Talk:Alkyl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Is Alkyl reactive or caustic?

No it is not either. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Not reactive, the only reaction alkanes can undergo is radical halogenation. As far as caustic goes, well, not really. They aren't reactive but you wouldnt want to dip your hands in a solution of them. Naphtha (cigarette lighter fuel), butane in lighters, natural gas, petroleum ether, ligroin, benzine (not benzene) are all entirely or mostly alkanes.

Page switched to redirect to alkane due to redundancy.


---

Alkyl != Alkane[edit]

This topic needs something doing to it. An alkyl is not an alkane. I will do a bit later today, im an a level student and by no means an expert so someone can help me if they want.

And Alkyls are extremely reactive because they are radicals and therefore no found on there own.

Usefulness of page?[edit]

Hi, I did a semi-major copy edit of some of the stranger elements of this page (e.g. odd capitalisation, some grammar, and some incorrect claims – there is no such thing as 2-ethyl), however, I can't help thinking that there is more useful and clearer information at alkane and IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry. Perhaps we should keep the first few sections, remove most of what is in the "Naming Alkyls" section, and provide links to the other more comprehensive articles. -postglock 05:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see anything obvious about the uses of Alkyls. It appears to be one of the active ingredients in Lysol. It would be helpful to explain what it does. Madhu 16:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirect, Oh Yes.[edit]

