Talk:Dubnium

For chemical studies

@R8R Gtrs: 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)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Since R8R has told me on my talk page that active work on Pb is finished for now, I feel that it's safe to start the review soon; so I'm reserving it a little in advance! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I think I shall have to go look through this and give it a full copyedit. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

   I've done it for you. After my three four copyedits to different sections, everything's fine. Parcly Taxel 15:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

   Thank you Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   There are a few uncited paragraphs, such as the introduction to "Discovery" and the first paragraph in "Naming controversy". I think the former can be found in The Transuranium People as well (but unfortunately I've exhausted the Google Books preview of that one); it should in any case not be too difficult to find citations. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

   Ref 24 is not from ResearchGate; it is a journal article from Physical Review Letters~. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

   Are we good now?--R8R (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

   Yes, I believe so. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I have (finally) had time to give it a good read, and indeed everything important seems to be there. Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, all the discovered transactinides are GAs now! Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 18 June 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)

@John:. Do we write "with the symbol Db" or "with symbol Db"? IMO, the definite article the is not right here because theits 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)

Yet another one. Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)