Talk:Manganese(III) chloride

Split

The article should be split probably. We would have an article, perhaps rather short on MnCl3 and its hydrates, which is what Wiki Chem project does for every other metal halide, sulfate, nitrate, ... That article might refer to the PPh3O adduct, which could have its own article. One ChemBox each. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

yes I agree. This is a project I intend to continue. MnCl3 had little importance or relevance until the adduct was discovered. I am still learning how to make these pages so it may take some time. RoBunsen (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Manganese(III) chloride article would be short, referring mainly to some calculations but it would have a short chembox. And it could then link to the adducts that are mentioned. If you need help, many around here can assist.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I was unable to find the information needed to make a chembox for MnCl3. Other than having CAS numbers, the adducts are similar in this regard, and due to their instability do not warrant individual pages. My plan was to make a single page for the PPh3O adduct and have "manganese(III) chloride" redirect to PPh3O adduct page. RoBunsen (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It is true that othe rmetal halides, sulfates etc. have different pages. But these are stable compounds and can be isolated, used, and have ample information for a chembox. In contrast, the Mn(III) adducts do not. So the current form is a good stopgap. Mn(III) is somewhat an exception to the example provided here. RoBunsen (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Split Found up to 10 references about the simple binary compound of MnCl₃. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 06:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, can you please provide? (I don't know what Split is) RoBunsen (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@RoBunsen: A. Chretien, G. Varga, Bull. Soc. Chim. Fr. 1936, 3, 2385–2394. States that MnCl₃ is a dark purple solid, decomposes above -40 C forming manganese(II) chloride and chlorine gas, and more such as its production. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow that is old chemistry! Thanks for the reference I will take a look. Anything before the 1980's should be covered in Wiberg's Inorganic Chemistry text. I will also look at Cotton's text and see if there are details there. I think I am not understanding the point of commenters to split the article. If MnCl3 is not stable, does it make sense to make a chem article for it? For example, FeCl has been observed gas phase, but there's no article for it. RoBunsen (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@RoBunsen: The problem here is that if the title of the article says manganese(III) chloride, bulk of the article should be about the binary compound, MnCl₃. However, most of the article is about the triphenylphosphine complex, so the article shouldn't be titled this name. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no binary MnCl3 compound. So the new split, while good, is wrong and troublesome. It is very odd and highly unusual to have an article about a make-believe compound. RoBunsen (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, if there is enough data about a compound, even though it is unstable, an article can be made. An example is carbonic acid, or lead(IV) chloride. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

these are not correct. Carbonic acid is a real compound. MnCl3 is not. RoBunsen (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

issues with MnCl3

Thanks to Smokefoot for finishing the split of this article and the OPPh3 adduct. However I have concerns about this article. It is effectively an article about a make believe compound. This is highly unusual (for instance, why no article on MnCl4, etc.). Therefore, the introduction to the article will need be changed; I am happy to do this. Likewise, it is very misleading to have the chemsheet with the mp, appearance, etc. This will also need to be deleted. I am not as familiar on how to do this but also happy to give it a try. RoBunsen (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering about the m.p. You'll notice that who ever wrote this thing also assumed than Mn(OAc)3 is real, but its totally fictional. We'll work out the existence vs non-existence thing. In the meantime, I doubt that many people are reading this article, so little harm done while we deal with it. Check out the bit about hydrated ruthenium trichloride (the only useful form of RuCl3): probably fictional. Gold(III) sulfide too. Sometimes it is useful to allow some of these complicated or bogus entities to have an article, but disparage the weak evidence in the article. Nickel(III) oxide is another one that is debatable. Sodium tris(carbonato)cobalt(III) is messy from the perspective of characterization.

Traditional inorganic chemists would claim that a given metal halide exists even if it only exists as the hydrate. So, apparently the thf solvate of MnCl₃ is ok?

