Talk:Flerovium/Archive 1

Archive 1

History

I coudn't find confirmation that isotopes from Lawrence Livermore Lab has been used. Otto ter Haar 17:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Name

Is there any proposed name for this element (as like with Element 113)? --myselfalso 02:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Where did the information come from for the proposed name "Roflunarium"? 69.11.95.115 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism. reverted. Femto 12:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Experimental chemistry: Reference for new experiment?

Is there a reference for the "new experiment in 2008" supporting the noble-gas character of Ununquadium? The text currently gives an unlinked [1], and reference 1 has nothing to do with it.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Noble gas-like properties

It was confirmed in 2008 that this element would behave more like a noble gas rather than eka-lead properties due to its relativistic effect. Does it mean that this element would be much less reactive than lead and would it be a gas at a room temperature? I've also seen in ununbium article that this element would also predicted to behave like a noble gas. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 02:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be much less reactive than lead. Whether it would be a gas or maybe a liquid at room temperature, I don't know. Ununbium was predicted to be a noble gas by some, but it was shown experimentally to behave as a metal.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny discourse

The section In search for the island of stability: ²⁹⁸114 maybe tells us established facts, but the patchy style makes the text weird:

• first it tells us the shortest half life cannot be longer than 10 minutes,
• unless a neutron shell is unexpectedly stabler than thought,

and then the reader expects that there is either scanty proof of that, or that there are signs indicating the opposite, but

• for which there is some evidence.^{[citation needed]}

Why then mention "10 minutes" at all, if it is an invalid statement anyways?! Then it goes on:

• in addition, ²⁹⁸114 may have an even-longer half-life due to

more invalid!!

• .. Qalpha values.

and then the final suicidal attack on the sections own neck:

• In either case, an island of stability does not represent nuclei with the longest half-lives but ...

SCREAM!! Is this section a section full of nonsens? Why dealing with half-lives in the first run, if this is the case? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation?

The in-line pronunciation in the first sentence of the article is different from that located on the right side bar. Which is correct, oon-oon-quadium or un-un-quadium (sorry, I don't know IPA - the difference is whether the u sound is short or long)? The incorrect one should be removed from here and probably the commons as well. The same problem exists with the ununtrium and ununpentium articles. FWIW, the article on ununhexium currently has only one pronunciation - the long-u "oon-oon-" one. Brianski (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Metallic properties?

I have researched this element and have found no sources of ununquadium having metallic properties. Can anyone clarify where this information came from, and if it is valid or not? 96.255.165.131 (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The "metallic" claims were added by User:Drjezza in July 2010 [1] without giving a source, and he has not reacted to my requesting a source on his talk page. I don't know if they're true, but since they contradict the referenced information on Uuq being a noble gas, I think we should remove them if we don't find a valid reference for it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search [2] did not render any immediately useful results, though [3] might contain useful info, if someone can access it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not certain that Uuq is a noble gas, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I remember seeing somewhere that Uuq may be metallic, just inert...I'll try to recollect. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not totally certain, since evidence is based on only 2-3 atoms (see article ref.), but I'd say it's very likely. I think there were earlier theoretical studies expecting Uuq to be metallic, but they were not backed up by any experiments that I know of. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Half-life

This source from Cornell says that half-lives up to 30 seconds have been achieved for Uuq[4]. Can you find independent confirmation? —This unsigned comment was added by 66.92.71.233 (talk • contribs) . —Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 22 March 2006.

According to Audi Nubase2003; Oganessian, Utyonkov, Lobanov et al., Physical Review Letters (USA), 83, 3154, (1999): There was one event at 30.4 s, which yields that the most probable half-life is 21(+101-10) s, or as symmetricized uncertainty 80(60) s. — In other words, this means "perhaps anywhere between some 1 and 220 seconds or so". (data collected at Talk:Isotopes of ununquadium)

Though Brookhaven Nudat 2.1 is narrower with 2.6(+12-7) s, I don't think the half-life of the most stable isotope is established with any statistical significance that deserves the word "is" in an encyclopedia. Until a real expert can provide more data (or someone wants to re-word the sentence to explain asymmetric uncertainties), I just removed that "The longest lived known isotope of ununquadium is ²⁸⁹Uuq with a half-life of 2.6 seconds." Femto 15:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Isotopes of ununquadium lists half-lives up to 2.6 s. Perhaps they should me made consistent? 71.41.210.146 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the Discovery section, it says "A single atom of ununquadium, decaying by 9.67 MeV alpha-emission with a half-life of 30 s, was produced...". Stating a half-life for one event is misleading. Why not just say "...with a lifetime of 30.4 s,..."? That would be clear, attributable, and may or may not be followed by the statistical inference of 21(+101/-10) s. GerryCallahan (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Official discovery

