Jump to content

Talk:Fluorine/Archive 3

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

Copyedit for FAC

Fluorine has been to FAC three times. The content looks like it's all there. Just needs some work on the prose, in my view. So, I've copy edited the lede, using the following structure:

  • characteristics
  • history
  • applications
  • environmental interactions.

I then restructured the sections in the main body of the article to follow the lede.

I now intend to copyedit the main body of the article. Further adjustments to structure may result, as well as to the lede. Cld be slow going but hopefully not, given all the terrific content already here. Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

First ce pass, covering sections 1 to 3, done. Sandbh (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Sections 4 and 5 done. Sandbh (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Section 6 done. Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Sections 7 through 9 done. Sandbh (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Sections 10 and 11 done. Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. A few bags if you don't mind (explain please or, if an obvious mistake, I'll fix later). Most notes are for self (so I consult a grammar book and craft English better). Give them a though too, please.

I was very picky, as I can see now, so maybe most point aren't that good.

Why did atomic no. in the first sentence go? (want it back)

Pending. Fixed In the first pass I wanted to make the lede more engaging and atomic number doesn't say anything. It's just a number which is also listed in the infobox. We can put it back if you think it's important. Update: restored. Sandbh (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

gaseous fluorocarbons start to be produce and -- grammerz?

Fixed
  • a significant disordering of its molecular structure -- wlink went missing
To be fixed wlink went nowhere---article does not exist

fluorine's vs of fluorine -- may be no bug, but I need an AmE grammar book to be sure

the first version is conversational writing; the second version is more appropriate for an encyclopedia

picometers; this -- a period used to be there. I normally use semicolons too, but trying to phase out, as I think periods are a better style (more readable). Will find out.

I try to avoid starting a sentence with This, when it's a continuation of the previous sentence
Why?
Partly discussed [http://askville.amazon.com/beginning-sentence-word-grammatically-incorrect/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4688717 here]: because the object that the this is referring to can sometimes be unclear Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

all—outside -- what is the principle difference between an em dash and a spaced en dash? (I like em better, but want to know nonetheless).

No difference; personal preference
  • (rocky planets like Earth tend to concentrate elements that form non-volatile compounds) -- good note went missing
To be checked. The full paragraph was, 'Fluorine is the thirteenth most common element in the Earth's crust, comprising between 600 and 700 ppm by mass (rocky planets like Earth tend to concentrate elements that form non-volatile compounds).[80] On Earth, fluorine, because of its reactivity, is found essentially only in mineral compounds. The three most industrially significant are fluorite, fluorapatite, and cryolite:[81][82]' The words in parentheses have no connection to the paragraph's topic sentence. And I couldn't find anything about that in ref 89.
That's a good note and is relevant, but this could be done better. I'll look at it later.
Fixed Sandbh (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

contain fluoride vs. include fluorine among their constituents -- the former seems to be shorter and nicer (?)

To think about some more I don't think all fluorine minerals are fluorides so its probably safer to use talk about containing fluorine rather than fluoride

see the explanation by Clark. --- why "the" here? (like "no pun intended" has no "is") Also, why isn't he Jim anymore?

"no pun intended" is proper English whereas 'see explanation by Clark' isn't---would have to ask a grammar expert why this is so. In academic referencing, with few exceptions, only second names are used.
  • The para under ClF3 pic -- Three paras are better than one (readability).
To be reviewed Tend to agree however bullet points won't survive FAC. Have turned bullets into paras.
Oh, right. Paras are fine with me as well.

the heavier heavier -- bug

Fixed Sandbh (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of the lightest noble gases form binary fluorides of only limited stability -- Mmm. I would think of a compound like Mn2O7 as of "limited stability," not ArHF and stuff, which are unstable

Fixed changed to exceptionally limited stability

relevance? -- will explain later; reworded Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed

inertness; stability; non-wetting by water and oils; and slipperiness -- we can use commas?

To be reviewed semicolons are better for list-like parts of sentences.
Mmmmm, don't think so. In such cases, semicolons and commas normally have the same function, but semicolons make reading harder. I mean, try this: "the party was attended by Jim; Alice; and John." vs. "the party was attended by Jim, Alice, and John."
For bulleted lists, semicolons are a must have. Same for lists like "the party was attended by a) Jim; b) Alice; and c) John." You do make long pauses in such cases, so a semicolon reflects the fact. In a simple list, you normally don't, so no semicolon is needed. Many people do, though, yes, but on occasion and this happens in other cases a comma would serve better.
Fixed changed back to commas Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

suggested that the acid vs. suggested that hydrofluoric acid -- "the" follows the logic of the discussion better

Would normally agree if the entire section and all of its paras were about HF. But it's not so 'suggested that hydrofluoric acid' in this para topic sentence confirms to the reader that we are still talking about HF.

