This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
How can two things published in 2003 be references for the details of an element discovered in 2006? Surely the paper(s) cited in the Ununoctium are the references for this article? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely not all as the half-life is stated without a '#'. So at least that data is accurate... the opening paragraph needs to be changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.63.144 ( talk) 19:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The "Attempt result" column of the Target-projectile combinations table doesn't look right. Specifically, I would expect 294Uuo to be "successful" and 297Uuo to be "failure to date" (judging by the contents of the rest of the article), but they seem to be reversed. Kaldari ( talk) 23:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Isotopes of oganesson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
User:65.33.153.16 added the following to this page, apparently in response to my reversion of his edit:
"This adds up to 293 yet you claim it to be 297 and yet you declare having discovered 294. I suggest you check your sources."
I felt the talk page was a more appropriate place for this comment.
As for my response... please note that the mention of Og-293 is scripted to not actually appear on the page; this is because it was retracted after it was discovered that Victor Ninov had fabricated the data. Magic9mushroom ( talk) 08:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
If it a successful reaction, why isn't a confirmed isotope? Porygon-Z 19:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 ( talk • contribs)