Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

vn-5This user talk page has been vandalized 5 times.

Superheavy elementEdit

Hi. I was wondering if you were interested in looking into improving superheavy element after you're done with island of stability. I recently saw an interesting article that I think would make a great addition to the topic; the article was about how this research is of little practical interest and the difficulties (primarily, financial) it faces because of that. The article is in Russian, but I could send you what Google Translate can make out it, regardless of whether you will do it or just would be curious to read the article. This motivated me to add that at first but I have my hands full and I thought this may be interesting for you.

@Double sharp: you may be curious to read this as well.--R8R (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: I would certainly be interested in taking up that project in the near future (provided that this semester doesn't prove too tasking). As a matter of fact, this would be a perfect opportunity to include some other information I read about superheavy elements—as island of stability deals specifically and exclusively with nuclear properties, this is the other half of the puzzle. Now I am curious about this article, and even if it's a machine translation, I'll still see if I can integrate it. Thanks for sharing this! ComplexRational (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@R8R: I for one am interested too – even as I stand frustrated enough with writing a lede for the properties section of Al that I have half a mind to just start spamming out about the chemistry and go back to that later... Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Great! As a matter of fact, I did have the impression this article was a translation from English, and now I have found the original text. Bloomberg is an appropriate place to complain at the expense of this, isn't it? :)
Definitely worth mentioning if we compile a section describing difficulties of SHE research. ComplexRational (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
(later addition to this thread) I just found the entire issue of Bloomberg Businessweek in which that article was published, it's here. It's a special issue dedicated to all of the elements; not all elements get their individual articles (the original article covers all from 93 through 118). Some elements are labeled off into small boxes as "(mostly) useless" and some are described in small boxes titled, "What if you eat it?", which shows not all elements are treated very seriously (the bit about polonium is the best reflection of that). Perhaps one could entertain themselves with this for a while.
I don't know if I'll ever use it again in an element article (it is good to make the point that production of superheavy elements is expensive), who knows, but since I mentioned the article in this thread, I think it would be appropriate to share the whole issue it was in.--R8R (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hmm...the bit on SHEs was an interesting read, thank you. It does make a few important points and has some nice trivia, but it admittedly is not as serious and has a few inaccuracies (e.g. "an extra-stable titanium isotope with six more neutrons than standard titanium"; 54Ti is certainly not extra-stable and 44Ti is certainly not standard titanium). On that note, I'm not completely sure what to make of it, but the whole issue could be a nice thing to read on the side. ComplexRational (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It comes as no surprise that the issue is not consistently correct as I was able to find two errors in the original material alone: the Japanese researchers were not after element 112, they were after element 113; and credit for discovery of element 102 is not shared between Berkeley and Dubna but is rather assigned to Dubna alone. Still, there may be certain things that you haven't considered but you can now that you've read about them (like how I had not considered the cost of the SHE production), and you can look them up now that you know they exist and may be of interest. I'll see if that could be the case for any element I'll write about in the future, that's what I'll make of it. Maybe you could find this idea worthy of consideration, too.--R8R (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad we are on the same page here! To contrast this, however, I should mention that I've heard Oganessian say that while these experiments are expensive, they also lead to good by-products, like the experiment on element 118 also gave us some cool material, some kind of a nano-fiber..? As you can see, I have clearly forgotten the details, but I think this should be interesting for you as well. This should not be to difficult to find and correct what I obviously remember incorrectly: Double sharp sent me a bunch of videos from Dubna and asked me to watch them and tell what was in those videos, and this was mentioned in one of those, so I'll later check it up and tell you what it is exactly in that video. Ping me if I haven't done that in a couple of weeks.--R8R (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you still have the links? I could even email Double sharp later – this will indeed prove interesting. ComplexRational (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be User talk:R8R/Archive 5#if only I could understand Russian. Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that's precisely it. I found it in video 2, the roughly one minute long part that starts at 6:15. I will transcribe it to you later.--R8R (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So, for a bit of a context: this is a report from Saturday news, where big events from the week are recollected and analyzed more scrupulously than in a typical news report. These news contains extensive (by TV news standards) reports, 5 to 10 minutes long. This one was dedicated to JINR and specifically Oganessian, after whom an element had been named recently.


