Talk:Ionic bonding

message: Dear author,  in the Formation section,second line......Electron affinity of an atom should be negative for it to accept electrons and form an anion. It is the energy released.
([User:Mani_g1|Dr. Manisha Jain])  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mani g1 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Electron affinity

message: I was taught that the difference in electronegativity between the atoms in an ionic bond is greater than 1.25, and anything less is Polar Covalent.  The article mentions electronegativity but does not go into enough detail to explain what's going on.  76.123.165.106 (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Electronegativity

message: I've done a faily major reformat of this page. If it looks bad to anyone please reformat, or alternativly say what the problem is on this page along with their browser and screen resolution. I'm a bit worried about the equation overlapping the table on the right, which I think it might do with a small enough screen size Theresa knott
:I think the phosphorus anion is fairly unlikely to exist, the third ionisation energy is probably prohibitivly large. In addition to this, since P is a relatively large atom anyway, there will almost undoubtedly be considerable covalency in the bond. Good old NaCl, although for less exotic, is probably a better example. jwasey 16:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformatted

message: Would be great if someone could add a paragraph discussing how exactly they're different from covalent bonds.  Tempshill 20:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some sort of general bonding page needs to be created which explains either end of the covalent/ionic continuum but emphasises that nothing really exists in these theoretical bonding modes. I don't know how to do this, is it possible? jwasey 16:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Covalent is sharing of electrons and ionic is electrostatic forces of attraction resulting from the non metal having more electrons than protons (so being - ve) and the metal having less electrons than protons (+ve) Tourskin 05:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference with covalent bonds 

message: Ionic bonds are generally stronger than covalent bonds. Any plausible arguments as to say otherwise? Correctist (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength of Ionic Bonds vs. Strength of Covalent Bonds 

message: There are some problems here of accuracy.
Polarisation effects - this para is pretty good until it says AlCl3 is covalent! Its an ionic solid (6 coordinate Al) and forms 4 coordinate Al dimers (covalent) only in the melt and gas phase.
Ionic structure - What is this paragraph saying- is there a confusion here with metal structures where some metals  approximate closest packing with hcp and fcc structures being common (bcc isn't closest packed)? Simple cubic what is that? In the unit cell the weight is one of the atoms? In an ionic solid the unit cell has to contain at least one formula unit i.e 2 different atoms. Keeping it really simple and only considering binary ionic compounds - there are two factors - the ratio of positive to negative and the relative sizes of the two ions involved. 
Ionic v Covalent - the assertion that covalent bonding is determined by VSEPR overstates the power of  VSEPR - which best predicts molecular shapes of main group compounds (inert pair effect and inner shell polarisation effects ignored).--Axiosaurus (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there are some problems. I suppose AlCl3 has some tendency toward covalent bonding, which allows it to readily form molecules by melting at a low temperature or dissolving in organic solvents. That statement could be improved by specifying under which conditions AlCl3 (or Al2Cl6) is really molecular, or by using a different example (isn't Al2Br6 is molecular even in the solid?). Simple cubic is the name given to the structure of CsCl. Even if it has two different atoms, the atoms of each individual element are in a simple cubic lattice. But anyway, feel free to downgrade the rating. This could be a good use for the new "C-class" rating--more than a "Start" but less than a "B". --Itub (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made some remedial changes - the AlCl3 story is interesting but I feel irrelevant to this article- e.g. how conductivity changes as melting point approaches- AlCl3 article is very specific in saying that it is covalently bonded- and that article needs attention and more detail adding.--Axiosaurus (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  B class? 

message: I changed the heading to "Common name" from the previous heading "Stock System Name" If there ever was a formal Stock system for ions, it has  now,  80 years or so later, been superseded many times, most recently by IUPAC latest 2005 recommendations. --Axiosaurus (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stock system Name" for ions 

message: The author of the papers is the author of the section in the wikipedia article:
Some charge transfer (i. e., ionic character) can exist even in pure elemental crystals, if atoms occupy symmetrically inequivalent positions - but usually such ionic character is too small to be important. Significant charge transfer was recently reported in a high-pressure phase of boron,Oganov A.R., Chen J., Gatti C., Ma Y.-Z., Ma Y.-M., Glass C.W., Liu Z., Yu T., Kurakevych O.O., Solozhenko V.L. (2009). Ionic high-pressure form of elemental boron. Nature 453, 863-867 which consists of two types of clusters: B12-icosahedra and B2-pairs, arranged as ions in a NaCl-type structure, with charge transfer of ~0.5 electrons from B2 to B12.
We have to decide If this is notable enough to keep.--Stone (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  conflict of interest 

message: I'm tempted to delete the entire section listing common ions, as (1) it is of limited usefulness, (2) it is incomplete, (3) it cannot be completed practically, (4) there is already :Category:Cations and :Category:Anions, and (5) there is already a list of representative ions at Ion. Any objections?—Tetracube (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, since nobody objects, I will remove the section.—Tetracube (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of common ions 

