Talk:Copernicium/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Deletion

For a November 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ununbium

WikiProject

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Elementbox converted 11:01, 15 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 19:59, 9 June 2005).

final decay product?

I clipped this out of the note on the confirmation of May 2006:

(identified as a final product of an elemental decay series)

how could an isotope such as this be anywhere near the end of a decay series? Potatoswatter 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For a heavy enough element: ununoctium to ununhexium to ununbium. --Vuo 08:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you! Still not sure what "final" means in this context… guess that's for me to look up tho. Potatoswatter 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the ununoctium article, it means it's the final beta-decay product. As it undergoes fission after this... wouldn't that mean it's at the end of a beta-decay series, as it is not itself stable? 60.226.133.172 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "beta" does not appear in ununoctium. We've sorted it out, thank you :v) . Potatoswatter 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

...http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9111456

A gas

How did you changed that ununbium is a gas, but not as the liquid. Following periodic trend with mercury it would have boiling point lower than that of mercury. I guessed the boiling point of 150°C and melting point −100°C. Cosmium 22:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is probably too early to really say, but there is a paper cited in the article titled "Indication for a gaseous element 112" which is based on experimental data, not periodic trends (or even theoretical calculations). It is a good paper and relatively readable (it also briefly discusses why periodic trends are not necessarily going to hold up for the superheavy elements. I can't claim to be an expert but it has something to do with relativistic effects). Kingdon 23:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mercury analog?

This weeks issue of Nature gives us an interesting article in which is decribed that 112 forms almalgams with gold like mercury. Something for the article? (Ref Eichler et al - Chemical characterization of element 112 - Nature 447, 72-75 (3 May 2007) 217.122.83.79 09:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Whose opinion is it...

...that this element is a liquid as opposed to a solid?? Feel free to give any external links available. 66.245.98.219 23:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea how anyone could confirm its liquid state when so few atoms have been produced, but more importantly, why is this article being considered for deletion? AFAIK, this element hasn't yet been given a name, and so the "ununbium" article should remain. User:Heian-794 01:00, 1 Dec 2004

Probably Uub is a liquid. Look the elements in the group 12:

Element	Melting point	Boiling point
Zinc	419´5 ºC	907 ºC
Cadmium	321 ºC	767 ºC
Mercury	-38´8 ºC	356´73 ºC

So, Uub may has a melting point less than -40 ºC and a boiling point less than 300 ºC--Daniel bg 11:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Or this element could be a solid at room temperature or a liquid with a higher melting point than mercury, just like in boron family, the trends in melting point decreases down the group until it reaches gallium, and then the melting point increases after gallium, but their boiling points decrease continuously down the group from boron through thallium. So the boiling point may be even lower than or higher than mercury, but I'll say it is likely to be lower. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC Article

An article has been put up on the BBC News website concerning ununbium: I don't know if it will be of any use for this article [1] 86.156.81.75 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It says that only 4 atoms of it have ever been produced, which contradicts the article's number of 60. Since there are 5 different isotopes known acc. to the article, BBC's claim seems to be false. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC's science accuracy is poor. But ours is no better without cites, so thx for the tag. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing, URGENT!

I do not dare editing the infobox, the tables and the Periodic Tables, the nuclide chart,... but it needs to be changed to Copernicium (sourced by WebElements.com) --Eu-151 (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Please don't. I have reverted all edits of 15 July installing the unconfirmed name. Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no offical word from IUPAC and webelements is neither representative nor credible in that extent that I would make the changes from Uub to Cp.--Stone (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WebElements says that Copernucium is the "provisional" name. DMacks (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation issues

Professor Sigurd Hofmann has proposed that the name be pronounced with a long i and soft c,<ref>see ref 3</ref> even though this does not reflect the sound of Copernicus's name. Although alternative spellings have been suggested to Hofmann, namely "copernicum", "copernium" or "kopernikium" (Kp), Hofmann has said that the team had discussed the possibility of "copernicum" or "kopernikum", but that they had agreed on "copernicium" in order to comply with current IUPAC rules.<ref>private discussions via email</ref>

