User talk:Project Osprey/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Valinol

You expressed interest in this stuff. So here's the article, fresh from a young student valinol. I will do the tidying up if you dont have time. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. I've given it a quick once over and will likly come back to it over the next few days. Is this student one of yours? If so could you ask him to double check what's in the "Reactions" section - much of it doesn't make sence to me. For a start where the reaction with cobalt(II) chloride is mentioned I think they mean Phosgene. Also, while I don't have it to hand, I am familiar with that paper by Glorius and for the life of me I can't remember it involving oxazolidone chemistry (oxazolidine yes, buts thats quite different). Project Osprey (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
We're at the end of the term and the authors of these articles either get it or they dont, so I just trim mercilessly. At least we have a place holder. Thanks for your help.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Oxidation number/ Oxidation state

Thanks for the response. Yes the articles are dire! I would be happy to collaborate with you, in the new year. Do you agree with a merge or do you think that a rewrite of both would suffice? Even IUPAC are a bit confused if you read the IUPAC 2005 red book [1] and the IUPAC gold book definitions, they are not quite in step. I am not sure what calculation rules examiners in US prefer, and I'm trying to get an answer on what is accepted in the UK.

Regards Axiosaurus (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made a start with the re-write here (feel free to edit there). It seems that some of my earlier statements were wrong but there is still officially a difference based on the IUPAC descriptions. I'm open to a merger, but I think it might be best to get the description of oxidation number finished first and then decide based on what we've got? Project Osprey (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi I have had a look at your draft. Yep you've gutted it. Good it needs drastic surgery! So far I've been gathering references and history. It's an old venerable concept widely used in inorganic chemistry rather than organic,and I am a bit taken aback by the amount of material I ma slowly gathering. Have you any thoughts as to what could be done with the oxidation state article? Oxidation number is defined in the IUPAC 2005 Inorganic naming recommendations differently from the IUPAC gold book. This confusion has been menntioned in J Chem Ed. by W.B Jensen from the university of Cincinatti who has also written on the history of the concept of oxidation state/number. Oxidation number gradually replaced the name "Stock number" in the naming of inorganic compounds following the IUPAC recommendations in 1940. The IUPAC 2005 naming recommendations are followed quite strictly in the US at high school level. The 2005 recommendations are in themselves confusing as they use the terms oxidation state and oxidation number interchangeably in the text, with no mention of coordination compounds being treated differently. Oxidation state and oxidation number are actually taught in Europe as being synomynous. Oxidation state being the most commonly used term. This is found in all of the european text books, although charmingly Wiberg and Hollemann give an alternative name of electrochemical valence, which I personally think is a bad name as redox potentials are not relevant to say combustion reactions and this is an area where the idea of oxidation state/number concept is useful as it unifies the non electrochemical concept with traditional views of oxidation and reduction. To calculate oxidation number IUPAC 2005 recommendation is a set of rules which are pretty much what appear in the current article. A common approach still in text books was to use electronegativity difference to determine which atom gets the electrons. The IUPAC gold book definition of oxidation number in coordination compounds (recommending removal of ligands with all electrons), is not widely followed, most text books appear to call this oxidation state. Axiosaurus (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that to make this work we would need to clearly separate the two concepts. It would be nice if we could have oxidation number (OXN) apply specifically to coordination compounds and oxidation state (OXS) apply generally to everything else. I'm not sure we can back that up though, there are too many exceptions (e.g. salts), which doubtless is the reason for the confusion between the two terms. Perhaps the best we can do is describe the nature and origin of the confusion? It's not a very satisfying solution but frankly I'd stuck for how else to proceed. Do feel free in edit the article in my sandbox, I also suggest that we move the discussion to its talk page (I'll move the old conversions across to there at some point). Also of some concern is the number of pages which seem to have used either OXS or OXN to determine the electron configuration of metal atoms. This page is a good example (look at the molecular orbital diagram at the bottom).Project Osprey (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes I agree I've come to that conclusion myself. I have reread all the IUPAC stuff- I thought the gold books were "up to date" but the definitions of oxdtn # and oxdtn state refer to the " Red Book: IUPAC Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry. Third Edition, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1990" and "PAC, 1990, 62, 2167. Glossary of atmospheric chemistry terms (Recommendations 1990)" respectivelly. Their latest naming recommendations Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry IUPAC Recommendations 2005 are different. Oxidation number is defined there as indicating the oxidation state of the central atom. Later it says that the oxidation number is used in naming compounds and the examples shown have no "central" atom. There is apparently a IUPAC project "Towards a comprehensive definition of oxidation state" started in 2009 but not published yet. I have realised that many mixed valence compounds in wikipedia are have incorrect IUPAC names. Fe3O4 iron(II,III) oxide, - however IUPAC 2005 says its iron(II) diiron(III) oxide- so they'll need putting right. I have drafted some stuff but I 'm not happy with it. As soon as I have something - I'll drop it on your sandbox.Axiosaurus (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
My version is here see what you think. In regard to the MO diagrams I think for the purposes of this we can set these aside- if you are being taught ligand field theory you are already (or should be) well conversant with the concept of oxidation number/state. Axiosaurus (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Been ill and thinking a bit. Spectroscopic (physical) oxidation states - this topic, uopon which I am no expert!, I think relates to Non-innocent ligands- which I thought meant that the ligand doesn't have an obvious closed shell so removing it to give the "coordination chemistry oxidation number" of the complexed metal is tricky. Perhaps we should move this section to oxidation state as it has the words oxidation state in it. It could actually be an article in its own right eventually, but is very much a coordination chemistry topic. As for hapticity stuff , yes that doesn't really fit any more. Thinking ahead as to how we implement this change- some folk really object to replacement new articles so maybe a paragraph at a time. My latest version is here I've added a few more references. Axiosaurus (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I have put it out as a complete rewrite. I have left the spectrocopic oxidation state stuff. Thanks for your input- hope the article is OK Axiosaurus (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry IUPAC Recommendations 2005 - Full text (PDF)