bifluoride vs. difluoride -- need to refresh my internal cache (I thought it was "bi" due to hydrogen)

bi is non-IUPAC---should say 'hydrogen' instead e.g. sodium hydrogen carbonate. I've only ever heard of difluorides never bifluorides. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
We need difluoride back. Of course. Your act has puzzled me for a while and I thought I was wrong. But no, difluoride is a used word, standing for the (HF2)- ion. It is not IUPAC-consistent, but we don't have to stick to them. This is real usage in industry.

proved to conduct electricity vs. proved capable of conducting electricity -- the former seems to be less complex with not losing any point

Less complex yes, but not good English

temperatures, which slowed vs. temperatures; this slowed -- the former sounds like natural language to me

To be reviewed fixed with rewording

constructed more corrosion-resistant equipment vs constructed equipment that was more corrosion-resistant -- same

To be reviewed first one is good and that is the way the article reads now

Teflon ((C2F4)n) -- not sure if we need the formula here (not very important to me)

I added it because the first thing I wondered when I saw 'Teflon' was, what was its formula? I though it would be complicated but wow, it sure isn't.
I know what you mean. Okay, it shall be in, then.

Large-scale productions vs. Large-scale production -- the latter seems to be right; why did we have the former, did it make sense to?

I don't know why; it didn't make sense to. The latter is proper English.
  • ('poly-' meaning many) -- wrong quotation marks (AmE vs. almostalltheotherE)
Fixed

through 1989 vs. up to 1989 -- I like the former better somehow (not very impportant)

'through 1989' is a little bit unclear as to its meaning, whereas 'up to 1989' is very clear

Production has steadily risen since that time. -- can "that time" be cut off? replaced with "then"?

Fixed

About 3 kg of metspar-grade fluorite are added vs. is added -- need to conslut a grammar book (suspectr it might be a AmE vs. BrE thing again)

Fixed; well spotted
Thanks

Other inorganic fluorides made in large quantities include: cobalt difluoride (for organofluorine synthesis); nickel difluoride (electronics), lithium fluoride (a flux); sodium fluoride (water fluoridation); potassium fluoride (flux); ammonium fluoride (various uses); and magnesium fluoride (antireflective optical coatings). -- aggressive punctuation (we could remove the colon and replace semicolons with commas)

To be reviewed semicolons are better for list-like sentences; a colon usually starts the list except if it is short Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
See above

why? -- a good catch

Fixed tx Sandbh (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I need to get to the computer with the Ullman source. Maybe this weekend.

end-use -- all added hyphens cause the reflex to consult an American

Fixed Good pick

this particular industry -- why is "particular" needed?

To be reviewed Fixed---reworded

for the substance vs. for this substance-- I like "the" better, need to consult a book on how to write good texts

'This' is better, since it's referring to something whereas 'the' doesn't do that so much

what is this? ha ha, will explain

Fixed

these other fluoropolymers -- had "the" before. Now doesn't sound good to me. (Who am I to judge, though)

Because there are two 'others' in the first two sentences, 'these other' makes it clearer that we are referring to the same 'other fluoropolymers' rather than some other set of FPs

melt-processed -- hyphen again

I think it's OK this time
Maybe; still, I need a source on grammar (at least for self-education)

the polymer has been transforming vs. this polymer has been transforming -- the vs this again

Same answer as before re 'this' being more specific than 'the'

what's point of having "for example" instead of "e.g."? (I suspect latter are better just as "30,000" is better than "thirty thousand," but don't know for sure)

e.g. is casual English; 'for example' is more formal---better for an encyclopedia. More responses later. Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
That's weird, given "e.g." is Latin, but I'll trust you.

is in the preparation -- not sure if we need "in" (I think Ullman didn't have it. Again, better ask someone)

"in" is needed

Some sources instead -- good edit

cheers

Up until at least 2006 -- I think if Carey got things wrong, we don't have to follow. Why have him? I really don't like this one. I'll remove.

To be reviewed He was right its just a question of using his work and getting the phrasing right. I'll have another look at this one. Have reworded. Included Carey to show that 20 years after F was isolated, supposedly reliable sources were still saying it couldn't be done. That shows how seemingly astonishing Christe's discovery was. Although, like he said, it wouldn't have been so astonishing but for the closed minds of chemists who said, 'it couldn't be done'. They should've known better. Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point now. Nonetheless, it's a secondary fact. Makes me want to reword to the version we had before and in the end of the section add a one-sentence para like "However, some sources were unacknowledged of the fact even twenty years after it occurred.[1][2][3]"
Done good thinking Sandbh (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

0,000 times as potent as vs. 10,000 times the potentcy of -- I think it's real language vs. formal language here (for myself, I prefer real) same thing in lead also.

Fixed reworded a tiny bit. The second option is better for an encyclopedia.

previous drugs—was fluorine-containing fluoxetine (Prozac). vs. pharmceuticals—was the fluorine-containing drug fluoxetine (Prozac). -- the former was less complex, wasn't it?

