Talk:Oxonickelates

Probably a good idea to consult an inorganic chemist before creating such articles

Not sure where the definition in this area is coming from but in the area inorganic chemistry, nickelate is loosely used for anions containing nickel. These are nickelates:

• [Ni₅(CO)₁₂]²⁻ and [Ni₆(CO)₁₂]²⁻ (a zillion of these clusters are known)
• Potassium hexafluoronickelate(IV) and K₂NiF₄.
• Here are the first of ~ 40 titles in Inorganic Chemistry using the term "nickelate" (presumably other inorganic journals would have similar numbers).
  • "Polarized Spectra of Tetracyano Nickelate Crystals"
  • "Structure of tetraphenylarsonium bis(N-cyanodithiocarbimato)nickelate(II)"
  • "Structure of Di(tetramethylammonium)bis(maleonitriledithiolate) nickelate(II)"

In the future, it is probably a good idea to consult an inorganic chemist before creating such articles. Otherwise things get very confusing.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I had better straighten out the definition so it is not confusing, but I based it on wikt:nickelate. Perhaps you would like to fix that one! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the article going to end up listing all classes of anionic nickel complexes and their salts, plus their examples? I just wonder if we want to aim for lists, because entries will be in the hundreds, possibly thousands. There are many mixed ligand cases. Since every element-ate (cuprate, ruthenate) will be the basis of similarly complex articles, it is worth thinking through a grand plan. One idea, also pretty complicated, would aim for an article on compounds of nickel, akin to compounds of zinc, and then have an article on nickel oxides, which might have been the original intent. I just think that the listing business is horrendously complicated when the topic is so broad. Another way to deal with your interest in these anions would be to start a category on anionic nickel complexes.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I am thinking that I will split this up into sub articles, starting with cyanonickelates, and then fluoronickelates and chloronickelates. One issue is that all those mixed ligand complexes you mention are not called nickelates, and so would look silly here. Then in this article they can just get a mention as a class, with a link to an article with more about it. Compounds of nickel sounds like a good idea, but would be a lot of work! It should not be too hard to expand beyond nickel#compounds. Your idea about nickel oxides for this sounds like a good idea, with everything else split off. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want inspiration, there are a few articles on cyanoplatinates that give an idea of what a cyanonickelate article might look like: Platinocyanide, Krogmann's salt. --Ben (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The content related to that is now in Cyanonickelate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What's the idea behind these big tables listing various salts containing the anionic complex? My gut instinct is most of that information is too detailed for Wikipedia (at least given the present depth and breadth of coverage in chemistry). Personally, I love to see all the data, but Wikipedia isn't quite the place for it. It can be useful to the author of an article to get some facts in order, but most readers will want a summary of the salient points. --Ben (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of the article is to have the table, as the article is basically a list of the substances. The details are most usefully presented in a table. The text can eventually grow as the salient points about the various substances are written. Expanding all the detail in text is not the best, but a table is a better way to show more info. If each substance had its own article, it would have an infobox / chembox listing this information, but I can't put dozens of chemboxes in this, it would be worse than a table. For most substances, they will not have sufficient notability to have an article in themselves, but the verifiable information can be combined in such an article on the class of substances. Note that I am cutting pieces of this off to make other pages, so it will not be so intimidating! I am trying to increase the depth of chemistry pages here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This article definitely increases the depth of the chemistry articles, but its width that is of concern. This trajectory of this article is almost unending because inorganic chemists, at least, consider every anionic Ni complex to be a nickelate. I recall that somewhere in Wiki guidelines that there is a warning against amassing giant lists or collecting indiscriminate information. We have all started wiki projects only to realize that they were too ill-defined. There are probably important nickel compounds that are not described very well, even good ole nickel(II) chloride lacks structural depictions of the various hydrates. But its only server space I suppose.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You will be pleased to note that I have taken up your suggestion and started drafting at User:Graeme Bartlett/compounds of nickel. But I am still also working on solid nitrogen and a bit on Helium compounds (which unfortunately is also just a list). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In parallel, I am working on sulfides of polonium, deciding it was more tractable than hydrides of carbon. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree the more obscure the topic, the easier it is to look at all the writings on it and come up with an article! I am not sure if this is a real joke here or whether we are going to see polonium sulfide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The compounds of nickel article is a good idea. I see your logic with the tables, and it's true that compounds not deserving an article of their own can be briefly mentioned in a table. However, I don't see what readers gain from very long lists of lattice parameters. This isn't information that anyone can use to understand nickel oxides, it needs commentary. What are you hoping readers will learn from the lattice parameters? --Ben (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The lattice parameters are something that is measured for most crystalline substances to characterise them. Hopefully the location of atoms relative to each other is determined, and so the kind of bonding is established. It can indicate the density, and are of use in the materials science to predict properties. They determine how close atoms are to each other. It can be used practically to identify what is in a mix. If other information was available that made more sense, such as melting points, colour, refractive index, we should add that too. However what I see is mostly even more obscure than lattice parameters! Part of the study of these materials is to find things like the cuprates that might be high temperature super conductors. However there is actual use as catalysts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Garbage

This article is garbage. The editors seem to have no chemical knowledge. That is, nickel oxides are not nickelates and nickelates are not nickel oxides. Nickel oxides MUST, BY DEFINITION, be limited to materials with the compositions Ni_xO_y although for historical reasons OH groups and H₂O substituents may also be part of the compostion. Nickelates are anions and by definition not chemical compounds (although they are chemical "species" or chemical "structures") since they are charged. Generally, a chemical compound is a neutral stoichiometric stable chemical mixture in which the "main" bonding is either ionic or covalent, and generally standard conditions are assumed unless otherwise implied. The Table this article displays is of Nickelates yet claims to be Nickel Oxides. This article should either clearly separate the oxides from the -ates or simply be split into two articles. (There's almost no information about the oxides here!) Note that specific disciplines, such as geology, mineralogy, astronomy, coordination chemistry, etc. etc. may, again for historical reasons, use the term differently from the more precise (and useful) general (inorganic) chemical nomenclature. IUPAC has clearly defined what is and what is not acceptable terminology (see their various "color" books). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.37.249 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

This article was originally called nickelates, but on the discussion above it was determined not to be a good idea. The problem is that there are different groups of scientists calling different classes of chemicals "nickelates". The materials scientists use the term for what is in the list on this page. This page was supposed to be about the double oxides of nickel, important to materials science. Other kinds of "nickelates" now have their own articles. It may have a better name. Can you suggest one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I came here and was a little surprised that there is no link to Nickel(II) oxide which I would normally just call nickel oxide. I added a for template for that at the top.

Regarding nomenclature, I think the IUPAC recommendation would be oxidonickelate, but a google scholar search for that returns exactly zero results. Oxonickelate gives a few so maybe "Oxonickelates" would be a better page title? Pelirojopajaro (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Nickelite, Lanthanum

When I searched this, it returned a mineral, not the compound that in this article was using. I think maybe nickelate(I) if following the info on the right, but that is probably not correct. NIckel has to bond with two oxygens not one. The full compound search returned, in a springer article, the compound below lanthanum nickelate. Should someone edit this entry? 98.97.116.36 (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

searched nickelite separately first 98.97.116.36 (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

unless the structure is this?

O^-2 --> Ni⁺ --- O^- 98.97.116.36 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

suggestion: split the table according to the different nickelate anions 98.97.116.36 (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)