Template:Did you know nominations/Hexamethylbenzene


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by   HalfGig   talk  13:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hexamethylbenzene

 * ... that the hexamethylbenzene dication (pictured) has an "unprecedented" pyramidal structure?
 * ALT1:... that the hexamethylbenzene dication (pictured) has an "unprecedented" pyramidal structure where a single carbon is bonded to six other atoms?
 * ALT2:... that the hexamethylbenzene dication (pictured) has an "unprecedented" pyramidal structure where a single carbon is bonded to six other atoms, though the octet rule usually restricts it to four bonds?
 * ALT3:... that in the hexamethylbenzene dication (pictured), a single carbon is bonded to six other atoms in an "unprecedented" pyramidal structure?
 * ALT4:... that in the hexamethylbenzene dication (pictured), a single carbon is bonded to six other atoms in an "unprecedented" pyramidal structure, breaking its four-bond limit?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Presidential M&M's
 * Sources: The Angewandte Chemie paper available as a pdf establishes the pyramidal structure and uses the term "unprecedented."  The usual situation being four bonds is covered in this article from Science News.  There is also discussion in New Scientist and here in Chemical & Engineering News.
 * Comment: Here is the nomination, with a few versions of the hook.  Any thoughts on which is preferable / most interesting / intriguing?  Any other suggestions?  EdChem (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

5x expanded by EdChem (talk) and DMacks (talk). Nominated by EdChem (talk) at 23:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC).


 * I wonder whether an image of the crystal structure, like at the top of this page, might be a better image than the image I have proposed. DMacks could likely prepare one from the available data, and the image would be free as PD-chem, I think.  Such an image might be a good inclusion to the article, too.  EdChem (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The only data I see in the 2017 Angew.Chem. article is xyz coordinates of an optimized structure (though presumably that's pretty close to the "actual X-ray") and no thermal displacement data. With only xyz, I can only do skeletal or ball&stick-like structures, not thermal ellipsoids (the "football" atomic shapes have actual scientific meaning). That dataset is what I used for the image there now, and I hit the H and used thick bonds without large atom-balls in order to focus attention on the novel aspects: the overall bonding and pentagonal-pyramid framework. Would be easy enough to unhide the H and/or use larger atoms (but they would be spheres) with thinner bonds if that style preferable. Having the C as visible balls might emphasize their location to readers, making it easier to say "look at that one with 6 bonds to it!"? If the ref does include a rendering based on additional/alternate data, we could probably copy the image (possibly PD-chem, or if the data is actually not available, non-free fair use). But I dislike PD-chem'ing cut'n'paste from journals even if it's technically within policy, and non-free probably isn't usable in mainpage thumb. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I realise the thermal ellipsoids need data to construct, and if you prefer the current image, that's fine. I just think it is more meaningful to those familiar with chemistry.  You are aware some of my images are indeed cut'n'paste from web sources then modified and marked PD-chem, right?  It's one reason (separate from quality) that I prefer them to be replaced with properly-drawn (ideally SVG) images.  Anyway, what do you think is the best choice of image for non- and neophyte-chemists for a small image for the DYK set?  It will need to be included in the article too, maybe with colour-coding of some sort to highlight the 6 "bonds"?  And you are correct, fair use is prohibited.  EdChem (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding hooks, ALT4 is too casual with the language and not scientifically correct. Four isn't the actual limit, or at least not in the same concept of "limit" as what is being broken. Compare to ALT2 that has it correct. ALT1 and ALT3 seem comparable to each other. I like ALT3/ALT4 better than original/ALT1/ALT3 because it says more clearly what seems novel about this thing (6-bonds-to-C, not pentagonal-pyramid). But in that case might need wordsmithing to bind the term "unprecedented" to the 6-bonds-to-C aspect. DMacks (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This says ALT3 is better than ALT3 - which one did you mean as ALT2? Or, perhaps strike the ones you are objecting to?  Thanks, EdChem (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * QPQ provided – Template:Did you know nominations/Presidential M&M's EdChem (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that hook discussion has ended. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. Approving ALT3 as what seems to be the selected hook after the above discussion, and striking the others. The image is in the public domain, the article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)