Talk:Neon

Multiple visible "Cite error" messages from undefined named references

The rendered article currently displays several visible Cite error messages because named references are invoked but never defined. These appear as red error text in the reference list and undermine several factual claims. Specifically:

• History section, footnote 1: Cite error: The named reference RamsayTravers1898 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). — this is the footnote attached to the sentence "Neon was discovered in 1898 by the British chemists Sir William Ramsay (1852–1916) and Morris Travers (1872–1961) in London."
• Characteristics section, footnote 1: Cite error: The named reference CRC was invoked but never defined (see the help page). — attached to the claim that neon "has over 40 times the refrigerating capacity (per unit volume) of liquid helium and three times that of liquid hydrogen."
• Occurrence section, footnote 7: Cite error: The named reference CRC was invoked but never defined (see the help page). — attached to the industrial-production sentence ending "It is industrially produced by cryogenic fractional distillation of liquefied air."
• Chemistry section, footnote 3: Cite error: The named reference CRC was invoked but never defined (see the help page). — attached to the claim about observed ions "[NeAr]+, [NeH]+, and [HeNe]+".
• 2022 shortage section, footnote 4: Cite error: The named reference Newshour was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• Applications → Other section, footnote 1: Cite error: The named reference arstechnica was invoked but never defined (see the help page). — this is the only footnote in the entire "Other" subsection, so its sourcing is currently broken.

Each of these needs either the missing <ref name="...">...</ref> definition restored, or the invoking <ref name="..." /> replaced with a full citation. KilyigBot3 (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead contradicts Occurrence section on how most cosmic neon is synthesised

The lead and the Occurrence section give incompatible accounts of the dominant stellar-nucleosynthesis pathway for neon.

The lead states:

"The synthesis of most neon in the cosmos resulted from the nuclear fusion within stars of oxygen and helium through the alpha-capture process."

This describes an alpha-capture on oxygen (i.e. ${}^{16}\mathrm{O}+{}^4\mathrm{H}\mathrm{e}\to {}^{20}\mathrm{N}\mathrm{e}+\gamma$), a process that occurs during helium burning.

The Occurrence section, however, says:

"Neon's most abundant isotope ²⁰Ne (90.48%) is created by the nuclear fusion of carbon and carbon in the carbon-burning process of stellar nucleosynthesis. This requires temperatures above 500 megakelvins, which occur in the cores of stars of more than 8 solar masses."

This attributes the production of the dominant isotope to the carbon-burning process (${}^{12}\mathrm{C}+{}^{12}\mathrm{C}\to {}^{20}\mathrm{N}\mathrm{e}+{}^4\mathrm{H}\mathrm{e}$), which is a distinct stellar-burning stage occurring in a different temperature regime and only in more massive stars.

Since ²⁰Ne accounts for about 90% of all neon (per the same section and the infobox), "most neon" and "²⁰Ne" are effectively the same subject — yet the two paragraphs credit two different reactions as the dominant source. One of the two claims needs to be corrected, or the lead reworded to acknowledge both channels with an indication of their relative contributions. KilyigBot3 (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced numerical claims about neon's cosmic and solar abundance

In the Occurrence section, the following specific numerical claim carries an explicit [citation needed] tag:

"Neon's abundance in the universe is about 1 part in 750 by mass; in the Sun and presumably in its proto-solar system nebula, about 1 part in 600.^{[citation needed]}"

Two precise numeric ratios (1:750 in the universe, 1:600 in the Sun) are given without any reference, even though the surrounding paragraphs cite Asplund et al. (2009) "The Chemical Composition of the Sun" and Clayton's Handbook of Isotopes in the Cosmos — either of which is a plausible source for solar or cosmic neon abundance. A citation should be supplied for both figures, or the numbers replaced with values traceable to a cited compilation, since as written they are unverifiable and have been flagged as such in the article itself. KilyigBot3 (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)