Talk:Supramolecular chemistry

Why supramolecular chemistry, not supramolecular science?
I wonder if the article can be more appropriately titled as 'Supramolecular Science' or just 'supramolecules' after all the subject is multidisciplinary and definitely not limited to conventional chemistry Hallenrm (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Unverified Claims or Possible Original Research
The section I have marked does not cite sources which corroborate that those listed are, in fact, subsections of Supramolecular Chemistry. A source, such as one from Lehn or Cram or, well, anyone reputable, would help. Jeremiah (talk·cont) 16:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * that tag is not helpful. The points you raise should be addressed on the specialist page with each segment (only the part on templated synthesis does not have a specialist page). I have seen a Lehn reference on at least three pages. No point in duplicating references V8rik (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If there was a large banner that just said "Who says this?" I would have used it. Otherwise I would have to tag each paragraph with  and it would make the whole section look like shit.  If you'd like to avail yourself of something more useful than suggesting a tag is unhelpful, perhaps you could dig up that Lehn reference you seem to be aware of on at least 3 pages and posting it in the appropriate location.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize, my previous entry was unhelpful and brash. The tag does does necessarily describe each paragraph, but nevertheless there are several subsections (or paragraphs) within the section, thus I employ a full tag.  The following sections do not contain references to supramolecular chemistry in them (if they contain any references at all).  Resolve the reference issues therein or cite the appropriate reference in the paragraph and I'll consider the issue resolved.

Template-directed synthesis

Biomimetics

Molecular imprinting

Jeremiah (talk·cont) 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

tags at the appropriate places instead of the current tag. That would be more to the point. V8rik (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being considerate. Molecular imprinting appears to be a subset of molecular recognition. I still prefer you use


 * If we can cut it back to just one paragraph, as opposed to three, I'd be happy to use as opposed to a full tag.  As for molecular imprinting being a component of molecular recognition, it certainly is.  The problem being, this is an article about supramolecular chemistry - which generally doesn't include (though it should) protein-substrate interactions  --  this article presents it as an entirely synthetic concept.  I would think that a reference could easily be found where synthetic molecular imprinting has been done under the penumbra of "supramolecular chemistry."  Such a reference would be excellent.  Jeremiah (talk·cont) 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dumb Down
Think you could possibly dumb this down a bit. I understand it, but going on scienceforums.net and explaining it to someone is much of an annoyance. --Cyberman 08:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope that my revisions helped. I attempted to remove content that simply described self-assembly and not the broader topic of supramolecular chemistry. There is a self-assembly topic for this content. I also tried to remove content that was repeated. --M_stone 19:14, 11 March 2006

Cycloaddition of trans-1,2-bis(4-pyridyl)ethylene (already in green chemistry)
this edit will have to go, it is also included in green chemistry. Try to limit specific content to just one page V8rik 15:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm sorry. I just thought that it was applicable to both articles, but I'm still getting the hang of editing--thanks for the info. Mrestko 23:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, welcome to Wiki! Also thanks for your consideration V8rik 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that this subject is too general to site specific examples. Instead I suggest linking it to another topic that is more specific to the example, such as green Chemistry perhaps. --M_stone 14:13, 4 May 2006

Definition of supramolecular chemistry
I wonder if the definition of supramolecular chemistry on this page is not broad enough. The IUPAC definition is rather narrow. A better definition might be found to include coordination complexes that still retain subunit function, but are definitely connected by covalent bonds. Polynuclear ruthenium and osmium complexes bridged by polyimine ligands require rather harsh conditions (refluxing DMF) to be broken, often resulting in decomposition, not reversible reaction behavior. There are other examples in the literature. For examples see: Balzani, V. et al. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 759. or Sauvage, J.-P. et al. Chem. Rev. 1994, 94, 993.


 * I think the definition is reasonably broad and well-supported. The non-covalent bonding requirement is crucial to avoid encompassing all areas of chemistry. M stone 22:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

New material and some organization.
I have added a lot of material in an attempt to cover more of the subject, since the article seemed to be rather focused on the synthetic chemical side of things. Other notable additions are a thermodynamics section (which is important since supramolecular thermodynamics has many differences to that of covalent chemistry), and a section listing important building blocks. I have tried to make this a better "jumping off" point for people looking for information.


 * It could still do with something about analytical techniques of particular interest to supramolecular chemistry (e.g. soft ionization MS methods, VT-NMR, UV-vis spectroscopy to measure CT complexes). Also, something about kinetics would be good, and although the pictures currently in are beautiful, it would be nice to have some that cover other aspects of the subject. I'm sure there are also a lot of details to add and copyedit to be done on my additions. Not to mention references to add (unfortunately I don't have easy access to a library and my old stuff is all boxed up so that's a bit of a PITA for me).


 * Any specific comments about my edit can be put here. I will check back. I think this is an extremely important article to have at a very high level, and I hope I've gone some of the way to make it so! • TheBendster (talk) 3 October 2007, 14:29 (UTC)

Overlap with Host-guest chemistrry
There is no obvious reason for this article and Host–guest chemistry being separate articles. I suggest that these two articles need to be replaced by a single article. A re-write rather than a merge is needed. Is anyone interesting in helping me to do this? Petergans (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Help, please - nomenclature
The caption to the fifth figure from the left gives the included species as " p-xylylenediammonium ". This name comes from the original publication. Can someone please specify the IUPAC name. The chemical formula of the included compound is [H3NCH2(C6H4)CH2NH3]2+. Petergans (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Gallery
If nobody objects, then move the gallery to Supramolecular chemistry. But some one image should remain here to illustrate the topic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Needs Examples
Many topics in the first half of the article do not mention any specific chemicals, reactions, or examples. It is hard to understand what the author really means. I am a person who thinks from concrete examples. Could someone just mention an example in each paragraph that does not have one? GoodExplainer (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)