Talk:Hassium/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 10:43, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:19, 3 July 2005). 3 July 2005

Huh?

"Hassium-270, a doubly magic isotope"

That has 108 protons and 162 neutrons. The magic numbers on the linked page are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126. 108 and 162 are not in the list. Ken Arromdee 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I was just about to say something similar, but you beat me to it. Another article on Wikipedia leads me to the same conclusion. --DachannienTalkContrib 08:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, i've just completed a course on applications of radioactive ion beams. Magic numbers aren't fixed when you're approaching the Neutron-rich & Proton-rich drip lines (theoretical limit of how many neutrons you can squeeze in a atom with fixed number of proton, and vice-versa). The classic magic numbers we see are based on stable elements and extrapolated for them. Things get really strange once you get near the drip lines: some magic numbers vanishes, new ones appear. Since I don't have my notes in front of me, I'm guessing this is what happening with Hassium-270. 154.20.57.153 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The magic numbers Z=108 and N=162 are predicted by calculations considering also higher orders of deformation and have been observed in recent Hs-experiments (e.g. 26Mg+248Cm) due to the relatively low alpha energy of 270Hs, compared with other Hassium isotopes (Z=108) and N=162 isotones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.187.9.241 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

I'd eliminate the subheaders in the History - they chop it up too much. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Talk:Hassium/R8R review. In construction.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sergenium

I just stumbled upon a text that said the molybdenite where sergenium was claimed to be found came from the peninsula of Çeleken, in Turkmenistan. A quick check shows there are molybdenite mines there. Still (former Soviet) Central Asia, not much changes, have no "official" ref to support my claim; even though as for me, I can easily imagine a Westerner confusing Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (although maybe it's because of Hollywood movies, whose producers have very serious geography problems if it's east from Germany).

Just sayin'.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Also see http://edu.glavsprav.ru/info/hs/ (Google Translate it). Request http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01666716 at ref desk if interested. And see http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-ex/0210039.pdf (supports Kazakhstan)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Kulakov, V. M. (1970). "Has element 108 been discovered?". Soviet Atomic Energy. 29 (5): 1166. doi:10.1007/BF01666716. should be included and the Cherdyntsev, V.V.; Mikhailov, V.F. (1963). "THE PRIMORDIAL TRANSURANIUM ISOTOPE IN NATURE". Geokhimiya (U.S.S.R.). 1: 3–14.
Thanks! Will read it and improve the article with it. (well, when I have time) Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, 2 vs. 1 on Kazakhstan, the 1 is not a published book or journal article; I'll use Kazakhstan for now, though what you say is very believeable... Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

277Hs

An anon. added this isotope, unref'd, w a half life of 12m. Just want to be sure it's not vandalism. kwami (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "un"ref'd. Who unrefd and where?! Why don't you do the proper research before you ignorantly obstruct these pages? -lysdexia 07:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.4.199 (talk)
There was no reference. I found one for 16.5 min. I don't have time to follow up every anonymous edit tweaking numbers to see if it's vandalism, which is why I added a comment here rather than simply reverting. kwami (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The ref is in Wikipedia's data page for isotopes, and its talk page. There's also Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.4.199 (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
@kwami: Could you add the reference for 16.5 min you mention? In the article, there is no reference given for it, except a "see ununquadium" - and that article does not mention the isotope in question. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, is it http://www.springerlink.com/content/f80mt423204570p8/fulltext.pdf ? Though they don't seem to mention this value as a half-life, only as the decay time for a single nucleus. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the 16.5 min figure is for a single event, the estimated half-life for 277Hs would be 16.5 ln 2 ≈ 11.4 min, naturally with large error bars. However, it seems that this data was actually for a metastable isomer, and not the ground state (which has been listed as having a half-life of 2 s). Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. But Isotopes of hassium considers this isomer unconfirmed and does not even list it in its table (instead another shorter-lived isomer is given). I think we should do the same here and remove it at least from the infobox and the equally prominent lead. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


The article on first reading is a well-written and relatively understandable. It may be difficult to understand for a reader with no previous knowledge of nuclear synthesis or transition chemistry but this is probably inevitable for an article of this type. More images would be useful, but all the current ones are either free or with an acceptable fair use rationale. There appears to be no major problems, and certainly not any quick-fail criteria, however there were one or two problems:

  • I added another picture. I don't think there are many other suitable places, though. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reference 23 is dead.
  • Reference 27 is not sufficient in the case of the link being lost.
  • The majority of the Natural Occurence paragraph is speculation and thus needs to be cited to a reliable scientific source.
    • Almost all of it (from "More recently, it was hypothesized..." to "...theoretically possible, but highly unlikely") is referenced by reference 40 (a journal article). Is the way I formatted it OK? Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Probably yes, but I added the reference to other sentences that appeared to be speculation and thus needed to be sourced.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Almost none of what it referenced to Nature's Building Blocks appears in my copy, however it is the 2002 edition and so the Hassium section presumably has been updated? Does it now have its own section and is not merely covered with the rest of the transfermium elements?
    • Yes, it does. Now every element up to element 127 has its own section in Nature's Building Blocks. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • One citation is not sufficient for the 270Hs: prospects for a deformed doubly magic nucleus paragraph - it may support the whole section, but as the full text is not freely available this must be specified.

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)




  • As per the previous comment, the last two paragraphs on gas phase chemistry require some more citations, as does the physical and atomic paragraph, particularly regarding the claim that it is twice as dense as the densest element.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:



Congratulations, we have a new Good Article. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

chemical and physical properties

To estimate density, a quick calculation can be done given known densities and information from the source cited previously (PhysRevB first principles calculation) to suggest the approximate density of hassium should be 26.2-26.9 g/cm3. Two routes: First, assume 269 amu mass of hassium and divide by volume of a sphere with radius of ~2.99 Rbohr (estimated Wigner−Seitz radius from paper), yields 26.9 g/cm3; Second, assume close packed structure (like hcp of osmium, paper suggests hassium will likely have hcp but fcc is also close in energy), and simply scale the osmium density by the difference in atomic radius and atomic mass such that density = (density of osmium)*(ratio of atomic mass)*(radii ratio)3 = 22.6 g/cm3 * (269/190.3) * (2.80/2.99)3 = 26.23 g/cm3. Any suggestion of a density greater than ~1.4*(density of osmium)=(~32 g/cm3) is unphysical at STP as that would require the atomic radius to shrink from osmium to hassium regardless of crystal structure since osmium is close packed. Jaco0810 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it decrease? There's an actinide contraction going on, so it seems possible.
Anyway, regardless of what you think of the cited value, the fact remains that the 40.7 value is cited to multiple reliable sources (some as recent as 2006), whereas your criticism, so far as I know, is not and is therefore original research. If you get it published, we can then include it in the article as an opposing viewpoint, provided of course that enough people agree with you that it wouldn't be undue weight to do so. But until then, we can't. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. After doing some research on the history of this particular prediction: Keller and Burnett predicted 28.6 in 1969, while in the same year Cunningham predicted 35. Fricke et al. reproduced the 28.6 value in 1971, but in a later paper from the same year give both the 28.6 and 35 value(!). Finally in 1974 they give their own prediction of 40.7 as well, and this value seems to be the most commonly re-quoted one. Unfortunately most studies now seem to be more concerned with predicting hassium's chemistry rather than physical properties. It's obvious why really: you can do some actual chemistry with hassium, but good luck getting bulk quantities to find melting point, boiling point, density, etc.! So as late as 2006 this value is still quoted (although often rounded off as just 41). I get the impression there isn't much interest in this particular prediction anymore. A pity really. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
You may note that I simply did a calculation of cited values and you are able to check my math. For the given atomic masses of Os and Hs, the radius needs to shrink nearly 8% to get the quoted density in solid state and I read the PhysRevB to show the radius increasing from 2.8 to 2.99 Rbohr. The problem with my calculation is that I mistakenly read the radii ratios as 5d and 6d (hence Os and Hs) whereas the figure is 4d and 6d. Utilizing Ru density etc you get that the density = 12.45 g/cm3*(269/101.07)*(2.99/2.8)^3 = 40.53 g/cm3, I assume they had better knowledge about the radii so that is consistent with the original 40.7 density. The original source that I can find is a publication by Seaborg & Keller in 1986 (earlier work in 1976) and has not been recalculated but re-quoted in the recent literature. Jaco0810 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, it is not impossible to get an estimated melting point from the quoted calculated modulus and density numbers, so yea, you can get those numbers but it is as you said, no one will have macroscopic amounts of the material so it is academic in most cases.Jaco0810 (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jaco0810: Ah, I see. Sorry for jumping on you, but due to problems with verifiability, we try to be very strict on sourcing. Calculations might pass the bar, as long as they are "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources" per Wikipedia policy – I think this corrected calculation, backing up what the sources say instead of giving a new opinion, would pass this bar (although the original one wouldn't, even if it were correct).
Yes, I meant that the 40.7 value was requoted, not recalculated. I should have been clearer!
(I'm incidentally very curious about how to get estimated melting points, as nobody seems to have calculated them for the 6d transition metals! If we have cited values for modulus and density, we could put it in with a note!) Double sharp (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the following text, which does not cite a source. If we really want to print speculation, we at least need a source for why this speculation might make sense.

It is predicted that hassium will be the densest element yet known, with a density exceeding two and a half times that of lead. This assumes that a measurable quantity of the element can be made, which is not possible at this time.

Kingdon 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted another edit about the density, which also does not a cite a source. Specifically, the text "estimated 41 g/cm³" in the elementbox and "Hassium is probably the densest element known, with an estimated density of 41 g/cm³." in the article (the latter was also poorly placed - next to the ref tag for the "Chemistry of Hassium" paper, although I saw no mention of density in that paper). If there is a reason to include this in the article, we need a source for the information. See WP:ATT for example. Kingdon 00:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Another question: Are there also predictions about the existence of an octafluoride HsF8? Its lighter homologue Osmium octafluoride is unknown until now, but the Wikipedia article about Meitnerium cites the possible existence of MtF9 (although very carefully), which would be isoelectronic with HsF8. So the existence of HsF8 is at least imaginable... --79.243.227.139 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not impossible. The only trouble is that it's cooler for scientists to publish papers speculating about the unknown oxidation state +9 than the known oxidation state +8, and so you see speculation about Mt(IX) but not Hs(VIII)! But spin-orbit coupling effects may destabilize it, just like it does for MtF9 and [MtO4]+ (which is why I added so many caveats as they may or may not be actually feasible or possible), so we might not have HsF8. Additionally the Hs atom is predicted to be even smaller than the Os atom thanks to the actinide contraction, so we may not be able to fit eight F atoms around it (it's at least possible for Os, even though it's not known): similarly for MtF9. Double sharp (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hassium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What exactly is the half-life of Hs-270?

The article contradicts with itself. In some places it claims that Hs-270 is the most stable isotope of Hassium, while in other places it lists Hs-270 as having a mere half-life of three seconds. Ahyangyi (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ahyangyi: The half-life of 270Hs was determined as 7.6+4.9
−2.2 s in 2012 when it was synthesised in the 226Ra+48Ca reaction at Dubna (10.1103/PhysRevC.87.034605), and I suspect the 10 s figure they gave in a 2015 retrospective (here) is simply this figure rounded off to not necessitate the inclusion of uncertainties in the table, since I can find no more recent one. The 3.6+0.8
−1.4 s value that was originally given in its discovery paper (10.1140/epja/i2002-10163-0 from the GSI using the 248Cm+26Mg reaction in 2002) was estimated based on the measured Eα = 9.16+0.07
−0.03 MeV, since the life-times of the alpha decays were not measured, and should be considered superseded (I have changed it). The current measurement uncertainties do not really allow a clear statement on whether 269Hs or 270Hs is more stable, although the latter is doubly magic. Double sharp (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thank you! It's great to see that we humankind are still making progress on this stuff! Ahyangyi (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ahyangyi: You're very welcome! I try to keep the superheavy element articles up-to-date and consistent and that wouldn't be possible without eagle-eyed corrections such as yours. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments

  • reactions that would generate the isotopes hassium-270 and hassium-264 -- it would be great to find what those reactions are (JWP report);
  • Also it would be great to learn about how their data was uncertain;
  • new experiments on hassium five years later -- did they still use those reactions from 1978 or was it something new?
  • the hassium-264 experiment -- which one?
  • officially discovered in 1984 -- it would be best to reserve these claims until we come to the JWP part;
  • This statement came in spite of -- this actually makes perfect sense and was not in spite of things if you consider they value priority of confirmation over priority of discovery;
  • an older suggestion of ottohahnium (Oh) -- was it even suggested for this element? who suggested it?
  • after the ancient city of Serik -- the journal Nauka i zhizn (p. 105) , when reporting the name of the newly discovered element 108, used the phrase tentative name "sergenium" -- "coming from Kazakhstan". From what I've found, it wasn't even Serik but rather Serica, which means "silk" in Latin and used to denote the distant land of China. Also, it is possible that Serica was a name for the Silk Road as a whole judging from how a part of the article from the quoted journal is called "Serica -- [the] Great Silk Road";
  • American scientists at the University of California, Berkeley -- I'd suggest scientists at University of California in Berkeley, California, United States
  • their claim was retracted [...] previous (fabricated) data -- it comes as a surprise that the claim was retracted because the data was fabricated. Either mention it back when you talk about how the claim was retracted or don't at all;
  • It wouldn't hurt to make sure we haven't missed any recent experiments on hassium chemistry.

