Talk:Azane

Recent changes

I reverted a number of recent changes for the following reasons:

1. Removed statement about "no commercial sources": This is obviously false, as at least one of them is readily available. Maybe what was meant was N
   _nH
   _{n + 2} for n > 2, but that would need a source.
2. Removed "but instead form a simple chain" - that would exclude branches.
3. Removed discussion of molecular mass. This has already been in the article for a while, but I agree with the last editor that a general audience might expect an explanation on why the number 15. However, with the explanation it got blown up, and I now feel that for the general audience this it is not important enough to be mentioned (at least not in the first paragraph), and people with a basic knowledge in chemistry will not need that sentence at all, now that we have the condensed formula in that paragraph.
4. Changed "3" back to "three" per WP:ORDINAL.
5. Reverted the change from "azyl" to "azanyl". The latter is not the right name for all N
   _nH
   _{n + 1} side chains, as our article azanyl shows. "Azyl", while I could find no source for it, still at least makes sense in analogy to "alkane/alkyl".
6. Reverted insertion of "generally abbreviated with the symbol N". That is the abbreviation for nitrogen. Maybe what was meant was that the "H" symbols are left out in skeletal formulæ, but that's general practice there; there's nothing special about alkanes.
7. Removed "Occurrence" section, which was exclusively about ammonia. This could be merged into that article, though.

— Sebastian 18:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There is some confusion over the term commercial source. The statement means that there is no naturally occurring source which is commercially viable for extraction; all azanes must be synthesised.

I named the Azanyl article, and incorrectly so. 'Azanyl' refers to the class of azane side-chains - azyl (NH
₂-), diazanyl (N
₂H
₃-) are all azanyl side-chains. However, according to systemaic convention, the first member is termed 'azyl', and not 'azanyl', so that confusion is prevented.

'N' is indeed used to refer to a generic azane side-chain, in the same way as Si is used to denote a generic silicon side-chain.

I don't contest the other edits. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for creating that article, and for acknowledging some of the changes in the list above.

The main remaining problem is that you only write what in your opinion is best, without checking your opinions against reliable sources. This affects the four issues listed below.

1. The claim that "There are no commercial sources.". This is patently wrong, since at least ammonia is readily available, as I already pointed out above. I think it would be best to just remove this sentence, but I'm not doing so now because I pledged to not re-revert.
2. "Azanyl" vs "Amino radical" for NH
   ₃. I will write about that at Talk:Azanyl.
3. "Azanyl" vs "Azyl" as a name for the homologous series N
   _nH
   _n+1. We have no source that uses either one for the series. How about if we just remove the name from that section altogether? I'll go ahead and do that; if you want to use a name, please add a reliable source for it.
4. The claim that the N
   _nH
   _n+1 group is "generally abbreviated with the symbol N". Again, we can't just take your word for it; there need to be reliable sources. Without reliable sources, the passage should be removed.

Since most of this hinges on reliable sources, I urge you, above all, to please read WP:RS. — Sebastian 03:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

[1]. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what this reference is supposed to prove. I don't see any statement like "N is a general abbreviation for the N
_nH
_n+1 group". All it does is that it uses a Skeletal formula, and, as usual in such formulae, leaves out the "H", as I already wrote in point 6 above. Moreover, in this context, these aren't even N
_nH
_n+1 groups; one is N
_nH
_n, the other N
_nH
_n-1. — Sebastian 07:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No, this reference lies in the conttext of azyl v.s. azanyl. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(The following was posted after point #1 in the second list, but has been moved here because it messed up the numbering of the list.)

I do not understand, does my comment above on this matter not have any weight. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It does have some weight, let's say a pound. But that's nothing against the weight WP:RS has - which is worth a tonne here. I have to repeat, please do read WP:RS - and follow it. — Sebastian 07:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Then this would be a case of 'a lack of evidence against, is itself evidence for' the statement. Occam's Razor dictates that "there are no commercial sources" is the default statement, and that "there are commercial sources" is the referenceable statement. I cannot find sources with which to reference the latter statement, therefore I tend to use the default statement as it requires fewer assumptions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you still don't understand the fundamental idea of WP:RS. What you are trying to do is original research. It is not our task to search the market for sources of azanes; all we need to do is find sources for the claims that we are posting here. If you can't find that for your claim, then you can't insist of claiming it. It's simple as that. — Sebastian 07:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's put this in perspective. Does the claim "There is exists no functional teleporter on Earth." need to be referenced? Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You are off on a tangent. We're not talking about teleporters here. But since you're asking: Yes, it would need to be referenced per WP:RS; even more so since it happens to be a false statement. Teleportation has been carried out successfully on earth. But please, let's not get sidetracked, can we keep on topic, please? It's really not that hard. Just follow WP:RS, please. — Sebastian 08:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm aware of quantum teleportation and the physics behind it, bt I was refering to the devices used in science fiction to teleport persons. Secondly, I'm exploring this example, because Wikipedia also has 'guidelines' on what needs to be referenced, and what does not need to be referenced. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not that I say that it is the most applicable, but here is an example of such citation guidance: WP:BLUE. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLUE is a nice essay, and we could discuss its applicability to this situation. But why complicate matters? It's only an essay, not a guideline. Before you worry about essays, please, PRETTY PLEASE, learn to follow our guidelines. There is one guideline that we need to follow in this case, which is WP:RS. — Sebastian 08:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)