Agree but the dual use of the word drugs is clumsy
What dual use?
drugs and drug Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

all fluorinated ethers. vs. all of which are fluorinated ethers. -- same

Agree. All of which is a little more direct (emphasis on 'all')

blood, or -- not sure about this comma (need a grammar book)

the comma makes it clear that the two terms are not synonyms but, rather, two different applications

a common laboratory reagent -- thank you, a good note

cool

re perfluorocarbon -- is it appropriate in an article? even if yes, what's the point of "re"?

re is a proper English word. It makes clear that information about that subject can be found in the article in question even though the article is called something else Sandbh (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an interesting factoid, thank you. I thought "re" was short for "regarding" or "reply," like "I'ma" vs. "I am going to."
see Ask Oxford Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

these being -- remove extra words not adding anything?

these being makes for better English even if only in note form

(not your work, note for self) The injured included Davy, Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac, Louis Jacques Thénard, and Irish chemists Thomas and George Knox. Belgian chemist Paulin Louyet and French chemist Jerome Nickles died. -- nationality and professions of Gay-Lussac and Thenard should be in?

Fixed Good idea

(same) F2- and F3- -- aligning went wrong

Fixed

(same) references in infobox still to be of the same style as all others

I hope to find time for this during the weekend (depends on uni)
Pending Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(same) the U.S. CDC -- some things are better spelled out

Done. Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a long list, but I might've gotten many things wrong. (I hope you don't mind if I find an American editor before the FAC, just to be sure. Now, please say what you think about my pickings. Also, thanks for the copyedit. There were a lot more things that became better rather than questionable, and we can still discuss the rest :) really, a good job.)--R8R (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

all good; more work to be done but so much has been done already which makes the final polish a pleasure

I've done some fixes I couldn't resist to do. They all are about structure, not grammar. I've bulleted them.--R8R (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

good Sandbh (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
tx for all that; I haven't finished yet. That was just the first pass. I still need to look at the whole thing again to see if it all now works and that there are no unwanted overlaps etc. I'll have a look at all of your points as a part of this process. Fascinating article and subject matter, BTW. Will post again a bit later after looking at your comments in more detail. Sandbh (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Post copyedit situation

@R8R Gtrs:That's about it for me, aside for anything I may have missed. Outstanding items:

  • A few unresolved things listed above
  • Status of fluorine as an essential element: article says no; Emsley 2011 says yes, as a trace element (p. 177); see also
No need. I agree the case for F as an essential element is not made
  • Need for consistency with U.S or United States; article currently uses a mixture of the two.
Done. United States changed to U.S.

During the weekend, I hope to take a look at unresolved items and other things. I've checked you replies, most seem correct to me. Where I left no response, I agreed.--R8R (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can keep working on these. Would be FAC ready after they are sorted out, I reckon. Maybe ask project members to give a once over, too. Sandbh (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC) :I believe there are is only two one outstanding items now (1) why? -- a good catch; and (2) (same) references in infobox still to be of the same style as all others. Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Four Two items now: the two one just mentioned and (3) 'That's a good note and is relevant, but this could be done better. I'll look at it later.'; and (4) 'Okay, I see your point now. Nonetheless, it's a secondary fact. Makes me want to reword to the version we had before and in the end of the section add a one-sentence para like "However, some sources were unacknowledged of the fact even twenty years after it occurred.[1][2][3]"
One item outstanding now: The format of references in the info box. Sandbh (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Sandbh (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Formatting of journals and whole book refs checked and adjusted. Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Have checked and corrected where required all remaining refs from A to S. Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
A to Z completed. Now doing second "scrutinous eye" sweep of references. Sandbh (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
A to I done. About two dozen more seeming anomalies to check. And then need to convert all titles using title case, as per WP:MOS. Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A to Z done. Now checking overlinking; sfn citation formats; and excess ID numbers. Sandbh (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Last things to do: switch to title case (or not?) but at least one or the other; see if the whole article still reads well/hangs together. Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Title case switch done. Flow checked. Now rechecking source reliability. Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
All done. Good to go. Sandbh (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A readability check (R8R)

Prior to the FAC, I want to check if the article is okay. It must be okay, but it's better to check. I will not write about things regarding English, just a reader's impression. After I finish, I'll give it another thought and fix it. Other opinions are welcome.

[14][13] -- need to check for that

[40][note 1] or [note 2][8][44]? -- I think the former is better; no matter what, a consistency will be useful (need to check the rest of the article as well)

Why do we have Chem reactivity before Electron arrangement? Logically, the opposite would be better

"Only one isotope of fluorine occurs naturally, the stable 19F containing ten neutrons.[50] The consequent monoisotopy and mononuclidicity are important for uranium enrichment, " -- Mmmm. Monoisotopy and mononuclidicity are not consequent, they're just words meaning "has one stable isotope" and "has one natural isotope" (thus equivalent). Better to reword that to have no logical errors.