It seems we really have a golden nugget in our hands here.--R8R (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

How Dubna first got off with their lead-based reactions (to add prior to FAC)

http://chemistry-chemists.com/N3_2012/U3/Sg.html

--R8R (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I finally found IUPAC's reason for refusing the name hassium: 10.1039/CS9962500219 says that they felt that Hesse was too obscure. (The author, Simon Cotton, nevertheless notes that Ytterby is also obscure, and so is Dubna, which IUPAC did suggest as the eponym for element 104 in 1994.) Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Added mine to the article (finally). Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@R8R: Do you want to add something from that site? Google Translate seems to tell me that it's mostly about Sg and how Dubna decided to start working on cold fusion – in which case I think it'd be more useful when talking about Sg, as that is the first one where cold fusion was used. But of course Google Translate might be misleading me. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I originally thought I'd go for a long story like in dubnium. However, it seems like I was able to fit myself into tighter limitations and still be satisfied with the result, which is great. We could still think have this one in mind (thanks for pinging me, by the way, I long forgot about this one) in case we go for Transfermium Wars later (what do you think about the idea, by the way? I was revisiting some info on this history and it seems like it could be a fun thing to do. If you're willing to go along with me, that is)--R8R (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
And yes, you are correct, that story is indeed about 106, not 108. But the point was, it was mostly about cold fusion rather than specific elements, or at least that's what I read from it. We could use that for a brief introduction in the likes of "People used to bombard heavy actinides with light nuclei until cold fusion was discovered." Again, as you can see, I managed to write this History without the need for such details.--R8R (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Pre-FAC preparations

  1. Finish check on if all ref are placed adequately and they seem to be valid;
  2. Check if all ref links work (there's a tool for that);
    All GSI links either do not work or pretend that they do only to reveal no content is there anyway. The rest are fine--R8R (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Did clean up minor tool remarks; als had to find three replacements (dead links). See history es's. Four GSI links still problematic. (Great tool). -DePiep (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    At the moment, four refs are not fine. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    Details below in #Misc. -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    DePiep, in case you're interested, more automated tools can be found at the page of last fluorine FAC, see the toolbox to the right. All those links used to generate in each new FAC but apparently this generation has been turned off.--R8R (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  3. Deal with the hassocene bit;
  4. Expand the lead section (something we should have done many years ago);
    We'll need some info about the known and projected nuclear properties for that section.--R8R (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    Thinking about what we might want to add to the lead section made me think it's already fine.--R8R (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  5. Check isotope data;
    Recently, User:ComplexRational has edited the Hs isotopes ([1], [2]). User:ComplexRational, can you say how correct the isotope data is? Does something need extra attention for FAC? -DePiep (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    CR has already brought our attention to this, for which I am grateful. But after having been notified, I think we'll manage. It really seems strange to me that a project that is essentially complete is gathering so much attention now, when the article essentially only needs final touchings. Right now this attention could be used elsewhere (history of the periodic table seems far more appropriate). R8R
    R8R, I am missing something? "... already brought our attention to this" -- I can't recall. This reads like I made a mistake, but which one? I honestly tried to point to the isotopes data checks as was asked for. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    DePiep, it is true that I left a note regarding this at User talk:Double sharp#Just checkin'. I will check all the sources tonight and tomorrow, probably working in my sandbox until I'm sure everything is correct (using Template:Isotopes summary which I created in March for these articles). ComplexRational (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    The table needs another check. Some errors have been introduced here (say, the discovery reactions for the heaviest isotopes). Also, why not move to NUBASE with all isotopes? The section is probably fine otherwise.--R8R (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    R8R, I just checked the table and corrected a few errors that I made when too hastily updating; it should be accurate now. The reason that I originally kept 275Hs and 277Hs data from other sources is that the most recent reports were published around the same time as NUBASE. For 273Hs, there is a 2018 paper with new data that obviously came after NUBASE, and therefore is the most recent source available. On another note, I found data for 263mHs and 277mHs in NUBASE, but could only corroborate the latter - I added this to the table, and it is not to be confused with the 277mHs activity that was tentatively reassigned to 278Bh in 2016. Feel free to check the sources ({{Thoennessen2016}} and {{NUBASE2016}}) again if you aren't sure. ComplexRational (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'm concerned about maintenance of this data, that's why I'm asking. The article will have become an FA by the end of the year at the latest. I'm worried about then. It will enjoy little attention from editors, I think, though I'll note others sometimes (but not too often) surprise me by paying the said attention. I think I will check just to get a better impression, but I'm generally fine with you being fine.
    I just re-read my previous comment, and my phrasing could've been better. For the record, I wasn't being mean or something and if my phrasing seemed passive aggressive, then I'm sorry, this was not the intention. (It is certainly not up for me to be mean about others paying little attention and I wasn't going to anyway :P)--R8R ~(talk) 17:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    As long as there are no errors now, only the periodic check for new publications (data) is necessary for maintenance - and given the slow rate of discoveries, I don't foresee many updates happening in coming months, but I will keep looking in case there is anything. And I probably would have been oblivious to my error had you not been eagle-eyed and pointed it out ;) ComplexRational (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    I think we're good. Thank you very much. I'm glad to know there are more people out there who would be willing to look out for isotopes.--R8R (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  6. Deal with problems below;
  7. Check ref formatting;

This seems to be it. Double sharp, please see if I missed something. I think the order is right, except the hassocene bit may come earlier.--R8R (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Check ENGVAR

  1. Check prose and ENGVAR (may require external input) as well as wlinking (should be on first occurrence without any duplication).
    @Double sharp: would you like to copyedit the article? You could also standardize the English variety to BrE. If not, we could ask for help from GOCE, but this may take up to a few months.--R8R (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    "standardize to BrE"? Is there a reason to change to BrE (en-GB)? AFAIK, it is in en-US and one should not change this freely, following MOS:RETAIN. -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    As far as I recall, there is no standard in place to retain and there should be one. Double sharp is the major author of this article and it would only be fair to stick to the standard DS uses, which is BrE. Somebody may need to sit down and see whether there was a standard before DS first took on this article. My presumption is that there wasn't.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    That's not how it works. MOS:ENGVAR is about actual language as used, not the editors involved. ENGVAR also expains that the defining language(-variant) can be determined from early versions. Article hassium started in 2001, the earliest edit by Double sharp was in 2012 (as Roentgenium111, IIRC, in 2009 incorrect, so moot. DePiep to the same effect). By then, the article was already mature (not a stub). Also that version had telling spellings like: utilize, thermalized, oxidized, synthesize. So it was establisehed as written in en-US by then. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    I do know how ENGVAR works and I'm sorry I was apparently unable to get my idea through. But if you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I do not contradict ENGVAR in any way, nor did your succeeding comment contradict me. What I said about fairness regarding Double sharp's contributions was said in presumption that a consistent standard had not been achieved by the time DS edited it for the first time. Quote, "Somebody may need to sit down and see whether there was a standard before DS first took on this article. My presumption is that there wasn't."
    Regardless, I did check the revision just before the first edit from DS. And we can see, for instance, that single quotation marks have been used, which is clearly characteristic of BrE. So there was no standard at that point, either.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    See also {{British English Oxford spelling}}--R8R (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    Writing "oxidiZe" in 2009 set(s) it to en-US. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    First of all, not necessarily, because some British texts are written in what is called Oxford spelling; it is a valid variety of BrE and according to its article, it is used by, for example, Nature and the United Nations. Second of all, I checked the 2009 revision you linked above and it actually uses the word "oxidising," so even if -ize was unambiguously American (which it isn't), no, still no consistency. (Also, Roentgenium111 is a different user than Double sharp. DS's previous alias was User:Lanthanum-138.)--R8R (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    Why would you or anyone claim that "oxidiZe" is BrE (en-GB)?, what line of reasoning is that or how does this help the question? Then, for this purpose Oxford English and British English are different variants (named en-UK and en-OED), not "en-OED is a form of en-UK. Of course, the 2009 version was just an illustration wrt your earlier point; it is moot. Together, all these points are minor and do not lead to an answer the of core question. I'll start a different approach. -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    BrE refers to British English. en-GB also refers to it. You may check again the article Oxford spelling and see that its code is actually not en-oed; it is en-GB-oed or, more recently, en-GB-oxendict. Even this shows that this is merely a variety within BrE. British English with Oxford spelling does not constitute a separate dialect of English, just like, to put it into proper comparison, British English with IUPAC spelling. To the different approach we go.--R8R (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    MOS:ENGVAR is clear about how to establish the language variant. But I expect that when I follow its line, there still may come distractions not improvements popping up. So I propose this: R8R, if you apply MOS:ENGVAR here straightforward, what is the result? -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'd first of all notice that there wasn't been a period of time when there was an unambiguous usage of a certain variety of English. The rule does suggest one should not change the article from one variety to another but in my estimate there has not been a variety to move from. Therefore, we are free to choose one at our liking, be it British English, British English with Oxford spelling, American English, Australian English, Indian English, South African English, Ugandan English. All are valid and good, there is no preference toward or discouragement from one or another.
    Since we are free to choose, I believe we should do Double sharp the courtesy and choose DS's preferred variety. This perfectly complies with the fact that DS is the leading author of this article.--R8R (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    No, we are not free to choose. There are earlier limiting facts. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    I will appreciate it if you name a single such factor. So far, two previous revisions have been mentioned but none turned out to be consistently in a particular English variety, so neither proves anything. It seems there hasn't been anything else to support the idea of "earlier limiting facts" so far, either. There's no earlier limiting factor I can think of. Feel free to prove me wrong by naming one.--R8R (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    Those have been named in this thread, above. I don't know how you can conclude that "there wasn't been a period of time when there was an unambiguous usage of a certain variety". What diff(s) are you referring to? You saying "there has not been a variety to move from" is incorrect, as your own (counter-MOS) edits proves: [3], [4], [5]. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    I've re-read the thread and I'm still failing to find them. Would you be so kind and repeat them for me? Surely it's not difficult for you since you must know what you're insisting on.
    What I said back then does not in the slightest disprove my point. I said there was no established variety and that's why back then I didn't feel obliged to follow any particular English variety so I chose AmE, the variety I have consistently used before and since. I wouldn't use any other unless I had a good reason for that and there was no established variety back then, either.
    Please explicitly name a specific reason to stick to AmE.--R8R (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    My 17:42 post listed a clear variety (albeit in a 2012 version, i.e. too young). This proves that there was an established version. This is why I asked how you can conclude different ("there has not been a variety"). re your "What I said back then": I point to the fact that you had to change (edit) away from a variant while stating here that there is no variant. As it happened, you had to change 19 words away from en-US [6].
    In general, MOS:ENGVAR works as follows (I'm sorry I have to talk this way, but it is because you keep wandering away from simple ENGVAR logic): the variant of English is the one that appears first in or after the non-stub version (no national ties exception here). There is no use in creating doubt or obfuscation where there is none. And re these 19 edits editsummary: it was incorrect of you to conclude consensus. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't. And I actually said how so in the very next message: that 2012 revision uses 'single' (rather than "double") quotation marks at one point, which are clearly characteristic of BrE. We haven't even touched how BrE and AmE differ in respects other than spelling and word choices, and there's more to it, so a claim that states that an article is in AmE (or BrE, or any other variety) would need more backing than just spelling check. Regardless, that claim has been shown wrong. Do you have another one, preferably with a stronger backing?
    Well, you know, we are again running into the same problem as in February when you put words in my mouth (in addition to you ignoring my previous words---there was no response and you act as if those words never were at all---as I mentioned in the previous paragraph), either by misconduct or by little attentiveness (my bet is on the latter). So let's set the record straight. I did not conclude consensus and I did not claim that I had (feel free to prove me wrong: find me saying "consensus" at any point). My reasoning there was that there was no standing reason to pretend this article was ever in AmE (if you claim that again, I will challenge you to more checks than just spellings). You mentioned a 2012 revision, but I immediately showed how it was not consistently in AmE. You mentioned a 2009 revision and I did the same. This exhausts the list of your specific claims, and they all have been successfully challenged. There was no backing to the claim, it was disproved during the discussion. So that discussion led us to the default route: there is no current variety, there needs to be one. And one I picked.
    If anything, I'd like to ask you: this thread was inactive from July 8 through July 21, when I made the changes. That's a thirteen days long period. I took it that if you had had anything to say, you would've long said what you wanted, and I made the change. And then you come up again saying that there was no consensus (that was never claimed in the first place), which is, to be frank, rather rude. Was I supposed to specifically check if I could finally have your explicit blessing at the change? Is every other editor who disagrees with you supposed to do the same? Because when you keep silence after a discussion until something you don't like occurs as a result of that discussion and then make oppose it, this is rather annoying, because this essentially means none is never free from you reverting an edit if you don't like it even if you say nothing during the discussion.
    Again, please read the part of this post that relates to the original discussion. Do you have anything to make your point that there ever was a non-stub fully-AmE revision? Let's set a timeline of seven days for you to find a revision that has only American spellings, American punctuation, American words, and American phrasings, or at least one that does not use anything British of those. Speak now or forever hold your peace.--R8R (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    OK, I'll revisit the whole thread, aiming at questions open and (my) conclusions. However, this may take some time, not today also b/c RL activity. -DePiep (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    I hope everyone will be fine with concluding the result of this discussion on Monday, one week after the original date of ending the discussion.--R8R (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    Courtesy ping: @DePiep: Double sharp (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    Working on this. -DePiep (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Recap of my ENGVAR conclusion, and replies to R8R.

