Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leiem (talk | contribs) at 04:35, 3 August 2018 (→List of ions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of ions

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of ions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list would be in the millions. Almost every coordination complex, every protein, every RNA, every DNA, every carboxylic acid... So the list should be deleted or the term "ion" should be restricted. Smokefoot (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of ions will be shorter than the list of inorganic compounds or organic compounds, because many compounds share one ion (like Cl− in NaCl or MgCl2) and many covalent compounds do not have ions (except for some biomolecules). Also, I think restricting the term "ion" would be a good idea. --Leiem (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. The majority of biomolecules, drugs, silicates, . . . . Agricolae (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One possible way forward would be to restrict to notable ions, i.e., those with articles of their own. Category:Ions has many entries, but it is not in the millions. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a "bluelinks only" rule might be viable here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Millions is an exaggeration, but Category:Ions is vastly underused. Category:Proteins, Category:Peptides, Category:Hormones, Category:Neurotransmitters, Category:Drugs, Category:Silicates, Category:Nucleotides, Category:Nucleosides, Category:Phospholipids, Category:Steroids . . . . Some of these overlap, but in all of these categories and more, the items that actually represent chemicals are (almost) all ions, amounting to a count of existing pages that I suspect would easily top 10 thousand bluelink entries. Central to the problem is that there are two uses of 'ions': the technical definition that includes all of these groups of molecules, and the common-language usage, where one is referring to the relatively small charged compounds aren't also members of the above categories. This is a convenient usage, but is only a subset of those items that meet the formal definition of 'ions'. Without a limitation to the common usage, any list of ions would be unwieldy and unmanageable, yet I seriously doubt you could find a reliable source that gives a definition consistent with this limited use that would allow coherent criteria for what does and does not belong on an abbreviated list. Still, such a limited definition is clearly what is in mind on the List of ions page, the List of polyatomic ions page (also AfDed), and the table of 'common' ions on the ions page. I don't see how to get around this problem - if we use the formal definition it is unmanageable, but any attempt to formalize a common-usage definition would be editor-generated and somewhat arbitrary, rather than source-based. Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish that millions were an exaggeration, but I guess the number depends on definitions. Soil is comprised of ions. Intracellular fluids have lots of ions. As an inorganic chemist, we make it our business to be picky about simple things (and inevitably a little annoying, sorry). But take MgCl2 in water probably contains [Mg(H2O)6]2+ and [Mg(H2O)5Cl]+ and when this solution is vaporized (as in a mass spectrometer), many daughter ions are generated of the type [Mg(H2O)n]2+ and [Mg(H2O)nC]+. Then there might be conjugate bases such as [Mg(OH)H2O)5]+. And magnesium is one of the easy ones, try ferric or molybdates.
We may be talking past each other here. I am not questioning that there are millions of ionic compounds - from a biology perspective, with >30,000 proteins per species and millions of species, even if 90% of the proteins are identical, inter-species, that is still a whole lot of distinct ionic compounds. I just don't think there are millions of Wikipedia pages on ionic compounds. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I promise not to badger the list maker since the effort is well intentioned and perhaps my notions are esoteric or cranky. One idea: define simple anions as ≤5 non-H atoms and 1-, 2-, 3-. That kind of definition would caption the main ones sulfates, phosphates. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it seems an arbitrary cutoff. You would catch a phosphate, but not a pyrophosphate. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some common ions would be excluded such as [Fe(CN)6]3− and Cr
2O2−
7. --Leiem (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ions&oldid=853208999"