be tetravalent and Db pentavalent, just as their lighter congeners Hf and Ta. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

just a note re the Jensen arguments

In many cases the Jensen arguments are lame. Some of them are disputed (4f involvement in La is highly suspect), some have been superseded by newer data (both La and Lu are superconducting at low temperatures), and even the chemical arguments stemming from the differences between Y and La (which aren't present for Lu) are simply a result of the larger size of La³⁺ as compared to Y³⁺.

Noted. I will, however, add that the larger size of La³⁺ as compared to Y³⁺ is a big part of the deal to favor the -Lu-Lr config, as I see it, and it's incorrect to just ignore it as if it was nothing. (I never really saw strength in the superconductivity argument anyway.)

I agree that it isn't nothing. I think we just disagree on whether that is important for placing an element in the periodic table. I would tend to note that if you look at the crystal structures of MX₂ (M = Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba; X = F, Cl, Br, I), you will not find a single alkaline earth metal or halogen that leads to a uniform set of structures. The reason, of course, is increasing size down the groups: thus the coordination number of M increases from 4 (Be) through 6 (Mg) and finally to 8 (Ca, Sr, Ba); and as X goes down the group, the trend moves away from three-dimensional structures like fluorite, with BeX₂ (X = Cl, Br, I) forming chains and the others forming layer-lattice structures. But despite this structural potpourri where the twenty alkaline earth halides form ten different structures, no one doubts that groups 2 and 17 still form nice, happy families. I would conclude from this that increasing size down the group is absolutely normal and it cannot really be used to exclude a placement. Double sharp (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

But most damningly of all, I could use the exact same arguments to "prove" that Be and Mg do not belong in the same group as Ca and should be moved to above Zn. For instance, Ca dissolves in liquid ammonia but Be, Mg, and Zn will not; Ca metal is fcc while Be, Mg, and Zn are hcp; the mp and bp trends show a discontinuous jump from Mg to Ca but decrease smoothly from Mg to Zn; Ca has low-lying empty d-orbitals that can be used for bonding while Be, Mg, and Zn do not; CaX₂ and MgX₂ for X = F, Cl, Br do not share the same structure; Be and Mg have a rich organometallic chemistry like Zn while Ca does not. Yet no one would agree with that today. If I can use such arguments to "prove" that Be and Mg belong in group IIB instead of group IIA, but you wouldn't be convinced by it, I don't see why they should be any more convincing when applied to proving that Lu and not La belongs in group IIIA. Double sharp (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

What this says to me is, "analogies are not necessarily correct." This implies both what you just said and, for example, electronic configs of lanthanides (by the way, La and Ac not fitting in line are not too surprising, and neither are Lu and Lr, so that adds little to discussion, if I am correct). You're actually hinting directly into into why I still like -Lu-Lr better: I think the general principles should allow square blocks and stuff, and the -La-Ac is a customization of the general principle (in one sense). But it's up to people to decide if they want to use that customization, so I can't really have myself arguing for my position, including myself.--R8R (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding electron configurations of lanthanides, when it comes down to it, what pushes me most of all to -La-Ac is that La and Ac do not have any f-involvement at all. If you look at Schwarz's paper on the Aufbau problem (the doi is 10.1021/ed8001286), you will find that, while trends for the energies of the s-orbitals tend to be quite smooth, the d-orbitals tend to suddenly collapse and "fall off the cliff" on the graph only when they start being filled: the same is true for the f-orbitals. He writes, "In the series of elements, (n − 1)d collapses below ns only after group 2, and (n − 2)f only after group 3." Thus 4f is inactive in La just like 3d is inactive in Ca, and the f-block must therefore start at Ce and end at Lu.⁽¹⁾ The trends can easily argue for either way and I agree that the electron configurations of Ce–Yb can support either point. However, I find it completely antithetical to the point of delineating an f-block if it includes elements like La and Ac with no f-involvement at all. This to me completely excludes the possibility of putting La and Ac in anywhere but the d-block. (Lu and Lr are fine in the f-block to me, even though the 4f/5f shell has become full and chemically inactive, because the same is true of Zn, Cd, and Hg at the end of the d-block or Ne and Ar at the end of the p-block. They also form the last step from Yb and No to the completion of the f-subshell, just like Zn completes the d-subshell from Cu.)

I think I've seen Jensen say the opposite: lanthanum does have some freshly discovered f character. Do you happen to remember that? Did it convince you (I think I vaguely remember so did back when you liked -Lu-Lr better)?--R8R (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It did convince me then, but there are two reasons why it doesn't convince me now. The first reason is that it was never a very sure thing. You can get the correct structures of La and Ac if you completely ignore f-orbital involvement, but not for Ce and Th (even though Th is still d²s² in the gas phase). The second reason is that I do not think La showing f-character in excited states is a big deal. Ca, Sr, and Ba show d-character in excited states too, and their d-bands are low enough in energy that they actually are pretty close to the Fermi level and thus contribute. In fact, CaF₂ in the gas-phase is substantially bent and the hybridisation has been shown to be sd (Greenwood and Earnshaw, p. 117): the same is true of SrF₂, SrCl₂, and all four barium dihalides. Yet we don't call Ca, Sr, and Ba d-block elements. Since the de facto position on placing elements is to look at what is occupied in the ground state (yes, that includes 5f for Th), then just as Ca, Sr, and Ba are s-block elements from their s² valence configuration (they finished filling the s-subshell), La and Ac ought to be d-block elements. Supervalent hybridisation is cool but we already have a precedent of not allowing it to influence periodic table placement, since it's not actually a thing that happens at standard conditions. Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

⁽¹⁾ I do not think he could possibly have meant "group 3" as meaning Sc-Y-Lu, because it is known that the energy-level order in the lanthanides is 5p << 4f < 5d < 6s < 6p, which implies that 4f must have fallen below 6s before the lanthanides started. He can only have meant, therefore, a table where group 3 occurs before the lanthanides start, i.e. Sc-Y-La. This agrees with the quantitative data from NIST in which Ac never shows the [Rn]5f¹7s² configuration. Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Other than the question above, very interesting. I certainly find it great that you're begun to dig so deep into this now that IUPAC is working on this. I am not willing to give up my take on this, and I think everyone is free to make their choice. Now that there's a big decision coming, however, it'd be great to include as many relevant factors into consideration as possible into making that decision, and I'm glad you're taking part and digging into details as it seems important to you. I've admired this stance in Sandbh for a long time and I'm beginning to admire that in you.--R8R (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! It means a lot to me that you think my detail-digging is approaching his level. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

element 113 chemistry

I found a newer paper than the ones we mention in the article: do you think we can start calling it a full-fledged member of group 13 and PTM now? Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Responded. Should we set up a set of rules to not have to think about this every time there is some new publication?--R8R (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd argue for a set of rules. How about: "For uncharacterised elements up to 116 (Lv), it needs to be proved that they (1) act like metals and (2) act like the lighter members of their respective groups. Elements up to group 12 will be considered TMs and anything later will be PTMs." (If we change the definition, substitute "12" with "11". IUPAC's Red Book simply says "3–11 or 3–12", after all.) But then what to do about 117 and 118 (Ts and Og) when they finally get chemically characterised? Since they're not expected to be metals (and this is probably the only time in our lifetimes that we will encounter this situation), I think we do not have to worry about this right away, but it's good to have something in advance. Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Read this yesterday and immediately forgot. Your plan for elements up to 116 is fine with me. Re 117 and 118: we don't even have to decide straight away now. It's not going to happen within a few months and the number of involved editors is small, which points a long-term decision is unnecessary, if not unproductive.--R8R (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, so we'll decide on 117 and 118 when the time comes. Nevertheless, I think having a good rule for 109–116 is a good idea because they (well, except 116) can be investigated with current technology, so we'll use this. (Anyway, elements 108 to 116 are all predicted to be very noble metals.) Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

the exact quote from the Red Book

"For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements [this is the 3–12 definition which is OK per IUPAC], though the elements of group 12 are not always included [this is the 3–11 definition which is also OK per IUPAC]; the f-block elements are sometimes referred to as the inner transition elements [but we don't use this because nobody does, since the lanthanides and actinides are too different]." Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Personally, I'd want to use either definition and definitely nothing else.--R8R (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, d-orbital participation is too complex to deal with (where do you draw the line? does potassium count because it takes on the [Ar]3d¹ configuration at high pressure? does cerium count because it has a [Xe]4f¹5d¹6s² configuration?). Both of these are nice, clear-cut boundaries that make the statuses of the elements clear without having to do matrix-isolation studies at 4 K for everything contentious. Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What if, however, they do demonstrate a Cn(IV) species?

That is not a current problem and shouldn't affect the current specification. But what if?

We'll then look through the literature and see what the general consensus among scientists is. For example Jensen was of the viewpoint that even if Hg(IV) did exist it didn't really matter, while the original paper claiming Hg(IV) was very clearly in favour of turning Hg to a transition metal. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

one more thing for you to use for general superheavies

This issue is an absolute godsend. (I have an SD subscription, but in case you don't, you probably have a good idea what to do!) Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, I again read something and then immediately forgot.

Super cool. I'll save that link in the WP link pile.--R8R (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

seaborgium again

Seaborg put it this way: "Because of the competing claims, the two groups agreed not to propose a name for element 106 until it could be determined which group had priority for the discovery." (10.1021/ar00054a003) Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

I did think I had exaggerated the link between the Cold War and the Transfermium Wars in dubnium. I'll think about that. Though, as a conspiracy theorist in me is kicking, maybe he had to keep things between the two diplomatic for whatever reason?

Not so sure about that, considering that at the time he wrote this article Russia and America were already collaborating on Ds. Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Technically, it doesn't mean it wasn't the case and that now all chips, even the old ones, can be put on the table. That's how a relationship between people could work, but not international diplomacy.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And one more time about lead: We are finally approaching the FAC: we're only a few ref formattings away, which I hope can happen today or some day soon anyway; Sandbh's copyedit, which is going in a fine tempo; and fixing those {{cn}} tags and whatever other ref problems that I've described at your talk page. We have to get refs for those facts. There aren't too many; let me ask you to turn to that so we have it done.--R8R (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to find those. You will understand of course that if even you had to deal with lame refs until now, it's not going to be much easier for me since you probably have the bulk of offline notes for this article. ^_^ When I find them I will let you know. Double sharp (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I make notes in my head, but there's nothing that I write down anywhere. (If it was easier for me than for you, why would I even need to bother you.) That's one reason why I want to get something done in a continuous process.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that's one of our many differences – I have lots of fragments written in lame Notepad documents (hence why I could interrupt the superheavy spamming for several years at a time and come back to it without anyone noticing a difference between, for example, Bh and Hs or 119 and 120). Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Lead page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, R8R Gtrs. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

oganesson

I think you would appreciate hearing the story!

Highlight:

“ On 23 March 2016, in a conference call spanning two continents, a group of researchers decided the names of three of the latest elements in the periodic table. First, tennessine was proposed for 117, then moscovium for 115. Only the heaviest element yet discovered, element 118, remained nameless. ‘Yuri,’ a voice asked, ‘can you leave the call?’ ”

You can also hear Oganessian talk in English! Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the story indeed! It was a very interesting read, and a very inspiring one: I now want to add some details on 117 and 118 to those perspective articles. Also I was very pleased to learn the scientists didn't follow the geopolitical battle of which their countries, and I'll make note of that for any possible future articles on superheavies I ever get to write. Really want to run for 118 FA now, but it's already there :) nonetheless, I'll add some info to that article later. Actually, there's lots of great stuff in that article and I'll want to see how much stuff there can fit into the Wiki format.