The "impending report by the JWP" has now been issued & the discovery of 114 - and 116 - is now official. The report can be downloaded free at www.iupac.org/publications/pac/asap/. 69.72.27.61 (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have clumsily updated the articles for the evaluated elements 113-116, 118 (discovery acknowledged for 114 and 116, but not for others). Materialscientist (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is off topic, but my IP address is 69.72.26.35 NOT 69.72.27.61. Why is a different number

showing up?

69.72.27.48 (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.27.166 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dynamic IP? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 02:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubna suggests flerovium

Since only part of the team officially credited this month with the discovery of Ununquadium has suggested it be named "flerovium", I have eliminated the citation of Brown, Mark (June 6, 2011). "Two Ultraheavy Elements Added to Periodic Table". Wired. Retrieved 7 June 2011. from the introduction. This change to the introduction could be read to imply that "flerovium" is the proposed new name from the team credited with discovery. Both Dubna and Livermore may at some point agree that flerovium should be the name, but based on existing references the suggestion is only supported by Dubna as I write. 68.165.77.243 (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Somehow I doubt that the Americans would agree on naming an element after the father of the Russian atomic bomb... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Official name

It appears to have been revealed that this element (as opposed to ununtrium) will be the next chemical element to have an official name. When will it be revealed?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't know; we need to wait for the official announcement from the IUPAC. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: this page states "the scientists from the Dubna-Livermore collaborations are invited to propose a name for the two super-heavy elements, elements 114 and 116. The suggested names will then go through a review process before adoption by the IUPAC Council", so keep an eye on this page, under the "News" heading. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If this page is anything to go by, it could take years before official confirmation. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

These elements (110-112) were already officially confirmed by the IUPAC years ago. It's only the IUPAP (the physics organisation) that apparently needed several more years before confirming. The last element recognised by the IUPAC (copernicium) took the IUPAC less than a year to name; the name was confirmed half a year after the discoverers suggested it.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How is the IUPAP (YOO-pap) important here?? I always thought it belonged to the IUPAC (EYE YOO PEE AY SEE) because these are chemical elements. Do you see that chemical and chemistry are related?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't treat others as stupid. I didn't claim at all that IUPAP confirmation was important. (You might better ask this the people deciding to put that IUPAP confirmation on the Wikipedia main page.) But since new elements nowadays are produced by physicists, not chemists, it makes sense that the IUPAP gets their say. Note that it's a joined IUPAC/IUPAP commission that suggests elements for confirmation by the two separate institutions. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, do the IUPAC and IUPAP plan to merge at any time soon?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be old and archived, but I should point out that IUPAP ought to be far more relevant than IUPAC for the elements with Z > 101, because they are no longer detected by nuclear chemistry but by nuclear physics. What should have been done for the latest four elements was to have IUPAP take a closer look, instead of IUPAC going ahead and doing almost everything by itself; preferably the rules for the original TWG should have been followed too (more physicists than chemists, and none of them should be from a claimant country). Then we might have avoided some of the scientific howlers in the latest JWP reports. But unfortunately, this is not the case, and we have to report what is rather than what should be: and I would be loath to deny chemists a prospect of joining in a process that was historically always theirs, since one convincing argument for discovery is the chemical identification of a daughter (used for Nh, Fl, Mc, and Lv). Double sharp (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Flerovium name official??

Now it appears that flerovium is officially proposed. Any official info on when it will be official so that this page can be moved?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article ends with

As of December 1, 2011, the name flerovium ... is in the IUPAC name approval process.^[1]

If you follow that ref, you will see described some of the steps in the approval process which still need to be carried out, and the approximate length of time (five months). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And 5 months from now is May 2012. Georgia guy (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

About the HTML comment...

Please do not change the name of this element from "Ununquadium" to "Flerovium." The names are still in the approval process and will not be approved until May 2012 at the earliest.

