Talk:Dubnium

For chemical studies
Just a note that a significant number of chemical studies, both theoretical and experimental, were done on element 105 in the West during the antagonistic period; as a result you should also probably search for "hahnium", or else articles like this one would get quite difficult to find. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am skipping the theoretical ones because (I think) they are not too worthy given we actually have experimental chemistry here. The source I relied on recognizes this paper; so I didn't accidentally miss it, I missed it on purpose.--R8R (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, though there were some experimental studies using the name "hahnium" as well; here is one. Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've checked the text of this paper; we mention it as well?--R8R (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, we do; this is why I shouldn't write things from memory. ^_^ If I do find a different old paper on experimental chemistry using one of the old names for the element I will let you know, of course. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

FAC
FA candidate: here. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratubniations! - DePiep (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Project a nice WP:TFA Mainpage? - DePiep (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"with the symbol Db"
This rv ("rv error") reinstalled "with the symbol Db". Does "the" belong there? IIRC, we rarely write it with element symbols (and today's TFA blurb does not have it either). Since "Db" is not a universal symbol (like e.g., ♂ is), the definite article is incorrect. - DePiep (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your logic. --John (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . Do we write "with the symbol Db" or "with symbol Db"? IMO, the definite article the is not right here because the its symbol "Db" is not common or universal. See The. - DePiep (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. No, I'm still not with you. As a native speaker and qualified teacher of English, I don't think it is as clear-cut as you imply. --John (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both versions (with and without article) sound all right to me as a native speaker. Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Me too. And there's an argument that the shorter version should prevail. On the other hand if we took this to its extreme we could end up removing many articles from articles. So to some degree it is editorial judgement, like many things. But I don't think it's a grammatical rule; English doesn't really do rules. --John (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't argue from native speaking. Could someone describe the difference between the two forms? To me the opening sentence of the the article clarified it (In my own words: "Db" was not a pre-existing or commonly known symbol). - DePiep (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"Dubnadium" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dubnadium. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

LBNL using hahnium even after 1997
See this (1999). And this (2001), where the author P. A. Wilk wrote 'For consistency with previous work, as well as to honor Otto Hahn and respect the wishes of Glenn Seaborg, I will continue to use the name “hahnium” for element 105'. And even here (2014 on Twitter). This sort of thing was mentioned in this 2014 article "Berkeley partisans still call it hahnium").

Peter Armbruster and Gottfried Münzenberg from GSI nicely described what happened after 1997 in the linked paper: 'This is almost the end of the naming story, however Berkeley did not accept dubnium, they still used hahnium. The solution to that problem was pragmatic: J.V. Kratz, editor of “Radiochimica Acta” only accepted papers with the nomenclature as proposed by IUPAC.' Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hahnium in 1999. Double sharp (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)