Draft talk:Unbibium

Hello! It has been a while since unbibium has had its synthesis attempt, and I was simply wondering why there was not yet a wikipedia page outlining all that we know about the undiscovered element. So, I figured I'd make a page to get unbibium's ball rolling. However, I am still a novice at wikipedia page writing, so it'd be helpful if I could get some editing help and coaching to create a much better article than what is written. I borrowed bits and pieces of unbiunium's page, along with the page for the extended periodic table. There is also an unbibium page in German, so I translated and included some information from there too. Still am going to need a lot of help though, it has been a while and I believe it is overdue that we receive a page on this topic. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I do understand that it is far from completion, but as we reach into new chemical elements that have not had as much research performed on them compared to those currently listed in the periodic table, the content that will be available will be destined to decline eventually. I'd love to know exactly when that specific area is. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that we do not know very much past element 120. Only for elements 121 and 122 have there been complete calculations, and there is not much detail on element 122 beyond it being eka-thorium. Pretty much everything that was published as of 2017 is in Extended periodic table; some of these sources are also at Talk:Unbibium, if you would like to expand this page. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * True, I do understand what you are saying. There's not a whole lot that we can go off of if this page WERE to come to fruition. I also read the Unbibium talk page, but I do appreciate you for linking that here. My goal was just to provide SOME insight on the research that has already been done, even if it is limited. I was attempting to get the next few elements added as articles just up to the hypothetical island of stability. I also wanted to move the info from the Extended periodic table page to the respective pages of ununennium, unbinilium, and unbiunium (which I also appreciate your work on). UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that the region of longest-lived nuclides is now expected to occur at rather lower atomic number, so it is likely that we already do have articles up to the island of stability (copernicium has been an article for a while ^_^). My main concern is the low volume of information: each paragraph of this article would either be a copy of E121's (the nuclear properties) with some numbers changed, or it would be about a paragraph long (the chemistry); since most of the information would be shared, I think having it all in one place at extended periodic table would be better. (With E121, there is enough information that only a summary is posted at extended periodic table; with E122, there's little need for summarisation skills.) And added to that, no one is seriously considering trying for this now when already E119 and E120 seem to be extraordinarily difficult. I think we will begin to have more detailed information on E122 once E119 or E120 actually gets made and conquering the g-block starts to look realistic, and then we will have enough for an article. Two years ago I'd have given more optimistic estimates, but now the 2010s have almost become a decade without a new element since tennessine was synthesised in 2009 (since this hasn't happened for a long time, I almost want to bet for success in 2019 ^_^). So I actually think that it's a little too early rather than too late for an E122 article; after all, the current E121 article was created in 2017, only a few months after the seventh row was officially recognised as complete. Double sharp (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, actually. I was unaware that the predicted island of stability was located at a lower atomic number. And you are correct, there probably wouldn't be a whole lot of substance in the article. These are very fair points to make, and I do see your point of view. I was really just wanted the infoboxes to exist for the next few elements. That's all. Even if it meant there wouldn't be a whole lot of words in the article. The German version of Wikipedia has such pages for the next few elements, even if the pages aren't too well made and seem incomplete. I was trying to improve on those mistakes, and simply just have it exist. That probably isn't the best mindset... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, pretty much everything that would go in an infobox (except the CAS number!) is already in the tables at extended periodic table, as well. I just think that having one long article explaining what is charted beyond element 118 in context is better than having a lot of short ones that don't say very much and mostly duplicate each others' contents; the first few, of course, can be split out into their own pages as we already do for elements 119, 120, and 121, since for those there is a lot to say. We have had various discussions about this at WT:ELEM (I can't remember all of them, but searching terms like "unbiunium" or "unbitrium" should find them), and the general consensus is not to create them as long as there's not enough information. (I would personally say "not until it's possible in principle to make a good article out of it" – which implies that there is a wide enough spread of sources to write more than a few paragraphs. Of course, that doesn't mean you have to actually make a good article out of it yet. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration to improve this article
As per your comments at WT:ELEM, I will continue the work that I started in this public draft. Since you expressed interest in collaborating on this project, feel free to mention any suggestions or changes here. If there are trivial errors (e.g. typos, wikitext errors that show up on the page), though, go right ahead and fix them. Thanks again! ComplexRational (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I still believe that the largest area of focus should be on the Synthesis Attempts, for this is the section of the article that can truly be referenced by research that has officially been completed in the past. I'm going to head to bed really soon, but I decided to check out reference [7] and it does not support the claim made in the future section (I will leave an inline comment on the draft article to show you where). UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides that, you are doing some pretty good work on the article. I'll have to look back at it tomorrow, but the section on the future is a bit hefty in comparison to everything that has been done with synthesis in the past. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked your comment and rechecked Karpov; this reaction is explicitly stated on page 3 (Perspectives of fusion reactions for SH (Z > 118) - also includes reactions for 119-124) and shown in the following figures, as well as having its cross section in the 3n and 4n channels calculated in reference [14] (Ghahramany). You are correct, however, in that it is not explained in detail and no section is devoted entirely to unbibium, and that no explicit plans to perform the reaction anytime soon have been outlined - it is entirely theoretical work. If this is what you meant (i.e. a ref has to explicitly outline plans to perform the reaction or do not include it), I can remove or reformat it so it does not appear that way. In that case, there also would be issues in other articles along these lines that need to be addressed (e.g. isotopes of flerovium states that Pu + Zr = Fl + Ca, but I cannot find a source to that). Regarding the other sections (especially synthesis attempts), I will conduct more research. ComplexRational (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Shorter?
As a complete outsider to heavy element physical chemistry, I suggest the article become a bit shorter and less technical, as for an encyclopedia there is a sweet spot between comprehensive and accessible to people not skilled in the field. Also, toward the end of the longer paragraphs I see semi-speculative sentences without references. Either delete or find published citations. Otherwise, a grand effort to give this element its due space. I hope it finds an AfC reviewer with enough technical knowledge. David notMD (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I found some references to verify those sentences. Which sections do you believe are too technical? Also, there already is an unbibium article in mainspace - I made substantial changes to this draft to avoid creating imbalance or small, easy-to-miss mistakes that would disrupt a reader's experience. If you feel it is ready to move, just let me know. Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I am very, very confused. As there is already a Unbibium article (14,700 bytes 17 references) dating back to 2004, why is there a Draft:Unbibium article (34 ref, 33,300 bytes)????? What is the intent? Does this draft incorporate all/most of the existing article? The approach is above my pay grade, and likely requires an Administrator ruling. David notMD (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It started out as the existing article which was only recreated from a redirect in September, and some changes were initially questioned until that article was recreated. However, I see no reason not to move the draft into mainspace now, as it incorporates the entirety of the existing article which is only a start-class. I might as well do so; we can continue this discussion at Talk:Unbibium. ComplexRational (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you do that, you will have to request a history merge in order to maintain the continuity of the editing history. This is required for proper attribution, which is required under the terms of our license. Please see Template:History merge and Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * When I added this draft as an AfC, you said "Attribution: content in this section was copied from Extended periodic table on September 24, 2018. Please see the history of that page for full attribution" in the edit summary when you stated that you attributed the content for me. Once the article got approved, the content there was added to this Draft document. I did not realize I was doing something wrong by adding it here. Also, I would like to link you to my talk page in which you clarified your actions of attribution for me. Was there still more to be done in that field?