Talk:List of chemical elements named after places

Tellurium?

Add tellurium, named for Earth? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Done Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not yet approved names

Two elements are now in their 5-month period of public commentary before the being formally approved. On or after November, they may or may not be approved. It seems we have two choices:

• 1 Keep them out of the list
• 1a Keep them out of the list but add something to the lede emphasizing the scope of the list and possibly mentioning the Moscow, Japan and Tennesee.
• 2 Add them to the list
• 2a Add them to the list with a footnote indicating their status and possibly a not in the lede

Two editors () have opted for #2, which I reverted per WP:BRD, reverting to the status quo ante, #1. I think that until the names have been formally approved, the article should be either in 1a or 2a. I am open to suggestions for other possibilities, but I don't think any changes should be made until this discussion has been completed. Please voice your opinion below. YBG (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• 1a I think this is the best option as the names have not yet been accepted. YBG (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• 1a. Meanwhile, see Talk:Tennessine#Requested_move_10_June_2016. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Indirect names

I see Beryllium listed as being "indirectly" named after a place. Should we therefore add others? For example, Indium is named for the colour indigo, who's name derived from the Indus Valley.Fork me (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Originally, there was no section titled "indirect connatation". It was added on 8 Oct. 2015 . Feel free to revert the addition if you disagree. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that indium should be added, since its name comes from "indigo", which is from Latin indicum "of India". Double sharp (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the map to include In. Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

OR until a source is found, but one could presumably claim iridium to have a connexion with asteroid 7 Iris. And niobium with 71 Niobe. And tantalum with 2102 Tantalus. By this logic (clearly taken to absurdity), polonium is thus connected not only to Poland on Earth, but also to 1112 Polonia. ;) Double sharp (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I see Beryllium in the map in the article, but was surprised not to see an entry in the article. I checked Beryllium and found the indirect connection. Then I saw that the entry was removed by Kleuske with comment "Removed misinformation, See article on Beryllium.". So what is the misinformation here? Jay ^(Talk) 13:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Beryllium was named after beryl, the mineral it was first isolated from. The etymological connection of beryl to a place in India, moreover, is a) possible ("perhaps from Vēḷur, Vēḷūr (modern Belur) town", quoth Merriam-Webster, emphasis mine) and, b) quite distant, having enjoyed a great number of adventures in a many languages (Anglo-French, Latin, Greek, Prakrit, and Pali) on the way and c) something completely different. Hence the claim that the element was (even indirectly) named after this city is misinformation. Kleuske (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"itself" situation: "beryllium named after mineral beryl, itself possibly named after city Belur"[+sources]. Was not misinformation btw, but incorrect of imprecise so a tag would be better. See also at Be. -DePiep (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It's equivalent to claiming the Berliner Philharmonie was named after a swampy place. You can make the etymological connection, but that's not the same as "(indirectly) named after". Kleuske (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, incorrect analogy. Too simple. -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It's exactly the same situation. The orchestra was named after Berlin, not a swampy place. Kleuske (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Try Concertgebouworkest for starters, wrt itself. -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please clarify the point you are trying to make, here, since it obstinately eludes me. "Too simple, think of the Concertgebouw!" doesn't actually qualify as one. Kleuske (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If it eludes you, it is because the original setup (invoking Berliner Phil) is not fitting for this situation. If one starts with a wrong analogy, any consequence gets more distracting. Anyway, 1. you are misquoting me, and 2. your analogy still is a fallacy. No use in extending this sidetrack. -DePiep (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I summarized what you wrote and observed it does not come close to making any point. You fail to explain how it is "not fitting" and how it is "a wrong analogy" but merely assert it as fact. That's not how arguments work. I agree that continuing this is pretty useless. Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No you did not. I did not say "Too simple, think of the Concertgebouw!". -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec) BTW, Kleuske, you removed a source, what is wrong with it? -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The source mentions beryl and its connection to the German Brille, not beryllium, and does not provide any information on the naming of the element. It's not something I'd like to base this claim on (WP:SYNTH). More so since we do have an article detailing the etymologies of various elements (which you kindly provided). Kleuske (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If it's WP:SYNTH, the Indium entry should go too. Unless the reference (which is in German) or any of the references at Indium#History talk BOTH about the element name and the place name. The entries should go from the maps too. Jay ^(Talk) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jay: Are we still talking about why that source (in this context) is bogus, or are we discussing both (indirect) listings? The source is bogus, since it does not say (not even implicitly) what our listing here claims. If I do consider other sources, like Merriam-Webster, our listing combines two (or more) sources to claim something neither source says, which results in classic WP:SYNTH.

