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.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 29, 2013 Peer review Reviewed October 24, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elements Top‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 conforms to the element spelling consensus for Sulfur.

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.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I 2nd that someone should add staining to uses box.

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).

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)

The page appears all weird with Mozilla Firefox, the margin text box runs together with the main page.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Went ahead and did it, because the article is right there. Artoria2e5 🌉 11:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

The redirect Iodine facts has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 1 § Iodine facts until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someway to address the numerous mistakes dealing with the interaction of elemental iodine and human tissue? See the manuscript: Freeman C, Duan E, Kessler J. Molecular iodine is not responsible for cytotoxicity in iodophors. J Hosp Infect. 2022 Apr;122:194-202. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2022.01.015. Epub 2022 Feb 4. PMID: 35124143; PMCID: PMC8813190. Iodinehead2020 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the human safety data is just not accurate. See: Are there Side Effects when Using Supraphysiologic Levels of Iodine in Treatment Regimens?, J. Kessler In: Comprehensive Handbook of Iodine: Nutritional, Biochemical, Pathological and Therapeutic Aspects edited by G. N. B. a. R. W. Victor R. Preedy Elsevier 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iodinehead2020 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there someway to address the numerous mistakes"? Hmm, how or who could possibly correct mistakes? I just cannot imagine. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@178.138.97.179 added a pending revision but it has no definition for the source named ECM. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@117.242.96.196 changed the melting and boiling point in the intro. This was reverted by @Favonian, readded, reverted by @Cannolis, then readded in a reviewed by @HypeBoy which I reverted.

The number being added is a conversion formula applied to a three digit number then quoted to 4 significant figures. This is incorrect. Moreover it is completely unnecessary in the intro. The goal of this temperature in the intro is to give an since of this unusual property of Iodine. This is not a reference number. It should be approximate, corresponding to normal readers experiences. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnjbarton. The unwarranted increase in precision was my reason for reverting, though I must apologize for not providing an edit summary to that effect. Favonian (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that titanium and zirconium are purified by this process. Perhaps remove? Titanium is purified by distillation of TiCl4, obviating the need for this very expensive process Fsikkema (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in comparison to the rambling discourse on the chemistry of all things iodide (vs all things iodine), we can afford to keep the Van Arkel- de Boer process. It is still mentioned in Ullmann's Encyclopedia for the prep of ultrapure Ti, Zr, Hf, and Si.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get rid of this pending revisions thing? It is poorly documented and I don't know how to reject/accept/comment on these. Just plain protection is better IMO. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]