Talk:Hexabenzocoronene

The two chemicals sharing the name hexabenzocoronene
DMacks used the edit summary to ask a question about hexabenzocoronene. Instead of answering at DMacks' TALK page, I will take it here.
 * C42H18 and C48H24 do not have the same structure nor the same formula, just the same short name. The formal conventions that differentiate their long form names are too complicated for me but I can describe them with my own personal convention.

To get to C42H18 start with a line-angle schematic for coronene. Of the eighteen outer carbon atoms, only twelve are connected to hydrogen atoms, whose presence is inferred. Take a linked pair of hydrogen linked carbon atoms and label them "a" and "b". Then continue around the schematic labeling the twelve hydrogen linked carbon atoms up to "l". To produce the six benzene rings add six three carbon chains to the schematic linking l to a, linking b to c, linking d to e, linking f to g, linking h to i and linking j to k.  The number of inferred hydrogen atoms in the diagram is now 18.
 * To get to C48H24 start with the same line-angle schematic for coronene. To produce the six benzene rings add six four carbon chains to the schematic linking a to b, linking c to d, linking e to  f, linking g to h, linking i to j and linking k to l.  The number of inferred hydrogen atoms in the diagram is now 24.  From my knowledge of organic chemistry I suggest that the C48H24 variant that shares the name hexabenzocoronene has never been observed.  It would be a devil to make.  Fartherred (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If "same short name" is an easy source of confusion, each one obviously has its own (unique) IUPAC systematic name. Which one of the two chemicals is this article actually about, or is this article actually about both of them? That is, what is the notable topic that has this name? If it's about one, then we shouldn't mention the other (except to say "this is not that", for example). If it's about both, then we should give the formal name of each to distinguish. It seems like (from your description, and the infobox and article itself) that here we are only talking about "hexabenzo[bc,ef,hi,kl,no,qr]coronene" not "hexabenzo[a,d,g,j,m,p]coronene" (ChemSpider 59495, PubChem CID 66107). No problem to keep the article here at this less-specific name if that's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for it. DMacks (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That latter one has been made in several ways, for example, 10.1039/C1SC00156F :) As far as distinguishing using this less-specific name, they are sometimes called "hexa-peri-hexabenzocoronene" (current article) vs "hexa-cata-hexabenzocoronene" (other one File:Hexa-cata-hexabenzocoronene.png)—see for example 10.1021/acs.orglett.6b02183). Maybe there is enough to say about each one separately (and little to say about them together?) to have two separate articles? That preparation article mentions several scientifically notable details (or applications to other chemical studies) and several patents discuss applications of it. DMacks (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was nice to see a diagram of hexabenzo[a,d,g,j,m,p]coronene much like I drew it. I am not familiar with moving electronic graphics around.  You are more knowledgeable about the chemistry and Wikipedia policies.  I will leave improving the article to others.  - Fartherred (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to join at the new Hexa-cata-hexabenzocoronene article. DMacks (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)