Talk:Fluorine

For the former Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides subsection, please see Talk:Fluorine/Comparison between the highest oxidation states of oxides and fluorides.

A few points about refs (for future PR and FAC4, which will be at some point, and just describing how everything's done)

• They should be done with {{cite web}} or simlilar templates;
• In titles, the words should be written as a piece of usual text. If it is a the first word after a — or : , then it is capitalized. The system is a general observation for science literature (as compared to the cheap detectives). Singular deviations found in fact are omitted here for standardization.
• Access dates are done in DD MMMMMMM YYYY format.
• Page ranges are standardized to the full page number standard, 4326—4384 rather than the last two digit standard, such as 4326—84. There's no need to conserve space, and we can use the more eye-friendly system (you can see the second number all at once without having to search for its beginning)
• Will add more when something comes to mind. I'm not adding a timestamp to make sure this text will not be archived. If a bot does so, please remove it.

TCO fluorine to do list

1. CE from front to back. (to get me familiar with the material, fix some degredation, fix some second langauge mistakes [no offense, amazingly better than I can do in any second language]. (in progress)

1.5. Spellcheck, offline.

2. convert gallery views to bordered wikitables (in progress).

3. fact check (100%). Will require a uni library trip as well as research requests.

3.5. Resolve all hidden comments

4. Check infobox, categories, pics, etc. (side matters).

5. Check reference formatting.

5.5. Check dab and first linking throughout article.

---

6. Get a prose grandmaster (likely Wehwalt) and twist his anti-science arm into going through the article. Pay him back somehow on some of his articles.

7. Get a Fifelfoo ref format check.

8. At that time, should be OK for R8r to renom for FAC with SandyGeorgia recused.

Subpage for ref checking

Working page set up to get this done.

User:TCO/Fluorine/ref checking 2012

Really like drugs now, agrichem still bugging me

I think our drug section looks great now. Like the content, structure, ability to transmit technical info.

Agrichem still bugs me a bit. I need to read the refs a bit more (there is that 1995 symposium by Banks) to understand the field. But the impression I get is that agrichem chemical design is a lot like drug design (lot of innovation and new molecules and structure to property). But this then ends up being a little repetitive from the drug section (why they were grouped a long time ago). Fluoracetate, a mammalian poison, seems not to quite fit the theme. Also the second half of first para is a bit tough to follow.

I really do like having the gifblaar at the beginning. SBHarris was right on that. The organisms that really use it in nature are the closest to what a reader thinks of as biologically relevant (although we take a broad view and include other aspects). And it gives us a lead para before we get into the other things that fluorine does which are manmade bio uses.

I am actually tempted to cut the Gordian knot by just making a whole new section at the bottom, which would be "other uses". This would then allow for giving a para or two which would very quickly list the aspects of dating, liquid breathing which we cut. I could add in the poison and agrichem there.

Hmm...

19:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

P.s. It also helps me with that frigging beautiful, but hard to integrate in layout spinning PET scan.

In principle, I approve (that is, wouldn't feel it was a decision to regret) the Others subsection.

Re drug design vs. agrichem design: Indeed they are alike. At least one of our book sources investigates this more or less closely (don't remember which one, remember reading it).

Re "It is expected that how often the fluorine agrichemicals will be used depends on two factors: if the synthesis reaction will be improved (to reduce the prices) and if green chemistry will be taken in account to a larger scale (fluorochemicals are more environment-friendly).[133]": do you understand the point? this sentence (not its structure, but its contents) does seem important to me, so tell me

Re 1080: it is still technically an agrichemical even if it doesn't benefit the plants directly. Like copper sulfate, which does benefit plants.

Re "Another important agrichemcial is Trifluralin" (you didn't mention, note to self): we fail to say if it's pro-plants or anti-plant-eaters. Also, is it okay to cite a court case? (The materials can be found online.)

Re dating: not sure if it's a major technique or anything, need to see if it's any important. Liquid breathing, however, is neat (after some thinking, I want it).

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. As I said, I would be good if you started the subsection, but there's a weak feeling inside of me the current scheme has its potential. Maybe it's only because you've dealt so well with drugs.

I would do it off in sandbox first in any case. Saving it for later. Kind of a pain in the butt to think through all that.

"It is expected that how often the fluorine agrichemicals will be used depends on two factors: if the synthesis reaction will be improved (to reduce the prices) and if green chemistry will be taken in account to a larger scale (fluorochemicals are more environment-friendly).[133]"

Don't understand that at all. Can you please explain here with some simple sentences?

Yeah, pointing out Trifuralin is an herbicide is good.

TCO (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Wise.

Fluorochemicals will be used more in the future if people care about environment, and/or the synthesis becomes cheaper.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, but will more environmental concerns lead to more or less F-agrichem?TCO (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

More concerns = more fluorochemicals.