January 2013

Welcome and Happy New Year!

Hello, Project Osprey! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! 220 of Borg 01:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Personal note

I know you got a 'Teahouse Welcome', but that was a BOT, whereas I am a person, well mostly being Borg, (matter of definition I suppose? ). You can of course delete the welcome if you don't need it, but please consider Archiving it instead. - 220 of Borg 03:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Calixarene

As a person with chemistry knowledge could you please take a look at Talk:Calixarene#Discussion moved from article. Where newby editor C.David Gutsche (talk · contribs) (who is claiming great expertise in Calixarenes: "I am often referred to as "the godfather" of calixarenes and am one of the principal investigators in developing the calixarenes. C. David Gutsche" ), made an edit that needed a lot of clean-up and which was 'moved' to the talk page pending cites/re-write as required. Regards, 220 of Borg 03:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never worked with calixarene's but I am familiar with some of the surrounding chemistry; so I can tell you that what he's written makes chemical sense but I can't tell you if its true or not. Citations are needed and that may prove a problem as I don't have free-access to scientific journals ATM (they're pay-walled). I'm not unwilling to work on this but I may not be the best candidate either, it would take me a good while to sort out. Can I suggest that you contact Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry and leave a request on their talk pages? If no one else comes forward I'll do what I can but there should be someone there who is better suited to this.Project Osprey (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Copper hydride

Put my two pennuth in as they say, but I suspect that PP is not for moving. Interesting compound, the only trans. metal hydride made from solution. The stability I suggest may in part be caused by the difference in close packing of Cu in metal and hydride. The article looks wrong, PP I think is quoting a Shriver paper about pyridine solutions, theres no ref, I'll flag it and see if he has one. Well CuH is a weird one, never come across it, I'd lumped all the t.metal hydrides together as brittle boring and grey. A brown / red t. metal hydride with aqueous chemistry! Looks like a freak compound formed from a H2O.Cu hydride complex drying out. If they hadn't done a structure determination on it I wouldn't have believed it. Something new every day.Axiosaurus (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enantioselective synthesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polarity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scandium oxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rare earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Racemates and angry anons