As for Oganessian speaking English: come to think of that, it's not all rhat surprising. It makes sense that the Dubna stuff also wants to learn the language of the other team(s) so it's easier to connect with them, keep track on what they're doing, etc. As a kid, I remember being (pleasantly) surprised Russian was a working language for all space explorers, be they astronauts or cosmonauts just for that reason.--R8R (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The selenide experiments have been announced in this article (though apparently not yet published)! Both Cn and Fl form selenides (we can soon add +2 to the list of oxidation states for both), but the copernicium selenide forms at −20 °C while the flerovium selenide forms only at −90 °C. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Great to know. Too bad we can't tell how long it will take to get to testing in, say, micro quantities! I'd want to know what we could learn.--R8R (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

next steps

From this (2016) and this (2009; this is much the same):

1. Attempts to make heavier isotopes of the known elements (up to 118 and perhaps 119!) by using even heavier and more neutron-rich actinide targets like ^250,251Cf (maybe even ²⁵⁴Es for a few years later...) This would at least hopefully get us the daughters of ²⁹⁴Lv, ²⁹⁵Ts, ²⁹⁵Og, and ²⁹⁶Og (which as you know may lead to the island with electron capture, though that would be difficult to detect today...) (See this for more details on refining these targets.) The heavy oganesson isotopes will apparently be first (though maybe after that we'll try to get the 2n channel with Bk by setting the excitation energy to the minimum?)
2. This may also increase the cross-section just enough so that even the poorer and more symmetrical fusion reactions with heavier ions (e.g. ⁵⁰Ti, ⁵⁴Cr, ⁵⁸Fe) may yet be successful with RIKEN-esque patience (like for ²⁷⁸Nh)! This may get us all the way to element 124...and the possible reaction ²⁵¹Cf(⁵⁸Fe,n) would get us to ³⁰⁸124 with N = 184!

Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And if you wanted to know how the ⁵⁰Ti beams are enriched... Double sharp (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S. Sorry for spamming but here is a cool article from Oganessian and Rykaczewski. Double sharp (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Why, I do like your spamming (though I'll read the last article later). I am still keen on the whole idea of massive neutron captures and I do hope experiments as long as the Japanese one will never take place again as the technique will be improved (I seem to share that attitude with Dubna). I understand the limitations, though. Yet one can hope.

Very interesting to learn about those plans. Too bad this won't hit the general press as discoveries and namings did.

What I found funny is that they included a shot from The Big Bang Theory where Sheldon stands in front of a board filled with various formulas unrelated to what is claimed in the header of that slide, all (except for that table with numbers) I have seen previosuly somewhere here, in the English Wikipedia :) --R8R (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say I hope no one will ever do something like spend a decade to find three atoms of a millisecond-living nuclide. If it gets the element discovered sooner (like Nh), I can't complain. And this is especially wonderful for Japan, restoring some pride in its scientific accomplishments after Fukushima, like the IUPAC citation said! So if they go that route, taking years to make 119 and 120 as Cm + V or Cm + Cr, and succeed, I would be happy too! There's a place for both extending the limits of current techniques (as RIKEN can apparently do) and making new ones (as the JINR has been pioneering). And yes, I did find the Big Bang Theory picture amusing, especially if you think about where the accurate electron configuration info for 113 to 122 could have come from... ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Submission to IUPAC task force on the composition of group 3

Hi R8R Gtrs

Double sharp and I have prepared a submission to Eric Scerri's IUPAC taskforce. Are you able to review it and give us your thoughts before we submit? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to do so. Hope to start on Wednesday. Or, if that doesn't happen, during the weekend.--R8R (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sandbh: I have finished the initial version of the review; it can be found at the talk page of your letter. Will look forward to responses.--R8R (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you have some excellent comments there that expose how much Sc-Y-La-Ac is unconsciously ingrained in my head as my mental PT! And I agree that many of the -Lu-Lr arguments there are weaker. I think Sandbh intended it as a summary of everything that had been suggested to either end by anybody, but this of course neglects that some such arguments are actually not very good.

Do you think we should try to supplement this by writing some good Lu-Lr arguments, or rethink the whole chronological approach? I think you (is it?) mentioned a good one along the lines of "blocks and Aufbau are a very good principle; thus we shouldn't break it unless, like He, some other placement is much more compelling; and this obviously isn't so for La vs Lu"? Double sharp (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

R8R, your comments are gold. They'll give me and Double sharp much to think about. I did intend to summarise everything that had been suggested, and I like the chronological approach because it can show how thinking has evolved about an issue. Some of the responses are written the way they are because that is the way, for example, Jensen argued his point with his comparisons to groups 4–10+, rather than only 4–5. I've so far only scanned your comments, and read through them quickly, and should be able to do a line by line review tomorrow. I liked your comments about emotional v. scientific language. Sandbh (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad I could somehow contribute to the letter you want to send.

As for good -Lu-Lr arguments: they're already there, they just need some re-assessment. That argument of mine you mentioned is not particularly strong. It's the sort of things that feels right to me, but what one may feel another may not. You critiicize a similar argument of Platonic symmetry; I can't really argue with your theses against it and find them valid.--R8R (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

why I'm still uncomfortable about calling Ts "117"

Because that's not really how we deal with most elements.

When we talk about the discovery of Hs, even though it wasn't named immediately, we don't call it "element 108". Just about every children's introduction to the PT and its history will say "in 1984, Münzenberg et al discovered hassium", and not "they discovered element 108 and once confirmed it was named hassium". Now that hassium means element 108, we analyse the discovery retrospectively and consider those first atoms as the first hassium atoms synthesised. I get the impression, if anything, that an element gets a systematic name only before the first atom is found and is good enough science to publish and be accepted. (Notice that everyone considered Z = 112-116 to be known in 2005 even way before Nh and Mc were IUPAC-approved in 2015.) After that it is treated as though it was known and confirmed, just like elements predating IUPAC.

That this point is not just my concern is shown by the fact that some other IPs (not me) have once again edited the "117" in the symbols "²⁹³117" and "²⁹⁴117" to "Ts", like I did. I won't insist on either, but I'm telling you this to show how the average reader apparently feels. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a pity we don't treat nost elements in my way (I wouldn't apply my way if I didn't think it was better). I would say they discovered element 108. The very best idea about my way can be found in the history of element, say, 105: they didn't discover dubnium, they discovered element 105. First of all, this points at the idea tgat the atomic number was the big deal. Second, that element wasn't even named dubnium almost three decades after its discovery. That name wasn't even suggested by anyone until 1993. Third, see that book I quote a lot in the article: it also often refers to dubnium as to hahnium. I don't blame it for doing so.

And I would do precisely the same for a stable element, except as it wasn't looked for as a new value of Z, but rather a new chemical identity, and thus I would refer to it as to "a new element" or the like.

As you can see, my reasoning doesn't really contradict yours. Which points you to the idea it's more of editorial choice.

As for the idea that this implies that that's what the average reader thinks: not necessarily true. You wouldn't think the average reader who dag down to the IUPAC June 2016 announcement was unable to find out the names weren't official just yet. It's more of there are people who want to take part in a way they can, however small and meaningless tge change. I respect that and never mess with such activity unless it makes the article worse. But I see someone added back the exact date of tge naming to the lead. That ruins date formatting (would leave it alone if the change was consistent, affecting all dates) and will be undone. Same here: ruins the stylistic of the text and will be undone. If someone rewrote the whole thing and made the text less interesting, but more straight fact-y, that would be justified (I wouldn't like it, but would leave it there if someone did: Wiki's not my encyclopedia). Now, it's a negative change.--R8R (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters a bit, I note that the lede of Charles Hatchett says he "was an English chemist who discovered the element niobium.", not "element 41" or even "columbium", which is what he actually called it. YBG (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that's okay for the lead section. It just needs to give the facts fast, so no time and space or even need for long intorductions and precisely following the chronology. I'd say that would be okay even for most element articles. I did that with the lead of tennessine back when it was ununseptium. Would do the same today.--R8R (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobelium

I just remembered that I wrote one article where the problems are stark due to all the discovery claims: element 102, nobelium. So I looked through it (this is from 2014), and while I called it "element 102" with symbol "102" when detailing the discovery, I called it "nobelium" and "No" when analysing it in retrospect. So I say, for example, that the American team claimed to have discovered ²⁵⁵102 (or whatever isotope it actually was), and then I give the now known properties of ²⁵⁵No and note that they don't match. Maybe it's not the best solution, but it corresponds to how I would naturally talk, for what little that is worth. Double sharp (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me.--R8R (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC closed

Hello,

I have closed an RFC you participated in at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?. Consensus was found for using the Sc-Y-La-Ac periodic table. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

I noticed this. Thanks for the compliment, I really appreciate it. --John (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@John: I'll join in and cease editing the article until you've finished copy-editing. I know you appreciate moving (lead) targets, not. Oh, and I was pleasantly surprised to find surma in the good 'ol OED Sandbh (talk)

Dividing the nonmetals

Hi R8R

I'll soon post this informal section in my sandbox to the WikiProjects talk page. Since you and I have spoken about this subject over the years I wanted you to see it before I posted it. I'm not expecting any comments from you before I do (but if you do these would be welcome) as I expect you'll be busy with lead. Equally, I didn't want to surprise you, hence this post.

regards, Sandbh

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I've read it; it's interesting enough and has its merit. I will write a detailed response after I'm done with lead.--R8R (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Good. That was the timeframe I had in mind. Lead is more important. Sandbh (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oganessian lectures on superheavy elements

You can watch his talk from the inauguration of Ts at ORNL on January 27! (The JINR had it for Mc, Ts, and Og on 2 March 2017; RIKEN is having it today for Nh in Tokyo.) He talks about the past history and the future plans (⁵⁰Ti and ⁶⁴Ni projectiles to get to Z = 126, and I suppose also ⁵⁴Cr and ⁵⁸Fe with targets of ²⁴⁸Cm, ²⁴⁹Bk, and ²⁵¹Cf?). Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Highlight: boiling point of Fl experimentally given as ~ −60 °C! It's a gas!! Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Also a quote: "For each neutron we have one order of the magnitude in alpha". (Finally I can write that and have it be referenced! ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've listened to around a half of it today on my way to the uni (I mostly skipped the history part, though maybe I'll return to that sometime). Thankfully, it didn't require much watching except it had some good pictures I would want to look for for ununseptium if I hadn't I completed the thing (I would think of those as of decoration rather than need). Thanks for sharing. Extremely interesting.

Will you add the new information to Wiki?--R8R (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course! (Although I might first do a quick search to see if the slides are online, since the talk was given over a month ago.) ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. And thanks to the element not quite containing his full name, I originally called him Oganesson. Oh, the shame! Well, at least I did it completely by accident, as opposed to quite obviously not doing one's research (such as claiming that tennessine was actually synthesised in Tennessee). Double sharp (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, here is the Japanese inauguration: news article, with videos (mostly in Japanese, of course). There's also a picture of Morita and Oganessian that can be easily found on Google Images. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I finally found it in English: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20170314_35/ Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems the Japanese are paying far greater respect to this achievement than what you would see in Russia. Can't imagine the current PM or president visiting Dubna and celebrate that with the scientists. Also, after seeing Dubna comments about how the technique they used won't be used anywhere again IIRC, I can't help but view that with a little (yet they achieved it, though) skepticism. This skepticism may, however, inspire me later to write a Nh FA. Nonetheless, I'm glad they're happy about it.