If were discussing these listings in general,yes, Indium, pretty much, has the same problems beryllium does, it conflates "can etymologically be traced to X" and "is named after X". The listing for beryllium was the more flagrant, in-your-face example, though. Kleuske (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I did start with the Beryllium removal, and attempt to understand what the misinformation was. As you said that the connection between Beryllium and Belur was WP:SYNTH, I brought up the Indium listing for consistency. If we are removing one, we should be removing both, as the Indium source also only mentions Indigo, not the place. Jay ^(Talk) 14:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Kleuske (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Addendum. Fortunately I do read German, so I read it. It mentions nothing relevant wrt the naming of the element, one way or the other. It is a detailed description of the chemistry of Indium, though. It does, prominently, remark upon the bright, blue color of the spectral lines, and that scattering a bit in a flame, you get bright blue flames, so you don't need a spectrograph to know it's present. I does not say, however, that that is what the element was named after. Kleuske (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, that source does not even mention the town in question, here. So as a source for this claim, It's useless. Kleuske (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Restart. About beryllium. Kleuske, could you rephrase the issues you see more crisp (and less prosaic, so to say). For example, is it disputed that the name is derived from mineral name beryl? And what is wrong with adding "perhaps" in an etymological track? Where does you a/b/c distinction come from (esp. c: "something else")? Also, is it that sources are missing for certain statements in here, or is the line of reasoning problematic? -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I have the strong impression we are venturing into WP:IDHT territory, here, but here it is as "crisp" as i can get it:
  • The statements "Beryllium is named after Beryl" and "the etymology of the word Beryl can possibly be traced back to Belur" do not imply "Beryllium is named after Belur". While the first two statements can be sourced, the latter is a WP:SYNTHESIS and therefore, not acceptable. If you have any sources that support the claim "Beryllium was (indirectly) named after Belur", cite them. If not WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kleuske (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kleuske: Thanks for the clarification. The complicated reasoning (as in: having multiple stages) you set up here shows that your earlier posts were less easy to follow. BTW, no reason to introduce BF injections. For example, why would I ask for clarification when I don't like what I hear? One could also consider that your paternising pedantic attitude was and is a couse of bad understanding. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@DePiep: Do you have anything useful to contribute to the conversation, or are you just generally wasting time? Kleuske (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I was replying to your post. Includes reducing battlefield mentality some take here. If you don't like criticism of your attitudes, there is a simple solution—in your own hands. -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Generally wasting time, it is. Ok. Kleuske (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2021 (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. I will perform the basic merge; should anyone like to address more detailed info, be welcome. No such user (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

---

List of places used in the names of chemical elements → List of chemical elements named after places – Much like with my request about chemical elements named after people, the name would make more sense with the "list of x named after y" format. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

See also Talk:List of people whose names are used in chemical element names § Requested move 3 July 2021 -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. "named after place" is more precise and simpler than "place names used". -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of chemical element name etymologies for the same reason List of chemical elements named after places was previously redirected - this doesn't provide useful information that that list does not provide. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Preferably merge (not redirect) after closure of this proposal. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 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)

Unlike this situation with the List of people ... (talk), I do not see names here that would not fit the new title. @YBG: Could you give examples of unfitting names? (Anyway, I do not want such names to be removed because of title change). -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking primarily of livermorium, as it is named for an institution which could be construed to be different from a place. But better examples are beryllium and indium listed in List of places used in the names of chemical elements § Terrestrial locations (indirect connotation). YBG (talk) 22:30, 11 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

Hey y'all, I was just looking at the article and noticed that, despite the fact that the listing says "some sources say United States specifically", it actually gives more sources for Americium being named specifically after the United States instead of the Americas as a whole. Is there a specific reason for this or should we maybe look into switching them perhaps? Thanks! - Navarre0107 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Phosphorus?

Should phosphorus be added? It has an indirect relation to Phosphorus (morning star) which is just Venus. List of chemical element name etymologies and the Phosphorus page mentions this relation also. Reepy1 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Also titanium? Reepy1 (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It gets a bit vague when you're not sure if an element was named after a god or a celestial object... Difficult to know namer's intentions... It is possible the name phosphorus was a reference to the morning star (Venus) though... Reepy1 (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Titanium was definitely named for the gods, as the moon of Saturn was only named that in 1847 by John Herschel. Prior to that it was simply numbered or termed "Saturn's moon" or "Saturn's ordinary satellite". Double sharp (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I added phosphorus. Can someone update the map Commons:File:Chemical_Element_Place_Names_World_&_Solar_System_Map.png? Also, should we add discovery dates for the elements and the planets? Reepy1 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)