Jump to content

Talk:Fluorine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

feel free to play with the layout R8r

I'm just trying things out. Will be offline for a while. What really needs to happen is the research and citations. I was just playing as I did not have the energy for the important work. Later, R8r gator.TCO (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Henri Moissan isolating fluorine 1886 crop.jpg

The file had to be replaced with a much worse looking monochrome equivalent due to a copyright complaint at Commons. We regret the inconvenience. If you like continuing using the old file, please upload it locally providing a fair-use rationale. Ask an administrator at Commons to temporarily restore or move the file to your Wikipedia. Kind regards. -- Rillke (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Natural occurrence

Under Biological Aspects, The following sentence: "Food and drinking water typically contain at least small amounts of fluorides, which are naturally present" is wrong. Fluoride does not occur naturally. Fluorite does, Fluorine does, but FluorIDE does not. Fluoride is a product of man. So stating it is "naturally present" is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.22.123 (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Before throwing statements, please read. For example ref. 124. And think about what you've said above - both water and fluorite are abundant in nature. Fluorite dissolves in water (at a level of roughly 0.01-0.1 g/L, depends on temperature). Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Fluoride and its salts are natural. Flouride is naturally present in soils, rocks, minerals, rivers, lakes, and oceans. Plants, including those grown for food, will naturally acquire flouride from these sources. The amount will vary according to a variety of factors, but stating that it is naturally present is definitely not "a lie". -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Every day is a learning experience. thanks to your comments above, and more research (it really never ends) I was relieved to discover that naturally occurring Fluoride is less harmful than man made Fluoride because it has bonded securely with Calcium. I have seen this posted in a few places, I'm now hunting for a good annotation. I was concerned of course because as you probably know Fluoride, dependent of course on dosage, has been identified as poisonous. It can build up in our bodies over time, leading to dental and skeletal Fluorosis and many other harmful effects. The Fluoride that I am more familiar with is an industrial waste product, and it is added to city water supplies. So when I read that it was naturally occurring I went into survival mode, not knowing that there are different types of Fluoride, being Sodium Fluoride and Calcium Fluoride.

Thanks you for staying on top of things. Fluoride is a hot topic. I have been concerned in the past that Wikipedia was not monitored closely enough, but based on my experiences in the past 2 days I see that it indeed is. you guys run a tight ship, well done.

You still have a serious misunderstanding. The toxicity of flouride is completely independent of whether it is natural or synthetic. Flouride is flouride whether it is of industrial or geological origin. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Well I have only started reading about it the past few weeks, so I have some catching up to do. From what I have gathered, dosage is key. Just a small amount, such as naturally occurring Calcium Fluoride, at the worst case seems to max out at .3 ppm dependant on where in the world the water is taken from. When cities put Sodium Fluoride in drinking water, they do so up to a level in between .7 to 1.2 ppm. This has come down over the years, as social influence has prompted them to lower the dosage. More cities/tonwships every day are opting out. thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.22.123 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Image use

Am in the process of cleaning up the image placements. (place to discuss). TCO (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Done.TCO (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyrillic words

Am fine with giving the Cyrilic language wording of titles, names, but we should add a Latinate translation in parens.TCO (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I see this was done.TCO (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Grammar is fine, I think

Yeah, you have to watch out for "due to" although it is a very subtle error. Malleus Fatuorum or one of the other superstars can advise on specifics.

You are misspelling because.

That one sentence on the "even though" kind of bothers me for reasons other than "due to". Don't like combining a parenthetical aside with an "even though X, Y" construction (too complex a structure). But worst, it is mixing in content from the next section into the previous section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 August 2012‎

Will try to. I suddenly remembered someone pointing me into this (wasn't that you BTW?).
Yeah. I do a gazillion of typos every day I'm in here (missing parentheses, false figures, or such classics). Typically happens when I'm on my cell. This is unintended.
Huh. Not bad. Fix it (since your English is better than mine, and because (sad but true) I may happen not to notice such stuff when writing even in Russian). Although I will try to do some of the text cleanup after I finish with the content work (thoroughly checking grammar, typos, text style, etc.) and have a person who has agreed to copyedit the article when asked (a native speaker), it could use a faster fix (given people who are to read the article between that moment and now, and to get my eyes more used to your version). — Preceding unsigned comment added by R8R Gtrs (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 August 2012‎

structure of the nonmetal fluorides

Structure is to have an intro para and then a para for every row. (place for discussion).TCO (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Am re-orging this now. We should talk about BF3 before BF (as the latter is an oddity). Also, would feel better with a stub on the metastable NF species (are some articles on it, would force us to learn about it vice just referring to it).TCO (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Done, for structure. There is one ref I added as a bare url. Should be put through cite template.TCO (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(fixed the ref)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bond order discussion

Still have questions about the bond order commentary. Is this an experimental or a theoretical observation? Would like a primary science source or at least another textbook or two, making the point. Also, is this the same for O2 as opposed to S2? (only exact double bond?) I guess I am concerned with making this distinction of bond order. I would think from a kiddy drawing perspective Cl2 is single bonded together. Of course if you get into the energetics, there are differences in the amount of strength and such, but then you are really implicitly straying from the whole simplified model of "bond order" to start with. (like if you get into some quantum mechanics or the like). Would like someone like MatSci to engage.

Although, I do like how having the second para allows me to make a section break and sneak in an image. ;-)

TCO (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply sharing my thoughts, truth yet to be revealed
The fluorine molecule is unique among the halogens in having a bond order of exactly 1 (exactly single bonded diatomic molecules). For comparison, chlorine has a bond order of 1.12.[24] In the heavier halogens, the presence of a d-subshell (first occurring at the third energy sublevel) allows for the slightly more than single bonding. Fluorine's outermost electrons are located at the second energy sublevel where there is no d subshell.[25] An alternate explanation is size-caused increased electron and internuclear repulsions, as well as decreased bonding orbital overlap.[25]
We have to (?) rewrite the para. The "alternate explanation" seems to deal with simple energetics, not bond order. I'll find out.
d-sub-bonding may be a good idea to add up 0.12 more bond. The 3d(Cl)-3d(Cl) interaction seems plausible. There is 3d in chlorine, right? (Well, not exactly, but there's some hybridization occuring anyway; fluorine's 2p has nothing to hybridize with). Maybe we can cut off the topic, the energetics is more important, or give it a more secondary role.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, who said the model of "bond order" is simplified? And why simplified has to be simple to be truth (just not as difficult is enough)? :)
To be re-thought anyway--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think now I'm right, just see bonding in S4N4--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The bonding order in F2 is actually 0.99. Or 0.98. Or 0.97. Or 0.94. Or even 0.73 (different calculation methods give different results, article linked just above). Definitely not exactly 1. There's very small s-p mixing that ruins the perfection. Who would know?
This is very neat, but I'm not sure if we'll include it. We'll see. That makes me rethink the whole Cl-Cl d discussion. Wanna keep it. Not sure if will.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

elastomer description

Is hard to understand what is being said in the elastomer para towards the end. Seems like a general explanation of elastomer theory, but then confusing if flouroelastomers have same structure or differences. I will re-write, based on reading Martin's book (via google). We already have this as a reference. I think basically f-e's have same concept as a normal e. Just with flourinated polymers. The main differentiator from normal ones is the need to have some reactive side chains to make the cross-links themselves (and the need to tie those all up, since whole purpose is a final product that is non-reactive). There is also the issue of HF scavenging, which is a little different than other artificial rubbers.TCO (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to save/ressurect some of the Scmeigl discussion fine, but it needs to make sense (understand it and be able to explain it). I couldn't really follow it. In any case, think we need a structural discussion first, before the thermodynamics of the polymer chain stuff.TCO (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Screw it. Was a couple of days rush.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Bio aspects organization

1. The section on agrichemicals and natural poisons needs better organization. We have a para talking about agrichemicals, then shift to sodium fluoroacetate (1080), then back to designed agrichemicals, then to natural poisons. It is hard to see the difference of designed agrichemicals (very similar to designed drugs) from garden variety fluoroacetate, in our text.

2. The pharma section is quite solid work. Kudos to the fellow who made it. But I think we could do better. It was obviously written by an organic or medicinal chemist. It will invariably be somewhat technical since the story is about structure-to-property relations of molecules. Nevertheless, we could make it easier (but not "easy") reading:

(A) Use more drug brand names and less common names (the brand names are more recognizable, I am not trying to pimp the products, many of which are off patent).

(B) Little more work on explication of the story. Similar to how reading the article itself on fluorine generation in stars allowed for clarifying that story, here we could go back to the articles and write a clearer synthesis.

(C) Some experimentation with the structure would be useful. There are a few different concepts here: (1) market size and growth, (2) structure to property design features (lipid membrane crossing and the like), (3) types of diseases addressed (this is an important organizing feature that will resonate a little more with the reader than the molecule shape stuff.) The organization should address all these things in some clear layout.

(D) Shorter paras would serve us better here. Always advisable with dense technical text (USG advises "don't be afraid of a lot of periods"...you don't want to combine difficult concepts or terms with long sentences and paras). It will also make it easier to address the different organizing features in (C).

(E) The commentary on aenesthetics should clarify WHY they are fluorinated (essentially the aenesthetic is "ether", fluroination is just to make the damned stuff non-flammable.) Since this is pretty different design than the "adding a F to cross a cell membrane" this would be better put in a standalone short paragraph.

3. The factoids about pharma drugs in city water and agrichemicals in runoff are hard to organize. Very similar points, but in different sections because of our organization. They are hard to integrate into the design-purpose stories for drug and agrichem I advise to move them both to the end of the biopersistance environmental section (it's same effect, really as PFOS/PFOA). This was easy, so I just did it.

4. I'm a little torn on how/where we discuss the plants and bacteria with fluorine compounds. It is somewhat easier to do so after discussion of poisons. That says, it almost feels like it should come first, in own section or perhaps in the "section lead" part. Don't know what is best.

TCO (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

[1] can be worth reading--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding plants, IMO we've got the best scheme I can come up with. Plants are a very minor topic about fluorine, we are allowed to join into to closest topic. About as minor as superacids, which have a subsection only because we have a "Main article:" header for it. If we make it a separate subsection, it will need more text and get the extra weight, will look like an important topic (and it could be thought of as it were, since it's, like, plants). But it's not. Just goes there with/after agrichemicals.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally followed your link. That is a great ref and impressive that it is a whole book. We should slide it in somehow (cite it or at least use as a for further reading). It could be very helpful for the subarticle as well. I have to resist my tendancy to want to fix all the lower order stuff first though.TCO (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think our organization is pretty readable now also. Intro describing importance, then the structure to property rationale, then class by class descriptions that emphasize the most prominent examples. Kudos commie.TCO (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

inorganic compounds prose

Basic structure here is OK (better than agrichem and pharma above). Are a few poor English (or just flabby) sentences buried within the following sections:

  • metal fluorides
  • non-metal flourides
  • noble gas fluorides

The whole section on oxides versus fluorides needs a go-over for English "feel" as well as crispening. (Too many parentheticals for example.)

TCO (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Been pointed to the fact the borders of what we define as "low" OSs and "high" OSs are not cite. Need to come up how to explain people the terms are not absolute and are used for the purpose of this very exact article. Maybe ditch the little task to whoever comes to improve the prose.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The organic section needs a go-over as well

There is some good new content in there (like the monofluoroalkane). Kudos. Also, good job on getting citations.

It kinda needs a go-over at the sentence level for some flab (too many asides and parentheticals).

Organizationally, there is some work still needed, but not awful. For instance, first para we mention strongest bond and then high bond energy in 2nd and then 4th sentences (it is the same concept, why separate them with a discussion of size...or even do we need to say it twice?)

I like having a header discussion of synthesis, but there are some issues. We say "3" ways of synthesis, but then list 4 (if you count the polymer stuff). If not, for instance because we are not really fluorinating when polymerizing, then the polymer synthesis should be it's own para to separate it from the "list of 3". The discussion of passivation of PE also seems too specific to be including in a header section.

Maybe we would be better off having the "list of 3 fluorinations" down with the small molecules and the polymer synthesis down with the polymers. Could be first para of each of those sections.

Have a science/content question on the polymer forming. Is it really all free radical polymerization that is significant? What about double bond elimination (like how Plunkett found PTFE from TFE self-polymerization)?

TCO (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll find someone to fix the prose.
Yeah, should be better now. Will look again later.
Okay, we can exile PTFE-coated ethylene into the text, but there's then just one complex sentence about it left. Adjusting it to the nearby para now, will see what can be done (or ask someone to)
Had the idea, have no excitement about it (but nothing against either). If there's anyone thinking it could be better to do so, reply here.
No. Too dangerous. Plunkett wasn't looking for PTFE, he was just playing around with the fluorine gas.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

File:The fluorine economy.svg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The fluorine economy.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 23, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-04-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fluorine economy
Major sources and uses of fluorine, a chemical element which is at the core of a $16 billion industry (as of 2008). Percentages indicate mass volumes on a fluorine basis. Click for higher resolution.
Diagram: TCO and Fallschirmjäger
Archive – More featured pictures...

Size

As of this revision: 186,738 bytes.

The same revision, with no pics, refs, etc, etc: 86,085 bytes.

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We can contract the Compounds discussion (maybe too detailed for this overview article, =30KB), don't wanna touch other sections. TBD--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, going through the refs now

I'm skimming the refs now to see if any more obvious issues like with Hemat. This is not a perfect check, but is a good first pass:

  • This ref is not pseudoscience, but is not appropriate as a ref for Van der Waals radii (Kim, Sung-Hoon (2006). Functional dyes. Elsevier. p. 257. ISBN 9780444521767.) We should send them to Bondi's paper or whatever the new one is. Also, our value that we list here is different from the one in the Wiki article on Van der Waals radii. Which do we consider correct?TCO (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Need to ref-name duplicate the Cheng reference to cover the infobox on magnetism, since I added in the numerical value. (The old ref only covered diamagnetism itself)TCO (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Need someone to fix this for me. Not sure how to edit the Infobox with named refs.

*Not crazy about this ref (it's a hobbyist site), but will be OBE, since I cut the density comment and now will cut the note. Shelquist, Richard (2010). "An introduction to air density and density altitude calculations". Shelquist Engineering. Retrieved 29 April 2011.

I've gone through the article and found no more "Water" style problems. Note, I did not fact check the article, what I did was check if the ref (e.g. Ullmans) made sense for the text near it. Will fix the two above.TCO (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

CaF2 solubility

This is a very complicated and tricky issue and I really don't want to get into Madelung and thermo and all that. However, what we are saying now "The increased ionic character leads to alkaline earth metal fluorides (such as CaF2) to have very low solubilities" is closer to wrong than to right. I will change to say "in spite of the ionic character".TCO (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Complicated indeed. Still, "in spite of" doesn't sound right either. Alcohol and HF are so soluble. This thing has been hanging there for, like, ever (I suspect it could be my fault, but I'm not sure and not willing to check either). Does it have to be related to ionicity? Does it have to be in there at all?
Oh, also why "show clear difference than their chlorides" and all other halides? (compare A--B vs. A--B,C,D antitheses)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Well the "simple, simple" guideline is that water (with it's partial iconicity and polarity) tends to dissolve ionic or polar compounds and not dissolve covalent or nonpolar compounds. In actuality it is more complicated and CaF2 is very heavily ionic, yet it still does not dissolve in water. (Basically it holds together in such a nice pattern that the crystal wants to be together more than having waters break it apart.) But you can't say "because it is more ionic, it is less soluble in water". It's really more in spite of. Um...we can rewrite it and avoid the issue more, but as is, it was wrong.TCO (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
"we can rewrite it" was what I was hoping for, not the old phrase :)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I want this picture (or a similar one)

Will someone who speaks German, write and ask for the image (or just ask for a new photo to be taken, if it is too hard to get a release and all that)?

GLEAMING lab F piping station

I think I can handle it. Should I ask for a image donation or what?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah...you need to send an email to the lab director. You don't need to get them to sign a release, but you need to get a clear communication that they release the photo (it is a learning, how to handle this). Alternately, maybe one of our Zherman-speaking chemist colleagues could pitch in and help the cause. It's not a super vital thing...but you know I like to add some bells and whistles. Remember when we just had the picture of the frying pan with an egg in it?  ;-) TCO (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I contacted them, and I think we can upload the image now, see the webpage [2] Dr. Weck was cool with us wanting this image, and asked not to hesitate to contact him personally if we needed more images from the cite. So... Just check if it's good to upload, and tell me if it is so I could thank him :)
You rock!!!
You would do the same if I wanted it.

Last fork and major cut (industry and applications)

We are down to 65K readable prose (from as high as 85 a few months ago). Cutting another 10% would get it below the magic 60K (or magic 9000 words). I am thinking about cutting the Industry/applications section by about 50%, which I estimate would get us about to 60K. It was kind of my creation and I feel a useful framework for thinking about the element and how it comes into use by man (the mass flow chart and information out of the Italian article). So, it's mostly chopping my own baby. Just asking for input.

There are probably other places where small trimming can be done...but then we may have some small additions also. And I don't want to trim the article by eliminating all transitional phrases or explanations. (I'm not saying to be long-winded...no. But also, I disdain definition by blue-link or overlong paras and sentences.

TCO (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Heavy metal (industrial plant) picture requested for spinout article

OK...I went ahead and forked my baby (in preparation for Solomon-chopping it). For THAT article, I would like to have a picture of some "heavy metal" for the lead image on the right. Something with distillation columns or reactors or the like. Just something that looks like a big $$ honking piece of capital. I could use the cell room, but really prefer a picture of a plant that makes Teflon or Freon instead.TCO (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We may have one in Edmonton where I am. Can you google some images if there are any plants here? I can pop over and take similar images in that case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Do it!! TCO (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Which chemical is banned? and how and where?

Several other insecticides contain sodium fluoride, which is much less toxic than fluoroacetate.[144] Currently the compound is banned.[145]

TCO (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cuts done, if you need to cut further

It is down to 59K now and under 9000 words.

The following are paragraphs to cut if the article is still seen as too long. I have put a parens + sign for any cuts where the content would/could be preserved in spinout articles

  • (+, in Compounds) Atomic and Molecular structure, last para
  • (+) Isotopes, last para
  • In the Universe, last para
  • On Earth, last two paras
  • History, for the Freon and Teflon paras cut them in half and consolidate them, cut the Gore para to a sentence and then add into the above para.
  • (+) Inorganic fluorides, cut the Mg/Ca fluoride para and list them within the list in the next para.
  • (+) Freons and Halon, last para and accompanying photo
  • (+) Fluoropolymers, cut the couple sentences about how PTFE is made, reduce the Nafion paragraph in half
  • (+) Surfactacts, cut entire section and add a little numerical info and a reference to the summary sentence higher up in Fluorocarbons.
  • (+) Fluorine gas, cut last para and probably slim down the discussion of UF6 and SF6 to sentences rather than paras.
  • Handling, cut entire section
  • (+, transfer any content to the article on the compound or to our chemical burn article) Hydrofluoric acid, rewrite to trim the discussion of mechanism of damage and treatment
  • (+) Superacids, cut entire section
  • (+) Organic, middle para
  • (+) Small molecules, 4th para on fluoroalkenes and fluoroalkynes
  • (+) Polymers, cut the PTFE para in half by killing the gecko and some hand-holding explanation of structure, cut the PCTFE para)

I think that slims it down close to 50 kb. Let me know if you want the trigger pulled. I sorta doubt anyone really reads the article front to back anyway (it is not a narrative) and it is all well-written content. But it would also be pretty easy to make the cuts and I doubt you get complaints about comprehensiveness. It sort of makes me think that we really need to firm up the spin-out articles to GA though (or else everything will get lost/degraded).

TCO (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read the whole page, and I compliment TCO for the result (the golden FA star will be yours). I especially like the style writing like "... dissociation in water (remaining a neutral molecule) ...". Explaining twice, readable, crisp and clear. I also understand that fluorine is, mmm, the slut of the periodic table. Thanks for clarifying that ;-). -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
[3].

I put in all the cuts except for the stuff about reducing the description of HF burns (someone can, just it was not such a mechanical task as snipping paras). If someone wants something back, feel free. All of the content is preserved in spinout articles except for a few factoids in History.

It's down to 51 kb and under 7,000 words. Should be fine for length. And the material has been pretty well researched and we have lots of spinout articles (IOW is comprehensive, not missing important things).TCO (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There are still many comments in there. Shouldn't they be fleshed out / in? -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am not saying the article is "done". Just that I did the cuts above. The thing needs, at a minimum:

  • Prose go-over
  • Ref formatting go-over (the stupid last firsting and pp versus p and all that)
  • Resolving hidden comments
  • Couple citation neededs
  • Getting some more people to look at it, so it has some pre-review.
  • Etc.

It's in pretty decent shape though.TCO (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it is fine, very fine. It's just that the comments to me look like stuff-in-limbo. Unless it is a common good habit (unknown to me). -DePiep (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the comments are unfinished business. One step at a time, working on it, now.TCO (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
You've done an astonishing job. I no more think fluorine is that special than other articles (in that it has to be that big). That must be good for readers and stuff, even though I'm still too used to the old version. Anyway, what you did was great. Well, I think we need the full Production back (seems like a fifth wheel in the Industry section to me, plus Handling and chem production are cool stuff we describe in short), but pretty cool otherwise.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I restored that. Thanks for the feedback.TCO (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Now at 80 kB gross. I wouldn't cut it any further just to stick to some guideline. WP:IAR. The article on the United States of America, the most read on Wikipedia of the non-Wiki articles, is 240 kB. In element articles we live with oxygen at 94 kB and He at 85 kB. I think that carbon at 70 kB could even use some expansion. The massively important elements N and Si come in at 55 kB and that's probably not enough. Fluorine is very difficult to describe because organically it can do anything hydrogen can do, and the element itself has far more ionic uses than H. So what if most of the universe isn't made of it? SBHarris 01:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

F-chem market sizing (hidden comment)

We can't have a hidden comment explaining a calculation. Need to have something like that in a ref note. I think maybe easier just to use the lower, older dollar figure. But if we keep some calcs or estimates, let's note them with ref notes.

Also, I think we may have lost a ref or two that are needed, especially since we are relying on web refs. Be careful when doctoring this section as it was some effort to find refs.

