Talk:Tacticity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't the stereochemistry bit rather a red herring? I think of tacticity as due to the orientations of the monomers - see my added notes on isotactic

No, tacticity is defined by the stereochemistry of the pendant groups off of the chain. You seem to be describing head-to-tail vs. head-to-head and tail-to-tail addition of monomers, which is an entirely different thing. Jeff 21:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Context tag

I added the context tag because I could not understand most of the terms in the introduction. And one of the critical terms (chiral) leads to a disambiguation page! --- Skapur 00:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Skapur, I have added some context to the article but do realise that proper understanding of this article requires knowledge of stereochemistry and polymers and that there is really no point in re-introducing these concepts again in this article. From what page did you arrive at this article? V8rik 21:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge the isotactic page to this one (copied from isotactic talk page)

Policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. This page is nearly 100% redundant (including the picture) with the page labeled tacticity. Unless there are plans in the works to expand this article with, for example, multiple notable examples of isotactic polymers, I suggest we merge. Will merge in 7 days if there are no responses. Irene Ringworm 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Article could well expand into larger technical article devoted entirely to isotactic polymers.Will take some time though and we do not wish to discourage expects in the field of isotactic polymers to have their specialist contribution added to the very general and entry-level tacticity article. I also carefully read the dictionary guidelines but really was not able to find any justification there for this merge. PS this merge discussion should take place on the tacticity talk page not here according to the merge tag V8rik 21:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are prepared to expand the article I suggest that we merge it until one of these experts shows their face. The isotactic article has been floundering as a glorified dictionary entry for six years with no real work (except the picture). If you really feel strongly about this I'm okay to leave it where it is - not worth an edit war - but it seems clearcut to me. Hopefully someone else will weigh in? Irene Ringworm 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched the INSPEC database for review articles, books, and book chapters with "isotactic" in the title or topics. There are several review articles discussing how tacticity impacts physical properties and a review article on the structure of i-PMMA but there are no major publications in the last four decades on the principle of isotacticity alone. I would suggest that, contrary to User:V8rik's argument, the isotactic article has no room for expansion and be merged to the main article. Irene Ringworm 00:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Any argument for merging "isotactic" should also apply to the articles "atactic" and "syndiotactic". Expanding the technical discussion of the different types of tacticity, IMHO as a polymer engineer, would probably make most sense in one combined article, as tacticity is not considered a "field" but more of a characteristic that all polymers with pendant groups have, and the differences between say an isotactic and an atactic polypropylene are more interesting than discussing each separately. (Apologies in advance for errors of form - this is my first contribution to Wikipedia.) Laura-m7 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Irene Ringworm 22:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)