Talk:Unbibium/Archive 1

Archive 1

VfD of 6 December 2004

from VfD:

Says nothing except that the element hasn't been discovered yet. How is this article useful?? 66.245.73.39 02:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: This article describes an element dat will someday be created. 24.16.236.255 04:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The atomic weight is predicted, as well as the ground state electron configuration, and the IUPAC-designated symbol. All useful information. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability is established. Eric119 02:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason that we voted Keep the last time these elements were placed on VfD by User:Trollminator. By the way, does anyone find it interesting that User:66.245.73.39's contributions demonstrate a sophisticated knowledge of Wikipedia editing and procedure for someone whose first edit was exactly two hours before he submitted this VfD? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This element was never placed here by Trollminator. The page was created on 2004-12-05, and just a few hours later was put on VfD. Eric119 06:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Is important. --Randy 02:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, that is interesting, Antaeus, but probably irrelivant, unless our Troll friend was banned. Was he? --L33tminion | (talk) 05:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously, for the reasons listed last time. ping 06:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. WTF? —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Thue | talk 09:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful, interesting. --Gtabary 12:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, for the roughly seven point two million reasons enumerated for the other systematically-named transuranics... Shimgray 15:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Yet another example of abuse of the VfD process. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's also interesting IMO that this article was created by another anon less than six hours before the VfD listing. It needs a little work. Both anons seem new here by their edit histories, and old hands by their expertise. Not sure what to make of it all. Andrewa 19:33, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, never should have been nominated. Wyss 00:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • So just ignore it. There's no need for anyone even to vote on this stuff. Remove the listing and take the tag off the page. Dr Zen 02:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You are advocating vandalism and abuse. Once a nomination has been made, people don't have to vote, but no one may make an early removal, either. Instead of scolding and shrieking, it's better just to register one's vote or let it go with no votes. Geogre 03:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course I am not. I am advocating the nonindulgence of same. I thank you for your advice on scolding and shrieking. I welcome the expert opinion. Dr Zen 04:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: IMO the other advice is inaccurate. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Unlisting a page from VfD. We only need to wait five days if the consensus is deletion. Once consensus is reached to keep or redirect, any wikipedian can take this action, and remove the VfD listing. Andrewa 07:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that it had been 12 hours, not 5 days. Notice also that User:Dr Zen advocated that another user, when he sees something that "should never have been nominated" to go ahead and remove the VfD listing. That is abuse and vandalism. It fits in with a long-demonstrated habit of this user to show up in a VfD debate only when there is a chance for a theatrical sigh over the horrors of people making a VfD nomination. An article's honor is not stained by having a VfD listing, and a clear keep will get keep votes. There is no reason to go about vandalizing the VfD page. Geogre 14:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Geogre, Andrew has directed you to the specific item of policy that says that one need not wait five days when a consensus to keep has been reached. I did advocate that and I'm delighted to note that it is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. If you feel the policy should be changed, argue for it in the appropriate forum, Geogre, but why browbeat us here with your point of view? Okay, you support spurious listings on VfD for whatever reason and believe it is in order that we should vote to keep articles that are listed again and again with no regard for prior consensus but you cannot claim it is "vandalism" to act in accordance with policy. I have to tell you, Geogre, that I join in debate on VfD for the same reasons as anyone else, to attempt to create consensus. My ideas of what that consensus differ from yours, that's clear, but imputing other motives to my participation is simply low.Dr Zen 15:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Read that policy, Ok? Really. Read it. Then I'll accept an apology. N.b. that twice you have gone to VfD vote sections in the last 24 hours to lodge a protest at the nomination, and yet you placed no vote. That was not an attempt to achieve a consensus, but, rather, another attempt at creating division. I have not taken part in the undiscovered elements discussion and would not have here except that you told another user simply to un-VfD at