added the deleted text tpo talk page. Might be of use in the future.--Stone (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated the deleted sections with regards to pronunciation. I've done this because this is useful information at this moment in time. The criticism by Roentgenium111 about the source of the information is unjustified. References to private communications are perfectly valid in professional journals so they are surely good enough for wikipedia. In addition, they were given because you will not get published sources with regards to private discussions by Prof Hofmann and his team with regards to their ideas about pronunciation or other spellings that they had thought about. In order to get this information, I had to email him. You can't get a better source than that!!! Given the fact I've written the majority of the current content for the articles relating to elements 102-122, excluding 118, you should trust me that I have got reliable sources! I regularly check all these articles to ensure that people have added correct information. --Drjezza (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But that's not a "long i", which would be cope-er-NICE-ium, when he pronounced it cope-er-NIECE-ium. True though that his pronunciation rhymes with paramecium rather than americium. kwami (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi kwami. Just to let you know that cope-er-NICE-ium and coper-er-NIECE-ium can in fact be pronounced the same since Prof. Hofmann was referring to the french city of Nice, not the English word nice! --Drjezza (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's still not a "long i", which is the vowel of divine, not of machine.

As for sourcing, the point is that other editors should be able to review them. It's not just a matter of honesty, but whether you've properly understood them. But it's only problematic when likely to be challenged, and I don't think this is the kind of thing that's likely to be challenged.

But what the pronunciation made irregular to honor the city of Nice? kwami (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

@Drjezza: I'm sorry, but private communications are not good enough for Wikipedia. Please read just the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability - sources must be published, so that every reader is able to verify the information. It's certainly a nice information and I appreciate your dedication, but a private communication cannot be verified by anyone but you and Mr. Hofmann. This has nothing to do with trusting you or not (I didn't even know it was you who added the sections), but with the rules of Wikipedia. If Hofmann wanted this information to be made public, he could just have added a suggested pronunciation to the GSI's press release. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue. Anyhow, I'm going to write to the head of the IUPAC inorganic chemistry division suggesting that when they publish the recommendation of any new element name, that they provide guidelines on the expected pronunciation. It's daft to be arguing over this sort of thing.--Drjezza (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Other than the preference of the discovery teams, are there recommended pronunciations? The IAU won't say in the case of astronomy, since astronomers can't agree. kwami (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

All recent updates incorrect - this element is still called Ununbium

For the time being this element is called Ununbium. Copernicium is only a proposed name. It's very irritating that this has been updated incorrectly without any reference to the name change or that it is also known as ununbium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.130.37 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Changes reverted. Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

new name Copernicium officially adopted--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the article you link. It states "The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) will officially endorse the new element's name in six month's time". Average Earthman (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, what's with this mad rush to change the name of this element to Copernic(i)um? I just reverted an anon edit to periodic table to the same effect. We're 6 months ahead of official recognition, guys! Hello?!—Tetracube (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Didn't read carefully enough.--Rafaelgarcia (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I came to the page about to change it, but luckily checked the talkpage first, the fault of the media really, the headlines are very misleading. I hope nobody minds but I have added a hidden comment to the article. I think we should leave the hidden comment there for a few weeks until the hype dies down, all the best 92.236.88.188 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, every bit helps, as the news article appears to have precipitated a large number of premature name changes.—Tetracube (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I came here straight from the BBC article to move the page too! Then saw it was locked and read talk. I've added a line to the intro about the name, for the benefit of people who come here from news articles - please feel free to tweak wording for precise accuracy - David Gerard (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As the BBC Article states " The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) will officially endorse the new element's name in six month's time in order to give the scientific community "time to discuss the suggestion". " So if and when it assumes the new name officially ( in 6 months ) It will warrant the change--Loganis (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it should not be changed before that.—Tetracube (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm.. OK. One day the change is official, Please wait for that time to moving. Coming soon ! Thanks. Teetaweepo (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ununbium → Copernicium — If Copernicium is suggested, it will soon be called Copernicium all over the world because no second group claimed discovery. So move it! --Eu-151 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy. Copernicium is more accuracy name.--Angstorm (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose. It's not officially called that at this time, so it's not appropriate for wikipedia to jump ahead of formal recognition. DMacks (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Impatience. Instead of moving an article forth and back, why not doing something more productive. Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Wikipedia should not include unpublished information, and this includes names that have not yet been officially recognized. After the name becomes official, we can rename the article.—Tetracube (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The redirect good enough for now and if the IUPAC gets to a decision we should reverse it to Ununbium as a redirect to Copernicium.--Stone (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment. It is possible (although unlikely) that this proposed new name will be cancelled?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So, now the redirect needs to point the other way, it being official. I'm not sure how to do that.Mzmadmike (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the prove that it is offical? The pole was in vavour of leaving it like it is before doing the move!--Stone (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Given the clear consensus against move, your unilateral move action borders on vandalism. Editor himself wrote "The element got the official name Copernicium on 17th of July, 2009" (without cite), so even he admits it's premature to declare it (today being the 15th). This is hardly a breaking news issue that is harmed by being deliberate. Group who chose this name's own press release from 14-july[2] states "In around six months, IUPAC will officially endorse the new element's name." So it's citedly not official yet. I'll move it back later tonight unless someone has a rational objection before then. DMacks (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hereby propose to revert this unilateral move that was against consensus.—Tetracube (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tetracube to keep this article at Ununbium. Note that the IUPAC twice (out of 5 times yet) proposed to change an element name proposed by the GSI: Hassium → Hahnium for 108 and Nielsbohrium → Bohrium for element 107. In the 1st case, they returned to the original proposed name after protests from the GSI, but in the 2nd case, GSI's proposed name was not accepted. In both cases the GSI were the only group claiming discovery, like with ununbium. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought that the Element naming controversy for 102-109 (No, Lr, Rf, Db, Sg, Bh, Hs, Mt) only arose because Russian (Dubna), US (Berkeley) and german (GSI) groups copeted for discovery. And the premature date was just an error. Sorry. --Eu-151 (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The element naming controversy arose because Russia and US both claimed discovery for 104-106, but GSI's discoveries (107-109) were never disputed.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait till the element is officially renamed. Copernicium is still only provisional, and like Nielsbohrium became finally Bohrium there might still be minor changes. It might save some effort to await the final decision. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 13:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Symbol

