Talk:Astatine iodide

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion[edit]

Instead of reverting each other, you need to discuss the issue of redirect here. I've fully protected the page for three days at the previous consensus stage. Address each other, as I won't be participating. If you can't reach a consensus, seek dispute resolution. Continuing to revert back and forth is likely to results in blocks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop whoop pull up's position[edit]

Astatine monoiodide is notable on its own, no less than, say, iodine monobromide or bromine monochloride. Therefore, it should have its own article, not just a redirect to Interhalogen or Astatine#Compounds. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 17:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give a reason why you think AtI is notable on its own? Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As notable on its own as hydrogen astatide... Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The HAt article has additional info about its enthalpy of formation and its instability (readily decomposing into elemental H and At) that would bloat the main At article or hydride. (And yes, there should be a note on the At2 in the formula there that notes that it is unknown if At really forms At2 molecules.) Double sharp (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually curious on why none astatine's higher interhalogens (more than diatomic) are known/covered yet, and that could save this article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't save this article, as this article is about astatine monoiodide (a diatomic halogen). It would improve the interhalogen article, though. Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double sharp's position[edit]

I don't think AtI is that notable on its own. You mention IBr and BrCl, which are separate articles. But they have content that isn't in the main interhalogen article. For example, the IBr article, while short, does give a use of IBr: iodometry, which isn't covered in the interhalogen article because it's more relevant to IBr itself than interhalogens in general. BrCl has a lot of content on its uses in its own article that isn't in the interhalogen article for the same reason, and even has a picture. So I agree with you that IBr and BrCl should have their own articles.

However, I disagree with your statement that AtI is no less notable on its own than IBr and BrCl. If it were so, the article would have more content, and not just content that is duplicated in the interhalogen article.

For example, the AtI article states in the lead "Astatine monoiodide is an interhalogen compound with the chemical formula AtI. It is the heaviest known interhalogen compound (with the possible exception of iodine pentabromide, IBr5, whose existence is disputed)". Now, the first point about AtI's chemical formula is given in interhalogen ("Astatine monoiodide (AtI)"), and the point that it is the heaviest known interhalogen apart from the unconfirmed IBr5 is given in interhalogen as well: "It is the heaviest confirmed interhalogen compound."

In addition, the "Production" section of the AtI article gives "Astatine monoiodide is produced by the direct combination of astatine and iodine in a 1:1 molar ratio.", with a broken ref from Astatine. This is, again, mentioned in interhalogen: "Astatine monoiodide (AtI) is made by direct combination of astatine and iodine." Worse, the chemical equation below gives At2 as the chemical formula of astatine. Now, while Whoop whoop pull up may think that all halogens form diatomic molecules, that isn't exactly known to be true for astatine, and there is a dispute on whether At2 exists. To quote the astatine article:


  1. ^ Donohue, Jerry (1982). The structures of the elements. Robert E. Krieger. p. 400. ISBN 978-0-89874-230-5.
  2. ^ Merinis, J; Legoux, G; Bouissières, G (1972). "Etude de la formation en phase gazeuse de composés interhalogénés d'astate par thermochromatographie". Radiochemical and Radioanalytical Letters (in French). 11 (1): 59–64. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Takahashi, N; Otozai, K (1986). "The mechanism of the reaction of elementary astatine with organic solvents". Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. 103: 1‒9. doi:10.1007/BF02165358.
  4. ^ Takahashi, N; Yano, D; Baba, H (1992). "Chemical behavior of astatine molecules". Proceedings of the international conference on evolution in beam applications, Takasaki, Japan, Nov 5‒8, 1991. pp. 536‒539. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Zuckerman & Hagen 1989, pp. 21–22 (21). sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFZuckermanHagen1989 (help)
  6. ^ Kugler & Keller 1985, pp. 110, 116, 210–211, 224.
  7. ^ Meyers, Robert Allen (2001). "Halogen chemistry". Encyclopedia of physical science and technology (3rd ed.). Academic Press. pp. 197–222 (202). ISBN 978-0-12-227410-7.
  8. ^ Keller, Cornelius; Wolf, Walter; Shani, Jashovam (2011). "Radionuclides, 2. Radioactive Elements and Artificial Radionuclides". Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Vol. 31. pp. 89–117 (96). doi:10.1002/14356007.o22_o15. ISBN 3-527-30673-0.
  9. ^ Zumdahl, Stephen S; Zumdahl, Susan A (2008). Chemistry (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 56. ISBN 0-547-12532-1.
  10. ^ Housecroft, Catherine E; Sharpe, Alan G (2008). Inorganic chemistry (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. p. 533. ISBN 978-0-13-175553-6.
  11. ^ Otozai, K; Takahashi, N (1982). "Estimation chemical form boiling point elementary astatine by radio gas chromatography". Radiochimica Acta. 31 (3‒4): 201‒203.
  12. ^ Kugler & Keller 1985, p. 116.
  • Kugler, H K; Keller, C (1985). 'At, Astatine', system no. 8a. Gmelin handbook of inorganic and organometallic chemistry. Vol. 8 (8th ed.). Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-540-93516-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Zuckerman, J J; Hagen, A P (1989). Inorganic Reactions and Methods, the Formation of Bonds to Halogens. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-18656-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

So it is not even known or confirmed if At forms At2 molecules.

In conclusion, given the state of the astatine monoiodide article (all statements already present in the interhalogen article, with a dubious chemical equation), I think that the AtI article would be better as a redirect to interhalogen. (I originally redirected it to Astatine#Compounds, but I feel that a redirect to interhalogen is better as that's where most of the information in the AtI article comes from.) Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related article: Astatine monobromide[edit]

I also support the redirection of Astatine monobromide to Interhalogen, as all its information is duplicated from there. Double sharp (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that Whoop whoop pull up has created the AtBr article (in a similar state to the AtI article) even though the status of the AtI article is still pending discussion. Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The AtBr article also has a dubious chemical formula (with At2). Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Please add a "Bibliography" section to the article with the content

so that the ref isn't broken. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astatine compounds[edit]

Template:Astatine compounds should be added. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 18:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can all requests be discussed before using {{editprotected}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Astatine compounds still should be added to the article. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 00:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoop whoop pull up, as MSGJ said above,changes should be discussed prior to adding the {{editprotected}} tag to a page. Please leave this note up for a day or two before requesting the change again. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of those compounds are referenced. Some are in Astatine#Compounds, but not all (where's HAtO4? only the AtO−
4 ion is there), and they're IMHO not notable enough. If they can be as developed as hydrogen astatide, that would change my mind. Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the heaviest.[edit]

(ICl
3)
2 is even heavier than AtI. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should consider the dimerized form to be "the" form of iodine trichloride. I would not think such a dimer would be the stable form of the compound given the seemingly unnecessary increase of the steric number for each iodine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: ICl3 exists as the dimer in the solid state, but it easily dissociates to ICl and Cl2 during purification. Double sharp (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like this is unique to ICl3; it's pretty common for molecular compounds to dissociate into even-steric-number complexes, and I wouldn't expect the other interhalogens to behave differently.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: The dimerisation does however appear to be unique to ICl3, as the interhalogen article does not mention it for any others (nor do the passages on the interhalogens in the chlorine, bromine, and iodine articles, which I rewrote in late 2016 based on Greenwood and Earnshaw). Double sharp (talk) 07:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel like without a reliable source explicitly stating so, it's too OR'y to single out any of the interhalogens as the "heaviest". Astatine also could well form tetratomic or larger interhalogens with e.g. bromine. We don't know that it does, but it's a bit iffy to say "heaviest". I suggest we just remove any distinction of "heaviest" from our articles.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: I agree that the distinction by molar mass is not terribly important and I have removed it (especially since, as you rightly point out, heavier ones might well be discovered). Double sharp (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astatine_iodide&oldid=1192672189"