his discretion. That is not what policy says. Further, when early removals have taken place in the past, the votes have been unanimous. Note that this one is not. Further again, it is customary to allow some time. This prevents, oh, five people being motivated on a subject, like high schools, to come in and say that every high school is notable, no matter if the "article" is 3 words or not, and vote "keep" and then remove the VfD. Again, compare the policy to "There's no need for anyone even to vote on this stuff. Remove the listing and take the tag off the page." Only such staggeringly bad and improper advice could have prompted me to write at all. However, now that I have been forced to get into explaining the difference between "Remove the listing" and "achieve consensus and allow time," I have had to vote as well. Geogre 06:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You read the policy. It's been cited for you twice now. Go on, please. Dr Zen 07:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• What happens to this discussion? Article talk page? Can/should it be archived? Just deleting it with the listing seems rude. Should the would-be delister state that he/she will do it if no one speaks otherwise and then do it a day later?Dr Zen 07:55, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This discussion should be archived, so that we don't need to reinvent the wheel if the article is relisted. In this case, there is no existing talk page for the article, so the simplest thing would be to move this page there, and then edit it to explain what has happened. And yes, stating that in your opinion consensus has been reached and that the decision to keep will be actioned in 24 hours unless there is some objection in that time is a good idea IMO. Andrewa 12:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment 1: No matter what the result, this discussion page will be archived in accordance with the deletion process. If kept, the discussion should be linked to the article's talk page, not cut-and-pasted. Rossami (talk)
      • Comment: AFAIK nobody suggested cut and paste. As for the deletion process, I call your attention to the first word of the page, which is recommended. But I'm quite happy for the process to be followed if that's what you want. Andrewa 09:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Okay. There's a clear consensus to keep this page and I will remove this listing in 24 hours and archive the discussion, such as it is, absent an objection in that time. Can I request that any objection is framed within the bounds of the applicable policy and does not consist of simply stating that you don't believe the listing should be removed. This would entail a clear vote for deletion, with reason.Dr Zen 15:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I object. The policy states five days must pass. If you do remove it prematurely, then that is an abuse of VfD process. Eric119 06:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Read the policy, Eric. It doesn't say any such thing.Dr Zen 07:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, Bob, it does: Since you keep telling other people that you've been proven right but don't seem to have read it, I'll save you the time: "If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item. After the original poster has seen the explanation, or in any case after about a day, the page can be delisted from VfD."
      • "If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion"... how much clearer could that be? Keeping a page is without question another solution than deletion! I refuse to discuss this any further with you, Geogre. I'm finding it hard to believe that you are acting in good faith. Every article in the policy describes when you can delete, not when you can keep. I cannot find anything to suggest whatsoever that you cannot delist an article. There is even a section describing the process for doing so!Dr Zen 23:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • So, if "another solution has been found" other than keep or delete, then the de-listing can take place. This is for matters such as redirect or page moves (with redirect). It is not for "OMG! What a waste of time! This should never have been listed! Everyone should just de-list these pages!" Should I quote the passage that states that that is abuse? Geogre 14:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It appears the policy is hard to interpret. I think a revision is in order to make it clearer. Dr Zen says it can be removed early except for deletion, Geogre says it can be removed early except for deletion and keeping, and I interpreted it still differently. I never considered it to allow early delisting at all, until this discussion. My interpretation was that this was merely the process used when delisting something. Eric119 18:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Speculation and a name reservation. Best discussed on a list of undiscovered elements. Geogre 06:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Yet another timewasting VfD which is rapidly bringing the whole process into disrepute. Sjc 06:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment 2 (long): Wikipedia succeeds because it is guided by community standards. Those standards evolve as the community learns more about what it takes to write an open-source encyclopedia. The most important of our community standards are occasionally codified as "policy pages" but they are supplemented by the on-going discussions and precedents across the community.

