Template talk:Infobox fluorine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elements (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

heat capacity[edit]

Heat capacity in source (viewable in Google Books)is in per kg not per mol. This page currently has the incorrect per mol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.225.17.100 (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Density[edit]

I suspect this edit of Revision as of 07:13, 29 September 2010: link to edit is in error. It claims the density of liquid fluorine at boiling temperature is 1.108g/cm3, with no citation.

According to a company that actually makes the stuff, the density is 1.502g/cm3 their encyclopedia page

For an entertaining history of how this error came to be, see Ignition and search for "Dewar" for the original error. Scott Kilner found a closer value.

Sorry if this is badly structured. The page is locked to edits for newbies, and I don't want to invest the time to build the reputation points and learn the syntax to correct it myself.

Cheers,

Fixed, thanks. The error comes from early reports which were found incorrect here doi:10.1021/ja01124a512 and later on. Materialscientist (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

remove main article isotopes?[edit]

Can we remove the "main article isotopes"? how? (we already have the link in article, and it seems out of place to have this here when it is mostly data, not links to other F stuff.)TCO (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 September 2013[edit]

Cut electron shell image: electron shell image=Electron shell 009 Fluorine (diatomic nonmetal) - no label.svg

98.117.75.177 (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

98.117.75.177 (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done I've already mentioned why I don't think this is a good idea (consistency blah blah blah makes the reader go huh and I forgot my other arguments from last time but I'm sure I'll think of them if I want to) and I still don't.
Anyway we discuss electron configuration in many other articles (I'm pretty sure many of R8R's like In and Lu start by mentioning what the electron configuration is, Hg also goes in depth about what the electron configuration does.) It is pretty, gives consistency, and honestly doesn't hurt anything. So, not done, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It's just that I cover it fine in article and have a graphic in text. I just think takes up extra space in template for this particular article. No biggie though.69.255.27.249 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

please cut the crystal forms[edit]

Not the drawings (not that argument), but just listing them at all. F2 is a gas at room temperature. This will help shorten the infobox. One of the issues people have with infoboxes is the tendancy to want to fill every field possible rather than being selective.208.44.87.91 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Room temperature is not the be-all and end-all of the elements. We list the most common and stable allotrope usually. Why do you think we show both α-Sn and β-Sn in Sn's infobox? In a case like F where the element is gaseous we show the crystal structure as a solid, which is consistent. Would you remove the crystal structure diagram from Hg? Double sharp (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
We give the melting and boiling points. The infobox is too long and bloated. Just because a parameter exists does not mean it should be filled out every time. Only key points. What next, the mechanical properties of alpha fluorine? High pressure forms of oxygen? Sulfur's 20 allotropes?[Special:Contributions/208.44.87.91|208.44.87.91]] (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
On my screen, It is 5 screens long. It will interfere with the History image on some displays It's huge. We need to be selective. This would apply to the infobox of a person too. This is a classic case of filling in every parameter (which the infoboxers say they don't do...but do.)208.44.87.91 (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I find the argument of "infobox size" used here a bit misplaced. If there are reasons to remove data from it for reasons of relevance, they should be used (and consistemntly over all infoboxes, so at WT:ELEM). If size is a matter, then too at WT:ELEM not on an individual box page. I also note that there are non-removal options to be regarded. These could be introduced once the topic of size is introduced (not "non-element" or relevance). -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think we ought to discard fields just because they don't make sense at STP. The crystal structure is known. Removing it gives the impression that it is not even in solid state or perhaps that F is amorphous in the solid state. I would be OK with removing the entire field in the case of an element where we really don't know the crystal structure (e.g. {{Infobox ununseptium}}) – and we already do that. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I add: with "non-removal changes" I mean we could try a smaller font in the infobox and such. More when I'm back from RL. -DePiep (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

We could triple the size of the infobox if we wanted to (acoustic properties, mechanical, etc. etc.). Length absolutely is a relevant consideration for articles and for infoboxes. We need to be selective and not crufty. I could fill a book on the element and a book on data for the box. This is a classic infobox issue: that people want to fill in every parameter rather than being selective. I mean why two different crystal forms (avec low value diagrams) for a gas? What will you do for oxygen or a gas (or solid) that has been studied at high pressure and has many more forms?208.44.87.91 (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

One is fine. I'm honestly fine as long as there's at least one listed, preferably the most stable. I won't insist on more except for special cases like Sn. I just don't want to remove the field completely. Double sharp (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Just do it already, then. Leave alpha fluorine (main solid phase over most degree width and with well defined structure) and cut beta (a disordered phase encountered for a few degrees just prior to melting). Or do you need to check with DePiep for special permission? I think I have a little more stake in this article (and knowledge of the content and ability to communicate to readers).208.44.87.91 (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

See what you can do to shorten it[edit]

I cut well over 50% of Compounds section. Apply a little selective shears to the infobox. Less is more sometimes.208.44.87.91 (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Take an experiment and try prioritizing.208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

reference(12) in isotopes section[edit]

Peer reviewer questions this (and it looks bad to me also). Please put the reference somewhere (like on the header for isotopes). Saves us a line of length also.208.44.87.91 (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please fix this. It is a different issue from the above. Was raised in peer review. None of the proposed referencing methods are what was done here.208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please fix the heat capacity. The value is actually in error. See discussion on talk page at Fluorine.[edit]

208.44.87.91 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2015[edit]

I believe that the density is being reported wrong. 1.696 g/L seems to be about 1000 times out (it is comparable to the density of air). I suspect that the unit should be g/cm3 139.184.113.20 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fluorine is a gas at standard conditions: it stands to reason that its density should be comparable to that of air. If the unit were g/cm3 it would have to be denser than water, which is obviously not the case. Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)