# Talk:Moscovium

Should we add in a mentioning of the use of a fictional "Element 115" as the base element for the Call of Duty Zombies storyline, or is that too unprofessional? At the very least, should we link all pages about the games that mention the element to this one, now that it has an official name? Xninetynine (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC) X99

@Xninetynine: Thank you for your questions. I strongly advise against such an inclusion, as there are many archived discussions on this talk page with a clear consensus that fictional references to element 115 should not be discussed in this article. The main reasons are that fictional uses of the element are irrelevant trivia and probably have no connection to the real element; thus, it doesn't make sense to talk about it in this article as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'd also be somewhat cautious when linking to this article from pages about the games for similar reasons, unless the fictional element is an essential part of the game (not just a quick mention) and/or its contrast to the real element is clearly denoted. ComplexRational (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Then what about the second idea- linking fake to real? This page stays clean, and the fictional references all direct to it. Xninetynine (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC) X99
@Xninetynine: As I said, it's probably not a good idea unless fictional elements 115 are very important in games and a comparison to the real element 115 is made. This is because someone expecting all the fictitious properties of element 115 will be surprised when they see how different the real thing is, and this renders a possible connection (reason for linking) nonexistent. ComplexRational (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This is going to come off as really outdated, but what happened with Moscovium? I was checking the pageviews for WP:ELEM and saw Moscovium had more views than Gold, and almost as much as the Periodic Table itself! https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=Moscovium. Something important must have happened on June 15, and later on the 21st. I thought there would be an explanation here, but searches just led to information about Moscovium and there don't seem to be any major changes to the actual article, and nothing on the talk page here either. Utopes (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to this particular element, I'm most inclined to suspect that the reason for such a view spike would be something regarding fictional "element 115", not anything to do with the real element moscovium. Double sharp (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps when people storm Area 51 in September, there's possibility that, if conspiracy theory is right, they may find element 115 there. Maybe many of page views are for those who are planning on going to Area 51. PlanetStar 20:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the conspiracy theory, Joe Rogan interviewed Bob Lazar on his podcast on June 20. Bob claims that "element 115" is used in UFOs to generate anti-gravity-fields. Given the size of the audience of Joe Rogan, a spike in views can easily be attributed to this event. Dementophobia81 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Bob Lazar wanted to name his hypothetical anti-gravity element "Element 115", but that name was never officially given to that material, then when Moscovium was discovered they were allowed to use the name "Element 115" because the name hadn't been officially taken yet.  They are not the same element.  To avoid further confusion, I think he should change the name of his hypothetical anti-gravity element to "Element 115a".  2600:1700:8830:8DF0:7592:3B39:3807:8568 (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Not sure where you got your physics education (if any) but there can be only one element 115. Everything Lazar claimed about element 115 is now proven to be utterly false. It is not stable, it does not emit antimatter when bombarded with protons that can be directly converted to electricity. Furthermore you can't even claim that Bob was mistaken, mixing up atomic mass and tomic number s atomic mass isotopes of 115 AMU is only Indium, which when you bombard it with protons, becomes plain old Tin 116. Bob was clearly a disinfo agent, or just a fraud. 2601:19E:8800:2D70:F031:B235:285F:D1C (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Actually, as of today, no one has ever bombarded Muscovium with protons because its not possible to do so with currently technology. 115 is produced a few atoms at a time and decay instantly. Theoretically you could hit a single atom of 115 with a proton but good luck measuring the data! So no, Lazar has no been proven false because it's currently not possible to do so.  Andelocks (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems the Zagrebaev graph shows there are numerous Mc isotopes between 1 second and 1 day. The articles says the most stable isotope is 0.65 seconds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:777F:1DCE:E9CE:198D:A2D7:8F9B (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC) 

The article does correctly state that no known moscovium isotope has a half-life longer than 1 second. The isotopes you refer to are hypothetical; for some of these isotopes, the model used predicts half-lives longer than 1 second (indeed, a number of models do), though we'll have to wait and see when they're discovered. Complex/Rational 01:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)