Is is possible (though not necessarily probable) that this approval will be cancelled?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything's possible. For a start, the IUPAC may decide that Flerovium is, for whatever reason, unacceptable after all; on the other hand they may be so much in favour of it that it gets approved today; the Dubna scientists may yet change their minds over the name they wish it to be given. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Flerovium symbol (Fl)

It's strange that IUPAC did not allow Cp for copernicium as it had been (and still is) used for other things, but seems to be allowing Fl for flerovium even though that symbol was once used for fluorine (see the fluorine article, cite 63a). Is it because Cp is still used for something today, but Fl isn't anymore? (But then Pr is still used for something else in organic chemistry other than praseodymium IIRC.) Double sharp (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(It's probably too late to change Pr now, but why was it accepted at first when first discovered, if not by IUPAC, then by chemists? This may provide some interesting material for the praseodymium article.) Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Carolinium was also Cn before copernicium got that symbol. I think the rule is that the symbol cannot be used currently for anything else. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Flerovium Approved December 1st, 2012

Flerovium has been approved by the IUPAC as of Dec. 1st, 2012. Atomic Symbol: Fl. Is this grounds for renaming the article? JKTD1919 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

December 1, 2012?? That's more than 8 months in the future. Georgia guy (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean 2011 since the past tense approved is used? PlanetStar (talk | contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@JKTD1919: Please note that your ref states "The new names will undergo a five-month public comment period before the official paperwork gets processed and they show up on the table." Since that article is dated 02 December 2011, this means we need to wait until (December 2011 + 5 months) = May 2012; see also #Flerovium name official?? above. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Flerovium/ livermorium approved

http://www.iupac.org/news/news-detail/article/element-114-is-named-flerovium-and-element-116-is-named-livermorium.html Names now official, article should be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.187.199 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Acronyms

Should the acronym SF be expanded? I assume it means 'spontaneous fission' but I had to think about it, and I am a physicist (in a different field). The general reader couldn't be expected to know it. GBM (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've linked it in the infobox, which (I think) should be enough. BTW, new sections go at the bottom, not the top. Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Resubmit once IUPAC makes the decision official. Favonian (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

untitled

Ununquadium → Flerovium – The HTML comment at the top of the article says not to change ununquadium to flerovium because the name won't be approved until May 2012. But it's May 2012 now. If this article isn't moved, please alter the HTML comment appropriately. Georgia guy (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Do you have proof it has been approved? Today is May 1, and if it is to be approved in May, they have 30 more days left. If it were June, your statement would make more sense. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unless there's a press release from IUPAC confirming the name is now official, then the move is premature. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If this move is definitely premature, then the HTML comment at the top of the article would need to be changed. It says "...until May 2012", but it's May 2012 now. We might need to change it until something like "...until the fall of 2012". Georgia guy (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not everyone lives in the Northern Hemisphere... Jenks24 (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wait for the official announcement. The hidden comment in the article actually says it will occur in "May 2012 at the earliest" which is clear enough that it shouldn't be causing any confusion. ChemNerd (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, please re-word it now that May 2012 is present. Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • There is no need to reword it. Unless you live in some weird timespace region where it is no longer May, that HTML comment will be valid until the very last region on Earth becomes 12:01am 1 June 2012. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wait IUPAC have restructured their website. Best I can find is Names and Symbols of the Elements with Atomic Numbers 114 and 116 - note the text "Comments by 30 April 2012", so a decision the very next day is unlikely. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  There is a link to a draft recommendation, which on page 3 (of 5) has the following sentence:

  The final recommendation was approved by the IUPAC Bureau on (date to be inserted) as authorized by Council at its meeting of 3-4 August 2011.

  The red text is theirs, so no date is yet known. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Premature, let's wait for either an announced final approval, or for some evidence that IUPAC is actively using the new name (eg, a periodic table at the iupac.org website that uses it). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

  If we wait for it to appear on the IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements, we'll have to wait a few more years. This is because it doesn't show anything above ₁₁₁Rg, although ₁₁₂Cn was approved on 19 February 2010. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  That's because you're looking at an old version. This seems to be the latest version. (BTW, don't you mean ₁₁₂Cn instead of Cp?) Double sharp (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Premature Until IUPAC publishes a press release confirming the new name, this move is premature. (BTW, you forgot about element 116, but the issue is the same for both.) The comment at the top of the article is still valid until the end of May, anyway. Double sharp (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Now this is the latest IUPAC periodic table. Redrose64's link was finally updated, BTW, now with Cn, Fl, and Lv. Double sharp (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Noble Gas?

What are these Noble gas like effects? As an act of charity, can somebody elaborate on the phenomena of such characteristics.--Frozenport (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Atoms of Fl were found to interact with a metal surface very weakly, as do noble gases, but not metals. (For more details, see the reference given in the article.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

grab this pic

slide 36, for island of stability. Also mine Pershina. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

and slide 30 as well Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

SF and Q_\alpha?