United States or U.S. -- both are present, we need to choose one. Since there are almost 30 hits for both (combined), I favor the shorter U.S., except maybe in the beginning, introducing to this acronym (is this needed?)

",[81] whereas rare earths" -- wouldn't it be better to have a separate sentence for rare earths?

"Among other fluorine-containing compounds" -- more like "among other noble gases"

"Starting from an alkane, as fluorine substitutes for more hydrogen atoms several properties gradually change" -- could not understand the sentence after the first look, needed to re-read it once again; either a comma would be useful, or a whole rewording (even if the sentence "as is" is grammatically correct)

"with structural unit CF2," -- no dashes?

"but its composition as calcium fluoride was only elucidated much later." -- strictly speaking, Moissan is introduced after this note. Is it nevertheless okay to call him just "Moissan" here, or should he be known here as whatever else?

polymerising -- wrong spelling (the article is written in AmE). Also, the article features the word "synthesising" (and it should not)

"Its monoisotopy puts any mass differences between UF6 molecules down to the presence of 235U or 238U" -- already said in Characteristics. Here is a better place for this; need to remove it from there.

I will continue with Production of fluorine gas. --R8R (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • No, just go straight to the FAC! Parcly Taxel 10:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course, I will not. I took a great part in writing this article, I will not judge it after that. I am watching the FAC and ready to help the article get the star, not the opposite way. The sole point of writing this review was (wanted to say "is," but it's apparently "was" now) make it look good and fix things someone could ask for at the FAC before the FAC starts (-ed). I've taken part in a few, I know what can be asked. It's not like I can note everything, but a brief look at what I've helped build is still a good idea. That was the plan. Now I'll finish the quick check and fix it by myself, without saying it loud, will watch the FAC and help fix issues raised there, and I hope this will bring the star.--R8R (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

English variety

It's not okay to change a variety of English used in an article. See MOS:RETAIN.

If you're not okay with it, just leave and we'll ask the GOCE for help. If you are, please help, but have that in mind.--R8R (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@R8R Gtrs: @Sandbh: Think we should have a rule here. For elements with closer relations (more applications) to the U.S. than any other country, use American English. For those where this does not hold true, any other variety must be used. So this one looks pretty American, as fluorine is found in many industrial products and also is found in hex. Right! Count the number of British spelling instances and correct them all! Parcly Taxel 00:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
'Closer relations' says who? (this is a blatant WP:OR argument). Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think F has strong national ties to America, so WP:ENGVAR would default to sticking with the original author (or if the first stub revisions are inconsistent, the original author of the first non-stub revision). Double sharp (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Fluorine doesn't have ties to any country, and as for word choice, why not just use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English
Personally I would argue that none of the elements actually have national ties to any country at all. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A minor concern

I'm not a wikipedia regular editor, but I do have a minor concern over the opening language of this article, which states immediately: "Fluorine is an extremely reactive and poisonous chemical element with atomic number 9." My concern is the immediate jump to 'poisonous', with the potentially implied adjective 'extremely ... poisonous'. The concern is in relation to recent (in my locale) scare-mongering over water fluoridation. Indeed elemental fluorine is poisonous, but the situation is comparable to the situation with chlorine, which is nearly as poisonous, but whose article begins more sanely as, "Chlorine is a chemical element with symbol Cl and atomic number 17. Chlorine is in the halogen group (17) and is the second lightest halogen following fluorine. ..." and only mentions 'poison' at the end of the introduction as, "Elemental chlorine at high concentrations is extremely dangerous and poisonous for all living organisms, and was used in World War I as the first gaseous chemical warfare agent."

With this comparison with chlorine in mind, I hope I'm not incorrect to modify the opening intro of the fluorine article to be more sane-sounding like the chlorine one. If my edit ends up understating the actual poisonousness of fluorine, would an expert please review the edit and make any appropriate follow-up corrections, please? Thanks. -- wct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.145.201 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the change was good and reasonable, thank you! Still, I have a feeling that the para (first para of the lead) could be written better, can anyone give it a look?--R8R (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I tweaked the changed sections as a copyedit. Parcly Taxel 00:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

'reorganisation' breaks our standard

The 'reorganisation' (section reordering) by Parcly Taxel [1] breaks our standard setup for elements. I don't know if that is a good idea. (the FAC here; look for "Isotalo"). The reordering of the TOC does not seem to be that needed. e.g., why moving history downwards? -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is OK, although you are right that I'd prefer history to be closer to the top, maybe between occurrence and compounds.  Done Double sharp (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Rigid adherence to policies and standards has hindered us from constructing dazzling articles. Maybe it's time to tweak them for each element, see what works best. See WP:IAR. Parcly Taxel 01:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox fluorine