  • Purpose of this thread is to establish wich version of English is used in the article, as prescribed per MOS:ENGVAR. If such a version can be detected, apply consequences (edits) if needed. MOS:ENGVAR says, in its first paragraph:

The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other. These varieties (for example American English or British English) differ in vocabulary (elevator vs. lift), spelling (center vs. centre), date formatting ("July 26, 2019" vs. "26 July 2019"), and occasionally grammar (see § Plurals, below).

Subsequent subparagraphs deal with:
Consistency within articles -- OK
Opportunities for commonality -- Cannot fully be achieved; ignored
Strong national ties to a topic -- Not relevant here; ignored
Retaining the existing variety -- OK. Says: "use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety."
That RETAIN rule is what we are up to. We are looking for a first variety definition in a non-stub version.
Here is a selection of the edit history, picking various interesting points in time (versions). I have not checked every version, nor every telling word. The Infobox element shown may be out of date (i.e., it shows different today from what it was back then).
  1. 2001-09-15 (272 bytes). Page created. Stub obviously.
  2. 2003-01-01 (1,039 bytes: over 1k). - no tellings
  3. 2004-01-01 (3,153 bytes). - "synthesiZed"
  4. 2008-01-28 (5,089 bytes, first time over 5k). - "oxidiZes"
  5. 2009-01-01 (26,116 bytes, huge expansion in 2008). - "oxidiZes, synthesiZed, thermaliZed, oxidiZed"
  6. 2012-01-01 (33,087 bytes). - "utiliZe"
  7. 2013-01-01. Good Article - "honor, honored"
  8. 2014-01-01.
  9. 2017-01-01 (52,279 bytes). - "synthesized, characterized, theorized, crystallize, ionized, thermalized, oxidized, hypothesized, utilize, recognized"
  10. 2019-07-21, -22 R8R es: "moving toward BrE as per talk". 2019-07-22 DePiep, Revert back to en-US (shows some 19 changes).
While there might be a minor discussion about which exact version is the first non-stub version (somewhere before 2009-01-01 I'd say), but this is irrelevant.
I state: given the telling words, the first variant-identifying version was written in en-US (American English). From the list: "synthesiZed", "oxidiZes", "synthesiZed, thermaliZed, oxidiZed". By writing "ioniZation", the variety could be Oxford English (en-OED) too, but this is annihilated when writing non-OED words like "honor" (OED: honour). en-GB (British English) is ruled out easily because en-GB tellingly spells "-ise". I have not met claims for other varieties.
  • Replies to User:R8R. In this thread, R8R has made several arguments that, IMO, do not apply and so do not & can not change the variety (into en-GB).
A. re As far as I recall, there is no standard in place to retain and there should be one. (16:31). However, as the diffs show, a variety was established as early as 2003. After my reply, R8R keeps ignoring my statement: My presumption is that there wasn't [a variety standard]. I think it would be very helpful here when R8R clarifies whether he maintains that there is or is not a variety established as per ENGVAR.
B. re some British texts are written in what is called Oxford spelling (i.e., use -ize). Correct, but as I pointed out: when (since) writing "honor", the OED variety is eliminated. Further remarks made about OED are irrelevant wrt the ENGVAR point (No need to discuss whether OED is separate spelling or a sub of en-GB spelling).
C. I'd first of all notice that there wasn't been a period of time when there was an unambiguous usage of a certain variety of English. (18:57). As the diffs above show, there was. Then follows: DePiep: "No, we are not free to choose." R8R: "I will appreciate it if you name a single such factor." - see diff list above. re this point, diffs by R8R would be clarifying, especially since R8R claims that there is no variety defined. IOW, the burden of proof may lie with that claim.
D. Determining a variety is a simple process per MOS:ENGVAR. I do not understand why you (R8R) skipped that process, instead of applying it yourself (let's find that early version!). I even asked you to apply it. In this reply, you state that I am supposed to prove something, while the proof is open for everyone. Even better: since I pointed out that identifying "-ize" was used (en-US or en-OED then), per MOS:RETAIN you are to prove or propose that an other variety is to be used. I find this edit I made quite illustrative: to make your change you had to change some 19 words.
E. DePiep: "the variant of English is the one that appears first in or after the non-stub version" R8R No, it doesn't. (21:21) Still ignoring my ENGVAR conclusion. I still don't understand what you are trying to say with this. Also, the fact that you use few or none diff's makes it harder to get your point.
F. that 2012 revision uses 'single' (rather than "double") quotation marks at one point, which are clearly characteristic of BrE (21:21). That may be correct about by itself, but I doubt whether this punctuation is variety-defining at all. Anyway, using single quotes is an error and should be changed into ""-quotes per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, MOS:DOUBLE. In other words: should not be used per Wikipedia style.
G. you put words in my mouth (21:21) - Not exactly, and a nasty angle. For starters, I have asked you repeatedly to substantiate your claim and use ENGVAR yourself (instead of deviation from the claim I repeatedly made: en-US was established). Here you write "It's a shame that you've decided to ignore the rest of it.", which is a BF judgement I wish youy'd withdraw. As I tried and try to describe is that many remarks do not relate to the issue. After I explained that we do not decide an ENGVAR by a user's preference (as you actually proposed), I factually applied ENGVAR and concluded. From there, indeed I ignored arguments that are unrelated: quotation marks, relation en-OED/en-BR. I challenged your claim and your reasoning.
H. there ever was a non-stub fully-AmE revision?. That early, defining version is diffed above. Your word "fully" is not in place here (here I get the same impression), which is a misunderstanding of ENGVAR I guess. This is the setup: once a variety can be determined in an early version, all later edits should comply with that variety (MOS:CONSISTENCY). The fact that such corrections were not made does not change the original variety. For example, the 1 January 2013 Good Article version (diff above) has both "recogniSed" and "synthesiZed" spelling. Since the variety was already en-US, the first one is an error.
-DePiep (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, I appreciate the lengthiness of this response. Unfortunately, I do not have the opportunity to look into it closely today but I will try my best to do so tomorrow. A short note temporarily substituting for a proper answer would be that if any one of those revisions is both non-stub and written consistently in AmE, then of course, you've made your point and I will follow, but for now I will reiterate that not one such revision had been demonstrated prior to that post. Whether any of them is is a question for another day; as I said, that day will hopefully be tomorrow.
I also did not yet read closely your remark re me wrongly accusing you of putting words in my mouth. Before anything else, I'd like you to know that if I am in err there, I will apologize. Whether I actually am will be seen and discussed on another day (again, hopefully tomorrow).
I also appreciate you being able to respond in a calm and civilized manner. I'll try my best to follow.--R8R (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thx. Take time, I have loads to offer. Would it help if I rephrase & clarify & add my 1st point re engvar (better spend of time than 2nd part). -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(re to self: No, I'll wait your response). -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

ENGVAR applied

Per MOS:ENGVAR, this is how we establish the language variety (in italics: en-OED refinement added -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)):

Note: I mainly used "-ize/-ise" as indicator, and checked visually (walking the article history). I could have missed other telling spellings.
Also telling: "honor/honour" (en-US/en-OED)
  • Article created: [7] 2001, 15 Sep. No indicator.
  • First variety indicator: [8] 2003, 30 Mar (2,638 bytes) -- "first synthesiZed" (en-US and en-OED)
Is this version a non-stub? It is wikified, it has an infobox, it has its history, the naming issue, it mentions isotope Hs-265, and sources (albeit as WP:EL not a footnote): this is encyclopedic, not a dictionary.
  • First appearance of non-en-US spelling: [9] 2007, 1 Feb: adds "oxidiSes" (en-GB)
Corrected into en-US/en-OED per MOS:CONSISTENCY, 2 months later: [10] 2007, 3 Apr. "oxidiSes" --> "oxidiZes", consistent en-US/en-OED; same as "first synthesiZed".
(See "2008 OED tunnelling" topic below. -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC))
  • The option en-OED (Oxford, which uses "-ize" spelling too) was ruled out in [11] 2013 19 October 2012, when "honor" (not "honour") was introduced.

So: in 2003 en-US/en-OED was introduced, and per consistency this was continued and corrected into throughout. Whenever the article became non-stub, en-US/en-OED was the variety established. Voila. -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

And in October 2012, en-OED was ruled out when "honor" (not honour) was used. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In this series of edits, Baffle gab1978 seems to be unaware of this discussion ([12]), and resulting edits are in " AmEng or BrENG Oxford". I think undoing some of these changes (into pre-dispute state) seems unreasonable to me—at least it is consitent now. Still, the outcome of this ENGVAR thread should be decisive and so no prejudice is made today. -DePiep (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I note that by now Baffle gab1978 is aware of this ENGVAR discussion, and is acting strangely by discussing it at R8R's page not here [13]. I don't know yet what to make of this, except that is looks duplicit behaviour. What a disappointment. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The whole issue may be partly my fault: when I was working on this back in 2012, I seem to have thought that it was already in AmE (maybe because of "-ize", but I can't remember what I was thinking close to seven years ago): I may also have unintentionally broken the tie into AmE here when I added "honor" (maybe thinking that it already was in AmE: as I said I can't remember what I was thinking). I don't really care much about whether the article is going to be in AmE or BrE-OED: the content is more important for me. Double sharp (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I won't call this a "fault", Double sharp, just a mistake, as we can make on this wiki—no problem. And in any case: edits in 2012 have no effect on the engvar variant, because it was settled in 2003 as the timeline above shows in the second bullet (Except that in 2013 en-OED Oxford was ruled out, leaving en-US). All edits after that, mistakes or consistent, do not change that fact. I find it more problematic that R8R has not returned here to confirm or contest my conclusion. As R8R wrote, he has no time to reply (fair enough), but the recent replies on his talkpage suggest that R8R still seems to spread doubt and confusion, outside of ENGVAR procedure proper. -DePiep (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Edits in 2012 should still have an effect on the ENGVAR: the timeline you post shows that 2003 only settled that it was either en-OED or en-US, so in 2012 it could still have been either (until I unintentionally broke the tie for en-US). Double sharp (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
You're right, Double sharp. I have refined the timeline, pointing out when en-OED was ruled out ... in 2012. Who made the edit, or with what intentions, is not relevant for ENGVAR. -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Currently the article uses a mixture of British and American spellings: "honoring" but "favourable", once "-ise" but then "-ize". Burzuchius (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
As the refined timeline shows, the established language variant is en-US (nor en-GB, nor en-OED). These spellings should be corrected per MOS. Were this discussion to establish an other ENGVAR than en-US, the whole article will be adjusted. -DePiep (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added to the timeline: en-OED as equal variant next to en-US ("-iZe" does not differentiate between en-US and en-OED; "honor/honour" does). -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Pending a return by R8R to this discussion (since Aug 5), or any other substantiated claim re ENGVAR, for now I conclude that the ENGVAR is en-US. Per MOS:CONSISTENCY, I will correct the article. As wiki works, if an other conclusion is drawn in the future consequences apply—but only then. -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, yes, that's fine by me. I am, again, sorry for not writing earlier. I did lay out the reasons for that at my talk page and they still stand. Essentially, I do want to have a sitting of a few hours to dedicate myself to a committed response. Essentially, that probably wouldn't have been a problem since July had I not had a temporary decline in health. I'm better now, and theoretically could have spare time alright, but now it's September, which means studies again. (It may very well be that it will not be prohibitive, and I certainly don't expect it to be, but yeah, problems may occur.)
It is fair that the world should not wait forever until I come up with a response. So it's fine that we go with your suggestion for the time being, since nobody is making an active case against it. Actually, I'm even in favor of a temporary solution, because that means the issue is not an issue for the time being, which gives Double sharp the room to start the FAC at any time. So, DS, please begin as soon as you're ready.--R8R (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
OK then, en-US it is for now. I'm happy to engage in future talks wrt other lines of thought & arguments. -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, if everyone is happy with it, I'll start the FAC tomorrow. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
And we launch! Double sharp (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • New info 2019-10-18: 2008 edit shows EOD spelling

