Talk:Zinc compounds

A fact from Zinc compounds appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 February 2009, and was viewed approximately 458 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that, although it is traditionally classified as a transition metal, in forming compounds the element zinc has similarities to the alkaline earth metals?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/February.

Wikipedia

Elements Mid‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Original version of this article was copied from the article zinc. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article is now in duplicate here and on the zinc page. This is not according to Wikipedia guidelines. If this is where you want to contain this content it should be deleted/summarised in the zinc page. V8rik (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be by the time zinc goes to FAC. Nergaal (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class B definitely

Excellent - congratulations Peter. This needs very little, IMHO to push it right through to GA. You have set a benchmark for all of the other elements. A few constructive comments-

the similarity to Cu(I) - I know what you mean - but taken out of context (i.e the reader didn't read the previous paragraphs about d¹⁰ and geometry etc.) it would be construed as being misleading - would it be worth adding weasel words to highlight the aspects of Cu(I) that aren't parallelled e.g exclude the d⁹ influenced geometries and reduction reactions"? Perhaps a few examples may help there - e.g. the basic nitrate could be added to the compound list and used to parallel that of Cu(I) (if I remember it correctly!).
Regarding hydrolysis of the aqua ion, Zn halides present a problem as they are just too acid- evidence now is that for zinc chloride there are hydrated ZnCl_x complexes present in solution- (which I guess now begs the question as to whether all zinc salts can now be classified as fully dissociated.)
However in spite of your eloquence ---I remain convinced that zinc is not a transition metal and is best considered as post transition main group, but Iam at heart a traditionalist.

--Axiosaurus (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these helpful comments. On the first and last points I agree and I have now clarified the text. I've also added the formation of a ZnSO₄ complex in aq. solution, but I decided not to mention the analogy with the famous case of MgSO₄ which was discovered by Manfred Eigen in seawater because it is not covered in WP.

As for GA, I'm thoroughly disillusioned with that kind of process following the debacle with acid dissociation constant. Never again! Petergans (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at acid dissociation constant, great article shame about the rating - the GA process looks to have been quite fraught , you had a bad experience there. I must admit that personally I keep away from such processes.--Axiosaurus (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For GA the article would need some better intro and a bit of history too. Nergaal (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History? This is just the kind of comment that puts me off being involved in Wiki processes. It is putting form before content. History has no place here. Petergans (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comon Peter. A section stating that calmine was used for medical reasons for a long time and that most of this benifical uses are know done with zinc oxide and that the already mentioned diethylzinc was the beginning of the organometalic chemistry and that the finding of the zinc containing enzymes in .... and the zinc finger in .... marked a important point in the understanding of the biologcal role of zinc. The use of zinc oxide as semiconducture from .... on could be the last sentence. This would illustrate the long history and it would not hurt the very good article either. And if gets reviewed for GA it will be most likely GA even without a history section. It is one of the article showing that chemistry and compounds can be fun.--Stone (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a an issue of structure. The facts that you mention belongs in the main zinc article, not here. How much duplication is is warranted or desirable?

I have extended the lead-in and that's it for me. I have too much other work on to be able to do any more on this article for a while now. Petergans (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 'compound of' articles should contain much history. Certainly not a section on it. IMO, 'compound of' articles are supposed to be daughter articles of ==Compound and chemistry== sections in element articles. Meaning, they go into much more detail on the chemistry and resulting compounds of the element. Maybe renaming these articles to 'chemistry of' similar to what I've done with geology of the Grand Canyon area will make things more clear and reduce expectations of having history. As for duplication, we may find that having a good centralized chemistry of group X is better than having separate 'chemistry/compound of' articles for each element. I therefore think we should keep that last point in mind as we expand this article; perhaps transforming it into chemistry of group 12. --mav (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a long time ago, but I think this definitely fails B class. Coverage is nowhere near complete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zincides

While answering a question on the science reference desk, I realised that there were such compounds as zincides - calcium, copper, magnesium, platinum, sodium and zirconium that I know of. Should these be included? - there's not that much in the way of sources out there. Mikenorton (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed edit not in line with editing conduct and style guidelines.

A user removed a claim from the article and added a comment stating that it is fake in plain text in the middle of a sentence.

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Compounds_of_zinc&oldid=813683882

I have taken the liberty of reverting the edit. Next time please discuss such changes on the talk page and follow wiki style guidelines.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Compounds of aluminium which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consider building upon the applications of Zinc cyanide in organic reactions, such as popular reactions it is used in. Zhammy (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc cyanides have few applications in practical organic reactions, except at the preliminary research level. The real-world apps of Zn(CN)2 are in electroplating and phthalocyanine preps. At least that is the info available to me.--Smokefoot (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]