Talk:Chalcogen

message: I have come up with a color for the chalcogens.
Chalcogens
Chalcogens
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 
:This is one of the most bizarre comments I've ever seen. You've "come up with a color for the chalcogens", and that color is apparently white. Bwuh? —Keenan Pepper 04:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color for chalcogens 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Chalcogen's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Nature's Building Blocks":
From Halogen: 
From Neptunium: John Emsley. Nature's Building Blocks. Page 345-346
From Carbon group: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Chalcogen]] 

message: Many well known chemists would say the term chalcogen excludes oxygen, e.g Greenwood &Earnshaw in Chemistry of the elements , the excellent series Handbook of Chalcogen Chemistry:New Perspectives in Sulfur, Selenium and Tellurium ed by Francesco Devillanova and Woolf-Walther Du Mont.  Shouldn't there be a note that the chalcogen name is not recognised everywhere as referring to the whole group but has been used by many to refer to sulfur and heavier members?Axiosaurus (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S this why the term chalcophile mentioned in the article excludes oxygen because oxygen wasn't termed a chalcogenAxiosaurus (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I gave King jakob c a comment along these lines some time earlier, that chemists wouldn't group S with O, instead grouping S with Se and Te (and I guess Po if they can afford it?!) I note that pretty much the same applies to the pnictogens (N vs P/As/Sb/Bi). Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

text: ...and  Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term Chalcogen often  refers to the heavier members of  group 16, S, Se, Te excluding oxygen. 

message: A lot of good stuff in this article but I think there are ways it could be improved.
Atomic and Physical section
It says paraphrased "All have the same number of valence electron electrons resulting in similar trends." There are other factors. The problem with the chalcogens is that trends are difficult to discern as the group splits into 
* O, highly electronegative, readily forms double bonds, gives best examples of hydrogen bonding. 
* S Se and Te where S and Se are similar but Te does have differences. 
* Po, well that forms Po2+ , completely out of step, and the chemistry is not well known- who would want to work with it and who would fund it?
The elements table could be enhanced to make the O2, S8, Se chain, Te chain, Po metal distinctions more obvious. Also insulator, semiconductor metal distinction.
Needs more on coordination numbers, and possibly redox potentials to add a bit of chemical cred.
Allotropes
Se has at least 8 allotropes according to Greenwood. Grey selenium is a photoconductor and used in old Xerox machines - probably worthy of a "for interest" statement. Also a better description is helical chains, quoting the crystal form isn't helpful its the way the atoms attach that tells the chemical story. Te is also helical chains and similar to grey Se.
Describing the crystal form of the solid elements seems irrelevant, the real story surely is that oxygen is O2, sulfur S8, Se and Te form helical chains and Po is metallic. Crystal form is not that helpful.
Chemical section
To attempt to write such a summary would intimidate a seasoned academic! Mixing oxygen in with the rest really makes it much more difficult. There is a lot of detail here and either a lot more needs to be added using general text books or it all needs to be scaled back. Comments on what is there now follow.
General point- the discusion of oxidation states is repeated - seems unnecessary.
Where is the mention of hydrogen bonding? Key difference.
Polarizability of O2- - wouldn't it be be more accessible to say oxide more ionic than sulfides, selenides etc? Polarizabilty implies an appreciation of Fajans rules. Also I think it's better to use a general text book reference than a thesis on such a general point.
"The oxidation number of the most common chalcogen compounds is -2". If what is meant is that most oxygen compounds are -2 then OK, but it implies the other members of the group too. In these -2 is restricted to simple binary compounds with metals and the hydrides.
"One difference is that sulfur double bonds are far weaker than oxygen double bonds, but sulfur single bonds are stronger than oxygen single bonds."  What is being referred to is the relative strength of S-S and O-O bonds,  not general single or double bonds to O and S. Also perhaps a better reference.    
Tellurate- discrete TeO42- (unlike sulfate and selenate) is actually rare- usually meta-telluates are polymeric anions- an example of Te favouring 6 coordination in contrast to sulfur and selenium in the sulfates and selenates.
Compounds with hydrogen
Conspicuous by its absence. Its mentioned in others but that doesn't do it justice.  Gives a chance to talk about hydrogen bonding in water and the differences between water and the corresponding S, Se, Te compounds. Also disulfane and polysulfanes and the differences between sulfur and tellurium in forming chains.
Halides
Note that semantically oxygen forms a fluoride but the rest are oxides so perhaps "with halogens " would be better..  The statement "The majority of simple chalcogen halides are well-known and widely used as chemical reagents" doesn't compute. Halogen oxides are often really nasty- and are not that widely used. I think the statement may apply to sulfur. 
"Out of the compounds consisting purely of chalcogens and halogens, there are a total of 13 chalcogen fluorides, nine chalcogen chlorides, eight chalcogen bromides, and six chalcogen iodides that are known",  needs a reference. Wikipedia quotes 10 chlorine oxides- so it may not stack up.
"These include SeSX, with X being chlorine or bromine. Such compounds can form in mixtures of sulfur dichloride and selenium halides. These compounds have been fairly recently structurally characterized, as of 2008." Firstly the generic formula of SeSX cannot be right reference needed- was it in Devillanova? To be honest not that notable in the bigger scheme. 
The tellurium lower halides needs references. And what about tritellurium dichloride?
"Halogens and chalcogens can also form halochalcogenate anions" Phrases like this make it sound like they are new and/or unusual. There are some really well known compounds such as chlorates.
With metals
There is a massive chemistry of solid state oxides, sulfides etc. These are very important compounds. Any general chemistry text book would be a good starter. There are a lot of interest points points - such as superconductivity, catalysis etc.
With pnictogens
Where is the mention of any nitrogen compounds? For example disulfur dinitride,  polythiazyl etc.
"A total of 130,000 phosphorus-sulfur compounds, 6000 phosphorus-selenium compounds, and 350 phosphorus-tellurium compounds have been discovered." 130,000 binary phophorus sulfur compounds is this what is meant? Needs a bit of qualification and a reference.
"Almost all chalcogen pnictide salts are typically in the form of [PxE4x]3-, where E is a chalcogen." You can't use P for pnictide! These are salts containg Pnictide and chalcogen anions not salts of chalcogen pnictides as that sounds like a binary compound. Needs a reference.
"Tertiary phosphines can react with chalcogens to form compounds in the form of R3PE, where E is a chalcogen."  needs a reference.
Other
The interchalcogens deserve a little more detail. The whole paragraph on boron chalcogen compounds doesn't make sense to me, after a brief read of Devillanova it looks like it has been over abbreviated.
Axiosaurus (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible improvements 