Is that Cp or Cn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.169.146.54 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the symbol going to be Cp?? I know it can't be Co because it's cobalt. Georgia guy (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the GSI press release says. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

However, according to the main article the symbol Cp has been disallowed, and Cn has been proposed in its place. --Glenn L (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Official name

When will this element get an official name?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Depending when the GSI has found a good suggestion. If they have one in the drawer they will hand it in tu IUPAC and then they will decide, and that can take till the next meeting. If the name is controversial like feuerwehrium ( a joke: 112 is the firefighters (Feuerwehr)in Germany) they will go into a second round and then we wait for another one or two meetings. So it took several years to recocnize the discovery and a year or two for the name search would do no harm.--Stone (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See this article: [3] -down load ׀ sign! 01:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see "Planckium", named after Max Planck. He doesn't have one yet. Draconiator (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Chandrasekhar didn't get one either, what about Chandrasekharium? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this BBC article link title, it's now called copernicium. I think we should start making necessary changes, such as moving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Hartford (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we should not. The BBC article explicitly states that the name is provisional. It will be another 6 months before the IUPAC approves the name (and even then, we don't know if the name will be taken as-is, or revised to a different name). So please, hold off on the renaming.—Tetracube (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No one seriously considered naming it Obamium though, right? I hope not.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Only in humorous settings. First of all, the US president is alive. Secondly, not one of the named elements is or has ever been named for a world leader, living or dead. ---Glenn L (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because he is alive doesn't mean he can't have an element named after him; think Seaborgium or Gadolinium. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There are others which are much higher on the list I think. As the German team has the right to make the suggestion they would try to find a German politician to name the element. Adenaurium, Bismarkium are the more or less political correct ones, but Guidium or Angelium would be the ones with more fun.--Stone (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we move it now???

Please, can this page be moved to its proper official name? National Geographic recently printed an article stating its name is officially recognized. Cite that, move the page (must be move-protected right now, is it not?), and we're all happy. When was that hidden notice (please don't change the name, not accurate, blah-bloh-blaggggh) written last? It's high time we move it. It would be like referring to a baby, heretofore unnamed until 3 months old, that is now named, as "that baby" constantly. If we can't move it now, when? When it becomes a household name and/or becomes part of a radiation scandal? When? Are we that stuffy and change resistant? Wikipedia is about progress. Accuracy? It's accurate enough. You can't deny it now...

The long winded 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{Test UR Skill!} _{What I've Done} 04:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not until we have a proper reference. NG is not a reliable source in this matter. Materialscientist (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Put it down, write citation needed yourself, and leave it be. No-one else is caring if it is moved. What is reliable? Nothing but the snobs at IUPAC? Too resistant to progress. And why do people respond to my questions so quickly?