I'm not meaning to torture you man, and I will try to get ref desk to send me the article, but why/how does more environmental fussiness lead to more F-chemicals? (for instance are they more specific pesticides?) After all, we seem to have several places here in our text where we talk about Eurocoms banning fluoroacetate and Trifluralin and the like.TCO (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're doing okay. Fluorine is "green" basically because it makes an agrichemical more effective, which means smaller amounts need to be added to environment, which means less environmental effect. See here (be prepared for some moonspeak).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Currently the compound is banned" which of the two compounds discussed in the paragraph is this referring to? Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

1080--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It was some work, but I went ahead and added the "other" bucket.98.117.81.134 (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

chem templates

The chem template messes up line spacing, so I pulled one. I don't see any advantage from this over just using superscript and subscript.TCO (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In principle, we can go without them, but there's also this: ClF⁺
₆. There is a way to do that w/o chem, but I don't know it (saw once, didn't even try to memorize).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I really think it is more confusing to mess up the line spacing than to have a character like ClF₆⁺. I would write that way in MS Word and no one would really notice difference. Just special printing or typesetting would do different (or you can use LaTex). The problem with messing the line breaks up is that Wiki has very (overly) dense line spacing of text anyhow. The spaces between paras are already rather small. When you use the chem templates, it looks confusingly like a para break. And paras are how your eye scans organized text. Anyhow, I will leave the other ones (maybe). I changed one in boron where it really gave me a double take on the paragraphing. Other people over at the template talk have noted same issue with the line breaks. I just think the higher order look is more important than the micro (to make look good).TCO (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Will you do it or leave it to me?

In principle, we can do [ClF₆]⁺ (can we actually? I never understood square brackets). Still would love to know how to do it exactly that way.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would keep the square brackets out. I think they are not needed unless you have a salt or there is some reason for confusion. Let me look some stuff up before you get going, though.TCO (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2013 (timestamp added by YBG (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC) per history)

See here for a discussion of brackets. I don't think they are needed for the example you showed, just as not needed for sulphate. Use the brackets when you really need them (like if there is a subscript in a salt for a complex cation).TCO (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2013‎ (signature added manually by YBG (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC) per history)

Uneven and erratic line spacing is ugly and should be avoided. But on my browser, this change doesn't make very much difference in the line spacing. The text is in footnotes, so line scanning is assisted by the note number and the hanging indent format. What small improvement in line spacing made by the sub/sup formatting is no more significant than the ugliness of having the subscript and superscript offset from each other. I prefer the cleaner chem template. The right way to get improvement is to see what can be done to improve the template itself. YBG (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think the "offset" is ugly. You probably don't even notice it in plenty of places it occurs. See my comments here. Cramming LaTex into the inline prose is a mistake. I won't fight about it...but it's just low value and imho actually counter productive to readability. Offspaced lines seriously look like para breaks (because the Wiki para break is so tiny).TCO (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Convert template

In starting to use the {{convert}} template, I discovered that there may be a problem with the converted units. For example,

Current text	−188 °C (−307 °F)	−220 °C (−363 °F)	−228 °C (−378 °F)
Rounded wikitext	{{convert|−188|°C|°F|0}}	{{convert|−220|°C|°F|0}}	{{convert|−228|°C|°F|0}}
Rounded display	−188 °C (−306 °F)	−220 °C (−364 °F)	−228 °C (−378 °F)
Unrounded wikitext	{{convert|−188|°C|°F}}	{{convert|−220|°C|°F}}	{{convert|−228|°C|°F}}
Unrounded display	−188 °C (−306.4 °F)	−220 °C (−364.0 °F)	−228 °C (−378.4 °F)

Assuming that the °C is correct and there is no transcription error, it seems that a more exact °C value has been converted to °F and then both values were rounded to the nearest integer. Any suggestions on what should be done here? YBG (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, C is converted to F. When C is rounded, F has to be rounded too, it's a MOS thing. Like somewhere in text 200 C (400 F), even if 200 C=392 F. And it's getting worse when you get to fifties. Still, man, I don't understand the point. We already have C and F everywhere. Why do we have to add these templates? I mean... the time could be spent on something more useful.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the convert templates. It seems like a techie feature that is not needed (how hard is it to just do the calc and type the numbers). Bunch of work that does not really help the readers. Also, end up with these little issues of rounding and such versus a human decision). If I were writing the document in MS Word, I would not need the template.TCO (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to always use convert templates in WP articles -- but I can recognize a consensus when I see one. Let's just leave it as is. YBG (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Au contraire. The |sigfig= number of significant figures is a magnificent part of converting. After the calculation (what precision you use, btw?) there comes the rounding, as a statement really. In physics too (where I learned its relevance). You saying "in MS Word, I would not need" -- wow, how is that for a technical mind.

Anyway, this thread to me seems to be about: who converted, the source or editor@WP? If the source rounded wrongly (using MS Word;-) ) we have a problem. If it was a WP editor, we can correct.

Now a little story, related. I have just finished reading the Alan Turing bio (1983) by Andrew Hodges. Only now I understand that floating point calculations, that have spoiled computering from the start and into the heart, is caused by them being analogical. Floating point=analogical (a measurement, not a digital fact). There you are. Rounding is analogical, not digital. Can someone expand this to quantum theory? -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Martyrs list, unsuccessful synthesis methods list

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/Fluorine/Fluorine.html --R8R Gtrs (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

external links

1. We have had Periodic table of videos in the article (stable-ly) for a couple years and the caesium video for a year.

2. Actually WATCH the videos. They are stunningly encyclopedic content.

3. The reader benefits from seeing the reactions. It is an appropriate illustration.

4. The bot can not participate in talk and should not be referred to as a decider (see beestra edit summary).

P.s. Maybe the brick and chicken were pushing it. Let's go back to the previous, though.