At the FAC, The Huhsz has pointed out that in fact tunnelling (present in this 2008 revision) is a UK-only spelling. So this in fact ruled out en-US back in 2008, so it must be en-OED instead, and the 2012 application of "honor" should be undone. So I have converted the article to en-OED. Double sharp (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"tunelling" (double -l) was added 19:17, 28 January 2008 -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
You are expected to start a talk that starts with: "..., so I propose to change ...". -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, please provide the OED link definining tunelling. -DePiep (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
OED link: "VERB (tunnels, tunnelling, tunnelled; US tunneling, tunneled)". Since The Huhsz has provided the diff, and this link shows that indeed "tunnelling" is a form that rules out en-US (and is compatible with en-OED, the other remaining possibility at the time), I think this change should be uncontroversial per MOS:RETAIN. Double sharp (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, at last, this is how this works. Once sources are privided. (Had to pull it out). Why are you so greedy in this? Note that just changing the infobox |engvar= setting does not fix the article change. We need a total check & confirmance (in es?). -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I previously made a pass here to convert it to en-UK, and then here to convert it into en-OED (just focusing on -ize and -our). It looks like we consistently have "homologue" rather than "homolog", which is correct; there may be a few other special cases that are not in these three, though. Double sharp (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. en-UK you say? Why? Must I check you on using en-UK not en-OED? Pls do so yourself. When the article changes ENGVAR, then all of it should change. Consistently.-DePiep (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
As I said, I first turned it into en-UK (because tunnelling was mentioned), and then later into the correct en-OED (because I reread this talk page and saw that en-UK had been ruled out early on, so it had to be en-OED). I have passed the article through this online spellchecker (it checks for en-UK, but you can manually tell it to ignore every -ize spelling it flags). It was apparently all correct apart from one "favorable" which I've changed to "favourable" now, so I have restored the ENGVAR parameter in the infobox as everything in the article has been changed consistently to en-OED now. Double sharp (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Is what I asked for, and cannot do nor check myself: the whole article sould be consistently en-OED by now. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now done and checked this, as I stated in my previous post. So all's well that ends well, and my apologies for not posting the OED link and checking everything 100% at the beginning. Double sharp (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
All fine then. Very fine :-) -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I did promise that I would give a reply, and even though a lot of time has passed, I'm eager to stand by that promise.

Why not earlier? Well, I wasn't particularly well back when the reply would have been timely. I did, as I mentioned on my talk page, begin to craft a response one night nonetheless, but I wrote it in my browser, and if you, like me, use Windows 10, you know that computers running that OS can sometimes reboot without further warning if not actively used, and what I had was lost. Generally unwell for a couple months more, I then kicked the can down the road, not having the strength to spend the time it would take to write a proper response. Then hassium reworking came about, and I decided writing a reply would be best scheduled after that is done and over with. Now my part of that is over, here it goes.

Why now, however, other than that I wanted to write a reply? The issue has been decided upon during FAC1? Well, yes. However, I would like that we don't run into such disagreements in the future, and I did consider that I may be wrong in the general handling of the issue. However, it did not appear to me that the events would lead to that assessment. So I figure the best thing to do would be a quick recap of why I said what I did.

The point of WP:ENGVAR, generally speaking, is that there needs to be a fair criterion that would solve the problem of non-uniformity of the English language, because some people would want to push their variety (like you can imagine arguments like "English should be spoken the way it is spoken in England!" or "American English by far has the most native speakers, that should be the variety used in Wikipedia!"; I have actually seen both of this arguments). So again, it is there to prevent edit wars over spelling in Wikipedia; there once was the Hyphen War, people do care about these small things. On top of that, Wikipedia rules are not set in stone, and that is set in stone.

So when I proposed the should be some standardization, I proposed the go for the version Double sharp has been using, because I regarded him as the main author. As simple as that; he did not push for it, and I pushed for it not because I had bad intentions (like if I was pushing for a version I used). No bad intentions, no harm caused, it was just a gesture of courtesy and recognition of DS's input. It could have easily been uncontroversial, and I expected it to be that way, as there was no real need to apply WP:ENGVAR. Also, applying it would require some looking for some past versions to see what came first, and this frankly unneeded labor could easily be spared if we just picked one version and settled on it. I frankly don't see why you cared to see what version was used first. I found only one possible explanation, which was that you were being overly formal with rules. I decided that two can play this game, and by the way, if I had managed to write a response to your big post (which I in general appreciated as an attempt to follow a discussion, even though I would've opposed the arguments; this was the opinion that was building inside of me when I was writing the reply at first), I would have pointed this out in response to "I doubt whether this punctuation is variety-defining at all." I saw you being overly formal and there was reason for me not to reciprocate that attitude, mostly in an attempt not to ever have to deal with it. What was the point to digging up all those old revisions to see which variety was first? Was there one at all? And if there was one, why not go to the end and be consistent at that?

What I'm really responding to here is one phrase that I can't find (I'd love to quote it) but that really disappointed me. That phrase essentially said that all of this squabble was for nothing (I agree) and that it would've been much better if you were just listened to. I strongly disagree with that last bit. If you make a claim, especially in such a small thing that for some reason just needs to prevent some courtesy, you need to be ready to back it knowing that I or anyone else will not present better facts, or refutations, or doubts, rather than ignore them. If that point wasn't made clear, then the squabble was indeed for nothing.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Will read this again tomorrow, but this is bad anytime: there was no real need to apply WP:ENGVAR. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Misc

  • the second-highest known oxidation state for any element -- +8 can be easily called the highest (or at least highest common) with a note saying "while there's technically +9 in IrO4+, it's very rare and not a real deal, while +8 in group 8 (and 18?) is"--R8R (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @R8R: +8 is rare indeed; only for Ru, Os, and Hs in group 8 and Xe in group 18 is it something you find in a chemically stable compound (Ir at 6 K does not really count; Rn is a maybe and is not yet experimentally known). But I think the more important point is that it's characteristic for group 8, which Hs is in; if Ru and Os do something, you expect Hs to do it to from high-school chemistry. I've tried to rephrase the parenthesis. Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      Yeah, you've done a good job. But I still think a note would be a good idea. A note is inevitably and by design only secondary, after all. Like what's "reasonably stable"? You and I know the answer, but many readers won't and will rather take away that there's +9 somewhere. The best we can do is to extinguish that by saying how exactly that +9 could be seen.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      @R8R: I've added a note. Double sharp (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      I have just read that note. It really gives you the impression the article is well-researched. Kudos!--R8R (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • the extrapolation bit is confusing. If anything, the expectations are not expected to match a mere extrapolation, and experiments seem to confirm that--R8R (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Extrapolation actually worked fairly well for Sg, Bh, and Hs; it's only from Cn onwards that it starts becoming untenable. The broad-strokes expectation from extrapolation that Hs should form a volatile tetroxide like Os was completely correct; what was unexpected was that OsO4 turned out to be more volatile than HsO4, when calculations expected them to be similar. I guess simple extrapolation expects this, although there is more influencing volatility than simply molecular weight, as several anomalous early 4d/5d pairs show (10.1038/174323a0): in some cases with deuterated compounds (to avoid differences in IMFs), it was found that raising the temperature favoured the volatility of the deuterated species(!). Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      Well, there are different ways you could extrapolate. Extrapolate: 120, 160, 180. Common people are likely to assume a linear extrapolation and say something around 200 or 210. Some will, however, see that the difference is decreasing and will name 180 as their extrapolation. See, this whole extrapolation without a specifier thing is confusing (and specifiers are also often not very likely to be easily understood). We need to make that clear.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      I'd personally go for the exponential extrapolation and say 190. ^_^ But this extrapolation is essentially qualitative and limited to just saying which way the trend goes: the idea is that Ru and Os form tetroxides, and OsO4 is less oxidising than RuO4, so Hs should follow. As a result I've removed the phrase altogether, as "extrapolation" seems to raise more questions than it answers; this is just saying that Hs should act like Os. Double sharp (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • successfully characterized chemically as a typical member of group 8 in early 2001 -- that's a bad phrase to end a para on. How was it characterized exactly?--R8R (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Since the date and nature of the characterisation is mentioned in subsequent paragraphs, I've simply cut the sentence off at "succesfully characterized chemically". Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      I guess I won't delve into more thinking and say this will do.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

(this is exactly where I stopped. More later)

  • hassocene is mentioned twice in the same section. Either reduce the number to one or clearly make the first mention secondary;
  • rethink to which extent exactly we need hassocene.--R8R (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
ref 10: documentcloud.org, pdf ("Media type (.pdf) not in dictionary"?)
ref 34! psi.ch (?? looked like I solved it [14], but checklinks still lists it. Anyone an idea?)
ref 18: gsi.de (the "Doxis4 webCube" does not return anything; requires subscripotion?).
ref 48: platinummetalsreview.com (+warning)
ref 55: gsi.de, doxis4, DOC-2003-Jun-29-2.pdf (this "Doxis4 webCube" does not return anything; requires subscripotion?).
-DePiep (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I tend to think that a link is fine as long as it works, i.e. brings you to the desired content. A redirect along the way is okay, I guess. It's better to remove it but it doesn't really hurt anything as long as the end-user is not affected.
From this perspective, only link #49 ia problematic.--R8R (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we're good at this point.--R8R (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes they open well now. Done. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"In 2003, it was suggested that the observed alpha decay with energy 4.5 MeV could be due to a low-energy and strongly enhanced transition between different hyperdeformed states of a hassium isotope around 271Hs, thus suggesting that the existence of superheavy elements in nature was at least possible, although unlikely" – I have deleted this sentence, as the lede author of the source is Amnon Marinov who himself claimed natural superheavies (Rg and E122), and whose claims could not be confirmed either. Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you think this should have been done? I mean, it is just a hypothesis. We could simply mention that this is hypothesis by Marinov; maybe the time will judge him to be correct on this one.--R8R (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll leave it to you and DS to decide, but I would include a one-sentence mention only for the sake of NPOV and not cherry-picking sources; after all, even Marinov was published in refereed journals. I agree that no further elaboration is necessary, especially considering "basic" nuclear physics: general decay properties of Hs isotopes, and the fact that no long-lived isomers exist in any element that far from the beta stability line (which is estimated to be around 280-284Hs in several papers). ComplexRational (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@R8R: @ComplexRational: All right, I've been persuaded by both of you to restore the single sentence. ^_^ It ended with "the existence of superheavy elements in nature was at least possible, although unlikely", so I think that should give it its due weight. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

FAC launched

The FAC. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Which has for some reason been archived before even a month has passed, while the comments were being actively responded to and we're still waiting to hear some specifics regarding the single oppose vote. (Note that a copyedit was requested for and actually done before FAC submission.) At this rate, the Db FAC would never have passed the first round. So, I plan to open a 2nd FAC the moment the two-week waiting period expires. Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
While I share your discontent with the outcome, I'd like to note that while we are trying to get this through, ComplexRational wants to do the same with an article of his. As a small project, we should not, I believe, launch multiple FACs at the time, and I think that it will be fair to give CR a chance of his. I will focus in the immediate time on concluding my review at PR, and then will expect CR to move a bid forward; I presume this will happen at the very latest during this weekend. And it is then, whether it succeeds or fails (hopefully, the former), when we should start a new FAC of ours.
In the meantime, we should focus on not endind up with the same result the next time. I think that given the time, we should do it relatively quickly.--R8R (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Then I'm fine with waiting for CR's to go through. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@R8R and Double sharp: I greatly appreciate this, and hope we have two new FAs in the near future! (Was it supposed to be auto-archived like this? I was quite surprised.) I'll do my best to commit to this.
Before we close the PR, though, I would also like to ask if any of the feedback from the hassium FAC could be applied in advance before the Island of stability FAC is launched – if there are major ref errors or the like, I would rather fix everything before opening a FAC. ComplexRational (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Supposing that prose quality will not be a problem for you, yes, I recommend checking the sources and whether the info can be tracked down from those references (is the page range not too long? etc). I can help you as much as I can over the week if you want me to.--R8R (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, I find these ELEMENTS FAC/PR thread interactions getting out of hand. For example, when one claims "let's do X first". IMO, the Hassium/FAC was closed for good reason. What is being pushed? -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To add before FAC2

