Template talk:List of oxidation states of the elements

I don't understand the case of Mn(-2) oxidation state

the transition metal elements from group 4 to group 9 (titanium group to cobalt group) should be able to display the negative oxidation states which have the same parity as their group number (e.g, ruthenium is in group 8 an even number-so are its negative oxidation states -2 and -4). most of them also show the -1 oxidation state regardless of the parity of the group number (as in the case of 41-Nb and 42-Mo). but in the row of manganese, i saw the presence of "oxidation state -2" in color, without any references (by the above argument, i have assumed that this state is not possible for manganese, or it's possible that i was missing something important). i had tried to find a reliable source for this doubtful entry on internet, but... So after all, is the presence of this entry -2 oxidation state a mistake (if not, please help me find a suitable source for it) 2402:800:63AD:9E45:28E7:623B:2A82:77AD (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 17:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Placing the citations in the cells for each oxidation state

Currently and for some time the references for the oxidation states are listed for each element at the end. In my opinion this is ugly ([7][7][7][7][7][7]) and extra difficult to verify because which source goes with which state is typically not discoverable unless you read the database input.

The alternative is to move the refs into the table cells. That will make the cells a little less pretty. Shall I try it? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I have reverted your edits, and you are welcome to revert that, but I have a few suggestions. Greenwood and Norman is a good source, but it can be erroneous at times. An example is the erroneous report of Mn(-2), mentioned above. It would be nice if the references more diverse and/or retained the original references. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 05:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed documentation for Hg(-2)

We do not have a refererence for Hg(-2) even though this oxidation state is not commonly known. Here MgHg (with 1:1 stoichiometry) is proposed as a candidate with reference [1] below .

Amalgams have more positive reduction potentials than the parent solid metals because the amalgams are actually in equilibrium with intermetallic compounds of the metal with mercury. When the solute metal is strongly electropositive the potential levels off around -2 V due to clearly polar bonding between the solute metal and mercury, and this levelling is observed with Mg[2]. MgHg then lends itself to an oxidation state of +2 for Mg and -2 for Hg because it consists entirely of these polar bonds with no evidence of electton unpairing [1, cited from 3].

If this is deemed plausible please edit in or indicate to me I can do so.

References

1. G. Brauer and W. Haucke. Kristallstruktur der intermetallischen phasen mg au und mg hg. Zeitschrift fuer Physikalische Chemie, Abteilung B: Chemie der Elementarprozesse, Aufbau der Materie, 33:304–310, 1936.

2. @MISC {185478,

   TITLE = {Prediction of reduction potential behavior in amalgam},
   AUTHOR = {Oscar Lanzi (https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/users/17175/oscar-lanzi)},
   HOWPUBLISHED = {Chemistry Stack Exchange},
   NOTE = {URL:https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/185478 (version: 2024-10-31)},
   EPRINT = {https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/185478},
   URL = {https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/185478}

}

3. https://next-gen.materialsproject.org/materials/mp-1408. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I made the edit to {{Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data}} but in looking through the Bauer article I was uncertain where that quote came from. Please verify that the paper actually says the last sentence of the quote. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Reference [3] indicates the material is nonmagnetic, hence no unpairing of electrons, and reports the CsCl-type structure. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

you list the last sentence as a direct quite. But it is nit direct. It may be concluded from the polarity of the heteronuclear bonds and lack of homonuclear bonds in the indicated structure. I wanted to edit the reference to remove the direct quotation but cannot find an option that gets me there. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Does the source actually talk about the oxidation state? I think that is an important factor in these citations.

If you edit the file {{Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data}} and look for the second occurrence of "Hg=" you will see the entry. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Why were halogen(0) oxidation states removed?

They were all documented in experimentally obtained, stoichiometric compoubds with identifiable X(0) atoms. Please explain here or restore. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this kind of content belongs in the article to explain the unusual nature of an oxidation of 0 being significant. Simply putting them on a list creates more questions than knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. To me it is inconsistent to say something exists in the article and yet not put it in the infobox. I think the best way to address it is simply to separate common states from rare states, listing both but making clear which is which. Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with this solution. The list and infobox in general forms a summary of the article similar to the intro.

On the other hand I don't know what specific issue this post is about. We have no content about F, Cl, Br zero. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Although rare, zero oxidation states exist in complexes for all halogens from F to I and the complex may have appl8cations as a storage medium for at least chlorine. They shoukd be included as rare states. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ru(0) and Os(0) areknown

As phosphine-carbonyl complexes, see:

Olthe3rd1 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)