71.127.131.41 (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Added it back. Double sharp (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And I still disagree that they should be there, the description is good, we don't need to display that throwing a brick at a window will break it either. So since there is no consensus that they should be there, their inclusion should be (re-)discussed. And that they were there is an invalid argument. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The content has been stable in a well watched, well developed article for over a year. The content (the specific videos) are stunning and enjoyable and illuminate the text (visuals do that,you know...huge amount of pedagogy research to that effect). Or consider...if we take your point...should we then delete all the pictures? (you have not differentiated the situations.) Or consider if the content was hosted on Wiki? Would you have the same reaction? No. Well...then your argument does not hold. And how they heck can you understand flames and explosions and gases making things burn without seeing some of it? You know this is a multimedia platform no? That it is one thing we do better than dead trees?

Also, I strongly suspect that you cut the links before even watching the vids. I suspect your action was based on a general dogmatic dislike of ELs rather than this specific case and a real care for the reader's interests. I think you are hardened into wanting to back yourself up now. You even cited the bot as a participant! Too bad it can't participate in discussion on talk in editorial discussion. But then you didn't really want to either. Interesting that you avoided the discussion for a while but were lighting fast on reverts and warnings. Very much the Wiki admin control mindset rather than scholarly empathy for the reader.71.127.131.41 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with ip contrib. Having those videos makes this article that little bit better, and if theres no WP:Policy reason to remove them, then they shouldn't be removed. Having relevant videos in articles, especially chemistry ones, gives the reader much more information (in many cases) than text alone ever could. It seems like there is reference to an earlier argument here. Can you link to it please? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

71.127.131.41: You again make the same assumptions .. you should first stop with that, maybe. And you're repeating the invalid argument - that it was there is by no means a reason that it should be there. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS explains how that arguments works out, see also the related WP:OTHERLINKS. Regarding the bot, the bot notifies you of links which are problematic, and YouTube is one of them. In a way, what XLinkBot tells is there part of the discussion, there is a reason that the bot reverts that addition, and in that way it does become an 'editor' in the situation. And I reverted for the same reasons that XLinkBot reverted, that does not necessarily mean that I expect XLinkBot to come over and discuss with us about the why.

Now, regarding the video's. You say that they are helping the reader, but that avoids the reasons why YouTube videos are discouraged (YouTube is in a way covered by several of the WP:ELNO-points, generally derived from the pillar WP:NOT). That is a distinct difference between the images that are on a page - yet another invalid argument, trying (again invalidly) to assume my reasons.

And do they really add? Do we need to link to videos showing how bricks destroy windows, how cars react when they hit a concrete wall, .. no. I do not think that all links to external resources are utterly necessary, and this is one of those cases.

The process is bold, revert, discuss. The addition was reverted (by a non-bot editor), at that point, re-insertion should be discussed and put to the merit, not edit warring to keep it there because it was there and because you think it is informative. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And how are these normal unsourced rubbish youtube videos? It's not. Hence the main criticisms that apply to youtube videos here don't seem to apply very well here. They give info beyond what the article could reasonably contain. (Let's face it, your average Wikipedian is not going to have access to F. These guys do, and they show you stuff one can do with it. That's very encyclopaedic! We show caesium's reaction with water on the Cs page in a video. Nobody has problems with that, right? So how is a Cs–F reaction video unencyclopaedic here? How is F reacting with stuff and how it looks when liquefied under pressure unencyclopaedic? If these videos were on WP, not on YouTube, would you have a problem? If not, why do you have a problem with them now? Prejudice against YouTube?) And this is what XLinkBot is doing: its problematic-link list is necessarily over-general. It can make mistakes. Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out a part of Beetstras argument, specifically the reference to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. It does indeed explain how that argument works out, and explicitly says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." As the IP's argument contains 3 other points, I think we can safely say that this specific sentence applies. Also, out of interest, exactly which of the 19 WP:ELNO points are relevant? It seems to me that none of them are. Please do NOT misrepresent the content of WP guidelines, and please be much more specific when referring to them. Your point about bricks smashing windows only seems ridiculous because most people have experience with how glass breaks (and even then, if it were an article specifically about the nature of glass fractures, I suspect a video of that, perhaps slowed down, WOULD be appropriate). How many people do you know who have experience with flourine? Videos greatly help people understand things in which they have no experience. I dont exactly understand why you are so against this. Can you please explain? Again, please link to whatever argument that you've had before, because it might explain some of this. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The links were stable in article for year/s. the BRD argument favors retention. Study the history carefully (not reactively) and you will see that. The only reason it looked different to you is because of the bot turning on. The bot operated because (a) two extra links were added (temporarily to 4 links) and (b) I am editing through an IP. I returned the article to the state it was in for year/s.

2. You were lighting quick on the reverts and on giving me a final warning. But you refused to come to the article talk page for a discussion, instead only talking at your page. But you came here once the status of the article itself was changed. It's really the heart/soul of an edit warrior/reverter. There's an army of articles that need new content, man. Since our little tiff, I've added sources, images and done prose editing. You are exercising by "losing" and by wanting to play Wikipolicy rather than deep love of the reader. LAR instead of IAR (love all rules...and even things that are not quite rules but just "cautions").

3. It's not an assumption...it's a suspicion. If I'm "betting" a beer, than I take a possibility of being wrong. And the support for it (a) time involved in your reverts would not give enough time to watch the videos, (b) no comments on the content of the videos (c) still no positive statement that you did watch them before your revert. By the way, if you did not watch them, but are making an argument about me "assuming"...well...that would be sophistry.