BTW, just FYI, I do feel justified in citing the press release, not the report itself. This is different from the situation of viewing an abstract and citing a journal article (when not looking at it). After all...a press release is a deliberate "release" for the purpose of...press. (And even if I bought the report, or some pages of it, there could be a legal issue in communicating the contents...was a case about blue book values for cars wrt this...however numbers that are released deliberately, for the press, are citeable.)

In any case, I need to futz with this situation a little more to make sure that we actually serve the reader (communicate info and sources) while not getting the "looks different from what I'm used to, must be forbidden" Wiki-rules types from thinking there is misbehavior. Not a big deal...just explaining, so this does not get screwed up now or cause issues in future.

And if it does not come up, don't sweat it. Sometimes we anticipate objections and make contortions when not really needed (for example I always though the lower/higher charged metal labels in metal halide section were just normal usage of the language, not needing some defense).

TCO (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with having a ref-like comment. You know, the way I see it, there will hardly be ten people in next, say, three years to re-check the info, and if they find the "mistake," they would correct it (since they even checked), and see the hidden comment. IOW, I don't want to put any stress at it, but it's not a big deal either.
In either case, if we talk about 2006, we should use 2006 dollars. If we talk about 1996, then it should be 1996 dollars. If we talk about 1871, then 1871 bucks should be used (in that case, though, I would also give a modern dollar figure). If we talk about and compare 1996 AND 2006, then any kind of international dollars should be used. The guys in Freedonia chose 1996 dollars. That's a right way when you compare figs, but not when describing a standalone one.
I would not ever think we should state that in an economics-related article. I just may happen to leave user-friendly hidden comments, like XeO4 one in Compounds and MO one somewhere in Physical.
But I don't expect our reader to know that stuff, I mean, if you think we should be stating it, then okay, let's.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I did not know that situation. In any case, I added a newer source that estimates both $$ and volume for same year. Will you please take it through the cite web thingie (mine not working). FYI, I picked what I thought was best link (a repository for press releases), but same content is also on the Freedonia site and actually reprinted exactly in two "media" sites (Jim Cramer The Street and Boston.com, a part of the Boston Globe). Just in case link decays or someone has kvetch with the PR News website.TCO (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Agricola 1529 or 1530

Lead and article differ on the dating of Agricola's fluorite writing, need to check this out. The online English translation (by Herbert Hoover!) from the Latin, may be helpful.TCO (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I got me a translation of De Re Metallica. The whole Internet kinda agrees his first significant publication was in 1530 ("Bermannus, sive de re metallica dialogus"). Another thing is that he was published a few times between 1528 and 1530. I know a book to look for ("Георгий Агрикола", Шухардин -- leaving it here as a note to self); should be able to extract smth soon. Will maybe require a trip to a library.
As I (speculatively) see it, he mentioned it in a minor work of 1529 and a major work of 1530. That also explains why the major source that Greewood is has 1529.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks man. Let's change to 1529 here. (In the subarticle, we can discuss the subtleties of his different publicaions, but not needed here.)TCO (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

History subarticle

Was avoiding this as it seemed too much duplication, but finally went and did it. Am finding little things I want to add a(to the subarticle). Doesn't hurt this article and will sink or swim on its own. BTW, am reading the Moissan papers in translation. Fascinating.TCO (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

anode reaction

this does not make sense as an "anode reaction":

2 HF2– → F2↑ + H2↑ + 2 F–

surely, the h2 and f2 are at separate electrodes

TCO (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading the Ullmann's ref and the Moissan ref. Definitely separate reactions. Need to write out the half reactions to really nail it (neither source do). Not sure I want more chemical reactions in the text, but want to make sure we know the science.TCO (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to check Greenwood. This whole section shows the tell-tale signs of trying to write content from sources when one does not understand things. If we really understand it properly, we can explain it clearly and without mistakes.TCO (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
(Would you please tell me why those wouldn't be like 2F- = F2 + 2e-)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I just want us to figure this out, completely. Then it will be easy to describe. Right now, I know what we have is wrong since it says both gasses come off at the same electrode (which would be both pointless and explosive). Also, that is the net reaction, but your text makes a big point about bifluoride versus fluoride, so maybe that needs to be shown. I don't want us to guess though...let's find out the scoop and really understand it...then communication is the last step. There is also a thing in the Moissan reference where he talks about the positive plate being where F2 comes off, but then both Jaccaud and Greenwood say it is at the anode. And to tell you the truth, I get confused with the electrochemistry...always have to really sweat it to make sure I understand the signs. Heck, maybe in the end we even clear out the equations (the less the better for the readers), but I still want us to understand it!TCO (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not questioning that we have to learn it (since neither of us is sure in anything), there is just a thought in my head that the detail might've seemed easy enough not to focus on it for Moissan (didn't read his papers yet, despite being curious) and Ullman and them all. I have noticed the big authors may focus on very easy top priority detail, but they usually skip easy to mid difficutly details of mid priority. Also, anode is the positive plate (attracts negative anions).

We could cut the chemical reactions within electrochemistry. Greenwood and Jaccaud explains it well without them (and even so does Moissan). Thanks for the note on the electrodes (that always screwed me up). I guess last think I want to check is what we say about the bifluoride to make sure that is right.TCO (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Jaccaud or Jassaud?

My pdf of Ullmann's has cc's, not ss's. This is a major source; need to spell name right. If we need to change it, maybe some smarrtie can run a script or AWB or the like (need to catch all the sfn notes).TCO (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed the wrong spelling. (Copied the text to MS Word, clicked the "Replace all" button.) Let's say the human factor played its role. Dunno how to autocheck the rest (is it easy enough to do at home, you'll need, like, ISBN bases?)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Good man...I was feeling bad...as if I scolded too hard. Yeah, we should really check all of them. Can just leave it on the to do list. TCO (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the F page is clean now -- all cc's. Do you mean all element pages are to be checked? (btw, I have a search & replace option right with the WP edit screen. Want me to look for the setting?) -DePiep (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Checked all the Main article: links in the article page. Had to edit some 3 out of 20 for this. -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I meant our subarticles. Thanks, for the work.TCO (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This one should check clean for this Jassaud, but it will take some time for the server to catch the recent edits. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
No problems at all.
Offtopic: Not so long ago, our article stated smth like, "the term 'fluorine martyrs' was coined by Jassaud(cc?)" I e-mailed this very Jaccaud man (I found him without any help from Ullmann, even made me look at what probably was French state citizen biography collection...looked like so, I don't know French, and who else would run this database?) to find out if he knew anything about his namesake. Dumb idea, but it was my best at the point. He hasn't responded. My point is: given that claim was incorrect (I see it now), and this info was once asked for at FAC, we have another thing to do: to see who made the term up.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a very common term that I know from at least the 1980's. I doubt the Ullmann's Jaccaud invented it. I think getting too wrapped around an axle about this is not the right approach. Just leave it in scare quotes. Weeks describes them as martys in ~1933 and 1945 editions of her book Discovery of the Elements. Who knows if she is first, but it really is common usage. I think if you just use the scare quotes and not the expression "called the" (which led to the whole "by whom" trail, then this is fine. IF someone challenges it, we can show that it is normal usage in plenty of pre-Wiki sources, but I don't think it needs some digression into first usage or the like.TCO (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
We have a citation to Weeks who popularized the martyrs (not sure she was first, does not matter). It is a simple, common appellation. Just leave it in scare quotes and as an appositive phrase in commas. If anyone kvetches, tell them its common and that we cited Weeks and just don't let them derail you. There's no funny business going on and sometimes, we get too contorted from all the skepticism. Srsly...will be fine. Doubt it even comes up and I feel comfortable with the substance. It's not that different from "father of mineralogy".TCO (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Mb you're right and I was overthinking it. Anyway, happy to know we're prepared.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

citation for fluorine metabolism

I am putting a medicinal chemistry review by Hagmann in as the ref to support the metabolism claim. This was in our earlier article. Please be careful of cutting references. Don't just cut because it is pay-walled. Ref desk sent me a copy and I read it and it supports the claim (as do other reviews, it is a common attribute).TCO (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Deal. (It was my attitude toward being so notorious about refs I couldn't find back then. The times are changing.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks...you are a good soul. We will get there. I need you (or Nikki or whoever) to work on the nitpicky ref formatting. [Division of labor...I will pretty shamelessly drop down urls or the like and expect someone to clean them up.] It just hurts my eyes to do that coding and I really struggle with all the templates, vice just writing them out. But I will try to get through the content and English and take care of the hidden notes.TCO (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Will be able to do more soon. (I can initially expand the refs, but we'll need to have them looked at later anyway)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

SSRI content and reference

I read up on SSRIs and SBHarris is right. The big innovation was TCA to SSRI. SNRIs actually came after SSRIs. I have reworded to make a little more easy for laypeople, but keeping the content. Added another ref that covers the discussion. Please take through template. BTW, like 5 of the first 6 SSRIs were fluorinated. But Prozac was not technically first SSRI.TCO (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The first SSRI (no longer with us, due to side effects) was the brominated zimelidine. But Zoloft is chlorinated and was in the first six, so it depends on how you count. After zimelidine came fluvoxamine aka Luvox, which has had some bad press due to associations with violent behavior and suicide (much like Paxil). Then Prozac followed by Celexa. The last two don't seem to be associated as much with early side effects which tend to be depression and violence (including violence toward oneself). That's probably connected with their long half lives. SSRI's seem to have an opposite effect in their early course, and the slow-onset ones don't hit the user over the head with a hammer of feeling suddenly very much worse. Adults get over this with the placebo effect that kicks in hours (even minutes) after the first dose of antidepressant is taken (you see it with sugar pills), but that effect doesn't work on children, who tend to kill themselves shortly after being given short-acting SSRIs. As a result, the only SSRI approved for children is Prozac, with its very very long half-life and subsequent slow onset of action. Paxil, with a very short half life, was famously bad for children. SBHarris 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Cool, I'm really glad we are understanding these things. Could we have a Wikipediac for the over-aggressive bullyboy admins.  ;-) TCO (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture from De re metallica

Our current caption doesn't seem quite true (as always, I'm free to corrections):

Smelting illustration from Agricola's De re metallica, where fluorite was first described

De re metallica is a 1556 book. We say it was described in 1529. I took a very quick look at German Wiki, they say fluorite was first described in 1530 and in 1556 (supposedly in De re metallica, given he was dead already in 1555) mentioned it is a flux.

Did you know these nice images were the reason why they couldn't publish the book in Agricola's lifetime?

I want to keep it (have you considered FP?). We should fix the caption, and I entrust you the linguistics of this. Also, wouldn't this "described as flux" fact be suitable for the text?

Additionally, I just want you or whoever speaks German check if the phrase "Fluorite stones were called schone flusse in the German of the time." lacks one or two umlauts. No German expect, but this looks suspicious, just want to be sure.

Öö Üü

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I love that picture too (those woodcuts just rock...some of them with detailed lettered annotations...really nice draftsmanship), but you are right about the dates being off. We could go with a portrait of Agricola instead. Since I don't want to have two portraits in article, then would cut the Moissan pic and put in the cell picture (see history article). Alternatively we could try to side step it with some text caption, but I am struggling to finesse it...;-)

I don't know about the umlauts...we can have someone check. Ping: User: Materialscientist. Actually it makes me want to totally check the etymology derivation again. Sigh. There are a lot of references and they all give slightly different explanations. We can't just slavishly follow a random one, we need to know which is right and then cite that one. Let me look at Hoover and Greenwood again.TCO (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just read the Hoover footnote (is very good). He explains that the fluorite was mentioned in Bermannus (the 1529 book). He also gives the correct spelling of fluores, has an accent. And that it comes from fluo for flow. I need to double0check the schonne flusse thingie.