Also, I found this interview with Oganessian (in Russian). It says the new factory will be open in late 2018 and that elements 119 and 120 are on the list and that "when our foreign colleagues attend the 'inauguration' of the new elements in March [what's this BTW?], we will move to Dubna on the very next day for discussion of our next plans of collective work."--R8R (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It was the "inauguration" of Mc, Ts, and Og which I first linked to in this section (and Prof. Poliakoff from Periodic Videos spoke in Russian!). It's a common thing the discoverers do whenever a new superheavy element is confirmed by IUPAC: Periodic Videos covered the one for Rg, and IUPAC still has on its website a brief report of the one for Cn. I put the Rg picture into the Rg article. ^_^

Oh yeah. I could've figured. Good one with Rg!--R8R (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Admittedly Rg is one of those articles where there is really almost nothing to talk about. There was some initial interest from the possibility of Rg⁻ because of Au⁻, but now it's expected that Rg should have a lower electron affinity than Au, so it's almost certainly not going to happen and everyone's interest has moved past Cn. It's a bit of a shame, really: it looks really ugly to have that three-element patch in the transition metals block remain uncoloured, but facts are facts and theories are theories, so we'll just have to be patient and wait a little bit longer. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This makes me think that an everblue PTQ is not impossible :)--R8R (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I try to never forget my old GAs. Because so much of the stretch from Md onwards was done by me, this translates mostly to becoming the WP superheavy custodian. ^_^

I want to get back to Po and Rn to some point; especially the former seems a little incomplete and the latter feels like it could become an FA. Bagnall wrote a good book on the "unstable region" in Po-Ac; I think the title is something like "Chemistry of the rare radioelements". Unfortunately I can't seem to find this anywhere.

Also, many of the old transition metal GAs kind of suck. IIRC I expanded Ru last year; maybe I should do another. This isn't even getting to FA; it's just making GA worth the same across the table.

Sorry for the "radio silence" on Pb, BTW. The reason for this is more that most of it is okay and I have trouble finding info for the stuff that is not so okay. Well, that and FAC feeling a lot more arbitrary than GAN in premature terminations. >_< When I find some stuff, I will get back to it. Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the interview, BTW! It's nice to see what they're doing. So now the mixed ^249,250,251Cf target is being prepared in the USA and it's going to be shipped off to Russia to make ²⁹⁵Og and ²⁹⁶Og in preparation for perhaps probing the chemistry of Og. (I am really looking forward to the day when the seventh row is in full colour on Wikipedia! ^_^

You're welcome! As for coloring, we'll be there eventually. Maybe it's also going to give us some good times thinking about it (I am still not 100% cool with having a gas labeled as a metal).--R8R (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You mean Cn and Fl? I always thought that was really cool, or at least ever since I found out that it would probably happen. I think I showed you 107 Stories about Chemistry by Vlasov and Trifonov a while ago, while I was praising the old Soviet-style prose: in section 27 they write "One more thing, and this is quite remarkable. Scientists have proved theoretically that if there existed a heavy analogue of mercury (an element with a very large atomic number an inhabitant of, the imaginary seventh floor - eighth [sic] period - of the Big House, unknown on Earth) its natural state at ordinary conditions would be gaseous. A gas possessing the chemical properties of a metal! Will scientists ever have such a unique element to study?" (Now they do! ^_^) And, well, everything is a gas (even W and Re) if you heat it enough. If copernicium and flerovium want to do it at chilly temperatures by our standards, what of our standards? Those are human-imposed only. Anyway, if the chemists who did the experiments are fine saying that Fl is metallic without further reservations, we should probably follow suit. Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe I spoke too soon: in 2016 Yakushev and Eichler still cautiously say 'The question "is flerovium a metal or a noble gas?" is still waiting for an unambiguous answer.' Fortunately, we have the following to look forward to (quote): "Most recently, two additional runs were conducted at TASCA resulting in observation of several events from Fl and Cn isotopes. The analysis is being finalized by the TASCA collaboration." And they were so much less cautious in 2014 when we coloured it in, writing "Fl is the least reactive element in the group, but still a metal." I'm not sure if we should uncolour it now because the earlier experiments had some problems distinguishing what was seen in the decay chain because Fl and Cn seem to both be very volatile; at least more data is coming. (We don't seem to know all that much beyond Hs, the last element which we have an experimentally known electron configuration for.) Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I was about to point at that. I would argue we shouldn't present information like it's real unless we're confident it is. Given this, I'm not confident. Moreover, this is a big question and requires special caution even though I would want to use colors too.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah: I like pretty colours too, but they have to be based on what we know, rather than what we expect. I'll have to return to some of these superheavy articles "at the frontiers of chemical knowledge" and update them with what we've found out since we wrote most of them (like this issue with Fl, the idea of making Mt carbonyls following Sg, or the data-congruence issue with Mc and Ts). Hopefully we will soon get something more confident about Fl and the first chemical studies of Og, at least. Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As for Japan, I think it's partially because it's their first time getting to name and discover a new element, but also because ever since the opening of Japan modern science was very strongly emphasised as they industrialised under the reforms of Emperor Meiji. Ever since then there has been a strong tradition that Japan would send their best minds overseas to learn the latest developments, and then they would come back to Japan, establish their own research institutes, and advance Japanese science and get glory for their country: Prof. Morita continued that tradition by going to Dubna to learn how to make superheavy elements, and then going back to Japan and establishing his research group at RIKEN. Double sharp (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

My first reaction was "what 'opening' of Japan?" and then I remembered I saw a video about Japanese history very recently :D I am ready to believe that this being the first time played a role and yet, it couldn't be just that. This seems to be a good tradition; one not all too uncommon here as well ;) --R8R (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

BTW, looking at the updated half-lives for some of the heaviest isotopes I got from Oganessian and Rykaczewski's paper, I think that for the superheavy elements we need a more up-to-date source than NUBASE 2003(!). It was of course at the cutting edge when we first had articles about these, but now it's over a decade old, and many of the half-lives in those tables we have are now in need of an update. The Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart (9th edition, 2015) may be a good replacement, at least if any of us can get access! The previews look pretty striking. Double sharp (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It's good that you pointed at a newer chart, I was also quite uneasy about NUBASE growing older and older. I can't find the Karlsruhe chart but there's a good free replacement from International Atomic Energy Agency with which I will update lead immediately.--R8R (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: where in the Ts (and possibly also Mc?) articles do you think I should add the material regarding the (noted in 2016) possible incongruence of the data sets, and the possible non-existence of the link between ²⁸⁹Mc and ²⁹³Ts (even though of course those isotopes may well have been produced)? Sources: one two. Double sharp (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably I won't be able to read this right now; please ping me in a week if I haven't done that by then.--R8R (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I just read it. Wow. Definitely worth including in ununseptium.

I see it's already there at the right spot (great!) but I have a feeling it's a bit TMI right now compared to the rest of that section. I'll think about it.--R8R (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It kind of is, but it is also rather important. So I suppose it's not too bad to keep it there now and worry about trimming it later. ^_^ Burzuchius and I engaged in some OR on the talk page to reassign the ²⁹³Ts data to the other isotope ²⁹²Ts, but that's just "fan speculation" and the truth may well be much more different. (It does explain why ²⁷⁷Mt is so unstable to SF; it doesn't make sense with the odd proton that should pose a large barrier, but it makes sense if it is actually a mistaken identification of ²⁷⁶Hs!)

What I am more worried about is the consequences for the synthesis of E119, because both RIKEN's and JINR's proposed reactions (²⁴⁸Cm+⁵¹V and ²⁴⁹Bk+⁵⁰Ti respectively) should lead to ^295,296119 decaying to ^291,292Ts and ^287,288Mc. It's going to be difficult to explain if the data we get from that is incongruent with what we "know" for Mc and Ts, so the approval of E119 is likely to drag on and on just like it did for Cn (that one because of isomerism in ²⁶¹Rf). There may be isomers in Mc and Ts as well clouding the issue, as the papers I linked say.

BTW, because RIKEN's proposed reaction for E120 (²⁴⁸Cm+⁵⁴Cr) leads to isotopes that decay to known territory (²⁹⁴Og, ^290,291Lv, etc.), while JINR's (²⁴⁹Cf+⁵⁰Ti) leads to uncharted neutron-poor waters (e.g. ^291,292Og, ^287,288Lv, ^283,284Fl, etc.), I wonder if RIKEN will get there first because Dubna would already have done the cross-bombardments in their discovery of Og. Just a hunch. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty in proving Z

Christoph Düllmann explains it quite well here: the main problem is the inability of current SHE technology to detect EC, which is expected to become a more and more important decay mode in this region of the chart of nuclides: indeed, we might already have seen this for ²⁹⁰Fl (check my recent additions to flerovium; this may have been populated in the first weird 1998 reaction, producing EC to ²⁹⁰Nh, ²⁸⁶Rg, ²⁸²Mt, followed by SF at ²⁷⁸Bh). Certainly, we may have gotten cross-reaction cases for most Z (with one that doesn't quite work for Z = 115 and Z = 117), but we have not proven it directly. Double sharp (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I see. (There is little I can say, but please note I have read and understood the document.)

I have contracted the description in tennessine (so used to saying "ununseptium"). Doesn't look all too good to me now, but at least not as TMI-y. Please remind me to revisit that text if I forget.--R8R (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's actually all right now; there's no need to talk about other isotopes of Mc and Ts here, when only ²⁹³Ts and ²⁹⁴Ts are relevant. We can save the details for the article on moscovium. I did add one sentence: "(On the other hand, the chains from the non-approved isotope ²⁹⁴117 were found to be congruent.)", because otherwise we only mention one of the isotopes. And yes, I'm still training myself to update my mental periodic table with the new element names.

I find it a little bit ironic that the only nuclides among the known isotopes of Mc and Ts that have this congruence problem are ²⁹³Ts and ²⁸⁹Mc, the ones that were instrumental in the IUPAC confirmation. So if this had been picked up on earlier probably only elements 113 and 118 should have been approved this round – 113 because the Japanese team anchored ²⁷⁸Nh to known nuclei (²⁵⁸Lr and ²⁵⁴Md), and 118 because ²⁹⁴Og is an even-even nucleus and so the cross-bombardments making ²⁹⁰Lv, ²⁸⁶Fl, and ²⁸²Cn were clear. (The reason why ²⁸⁷Fl and ²⁹¹Lv were approved, despite the odd neutron giving everyone headaches, was because of chemical identification of their daughter ²⁸³Cn – this is why the Dubna team wanted to use the chemistry experiments for the final daughter of ²⁸⁸Mc, but they ended up not being conclusive.)

As a silly diversion: I always thought that when they get around to naming element 119, given how it is at the bottom of the alkali metals column and looks like it should be the most violent of them (even though it probably isn't), they should pick a scientist with that kind of personality, and name it newtonium! But the fact that this is a blue link might rule out this whimsical suggestion. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's okay when you consider how much info is in there (we have just the right amount now). However, it reads unnecessarily complicated: I think these scientists should be allowed to use in their papers words like "congruent" and such, but we're aiming at a wider audience and that word alone makes me think the thing is becoming too technical, or at least looks so.

Trends from the past suggest element 119 could be "russium" or something like that: the previous element from that group is also named after a country that already has an element named after it (or its older form), plus the previous three of four elements named recently were named after different regions :D on a more serious note, though, I have partially lost my interest for names here following the Dubna approach. Note how they never push their names too aggressively, and note how their suggestions are about honoring someone else (remember when our talk re paying respect toward those whose shoulders you stand on in science?); even "moscovium" is a thank-you to the government of the Moscow Oblast who fund them. Also, it's the nuclei that matter and names are... meh? I don't even like to refer to those new superheavies by their names, since the atomic number is more descriptive for them anyway. It's a pity if we can't have newtonium, though. But I hope it's not the case.--R8R (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is kind of a problem. The word needs to be explained, and the explanation should preferably replace the actual word.