4. Yes, of course they add. These are dynamic effects. I have an equivalent chemical education to you and yet had no idea what the effects really looked like. Direct fluorine reactions are still relatively rare/difficult. Heck, some of the best literature and references still trace back to the testing that Moissan did. So these are really, really...not everyday demonstrations of the high school lab. Also, illustration and especially video (in this case) give a more profound understanding. I can refer you to the literature on teaching, on psychology, etc. Also, tangentially, the first video has independent statements of explanation that very much help buttres some of the concepts in our article (e.g. the atomic structure, phases, colors, etc.). This is purely tangential benefit...but it's one that you notice if you watch things and really think from a "creating content for an audience" perspective. I'm not just slapping things together. I'm thinking about organization, selection, ease of understanding, etc.

71.127.131.41 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Double sharp, who was saying that they are unsourced rubbish youtube videos. We do not link because something is sourced and nice, we link because it adds. And that is what I do question. We do not link to a video to show how TNT blows up a house either. Why these specific examples. And I might ask the same stuff for the Cs video on Caesium. And if they were videos uploaded to Wikipedia, I could ask the same question. Images and videos help understanding, but that does not mean that we have to stuff as many videos and images on a page as possible, just as that we do not stuff the page with as many external links as imaginable.

YouTube video's are not accessible to everyone. It still needs separate software to be installed. Certain people are not capable of accessing them at all. Certain devices do not standard have access to it. You still need a reasonable connection for a reasonable experience .. Those are points of WP:ELNO.

I don't think that I dismiss the whole argument because of 'othercrapexists'. It is a part of the argument, but a part that I do not consider useful - the argument cuts both ways - if links are fine here because they are fine there, the links there might also be not fine because someone here thinks they are not fine. There is no gain to that argument in either way. It is a win-win (or loose-loose) situation.

Your bet, IP, may be right .. but for the wrong reasons (now, you're right I did not look at them now .. guess why) .. regarding the points: a) who said that I did not watch them earlier, b) so, maybe I knew the videos, content is IMHO superfluous and c) I think that could actually be concluded from my point that I think they are superfluous.

Vsmith (talk · contribs) reverted you twice, I undid the addition, and reverted your re-addition again. Moreover, XLinkBot removed the links twice and you just re-added them. We're awfully close to edit warring here (and you were over 3RR, not even counting the bot ..). And that makes me think that we should (re-)discuss inclusion, not discuss retention.

And there comes the real part of what we should be discussing, the content arguments in stead of 'you probably did not even watch it', or ', dear IP: do they add. That is where we are not agreeing upon. I think that the text is doing its job sufficiently there already. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1. How could you know the videos were not additive, when you had not watched them?

2. Very interesting how you want to place the burden of proof on inclusion rather than the reverse (or just having the discussion now, without regard to the current version...remember "wrong version gets protected".  ;-) The comment reminds me of how you declined to come here and talk when the version you wanted was in, but come here now.

3. You have not responded to the pedagogic argument that visuals drive more insight. And the videos (especially the Periodic Table Video) are STUNNING content. Not a FREAKING doubt in my mind that were it Wiki content, it would win an FP and NOONE would argue that it was not additive to the article. I would go to war for that old guy with the frizzy hair and for his obvious and engaging ability to relate chemistry to people. We are brothers in arms and don't even know each other. I am not pimping him, or Youtube, or whatever ads run on Youtube. I'm here for the reader. Big time. I've got the cred to show it. Those videos are DELIGHTERS. Watch them.

3. Reverting the bot is not edit warring. The instructions allow it. You have also previously made a statement about me edit warring the bot.

4. Well...you already gave me my "final warning". You can't ban me now, since I took no more actions. (Other than more work on the article...hint, hint.) But you can put me on your enemies list and chalk it up as a diff and just wait and try to get me in trouble in the future. That's the Wiki way, right. I don't think you should since it's graceless, but that is how things are often done here... I do feel bad about the tiff with VSmith since I would prefer him as an ally (I love geology and love high school science.) But he's a salty old Marine so he'll be OK. And he has the admin bit so he can say bull**** to me, when I'm not allowed the same latitude. And it's not all on me...he was reverting away himself and sans editorial content discussion. But, actually if you look at my edit history, my revert battles are very very low. I tag teamed once (spontaneously) after reading about it on Wikipedia Review a couple years ago. Look at my percent edits on this article and see how many are reverts...it's tiny. I'm a builder...I walk away from most of that crap. The whole thing is just a stupid kerfuffle because of a bot operating and then people backing it up reflexively.

5. The links have been in the article for years. The only reason why we had bot reversion (and subsequent patroller type backups [of the bot], was because I'm editing as a second class citizen instead of from my main account (TCO). Try it some time...interesting experience. The article is returned to the status quo. It is Dilbert logic to think we should back up the bot who does not understand reversion to the original state.

6. That's an additive point about the format being proprietary at Youtube. But the vast majority of people can watch Youtube videos fine. In fact, I will bet that they play easier for a larger fraction than our own ogg files do. In any case (1) there is no site-wide ban on linking to videos that run in that format and (2) the people who go and lack the format, would not have seen the video anyway...so what's the net harm (and consider the people who DO see the video).

