Wikipedia

Talk:Lithium naphthalenide#Requested merge 18 November 2025

Requested move 25 October 2025

[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) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium naphthalene → Lithium naphthalenide – Common name of what you get when mixing metallic lithium in a etheral solution of naphthalene- it is technically a salt, so should use the anion in the name. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree, the article should probably be relabeled lithium naphthalenide. I might have put the description of this material as a salt, but even that sounds strange. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2025 (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.

Requested merge 18 November 2025

[edit]

It seems that there is a significant degree of duplication between the page for sodium naphthalenide and lithium naphthalenide, and both pages are very short. For example, note that the page on Na naphthalenide reuses the image for Li naphthalenide. Further, there is no page for potassium naphthalenide, which is also fairly common. I think there would be value in creating a single page for alkali-metal naphthalenides, as the chemically interesting moiety is the radical anion; there can be sections/chemboxes on each individual salt as necessary. This way, the more obscure Rb and Cs salts can also be mentioned. Al2Me6 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokefoot: Notifying contributor to the article. Al2Me6 (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your plan sounds ok to me. If you dont know chemistry well, you might leave these alone and just create a stand alone KNapth. Eventually the individual articles will get populated with differentiating info. My experience is that K+ derivative is less commonly used because organickers dont like handling potassium and the reduction potential is mainly set by the naphthalene. Those are just opinions, not facts.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think we should have an article on LiNaph, as it's an important reagent. I agree there is a lot of overlap with the sodium version, but in general I oppose merging/redirect specific compounds to articles about different compounds. If the compound is notable, then it should have its own article. I don't think merging everything together under a holistic descriptive title about the group of compounds is the right approach here. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm certainly open to alternative approaches that fit better for Wikipedia.
    My main concern, as stated earlier, is redundancy: arguably KNaph is an important reagent too, but currently does not have a page. I have a hard time imagining how discussions of their reactivities could be kept distinct, especially as review articles tend to discuss naphthalenides (if not arenides) as a whole. Would it be acceptable to keep the current articles as they are, but also have a separate holistic "alkali metal naphthalenides" page focusing on their general reactivity? Al2Me6 (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say if sodium and/or potassium naphthalenide are notable in the Wikipedia sense, they should have articles, even if there is a lot of content overlap with lithium naphthalenide. It could also be that the sodium and/or potassium naphthalenides are not independently notable, and are less important/less common analogues of lithium naphthalenide that do the same chemistry, in which case the sodium naphthalenide article would merit deletion and an aticle about the potassium compound should not be created. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]