About names, I'm a bit conflicted about them. On the one hand the atomic number is indeed more useful; on the other hand I want to respect the discoverers, and somehow my idea of what elements to use numbers on seems to change as new elements get named, so if you asked me just a few years ago, I'd have written ²⁹¹116 instead of ²⁹¹Lv, but now I can't imagine writing that: the name "livermorium" has gone into my head.

I don't really mind the current names: we already have worse ones in the lanthanide series. Your idea of russium is amusing because there is already a ruthenium and because a Soviet scientist already proposed that name when he thought he had found eka-caesium (which turned out to be radioactive potassium-40). But seriously, I would like some more historical scientists to be honoured. This guy might be a "periodic table fan", but I love his name suggestions! Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do eventually. Or feel free to do it before I do!

I've always thought that was your reasoning. However, as for myself, I prefer to say "element 110" rather than read "darmstadtium" and think "that is, element... 110, yes!" I also don't like to put anyone in this position. If you don't need that another second to realize that "livermorium" is element 116, good for you!

I wouldn't bring that up (perhaps wouldn't even think of it) if it wasn't for this failed suggestion :) I am well aware of it, I read about it first in francium which I wanted to read as an example of a FA from that region prior to working on astatine. As for who gets the fame... I don't care. I want Newton and Maxwell to get their cells in the PT, but otherwise, it doesn't matter. And I even won't be too disappointed if they don't.--R8R (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There probably will be some after a while; copernicium was excellent. It's interesting that the ones with interesting chemistry got the person names: copernicium, flerovium, and oganesson. (I know that flerovium was technically named for the Flerov lab, but I think we all know what the intent probably was.) IIRC Dubna was thinking of "flerovium" for a long while and I would not be surprised if they had a private list of element names they want to propose at some point.

Assuming the same groups keep doing the SHE research, they'll run out of such place-names anyway. One tradition I would like to see resurrected is the mythological or astronomical one, since it produced the marvellously evocative plutonium. But this is just speculation, of course. Double sharp (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding systematic element names

I looked at the Db article and wanted to make something a little more precise just by adding a few words, and I remembered this old joke: 153 and 641 were dating, and 153 said to 641, "I love you 641. I love how you're a sum of fourth powers. I love how you're a divisor of a Fermat number." 641 replied, "I, uh, I love you too, 153." "Why do you love me, 641?" asked 153. "Well, I uh, I love how you're the sum of the cubes of your digits." "You don't love me!" cried 153. "You just like my base ten representation!"

Adorable! I love it!--R8R (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

On a more serious note, would you mind if I asked some wikifriends if they wanted to review Db at some time in the near future once the outstanding Pb items are fixed, or even do it myself if you would prefer? I would hate to make you wait as long as I did for Sg, after all, and no doubt it would be very quick. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I was actually expecting that from the very beginning, so I prepared myself to how it may take months to wait, and generally, I didn't (I still don't) expect GAN to be too much of a problem. I changed my attitude to "it happens whenever it happens. Whenever it does, I should be able to handle it."

To respond to your question, I wouldn't mind, though. But don't feel too bad about me having to wait for too long: I don't.--R8R (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, no problem. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A few more cool superheavy talks

JINR 2016; something else from 2015 (unfortunately in Comic Sans ^_^); the first studies from Dubna's SHE factory (coming later this year!); further plans to go forth and chemically characterise the rest of the 7th row. So, on towards drawing in the eighth row and colouring in the seventh! Double sharp (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

And where to next? Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for sharing! I've looked these through in the last few days (and gave a few a thorough read). I've made some conclusions and (as it happens all too often lately) immediately forgot it. Probably it'll be back, though. I appreciate you've shared this ;)

--R8R (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I thought you were overreacting about Comic Sans, but it's actually distracting me from the text itself :(

That's the usual reaction I get when I complain about it: initially people think I'm overreacting, and then ten minutes later they say "actually, you have a point". ^_^ Looking forward to reading your conclusions! Double sharp (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to say much. Much of this info was already known. The other information mostly keeps me waiting. Probably it's worth checking if Oganessian and others agreed on what to do with the new factory. However, the rare ideas about symmetrical reactions and natural superheavies are quite interesting but I wonder if they're going to be any more than pure theory anytime soon.--R8R (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Part of me wonders nevertheless: if we succeed in making neutron-rich and relatively stable isotopes of the superheavies this way, how are we going to prove that we made them? The way that we've proved that we've made all these heavy elements is through the α decay and the cross-bombardments making their daughters, like ²⁹³Ts and ²⁸⁹Mc (though as you know that is somewhat disputed), or ²⁷⁸Nh and ²⁶⁶Bh. If we do, like Zagrebaev predicted, make ²⁹⁵Ts or ²⁹⁴Lv through the 2n channels and then undergo electron capture to the island, how do we know that we've done it? We can suspect that it happened when we don't see the expected α decay, but we don't know how many electron captures were there, and we don't even know the chemistries of the elements here well enough to really prove beyond doubt that we've made them. Chemistry can isolate flerovium, if you know how flerovium behaves (which we still don't quite), but we then can't prove that it is flerovium, short of waiting a few centuries for the atom to alpha decay. No doubt they've considered some way to get around this objection and I either don't remember it or they haven't published it in the same place. Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Zagrebaev raised a similar problem in a set of slides he was working on before he passed with Itkis and Karpov: if you make those nuclides with transfer reactions, it's a bit difficult to separate them out with current technology from all the other side products. I think it's because of this kind of thing that the "revolutionary" things are not happening yet, and we are first probing the ends of the ⁴⁸Ca region before stepping gingerly into the region of ⁵⁰Ti (and thence to ⁵⁴Cr, ⁵⁸Fe, and ⁶⁴Ni, but that's probably going to come much later). We also want to chemically explore the known region, so I think that there may well be a rather significant wait until we get to see the eighth row open up, and the superactinide series begin. Double sharp (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ideas on how to chemically investigate tennessine (2011). Quote: "The volatility of elements of group 17 (halogens) is decreasing from fluorine to astatine. On the other side metallic character of the elements is increasing. Both trends were confirmed by the present work. These trends suggest a lower volatility of element E117 [tennessine] compared to astatine. The results of these model experiments can serve for the design of an experimental set-up, which is suitable for the investigation of chemical properties of the newest member of the periodic table – element E117." It'll have to wait till we find a more lasting Ts isotope, though. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Another one from Loveland (unfortunately also in Comic Sans)... Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, there are still new things coming

JINR is going to make another attempt at E119 and E120 in 2019 (added with references to those two articles), and (10.1007/978-3-319-44165-8_6) the GSI is going for new stuff too! (And maybe the revolutionary "radioactive ion beam" approach can work out to get to neutron-rich ^292,293Mc and ^270–276Sg – the former with ⁴⁸K beams produced by charge-exchange on ⁴⁸Ca.)

I particularly found the line in one of the above slideshows about "exotic targets" to be enticing, because as we all know, the ideal reactions for these would be ⁴⁸Ca+²⁵⁴Es and ⁴⁸Ca+²⁵⁷Fm... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And there was a "maybe" event that might be due to ²⁹⁹120 at the GSI in spring 2011 (link one, link two), but there are several problems with the data and we'll probably need to wait for RIKEN to do the ²⁴⁸Cm+⁵⁴Cr reaction again. Double sharp (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Huh, interesting! Would you add that to unbinilium?--R8R (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's there at Unbinilium#Synthesis attempts: "Three correlated signals were observed that matched the predicted alpha decay energies of ²⁹⁹Ubn and its daughter ²⁹⁵Og, as well as the experimentally known decay energy of its granddaughter ²⁹¹Lv. However, the lifetimes of these possible decays differed from theoretical expectations, and the results could not be confirmed due to lack of beam time." I also added two sentences to E119 and E120 about the JINR starting an attempt in 2019, and RIKEN going for it as well. I do hope it gets confirmed soon – for all that making more neutron-rich isotopes is cool, I think most people still share the chemist's prejudice for protons. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Also perhaps the pxn and αxn pathways (oh dear, I'm spamming again, aren't I?). Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Your spamming is alright. It is I who should feel sorry about it (for not always responding quickly enough).--R8R (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You know what, here are the whole conference proceedings from 2016. I'll post this on our links page as well: it should give a good amount of reading for us all! Double sharp (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's great it's all in open access. I should give this a read sometime.--R8R (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Periodic Videos visits Dubna

So cool! ＼(^o^)／ Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Makes me want to become a video blogger, get famous, get some loyal audience, and then expose them to this ^_^ --R8R (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

a little thing about Pb in the nuclides chart that I maddeningly forgot the source for

I think I remember seeing somewhere that the shell closure at Pb not only made it stable and common (because of the s-process cycling), but it also made the next elements (Po, At, Rn, Fr, Ra, Ac) less stable than you would expect, because the shell effects are working against them. You have a closure at Z = 82 and a "semi-closure" around Z = 90–92 (I speak imprecisely here because the shell model does not quite apply to actinide nuclei, which are prolate instead of spherical), and the nuclei between them are stranded between a rock and a hard place. Neither the spherical (Pb, Bi) shape nor the prolate shape (Th, Pa, U, etc.) is quite ideal for them, and they do not have much of a barrier to decaying. This is why, if you plot a graph of the data at Island of stability for the most stable isotopes of Bi through Og, you see a huge cliff after Bi, before things start getting less stable more slowly from thorium onwards, and then from rutherfordium onwards the trend towards lower half-lives slows down markedly as we approach the island of stability. There should be another steep fall after this, but we don't know enough about the heaviest nuclides to see it.

Bismuth is exempt from this; its decay would break into the filled shell, and it is also hindered by angular momentum factors because ²⁰⁹Bi has a much higher spin (9/2) than its daughter ²⁰⁵Tl (1/2). So the alpha needs to come out with a lot of angular momentum, which squanders kinetic energy that could have been used for the radial motion of tunneling out of the nucleus, and this is hopefully an easily understandable explanation as to why bismuth just doesn't want to decay.

Much the same thing happens at the end of the actinide series (Fm, Md, No, Lr) when we get stuck between the previous "semi-closure" and the deformed nuclei around Hs at Z = 108 – once again the deformation of the nuclei stabilises them from instant fission – and we get near-instant SF as in ²⁵⁸Fm, the nucleus responsible for our inability to get macroscopic quantities of anything past Es and Fm. As we approach the island, first SF is the main decay mode (things like ²⁸⁴Fl, which more or less break apart instantly due to "catastrophic structural failure" of the nucleus with not enough neutrons to buffer the charge), then alpha as this becomes less of a problem. The trouble is that as we get to about N = 176 electron capture becomes an important decay mode, and this is a problem because we cannot detect it. In fact, we are already there with nuclides like ²⁹³Ts and ²⁹⁴Ts, and it has been suggested that the start of EC being a major decay mode is a contributing factor to why the situation with the Ts–Mc link is so complicated. (Some of the long half-lives in the chain almost make me wonder if EC is populating the chain of ²⁹⁴Lv and its daughters. There would be a strong suggestion for something like this happening if we found an evaporation residue, perhaps a few alphas, and no spontaneous fission. That would suggest a scenario like the one Zagrebaev pointed out, where ²⁹¹Mc electron captures all the way to the centre of the island at ²⁹¹Cn.) It's still not clear if alpha or SF wins out at Z = 184. There's a good paper about this (10.1142/S0218301312500139): it suggests that we might get to Z = 124 with targets of ²⁴⁸Cm, ²⁴⁹Bk, and ²⁴⁹Cf and projectiles of ⁵⁰Ti, ⁵⁴Cr, and ⁵⁸Fe before we run into the void and need something completely different. Assuming 3n exit channels, this would get us ²⁹⁶119, ²⁹⁶120, ²⁹⁹120, ³⁰⁰121, ³⁰⁰122, ³⁰³122, ³⁰⁴123, and ³⁰⁴124. There are supposed to be islands of stability beyond that (e.g. Z = 164), but the shell model becomes almost totally useless with the bizarre nuclear shapes being postulated for such islands (bubbles, toroids, etc.).