What are SF and Q_\alpha? They are mentioned at several places. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)What is SF? It's mentioned at several placed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Spontaneous fission and alpha Q-value, respectively. I haven't quite gotten to rewriting that part yet, though! Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, I let this lie for too long and now I've completely forgotten what I intended to do for the nuclear properties section. I'll think about it. You should probably see it soon. Either that or you'll see me work on the articles for the elements in this region whose atomic numbers are not magic. :-P Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 18:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

overview

At first glance the article looks great. It's clear and well sourced with a good flow to it. I'm struggling to find major problems. :)

The only major(ish) problem I san see (and I'm not sure how to fix it) is that the history of both the nuclear and chemical experiments are not as contextualized as I'd like. We get a blow by blow for each, noting theory, discovery and conflicting results followed by some measure of confirmation for one set of results. But we don't get much of a retrospective for either. Do we have an explanation (other than the emminently possible "physics is tricky") for why we saw these conflicting results? Are they common when dealing with synthesis and detection of super heavy elements? Was failure to replicate early experiments a source of frustration or doubt?

It's quite common for superheavy elements for this sort of thing to happen in early experiments. It's usually not until quite some time after the experiments that we can look in retrospect and realize what happened. Even now, we only have a clear idea what happened for ²⁸⁷Fl. One confirmed isotope is enough to say you have a new element, so IUPAC accepted the discovery claim for element 114. But we still don't know exactly what was going on for the other four claimed isotopes. Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for not properly styling element/isotope annotations in this review. Also "nuclei" no longer looks like a word to me. Send help.

content

• In Discovery we note that the 1998 experiment was not repeated, then later in Road to confirmation we see that a 1999 experiment produced Fl-288, later confirmed to be Fl-289. Does this count as a repitition or are we specifically saying that the decay chain observed in 1998 has not been observed again?
  • Sorry, that was my poor prose – the latter is correct. The experiment was repeated, but the decay chain observed in 1998 was never seen again. Hopefully I've explained it better now. Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• "This therefore implied the de facto discovery of flerovium, from the acknowledgment of the data for the synthesis of Fl-287 and Lv-291" It's not obvious to me why the discovery of copernicum represents an acknoledgment of flerovium's existence.
  • Added a few words to explain why – it's because the isotopes ²⁸⁷Fl and ²⁹¹Lv decay to ²⁸³Cn. IUPAC accepted the discovery of the nuclide ²⁸³Cn, invoking the flerovium and livermorium data, which thus implied that Fl and Lv were also discovered. Double sharp (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• "However, in 1966, new predictions arrived that expected the next proton shell to occur instead at element 114, and that the stabilization would make nuclides in this region as stable against spontaneous fission as many stable heavy nuclei such as lead-208" What was different about these predictions? It may be too detailed for this article, but we do spend some time on the oblateness of nuclei when talking about the predictive value of the nuclear shell model. Is a digression here of similar value to the article?
  • Well, the difference was that they were actually predictions, instead of calculations specifically chosen to produce Z = 126 (which was suggested because N = 126 is known to be a closed neutron shell). From the cite I just added to explain this in the article: "It was no mere chance that parameters of the widely known Nilsson scheme constructed on the oscillatory potential were more often fitted so as to reproduce the shell Z = 126 in the region of large A, i.e. the prediction was in fact substituted by the assumption of the Nilsson scheme being valid for the description of a system of SHN levels. However, as early as in the midsixties when interest in the problem revived, some theoreticians understood that the oscillatory potential (the Nilsson scheme) is not valid for this purpose.". The SO and potential interactions are different in this region and you cannot just assume that they are the same – doing so gives you Z = 126. Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Due to the expected high fission barriers, any nucleus within this island of stability exclusively decays by alpha decay..." I'm not clear on the relationship between this sentence and the one which precedes it. Some isotopes near the island of stability may decay in such a way that they become more stable, but such decay is extremely unlikely? Is that the gist?
  • You are almost right! The electron capture is needed to actually reach the stable island but may or may not happen. The alpha decay would approach the stable island but would not get on to it and the decay chain would terminate with spontaneous fission after passing close to but not reaching the island. Double sharp (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• When we have a compound nucleus (e.g. Pu-244 + Ca-48) experiments show that such nuclei decay by releasing magic nuclei. So far so good. Is there a reason why we note that one such nucleus is doubly magic? Are they more likely to expel doubly magic nuclei? Below (when talking about quasifission) we note that some nuclei are likely to expel doubly magic nuclei, not just magic ones. Are we talking about a similar process and if so should the first sentence just note doubly magic nuclei?
  • Yup, it was a repetition. It is a similar process and now I've combined the two paragraphs and removed the mention of singly magic nuclei (the only common one that appears as a product is ²⁰⁹Bi, which is just one proton past being doubly magic anyway). Double sharp (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Earlier predictions stated the melting and boiling points of flerovium to be around 70 °C and 150 °C...", later in the same sentence "...the boiling point was also predicted to be ~1000 °C or 2840 °C in earlier studies" We should call one set "earlier studies" and use some means to disambiguate between the two. Why the divergence?
  • OK, now calling the high values earlier studies. (Actually they were roughly contemporary, but the lower values became the accepted ones.) The group predicted the lower values noted that a dramatic decrease in sublimation enthalpy was expected between E113 and Fl on the basis of group trends, which in turn would imply a low boiling point: and this would support the inertness of the quasi-closed shell electron configuration of flerovium. This is now in the article. Double sharp (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• " the 2010 study suggested again a noble-gas-like character, but the complete set taken together resulted in a more ambiguous interpretation." How so?
  • Clarified. Double sharp (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

