Talk:Oxygen/Archive 2

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)

According to the OED, the British pronunciation is ˈɒksɨdʒ(ə)n, and the American is ˈɑksədʒ(ə)n. (Apologies if this is formatted incorrectly, I am rather a novice at this.) NearlyDrNash (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Oxygen TFA image

File:Liquid Oxygen.gif

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)

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)

Rig Veda 1-85-7 (Hindu scriptures of several centuries ago) describes the oxygen. Therefore oxygen's properties and uses were known to mankind before the so called "discovery" !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psseshadri (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 March 2011 (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)

Credit for discovering: this is interesting subject. I've not long published the english translation, The over-evaluation of the role of oxygen by Sergey Altukhov excerpt "...Lavoisier had spent a good deal of time studying the oxygen that he had stolen from Priestley. He carried out dozens of experiments with oxygen as an oxidiser. His book on modern chemistry started the over-exaggeration of the role of oxygen!’..." [1] Alexspence (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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 [2]. 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:

• "Ask an Astrophysicist"

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: [3]. 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!

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)

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)

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 O
₂ per hour. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Oxygen also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Michał Sędziwój should be mentioned as the first one to discover oxygen as a gas!

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_S%C4%99dziw%C3%B3j wuz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.171.87.226 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen as the true acid producer

Not sure why my addition describing hydrogen as the true acid producer was reverted with comment that there are acids without hydrogen. The very definition of an acid requires excess hydrogen -- it is a substance that can donate extra hydrogen ions (and a base is one that can accept them). For example, that's the wikipedia definition of acid. In any event, I think my addition wasn't actually as well written as it could have been. I would suggest something like: "Chemists eventually determined that Lavoisier was wrong in this regard, but by that time it was too late, the name had taken. Actually, the gas that could appropriately have been given the description, "acid producer," is hydrogen." Then I would plan to move the stub sentence at the end about nitrogen to the prior paragraph, which spoke of nitrogen. Any thoughts? Jlawniczak (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple definitions of acid, and not not all of them require hydrogen. Lewis acids are defined as electron pair acceptors. Arrhenius acids can be defined as anything that lowers the pH of pure water, but the acid itself need not have hydrogen. Some examples of acids with no hydrogen include metal cations and borane derivatives. Sulfur trioxide can also be considered an acid; in fact, during the 19th century chemists used the formula SO₃ to describe sulfuric acid itself! However, for the purpose of the history section--where you added the sentence about hydrogen--no further elaboration regarding modern acid definitions is necessary in my opinion, as it is slightly off-topic. I suggest leaving it at "not all acids contain oxygen". --Itub (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree you are right, yet the definition adopted by wikipedia is the one I gave that requires hydrogen (see the wikipedia acid section). I do agree that it is not directly in point, yet I think it is a very interesting piece of information about the naming of oxygen -- that in fact hydrogen would have better had the name. And it's not too far from the other discussion in the same section about nitrogen and its name (and more in point and interesting to me). But if you're against it and no one else cares to comment, then I'll let it be. Jlawniczak (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not strongly against it, as long as you don't replace one oversimplification with another oversimplification. ;-) Just one point: it is not up to Wikipedia to "adopt" one definition of acid, and one has to be careful when using Wikipedia as a source. The acid article could use some improvement. But anyway, despite choosing a mix of the Arrhenius and Bronsted-Lowry definitions of acid for the lead paragraph, that article then goes on to discuss the other definitions. --Itub (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, really appreciate it, your comments were excellent and make a lot of sense. I'll craft something in the next week or so. If you don't like it, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlawniczak (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, the bot got me for not adding my signature in about 6 seconds. Way to go. I'll do it myself this time. Jlawniczak (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

2,000 or 5,000 years

There were two contradictory statements on the page (unless I missed a subtle difference between them). One said it would take 2,000 years to produce the entire oxygen in the atmosphere and the other said it would take 5,000 years to consume it. Since oxygen is in equilibrium, these two numbers should be the same. I chose the 2,000 version for the following reasons:

