Talk:Ortho-Diethynylbenzene dianion

Synthesis & cover image
I don’t think the colon in step 1 should be struck through “ : ” but, oddly enough, it seems intentional. Furthermore, as I saw the cover image, I was mislead into thinking each extension from benzene was C#C-C(-) as opposed to C#C(-). 1 idea for clarity is to replace the structural lines w/ “C”. However, there might be another way to notate. Dfcorrea00 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Half resolved Dfcorrea00 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of two related articles
Propose merging meta-Diethynylbenzene dianion and para-Diethynylbenzene dianion into ortho-Diethynylbenzene dianion as the three articles all cover essentially the same topic. The ortho isomer is the most notable as it has the highest proton affinity of the three so it should be the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccdy (talk • contribs) 12:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I, Sushant Nair, the main author of the afforementioned articles, am opposing this merger. The reason I state is that these compounds, though similar in chemical properties, should have seperate articles because of minute differences in the structure and nature of these compounds. I hereby request a stop to this resolution for a merger. Thank you. Sushn345wiki (talk)


 * Your original article was poorly-written and contained a bunch of extraneous information (e.g. there's absolutely no need to explain IUPAC nomenclature in every article about a compound). The diagram was poorly-drawn as well so I provided a better one, which was summarily removed. I also corrected some inaccuracies in the original article, for example the IUPAC name should be 1,2-phenylenebis(ethyn-1-ide) (see IUPAC Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry, P-72.5 Multiple anionic centers - PDF available here). The last paragraph of the article introduction is incorrect, which is why I removed it: lithium monoxide cannot exist in solution, and there is no mention of possible uses of o-diethynylbenzene dianion in alkaline batteries in the paper referenced. I merged the "Conditions of Synthesis and Observation", "Summary of Synthesis", and "Summary of the reaction" sections because there really isn't any need to have three separate sections on the same thing. For some reason you also removed the references I added for the basicity of LiO- and CH3-.


 * The three isomers do have different chemical properties, but one of the key findings of Poad et. al. (2016) was the differing proton affinities and stabilities of the three isomers. It doesn't make sense to discuss these three species separately. I won't touch your edits yet but I hope you can understand why I made those changes after reading this.Ccdy (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that it makes sense to combine all three ions into one page. While they display minor differences in reactivity, I don't feel that this is sufficient for each isomer to have it's own page. Also, you are correct in that neither LiO- nor any of the diethynyl benzene dianions can exist in solution; all of these were synthesised inside the vacuum of a mass spectrometer. Its also worth noting that a computational group has recently reported an even stronger analogue of these dianions based on borazine, however there is no experimental report of these being made yet Bljpoad (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I support merger. The ortho chemical is notable, whereas the others are just analogous structures that have nothing further to be said (they were never the extreme of affinity, just a structural variation). DMacks (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Those engaging in this discussion should be aware that there is now an article summarizing the three compounds, Diethynylbenzene dianion, that I wrote. I think that that be the merge target instead if we go ahead with the merge. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support the merge to Diethynylbenzene dianion, with separate section for each of those structural isomers which share very similar chemical properties and are hence best discussed together. Klbrain (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Renewed attempt to improve article
I've made substantial revisions to make the article more clear, concise, and accurate. Now battling Wikipedia's anti-vandalism bot in an attempt to make them stick. -J.P. Demers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.91.2 (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working on this! Definitely has several substantial improvements. Cluebot can be kinda clueless sometimes (a mild trout to User:Kirbanzo for blindly undoing as well without looking at the history), and I appreciate your continued perseverance. DMacks (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)