style/layout

• Lede looks good.
• A lot of terms are overlinked (e.g. proton, neutron)
  • Removed the duplicate links. I did leave one to radon, though, as the first time it was mentioned only by its atomic number 86. Double sharp (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Instead of saying "(see below)", should we link to a section name containing the information?
  • This seems to be a remnant of an old version of the article, when some extra material from isotopes of flerovium was in a section below. Now that it's been moved into its own subarticle, though, the "(see below)" no longer makes sense, and I've removed it. The info is above anyway. Double sharp (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Currently, possibilities for the synthesis of the expected long-lived nuclei of copernicium..." This is a really long sentence. I suggest severing the last clause (about controlled nuclear explosions) into a new one as it is basically a complete thought by itself.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe this is a lack of familiarity w/ the Physics style guide, but I think we should wikilink to Oxidation state before introducing notation like lead(II). We only wikilink it in the infobox, nowhere in prose.
  • Oh dear, did I forget to link it ALL the time despite mentioning the term a lot? Yes, I did! *facepalm* Remedied. Double sharp (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• The periodic table of videos is in the sources and in the external links. Is it a common fixture for external links in element articles or should that link be removed?
  • Link removed (along with WebElements, which for this element doesn't really say anything we don't already). Double sharp (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Is it common practice in physics articles to refer to different studies in success by year rather than by the authors name? E.g. we have a lot of text like "the 2010 study" or "the 2009 experiments". In some cases many appear to have been done in the same lab and have multiple co-authors, so a pithy pointer may not be forthcoming, but is it worth naming some that we return to multiple times?
  • Yes, I realized this problem and tried to name the main characters involved. Mostly it's the FLNR/JINR in Russia, the PSI in Switzerland, and the GSI in Germany. As you say, they were mostly done in the same labs, so to disambiguate I chose to reference the dates instead. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, overall I don't see any real show stoppers. Assuming some of the above questions can be addressed I can pass this in short order. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it accurate that the 'v' in 'flerovium' is pronounced as an 'f'? This seems very unusual. Kaldari (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

At WT:ELEM, I suggested /fleɪˈroʊviəm/ (flay-roh-vee-əm), since English speakers would tend to pronounce this as an English word (see Talk:Copernicium for a similar case). Double sharp (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You make a strong case for 'v'. After all, if we were pronouncing Flerov in the current Russian way, it would have been named "fleeawruffium" or such! I'm not so sure about the first syllable being flay though -- an open ɛər flehr seems more likely66.186.163.112 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I heard flay somewhere (was it PToV?), but would personally use flehr. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

'f' for 'v' isn't likely since even in the Russian version of the element name, "флёровий" the v(в) is pronouced with a 'v' sound because it's in the middle of the word and appears before a vowel. The only reason the name Флёров (Flyorov) is pronunced with an 'f' sound is because the letter в is at the end of the word and в is always pronounced 'f' in Russian when it's at the end of a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.4.156 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Flerovium symbol