When will we move it then??? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{Test UR Skill!} _{What I've Done} 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2010/02/name-that-element.html: It is not official yet:

"A German-led team had identified 112, the heaviest element yet, in 1996. They want to dub it copernicium in honor of 16th-century astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, whose sun-centric model of the planetary system mirrors the structure of an atom, with electrons orbiting a nucleus. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry should sign off on the label this year."

--Glenn L (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GSI announces name change

Both in German an no word from IUPAC --Stone (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a "This page is in German" message from Google when you visit that page?? Just click on translate. Georgia guy (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No! The IUPAC is the point where everything should come from and they have a last press release in January on their page. dpa is a good news agency, but the IUPAC page would be better for me. The birthday of Copernicus would be the best day to anounce this, and this is today.--Stone (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC) PS Ich könnts auch lesen wenns in Deutsch da steht.--Stone (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Both sources given above say that IUPAC announced the name. So I'd say the name is official now. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The IUPAC press release is empty except one news from January, so It might come today, or it is a simply wrong. Official would mean from IUPAC and not somebody saying IUPAC will announce today. --Stone (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Still ununbium??

This article says it will get a new name in January, but it's January now. Georgia guy (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just see if I can find a source to the affect that the name change has taken place, gimme a sec, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't find anything at http://www.iupac.org/ so I guess it's still being processed. I expect they'll finish late January, kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The provisional recommendation is open for comments until 31 January. Then it'll be reviewed, and either revised or passed on for final approval. So we won't see any news until February at the earliest. —Raven42 (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it cannot be endorsed in January as the article claims, since a final decision can be made earliest in 1 February, which probably, as far as I can guess, is the time when it will get its new name, since it is a Monday, and Mondays are generally phantastical. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the half-life of these names? Only a few decays to names after physicists have ever been observed, I know… Potatoswatter (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they decay by randomly dropping characters. Since the current name is ununbium, it might happen that the next name is nunbium or ununbum. Since the names, like chemical elements, decay randomly, we cannot predict which day it will change name next. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm crossing my fingers that nunbum will be stable. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Still ununbium. Just an observation... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Uuuh, eeh, øøh... (the sound of me thinking) ... do we have a centralized site watcher facility in Wikipedia that can watch changes in external sources? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Heck, it's got its name now. Can we move it? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{Test UR Skill!} _{What I've Done} 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It became official a short time ago per Element 112 officially named 'Copernicium', chemical element 112 receives the name “Copernicium” and Heaviest element after Kopernikus designated. --Glenn L (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

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

The result of the move request was: page moved kwami (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ununbium → Copernicium —

OK, now that it is official, move is a must. Cyndaquazy (Talk) 03:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
It's official now. Georgia guy (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Not from IUPAC, sorry! Hear say!--Stone (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

HoldThe date looks good as it is The birthday of Copernicus and it might be possible that IUPAC waits for maximal impact at best news time in the US.--Stone (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It became official a short time ago per Element 112 officially named 'Copernicium', chemical element 112 receives the name “Copernicium” and Heaviest element after Kopernikus designated. --Glenn L (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold I'm with Stone on this one. There is no widespread media notation of the naming yet nor anything official from the IUPAC, so I am hessitant. I did a search and RIA Novosti appears to be the only English media source publishing the news. I'd like to see something more than that before we move forward. Reliable sources don't currently support the move. I'd like to see an official IUPAC before a move is made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Move There are two sources; see the preceeding section. Dismissing each source claiming that it is a single one is a mistake. Moreover, an announcement in February has been presumed earlier. Waiting for a confirmation by an American news agency is narrowminded. One official announcement might possibly have been enough alone, when the announcement is expected and conforms to expectations; two is quite enough. JoergenB (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The american news agency would make no difference, because the original claim is that IUPAC announced it and this should be on the IUPAC webpage.--Stone (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of American narrow-mindedness (BTW, I'm not even American) but rather an issue of WP:NONENG and WP:RELIABLE. Reliable English sources are simply preferable. More importantly, there is no wide body of reliable sources publishing the news, two sources is hardly convincing. I really don't understand the rush, just wait for the IUPAC announcement.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A change on the website will come, sooner or later... Note what they did. They had the decency to let the original discoverers and proposers of the new name have the honour of making the official announcement.