• It had a reference to an article that's on the Web ([4], p. 9), whereas the 5,000 version referred to an offline book and included a contradictory footnote that could be interpreted to imply that only respiration had been taken into account.
• Though both numbers are to be found on the Web, a Google search seemed to find more instances of the 2,000 version.
• Last but not least, if you search for "billion tons of oxygen" and photosynthesis, the results again vary surprisingly, but with a clear consensus near 400 billion tons per year, and the one page that gives a range of values with two significant digits, i.e. seems to have put at least some thought into how reliable the numbers are, [5], says 430 - 470 billion tons per year, which fits very well with the 2,000 version, since there are roughly a quadrillion tons of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Joriki (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it neccessary for the two values to be equal? Maybe consuming it takes into account the fact that some organisms would die, or maybe the plants are neglected since they would produce the oxygen anyways. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument. The two sentences that I think contradict each other are:

• "... even if all photosynthesis were to cease completely, it would take all the oxygen-consuming processes at the present rate at least another 5,000 years to strip all the O2 from the atmosphere" and
• "At the current rate of photosynthesis it would take about 2,000 years to regenerate the entire O2 in the present atmosphere."

I don't see any leeway in interpreting "all the oxygen-consuming processes at the present rate" and "At the current rate of photosynthesis". If one takes into account that some organisms would die, the oxygen-consuming processes would no longer take place at the present rate. And even if that's what's meant by "at the present rate", it would take a complete simulation of the biosphere to predict how many of which organisms would die -- in that case, the text should say something completely different, like "X carried out a simulation of the biosphere and found that if photosynthesis would suddenly stop working, the oxygen would get used up in 5,000 years". As for neglecting plants: I'm not sure what you mean by "they would produce the oxygen anyways", but it would at least need to be noted that plants have been neglected, since again it wouldn't be "all the oxygen-consuming processes at the present rate".

There are of course many other things that one might find interesting to take into account (for instance that it takes time for the oxygen to diffuse in the atmosphere and in the oceans, which would also reduce the rate at which it could get consumed), but none of these are compatible with "at the present rate".

Joriki (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal -- I re-reverted the change since I haven't heard back from you for a week. (Not surprising, considering this link on your user page. :-) Please let's discuss this before you revert again, since I think the version you re-established is inconsistent, whereas my version is at most missing a piece of information (of which neither of us seems to know exactly what it's about). Joriki (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the numbers don't have to be the same. I'm not sure why this is confusing either. The photosynthesis process creates oxygen at a different rate than it's consumed. Period. What compensates for the fluctuations are the dying and reproducing cycles of breathing things. "since oxygen is in equilibrium"? What does that mean? In equilibrium to what? Or are you trying to say that the rate at which oxygen is created is equal to the rate at which it decays or is used? If so, then that phrase is re-iterating your original statement that the numbers should be equal and does not support itself. It's just a different way of saying that the numbers should be equal. In reality the numbers are not equal and equilibrium is only an illusion. One must take into account the centuries of oxygen created and not used.67.159.133.59 (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Artur Borys

British POV

"Oxygen was independently discovered by Joseph Priestley in Wiltshire, in 1774, and Carl Wilhelm Scheele, in Uppsala, a year earlier, but Priestley is usually given priority because he published his findings first." - First oxygen was discovered by Scheele in 1772-73 (some sorces even say 1771) and this discovery was described in his book from 1773 witch was only published later- and secondly "is usally given priority" needs a (global) source - I bet this is only the case in the UK - but English is not only the native language of the UK - it is even the world language - so you can't say "usually" - in Central Europe it is usually Scheele (which is also one-sided) and after watching some other language-wikipedias it seems that Priestley is also not given "priority". 195.243.51.34 (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure yet others discovered oxygen even before Scheele (as some have claimed) but are not given credit at all due to incomplete, unnoticed or missing publication. In science, discovery only matters when the rest of that discipline is informed and has a chance to review and challenge the new finding. By delayed publication, Scheele was not the person who actually advanced work in his field. In summary: discovering something and keeping it to yourself and a few colleagues is not advancing science since it can't be properly vetted by peer review. That's not a British POV, that is a science POV. That said, 'often' is better than 'usually' and I made that change. --mav (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the first person to really discover what is now known as oxygen was this person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_S%C4%99dziw%C3%B3j 67.159.133.59 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

adding atomic mass to intro section?

