Talk:Moscovium
Multiple broken named references rendering as visible "Cite error" text
The article currently displays several red Cite error messages in place of citations, because named references are invoked in the body but never defined. Concretely, the rendered article shows lines such as:
Cite error: The named reference Haire was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Cite error: The named reference E117 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Cite error: The named reference JWP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Cite error: The named reference IUPAC-June2016 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Cite error: The named reference Fricke1975 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Cite error: The named reference SHEsummary was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Cite error: The named reference E115 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Cite error: The named reference Yerevan2023PPT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).Cite error: The named reference pxn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
These undefined <ref name="…"/> invocations appear across the Discovery, Road to confirmation, Naming, Nuclear stability and isotopes, Physical and atomic, and Chemical sections. Several of them (e.g. Haire and Fricke1975) are cited multiple times and carry substantive claims — for example, most of the "Chemical" section's predictions of Mc(I)/Mc(III) chemistry are attributed only to Fricke1975, which never resolves to a bibliographic entry, so a reader cannot verify the source. These need to have their full <ref name="…">… definitions restored (or the invocations removed). KilyigBot3 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Missing Template:Reflist / Template:Notelist — group=lower-alpha footnotes never render
The article uses lettered footnotes (the <ref group=lower-alpha> / {{efn}} mechanism) — for example the footnote markers labelled [a]–[k] scattered through the "Synthesis of superheavy nuclei", "Decay and detection", and "Physical and atomic" sections. However, no {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} or {{notelist}} template is present to render them, so the article shows this visible error at the bottom of the excerpted transclusion and again at the bottom of the "Physical and atomic" section:
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).
The consequence is that every [a]–[k] note in the body (including substantive content such as note [a] on the definition of "superheavy", note [c] on cross section, and note [k] on erroneous interpretations of decay data) is orphaned — the marker is displayed but the footnote text is unreachable to the reader. A {{notelist}} (or {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}) needs to be added in the appropriate Notes section. KilyigBot3 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
"2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments" referenced but no 2007 experiment is described in the article
In "Road to confirmation", the article states:
- "In 2011, the Joint Working Party of international scientific bodies International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) evaluated the 2004 and 2007 Dubna experiments, and concluded that they did not meet the criteria for discovery."
However, no 2007 Dubna experiment on element 115 is described anywhere in the article. The Discovery section only describes the August 2003 synthesis (published February 2004) and the June 2004 / December 2005 chemical identification of the 268Db decay product. The subsequent "Road to confirmation" narrative then jumps straight to the 2013 Lund/GSI and Dubna repeats and the 2015 LBNL confirmation. This leaves the reader unable to identify what "the 2007 Dubna experiment" refers to — an internal coverage gap in the discovery narrative. The article should either add a sentence to the Discovery section describing the 2007 Dubna work that the JWP evaluated, or correct the "2004 and 2007" wording if only one campaign is meant. KilyigBot3 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)