The TL;DR version for the lead article would be that Pb is so stable (an "energy well") that the elements just above it cannot help but fall into the well, so the magicity of Pb is directly related to why it and Bi are the last classically stable elements! (Well, you could ask why it doesn't happen for Sn, but the argument suggests that the stable "continent" must end just beyond a magic proton number.) I think this is pretty cool, but I'll need to go try and remember where I first saw that. It's not really vital, just cool. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

More text for Isotopes would be okay since we have too much whitespace there. Besides, this seems to be good since we finally use for the fact of how 82 is a magic proton number. I have yet to think what use we could find for superheavies (this info is cool, definitely!) though you'll probably find something sooner.

As for lead, I'll look for a reference soon and would ask you to keep doing so as well. This is the only thing we need before FAC2 may begin.--R8R (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Or you know what, I'll reconsider. I found the book you mentioned (well, not the text but I can now reconstruct a complete citation) but it's over half a century old and I'm not particularly happy with this. In the meantime, I've found this. It doesn't say that the closed shell are the reason why the decay chains stop there, but it suggests this could be the reason. If a modern university site doesn't take it for granted, despite admitting it's likely, I think we shouldn't, either.

Text for lead coming up (sometime soon).--R8R (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I didn't find the words to do it but I enhanced the talk on magic nonetheless. What do you think?--R8R (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm too tired to say much today, but I think we ought to make the stability of the closed shells even clearer. The important thing here that I would want to note (see this link) is that ²⁰⁸Pb is really a triple maximum among stable nuclei: it has the highest Z (magic 82), the highest N (magic 126), and the highest A (82 + 126 = 208). (The other magic numbers also show, but not as tellingly: tin (magic 50) has the most stable isotopes of anything, and helium (magic 2) is so stable that it "leaks" out of other nuclei as alpha particles. But that's not the main point here.) Even if we can no longer connect that to the elements past Bi falling into the Pb/Bi sinkhole with quick alpha decay, we can at least show it.

In any case, the decline in stability in this region is a "tug of war" between the strong force and electromagnetism; so I suppose it should not be difficult to find a source noting that past the magic closed shell at Pb and Bi, the strong force starts to lose, reasserting itself heroically but futilely at the semi-closure at Th and U. Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is very we would give theory too much due weight if we did this. I continue to believe that bismuth radioactivity shouldn't be treated as such except for some very subtle contexts. We needed near-absolute zero temperatures to find that out. If it wasn't for that, we probably still wouldn't know. And generally, I don't want to make this a theoretical nuclear physics class. This is not a superheavie, we have stuff to talk about; in fact, we're already at the edge in terms of the possible length of the article. Isotopes is already longer than Bulk, and I'll need to think if it's okay. I want to focus on the more applied question of why it's on the end of the decay chains, if anything.--R8R (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I remember Pb-207 has a longer projected half-life than lead-208.--R8R (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately "counterfactual physics" is not a thing, so I can't check how stable the Pb isotopes would be in the absence of shell effects. I agree that Bi is not radioactive in any sense of the word, though IIRC it was long suspected to have a very inhibited alpha decay mode, before we actually found it in 2003.

It's just that I find myself lacking in an explanation, if I selectively forget that I know a more complicated one. If I read the article as a reader, I know that Pb and Bi are at the ends of the decay chains, because they are the last stable elements. But why are they the last stable elements? I realise that this may not be explainable within a short amount of text, but then we should at least have a link to an article where such an explanation fits better.

It is very possible that I am just overthinking this. Double sharp (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

One thing I still think that we should do is to make a clearer link between the "magic numbers" and the strong nuclear force, holding the nucleons together, as the line of stability runs into the void because of alpha decay, not beta decay. I'm not sure if most people realise this, given the usual narrative of "stability ends totally at lead and bismuth", but the line of beta stability continues past ²⁰⁸Pb and ²⁰⁹Bi. It goes through ²¹⁰Po to ²¹⁴Po, ²¹⁵At, ²¹⁶Rn to ²¹⁸Rn, and so on into the seventh period. None of these nuclei can undergo beta decay or even double beta decay; it's just not energetically possible, as their daughters would have lower binding energies. But we see none of them in nature, as they have all shed their extra nucleons past the closed shell, and alpha decayed to lead and bismuth. Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's my usual line of thinking when presented to such new ideas: suppose this is already covered in a more appropriate general article (what would it be here? Strong force? Island of stability? whatever) Is it still a good idea to do it here, too? That's how you are supposed to think, there's some Wiki guideline on it if just common sense isn't enough. And I think it would be good if you covered it elsewhere while here it would be too much of a detail (because we don't go into detail on industrial production subtleties as such and we're already almost too long). As for myself, I usually give up on this because I don't want to do non-element articles :( which doesn't mean you have to, too! If you do it, it's gonna be great; please consider.

But I think this is too much of a subtlety here. "²¹⁰Po to ²¹⁴Po, ²¹⁵At, ²¹⁶Rn to ²¹⁸Rn, and so on into the seventh period" is not lead already and we stuff to talk about that are related to lead.--R8R (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I do not mean that we should say that; I just give it to you for context! ^_^ In the Pb article all I would like is for the strong force to be mentioned as the thing; then we get a free link to it and can explain the rest there. Double sharp (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

prior to the possible addition (I haven't made my mind even about that), can we have some source to follow?

I was unable to find some explicitly expressed link between the magic number and the strong force, which was the thing the cause me to doubt, but instead found this (not related, but probably you'll find it interesting). We don't entirely understand the magic numbers, this causes me to want to not get into this here, too. Let's first see if there's a good source to begin with?--R8R (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but far away from the regions of spherical nuclei the concept of shells is also pretty shaky, and thus so is that of magic numbers. Near the nucleon drip lines, nuclei are deformed into weird shapes, old magic numbers disappear, and new ones might appear in their place. (Which would explain the predictions of truly weird toroidal and bubble-shaped nuclei around the "second island" at about Z = 164 and beyond; here the drip lines ought to be quickly converging.) So ⁵⁴Ca may be magic, but that doesn't mean that N = 34 is usually a magic number. It just happens to be one in this extreme neutron-rich region around Z = 20. The standard magic numbers are the ones that exist in non-weird regions. Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

new paper from just a few days ago (12 April 2017)

I realise it (doi: 10.1080/01496395.2017.1290658) sounds like yet another retrospective on tennessine from the title, but there's more! Before trying the ⁵⁰Ti beam out on ²⁴⁹Bk, ²⁴⁹Cf, and ²⁵¹Cf, they will try it on lighter actinide targets (²⁴⁴Pu, ²⁴⁸Cm, maybe?) where the cross-sections are higher. IIRC RIKEN was going to do the same thing with ²⁴⁸Cm+⁵⁰Ti making more oganesson isotopes. (In the meantime, here is a theoretical study for the fusion of heavier Cf isotopes with the ⁴⁸Ca beam.) They're also looking at the possibility of ²⁵⁴Es targets to get to element 121. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I read from you, it appears RIKEN is now trying to grow into one of the frontline labs. Which is great for the research: the more labs there are, the merrier!

Thanks for sharing! And thank you very much for keeping me informed, which I greatly appreciate ^_^ --R8R (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the Japanese really take this stuff seriously! On 2 April RIKEN's confirmation of element 116 with ²⁴⁸Cm+⁴⁸Ca was all over the Japanese news, even though it's a confirmation of something that was first done back in 2000. So that was the first step: the ⁵⁰Ti irradiation will be next, confirming ²⁹⁴Og and synthesising ²⁹⁵Og hopefully in lockstep with Dubna. That would be the first synthesis of 118 outside Dubna and would indeed put RIKEN at the vanguard of SHE research, ready to make 119 and 120, and perhaps soon go beyond that! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I should have made it clear that the first half is about Dubna instead of RIKEN; RIKEN is going the route of changing the projectiles first, while Dubna changes the targets. (Still no ²⁵⁰Cm though. T_T) Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Periodic Videos films in Dubna

The complete video is out! Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I just watched the thing; cool, thank you! Very cool to see this all in reality, like it's not just abstract magic, but it's real (never really though this is abstract magic, but you get the idea). Wonder if we ever need photos like this video's frames for Wiki?--R8R (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be cool to have the pictures, of course! Don't we already have some of the Berkeley photos for the actinides? (Although alas the Cold-War spirit of "disprove the Russian results" was apparently still around for the confirmation of flerovium at Berkeley in 2009, judging from this.) Then it would be great to have pictures from the labs at the GSI (Bh to Cn), RIKEN (Nh and hopefully soon period 8?!), and of course the JINR (No to Db, as well as Nh to Og). The naming of Fl really makes me wonder if there really is a list of names at Dubna, because IIRC they proposed it a while back for element 102. The only casualties of the naming seem to be joliotium, hahnium, and kurchatovium: all the other proposed names from both groups got used sooner or later. Double sharp (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's go one step further: it would be cool to have the pictures for what? Where would we use these? If there is some definite result, we could write to the crew and ask if they have photos (which would be better than frames of a video) and if they're interested in us displaying them.

As for "flerovium": the name was proposed in 1995 by the JWP after their previous decision to ban the name "seaborgium" faced rigorous rejection from the Americans, and since element 102 was agreed on to have been convincingly discovered in Dubna, they proposed to have "seaborgium" and "flerovium" in one table. This wasn't pushed by Dubna back then. Personally, I don't take the idea of a list of names too seriously, though they could want to go for kurchatovium, but still, I sort of think kurchatovium is a story of the past, and surely they think so as well?

As for "disprove the Russian results": a) I don't know if we should link it to the Cold War. Could it be they'd want to disprove the results anyway if the results came from Germany to get to name the element themselves? b) if we should, then it's worth remembering scientists are humans, too, and this is pretty humane, isn't it? ;)--R8R (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

True: one tends to be gladdened when one's beaten one's competitors or made them feel uncomfortable, even if you like them. ^_^ Though the Berkeley team IIRC was maintaining all the way since 104 and 105 that the Russians were changing their data inconsistently, so it's not a new sentiment; even in the Haire ref, the elements 113-116 are specifically called out as claimed only by Dubna and not confirmed by anyone else (even though the same was true of the GSI's synthesis of 110).

I agree with you on flerovium, though I think kurchatovium is probably out, since it was just used too much in the interim. Rereading the articles, Dubna proposed joliotium for 102, rutherfordium for 103, kurchatovium for 104, and nielsbohrium for 105. All good names, but two are now out after having been reshuffled too many times.

I still need to think about those pictures. To my mind they are only significant if we explain what is going on there in the text and use it as an illustration. But then it seems to make more sense in the general article on superheavy elements than in any of the individual cases, I think. Double sharp (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Speaking more of the Cold War, isn't it great the teams proposed to name elements after people from the other camp's countries? The Americans came up with mendeleevium (Mendeleev was Russian), and the Soviets proposed rutherfordium (Rutherford was from New Zealand, thus a British subject), but it was scientists that mattered most?

I've been thinking something along these lines and I'm not as hot about getting a pic for it as I would be for any particular element article.--R8R (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the best place for the pics would be the articles about the institutes themselves. And now I'm wondering why Md is mendelevium, when the man was Mendeleev (or Mendeleyev; I'm not sure which is better, since the second shows the pronunciation more clearly while the first is more standard). But that was great; another good one was Seaborg's proposed compromise of letting 106 be kurchatovium! So I think the tension in all these cases came from elsewhere, perhaps the lab directors or some other people in charge, while the scientists worked together. Double sharp (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about superheavy element, but this would work as well. So, is it set? Are we going to write a letter to Polyakov and/or his team?

