Template talk:List of oxidation states of the elements

I don't understand the case of Mn(-2) oxidation state

the transition metal elements from group 4 to group 9 (titanium group to cobalt group) should be able to display the negative oxidation states which have the same parity as their group number (e.g, ruthenium is in group 8 an even number-so are its negative oxidation states -2 and -4). most of them also show the -1 oxidation state regardless of the parity of the group number (as in the case of 41-Nb and 42-Mo). but in the row of manganese, i saw the presence of "oxidation state -2" in color, without any references (by the above argument, i have assumed that this state is not possible for manganese, or it's possible that i was missing something important). i had tried to find a reliable source for this doubtful entry on internet, but... So after all, is the presence of this entry -2 oxidation state a mistake (if not, please help me find a suitable source for it) 2402:800:63AD:9E45:28E7:623B:2A82:77AD (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 17:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Placing the citations in the cells for each oxidation state

Currently and for some time the references for the oxidation states are listed for each element at the end. In my opinion this is ugly ([7][7][7][7][7][7]) and extra difficult to verify because which source goes with which state is typically not discoverable unless you read the database input.

The alternative is to move the refs into the table cells. That will make the cells a little less pretty. Shall I try it? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I have reverted your edits, and you are welcome to revert that, but I have a few suggestions. Greenwood and Norman is a good source, but it can be erroneous at times. An example is the erroneous report of Mn(-2), mentioned above. It would be nice if the references more diverse and/or retained the original references. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 05:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna Let's start a new topic, see below. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed documentation for Hg(-2)

We do not have a refererence for Hg(-2) even though this oxidation state is not commonly known. Here MgHg (with 1:1 stoichiometry) is proposed as a candidate with reference [1] below .

Amalgams have more positive reduction potentials than the parent solid metals because the amalgams are actually in equilibrium with intermetallic compounds of the metal with mercury. When the solute metal is strongly electropositive the potential levels off around -2 V due to clearly polar bonding between the solute metal and mercury, and this levelling is observed with Mg[2]. MgHg then lends itself to an oxidation state of +2 for Mg and -2 for Hg because it consists entirely of these polar bonds with no evidence of electton unpairing [1, cited from 3].

If this is deemed plausible please edit in or indicate to me I can do so.

References

1. G. Brauer and W. Haucke. Kristallstruktur der intermetallischen phasen mg au und mg hg. Zeitschrift fuer Physikalische Chemie, Abteilung B: Chemie der Elementarprozesse, Aufbau der Materie, 33:304–310, 1936.

2. @MISC {185478,

   TITLE = {Prediction of reduction potential behavior in amalgam},
   AUTHOR = {Oscar Lanzi (https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/users/17175/oscar-lanzi)},
   HOWPUBLISHED = {Chemistry Stack Exchange},
   NOTE = {URL:https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/185478 (version: 2024-10-31)},
   EPRINT = {https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/185478},
   URL = {https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/185478}

}

3. https://next-gen.materialsproject.org/materials/mp-1408. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I made the edit to {{Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data}} but in looking through the Bauer article I was uncertain where that quote came from. Please verify that the paper actually says the last sentence of the quote. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Reference [3] indicates the material is nonmagnetic, hence no unpairing of electrons, and reports the CsCl-type structure. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

you list the last sentence as a direct quite. But it is nit direct. It may be concluded from the polarity of the heteronuclear bonds and lack of homonuclear bonds in the indicated structure. I wanted to edit the reference to remove the direct quotation but cannot find an option that gets me there. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Does the source actually talk about the oxidation state? I think that is an important factor in these citations.

If you edit the file {{Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data}} and look for the second occurrence of "Hg=" you will see the entry. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why were halogen(0) oxidation states removed?

They were all documented in experimentally obtained, stoichiometric compoubds with identifiable X(0) atoms. Please explain here or restore. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this kind of content belongs in the article to explain the unusual nature of an oxidation of 0 being significant. Simply putting them on a list creates more questions than knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. To me it is inconsistent to say something exists in the article and yet not put it in the infobox. I think the best way to address it is simply to separate common states from rare states, listing both but making clear which is which. Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with this solution. The list and infobox in general forms a summary of the article similar to the intro.