Host, narrating the clip: "During the reconstruction of the material history of our Universe, scientists operate with another beautiful image: a ship that goes across the ocean of high science but catches into its net a lot of various things, seemingly marginal but very useful in practical life. Foe example, next to the big accelerator works its younger brother. Here, a phrase that is not very common for our science is heard: profitable production. Business? Raw material? (Oganessian and the host approach a handful of transparent film rolls) Well, just some kind of film like any other. I tried to get impressed. (Host, into the camera, behind a sheet of film) "And we can even look through it." And here, at the next display stand, Oganessian shows us the extra zoomed in photo of a human hair and to the same scale, holes that result on the same film after special treatment. The diameter of the holes is 1 micron! And, for example, the diameter of bacteria is 40. Turns out, it's a membrane! (Oganessian) "You can drink water from a puddle. You can be absolutely calm. Not a single bacterium will pass." A great invention both for the army and for medicine. And what gave birth to this? Works for this very oganesson did. And to think that just a thousandth of a second of lifetime, just one atom per month! That's, by the way, why all properties of this new element still have not been studied. And scientists all across the world study them. And even now Dubna does not break its relations even with America." From there, Oganessian says that the difficult relations between our countries are not a problem for the JINR and takes delight in that, but the part that you're most interested in here is over.
So, this is not a lot, but I could sometime look closely about this film and what it has to do with oganesson if you're curious. Well, I am, so I will, but you asking me to do it can speed that up a little.--R8R (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: definitely, save the lead text for last. A lead section is supposed to summarize the article, and to summarize an article, you need the said article, right? Same goes here. At first I tried the more intuitive approach: lead first, details second. It didn't go well because I wrote the lead section without too much knowledge and then I got the knowledge, and I was eager to add that, some things were worth adding, some were not, the list of what I wanted in the lead section changed constantly, and it had to be touched upon over and over. So just forget about it for now and by all means, feel free to do the spamming.--R8R (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@R8R and Double sharp: I assume this project means converting superheavy element from a redirect into an article? If so, I'll start some outlining and drafting. ComplexRational (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't realize superheavy element was not an article of its own. There is generally little non-overlap between the superheavy elements and the transuranium elements, so I think it's better to develop the existing article.--R8R (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Probably transactinide element will be our target then. Transuranium elements also include 93-103, so I am thinking of boldly retargeting superheavy element there as that is the precise term. ComplexRational (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
(Talkpage stalking) Allow me to note: Island of stability is under peer review only now. After that, we need User:CR to make it an FA ;-). Only then CR is free to spend time elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Come to think of superheavy element, I remembered an old graph that once was in tennessine (back when it was called ununseptium) that may be useful for the article should we discuss decay modes closely. The work on which this graph is based accounts for alpha decay, cluster decay, and cold fission. The work itself is easy to find in the internet for free.--R8R (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Maybe that would be useful to demonstrate increasing stability towards alpha decay, but that graph is almost certainly wrong when considering total half-lives – namely the importance of SF and β branches – both of which will likely be the most significant decay modes once alpha decay partial half-lives increase several orders of magnitude beyond N = 184. I thus wouldn't advise using it unless we somehow can tie it to something specifically about alpha decay. For a more complete and correct picture, I always find myself rereading this presentation; its model of all decay modes is not unreasonable and is the most complete set of predictions I can find. I'm not sure if we can upload files of those graphs, though. ComplexRational (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Talking about alpha decay, at least to some extent, was what I had in mind. I begin to think whether superheavy element should have a section titled "Introduction" at all, although this is not a proposal to remove the content; merely to split the section. On the other hand, "Introduction" sounds inviting, that's a good reason to keep it... I'm pondering this. Regardless, what you got from JINR is indeed better (thank you for sharing), that will be very useful. I don't think there will be problems; realistically, we may have to change the color scheme in case there are overly cautious Wikipedians.--R8R (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the content of that section looks pretty good as is, only I wouldn't consider it "introduction". Once we do some more work on the article, I'd rename the section "synthesis" (or as a subsection of a section "synthesis") that explains how SHEs are synthesized. This would then be parallel to sections about history (which I started expanding but am lagging on), chemical properties (a rework of the bottom), and decay modes & nuclear stability (including some of these charts, as well as information from several other articles explaining the models). We can outline this more on the article talk page, and I shockingly might have extra time to work on this in the midst of this pandemic (all my classes are online only for at least a month now). (That said, stay safe, and best wishes.) ComplexRational (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
