User talk:Punpcklbw

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of undocumented x86 instructions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of undocumented x86 instructions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The article List of discontinued x86 instructions has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTMANUAL, we are not a collection of code changes

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Punpcklbw, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Dr vulpes, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, List of discontinued x86 instructions, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of discontinued x86 instructions.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dr vulpes}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Punpcklbw sorry for not getting to you sooner. I just wanted to let you know that in the AfD for this article the proposal is to move it to Wikibooks as part of a large book on the x86 instruction set. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much chem you know, but there are many thousand "Heteroatom-centered spiro compounds". Many or perhaps most coordination complexes could be interpreted that way, although inorganic chemists don't use spiro terminology.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the total number is in that range, however this seems to me like it would be almost equally true for just about any chemical category you can name - as best I can tell, Wikipedia itself seems to have only a small fraction of all known chemicals (e.g. English Wikipedia contains SMILES strings for about 25000 chemicals, which would be about 0.02% of the 120 million chemical entities that ChemSpider claims to have in its database.) I'd think that the problem would be more whether there are an unmanageably large number of such compounds that are notable enough to have gotten their own Wikipedia articles, and that seems rather less scary to me? Taking a cursory look, the coordination compounds that could be called "spiro" and have their own articles seem to mostly be things where a single central metal atom has a handful of bidentate ligands, such as a few dozen acetylacetonates, but seemingly not that many other compounds (e.g. carbonyl and sandwich compounds are mostly not spiro)

That said, the definition I provided does feel like it has a bit of a vagueness problem with respect to the coordination compounds - e.g. I suspect it doesn't make make it clear whether e.g. chromium(II) acetylacetonate, oxaliplatin, hexol etc should be included - and I do get the sense that I ought to rewrite it to try to make that aspect clearer, probably to exclude them. Punpcklbw (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Just checking that you were aware that most known complexes have a couple of chelate rings, which would qualify them as spiro's. There are a lot of acac analogues, a lot of diamines, a lot of aminocarboxylates, a lot of heterocyclic 2-carboxlates. But hey, I am in that guild. Good luck with your cogitating. On a tangential subject, about the small fraction of known chemicals described in Wikipedia, I hope that we can keep it that way.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

OK - for now, I've chosen to rework the category's definition text in order to try to exclude these coordination compounds, in particular the transition metal chelates. They seem qualitiatively different from the p-block-spirocenter compounds I've populated the category with so far - and so, if I or someone else figure out that these spiro-like coordination compounds really should be included, then I think they should be placed into a sub-category for themselves. Punpcklbw (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)