Talk:Transition metal carbene complex


 * I am inclined to remove this silly assessment tag: please specify in detail what it is that you find lacking in this article. V8rik 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Carbene, persistent carbene and NHC
I started a discussion on the talk-page of Carbene about what info should end up where regarding carbenes. Could interested people please join there? Dirk Beetstra 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The term carbene ligand is a formalism since many are not derived from carbenes and almost none exhibit the reactivity characteristic of carbenes. if this is true, please attach a reference, or explain with examples later in the text. cause it's confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 July 2010

Can the author comment on "All transition metals form such complexes." Both the "Persistent Carbenes" page, and my TA in a synthesis lab indicate that there are several transition metals for which no persistent carbene complex has yet been formed. Thanks for any information on the validity of this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.150.240 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 November 2010

There's no one author, there are many. I've replaced it with "many" on the off-chance that one has not been synthesized, but they probably will all be eventually. Polly Arnold published a review on the Lanthanides and Actinides, perhaps interesting reading:. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"synthesis of natural products" sounds awkward, only I can't think of a way to rewrite this. Maybe I have a writer's block ;) Simon de Danser (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert dispute
Smokefoot, I'm sorry I don't see what you mean? If you read the paper it's the seminal work on theoretical understanding of this bond. Ensuring that the proper citations for work are present does not amount to "spamming". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikingo999 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for leaving a note. As the reverting editor, I dont take issue with the value of your paper.  My issue stems from the many papers that appear annually on TM carbene complexes.  Probably thousands.  So what is Wikipedia-Chem supposed to do?
 * Rely on authors of papers to decide? They are probably not unbiased judges of significance, because we all think that our papers are seminal or significant.
 * Cite most publications on TM carbenes? Doing would overwhelm the article and thus diminish the value of Transition metal carbene complex for readers?


 * Many editors of Wikipedia-Chem would welcome your recommendations. Our usual solution is to mainly cite books and reviews.


 * The thing that weighs on editors here is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: it gives an overview of an topic. If one seeks inclusion of ones work, many review journals exist. One can even create a blog or website. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300
— Assignment last updated by UBC24 AT (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Article Improvement Plan:
 * - Add references to the introduction, Schrock carbene and applications sections, as well as re-work the current references to add broad secondary and preferably free-access sources, as well as the current primary sources.
 * - Add an orbital bonding scheme for both the carbene fragment itself (triplet vs singlet) as well as the interaction with the metal.
 * - Rework and correct the applications section. Correct the statements about the SHOP process, add more laboratory and industrially relevant applications, talk more about olefin metathesis specifically and the catalysts (Grubbs and Schrock as initial, current work)
 * - Add to the history section, mentioning Chugaev’s red salt more than just in the figure, the work on Schrock carbenes and metathesis catalysts. NatMath13 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The thing about homogeneous carbene complexes (Schrock, Grubbs): it is difficult to cut through all the academic hype. I mean organic synthesis is cute, but ...  The big boys in carbene chemistry are heterogeneous.  Propylene-butene/ethylene.  All that work preceded Schrock, Grubbs. Also your instructor is not an organometallic chemist.  And finally, he appears to have barely edited on Wikipedia, if at all.  Where I come from, we call that situation the blind leading the blind.  In any case, please try to use general references.  Good luck.  --Smokefoot (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have just transfered my modifications of the article to the live page. Modifications developped through the class peer-review and evaluation process. The modification history in the sandbox draft can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NatMath13/Transition_metal_carbene_complex NatMath13 (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Alkylidene redirect?
Currently alkylidene redirects to this page, but this also is a term for functional groups of the form \dCHR for H/alkyl R (e.g. methylidene group \dCH2, ethylidene group \dCHCH3). While many alkylidenes do occur as ligands in transition metal complexes, there also are some organic compounds that reference them, e.g. ethylidene norbornene.

I'm not sure how much the groups as a class warrant their own page, but they are a distinct concept from carbene complexes. Fishsicles (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. Part of the problem is an evolutionary: few editors have knowledge of the topic, and there is a lot of stuff to cover. Some thoughts:

--Smokefoot (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We do have methylidene (needs a book ref).
 * alkylidene should have its own page, but maybe should direct to methylidene until we have that page.
 * alkylidene complex should redirect to the Schrock carbene section of transition metal carbene complex.


 * Putting a draft page at Draft:alkylidene group for now, as I'm not sure how much the carbenes versus the functional groups merit whole pages and to not touch the redirect yet. Considering that methylidene is itself a redirect to methylene (which might merit its own discussion to change that, since "methylidene" is meant to help distinguish >CH2 from =CH2), I could see an alkylidene page about both the functional groups and the carbenes as an option as well. Fishsicles (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Here are some thoughts and prejudices.


 * IUPAC is convenient when it comes to defining terms but few editors respect IUPAC nomenclature for naming compounds. Something to keep in mind.
 * Part of the culture here (among active editors) is that we like a ref to a real book (vs IUPAC website). March's organic text provides several examples of organic alkylidenes.
 * If you look at methylene (compound) (newly renovated by me), you will see that methylidene is defined as CH2=, not -CH2-. It must have a double bond.  I guess the same goes for alkylidene.
 * I am wondering if I should have merged the two methylene articles .... --Smokefoot (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)