Talk:List of inorganic reactions

[Untitled]

The aim of this list is to be an inorganic parallel to the "List of organic reactions" page, included all common general classes of reaction that rely on the action of inorganic compounds.

It aims to be reasonably selective, and therefore Ive begun the list with the following restrictions:

- homogeneous reactions only. Maybe a heterogeneous list can be developed later. There would be too many reactions to list otherwise, and little conceptual or practical overlap between these fields. Some exceptions exist of course, fisher-tropsch process is included because it can proceed with both homo and heterogeneous catalysts

- not including organic reactions just because they involve alkali metal salts or simple lewis acids (e.g. AlCl3 in Friedel–Crafts reaction).. although these reagents are definitely inorganic and therefore the reactions should be included on the list, I think most people would clasify these reactions as a whole as being in the domain of organic chemistry rather than inorganic. This would be largely a function of the inorganic reagent: when being used soley as a source of nucleophile or as a strong electrophile/lewis acid, without other more complex function (e.g. electron transfer, delivery of functional group) these reagents do not imprint a strong "inorganic" nature. Open to debate of course!

The List of organic reactions seems dopey to me because the topic seems undefined, but it is a highly visited article, so I am obviously wrong. Once one starts an article, it takes a life of its own (WP:OWN), regardless of the intent of the originating article or one's opinion of what "most people" think. You certainly seem to have traditionalist world-view in terms of classifying chemistry areas. The role of the alkali metal in organic chemistry is probably less innocent than "most people" think. Many biological processes could be viewed as inorganic reactions, since about 40% of enzymes carry metals - respiration, photosynthesis, hydroxylations, etc. So the list will be many pages long as is the List of organic reactions. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input smokefoot. These are entirely the reasons I aim to create limitations on the list, and as you said about the organic list it would be a better article if the scope of the subject were defined. As much as Id like to include heterogeneous processes, as they are very important processes, it opens an enormous floodgate to which there is almost no limit to how many reactions to include. Furthermore, most of the mechanisms for these processes remain obscure so they have limited educational value, other than the overall transformation. Also many of the reactions proceed as a function of the conditions applied (temp, pressure) and the catalysts simply provide a more sophisticated surface for reaction than the walls of the vessel.. not really what is currently accepted as being inorganic chemistry... surface chemistry is considered to be physical chemistry. I think it would be better to keep these in a separate list, one which pertains strongly to industrial chemistry. I agree that even "innocent" centers like alkali metals have a complex role in organic and biological transformations that would be typically understood only within the context of these fields, and therefore the inorganic aspect is not appreciated. But I think this list should respect the currently accepted "traditions" of inorganic, organic and bio-chemical fields, even if it is somewhat arbitrary, and not necessarily reflected in nature. I dont think this list should be used as a tool to revolutionalise our concepts of these fields! Well as you say the article is out to take a life of its own. Let's see what form it takes! thanks a lot for the comments.Owensumm (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)