OK, I looked through all of it. Yeah, the umlauts are needed. I really wonder if we even need to get into the nitty gritty of the schone Flusse though. If we get pushed for length again, we could simplify that and just not going into the schone flusse (but keep in the history subarticle).

TCO (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I feel good about the content...it matches Hoover. (TCO)

Should probably be schöne flüsse, I think. Double sharp (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Umlauts were already added. Agricola mentions fluorite in both 1529-1530 Bermanus and in 1556 De Re Metallica (and Hoover's translation has a great footnote explaining Agricola's use in both books). Only De Re Metallica has illos. (No action needed, just explaining.)TCO (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Changing the Agricola image

The image we have is close, but not correct. Is a cuppelation furnace. Want to replace it with one of these:

steelmaking
iron smelting

I think the first is the closest match content-wise, but second one has more pixels. Can eventually get a better upload pixel wise. not sure which one has better composition, probably the first.TCO (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the first image more, but it would need to be less noisy. As I see it, removing noise isn't all that complicated, the Graphic Lab should be able to do that.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, it needs to have the watermark in the right lower corner removed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I put the second one in now, just because of image quality. We can move to the first one, after I get a better version. Will run it through the Lab, but really what I plan to do is just buy one or several high quality images. See discussion in talk at Featured Picture Candidates. Really, the images are more noteworthy for metallurgy/mining than for F (but I like using one here, since they are so pretty). I think the one to FP, would be the fire-setting image. They are really all very stunning and encyclopedic, but I believe in picking the best of a type (not like the endless space-hurricane FPs).  ;-) TCO (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
See the number one image one more time (open the image, not just preview on this page)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and change out. Just for my info, what did you do to get the changed image?TCO (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a djvu file (in case you're not familiar, it has the same functions as pdf, but said to be better) of translation of the book, quite high resolution, I simply saved a page as a picture and cropped it. No magic. You can download from here: (will be in Russian, but you've come for the pics).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I just don't know if that has the ultimate quality though. Is it still basically a scan of a book? There is an issue sometimes of having high pixel resolution, but the base upload was not right quality. I don't understand all these details though. What you had looked a little better, but I suspect still not good enough for the FP snobs. (there will also be an issue of getting them to wrap their heads around a woodcut versus a painting or photo, but they are used to me trying new things and I think it could have a shot...)TCO (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
That's okay, I just don't get one thing, aren't all De re metallica digitalized pictures essentially scans?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria's ref format issues

I'd suggest adding citations for paragraph-ending sentences currently lacking them, such as "Fluorosurfactants are a small segment in mass but are significant economically because of very high prices". Special:BookSources/978817141418, Special:BookSources/9780306646108 and Special:BookSources/9780444521763 all return error messages, and Checklinks reports three link problems. You shouldn't mix templates from {{cite}} and {{citation}} families (be sure to check the infobox refs, which are hosted elsewhere). Use a consistent date format (ex FN6 - all ref numbers as of this version). FN25 lacks publisher. You don't need access dates for GBooks links, but can include them if you choose. FN46 is broken. Is FN69 meant to be Cambridge University Press? Edition formatting is currently inconsistent ("2nd ed" vs "3 ed"). FN82 is missing italics. Compare FNs 83 and 94 - look for similar examples. FN88 is broken. Check for doubled periods caused by templates (ex. FN106). When you use website names as publishers, be consistent in whether they're capitalized. This appears to be a student-created website. FN168 is missing italics. FN191 is missing volume/issue and pages. Compare FNs 193 and 195 - check for other examples. What makes FN212 reliable given that Lulu.com is a self-publishing company? Compare FNs 219 and 220. Compare FNs 101 and 223. Compare FNs 73 and 280. FN287 is missing publisher. FN317 misplaces publisher as author - there's a specific author that isn't mentioned. I don't have the subject knowledge to see other reliability or comprehensiveness issues, but hopefully you've dealt with that already. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Nik for the engagement. I recommend doing all of the above with the exception of the first one (those sentences are lead-like summaries of the sections).TCO (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
To self: not everything's been done. Yet.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

For self

Need to look at hidden comments again.

Oh, and size check.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, ton/tonne/metric ton inconsistency, minor, but still.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Some comments upon proofreading

Here are some comments --  ToDo //  Partly done //  Done // Not sure // Red X Won't fix

  •  Done My first reading of the first two of these statements confused me -- I couldn't put these two statements together without assuming that UH6 is inorganic.
    Having re-read them, I see that one is about elemental fluorine, and the other is about fluoride compounds. To better emphasize the similarities between these two statements, I've changed them as shown in the 3rd and 4th item.
    • The main use of elemental fluorine, uranium enrichment.
    • The largest uses of inorganic fluorides are steel making and aluminium refining.
    • The largest use of elemental fluorine, uranium enrichment.
    • The largest uses of inorganic fluoride compounds are steel making and aluminium refining.
  •  ToDo In the following statement, why not use the actual units of measure instead of just a link to the cgs system of measure:
    • The measured value of fluorine's magnetic susceptibility is −9.6×10−6 (cgs)
      • (R8R) The point is the measure is unitless. Like decibels. Definition: M=χH (χ is the susceptibility), M is measured in amperes per meter, H is measured in amperes per meter as well. See magnetic susceptibility. However, why not go SI since the whole article follows SI (metric tons, meters, kilograms, only Celsius degrees are deviant, but closely related anyway; the U.S. units are only in parentheses). Will convert into SI.
        • (YBG) If it is unitless, then there is no need to say 'cgs'. A value in dB is the same whether the underlying measurement is cgs, SI, or U.S. customary -- or even furlongs-stones-fortnights (fsf).
        • (YBG) OK, I've read the link now, and I understand better now. I had never realized that there was more to the differences between the units than the differences accounted by the ratios of the primary units of measure. So if I were to develop the fsf system of measure, would I use gradians or hexacontades?
          • (TCO) fixed?
  •  ToDo This statement begs for a brief clause explaining why this is remarkable and not merely trivia. On the other hand, it may not be easy to make make such a clause sufficiently brief.
    • It is also the lightest unstable nuclide with equal odd numbers of protons and neutrons.
      • (R8R) Yeah, been thinking about that as well. I haven't come up with a good explanation. It would anyway have to talk about isotope stability issues, which would be a little bit offtopic here (remember the article size is ~80.5 KB, talking only about prose). I don't mind actually if some or even almost all our readers conclude it's just trivia.
        • (YBG) No need for a lengthy explanation, merely something that indicates it is unusual, or tends to be unstable, or something, then the interested reader can follow the link. I followed the link but didn't understand it quite well enough to figure out how to phrase it.
          • (TCO) added a little more context with the link. Is this adequate? If not, I am really also fine to cut it.
  •  DoneThe abbreviation PTFE is introduced without explanation.
  • A couple of nits in the section Fluorine#Refrigerant gases:
    •  ToDo Is the reader supposed to understand how the R-number "explain the amount of fluorine, chlorine, carbon and hydrogen in the molecules"?
      • (R8R) Again, it doesn't really matter how it works, it's important there is a brand-neutral system.
        • (YBG) Point well taken. Maybe just a wikilink to an article that explains the system.
          • (TCO) Good push. Added link and understand the system myself now!
    •  ToDo How is it that the fire-suppressant Halon is included in a section on Refrigerant gasses? Is it a refrigerant that has another use, or is there some unnamed category that includes refrigerants and halon, or is this paragraph just misplaced?
      • (R8R) A good one, gimme a little time to think what would be best to do.
Renamed to "Freons and Halon."
(TCO) OBE. Are we good now?
  •  ToDo In Fluorine#Fluoropolymers,
    • What is the "growth rate" referred to in "They are more expensive and have higher growth rates than average polymers"? It needs to be explained.
      • (R8R) A good one. Changed to "higher consumption growth rates" -- does it sound fine?
        • (YBG) I tried rephrasing it - feel free to revert.
          • (TCO) overcome by events (cuts)
  •  Partly done Need to decide between these two styles of introducing abbreviations. I've changed some to my preference -- the first one -- but above all I would like to have only one style used unless there is a very specific reason.
    • Traditionally chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were ...
    • ... principally used in DWR (durable water repellent)
      • (R8R) Seems fair to me. Will try to fix them when I see them. (I like ABCs better than ABC too)
        • (TCO) Meh. Yeah, I getcha. Just not sure if there are reasons of emphasis we go one way or the other. This will be a bear to implement article wide. We do need to think about it. Leave it as "to do".

If I get around to it, I'll keep reading starting at Fluorine#Production of fluorine gas. YBG (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Picking up where I left off, I noticed the following:

  • In Fluorine#Pharmaceuticals, the structure is (a) an intro paragraph, (b) 2 paragraphs as to why F is effective in pharma, (c) 3 paragraphs about specific examples, and (d) a chart
    • Not sure What about having the examples first and then the chemical explanation?
Never was sure either, but I'm fine with how it is now. I don't know if I find it better or maybe I'm just used to it. Will leave as is, unless I'm convinced not to.
        • (TCO) I like how we have it organized now (some rewrite was done to make less techie worded while keeping good content). Intro, one para on mechanisms, and then the types paras. I think it is pretty accessible writing on technical stuff and has a strong structure.
    •  ToDo The final paragraph is mostly about anti-depressants, with a final orphaned sentence about anti-biotics. Not sure why these are lumped together (maybe they are the anti-X drugs?), but if the last sentence is moved to another paragraph, it would be a very short one indeed.
I again beg for more time.
        • (TCO) Fixed by expanding the discussion of antibiotics to a developed para.
    •  ToDo I know the colors are fairly standard, but it wouldn't hurt to have the table's caption explain which color represents F.
OK, maybe, how do you think it should look? Also, if we just say, "yellow-green is fluorine," this won't help for those who don't knwo the theme, and we'll have to say carbon is black, etc. To someone who has to be explained carbon is black, these pic say little anyaway, just look fancy. My point is that everyone who can read the pics know where F is, but I'm ready for some talks.
        • (TCO) This was cut out of the bio section for length and to make this part of the article less technical (people are still getting a huge amount of technical content anyway). We don't have anymore multicolor structure until we hit the Compounds section and at that point, I feel only moderately technical people will be using the article...really prefer not to have a key as I think we end up having to redraw some structures and such. But if it is really needed, can look into it then.
  •  ToDo In Fluorine#Agrichemicals and natural poisons, this sentence is really clunky. I don't understand it well enough to fix it.
    • The further fluorine agrichemicals usage is said to rely on improvement of synthesis reaction (lowering the costs raised by fluorine content) and level of greener chemistry consideration (fluorochemicals are more environment-friendly).
I dunno how to rephrase. The sentence means the following:
  • It is expected that how often the fluorine agrichemicals will be used depends on two things: if the synthesis reaction will be improved (to make it cheaper) and if people will care about the environment (fluorochemicals are more environment-friendly).
          • (TCO) That whole section is still in the "to do". I want to look at content and may want to do some things with structure.

