Talk:Aromaticity

anoroganic aromatic compounds!

There are anoroganic compounds that are aromatic, too, e.g. B3N3H6. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.52.232.84 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Misc Comment

Only circular arrangements wich contains (4*N)+2 (N=1->infinite) free electrons are aromatic. As example, C6H6 (benzene) is aromatic because it has 6 free electrons (4*1+2), while C8H8 is not aromatic (8 != (4*N)+2)... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.190.211.20 (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Article redundancy?

Some of the information here is shared with aromatic hydrocarbon, and that article has some extra stuff that should perhaps be here. How should the topic be divided up, really? I'm thinking there ought to be one major article, probably called "Chemical Aromaticity" or something like that. The aromatic hydrocarbon article could then be much shorter, referring to the aromaticity article for all the general information about the phenomenon. ACW 01:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried to spot out the main needs for aromaticity as depicted by textbooks with a numbered list. Althought maybe it is quite redundant, i think it should be pointed out more clearly what are these requirements. I'm not satisfied, but i prefer to leave it to be fixed by someone else in order to gain a more clear language for this article. Needless to say, but feel free to revert it completely. --munehiro 15:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why 'aromatic'?

One of the first things anyone just learning about aromatic compounds is going to want to know is why they're called that - how the technical usage fits in with and differs from the normal English usage. I'm thinking that (rather like organic compounds) it's because the first few aromatic compounds identified were indeed aromatic in the sense of smelly, even though this is neither necessary nor sufficient for chemical aromaticity, but I couldn't swear to this. Anyone? --Oolong 11:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was my first question as well, in case any chemical history buffs are looking for a reason to add a section to the article. --Robertb-dc 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed the origin of the term, according to the intro orgo textbooks I have on hand (by Wade and by Streitwieser/Heathcock/Kosower) so I added it to the article. DMacks 22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since your edits, it has gotten muddled. My questions:

(1) Were aromatic compounds really named for their strong aromas? The aromaticity article says both yes and no: a qualified, careful no (at the top) and then a yes (in the body). On the other hand, the terpene article says yes.

(2) Is it really true that terpenes are often (chemically speaking) aromatic? The aromaticity article says no (at the top), the terpene article says yes (at the top).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.252.224 (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory examination of the use of words like "aroma", "aromatic", "aromatic compound", in the 19th century strongly suggests the culprit is rooted in Benzoin, having a prototypically spicy aroma, and whence benzoic acid was extracted, whence... benzene was synthesized, all of which having distinctly pleasant fragrance (benzoic acid has to age a bit, but in the 19th century, it would typically sit around for a while in the apothecary's jar...), some more some less, and even toluene and the xylenes, if on the sharp side.

Common are references to Benzoin as among the aromatic gums, and odor-wise benzene has not fallen far from the Benzoin tree. So, over the course of ~70 years, it's not hard to see chemists simply associating anything with benzene rings as 'aromatic', regardless of odor. JohndanR (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are terpenes aromatic

See above unsigned comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rod57 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benzyne

i found that benzyne C6H4 is also aromatic but it does not follow huckle rule i.e. (4n+2)π electrons .why —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.1.6.181 (talk • contribs).

The end of the Hückel's rule page notes:

Aromaticity - A much more thorough explanation of what makes a molecule aromatic. Huckel's rule is a simple rule that sometimes fails.

Might want to follow that link for more detailed information. In particular, consider the molecular orbitals on the two atoms involved in the "alkyne-like" bond. How are the two p orbitals on each oriented, and what effect that might have on whether both π bonds are actually involved in the aromatic system. DMacks 08:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benzyne is aromatic and follows the Huckel rule. The unpaired electrons are in sp2-orbitals in the molecule plane, and do not participate in the pi-system. Huckel's rule is very reliable. LinguisticDemographer 14:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aromatic/Nonaromatic

One thing I've always been curious about is how do you determine if larger ring systems are aromatic or not. I'm talking about multiring systems like coronene and heme, and joined ring systems like stilbene. I'm also mystified in how one factors in any exocyclic, conjugated double bonds into the analysis, as those in benzoic acid, benzophenone and anthracyclines. -- 22:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Theory

It seems unclear what double arrow diagram the first sentence of the theory section is talking about. Aaronatwpi (talk)