And, the chance that GSI choose this moment for a hoax is nil (after rounding to six decimals or more). It's not like if they were contenders in some kind of prestige combat, were not recognised officially as the discoverers, and had never before been in the position of naming a new chemical element...

IUPAC published the minutes from the EC meeting in October(?) on December 28. I'm sure this will be annotated too; possibly in a few hours, surely within a few months. So, yes, there is no real hurry; but also no strong reason to wait. We have reliable sources; we have no reason to doubt it. JoergenB (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold I see no benefits whatsoever in a premature move (which will be treated as endorsement by WP - it is, after all, a major encyclopedia). Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Move - Here is the IUPAC press release: Press Release--Danaman5 (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's what we've been waiting for. Moved. kwami (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Ref 20: "private email"

Although, as Drjezza notes above, private communications are acceptable references in journals in this topic area, it'd be a nice extra if we could get a referrable version of this; even a physics blog would be fine for this, I'd think (since so much scientific communication actually happens in blogs these days) - has anyone asked Dr Hofman to write about this publicly? - David Gerard (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to the verifiability guidelines, "[A]ny material challenged or likely to be challenged [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source". If IUPAC has already published information on this "-icium" rule, which I didn't come across after some googling, that should be used as a reference instead of "private email from Hofmann". Otherwise, either the non-sensitive contents of the email should be publicly released or Dr. Hofmann or another equally reputable person in his field of research should, as you recommend it, to write about it in a more accessible publication. Patrick Braga^Talk 13:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

I wonder how "copernicium" should be pronounced. If the second "c" is pronounced as the first (like in "Copernicus"), the "cium" would be difficult to pronounce - "copernicum" would be easier. Is there already a reference for the suggested pronounciation? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the big question to me. The big question is the first I. That is, whether the pronunciation is cope-er-NEE-see-um or cope-er-NY-see-um. Georgia guy (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I like best the fun we will have when we get to the question on: Is he German or Polish? In the sentence like named after the XXXXXX astronomer. The Pronounciation is easy it is latin and the -us ending is transformed into a ium ending and you are right copernicum would be easier. The GSI has no clue what national trolls are living in the underwood of wikipedia.--Stone (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd wager that the pronunciation will be coh-pur-NICK-IUM 86.170.145.158 (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the article additions on the pronunciation since they were based solely on private communication with Hofmann. Wikipedia only allows published sources (see WP:Sources). Also it's not clear to me if the discoverers have the right to decide on the "official" pronunciation of their name. I'm leaving the audio file here in case it can be verified by a published source:

proposed pronunciation ("with a long i and soft c")

(Sorry if the editor was only trying to answer my question. But I'm looking for verifiable information.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is verifiable. Email Prof. Hofmann!!--Drjezza (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How am I able to verify an e-mail from Prof. Hofmann to you?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't. I meant that anyone can email Prof. Hofmann and ask him the same question I did. I just don't think he wants to be bombarded by emails about the same thing. Anyway, once copernicium is accepted all of this becomes irrelevant. As Prof. Hofmann said to me, individuals will decide on the pronunciation, even if they disagree. It should be remembered that even if IUPAC official endorse a name, it's still only a recommendation to the scientific community. Scientists should use the name for international publications; internally they can call it what they like!--Drjezza (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree regarding irrelevancy in this case. There should be other references to support the claim that IUPAC has rules "which allow only the suffix -ium for new elements" since this is applicable outside of Copernicium's case and could, in fact, be useful for future reference. Patrick Braga^Talk 13:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the expected literary pronunciation, starting like Copernicus and rhyming with Americium. Hofmann's preferred pronunciation, like copper + paramecium, is slightly odd from an English POV, so I relegated it to a footnote. I suppose the i of Americium might be pronounced as if it were an e in international meetings as well, but we haven't been including such pronunciations. kwami (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put it as an either-or for now - there's something about seeing Prof. Hofmann's opinion relegated to a footnote regarding the Wikipedia editor's take on things that just rubs me the wrong way. Besides, from the U.S. I would say am-er-EE-see-um, just like paramecium... though if it's any consolation to you, if I said like the British "aluminium" rather than "aluminum" it would have to be al-u-MIN-ium like they do, no?

