Talk:List of chemical elements named after people

Samarium

you've forgot Samarium in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.213.16 (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not strictly speaking a scientist, but added him anyway. Cheers. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

New ZealandER

I corrected "New Zealander-English" to "New Zealand-English"(for Sir Ernest Rutherford), as the adjective for New Zealand is New Zealand. New Zealander is the noun. All other countries use the adjective form, so for consistency this should be New Zealand-English. User:Nedim Ardoğa reverted my edit with the explanation "Nationality not the country". This is illogical and I'd like to revert the revert, please. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If so I apoligise. But according to WP, New Zealanders are the people of New Zealand. It is just like Germans, Austrians, Russians etc. New Zealand is the name of the country such as Germany, Austria, Russia etc. (Please check the relevant articles.) Thus I think my original classification was more consistent. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. In the current list, all countries are listed by their adjective: Russian, Finnish, Polish, English, Swedish. The country names are Russia, Finland, Poland, England, Sweden. The name for a person from these countries are Russian, Finn, Pole, Englishman, Swede.

For NZ, the adjective is New Zealand (the same as the name of the country), and the person is a New Zealander. It's a bit of an exception but it's true. Have a look here if you still don't believe me List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations. We speak of New Zealand butter, New Zealand people, New Zealand dollar. If you want to have "New Zealander" in this list, it would be consistent then to change Finnish to Finn, Polish to Pole, etc. But I think we can agree that it's easier to revert New Zealander to New Zealand. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Changed it back. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Samarium

When I created this article back in 2011, the element Samarium was not in the list. It was added by User:Aaadddaaammm in 2014. (see above notice) After this addition I put a note stating that Vasili Samarsky-Bykhovets was actually a mining engineer. Now this addition is contested by User:Hellbus. Now lets discuss on whether or not to keep samarium in the list. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with samarium being removed from the list. It was named after a mineral which was in turn named after a person who wasn't considered a scientist. The other option is to rename the article to a list of people instead of a list of scientists. Hellbus (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with whatever. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Livermorium

Should livermorium be added to this list? Flerovium is on the list, and it was named after the Flerov Laboratory of Nuclear Reactions. By analogy, livermorium is named after the Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory. Alternatively, flerovium could be removed from the list because it wasn't named after a person, per se. Zachcrush14 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the anology is not exact. Georgy Flyorov is a nuclear scientist and Robert Livermore is a landowner. You can see in the past discussions that even Vasili Samarsky-Bykhovets' name has been removed from the list because a mining engineer is not a scientist. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. Zachcrush14 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead says that fifteen elements have been named for people. Vasili Samarsky-Bykhovets is included in this count. Robert Livermore was no scientist, but he should count as "people". --Klausok (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think now it's OK Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ernest Lawrence added a 2nd time (parenthetically)

In listing element 116 in this article, it is not complete to solely present Robert Livermore's name, because the element was named in honor of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the full name of this lab honors two people, not one. An explanation of this has been added to the article, specifically stating Ernest Lawrence's name. And his name has been added to the table parenthetically, in italics. It could be argued that Lawrence is the person who has a much stronger connection to element 116 than Livermore does.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The main principle of this article is "people whose names are used in chemical element names" I can't see Lawrence in the element 116 name, so it doesn't belong to the table that 2nd time. Some note can be still be included. Also the Gallium is mentoned with a weak reason in the opening chapter, or is it this mystery 20th element. Why mythological deities are in this article and not on their own, confusing. There goes this amount issue that can't keep up with updates: "With these five"85.76.146.16 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Speciality

A new column (speciality) has been added. But it is empty. Why do we need it ? I'll callthe editor.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It was added by DePiep as a placeholder so that the information could be added. I think it is a very helpful addition so that to easily distinguish chemists from physicists and the like. Hopefully we won't run into problems with listing multiple disciplines per scientist. YBG (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. To me looks more relevant than say nationality. Label it "Specialism"? -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Major revision to article

The majority of issues being hashed out on this Talk page appear that they can be cured by adding an explanation in the article about the distinction between names connected to elements that happened indirectly because they were named after things/places which in turn had been named after people, versus the elements that were directly named with the purpose of honoring scientists. Major revisions have been made to the article to make this perfectly clear. The two tables have been merged into one, with the distinction now marked with an asterisk. Berkeley was missing from this article for some reason. He's added (along with Lawrence) and this table should now be complete ...until such time as something might get found in the next row on the periodic table and more people get honored with element names.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I spoke too soon. There were two other peoples' names that have connections to elements, now added: Amerigo Vespucci and Paul-Émile Lecoq de Boisbaudran. Both are explained in the article text.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see the benefit of merging the tables. 'named after' is something different from 'name is used', and the current table does not clarify or even support this distinction. And I cannot point it out sharply, but somehow I'd expect the table to be reversed: start with an element, then list what name(s) are involved & why. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree that the reversal of the table would make this more clear, and I had considered doing that change yesterday. It's been done now, and I hope folks agree that this format helps to present the info more clearly.

As for the distinction between named in honor of versus name is used, I also just added a new column to the table to make this perfectly clear. It is the first column that separates the element from the person, and is headed as "Indirect?" That term was picked to make it clear that the intention behind the choice of element name was not directly intended to honor the person. Full explanation is presented within the text of the article.

As for whether the merging of the two separate original tables has been an improvement, it should be noted that these were the statements that preceded the tables:

- "The following 15 elements are named after scientists."

- "The following elements are named after individuals that were not scientists."

...and I would argue that the second statement is totally misleading, because it gave the impression that the name was chosen as a means of honoring the person, when the accurate story is that those two element names were chosen as a tie to the thing or place that happened to be named in honor of those two people. The way the article and table stand now, this important distinction has been made perfectly clear.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed re-renaming of this article

This article had originated back in 2011 presenting:
"Twelve of the chemical elements are named after scientists."