What will the symbol of flerovium be?? I guess Fv. Georgia guy (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't know; we need to wait for the official announcement from the IUPAC, as per previous thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Although talk pages aren't usually appropriate for speculation, it is fair to ask if anyone has seen anyone of the Dubna group make comment on the subject. After the controversy with copernicium, with Cp put forward by GSI, to be slapped by IUPAC and ending up with Cn, it's fair to note that Fl is unlikely. Fl was used for a while for fluorine; Fe (iron), Fr (francium) and Fm (fermium) are not possible; thus leaving Fo Fv and Fi. Of those, Fv might make most sense, but Fo has the advantage of not looking like F.U. in some scripts which Fv does, and there's humour in having element "one one fo'" being Fo. Helpful mnemonics sometimes influence IUPAC.66.186.163.112 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the first half of your comment; I think Fv and Fo are most likely. But I don't see a problem with Fv "looking like Fu" since there's no element with that symbol anyway. And I'm not aware that "helpful mnemonics" ever influenced IUPAC's element naming decisions, do you have an example for that? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's going to be Fl, anyway. IUPAC seems to check for collisions with current uses, not historical uses. Double sharp (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. Revisit the history of Copernicium, which was proposed with a symbol of Cp. That has a historical use and thus was rejected in favor of Cn.66.186.163.112 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You might be right, but be WP:CIVIL. AllenZh (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The historical use (cassiopeium, a former name for lutetium) was mentioned, but the main reason is that Cp is currently used as a symbol for the cyclopentadienyl ligand in organometallic chemistry. The historical use of Cp also existed, but was only brought up because Cp was unacceptable for another reason (the cyclopentadienyl ligand). If IUPAC rejected symbols based on historical uses as well, not only would Fl never have been accepted (it used to be used for fluorine), but Cn would also not have been accepted (it was used for carolinium, a now discredited element). Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser...apparently cyclopentadienyl was not a reason for the rejection of Cp (according to the copernicium article), but cassiopeium was. I suppose it just means that IUPAC was inconsistent in allowing Fl and rejecting Cp. Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

IUPAC was not inconsistent, there are important differences between the use and official status of the previous element symbols Cn, Fl and Cp.LRO 08:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrohrstrom (talk • contribs)

What were they, then? I'm curious. Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...I found this in Nature about copernicium's symbol. So was cyclopentadienyl a factor, or not? (Do you have information about this? It would be great if added to the WP article on copernicium, because it would clear up all these misconceptions.) If it was a factor, IUPAC's decision makes a lot of sense, because Cp is still used. If it wasn't, I find it a lot harder to understand. Granted "cassiopeium" was often used by German-speaking chemists in the early 20th century, but IIRC this usage is almost extinct now?! (I may very well be wrong.) So yes, I retract that: IUPAC may well have been consistent, although the WP article's omission of cyclopentadienyl makes it look as though they weren't. Double sharp (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

More studies

No noble gas, but still very volatile-- http://www.oldenbourg-link.com/doi/abs/10.1524/ract.2010.1705 --R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting; this seems to be the continuation of the 2007 studies mentioned in the article. Do they actually say "no noble gas", or is that your interpretation? I can't access the complete article, and the Summary does not claim an "upper limit" on its volatility. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's just me. I'm 100% sure they would mention noble gases if they could (I would, and all works of science I met tend to be as "revolutionary" as possible), at least the possibility. Don't have access, either.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. So should we replace the "noble gas" claim in the article by something weaker now? Gaeggeler himself now seems to refer to 114 only as being "volatile", in his 2011 papers linked at [5]. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. What do you think, is it already fine to list it as a metal? (I don't really, I saw this work cited somewhere, saying it, while generally believable, needs to be redone, just throwing an idea)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I definitely wouldn't call it a metal; the article's summary says Fl does not behave like a "typical group 14 metal", and is more volatile than metalloid/halogen astatine, so its exact chemical properties seem to remain unclear. But it would be good if someone with complete access to the paper could comment here on their conclusion... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are theses from Düllmann's presentation he is to hold the next Tuesday: http://indico.cern.ch/contributionDisplay.py/pdf?contribId=71&sessionId=20&confId=183405 metallic behavior found; interactions with Au were at least as strong as for Cn. The journal article is submitted, not yet published--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Still another study; interesting. Chances for a noble gas "flerovon" seem to be rapidly decreasing, then. But given that it is apparently based on just two Fl atoms, while the Eichler study had more than three (with the first three suggesting a noble gas, the complete set being more ambiguous), the Eichler study seems more reliable to me; especially since the Alexander article has not yet been published. (Also, the claim of "being the least reactive group 14 element, but still a metal" seems strange to me- there are nonmetals in group 14, after all.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You sound reasonable. Since both 2010 and 2012 studies are form GSI, I'd, however, want for the later one to get published and then see what they think about their correlation (Maybe they didn't have them in find? Besides, silicon and graphite burn, while gold (a metal) doesn't.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the 2010 article's authors are from Dubna, not the GSI, according to the article (though Eichler is a German name). (You're right that some metals are less reactive than C and Si; but that makes the "but still" wording quite strange.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I remember the Darmstadt team was really happy about their collider, should've, however, checked. This makes it more complicated. I want the more up-to-date German paper. Simply to see if they think their experiment is superior to the Dubna one (or differences, or whatever they have), want to know the correlation. Maybe the pptx presentation will be published somewhere in the Net, like some others have been.

