User talk:The Valid One

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, The Valid One, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion re Geometry info boxes

I have been trying to find the editor that is inserting the "Molecular geometry info boxes." Perhaps it is you? I feel that you need to talk over these plans. Usually, for projects like this, editors consult other editors by describing ideas at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Where I come from, hybridisation is an old-fashioned and actively discouraged concept. Thus the boxes propagate bad information. Also the symmetry group is debatable in the way the boxes are set up. I understand that the goal is to say something useful, but I cant figure out the point. By consulting other editors, you are likely to get some ideas that will enhance your work.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is to provide an elementary summary at first-year (North American) level, but there is much room for improvement. I have made detailed suggestions at Talk:Octahedral molecular geometry for that case. If we can reach agreement for one geometry, then similar changes can be made to the others. Dirac66 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the message at my talk page. Congratulations on having so much technical knowledge. It just seems that you might be in over your head, and possibly over your teacher's head. I would ask your teacher to post the nature of the project on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, and let the teacher deal with us. My guess is that other editors would give you some ideas if you post the box on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. User:dirac66 posted some critiques at [[1]]. It just turns out that the Chem pages have gotten pretty sophisticated. Many different types of compounds adopt the geometries that you are presenting, so one hybridization scheme is not going to work and, as we mentioned, the use of hybridisation is a tricky subject that most of us avoid. Symmetry point groups are tricky because chemists would refer to very unsymmetrical compounds as being octahedral, tetrahedral, etc. Also, it is helpful, or at least polite when you make edits, to write a summary. If you are looking for projects to prove yourself for a class, one idea is to write an article about a particular chemical that is not currently described in Wikipedia. A fertile source of chemicals are the higher (non-C1) freons. Many useful trialkylphosphines, say PEt3, and phosphate esters, say OP(OMe)3, merit articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My own view is that the geometry info boxes should be removed. They are misleading and confusing. I just do not see redeeming features aside from the fact that their construction was instructive/entertaining for their authors. There is something about VSEPR theory, an article which already has two extensive boxes, that is mysteriously compelling to students. VSEPR attracts would-be editors because it is systematic, and those that dont know much chem-content can feel like they are contributing, even if they arent. Overall, these boxes are not a big deal, just disappointing. But thanks for asking my opinion. Later,--Smokefoot (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I replied to your question on the infobox on my talk page. --Bduke (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Could I suggest that you change symmetry group to point group in your infobox, as the latter is the correct term. The molecular symmetry page that this links to uses point group. Thanks, Chris (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Responding to your note. I have no problem with VSEPR, standard stuff, but I find tables consisting of marginal or misleading information to be unhelpful and, yes, deceptive. You asked for some critiques.
  • Point group: we have a nice page on molecular symmetry with examples. And square planar does not necessarily describe D4h. most examples are lower.
  • Steric number →a problem, right? How many lone pairs are on the square planar intermediate spin Fe(tetraphenylphorpyrin? What about Vaska's complex?
  • Coordination number 4 →do we need a table for this information?
  • Bond angle(s) 90° →ditto, do we need a table for this information?
  • μ (Polarity) →most square planar complexes have a dipole moment, right? Like the examples cited.

Oh well...--Smokefoot (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Tell people in d-period that the MG Project page and discussion page should be used for communication over the weekend as we speed up these pages. Jmole (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)