I am wondering if we should add atomic mass to the intro section for all of the elements. The reason is that some pages, like Magnesium has the atomic mass written on the introduction section, but other elements don't. I don't know to whom I should turn, but I would like to see some consistency in this. I guess I advocate that it is useful because googling magnesium tends to bring up the wikipedia page, and the intro page in particular. People might be looking for basic information about the atom, including not just atomic number, but the weight. I spoke of this because I noticed Nergaal reverted my changes without explanation to Chlorine, Oxygen, and Sulfur in 19 August 2008.--Luxdormiens (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't one problem that oxygen has 3 stable isotopes so that the atomic mass of each must be different? There is a box with an indication of number of neutrons for each of the three isotopes. Jlawniczak (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The periodic table of the elements sometimes lists the average mass of each element, based on the proportion of the isotopes found in nature. The magnesium is probably anomalous then.--75.22.181.159 (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, this was me. --Luxdormiens (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

All elements articles have an "infobox" on the top right, listing the atomic mass along with many other physical and chemical properties. --Itub (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Oxygen is more soluble in water than nitrogen"

Does this mean "oxygen is more soluble in water than it is in nitrogen", or does it mean "oxygen is more soluble in water than nitrogen is"? Without an "is" it's not clear to me, so I didn't know how to edit this to clarify. --Rebroad (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen is more soluble in water than nitrogen is. --Itub (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"At 25 °C and 1 standard atmosphere (101.3 kPa) of air, freshwater contains about 6.04 milliliters (mL) of oxygen per liter, whereas seawater contains about 4.95 mL per liter.[27] At 5 °C the solubility increases to 9.0 mL (50% more than at 25 °C) per liter for water and 7.2 mL (45% more) per liter for sea water."

If it is MORE soluble at higher temperature then the two listings at 25*C ant 5*C seem wrong because 5* is LESS than 25*. 5*C is a little above freezing for water so it should have less oxygen dissolved. The article indicates the opposite with MORE dissolved at 5* than at 25*C (9mL/L vs 6mL/L). Bhug (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC).

20.9%, 20.95% or 21.0%?

What percentage volume of air is oxygen? Within this article and the Earth's atmosphere article, these three different percentages are mentioned. Can somebody clarify please? Thanks, --Rebroad (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All or any of them are correct. 21.0 % is often used because its a whole percentage, i.e. rounding up. The "rubber book", 53rd Edition, gave the value as 20.946 ±0.002 by volume, and that often is rounded to 20.95 %. 20.9% is also obtained by rounding. Pyrotec (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's to 1 decimal place, 20.9 and 21.0 can't BOTH be correct, can they? --Rebroad (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK to one decimal place it is 20.9 % and to no decimal places it is 21 %. Pyrotec (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

We call this rounding child, because really, there is little difference between 20.9% and 21%--Jakezing (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, air does not exist as a bonded compound and across the earth, different atmospheres have slightly different make-ups of the combination. many areas have different amounts of less common molecules in air, such as CO₂. LastWarrior2010 (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

solid

is there a picture of solid oxygen?--Jakezing (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

why O₂ is the most abundant element but not nitrogen? (in Earth)?

Air contains 21% Oxygen, 78% Nitrogen, etc. Why oxygen is the most abundant element but not nitrogen then?--218.103.137.12 (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There is more oxygen in the Earth's crust than there is nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just think about all the metals in earths crust that are in their oxide form. They all lock up oxygen (iron ore, boxite, etc.). Rreagan007 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also consider the oceans too since oxygen is bound up in every molecule of water. Mr2jzherring (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Density

I think the the announced density of oxygen refers to the NTP (normal temperature = 0 °C = 273,15 K and pressure) not to the room temperature as it is now. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Avaruusraketti (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have a ref of 1.4291 g/l at 0 °C and 1 atm.Pyrotec (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So my user account isn't autoconfirmed yet in English Wikipedia. So could someone correct the table by taking away the "near r.t." from density? Thanks! --Avaruusraketti (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried, but the information is presented in a template: Template:Infobox oxygen and whilst I can edit it, it is not clear to me what needs to be done to it.Pyrotec (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the template. Can you put the new template to the article? Thanks for your help. --Avaruusraketti (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, now added - just a case (for me) of adding "?action=purge" (without the quotes) after the article's web address and hitting return.Pyrotec (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's maddening, isn't it? You make a change in a transcluded box, and although the change does show up in the box, it refuses to show in the article containing the box. I believe you can also force whatever to refresh to the new page, by simply edit-resaving the last version of the main-article once, without making any changes. If you can confirm this works, as it seems to for me, we probably should add that as general instructions for frustrated people trying to edit element-boxes, or other transcluded pages. SBHarris 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That would also work and it appears in the article's history log. Doing a purge merely clears the cached copy of the article and does not show up on the article's history log. Yes, but oxygen is protected, presumably because of persistent vandalism, but the transcluled template is not; do we want to give the vandals a back way in?Pyrotec (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Any vandal that clever would be out there incubating autoconfirmed usernames the old fashioned way. SBHarris 01:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

self-portrayal on a wiki article

A commons user has created several dozen of images using HIMSELF as a model and has posted those images on encyclopedic articles. They are on commons so requesting FfD does not apply. There is one on the bottom of this article, but the issue is waaaay larger and pertains mostly to biological articles. I believe that anybody is free to contribute, as well as he created those images with himself, he can create images using a computer-generated model which is clearly not himself or any real person and ONLY then use those images on wikipedia articles. Until then, ALL those image entries should be removed from wikipedia and the user should be monitored not to introduce them back. Nergaal (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think he is trying to convey that unless it's a portrait of someone, generic drawings (such that the individual cannot be identified) are preferred. K61824 (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If he wants to create these with himself as the model, I don't see what the problem is. There are images all over Wikipedia that people uploaded of themselves. Can you explain why he shouldn't be allowed to use these pictures? A new name 2008 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There's now a picture of this dude in the carbon article, too. Perhaps every science article should have one, eh? SBHarris 03:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

More clarification: I think the problem of posting one's own picture onto mainspace articles is it may be a subtle attempt of WP:ADS where the guy is promoting himself as a model/performer (a bit far-stretched, but still possible). Generic drawings eliminate such problems. K61824 (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's done this, I don't see what the problem is, as long as Mikael Häggström isn't touting himself as a model (incidentally, i checked, and he isn't - he's a medical student). Sure it looks strange, but why not have a consistent body image for element articles? What's the problem? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Why not an image of Mikael Häggström in every Wikipedia article which features a male Homo sapiens for any reason? It saves on time and would be more consistent.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:H%C3%A4ggstr%C3%B6m_diagrams SBHarris 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the Häggström diagrams should stay. --116.14.27.127 (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Ulner (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you'll all be glad to know he's now added an image of himself to the article on Copper. It's an image about Copper toxicity, but it hasn't been added to that Wiki. Not enough readership, one supposes. SBHarris 03:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I see he has coloured his eyes yellow - as should be in the case of jaundice. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I also don't see a problem, and I think the diagrams should stay. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Fine. Get ready for fun! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naked_human_male_body_front_anterior.png SBHarris 06:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with any of these images. Completely useful and assuming good faith I don't consider them being designed to spam but to adequately illustrate topics related to human body. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And even if it is a deliberate attempt by the author to make his own image famous, so what?