Bottom line: Latin pronunciation of Latin words invented by and for people who don't know Latin is dicey in any language, even American. So let's try not to get too far away from our lone known source among a sea of confusion. Wnt (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation again

I can count two possibilities for the first vowel (as LOT or GOAT) and three for the third (as KIT, PRICE, or FLEECE) giving a total of six permutations. Currently, two are given in the lede and a third in a footnote, and the other three are omitted. Unless and until a reliable source is supported I don't think Wikipedia should make any judgment and I suggest deleting all the unsourced pronunciations. jnestorius^(talk) 10:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There are three words in the OED that end with -icium and are recent & common enough to have pronunciations provided: americium, indicium, and silicium. All have the vowel of KIT, which is what you'd expect of Latinate words. (I imagine that judicium would as well.) As for the first vowel, standard literary pronunciation of Latin would give it the vowel of GOAT, and since that is also the vowel of Copernicus and Copernican, I don't see why we'd expect anything else. The elements of the pronunciation are sourced in just about every guide to the English pronunciation of Classical names over several centuries. Basically, penultimate stressed vowels in open syllables are long, thus the long O, whereas ante-penultimate stressed vowels in open syllables are short, thus the short I.

Scientists sometimes give words an "international" pronunciation. This is true in botany and astronomy as well as in chemistry. Nonetheless, these usually aren't common enough, or perhaps English enough, to make it into the dictionary. Here we have a German (?) scientist giving a half-anglicized pronunciation. But for our lay English-speaking audience, a fully English pronunciation is likely to be more useful.

In your edit summary, you asked who has a long O vowel for Copernicus. The OED and Merriam-Webster do. In reality, it's more likely to be /ɵ/, but that only occurs in unstressed position, and so wouldn't be relevant here.

The other question would be whether the second c is pronounced as s or as sh. S is a bit more formal, and sh largely predictable in such words. kwami (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you for a personal explanation to convince me personally that the given pronunciations are correct. I'm asking you to respect Wikipedia policy that prohibits unpublished synthesis and original research. Why not just leave a blank there and wait a few days for one of the many language commentators to pick this up and discuss the issue? Wikipedia cannot be ahead of the curve on any news item, and should never try to be. jnestorius^(talk) 13:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which language commentators?

I'll remove the pronunciation for now. kwami (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately John C. Wells is on a month off blogging, but Language Log and David Crystal often blog about linguistic aspects of news stories. jnestorius^(talk) 13:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If people are still looking for a reliable source on pronunciation, I will note that the Royal Society of Chemistry's "Chemistry in its element" podcast [4] has a episode on Ununbium/Copernicium, where Sigurd Hofmann discusses the name and pronunciation issues. Short of any pronunciation guide in the IUPAC announcement/other IUPAC materials, it's probably as a definitive source as one might find. -- 174.31.223.195 (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, he doesn't even use the English pronunciation for zinc, he said "tsinc" several times. He pronounces nearly every English word as if it were a German word with the same spelling. So 66 is "zixty zix", despite the fact that he can pronounce an [s]. I don't think we can use him as a source for how to pronounce anything in English, including Copernicium [koːpɛʁˈniːtsiːuːm].

I removed the sound file, which was OR. I had assumed it was Hofmann's, but turns out it was just another interpretation by a non-native speaker of what the word should sound like in English. kwami (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

While the sound file may not have been well referenced, the rest of the footnote explaining how Hofmann pronounces the name can be (viz. the RSC podcast above). Even though it may not be an "official" English pronunciation (whatever that means), it is what it says on the tin (how the discoverer pronounces the name). Given that the name probably isn't going to be in wide use except by scientists in the same research area as Hofmann, the actual pronunciation will likely be heavily influenced by Hofmann's (as I seriously doubt that any scientist is going to say "Oh, Hofmann can't even pronounce zinc - so we're just going to ignore how he pronounces the element he discovered"). -- 174.31.220.56 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's so important to be included in the lede, even as a note. Wait a few years for this element to appear in dictionaries, etc. which specialize in this sort of thing, and we can cite it then. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC) In any case, to presume that his pronunciation will eventually be the preferred one is a bit of crystal balling... --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect that people are going to fake a German accent just because the discoverer were German. I assume many will pronounce it like an English word. That's generally what English speakers do. kwami (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

nationality

The long standing fight about N. C. at his page is a pitty, but is there the possibility to avoid stating his nationality in this article? A IP editor added the polish infront of N. C. and now I do not dare to remove it although this statment has a potential for a editwar similar to that on the N. C. page.--Stone (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since his mother was German, his father may have been, and he lived in Poland x Prussia, it's a bit hard to assign a particular nationality, so yeah, prob'ly best to sidestep the whole issue. kwami (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cold/hot fusion tables

