R8R: you added "Chemical experiments have been scarce but generally support this assignment", after the group and period mentioning. Are group and period disputed seriously? ('seriously' as in: worth noting in this blurb). The article intro itself mentions Homology (chemistry) with Os, which refers more to having similar chemical (and physical) properties. But since this homology is not mentioned in the blurb, could you check whether the addition is in place? thx. -DePiep (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They were never disputed in the sense that nobody interpreted the experimental results differently. Back when they were not known, one could generally guess that element 108 would be a group 8 element, but that was yet to be verified, and it often occurs that scientists establish things other than what they expected to see. For example, it was only element 96, curium, the eighth element in the actinide series, that helped Seaborg formulate his actinide hypothesis.
I don't want to discourage anyone from actively thinking about how to improve blurbs, but people often run into trouble when blurbs don't follow the lead. I won't fiddle with this one, but I'll try to remember to call attention to the blurb at ERRORS two days ahead of time so that people have a chance to spot problems (such as "in the Soviet Union in the Soviet Union"). - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb here doesn't say anything the lead doesn't. Thank you, more attention is very welcome, I make this this sort of errors all the time even if I do try to look after myself.--R8R (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure ... please take what I'm saying at face value, there's no subtext here. You've been around forever and you're doing a fine job. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dank, I do not understand what you are trying to say here. Is it undesired to change/improve/discuss the blurb-vs-intro so far ahead of time? Wait for the two-day announcement and use ERRORS? I do not see what is wrong with this post or its timing, please clarify. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more try, from scratch. Here are the texts:
In the periodic table of elements, hassium is a transactinide element, a member of the 7th period and group8; it is thus the sixth member of the 6d series of transition metals. Chemistry experiments have confirmed that hassium behaves as the heavier homologue to osmium, reacting readily with oxygen to form a volatile tetroxide. The chemical properties of hassium have been only partly characterized, but they compare well with the chemistry of the other group8 elements.
The element was named hassium after the German state of Hesse. In the periodic table, hassium is a member of the 7th period and group 8. Chemical experiments have been scarce but support this assignment.
So in the blurb, the text "that assignment" refers to the period- and group-assignment in the preceding sentence. While in the lede it refers to the chemical properties described in the preceding sentence there. The blurb reference is wrong in this.
Of course this difference occurs because the green sentence is left out of the blurb. The solution is to either remove the last sentence from the blurb, or rewrite it to reflect what it wants to say (given that there is no space to add the missing green sentence). HTH @R8R and Double sharp: -DePiep (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wrong. You can't deduce PT locations of all superheavy elements merely by looking at them before you know where they should go. The periodic table is a descriptive tool, not the ultimate truth. There was a time when uranium was assigned a position in group 6, below tungsten. That only seemed natural back then and it was a logical description of what knowledge existed back then. It is nowadays assigned a different position. It is well understood that actual chemistry of superheavy elements could do this sort of trick once more and overrule the expectations there once were. It was expected it would not, but somebody needed to rule out the possibility that it would. The blurb is right about it.
That is not to say that the article is wrong, it merely chooses to describe the element a bit differently. That's fine too. There is no error here or there. But if there had to be conformity between the two, then I would change the article rather than the blurb.--R8R (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you are still claiming here that the group and period allocation was disputed and then confirmed? Well, that is your interpretation. The hassium lede says (see red text): chem properties were confirmed (i.e., referring to the sentence not in the blurb). Not the group and period facts. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you want to contradistinguish "my interpretation" with article's lead section. Who do you think wrote the lead section as it currently stands? (It was me.)
Please read carefully what I said. Everyone expected the properties of hassium to match those of a group 8 element, but they still had to be confirmed. The real question whether the periodic law worked in the 7th period the way Seaborg's actinide hypothesis suggested was more serious for elements 104 and 105 (the elements directly after the actinide series). What properties element 108 would display was to be "yet another confirmation", so to speak. Still, the confirmation was yet to be made.
