Talk:Fluorine

File:Gifblaar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gifblaar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

was kept.--Stone (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

On to chlorine?

This article is now very nicely done-- one of the better element articles. As such, it now makes the article on chlorine (never up to par anyway) look pretty scrappy by comparison. Even the bromine article is better than the one on chlorine! Yet chlorine as chloride is necessary for all life and is a macromineral in the diet, with a far more important presense on Earth than fluorine, and a chemistry just as interesting. Might I suggest that those of you who have worked on fluorine and are looking for new worlds to conquer, take a look at the neglected chlorine article? It's my own next target as well. SBHarris 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done a lot for the article, reconstructing it since March prior to the FAC2. I have also done a lot between FAC2 and FAC3, but a great credit should be given to the User:TCO, who has, however, retired. For this reason, I feel I should reply. If you want it— OK, after this article gets featured. What I'm saying is, OK if the points I'll be unable to fix will be helped.

I just need this featured. Besides, comments on, still, this article would be useful at FAC3 page.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oxidation comparison

I love oxygen (love it even more than F). But, I think the comparison on oxidation is confusing. What I would do is

1. make a new page and save your comparison stuff over there.

2. Reorg this article so it is more about the F, not the O.

A. Perhaps save 1-2 sourced sentence about the comparison, and put that in the highest section of "Inorganic compounds". Something like this (not perfect).

"Fluorine forms a wide variety of inorganic compounds. In some cases the compounds are similar to other halides. In others, they are more like oxides. Because F2 is a stronger oxidizing agent than O2, many difficult to reduce elements form compounds with F, but not O. However, because oxide anion, O-2, has twice the formal charge of fluorine anion, F-, some of the highest elemental oxidation states (+7, +8, etc.) are more common in oxides than fluorides. (See "comparison of fluorine and oxygen oxidation states for more information.)"

->note, this also gives the reader a little bit of an overview for the inorganic stuff to come in the subsections.

B. Re-org all the content from the comparison section BACK into the metal halides, noble gas, etc. Ditch most or all of the specific oxygen examples, but keep the info on the example fluorides.

3. figure out a little more why and so what (and put it in that OTHER page). Like I still wonder about "oxidation state" versus negative charge on the atom. Is one reason why oxygen gives higher oxidation states, just related to bookkeeping (after all peroxides are well known, or for that matter is the oxygen really completely double the negative charge of the F? Or perhaps it is related to space-filling? You just can't fit twice as many F's around a metal atom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.IP 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm way not in favor of this. Here's why: a) the topic is interesting and notable only as a subtopic of another one; I'm generally against articles and only compare several objects. b) this is an important (at least, very notable) part of fluorine chemistry. c) 1-2 sentences are a bad idea, as it does not give the expression to the reader why. Don't want to have anything about this cut.

And yes, the reason for a (relatively) stable OsO₄ and not OsF₈ is the number of ligands. Too hard to squeeze eight fluorine atoms around only one other (this is only a partial explanation, though).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

ref 31

ref 31 is messed up. You have the same name for two different refs. For that matter, still don't like mentioning radon, this high up. Will move down. Water and the like are substances (should not be wikilinked) that reader will understand as commonly nonreactive. Radon is not something that the common reader thinks of for it's chemistry (more for its radiation). Also, as it is so far down the table, not as surprising that it makes compounds. 71.246.147.40 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Quickfixed ref. 31. Materialscientist (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I love you.71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

ref 118

The abstract for this ref (don't have the paper) seems to talk all about solution chemistry. I'm concerned that it may not support the sentence about the solid product (perhaps the messed up ref 31 does).

In fact, often the articles contains not only the material shown in the title; for example, all the articles on transactinide chemistry always have a detailed description of how they got the individual atoms, even though there's nothing about chemistry in it. It's the same.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(A) I looked at the abstract, NOT just the title. (B) Saying it "might" contain the info is not the same as saying you, R8rg8tr KNOW that the source is valid. (Like I said, I have a "concern", not that I KNOW it is a bad ref.) (C) I have found a few places previously where a ref was not supporting the text. This smells similar...;)96.238.184.111 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, I still would like the whole article gone through and source checked ref, by ref. Have been concerned with finding a few refs that were wrong in the past (and this is an old article and may have submarines sneaking around).71.246.147.40 (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Boron trifluoride

Should the article explain why BF₃ is a Lewis acid (1-2 sentences)? The explanation would be really suit to this text: "Period 2 elements (with the exception of boron, which forms a trifluoride) form fluorides that follow the octet rule: carbon tetrafluoride,[98] nitrogen trifluoride,[99] and oxygen difluoride.[100][101]" Just want to ask if this is needed. If anyone say yes, I'll add it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that para is getting long. Break it. Also, even if you don't like the bullets, I think the reader would benefit from clarification of the para org with a topic sentence ("from left to right"). Also, generally better to not rely on "definition by blue link" (in other words, forcing readers to look up strange terms just for definition, not to learn more). In this case, defining pnictogen and chalcogen is good writing and helps reader orient the (good) structure that you already put in. (If you don't beleive me ask Tony1 who will say same thing as me on this issue and he is a superstar writer-guy.) Yeah...halo-oxide might be wrong. Perhaps it is halooxide? In any case, I think it helps orient the reader. Otherwise, you have this one sentence about not same oxidation state, but then the following comments are just examples of fluorides.96.238.184.111 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)