Please check the tables because they are confusing. The text says that the symbol + indicates something in them, but no + is anywhere. The contents of the cells also seem to be misplaced. --TheBFG (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FRE YWA 05:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is my 6th GA, and as always, I may penalise this article for not being up to standards to prose and refs. I have no bias, but I have a sense of humour. The Chase is on! FRE YWA 05:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Although there's one kink left, it doesn't matter that much so I'll pass this article. FRE YWA 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please specifically provide examples of prose errors? (Otherwise I don't know where to start looking for them in such a huge article!) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples of errors:

Difficulty of oxidation of the elements from its neutral state compared to group 12 elements has also been predicted. Is it copernicium or not? Redundant also.
During reactions with gold, it is shown to be a with a volatile metal and group 12 element. Erronoeusly added short words.
Fixed. About the mentioned "also", it's not that bad, the text seems to flow better with it, at least to me. Please change it if I'm wrong--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you FRE YWA 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Chemical properties
- Extrapolated oxidation states
  - Copernicium is the last member of the 6d series of transition metals and the heaviest group 12 element in the Periodic Table, below zinc, cadmium and mercury. Not MOS compliant.
  - Oxidation of copernicium from its neutral state is also likely to be more hard, than those of previous group 12 members. Punctuation error and what is "more hard"?
  Both done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  Thank you FRE YWA 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  - Among lighter group 12 members, for which +2 oxidation state is the most common, only mercury can show +4 oxidation state, but it is highly uncommon for this element, existing at only one compound at extreme conditions. For the first 2, the problem is there is no article. "For this element" is implied by "only mercury". The word "at" should be "in".
  - Diatomic ion Hg₂²⁺ featuring mercury in +1 oxidation state is well-known, but Cn₂²⁺ ion is predicted to be unstable or even non-existent. No article present.
  Both done --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  Thank you FRE YWA 04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Experimental atomic gas phase chemistry
  - Copernicium has the ground state electron configuration [Rn]5f¹⁴6d¹⁰7s² and thus should belong to group 12 of the periodic table, according to Aufbau principle. Generally, "the" should precede things named after persons (but not persons themselves).
  I've been studying German since October, and I can tell you "Aufbau" is not a person. German word Bau comes from verb bauen, "build", and auf is most closely translated as "up". Therefore, the word means "building up" or something like that. Uppercase is due to that German nouns are always capitalized.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  Oh snap. Anyway, put "the" between "to" and "Aufbau". FRE YWA 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Nucleosynthesis
- In hot fusion reactions, very light, high-energy projectiles are accelerated toward very heavy targets (actinides), giving rise to compound nuclei at high excitation energy (~40–50 MeV) that may either fission or evaporate several (3 to 5) neutrons. This is a contradiction to the first nuclear reaction in the article.
  Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  Thank you FRE YWA 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hot fusion
  - In March 1998, they claimed to have synthesized two atoms of the element in following reaction. Grammar error.
  - In 2000, Yuri Yukashev in Dubna repeated the experiment but was unable to observe any spontaneous fission from 5 minutes activities. Another slip of the tongue.
  Check if now OK--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  Thank you FRE YWA 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Decay product
  - To date, no other elements have known to decay to copernicium. Does this imply something absurd? Atoms are obviously nonliving.
  Done --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  Thank you FRE YWA 08:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
History
- Official discovery
  - A single atom (the second has subsequently been dismissed) of copernicium was produced with a mass number of 277. Watch your tenses.
  Past Simple, here you go--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  Thank you FRE YWA 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Isotopes
- Half-lives
  - Try and chunk this down: The most stable isotope, copernicium-283, has a half-life of 4.2 minutes, even through longer half-life for this isotope can occur, at 5 minutes, and copernicium-285 may have an isomer with an even longer half-life, 8.9 minutes. Copernicium-285 has a half-life of 29 seconds; other isotopes have half-lives only shorter than 0.1 seconds. Copernicium-281 and copernicium-284 have half-life of 97 ms, and the two other isotopes have half-lives slightly under a millisecond. Concerning areas are bolded.
  Please explain what's wrong and give suggestions--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  two other - swapped words. only shorter - redundant "only". half-life, 8.9 minutes - break of flow, replace comma with "of". even through longer half-life for this isotope can occur, at 5 minutes - really bad structure, change to "although it is suspected that this isotope has an isomer with a half-life of 5 minutes". FRE YWA 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  
  Done --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  Thank you FRE YWA 04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nuclear isomerism
  - Although unconfirmed in recent experiments, it is highly possible that this is associated with an isomer, namely copernicium-285b. No source for this.
    Hmmm, yeah, I've been trying to find some proof for it since the beginning of GAN (I found something for ²⁸³Cn). If anyone can help, please do so--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    I've rewritten the paragraph and added two refs.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you FRE YWA 07:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  - However, more recently,²⁸³Cn has been observed to undergo 9.52 MeV alpha decay and SF with a half-life of 3.9 s. Minor typo.
    Done--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you FRE YWA 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a thing I would like to see: the table in the section Theoretical calculations on evaporation residue cross sections should have the identical cells saying "Dinuclear system" merged into one, as should the cells having references 41 and 42.
I'm not sure how to do this, so leaving it first --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I do know how to, but I don't even see reason to keep the table, it's quite too technical and is not very interesting or notable, as well the subsection and even the neighboring one. I've had these feelings for some time time, so it's not spontaneous, and now finally removed--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you FRE YWA 11:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck in fixing these and finding more. Don't say GANDISEEG.

