Talk:Hapticity

message: 1) I recommend relocating the fascinating bits on Zeise's salt and the associated personalities possibly to the history of organometallic chemistry or history of Zeise's salt.  The hapto thing directly comes from organometallics as practiced in the 60's with polyolefins that gave really complicated molecules. Novices might say, η2-alkene, and this terminology is formally valid, but this is also quite obvious because virtually no other bonding modes are known for alkenes. 
2) "The term was introduced in organometallic nomenclature in during the mid-1950s"  Hapticity for organometallic chem was introduced by Cotton in the 60's, I thought we settled this.
3) We might revise the subtitle on molecules with "hapticity" molecules dont have hapticity any more than they have "stereochemistry".  Ligands do.--Smokefoot 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The business on Zeise's salt and Dunitz X-ray structure seems like a giant non sequitur. Yes, these are facts - but pertinent or cruft?--Smokefoot 04:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I like that sort of information, but you're right, in a sense, it's a bit too esoteric for what is needed here. We need something like History of Hapticity to place all these things perhaps. Not sure what to do really. --HappyCamper 21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What has Zeise got to do with this?

message: # Can a reaction be degenerate? Check out the degenerate page.
# I think "imaginary symmetry axis" is a little bit wrong, because the symmetry axis is definitely there, it's not imaginary. There is no axle, but I think there is an axis of symmetry. Thoughts??--Chris 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the first question. Could you rephrase it? As for the second one, well, it's semantics I think. There isn't a "stick" that the two sandwiches rotate around, but it's definitely there. Maybe we should change that to "rotating around the principle axis of symmetry". That would be more precise. --HappyCamper 21:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the first, I think what is meant is that it is a 'nonreaction reaction' .. hence, it does not generate a new species (but it does generate another species, one can prove that the metal is hopping to another carbon using nifty labeling experiments, e.g. via NMR).  I am not good enough in the definition of degeneracy to see if it is indeed a proper term here.  For the second, HappyCampers suggestion might be a good one.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just meant that degeneracy applies to energy levels, not reactions.--Chris 06:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I made this edit here , but turns out principal axis doesn't have a definition for what we are thinking of right now. What's a good one to use? The principle axis is the group element which has the highest symmetry, or something like that? --HappyCamper 00:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a link to rotational symmetry, which has the definition you were looking for.--Chris 06:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two questions 

message: I like the page but I think it could use a quick reference to a simlipifed deffinition of the term Hapticity. Somthing like "In most cases Hapticity is the number of times a ligand unit binds to the traget molecule". Lets face it most pepole who will come to this page will be students wanting a collage level difinition. Bsanchez 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the spirit of WE-chem is that you could try out a simplified definition - even an imperfect one - and await the edits, but the one you suggest is incorrect.  Then again, the term is routinely misused even by professional scientists, who confuse it with denticity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smokefoot (talk • contribs).
What you say its true, that pepole sould use denticity, however i'm currently at a good uni doing my thesis and every one uses the term hapticity. I'm going to mull it over for a few days to see if I can find a nice way of putting it.Bsanchez 07:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh my! Folks at so-called "good uni's" are mortal: maybe you should edit their usage, not the article!  Anyway, it's only nomenclature and not a deeply significant principle.--Smokefoot 12:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: For a topic that is trying to cover a concept that is necessary because of the problems that arise when taking a structure and turning it into a formula, there is a suprising lack of structures shown. Not everyone learns by text and graphical examples in my opinion would help. Even simple ones such as Ferrocene, an η3 propylene, Cp/Cp* etc. Along with this, in the fluxional section maybe show η5 Cp and η3 Cp as an illustration of WHY this became so important, I feel that it is easier to understand via an image than text. What can I say, I am just a lowly masters student. PedroDaGr8 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not written by professors only, I am sure you can help us with some improvements on this article!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice addition Smokefoot. I also posted some two on Dirk Beestra's talk page (actually one reaction, a substitution reaction, but one has the haptic bonds colored and one does not).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroDaGr8 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphical Examples 

message: This sentence: "In general the η-notation is only used when there is more than one atom coordinated (otherwise the κ-notation is used, see also hapticity vs. denticity)"
While accurate I feel this is a bit of a misleading sentence, as it is true that if there is only one bond, then dentate is used, but its position in the first paragraph makes it seem as if this is the most important difference.
Maybe it would be better written as:
"In general, the η-notation is only used when two or more contiguous atoms are coordinated (otherwise the κ-notation is used, see also hapticity vs. denticity)." 
(Maybe substitute adjacent or continuous for contiguous) 
Feel free to disagree, I just feel this drives both points home better. More than anything this just stuck out at me in the first paragraph and I feel that the adjacent/contiguous atoms concept should be included in the first paragraph as well.PedroDaGr8 (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading sentence