Talk:Iodine
![]() | Iodine has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Iodine.
Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Iodine, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Staining
[edit]I 2nd that someone should add staining to uses box.
New project and template
[edit]Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 15:52, 5 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 05:42, 4 July 2005).
History info
[edit]Why was the added history information labeled as vandalism?
- Because the added information had nothing to do with Iodine and had a sentence fragment at the end.
- Darrien 01:29, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
- Good point. =P. it's all better now though. is it satisfactory?
- Yes.
- P.S. I suggest that you sign your posts with "~~~~".
- Darrien 12:17, 2004 May 13 (UTC)
Weird page appearance
[edit]The page appears all weird with Mozilla Firefox, the margin text box runs together with the main page.
About a new section on the origin of Iodine
[edit]On the page, there is no mention of the origin of Iodine.
In the periodic table, it is an element heavier than Iron. My understanding is that, for its formation, the process of fusion of heavy elements that occurs in supernovas is insufficient. An excess of neutrons, available only from the collision of neutron stars, is necessary to produce elements heavier than Iron, such as Iodine. It is a very particular process that occurred prior to the formation of the Solar System.
The topic does not seem secondary. The Biological Role section highlights the importance of Iodine for Human life, and without Iodine in the Molecular cloud that preceded the Solar System formation, we may not even be here writing on Wikipedia.
I think a specific section on the origin of Iodine in the Universe and, consequently, on Earth and in our body is needed. Bg69 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Bg69
- As few as I know, according to the guidelines, this falls under the Isotopes section. Tosha Langue (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Split proposed
[edit]We currently have a big section called Iodine#Medicine and a pathetically small "main article" called Iodine (medical use). That's the opposite of how it should be: the WP:SPINOFF main article should be where the most of the medical content goes, while the section left should be just a summary.
The Iodine#Medicine section is in many ways much better than the "main article". For a starter, it distinguishes between the use of the elemental form (antiseptic) and the non-elemental forms. --Artoria2e5 🌉 06:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Went ahead and did it, because the article is right there. Artoria2e5 🌉 11:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. 141Pr {contribs} 16:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Abundance rank
[edit]An ongoing sluggish edit warring on iodine abundance rank prompted me to look for current relevant discussions. There is a proposal to eliminate any ranking of rare elements for a number of reasons on Talk:Abundance of elements in Earth's crust#Proposal to remove the rankings for low abundance elements in the table. In general, I find that well-grounded. What do you think, editors? Tosha Langue (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Tosha Langue Thanks, I made that proposal. In the meantime the abundance-ranking warrior seems to have moved on. I'll take it up again if this issue returns, with the idea of developing a consensus on the use of rankings and applying across the elements. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I was the abundance ranking warrior. Sorry for the four month delay. In April, when you first changed the ranking, I found that it was from Greenwood, so I left it like that 2603:8080:D03:89D4:E9D7:E06B:32C4:5895 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It’s because my IP was unblocked on 8/20 2603:8080:D03:89D4:E9D7:E06B:32C4:5895 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
in German texts, J is still frequently used in place of I
[edit]@Hyphenation Expert added the subject comment based on a website reference, https://web.lemoyne.edu/giunta/EA/MENDELEEVann.HTML. I think it would be good to have a second reference here. When I read the web page cited it seems to me that the comment about German texts could be in Mendeleev's time rather than now. It occurs in a footnote explaining Mendeleev's draft table. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Physical sciences
- GA-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Physical sciences
- GA-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- GA-Class chemical elements articles
- Top-importance chemical elements articles
- WikiProject Elements articles
- GA-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Wikipedia articles that use British English