FRE YWA 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nationality again

Could we make a statement that the nationality problem is to complicated for this page and the people who are interested in the nationality of N. C. could look at the N. C. article itself. --Stone (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree and added. Materialscientist (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

8 minutes half life

Is ther any better source than that book? If not I will change everything according to the only source I found. --Stone (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Which source did you find for the "8 minutes half-life isomer" claim? The ref. currently given has decay times of only 1-2 min, according to its figure 4... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Transition metal?

Is it really definitive that copernicium is a transition metal? I'd like proof if possible since the preceding three elements have yet to be proven to be transition metals. -- Glenn L (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the paper about the chemistry of element 112. "By directly comparing the adsorption characteristics of ²⁸³112 to that of mercury and the noble gas radon, we find that element 112 is very volatile and, unlike radon, reveals a metallic interaction with the gold surface. These adsorption characteristics establish element 112 as a typical element of group 12...". If it's a typical member of group 12, then it's a transition metal by the definition of "transition metal" used on Wikipedia. Double sharp (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The full text of that paper can be found here. Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Any update on Elements 109-111 ? -- Glenn L (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, as of February 2012. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In principle, it should be possible to determine the chemical categories of 109-111 as well, since they each have an isotope longer-lived than the investigated ²⁸³112 and flerovium (4 s resp. 2.6 s half-life). But apparently this hasn't been done yet, for whatever reason. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's because all the theoretical predictions on Mt, Ds, and Rg predict them to be transition metals, so the results of an experimental investigation probably wouldn't be too surprising. In fact, I think differing theoretical predictions were the reason why Cn and Fl were investigated chemically. We still list Fl as "unknown chemical properties" because its chemical properties seem to be somewhat unclear (see Talk:Flerovium). Double sharp (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

See the Mt, Ds, and Rg articles for some other reasons. Double sharp (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

refs to use

[5] and the two I just added to the infobox (Cn experimentally measured boiling point(!!!) and predicted crystal structure). Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Fabricated data

The term "fabricated" does not seem to be supported by the reference http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/15/science/at-lawrence-berkeley-physicists-say-a-colleague-took-them-for-a-ride.html?scp=2&sq=victor%20ninov&st=cse&pagewanted=1 which discusses Ununoctium (element #118), and only mentions Copernicium (element #112) in passing. The only mention of significance is the third-to-last sentence:

Though most of the results held up, a single element 110 decay chain from 1994 and a 112 decay chain from 1996 showed what they politely called an inconsistency.

— User:Martin Kealey at 02:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The ²⁸¹Cn isotope in question is the great-granddaughter of the ²⁹³118 isotope that was claimed by Ninov et al. on the basis of fabricated data. It is not related to the ²⁷⁷Cn isotope that was truly synthesised by the GSI team. So yes, the assertion of fabrication is quite supported. Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)