On the other hand I don't know what specific issue this post is about. We have no content about F, Cl, Br zero. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Although rare, zero oxidation states exist in complexes for all halogens from F to I and the complex may have appl8cations as a storage medium for at least chlorine. They shoukd be included as rare states. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ru(0) and Os(0) areknown

As phosphine-carbonyl complexes, see:

Olthe3rd1 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Common data for oxidation states

I want to point out that the data for the oxidation states in the List now comes from {{Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data}}. This is the same data that appears in each element's infobox under "Oxidation state". Any reference or data value issues need to be addressed in both places and now that is done by edits to the common data. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna to continue your discussion above. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Would it be possible to move some of the previous references to the new list then? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course! Any reliable reference is valid. However when I merged the data I cut some references that I believe are a form of synthesis or are undue. Primary references for one exotic compound that do not even discuss oxidation state are not, in my opinion, encyclopedic knowledge about oxidation states. Including these kinds of refs dilutes the value of oxidation states information; they tend towards "news" rather than knowledge. We should be using secondary review refs that discuss oxidation state.

That said, I did not know about challenges to the refs that might have occurred here but not in the old database for infobox. Please let me know if you have any problem adding refs to new scheme. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree on most of your arguments. However, I would like to disagree on some references you removed. For example, the detection of IrO+4 is a widely accepted evidence for the existence of Ir(IX). Is there a reason why you removed this? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 17:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: My bad, it seems that the reference is there. I am a bit confused on how to add new references to the list, could you tell me how to do it? Thank you. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

First read {{Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data}} then edit that page. I just updated those docs. Please read them and ask specific questions so I can improve the doc. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the mass referencing of Greenwood's Chemistry of the Elements disturbs me. This is also because this book has some erroneous oxidation states. Would it be possible so that the references include a compound in that particular oxidation state? For example, 'Re(-3) has been reported in Na₃[Re(CO)₄]; see Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.' Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I plan to replace the Greenwood references in the future with more relevant secondary sources. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna Please discuss any plans for the "common" (main, stable) oxidation states on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. Our previous discussion amounted to "these are textbook oxidation states that can and should be mass referenced."

As a general principle, errors in generally reliable sources should be very carefully considered. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I agree with your statement that 'errors in generally reliable sources should be very carefully considered.' However, there are some stark errors, such as the mention of Mn(-2) state. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna: Here is an article that mentions Mn(-2): [1]. Burzuchius (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not Mn(-2), but Mn(2). Positive vs negative, Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

-2 is also mentioned: "The manganate(-II) [Li(dme)]₂[Mn(cod)₂]..." Burzuchius (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

COD is a non-innocent ligand, so this compound should not be considered. For more information, see non-innocent ligand. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, Greenwood mentions [MnPc]^2-, for the mention of the oxidation state of 2-, but I could not find any phthalocyanine complexes with manganese in the 2- state. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Burzuchius: Actually, after further reading, many people consider 1,5-COD to be an innocent ligand. Hmm, my bad, and sorry for that. [2] Do you think this should be added to the list? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 01:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Keresluna: I am aware of the concept of a non-innocent ligand, but I cannot judge myself which ligands are innocent and which are not. What I can say is that there are sources stating that the oxidation state of Mn in [Li(dme)]₂[Mn(cod)₂] is -2, and I do not know any source which would state the opposite. Another example: in [Co(CO)₃]³⁻, [Rh(CO)₃]³⁻, and [Ir(CO)₃]³⁻, the oxidation state of the central atom is considered to be −3, CO is considered innocent. However, some German chemists have stated [3][4] that CN in [Co(CN)₃]⁶⁻ is non-innocent and that the oxidation state of cobalt in it is not −3 but −1. So CO in [Co(CO)₃]³⁻ may be non-innocent as well. In [5][6], there is some speculation about CO in [Co(CO)₃]³⁻ being non-innocent but no explicit statement. I do not know any work which would explicitly state that the oxidation state of cobalt in [Co(CO)₃]³⁻ is different from −3. Burzuchius (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Burzuchius: I know for sure that carbonyl (CO) ligands are most of the time considered to be innocent. However, COD is a grey area, at least for me, but I think it should be added to the list as [7] refers to it as having a negative oxidation state. So based on this, I think we should add the -2 oxidation state referencing to the [Li(dme)]₂[Mn(COD)₂] complex. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

OK. Burzuchius (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)