Talk:Chlorine

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "crustal" to "crystal" 95.84.149.133 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Cl redirect used for this article? There are many things that are title Cl and thats why this Cl should be in disambiguation page not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wh67890 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gamingcanary Can you explain why you put back the image of the chlorine in the water bottle? Not only is the image poorly lit, but there's a perfectly fine image of chlorine gas at the top of the article, making it redundant. According to MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, lower quality images like the one I removed shouldn't be used in an article unless there's no better way of showing it. RteeeeKed💬📖 22:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Gamingcanary, but I concur with your observation. There's no point whatsoever to that very poor quality image being in the article. I'd just delete it myself, but I'd be (mildly) interested to learn what Gamingcanary's rationale is. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The editor in question has a sporadic editing history; I'm not going to wait to remove a terrible photo from the article. Editor can respond here and make a case for its inclusion later. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I was going to give it 24 hours to wait for them to respond, but whatever. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have a few very lightly held beliefs about this image:

1. The properties section should probably have some form of image of gaseous Chlorine to go with the solid and liquid forms.

2. I find the juxtaposition with the well-crafted acrylic box somewhat humorous.

I can see the argument for removing it though. It's hard to tell whether the yellow coloring comes from the bottle or the gas. Gamingcanary (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

If we want an image of it in its gaseous state, there are much better options available such as this one showing it in a spherical container or this one showing it in high concentration (although I'm not a fan of this one either.) However, this still feels redundant to me, and including something in an article because you find it humorous isn't a good idea. RteeeeKed💬📖 01:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I do find the water bottle image funny (and am worried about the safety of whoever took it), but it is not a suitable fit for Wikipedia and including something in a Wikipedia article because you find it funny is never a good idea. ~2026-43799-6 (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

For the physical-properties context, I agree that seeing it in all three states (or maybe also a fourth: in solution) is useful for completeness-sake. For liquid, File:Liquid chlorine.jpg seems like a better example, since the liquid itself is more visible and more easily identified as a liquid. DMacks (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@SerialDesignationV Hi, just pinging you to join in the discussion here since I saw you reverted Anastrophe's edit removing it again. To answer your edit summary, the color looks about the same in both images. However, as Gamingcanary pointed out, the yellow coloring could be mistaken as coming from the bottle instead of the gas. RteeeeKed💬📖 04:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a hill worth dying on for me. For all we know, the 'chlorine glass in a PET water bottle' is just a bottle stained inside by urine. At worst, showing a home photo of a toxic gas in a plastic bottle easily degraded by chlorine - and captioned "It is not recommended to store chlorine in this manner" - is unencyclopedic.

With the lede photo of chlorine gas in laboratory glassware, I just don't see the point of a second photo; just use the same photo as the lede. But - whatever, edit warring is not the way to go about it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't care about the exact photo, but there needs to be a photo of gaseous chlorine in that section, to go alongside the liquid and solid. There's one at the top, but that doesn't allow for side-by-side comparison. SerialDesignationV (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@SerialDesignationV I've already suggested two possible replacement images above. I'd prefer the one showing concentrated chlorine to prevent redundancy, but if we need side by side comparisons, then the one in the spherical container works. RteeeeKed💬📖 09:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I think a single combined image showing gas, liquid, solid would be the most useful Graywalls (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That would be nice, but unfortunately, there isn't anything on Wikimedia Commons showing that. If you have a photo showing all of them, then feel free to put it here. RteeeeKed💬📖 19:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, given they're all creative commons, someone good with image editing can combine them all into one as a derivative work. Graywalls (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Samples of chlorine in different states. Clockwise from upper left: solid (at –150 °C), liquid, gas, solution (in CCl₄).

It's trivial to do grid or row compositing live on Wikipedia, rather than having to do graphics editing and uploading the static result. See demo at right. DMacks (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I like this format better, but why was the image of the chlorine in liquid form changed from the one on the article? The current image of it inside acrylic glass looks much nicer in my opinion. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

More focused on the liquid itself (as I mentioned up-thread), rather than a tiny yellow zone in an large and irrelevant container. For example, I can see the meniscus without having to zoom in to 2000%. But also as I said, it's trivial to swap images and even have some size control, right here in the WP page source, without even opening a graphics app. DMacks (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I made a cropped version of the image for if this works better. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

"Tall and narrow" does not work for a composite with the other three being squarish. Cutting off he top of the ampule (don't need the headspace!) would solve it. But then we're pretty much back to where I was. DMacks (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:IMGCONTENT, aesthetics is not the point. If the useless filler space doesn't contribute, we should crop to make it more user friendly. Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's what I just did. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the 3 pictures here work, but I think "solution in CCl4" is perhaps not necessary Graywalls (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I was uncertain about that one also. It made a nice 2x2 layout, but it's not anything unusual that the diluted color of molecular substance in a colorless solvent is a less-intense same color liquid. DMacks (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I like it. I think the type of solvent used is important information, as there are different types of non--polar solvent that can dissolve chlorine. As for the acrylic-block liquid photo, I'd suggest also truncating the upper half of the image to restore the nearly-square shape. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Same as previous collage, but with the liquid-chlorine image above.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the NFPA 704 ("fire diamond") rating for health (Blue) from 3 up to 4. Sources: https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/2862 https://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0367.pdf ~2025-41823-84 (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)