Talk:Bridged compounds

Edits of this date
This nonsense: …was removed, the article was given a quick once over based on IUPAC and Clayden to make it other than nauseating to any informed chemist. Tags were placed (to note the cribbing of the bullets in the nomenclature direct from the IUPAC document), but really to get the ball rolling toward making this an organic article, rather than a draft outline of a second or third form student's interpretation of the IUPAC text.
 * "Bridged compounds are compounds which contain interlocking rings."

I am sorry to be so blunt, but the article, on its being found via link today, was poorer quality than any undergraduate student organic work I have ever seen. It is simply embarrassing to think that it appeared here and at all of the myriads of WP mirror sites for a decade.

Let's begin to get it up to snuff. Do the diff from the Edit history if you want to see today's changes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits of this date
Some of the reply edits were useful, but in other cases less so:
 * The URL-only nomenclature source added throughout was already provided in Further reading; so, that one already provided—the long-form citation of the IUPAC nomenclature (see, for instance, the Steroid article)—was returned. That is, between the two, the more complete, but otherwise identical source, was chosen;
 * I re-wrote the paraphrase that was done of the IUPAC material, because "straight line" and "foremost" are not acceptable examples of good descriptive organic chemistry language (where the earlier, widely used "branched" was just fine). [The substituted prose to eliminate the copyvio was well-intentioned, but it is not standard chemical language used in teaching organic. The replacement of "unbranched" (which one could easily wikilink to the concept to articles where unbranched is used) and "main bridge" with non-standard language does not make clear what was meant by the original IUPAC language (second problem not yet solved). ]
 * Clayden's description, which is from the best UK undergraduate text, and so makes a perfect prose-level for WP introductory material, was returned to the lede, so that the very technical IUPAC language was not the last word. The shortened lede of the reply edits was not where we needed to end the lede.
 * Removal of all of the example structures placed by earlier editors was reverted; what was needed was a thoughtful culling to ensure good, non-repetitive examples remained. The examples provide the only visual explanation of heterocyclic bridged compounds, both with regard to bridgehead and bridge-containing heteroatoms; they are not all needed, but some are, and what remains need to be supplemented with other good examples (e.g., the common 7-oxabicyclo[2.2.1]heptane).
 * Removal of the carefully chosen, and thoughtful "legend-ed" lede images was in part reverted. The images in the lede are the the only thing that makes the IUPAC-based lede understandable.

The original IUPAC prose by early editors (not those recently working, thanks be for them) should not have been copy and pasted as it was by those early editors; but the recent personal paraphrase simply took the material out of the realm of standard chemistry description, and did not actually make it understandable or acceptable, with regard to the chemistry. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)