I have prepared major changes in {{Infobox element}}. Description & discussion is here. Since the friend of fluorine are into heavy editing, I might as well invite you to take a look at the changes for {{Infobox fluorine}}: compare side-by-side. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still working on the changes. But I've made pilot changes to {{Infobox fluorine/sandbox}} to pre-show the future infobox. And there is still the side-by-side compare page. And since you fuolks are looking at fluorine with a sharp eye these days, you might as well check & edit the infobox.
Background: when the general layout-change in {Infobox element} is live, each individual infobox, like {Infobox fluorine}, needs edits to use the new options. Especially correcting the reflink [1] placements require an edit. For fluorine, I have made these edits beforehand in the {{/sandbox}}. Maybe you can improve too. After the layout change, we can copy-paste the sandbox into live to enjoy the effect. -DePiep (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
In the process, image:Oxygen discharge tube.jpg may have disappeared. Check me. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Compounds, note 10

Fluorine#Compounds note 10 (current number) says:

118 squares with numbers and letters in them, mostly colored gray and green, with a few numbers and words outside the boxes
In this article antimony is included among the nonmetals (colored green) even though its chemical properties are closer to metals (colored dark gray). Separate sections are dedicated to the noble gases (light blue), hydrogen (purple), and carbon (yellow). Period 7 p-block elements, colored light gray, have not been studied and are thus excluded.
My question. About that last sentence: 'period 7 p-block light grey excluded' - I don't know the scientific background, but a. they (actinides) are dark grey, and b. aren't the heavier elements (114+) excluded & light grey?
Sidenote: expect color boxes in this note, as miniature legends. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I reorganised the sub-sections in the Compounds section and did a little copyediting as a result of which I believe note 10 is now no longer required. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I see no issue. The period 7 p-block elements are 113 to 118. The period 7 f-block elements are the actinides (except either Ac or Lr). Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why is this in the Fluorine Article: Herobrine does not Exist. J.K He does. P.S It's Invisible in the editor. --37.235.178.231 (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of the mass of vandalism that usually occurs whenever an article is featured on the main page. Luckily, they get removed pretty quickly by bots and dedicated editors, so my guess is that by the time you entered the editor, it had been removed, one minute after its insertion. Double sharp (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Fluorine exists as

Except in extremely well controlled lab/industrial conditions, fluorine does not exist as a diatomic gas. The lede's 2nd sentence is therefore quite misleading, although not untrue. Why not add a qualifier such as "and when isolated, exists..." or "When the element is isolated it exists..."?? Also the section on Earth states:"Elemental fluorine in Earth's atmosphere would easily react with rocks, precluding its natural occurrence;[56][57]...." which is just simply WRONG! Elemental fluorine reacts (burns!) with (almost all) organic compounds and its reaction with water is highly exothermic and fast. Any of it "in Earth's atmosphere" would immediately react with moisture in the air, not with rock. I understand that you can argue that CaF2 (etc.) act as sinks to remove any volatile fluorine compounds (HFCs, HF, etc.) from the atmosphere, but the claim made is that the elementary form in the air reacts with rocks. Sad to see another not-so-well written technical article getting "Main Page" coverage. There, although not found in the article, the statement is made that it is difficult to "separate" from its compounds...as a chemist I have trouble with this commonly used (in the chemical literature) phrase. To me, it implies that you have F joined with its compound and once "separated", both the F (atom) and the compound remain (apart) (which might be misunderstood to be what was meant by those lacking any chemistry background.) Also, isn't the remarkable fact that many things BURN in a jet of fluorine gas worthy of inclusion in the lede?72.172.1.40 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "fluorine" the element? In which case you don't have fluorine until it's isolated, when you have F2. Before that you have a fluorine compound. Of course there are F atoms in it, but it's not pure elemental fluorine (and isn't that the usual use of the word "fluorine")? As for your second point, you are right, and so I have changed it (although now it is no longer supported by the sources cited). On things burning in F2: some things spontaneously combust, some explode, some react vigorously, and some (e.g. N2, O2, noble gases) need to be forced to react. So I think it is safest to note that it is extremely reactive, while the appearance of the reaction can differ depending on what you are throwing in the path of the fluorine gas. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Help with Indexed References

I can't seem to figure out the appropriate citation method for the following:

  1. Roholm, Kaj (1937). Fluorine Intoxication: A Clinical Hygenic Study. Retrieved 5 Dec 2014. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  2. NRC; National Research Council of the National Academies (2006). NRC <ref:http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571>Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards</ref>. Retrieved 5 Dec 2014.
  3. Peckham, Stephen; Awofeso, Niyi (2014). <ref: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/cta/>Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention</ref> The Scientific World Journal http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/293019. Retrieved 5 Dec 2014.
  4. Kauffman, Joel M (2005). <ref:http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf>Water Fluoridation: a Review of Recent Research and Actions</ref>. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Retrieved 5 Dec 2014.
  5. Sutton, Philip RN (1988). <ref:http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/0306-9877(88)90163-6/abstract> Fluoridation: A fifty-year-old accepted but unconfirmed hypothesis.</ref> Medical Hypothesis. Retrieved 5 Dec 2014.
  6. Nidel Law (2014). <ref:http://www.nidellaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FOIA-3-Civil-Rights.pdf> Freedom of Information Act Documents</ref> Retrieved 5 Dec 2014.
  7. McDonagh, Marian S; et al (2000). Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ: doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7265.855. Retrieved 5 Dec 2014.