It's a little difficult to do that and evade WP:COI WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:ADVERTIZING, WP:(SELF)PROMOTION, and so on. Is what. WP is not facebook, Myspace, or a way to get as many naked pics of yourself to show up on google searches of the web, as you can. SBHarris 23:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see what's the problem either. These images are, frankly, quite educational, and none of them are in the nature of self-promotion. In fact, the way they are done makes them more diagram-like than photo-album like, which in my book perfectly fits their purported purpose. If someone wants to contribute useful images that aren't encumbered with copyright issues, and uses themselves as the model, why not? I say keep them.—Tetracube (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

  Can't argue. I can just point. It will get worse. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ejaculation_educational_ani_short.gif SBHarris 03:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I still do not see your point. As Tetracube points out this is a novel way of getting copyright free pictures of humans and human activities for educational purposes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with it, if it weren't for the fact that most of these uses don't REQUIRE an image of a human, and thus are clearly self-promotional. What is there in in the generic copper article that requires any human image? Copper toxicity is an incredibly rare cause of jaundice, and we already HAVE two images of people with jaundice in that article, and neither is Häggström. The only feature of copper toxicity in humans which is at all visually helpful in making the diagnosis (and already far outside the purvue of a general element article) is the Kayser-Fleischer ring of Wilson's disease. Both articles already well-illustrated without Häggström. SBHarris 01:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The point you are making seems to be one that is specific to each article. Will the article benefit from a human image in some form? I have been involved in another article where there was an eventual consensus to keep a particular human image but the image still had to be removed because its copyright position was not clear. If you are saying that this image is being promoted to articles where no human image at all is required then I agree with you but this should be taken up on an individual article basis.

If Haggstrom or his supporters are going round adding images to articles that will not benefit from them then I agree that this should be stopped, however, if the consensus of editors on any particular article is that a human image would be helpful then I see no problem with using his. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the image in the copper article is somewhat superfluous and I have deleted it. Let us see what the reaction of other editors is. I think that oxygen plays such a vital role in human life that a diagram is justified here. I can see this image getting out of hand and we should all try to stop that but I have no objection to the concept. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For this purpose a diagram in which a human silouette figures, might be helpful, but why a recognizable person, and why somebody recognizable as Häggström?? This stuff is growing like Kudzu. You want another? I see he now has his face stuck in the Wiki on gold, even though gold toxicity does nothing to the face. So now you have another article to look at. SBHarris 21:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with a real person. From the pictures of Häggström I have seen the image is not recognizable as him anyway. I have deleted the diagram in the 'Gold' article. I also note that it has not been replaced on the 'Copper' one. Do we know who is adding these images? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dunno why you didn't recognize it: [6]. And as for who added it, who do you think? [7]SBHarris 22:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. If Häggström is going to try to add his diagrams to every article whether it needs one or not then I agree that we have a problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that the image was added before the matter was discussed with him, so I guess, no problem. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Martin Hogbin hits the nail on the head. We have two different issues here. Are the images of Mikael Häggström useful as illustrations on Wikipedia? Yes, definitely, they are. I'm not sure I'd want to put up similar pictures of myself, but that's up to Mikael Häggström - the end product is useful. Wikipedia should not shy-away from using images of real humans because of concerns about privacy, when we have someone apparently quite happy to show images of themself. The second question is whether an individual page requires an illustration showing a human at all. That discussion should be held on talk pages for those articles. GyroMagician (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad the images are useful, and I've recently tried to start a similar project with adult female diagrams. It is hard to find other realistic body images in anatomical position, but I have nevertheless replaced "myself" with it in fibromyalgia, since it fits better so in a condition with a female:male prevalence of approximately 9:1.

I can only agree with the exclusion of the image from copper if it most likely is redundant there. I could just as well have placed it directly in Copper toxicity, but I guess I though it suited better as an overview image in the summary, making it unnecessary to read the forked article.Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. We could certainly do with some female images. On article that is, in my opinion, in desperate need of some good human images is the Human article where the lead image is the the horrible (for this purpose) Pioneer Plaque.