(A metal/noble gas contrast?)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet another recent (2012) paper [6] considers Fl to belong to a new category of chemical elements, the "volatile metals", being something between "normal" metals and noble gases. (I haven't found details of Düllmann's talk yet, unfortunately.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the picture's more or less clear to me, within the meausrement uncertainty. Later chem predictions fall in line with such "intermediate" properties. (Sorry for my ignorance, but aren't mercury or polonium volatile metals as well? They are metals, and, well, volatile)

We could've used more of these texts in the article. Unless you want to yourself, I'll add the info in a few weeks (am really busy now). Or maybe not, if I ever think of rewriting the article (given there are better organization layouts). Won't draw conclusions, simply describing the studies and results. Any objections?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, feel free to go ahead. I've already briefly "updated" the Eichler results, as you may have noticed. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: I'd also consider Hg a volatile metal (am ignorant about Po). I can't access the whole Kratz paper, it's not clear to me from the Abstract if he restricts this category to 7th-period elements or not. Actually, it seems to be somewhat common to name all group 12 elements "volatile metals" (according to a post of User:Sandbh on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Time_to_deprecate_.27other_nonmetals.27) - though this might also be a different category using the same name. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Po is very volatile! At 55 °C, 50% of a sample of Po gets vaporized in just 45 h, although Po's melting point is 254 °C and its boiling point is 962 °C. But this might actually be mostly because of Po's alpha decay spalling off some clusters of atoms. Double sharp (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This presentation states that Fl should be more reactive than Cn(!), and that relativistic effects (shell closure) would make Cn and Fl form a new category of gaseous metals. Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The journal article R8R Gtrs referred to has been published this year. Given this info, maybe we could colour it as a post-transition metal already. (I know we're still using other metal right now: that should change soon.) Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

These are experiments,and 'help answering', so not "predicted" then? And is that at par with our Cn categorisation? (btw, now that this is solved they could improve their group 3 knowledge. They still have an ambiguity in there ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Cn is known to be a typical group 12 element in terms of physical properties, but the problem is that it's not known if it can use its d electrons in bonding. Therefore if we use our current TM definition, Cn is known to be one: if we change it to the proposed one where group 12 elements aren't TMs, then we don't know for sure. This might be an argument to keep the status quo for now, especially as IUPAC allows both definitions, but the dispute should be clearly announced.

Since this experiment has proved Fl to be a metal (they use very certain language: "Fl is the least reactive element in the group, but still a metal."), it must surely be labelled on WP as a post-transition metal (or other metal for now), for it comes after the d-block region of transition metals. And yes, I think this is at par with the Cn categorization, as they confirm it behaves like the elements in its group.

(The group-12-is-not-TM definition may allow Hg, E113 and Fl to be TMs as the d electrons still play a role. While HgF₄ is a marginal compound, we don't know just where the line should be drawn. Weirder still are the predictions for E113(III): it should use the 6d electrons, but act like a main group metal. So I think I'll withdraw my support for the group 12 proposal, because it complicates the predictions.) Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. But I wouldn't say this makes Fl a post-transition metal; a metal, yes (if the study is to be believed; we'll believe it unless we get contradictory results), but is it really a PTM? We can't say, actually. Will there be a hexafluoride? We don't know. We even color Cn as a TM only because we expect it to be a transition metal, and if the group 12 was gray and not pink (favoring the d electrons involvement argument), Cn would have to go light gray unless we have proof for either statement.--R8R (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We have a sort of precedent in calling E113 a (predicted) PTM, as it would act like one in the +3 state despite using 6d²7p¹ as valence electrons instead of 7s²7p¹, and the +5 state is expected to be only possible with F.