To Project Osprey (Phd chem)!, (where do I begin?) 1) My issue was obviously nothing to do with biological activity. 2) Resolution is a term applied to the separation of optical isomers (enantiomers) NOT (cis-trans isomers), which may be separated much more easily. 3) My rage stemmed from a long history of trying to explain this (VERY BASIC) concept to many editors that obviously did not understand the simple logic of the issue. Maybe I assumed a higher degree of understanding than I should have when trying to express my point.--OneMadScientist (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In responce to your repeated questions. In the statement "the trans isomer is reported to be more active than the racemate" I assumed that whoever had written it had ment 'racemate' to mean all 4 enantiomers of Cypenamine. If you think of it that way it does make sense, as the statement means "the trans isomer is more reactive than the cis isomer". I know this is not the correct way of writing it but it does make sense to me. Project Osprey (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"My repeated Questions" You are really getting on my nerves. You have an unjustified smart ass attitude, toward me a least. Very strange Incorrect and incoherent things seem to make sense to you (and thus you argue they are correct) while clearly stated logical, recognized and accurate scientific principles, that "I kick up a fuss about" seem to not. Please for the sake of your own reputation think more than twice and get your facts in perfect order before trying to argue or challenge any point with me again. I assure you, you are out of your league. Do you want me scrutinizing all your contributions, and critiquing them, really do you, I don't think so. And still no clarification on your education qualifications and frankly even if you did have a chem phd it would not change a single word I said. Sorry but you asked for this and here you have it. You have been warned, as you guys like to say!--OneMadScientist (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite happy for you or anyone else to edit my contributions. That's how wikipedia is supposed to work. Regarding Cypenamine: the situation has now become ridiculous. Please go to that page and make your 1 byte addition; a '+' or a '-' whichever you feel is right. Project Osprey (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes you and others have caused this to become ridiculous. That 1 byte addition you condecendingly sugest as my meager contribution to this article adds actual meaning (in whatever context is was refering to? - again separate issue) to the statement and is more important than all the words and strange ideas you have had to say on the subject. If I need to go through this,over and over, due to the repeated misunderstanding of such a simple point I am surprised and appalled. How may times, and in how many ways, do I need to explain this, with MY perfect coherency, that my issue has nothing to do with any type of biological activity whatsoever. I do not care to even engage in discussion or research of aspects related to the exact specifics of the reaction or binding affinities of the different enantiomers of either of the cis or trans diastereomers, with enzymes, dopeamine receptors or whatever else. It is not an issue that I was commenting on. My issue has always been one of (structural naming, designations only) and that the particular statment in question has in fact no meaning in any way unless a specific enantiomer is specified. That's all, its very simple, and which one is best as recreational drug or laxative or whatever I was (so very obviously) not ever questioning.--OneMadScientist (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually trying to argue with you here. Your concern is that it doesn't make much sense the way its written, my concern is that it may not be true the way its referenced. These concerns are not in conflict. You act like I'm defending the way it was written, I am not. All I said was that I thought I understood what it was trying to say - I feel I'm allowed that. The sentence in question has been removed anyway, so I suggest we stop here. 10:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)roject Osprey (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god!, for the love of Christ! Please stop, I cant bear it, You seem to be completely unable to learn. I will no longer respond to any of your posts as it is futile. Except In the unlikely event you ever realize how completely right I am and wrong you are and apologize. You have defended the way it was written and contended it did make sense in relation to some issue, (this is in the record's). What YOU THINK in this context is irrelevant. For the last time, It Does not ("not make MUCH sense") It 100% IN ANY ACTUAL CORRECT CONTEXT WHAT SO EVER (except in your mind) MAKES NO SENSE I REPEAT AGAIN, NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. OK FINISH--OneMadScientist (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Europium(III) chloride may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

I saw your edits to triisopropylamine. You might want to ask around. My feelings, which I think are shared, is that the lead should start v broadly with a very general classification of a compound as organic, inorganic, or whatever. A nonchemist just is not going to know what a tertiary amine is. I am sympathetic to not duplicating information in the chembox, so for this reason we give the structural formula, not the empiracal one. Structural formulas are not possible for lysergic acid but for phenol, one could have C6H5OH wihch is more informative than C6H6O. I also like the idea of one sentence that tells the reader what something looks like, e.g., "Phenol is a white volatile solid." You might consider describing your recommendations at the Chemicals talk site. BTW, thanks for your contributions with Europium(III) chloride. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I had to go and do some work and as the computers here power-down out after a while I could either save or start over. Normally I dump what I'm doing into my sandbox and finish it later but what I had made sense so I just pushed it through. I shall endeavor to be more conscientious in future.
I’ll be revisiting the page anyway, the synthetic prep is genuinely terrifying. Project Osprey (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey I was not implying that you are not conscientious! I was just wondering if you were about to open up a broader conversation on the lead (or lede, not sure the right word). --Smokefoot (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry! I didn't think that was what you were implying. Lead has been fleshed out although I still need to find a better method of production. Regarding the EuCl3 page: If you're happy with what's there then I'll start adapting the prep for the other rare earths (oxide and chloride pages). I'll probably also copy the silylamide prep across to the chloride pages - as it's also pretty universal. Project Osprey (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ln

