Talk:Fluorene

Polycyclic aromatic?

Is Fluorene a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon? It does not satisfy Huckel's 4n+2 rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.109.141 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorene is not a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon because the central ring is nonaromatic. There seems to be some ambiguity between polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, like phenanthrene and polycyclic hydrocarbons that have one or more (but not all) rings being aromatic, like fluorene.Itoe (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautifulviolet?

'a beautiful violet'? sounds like an opinion to me. we should take this out.

9H-fluoren-9-ylmethoxycarbonyl

Why does 9H-fluoren-9-ylmethoxycarbonyl redirect here? It is not the same. 84.238.113.244 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9H-fluoren-9-ylmethoxycarbonyl now appears to correctly redirect to Fluorenylmethyloxycarbonyl chloride. Itoe (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corn silk and engine exhaust?

This claim has been sitting there unsourced for a while:

It can be found in corn silk and engine exhaust gas.^{[citation needed]}

Can anyone confirm it? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR

A recent edit changed the pronunciation, probably between WP:ENGVAR. I believe both should be included, but I'm not sure how to do that. And I note that the article uses 'colour' (UK) but 'odor' (US). There may be other violations of WP:ENGVAR that I haven't noticed. I don't really care which variety is used, but maybe someone could make a decision and make it consistent? YBG (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aromaticity

Is fluorene aromatic aromatic ? Yes it is aromatic poly cyclic hydrocarbon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.243.166.35 (talk • contribs)

Good catch. The error was corrected.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it double monoaromatic or diaromatic? Read https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00106

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Simon de Danser (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[Med compounds] Irrelevant Source

To start, I need to say that I do NOT speak German, so I may have missed something. Nonetheless, the section "Med compounds" seems not only out of place and poorly worded, but also improperly cited. Their source can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fcber.19410740814

This paper is titled, "New Syntheses Using Sodium Amides," and details the synthesis of various compounds as well as things like melting point and reactivity to different reagents following workup. I see neither pharmacological data nor any indication of a pharmacological test, despite the section claiming "A really old design for a TCA is 9-[b-Diethylaminoethyl]-fluorene (pg 1439)." I have not been able to find a single entry for the compound specified being used as a TCA. For those interested, the proper IUPAC name of the compound mentioned is diethyl[2‐(9H‐fluoren‐9‐yl)ethyl]amine.

The statement "This actually predates designs such as imipramine." is troublesome as Imipramine is frequently regarded as the first TCA (I have not found a source that does not state Imipramine as the first, but I may have missed something), with the parent compound being first synthesized in 1899 and studied for pharmacodynamic properties in 1940. This is followed by "{This exact agent is better identified as one of the fenpiprane analogs, and appears in the same patent.}," which - yet again - I have found no literature evidence for, nor does synthesis to (from) Imipramine and/or Fluorene from (to) a Fenpiprane make any sense from a synthetic point of view.

I suggest that this entire section be removed; for now I will flag it as "citation needed" and "failed verification" so others may confirm or deny this.

Hypercubies (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]