7. I wonder if you are trying to drive a harder stance on "anti EL" than what Wiki-policy calls out for. Your user page quite interesting on that account. (As was the not watching the videos before reverting.) Sort of like the uber-free content people who try to get rid of every non-free image (even though policy allows their appropriate use).

69.255.27.249 (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

P.s. All this stuff is just one more reason why this whole site is a buzzkill. And going sideways the past 6 years...

1. I have, before. The text is IMHO sufficient.

2. That is the case, and I quote: "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."

3. I have, earlier. Visuals do, but that does not mean that everything needs a picture, sometimes text is enough, and that is what I think is the case here.

3. Those other 4 are adding up to 3 + 1 .. and that there are then 2 more that do not count .. well, it certainly does not help for the bright line that is crossed by the other 4.

4. I don't work with enemy lists, don't try to catch me with WP:INVOLVED or something like that. But do know that you passed the bright red line of WP:3RR (and since you suggest you are a regular, you should know that that is a bright red line, even if you are right).

5. Again, so? That is NOT an argument. We have articles here which are utterly spam and complete rubbish and should have been deleted 1 second after their creation, but stayed under the radar for quite some time. That something is there is an indication that it could be fine, but it is absolutely not a final argument.

6. Nope, YouTube is a problem. You did not respond to my remarks to why I did not watch the videos now.... hint: WP:ELNO ..

7. Also not the case - as I said, I think they don't add. Not much of a hard stance on ELs .. they are not copyright violations or something, but (just like A LOT of other YouTube links) IMHO not adding enough ..

Again, you stray away from the real question - the content question. The only reason those videos should be or should not be there is a content question. Is it adding? You have people questioning that. All the other arguments (they have been there for years, you don't like YouTube, etc. etc.) do not matter. I have here, consistently, questioned the links to YouTube on the basis that I think they should not be there, and have given both a content reason (I don't think they add), as well as some Wikipedia guideline reason why those links should be discouraged (parts of WP:ELNO). And that is where this discussion should focus.

I do agree strongly with your P.S. though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

1. And why do you think so? We have stated our rationales. Have you? I'd be interested to know. I take it as "we can show and tell it. Why only tell it?"

2. We've already proved it. How does this even violate ELNO? It's informative and encyclopaedic information. Is the IP the only person who wants to include it? The videos were already there. I don't know exactly how long they've been there, or who added them, but nobody seems to have considered them unnecessary except you.

3. Does your average reader see F reacting every day? Is the concept of F reacting with all sorts of commonly considered unreactive stuff going to surprise many? Again it is better if they can see it. We have a video of Cs reacting with water in the Cs article. How are the videos here not encyclopaedic when you don't seem to have a problem with that one? Sure, these are on YouTube. So what? I thought we were supposed to focus on the content we were linking to, not the site we were linking to?

4. What 3RR? The reverts of the bot edits should not count, as that's just the bot being what it is – an automated program – and not recognizing that somebody thinks there is a good reason for the link here. I count (1) reverting Vsmith (2) reverting Vsmith again and (3) reverting you all in one day. The second revert of you was done by me.

5. This is not a rarely viewed article. It is a very commonly viewed article. Elements are popular topics. It would be extremely improbable that, if the videos were inappropriate for the article, somebody else would not have removed it already during the last year.

6. Why is YouTube a problem? This is not your average random nameless uploader. These videos are actually from actual serious bodies like the Royal Institution and the University of Nottingham. So? How does ELNO apply here?

7. Well, it seems your position on these videos is not being agreed on! :-) I think they add; the OP clearly does too. And we've already explained why we think so.

8. People questioning that? Seems more like just one person. And how does any part of ELNO apply to these videos? (I have read ELNO. Please tell us which parts of ELNO you think these links violate, so that we can discuss them.) Indeed it is a content question. Now, I think (and the OP certainly thinks too) that the videos add to the article. You think they don't. All right, let's discuss. Let's not get into a revert war (and, for the record, we haven't yet. Indeed reverting to the status quo before the discussion took place seems to be the most reasonable course of action – and in fact this was done!).

(P.S. @TCO: Yes, the free image issue! There's also the class of editors who set the bar for non-free images absurdly high IMHO. Feel free to weigh in on one specific example (the Rn infobox image) at WP:NFCR#File:Radon.jpg. Also, the much-quoted WP:VEGAN doesn't make any sense. Your personal diet choice is not a matter that can lead to legal consequences most of the time. Copyrights are. So I submit the comparison there isn't valid at all. Indeed I agree with the vegan at that particular potluck. However it doesn't make any sense transplanted to a Wikipedia setting on free vs. fair use images.) Double sharp (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Cs and F give flames, explosions. Do I need to see it to believe that?

2. That is not the point here, the burden is on the person who wants to include it.

3. No, but that is not the point.

4. You're right .. 3 .. skip my point.

5. You'd be amazed how long things sometimes stand in much-viewed articles.

6. Youtube is a problem for a couple of reasons in WP:ELNO. inaccessible to some readers, needs installation of software, those are points of concern.

7. And that is what we should be discussing. Still waiting for Vsmith (talk · contribs) to comment on why they removed the links.

Ah, you call that 8. Well, it seems that I am questioning it, and I wonder why Vsmith was removing them as well.

