Talk:Coordinate covalent bond

Merge

Perhaps this would be better incorporated into Covalent bond? I'm not a chemist, so perhaps there's enough information available that this could become an encyclopedia article in its own right, but thought I'd point it out, so someone more knowledgeable than me can make the decision. Rgamble

Oppose: (This proposal dates from 2002 but someone just got around to adding the {{merge|Covalent bond}} to it:) Coordinate bonding is a special case of coordinate bonding, but there is a large amount of material that is specific to coordinate bonding of metals and metal-centered coordinate compounds and is quite unrelated to the "covalent bond" nature. That information is present on the Complex (chemistry) page, not the Covalent bond page. Merging into the latter substantially de-emphasizes the "complex" sense vs the "just another type of covalent bond", and I think that the former is a major sense of the term. DMacks 03:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so! coordinated bond is not a common bond and merging this page with covelant bond can be very confusing to the reader

I think so!! Coordinated bond is also called coordinate COVALENT bond therefore should be merged and most coordinated bonds usually involves a covalent bond somewhere

I dont think so!!! When studying these topics at A-Level, it is shown that these instances of bonding are in different categories, and are taught seperately. In addition to this, there is the fact that the only reason contains the phrase 'covalent' is because the atoms share electrons - yet the fact remains that the circumstances and effects of this bond is quite different. Overall, i think it would be misleading to many should it be merged as it could frequently be overlooked and misinterpreted my those reading the article, as well as much harder to find specifically when searching for.

Oppose These are distincive, different things. Keep them separate. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While dative covalent bonding is just a special form of covalent bonding when it boils down to it, there's enough detail to warrant a new article (just as sigma, pi, and delta bonds get their own article instead of merging them with covalent bonding). Suggest putting a mini-summary with a "main article" link in the covalent article, and caveats about how when it boils down to a wavefunction level of understanding, they really are the same (QM doesn't care where the electrons "came from", whatever that means.).

Oppose These are not the same and deserve to be separate. To reitorate what a previous user commented "most coordinated bonds usually involves a covalent bond somewhere." That is just poor logic. Most is not all, and just because something "involves" something else does not mean they are the same. It is sloppy chemistry if we fail to make the distinction.

Error?

In the article it is said that ammonium posesses 4 dative bonds. Isn't that wrong?Bastard Soap 18:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be just one. Can someone verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.126.114 (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Could someone add in an example? Louis Labrèche

Sulphuric Acid

Does sulphuric acid contain any coordinate covalent bonds?

Good question. Yes and no. Some people call the S=O bonds "⁺S-O^-" bonds. If you're really nuts about insisting that sulfur has an octet, then no. If you aren't, then it does. The "true" structure lies somewhere between, depending on how much of a stickler you are about resonance structures and contributions. Remember, elements with access to d-shells can have more than 8 electrons flying around. --Takometer 01:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, most texts indicate that d-orbitals have zero to do with hypervalency. Although it is a comforting thought that has calmed the masses for years.--Smokefoot 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The first line of the article says the more common name is coordinate covalent bond. Personally while studying chemistry, I never heard the term dipolar bond to refer to this. So why is the title not the more common name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.142.171 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that coordinate covalent bond is the more usual term and should be the article title. A Google search shows 49 000 hits for coordinate covalent bond (with quotes to require the entire phrase) and only 3 000 for dipolar bond (also with quotes). Dirac66 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the title should be changed. In fact according to the content of the article, the title should be Coordination, as what is emphasized is more the mechanism of formation of the bond than the property of the bond itself (cf. the corresponding IUPAC entry: coordination). Also, the term 'dative bond' should be indicated as obsolete, and the term 'dipolar bond' is more a property of a covalent bond, that incidentally can also be seen as a coordination bond between neutral entities resulting in a charge separation (dipolar bond). In fact there should be two distinct articles: one on Coordination (a mechanism of covalent bond formation) and an other on Dipolar bond (a special property of some covalent bonds). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.248.98.76 (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]