And regarding images: the main question is, are these considered simple enough or hard facts that they fall automatically into the public domain? Or could there be licensing for these slides (worst case, we might have to wiggle our way through fair use)?
I also recall a while back studying these charts extensively and creating my own version of File:Superheavy_decay_modes_predicted.png using KTUY data (when I had a lot more free time and nothing better to do), but that would likely inherit the copyright (or lack thereof) of the sources from which the data is derived. Plus, though of course I would never fabricate data, I can only give my word that it accurately represents the same information as the slides. ComplexRational (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The existing section is certainly not bad, but I don't yet have a picture in my head of what's the final result of superheavy element is going to look like. The question is, there are currently two subsections; should they remain together? The section attempts to cover the entire lifetime of a superheavy nucleus, but the existing text does not yet mention how chemical (or physical) experiments are run, and that, too, is going to need space. And one section may be too lengthy for this, so we'll need two; but if there are two, it may be that we will need greater distinction between them: the current section is a continuous story and we may need two separate, even if interrelated, ones instead. But do we want to lose that great continuous story? A Synthesis section would need to pay more attention to details like cross sections... there is a lot of room for thinking here.
As for when we start to work on it: I am not entirely sure when that will happen exactly. It will, have no doubts about that, but I don't know when. First of all, I feel a little held back by how there's an FAC that's about to begin and thus it feels like I can't really focus on anything else (but for the time being, it keeps not beginning and thus has me waiting). But soon that's going to stop to matter as much because soon I'm going to have to finish off my master's thesis, soon the final examination period begins, and this is likely to keep me busy for a while. And as for what I promised to you, history of the periodic table comes before that. It can be debated if you want to but then I'm not sure I'll get back to it in the end (though I'd want to, so let's keep the tasks in the original order).
That's fine, let's get Hs through FAC first (how long do you think until we can start?) and then we'll check in on history of the periodic table. If I find any good resources in the meantime, I'll post them here or at the article talk pages. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's say I hope soon enough :) I'll be curious to read what you'll get, if anything. I have yet to think how to integrate those links I added to Talk:History of the periodic table (I recall you sent me some of those even if I don't remember which ones); feel free to add more to that list.--R8R (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your concerns; stay healthy yourself! (How long has it been since you last washed your hands?) I generally think I'll be fine but taking precautions like washing my hands more often and not touching my face is still a good idea; I hope you think the same. As for me, the change has been that I no longer have to go to work because I work from home instead. I also don't have to go to the university, but I get my tasks to do via the internet instead... all of this doesn't result in much additional spare time for me, unfortunately.
Yes, these are good precuations; I say the number one thing right now is constant vigilance (and not too long ago did I sanitize or wash my hands). Spare time, of course though, does not always translate into extra productivity here unfortunately: if I still have my exams combined with the difficulties of doing everything from home, I'm still not sure how much substantial content I can contribute while we ride this out. But I'll try my best, and good luck on your thesis and exams when the time for those arrives. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I recently read an article on sanitation: different children had their hands cleaned by different things: some by soap, some by nothing, some by hand sanitizer, some had touched their laptops, and there was a control sandwich not touched at all. Then were asked to touch sandwiches. Those sandwiches were packed and kept away from light for a month. The sandwiches were all covered by ugly bacteria, and the bread looked very far from edible. Two exceptions were the untouched control sandwich and the sandwich touched by children who had washed their hands with soap. Surprisingly (for me), hand sanitizer did not perform well at all. You may want to keep that in mind (the experiment has been described here). Presumably you'll still do more than I will in the next couple of months. Thank for your wishes; I'll make it, it's just going to take some time to get there, but I am confident in the upcoming success.
I still prefer soap and water as much as possible. And though things are deteriorating all around, I think we'll make it okay. ComplexRational (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on my past experience with images, I think they don't fall into the public domain but they have data that can be redrawn and published under any license good enough for Commons. (Not necessarily by hand, of course, but making it visibly different to represent the same data should be enough. The thing susceptible to copyright here is design, not the data itself.) Have that in mind but don't worry too much about it.--R8R (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
We'll work on this further then. I'll have to dig through my older files, and I can email you said image if you'd like to take a look (the design is not at all aesthetic, it mirrors the other file I mentioned using different numerical data). ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd be curious to take a look; I drew some pictures a while ago myself but they were lost with the previous laptop.--R8R (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I emailed it two days ago. ComplexRational (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Electron configurations past 121Edit

