This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
...that the table of electron configurations jumps from 173 to 184. Georgia guy (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No investigations have been done yet for the ones in between, so there'd be nothing to write. But added a row with ellipses, to avoid people "correcting" it. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. And frankly don't hold your breath for elements beyond early 120s.) Double sharp (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Under § Predicted structures of an extended periodic table it is explained that in literature, non-IUPAC named elements are usually referred to as, for example, "element 164" with symbol "E164", "164" or "(164)", rather than "unhexquadium" or "Uhq".
This rule seems to be followed in most of the article, except in the section § Searches for undiscovered elements where the exact opposite is done, despite it being a more 'literature-like' part of the article. Personally, I also find the chemical reactions (and to an extend the text as well) way less comprehensible when "Ubu" and "Ubb" (respectively "Unbiunium" and "Unbibium") is used instead of the much clearer "E121" or "(122)" (respectively "element 121" and "element 122").
Should the used naming convention in this Searches section be changed? Vannieljevla (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is element 172 the only element whose chemical symbol (Usb) deserves a {{Not a typo}} template?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would otherwise get "corrected" into USB. So far there does not seem to be such a collision for the other hypothetical elements mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue for E157 (Ups) vs. the United Parcel Service (UPS), but on Wikipedia UPS is a disambiguation page, and such examples would likely be subject to geographical biases of editors, unlike USB which is universal AFAIK. There could be others as well – this was just the first to come to mind – but if they aren't an active source of confusion, no need to make them into one. ComplexRational (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
The redirect Draft:Unbitrium has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30 § Draft:Unbitrium until a consensus is reached. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)