Talk:Migratory insertion

This page needs major work

Wow this is shocking, how can we add this page to the (inorganic?) Chemistry Portal. I should get to work on this Spuddddddd Feb08

"The mechanism for alkene and hydride migratory insertion is shown below" huh? -holyone2 Mar10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.124 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

redirect of insertions reactions

Hi,

I am surprised by the rude change to redirect Insertion Reactions to Migratory Insertion reactions. There are many different insertion reactions, not just migratory insertion reactions. The page on insertion reactions was carefully drafted by students who have worked hard all semester on finding numerous resources and have made images to clearly depict the concepts. These students have also written to the community claiming that Migratory Insertion reactions should be merged with Insertion Reactions, not the other way around.

However, you have inadvertently failed to listen to these students and disregarded their hard work because they have perhaps made it inconvenient for you. A large article that is well cited and well written should not be any more discredited than small chunks added. These pages have been peer reviewed and add a significant amount of well researched content, greatly improving the page. If you and your collegues would give more substantial and constructive feedback specifically on the content in question (instead of a blanket comment about logistics and policies of Wikipedia), it goes without saying that such comments are welcomed wholeheartedly. The students will happily address those comments Or feel free to change some of the content yourself.

However, abusing the blocking capabilities is not an encouraging way to welcome new editors nor allow for them to understand what it is that they have done wrong. It only makes these students fell that they cannot contribute to the page, making Wikipedia not hold up to its claim of anyone being able to edit. It seems as though these actions indicate that only a select elite are capable of editing and this is a hazardous path for Wikipedia to take, especially for topics as important for the general public to understand as pages on science.

Please revert the changes on redirecting Insertion Reactions to Migratory Insertion and unblock the students of chem507f10grp3. Thank you.

MichChemGSI (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. chem507f10grp3 (talk · contribs) is not blocked now, nor was it ever. The history of "insertion reaction" [1] shows that klsyking (talk · contribs) blanked the page, which was reverted by someone else. Page blanking is actually a very common form of vandalism, and there are some users who watch out for that. Perhaps they did not understand your intentions; I won't have either.

Anyway, if you intend to write an article about insertion reactions, go ahead and edit insertion reactions, but don't blank it. If you intend to expand migratory insertion, then go to WP:RM to request for the latter article to be moved to the former. Once moved, you can edit it to fit the new title. Just don't do wholesale replacements, which are not okay. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these students have improved upon the page substantially. The existing page which is limited in focus to migratory insertion reactions should be folded into the page thay have created which addresses the general topic of insertion reactions. The page they have created is in general, much more detailed and better cited, and should not be so easily dismissed.

Formatting issues can easily be resolved, and should not stand in the way of this page being significantly improved. --Tycarter (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely concur with the above arguments. A general topic should not be tunneled into one particular example when there is much more involved. Please delete the redirect and allow progress to be made. Klsyking (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

addtionally, please see this link for an example. [[2]]

There are some insertion mechanisms that are not migratory. Migratory insertion have 2 things on a metal center where one is inserting to the other. There are examples that don't require pre-coordination and therefore are not migratory. This page should either be two pages that respectively cover the two DIFFERENT broad topics in question, or migratory insertion should be a subset of general insertion reactions. (My vote would be for the former). I am confused why this is such a battle because it seems obvious to someone unaffiliated with the argument. Please enlighten me. Klsyking (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Migratory insertion is one type of insertion reaction and users should be redirected to insertion reactions from migratory insertion reactions not the other way around. We had recently posted that we were going to update the insertion reaction page and now the page is gone. We will attempt to update this site with the research we have done but our project was inclusive of all insertion reactions and not just migratory insertion reactions. I hope this page can be improved to reflect that migratory insertions should be a sub-category of insertion reactions. Additionally, I hope that our improvements can help further Wikipedia's goal to be a comprehensive source of knowledge that all can contribute to when they have information to add. Chem507f10grp3 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there presently an article that covers all sorts of insertion reactions? If there is not, then placing an article that only covers one specific type at that general name is not appropriate, since that's not what the article is about (and it suggests that in the future only "more types" will be all lumped together there rather than each having own article). If there is not, then redirecting that general title to an article that at least covers in-depth one facet of that topic is the best we can do until someone actually writes the general-topic article. Any editor is welcome to write an actual insertion reaction article--would probably be small Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) statement about the reaction scope and overall effect, and then briefly define the various types with links to each's specific article. DMacks (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

These students have made a general article that covers insertion reactions. However, it has been redirected and reverted to here, the Migratory Insertion page. We have taking the above message as permission to change the redirect of insertion reaction to an actual article that these students have developed. It is a brief, yet well research and encompassing article. Thank you. MichChemGSI (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry, correction, we will make the new page insertion reactions then redirect insertion reaction to insertion reactions. Thank you. MichChemGSI (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with singular, since "a single reaction" is the topic (with many variations of singular items). It's also parallel to the singular form used in the articles in Category:Organic reactions. Your group has never written an article at either the plural or singular form. Maybe somewhere else with some other name, but in that case it was misplaced or misnamed, which is a pretty good reason for it to no longer be at that location/topic. DMacks (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, i have created/edited the insertion reaction page. it no longer redirects here Migratory insertion and i have linked to the discussion here in for those concerned about the insertion reaction page. Although we do feel that the insertion reaction page is redundant with Migratory insertion, there can still be room for Migratory insertion to be improved and specifics expanded on that the insertion page does not cover.

Please comment on the discussion page if you have concerns and we will address them. Thank you for your cooperation. MichChemGSI (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Migratory insertion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Migratory insertion's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Brown":

• From Metal sulfur dioxide complex: J.J. Alexander (1985). Hartley and Patai (ed.). The chemistry of the metal-carbon bond, vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons.
• From Insertion reaction: J.J. Alexander (1985). Hartley and Patai (ed.). The chemistry of the metal-carbon bond, vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Migratory insertion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040913062538/http://chemistry.lsu.edu/stanley/webpub/4571-chap13-Migratory-Insertion.pdf to http://chemistry.lsu.edu/stanley/webpub/4571-chap13-Migratory-Insertion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)