What part of ELNO - again, Youtube is not accessible to everyone, and it needs additional software. Links to Youtube are for that reason a problem and to be avoided - not every English speaking person who wants to use Wikipedia has access to unlimited high speed internet. Moreover, we are not writing a linkfarm that needs to link to every outside site that is of interest - only that what really adds understanding. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

1. You don't. But you may not appreciate the scale of it.

2. And the OP has indeed explained why he wants to include it. To quote him: "The content (the specific videos) are stunning and enjoyable and illuminate the text (visuals do that,you know...huge amount of pedagogy research to that effect). Or consider...if we take your point...should we then delete all the pictures? (you have not differentiated the situations.) Or consider if the content was hosted on Wiki? Would you have the same reaction? No. Well...then your argument does not hold. And how they heck can you understand flames and explosions and gases making things burn without seeing some of it? You know this is a multimedia platform no? That it is one thing we do better than dead trees?"

3. What? Isn't this really a content issue? Then isn't the content primary in the argument?

5. And I know that, having seen such howlers before. But with people policing external links much more than they do thorough checks on content, I find this particular case harder to believe.

6. Wikipedia .ogg files are also inaccessible to some readers. And many need to download software too (Windows): that's why there's a page devoted to .ogg help. Whereas the vast majority of computers can by default view YouTube videos just fine. These are not even very long videos. So I don't see a difference here.

7 and 8. Agree. And would like to hear Vsmith's reasons (other than just reverting all edits without checking if they were removing content edits, as he did the first time, probably inadvertently). Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems I recall that I chopped the four in text youtube links as rather excessive clutter. Then the ip added them back with an erroneous duplication (last two links were to same video). I reverted mainly because of the duplication. Then the first two were added back and the disc started here. I see no reason for including an extensive EL list within the text of an article. I do understand the problem re: slow connections as until a year ago the videos were useless to me due to system speed. Vsmith (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Maybe.

2. And I am still not convinced ..

3. It is .. my point is that the explanation that it gives explosions/flames does not need a movie .. even if people, including me, have never seen that in real life (I did once see a Cs-mirror in a large flask .. that wás cool).

5. Well, I was just pointed to such a mistake on an article that stood for over a year. Way less viewed page than fluorine, but a much worse case.

6. That is fine regarding the software (still, it is a long-standing point in WP:EL that external sites that require special software are to be avoided .. seems to have consensus), but that is not the full scope regarding inaccessibility (and I do have the right software .. but then, the same argument is there also true for parts of Wikipedia as well .. but at this moment the scale is different).

I guess we'll wait for some more input. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(I didn't follow the whole discussion) the only purpose of this video as I see it makes that part more illustrative. If you see a string of text, "A mosquito sitting on a cut watermelon," you can understand what is written. If you see a picture of it with this caption, you can understand it better. See what kind of mosquito it was, how real mosquitos look like, see if the melon has been bitten, etc. And a picture of that makes you remember it better. Like a rollercoaster. Interesting to read about, entertaining to see people sliding down a slope, and awesome when you do it. Something like that.

About our video... It can be summarized to that phrase, but you know, a vid has more info than just in that string, makes more impression on you if you're interested, is encyclopedic, etc. and doesn't hurt if you're not. (I was also suspicious when it first appeared and thought it was fishy, but then I gave it a watch... I'm glad we have it)

Tl;dr It makes the article better because it is illustrative, an extra impression. Even if you disagree with the previous thesis, it certainly doesn't make things worse.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I see these theses were already said before me... then just count my vote in.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

fluoride deficiency

The Wiki article on "fluoride deficiency" is really not a great article. I researched the topic and what it comes down to is there is a possibility that fluorine may help bones but this is not proven (and then extent of helping as opposed to true nutritional deficiency diseases becomes almost a philosophical concept). Certainly there is (a) no known biological pathway dependent on the element (as say iron is for redblooded creatures). But also (b) it definitely does help limit cavities. Osteoporosis is basically not proven effect yet (and if so, small). I considered not linking, but the article exists. Just added a little more caution about the unclear role as a micronutrient and used scare quotes on the link. I think that is about fair. If the reader wants more, the WHO reference is a good review and cites other reviews. The whole thing is kind of minor, but I just don't want the antifluoridationists claiming a victory (or antiantifluroidationists going too far in reverse)! I think it's about right for now. Thankfully, been a while since we had any kerfuffles.71.127.131.41 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

agrichem

Need a little more work on this section. Want to have a relatively tight section, but a bit more examples and a bit more on the similarity of design emphasis with drugs (need to find ref for that). Will look at what sources I have and at the two I just cut. Probably not really that hard as we are kinda close now. But I just want to hone the content a bit here, not just prose. I was kind of avoiding it, but think I can pound it out. 69.255.27.249 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

fate of the subarticles

I think we should take "history of" "biological aspects" and do what we did to occurences (basically obliviate by making redirects). subarticles are already a problem in terms of searches and consistency. They could conceivably be expanded of course (you can write literally books about this stuff), but they're not really holisitic entities. More "X of Y" type articles. I made them when I was in tension about cutting a few minor paras of content. I would keep the "compounds of" and the "fluorochemical industry" articles though. They are more natural entities.71.127.137.171 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

P.s. Please don't have some 15 page discussion either. Just do it or don't. -TCO

• Keep split. What is the problem? At some point somebody will expand those. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, by me. I'm not sanguine that anyone ever bothers (look how long the element articles have been around), but no harm from letting them live and they do have a little extra content (plus maybe I end up needing to do another prune of Fluorine).