I have not actually seen any suggestions of Fl(VI) after Fricke 1974. What do current theoretical models say? Hoffman et al. only mentions Fl(II) and Fl(IV). They also speak about sp³ hybridization when arguing for the instability of Fl(IV), indicating that they're thinking about a 7s²7p² electron configuration: but this seems implausible, since the 7s electrons appear to be inactive already in E113. So are 6d or 7s electrons being used??

Regardless, I think we can safely call it a PTM for now, as it's been deduced to act like a typical metal of group 14, and no compounds involving the 6d electrons are known (and whether they are expected depends on which source you choose to read). By the group-12-are-not-TM definition, wouldn't Hg have been a PTM until the discovery of HgF₄, upon which it magically became a TM? (If I follow Jensen saying that that's an exceptional compound, I don't know exactly where I should draw the line.)

P.S. We know that Cn is a typical group 12 element, but does that make it a TM by our current definition? We do not actually know any chemical properties of Cn, just physical properties (that correlate with those of the group 12 elements). It seems that we are in the same scenario for Fl and group 14. Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Since Fl being a metal is apparently a sourced fact now, I'd support calling Fl a PTM, since our current PTM definition only requires it to be a metal to the right of the transition elements, as you said. Finally another colouring on the periodic table, then :-). (Though it would have been much more interesting if the noble gas claim would have been confirmed...) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Roentgenium111 and R8R Gtrs:I note that @Double sharp: has concluded from this discussion that Flerovium is to be considered a PTM [7]. I'll implement this outcome al around (e.g., PT templates), just hoping that this outcome is stable (no reversal expected). I have no opinion on the discussion itself. -DePiep (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd expect it to be stable, so thanks for implementing it.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

I noticed the article has made it to GA while having a mixture of British and American English spelling. This is not really ok. Per this revision, it had UK spelling so I will standardise on UK. It doesn't really matter, but it can't have both. --John (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

DS has set the infobox into |engvar=en-GB. Only phosphorus is in en-GB too. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Writing quality

I removed a large amount of very poor writing, and was reverted with a cheeky comment. The main thing is "however"; per WP:EDITORIAL, this is to be used with extreme care, not sprinkled about as it was. --John (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists, possibly inappropriately undermining the validity of the first statement while giving undue precedence to the credibility of the second." ... and so I only left the ones that were intended to imply this relationship (where it existed). Agree that it was overdone at first, but I don't think it's really necessary to remove them all. Double sharp (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

For example: "Initially, by analogy with the neutron magic number 126, the next proton shell was also expected to occur at element 126, much too far away from the synthesis capabilities of the mid-20th century to achieve much theoretical attention. However, in 1966, new predictions arrived that expected the next proton shell to occur instead at element 114." This opposition is indeed in the source (Fricke), which notes that "The situation changed" in 1966, so that while previously "studies of possible superheavy elements did not receive much attention", "[t]hese results [of 1966] stimulated extensive theoretical studies on the nuclear properties of superheavy elements." So I think some of these "however"s have a place. They imply a relationship between those two statements, which is (at least in the cases where I retained the word in my partial revert) confirmed by the sources. Double sharp (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the contradiction is just as obvious if we merely state the first idea then the one that superseded it. It is obvious to the reader that the one contradicts the other. It's a matter of style, and good style dictates giving the reader credit for some degree of intelligence. Thanks for digging out the source; I note that it does not use "however" but states that the situation changed. We could do something similar here. --John (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm totally OK with stating that the situation changed~without using "however", as in the source. What I'm not so certain about is leaving it completely unsignalled – to me then it sounds like a series of facts without a link, even when there ought to be one. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I totally take that point. Maybe I have become over-sensitive to it but I have definitely come to see however as a sign of bad writing. --John (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am quite pleased with this; shorter, clearer, underlines the contradiction, doesn't use "however". What do you think? --John (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like it. Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hazard

Doesn't the second part of the following apply to all radioactive elements? And what does it have to do with ocurring naturally?

Ununquadium does not occur naturally, but if enough was created and put in one place it would create a radiation hazard.

Tuf-Kat 08:45, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. It is just a statement saying that the element does not exist in nature - it is made by people using machines, not by natural processes. Please edit as needed. --mav 09:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I object; this element is easily made by supernovæ, hypernovæ, and neutronium collisions. lysdexia 08:55, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've tidied up this whole section, making it clear that the element is synthesized as opposed to dug-up from the earth. I've also made it clear what the isotope that is (theoretically) in the island of stability is all about. - Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.1.92 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2005