Here's a relevant quote from LBNL: "The researchers established that hassium forms a gaseous oxide similar to that of osmium, confirming that hassium, like osmium, is a member of group 8 of the periodic table and should be placed directly under it."--R8R (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored File:Hassium.svg as the picture to be used in the blurb. That is because the newly added picture added more elements to look at without adding any new information: 1) the name of the metal is already present in the blurb, there's no need to duplicate it; 2) the checkered border grabs attention and distracts the reader without having any purpose (I was actually unpleasantly surprised to see such an attention-grabbing element before I figured in a few seconds that the explanation can be found in the big table in periodic table... most people won't know that's where they could look, so it's meaningless to them); 3) greater abundance of colors and font styles is also distracting.
To see the similarity to the table in periodic table, people would need to know it's there to begin with. Many won't, so the analogy will be lost on them but they'll still be exposed to the added unnecessary and distracting details.--R8R (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Of course improvementts can be made. So one can easily suggest, like: "let's not show details that are not explained (i.e. no legend in here)". iow: why not start a talk? Hey, why revert to chaotic graphics? -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Current image is unacceptable. Round brackets ( ) indicate "suggestion" (indication, rounding). Otoh, [ ] square brackets esp in PT situation have a different meaning (like: most stable isotope). -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expected you to follow WP:BRD and follow the discussion I have started in this section (and to which I invited you), but alas, you even chose to ignore the fact I started a discussion to begin with. How do we get to a settlement from here?
Very well then. Let us:
not show details that are not explained here, i.e., border and background color. A checkered border is a visual distraction. Background color doesn't matter as long as there is no meaning that can be seen from it (in contrast, in an infobox you can see a small PT that serves as a color legend);
not show the name of the element (there is no need, it's already in the blurb title);
use vector graphics.
(I have already mentioned the first two, but I hope I got through to you this time.)
Both parentheses and square brackets are used to indicate the most stable isotope. Google something like "brackets atomic mass" and you'll find both versions in use (here's one example that mentions parentheses). My guess is that IUPAC uses square brackets to avoid confusion with uncertainty, which is shown in parentheses, but uncertainty is rarely shown by somebody other than IUPAC. But that's easy to correct one way or another; why is the vector image "unacceptable" whereas "one can easily suggest" improvements for the png? Could it be because we are supposed to discuss your picture, or is there another reason?--R8R (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the vector image to use the square brackets. Is it not unacceptable anymore? I have also updated the atomic mass value to the value IUPAC uses and the png uses a wrong value; is the png unacceptable then?I stand corrected on this one, IUPAC does not determine standard atomic weights of elements such as hassium and the most stable isotope is indeed 269--R8R (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re R8R No need to suggest it is about "me/my". The argument to use the picture I propose File:Hassium periodic table entry (enwiki).png is that it uses the common enwiki presentation (cell styling, formatting, legends). The current svg even uses white font, non-centered and a meaningless bg color.
I cannot 'forbid' removal of border style (into solid), though I prefer full enwiki format, for visual recognition purposes. Element cells are have more and different details everywhere.
Yes the name is 'repeated', but the name is most common in cell-entries, as are symbol, Z and m.s. isotope ;-) we want to keep in there too.
We should only use something if there's a purpose for it. Consider these three tables we use: one, two, three. Each of these three gives merely as much information that is needed in those circumstances where it is used. The first table merely serves as a brief locator, it doesn't need to show anything other than the position of an element in the periodic table and the coloring scheme we use (it is useful since it explain the coloring scheme of the template, which in turn is useful to specify what kind of an element we're talking about). The second table adds symbols to that to be a better locator (there is more horizontal room). It also introduces the classification we use to explain the meaning of color and because it is common to categorize elements of a list into groups of similar items; it's just that our list is two-dimensional. It does not show the atomic number or anything else, because there is no need to do that in the bottom of an article; it is merely useful if you want to read an article on another element. The third table shows more because there is room and we think there are basic things worth displaying in the periodic table article, those basic thing that people find common about an element such as the atomic weight. Each table shows as much as it needs to show in those places where it is used. The only thing in common these tables have is the coloring scheme.
