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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics 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.University of CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject University of CaliforniaUniversity of California
A couple years ago, I tagged issues with the space group. There were no less than four separate symbols in scholarly sources (P42, P421, P4212, and P4/nmm). The source for symbol P42 cites a source that instead gives symbol P4212, so P42 is clearly a typo. I recently figured out that P421 is an archaic symbol from the 1935 edition of the international tables [1] (it was subsequently replaced with symbol P4212). Basically, notation aside, all sources agree on P4212, except Mehl 2016 who claims he re-analyzed the original data, and found a slightly higher symmetry of P4/nmm (P4/nmm is a minimal supergroup of P4212 [2], so this is a relatively minor difference). 〈 Forbes72 | Talk 〉 02:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"many false claims" is stated in the article, please specify what false claims or remove the line. The element was first discoverd by a romanian and it was not proved as a false or true claim. 84.232.193.86 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the description on how it was named in the introduction paragraph is kind of clumsy. Anyone else agree? Jokem (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That image appears to have been created during the research for paper which has been published under a CC license, but the image wasn't part of the paper and is copyright a japanese nuclear institute, so we can't use it. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Np image is by LLNL, which is a US Government contracter, and its employees are not employees of the federal government, so I think that the license is incorrect. I'm pretty sure that LLNL publishes its images under a CC-BY-NC license. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we found out that the first picture didn't show visible Np (because it was nickel-plated), and then we found out that the second picture didn't show visible Np either (because it's a computer-generated imitation). So this seems to be the best we can do. Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]