Talk:Nickel selenide

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Group 21

Review #1 This is a great start to the assignment. I thought you did a nice job with the chembox especially since you have some much information already as well as pictures of the molecule. The next step, I think, would be adding more details on the formation of the chemical and its uses. Maybe post a picture of the actual reaction and go into the details of the mechanism and explain how its used in solar cells. Also, in terms of references, maybe add a few more. Nskowal2 (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review #2 You have the basic information about the molecule which is good. Think of adding some more sections such as the history of NiSe in solar cells and when its use in them started. Also, since you say how the molecule is synthesized according to the mechanism; you might as well give some picture for us to look at. Include the reaction mechanism and clean up the syntax of the editing code so there aren't any blank sections. more sources. Overall good start. Jtkozio2 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review #3 You guys have the start of a really good page but I think that you need more information to fill out the page a little better. There are a few formatting problems like some blank areas in the chem box that you could get rid of. Also, adding a little bit of an intro could make the page look more like a wikipedia article. Finally, as others have said, you guys could use a few more references. johnwilsoniv (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review #4 I like the information of the page, but I feel that some of the things could be explained a little more in depth. For instance, I like the “Uses” section but I don’t know what a type-p semiconductor. If you could give a little more information on what that means, it would help the average out with simpler explainations and will hold their attention rather than making them go on a hunt to find what it means. I also think that’s a good way to put some meat on these bones so it’s not only a few lines on the subject matter. Also, it might be my computer, but there was an error when I tried to open up the Jmol 3d image. It might be my computer, but again please look into it so you don’t lose points! Kevinjozwiak (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxidation state in the title?

Hello @Smokefoot:, thank you for alerting me on my talk page (however I'm going to keep discussions here instead). I wanted to ask about your reversion of the page title back to nickel selenide. I have been noticing many inconsistencies among the titling of pages about inorganic chemical compounds. Mainly, I refer to the presence of oxidation states in the title. Now, I'm not denying your claim of "The S, Se, and Te derivatives of many metals are nonstoichiometric". I was hoping that I could standardize the titles of most inorganic compound articles. I recall that we had a discussion about a similar topic at Chromium(III) acetate, where you wanted to change the name to Basic chromium acetate. My main argument there is that the only other compound article that had "basic" in the title was Basic beryllium acetate. If it were up to me, I would change the name of that article as well to Beryllium acetate, to keep it in line with the other articles of that nature. That was my intention here. One group down from Nickel selenide is the article Silver(I) selenide, and one group to the left from nickel selenide is Cobalt(II) selenide, Iron(II) selenide, and Manganese(II) selenide. Here in Nickel(II) selenide, the chembox only covers NiSe, however NiSe₂ and Ni₂Se₃ are also mentioned.

Point of the matter is, do what you want here, be it oxidation state or no. Just make sure that the whole article/set of articles reflect the same mindset. You say you are the expert, so I leave this in your capable hands. However, it's clear that you reverted this because you noticed I was doing something incorrect. Other articles that fail your reasoning exist, but haven't been edited recently, so that it wouldn't come to your attention that way. With that being said, I am devoted to clearing up the inconsistencies among the articles. Why not change back the other articles too? Let me know if there are any fallacies with my logic. But if this is the case with Nickel selenide, then why not continue elsewhere? If there is are a groups of elements, in which you bring up the chalcogens, that should not have defined oxidation states in the title, then why stop at this one? I edited without prior confirmation because Nickel selenide isn't exactly the most popular page on the site, and I figured that I would make one change to start, see if there were any objections (because I believed myself to be in the right), and then continue on. You say that I'm doing it wrong, so I'll stop for now. Exactly which articles need oxidation states in the titles, and which do not? Utopes (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its a messy area. And we are squabbling over minor stuff here for 99% of readers. I dont think that many people look up or care about nickel selenide.

It would however be nice that for some of these chalcogenides that readers are left with the dissatisfying impression that oxidation states do not work for nonstoichiometric materials, especially when they are semiconductors. The chalcogenides of most of the first row metals are usually nonstoichiometric and no oxidation state should be assigned. The chalcogenides of the alkali and alkaline earth metals are safe (stoichiometry and insulators).

I can try to raise this point (i.e. that nonstoichiometric chalcogenides should have no oxidation state assignments) to the community, but after names have settled in, it is difficult to rename. One must plead to administrative editors who are disinterested, dont know these areas well, or would prefer to avoid disagreements.

Standardization of naming (nickel(II) halides vs nickel dichloride etc) is a useful goal. But accuracy is probably more important.

Chromium(III) acetate was a sorry defeat for me, but no one is god here. I prefer the basic acetate nomenclature because there is no triacetate of chromium which the chromium acetate implies. But you and other editors prevailed, for the wrong reasons (IMHO).

Thanks for the message.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]