Next, I'll pick up at Fluorine#Hazards. YBG (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Density

Since we are in "cut mode", I would prefer to lop off the density of gaseous F2, rather than add that of the solids and liquid. The gas is ideal at STP, so that the density is trivial anyway. The condensed form densities are more interesting, but let's discuss them in a spin-out article on phase diagram of F2. See my sandbox (dig and you find it) for a starter article called "Solid fluorine".TCO (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

personally, I don't think that the characteristics section is the one which is overbloated. Nergaal (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
We're cool. I approve of the cuts you did. I wacked a whole nother section out of Compounds and out of Bio. Here is the new article, started Phases of fluorine.

Concern on the references

1. I just found a reference by Hemat, for a book called Water. This is not a good reference to use. It is some sort of self-published pseudoscience stuff (don't have time to disentangle what but it is about orthomolecularism...whatever that is). We can't be using stuff like that as references. Even if the facts are correct, we need to use respectable references that are the place where someone would go to learn more/better. That ref was NOT here at the end of 2011. I suspect it was added because it was viewable online.

2. I know some refs were cut because of ref duplication or difficulties with the formatting or even being able to find the ref and look at it. But we need to be very careful about cutting good refs that are needed in the article (whatever was supporting the note on F2 smell for instance) and replacing with bad ones).

P.s. I'm not meaning to sound like a scold...just...well...communicating the issue.

TCO (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Re ref check. We are not in need to see if the refs suit what they are cited for (talking about contents, not sources' quality). That was done in 2012 and nothing has changed.
But at that point, I didn't care much about quality. Just contents. Not justifying it was right, don't think now it is/was, etc, just telling.
"Substituting a fluorine into a para position, however, protects the aromatic ring and prevents the epoxide from being produced.[citation needed]" -- this thing was here back when I first saw this article in 2010, and then it did have its tag. Your papers could be useful.
Also, any suggestions for the subsection now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I have about 4-5 review articles on F in drug design. Couple that were public and a couple from the ref desk. I can rewrite that section from scratch and just cite it all from the references. They are all very similar and they all address the structure to property aspects of F addition. (stability increase, lipid crossing, etc.) (Probably slimming down at same time.) I actually probably still want to play with the organization a little to see what makes most sense (drugs versus poisons versus natural compounds versus designed agrichemicals). So holding back because of the amount of work as well as not stepping on toes.TCO (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Just stay away from stuff that is pseudoscience (homeopathy, anti-fluoridation, etc.) The neoliberal elite will really be unhappy if that stuff sneaks through...and besides it calls into question all the places where we really do have great refs (Ullmans, Greenwood, etc.)TCO (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I will from now on.
Re structure games: go ahead, but since you're up to it, I have to tell you quinolones have little text now even if they are important, a few fluoro-q are in the Russian federal list of the most important drugs, as are fludrocortisone, halothane, etc.
Re odor: CRC Handbook gives gives 20 ppb, but qiuck Google search gives also 10,000 ppb and 140 ppb. I would prefer CRC over those, but their figure is also the smallest. I wonder if it's the real one.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

1. OK, we can talk through how to address the quinolones (getting into the substance). P.s. I was really happy to see you and Nergaal getting into the thing. And still worry about dominating the show too much. (I can go do paid work...;-))

Lucky you, I'm having my session in late May-June onwards, won't be much active then
Good luck and work hard (or "break a leg"), young man.TCO (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

2. All of those for the odor look like decent references. The second one refers to a 1983 CRC as the source. It is really kind of picayune and all of them are good sources. I wouldn't want to do a whole para on this smell issue (except maybe in the phases subarticle). If you want to do the work, a way to present it very text-efficiently in this article would be to say "...detectable at concentrations as low as 10-20 ppb.Ref1Ref2Ref3"

Good idea, but is the 20--10,000 range not too wide for this? (note it's 10 ppm there)
I don't take the 10 ppm seriously (typo?). That PVF book is mostly about a polymer and it has a basic fluorine section at the beginning, but it is not really a good RS for F properties. That said, we can just hunt down and find what the ultimate primary sources say. Put it on the list of niggling tasks...TCO (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

3. My skim through the article showed things in pretty good shape. No need to redo the 2012 exercise. I just freaked out a little when I saw us using the orthomolecularism author.TCO (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

hidden comment about polymer subunits

Hidden comment in the fluoropolymer section: "perhaps create a picture here with all the monomeric units in all these polymeric materials?"

I think that could be OK, have seen other sources do this, but if we make this picture, I recommend to put it in the compounds section or even compounds spinout (or the fluoropolymers article itself). For the applications section, I prefer not to have chemical structure pictures.

TCO (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think better off to keep the compounds section at the end

It is all geeky chemistry. Why bring forward a section that has less narrative interest? I think even chemists prefer to read about applications and other aspects first. This is also the guidance for writing technical articles.TCO (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Crystal structure

Should we add the second crystal structure to the infobox, as it is noted prominently in the text (almost next to the infobox)? e.g., C has: {{infobox carbon}}. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, just clarify alpha and beta. How about cutting the picture from the article text as well? Does it reduce the technicality of the article, to not have a structure picture there at the front (make it more inviting)? Or does the structure picture help make people more comfortable who otherwise have to read about blue-linked monoclinic?TCO (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done See {{infobox fluorine}}, this edit. Parameters involved:
|crystal structure=cubic
|crystal structure comment=alpha state: [more text and references here]
|crystal structure2=monoclinic base-centered 
|crystal structure comment2=beta state

-DePiep (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good.TCO (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Q TCO: which picture you mean? The graph file:Phase diagram of fluorine (1975).png or the crystal alpha balls File:Alpha-fluorine-unit-cell-B-3D-vdW.png? The only suggestion I can think of is: undo the table around these two. Let them flow into the page individually. -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I prefer not to have so many pictures that are text-wrapped. The writing is technically dense. I think people process things better with some breaks. It is just better page layout. In addition, there is not enough text to support the wrap. Also, up here we have the issue of not conflicting with the infobar on the right.TCO (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand a word you say. -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
A harsh and unhelpful reply, I'm sorry. -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
No sweat, man.TCO (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hidden comment about reactions with compounds

Transferring text of hidden comment: "does carbon monoxide react with F2 (CO has the strongest chemical bond known. how about chemical reactivity with compounds? methane is notoriously unreactive. also, do diamonds burn in fluorine!!!!"

I'm fine if someone wants to build this content up. We can decide where it goes here or in the subarticle. The CO reaction doesn't seem as interesting to me (after all CO can be burned with O2). You could also add the reactivity with CO2.

The carbon (of either form) seems like an element although interesting. If you wanted to add some others, there's oxygen, which I think only reacts under special conditions and low temps.

Maybe I'm getting lazy, but I think section has enough examples as is...but if someone wants to do the work to build it, fine. TCO (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you build it, it will definitely get used...in the compounds subarticle at least.TCO (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hidden comment on Mulliken electronegativity

This comment was appended after the para on ionization energy and electron affinity:

"according to Mulliken? the ionization+affinity yields electronegativity! this should be added as a conclusion for this paragraph"

Let's discuss this here. (1) I'm fine if someone wants to take a shot at organizing this section and the next one (as electronegatity is implied to be a cause of reactivity). Also, note prior arrangement had the discussion of F2 low bond energy as a cause of reactivity (in that section). Greenwood makes this explicit.

If you do want to move the electronegativity out of reactivity, to the para above, I somewhat prefer Pauling. It is just more traditional and recognizable. But if you want to take a shot, please do so. Otherwise I will "satisfy myself first".TCO (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanna give it a try, but sometime later (busy IRL, you know that.) We'll see if it's any good.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Real life is most important. Wishing you best.TCO (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am cutting Meiers reference

1. He's amateur (website, not article).

2. We have RSes already for the places he is (he is a duplicate).

3. He is an anti-fluoridation activist, who happens to have a basic science/history writeup of the element. It's actually decent stuff and how we found Partington for instance. But see 1 and 2. Also we link to some more traditional accounts (Weeks for instance).

TCO (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

reaction with carbon

Is it just me that thinks that reactivity with carbon and graphite would fit nicely into the chemical section? Nergaal (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead.TCO (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

*"in part for his fluorine victory" sounds incredibly unprofessional

I will use quotes from RSes to give the dramatic import.

*"fluorine martyrs" are there any well-know individuals among them?

I can develop a para if you want, from Weeks (the reference we give). If it is too much detail, can move to the history subarticle.
I was thinking that a footnote would suffice. Nergaal (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Done.

*"early science" sounds weird; "early discoveries"?

Changed

*"developement" => "later developments"

Changed

*what happens to the F that is used in the aluminum production? is it thrown away?

*"compared to oil-filled switchgear, has no hazardouspolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)" rephrase

*"show no difference in frequency of caries ... while low levels of fluoride in plaque fluid and saliva definitely do help to fight the early caries" seems a bit contradictory

    • I will rewrite it to make clearer. The two ideas are does fluoride help by transforming your tooth into more of a mineral BEFORE it gets attacked by acids. Or does it help "heal" the very early stages of a forming cavity. The action is much more the latter. If you read the attached ref (or other recent ones,...I was worried so I looked and it really is modern consensus that mechanism is the latter), will be clear.
  • what is 29-fluorostigmasterol
    • I agree...it is just an info-dump, needs more explanation (done). BTW, I don't like/understand the last sentence of that para either. I have a "to do" to go over that whole agrichem section. Will read the refs and rewrite.
  • "sometimes amputation may be required" how commonly does this happen?
    • I can't find a source giving a percentage. 5% of reported burns? It is definitely something often mentioned as a possibility (will add a 1991 reference that is very solid to prove this). There are some notable cases which you can Google up (Japanese toes, American fingers and a British and an American leg). I checked the OSHA data base and one of the last 14 cases required a finger amputation. It is nothing to screw around with and can definitely kill you. If you get too much into you and they wait too long with the topical gluconate and even intravaneous medication...you will die. I don't think we are overplaying the amputation. It is just mentioned once in our text as "sometimes". TCO (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC) [FYI and off of amputation, but I looked at the sources and there were at least 9 (probably more, but injuries are not well-coded) industrial deaths from HF accidents in the US in a 10 year period...this could be added, but I don't know if we need the detail.]
  • "HCFC-141b" chemical formula should be available as a footnote
    • I'd really rather not, but it will not kill me if you insist (in which case just you add it). We already gave the formula once in an earlier section (refrigerant gases) and I think less chemical formulas is better for the readability. FYI, I did add a little parenthetical to make it have a little more context.
  • how is PFOA not lipophilic?
    • It is a water soluble in low quantities because of the carboxyl acid group. If you look at ref 173, it is very explicitly mentioned as non-lipophilic (is in the abstract, even). In the body, it binds with albumin (in other words it is stored in your blood, not your fat). I think the article is clear enough on this and we have the citations for more, but please rewrite if you want to make more descriptive.
      • This question was besides the point of this article. It is not clear to me how can this molecule not be liphophilic. Nergaal (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I guess I don't know exactly. I found several other articles that say it is non-lipophilic and even an EPA document that says fluorocarbons are non-lipophilic. Perhaps this helps? [4] I know that you can actually make 3-layer liquids with oil, water, and perfluorocarbon. The perfluoro part doesn't want to be with anything. [although I also read that a single CF3 group does help membrane crossing...maybe it is a matter of degree.] In any sake, I think in this context it is appropriate to say non-lipophilic since the chemicals don't concentrate in the adipose as PCBs do for instance.