  • I have just encountered a very interesting story involving Armbuster, who mentions that naming of hassium and darmstadtium is a continuation of a bad tradition initiated in Berkeley. Very interesting, I'll need to add this before we proceed with FAC2.
  • Ref 2 still needs proper page ranges.
Now it's ref 46, and we're down to seven cases. In at least one, though, I can't find any material in the source supporting the article content, so another source is needed (especially for the latter part – even though one might infer it, there still should be a source):
This results from hassium's high atomic weight, the lanthanide and actinide contractions, and relativistic effects, although production of enough hassium to measure this quantity would be impractical and the sample would decay quickly.
There's only only one instance left, which currently goes under number 54, and I don't want to fill it back in because it does not have what we want. So either it's to go for good or the current statement needs to be reworded.--R8R (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It's gone.--R8R (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • And we need to properly format all references. The ref list in island of stability looks great and inspires me to do the same here.--R8R (talk) 06:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I see that you considerably reworked the references — I appreciate the advice you initially gave in the peer review.
I did a bit more work with a few references as well as some minor copyediting. NUBASE now has a more specific page range; I updated {{Isotopes summary}} so that it can support refs defined in the article (I think this was one concern in the first FAC). If you'd like, I can reread the article and leave a few more comments before FAC2. ComplexRational (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
ComplexRational, thank you very much. I would indeed love that. I was going to review the article myself after I'm done with the Haire ref but a pair of uninvolved eyes would be very welcome.--R8R (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
R8R, I will most likely not be able to give detailed comments until Wednesday at the earliest, but I will at least read through the article before then and perhaps note a few smaller things. We'll then take it from there. ComplexRational (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem with me at all. As you can see, I haven't been able to write much in Wiki last several months, so I absolutely understand. (I miss writing here, actually.) Maybe I'll finally get quite some spare time next week, but even if so, I still have things that need addressing here, so I'll be fine with however long you need. I appreciate that you're willing to help.
Speaking of which, when you have the time, could you also give me a second opinion on the questions I've outlined below?--R8R (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'll take a look into those as well. ComplexRational (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Should we explain the relativistic effects in a bit greater detail? If those are to be mentioned, there are three effects: 1) high velocities for s and p1/2 electrons, which leads to increased masses of electrons, which leads to greater attraction of electrons toward nuclei, which leads to contraction and greater stability of electronic orbitals; 2) since those electrons better screen the charge from the nuclei, there is less charge left for d and f electrons, and their orbitals are destabilized; 3) SO splitting. The answer would be an immediate yes if I had material to illustrate this idea with. At hand, however, I can only think of that Hs+ has lost a d electron, not an s one. However, this could be an interesting ref to look into: Desclaux, J. P. (1973) Data Nucl. Data Tables, 12, 311–406.--R8R (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    Looks fine to me, but probably I'll want to reconsider over the next few days. Regardless, the main job is done.--R8R (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Has anyone really predicted +5 for Hs? No source that we have suggests this; I have only not checked Emsley, but nobody else has it.--R8R (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I also could not cross-reference this; I confirmed +3, +4, +6, and +8 in several other sources, but +5 is seemingly nowhere to be found. It's only a one sentence mention in Emsley, and his source is not clear. ComplexRational (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a really small thing, but it's been bugging me for a while. I can't decide if the wikilink on the word "Kazakhstan" should be retargeted from Kazakhstan to Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic for better historic accuracy. There seem to be no instances of the word "Kazakhstan" in pre-Soviet times.--R8R (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd prefer Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic per your comment and the article's context; both the source date of 1970 and introduction of a Soviet scientists would be consistent with this change. ComplexRational (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This article needs more pictures.--R8R (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    I added a picture of the accelerator but I'd love to have three more: one for the Introduction section, one for Natural occurrence, and one for Predicted properties. Does anyone have any idea of what those could possibly be? Images make the text look more welcoming and reader-friendly, so it's important to have as many as possible.--R8R (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    There's only one now that is missing (my imagination is running wild, but I'm not yet sure what we could add there. I'm considering Figure 35 from [15], but I'm not sure if we are allowed to do so. In principle, the underlying numeric data is available at doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.56.812). We may also need a replacement for the naming ceremony picture.--R8R (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Naming subsection also needs to include that the settlement also resulted in that the discoverers could no longer name an element; unprecedentedly, this power was taken from them in order to solve the controversy.--R8R (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    I expanded this a bit, also learned a little about it, too. Must be good now.--R8R (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Mention cold and hot fusions. A few sections ago, I added a nice link about that (in Russian); also this dissertation looks worthy of exploring.--R8R (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    I consider this done.--R8R (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Explain how we really have next to no actual information on the element, only predictions. This is absolutely necessary for reader-friendliness. This thread on my talk page is the source of my determination on this.--R8R (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I like the additions to the article so far. Other than this last point just above, the article is more or less finished with in terms of the things that I want to describe (this is not necessarily the case for prose, pictures, etc.). I probably won't add anything until the end of the holiday (of which tomorrow will be the last day). What has been done looks very decent to me.--R8R (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall, these additions look good. I'll take a look and read through the last few sections this week, then I will post some more feedback if necessary. ComplexRational (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • NUBASE link is broken; when I fix it, I'll need to see if the page range applies for the new note as well.--R8R (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational review

I did a close read-through up to § Isotopes. Here are my suggested changes, taking into consideration comments at the FAC and some valuable insight from our work on island of stability:

  • Discovery (first section header) – maybe change this to "History" because it also includes naming, also per next comment
    It was once actually called that. I renamed the section because our typical history sections go beyond discovery, to go into emergence of industrial applications and such important milestones. In absence of such milestones for superheavy elements, one could envisage that those would be imitated by milestones of developments of our knowledge of it: first compound, first measurement of this and that. Such stuff, in fact, is already dispersed throughout the article. Naming, on the other hand, is (sort of) a direct consequence of discovery.--R8R (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps add some prediscovery context to give more information to readers not familiar with the history of superheavy elements and how they are synthesized
    That's a great idea. It never really occurred to me that we could do this in an element article. Island of stability was more of a conceptual article, so to speak, and thus this idea was more obvious. We could try this here, actually, except maybe not in too great detail, just enough for understanding of the article; it should work. I'll try to make something out of this idea next week.--R8R (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm liking it so far, it's already easier to follow and isn't growing too large.
  • Alpha and beta decays are registrable – It would make sense that beta decay can be detected, but some sources (I have to double-check which, but I think [16] is one) noted that electron capture is not registered (perhaps because there are no emitted particles); if this is indeed true, I think it is important to distinguish EC and β± decays. ComplexRational (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I have finally written this section in accordance with the picture I had constructed in my mind. I think it's good so far even if a bit lengthy; I'd rather have the reader understand this. Thanks again for prompting me to write this; I think this makes an understandable explanation so far. I'll try to accommodate your suggestions later. I'll also appreciate any input from you if you want to correct me or to append something to my writing.--R8R (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I read through everything you added here. For the most part, it gives a good general overview and does not leave the reader questioning any technical details; I believe this is a very helpful addition. I do have a few comments, though, to polish it further:
  • Would I be correct to assume that you will add more citations to this section later? It shouldn't be hard to find sources; I'd be willing to help with this if you'd like.
    That was the plan originally, yes. However, I seem to be forgetting about this since then. I would appreciate your help with this.
Yes, I'll take a deeper look and add a few here and there. But the next two weeks will be quite intense IRL, so my activity will severely fluctuate during that time. ComplexRational (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • two other nuclei of unequal size – they need not be unequal, it just happens that attempted synthesis using symmetric reactions (e.g. 136Xe + 136Xe) have failed. I think this can be more accurately reworded to "two nuclei of lighter elements"
    Point taken. I'll give it some thought.
    I added a note there about specifically the reaction you mentioned. I do think it's important to keep focus on asymmetricity of these reactions, because a) there is no recorded success in such reactions, at least none that I'm aware of; and b) even if there is any that I'm not aware of, it's really not anywhere close to being on par with asymmetric reactions, and we can safely cover that in a note. These small things help keep the focus of the reader on the more important things, and grasping the concepts and following the story becomes easier. Do you know if anyone actually tried any other symmetric reactions?--R8R (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
To my best understanding, symmetric does not necessarily refer always to reactions between identical nuclei. If I recall correctly, several other unsuccessful "symmetric" reactions were attempted between 136Xe and 124Sn, natEr, and natTa, as well as 238U + 238U (as a transfer reaction targeting SHEs, not complete fusion targeting element 184). I don't know of anything else perfectly symmetric.
It's definitely important to focus on increasing yield with increasing asymmetry, though; I fully support your line of reasoning. The content of the note looks good, but I would like to go back to it once the structure is more settled in preparation for FAC2. ComplexRational (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure? For instance, here's an excerpt from the paper on the 1940 Japanese discovery of element 93:
It is thought to be helpful for a better understanding to take the atomic numbers into consideration. The atomic numbers of the above-mentioned elements are: Ru = 44, Rh = 45, Pd = 46, Ag = 47, Cd = 48, In = 49 and Sn = 50, respectively. By noticing that the atomic number 46 of palladium is just half that of 92 of uranium, it is supposed that one uranium atom splits into two palladium isotopes. When rhodium (atomic number 45) is produced with some probability (cross section), silver (atomic number 47) is the counter fragment. In the same way, ruthenium (atomic number 44) and cadmium (atomic number 48) are the pairing fragments. Thus, the nuclear fission observed by Nishina and Kimura is highly symmetric.
I would, however, think that the 136Xe + 124Sn reaction would be described not as asymmetric but as highly symmetric.--R8R (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • roughly, the more unequal the two nuclei in terms of mass, the greater the possibility that the two react—change their composition – the meaning is not entirely clear here. I think you're implying that more asymmetric reactions have a higher probability of success, but I can't really discern what changing their composition means.
    I believe that an unprepared reader may find themselves wondering what is meant by saying that two nuclei "react," and so I tried to explain that fairly simply. Since my poor attempt at that failed with you, I'll be eager to hear any other proposal on how to say that, if at all.
I certainly agree with this contextualization, but I think it would be better to mention fusion in the opening sentence (with further explanation thereafter) before describing targets and projectiles. The word 'react' would connote something chemical to the uninformed reader (which is of course not the case), and appear to contradict 'change their composition', so I would like to eliminate this ambiguity before it arises. ComplexRational (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • which can exhibit properties of one – not entirely clear, does this refer to the compound nucleus?
    Not the best wording on my part. I replaced it for now with "can exhibit its specific properties." I see this wording could also be improved, but I hope the meaning has become a bit clearer now.
For that, I'd trim to "...arrange themselves into a new nucleus", so that the merger is clear without needing to elaborate on fundamental nuclear structure. ComplexRational (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
That's good; thank you.--R8R (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Radiation Laboratory – is it a proper noun?
    Yes.
  • (fermium is the name of element 100) – it's a nice addition, but I am not sure that it's necessary; transfermium wars already is pretty explanatory by following the link.
    I think it's nice to explain some thing not just by merely giving a link, but also in the text. We generally do this with those things we find more important. It simply seemed to me that the term "Transfermium Wars" may sound so outlandish to some readers that I believed I have to disperse the confusion by a short explanation.
Hmm. One could make a case that the scope of this article gives rise to many "outlandish" terms, but something short as this may still be helpful. I'll think more about this. ComplexRational (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the last paragraph may be better placed at the beginning, seeing as you introduce the terms "superheavy" and "nucleus" in the first paragraph.
    I didn't really know where to put it; I think the current placement in a note is just it.
Looks good. The links also are very helpful there. ComplexRational (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I made a few other small corrections ([17]), mostly copyediting and correcting a few links. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.
ComplexRational (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Your question is reasonable. I have found myself, however, stick before two principal questions that I cannot (yet) answer: how does one register creation a new superheavy nucleus (I read somewhere that scientists can only identify it a its decay, which doesn't agree with that the scientists can somehow figure out the lifetime of a nucleus) and how one registers its energy decay. I'll try to figure it out myself but I'll be glad to see any help (and will begin asking for it if I prove unable to figure it out myself).--R8R (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Double sharp: do you think you could help me with these questions?--R8R (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Double sharp: on top of that, do you think you could explain to me what exactly the SO splitting is? When those l numbers are changed, does it mean that p3/2 and d3/2 have the same shapes and probabilities of finding an electron in each point relative to the nucleus? If so, does it mean that the energy levels are also the same? If not, why not? Is the actual p3/2 a superposition of the regular p and the "idealized" p3/2? How does one exactly understand that two different orbitals happen to have the same l?--R8R (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: I confess to not understanding the SO splitting either... but I think I can probably find the answers to your December questions somewhere in a hopefully short while. Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It's a shame but I cannot ask of you more than you can provide. I'll still be happy to hear the responses to my December questions.--R8R (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • The team used a reaction that would generate 270108 from radium and calcium
    • Readers unfamiliar with the subject will want to know: what is a reaction, and why use radium and calcium?
    • I suggest adding a few descriptive sentences explaining how SHEs are produced by nuclear fusion, linking nuclear reaction and any other technical terms. Ideally, it would look something like this edit (which was proposed by HaEr48 at the FAC).
    • Also mention that 270108 is an isotope of hassium, and how it would arise in such a reaction.
    I think I covered this one.--R8R (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1983, new experiments were performed…track detectors surrounding the wheel.
    • These few sentences read more like a journal article. Even with some knowledge of the subject, I have to pay very close attention when reading this.
    • I suggest removing this bit entirely. I think this is better explained in a previous introductory section.
      You're posing quite a challenge here, but thank you for that. I think it will be better if this is done properly once so that it's easy to understand, and then this result can be reused. I'll try to get it done but I'll appreciate any assistance with that once I started to go for it.--R8R (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
    • If possible, link fission fragment, fission track detector, and other highly technical terms.
  • The team bombarded a lead target with accelerated iron nuclei. – as above, make sure to provide context; maybe link accelerated as well
    I think the new section takes care of the needs for context. It also provides context for "accelerated," and it doesn't, I think, need a link anyway because this conveys the normal, usual meaning of a very well understood English word.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
There is definitely enough context now. I'd still link particle accelerator in the previous section. I think that takes care of everything here. ComplexRational (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • as prior calculations had suggested that even–even isotopes of element 108 would have spontaneous fission half-lives of less than one microsecond – include ref 15 after this; it's not obvious that it cites nearly the whole paragraph
    I put the references a bit differently, but I think I have addressed your concerns.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • (A nuclide decaying in less than a microsecond…a chain anchored to known daughters.) – probably better to make this into a note, citation needed
    The ref doesn't say this as explicitly, so I removed the chain part, but I think the introduction should cover this. I'll think about turning this into a note, but generally, I think that parenthesized sentences are underappreciated. People tend to say that if it's in parentheses, it is not necessary, or something along these lines, but this sort of thinking does not take into account the writing genre, for the lack of a better word (by the way, from what I've heard, the hardest genre to write in is advertising because of the extreme constraints on length of your message and the multitude of ideas you need to manage to squeeze into it). To me, a note is something you definitely don't need to have in your story, the story should be able to go without it; it's a nice addition, but it doesn't necessarily follow the story you're telling in an article and it certainly wouldn't stand any character limit (say, like in a printed encyclopedia). Parenthesized sentences, in contrast, are needed in the story, but they are, so to speak, pushed back a tad, so that a) a reader doesn't feel lost in technicalities, they are assured this is somewhat important but not the essence of your text and could potentially be overlooked if you're looking through the lines or just casually reading and b) this covers for possible irregularities in sentence interconnection: so that if those parentheses were not there, the reader would have to think another few seconds on how we switched from one thing to another. In common speech, there are linking words like "anyway," or "regardless," or "however," but this is discouraged in encyclopedic writing as it adds more letters but no meaning. That's why I recommend leave the parenthesized sentence as it is.
    And that's my writing tip of the day (though have in mind that I cannot claim being particularly skilled at writing, especially in English).--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It looks better now, and the source is clear. I think this is very good to keep in mind – I've also seen in various sources that parentheses are generally discouraged, but they can indeed be very useful in cases like this. Thank you for sharing this tip. ComplexRational (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • where the institute is located – probably subject to WP:ENGVAR, but 'in which' reads slightly better
    This seems counter-intuitive to me; are you sure? My thinking would be that "in which" is a more pointed direction and "where" is a more broad one: compare "the box, in which the mouse is sitting" and "the country, where the man lives." I don't feel credible enough to insist on this one, so if after this consideration you keep your opinion, I'll follow you, but I'd like to hear your opinion first.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This is really a minor thing; 'where' seems okay unless a meticulous reviewer says otherwise. ComplexRational (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
No question of that this issue is minor, really. It's that I'm curious about these small linguistic things; I would've immediately gone along otherwise. I'd really appreciate a comment on this from this perspective.--R8R (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
From what I've read, 'where' is appropriate to reference a place (but only a place), though 'In which' is sometimes preferable because it's more formal and can be used in a wider range of descriptions. ComplexRational (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, here's a follow-up question: do we use the definite article before our initialisms? Is in "in JINR" or "in the JINR"? "JINR agreed" or "The JINR agreed"? What about initialisms that do not spell out into an English phrase, such as GSI? I asked Double sharp about this a while ago, but DS wasn't sure either. I'm looking it up and it says CNN goes without an acronym; makes sense, but is the same correct for our institutions?--R8R (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Normally, I'd recommend using the same article with the abbreviation as with the written out version (for example, the Joint Institute for Nuclear research → the JINR; I'd also say "the GSI" because if I recall correctly,the German name has a preceding article). The best bet, though, is to follow usage in sources. ComplexRational (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • it was reported that they felt the German suggestion was obscure. – who reported this?
    IUPAC did.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Paragraph beginning The official justification for this naming…
    • Element names should not be in quotes.
      Fair enough.--R8R (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Note [a] is uncited.
      But what is there to be cited in the first place?--R8R (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
If this is also in ref 26, adding that ref will be sufficient. I think it's better practice to not leave notes uncited – this could otherwise be picked on at FAC2. ComplexRational (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The rule goes that you should cite everything that is challenged or likely to be challenged. One of my textbooks surely has the element name etymologies but I think this statement is uncontroversial. If anyone actually asks, I'll add it but it seems rather pointless to me.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
In that case, we'll leave it to that. If you don't think it's controversial, the ref won't be necessary unless it's requested later. ComplexRational (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Could you also check that "this bad tradition..." is cited in ref 26? If not, another citation is needed for this quotation.
      Yes, it's where I saw it as well. Duplicated ref for clarity on this.--R8R (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • by physicists led by Glenn T. Seaborg and Albert Ghiorso at LBL. – recommend changing to "a team of physicists"
    I simplified that even further.--R8R (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In the early 1960s, it was predicted that – who predicted this?
    I think these were Emsley's words to introduce Cherdyntsev's work. Removed them as duplication.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In 2003, it was suggested that the observed alpha decay with energy 4.5 MeV could be due to a low-energy and strongly enhanced transition – is there anything to link for 'enhanced transition'?
    Not that I can think of.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. It seems that one may be able to generalize the transition to alpha decay or transitions between different energy levels, we may be able to get by with this context. ComplexRational (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Paragraph beginning In 2006, it was hypothesized that an isomer of 271Hs – the paragraph relies entirely on one source, and one that makes the questionable supposition that 271Hs is β-stable; try to find other sources that further elaborate on this
    I have read the source and for now, I can see that even the author treats the idea with suspicion. Our article also says that this is "possible, but unlikely"; the source says that this is only possible if you make a few prior assumptions. I'll have to rewrite this paragraph a bit.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • minerals enriched with 271Hs, however – I suggest splitting and rewording this sentence to avoid a run-on
    Forgot this one; I hope that my new version doesn't qualify as a case of overusing semicolons.--R8R (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • are predicted to have excesses of uranium-235 and lead-207 – it would be helpful to note that this would occur because they are in the same (4n + 3) decay chain
    Fair enough, but the chain is not really needed in the story; that's where a note could be useful. Another solution would be that we could simply add "its daughters" instead if it feels like this level of detail is not needed. Not sure yet which of the two is better, I'll give it some more thought; what do you think?--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity and not adding extraneous detail, reducing this to 'its daughters' will suffice. I don't think it's relevant to the main scope of the section that these isotopes are in the actinium series. ComplexRational (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me. ComplexRational (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • According to calculations, – either the calculations should be elaborated upon or this wording eliminated
    I'd love to elaborate. The calculations come from these sources:
    • Z. Patyk, A. Sobiczewski, and S. Cwiok, Nucl. Phys. A502, 591 (1989).
    • Z. Patyk and A. Sobiczewski, Nucl. Phys. A533, 132 (1991).
    • M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121 (2003).
    I am unsure how to describe them in a few words.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    How about "Several works,[1][2][3] starting from the late 1980s onward, suggested that..."--R8R (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
That's a good place to start, but it should be trimmed to "Several works,[1][2][3] from the late 1980s onward,..." (remove "starting"). ComplexRational (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's a great idea. Will do.--R8R (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Turns out only one of these actually predicted that. Updated the article.--R8R (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the N = 162 sub-shell – the link does not really help, so a definition of subshell could be helpful
    This seems too important given our subject to mention casually (in a note). If anywhere, this should be explained elsewhere. However, I re-targeted the link.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The link looks good. I think nuclear shells and their stabilizing effects should be introduced earlier, either in the introduction or where they are first mentioned (perhaps § Occurrence or § Isotopes), as they are described in several places throughout the article but do not have much context. ComplexRational (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I added a bit to the last paragraph in Natural occurrence. I think this will be an overkill to Introduction. I'd love you to check after me there.--R8R (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I did some rewriting and condensing; I can help with references in the next few days but it looks factually accurate. Why is it that you think it would be overkill in the introduction? It's fine here if we keep it short, especially since it provides context for 292Hs, but a brief mention or reworking earlier may also be an idea worth considering. ComplexRational (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I did consider it and in fact, I tried to do that. It just didn't come out well. What we have there is an already concise story, and you can't add to it; I tried to add a subsection header there and added another subsection. The new one doesn't have a length anywhere as close and if it did, then this section would've been too long. I really cut what I wanted to write down to three sentences and I think I wrote them in a manner easy to understand.
Tl;dr I tried; it didn't work. Too much change is needed and I don't think it will be a change for the better. It also looks fine now.--R8R (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • fully supports and complete agreement – this wording seems a bit too strong and definitive, can it be made a bit more neutral so as not to suggest undue certainty?
    Done.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • specifically, the isotope 226
    88    Ra     and similar examples – why use {{chem}}? I don't think including both A and Z is necessary, especially since the other symbols only use A. Better to format this consistently within the article and compared to its sources. ComplexRational (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    I don't, in fact, use {{chem}}; I use {{nuclide}}. Closer to the point, I do it to further verify the reader could see they could add the two numbers in each reaction and get 108 as the sum. Reader-friendliness is more important in the leading sections in part because this is where we get to lure the reader into reading the whole article. These numbers don't seem as important later in the article, I think? I'll give more thought, but for now, I'm inclined to leave things as they currently are.--R8R (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    In fact you yourself noticed that a reader might be wondering why these elements were used. That's a subtle hint as to why.--R8R (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, that makes sense now. ComplexRational (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Continuation

  • Relativistic effects on hassium should arise due to the high change of its nuclei... – is this referenced in [64]? I suggest not leaving this (short) paragraph uncited.
    It is, that's where I verified the description I wrote. Added a reference.
  • However, as velocities of electrons grow, so these numbers – either "as" or "so" needs to go; the meaning is not entirely clear here.
    Oh, absolutely. I tend to make these sort of mistakes when I have one phrasing in mind when I begin to write a sentence and then another phrasing pops up, and so they interfere. I often spot this sort of thing and correct myself as I write but I sometimes don't. I also tend to make the silliest mistakes because I can't concentrate closely enough on what I write; that's why you can see me sometimes miss a noun, for instance. I can spot some of these mistakes when I re-read my writing but sometimes not all. This is not to cover up for all my mistakes and say my English would be perfectly correct otherwise, it would not, sometimes I do lack the proper knowledge (and I also find it very useful that I can always look up a word or how to construct a phrase), but this sort of thing, particularly, my inattentiveness therein, really embarrasses me every time, and that's why I'm so worked up about it. I also tend to make such mistakes in Russian, so there must be more to it than just that I don't speak the foreign language perfectly (although this is definitely a part of the picture).
    By all means, please do keep telling about this sort of thing in the future to help me improve my writing, especially if what I write is unintelligible at all. I'd be very grateful for that.--R8R (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    FWIW I often end up proofreading anyway; I'll gladly help with this. ComplexRational (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This oxidation state is extremely rare. – is it necessary to mention this, when it could be taken as an opinion?
    Well, it's not a blank statement, I'm making a case for it there. Changed the punctuation there to better reflect that.

