Talk:Dimerization

(Redirected from Talk:Dimerization (chemistry))
Latest comment: 28 days ago by Reading Beans in topic Requested move 29 September 2024

Reference

edit

This page needs some type of reference, added tag.--FloNight 20:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Clutter

edit

The stub templates at the bottom make this article really cluttered. I think we might want to do something about it. --Ruff Bark away!


first paragraph says covalent bonds.....second paragraph says no covalent bonds. clarify please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.62.231 (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dimer Graphs and Statistical Mechanical Dimers

edit

The page needs a discussion of this topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.202.35 (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

"structurally similar" ?!

edit

The monomers of a dimer don't need to be "structurally similar". I corrected the text.

--Felix Tritschler (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I’ve amended the article description correspondingly.
- SquisherDa (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply


Wider usage of the term!

edit

"A dimer .. is an oligomer consisting of two monomers" . . uh, except when it isn’t. The article is written from a polymer-chemistry standpoint - where focus is typically on degree of polymerisation. But diatomic gases, for a familiar example, are spoken of as dimeric. And in the world of, eg, UV lasers, the excited / excitation dimers central to excimer technology are diatomic species. Both standpoints are valid; and I’d think there are likely to be others.

Can anyone add to the article accordingly?

- SquisherDa (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: CHEM 300

edit

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mehakk12, MD092022, Aaronkroeker (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JellyfishFan, Chhan02, Grapesszz, Hotdawgluver420, Baddweather, Cemes4.

— Assignment last updated by Tiff592 (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dimers

edit

Slightly tortuous vocabulary theme: IUPAC defines "dimerization" but not "dimer". "Dimerization". Diborane is often described as a dimer, but the monomer basically does not exist as far as I can tell. We can agree that borane will dimerize, but it seems deceptive to describe diborane as a dimer of an extremely elusive species. We do not describe ethane as a dimer, although the Gold Book describes the dimerization of methyl radicals. Bottom line: our article dimer probably should be written on "dimerization", which is better defined.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 29 September 2024

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 13:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply


Dimerization (chemistry)DimerizationDimerization already redirects to Dimerization (chemistry). Am I missing something here? Is there any other sense of the term that is not chemistry (even in the biochemical senses)? Maybe there is a good reason for the disambiguated title, but I am certainly not seeing it. BD2412 T 12:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Leaning support, but should Dimerization point to the Dimer DAB page or become its own DAB page? The term is also used in biochemistry when referring to the formation of 2-unit oligomer/multimer proteins, but there is no dedicated page on Wikipedia to Protein dimerization (← this is a redirect to the stub, Protein dimer). Search covers the topics well, so I don't think a DAB page is really necessary, which is why I lean to support. ETA: I remembered WP:ONEOTHER and a hatnote might be the best for this. ― Synpath 13:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.