Talk:Hexafluoride

Article reads like a school essay
The article summarizes a lot of interesting work, but (IMHO) it has one overarching issue: where did this come from "A hexafluoride is a chemical compound with the general formula XF6." Seems like WP:synthesis, hence my comment that this article reads a little like a (very good) school essay. Is the article reporting on an area (the goal of Wikipedia) or trying to create one (not our mission)? In my areas of activity, the big hexafluorides are PF6-, AsF6-, SbF6-. Industrially, the big hexafluoride is probably SiF62-, which may even eclipses UF6 in tonnage. And in the classroom, we like to talk about many anionic metal hexafluorides. It is conceivable that organofluorine chemists refer to C2F6 and C6F6 as hexafluorides, but as long as one is inventing definitions, these compounds fall within the scope of this article. So maybe we should consider broadening this article (or rename it "charge neutral monomeric MF6 compounds not including carbon"). --Smokefoot (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah. All this stuff is kind of tricky (classification and all).  It is pretty decent nevertheless.  And I'm happy for the person who wrote it.  I quite like the diagram of the binaries. To me the "list" designation is the most approproate as it gives a little free play for synthesis inherently.TCO (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "the person who wrote it" That would have been Itub. Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What next tetrachlorides? Triiodides? Pentabromides? --Smokefoot (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tetroxides? I've been thinking of that for a while. There aren't that many, anyway, so it shouldn't take too long. Double sharp (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have made my sarcasm clearer: These projects represent WP:SYNTHESIS and end up confusing readers by implying classifications that are not very useful and not widely used by practicing chemists.  Hence my view that these projects are not something that we should undertake.  On the other hand such articles do occupy energetic editors and keep them from meddling in serious stuff.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A hexafluoride is, strictly speaking, a (VI) fluoride or a molecular ion created by adding or subtracting electrons from a (VI) fluoride. For instance, sulfur hexafluoride and xenon hexafluoride are, respectively, sulfur(VI) fluoride and xenon(VI) fluoride, the hexafluoroplatinate ion is created by adding one electron to platinum(VI) fluoride, and the hexafluoroargentate(IV) ion is created by adding two electrons to the hypothetical silver(VI) fluoride. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 20:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the source of your definition?  Where does the "strictly speaking" come from?  IMHO, you are doing what we call WP:SYNTHESIS - you are using Wikipedia, with good intentions I am sure, to define a topic.  And you defend this turf so jealously that one could get the impression that you WP:OWN the article (or are nervous about being challenged). It just seems to me that this and some related articles would deceive someone who lacks experience of the scope of chemistry.  There are probably a lot of hexafluorides, I think.  M2F6Ln's for example for a zillion L's not to mention charges and molecularities.  Some circumspection would help.


 * Many of us started with similar quirks in our early days of Wikipedia: after we learned the basic rules, we were eager to share perspectives and nuggets of knowledge. That inclination is admirable.  But sometimes one needs to step back from such inclinations.  Tell-tale sign that one is at the limits of knowledge and good wiki-tastte are the increased reliance on primary references (see WP:SECONDARY) and the development of feelings of ownership.  Well, think it over.  I am glad to discuss this and related topics in the inorganic area, that way we can all learn together and advance the project at the same time.  --Smokefoot (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I showed up too late to get into the discussion. You're all missing a very minor point (yet to be mentioned): if you involve anions, why not cations? I am aware of at least four: (X=Re,I,Br,Cl). Read fluorine (wow, I got that in...huh). And more may come one day (technetium maybe). Also, are organics really hexafluorides? I mean, it is very very very uncommon to think of an organic compound as of a hexafluoride. It's hexafluoroethane or maybe perfluoroethane, but certainly not dicarbon hexafluoride (can be written "can be thought as" at least). Also, OsOF6 (central osmium bonded to an oxygen and six fluorides, totaling seven ligands, OS of +8) -- would be a hexafluoride (isn't it more an oxyfluoride than a fluoride; however, may be thought as of "monoxyosmyl(VIII)" derivative)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure the cations are good idea. I had forgotten them.  There are lots of things called hexafluorides. The problem that I had with this article was Woopwoop's  approach to controlling an article to showcase (and impose on the readership) his/her limited knowledge of basic chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Useful review
Recent review by Konrad Seppelt: --Ben (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)