Talk:Transition metal alkoxide complex

Preparation of alkokides by By metathesis reactions

I dont understand something about this section. The preparing alkokides by By metathesis reactions. The reaction starts out with Sodium alkoxide, so how is a synthesis reaction of alkoxides if I already have it. Maybe this reaction should be moved in another section, or something. Or maybe I am missing or not understanding something.unsigned message from 198.140.178.11.

Maybe you are misunderstanding: One often synthesizes new alkoxides starting from sodium alkoxide by metathesis reactions.--Smokefoot 18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the sodium alkoxide in its turn is synthesized from sodium metal and alcohol as under "1.1 From reducing metals" - so I think it is clear enough the way the article is written now. 130.238.197.120 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Required

The Alkoxide article needs to be completed on both theoretical and application side. The original author, Dr. Shcheglov, has presented an, in general, correct view on this field of chemistry, but was a bit focused on his personal contributions (ref 3 in the present version maintained by Rifleman 82, Smokefoot and MusLiM HyBRiD) thus initiating a conflict of interests, see WP:COI:. This original contribution was completed with an erroneous viewpoint postulating that hydrolysis intermediates, oxoalkoxide species, are clusters. True clusters react as species with a rigid core, changing just ligands in their reactions, while oxoalkoxides change completely and drastically. The principles, directing the structure and chemistry of alkoxides in general have been summarised in a review article by Prof. Kessler, see Kessler, V.G. "Molecular Structure Design and Synthetic Approaches to Heterometallic Alkoxide Complexes (Single-Source Precursor Approach to Inorganic Materials by the Eyes of A Crystallographer", Chem. Commun. 2003, 1213-1222 (Feature Article, Invited Review). We (Sommartorpare, writing this contribution and my fellows, Revolvermannen and Semesterfiraren) belong now to the same research group, but see no conflict of interests as the contribution of our boss has been reviewed at the highest level and published in an international high impact-factor journal as invited review.

Alkoxides have two major application domains, homogeneous catalysis and sol-gel technology. The mainstream development of the latter is towards biological applications, and the nanoparticles for bio-imaging and cancer treatment are of tremendous importance. A principle contribution in this field has been described in the article Seisenbaeva, G.A.; Kessler, V.G., Pazik R.; Strek, W. "Heteroleptic Metal Alkoxide “Oxoclusters” as Molecular Models for the Sol-Gel Synthesis of Perovskite Nanoparticles for Bio-Imaging Applications", Dalton Trans., 2008 (26), 3412-3421 (Invited Paper and Cover Story in the Special Issue "From Moleculaes to Materials: Renaissance of the Main Group Chemistry", Hot Paper in Dalton in June 2008). Again, no conflict of interest in the view of international recognition.

We look forward for proper corrections in the text of the Alkoxide chapter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sommartorpare (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As one who monitors this article, I certainly welcome contributions and comments. And although individual editors have no real authority, I thank you for discussing matters of policy and content. Responses to your comments: (1) I am very attentive to (and very nervous about) any edits that praise the work of an actively publishing scientist, (2) I do NOT believe comments about "tremendous importance" of recent results: usually such views come from narrow or young scientists who lack perspective (e.g. that they have "true" understanding), (3) most importantly, this article is a general overview of a class of compounds. You are mistaken if you think that publishing a paper in Chem Comm or Dalton indicates that your results belong in an encyclopedia. If Wikipedia cited and discussed the many thousands of papers published each week, this encyclopedia would drown. And remember: every scientist thinks that their stuff is really, really important! The best way to evaluate significance is the "test of time" - let other reviews amplify your claims, dont be tempted to use Wikipedia as a marketing vehicle. Congratulations on your publications, but I encourage you to describe your expanded views on alkoxides in bio-imaging, etc. in a real refereed review article, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is like a textbook, it is not like Angewandte Chemie or Chemical Reviews.Smokefoot (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Very, very logical points of view, Smokefoot et al. It is really pity then that the article on alkoxide does not follow these guidelines at all. It provides references to the internationally inaccessible articles of two actively publishing Russian scientists, one - a broadly recognized authority in the field, Prof. Turova, and on a fairly recognized topic (but still modern topic to which the author contributed a lot herself), the other on a minor domain in modern chemistry, by people whose contribution to it also was minor. The articles in an encyclopedia should be written by specialists and cite things representing recognized contributions of general interest and also the sources accessible for an international reader. The present article does not follow this criterion and has to be modified. Your comments on the proposal above are apparently irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sommartorpare (talk • contribs) 12:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

95% of the article is an overview of the methods to prepare these species. So that part seems pretty balanced. The ref to Bradley's book recognizes what in the west is the "bible" of the area, I think. Yes, the Turova references are pretty specialized, but it seems helpful to have an ORTEP of a representative oxo-alkoxide. From my limited knowledge, if the article were about what's important commercially, it would be 95% on silicate and titanate esters, probably. One recommendation: do not inflict on the readers some rant about your particular definition of a cluster - that makes us argue about words, not content. Good luck improving the article and please bear in mind my suggestions - few scientists are able to judge the value of their own work and keep the discussion general. Applications should be to real applications, not wishes.Smokefoot (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

Comments on the proposal to split this article into transition metal derivatives (currently most of the content) and alkali metal derivatives. These topics are somewhat different, which makes writing slightly cumbersome. Its not a huge deal.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on the proposal but I would comment that the split that comes to mind for me is the one between the use of alkoxides in synthesis (e.g. Williamson ether synthesis, as mentioned in the lead) — so the alkoxide is just an intermediate — and cases where it forms the final product that gets studied in its own right or used for something. The current article is not over-long, so any sort of split could just be done in various Sections. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the split is a bad idea. The split would lead to two articles with a large portion of them overlapping.

Littleb2009 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metal alkoxide

Hi there! I really do not like the way is changing the metal alkoxide page. It is perhaps that Wikipedia tries to take advantage of the geopolitical situation in the world to change radically some pages! This is not fair for the science. Remember that citations are needed that make references to the subject and not to something else.

Regards Ilonumbrel (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]