Template talk:Chemical bonds

Comments

• This template is now really huge! I think we need to consider splitting it or making some sections collapsible (with [hide]/[show] buttons or equivalent).
• The term "pseudo-chemical bond" seems made up. I'm trying to think of a better name; perhaps something like "special bond types in biomolecules"?
• The 3c-4e bond is certainly not bent. I'm not sure about the 4c-2e either. Only the 3c-2e is regularly called bent, but since bent bond is an ambiguous term used with several different meanings I think it's better not to indent anything under it.
• Another exotic type of bond that could be added is the aurophilic bond. --Itub (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is huge, but I think it is more important to be comprehensive.

A solution would be to drop completely the pseudo-chemical bonds that are not really chemical bonds.

3c-4e I believe was given as a banana bond example

added it.

Nergaal (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Where was the 3c-4e given as a banana bond example? I find it odd, given that these bonds are generally linear. --Itub (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I must have been tired when I said that. Anyways, when I expanded the template I just tried to add as many related articles as possible. I did categorize them hastly. I also agree with the splitting/reclassification. Nergaal (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try to split it into two and see what happens. Nergaal (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

see also {{intermolecular bonds}} and tell me what you think. Also, I am of the opinion to drop completely the ones in the pseudo- category, since they are not chemical bonds. They are just a tool for biologists that have no chemical/physical knowledge to label their problemsNergaal (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the biological bonds, but I think you are being too unkind to our biologist friends. ;-) While these are not "fundamental" bond types, but rather are closer to the organic chemist's concept of a functional group, they do have notable properties that deserve distinction. The split looks good in general, but I'm not entirely convinced of including hydrogen bonds and such under 3c4e bonds. While it is true that they have some 3c4e character (especially the symmetric hydrogen bond), they are already listed as intermolecular, and their inclusion in the intramolecular template could cause some confusion. --Itub (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded a more complex template that thould go at the bottom of the pages instead of close to the top. let me know what you think before I go ahead through all the articles. Nergaal (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of the "Intermolecular bonds" are also seen intramolecularly. I'm not sure this distinction is a workable one here. DMacks (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on it later. any sugestions till then? Nergaal (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the new template. The horizontal layout at the bottom of an article has more room without causing the problem that a large floating template. Perhaps "other" could be renamed to "biomolecular" or something like that, but it's not that important. --Itub (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Phi bonds

I am not going to oppose the introduction of phi bonds in this template but it will cause a great deal of confusion. Looks a lot like a spelling error pi/phi. The concept of a phi bond is also very poorly introduced in the article dealing with it V8rik (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat oppose phi on the grounds of V8rik's idea of confusion among a large part of our target readership, between something that is very important with a full article and something that has only a small section based on a single primary-literature source in a larger article. The idea of covalent-bonding patterns of molecular-orbital symmetry embodied in this set of links is covered in a coherent section of Molecular orbital rather than Covalent bond, even though the latter is the name and link for this group of links (and does not actually discuss the symmetry idea!)--that's a bit of a WP:NAVBOX guideline concern. Maybe the sigma/pi/delta/etc group should have a label "bond symmetry"? That way it's more defined (and explained via bluelink) what the grouping is. Then we wouldn't need to list the phi and gamma oddball cases that don't have articles because they are mentioned to the appropriate level in the article for the group.

I would oppose gamma, and strongly-so, if phi, the preceding entry in a self-consistent list of the bond-types, is omitted. As far as WP content stands, it's completely undiscussed and as far as general understanding goes seems unlikely to be a real thing (we're nowhere near having substantial chemistry with low-lying g atomic-orbitals from what I can see in the literature). Therefore it appears to be purely hypothetical in the WP editing world--WP loves hypothetical things based on real sources, but not WP:SYNTH extensions of that. DMacks (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Height

I wonder how a user in a healthy mind can make an edit like [1]. Not only the entire navbox became taller, not only a large blank space erupted in its right half, but types of bonds in the left side became in Götz’s version… less legible. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

you could simply say that you don't think it's an improvement, rather than commenting on someone's mental health. Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like you, Incnis Mrsi, to not be disrespectful with me (or other people), please read Wikipedia:Civility.

If the template is higher, it is not much problem, because usually the web pages are longer on the vertical axis than on the horizontal axis. So it is common and easier to scroll up–down than to scroll left–right.

It is true that the blank spaces at the right of ionic and metallic bonds are bigger, but that can easily be changed. --Götz (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I partial reverted back, as it mainly depends on display resolution (on lower resolutions usability is affected). It is better a bit taller that wider. The blank space is now smaller, as before. --Götz (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger with theory?

Does it really make sense to have separate navboxen for "Chemical bonds" (this page) and "Chemical bonding theory"? Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)