![]() | OgTs₄ was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 July 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Oganesson. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is written in American English with IUPAC spelling (color, defense, traveled; aluminium, sulfur and caesium) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide and chemistry naming conventions, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oganesson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Oganesson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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)
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)
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)
<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)
{{
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)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)
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)
![]() | OgTs₄ was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 July 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Oganesson. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is written in American English with IUPAC spelling (color, defense, traveled; aluminium, sulfur and caesium) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide and chemistry naming conventions, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oganesson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Oganesson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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)
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)
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)
<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)
{{
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)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)
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)