Template talk:ChemicalBondsToCarbon

Classification criteria

How exactly do you decide whether a bond type is "core organic", "many uses", or "academic"? I would call CF, CI, and CS (and maybe CP) "core organic", and I would call CFe "many uses". --Itub 08:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! and your input is more than welcome. I would say core organic chemistry you will find in introductionary organic chemistry textbooks so perhaps not CP. On the other side of the spectrum Organoberyllium should not be controversial and the many users is fuzzy. Another criterion could be commercial availability so CFe (except for ferrocene) would then not meet the mark. By the way your reclassification of the organoxxx pages to category organometallic compounds disregards the fact that many of the articles also cover the chemistry not just the compounds. Historically many articles were already named organoxxx or organoxxxx compounds and therefore the titles are not very consistent V8rik 19:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on ferrocene derivatives, but the article suggests that they have applications beyond academia, which is why I thought it might qualify for "many uses". I agree that C-P might be a bit "inorganic", but would you agree to include C-F and C-I as "core organic"? They are included in any organic chemistry textbook, are found in natural products (at least C-I), have major industrial applications (at least C-F), and are also found in pharmaceuticals.
Another category worth considering is "found in biomolecules and natural products", but that would overlap with some of the others.
Regarding the organoxxx categories, I thought about it for a moment, but concluded that "organozinc chemistry" (for example) could just be considered to be the chemistry of "organozinc compounds" (which was the title of the page). The same can be said about any articles on chemical compounds; for example, part of sulfuric acid is about "sulfuric acid chemistry". You might say that organozinc compounds are different because it is a group of compounds and not just one specific compound, but we also have other articles on groups of compounds, such as xylenes. However, I recognize that this is a gray area so I wouldn't have strong objections to moving them back (as long as specific compounds such as 1,1'-Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene remain under Category:Organometallic compounds or subcategories thereof). --Itub 11:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I have promoted CF and CI to core org chem. I am not sure about the organoiron: it is mostly about ferrocenes. Lets leave the new categories as they are now V8rik 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color

background color was changed to be more appealing. Ktsquare (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the brown looks shitty, light green was better. Nergaal (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That colour has been changed to a vanilla-like color. Ktsquare (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to provide references

for the lanthanides that Ln-C bonds are known? Nergaal (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just googled organoX for each and found examples, mostly cyclopentadienyl complexes, of all except promethium. --Vuo (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And promethium forms an oxalate. Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

template should link to Organocadmium compound, not Organocadmium

The links should direct with the actual title pages. In this way the C-Cd bond in the template on the Organocadmium compound page will appear in bold without a hyperlink (no need to because you are already on the organocadmium compound page). Is it possible to revert the reversal of my last edit? Thanks in advance V8rik (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reply recorded from editor responsible. Edit reverted V8rik (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to organomagnesium than Grignards

MgC should really link to Group 2 organometallic chemistry and not to Grignards. Try to look at the bigger picture. Is it possible to revert the reversal of my last edit? Thanks in advance V8rik (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reply recorded from editor responsible. Edit reverted V8rik (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organolead

I've changed the coloring on this; I believe tetra-ethyl-lead is still being used in aviation (propeller craft) fuel, additionally it is still be manufactured. Apparently "Guiyang Yifeng Fine Chemical Co., Ltd" in - where else, right? - China is the world's leading supplier of the stuff, and markets it for use in cars as well as aircraft... Zaphraud (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No edit warring please

Please consult Wikipedia:Edit warring and specifically the The three-revert rule V8rik (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bond unknown / not assessed

The current classification "Bond unknown" used to be called "Bond unknown / not assessed". If you are certain a bond does not exist please provide proper citations otherwise "Bond unknown / not assessed" is safer V8rik (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compounds with CSg and CHs bonds have been studied theoretically, so I'm not sure about calling them "not assessed". They are definitely unknown, though. Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSg has since been experimentally done. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

organomagnesium and organolithium

I'd argue that CMg and CLi are core organic chemistry, because they are very useful in synthesising organic compounds (perhaps the first thing you learn to do with them is making C–C bonds). I might also argue for promotion of CB, CSi, and CP. Double sharp (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, CNa might be brown now, but it probably used to be green (PbEt₄ production, and today still PPh₃). Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is of course very subjective but the bonds in the core section occur in stable compounds and Rli compounds are not stable as in bulk-rt-air. I would not oppose the changes V8rik (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't one of the big definitions of "core organic chemistry" the kinds of carbon-to-other-element bonds that occur widely in nature (CC, CH, CN, CO, CS, and CHalogen)? By that definition, all CMetals fail, as do CB, CSi, & CP (phosphorus in naturally-occurring organic compounds occurs universally, or nearly so, as organophosphates, not CP). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would define it as the core of what you do in the lab, instead of what occurs in nature. By that measure, CLi and CMg definitely count. After all, the C–F and C–Cl bonds are not really common in nature (those tend to occur as salts instead, even though RCOCl are mighty useful), and yet we colour them in. B, Si and P are certainly very important in the lab (e.g. hydroboration, Peterson, –SiMe₃ as a protecting group, PPh₃), even if they don't occur bonded to C so much in nature. Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Into navbox

I'm working to cnange this one into a WP:NAVBOX. -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical bonds

If the template is called ChemicalBondsToCarbon why half of the pages link to E-C bond and the other half to the respectfull organoelemental chemistry page? 𝕍𝕀𝕜𝕥𝕠𝕣 𝕐𝕒𝕟𝕖𝕧 (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]