message: In the page there is a segment dicussing that all ionic bonds must have some covalent nature. It also dicusses the percent of ionicity. It would be useful to also include the equation by which percent ionicity can be calculated. % ionic character of a bond = 1 - exp (1/4 * delta chi ^2) where delta chi is the difference between electronegativity of the anion and cation. 
Also in response to the below comment about electronegativity - linking to the page on electronegativity is a legitimate explanation for electronegativity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.137.218 (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Percent ionic versus covalent

message: It shouldn't. Ionic interactions refers to the weak electrical attraction which occurs between atoms that are already covalently bonded, e.g. in globular proteins. There doesn't appear to be a page for this type of interaction. :S  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.209.82 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ionic interactions redirects here 

message: In the summary section, the example of Sodium and Chlorine seems rather incomplete and simple as the bonding of complex ions require new sets of rules (parentheses...) . In other words, 
eg) MgSO4 + AlCl3 => MgCl2 + Al(SO4)3 
Such "more complex" examples, in my opinion, should be added. --Jjeong12 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra Ionic Bonding Examples 

message: The new gif is nifty, but I'm a little concerned that it shows um... perhaps the gas-phase reaction of sodium with fluorine, rather than simply the ionic bond. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, but I think it is the right image for the audience of this article. It's unlikely that PhD research students are likely to be looking at this fairly brief page on ionic bonding to get to grips with the subject. Either way, the previous image was just too awful for the year 2011. Wdcf (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: I have a problem with the Formation section, but I'm not brave enough to make a change in it.  The sentences that seem incorrect are:
"The removal of electrons from the cation is endothermic, raising the system's overall energy." and "However, the action of the anion accepting the cation's valence electrons and the subsequent attraction of the ions to each other releases energy and thus lowers the overall energy of the system."  
In both cases, they are not cations or anions until they lose or gain the electron.  They are just elements that become either cations or anions.
Hopefully someone with experience here at Wikipedia will make the correction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puntific (talk • contribs) 21:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason the author used cation and anion even though they aren't ions yet (as you pointed out) is because they could not come up with a better/clearer label for which atom they are referring to. If you can come up with better labels, than be bold and change it! Wertyu739 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation Section 

message: This is not the first discussion of bond strengths. In the discussion there are comments on ionic v covalent bonds. I ended up on this article still trying to understand the differences in bond energies. What or how are bond dissociation energies for covalent bonds different than the bond strength of NaCl? What is actually measured in determining bond dissociation energy vs bond strength? Petedskier (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond Strength 

message: Ionic bonding exists but there is not really such thing as AN ionic bond. IMHO the article should therefore be renamed "ionic bonding". The term ionic bond should be avoided completely.
The term is wrong and very misleading because of what it suggests in analogy with covalent bonding: directionality and localized behavior. (For metallic bonding the same argument holds.) In an ionic compound like NaCl there is no single bond between one Na and one Cl. Each ion has six neighbors at angles of 90 degrees. This is completely incomprehensible from a covalent VSEPR point of view. Not everything is an organic molecule!
Jcwf (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. So just move it to Ionic bonding (easy part) and rewrite the whole thing (not so easy part). Vsmith (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  @User:Jcwf, Can we remove the dispute tag again?  Christian75 (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the article has been moved and rather thoroughly rewritten the dispute tag is also gone. 
Jcwf (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: Substituted at 01:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The last sentence in the lead doesn't quite work for me. "Here, the opposite trend roughly holds: the weaker the cohesive forces, the greater the solubility." The trend is only 'opposite' because of the terms in which it's expressed in the sentence; if you were to word it differently, the trend between melting point and solubility would be the same, which I believe is intuitively a better way to express this. 
I think of it like this: The higher the charges, the stronger the cohesive forces and the stronger the melting point, and the lesser the solubility - which is what you would expect, there are stronger forces binding the ions together so they are more resistant to dissolving. It's a minor point, but I think that introducing the concept of an 'opposite trend' is unnecessarily confusing, and would propose simply striking that part out of the sentence as follows: 
The higher the charges the stronger the cohesive forces and the higher the melting point. They also tend to be soluble in water. Here, the weaker the cohesive forces, the greater the solubility.
Any thoughts/comments?Girth Summit (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposite trend? 

message: In the opening paragraph it states, "In the simplest case, the cation is a metal atom and the anion is a nonmetal atom, but these ions can be of a more complex nature, e.g. molecular ions like NH4+ or SO2 −4. In simpler words, an ionic bond is the transfer of electrons from a metal to a non-metal in order to obtain a full valence shell for both atoms."
These two sentences are inconsistent with each other (IE it states you can have NH4+ as a cation, yet then makes the common mistake of declaring all ionic compounds must have a metal and nonmetal).  Ammonium salts are all ionic compounds that do not have a metal cation, yet they are ionic.  I would change it myself but the article is semiprotected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.240.8 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update opening paragraph to correct misleading sentence 

message: Guys does ionic bonding happen purely because of a cation and anion bonding? Or it also happens because of two sharply contrasting electronegativities (as said by iupachttps://doi.org/10.1351/goldbook.IT07058). Pls enlighten me! Ice bear johny (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ionic bonding 

message: There would seem to be something missing from this statement'
 Many sulfides, e.g., do form non-stoichiometric compounds.
Ériugena (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation