Talk:Cyanogen halide

Merger Proposal
I would suggest that we could get one nice article if we were to combine the cyanogen halides (CNCN, FCN, ClCN, BrCN & ICN) into this topic. There isn't really enough information about any of the group individually to make a reasonable article. The ChemBoxes may create some problem here, though. Any thoughts?JSR (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the merge, these are all distinct molecules which will have adequate published to make separate articles beyond stub. only FCN is a stub anyway! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Forget about it. The wisdom of the idea or lack thereof behind this idea is beside the point: just about impossible politically to undo an article, although your instincts are appealing  - to create one good overview.   One of the awkward features with Wikipedia is hyper-compartmentalization coupled to the fact that anyone who can type can create an article.   We just have to live with it.  Also the chem boxes are a problem.  --Smokefoot (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of having a general article about cyanogen halides, but oppose merging all the current articles. There is no reason that a good overview article couldn't be written by expanding cyanogen halide while still keeping the articles on individual members of this class of compounds (even if it means some duplication of content between these articles). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. I will give it a couple more days and then drop the merger proposal, unless the tide should change significantly. CNI, CNBr and CNCl are generally lumped together in most texts as there really isn't that much research going on this area.JSR (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The general article is good idea though, so no need to hold back from that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The merger proposal has been removed from the various articles. I believe we can consider this discussion closed.JSR (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)