Nergaal (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please limit the hidden comments

I don't think we should use the hidden comments for notes to the readers. (e.g. "but PtF4 is 600C"). For that sort of thing, it is better to either use a refnote or do without. In that case, I would probably do without since we already clearly caveat the generalization (so there will be exceptions) and there is a subarticle with more details. But if we want a refnote, that's fine too. Since they are towards the bottom and are tiny, they don't hurt the general reader.

DON'T expect even very interested readers to open edit mode. Edit mode is for editors, not readers! For one thing, it is full of template computer code and the like. A good use of hidden comments is to prevent crufty edits (e.g. "don't add the pronunciation of fluorine...it crufts up our opening and is in infobox").

They really should not be used for review comments either as they will get missed. Better to put them in article talk (that's what it is for).

TCO (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That was a thing for editors.
When I was ref-checking all this numeric stuff, I saw some exceptions. Wanted to talk about them, but you were away, and I wasn't sure what to do with them, so left there to think about them later. You can even see they all start like this: <!--| That vertical bar was to make such comments easier to find (there were many comments back then).
I never wanted a refnote (otherwise, I would just set it up). Anyway, at least we have re-found them and can now, say, bump into the subarticle. (Don't need them here IMO.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah...understood.TCO (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What are the 15 molecular metal fluorides?

I want to add this in a refnote.TCO (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a numbered list (not sure if I can remember all 15 easily):
  1. PtF6 (we mention it twice for the same story within the same section)
  2. RuF6
  3. TcF6
  4. PoF6
  5. WF6
  6. RhF6
  7. ReF6
  8. ReF7
  9. UF6 (the German article on that gives later (1880) examples of the symbol Fl being used)
  10. NpF6
  11. PuF6
  12. MoF6
  13. OsF6
  14. IrF6

It seems our article promises only 14, though.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good and matches our hexafluoride article. It was 15 before, but I cut it to 14 when I moved germanium. Thanks man.
Ah! Germanium!
Wait, I'm doing some more googling. See this pic. At very least, you can see niobium is blue (key: blue: volatile fluoride, green: no volatile fluoride, but a volatile chloride, red: can be volatile itself if it's hot). And this quote appears in Google:
"completely into the volatile niobium pentafluoride, which collected near the constriction of the cooled part of the reaction tube. It was analyzed for fluorine" (see doi 10.1039/JR9500002115)
From tantalum pentafluoride: "Characteristic of some other pentafluorides, the compound is volatile but exists as an oligomer in the solid state."
Also, AuF5 is volatile as well.
And also, if being crystalline doesn't mean being nonvolatile, does being polymeric? If yes, then I'm sure the list is complete.
"Bismuth pentafluoride was sufficiently volatile under vacuum at ambient temperature to be readily ob- served mass spectrometrically." (doi 10.1021/ic50103a056 Clearly out of context: what does sufficiently mean? what were the conditions?) yet a book (ISBN 9788182930070) while not stating it, makes a polymeric BiF5--other pnictogen pentafluorides (gaseous or volatile). So probably the count should be 17.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to talk about the volatility of the pentafluorides up in the para before. I had something about that earlier, but cut it. Obviously, when they become gasses, they are molecular.

It is a spectrum but I think you can think of it as:

ionic -> polymeric (and the network bonding of Be) -> molecular

refractory -> volatile solid -> room temperature gas (or one liquid)

The phenomon of fluoride (or even halide) volatility functions even below the hexafluoride, but is most "iconic" with UF6. For instance aluminum's chloride is much more volatile than aluminum metal. (There are some exceptions with very low melting metals where the compound is more refractory than the metal.)

TCO (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I always thought of it that way. Still, I don't understand if a polymer can be volatile.
I heard that the kilogram standard in Paris loses 10-8 kg per year. So even a metal slowly vaporizes away. But practically, this means the alloy it is made of is nonvolatile, 'cause it's just 10-8 kg/kg. Unnoticeable IRL.
While I don't see a reason why a polymer could be volatile, actually vaporizing away in noticeable quantities, I'd love to know for sure.
Also, re count: the logic of the sentence kinda tells you we should all volatile fluorides, not just 6+. And IMO if you talk about molecular (as opposed to polymeric and ionic), you shouldn't do the stress on 6-fluorides in the first sentence of the para (there are others, and it's not the number 6 being really so magic). Maybe wiping it off will also help you have the three missing volatile fluorides.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following you on the three missing items (what are the "3 missing"). I am going to re-read what you said, but please specify. For now:

"volatile" or "refractory" is like "thin" or "fat". It is a matter of degree.

Once a polymer fluoride becomes a gas, it will become molecular. Same with an ionic fluoride. however, the hexafluorides are molecular even as solids. (e.g. if you look at the crystal structure in the solid, there are distinct molecules, not a lattice).

Yeah, we can work on how we talk about the beginning of that para...but really I am trying to make a strong, evident,organizing structure for the reader and play off of the intro where we mention charge increasing.

In general, most of this is in my uni chem book, so I know that. But it's not the same if it is gaseous, it goes through depolymerization first.
The missing three are NbF5, TaF5, and AuF5.
I'll change that para a little (will try not to ruin structure, this is doable), you get and look after that for better wordings or whatever or just undo.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I finally read what you wrote carefully and followed the links. We can add the discussion of some of the other pentafluorides to that para. Gold in particular is interesting as a dimer. Also, the discussion within the gold pentafluoride is very helpful at understanding the pentafluorides in general. Good work, man.TCO (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job with the additions, I will just smooth it up a bit. I agree that we were being misleading with trying to count the molecular fluorides.

There is still a sentence that bugs me: "Many are gases or volatile, a phenomenon called fluoride volatility." For two reasons. First, many? I thought that all discrete molecules were by default gases or volatile (which was why I started the whole question if polymers can be volatile).
And I doubt if fluoride volatility is a phenomenon really. I wouldn't even call it an effect. Sounds like "wood hardness" or like that to me.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
We are on the same wavelength. Let me change it to a "see also" and move it out of that para into the intro.TCO (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't freak, but I am going to move Ge to the non-metals

I've been reading up on metalloids and all that. Chemically they behave more like nonmetals, certainly so with a hard ion like fluoride. that's basically how we drew the split, but Ge is just on the wrong side. Hope we do not have to have some 20 page discussion like at WP:ELEM.

I am cool with this. I had the idea myself because Ge was a little bit off the story when we talk about 4-fluorides. Never wrote that down and forgot to check what was the right place for Ge. (Haven't done this until today. Just found out this can be justified, so fine)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope I am not pissing you off (metal fluoride)

I just think we need to show a clearer structure. That is what makes things easy for the reader (that he sees the path he is on). I will keep the length down, but just cast the discussion more in terms of the trend from monofluoride to heptafluoride. Your text will stay--it is the same trend (pretty much)--I just want to frame it.TCO (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, do the way you think it would be better structured. I wanted just to show you my point and then hoped you would do the rest (you're better at writing anyway). You're doing well so far, I thought I was pissing you off (I feel a little bit sorry for not improving the article much and just talking about it, even given I have an official excuse). Anyway, seems we're cool. Do the framing, pal. I'll go get me some sleep.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm done. I kept your text and tried to keep it shorter, but I added a little detail, but nothing like we had before and there were a few places where I pruned. It's a little backsliding, but I think still shows a lot of benefit from your writing and is not just a change-back. Also congrats on flagging gold penta (that article is very helpful for penta in general and I've asked for the reference as well).

Went back to the numerical organization. I think this is easier (more strong, obvious) for the reader. This is also the style of the excellent (but slightly dated) monograph on binary fluorides to discuss things. (I asked for a copy from ref desk, a fair amount is google books viewable though.) It's really close to the style you had before, since the transition from ionic to covalent network to molecule roughly follows number also.

I moved the hexafluoroplatinate up to the intro para. It's really a general effect of all the higher fluorides to be fluorine donors (UF6, BiF5, ReF7, even CoF3 at high temps). So it's easier to discuss it in context of the group (in intro). I tried to use that intro para to set the stage that the trends are gradual and to discuss the overall topics (then the numbered paras can just be more about specific examples).

I liked the way you had citations on the individual molecules in that polymer sentence, so aped that style. There are a bunch of cn's, but they will be easy to fill over time.

I was able to keep/use the list of F molecules, but I used it just for the hexafluorides. The others are all discussed in text. I cut the comparison to oxygen (ref was not great and it is just one more digression). It is in the compounds subarticle though.

TCO (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Small molecules

If we get pushed for space, then the para on CFCs can be cut. Also, the acid para could be cut down to a sentence or two and lumped in the functional group para. Not pushing it now, as the metal and nonmetal sections have a lot of detail. Just if we need it later. (And then we hack the other compound sections too.)TCO (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments as far as agrichemicals

  • Suggested as a chemical element in 1811, fluorine was named after the source mineral, but resisted many attempts to isolate the element. — avoid repeat of element
    Changed the latter to "it"
  • $16 billion per year global fluorochemical industry — US$ at first occurence
    Yes, thanks. Also added for the first occurence in the main body of the text
  • low charged metals — unclear, and should probably be hyphenated
    I added the hyphen, but I don't know what to say. "Metals in low oxidation states" sounds a little creepy for the lead. I'm open to suggestions.
  • Lipitor and Prozac — here and elsewhere you seem to prefer the trade name to the generic name. I think the latter is less pov and avoids different trade names in different countries
    Dunno. The recognizability grows on the other side. I'll rethink and maybe start changing those tomorrow.
  • municipal water fluoridation. — I'd lose "municipal", in most European countries this isn't the town's responsibility
    Interesting. Done that.
  • it is essentially only found in compounds. — I'd be inclined to say always
    It's not always, there are very very small amounts of F2 that have been found, but they're only of theoretical interest.
  • US$5–8 per kilogram ($2–4 per pound) — odd to see US suddenly pop up here
    Lost it.
  • If a fluorine is transferred to a body cell, — unclear
    How so? (please describe the problem, so I could think what could be done)
    I thought this should be "fluorine atom", but not sure that one atom could be significant, so maybe it should be "fluorine" without "a"? I'm confused Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    I've seen a few times "a fluorine" when it is meant to say "a fluorine atom," and the same with other elements. A quick search through the page gives 3 hits for "a fluorine" (other than "a fluorine atom") and 11 for "fluorines." Look for "fluorines" (Ctrl+F) in the Organic subsection (there are also 2 "carbons" and 4 "hydrogens" hits). I'm afraid the words "atoms" will be too abundant. I beg for a second opinion, though.
  • The dup link detector picked up a few overlinks
    On your user page, there are a few neat tools, but unluckily, the said tool is in black, could you give me a link please? (also, this has been done in some cases when the second occurence is more important than the first one, like the first one was just a mention, and in the second case, the topic is explored to a greater degree. Still would love to have the link to the tool.)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, waiting for more!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm away for a couple of days (May Bank Holiday), will continue on my return. One elaboration above, script below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // [[User:Ucucha/duplinks]]

Add the script to Special:MyPage/common.js and clear the cache after saving. There will be a link "Highlight duplicate links" in the toolbox on the left on every mainspace article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Than k you for the script, and have a nice holiday, if I'm not too late to say that :)

---

Thank you for the grown up and "outside the creators" viewing of the article. Agree with 98% of the comments. My preference is to keep the trade names in the lead. They whole point is to use terms that resonate with people. That give them a "yeah I get it, yeah I connect, yeah it means something to me". Lipitor was the number one money making drug a couple years ago. Prozac had the book written about it. I think even for our Iron Curtain colleagues, they have been Coca-colonized enough so that the brand names are most recognizable. In article text, we will use both brand and compound name with some parens. It won't kill me if we get Wiki-beaten into using the less recognizable terms or loading the lead down with caveats. It's just one of those kinds of things I want to do...to really engage people, especially in lead.TCO (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is all taken care of or OBE with the exception of the "body cell" in agrichemicals. But there's a to do, to look at that whole section for content/structure. I want to keep "a fluorine". It is normal usage and I don't think confuses anyone. Littering the text with atom would be bad.TCO (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading the Weeks article on F

 Done

First her book is great. Very fun and thorough. Details can help for History of subarticle. I need to check a couple things though (seems she believes in the glass cutter from 1600s). I need to re-read what our dissenting article said, look at Weeks's footnotes, etc.