message: I have added this to Chemistry in the hope of attracting more editors to improve the chemical section. I have not rated it, but the chemical section as it stands is generously B/C borderline. IF it were me I would rewrite the section as a trends only with minimal detail in regards actual chemicals, referring back to the chemical compounds pages. Where they don't exist (like sulfur selenium tellurium and polonium!) they are the pages that need to be written. Axiosaurus (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I could write Po now. The rest I will have to find out more about first. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the article could mainly discuss and compare the compounds of the chalcogens with fluorine, hydrogen and sodium? That cld be interesting and illustrative. Sandbh (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding to Project Chemistry

message: I have down-graded this chalcogen article to a generous B. I have come back to this article and there have been no fundamental change in it since its elevation to GA status. It is a very ambitious article mixing together oxygen chemistry with the rest of the group- oxygen is so different from the other group members that it invariably warrants separate treatment. (See Compounds of oxygen for the wikipedia take on oxygen chemistry - this rightly failed GA and has been almost ignored by editors ever since.) Simply tinkering around the edges of this flawed article with minor edits is not what is needed, IMO it needs a complete rethink and rewrite. Editors with more chemistry expertise need to be involved. Respected standard texts such as Greenwood and  Wiberg should be used to get the scope correct.Axiosaurus (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It did not fail GA. It passed. It's still a GA. You can't just unilaterally downgrade articles from GA. Comments like this are the main reason I quit editing chemistry articles. This elitist culture where experts are the only people who should contribute content gets to me. If you want to rewrite it, do that. Don't just threaten to downgrade articles. If you actually have some ideas, edit this article. --Jakob (talk)  12:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Degrading should follow Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. It also says, an involved editor better not do the degrading individually. I suggest  undo the degrading, and follow the GAR. -DePiep (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A complex wide ranging subject such as the chemistry of a group is as I said before last year on the talk page a difficult task, one to daunt a seasoned academic. I am not one of those. I do however know enough about group 16 to know that this article as it stands is not a good article. The GA process seems to suffer the flaw that the technical content is judged by the stability of the article. However when one or more editors push an article through in short measure, as was done with this article, then this criterion is missed and the review simply focuses on grammar, the presence of references etc.  As for Jakec  being so upset by their perception of an elitist culture so as to quit editing chemistry articles - well that is regrettable. I shall, when real life allows, get into this Wiki legal process to get this article properly graded. Axiosaurus (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, but still. I don't think it will help if we keep letter-warring that status as a replacement for discuss & improve. And this is not the only element-set article that needs this kind of AQ attention (it looks like each and every set needs a dishwash). -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Groups 1 and 18 are all right. One and a half years on, though, this article still ought to be considered C-class. I doubt anyone could make it GA without segregating O completely from the rest of the group. It behaves far too differently from the chalcogens. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating a B class 

