Talk:Dichlorobis(triphenylphosphine)nickel(II)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Name
[edit]I understand the removal of (II) from the article title in the interests of simplicity. However the first sentence of text should have the correct name with the (II). The oxidation state will not be obvious to all readers. Dirac66 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are welcome to add it, to me (II) is just a potential source of confusion. Not a big deal to me. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Isomers
[edit]The isomerization reactions and equilibria are a very interesting aspect of these molecules. Could we have more detail on which isomer is formed under which conditions, and if possible a theoretical understanding of why?
Also, at the moment the image shows an equilibrium between cis square planar and tetrahedral isomers, but the text refers to a trans isomer. Have all three isomers (cis, trans and tetrahedral) really been observed? Dirac66 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oops. I drew what I expected since the Pt analogue is mainly cis. Will repair. Thank you very much for the comments. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Chembox visuals
[edit]In my screen the infobox has no bottom border (no grey line). When I experiment and preview, it looks OK. What do other see? Is it OK? -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The bottom border is ok on my screen with Internet Explorer 8.0 and with Firefox 26.0. What browser are you using? Dirac66 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Viewed with Safari and Firefox, the bottom border line is OK, but the CAS# entry is messed up, presenting information differently than entered. Thanks for your continued work. The effort is probably worthwhile since many compounds have multiple CAS#'s depending on the solvation and other effects. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)