Regarding the placement of images in articles, I would suggest that you do not do this yourself (or get others to do it for you) but wait for independent editors to do it. This would reduce accusations of self-promotion. The image choice for articles on human anatomy and functions seems to be mainly limited to rather poor and unrealistic line diagrams at one extreme and images of dubious copyright status taken from porno sites at the other. I believe that your images fulfill a genuine need for realistic, natural, matter of fact images of humans in a variety of circumstances and that they should be used, as appropriate, in WP articles. Thanks for providing them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear they may be of further use too. Still, I didn't expect any significant controversy like this, and for my part I don't think my presence in Wikipedia images help me very much in any future situation as a doctor. But I agree with the idea of not adding them as straightforward as has previously been the case, but rather having other, independent, users doing it. Indeed, I'm thinking of just making a more detailed tutorial of how to make such diagrams from the images provided, and add a simpler template to start with, so everybody who wishes to add diagrams to articles can help themselves to whatever they want, like a smörgåsbord instead of me being the only "chef". Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was continued at WikiProject Medicine: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Poll: Photograph or drawing? (possibly archived at October/November 2009)

naming of Precautions section

Other gasses (i.e., Hydrogen) have sections named "Safety". which I feel is slightly more to the point and more likely to be caught in searches. Not having much material yet I don't want to start a page "Oxygen Safety", and the section already exists but by a name that wasn't caught when I looked for Wikipedia - "Oxygen safety". Guess I should just add the word. jimswen (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Data inconsistency

As I do not have a membership, I cannot make changes to this article. However, I noticed a sentence that, if for no other reason than consistency, should be modified to express a more thorough piece of information. The sentence is as follows, "...Goddard successfully flew a small liquid-fueled rocket 56 m at 97 km/h on March 16, 1926..." . The issue I have with that sentence is the peculiar use of both the standard and metric(imperial) units of measurement. Perhaps the writer did it that way to avoid having to use numbers to the 10th or 100th place, however, I wonder if everyone can visualize a certain distance using the "opposite" unit of measurement. I can reasonably assume 56 miles and guess as to where that might be and I'd be relatively close but give me a distance to guess in kilometers or meters and I won't have the slightest clue. I'm sure it's vise-versa for people that normally use the metric system. I suggest a slight change that would appear like this, "...Goddard successfully flew a small liquid-fueled rocket 56 m (90.12 km) at 60.27 m/h (97 km/h) on March 16, 1926...". Or, "...Goddard successfully flew a small liquid-fueled rocket 90.12 km (56 m) at 97 km/h (60.27 m/h) on March 16, 1926..." Now with that information I can infer that Goddard flew for close to an hour!67.159.133.59 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Artur Borys

Thank you, but, 56 m there means 56 meters :-) First rockets were not that efficient. Materialscientist (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah jeez, I probably should of thought of that. Sorry!67.159.133.59 (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Artur Borys

Link to Air Separation

For some reason, I cannot edit this page, even though I have been registered since 2004. Anyway, this article should be linked with Air Separation in the production section. That page should also be re-written and include information from other vendors. It should also be linked to the common abbreviation of ASU.

The section I am referring to is :

Two major methods are employed to produce 100 million tonnes of O2 extracted from air for industrial uses annually.[58] The most common method is to fractionally distill liquefied air into its various components, with nitrogen N2 distilling as a vapor while oxygen O2 is left as a liquid.[58]

Also, the statement "with nitrogen N2 distilling as a vapor" is actually inaccurate, incomplete. The in a conventional two column system, nitrogen is produced as a liquid in the lower column. Liquid oxygen is produced as a liquid in the upper column. I would correct it as follows:

"...various components, including nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Rare gases, including neon, krypton, and xenon can also be produced in crude form in an oxygen production plant."

I would then link it to specifics in the Air Separation page, which as I mentioned, needs significant updates.