What do we need to show here? A brief indicator of what element we're talking about which would lead the reader to the article where they could read more.
Let's look at the png picture closely and see what elements it has and why.
It has six elements: 1) a background; 2) a border; 3) an element name; 4) an atomic number; 5) a symbol; 6) a mass number.
1) Background
It has no meaning here whatsoever. There are no categories to distinguish between. That being said, we could change the background color into the one we use, that would be a problem, either, because even if there is no meaning behind a color, we still have to use some color as long. We can pick any as long as it doesn't disturb other elements.
2) Border
It has no meaning here whatsoever. We can pick any as long as it doesn't disturb other elements. The border that disturbs the reader the least is a thin solid black border, or something close to black at least.
3) Element name
An element name is indeed a common attribute of an element. However, it is already shown in bold in the blurb, the only word to be shown in that fashion. Everybody already knows the name of an element however little attention they pay to the blurb. There is no useful purpose in that repetition. In actual tables, the element name is not shown in bold elsewhere and it may be useful to put it in a cell.
4) Atomic number
An atomic number is indeed a common attribute of an element. The only problem with it is that its color is different from any other color in this picture. It'll be fine as soon as that is resolved.
5) Symbol
A symbol is indeed a common attribute of an element. The only problems with it are that its color is different from any other color in this picture and that is boldened and underlined for no real reason. It'll be fine as soon as that is resolved.
6) Mass number
A mass number is indeed a common attribute of an element. It should stay.
Having changed the background color, I found it was a good change because the new color is less intense and thus does not make me strain my eyes as the previous color did.—R8R (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained this in great detail in my previous message. I take it there is no opposition from you for me to act upon, and as such I have changed the picture, and I expect you to present arguments first if you think you can suggest improvements.--R8R (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My dear friend: we have an enwiki pattern, and by now you have acknowledged it by edit but not yet by person. (I won). -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt: yes, you were absolutely right about that. When I saw your edit starting with "WTF," I thought to myself that you had no right to reprimand me in that manner since you hadn't even said anything like that. However, I decided to check what you actually had said before reacting. I gave your previous post a quick glance, and I did find something like what you said. I thought that perhaps you didn't write that clearly enough, so I read it again. Turned out no, you were rather clear, and I had nobody other than myself to blame for missing that from your writing.
I still thought, however, that the language you used was not fit for what is supposed to be a civil discussion and that was the only reason why I didn't immediately admit you were right. That was also precisely the reason I gave you.
For future reference, though, I will not give a substantial response to a post addressed to me that is written in such language.--R8R (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@R8R:enwiki PT cell I still don't see why we would need to think a new format for the element cell. By now, even the element name is left out.
The motivation starts listing three PT's we use. Curiously enough, a fourth table, with stable cell formatting, is not mentioned. While actually, that is the one that has the most complete data and format (even better: it is the one having the full-around border, as the current blurb version has kept). Even our use of square brackets all around for its isotope is put up for discussion. But why would we change out formatting in this blurb, the blurb by definition not to be changing things?
Then follows a list of info to be included/excluded. All is re-argued (note that this is for a blurb). For bg color "We can pick any", and it is chosen because "the new color is less intense". The name is left out because "it is already shown in bold in the blurb" (which, curiously, is no reason to leave out atomic number, symbol, and isotope). Anyway: of course the name can return in the image. Because it is the illustration of that name's topic.
Redesigning the element cell here is a disservice to the reader, because the caption nicely and correctly links to a periodic table this cell is in. This is the simplest and greatest requirement for any PT and cell: zoom from detail to the whole - or back. Once clickeed to the periodic table, the reasder should be helped to recognise the cell in its table position. There is no gain in changing the feature between—even worse, it is disruptive for the perception.