Do you think we should change the infoboxes to show multiple possible configurations there? Because there isn't agreement once 121 is passed... Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I'd say so, following the same rationale to avoid UNDUE weight. For 122, I think RS agree that it's one of two possibilities (120 + 7d1 8p1 or 120 + 8p2). For 123, there are also two possibilities said to be extremely close in energy level, though that's still in userspace for now. In the cases of 124 and 126, I don't recall exactly how many possibilities were published, but I'd say we should include them all unless one is clearly favored among independent studies. And for each of these elements, we should still probably omit Aufbau because if there's one thing our sources agree on, it's that Aufbau breaks down after 120. ComplexRational (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Aufbau can probably be kept in discussion, as V.I.Goldansky predicted it in early days of the subject. (Only have second-hand ref from Fricke 10.1007/BFb0116498). But since nobody thinks it will be accurate, I'd say not to put it in the infobox, just to say in the text "configurations blah blah have been predicted for E124, all are different from the [Og]5g48s2 Aufbau gives you".
That's what I had in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Come to think of it, though, isn't this precisely the situation similar to the categorisation one where there isn't consensus among sources? In which case maybe instead of cluttering an infobox we could write "predictions vary" and point to the text? Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
They are indeed very similar situations after 120. I wouldn't oppose saying "predictions vary" for 121+ in the infobox; the articles already explain somewhat how predictions vary. ComplexRational (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe 121, then, since it seems all calculations expect [Og]8s28p1? Double sharp (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I read one source predicting [Og] 7d1 8s2 as the ground state, but the majority agree on [Og] 8s2 8p1 and the former as a low-lying excited state. I'll see if I can find that, but 121 looks to have just enough of a consensus in any case to remain undisputed in the infobox. ComplexRational (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Should we maybe do something about Electron configurations of the elements (data page) and the table in Extended periodic table too? I'd say the latter should be replaced by something giving all possibilities; the data page should probably be curtailed at 121 or maybe even 118 where the known elements end... Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I definitely agree that the latter should include all possibilities. We can do that by giving an inline citation for each prediction (thus having several in each cell), or if there are several sets of predictions from independent sources, we can give a column for each and include an "other predictions" for special cases (e.g. the one paper specifically on 123). I feel more inclined to go with the latter, in which case we can even include Aufbau for comparison if appropriate. As for the data page, I'd say to stop at 120 (maybe 121): 120 is pretty much always predicted to be 8s2, 121 I'm not sure about, and after 121 different sources definitely diverge. ComplexRational (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
P.S. I wish there were more cites for the Aufbau configurations and how high energy they might be. So far I only found it for 121. Because I do want to know: how bad is the electronic repulsion in the 5g shell? Madelung is not really dead at 121 because [Og]5g18s2 is still at chemically low enough energies, but the horror story would be if 5g interelectronic repulsion was so bad at some point that, say, a neutral 126 atom as [Og]5g68s2 would spontaneously ionise. I don't know of anyone who has addressed this (must be hard) but I'd consider it the real failure of Aufbau, following Jorgensen's idea about irrelevant irregularities. I guess it must be somehow considered dead in the water around the high 130s as 8s drowns into the core before the period's over and 5g stubbornly clings to life a while longer. Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Relevant paper. A second is 10.1063/1.1672080. Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I was only able to find a copy of the second, which I will soon read through in full. Do you know where the first is available? ComplexRational (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I can email you a copy. ;) Though I think you'll have to send me something first, so I can reply and attach. Double sharp (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sent you an email. ComplexRational (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Sent it. :) (Though it seems to not consider the 8p states.) Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, the articles have been done. Now I guess we have to collect all the variants for Extended periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully better now, with all the variants. In a few cases, for consistency I assumed a bare "8p" meant "8p1/2". Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Looking good, and yes, your assumption seems correct. Would it be possible, though, to cite each predicted configuration inline so it's clear exactly who predicts what? I think that might be clearer to readers (or perhaps future GA/PR/FA reviewers) than 6–7 sources in the table header, and if presentability is a concern, we could add a separate "ref" column on the right. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
It's probably better, yes. But maybe a bit later, I'm a bit busy. XD Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I could even work on it in a few hours, when I'm (temporarily) a bit less busy. But no hurry either way. ComplexRational (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC) still on and off busy... ComplexRational (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have access to this? (If you don't, I have it also.) It's quite an interesting old speculation on elements 164 and 184. Double sharp (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find it; thank you anyway. I'll read it as soon as I have the chance. ComplexRational (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting reading, especially when considering what has stayed the same and what has changed in predictions in the last 50 years. My main takeaways are these:
  • Am I correctly reading that 164 was predicted to be capable of reaching +10 and +12 oxidation states? If so, that might be worth a mention since we talk about it for other elements that likely will not materialize anytime soon... if at all...
  • Probably because it was published in 1971, it seems that they still thought Aufbau would apply through period 8, as 164 is referred to as dvi-lead and a 168-core rather than a 172-core is mentioned. This is quite curious because Fricke also published his table in 1971, which is much more inline with modern predictions, and they even challenge Fricke's predictions about 164. Perhaps also a few things worth mentioning about the history and structure of the extended PT.
  • Seeing as they presumably used Aufbau, are the predicted electron configurations (even though 172 doesn't include 6g per Aufbau) still usable for the table in extended periodic table, in which I started moving the citations inline?
Thanks again for sharing this. ComplexRational (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The Fricke and Waber paper in Actinides Reviews actually cites this one. ;) That is the one where Fricke starts comparing it to palladium and platinum. But he cannot seem to make up his mind whether to place it in that group following the chemistry, or to formally assign it together with Hg in group 12. Then later Pyykkö chose the group 12 assignment; Nefedov, and later Kulsha, chose group 10. I think nobody who considered it disputes anymore that chemically E164 should be most of all a homologue of Pd and Pt; the question is, what bases for the PT are being used?
I am not sure this paper should be read as allowing +10 and +12 for 164. They say that +10 is where we reach both valence and energies outside chemical experience, and they assign to +8 only the most electronegative or oxidation-resistant anions. And they also say that it's a pity that nuclear instability stops oxidation states past +8 from being seen (so probably not 164 which was considered as a plausible magic proton number) – although immediately thereafter they predict it for 184.
The configurations look fine for use, they're similar to Fricke's. So, perhaps the idea was that even if the valence configurations would not truly match, you would still put up the table in Madelung order? Scerri suggested something like that quite recently. In a certain sense it is also semi-consistent, as already the trends make the 7p elements quite bad homologues of their 6p counterparts. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm in despair! The saga of validating superheavies has left me in despair!Edit