DS, consider to pull the GAs, please. None of the spinouts are content ready. Look how Occurrence died. They have not even gotten the benefit of going back to the mother article and incorporating recent new content back to the daughters. Let alone fundamental expansion (which they all need). Compounds is probably the closest and most important, but even it needs fundamental expansion. And that is a big job (like writing a review article for the real literature) which I make no commitment to do. Please, I can work with you to suggest some fun, smaller projects that engage you and build your skills and add to the Wiki. But, just throwing stuff into review queues doesn't advance the real cause.

98.117.75.177 (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

CRC page numbers

I would like to change the denoted page numbers from "4-84", etc. to be "4.84". Yes, I know that the hyphen is how they display in they appear in the CRC (I have one). But readers will just naturally be confused about hyphens indicating ranges. (the whole n dash thing is silly...think if you had a typewriter). We use citations for max clarity and can deviate from the exact formatting in the original in that cause. This also gets rid if all the darned defensive hidden notes.71.127.137.171 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

readable prose

Can someone please give the article length report? (and not fuss at me. ;-))

108.162.44.194 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My script shows: 'Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8403 words) "readable prose size"'. Looks like fine length to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Task for pharma section, please

Let's go ahead and standardize on the following method of listing drugs: generic name (Brand name). I'm sure otherwise we will get some kvetch about inconsistency.  ;--) [that's a long nosed winking smiley]

Can someone please go and implement this structure in the Pharmaceuticals subsection? Gnomey stuff hurts my eyes/head.

You can leave the sentence about Seretide as is. That's a complicated situation where the medicine has two active components, only one of which is fluorinated. Explaining as is in a sentence works best there. Can leave the anesthetics without brand names also.

98.117.75.177 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting podcast

Nicely done general podcast on F. [1]

I almost wonder if they read our article. A few places some similar content. Sometimes this can be GMTA...was the case with the Periodic Table video. But there really are a few places (like mentioning Lipitor and Prozac) where I think they read me. I mean us. Doh!  ;-)

Oh...and Cas, they sure don't call it fluoxetec or whatever (I can't even remember the name of the generic!)

71.127.137.171 (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

stripping the English units out

In the interest of readability, I am stripping the English units out. See discussion at peer review. This is not a weather or geography article. Even high school chemistry students do Celcius. It becomes a real strain to have them in and then to be consistent every single unit ends up needing a parens conversion. 71.127.137.171 (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I am completely okay with Celsius, it is a part of my life, with kilograms and other metric units. When I hear 80 F, I need to calculate this into Celsius in my head to understand if it's hot or cold. Even for that, I need a formula (F = 1.8C + 32). But if you hear 35 C, do you initially realize how much that is or you calculate that in your head? Or maybe you ignore the figure if possible? what about 85 kilograms? is a person of this weight skinny or fat? what about 165 cm? 670 km? Would you, in your normal life, feel okay with these figures? Would you understand how much that is initially? Would you calculate in your head? Would you take a calculator/skip the number?

Look, I just don't know how a common American reader (and en wiki has a lot of common American readers) would read a metric-only article. If you think that an average American understands basics of the metric system and it is easy for you, okay then. But if not, if readers can't easily match numbers with the system they're used to, actual readability will be MUCH reduced for common Americans with little benefits for European/British/etc. readers. Even if they teach meters in your high schools, do most people understand them? Wiki is not a school nor a uni. Even if meters are techy, I've seen an American material handbook with pounds and Fahrenheit degrees (one example proves no rule, I know, I'm just saying there may be a problem).

Long story short: You're an American. I don't know how deep the penetration of the metric system in your country is, but you do. If Americans are fine with meters, so am I. I like the metric system and dare call it a really better system than U.S. customary units. But I want this article to be readable for everyone. Even if they're from a country that still hasn't switched to fabulous meters and glorious kilograms.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no perfect answer. Have to pick your poison. Personally, I think duplicating these numbers throughout a work is Gawdawful for readability and something no one does in the real world (journals, magazines, newspapers, etc.). They pick one unit or another. My 30 year old HS texts all use metric. It's fine. There is usage of English units in the work world, but any bachelors engineer would readily convert and end up using both. If it were a geography or weather article centered in the US, might feel different (actually would rather have that all in Imperial...Wiki sensibilities be damned, but if not...sure duplicate it). 71.127.137.171 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support a very limited usage of United States customary units (which are not the same as Imperial units). For example, a hypothetical American reader who is familiar with oven temperatures but unfamiliar with the metric system would be helped by having both units. A proposed style would specify (a) which measurements are significant enough to merit including both units and (b) over what range both measurements should be included. For temperatures, we could include mp and bp only and only when the temperature is between -100C and +400C. Other measurements would either

(a) The hypothetical American would be less likely to be interested in more esoteric measurements.

(b) The hypothetical American would still be able to understand 'really large' or 'really small' from the metric numbers outside of this range.