It's talking about the one used in the diagram at the beginning of the article, which is indeed not obvious:( I wonder if the diagrams used to be together here and/or if maybe they should be together (either here or in the lead)? I added some links to the discussion of the more general phenomenon of resonance, which should begin to solve the problem here. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do u know how to add reference Safwan mamtule (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acedemic Earth video link

This is a highly useful educational link from a top notch source. It's a reliable source in and of itself and has information not in the article. And the website isn't selling anything, so it doesn't seem like spam to me. Let's include it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page for discussion. This is in probable violation of the video copyright, and even if it isn't we shouldn't be linking to scrapers. User A1 (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Histidine

Added histidine to the list of aromatic amino acids. Don't feel bad, my biochem instructor forgot to describe it as aromatic too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.129.113 (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is too technical, & too many hyperlinks.

Wikipedia's guidelines say the lead should be discrete and nontechnical. Yet the opening paragraph 1) has seven hyperlinks, and 2) it's meaningless to the lay person.

The lead should have a dictionary-like definition, but be more comprehensive. By definition, an encyclopedia is an overview, not a publication of, or for specialization. Only when "overview" is met should it possibly continue deeper.

One reason hyperlinks in the lead should try to be avoided is if not, finding a general/overview/lay meaning might be impossible as a person is linked from one hyperlink to another; forever. For example, I got here from the lead in "gasoline." Therefore I must become an organic chemist to have a feel for what gasoline and any "aromatic compound" is!? Or here, is it: "Average Joe has no business being interested in this?"

quote:

"Aromatic compound" redirects here. For meanings related to odor, see aroma compound.

In organic chemistry, the structures of some rings of atoms are unexpectedly stable. Aromaticity is a chemical property in which a conjugated ring of unsaturated bonds, lone pairs, or empty orbitals exhibit a stabilization stronger than would be expected by the stabilization of conjugation alone. It can also be considered a manifestation of cyclic delocalization and of resonance.

With so much jargon and so forth in the paragraph, the prudent lay person might wonder if every word is jargon, thus undecypherable and meaningless. For example, "unexpectedly?" Unexpected if counting valence rings, or cyclic delocalization, or what? Guessing wildly, I wonder if the first sentence could be rewritten as: "To overgeneralize, an aromatic compound is unusually stable or inert?"
I don't know. However, it has been written; Sometimes a little inaccuracy saves a great deal of obscurity. I'm seeking a general concept, not the requirements of a chemist.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs

However, sometimes, a Wikipedia article (particularly stubs) will be badly written. Its introduction will say something such as "Dog is a term for an animal with the binomial name Canis lupus." .... Simply replace the cumbersome phrasings ... with ... "A dog is a domesticated canine."

While expertise in a field is no indicator of communication ability, certainly it does not preclude it?

"Communication is a process whereby meaning is defined and shared between living organisms. Communication requires a sender, a message, and an intended recipient,"

"The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the sender."

Doug Bashford--71.142.9.117 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your note and agree with it. I've rewritten the pesky lede. Hope your problems are fixed now, almost 4 years late. S B H arris 06:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OR paragraph -- speculative

In The structure of the benzene ring, the paragraph beginning Here, Armstrong is describing at least four modern concepts strikes me as speculative. Just because Armstrong's prose can be identified poetically or metaphorically with modern technical concepts does not mean he really was stumbling towards Bethlehem. It is an interesting thesis. It might be true. But it should be investigated in depth somewhere by someone, and declared in a publication, perhaps achieve a scholarly consensus, before being presented here. 84.227.252.224 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theory

It is said:"Thus, there are not enough electrons to form double bonds on all the carbon atoms, but the "extra" electrons strengthen all of the bonds on the ring equally. The resulting molecular orbital is considered to have π symmetry.". Six interacting p atomic orbitals give rise to 6 molecular orbital, not one. Three of them are bonding (one more so than the remaining two) and are entered by the six electrons. The figure just below shows only the first of those three molecular orbitals.--5.95.105.48 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Patrizio[reply]

Porphyrins ?

Porphyrin says they are aromatic (with ring of 18 electrons). Should it be mentioned here, or is it only worth a see-also ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Writing Science 2023

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PineappleCinnamon (article contribs). Peer reviewers: HighQualityWater.

— Assignment last updated by HighQualityWater (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Free Internet

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Awolfson17 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Waffles yum.

— Assignment last updated by Waffles yum (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]