Talk:Oganesson

Half-life of Oganesson

The text of this article says both "A half-life [for Og-294] of 0.89 ms was calculated" and "In a quantum-tunneling model, the alpha decay half-life of 294 Og was predicted to be 0.66 ms". In contrast, in the infobox at upper right, under the section "Main isotopes of oganesson", there is shown half-life for Og-294 of 0.69 ms. Another possibility: a half-life of 1.15 ms, which is given in NUBASE2016 of the Atomic Mass Data Center, Intl. Atomic Energy Agency (http://amdc.impcas.ac.cn/nubase/2017audi03.pdf). As far as I can tell, all of these numbers come either from measurements of the 5-6 atoms that were synthesized at Dubna, or from modeling; the measurements would normally be better except there are so few of them. What's the best half-life to use here? DKMell (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@DKMell: The most recently published values should be used whenever possible. For ²⁹⁴Og, these would be 0.69 ms and 1.15 ms. The problem now is deciding which of these to use: NUBASE always gives symmetrized values (1.15±0.47 ms), while most journal articles measure error differently, so we have 0.69+0.64
−0.24 ms. I also am not sure how much data was used to obtain each value. Additionally, it seems that neither paper considers the data from a 2015-16 experiment, but the 0.69 ms value appears in many recent reliable sources. That said, I'd say to use that value, and maybe add a note with NUBASE's value, noting the discrepancy. (Unless a more recent source with another value is found.) ComplexRational (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've heard of Oganesson's name pronounced oh-guh-NESS-on but I say it oh-GAN-es-son. Are both correct? UB Blacephalon (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Definitely stressed on the third syllable: Collins, Merriam-Webster. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

So oh-ga-NESS-on? Is oh-GAN-es-son okay? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Uuo

@Jasper Deng: in this edit you reverted my addition to the lead of "known before it was discovered as Ununoctium (Uuo) or element 118". My edit summary was "Former names into the lead (these terms redirect here)". The redirect Uuo is used in the order of 40 times per month [1] and Ununoctium is used sometimes over 1000 times per month [2]. Is it reasonable that these thousands of users should have to scroll down to the Naming section to determine why those redirects target this page? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it actually is quite reasonable, because those names are not supposed to be used any more now that a trivial name has been selected, the old names were always explicitly provisional (so people should not be too surprised at why the redirect goes here; it must be that the element got a real name), and they are all derived directly from the atomic numbers (which are in the lede) anyway. As older periodic tables get replaced the number should only dwindle as people learn the updated names: just see the stats for Ununquadium (= flerovium, named 2012; less than 200 times per month), Ununbium (= copernicium, named 2010; now less than 120 times per month); Ununnilium (= darmstadtium, named 2003; now counting in the teens).

If we were going to be consistent about it, then logically all the elements from 104 would need a statement like this, because they had systematic names that were used for a time. But I think that would be far too much detail for names that are deprecated. Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this reasoning; redirects and brief mentions later in the article are sufficient. Also keep in mind that the systematic names from 104–109 haven't been used for over 20 years, so those are especially unlikely to be useful in the lead. ComplexRational (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We could add this to the infobox (only), as an alt name not bold. But I must note: in literature, this name/symbol is not used often. Usually, older publications use "element 118" and even notations like "²⁹³118" for the isotope.

Also, maybe more relevant: readers who arrive here through redirect Ununoctium or Uuo are already helped out. There is no need to explain "let us help you with where you came from". This is a basic property of Redirects, in this case. -DePiep (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As older periodic tables are updated (and old sites die), we should see less of this over time. I'm barely old enough to remember when 110 was blank, and in fact my first periodic table had "unnilhexium" on it (and called 105 "hahnium"). It went up to unnilennium and 110 wasn't on there. Later on I looked up this mysterious element 110 to see if seven-year-old me could propose a name and discovered it had already been named, as had 111. 112 was still ununbium, though. Now I haven't used that name in ten years and mentioning "ununbium" feels wrong now. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I added a full concordance for the old names to Systematic element name. Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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)