  • Thanks for your note on catalytic oxidation.
  • The new catalysis section in lanthanide seems to mainly cite academic work. Nothing wrong with merely academic work except when portraying results of such papers as "useful". That adjective seems like a hyperbole.
  • Here is one lead on what looks like a commercial hit (described by academics but done in industry, per usual): "Neodymium-Based Ziegler/Natta Catalysts and their Application in Diene Polymerization" Lars Friebe, Oskar Nuyken and Werner Obrecht Advances in Polymer Science, 2006, Volume 204, Neodymium Based Ziegler Catalysts – Fundamental Chemistry, Pages 1-154. I understand that getting a good handle on commercially useful Ln catalysis is challenging. My guess is that most is heterogeneous. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, the section was mostly an attempt to generalise their coordination chemistry and catalysis just seemed a nice way of summing up their properies in a way that you could compare with more familiar coordination compounds. For top-level pages I try to provide some sort of context - brevity is only good when it makes things clearer. That said I don't own the page so if you want to thin it out then edit away. I'm afraid you're right about the lack of commercial/industrial uses. I'm not aware of any large scale examples of the coordination compounds being used as catalysts. There's a section on heterogeneous catalysis lower down, I'll see if your ref can fit in there (cheers for that btw). I'll see if I can find an industrial ref though, perhaps Org. Process Res. Dev. will deliver. Project Osprey (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The section is very nicely done, and nicely described about the lability and geometry. With regards to the Shibasaki and Molander citations, the practical problem is that once a reference is inserted, it is difficult to remove or replace it without howls of "content removal" from other editors. And naive readers/students will, for eternity, suffer under the delusion that such work is actually useful for something other than publishing papers in JACS and Org Lett. Then they get to the real world and discover otherwise. I am being slightly exaggerating here, Monday morning and all that.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Titanium(IV) hydride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dimerisation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Zinc(II) hydride

I trying to improve this article, using acetic acid as a model, since it (acetic acid) is in the process of being made in to a FA article. It would be appreciated if you could have a look at the progress. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This could be a challenge. Discounting miniscule amounts made by lasers - no one seems to have made this stuff for more than 20 years. I'll see what I can do though. Project Osprey (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you talking about the molecular form or the standard form? Despite the article claiming that it is used as a reducing agent in organic synthesis, I can't find any sources confirming or denying. Maybe you'll find something I've missed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Standard form - I tend to think of that as being more important. I've seen books state that it's a reducing agent but so far I've found no real examples. I wouldn't be surprised if it worked - the question is why would you use it? You need a reducing agent to make it, so it just represents extra steps. If might be useful in some exotic process but overall it sounds pretty useless. I'll keep looking though. Project Osprey (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, it is because it is a cleaner reducing agent, it doesn't contaminates the product with lithium and aluminium salts, only zinc salt, and I do believe that zinc is easier to precipitate out.

I'm also trying improve Mercury(II) hydride. It's a slight bit more interesting as well, though less stable. Metal hydrides in general are difficult to figure out, considering that they come in three flavours: ionic solids, network solids, and molecular solids, and it doesn't help that they decompose into metal-hydrogen alloys, which aren't even compounds. Many sources fail to distinguish between them, such as with titanium hydride. A metallurgical paper that investigates the alloy, calls it titanium hydride, another paper by Lester Andrews that investigates the molecular form, calls that titanium hydride. Metallic hydrides, as the alloys are called, are dark grey, or metallic in appearance, while the network and covalent solids, vary between white, colourless, and even red for copper hydride. Earlier, the confusion over the nature of hydrides, lead me to erroneously believe that the copper hydride article was about the alloy. That is why I was involved with a debate about the article. Now I know that both forms exist, that is, the alloy, which is copper coloured, and the network covalent solid, which a red solid. On the topic, is there really a difference between ionic hydrides and network hydrides?

