This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@DMacks: Sorry for the bad chem notation. In high school, 50+years ago, I was taught the "N→O" notation which apparently meant the same as "N+–O−", that is a covalent bond with both electrons coming from the same atom. Am I misremembering? Is that notation still current?--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
No worries. The arrow is a dative bond, exactly that idea of the origin of the electron pair. The plain-line bond with charges is more representative of the actual structure in most cases, so it's what is usually used in modern literature. The arrow stops getting used, except for some metal–ligand structures, around the level of college gen-chem I think. DMacks (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
