Talk:Mercury(I) hydride

Heaviest group-XII monohydride?

I don't think the above group members even form hydrides or other compounds in this oxidation state, so I think Plasmic Physics should cite a few sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you they do form hydrides in the that state, the spectral information can be found on NIST WebBook. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But spectral information only means that they exist in an excited state, and I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does not document things only existing in an excited state as true compounds.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, they have ground states. What is your concern about, what the statement implies, or the statement itself? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is that because you have no other hydrides in this oxidation state for this group (if you find any you will have to update the Zinc and Cadmium articles, because those only form +2 oxidation-state compounds), it makes no sense to say it's the heaviest monohydride of the group. In addition, please cite your source about its state being a gas (and clarify "unstable" - do you mean prone to decomposition?), as matrix isolation means exclusively on an individual molecular basis, not a macroscopic aggregation that we might assign a state to.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cadmium hydride is also about the monohydride, but Whoop has scrambled it with the dihydride, now that article is a chimera of both hydrides. Just because we do not have articles on the congeners does not invalidate the statement. Yes, I do mean prone to decomposition. May I point toward the WebBook again - under thermoynamic properties, it indicates that under standard conditions it is considered to be a gas. If you do not agree, then I will remove the word gas untill I can find a more appropriate reference. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the source with a proper citation; if you give me the URL I can do that for you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, do you agree with the source? Otherwise, there is no point in me inserting it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source definitely seems trustworthy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

To resolve the ongoing edit wars about whether this article should talk about Hg₂H₂ or HgH, I have three proposals to resolve this dispute:

Keep both at Mercury(I) hydride, under "Monomer (HgH)" and "Dimer (Hg₂H₂)" sections
Have HgH at Monomeric mercury(I) hydride and Hg₂H₂ at Dimeric mercury(I) hydride, with Mercury(I) hydride as a disambiguation page or as a redirect to the disambiguation page Mercury hydride
Have Hg₂H₂ at either Mercury(I) hydride or Mercurane and have HgH at Mercuranyl radical

Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 22:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the monomer, the dimer is relatively less wiki-notable; it does not warrant its own article. Research has shown that due to the poor orbital overlap in the dimer, it is less stable than the monomer. Option one conforms to these notes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article be primarily concerned with the monomer, albeit with a section devoted to the dimer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

detected or isolated

Please, no edit warring, start discussion V8rik (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here =>

Isolated is a more specific term and should stay. Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's in matrix isolation, then it kind of has to be isolated. In which case saying "isolated" is rather redundant! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Detect' and 'isolate' are two different terms. It has been detected in other ways, prior to the date in which the source was written. So, using the term 'detect' would make the statement incorrect. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the correct term is matrix-isolated with a link to Matrix isolation V8rik (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine by me, anyone else? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Double sharp (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks everybody. Case closed. V8rik (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]