On another topic, do you agree that Mercury(I) hydride should be merged into Mercury(II) hydride? Since, it is so intensely unstable compared even with HgH2, and is in fact a decomposition intermediate of HgH2. I didn't think that it was notable enough to merit its own article when it was created, and I still don't think so. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll stick with the zinc hydride for now. It looks to be the most stable of the first row transition metal hydrides, so I figure it merits some attention. (perhaps we should create a category for all of these?)
Metal hydride alloys confuse me. I can’t help but think of them as matrix isolated metal hydrides in metal but I’m conscious that the hydride probably has all sorts of quantum effects (particle in a box and so on) not to mention effects on grain size and shape etc. I’m content to leave those pages to people who know what they’re doing.
My feeling is that T-metal hydride bonds are somewhere midway between ionic and covalent and at this point network descriptions break down somewhat.
Regarding the mercury hydride pages: Honestly, I think that different compounds should have different pages. Even if one of those pages is likely to remain a stub. However there’s no reason why the pages can’t be closely linked, currently Mercury(II)_hydride doesn’t mention Mercury(I)_hydride at all.Project Osprey (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

LiNtms2

Well that was strange, but I had been following your many edits and decided to take action. Best wishes for your continued contributions, which are v useful. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. It's always good to have someone check over your work, I'm sure I make more errors than I realise. Project Osprey (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

3-Methyl-3-octanol

Which section in the MOS applies? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See here. My understanding of this, is that if it's a famous piece of work or something that lead to a Nobel Prize (or some such) then fair enough, otherwise leave it out, because the information is in the references anyway. Project Osprey (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I see. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Metal halides

Nice to see you getting involved in basic inorganics, we have a shortage of level headed editors in this area. An article was produced on K2TaF7, which is the central compound in the production of Ta and also relevant to the separation of Nb and Ta, somehow. But that heptafluoride compound remains obscure in textbooks. We did an article on NbOCl3, a problem in NbCl5 chem. although it appears that TaOCl3 is less of an issue because it readily converts to Ta2O5 and TaCl5. I have not found its X-ray structure. One of these years we can pursue this minor point.

Finally if you are looking for a good (secondary!) source of preps, the bible in that area is Brauer's "Handbook of Preparative Inorganic Chemistry", also in English. For binary and ternary compositions of important stuff, this secondary source has almost every compound with good historical context. I found a free copy online, slightly creepy but useful.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the advice. I feel I should warn you that these recent edits haven't been done out of any concious decision to focus in on inorganics - I just happened to find myself on those pages. That said, I'll see if I can add anything to the K2TaF7 and NbOCl3 articles once I'm done with my current project. Just so long as I don't have to look at T-metal hydrides again.
I actually have very little access to literature and mostly rely on what I can tease out of the internet for free (which is a surprising amount, if you're willing to put the time in), so directions to good open access books are very welcome.Project Osprey (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The K2TaF7 and NbOCl3 articles dont need any particular help: I brought them up only because they are connected to your TaOCl3/TaCl5 interests. Re the hydride articles, wacky and mediocre but the ones being tinkered with are fairly obscure. Good luck finding Brauer. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tantalum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Potassium heptafluorotantalate may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • structure is composed of [TaF<sub>7</sub>]<sup>2-</sup> units interconnected by potassium ions. ]TaF<sub>7</sub>] polyhedra may be described as monocapped [[trigonal prism]]s with the capping atom located on one

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Potassium heptafluorotantalate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to HF and KF
Tantalum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to HF

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There are 24556 references to Ta2O5....

