Talk:Oganesson

one of two scientists alive...

I thought Einstein was also alive when Es was named? re: It is one of only two elements named after a person who was alive at the time of naming, the other being seaborgium, and the only element whose namesake is alive today. Crescent111 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC) 02:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

If I believe our article on Einsteinium, it was first discovered in 1952 when Einstein was alive, reported on a conference in August 1955, during which Einstein died, and later (after the conference) IUPAC approved the name.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I explained it in a footnote. Einsteinium and fermium were decided as names when Einstein and Fermi were alive, but by the time they became official, both had died. Double sharp (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Aristid von Grosse

On July 8, 2016, @Double sharp added that Aristid von Grosse predicted in a 1965 Oganesson's properties. Unfortunately, the only references to this I can find are mirror sites of Wikipedia itself. Double_sharp, or anyone else, do you have a source for von Grosse?

TypistMonkey (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@TypistMonkey: Here's von Grosse's original article. Probably it is hard to find because (1) his name's abbreviated to "A. V. Grosse" on it and (2) in that time period, radon was often called "emanation".

P.S. In fact the ref was already in the article (where it was used to cite other things), just not present at this place. So I've put it in at the appropriate place. (And, actually, von Grosse's prediction is also mentioned in the next reference by Fricke, on p. 126.) Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it proven that it is solid?

I have been wondering if any serious scientists predict it as a gas or even consider the possibility. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:E069:4922:80B0:884B (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Subsequent studies seem to have confirmed the cited 2005 prediction that it is solid and reactive, see e.g. "Oganesson: a noble gas element that is neither noble nor a gas" (2020), and, if you can get at paywalled academic papers, the citations at the bottom of the "The Late p-Block Elements" section of "Understanding Periodic and Non-periodic Chemistry in Periodic Tables". I would like to add some more references to the article, but there's something weird going on with the Nash 2005 citation that I don't understand — it just says <ref name="Nash2005"/> all over the place, there's no actual specification of the reference that I can find. So I'm scared of breaking something. Elwoz (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I still don't understand what's going on with the Nash 2005 reference but I was able to add a reference to the 2020 "neither noble nor a gas" paper without breaking it. Elwoz (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Elwoz: The Nash 2005 reference is defined in {{Infobox element/symbol-to-electron-configuration/ref}}, which is transcluded in {{Infobox oganesson}}, which is transcluded on this page. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Transcluded section

As a reader of the oganesson article, I'm very critical of the way in which "Introduction to the heaviest elements" is transcluded into this article. I'm particularly critical of the way the transcluded article contains image, etc. boxes that seem very off-topic to me. What exactly does the energy-producing fusion of some of the lightest natural elements have to do with oganesson, where the very difficult-to-achieve fusion processes to elaborately create but a few atoms of this synthetic element are definitely not energy-producing? What relevance does that "External videos" visualisation actually have to oganesson in particular? Those are only the two most glaring examples, and depending on the user's browser or device, they may even appear disconnected from the transcluded section, so it's not even remotely clear to readers that that's where they're from. Generally, but for the easily glossed-over section-hatnote saying it, it's not initially and intuitively obvious to readers which parts of the oganesson article are transcluded from elsewhere, and really, much of the transcluded information is more of a distraction than helpful to this article in particular. It seems to me that the Introduction to the heaviest elements article itself can't decide whether to be its own article (which would rather be linked) or whether to be just something that's transcluded into certain other articles, for which latter end it's not sufficiently short and general. I think these transclusion shenanigans definitely are too iffy and confounding to be really befitting the high standards expected of a featured article. This feels very beta and experimental. It feels like whatever editors did this were too enthralled with the discovery that they could and didn't ask themselves whether they should. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

They are both fusion processes. The whole point of this section is that without it, you'd basically need to say the same thing again and again in every transfermium article, because these elements are only produced in a process that isn't much related to how lighter elements are found (or even made; for elements up to Es and Fm you're better off making them in reactors). Double sharp (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't find the number of neutrons

Regular user and donator here. This Wikipedia article is lacking very basic information about this element. I wanted to simply know how many protons and neutrons this element has and it isn't anywhere on wikipedia. This Wikipedia page is loaded with crap that nobody could possibly need and yet it doesn't even have elementary information. This website: https://www.americanelements.com/oganesson.html

...has the information.

The Wikipedia website is supposed to be an encyclopedia (information for average people). It's supposed to be an encyclopedia for regular people, not a textbook for chemists. Yet that's how it reads.

It's time for Wikipedia to wake up and get a hold of itself and edit it's pages for unnecessary bloat, or I'm done donating.

Peace! 46.6.38.139 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors, also known as users, are the same as you and same as all admins, they do not receive money from your donations - that money goes to the Wikimedia Foundation, which presumably uses that money to keep the website(s) running ... ?

Basically, you have got the wrong idea of how this works - if there's information missing, you can add it yourself - and if you can't because the article is locked, you can make an edit request. Sure someone might use your link and do it, but they would be volunteering their time just as much as you would.

Though of course, articles only show what there is consensus between the editors interested to have in the article (if they're interested enough to ensure that, anyways). – 2804:F14:8085:6201:10B5:2CAA:B3AF:BF4D (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Though, it doesn't seem like that information is needed, is what I would say - the atomic number of ordinary elements is equal to the amount of protons and the atomic mass is pretty much equal to the amount of protons + amount of neutrons, due to electrons not having much mass, so it's basic maths really. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:10B5:2CAA:B3AF:BF4D (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The number of neutrons is variable for many elements. It depends on the isotope. The introductory section of the article has a link "oganesson-294", leading to a table that even has the Z and N values so you don't have to do the math yourself. For the synthetic elements with such short half-lives, the atomic mass and number of electrons are not really viable concepts. But the mass number is how the isotope is identified, from which the number of neutrons is exactly knowable by definition (not just "pretty much"), and this is also in the infobox of the element's article. DMacks (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)