Dr Zen is correct that a strict interpretation of that section of the Deletion policy page could allow the unlisting of an entry from VfD. We used to do that fairly frequently (back when the page was a lot shorter and therefore easier to monitor for abuse). Since that clause was last revised, there has been a great deal of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion and in various deletion discussion threads about whether and when a nomination can be unlisted early. The overwhelming consensus since then has been that the risks and damage of allowing a nomination to be unlisted early are far outweighed by the nominal costs of letting the nomination run its course. Geogre's reaction that an early and uncontrolled removal of a nomination could be interpreted as "vandalism" is reasonably consistent with the current community standard.

A couple of months ago, someone proposed changing the policy to match the current practice (effectively, no early removals of nominations). That suggestion was opposed as too restrictive. Several argued that we need the ability to remove truly obvious vandalism and trolling entries (such as when someone nominates the Main Page or the VfD page itself). Rossami (talk) 22:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Rossami. I haven't been around long enough to have been involved in every last discussion about this of course, but clearly the policy allows it. This is really as good a case as I think you'll get. It was listed by an anon, similar pages having passed VfD within, what was it, the last fortnight, by a very near unanimous vote, which saw the lister censured for listing them in the first place. The first half a dozen votes showed a strong consensus to keep and several referred to the previous vote on similar pages, a couple protesting the listing. I'd say that the community's standards are fairly well expressed in the two discussions on this and the previous page.

I certainly don't think it is "vandalism" to be bold. I would like to believe Geogre used the word out of genuine concern for the page and the process, but I find it very hard. It seems calculated to stir up the shit. I note that he doesn't show the same concern about the relisting of an article within a fortnight that failed to achieve a consensus to delete by roughly 50 to 6. Re-adding material to an article page when you are aware of a prior consensus not to have it included would be considered vandalism by most, I think.Dr Zen 23:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment for the record: I have never opposed early de-listing when there is overwhelming consensus for such. I would say that an overwhelming consensus exists here for an early removal, too. However, your comment, specifically, as stated, User:Dr Zen sure looked to me as if you were arguing that whoever, whenever, could just go ahead and de-list anything that "shouldn't have been nominated." That is not something for any user to determine, but rather something for all users to determine. Early removal is fine, but say so, give a chance for objections, honor strong emotions, as there's really no harm in letting a listing run its course if it has even 50% keep votes. It's not a "waste of everyone's time," either. You look at a listing, see that it has 50% or more "keep" votes, and move on to the next. Early removal should take place, IMO, only when the listing is actual abuse and not just a mistake. If you had been around longer, you'd have seen that I myself have advocated early de-listing before. Cautiously, though, and not "go ahead and do it." That is what drew my comment. Geogre 04:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay. We probably were talking at crosspurposes, Geogre, and I thank you for your comment. We probably are very close to agreeing on this issue. I feel that the difference is that I think that the "overwhelming consensus" can include considerations of similar articles. I agree entirely that there should be a chance for objections and strong emotions should be honoured. It is exactly because of respect for those objections and strong emotions that we are discussing this here, on the still extant listing, and not elsewhere. Meanwhile, Geogre, can I direct you to the deletion policy talk page, where I have made a modest proposal on a similar issue. I'd welcome your views as a keen participant in the deletion process. Dr Zen 05:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: In that the whole idea and only benefit of an early delisting is to save time, there's no case IMO for an early delisting of this. In hindsight the suggestion was counterproductive. Interesting. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. I am still uncertain if not-yet-discovered elements should be included. They are so far speculation, and the chance of their information being inaccurate seems higher than I imagine we'd want. I don't know if speculation belongs on the encyclopedia. Willing to listen to a good argument either way. --Improv 18:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep it. We'll need it when it's discovered, and in no time, we'll already have named it.
• Keep. It exists hypothetically as the 122nd element in the Periodic Table. --MPerel 00:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
• keep this isn't Unobtainium or Enigmatic Poly-alloy or Phlogiston Pedant 00:00, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

end moved discussion

VfD of 24 August 2005

• See: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Unbibium

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August, 2005. The result of the vote was merge to an unspecified target. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Untribium. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I've closed that one as a redirect, so in line with that I'm going to be bold and redirect to [systematic elemenent name]] for now. Please feel free to merge this and perhaps other elements into another article if you can produce a good article thereby. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

First superheavy element found in nature

[1] Kevin Baas^talk 14:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Marinov is just making up a joke. Element does not exist. --3.14159265358pi (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sensitivity

The sensitivity should be increased to 1 fb.