From IUPAP meeting minutes:


(For background understanding: this Nature article should explain it, as should Cecilia Jarlskog's original conference presentation.)

It strikes me as something that ought to be mentioned somehow as part of the history of the PT (maybe that article), as wasn't the whole TWG and later JWP put together as a response to the naming wars? And this did lead to some new criteria after all. (Also, that complaint deserves a mention; it will probably amuse the careful reader and is the reason for my section title. Just who do they think are running the experiments? XD) Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Should add: I think this stuff is mentioned briefly in my FA Nihonium, but I can't seem to find it anywhere else. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

definition of extended periodic tableEdit

Something that bothers me: does "extended periodic table" mean "a PT with period 8", or does it mean "a PT that has undiscovered elements added in at the end"? When 117 was not yet discovered, would it have made it an "extended" table to include it? When Seaborg talked about this in 1969 (‹See Tfd›doi:10.1021/ed046p626), showing an eight-period table to 168, there were only elements to 104. Does that mean 105 then was part of an extension? I guess, once 119 is discovered, surely it must get the standard PT and not the extended one...

The other thing I worry about: although the chemistry is pretty realistic and agreed among multiple sources, what that actually means for PT placement is not really agreed, isn't it? Much as I like the current form which Droog Andrey proposed (pinging him as a courtesy), I cannot help but worry about the appearance of UNDUE in showing it on articles like ununennium where the discussion of what to show past 5g doesn't matter, when not everyone agrees on it.

Pyykkö's format, though chemically rather silly in some cases (seriously, E139 and E140 are not good congeners of Nh and Fl by any means), seems to be more common in popularisation articles. And Scerri has seriously considered the idea of just showing Madelung anyway even this far. (Which is not exactly completely ridiculous if you think about how Og gets into group 18. Its valence configuration is not really 7s2 7p6; that is a fantasy, with 7s and 7p1/2 drowned deep in the core. It really has four electrons outside a noble gas core and is rather a good homologue of tin. But if one allows that – then pushing E168 into group 18 does not look that stupid either. Its valence configuration is equally not 8s2 8p6, it also has four electrons outside a core, and it is also rather a good homologue of tin. And in fact the reason why it is so – drowning of s and p1/2 orbitals – is even exactly the same. Supervalent hybridisation into 9s and 9p1/2, mediated by spin-orbit effects, is already analogous to hybridisation into 8s predicted possible with Lv. So, putting Madelung-like period 8 elements rather continues the sort of breaks from periodicity in period 7, rather than pushing to somewhere else. So I can sort of see why people would seriously consider it, even though I still think shoving 172 with its noble-gas-like properties under super-thorium 122 is looking ridiculous. Or maybe not, given flerovium under lead... anyway, I still think showing Aufbau there is mistaken, but I can see why people would make such a mistake.)

Should we perhaps stop the navbox like {{Compact extended periodic table}} at E138 (after eighteen 5g elements) where the agreement lasts till, and add a note along the lines of pl:Szablon:Pierwiastki chemiczne? We can keep the DA-like organisation in extended periodic table as even Fricke agrees on the expected chemistry of course. Double sharp (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

  Administrator changes

  TJMSmith
  Boing! said ZebedeeHiberniantearsLear's FoolOnlyWGFinley

  Interface administrator changes

  AmandaNP

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
  • A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
  • A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
  • There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

  Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo EumerusEdit

Hello, ComplexRational. You have new messages at Talk:Huaynaputina.
Message added 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

  Administrator changes

  AlexandriaHappyme22RexxS

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

  Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

  Administrator changes

  EnchanterCarlossuarez46

  Interface administrator changes

  Ragesoss

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)