All in all I propose to use an already-standardised element cell in here, as similar as possible to the actual PT cell. After all, the blurb is supposed to reflect the article, not change it. So far, the best image for this purpose is this one. -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As we don't have a picture of the element, we are show a picture of the element's cell in the periodic table. And it is only natural that we would use the enwiki pt cell format. But we need not slavishly follow the enwiki cell style.
If the cell border is distracting, we don't have to use it. But if we could find a dashed format that wasn't distracting, that would be better than the simple line.
We could use any color at all, but it would be better to use the color used in the enwiki pt. If there is some reason why that color wouldn't work, then a similar color sufficiently different from any other enwiki element color would be ok. If that is not feasible, then any neutral color sufficiently different from all enwiki pt colors, though I would accept the grey of unknown properties.
It would be nice if the info displayed matched some enwiki pt cell version, but this is not super important.
I like including the name, but would gladly leave it off if including it forced the other info to be unreasonably small.
@YBG: thanks for you reply. Actually, I still think a fancy color would not help. The wonder of WP/internet hyperlinks is: "wow I see this see what's behind it" -- so click and see what happenes! That should be behind a simple blurp image too! (in other words: the 'promise' and 'expectation' that *more* will be clarified behind it). That is what especially this image should do too. No reader is thinking, like: "sure the name was mentioned there in bold, why would I expect it in this image?". I repeat: no reader. And rightly so. Allow me to skip your other details, sticking to the grand view. All the best, -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the current cell
@DePiep: this discussion is hard to have because you managed to oversee my words or misrepresent them three times in one post. -- incomplete phrase amended at 20:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"which, curiously, is no reason to leave out atomic number, symbol, and isotope" -- yes, there is a reason why I suggest to leave out the element name while keeping the atomic number, the symbol (it's hard to have a periodic table without these two), and the mass number. The reason in simple, it's precisely in the quote you give: the name is already given in bold (while the other three are not. Does that satisfy your curiosity?), it already easily gains attention. It is not, in fact, difficult to see the name "hassium" twice after a mere look at the blurb, before you read it (and the two occurrence are close to each other, too), if your picture is in place, which is one more than necessary.
"why would we change out formatting in this blurb, the blurb by definition not to be changing things?" I have already answered this question and I'd like you to acknowledge this fact by not asking it again as if I haven't, even if you disagree with me. Each cell shows exactly as much information as it is deemed necessary on each occurrence. There is no need to show the element name here because it stands out from the blurb because of the boldface font, something the atomic number, symbol, and mass number do not.
("it is chosen because 'the new color is less intense'" -- Please read my words more carefully. This was something I found after I changed the color, that sentence even says "having changed the background color.")
"the reasder should be helped to recognise the cell in its table position" am I correct in understanding you're saying the current picture doesn't do a good job at it? I would find such a claim, if that's indeed the claim you're making, strange at least: what is needed a to easily locate an element is its symbol and atomic number, that's it. Even the mass number is supplementary compared to these two, and the same goes for the actual name. There is a good reason why the atomic symbol is usually the largest item in a periodic table cell. Run a Google image search for "periodic table" and you'll see that the symbol is usually given in the largest font, and the atomic number is usually in the second-largest font. That's even true for the IUPAC table. I do, however, see them handle names more delicately than we do and they give them in a small font; if we did something like that, I suppose it could work provided the name won't assert itself in the cell as loudly as it does in the current picture and won't be as distracting.
I still do not understand why there are different fonts in the picture you propagate. Why is the symbol in bold? Why is the atomic color gray? Most people who will see this picture won't read periodic table to see the parallels, but all people will be sure to see a noisy combination of fonts, and there is no explanation in place there why fonts are different. The picture should not draw any attention that is not related to its encyclopedic content.
