@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ That's oddly specific for a chemist demon. Where did you read that from?

Please explain me miller indices I mean how should I draw them using the indices.Giving a few question solving which would help me immensly

@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ

@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ Please expain me Lever rule for eutectic diagram

In detail

@Loong pls expalin me miler indices and also lever rule

I tried but lever rule seems tough

@Loong

Ps

PLs**

@skull help

@skull

@AvnishKabaj

Please stop pinging me I have told you before that I'm in highschool and know nothing

Whoever unpinned the GitHub CloseReasons message, please tell - if not this month - then which month can we have the discussion?

Meta it

i would...but most of the important meta posts on meta in the past have always come about after chat discussion

i was just hoping a few regulars to have a read at it and point out any initial errors

so that when presenting on meta it is perfectly presented

@GaurangTandon it was unpinned automagically

It's too big

Like I read some

But

Zzzzzz

@Martin-マーチン oh

that's the way the cookie crumbles

@AvnishKabaj it's all interconnected. if i remove some parts, then the next question I am going to get is: "Okay, tell us how you're going to handle question type X", and then I'll say "Type X was right here but I removed it" :|

@Martin-マーチン meaning?

I'm still in the favor of splitting that massive thing into bits and we discuss each bit in meta

Before going through with those minor discussions you could post the entire thing and ask for suggestions wether people do want to change stuff or not while suggesting that you would like to to do this bit by bit

okay. fine. i'll split that one file into smaller files - although it's still divided by sections, and i'll just move those sections into new files - if that helps

It means that's life; that's how it is designed...

@AvnishKabaj people already want to change stuff, for the variety of reasons i described in the intro of that doc

@Martin-マーチン okay

I think it automagically unpins after 14 days

or 10

or something

don't recall

just post it again and I'll pin it

let me split the files once. i agree with @AvnishKabaj that seeing too long a github page will probably drive readers away. five mins please

also are you ok with those four tags @Mart or did you have more to say yesterday before you went to sleep?

@SoumikDas @aventurin Please do not accept edits that introduce MathJax into the titles. Refers to: this and this.

@MathewMahindaratne Thank you for editing. If you encounter something like this the next time, please choose 'Reject and edit'.

Background: We are trying to fight off an anonymous editor introducing these bad edit for quite some time now. This can only be done effectively, if the edits are actually rejected.

Focused reworking off-topic closure policies.md is live on GitHub - this is pre-discussion of the suggested major changes, before pushing them live onto meta. So, please, our core group of users, do go there and contribute!

@Martin-マーチン ^

@AvnishKabaj thanks for your suggestion, you were right, and sorry for not shortening the length earlier!

hope it's good now

I wonder how the ancient people determined the identity of silver, for instance, when trading goods for hacksilver

@GaurangTandon I am not so sure. I really dislike carbon-family and boron-family, I am okay-ish with alkaline earth metals, and good with nucleophilicity

@Martin-マーチン hmm. okay. so then what else tag do we use if we don't use carbon-family and boron-family?

...and well, why do you dislike them in the first place? (should it be renamed to group-13 and group-14 instead?)

I call them triels and tetrels, but carbon-group and boron-group would be better, but i really need to give this another thought...

okay

I find it hard to believe this comment is a real thing o.O

one does not simply tell a mod how to do stuff lol

@CowperKettle this might make a good main site question ;)

Any chemists: is Chemiday a credible source for citing reactions, like this one? Especially the ways it's cited here. In that answer, I would instead have expected a link to a research paper detailing how that reaction was performed, what conditions were followed, etc., instead of just linking to a reaction page. Thoughts?

@GaurangTandon what I was trying to say is that: suppose a hypothetical question asks how to prepare Al4C3. if I just answer as "4Al + 3C -> Al4C3" - that's just a bare equation. It doesn't tell me whether aluminium and carbon were put in a bowl and stirred, or were aluminium vapours taken with coke vapours and pressurized in a vacuum chamber. both are some significant differences, especially considering that the OP's context can vary from a hobby chemist to an grad student researcher

@GaurangTandon Your "why" was not clear enough

Your question seems good, but it is not stated in a way that is likely to get you the answer you're looking for...

indeed thanks i'm fixing asap

@GaurangTandon Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is an improvement

What is meant by "why"?

For example, is "thermodynamics" a valid response?

okay, let me explain. do you agree that solid group 1 bicarbonates are stable? also, do you agree that solid group 2 carbonates are stable?

Because I can certainly see interpretations of "why" for which the correct answer would just be that

waits for yes/no

ok

good

but then why are solid group 2 bicarbonates unstable?

thermodynamics

meaning?

The products are more stable than reactants?

Let me rephrase this question in a way that might be more what you're looking for

sure

Even this could be improved

Because the answer because one is group 1 and one is group 2 would be valid for some interpretations

@Zhe nice! :D

Naively you might guess that this is just a result of differential morphology in the solid state

And you'd probably be right. But I don't know

@Zhe maybe we should add "..._leads to a thermodynamic preference_ in solid state but not in aqueous solution"?

I don't think that makes sense

What is a salt in the aqueous phase?

It's essentially water

i agree that that salt dissociates into ions in water. but then that Wiley reference says: "The bicarbonates of group 2 elements are stable only in solution."... so?

?

Yeah, but we already knew that it was stable in water

The group 1 bicarbonate is stable in water

Therefore, bicarbonates are stable in water

yeah that's what I was trying to say when I wrote that: ""... leads to a thermodynamic preference in solid state but not in aq soln/water""

okay I ended up updating the post anyway

I have a problem with this suggested edit. while given the theme of the question "SCN" makes sense, but the second diagram that andselisk has embedded is actually for "NCS". Can any chemist please help?

@Martin-マーチン Would you mind merging chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/97072/… with chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/75688/… ?

@Mithoron I can't do it right now, I'm on the move and meeting isn't trivial. If you hadn't yet, please flag it, the other moderators can take care of it, if they agree. On another note, I really dislike the other answer, and it skid be clear that user<something> will lose the reputation gained on the accept. In general I would probably prefer closing as duplicate.

*merging

@1,3-feeds that is a very philosophical title

:D

@M.A.R.ಠ_ಠ It's getting weird - second time OP asked me for something only mod could do - earlier nuking their q. and today merging it o.O

@Mithoron the philosopher OP or someone else?

Well, you're always so authoritative when you comment

Nah, that one ^^

O' Mith the great duplicate god

:D

Please be generous and merge

Nom nom thish legal shtuff ish sho goodd for popcorn conshumption

Whuh?

That's me eating and talking

It's rude, but that's okay. It's not rude to me

Oops, sorry for spitting that popcorn

I meant this link, legal is putting me off

I can put you on if you like

Checked this link but I guess I don't care ;)

@Mithoron aren't you currently like, INSIDE Europe?

I think Poland is the center of Europe

So what

Maybe even universe

@Mithoron well, there's an 0.0018 percent chance you'd sue SE in the future

So you should know the boring suing documentation

Wah ah u ping me :D

@GaurangTandon You worry too much. And SE Lisk knows what he's doing