...more will trickle in hopefully later this week. ComplexRational (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I noticed your edits on dashes in the page ranges yesterday: why the change to hyphens? I generally prefer to use en dashes for ranges (e.g. 1–7), and if there are dashes in the pages themselves, I use ens separated by ems (030001–1—030001–138) as this maintains easy readability. This is the format I've used and seen elsewhere, but I don't want to undo all your work without discussing it. ComplexRational (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    It appears to me these are hyphens rather than dashes that are in page numbers, and thus hyphens should be displayed here as well. Ranges, of course, are still to be shown with dashes.--R8R (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow the feedback suggested at the Island of stability FAC to make the topic more presentable to a generic audience, and stay away from grammar questions where ENGVAR may come into play. More comments will follow later; I hope this is a good start. ComplexRational (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I like your review very much so far, on first glance, these suggestions are great, thank you very much. I'll try to act on them next week.--R8R (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll also appreciate it if you strike those issues you believe have been addressed. This helps scanning through the text to see which issues have been resolved and which have not.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, I struck a few. I'll respond to the rest of your questions with more thorough responses later today or tomorrow. ComplexRational (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I have resolved all issues you raised. Now the task is to get citations for the new additions and then run a copy-edit.--R8R (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: There are still a few paragraphs I have yet to read. I apologize for the delay; I will try to review those sometime this week. But go ahead with citations and copyediting in the parts we have gone through, I'll see if I can comment for that as well. ComplexRational (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't realize more was coming; I'll happily have that. I probably won't be able to commit much time the next couple of weeks myself, but I think I should be after that.--R8R (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

To be done before FAC2

  • I read that the current separator in Berkeley gave scientists 20 years of research; does it mean that the structure of separators was different back in the times of hassium discovery? Perhaps something useful can be found about this from either GSI or JINR.
    I have thought about it for some time. I think it doesn't matter: it's, after all, an introduction into the concept, not a complete historical record, and already a rather detailed one.--R8R (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Try to get the numeric data on 6d splitting and graph it;
  • Mention the 1995 compromise attempt;
  • I'll have to add a brief description of the process of SF;
    Not exactly perfect but good enough given this is not the main focus of the article. There is simply not enough room for a good explanation.
  • Need to correlate the small velocity the daughter nucleus gets after a decay in vacuum and that it remains at its place in a detector.
  • Still missing a paragraph about how there are constant activities at the detectors and the physicists who run experiments need to distinguish among them.
    Now that some info has been removed from the detection paragraph, maybe this will fit into that para (or not).
  • Find a good quotation for that it takes a microsecond for a nucleus to travel from the target to the detector.
  • It might be worth mentioning that often fusion does not occur even though the atoms have got closer enough to one another. See here;
  • One small correction needed: the reaction of discovery of neptunium is classified differently than most synthesis reactions: it's a direct reaction as opposed to compound nucleus reactions;
  • Get the rest of the comments by ComplexRational and act on them;
  • Get responses from Double sharp and act on them;
    I understood most of this. I only don't understand how exactly lifetimes are measured in principle: can one measure that the time of arrival to the detector? can one not? the two new sources seem to contradict each other. what about the time to get there in the first place, is it accounted for?--R8R (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Learn what the SO splitting really is and act on it;
    It's good enough.--R8R (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for the picture from the Graphics Lab and add it;
    The picture is ready; I only need to expand its description and we're all set.--R8R (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    Done.--R8R (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Add wikilinks in the reference list where possible;
  • Add missing references;
  • (after the previous points have been resolved) get the article copyedited.--R8R (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • switch to British spellings with Oxford -ize and Oxford (serial) commas.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this is done; I found no instances of -ise and inserted a few serial commas, but I might check once more. ComplexRational (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

(This feels much like history of aluminium. I think I'm mostly done, there's just one little thing left, and as I look for it, there's more and more and more to uncover. Perhaps the best thing that could be done is enjoying it.)--R8R (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Spin-orbit splitting

I will collect here the various information I can find about the topic. Here's one enlightening article on the topic. Possibly this reference will also be of use.

Here are the original questions:

  • When those l numbers are changed, does it mean that p3/2 and d3/2 have the same shapes and probabilities of finding an electron in each point relative to the nucleus?
    For now I understand that l actually does not change; what changes is j = l+s. Presumably the answer is thus no.
  • If so, does it mean that the energy levels are also the same? If not, why not? Is the actual p3/2 a superposition of the regular p and the "idealized" p3/2?
    No, as evidenced in calculations. No, because these are different orbitals. This splitting occurs in all atoms, it's just the consequences of that are not as high in all of them.
  • How does one exactly understand that two different orbitals happen to have the same l?
    They don't.

--R8R (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Not a reliable source, but: look at this! (They link to some reliable sources.) Double sharp (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thank you very much, just read it. However, this increased, rather than decreased, my confusion. So if l and s are no longer good quantum numbers but j is, why don't s1/2 and p1/2 have the same energy levels? I just checked the calculations, the difference for elements 113+ is there and it's rather big.--R8R (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

R8R leaves for a while

I'll leave Wiki for a couple of weeks, maybe more, maybe less. I've spent a lot of time this week researching for Wiki (and occasionally writing for it), so I need time to get to other things. I will check from time to time who things are going, so if you need to contact me, feel free. I think the article is almost ready for an FAC and it would be great to get it ready for one soon enough.

Here's what remains: in terms of content, almost everything I can think of is fine save for the fifth paragraph in Introduction (about identification of decay). Particularly I would like to know how decays are registered if they occur before entering the detector and how are lifetimes calculated given that nuclei are not on the detector from moment zero. Here's an interesting article about the current Dubna identification: a time-of-flight system is mentioned, which is a good starting point for understand the matter. @Double sharp: I'll be grateful if you can get to the bottom of this; do you think you could? We also need more refs for this paragraph. Another thing to be mentioned in that para is that the two primary modes for SHE decay are alpha decay and SF, beta is not actually important; in addition to that, SF gains in importance unbelievably quickly as mass increases (IIRC in a two-digit order of magnitude from uranium to nobelium).

@R8R: I will try to find something about this. From what I remember, you simply can't detect a decay of a nucleus that hasn't reached the detector yet, but don't quote me on it yet. (Ah, I see it is mentioned in the footnotes at our article on element 124.) ^_^ Beta is not important chiefly because the nuclides we know of are neutron-deficient; if we can add some more neutrons, we will start seeing it (cf. all those Zagrebaev charts). Your point about SF is a good one and I will have to look and see where it is stated. It also increases unbelievably quickly once we get into the less neutron-deficient region: those short-lived Fm isotopes forming the "fermium wall" are even beta-stable. Double sharp (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: your review so far has been very helpful, so if you could, I'd love you to finish it.

@R8R: I will try my best to do so in the next two weeks, and double-check references, formatting, and do copyediting thereafter. I also realize that I suddenly have a lot less time for Wikipedia than I hoped due to some RL obligations and unexpected events despite the fresh semester, so my comments may still trickle in slowly; nevertheless, I'll get it done. ComplexRational (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

If I'm not back yet by the time this is done with, I'd love somebody to look after my prose and copyedit it.--R8R (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: I've done another read-through and can't find anything else too significant to critique about the prose or content (the bottom sections overall look fine). I still have to check for sourcing and help with copyediting, and I'll let you know if I notice anything else. ComplexRational (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Thank you very much. Your review and edits were absolutely invaluable. I think there will be some reworking of one more paragraph and possibly (but I hope not) one more will be added. I'll try to get this done this weekend, which will be a long one since the upcoming Monday is a national holiday in my country.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
One thing I caught while copyediting: and they produce nuclei that are clear to determine before the actual decay – I'm not entirely sure what you meant, could you please clarify? ComplexRational (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, doesn't sound right; wonder how I missed it. I meant to say that it's easy to know what the daughter of an alpha decaying nucleus will be (as opposed to nuclei undergoing SF, whose daughters cannot be known in advance).--R8R (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
And another: Many metals in the periodic table form metallocenes so trends could be more easily determined. – would I be correct in assuming this refers to relativistic effects and periodic trends? I feel it could use a bit more clarification and flushing out, or at least a clearer connection to the earlier bit about predictions for Hs vs. known properties of Ru and Os. ComplexRational (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, doesn't sound great, either. I'm not sure I wrote this, or at least I don't remember that. I think that it should be something like "Many metals in the periodic table form metallocenes and trends among them can be seen easily" or something to that effect. Then again, even that doesn't really fit into the context. I think we can scrap the sentence altogether.--R8R (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: it's only now when I got to your reference on how a new element can be verified by its chemistry rather than its decay. I meant that in a context of superheavy elements, however, and I can't find exactly where your source says that. Could you help me with that?--R8R (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: Do you mean the reference for the statement that chemical experiments can identify an element but not an exact isotope? I see you removed that bit—I added it because the already-present and uncited statement suggested that chemical identification sometimes serves as confirmation—the supporting material was and one cannot separate isotopes of the same element that way since they exhibit identical chemical behavior on page 21 and it generalizes to all elements (not specifically SHEs, but aside from 1H/2H and a few other light isotopes, chemical behavior of different isotopes is indistinguishable). ComplexRational (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Aha, I see; thank you. Not sure whether I'd say this is proof enough or not, but regardless I have indeed decided that the sentence needing this source was not important. Sorry for not updating on this earlier; I did have it in mind, though I caught my drift with writing there and didn't want to distract from it until I was done. I think I'm finally done with that section. Probably I'll want to fix some small things later, but generally, the work on content is over.--R8R (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Re copernicium: I am actually curious about whether any RS has commented about this. I guess it is probably not so common now after the war that we are not supposed to mention, but in the interbellum there was one of those nationalist squabbles between German and Polish scholars about the nationality of Copernicus. While I agree with Czesław Miłosz that the whole debate was completely absurd and anachronistic, it is interesting that Armbruster said this, and Hofmann also said that they weren't looking for someone who was German, and then went for Copernicus. Maybe they went for him with the idea that he predated modern nationality. Or maybe the whole debate was forgotten out of embarrassment in Germany because the Nazis occupying Warsaw put up a plaque on the Copernicus monument proclaiming him to have been German (and now I've gone and mentioned it, but I think I might get away with it this time). Considering that there are enough nationalists around on WP for this to have made our page on lamest edit wars it would be really interesting to see if anyone has remarked on this. But I kind of doubt it.

(Off-topic:) Just IMHO, Planck, Boltzmann, Sommerfeld, and Helmholtz definitely deserve elements. Whatever can be said against naming elements after places and countries, I think you cannot hold it against the names of worthy scientists. But I kind of doubt we will get them anymore. :( Double sharp (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know myself. I know that for a long time, being Russian meant simply being loyal to the Russian tsar and believing in the Orthodox faith. I don't know if the Germans (or the Polish) defined their nation in similar terms, though I will recall that the Holy Roman Empire was renamed the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation during Copernicus's lifetime.
This might be a thing to check casually. When I, in preparation for a future work on Transfermium Wars, was looking for why Meitner was recognized in form of having an element named after her, I was wondering whether she was recognized merely as a great scientist, or if there was any desire to add other subliminal messages, like naming an element after a woman (there are few elements named after women) or after a Jew (as you recall, the Germans had had issues with them in the past). During the course of that search, I checked the Periodic Videos clip on meitnerium, and it said that that was it, they simply wanted to recognize a great scientist who hadn't had the fortune to get a Nobel Prize when her collaborator Otto Hahn did. Perhaps some revelation of this kind for Copernicus may be out there. Or it may not. I'll check that sometime. That video also said that Planck was in GSI's top tier of potential people to honor.
@Double sharp: I've got something to ask you for. Since you were not as closely involved with improvement of the article after the FAC1, this means your eye isn't too blurred with it as mine is (not to mention that I'd naturally want to have you read the article before FAC2 begins); could you give it a read and see if a) the text is fine and doesn't need any prose corrections (just in case, as I found an error today) and b) whether there are spots where sources need to be added?
P.S. Speaking of BBC shows, I recently discovered Yes Minister and I found it just marvelous. I was specifically lured in by this clip. I'm not a huge fan of sitcoms, but this one is really something. Makes me want to watch Servant of the People (TV series) next.--R8R (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: I noticed you added a video, but I would suggest its removal. We don't know the credibility of the source/uploader, and I have my doubts since the description refers to the reaction 238U + 40Ca (not 48Ca, and not reliably sourced anywhere) and the channel is only 4k subscribers and not verified. Also, the presentation is rather awkward in my opinion, meaning that we'd have to adhere to WP:NFCC to embed it, and it's not useful as a reference or EL because its reliability cannot be verified. I see why you may have included it, but I think it would bring about more doubts (especially from FAC2 reviewers) than answers. ComplexRational (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: We do know that the uploader is The Conversation, which seems reliable to me. That this video is indeed on a genuine The Conversation channel and not someone trying to mimic them is clear given that I saw the video on their website first. The description says that the video originally comes from the Australian National University, again, reliable enough, I'd say. There have been a couple of places where I simply referenced university courses, and I think that should count as reliable sources. Here's an article where calculations about this very reaction from this very university around the same time as the video were published; it even has fusing balls itself. I'll find a way to reflect this in the article. Also, we don't need to embed the video because all we do is give a link.--R8R (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: Thank you – I was not aware of this video's existence on a more official website, and looking at it now, it seems pretty reliable. I still am surprised about its apparent obscurity and lacking a direct link, though. Nevertheless, that article certainly helps to establish credibility, and does not leave a seeming awkward link to an external video, so I think it's better now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Coming closer