The "blurb is supposed to reflect the article, not change it" argument is not applicable. Neither picture changes anything, and the article doesn't feature either cell.
Let me close off with a straightforward answer, one that I have not asked so clearly before and one to which I haven't seen an answer to, either. What is the encyclopedic value of your picture for the specific context in which it is given, not that of being somewhere in en.wiki, but on the main page, most visitors of which are not familiar with chemistry or nuclear physics to begin with? I have given in my answer in detail above. I could in principle see why one may want to see another instance of the element name, even if I don't find it particularly desirable. The appearance of the cell is not particularly appealing, there is no real value in replicating it in terms of graphical design, and as for encyclopedic value, any cell with equal amount of information will do just fine if we need that information. The border of the cell bears no information without sufficient context, which is not available in the blurb, so it bears no information here.
And lastly. DePiep, you have missed something in my position or misrepresented it three times in your post, and while one honest mistake is understandable, three make discussion much more difficult. It is especially hard to have a discussion when I know you have read my reasoning why it is not advantageous to have the cell you propose and still you write to previously uninvolved editors that it's "a deviation from our stable standards for no clear reason".--R8R (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that I personally attacked you is a serious accusation. Care to elaborate? WP:PA says, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." I (and, presumably, other editors) would like to see where I attacked you, and what is the quote from WP:PA which indicates that my behavior indeed qualifies as a personal attack.--R8R (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know it is serious. I can add: you are paternalistic too. (and no I do not elaborate. Since you reply with 1000-word answers only to hide yourself. Why don't you just reread and check your own post?). -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since no new or defeating arguments have been brought up against my proposal, I propose-by-edit to use the enwiki standard PT cell, as promoted, and add a link to Periodic table#Overview from the image. It will make a nice TFA. -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It won't be the end of the world either way.
Let me ask you one question though. You know there is an ANI against you right now, and other editors claim your WP:OWN stuff in English Wikipedia, and there are editors in that discussion who were previously uninvolved with you and who supported a T-ban for you from the topic of chemistry. Do you really think that the kind of behavior you showed just now will help your case there? You don't need to answer, and I won't reply either way. I won't even be the first to bring up this message there, though maybe some other editor will.--R8R (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know. I even have added a report there that you initiated PA's against me, you turning a content-thread into editor attacks. -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can read from your reply (after cutting out your PAs), I can say this: I seriously did reply to your comment, although not per every detail. My main reply was and is: No need to redesign the existing, standard, enwiki element cell for this blurb (which is derived by definition and should not do OR; just reflect the topic). -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: First of all, I am sorry for creating the impression that I was edit warring. This was not the intention on my part.
If you think that my wordings aren't very good, that's fine; I'll trust you on that and I would very much appreciate help about that.
I believe that the current blurb puts unnecessary focus on the 1978 experiment. Of the JINR experiments, it was the 1984 experiment that matters the most because only that experiment concluded with an announcement of discovery of element 108. Perhaps their other experiments do not merit a mention given how short a blurb is.
It is also important to note that there were no strict criteria for what constitutes a discovery back then, and it's important to reflect that these criteria emerged later; it is thus somewhat misleading to simply say the German results were decisive. I know that in the late 1980s, the thinking in Dubna was that both theirs and the German claim were very strong.