message: This is really belated, but I think there are a few things that I can fix/clarify/explain.
First of all, the "with pnictogens" section isn't unreferenced. Most of that paragraph is cited to Dillanova, except for the last sentence. (We don't need a reference after every sentence, do we?) I've also clarified the thing about phosphorus-sulfur compounds.
"'Almost all chalcogen pnictide salts are typically in the form of [PxE4x]3-, where E is a chalcogen.' You can't use P for pnictide!"
:Why not? Is it because P is also the symbol for phosphorus? I'm pretty sure that this formula is quoted from the Dillanova book, though I can't find it at the moment.
The first paragraph about oxidation states kind of summarizes oxidation states for the whole group and the others go into details. I've put those paragraphs together.
Maybe more will come in the morning. --Jakob (talk)  01:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Sorry but real life is v. difficult at the moment so i am unable to contribute in this issue in the way that I expected just a few days ago. Firstly glad to see you editing chemistry. Secondly Villanova as a reference is OK BUT it was written as a review of the latest (at the time of writing it) advances in chalogen chemistry. All  the pre- 200? stuff has to be found in standard texts. Thirdly yes P is phosphorus and perhaps Vill. did use this, but another non element letter with an explanation  would be preferable. The "big issue" with the article is the difference between O and the rest. This is a common theme in the periodic table the 2d period elemnts are always quirky. the chemistry of O and S particlar;y are very extensive and a reasonable coverage would make the article unwiieldy IMO which is why I suggested trends, and then refer to other articles. The only one i could find is compounds of oxygen which has sort of vegetated following a push for status years ago. Dipping out now for a few days.Axiosaurus (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Pn" for pnictogen? Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, but if you don't explicitly say it every time, it looks like O follows some sort of trend with the rest of the group. Imagine writing an article about group 1, stating in the intro that hydrogen is often separated from the alkali metals, and then putting H together with the alkali metals in every section on the trends! It would spectacularly not fit, but the article wouldn't show that. The article's treatment of O has the same problem, I think. Double sharp (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jakec's response to Axiosaurus's comments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chalcogen. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131104164205/http://chemed.chem.wisc.edu:80/chempaths/GenChem-Textbook/Group-VIA-Chalcogens-609.html to http://chemed.chem.wisc.edu/chempaths/GenChem-Textbook/Group-VIA-Chalcogens-609.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "are typically harder to handle that phosphorus sulfides, and compounds in the from P" doesn't make sense to me. Should it be "are typically harder to handle than phosphorus sulfides, and compounds in the form P" ϢereSpielChequers 19:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: We really don't make much material in Particle Accelerators. Surely "Polonium and livermorium are most available in particle accelerators. " should be "Polonium is mostly found as a decay product in Uranium ore and Livermorium is only available in particle accelerators." ϢereSpielChequers 19:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it is very tedious to extract the Po out of the uranium ore, so in practice most of the Po we actually have reasonably pure for use comes from the particle accelerators through reactions like 209Bi(n,γ), 209Bi(p,n), or 209Bi(p,2n): see Greenwood and Earnshaw, p.249 (2nd ed.). Double sharp (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ...though, come to think of it, wouldn't the first in practice be along the lines of leaving some bismuth in a nuclear reactor and extracting the resulting polonium? Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Decay products

message: Why are they called chalcogenides rather than simply chalcides?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, but the latter has the problem that the spelling would not allow the pronunciation of the second c to remain /k/, unlike in pnictide and halide where there is no problem. Double sharp (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chalcogenides 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chalcogen. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402123344/http://ihtik.lib.ru/2011.08_ihtik_nauka-tehnika/2011.08_ihtik_nauka-tehnika_3560.rar to http://ihtik.lib.ru/2011.08_ihtik_nauka-tehnika/2011.08_ihtik_nauka-tehnika_3560.rar
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Content is very similar to the one at Chalcogen#Names and etymology Minorax (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be included due to the facts that if it has anything to do with the pnictogens, it should be included. UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Amphid salts]] into [[Chalcogen]] 

message: Polonium is not significantly toxic. It is a health hazard due to its radioactivity. Those are 2 different things. Bismuth is also radioactive (>a billion × the age of the universe) and non-toxic. 74.135.194.87 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The term 'toxicity' is also applicable to radiation hazards. In the case of polonium (particularly polonium-210), the hazard is high-energy, high-dose alpha radiation, neither of which is characteristic of the decay of bismuth-209. Complex/Rational 15:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Bismuth-209 undergoes alpha decay. 74.135.194.87 (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But its decay is extremely slow, so slow that its radioactivity can be ignored. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Bismuth's activity level is much less than that of human flesh, yes. Just as there's a difference between temperature and heat, there's a difference between half-life and activity level. So bismuth's decay can be ignored for many practical purposes. 74.135.194.87 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polonium