Seabreezes1 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

See ref #1. No need to uses <ref> tags in the literature list (they are for the inline footnotes). Is this what you need? -DePiep (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanx. It was enough to get me started. However, although my citations in the article link to the Citations section, my citations do not hyperlink to the Indexed References. What am I missing? Seabreezes1 (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well done for noticing the remaining problems. I suggest you install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js, which I highly recommend if you work with references using {{harvnb}} etc. You need to add |ref=harv (or sometimes |ref={{Harvid|...}}) to the citations. In a few cases a curly quote needs to be changed to the straight quote. --Mirokado (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Demo: 1. In the #1 book cite I added |ref=harv. This is the target point.
2. Here is the inline ref you can add:[1] (in code: <ref>{{harvnb|Roholm|1937}}</ref>). Now the two are hyperlinked.
3. Added references section here below. -DePiep (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Talkpage demo.
  1. ^ Roholm 1937

Edit Battle

Another editor undid my edits en masse. I'm all for tweaking and changing, and I don't mind being challenged or having a sentence undone, but this is aggressive censorship. I spent all day on this. It's not the first time I've had this experience with this editor, either. What do others think? My suggestions for Dental follow:

Prior to the 1940s, the scientific and medical consensus was fluorides were an enzymatic poison and pollutant to be avoided.[1] However, based on an American Public Health Service hypothesis that small doses of fluoride ingested during childhood could harden enamel making teeth more resistant to decay, human trials on “optimal” levels of artificial fluoridation began in 1945 in American and Canadian cities. Those mid-20th population studies supported the ingestion hypothesis accepted by the World Health Organization as proof of the prophylactic properties of water fluoridation. By the turn of the century, those trials were discredited as “low quality” with conclusions not supported by the data. [2] [3] [4]Additionally, the CDC and ADA agreed that reduction in dental caries is predominantly due to post-eruptive fluoride exposure rather than systemic ingestion. This topical effect was first attributed to the conversion of tooth enamel hydroxyapatite into the more durable fluorapatite, but studies on pre-fluoridated teeth refuted this hypothesis, and current theories involve fluoride aiding enamel growth in small caries.[5]

Controlled public water supply fluoridation to fight tooth decay[6] is now applied to water supplying 6 percent of the global population, including two-thirds of Americans.[7][8] Some reviews of the scholarly literature in 2000 and 2007 associated water fluoridation with a significant reduction of tooth decay in children, despite attesting to the low quality of those studies.[9] .[10]Other reviews of the dental studies suggest that the whole health risks outweigh any perceived benefits of water fluoridation and call for an end to the practice. [2]

The 2006 National Research Council’s publication, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA Standards, found that the studies on susceptible populations, low dose exposure and long term exposure necessary for determining safe maximum contaminant levels were lacking. The NRC also found that the 41% rate of dental fluorosis in American teens is unacceptably high and charged the EPA with providing scientific justification for their Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). [11]

A number of medical associations previously endorsing the ADA position on water fluoridation have taken a neutral stance while the scientific debate rages. Despite public endorsement by the American Dental Association, Center for Disease Control and other government organization claiming no adverse effects other than mostly mild dental fluorosis,[12] opposition to water fluoridation on ethical and safety grounds[8] is being played out at the community and state level.[13] [3] Proponents admit the benefits of fluoridation have lessened, possibly due to other fluoride sources, but are still measurable in low-income groups.[14] Opponents claim that low income and non-white populations are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects partially due to lower nutritional status making them more vulnerable to fluoride toxicity. Civil Rights activists are joining the conversation based on the release of Center for Disease Control and Health and Human Services documents per Freedom of Information Act that substantiate that the government was aware since 1962 that African Americans in optimally fluoridated cities consistently exhibit approximately twice the dental fluorosis as their white neighbors.[15]

Sodium monofluorophosphate and sometimes sodium or tin(II) fluoride are often found in fluoride toothpastes, first introduced in the U.S. in 1955 and now ubiquitous in developed countries, alongside fluoridated mouthwashes, gels, foams, and varnishes.[14][16] Fluoride opponents argue the improved understanding about the workings of fluoride, emerging trends in adverse effects, and availability of fluoride in these topical applications should make community water fluoridation obsolete.[2] [3]