According to CAS,there are 24,556 citations to Ta2O5. I am wondering on what basis did you select the new 20ish refs in your rewrite? Some are extremely narrow.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I was debating flagging this for an experienced inorganic chemist (Axiosaurus?). I must admit, I found it difficult to write the structural section, as Ta2O5 seemingly has no regular structure. You might expect that this would lead to a well cited review on its structure and properties... but I searched for one in vain. Failing that all I could think to do was describe the limits of it's variations. There are several references I'm not entirely comfortable with: the single crystal analysis (doi:10.1524/zkri.1969.129.5-6.365) seems weak (Pna2 isn't even a real space group, I assume it's meant to be Pna21) but it was the only single crystal analysis I could find. I don't like that the chembox is showing the U3O8 structure (see talk page), as even if the atoms are in the right place the stoichiometry is wrong. In my defence the structure section was using a single 66 year old book as a reference - and for all that its secondary I'm not sure it's still right. I'm not possessive over my work though, so if you want to gut it then go right-ahead. Project Osprey (talk) 13:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: your focus on crystal structures - a really important theme that many articles lack. For my money, the focus should be on the connectivity and bond distances/angles for the various polymorphs. Much of this information one can dig up via Googling, as apparently you are doing well.
I do worry about your inserting lots of specialized references to "junk" journals (Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and Interfacial Electrochemistry, Thin Solid Films - these are second-rate journals) may ultimately do more harm than good, because the naive reader will think that these junk sources are somehow authoritative (impressive sounding titles) and true experts, when they come to the article, will be loath to replace or delete these references from an article lest they be accused of vandalism. One additional reason for reliance on secondary sources is for editors like us who are writing about topics where we are not expert.
Good source of structures: The bible is Wells. A good source of images is the German wiki. Ideally you can gain access to the Karlsruhe inorganic crystallographic database. That is the best possible source for species lacking C-H bonds. Thanks for responding. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Potassium heptafluorotantalate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Halide pics

Hi, Osprey, thanks for adding those pics. I'm not allowed to touch the chemboxes, so could you please shrink them down to 50px? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying, not every pic in a chembox needs to fill all the space reserved for it; that, and you're less likely to be undone by the other members of the Project. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Done! (As you seem to have noticed). I see that you're doing some edits to flouride at the moment, if you have the time I think that page should contain flouride's ionic radii, electron configuration and redox potential. These are the basic properties that define its chemistry and I find their absence puzzling. (Why aren't you allowed to edit chemboxs?) Project Osprey (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll address those things. It's hard to keep track of why I banned. I used to maintain chemboxes, making adjustments to parametres, trimming off code excess, filling in missing field data and correcting some. I spent my hour turning random chaos, into ordered chaos. At one point, someone complained that my edits are too trivial and just clogs up their watchlist. Another time, someone complained that I make too many typos. (I used to have a large work load, so it only makes sense that my typos are in proportion.) A sticking point seems to be nomenclature, that problem has evolved over time. The short story is, the ChemProject assumes that it is perfectly OK to question the systematic names which I add, but the courtesy is not returned. I tried to juggle every Project member's own personal mode of operation, and failed on all accounts as one demanded exactly what the opposite of the other. So, the Project's failure to reach consensus upon chembox guidelines and regulations, and lack of commitment to the cause of the Project itself, resulted in their only consensus - to illegitimately ban me from editing chemboxes at all. Despite showing my willingness to cooperate fully, they still called my edits disruptive, and acted accordingly. I even have my very own arch nememis: Smokefoot. Although, I have to say, the sentiment is not mutual, I wish he would just let me go, and get on with his wikilife. The Project is really just a club for chemists who like to edit chemistry related aticles, I can do that any day without being a member of a Project. A project is supposed to act in a cooperative way to organize and direct the development of relavent articles, categories, etc. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyways, what ionic radius do you want: crystal, or effective, or solvation shell; and which redox potential do you want: aqueous, molten, acidic, basic, atomic, elemental; and how do I relate this data to fluorine in a way which is unique to fluorine (there is no point in saying something which is true for all or most ions)? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I was thinking something along the lines of the Iodide page. Some basic properties, put into context by comparison against other halides, nothing too technical. The page gets a 1000+ hits a day and I think it’s safe to say that little of that traffic comes from experienced chemists. I always feel that we should cover the basics on pages where there's likely to be a lot of lay readers. (One of these days I'm going to buy a child’s book of science to use for pages like this one. Sounds a bit nuts I know but I think it would help).
Regarding other matters: To be fair, I have seen you come-up with some incredible names, tri-μ-hydrido-pentahydrido-1κ3H,2κ2H-dititanium for instance, but you won’t be the first person I've seen criticise Smokefoot over his (her?) manners. I have to say that Wikipedia isn't anything like what I expected. I thought we'd have 1000's of unregistered users making occasional but useful edits, kept in check by a hardcore of maybe a couple of hundred registered chemists. Instead WikiProject Chem has what? A dozen active members, 20 at the outside? Somedays I’m impressed that we manage to hold things together – sometimes I’m not sure we are holding things together. Anyway, regarding chembox's specificaly: should you find stuff that need doing, by all means drop me a note here and I'll try and sort it out for you. Project Osprey (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that particular example may be incredible, but it is certainly correct. The Project demands that I cite every systematic name I add, and at the same time they admit that systematic names inherently uncitable, due to the lack of a reviewed record of such names. Thus, I face a paradoxical situation: I can only add cited names, but no sources are acceptable. I don't know, maybe they have a superiority complex linked to their distinguished academic achievements. I really need an arbiter to solve this dilemma, to dissolve this aura of undue exclusivity. I need to know what their qualms are exactly, so that I can edit freely in good faith, and not have to guess who will I be offending next. I need guidelines/rules to follow, by which the Project will no longer have an excuse with which to persecute me.
Even so, I am grateful for your offer - it will be most useful.
Regarding fluoride, since it is now ~1:55 AM locally, I will review your suggestion tomorrow evening (locally). Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Re: Systematic names. I have on occasion faced a similar dilemma - Sometimes you'll be faced with something hugely bizarre or unwieldy. I don't really have a definite rule for those occasions but I generally follow the following reasoning:
To me, a name is what you call something. So if I can't find an example of the systematic name being used - it's no longer really a name. At this point its more of a structure-based algorithmic data token, like SMILES or InChI. Except of course you can't use it to find more information on that compound. In those situation I tend to omit it; because while it is a fact, it isn't a useful fact and I like to think that the chembox is only concerned with useful facts. This also applies when I find more than one reported systematic name, which happens a fair bit with PubChem and ChemSpider. The naming system seemingly has its limits and different computer programs will occasionally give different answers. Under those situation I omit because I don't want to introduce errors. Project Osprey (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
If the reader understands systematic nomenclature, then they can easily derive the molecular structure without needing to translate the algorithmic token with software. Otherwise, is the systematic name ever useful? At first, I just added the systematic names, then I started citing them when the Project complained, then I stopped using chemical merchants as sources when they complained about that, finally I stopped completely when they started to complain about me using PubChem, Chemspider, and other databases. They also excluded CAS, journal articles, and textbooks thereafter. While there may be several technically correct names, the most concise and informative name is preferred by IUPAC. I construct the in-article additive names myself, to ensure that it follows the correct regulations to the letter (pun intended). Funny thing, the Project even rejects IUPAC's very own publications as sources for IUPAC names. The chembox names which I added, all actually had examples of use. Here is an example of the quality of the work that I used to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acetylcysteine&diff=470414146&oldid=468731738] Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for J-T correction