Here is free version: [5]

TCO (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh. I think we might need to soften our stance on the 1600s glass cutter. I reread Partington. He's got some points, but still...pretty minor journal and I'm not as blown over by the logic either. Weeks could be wrong and it happens that errors are just carried forward in popular accounts (look at the yellow-green color thing). But it's just not so simple (and I have not looked at Weeks's refs yet either...and really, I don't want to re-research this to the primary). Probably just want to hedge bets here. It's just down in a little note, so will be easy.TCO (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I've modified the comment to just point to different sources wrt the glass cutter. Each of those cite the primary in fair detail so the interested reader can read even further back (assuming he knows Latin and German). At the end, I think there is some guess work involved. I don't think Partington can make a clear case. This is less strong than for instance the "is fluorine yellow" stuff, where people really did measure it and prove it was yellow not yellow-green.TCO (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Calling SBharris or smoke (perfluorocarbon compound definition)

What is the story on this thing of perfluorocarbon versus fluorocarbon versus perfluorocarbon compound?

I was under the impression that perfluorocarbon=fluorocarbon="only C and F". And that perfluorocarbon compound meant it had an alcohol or COOH group or the like at one end.

I can write it out simple and clear, but just wanted the scoop. Also, I will probably do a ref note with a caveat.

TCO (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I wrote it up fair, but take a look.TCO (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
A beaker holds water with blue food dye (upper liquid layer) and a much more dense perfluoroheptane (a fluorocarbon) lower liquid layer. The two fluids cannot mix and the dye cannot dissolve in fluorocarbon. A goldfish and a red claw crab have been introduced into the water. The goldfish cannot penetrate the dense fluorocarbon. The crab floats at the liquid boundary with only parts of his legs penetrating the fluorocarbon fluid, unable to sink to the bottom of the beaker. Quarter coins rest on the bottom of the beaker. Animals were rescued from their predicament after the photo was taken.

I don't think these definitions are hard and fast. But generally what you say. "Per" in chemistry actually means maximal, or "as much as possible" (as in permanganate or periodic acid-- only chemists say that correctly; they have the maximal number of oxygens and oxidation state). So PER-fluorocarbons are hydrocarbons with every possible H that is possible to replace by an F, replaced by an F. Clearly hydrofluorcarbons cannot be perfluorocarbons, and by convention other halocarbons like Freon-12 and Halothane can't either, since you missed a (theoretical) opportunity to replace an H with an F but put on Cl or Br instead. But the question naturally arises with acids, where the acidic H cannot even in theory be replaced with F. Are they still considered perfluorinated? Yes, as the very names PFOA and PFOS suggest. They did the best they could, so perfluoro it is. So the way you explain it in the article is exactly right. I dunno if they reserve a special perfluorocarbon compound category for things like PFOA and PFOS. It's possible, but I just don't know. SBHarris 01:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks man. I will tweak the text to explain per = "as much as possible". We have an article called "perfluorinated compound" but I'm not sure if that is really a term per se, or something just got invented in all the Wiki edit wars about article splits. I sort of sidestep it by just saying "see this article".TCO (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Great photo. you came through! TCO (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking maybe we should use it. Compounds section is pretty dry. Get rid of perfluorodecalin. I will take it over to graphics lab and see if they can crop it wide (will make alternate file). Pics that are "tall" are difficult to fit in text wrap (and "upright" is just size reduction). Also see if they can take out the tilt. Not sure how it will look with that radical surgery, but won't break anything.TCO (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Nice job. You got the major photoshoppable problems, all right, SBHarris 16:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

images for phases

Here is current image:

angled lines showing linear pressure temp relations of the lower phase boundaries A parallelogram-shaped outline with space-filling diatomic molecules (joined circles) arranged in two layers
Low-temperature fluorine phases Alpha-fluorine crystal structure

I think it is definitely good enough (and many other priorities to work on). But I am a little bit wondering:

1. Is it helpful (engaging to the reader) to show the picture of monoclininc F2? So that he has something other than just these hard sciencey words (monoclinic is probably at grad school level for a lot of people, even a pre-med will not see it). I put it there in the hope that the reader reads about shingled layers and then looks and sees...layers and has an "OK, I get it, I'm OK" feeling. But if it has the opposite effect, "ugh...pictures of molecules" then we could do without.

2. For the phase diagram, I just cobbled what was there on Commons. I did get it sharpened up, but it is still a little ugly and the pressure aspect is I think a distraction. Would prefer something simpler that just orients the reader by showing phases versus temp on a number line. Also, it ought to go through to include the boiling point. I'm not sure if I just want something simple or something that like has the structures underneath with arrows pointing to spot.

3. We are (still) missing a picture of cubic F2. I need it at least for the subarticle, even if it is too much detail here. Will go and ask for it to be made at WP: chemicals.

TCO (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Come to think of it, I'm not sure. I can tell what I feel: ooh, molecules, ah, still can't get what monoclinic is, gotta consult the infobox, oh yes, it makes it clear. (which is no surprise given the molecules are so big. Also, I really didn't know what monoclinic was before I checked the infobox)
2. +1 on this one. Screw arrows (we can easily do without them, we can color-code).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave the pic for now. I'm not sure if that was a good "ooh molecules" or a bad "ooh molecules" though. In any case, I added the thing in about "shingled" which will help the reader (and make the image resonate) and fits with it being hard and dense and ordered.TCO (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Good "ooh"... they look fancy and not too complicated (the molecules themselves, not the monoclinic order)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

osmium heptafluoride

There's a report of OsF7 from 1966, but a 2006 paper claims it was not reproducible. Want to get both papers to see if conditions matched, etc.TCO (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I read a later paper that said that under the 1966 conditions, OsF7 was not a probable product (they calculated it). The authors were also Germans, but not these Germans.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I saw it and remember it, but the one I cited was one where they really tried making it. We could get more into the nitty gritty in the compounds subarticle.
I'll ask for the later paper at the ref desk and see it (can't find it earlier paper's doi within a second, okay, I'll get it from the later paper anyway). In principle, you can ask for things too and ask people to send them to me if you're still reluctant to activate your e-mail. It won't bother me...I will gladly read the papers plus I originally got me that e-mail just for the purpose.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have the nonmetals fluorides gallery?

See title.

It's not like it's a fluoride thing, it's more a VSERP thing. In either case, we don't even try to explain it.

This puzzles me a bit.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I liked what you did in metal section and was copying. How about we ut it (maybe it could live in compounds article, or even hypervalent article). Replace with a table having one common/helpful molecule from each row (e.g.): BF3, SiF4, SbF5, SF6, ClF3. This would match the structure of the discussion.

If not that, then just put a molecule or two in text embedded on side.

TCO (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I like them (they seem fancy). I just saw no rationale. I would prefer to get a table of BF3, SiF4, SbF5, SF6, ClF3. Either you do it, or I'll get to it, but later.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I read the AuF5 and OsF7 paper

This is silly, but anyway: SPOILER ALERT!

Here's an astonishing quote:

It can therefore be assumed HF/AuF5 solutions are stronger Brùnstedt acidsthan the so farstrongest acid HF/SbF5. But the extreme acidity of such a HF/AuF5 solution is also reason why AuF5 dissolved in HF decomposes to AuF3 and F2.

In the subarticle, we say, "One such acid, fluoroantimonic acid (HSbF6), is the strongest charge-neutral acid known.[95]" In light of the quote above, is it right to say what we say? I mean, we are still factually right, but we're (or we're not?) making our reader assume SbF5 is the strongest acid of binary fluorides. I will rewrite that section to include more talk of acidity, and maybe more, but what should we go with for now?

And from OsF7:

ReF7 is, however, quite distorted. The description as a pentagonal bipyramidal structure holds only as a first approximation.

Does it mean we should ask Ben to re-draw the image of ReF7?

See also: http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~schauble/ReF7_vibrate.html

I haven't seen the older paper; this one seems (will re-read) convincing. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

1. I would wait on the gold thing for now. I don't like the "it can be assumed" as well as the issue of inherent stability of HF/AuF5. HF/SbF5 is an industrial functioning substance, not theory. Or maybe do a note. I donno, need to look at the article. What I would probably do is some ref note that says "Author X argues that AfF5/HF will be more acidic although stability of AuF5 in HF is an issue." Or maybe a little more neutrally worded.  ;-) Anyway, I would caution you about theory papers versus observations.

2. I seem to remember something about this. And that was one reason, I did not like using the IF7 picture for Ref7. Even if not distorted, there could be bond length differences. You have to watch for this. We should probably call it distorted in text. As for the picture, either get Ben to redo it or if he won't MatSci. we could also just substitute in a metal hexafluoride, although even there I would be careful (may be some Jahn Teller distortion or something). Mat Sci can help.

TCO (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I prefer if we fix rhenium heptafluoride. We already have one hexafluoride shown in the nonmetals (which I want to keep). ReF7 is fluxing, but I think it best to draw it with the slight bend of the axial atoms as well as the puckering of the equatorial atoms. I don't want to go into huge detail on it (in this article) with some drawing that shows bond angles and arrows and such. Just a modification of what we have now, but to pucker it a bit. The 1964 and 1970 sources give good info on this (can see abstracts by clicking dois at the ReF7 article).TCO (talk) 17:15, 15 June 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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. [6]

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)

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)

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?

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.

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)

Fluorocarbon

Right now in the fluorocarbon section we deal with fluorosurfactants, which are not fluorocarbons. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The word fluorocarbons is often used somewhat loosely, often including all heavily fluorinated organics (e.g. CFCs, HFCs and not just perfluorocarbons). Don't read too much into the other Wiki articles on organofluorines which are a little of a tangle. Let me clarify a little.
BTW, thank you for engaging with the piece and liked your sentence about fluorosurfactants.
208.44.87.91 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. By the way, the fluorocarbon article follows IUPAC and I think the fluorine article should as well. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Heard you the first time.  ;-) It's not our job to promote IUPAC terms and coming from IUPAC doesn't make something "right" (its not a physical property we are talking about). Some IUPAC terms are not often used (e.g. tetrachloromethane is much rarer than carbon tetrachloride). We should follow actual usage versus trying to promote a particular standards body (IUPAC, ACS, etc.) Bottom line is that term is used both ways. Do a Google search on definition of fluorocarbon and you will readily find both usages. Even at the talk page of the Fluorocarbon article, you'll find that it was the professional chemist who wanted the looser definition and the "Wiki categorizer type" who wanted to push IUPAC. But I really can't be too arsed about it. If you drive something or other please make it consistent and not distracting. (I've added a ref note on the confusion, regardless).70.42.157.5 (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Or we could go with a note that we conflict with IUPAC, since we also use the "perfluorocarbons" term, which is an term commonly used in industry. Or not, that's just an idea.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Chemical route to ...

