Talk:Propellane

Splitting off the sections on individual members

The sections on individual propellanes have become quite lengthy and dense, so I am promoting them to separate articles, leaving here summaries, refs, and the general discussion of the family. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. Why! V8rik (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well,here are some reasons:

There are many other propellanes that deserved to be discussed but weren't there yet. (The [3.3.3] case would be interesting because it is nearly unstrained; the [4.4.4] and higher cases are almost certainly unstrained and have twisted blades, etc.). If we have one section for each, the article will be too long.
Each propellane can be better discussed if it has its own article. See 1.1.1-Propellane, for example: the explanation of the synthesis scheme can now be placed below the figure, instead of in a footnote as it was before.
There was little in common between the sections. The synthesis schemes were completely different and the decay pathways too. What is common can and should be said in the propellane article, in a unified way.
Each compound eventually should have its infobox. This is only possible if each has its own article.
The move leaves more space for information pertaining to all propellanes, and allows that information to be laid out more clearly.

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1,3-dehydroadamantanes are M.I.A. the article content just moves around and it is very time consuming to check what content is destroyed in the process. V8rik (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I don't know what happened to the 1,3-dehydroadamantane article --- I was sure that I had copied it! Maybe I just did "Show Preview" and forgot to save 8(. I will look into it... As for contents being destroyed, I did my best to preserve all contents in the separate articles, and even expand it a bit. If anything is missing, it was an unintended accident. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found it! The new article is "1,3-Dehydroadamantane" with capital "D" as required by WP:CHEM standards. Unfortunately the WP auto-capitalization mechanism does not work across the "1,3-" prefix, so "1,3-dehydroadamantane" is a different page and must be explicitly made into a redirect. This redirect already existed but pointed to "propellane". It is fixed now. Sorry for the trouble. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jorge, for sorting it out. The basic thing is that the split off is only justified if new material on propellanes is expected to arrive, the article is now shorter than it was, not longer. Do you have anything in the pipeline?. V8rik (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True [2.2.2]propellane?

What Eaton and Temme reported in 1973 was not [2.2.2]propellane but a derivative thereof (with a -CO-N-(CH3)2 substituent, if I got it right). Presumably they could not get any further because that compound was already too short-lived. Was the true unsubstituted [2.2.2]propellane synthesized at some later time?
If so, will someone please update the 2.2.2-Propellane article accordingly. Thanks, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]