I'd appreciate someone else restoring my work (including references), as I am not interested in engaging in this type of aggressive behavior. Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Could it stand in the main article on caries ofor water fluoridation? -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: Absolutely not. Gross violations of WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. Yobol (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I am grateful to other editors for keeping these fluorine-related articles relatively free of the flakey views, innuendos, and fringey or non-MEDRS sources that you often promote. Your single-issue campaign has been contested for many months, so you should know better than to try to introduce major edits to well established articles. Single issue editors often have awful experiences in Wikipedia. You've been told that too. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
re Smokefoot What are you talking about? Why do you only write slogans here and do not add a single link to an earlier talk where you did convince someone? Why does "single issue editor" disqualify edits? Sure they have bad experiences. Could it be because "I know everything" editors do not have to motivate anything? Smokefoot, this is an FA article. Let's keep the talkpage level there too. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Apart from unbased shifts to personal interpretations on my talkpage ([2], now banned), Smokefoot has not answered any question I wrote here. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Seabreezes1: I would be opposed to including all of this information in the Fluorine article. The Medical Applications section has four sub-sections, each roughly one paragraph, though PET scanning is a bit brief. For editorial reasons, I would be opposed to expanding one of the sub-sections into multiple-paragraphs. Also, an outsider who read your five paragraphs could come to think that the pro-fluoridation view is the fringe view, which, at least in the US, it clearly is not. I do think there should be a mention of the controversy, and links to the articles related to the controversy; I'll see if I can add that. I suspect that the could find a home in another article. If you are finding it difficult to add this content to other articles, I would suggest that the information be included in a section that attempts to summarize the history and controversy from the anti-fluoridation viewpoint. Having separate sections for different points of view is one of the ways in WP for reducing edit warring. A little searching and I'm sure you can find the appropriate guidelines -- I'd start with WP:NPOV and see what you can find. YBG (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
YBG Thank you. I agree, I was a bit uncomfortable making it as long as I did, but there is a great deal of censorship type protection concerning this topic even in "historical" sections which prefer mentioning Dr. Strangelove to Dr. Sutton or Dr. Waldbott on every fluoride related page. That said, the appearance that all 20th century science was positive is flat out erroneous. All I'm looking for is a bit of balance regarding the validity of opposing science, which is mounting. As one who dismissed water fluoridation as causal in my illness for decades, I can attest to the need for accurate, truthful and non-sensationalized material on the topic in credible sites. Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Seabreezes1: I would encourage you to get more involved in other places of WP. While I am sympathetic to -- and support -- your desire to have your POV included fairly represented on WP with a degree of emphasis comensurate with its world-wide acceptance, I do agree with Smokefoot that so long as your editing in WP is only in this one area, your WP experience is likely to be less than satisfactory. If you were to get involved in an arbitration issue, I reckon that most neutral observers (even or especially those who know nothing about this issue) would take a look at your edit history and tend to assume that your only interest in WP involvement is to promote one particular POV. Most WP editors do edit in areas where they have a particular interest, but most of us have more than one area of interest in the real world and that is reflected in our WP editing also. For no other reason, getting involved in collaborations outside of this one issue will help to keep your WP experience healthy and enable you to weather the storms that will inevitably come up when you edit in this particular area. The worst possible outcome would be for you to get frustrated and walk away from WP. YBG (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Seabreezes1: May I ask, briefly, what opponents of fluoridation make of studies such as this(?): 'Caries experience among children in fluoridated Townsville and non-fluoridated Brisbane'? Sandbh (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Please move conversations about personal feelings and experience to your User Talk pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sandbh: Delighted you ask. There are basically 3 items to consider. 1) Is this really a quality study? Dr. Philip Sutton critiqued the early studies and was crucified for it. But by 1990, his finding of selective sampling, poor statistical methods, arithmetic errors, bias, etc. were all accepted as true. I typically read the critiques and the critiques of the critique to figure it out. 2) Yes, opponents will agree that there is a statistically significant appearance of fewer cavities by age in the youngest children. However, as Sutton and other pointed out later, it is a delay in cary formation of approx 2 years. It all catches up. Plus the small temporary benefit is not worth the 41% rate of fluorosis, which makes the teeth more cavity prone with age and more difficult to repair, at least with the moderate and severe instances, as well as causing cosmetic concern in some. My child had "very mild" fluorosis on baby teeth and I was not happy about it. Luckily we switched to bottled water in time to save adult teeth, but not because I knew anything about the connection at that time with the water. There is also increased gum disease and cosmetic dentistry in fluoridated communities. 3) There are insufficient studies on KIDNEYS, THYROID, ALLERGIES, and other whole health concerns. All the pro-F science focuses on teeth. That said, there is increasing studies in those areas and it is all bad for systemic fluoride exposure. If you want to brush your teeth with it and use sealants, go ahead, but that's where the freedom of choice comes in. It aggravates or causes skin conditions in some from both topical and ingested exposure. Then there are the cancer and IQ studies. Many opponents fixate on them as the smoking gun, and they very well may be, but I don't like going there. Science is too deep. This past summer there were a couple of letters from dentists to Dr. Philip Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health chastising him on his IQ meta analysis. Dr. Grandjean showed remarkable restraint in basically saying to the dentists that he was willing to accept that fluoride can have a beneficial effect on teeth, but that doesn't preclude it from having adverse neurodevelopmental impacts on the brain depending on timing of exposure. He also nicely told the dentists that they didn't understand epidemiological studies in neuroscience. EPA Union 280 is focused on data manipulation in cancer studies and environmental concerns. I rather stick to the simpler mechanical concerns; i.e. allergic reactions are consistent with the symptoms of poisoning, fluoride stresses the kidneys, accumulation over time leads to arthritis and other bone ailments, resulting in susceptible sub-populations suffering because of it. That is all supported by the 2006 NRC Report. But that is the sum of the opponent position. And if you STILL want to drink it rather than just brush with it, it's easy to get an inexpensive prescription to add to your water in controlled dose. Don't make your neighbors saturate their internal organs with it, and/or spend a fortune on bottled water. Freedom of choice and personal control over medical decisions is a rallying cry. I didn't provide links here, but I could if you like. Seabreezes1 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment (unsigned)

