# Talk:Nitrogen

“63.23 K ​ and −209.86 °C” is not consistent. There is a discrepancy of 0.06 K. Wassermaus (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

A spectacular discovery:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/most-energetic-molecule-ever-made-is-stable-in-liquid-nitrogen/4021662.article  13 June 2025, appears to be freely available on the web.
The work was published at Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09032-9 
"Preparation of a neutral nitrogen allotrope hexanitrogen C2h-N6"
Open-access: Nature volume 642, pages 356–360 (2025)
DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09032-9
Quotes:
"This work is spectacular and, in my opinion, is worthy of a Nobel prize."
-- Karl Christe, a polynitrogen pioneer at USC.
"When hexanitrogen does break down, it releases double the energy per unit mass of HMX – currently the most powerful chemical explosive known. Unlike some explosives that can leave residual pollutants such as nitrates, the only product is dinitrogen. Schreiner suggests ‘it would be the most useful rocket fuel on the planet’. ‘N6 would not burn with a flame: it’s just a burst of energy that generates a large volume [of gas] – so a lot of thrust, and it is non-corrosive,’ he explains. ‘One of the big problems [for rockets] right now is corrosion with hydrazine and other fuels.’"
The breakdown product is three molecules of N2, plain old atmospheric dinotrogen.
This discovery clearly merits a new page at Wikipedia. I'm not in a good position to write it (middle of a complicated move). But this gets my old Chemist's and space-travel enthuiast genes perling right up. Nobel prize-worthy work. Pete Tillman (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Prof. Christe's research accomplishments merit a Wikibio page, I think
https://dornsife.usc.edu/chemistry/faculty/karl-o-christe/
On the ever-growing Wiki to-do list now....  Pete Tillman (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Oh, wait one: Karl O. Christe
Redirect pending.... Pete Tillman (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
I think this right on the TOOSOON edge for whole page on hexanitrogen. We have a single WP:PRIMARY and at-the-moment science-news (albeit including some quotes from individuals who are speaking in their area of expertise). I'm concerned that the secondary sound so credulous and hype-like recycling of the primary content. The commentary says this N6 is only the second allotrope isolated, but solid nitrogen says N8 predates it. This N6 is already mentioned in the solid-nitrogen article, which could be expanded a bit if there were additional references, prior to splitting off a new article. DMacks (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
See Hexanitrogen. DMacks (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

§ Allotropes is a well-defined subtopic, which has a discussion of physical forms of N2 and different chemical forms of other formulas, each of which has an own article. The full article here is 7998 words, which is just shy of when WP:Article size says we should start to think about splitting solely for size reasons. I propose splitting out a stand-alone Allotropes of nitrogen article, to join the other nine actual "Allotropes of..." articles. This section is 629 words, which is a reasonable size for stand-alone and could easily be enhanced for readability and with images of the different chemical structures to make it easier for readers to navigate. DMacks (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Currently this article just hosts the exact same content as the section at the broad article, up to minor modifications. Either the broad article should be trimmed or this should be redirected. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Considering trims that were made to Sulfur and Phosphorus, it is this article that should be trimmed to a summary, not the other one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
cc @InterstellarGamer12321, who originally forked this section from the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I originally split this into a new article because I felt that nitrogen compounds were notable enough to have their own article separate to the main one. I still think this is the case, and the main article should be trimmed as already suggested, and the Nitrogen compounds article should be retained and expanded. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Concur with moving Nitrogen more towards WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and retaining the spin-out (consistent with my propsal in the preceding talkpage section:) DMacks (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
oppose merge as the compounds article should be expanded, as as per above, there should be not too much detail on the element page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Many of these articles exist for other elements so there's no point in getting rid of this one specifically. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect 氮 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 24 § 氮 until a consensus is reached.  ArthananWarcraft (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)