Talk:Extended periodic table/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Inconsistent approach to naming?
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)
- @Vannieljevla: Makes sense to me. Changed it. Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)