And up through yesterday, the article had the title:
"List of scientists whose names are used in chemical element names"

But the article had gone through an evolution where it had turned into a thorough listing of all the chemical elements that had been given names that are connected, either directly or indirectly, to the names of people. So it was clear that "scientists" was no longer an adequate title, as this did not accurately reflect the fact that several element names are connected to people who were not scientists. So yesterday the article title was changed to:
"List of people whose names are used in chemical element names"

But now, a recent change made today has reordered the table in an effort to read more clearly where the columns start with the element, followed by the people that these element names are connected to. With that change, it now seems that a more appropriate title for the article would be something like:

"List of chemical elements with names that are connected to the name of a person"

...or something similar to that. What is being suggested is basically to do a swap in the ordering of the title to match the new swap in the column ordering in the table.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Indirect

Why is Samarium marked as indirect and Gadolinium not? Both are named for a mineral that was named for a scientist. --Klausok (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. See the history. It was marked direct. But on 24 June 2016, it was reverted. You can see the rationale. (Can we call a mining engineer a scientist or not ?) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Gadolin is now marked as indirect. Who ever makes these changes should recalculate the amounts and change not only under the table but the opening chapter amounts as well, thank you.85.76.146.16 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In the opening, it says "On top of this, a 21st person, a 17th scientist, has an implied connection to a 20th element". Which person/element is this referring to?

I would appreciate some clarification.

Blorper234 (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this sentence was trying to summarize the in removed in this edit, which was removed as original research. As such, the sentence should be removed from the lede, and I will do so. YBG (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nationality

Nationalities of three names (Einstein, Livermore and Oganessian) were reverted. Well , some people like Einstein lived , worked and studied in different countries. How can we define their nationalities ? I think their home country and the country in which they accomplished most can be their nationality. In case of Einstein the candidates are Germany (home country), Switzerland (his famous papers) and US (citizenship). I prefer Germany and US but the reverter insists on Switzerland instead of US. Any suggestion ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The American nationality is the most recent. Most of his work was before he became American. The Swiss nationality was the only nationality he carried his entire life. But he is primarily known as a German. --Wester (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Pallas

According to the list, Pallas is named for Pallas Athena. According to the note on titans, Pallas was named for a titan. Which, if either, is correct? Klausok (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2021

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: Merged to List of chemical element name etymologies; see Talk:List of places used in the names of chemical elements#Requested move 3 July 2021 as well. No need to have separate litss. I will selectively merge the textual information (not the table); feel free to merge whatever I missed. No such user (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

---

List of people whose names are used in chemical element names → List of chemical elements named after people – The current name is way too long. Also, there are a lot of other lists titled "list of x named after people" so this list would make more sense with that title format. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

See also Talk:List of places used in the names of chemical elements § Requested move 3 July 2021 -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support, more concise name, and this is more of a list of elements than a list of people. JIP | Talk 23:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. New name is even better: "names used" is less precise than "named after". Indirect name use, e.g. flerovium ← Flerov Lab ← Georgy Flyorov can be kept & described as such just as well. -DePiep (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of chemical element name etymologies for the same reason List of chemical elements named after people was previously redirected - this doesn't provide useful information that that list does not provide. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Just redirecting won't do, because then information would be lost. Incidentally, I am working on List of chemical element name etymologies, but I am waiting for the outcome (to keep changes simplified). I also worked on List of chemical elements § List ({{T:}}), which has etymologies too.

I propose to conclude this discussion regularly (also this 'places' one), and then we can propose a merge. -DePiep (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Question This proposal changes the meaning of the title. Is it proposed to also change the list of elements which would be included to match the new title? YBG (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I assume you refer to names used indirectly, such as gadolinium ← gadolinite (a mineral) ← Johan Gadolin. I definitely do not want those names to be removed because of the new title interpretation. Indirect namings can be noted as such, and kept. -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion on this does not surprise me, but I am interested to know what the proposer (Blubabluba9990) thinks about this, in fact, three was any awareness that changing the title implied a change in the scope of the list. YBG (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

huh?

Anyway, it's not determined by the opinion of the proposer (who did not mention such changes at all btw). I read your question being: 'would the new title change the content per wikilaw'? -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

When I said "your opinion on this does not surprise me", I was referring to your opinion about whether the indirect ones should be in the list or not. Re-reading my post, it seems that my brevity could easily be misunderstood as snarkiness, for which I beg your forgiveness. You believe (as I do) that indirects should be included in the list. But the proposed name, IMO, seems to imply that indirects should be excluded. I ask about the proposer because I am wondering if there was any awareness of this subtle but significant change in the meaning of the title, and hence, IMO, in the implied scope of the list. This is mostly a matter of curiosity. If there is a consensus to adopt the name change and also a consensus to retain the indirect namings, then the apparent contradiction could easily be avoided by a clear statement of the scope of the list in the lede paragraph. The proposer seems to be aware of other articles List of X named for Y and so may be more aware than I of whether other such lists include or exclude indirect namings. Most of all, I want to raise awareness of the subtle change in the meaning of the title, and understand whether others - especially the proposer - are aware of this. I AGF that the proposer was not purposely trying to effect a scope change through the name change without stating this up front. YBG (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• The article is already formatted as a list of elements, not as a list of people. Therefore it is the current name that is misleading and the proposed name would match the content. JIP | Talk 21:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Americium, berkelium and livermorium

As mentioned in the lead, americium, berkelium and livermorium were not named after people but places. Yet the average reader does not read the lead of a list article and goes straight to the list (why they are here) so will be completely mislead. Isn't there a way to mark this discrepancy? Or should they just be removed? Aza24 (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)