Talk:Halogen

Elements C‑class High‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Halogens

just to note that the halogens are not group 17 but in fact group 7 elements. the transition metals in the periodic table are not given group names but are just a block of elements

IUPAC group numbers are used. Femto 18:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The preceeding statement is incorrect; the former convention was that the s and p-block elements were groups I-VIIIA while the transition metals were given values of I-XB. The current IUPAC convention however is that the s, p, and d-block elements are labelled groups 1-18, which lands the halogens at group 17 (former VII or VII A). This leaves the f-block skipped but that's a whole other can of worms... dhall27 18:46, 06 Oct 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that the preceeding statement is incorrect, as I have 2 books on me now (Heinemann OCR AS Chemistry by Dave Gent and Rob Richie, and CGP AS-Level Chemistry OCR-A by Mary Faulkner, Sarah Hilton, Paul Jordin, Sharon Keeley, Simon Little, Andy Park, Antonio Angelosanto, Vikki Cunningham, Ian H. Davis, John Duffy, Max Fishel, Emma Grimwood, Richard Harwood, Lucy Muncaster, Glenn Rogers, Derek Swain, Paul Warren and Chris Workman) for my AS chemistry course, which both say that the halogens are in grouip 7, as 'user:Femto' said, and not in Group 17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly

Could this page get any uglier? A figure to the left, a table to the right, another two to the bottom. All squashing the main text into a strange, central region. It's horrible. Suggestions? --Plumbago 15:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's ugly. I moved things around and added section breaks. I think it looks better, but it could still use some work. I don't know what to do with the "Explanation of above periodic table slice:" thingy. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. It's much better. I agree about the "explanation" table. It's much bigger than the table it describes. Perhaps the periodic table slices need an "explanation" tab at the base which links to a seperate page? That's not ideal either, but might make more sense. Regarding said "explanation" table - it appears to contain an error. Elements are described being as either "naturally radioactive" or "radioactive, synthetic" elements. The former should really be "radioactive, natural" n'es pas? Cheers, --Plumbago 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interhalogens section is unsound and needs cleaning up

Why would AtBr and AtI be the commonest interhalogen compounds, given the extreme rarity of astatine? The compounds are not particularly like the halogens either: ICl is not soluble in carbon tetrachloride whereas the halogens are (incipient metallic properties of heavier halogens begin to show through). Dajwilkinson 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In existence?

Why is Fluorine said to be the most reactive element in existence? Can we really be certain there isn't another element yet to be discovered that is more reactive than fluorine? 82.18.181.78 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should change it to "Flourine is the most reactive chemical in existence known to man" Chuck61007 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Flourine is the most reactive chemical in existence known to woman" 88.88.102.73 (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need "in existence"? Could the author perhaps provide references to more reactive elements which are not in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbaarry (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major reversion

I reverted the article to the last version by 8thstar [1]. This was because that's the most recent version that is more or less factually accurate. Some of the recent changes were blatantly inaccurate, to put it mildly. First, halogens are not "radioactive in their natural states as diatomic molecules", with the exception of astatine. The book that was used to justify that point certainly does not say that. Second, the contribution of d-orbitals to bonding in hypervalent compounds is at the very least disputed, if not widely discredited. A textbook from 1975 is not a good reference to back this statement. See the references in the article about hypervalency; one author talks of "the nearly unanimous conclusions of theoretical studies that the octet rule is a valid first approximation for the entire main block and that it is the traditional Lewis 2c-2e model of covalent bonding that requires modification" (Jensen, 2006). --Itub 12:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i removed the "When under standard conditions" barf; that suggests that when they are *not* under standard conditions, they are as halides. Pressure, etc have nothing to do with their existance as diatomic molecules because they're so reactive that even under them, they'd just not really be found. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote under standard conditions (what does barf mean?) to replace the phrase in their natural form which is ambiguous. Yes, halogens are not found in their elemental (diatomic) form in the environment. But they are not always found as halide ions - iodine, for instance, commonly exists in nature as iodate, IO₃⁻. I feel the introduction to this article should be tightened. There is quite a lot of rambling - it should be more consise.

Ben 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, i apologise for the use of "barf", it was supposed to be b0rf as a friendly gesture.

What i meant by it was that even though you're right, it made it sound that if halides were placed under standard conditions, there would be a yield of halogens; reactions occuring under standard condtions are, from my experience with their use, a "buffer" in that they allow comparable data sets where similar reactions are semi-ensured, and to use the context of standard conditions makes it sound that they only occur under standard conditions and despite being correct to some extent, makes it sound more ambiguous than needed.

I think the introduction as it is (current revision) is horrendous, and i'd prefer a more concise introduction. If we could come to a compromise, i'd be happy.

J O R D A N ^[talk ] 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. it sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.87.185 (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uses

A section describing uses might be helpful, e.g., halogen headlights for automobiles. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this even mean?

Chlorine has minimal solubility in water, with maximum solubility at 49.3°F (9.6°C) when approximately 1% is dissolved.[3]

The reference listed doesn't even hint at this figure. This is a maximum in that experimental curve where the lowest temperature is 278K. Not really rigourous scientific study and certainly not a "maximum". More likley the maximum would be at the temperature as close to 0K as we can get.

Also, is this 1% by mass? 1% of the chlorine bubbled through the water? I have changed this to a more sensible figure, 0.7g Cl₂ per kg of water at ambient temperature (21^oC). If this is a problem please change back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.11.94 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halogens: three phases

Okay, I know Halogens exist in three phases at room temperature -> fluorine and chlorine are gases, bromine is a liquid and iodine is a solid at ROOM temperature. I'm not sure what the deal with standard temperature is though. Maybe someone can clear this up or fix the mistake? Winderful1 (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See standard temperature and pressure. Double sharp (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the decent possibility of Copernicium being gaseous at standard temperature and pressure, perhaps the sentence in the article should be revised, because if it is, group 12 elements will have one of each of the 3 states. I don't know enough about it, though... --Smauler (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to do that until we have solid experimental proof of the state, though...we should perhaps look into Fm–Lr (the melting points are just predictions). Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen Halides

This section describes the hydrogen halides as a "series of particularly strong acids." While they are all highly reactive, hydrofluoric acid is defined as a weak acid (it does not completely ionize in an aqueous solution). Change this maybe? strong ==> reactive would remove the inaccuracy, but it might not be the best wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.99.251.85 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incandescent lightbulbs

The sentence: "This enables the production of lamps that are much smaller than incandescent lightbulbs at the same wattage." implies, incorrectly, that halogen light bulbs are not a type of incandescent filament bulb. Would it not be better to replace the term "incandescent lightbulbs" with "conventional incandescent lightbulbs" or "inert gas filled incandescent lightbulbs"?

Chrisbaarry (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relative abundance

"Chlorine is by far the most abundant of the halogens,"

Should this be qualified somehow? Particularly since the chlorine article says (of chlorine): "It is the second most abundant halogen and 21st most abundant chemical element in Earth's crust."

In what context is chlorine the most abundant halogen?

Chrisbaarry (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]