Well, I should have known since Fe(III) is high spin. Nice catch. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Bisulfide

Could you please add this ionbox to Bisulfide: User talk:Plasmic Physics#Bisulfide ionbox? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, although I'm not too keen on using additive nomenclature in this instance. IUPAC recommend that for coordination compounds, which this clearly isn’t. Project Osprey (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Do as you think is right, but IUPAC uses the definition: "A coordination entity is an ion or neutral molecule that is composed of a central atom, usually that of a metal, to which is attached a surrounding array of other atoms or groups of atoms, each of which is called a ligand." It goes on to mention "heptaoxido(phosphorussulfur)ate(2−)" as a coordination ion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I just thought that perhaps, some reader somewhere will want to know the additive name for this ion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If it was up to me I'd call it sulfidohydrogenate(1−) (or hydridosulfate(1−)), but IUPAC lists the given name specifically. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I can see you're point there, but to my mind the whole point of systematic names is that you end up with one name. Either way its up now, if anyone feel strongly doubtless they'll change it.Project Osprey (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hypochlorite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chlorination (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

First row t metal hydrides

thanks for that. Yes its all kicked off again - fun and games indeed at binary compounds of hydrogen. I have reworked the oxidation state page it is here at User:Axiosaurus/draft1 feel free to have hack at it. Dirac66 may be in there too. All improvements welcomed before it is tranferred back into Wikipedia proper. Regards Axiosaurus (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)