Admittedly, I've really only thought this through for temperature, so I'm not sure if the same kind of a scheme would work for other measurements. YBG (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I kinda expected this answer, but wanted to be sure. I also read our article Metrication in the United States. I mean, meters are awesome, but I don't think most readers are science bachelors or something like that. Some people even choose humanities in college. I mean, not having U.S. units must be making a lot of American readers uncomfortable. I care for readability, nothing else. I won't be having long discussions. I won't be adding them back (I can't do even more useful Wiki thing). I even assume I may be wrong and scientific approach matters more... People who are here, you're to decide.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I would not want an article on U.S. geography in American units only, since a lot of readers (world minus Angloshpere), including me, would be having problems with that. Even though they would be first in this case, yes, I would want parenthesized metric values.

Organization

First sections

Based on some discussion at Nitrogen talk (and maybe some intuitions from the lead discussion in the peer review), I've experimented with having Occurrence first. SBHarris made interesting point that you could really go History or Occurrence or Characteristics first. What do people prefer and why. Nothing is perfect, leaving the soft sections first is nicer to the sex and

Compounds placement

I'm back to being torn about having Compounds before Industry. I moved it there because people sort of seem to expect it there...and could make a rationale for having it that way (what ARE the compounds) then how used. But I really think the reader can follow (and enjoy) the applications section fine based on lead, itself, history etc. It's not like you really need to read about each class of metal fluorides and the noble gases and all that before appreciating the industry. I sorta think people are requesting that from "how we are used to seeing it" rather than "best engagement with the reader". So having in a penalty box at the end makes it easier on the general reader. That said, finishing with Environment has a nice touch. Another approach could be to majorly gut it. Think you lose a lot though. Lot of synthesis and compiling went into that structural review and people won't see subarticle. But...donno.

I think it would be good to have a very short Compounds section first ... with a hatnote pointing to a detailed article. In an article of this length, we shouldn't be afraid to condense and point the interested reader to subsidiary articles. That's one of the beauties of an on-line encyclopedia. YBG (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel ya babe. Is some work though. Not just from the cut and rewrite but from the need to put (newish) content into the subarticle. Also, subarticle won't get the traffic, it just won't. I'm kind of OK with cutting my baby in half, just...saying things.

To move us forward, does someone want to do the condensation? Seems like R8r or I are only ones with willingness/knowledge but if someone wants to step up....

208.44.87.91 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, the subarticle may not get the traffic ... but the bottom of this article won't get the eyeballs if we don't condense this section. Is there any information in this section that isn't included in the hatnoted subarticle? If so, then it needs to be added to the subarticle whether or not we do anything to this section. By all means, go ahead and condense the section. I'd say you wouldn't go far wrong to condense each subsection to a single paragraph. YBG (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I do a "penalty box" at the end, I think I CAN get away with a longer topic and then it has even less impact on the general interest reader (he gets more fun topics quicker). And the chemists will go to what they want. (I think the wanting to move it was more "that's what I'm used to seeing" vice "this helps the reader" (Wiki has a lot of that). I really don't think anyone needs or wants to read the structural chemistry before tackling the applications. After all, we do some of that in History and it works fine. And if I pick up a market report, I read it fine without reading structure stuff first. (Chemistry of the Elements puts detailed chemistry at the back of their chapters and other stuff first).

And sure you can say..."duh" the subarticles need updating, but no one is under any compulsion to maintain them. not even me. Heck, I could have pruned the main topic from the very beginning and not made subarticles. So, that along with lack of eyeballs is the danger. (IOW, they WILL diverge and even with someone involved a fair amount in this article...look what happens.)

But I might give movement a shot AND cut the topic in half:

• Topic para as is
• Cut HF by 1/2 half
• Cut about 2/3 of metal compounds
• Cut about 2/3 of nonmetal compounds
• Cut about 1/4 of rare gas compounds
• Cut about 1/3 of small molecules (the acetic acid stuff)
• leave polymers as is

Would need to do the work of cutting, move the content to the subarticles (involves some complicated merging and IDing), also I worry about the ref format clash in subarticle. Probably need to sweet talk Ludicrous into doing the Compounds article's refs.

22:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.87.91 (talk)

Done. Thing is pretty reasonable now and even kind of flows. Going to leave it where it is.208.44.87.91 (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Other

Anything else?

Do we have any astronomy types watching this article?

Looking for a good ref or two to talk about how fluorine is concentrated on the earth versus its amounts in the universe. Compound former, rocky planet and all that.

"Because of its tendancy to form compounds, fluorine is concentrated in rocky planets such as Earth. The abundance is much greater than neon even though neon has more in the universe. (However oxygen is found in much greater quantities still than fluorine because it is both a compound former and a very common in the universe.)"

I can clean up the language and have a place to stick it. But need the refs to say this.

Thanks.

02:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.87.91 (talk)

I figured out what I could say reasonably and got it reffed. (Ref even talks about fluorine condensation into apetite, but I didn't get into that, too geeky, but still...it's only a ref away now.) Go me.38.107.128.2 (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Heat Capacity Cp & Cv

Is Molar Heat Capacity data correct ? Cp = 825 J/mol.K Cv = 610 J/mol.K Air Liquide (http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp?GasID=84#GeneralData) says Cp = 31 J/mol.K Cv = 23 J/mol.K

NicholasB54 (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We went through the infobox once, but I think we need to go through it again (not just address this point). There are a lot of facts in there and we need to fact/ref check them all. I would like to have a third party do that (entice one somehow).208.44.87.91 (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's not as bad as I thought but we are still in error. The listed heat capacities are per Kg, not per mol. See here: [2].208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)