Talk:Hydrogen astatide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Systematic names[edit]

Systematic names are constructed using the IUPAC nomenclature rule, but must be verified by a reputable secondary source. As of August 2011, hydrogen astatide is not a systematically contructed name. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

IPUAC nomenclature, if the other hydrogen halides are anything to go by, has that "hydrogen astatide' is a valid name. Additionally, it is verified by the reference we are both using (ChEBI is also used as a ref for Hydrogen chloride and hydrogen iodide's IPUAC name). Fivexthethird (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hydrogen astatide is a valid name, but not a valid systematic name. The reference given lists hydrogen astatide under the heading IUPAC names, but it should be noted that ChEBI is a secondary source, and is only used to verify what is predcribed by IUPAC. Currently, hydrogen astatide is not prescribed by IUPAC to be a viable systematic name, and is thus relegated to other names. (If included in the chembox) In any case, the title of the article is hydrogen astatide, and thus adding it to other names would be superfluous. This is the method prescribed by the chemistry project on Wikipedia, active since 2010. The method was in development since 2009 and was been completed in its current form in 2010. I have been a major contributor to chemboxes since 2008, and have played a key role in developing this method. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, it is not good practice to address a particular user in the edit summary, that is why I do not reply to such comments. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have implemented the solution to remove the whole field with the contents. First you find a middle way here, then an uninvolved editor is putting it back. Note that any further edit warring on systematic names, or whatever content of this type will most probably result in (possibly lengthy) blocks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)