Talk:Chemical nomenclature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Suggested content[edit]

At heading Compositional nomenclature, perhaps can be included the distinction between source- and structure-deived names for polymers. See e.g. introduction to polyethene. The fourth line under the heading "Compositional nomenclature" uses the word "suffices" - shouldn't that be 'prefixes'? Tin (II) chloride instead of tin dichloride. Di- is a prefix, not a suffix. 24.8.50.176 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

info about the academic reviews of the topic....[edit]

--58.38.43.251 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

--58.38.43.251 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

--58.38.43.251 (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

--58.38.43.251 (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

--58.38.43.251 (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

--58.38.43.251 (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Search engine producers needs to be aware of this results too--58.38.43.251 (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

IUPAC nomenclatureChemical nomenclature

  • This article covers not only IUPAC nomenclature Wickey-nl (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Object it needs a full RM discussion, as it was recently rewritten. Perhaps it should be split into two articles instead. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Chemical nomenclature should certainly not be a redirect to IUPAC nomenclature, as IUPAC nomenclature is part of Chemical nomenclature. IUPAC nomenclature can be either a section of Chemical nomenclature, or a separate article. I think the last one will be the better sollution.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
There are many chemical nomenclatures, but only one IUPAC nomenclature. And the latter topic should have enough content for its own article. Cacycle (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You are right. A good overview of history can be found in the IUPAC Recommendations 2005: http://www.iupac.org/publications/books/rbook/Red_Book_2005.pdf
--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confused[edit]

Examples of compositional names are:

PCl5 phosphorus pentachloride N2O4 dinitrogen tetraoxide An alternative method uses the oxidation state on the metal in place of suffices, e.g.:

SnCl2, tin(II) chloride as an alternative to tin dichloride. Generally this system, known as Stock nomenclature or international nomenclature, is preferred over the prefix system for ionic compounds. wouldn't tin (II)cloride be covalent? Not confident enough to mess with the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.104.63 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

InChI non-human readable is incorrect.[edit]

the article says "while InChI symbols are not human-readable, they contain complete information about substance structure." but the article on InChI on wikipedia says that it is human readable (with practice). What is not human readable is the InChIKey. based on this I will eliminate the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melquiades Babilonia (talkcontribs) 03:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)