Talk:Oxygen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Oxygen 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 14, 2008.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Archive
Archives
  • Archive 1 through January 2008.
    (when it became a Featured Article)

Article vandalised with Jason Preistly name and TV show cross references being inserted instead of joseph preistly. JDN

Contents

[edit] Pronunciation

It seems odd to give the pronunciation of this common word: WP is not, after all, a dictionary for foreign learners of English. Nevertheless, I see that this is the established practice for chemical elements. I'm merely registering my disagreement with this practice. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is rather of whether everyone visiting the article can be expected to understand how to pronounce the word: given that it's a fair bet that this is not the case, it's probably a reasonable idea to leave the pronunciation there - not to mention that consistency is appreciable. Nihiltres{t.l} 03:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But how about a plea for the common man, and a pronunciation guide which is at minimal dictionary phoneme symbols and at best, something any native speaker can get: OX-uh-jin. This IPA stuff is barely worse than nothing. SBHarris 04:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The trouble with that is that it can and will be interpreted differently for different people - IPA's advantage is accuracy across dialects, in that "OX-uh-jin" could perhaps be misconstrued as oaks-ah-jean. I believe that the MOS says something about it, not to mention that we have an IPA guide. Nihiltres{t.l} 14:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken I know some Brits who say oakes-ah-jean. A good first crack pronunciation isn't the worse thing in the world, and in fact there is no single right way to say this word, but many wrong ways. People from Baahstaan, that taahn in Masssaachussaaats, are going to say "aahcks-aah-jaaahn" no matter what you do. SBHarris 03:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA status

Congratulations all round to the editors. A thoroughly deserved success. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment - This was a hard topic to get to FA status. Lots of work by many people was needed and given. --mav (talk)

[edit] Oxygen Percent Chart

A graph of oxygen percent levels throughout the history of life and/or Earth would be a nice addition. Something like this:

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/150Tetrapoda/Images/AtmosphericO2CO2.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tablizer (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there one already in the section called "Buildup in the atmosphere"? --Itub (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The figure on the right looks like what you are suggesting. It used to be in the article but now you can find it in the one for the biological role of oxygen. - tameeria (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxygen TFA image

I think this free image of liquid oxygen (O2) and the gas above it would be better for the Main Page than the image of ozone stuctures currently chosen for tomorrow's TFA. First off it actually shows the element (in two of its states and in its most common allotrope). Second, the pale blue color of liquid oxygen is pretty cool and due to its electonic structure, plus you can even see bubbles of the gas, plus the gas above it. Ozone (O3) is important, but relatively rare. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The ozone diagram gives a misleading representation of an 'oxygen molecule', which occurs far more in the O2 state than in O3. G.bargsnaffle (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What benefit derives from showing a vial of something bluish? The bohr-model diagram at least will be recognizable by anyone who's studied chemistry at the high school (secondary) level. Michael.Urban (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Credit for discovering

Its kind of odd that they give someone credit for discovering oxygen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.141.81 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Discovering it means they discovered it as a separate element with its own atomic structure, physical and chemical properties, and most importantly, discernible from nitrogen, which makes up the majority of the earth's atmosphere. Of course discovering an element is (or rather was) a very notable feat, it's nothing like breathing in air and giving it a name, which is what I imagine you believe discovering oxygen means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.195.142 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxygen third most common element in the universe?

Unlikely given that there are numerous other elements at higher concentrations in the sun. This claim derives from an unsourced table in Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements with the citation in the discussion page thereof [1]. Unclear where the author of the latter table got his information. Also the title of the latter table "Relative Abundance of Selected Elements in the Universe", does not rule out other, more common, elements because of the word "Selected". All in all probably not strong enough evidence to assert that oxygen is the third most common element in the universe Phillip SanMiguel (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is true that there is more oxygen then other elements other than H and He, I wouldn't mind knowing the theories as to why this is the case. --70.54.5.241 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's what NASA has to say, anyway:
Which at least confirms oxygen as #3 in the Sun, and implies the same is true of the Universe in general.
There also seem to be some links there with further info.
—Wikiscient— 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like I was wrong. I also see oxygen listed as the 3rd most abundant here: [2]. I would also be interested as to why this might be. Phillip SanMiguel (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, yeah, that's a way cooler citation! Image:Face-grin.svg
As far as why that is: it's the result of the overall balance of Nucleosynthesis processes... which I'm sure gets about as complicated as you want -- ie. a more straight-forward answer to that is escaping me at the moment ...!
—Wikiscient— 14:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Notes and Citations section

...looks bloody. Could some one please fix it? ---- penubag  (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks!-- penubag  (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Four references seems to have gone fud - I would fix it but I can't figure out where they were originally pointing! Seansheep (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by reverting. A combination of vandalism and reversions to earlier versions initially made it difficult to work out who did what. Sorry if anyone lost anything that they considered important - but I do know now who removed the links.Pyrotec (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breathing

so how much oxygen does an average human consume per day for breathing? and it would be interesting to know this for other animals as well. but the article tells nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.42.9 (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

About 30 grams of O2 per hour. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)