Talk:Phosphaalkyne

Proposed renaming

Phosphaalkyne should redirect to tert-Butylphosphaacetylene, which is a phosphaalkyne. If we do that, then this article should be shifted to cyaphide, which is the main subject of this article. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the easiest way of straightening this page out out. However, it would leave no top-level article on the phosphaalkyne functional group. There have been several reviews on its chemistry (doi:10.1021/cr00099a007, doi:10.1002/anie.198814841, doi:10.1016/0010-8545(95)90224-4). Sadly I can't access any of them - so I can't make any useful contributions beyond pointing this out.--Project Osprey (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will write a short overview on phosphaalkynes, solving the problem. I will chem the reviews that you cite and maybe some others. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking the page

I currently working on a more comprehensive page detailing the phosphaalkyne functional group, so much of the content currently on the page can probably be moved to the tert-Butylphosphaacetylene page.--BASkeel (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a specialist journal. As an encyclopedia, articles are expected to rely on references to reviews and books (see WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY). --Smokefoot (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]