Is a bad name. Electrochemistry is still chemistry. I would suggest something along the lines of "synthetic route to..." Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Renamed it chemical synthesis. That should be clear (really think it was before, but oh well). Note that this follows the name of the Christie paper...70.42.157.5 (talk) 01:05, 26 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: [7].208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done Double sharp (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I also wondered when I changed a source and accordingly figures why the difference was so great. Sorry for screwing this up. Glad we have it right now.

There were no other problems, as I remember (I did this twice.) You can go over and see for yourself (or outsource this task), though. Why not, it won't get worse, and if I missed something (I'm sure I didn't), it'll be fixed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fine. Let's leave it be.69.255.27.249 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

DU content sentence moved to subarticle

Moved a sentence to subarticle. Was very dense info (amounts of tons, 4 different facilities) and emphasis was on DU, not on fluorine. If we argue to keep it, would still want it made more readable (less detail dump) and emphasis on F part, not the U part. Something to the effect of "Because 235 is the nuclide of interest, large stores of UF6 with depleted uranium (U-238 containing) have been built up in storage facilities. Within four U.S. weapons processing facilities, there are nearly 200,000 tons of fluorine, within over 600,000 tons of DU UF6."69.255.27.249 (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What is going on? More and more DU content is being thrown in here. Is this some political thing like with the antifluoridationists? We have articles on DU. This is an article on the element F. Uranium processing is a small part of the story and DU is a segue to emphasis on uranium, not fluorine.69.255.27.249 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep cool. :-) Nothing it is going on. It is just wikipedia. I added the DU tons for the reader to make sense of the yearly use for U conversion (7000 tons/year) and where it does go after enrichment. I admit it may be overkill. By the way those plants are not "U.S. weapons processing facilities" (what ever that means). They are civilian enrichment plants operated for DoE by USEC. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. (Then we call them that. :-)) My issue is with the dense list of blue-linked names and long numbers. I think even if anti-DU (or not!), it will just read better to be more synthetic.69.255.27.249 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Nuclear fuel cycle is NOT the same as enrichment. Enrichment is separation beforehand. The fuel cycle has to do with neutron absorption and change of isotopes in the reactor as it operates.69.255.27.249 (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication are all operations included in the front end of the nuclear fuel cyle. You are talking about its service in a nuclear reactor, which is also part of the nuclear fuel cyle. Managing its waste is referred to as the back end of the fuel cycle. Fluorine is used in conversion operations prior to enrichment. Hope I made my point clearer. --Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
You're right. Our Wiki article does talk about this holistically.69.255.27.249 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved the picture of UF6 to subarticle. I quite like it (the deadly dagger, I call it) and we have had it before...but there is almost an artistic need to think about which pictures for which sections, to make them all really have something different and really impact. If we really want to keep it, I would say best spot is INSTEAD OF the K-25 pic (and I am fine with that). I think K-25 is a little more historyish, but I can live with it dying as UF6 dagger is just so cool looking. Another spot could be within compounds (metal fluorides section text embedded on the right).69.255.27.249 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Talked myself into it. Deadly dagger is back. I cut K-25.69.255.27.249 (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

PET expansion looks good

I had made it too clipped. In general, I think we are well off spending the time to do some hand holding type explication of science topics (that is the feedback from the peer review, and we can spare the kbs for it). Where we have cut hbs is more in cutting content detail or in prioritizing topics to cover.

Before, the PET section was longer but even worse for readability, since the extra Kbs were just different names for chemicals and the like. I like where we are now.

69.255.27.249 (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

UF6 image

I put in a request to brush up the image file page. [8] Just putting note here, so we can refer to the discussion if needed in future.

69.255.27.249 (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I want to keep unified paragraphs. The second para is on the element, third is on the compounds. Also, the first sentence of the third para is a topic sentence.

I prefer the wikilink to uranium enrichment. As you pointed out, nuclear fuel cycle is a very general article covering a long process.

No worries, I hope.

69.255.27.249 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I am not crazy about 109.57 versus 110 (we could say "about 110"). The point of the sentence is that the nuclide lasts a couple hours so it has decent activity balanced with time to get it to the active sites, not listing exact values like in the data table.

Uranium enrichment is a physical process. Uranium conversion is a chemical process prior to uranium enrichment (http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-conversion.html) As fluorine is also used in nuclear reprocessing activities of used nuclear fuel taking advantage of selective fluoride volatility, it makes more sense to me to refer to nuclear fuel cycle and not restrict ourself to U enrichment only (which do not use F at all in the process).
My initial proposition was to be even more general and say that the nuclear industry is the largest user of fluorine gas. This should be more than ok for the lead imho.--Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The point is that the use of hexafluoride supports the physical separation in centrifuges and diffusion plants. This is similar to any other thing like fluoropolymer use for cooking. In general, more specific links are much better than more general ones. The entire story of how uranium goes from ore to waste (soup to nuts) is not relevant to fluorine's article.12.228.46.48 (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't really answer my suggestion to state the "the nuclear industry is the largest user of fluorine gas" in the lead. If you want to be more specific, uranium conversion is more specific than uranium enrichment. U conversion is about transforming the ore concentrate into a product ready to be enriched. http://www.areva.com/EN/global-offer-401/areva-number-one-in-the-world-in-uranium-conversion.html This is an industrial reality but apparently you don't like it. Fine with me. I will not fight over a wikilink nobody sees.--Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

UO2 vs U3O8

Do want to be overzealous but I replaced UO2 by U3O8. Although to be 100% correct, I should have written Yellowcake which contains 70-90% of U308. UO2 is more often referred to as the ceramic obtained by heating the mixture (3.5% 235UF6 + 96.5% 238UF6) and formed into nuclear fuel pellets. Yellowcake goes into nitric acid, then carbonated to make UO3, finally reduced with H to make UO2. UO2 in turns reacts with hydrogen fluoride to make UF4 which ends up UF6. This all process is known as Uranium conversion (prior to U enrichment). As this is an article on fluor, I would suggest to remain generic and limit our self to input (yellowcake) and output (UF6)--Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that other processing occurs first. So when the fluorine encounters the uranium, it has already been converted to the dioxide. [and remember this is the story of fluorine, not the story of uranium and yellowcake and everything that happens to uranium as it gets processed]. See [9] and [10] and [11]. The cited sources also back this up, but here am giving you some online ones.12.228.46.48 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I was reacting to your comment from earlier (looks like you edited it, realizing the reaction is with the dioxide). This is fluorine's story, so getting into yellowcake and uranyl and all that is not relevant. What we have about HF reacting with the dioxide and then further fluorination with the element is the part of the story that matters for fluorine.12.228.46.48 (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree it is a fluorine story. I suggested to keep it minimal U3O8->UF6. Instead, you prefer to isolate the final step in the preparation of UF6 which may be more confusing for a casual reader. It would make more technical sense imho to start with Uranium trioxide. For nuclear engineers UO2 is associated with nuclear fuel and not a step of the U conversion. Doesn't seem to be relevant for you. Fine with me.--Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You have gotten a little extra stuff with the UF6 picture replacing K25 and with the nuclear fuel cycle (uranium mining and all that stuff) linked in the production section. And had your mistaken impression of yellowcake fluoridation fixed.  ;-) The knowledgeable reader will not be taken aback (Ulmann's discusses UO2 reactions, it is very normal to express as we did) nor will the neophytes. If there are others who need to learn the overall U refining process, they can go to U article. Finis please...you got a little bit. You owe me a beer, Belgian.  ;-)

12.228.46.48 (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

P.s. If you want to work on some high view uranium/nuclear topic together, maybe we can do one in the future.

SHOUTING

Cites 1–12. They've been sitting there for ages, and they are annoying me. Am I allowed to go into the Fluorine Infobox and sort them out so they look pretty when the Infobox is called in the article? LudicrousTripe (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. They bug me too. I don't think there should be any issues since I was the one who wanted cites to display into article and got them put in anyhow. Are some other debates with the infobox, but I think if you just do it, no one will stop you. Definitely don't ask for permission--they will start some 1000 line thread to discuss/debate it. If someone gets antsy about it, just back off--I don't want the mallcops going after you. I think it should be fine though.64.134.103.150 (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
That's the spirit. -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any issues since I was the one who ...: wow. What a convincing argument. -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think article should be good. Kind of done with polishing it. Are more important things on Wiki (and more importantly off). Let's declare victory. Special:Contributions/64.134.103.150|64.134.103.150]] (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

I think we have undue weight on PFOA. There should be more weight on PFOS, which started all the concerns about organofluorine compounds. PFOS was a 3M chemical with an economic purpose and a brand name (Scotchgard) associated with it. PFOA had an economic purpose and a brand name associated DuPont/Teflon with it as well. We'd do well to cover these facts. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

They are basically kissing cousins and treated about equally in literature (I thought we were too). I will add a bit more on PFOS and a recent review paper (Mar 2013) or three on the environmental issues. Story has not really changed much with the new literature. I don't want to go too deep on the market aspects of fluorosurfactacts in this article as we already spun out significant market content to subarticle for length/focus reasons. The Scotchgard brand is most prominent and is noted in article. The DuPont brand for their DWR was/is Zonyl (PFOA is a byproduct/contaminant/etc. in Teflon) but that is a pretty non well known brand, so why list it. 69.255.27.249 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll probably go ahead and put the fluorosrufactant market section back in article. I can be a little more prominent with PFOS in that commercial context. Under environmental, they really do treat PFOA/PFOS pretty equally (check refs), but I will rewrite the text to make that even more explicit. Give me some time as I have to do this right to get right balance and emphasis, not just glom factoids in.69.255.27.249 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Ref list (working)

69.255.27.249 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yeah, there was a dependence on a PFOA review. Should be good now.69.255.27.249 (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there was a review published in Environmental Health Perspectives around 2011 which to me questioned the whole focus on PPAR-alpha. Or at least calling it into question. I don't see a reason to mention PPAR-alpha on this page, in other words. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just read several 5 different articles (cited in ours) that all mention PPAR-alpha. I can't remove it based on "I think I read something in 2011 downplaying it". (I need more from you.) In any case, the whole mention is extremely caveated: we say that exact mechanisms are not known and may vary by circumstance and that 'signficant research has been done' on PPAR-alpha. It's pretty far from saying "aha...that's it". If I cut it, would be from length/technical issues, not from undue weight. right or wrong, the bulk of the literature pretty much says "we don't know how the biochem pathways work, but PPAR-alpha agonism may be involved."12.228.46.48 (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I cut it. Was too techie.71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. After all, this is the fluorine article. Let's not lose sight of that. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluorine/Archive_2&oldid=1079340565"