Talk:Superheavy element

Comments
Quote: "Except for dubnium, even the longest-lasting isotopes of transactinide elements have extremely short half-lives, measured in seconds, or smaller units."

According to the Rutherfordium-page, the most stable isotop of Rf got a halflife at about 13 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.197.51 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right; I'm adjusting the wording accordingly. While I'm at it, I'm killing the nonsense about "transactinide" being
 * only an adjective. A search for "transactinides" shows that the noun is used by many reputable organizations and is
 * even the title of a published book.209.179.40.38 (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does it end where it does?
If 118 is supposed to be i the same series as the noble gasses, what's it doing in the transactinide series? Zaphraud (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The chemical series can overlap each other: the earlier transactinides are also transition metals, and the noble gases are also nonmetals. Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, given the immense instability that permeates the series, "transactinides" is probably more of a primary category for these elements than "transition metal", "post-transition metal", "metalloid", or "noble gas" would be. After all, most inorganic chemistry texts I have seen cover the elements beyond Lr (the last of the actinides) all together, instead of with their respective groups. Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (The exception is Holleman and Wiberg, BTW, and even then only for Rf–Cn IIRC.) Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Transactinide element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061027174015/http://www.iupac.org:80/reports/provisional/abstract04/connelly_310804.html to http://www.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/connelly_310804.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit informal?!
"Chemistry gentleman Glenn T. Seaborg"? How do I get this title?

Brad (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Transactinide element → Superheavy element – Most articles seem to use the term superheavy element more frequently than transactinide element to refer to the (same) set of elements with atomic number ≥ 104. While transactinide element is certainly still used, a Google Search shows that superheavy element is 5-10 times more popular, while it is about three times more popular in Google Scholar. This shifting usage is especially noticeable in more recent articles describing the island of stability and undiscovered elements, so I feel this article title should reflect what is most commonly used in reliable sources. Also note that this move is technically limited because superheavy element is a redirect with non-trivial history; if consensus is reached, an administrator will need to execute the move. ComplexRational (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I object. "No consensus", really. Please start & finish talking the proposal beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (Withdrawn, my mistake. It is a proposal, up for discussion, not an edit request.) -DePiep (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I've heard both terms in use.  ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich  Talk  13:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. During my work on these elements individually, I have seen the scientists involved use the suggested term much more commonly than the old one. My understanding based on what I've read over these years is that there is a slight change in what the accent is put on between the two terms, with "superheavy elements" originally being a more nuclear-related term but now being increasingly more general, whereas "transactinide element" is becoming more specialized on the chemical aspect of it. Chemistry is very interesting indeed but does not dominate the discussions as the nuclear properties are also of the highest interest.--R8R (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Compounds
I'm writing a binder of elements and I'm noticing that my superheavy section is quite bare. Is there any super heavy element compounds that we know of? Porygon-Z (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, some chemistry is known till Hs, and somewhat sketched out for Cn through Fl. You'll probably have to wait a while for much more. Double sharp (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Lr
It described lawrencium as the "heaviest" actinide. I changed that to "last" actinide. An element with a highest atomic number is not necessarily heavier. Thorium, uranium, and plutonium ar each heavier than their immediate successor (protactinium, neptunium, and americium respectivly); if you go by the mass of the most stable isotope. Okay? We don't know whether lawrencium is really the heaviest actinide; as the most stable isotope of nobelium, and that of lawrencium, hav probably not been discovered yet.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In general people (ab)use "lighter" and "heavier" to mean atomic number rather than relative atomic mass. But I'm fine with this change for clarity. Double sharp (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)