Hi all, I strongly believe this entire article should redirect to Alkane. It is confusing to anyone without a strong background in chemistry and, frankly, even then the very first sentence is wrong. It states, "In chemistry, an alkyl substituent is an alkane missing one hydrogen." Then, later in the page, it correctly illustrates Alkyl with an isopropyl group, which is of course "missing" 3 hydrogens. All alkyl is, is a way to say Alkane. Ds2207 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect, but you will probably get some that strongly disagree. We have an article on aryl, to which we should probably merge phenyl. And [[methyl], ethyl...--Smokefoot (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Methyl group, Ethyl group, Propyl, and Butyl be merged into Alkyl. The reasons for merging are Overlap, Text, Context, as explained in Wikipedia:Merging. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But there is significant information that pertains to methyl only, isn't that so? Will a merge be good for readers? Why should we assume that the reader that comes here (through the search bar, through Google, or through a wikilink) also wants to read about the other groups? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Whether readers are interested in other groups or not, is not relevant, considering the reasons given. A merge should not cause the destruction of non-trivial information. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a terrific idea, but like all ideas, reasons not to implement can always be identified. I view articles like Propyl as original research, since there is no body of scholarship that carves out this particular group for study. Is there a chapter in our organic texts on butyl? The situation is laughable (translation: only in Wikipedia). These semanticist articles were created by us (yes, me too) in our haste to form Wikipedia, but now that it is created, perhaps some of the hairsplitting should be reversed, to, as Plasmic says, serve readers vs satisfying own personal fetishes. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course we're to serve readers first, I just think that based on splitting/merging policy, that that counter reason given by Stolfi is invalid. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Please, please, reconsider: when a reader looks up "propyl" (whether by typing to the search box or by clicking on a link) what is he looking for? What is the best answer we can give him?
It is saddening to see articles in many technical areas (not just chemistry) gradually getting polymerized into massive intractable lumps, that are hard to read and even harder to edit. The cause seems to be a vague desire by committed editors to organize all articles of one area within some systematic framework and format. Now, systematization is important in theses, textbooks, manuals, databases; for Wikipedia it is very low priority, if relevant at all. Indeed I believe it is one of the toxins that are killing this project. I see people wasting inordinate amounts of time fighting over and implementing general systematization policies that, at best, make no difference to the readers.
Please relax, let's stop worrying about consistency. Let's worry instead on making sure that readers find the information they need, as quikly and easily as possible. Let's take life one little article at a time, as we feel it is best for it, in a healthily chaotic way. Wikipedia will actually get better that way.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
PS. Also please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a textbook. What is good for a textbook an be very bad for Wikipedia. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
PPS. Also don't waste time reading the stuff in Wikipedia:*. All the "rules" in there were written by people like me. ;-) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Merger seems reasonable for ethyl and beyond. I don't see anything especially notable about them each individually or substantial content specific to any of them other than the specific identities of the isomers. That last point is all I can think of for "why would someone want to look up one of these by name?", and leaving redirects to a unified Table of alkyl groups page would resolve that. Or alternately, the "___yl group" could be discussed in each "___ane" page (with appropriate redirects). There at least whatever special details are worthy about the group would likely also apply to the alkane (lots of isomers of butyl, etc). There is lots of content on methyl that is seems distinct from higher alkyls, so I do not support merging that one (it's already a bit of a summary-style page). DMacks (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The idea of articles for each and every alkyl group is not a huge deal for me, although I am inclined otherwise. I confess to being a merger-ist often, although I am sympathetic to Jorge's point that we are not creating a textbook. On the other hand we are not producing a stamp collector's catalogue. If the merged article becomes an "intractable lump", that would be unfortunate of course. Maybe someone with time could create a prototype in their sandbox for review and debate. Your relaxed colleague, --Smokefoot (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
With respect to Methyl group: it contains three main sections, the first section, Methyl cation, anion, and radical, is objectionable to inclusion. They do not relate directly to the topic of that article, which is concerned with a functional group. The second section, Reactivity, can easily be adapted into an Alkyl article, to include trends as a function of chain length. The final section, Etymology, can be disposed with, as it is already covered in Methanol#History. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the ions should have their own articles. Google shows several papers specifically on CH3+, I will try to do that. However, methinks taht the (relative) shortness of what is left of methyl group should be addressed by adding more contents. Surely there is a lot more that can be said about one of the most common "lego blocks" of organic chemistry, no?
    Indeed, perhaps that may be another argument for splitting: I would think that a short specific article on a narrow topic would seem less intimidating, and therefore more likely to attract contributions by experts that are not regular editors, than a section in a larger article. Maybe? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposed to merge. Alkyl already merges into alkane and this article cannot get any bigger. I agree with Jorge Stolfi: big is ugly. The Methyl group, Ethyl group, Propyl, and Butyl articles will remain small by necessity but they all have specific issues. A reader looking up butyl should expect an article on butyl. The alkyl article before the merge also had its merits. A topic like hexyl and anything beyond should merge there. V8rik (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Also oppose merge. There are of course similarities between the alkyl groups but there are also differences, so at least the first few (say 4) deserve their own articles. If we did merge the combined article would just have sections named Methyl, Ethyl, Propyl and Butyl anyway. It would just take longer for readers to find information on ethyl (for example). Dirac66 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I now reverse my former tilt toward merger. The points were made well. I have been wracking my brain to think of long chained things that might be notable and exceptions to the nothing beyond say butyl - benzyl. What do we do with pentyl?--Smokefoot (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I find that these short explanations of common chemical groups (methyl etc.) are very useful on their own and definitely oppose a merger. That some information overlap does not matter much. Njaelkies Lea (d) 11:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The thing is that most information overlaps, and the rest is just textbook chemistry logic. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that methyl should merge with methane, ethyl with ethane, propyl with propane, etc. If these alkyl groups were to be left separate from their parent alkane, then there might as well be a page for all the alkyl groups like heptyl and octyl. Kittenono (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Maybe a separate alkyl page, with links to all the alkyl groups? Each group has something unique, and the page shouldn't get too big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.248.160 (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think any merging is a bad idea. Why don't we have some consistency on Wikipedia & just merge every functional group article into one article? Because it'd be tedious, superfluous, unnecessary, & counterproductive.
Also, you'd end up with a ridiculously long article. Albeit I can see the logic in Kittenono's idea to merge methyl with methane, propyl with propane, ethyl with ethane, etc... but I don't necessarily agree with it. It should be plainly obvious to anyone who lacks even a basic understanding of organic chemistry (or of any chemistry at all for that matter; to someone who is entirely scientifically illiterate) that these are groups that are pieces of other molecules, but not synonymous with said larger molecules.
(Psychonaut25 - 13375p34k / C0n7r1b5 07:48 AM EST, 24 October 2013 (UTC))
Why do you suppose that a merged Alkyl article would be ridiculously long? The total information from all the merging candidates do not equate to a particularly long article, unless you propose to add new information yourself. Furthermore, you're using an invalid argument for opposing my proposal (Straw man fallacy). Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

i-Pr vs n-Pr, etc[edit]

Now that we seem to have consensus on non-merger of Me, Et, Pr, and Bu. What about these separate articles: n-Pr vs i-Pr, and t-Bu vs n-Bu vs i-Bu. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is more reasonable to merge isomers with similar names, to avoid the proliferation of too many articles. The reader looking for isopropyl may try propyl, and if not a redirect will help. However I would not merge isomers with totally dissimilar (common) names, such as maleic acid and fumaric acid. Dirac66 (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)