Talk:Astatine iodide

Discussion

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)

Whoop whoop pull up's position

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)

Could you please give a reason why you think AtI is notable on its own? Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As notable on its own as hydrogen astatide... Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Double sharp's position

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:

“ The crystalline structure of solid astatine is unknown. Evidence for (or against) the existence of diatomic astatine (At₂) is sparse and inconclusive. Some sources state that At₂ does not exist, or at least has never been observed, while other sources assert or imply its existence. Despite this controversy, many properties of diatomic astatine have been predicted. ”

• 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)

Related article: Astatine monobromide

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)

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)

The AtBr article also has a dubious chemical formula (with At₂). Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

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

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

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

Astatine compounds

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

Please can all requests be discussed before using {{editprotected}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Astatine compounds still should be added to the article. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

This isn't the heaviest.

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)