Rerooks (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, above. For now, I have added a link to Air separation using the {seealso} template. I will check out the rest tomorrow and try and find some references. As this is a Featured Article I'm not doing to insert any comments unless they are supported by verifiable references. However, I do agree with you that the Air separation article needs to be improved. Pyrotec (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I can find references for you. So, to clarify, we aren't allowed to edit the article? I was under the impression that if you were a registered use you could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerooks (talk • contribs) 02:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

One needs 4 days and 10 edits at wikipedia to edit semi-protected articles. You've got 9 edits, including the above :-) Materialscientist (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. As far as the reference: Cryogenic Systems (Monographs on Cryogenics), by Randall F. Barron (ISBN 0195035674, Oxford University Press, June 1985), page 201 shows the standard double column with a liquid nitrogen product. You can see a preview of that page on Amazon. (search linde double column, then go to page 201). Page 208 of the same reference shows argon production with the addition of an argon column to the double column system. Neon appears on page 212.

With Krypton and Xenon: Industrial Gas Handbook: Gas Separation and Purification by Frank G. Kerry (ISBN 0849390052, CRC Press, Feb 2007), pages 102 discusses Krypton and Xenon from an ASU. This is also seen in Amazon. Search on Xenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.151.110.226 (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No chembox?

Why there is no chembox for dioxygen (and many other one-element-chemicals) while there is a chembox for ozone, etc? This is an inconsistency. Albmont (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have one for "dinitrogen." Very important allotropes get articles (with chemboxes sometimes) but usually not. What would we do for sulfur or selenium? SBHarris 23:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oxygen as atomic mass standard

In the middle of last century, oxygen was defined to have an atomic weight of 16.0000 (e.g., Holton and Roller, Foundations of Modern Physical Science Addison-Wesley, 1958, pp. 388-9, 400), sot eh atomic mass unit was defined to be 1/16th the weight of the oxygen atom. There should be some mention of this in the history section. JKeck (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Oxygen|b0088nql}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Atrocious first sentence

I have to say (with not a little personal bias) that the first sentence of this article looks absolutely atrocious. Just look at this thing:

Oxygen (/ˈɒksɪdʒɪn/ OK-si-jin; from the Greek roots ὀξύς (oxys) (acid, literally "sharp", from the sour taste of acids) and -γενής (-genēs) (producer, literally begetter)) is the element with atomic number 8 and represented by the symbol O.

If I want to find out about oxygen, I first have to wade through a mountain of pronunciation gobbledygook. It's really ugly, unappealing and unapproachable.—RJH (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You know that you complain about the lead of a Featured article? And you are right! ;-) This sentence is way of what a person should find as the first sentence of an article.

Oxygen /ˈɒksɪdʒən/ is the element with atomic number 8 and represented by the symbol O.

This was the first sentence when it got featured and it was much better that way. --18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I used that as the starting point, and moved all the Greek to the second sentence. This was actually two sentences tangled up, or one sentence trying to do the work of two. SBHarris 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Much improved! Although it still says somewhat redundantly: "(play /ˈɒksɪdʒɪn/;(pronounced /ˈɒksɪdʒən/)" Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I also noted that the photo in the illustration has been rotated, which may not be immediately apparent to all viewers. But I like it rotated since it gives a larger image, so I thought fixing the caption was the best option. Again, change it back if you hate it. SBHarris 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks much improved now. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Spacer Box

Does anybody have the same problem I do with the cat box hiding the last lines of the bottom subheader? SBHarris 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.42.228.115, 25 April 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

See Also: Nebulium, a proposed element by William Huggins in 1864, showed to be doubly ionized oxygen. 189.42.228.115 (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Added (in a shortened form). Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting dis-ambiguation header

This is the only Wikipedia article (please disprove me if I'm wrong) that says "This article is about X and Y" to indicate what it is about. Any info on splitting this article into an article about the element and an article about the stable form O2?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article about the element would be very short and would only contain information 0.1% of the people interested in oxygen would like to read. The 0₂ article would be very long and would contain everything nearly everything of this article. The way to rename this article to dioxygen and make oxygen a redirect to it is a solution which would make it necessary for all other elements with similar problems. Nitrogen and the most other gaseous elements have a smaller problem, because there is no ozone like allotrope for them. The header is the simplest and best solution I can think of.--Stone (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See also old discussion.--Stone (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

beautiful article

Really nice article. First time I have looked at it. The images, the length, everything. Good stuff.TCO (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)