R8R thanks for opening this discussion, and giving your reasons for the changes. I'm away from my computer at the moment but will look at the matter in more detail later on and respond to your points. If Dank, Johnboddie and DePiep have feedback on these points, as other editors and contributors on this page that woulf be useful too. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that there has been some discussion / disputes over wording and so propose a compromise that (I hope) clarifies the topics raised and offers some suitably encyclopaedic writing. Thoughts / Comments / Criticisms, etc, welcome. EdChem (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, EdChem, I think the new wording is good, and I would merely suggest that the mass number in "hassium-265" should be omitted since its relevance in this short blurb is not clear. That would change "hassium-265" to merely "hassium."--R8R (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi R8R, FYI I went through various wordings and at times had text noting that Armbuuster and Münzenberg's team prepared 265Hs whereas the Soviet teams likely prepared other isotopes. This is why the links to lead and iron point to the isotopes used by their team rather than to the element pages themselves, but then maybe that should be changed too. Thanks for your positive comments, I hope that my wording deals with the concerns that you had - and I hope also the concerns of others too. I am fine with removing the "-265" for this blurb, though (as a chemist) I find it interesting that the isotope prepared was not the most stable and the German team's decision to pursue element 109 first (as discussed in the hassium article) but I guess that enticing readers to read the target article is the point! EdChem (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EdChem:@R8R: from my point of view I think EdChem's proposed new wording is fine, and I'd be happy to support it if everyone else is content. Neutral on the question of whether to include -265 or not. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just to follow up on that point, maybe given that we already mentioned the stability of the 269 isotope, it is actually relevant that the one synthesized was a less stable 265 variant. So I'd probably marginally prefer keeping the number. Also, on that topic, it seems a slight inconsistency to say 269Hs in one place and hassium-265 in another. Was this deliberate? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, I prefer using the name, so "hassium-265" rather than "265Hs" as I think it is clearer to the non-expert reader. I am also inclined to link 269Hs or hassium-269 to the isotopes of hassium article. I didn't intentionally suggest a mix of styles (names v. symbols), and I agree the inconsistency is undesirable. Having said that, I was just suggesting an alternative wording, but there is no point implementing it if those who were in disagreement earlier aren't supportive or will respond with too much R and not enough D. EdChem (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EdChem: Yes, that makes sense. On BRD I think if a discussion is opened and people don't participate in it, particularly if they've been pinged in, then they lose the presumption of automatic reverting. Subject to common sense of course. There seems to be a consensus for your new wording amongst the three of us who've commented, so that would appear to be the way forward,and anyone revertinf after that would be referred to this discussion. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EdChem: Thank you for liking the tidbit I found last year and added about the German team deciding to go for 109 first! ^_^
I'm not 100% happy with the isotope stuff. There are two reasons for that. First: actually we do not have enough measurement precision to know that 269 is the most stable among the ones we know. You may notice the little thing in the infobox saying "data not decisive" that takes you to a note pointing out that current bounds for half-lives of 269, 270, and 277 overlap (the last being an excited isomer, but only one atom was ever seen). So in the interest of accuracy I would prefer to just say "the most stable known isotopes of hassium have half-lives of around ten seconds": we really don't have enough for more than one significant figure here.
Thank you for bringing that up; I added another instance of note a next to the sentence you modified so that the reader (who will likely not read past the lead section) is not left wondering why those isotopes have not been identified.--R8R (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second: in the superheavy region, we cannot easily get to where the most stable isotopes should be. As your elements get heavier, your optimal ratio of neutrons to protons deviates upwards away from 1:1 more and more. So, if you make the new element by such fusion reactions, you always end up on the proton-rich side. That's discussed under the "Cold fusion" section. You can't make the most stable isotopes we know of most of these elements directly; you have to "overshoot" and then alpha decay. But "overshooting" means making a heavier element, it means your target and projectile have more protons, so the Coulomb barrier is higher and the chance of fusion is lower. So, it's not quite so interesting to me that the German team didn't go for the most stable isotope. Even if they had some calculations on what the most stable isotope was going to be, there was simply not going to be any way for them to get to it. Very probably, whatever this most stable isotope is, it is beyond even current knowledge (most stable predicted isotope for Cn a few elements later is 293Cn at the line of beta stability with half-life of about a millennium; so for Hs, we should probably rather get a few more neutrons in). So I think it's not quite so interesting to worry about relative stability of the known isotopes and that we don't need to mention the 265. But I want to know what you think! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Double sharp, thank you for noticing the error regarding the most stable isotope. Indeed, we cannot definitely say which isotope is the most stable one. We should use something in the likes of what Double sharp wrote in this edit.