Sorry but without a link on "fb" or additional context this statement is useless. Someone with knowledge of the subject matter needs to explain what the sensitivity of what is being discussed? and what unit are those fb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.234.218 (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• fb is the unit of femtobarns. Barns are quite a common unit in nuclear chemistry. Mitchandre (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

better than femtobits! -lysdexia 05:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.120.247 (talk)

Femtobits? That doesn't make sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3.14159265358pi (talk • contribs) 22:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Island of Stability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Island-of-Stability.png disagrees with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Island_of_Stability.svg The proton number scale differs by 10. I am not competent to judge which of these is correct, so it's up to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisMaple (talk • contribs) 06:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither appears to be entirely correct. The png picture (starting at 70 and ending at 120) has "Stable 'Mountains'" in the right place but the "Island of Stability" in the wrong place. The svg picture (starting at 80 and ending at 130) has "Stable 'Mountains'" in the wrong place but the "Island of Stability" in the right place. Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, the scale is confusing...no, I was just confused. The .png is correct, though neither is actually used in the present article. Double sharp (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the Creation of a page for Unbibium

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached. The page has been recreated. I kept the rfc open for an extra day UtopianPoyzin (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

---

I'm a few hours in editing a Draft:Unbibium (Element 122) page, and was wondering, what's the consensus that the said page should even exist? Is it time yet? There is currently info on unbibium in the extended periodic table article, but I personally believe that unbibium warrants its own page and infobox even with the limited information we know as of now. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've let the Elements and Chemistry WikiProjects know about this RFC. For what it's worth, this is what the article looked like before it was redirected. shoy (reactions) 19:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've had some time to look over it, and I personally can't see why the article was redirected, especially using the rationale of an AFD from 2005(!). I would support restoring the previous article and allowing UtopianPoyzin to make edits to it. shoy (reactions) 17:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, well thank you! I still think that I'm going to leave the RfC up for a while to get more opinions on its recreation. I haven't actually voted yet, for it may be considered unfair if I put in a positive word for the article with me being the one to propose the RfC, but yeah, I'd love to revert the original article and work instead on that. In that case, I'll leave my draft how it is without making edits, and once there's a consensus, we can simply restore the original and edit that, for there is more work done there than on the draft.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Y Given the number of references and attempts to make Unbibium, I would say an article could exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• I'm just about okay with this one, since there have been published complete calculations focusing on it. However, I wouldn't support going beyond E122 yet. Double sharp (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• I find it unbelievable that the article has been redirected. I enthusiastically !vote for it to be back. --cyclopia^speak! 16:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Restore as article. Enough evidence of notability. Lack of evidence of existence is not relevant, the subject has been discussed in RS. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• Restore per above. I note that there have been no dissenting viewpoints expressed here. Restoration of previous article and further improvement seems slightly simpler than promoting the current draft to main space, but ultimately that is up to the preference of editor(s) who will be doing the super-heavy lifting. YBG (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't plan on wholeheartedly pursuing my draft and getting into mainspace, if that is what you are wondering. My main goal was to restore the previous article. I stopped edits on my draft once I put up the RfC, just in case I was able to work instead on the previous article and not have to recreated a draft from scratch. Yes, I will be restoring the original article and disposing of the repetitive parts of my draft that were also in the previous article. So far, I have received nothing but consensus, so with the amounts of votes for restore, I will do so. If for some reason a wave of people come and say against, then I'll just delete the article, but I don't predict that said event will happen. I will leave the RfC up for a while longer, but with all of these votes being cast, I will go ahead and restore the first article. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC lasts until October 2 or until the bot closes it. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

See Talk:Unbiunium#Sources. Double sharp (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't archive this as of yet. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)