General advice, dont edit on topics super close to one's research. Leads to WP:COI and general headaches. Dont declare where you might or might not be an expert. Declarations about expertise carry no weight. It is however useful to know the interests of an editor, which in effect translates to expertise. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the COI. I read that before I began writing the articles and everything checks out good for me. About expertise, I think you said something like this about SunDawn: "The complimenting editor probably is unfamiliar with the Chemistry Project, much less chemistry. I will leave note on that article." (Quoted from Smokefoot). I don't fully understand your view on the role of expertise. I think your point is that mine are not relevant - point taken.

I agree that traditional inorganic chemists might colloquially discuss a "given metal halide exists even if it only exists as the hydrate," like RuCl3 as you noted, but they certainly wouldn't claim it was a real compound when discussing it within context of scientific writing, and that includes encyclopedic descriptions. Likewise, Your analogy about RuCl3 and other compounds iis just not good. First, RuCl3 (as a binary halide) is an actual known compound. Reference 7 on the RuCl3 page is a good example where the crystal structure of RuCl3 is given. Furthermore, the compounds you listed refer to actual known compounds used by chemists. Despite having names that don't precisely describe their formulas, they do refer to real compounds. This is not the same for MnCl3. The THF adduct is known, yes, but it is ridiculously unstable and is the actual identity of the erroneously described binary halide.

So! What I did was change the article to reflect that MnCl3 is a hypothetical compound from the outset. I moved relevant sentences from later in the article into the introduction. I also changed the history section, lumping the reaction from the 1930's article with the other debunked reactions since it is equivalently the same. I think it's a lot better now and I'm at least satisfied with where it's at. The article is more accurate, but it keeps the elements inserted by other authors who wanted MnCl3 to be its own page. Since you used the analogy of RuCl3 page actually being more about the hydrate, I fail to see the logic in separating the original MnCl3 article into two articles. But as a concession, it should be properly written to reflect the truth of the compound and linked to articles that a person would be able to quickly find more useful compounds. RoBunsen (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

(bistriphenylphosphineoxide) manganese(III) chloride as main article

This article needs to be retitled to binary manganese(III) chloride. Any search for "manganese(III) chloride" should redirect to the noted adduct. I will request this change since I do not have administrative authority.

Requested move 29 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Manganese(III) chloride → binary manganese(III) chloride – manganese(III) chloride is a hypothetical compound, instead searches for “manganese(III) chloride” should redirect to the page for “(bistriphenylphosphineoxide) manganese(III) chloride”, evidence being that the page for that compound had 300 visits per month prior to the splitting of the two articles (see talk). Google searches for manganese(III) chloride should give hits that land on compounds that are real, not hypothetical compounds. Researchers using manganese(III) chloride use the adduct, not the hypothetical compound. RoBunsen (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of the article discusses how MnCl3 doesn't exist on its own and discusses complexes where this stoichiometric arrangement exists. The proposed title would just lead to more confusion and not reflect the topic of the article. The triphenylphosphine complex is not the only known compound containing MnCl3, so directing anyone using the current title there would be misleading and too specific. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is a useful compilation of several Mn(III) chlorides. The proposer, who appears to have a COI, seems intent on idolizing his compound and denigrating related species. The goal is to help not hinder readers who consult Wiki-Chem. Anyway, arent MnCl3(thf)3 and MnCl3(thf)2(OH2) real? (doi 10.1002/zaac.201500106)--Smokefoot (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS: the topic is the named chemical as apparently there is either enough to say about this chemical itself or at least as a first article on the parent compound from which others are discussed. In an article about topic X, it's typical to discuss other related topics that do not have their own articles. The guideline is not to make a page-title more specific than necessary (titles are not fully self-defining of the topic). If any of those related topics (individual complexes based on this parent, or the class of related complexes itself) merit their own articles, MOS equally guides us to name them based on what they are about. Nothing about "this specific chemical doesn't exist" or "not as high readership as a related complex" matter, as long as there is actually something to say about it based on cited refs (the WP:GNG standard). And no evidence has been presented that the readers who type "manganese(III) chloride" overwhelmingly and specifically mean the Ph3PO complex instead. DMacks (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.