Wholeness of what I write has been a very important consideration for me. I find it important that a text does not leave a reader wanting more; it should be cohesive and complete. If something is mentioned, then there must be a reason why it's been added. The same goes for the blurb.
If we mention the isotope that was produced in that reaction, then the first question is why we don't mention what isotopes of lead and iron it was produced from. And if we mention them, then the next questions are, why those specific isotopes and why did the researchers specifically aim for hassium-265. These are the kind of questions I want to avoid.
I also thought whether it was important to mention which specific elements hassium was first made from: after all, why those specific elements (and there is actually a reason, as the article explains)? In the end, I decided it would be great to mention those specific elements because this helps illustrate the idea of nuclear fusion: many readers, at least among those who are likely to click the link in that blurb, will know that lead is element 82 and iron is element 26, and figure out that 82 + 26 = 108. Nuclear fusion has already been linked in the blurb but this concept is absolutely crucial for the topic of superheavy elements, so another implicit illustration can be a good idea.
It could be that some of these considerations may be important for the lead section of the article, which doesn't have such a strict character limit. I will think tomorrow about what could be added to that lead section and I welcome other editors to think about that, too. But I'd say writing something about it in the blurb is too much given the character limit.--R8R (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Caveat: I am a chemist but have never worked with or studied nuclear processes in research settings, so please consider my view as that of an educated chemist but one who likely should defer to greater knowledge of others.
@Double sharp: I found going first for Z = 109 before Z = 108 interesting partly because of the Coulomb barrier issue that you note and partly as overshooting followed by α-decay will not reach 108 from 109. Regarding isotopes and stability, I have to agree that the identity of the most stable is unclear and your more general comment on half-lives is probably more interesting / useful for a blurb anyway. I also think updating the article lede was appropriate and desirable. In the blurb, I do think mentioning the 265 is useful and appropriate, though, in that the first formation of a new element must be some isotope, irrespective of stability, and in hassium's case it was hassium-265. It's worth the reader being reminded (even obliquely) that nuclear processes must produce particular isotopes of X, not just X in some random isotope.
@R8R: Part of the point of a blurb is to entice a reader to click through and read more, and a blurb can never provide complete / exhaustive coverage. I agree that it must be coherent, but leaving follow-on questions open (like why choose lead-208 and iron-58, for example) seems fine to me.
I offer an updated proposal below, taking into account some of the above comments.
FYI, the only difference between 2A and 2B is that 2B specifies that the lead and iron isotopes were lead-208 and iron-58 whereas 2A uses element names but links to the isotope articles. Further thoughts / comments / suggestions / etc? EdChem (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Dank, (edit conflict) as I updated it to: so even with the two tweaks that I just made, both 2A and 2B are within the character limit. :) (No need to confirm, I see it is still under 1025 even with the "(Full article...)" bit - thanks again.) EdChem (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second option comes as more organic to me. I think it's good to go.
I have added a couple of sentences about cold fusion in the lead section; I welcome everyone to check my addition and comment on it.--R8R (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One further thought... I wonder if it would be useful to add that the location of hassium on the PT is what was expected? For example, changing the last sentence (additions / replacements in green) to:
Subsequent experiments provided chemical evidence to support assigning hassium to its expected position inperiod 7 and group 8 of the periodic table.
With the addition of "(Full article...)", this would be precisely 1025 characters. A (slightly) shorter wording would be:
Chemical evidence from subsequent experiments supports hassium being placed on the periodic table in its expected position in period 7 and group 8.
or perhaps something like the following (1019 characters including "(Full article...)"):
Any thoughts, R8R, Double sharp, and Amakuru, as the editors who have commented to date? My preference, for what that is worth, is one of the last two versions. EdChem (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Adding a note that I have added another option since sending the ping, and adding a ping for DePiep, who has commented above on some of the text for the blurb. EdChem (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
.svg)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}