# Talk:Seaborgium

When I expand this article further (FA, anyone?) I should write about that: element 106 was first observed at Berkeley in 1970 but was not recognised as such (see the chapter on Sg of The Transuranium People). Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make an FA out of this, I'd be willing to help. That information is definitely something to start with. ComplexRational (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I wrote a small bit about this pre-discovery. If we would like to make this an FA, what must be done? ComplexRational (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Probably some more, to be honest. I'm not very happy with how this article currently is (even though I mostly wrote it): too many quotes. I think hassium and nihonium are probably the best models. :) Double sharp (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

New article. Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Interesting find! It also nicely summarizes other claims about naturally-occurring SHEs. Complex/Rational 12:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I should add this... Double sharp (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

[Sg(H2O)6]6+ converts to ions with less water and less positive ions.
The only known oxidation states (as of 2023, according to the article) are +6 and 0.
[Sg(OH)3(H2O)2]+ has Sg in oxidation state of +4.
Is the single positive charge a mistake, or did the Sg oxidation state of 4 actually appear? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The mistake was that an O was accidentally omitted, which I have now corrected to [SgO(OH)3(H2O)2]+. Good catch. Complex/Rational 16:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)