Talk:Bridging ligand

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.
 


Expanded the article, added an examples section. Moved the original image down to the examples as I thought it was a good example of how a ligand can play both the role of a terminal AND a bridging ligand. Put a generic example of a μ2 bridging ligand at the top. Explained the numbering scheme for μ ligands and mentioned that μ2 is often denoted as μ. Does Polyfunctional ligands deserve its own section? I don't think so, but want to hear what others think.PedroDaGr8 (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Diphosphines[edit]

Surely diphosphines are worth a mention here? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, feel free to edit and include them in the text. PedroDaGr8 (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Subscript, not superscript[edit]

I've always been taught that the number appears as subscript. See page 193 of this document:

http://www.schulz.chemie.uni-rostock.de/uploads/media/inorganic_nomenclature_iupac_2004.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.91.92.170 (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

According to the current version of Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry – IUPAC Recommendations 2005 (Red Book), the bridging index n, the number of coordination centres connected by a bridging ligand, is placed as a right subscript. The bridging index 2 is not normally indicated.
Emeldir (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You are encouraged to change the article according to your knowledge. Go for it! --Smokefoot (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I've changed the article to follow IR-9.2.5.2 Bridging ligands of the IUPAC Red Book (pages 163--165). I think they are dumb, as hapto and dento both are superscript, and having them all the same would both be clearer and avoid confusion with the number of atoms in a formula, but technically that is how you write it. I've also opened a random sampling of papers I have on my laptop and they all used subscript. The one thing I don't know how to do is make the citation more specific. Right now it cites the entire Red Book (I moved it over, since the gold book is pretty useless for this), but it would be more useful to specifically cite IR-9.2.5.2 Bridging ligands. Canageek (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)