Talk:Phosphonium coupling

Instead of providing numerous references for a single fact, why not choose one or two best references. tausif r (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

: Yes please. :- ) DCS 18:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Stausifr and Dcshank,

Thank you for your kind comments!

We think in contrast to the traditional paper-based encyclopedia, wikipedia has the capability to show the readers a dynamic and in-depth body of information on a certain topic. In particular, recent development on the useful new knowledge should be interesting and appreciated by readers who are searching such information on the web. In this particluar case, a single fact may contain various new development that is important for knowledge update. Ideally, wikipedia entries should be real article-like papers with extensive useful information, instead of simple summary-like descriptions. This should be the major difference between paper-based encyclopedia and web-based encyclopedia.

By the way, this entry has little to do with "peptide coupling", so they should not be merged into one entry. This chemistry is something like such cross coupling reactions as Suzuki, Heck and Sonogishira couplings.

Thanks again and hope this will become useful information for the wikipedia readers.

Greatwall2000

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.216.184.234 (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

:Greatwall2000,

:I will have to take your word for that.  I am not exactly a dummy, but organic chemistry is definitely a weakness.  However, not being a dummy, I still think it could be simplified and it does not need so many citations.WP:OVERCITE  Perhaps you could expand on some of the words to which you have made wiki-links?  I will remove the merge template, however I will have to add over-linked.  Thanks for your contribution, you are obviously much smarter than me.  That being said, you should still sign you posts with ~~~~, which will automatically show your signature, time and date, like this.> :- ) DCS 16:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

:DCS,

:Thank you very much for your instructive suggestions. I have removed many citations and only kept some key references that will be interesting for readers' further reading on recent new diverse developments. Any other comments would be greatly appreciated. Best. Greatwall2000Greatwall2000 (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)