Talk:Transfermium Wars

"Seaborg proved that it was a misreading" is a strong statement especially taking into account that he had a conflict of interests. Apparently IUPAC has a different view. Any references?

I changed "proved" -> "claimed" since nobody came with a reference.

---

The pages for elements 111 through 115 all link here, but this page has no mention of them. What's the deal with them? (I hope they keep their current names. The atomic symbol for Unununium is Uuu. How cool is that?) -Branddobbe 07:54, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, it makes no sense. The links should have been to Systematic element name instead, which has the link to this page. Jay 10:44, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

There is additional prose that could be used for improvement of this article at Talk:Transfermium Wars/Dubnium should anyone seek to improve the article.

Germans?

The introduction lists the German group as being involved in the dispute, but the text of the article provides no follow up. The article should either be expanded to support their inclusion, or they should be removed. Gentgeen 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Discovery"

Someone should probably mention that none of the elements in question were discovered in the conventional sense, other than attempting to synthesise the element, and then looking for it to make sure that it was in fact created.

Handing out autographed periodic tables

Sorry if I'm just being ignorant, but is "Glenn T. Seaborg was still alive and handing out autographed periodic tables" actually true and worth mentioning? It sounds like someone was trying to be funny. But if I'm wrong, I apologise. 213.107.97.72 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It certains IS funny though. Michael.A.Anthony 22:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now officially three years since that edit was made, and nobody's changed it. Wow. Haemorrhage 16:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Be bold? I'll fix it. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to wrong elements

I think the edits of Jan.17 (2008) indicated a valid problem - where to link element names which now refer to other elements? For example it is confusing to link IUPAC's "Dubnium" for element 104 to the article on Dubnium which describes element 105. This may be why User 64.246.250.3 linked "Dubnium" for 104 to Rutherfordium which is the current name for 104. This was consistent with the links for the Dubna and Darmstadt proposals, but is confusing here as Rutherfordium is now used for 106, which may be why User Dreamyshade reverted the changes and described them as "sneakiness". (Assume good faith whenever some argument can be made for an edit).

I propose another solution to this problem: remove the links for all the preliminary element names, and retain links only for the final 1997 proposal which corresponds to the current names. Dirac66 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Slightly revised. Dirac66 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, sorry. I didn't see any other edit history for that IP, and I'm not an expert in this. :) Maybe it's not the best article for me to be watching... Dreamyshade (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

GSI

Was there any controversy of the discovery of elements 107 to 109 by the German group? I thought the controversy was only about elements 104 and 105. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Order of sections (controversy first)

In the current version of the article, the controversy section appears before the list of proposals. As a result, this section is unclear because the necessary context is missing: "The American name to 106 was also objectionable to some because Glenn T. Seaborg was still alive." At this point in the article, the name Seaborg was not yet mentioned, and thus this statement comes out of the blue.

I see two solutions:

• Re-order the sections, so that controversy comes later.
• Add some more context to the controversy section

Patrickdepinguin (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have followed your second solution by specifying that the American name for 106 is seaborgium in order to indicate the relevance of Seaborg. Dirac66 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction talks about 104-106, resolution about 104-109

The introduction line "The names for the chemical elements 104 to 106 were the subject of a major controversy starting in the 1960s which was finally resolved in 1997." does not match what is written in the resolution section. The introduction talks about 3 elements, while the resolution is about 6. I believe the introduction should be edited... Patrickdepinguin (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the introduction to line to read 104 to 108. The controversy did start with 104-106, but there was indeed later disagreement about 107-108 as explained further in the article. For 109 however, there was never any disagreement even though it was added on to the final resolution. Dirac66 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO the introduction did match the article. The element 108 was dragged into the controversy by the commission, but the major controversy was on elements 104-106, because they were the only ones whose discoverer was unclear. Also for element 107, the slight deviation of the IUPAC from the suggested name was not a "controversy" - there is no evidence that the GSI disagreed with it. Maybe we should split the introduction in two sentences to reflect this? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, what do you think of the following introduction? "The names for the chemical elements 104 to 106 were the subject of a major controversy starting in the 1960s. The final resolution of this controversy in 1997 also decided the names of elements 107 to 109." This would mention all 6 elements to be discussed at the beginning. Dirac66 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Go ahead! --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Systematic numerical names

I think that the article has been improved by the recent changes, many by Roentgenium111. However one point which is still absent is the first (pre-1994?) IUPAC proposal for the temporary use of "systematic" names such as unnilquadium for 104 etc. The See also section does have a link to Systematic element names, but there is no mention (in that article or in this one) of why the systematic names were proposed. As I remember it, the systematic names were proposed by IUPAC as a temporary solution in order to avoid taking sides in the American-Russian controversy described here. When they proved unpopular, IUPAC proposed its 1994 solution for 104-109 and reserved numerical names for still newer or undiscovered elements. So I think these names were part of the controversy and should be mentioned - does anyone have sources so we can get the details right? Dirac66 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the Element Atomic Number is a much more important piece of information than the "honorary?" element name given by IUPAC to the discovered element, The individual squabbles re this matter are not really scientifically significant. However, the format of organization of these atomic numbers and names into a modern information chart is. It is hoped that a consideration of the organization of the method of organizing and presenting the data on atomic numbers 119 and 120 will include a consideration as to whether these two elements represent the start of a new series, per the IUPAC standard table, or else the last two elements of the previous series, as per the Janet Periodic Table.WFPM (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC) See Charles Janet

American objection to "Kurchatovium"

Is there a citation for the note that the Americans objected to naming element 104 after Kurchatov because of his role in the Soviet atomic bomb development? It sounds logical, but I'm unable to find anything to back it up. I'm wondering if it needs a citation to contrast this with the naming of other elements after nuclear physicists.216.17.31.166 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, one suggested compromise (coming directly from Seaborg and addressed to the TWG group) was to name element 106 kurchatovium to honour the Dubna team if the Americans got credit for elements 104 and 105: this episode is mentioned at seaborgium and is cited. This was later dropped from consideration due to their disagreements with the TWG report. Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Transfermium Wars

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Transfermium Wars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Haire":

• From Naming of chemical elements: Haire, Richard G. (2006). "Transactinides and the future elements". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 1-4020-3555-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
• From Nobelium: Hoffmann, Darleane C.; Lee, Diana M.; Pershina, Valeria (2006). "Transactinides and the future elements". In Morss, Lester R.; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Springer. p. 1660. ISBN 978-1-4020-3555-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)