@ComplexRational: I must say, I disagree with this edit. The general point is that there is an antithesis between a limited range and an unlimited range; it doesn't work just as well if the latter is enclosed into parentheses. Would you reconsider or am I missing something that you've added instead?--R8R (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: I made this edit because the antecedent for "its range" is not obvious from the preceding clause, and the usage of "and" carries a stronger connotation that these are two unrelated coexisting properties rather than a causal relationship (which, to my understanding, this is). I fully understand your reasoning for an antithesis, though; I might try tweaking it again, and if you're still not satisfied, we can restore the status quo ante and discuss this further. ComplexRational (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no strict causal relationship but they are not independent, either: the nucleus would've still been torn apart by electrostatic repulsion if the range was limited they way it is with the strong interaction because not all protons would be far enough from the rest of the protons to be outside of the range. I also think that a proper sentence formulation requires the clauses that are to form an antitheses should be of the same type, preferably they should be main clauses. (Finally, this is minor and please correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I've always thought that using "for" instead of "because" adds some pretentiousness to any speech, something we don't want to do in encyclopedia writing.)--R8R (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes by DePiep

  • re this edit: I don't think this construction is correct nor needed. This is just in a running sentence, the number having a grammatical function (not mathematical as in "number_unitsymbol" sequence). Also not found in MOS. I sugest remove (revert). -DePiep (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    As I understand it (following a suggestion from User:SandyGeorgia at island of stability FAC), it's not different from 747 in "Boeing 747" or II in "World War II," and both these cases are recommended to be written with non-breaking spaces (see WP:NBSP, that's a MOS reference).--R8R (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
    I am not convinced on the 'awkward' semi-rule. For starters [18] has "252 nuclides" NBSP-ed, which is a stretch by SandyGeorgia of the rule. Does this imply every number in a running sentence shall not stand alone? Also: WP:NBSP examples are mostly value pairs (such as quantities—but mind there a symbol is used not the name), Roman numbers, and explicit proper names like Boeing_747. However, in this case "element 108" is not a proper name but descriptive, and this not present in the MOS examples.
I note that {{Convert}} implements the NBSP as follows: when teh unit is written by name (in full), there is a regular (breaking space. When by symbol, it uses NBSP (per MOS:UNIT) see this. IOW, convert lets break between number-word pair. As I said, in running text a number being alone is accepted. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for this response, it's rather educating. However, it still does not address the issue with "World War II"---II is clearly an ordinal number rather than a nominal one, as is the case with "element 92", but is still recommended by MOS (WP:NBSP is a subsection of MOS) to be separated by a non-breaking space.--R8R (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the difference is about ordinate vs. nominal. And yes it is MOS, but that MOS says "awkward", so there is the grey area in the MOS. Anyway, apart from units etc., the MOS illustrates/says only that we should not break inside proper names that contain a number (including WW2, popes, Boeing). Once *not* a name, such as 'element X', this mos does not address nor apply. Checking: do you still support that the "252 nuclides" mentioned should have an NBSP because of this Awkward-rule? If so, what inline-number situation would *not* be awkward? -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it is, though. I agree that this is a gray area; we could simply call for more people and ask their opinions. What do you say if we ask Double sharp and ComplexRational and if they both arrive to the same conclusion, then we follow whatever it is? (I don't want a larger discussion given how minuscule the problem at hand is.)
At the present time, "252 nuclides" seems better off with a non-breaking space to me. It's not about grammar (I don't think grammar regulates this at all), it's about convenience of the reader. I accept that there may be other opinions on this and wouldn't shove mine down anybody's throat, but if you ask for my opinion, here it is. A situation where a number would not be awkward separated to the left and right with regular spaces is when it is not tied to a noun: "the maximum number of marbles that you can put in this jar is 600 and not a single more than that."--R8R (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I concur exactly; these were added and seemingly endorsed while Island of stability was at FAC. The awkwardness without a no-break space results because 252 specifically enumerates "nuclides". In this sense, it functions as a unit, much like 6400 kilometers or 180 degrees, and those certainly could display awkwardly without a no-break space. Also, normal spaces are okay in "The number of known stable nuclides is 252 but is theorized to be lower", for example, as that 252 does not enumerate a specific noun. ComplexRational (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes it is grey, but only for the "awkward" detail. Simply parsing the examples reduces the gray area even more (as I did: "... only in proper names"). Then widening the gray area again by introducing new, maybe more objective criteria is more about personal preferences than applying this specific MOS—such a crisp criteria is not present. If further discussion is needed, Talk:MOS:NBSP is the place.
Of course, setting a (non-fatal) edit in FAC does not constitute a MOS. Next, it is grammar, as in "number before noun" and "number in proper name". Next, if "number before noun" would be the solution, that's a change of MOS really, and is not supported in current "6400 kilometers" {{Convert}} output at all. And of course, "convenience of the reader" is screaming: don't add non-conventional differences; don't strive for exceptions to MOSs. -DePiep (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I am rather nonplussed by how you think your interpretation reduces the gray area when you could clearly read me have a different opinion on this. I don't see why your logic would go over mine here (nor do I think that mine is better; hence the notion of a gray zone). However, if you want to bring it up at a discussion for a MOS change, more power to you, I'd find that very appropriate, and if you push your view into the MOS, I'll comply and won't even be bitter about it.
I don't see why spaces versus non-breaking spaces is grammar or anything more than writing style at all, but if you can have Oxford or whomever you like back up your claim, I'll be eager to listen. {{Convert}} per se is not a source of anything, so I'm not particularly worried about contradicting it. Also, English allows for some variety with certain things, in part because there is no governing body for the English language, so there is room for convenience. This is why some English people use the serial comma (the Oxford comma, as they often say) and some don't, and neither can say that the other side is wrong because they're both right in accordance with the traditions they've been writing with and there's nothing to override that. Same with, say, canceled/cancelled (I've seen both instances in American English, and my browser doesn't mark either word as misspelled).
Generally, I really don't see why you ask for my opinion (with "opinion" being the operative word here) and then so vehemently oppose it once you have found out you don't like it. But if you do want to oppose it, please bring up some sources.--R8R (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
So many personal accusations, paternalism and even BF in this, that I need more time to find energy to reply. If at all. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
That's quite a claim. Please name one example of any of what you've just named. I'll apologize if I'm in the wrong.--R8R (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I invite both of you to comment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Non-breaking spaces with written out units. ComplexRational (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
re CR: yes, when about content.
re R8R: your last sentence: "Generally ... ask for my opinion ... and then so vehemently oppose it". Isn't that the whole poin t of reasoning? So that only after I have read your opinion, I can judge it and state agreement or not? While mentioning rationale of dis/agreement. How else would it work? -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I will respond, but for now, I'd like to clarify one thing: is this quote you've brought up an example of a personal accusation, paternalism, or bad faith?--R8R (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Article structure and text flow

  • Now that section Hassium#Introduction has been centralised here, I want to make this observation. In general, there is a strong need to make the standard text fit into the hassium article in every sence (structure, logic, description, ...). At the moment, I think this is missing re the section title "Introduction". As it stands now, also in the TOC btw, it suggests or states being an Introduction to hassium itself.
This can easily be adjusted by changing the section header into, like, "Introduction of superheavy elements". Textual adjustments in this sense, in the boilerplate text then, to be looked after later. -DePiep (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Misc 2

  • "The resulting nucleus has more neutrons and as a result has a longer lifetime, since the neutron–proton ratio of the most stable isotopes grows as the atomic number increases. [note] Generally, heavier nuclei require more neutrons because as the number of protons increases, so does electrostatic repulsion between them. This repulsion is balanced by the strong interaction between quarks within nucleons; it is enough to hold the quarks together in a nucleon together and some of it is left for binding of different nucleons. The more nucleons there are in a nucleus, the more energy there is for binding the nucleons." - it sounds nice, it is cited, but this is false, see seaborgium (where cold fusion produces 260Sg and hot fusion produces 263mSg). In fact, the greater neutron excess of actinides over lead and bismuth is so much that even the necessary ejection of more neutrons for hot fusion doesn't make the products more neutron-poor. The problem IIRC is that with light-ion hot fusion the excitation energy the products come out with is so great that the yield quickly becomes quite poor. That's why warm fusion with 48Ca was such a great thing: it combined the good points of hot fusion (more neutrons, compare 278Nh from cold fusion with 282Nh from direct hot fusion and 286Nh from decay) and cold fusion (the magic numbers provide more stability), and also why we seem to be in such a quandary for proceeding beyond Og. Now, we wouldn't say the last thing here as it's irrelevant, but I think this needs a relook. Double sharp (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I am a bit confused. This argument would make sense if it were attached not to the quote in the beginning, but rather to the phrase deleted in your last edit in the article, the edit summary to which reads, "talk page." Did you copy and paste the wrong quote or am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The point of the deleted sentence, however, was that "neutron-just-right" superheavy nuclei need to have more neutrons per proton as compared to both light and heavy nuclei. You do remember that original "neutrons per proton" note with its figures for Al, Au, and Pu? Even Ca-48 gives you neutron-deficient nuclei because ideally you'd want more than 1.4 neutrons per proton for hassium.--R8R (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I messed up a little. Regardless, it does not matter in that section how things play out now, it's a History section (even if it only covers a bit of the element's history and has a different title). What matters here is how things were back then; we could also note if they are different now, the article uses notes extensively already, we could add more since this is important.--R8R (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
So we could add that sentence back, noting the point was in minimizing the number of ejected neutrons, and explain in a note that this does not necessarily maximize the number of neutrons. How does that sound?--R8R (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: Yes, I think that would be best. Yesterday I tried adding some stuff to explain why cold fusion was more desirable there, then realised what I added was wrong, and brought this to the talk page because it seems to give a slightly wrong impression at first glance even if it does not actually say anything wrong. Double sharp (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Great, will do.
Is there any reason why you wrote "excess energy" instead of "excitation energy"? The latter seems to be easier to grasp. The Czech source I used also uses it.--R8R (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I understand it, the reason for using 48Ca are that its reactions provide additional neutrons in the CN (but we shouldn't give a ratio; models don't consistently predict what is ideal for Hs) without the high excitation energy characteristic of other hot fusion reactions. It's kind of a best of both worlds scenario (called "warm fusion" in other articles here in WP), though we still don't get "neutron-just-right" SHEs unfortunately. I suppose these two points could be summarized in a one-sentence description or note.
And +1 on using "excitation energy"; that is technically the correct term. ComplexRational (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Re terminology, I thought "excess" might be more understandable for the average reader the first time as it is exactly the excess energy that has been pumped in over the ground state. But OK, using the technically correct term from the start is also fine if we give a parenthetical explanation of what excitation means in this context the first time. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I think I'm done. Please check the text now.--R8R (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I like the current state of it very much. ^_^ Though I guess perhaps we can say for precision that the binding energy being referred to is for the last neutron, not the binding energy of the whole nucleus like it normally means. Double sharp (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Great, I tried to add that idea without having it sound too technical. I'll be waiting for any more comments from you.--R8R (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There are other definitions than elements >103; it can be >100, >112, or 104--120/121. Need to reflect that in note a.--R8R (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A few things

  • Do we happen to know why the JINR did not claim the 1983 experiments as a discovery?
    No, but we do know that the TWG thought those results were suggestive but not enough to make a solid claim. Perhaps the JINR thought the same.
  • And why IUPAC retracted its 1995 name set?
    Similarly to the 1994 set, it was met with an outcry in Berkeley. Looking at The Transfermium People, I see the book say that compromise was even worse than the 1994 one and then that it was rejected, although formally there is no mentioned link between the two other than a mere word "indeed."
  • It seems to me we should explain a bit more about the double magicity. Firstly, maybe it is not so obvious for the average reader that 108 + 162 = 270, so we should outright say Hs-270 is double magic. But more than that, we also ought to explain what the evidence is from Ds isotopes that N = 162 is magic. I suppose it is based on what happens if you break the shell with the alpha decay.
    Hmm. Now that I think about it, it may be a good idea to swap the sections Natural occurrence and Isotopes.
Do we really have to explain that? Maybe, but this would be note material. I'll think about it.--R8R (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the swap seems to be a good idea to me. I'll let you think about it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I see this was that moment I wanted to talk to you about but this slipped my mind. Fixed it myself now; looks good to me.--R8R (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I see it's already in there now, but I was going to say that the "evidence" appears to be the dominance of alpha decay rather than fission around N = 162. ComplexRational (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I like the current note, so everything's fine with this. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I've done a read-through of the article and these are the only things that jumped out at me. But maybe this is because I'm sort of familiar with the more heavy-duty stuff already... Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I am eager to assume that since I have considered the article is already ready for an FAC, that there's nothing really to jump at a reader.--R8R (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I think so too! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: in that case, please check my last edits and begin an FAC when you're ready.--R8R (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Whenever you're ready. I've been meaning to respond here for days—RL is a mess right now—but things should slowly start clearing up and I'll do what I can to help at the FAC. ComplexRational (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The past week has been pretty busy too, but I think I have opened up a little bit of time...my concern with starting it too early is just that I may not be able to have the time to deal with things for the whole duration. But if we can count on the three of us together to help then maybe I can start it soon. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I expect I should have enough spare time from the next weekend on.--R8R (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hassium/Archive_1&oldid=1136788193"