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

A few points about refs (for future PR and FAC 4, which will be at some point, and just describing how everything's done)

  • They should be done with {{cite web}} or simlilar templates;
  • In titles, the words should be written as a piece of usual text. If it is a the first word after a — or : , then it is capitalized. The system is a general observation for science literature (as compared to the cheap detectives). Singular deviations found in fact are omitted here for standardization.
  • Access dates are done in DD MMMMMMM YYYY format.
  • Page ranges are standardized to the full page number standard, 4326—4384 rather than the last two digit standard, such as 4326—84. There's no need to conserve space, and we can use the more eye-friendly system (you can see the second number all at once without having to search for its beginning)

TCO fluorine to do list

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

1.5. Spellcheck, offline.

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

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

3.5. Resolve all hidden comments

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

5. Check reference formatting.

5.5. Check dab and first linking throughout article.

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

7. Get a Fifelfoo ref format check.

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

Subpage for ref checking

Working page set up to get this done.

User:TCO/Fluorine/ref checking 2012

PET scan

It should be noted that the 18F is attached within the glucose Fludeoxyglucose (18F), otherwise it could be implied that the fluorine actively seeks the places shown in the image, rather, these are the places where glucose is sent. Charlieb000 (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

regarding the respect F was held in

I really wanted to see Moissan's quote when he reported on his 26 June 1886 experiment to the Academy two days later: "One can indeed make various hypotheses on the nature of the liberated gas; the simplest would be that we are in the presence of fluorine." I know it's in the history subarticle, but it is a beautiful quote and Greenwood and Earnshaw put it on the first page of the chapter on halogens! Double sharp (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fluorine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pictures Appear Broken

It may just be me, but it looks like the photographs on part of the page are too large. It breaks the page and I have no idea how to fix it.

Sir Charms a Lot (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

might be related to recent "upright" edit. Which images are affected? I am mobile now so will take a look later on. -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The image galleries titled Major fluorine-containing minerals and Structural progression of metal fluorides. I, too, am having problems with the pictures in them suddenly becoming way too large. We might be better off sticking to the hard-coded px sizes for a while until upright is fixed; if you agree, please feel free to execute this idea.--R8R (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
please revert my recent "upright" edit then. i cannot do that by mobile. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not know what exactly governs this upright parameter. If you tell me, then I will. Also, you can switch to the desktop mode on your smartphone; the link is at the bottom of any mobile Wikipedia page, labeled "Desktop."--R8R (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
The |upright= parameter can only be used in conjunction with either |thumb or |frameless (see WP:EIS). It applies a scaling factor to the default width, which is 220px (unless changed in preferences by a logged-in user); so using |thumb|upright=0.9 or |frameless|upright=0.9 together, the width becomes (220 * 0.9) = 198px, which the MediaWiki software rounds to 200px wide. For the case where [[File:Fluorite-270246.jpg|upright=0.9|alt=Pink globular mass with crystal facets]] was attempted, try [[File:Fluorite-270246.jpg|frameless|upright=0.9|alt=Pink globular mass with crystal facets]] instead. Similarly with the others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"Fluroine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fluroine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Roholm 1937.
  2. ^ a b c Peckham 2014.
  3. ^ a b c Kauffman 2005
  4. ^ Sutton 1988.
  5. ^ Pizzo 2007.
  6. ^ CDC 2001.
  7. ^ Ripa 1993.
  8. ^ a b Cheng, Chalmers & Sheldon 2007.
  9. ^ NHMRC 2007; see Yeung 2008.
  10. ^ McDonagh 2000.
  11. ^ NRC 2006
  12. ^ Marya 2011, p. 343.
  13. ^ Armfield 2007.
  14. ^ a b Baelum, Sheiham & Burt 2008, p. 518.
  15. ^ Nidel 2014.
  16. ^ Cracher 2012, p. 12.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluorine/Archive_3&oldid=1199016509"