Talk:Oganesson

Featured articleOganesson 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2009.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 24, 2004Articles for deletionKept
February 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 7, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 10, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 13, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 21, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
August 6, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
February 3, 2023Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on January 3, 2016, June 10, 2016, and December 3, 2016.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 2, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

See also

In the section "See also", i added a link to "Extended periodic table". Okay? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure that's fine, but next time please give a brief reason in your edit summary rather than posting to the Talk page. Every edit you make is reviewed so there is no reason to ask "ok". On the other hand, neither your edit summary nor your post explained why you added the link. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atoms

Can a scientist know the physical state of the oganesson 154.182.246.70 (talk) 11:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no physical state. Only a few nuclei have been synthesized. Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no experimentally verified physical state yet:) It surely wouldn't be feasible to synthesize enough to get those measurements anytime soon. But there are alreay theoretical predictions. See the multiple refs in the article. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.