This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
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]
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.[1] Evidence for (or against) the existence of diatomic astatine (At2) is sparse and inconclusive.[2][3][4][5][6] Some sources state that At2 does not exist, or at least has never been observed,[7][8] while other sources assert or imply its existence.[9][10][11] Despite this controversy, many properties of diatomic astatine have been predicted.[12]
^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)
^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.
^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)
^Meyers, Robert Allen (2001). "Halogen chemistry". Encyclopedia of physical science and technology (3rd ed.). Academic Press. pp. 197–222 (202). ISBN978-0-12-227410-7.
^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. ISBN3-527-30673-0.
^Zumdahl, Stephen S; Zumdahl, Susan A (2008). Chemistry (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 56. ISBN0-547-12532-1.
^Housecroft, Catherine E; Sharpe, Alan G (2008). Inorganic chemistry (3rd ed.). Pearson Education. p. 533. ISBN978-0-13-175553-6.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]