Talk:Silenes

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move per discussion  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Disilene → Disilenes — There is a suggestion that this article be moved to "Disilenes", but this would be contrary to Wikipedia's Manual of Style: "Use the singular form" (WP:SINGULAR). ChemNerd (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason given was that the title is misleading, the article is not about disilene, it is about the class disilenes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Plasmic Physics. See also my suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Compound classes. --Leyo 08:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mildly disagree on the following levels. We are here foremost to serve readers, and very few readers are going to be seeking information on Si2H4, which does not exist outside of a computer or a mass spectrometry collision chamber. So readers that want to read about such compounds will be confused by first hitting an article on the archane Si2H4, while expecting an article on a class of compounds. Second, we followed this pattern with borane and phosphorane. Third, Plasmaphysics has to my knowledge rarely produced any content that is useful. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If all articles on compound classes would be named in the plural form (as suggested here), it would not be confusing for readers. I find the current situation rather confusing. --Leyo 14:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, your proposal is a sound one. But people checking "disilene" will not want to read Plasmaphysic's tortured essay on Si2H4, they will an article on a popular class of molecules, of which the simplest does not exist (as is fairly normal for classes). So I agree with your idea, but I recommend that silene redirect to silenes, not emerges a self-standing.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirects would be fine, in this case and in other cases where the eponymous compound does not exist. --Leyo 14:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Much confusion can be prevented if plural title form is used where a class name is named after a single compound in it. amphetamine - amphetamines; phenol - phenols; phenethylamine - phenethylamines
--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean we have to move Aldehyde to Aldehydes, for example? I personally think using singular/plural to distinguish individual compounds from compound classes would be even more confusing for people who aren't familiar with the system. In this case I think the current, singular title is fine, and if disambiguation is needed we should do it explicitly, such as Disilene (compound) and Disilene (compound class). Antony–22 (^talk ⁄ _contribs) 19:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move, functional groups are singular, the confusion for this particular article can easily be removed by having the article start with A disilene is a type of chemical compound containing a silicon-silicon double bond.... V8rik (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Antony-22: No, there is no one chemical named aldehyde, so the same problem does not apply. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as a side note (I know it's not of relevance here): In de-WP, all articles on compound classes are in plural (see de:Kategorie:Stoffgruppe). --Leyo 00:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Compare Silane with Silanes. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It is simply stupid to use one name for a large series of different compounds. Articles about classes are usually about properties that apply to all compounds in it or a list of them. Phyla of bacteria (also plural) are plural: Proteobacteria--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

messy move?

Talk:Silenes From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Talk:Disilene). Disilene Talks takes you to Talk:Silenes. Something went wrong. V8rik (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

article is completely incorrectly titled

there are now two wikipedia articles concerning disilenes, this one entitled "silenes" and another called "disilene". a disilene is a compound containg a Si-Si double bond, but a silene is a compound with a Si-C double bond. DangerousMike (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The definition of 'silene' changes depending on the context. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

how? in my experience (I am a silicon chemist) silene only ever means Si=C and Si=Si is always disilene. DangerousMike (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

According to IUPAC, to avoid confussion, that definition of 'silene' should no longer be used. Instead, 'silene' is to be used to define two (or more) silicon atoms joined in a linear fashion, with at least one double bond between two of them... Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Until June 2012 this article was correctly called Disilene (see history), I suggest we revert the move. V8rik (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

...Which means that this article would no longer be correctly called disilene. Not, that 'disilene' would be correct anyway, because like I said in the edit summary, that would exclude every silene with a longer catenation than two. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

what is a Si=C compound then called? V8rik (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Silenes → Disilene – The article is titled 'silene' however the text concerns only 'disilenes'. Silenes are compounds containing Si=C double bonds and disilenes are compounds with Si=Si double bonds. The article is thus incorrectly titled and/or the text of the article is wrong. For examples of correct naming of silenes/disilenes see Fischer, R. C. & Power, P. P. π-Bonding and the Lone Pair Effect in Multiple Bonds Involving Heavier Main Group Elements: Developments in the New Millennium. Chemical Reviews 110, 3877–3923 (2010). (section 3.7 defines silenes DangerousMike (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The text does not concern only disilenes, but all silenes with a silicon chain length of two or more. This conforms to the standard definition of 'silene', which is a compound with the formula of Si
  _nH
  _2n. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• the IUPAC definition is not in use by low-valent silicon chemists. We would call a compound with two Si-Si double bonds a bis-disilene. Silene is universally applied to mean a silicon - carbon double bond. Your point concerning disilenes with chain lengths longer than 2 is essentially irrelevant since there are only a few (less then five) examples of compounds with two consecutive Si-Si double bonds and only one with three. And regarding Si2H4, it is as good as non-existent. DangerousMike (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• agree, IUPAC definitions are not mandatory, bis-disilene as an alternative makes sense, multiple Si=Si bond containing compounds are obscure. V8rik (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge. As above, just because IUPAC recommends something doesn;t mean chemists actually use it. Silenes are Si=C compounds; these are disilenes. I note that we already have an article called disilene, which talks about the whole class of Si=Si compounds, so lets just move the content on this page to there, and use this space to write about Si=C compounds. Chris (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The definition of a silenes as C=Si compounds is a specialist definition, and not the regular definition. These are not just disilenes, but also polysilenes, as well as silapolyenes, such as tetrasil-2-ene, and trisila-1,2-diene. There is a section within organosilicon chemistry that handles C=Si compounds, called silenes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(comment) Forgot to mention: we already have diborenes and diphosphenes. It all makes sense. V8rik (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: move the diselene content to disilene (or disilylene).--Smokefoot (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

But What is going to happen to R₂C=SiR₂? And what about the carbene equivalents (R₂Si)? So we could keep the title and add some content about these two meanings (both are in Greenwood and Earnshaw). Eventually we would split off silaalkene, akin to Phosphaalkene. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the coverage of C=Si is put on this page "silene". The carbene equivalents are generally termed silylenes and they have their own page already, "silylene" DangerousMike (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There is now a new page: silanylidene group which is equivalent your definition of a silene. Now we can distinguish. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• The silene section in Organosilicon was in good shape, now content is removed and disilene content added. Silene content moved from Organosilicon to new article silanylidene group, but a) no need for content move b) no censensus on article title exists and c) edit history suggests Plasmic Physics created this page where in fact it is moved content. Suggest reverting all changes V8rik (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you have against the ceation of new articles?

• There is an interest in the subject of the new article, and the Organosilicon article is only meant to contain summaries on the functional groups.
• The article title can always be changed.
• Whether the content in the new article was moved or not from another page, is irrelevant.
• The new article allows for this other definition of silenes to be explored in a way that does not conflict with the formal definition of a silene.

Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.