Talk:Bisoxazoline ligand

Draft rebuild

Hi all. Some time back I began working on improvements for this article, however my efforts have ballooned and I now basically have a replacement page. I feel it would be rude to post an update that radical without running it past the existing authors. The proposed new page is currently here (link now removed as project finished). Feedback is very welcome. Project Osprey (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• situation is simple: any destruction of valid content equals vandalism V8rik (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Out of interest would that include the work done prior Brunner's? I ask because those ligands are Schiff bases, which are chemically quite different. Project Osprey (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. Yes I think deletions should be discussed. You make a fair point: you mention systems that are not bisoxazolines but on the other hand, bisoxazolines did not arrive out of thin air. The article should discuss what prior systems were in existence and how Brunner was inspired by what he did. V8rik (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do see your point. I suppose what I'm trying to do is avoid 'history' being the largest section of the article. That way it focuses more on the chemistry that is, rather than the chemistry that was. Looking at it objectively however, there's isn't really that much text prior to where my history starts, it's just that the pictures are very big. I think with some careful editing (and some new drawings) I could fold the two histories together. Another possible solution would be to move the early stuff to the current Schiff base article (it needs development anyway). I can then flesh out my description of the work from around Brunner's time with a clear link to that article for those interested in the pre-oxazoline work.Project Osprey (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Moving the Schiff base material to Schiff base does not make sense, it is only relevant in the context of this particular ligand. The background section could easily move to the back. Are the images a problem? I lack a professional chemical editor, this is the best I can do V8rik (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll flesh out the history first and see where that gets me. Once it's done I'll contact you and we can decide how best to proceed(?) With regards to chemical editors, I've found this one to be pretty good. Project Osprey (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I did take a look at the next draft (as per your comment in my Talk) and I am happy to see that the basic message from the background/history section has been preserved. Thanks. V8rik (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll do some final checks before changing the page to the new version in the next day or so. Thank you very much for your input. Project Osprey (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)