"Mendelevium" is perhaps easier to pronounce; or maybe they misspelled it and nobody cared (see Plutonium#Discovery to see how plutonium got its symbol; it would hint on how this isn't unlikely). Personally, I always go for Mendeleev because if Russian was Latin-based, there wouldn't be anything between the two "e"s.

Ooh, yeah, I love that one, too. I actually remember from my search for information for dubnium that the scientists from the two countries, passionate about their research subject, treated each other with utmost respect and were pretty happy to exchange some talk on their research but their bosses (don't remember who exactly) were pressing on them to make them ignore and disprove the other team's results and get to claim it as their own all because of geopolitics; some relief came in the late 60s (see how the Soviets didn't name element 106? no coincidence).

Now we have it, though; it doesn't seem we're going to lose their cooperation despite the current geopolitical tension (one of those many signs that make me think anyone claiming we're up to, or even in, a Cold War II is just crying wolf, faithfully or on purpose).--R8R (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we're in a Cold War II situation either, and even in the unlikely event that we enter one later I don't think we would lose the cooperation either among the scientists, even if their bosses disagree and make the situation seem worse than it really is.

I think the reason we sometimes see "Mendeleyev" (it's rare now though) is because there's a slight conflict between going for how Russian would do it if it were really written in Latin, and going for a spelling that suggests something closer to the original. But "Mendeleev" is definitely the most common, and so I shall use that. ^_^

I have no objections to the photos, of course! (Incidentally, the way he spells his name in English, "Poliakoff", appears to be another case of respelling for English pronunciation.) Double sharp (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you underestimate how much of a struggle that was, so much that it doesn't seem possible any longer (great!)

Yeah; this makes sense and that French, German, and Polish don't go with "ee". I understand it and it's a subtle issue (note, for example, that English for "Düsseldorf" is "Düsseldorf," even though English has no "ü", while Russian for "Миколаїв" is "Николаев"; apparently languages go for plain transliterations when the writing system changes even despite the linguistic features, so they all do), it's just my personal preference.

If I recall correctly, those "-off/-eff" spellings were invented by/for the French but I don't know French phonetics to confirm or reject this idea (but we have Google the almighty and yes, I was right!)--R8R (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Düsseldorf really has an English name, or if we just use the German one in the absence of a real English one. We say "Munich" and "Vienna" instead of München and Wien, and in these cases there are English names. It seems the same in Russian as well: we say "Moscow" instead of transliterating it as Moskva, but we say "Vladivostok" as a pure transliteration. Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

when we get around to finishing group 14

This is easily the best video of the β–α transition in Sn I've ever seen! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Awesome vid, thanks! Could you drop it there somewhere? We'll probably fit it best sometime later anyway--R8R (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added it under "physical properties". Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Great!--R8R (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

a little nugget for tennessine

I can't read most of this presentation (2008, mostly in Russian with a bit of English), but slide 25 gives under "Future plans" the reactions ²⁴³Am(⁵⁰Ti,3n)²⁹⁰Ts and ²⁴⁹Cf(⁵⁰Ti,3n)²⁹⁶120; I presume that means that the ²⁴³Am+⁵⁰Ti reaction was being considered as a second choice if they were unable to get ²⁴⁹Bk? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought I'd help you with that one, but no text is to be found there :)

For some reason, the pdf doesn't open anymore :( --R8R (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Somehow the link only seems to work for me if I use Chrome to get to it: this is very strange... Double sharp (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally there is one presentation from them I could've sworn I've seen a couple of months ago and now look for in vain – IIRC it was about the experiments to fill in "the Gap" with the synthesis of ²⁸³Fl and ²⁸⁴Fl, which didn't work very well because only the latter was produced and it underwent instant spontaneous fission instead of alpha decay. I'll let you know if I find it. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I got them!!! All of them from the 2015 symposium (different from the 2016 I previously sent you)!!! Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW, last year when I looked for a quote from Seaborg about the naming of seaborgium, I also looked for one from Oganessian for oganesson. I clearly did not find one then, but there is one now: see Oganesson#Naming! Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely awesome! (Except do we really need that last sentence? For a bio pic maybe, but here?)--R8R (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we need it; I think the impact is better without it too. Removed. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I looked at one of the chemistry slides and also noticed this related link elsewhere from the same author: ionisation potentials for the transfermium elements (perhaps soon going to Db and Sg?). Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

if only I could understand Russian

One two three four: all about Oganessian. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll watch them and tell you if there's anything particularly notable.

The second video begins on a sad note: the host says something like "thousands poured out into the streets in Japan to celebrate the first discovery of an element. And what about us? We've discovered five in this century!"

( --R8R (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1. 2:

• Cn forms an amalgam with gold
• Work on oganesson yielded membranes with holes of 1 um in diameter. Useful for the army and medicine.
• Political tensions between Russia and the U.S. is no obstacle.
• Beam is accelerated to the speed of 1/10 c
• The new accelerator will work with titanium.

1. 3:

• Oganessian said, "And the union recognized there is no need to repeat the 118th one because (a bit frustrated) everything so much matches up." (2:26-2:37)
• The voice: "This [recognition of Japanese priority over 113] was an unexpected decision for the Joint Institute, as element 113, isotope mass 284, lifetime about 1 second, was really first registered in the JINR in 2003 [...] and only in 2004 did the Japanese colleagues conduct the experiment of irradiation of bismuth-209 by accelerated ions of zinc-70 [...] The experiment over lasted over 10 years and in total, only 4 events of synthesis of the new element were registered; at the same time, over this timespan, over 100 events were registered in Dubna [...] and pioneering work on chemical studies were performed, claim scientists from Dubna."
• Oganessian is also visibly disappointed about this, saying it's not right to separate the parent 115 from the daughter 113 (see the 2003 experiment details for context: they aimed for 115 and obtained 113 as its alpha daughter). The Japanese experiment and its results were clear only in 2012 and the method exhausted itself.
• "We respect the decision, but our attitude will be defined only after the JWP publishes the report and we study it thoroughly."
• O: "It's surprising there is still no report... on what premise this was done." He says that this report should come first and only then should the discoverers be announced.
• O: "The International Union under the auspices of the UN [really? need to check that], this Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, is a bureaucratic organization. It was occupied with naming the elements for 5 years. 5 years! It took less to discover the element than to get recognized for it. Not because it is very difficult, because it is, uhm (see 8:32 for this), heavyweight slow... well," and then he broadly describes some of the bureaucracy involved.--R8R (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

1. 1:

• Oganessian dreamed to name an element after his teacher, Geory Flerov (which he did). Did everyone agree when he proposed the name? Oganessian talked for two minutes and either the host forgot the question and didn't care anymore, or O got carried away. Either way, no answer :)
• "We are sometimes visited by very famous people and when Medvedev was president [May 2008--May 2012], he visited Dubna. We were telling him about the elements, here, they say, we have chemical element 113, 114, 115, 116, and 118. Why isn't 117 there? Well, you can't obtain 117. There is no such a substance that could be used as a target. How come no, why is a different target but not this one? No, because it lives too little. How little? 300 days. And then I got this into my head: make an experiment with this target that lives 300 days (smiles)." The condition set for the Americans was to get 10 mg of Bk. They first refused, it was too difficult, and then they believed they could do it. Also, he adds a minor detail: they needed a pilot to agree to get this shipped in a plane.
• "The Americans called it tour de force: they demonstrated they could make an experiment when there's no room for error. Well, soon they'll name element 117." [I wanted to add this to our tennessine article, so I looked if that was written down somewhere. Turns out it is (so you can run Google Translate, which became so good just recently), but they didn't add that last precious sentence! --R8R (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)]
• Oganessian doesn't care much about prizes: he says if the work is done, that's the thing, and a prize or no prize is secondary. Recognition by a prize committee is secondary to the discoverer's own judgment. Recognition is important, though, not only for the scientist himself, but for the whole team as well.
• Oganessian doesn't like the term "stability," and finds instability better, both for elements and IRL.--R8R (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Isotopes of lead

I don't see why you removed the isotopes from the lead infobox. As I wrote on the FAC2 page, the infobox summarizes so a repetition is to be expected. Would you want to have a different list in the infobox maybe? Without any of them the main infobox looks incomplete to me. -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm also a bit uncomfortable about this because I don't see how the isobox adds anything here because everything important here is in the text already, so it feels better in the main infobox where it gives a brief overview for those people who don't want or don't have time to read the whole thing. To fix the problem of a lack of a picture here I might suggest something like File:Radioactive decay chains diagram.svg, but more readable. But maybe that's just me. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all, "summarizes" means, as I understand it, "mentions main points that will be expanded later." But we have nothing to expand to in our separate Isobox right now; thus, it is now a mere duplication, one we don't particularly need.

Second, as I see it, isotopes are not really a major topic. Main information I could think of would be: a) stable isotopes, b) relative abundance. If anything, that is. Isotopes are a major topic for a small number of elements: hydrogen, helium, uranium, sure, but that's about it. NMR is a minor use. Nucleosynthesis is a minor topic in comparison to uses and chemistry even. That is to say, easily a half of our current infobox information is not really the essentials you expect to see in an infobox and should go away, too.

The idea that the infobox is what those people, who won't read the thing, will actually read, is great. Except our infobox is not an infobox anyone would read: you don't just get your basics, you also get a lot of specialized information. This ruins the whole idea. And, really, isotopes, again, are a minor topic for a vast majority of elements. Think of lead, tin, or any element you can think of: how often is that regular people contact any isotope-related information?--R8R (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Pb is certainly not in this "vast majority" if you ask me; uranium-lead dating is in a great many popular science books, and that implies an excursion into the isotopes of lead. It's true that our infoboxes are quite a bit different from the usual ones but then again they are rather like the chemboxes: if you read this stuff, you will be interested in or active in chemistry, and then you will likely want to know some of this stuff. Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You might think so, but no, it doesn't. This uranium-lead dating is focused on decays into lead, not of lead, and we don't mention anything about that in our infobox.

As for chemboxes: I think the major limitation with chemboxes is that there are too many chemicals and you can't remove the data to store it elsewhere. This is not our case; this is the reason for me to think the analogy doesn't apply. Also, the way it currently works, we provide the elements a full coverage: physics, chem, occurrence, history, production, uses, precautions. Chemical articles are usually focused on chemistry, which explains (although doesn't excuse) why they have so much info there, all focused on chemistry/physics.

Also, I don't follow your line of reasoning: if you read the infobox, you'll want to know what's in the infobox? Could you be more clear?--R8R (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

An isobox can be added to improve the Isotopes section, but nothing beyond that section. It does not and can not replace infobox data. re R8R: 'Summarize' is to give overview, pulling data from the article body (mind the direction). An infobox should not create new info. Now for elements and chemicals, it is acceptable to add basic info that is not described in the article (like m.p., b.p.).

IMO some isotopes are important enough to be mentioned in the infobox.

As for isobox (or any other table) in the section: sure these are mentioned in the text. Isn't a table a good complematary show? More in the FAC2 page, because the removal started there (IMO by a misunderstanding by commenter GB). -DePiep (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

re "some isotopes are important enough to be mentioned in the infobox": sure. But "some" can mean a lot of stuff. I generally think we could include isotope information in some infoboxes and not others, just like you use only a small part of parameters with {{infobox person}}. But that isotopes is so basic for every element, I don't accept.--R8R (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason why lead should be an exception for the 120 element infoboxes. The infoboxes themselves should be consistent, not ad hoc. Also the Isotopes section in lead does not suggest isotopes are irrelevant (quite the opposite). And to be clear: putting them in, being consistent over 120 infoboxes, can not be a treshold for FA. If this is a "cut shorter, whichever way" action I again protest. -DePiep (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not saying lead should be an exception. I think isotopes make a minor topic for a vast majority of the elements. So no, I don't just blindly follow the FAC comments, an action I wouldn't do. (Used to some time ago, but no more.)

Here's a suggestion: how about we organize a RfC and have a big discussion and then we decide based on its outcome?--R8R (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I meant is that if you're the type of reader who wants to look at the infobox (which basically means you are interested in chemistry and/or physics, or even work in the field yourself), then you'll find all that stuff (especially isotopes) very useful, and you'll want it to be there for each element. Yes, most readers won't care, but they won't mind if it's there either: they'll just not look at the infobox. In fact I very much doubt if they will actually carefully read the stuff they don't understand either, instead of skipping past it and extracting what they need for their science class presentations on their chosen element (in fact I think this explains why technetium and oganesson are surprisingly popular articles; the former has the mystique of being the first unstable element, and the latter is the heaviest of them all). As for chemboxes, even they provide more information such as precautions (e.g. 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine).

The decays into Pb imply that you need to talk about the fact that Pb has four isotopes (^{204,206,207,208}Pb) in nature, and it is why the atomic weight of Pb is given with such low precision. In fact you can find samples which go outside even that large range of variation. I've added a note to this effect to the lead infobox, as it is quite important for A_r (an important quantity, as anyone who has taken chemistry in school must know!). Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think the RFC would be a good idea. In the meantime, I've reinstated the isotopes section in the Pb infobox so that they're all consistent pending the final decision by consensus in WP:BRD style. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Note this is now that the point of BRD is to get to the discussion part. You don't discuss and then revert claiming the discussion isn't over yet.--R8R (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think at this point we can agree that the 'repetition' argument by GB in FAC2 is not strong enough (or invalid). I disagree with the elaborate footnote (either in lede text or out I'd say).

Further, the discussion at WT:ELEM should continue, an RfC is not needed IMO (we've solved bigger issues at that talkpage). But I don't have time nor energy for that (about to have a wikibreak).

And as a short quick action, we could propose at ELEM for the infoboxes, with consensus in sight: 1. remove column "decay energy (MeV)", and 2. change title into 'Main isotopes' (so we're not forced to add minor isotopes for half life reason). -DePiep (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't agree this is a weak argument. What you say what be fine with me for the time being if the main infobox summarized the isobox -- that is, claimed some important extracts from the story (or, in our case, table), but not the whole thing! So since this is the table we use for our lead article, our infobox table should be shorter than that. What should be left?

For stable nuclides, at the moment, we only have mass number and relative occurrence. This may be left as is.

For unstable nuclides, we have decay mode, energy, half-life, and decay product. Decay product is redundant and is easily deducted from the decay mode and the original nuclide. Decay energy is also kind of a detail we better go without. Half-life and decay modes are fine.

On that, I could agree as it leaves only the important things.--R8R (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's actually fine with me. It keeps the isotopes there, but keeps the info there to the minimum which everyone will want; the hardcore stuff can then be found in the proper place. Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

re R8R: in general OK with me, but details & principles are tbd. I'm a bit afraid too many isotopes will be removed from that info-table? Now, the infobox table better cover the whole of Isotopes section, not just the table (which will divert more and more in the future development; it's just a starting point that isoboxes look ~the same). The section text should support importantness of a summarized isotope. This gives us the freedom (and responsibility) to make the info-list 'main only'. As for infobox-size: a few isotopes might be removed by a more selective reasoning. But it won't solve the size issue. (For that, there is more to win in e.g. the Miscellaneous section--a new & independent discussion, to come).

re Double sharp: the Reader-approach you describe is a bit, eh, speculative/OR/assuming much for that reader? Let's not go into that, I don't expect we could or should search an understanding in readers intention (it's not our specialty, for starters). Infobox is not a mini-article. Consensus in this topic best be based on one stable certainty: WP:INFOBOX design principles & guidelines.

I keep pushing this thought: we can remove all decay info from the infobox-table, so only keep isotope and half life. Because that info is secondary to the element, full stop. It also definitely requires a higher level of isotopes/radioactivity knowledge to be meaningful. (This over-informed reader did not know that the decay product can be 'easily deducted'). Plus it easily adds extra subrows to the table -- another indicator of over-information.

Finally, I see no urgent change required to make lead an FA. Let that FAC go ahead with the old & tested form, which has no FA-breakers. Also it is very confusing, mixing 120-infobox changes and FA quality. -DePiep (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I find the half-life almost useless without the decay modes. Yes, so half of your ²¹⁰Pb vanishes after such-and-such a time, but what does it become? This is not useless at all for the element; you might wonder for example why ²¹¹At is used medically when ²¹⁰At is more stable if you only look at the half-lives, but the decay modes make it all clear, since ²¹¹At decays quickly to stable lead (²¹¹Po is very short-lived) or to benign bismuth in the middle, while ²¹⁰At turns into the horrendously toxic alpha emitter ²¹⁰Po, which sticks around for about the right amount of time to do the most harm, and goes throughout the body. (²⁰⁷Bi at least has a much longer half-life, so you don't get much of a dose from it.) All of this is integral to why astatine is used in that isotope, which we cover at Astatine#Uses and precautions, and we should certainly give the decay modes in the infobox to be explained later in the article for that reason. Double sharp (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Changed infobox header into "Main isotopes of element". Equally bold I could remove the energy column, but that requires subtemplate editing (and I re-used them in the isoboxes, so they must be split...).

Nice to read this clarification, Ds, and of course this makes an article good. Just one mean point: the medical At illustration you mention is to explain why the decay mode is infobox-important. But hey, that only helps if you know about it and wonder what the explanation would be, while still that explanation cannot be found in the infoboxes decay info (ever). So I'm not saying it is unimportant, I say it is not first-level element info. It is secondary (at best), about a different topic (article). I am just pushing to think in "main info only in the infobox", no more/no less. Being generous as I am, I can say we won't arrive at arbcom over this. -DePiep (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, the decay mode is intrinsic to the isotope. Before it decays, it is still ²¹¹At; after the decay it is not, so removing the decay products is more defensible. So just before the alpha tunnels out of the nucleus it is still ²¹¹At, and the decay is something that happens to ²¹¹At but not to its daughter ²⁰⁷Bi (which prefers electron capture to ²⁰⁷Pb). But that's just my opinion. ^_^

I would want decay energy in the "isotopes of X" article, but definitely not in the main article on element X. Double sharp (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

As for number of isotopes in infobox and isobox: in lead, I think we should have five in the infobox (204, 206, 207, 208, 210) and keep the current seven in the isobox. Two isotopes isn't too much of a difference but this is better than nothing. How would that be for you?--R8R (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A diff of two or twenty: is not a measurement. The Isotopes section does not know about the infobox (it's the other way around). Just make the section the best possible in text & table, using the isobox is not even a requirement (e.g. when more columns are needed). I think the two lead lists you mentions are fine indeed. -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I understand that my reference to a new book containing 16 reviews of the effects of lead on environment and health could be construed as "publicity". This was not intended . I am a retired University lecturer. I inserted this reference, as an academic, to give readers notice of and access to the most recent review articles on this important subject. Please re-consider the revert. Petergans (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The sole reason why I reverted the edit was because it added no new information to the article, and Wiki as an encyclopedia is not a place where you can randomly throw in a statement like, "There is a book on this subject.[252]"

That said, if the book somehow added to the article, adding some good worthy fact about lead toxicity we haven't had before, then sure. Alternatively, you can note there is a Further reading section.--R8R (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the further reading section. Sandbh (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you user:Sandbh. Regarding the comment by user:RGR: this is very short-sighted. Each review article in the book contains a wealth of up-to-date information. It would not be correct to cite an individual item in a general WP section as this one. Petergans (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

why I find it so hard to write the radium article

The "gap of instability" there is fairly annoying and makes it rather difficult to write articles on the elements between Po and Ac inclusive, and Ra is by far one of the worst off. Radium has lost pretty much all of its applications to other safer radioelements, and so hilariously the most useful application of the stuff we have left is transmutation to the more useful ²²⁷Ac – hardly an application. All the nice historical tidbits (the Curies' radioactive lab notebooks, radium therapy for Claude Debussy) are historical and not really on the element per se, even if they are really cool: the "history" section would be the most interesting, but it would basically spiral into the history of the discovery of radioactivity and the understanding of decay chains and nuclear transmutation. The chemistry is totally boring and for that reason not all that well-investigated: it's just barium's big sister and alike it in almost every way.

Francium is perhaps easier in the sense that there is pretty much nothing to write, almost like a generic superheavy element. But radium upends the structure completely: even polonium, astatine, and radon are chemically better-investigated because they're more interesting, and at least actinium has some current uses (which is why we usually get rid of our radium by turning it into actinium). I'd almost put it into a class by itself to do. It's very interesting, but it needs a complete rethinking of the structure (sandbox work, I think). Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't the see the problem; cool then! So you've got a good chance for a good detailed story in history where you can practice your art of fascinating others with your writing (I feel I am getting good at this, save for the English part, of course). Also, you get to be creative and you don't just fill in a template. An interesting task, I'd say. You have done it before (you, say, have a very good thorium article that is only some work from pre-FAC preparations away) and you can do it again.

Also, as for self, I tend not to use sandboxes and I suggest you don't, either. Why? Because your changes will go live anyway and because it feels different to do something in your cozy corner or to do so in public. That requires sort of guts; I didn't begin with this, either. Once you do, though, you'll see it's not particularly difficult apart from yourself thinking you have to keeps things in -- more or less -- order; however, you should do that anyway.--R8R (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that for most elements working live is a reasonable option, especially if the structure is the normal one. I wrote most of the superheavies that way; for those you know how to organise the stuff instantly. For a weird one like Ra or Rn among these fleeting ones, or maybe some of the famous elements (oh, carbon, silver, gold), maybe the sandboxing makes more sense, because you will typically need to move things around mercilessly from the original.

Sure; but how is this a problem? Besides, you're going to lose all good edits made while you're having fun in your infobox or apply unneded effort to analyze which ones were good and integrate them. If there were few edits, then maybe there were few people to even possibly be bothered with your reconstruction.

The sky should be your limit, not you.--R8R (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, even when I rewrote something as important as silver or chlorine there weren't really any substantial changes in content; a few minor things might have gotten changed here and there, and I looked through the changes, but there really wasn't much. Actually I notice that WP:1EDITMYTH is very accurate; you might see a lot of one-edit users in the article history, but they tend to be typo corrections, grammar corrections, or perhaps one or two facts being added without disturbing the overall structure; large problems with articles tend not to be fixed until a complete rewrite is done by a "power user". If even such elements are like that, then I'm not sure if things would be different for any other. Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually meant those minor edits, yes. I'd still say you're better off having them than having to integrate them.

Definitely, power users rule in terms of content writing; for years, I've held the opinion that this was pretty clear.--R8R (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll note that I wrote Th in userspace too. ^_^ I considered actually finishing Ra because its story follows on from the main one of Th and U nicely; I'll try to get something good done there too on the side. Double sharp (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

But the PR has occurred in the mainspace, didn't it. ;) --R8R (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course; but I think mainspace work works better when you already have most of the structure there, like for Fe or Th. After the original structure was laid down for thorium by me in 2014, it became in that territory, for me.

But I suppose we all have different preferences regarding how we work here, and it's the end result that matters more than how we get there. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Morita on element 113 (in English)

And now here is Morita talking in English! (The sound only starts a little after the 2-minute mark, but it's all right as he hasn't started talking yet by then.) He also talks in more detail in Japanese here, but neither of us can understand that well enough. T_T Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Looks like we can expect E119 and E120 this decade and E121 in the 2020s. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Morita's English is perhaps a little more audible than Oganessian's, even despite the strong accent that I would undoubtedly mark as Japanese :) It's nice how Morita refers to how Oganessian is his "teacher" as it means science is international. Great, isn't it?

Is the last phrase caused by any exact documents? I would be interested to know.--R8R (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

One slide on that video lists 119, 120, and 121 as among RIKEN's future plans. Since RIKEN's known schedule up to 2020 is totally packed by elements 118, 119, and 120, it can't be earlier than the 2020s; it's also probably not later, because of Morita's statement about making plans for the next ten years (and not, say, the next fifty as was asked in the question). It is a little bit OR-ish, so all I've put in the articles is that 121 is planned for after 119 and 120. Double sharp (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe some of this will be answered in the next symposium scheduled for 10–14 September 2017. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've only made it up to ~33:00. When you send long talk video, I usually set the speed at x1.5 and then mind my business trying at the same time to listen to the video (x2 takes too much effort to understand the words). It's a good thing to do when you're on your way to somewhere, which is a saddeningly long part of my life. I guess I had to concentrate on what I was doing when listening to it. Same with the fourth video of the four Russian-language videos you sent me not so long ago: I've made through around a half of it; in that part, there was nothing new to me (or you). It's a video from a famous enlightening fund which focuses on introducing people to various concepts and all the stuff you can expect from an "enlightening fund." The fund is admired by many scientists. And it seemed that that it was: a video for someone to dive into the concept of nucleosynthesis and the island of stability and so on.

I've tried to look it through from the beginning and I couldn't find it. Could you help me out?

I doubt this qualifies as a reason to have the article until it's more definite. Or, you know, I'd actually stick to "if anyone tried it, it's in." But a mention, sure, is okay.--R8R (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It's in the video, not the audio. At 18:52 you will see on the slide "Future work": listed under the Russian team there is "Experiments on 119 and 120", and under the Japanese team is written "Experiments on 119, 120, and 121". Since this is from the Japanese team itself, I think it is probably reliable enough to mention "oh, it is being planned".

BTW, there seem to be now enough predictions on Z = 121 to have the article; I was rather surprised at how many had popped up in late 2016, but now the sandbox is actually surprisingly substantial. (I haven't written the part about the chemistry yet; it seems to be a bit like Lr, with a "wrong" electron configuration that doesn't change anything in its actual chemistry. Perhaps condensed 121 is really [Og]7d¹8s² like its lighter congeners, but that would really be OR.) Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the article is live: here it is. Double sharp (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

predicted decay modes in nuclide chart

Look what I found! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Awesome!

Maybe you could insert it to the island of stability article and use it to explain the concept. Until I saw a chart like this, I wasn't too confident about the legitimacy of the term itself.--R8R (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The "second island" around 164

I remember seeing a few things about it, and I'm still trying to look for them again. One of the most interesting things I found is that apparently the problem with the Z = 164 island (unlike the Z = 114 island) is that the β-stability line does not match the appearance of the magic numbers in the second island, whereas it does in the first. So the half-lives are really still pretty short, and it may well be that the only thing "stable" about these nuclides are that they exist at all, unlike the elements stranded between the islands in the 130s and the 140s. I think I also remember seeing a paper a few days ago suggesting that they might only really exist as resonance states: if you de-excite them, they fall apart instantly. But I'm still looking for that one. T_T Double sharp (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dubnium

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dubnium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Double sharp -- Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/GA1

Thank you very very much for your detailed review at Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/GA1.

You left lots of helpful suggestions at Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/GA1, and I'm sorry I didn't get to them sooner.

I've now since gone and addressed every single one of your great recommendations.

Any chance you could maybe possibly give it another look? Sagecandor (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I happen to be busy at the moment with a GAN on my own hands now and RL issues. In a week, perhaps, things should change. How about that?--R8R (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay whatever you like, keep me posted. Sagecandor (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I gave it a look a few days ago and it certianly improved, though I'd say more is to be done. Please ping me someday soon so I could write it down.--R8R (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs:Are you able to have another look? Sagecandor (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You know, I've given it a read just now and I think it is very good if you aim for a GA. Perhaps I'd want more if I were to aim for an FA (I usually aim for FAs, which is why I originally suggested more was to be done), but I think it should pass a GAN right now. One little detail, though: I suggest you change the title of the section Analysis because it sort of tricks me into thinking that Wikipedia itself will be making some analysis. Perhaps a title like "Reception" would work better.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Since I've successfully addressed all your points from the first GA review, could you revisit your position on that one? Sagecandor (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I understand, once a review is over, it is over. You can start a new one, though.

I'd rather recommend a different reviewer than myself. Personally, I like thinking of GANs as of reviews made by fresh unrelated parties. I genuinely don't foresee any major problems with a GAN here, so this should be no problem and perhaps you'll get some good reception (either praise or good suggestions). But if you insist, I could.--R8R (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It's up to you. It's just there's such a backlog all over GAN these days. Even if you clear the entire backlog, sometimes it takes a 6 month wait to get a reviewer. Plus, you're already familiar with the article, and with the improvements I made directly in response to your helpful feedback. And you did come to it initially as a previously uninvolved party and you've had no other involvement since then. Let me know what you think. Sagecandor (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the terrible backlog, I already forgot: I don't visit the GAN list often these days.

Okay then. How about you submit the article to GAN and I come within a few days and give it another detailed read to make sure everything actually is okay?--R8R (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. I await your revisit. Thank you !!! Sagecandor (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dubnium

The article Dubnium you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dubnium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Double sharp -- Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Your WP blog article

Re why you edit elements: Continuing what was started by H. G. Long, may I say that having improved the flow of fluorine and plumbed the depths of lead, the obvious thing to do is to polish the aura of gold. YBG (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

And when the FA push happens, count me in! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of the order aluminum--iron--gold, but if you guys insist, I may revisit the issue.

Anyway, a push for gold can only happen after Th is an FA. I've had my last exam today, so I should clearly have more spare time soon.--R8R (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Fe would be more like Pb and Th currently are, since there is already a GA base. Al and Au are currently sucky, although I think it is a great shame because they are I think among our top few articles in terms of numbers of page views. I'd want to add stuff to both first, even if one of them will have to wait for the final FA push. Though mind you, my store of free time is not that much on most weekdays now; even Si (an old 2016 project) is currently in the situation of "I know what to write, and could do it quickly and grab the green plus and be happy, except I don't have time to finish it until this weekend".

I used Ullmann heavily for the historical aspects on Ag; the symbolism is there mostly rather simple. Unfortunately for Au there would be a bit more and I am not too sure where to look for it. Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd love you to focus on thorium for now. We can always improve those Al and Au, let's finish a task that's already open first.

Also, I'd want to ask you not to go for GA thinking that we'll push for FA later anyway if that later is now going to happen immediately after the GAN. I don't particularly like having to improve GAs to FAs; I feel it's better I do, but I'd love not to. A green plus is a small "unmotivation" for me.--R8R (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I tend to consider it in terms of a content perspective: one reason I keep getting scared of FA is the 1001 comments about referencing style instead of the content (even prose would be better). Mentally I think of there as being only four classes (A, B, start, stub). The green sticker and then the star after it just confirm it, but the important thing is that everything is there, which is mentally A. For example, sometimes I think alkali metal in its current state is A-class for the chemists (because everything is there) and B-class for the average FA reviewer (because it is so long and the references are a bit inconsistent). Never mind that I think the whole point of writing about a group is that you focus on the descriptive chemistry, because it cannot have much history (all those sections immediately split into the constituent elements.) That's why I edited some of the old GAs like Ru and Tl last year to fix the chemistry, because despite the sticker I didn't feel they were worthy, and I had just worked on their congeners (Fe, respectively Ga and In).

Of course we can focus on Th, but I think it would not be so hard to grab Greenwood and Earnshaw (for example) and at least get the chemistry covered properly first, for instance. Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

We should focus on Th: we have selected that as a target for work, so it would be best to get it finally done. (There's a good Russian proverb on this issue: "Chase two hares and you won't catch either one.") It is not hard to fix the chemistry of Al or Au, but it is not to go for FA with Th, either. "Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs" -- and I can help you out with the latter. We will promote Al and Au later.

Don't exaggerate the FA eagerness to check the referencing style: during the second lead FAC, to take the latest example available, comments on content were far more easily available. Besides, you do it once (which should only take a few hours anyway) and then, it's not going to be a major problem; you may get a few comments here and there, but these will be easy to resolve. In terms of editing time, fixing references doesn't take too great a share of time to get to FA.--R8R (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Lead, "one of those metals with most effect on humans throughout history." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Thorium, the "unsung natural radioactive metal (uranium gets all the press)"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all, the pleasure was mine.--R8R (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Dubnium, about which you said "In this article, we are reaching deep into the dark corners of the periodic table. I hope I've made the journey informative and interesting enough!" - Yes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping count. It feels nice to remember this prize is actually given for something I do as an editor.--R8R (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for today's history of aluminium! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy to help. I am actually somewhat uneasy about this TFA, but since I didn't stop it at its very beginnings, I don't get to complain. The reason is that while the article is an FA already, there's actually a little bit more to be added (see talk page) and I wish that an incomplete TFA would serve as a small purpose to go on. I think my enthusiasm will take it on from here since I have invested so much already, but a small goal to be pursued would make it a little easier. Not sure if there's anything you should do about this kind of situations in the future since FAs are already supposed to be perfect. But just so you know.--R8R (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Five years now! "Perfect" is not human ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Zen Garden Award

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		For soldiering (soldering?) on with lead at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lead/archive2. Kudos, man.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! Not that it was a problem much: weeks ago, I decided for myself that the review had been essentially dealt with and only waited to be finalized. I'm not afraid of thorough reviews and I can stand ones like this one every time but if I hope this won't become the practice because it may be a psycological obstacle for most editors to even try to fulfill these standards (though I don't foresee such a possibility). Again, thank you!--R8R (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pb FAC

Congratulations! Now Th seems less far away... ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In a way. I've been thinking of throium being the target to go for right now for a few weeks now but somehow couldn't get myself to do it. Hopefully, this will change during the weekend.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, and please pardon my manners: thank you!--R8R (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Flying lead

		Heavy metal endurance award
		Some more heavy metal to go with your latest bronze star for the epic that was lead. Quite a slog but you saw it through and got there in the end. Браво товарищ. Sandbh (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. One it was, especially after the initial FAC hitch, but all's well that ends well :) --R8R (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Chemistry Barnstar
	To R8R, thank you for writing the article "Lead". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry that I didn't have time to complete a full review, but it is obvious that the article is very high quality. Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's alright, life is life. I am very glad to receive such responses to my articles; I want to write good interesting educating articles, so that I would want to learn something new from them if I was to stumble on them rather than to write :) Thank you for bothering to write it. I'm sorry for not having responded earlier and making you wait; I wasn't able to respond when I first saw your comment and then I just totally forgot (sorry about it).--R8R (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Homepage?

Congratulations on taking Lead to FA status! Now how about getting it on the home page? There is not enough science featured on the home page and yours would be a great break in the endless stream of submarines, videogames, and actors... Go to WP:TFAR and you will get my support.Edwininlondon (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Indeed, this seems like a good idea. I used to plan TFAR ahead, but somehow, I completely forgot about it this time. Just added a nominaton for it. I see you've got an article there as well; that's an interesting topic and I quickly clicked on the link to read it in its entirety. Will add my support shortly.--R8R (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)