User talk:Plasmic Physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Flinders Petrie's talk page.

Bisulfide ionbox[edit]

Plasmic Physics
Wireframe structural formula of bisulfide with the explicit hydrogen added
Names
Systematic IUPAC name
sulfanide (substitutive)
hydrogen(sulfide)(1−) (additive)
Other names
  • hydrosulfide
  • thiolate
Identifiers
15035-72-0
ChEBI CHEBI:29919
ChEMBL ChEMBL38703
ChemSpider 4224877
24766
Jmol-3D images Image
PubChem 5047209
Properties
HS
Molar mass 33.073 g mol−1
Acidity (pKa) >14
Basicity (pKb) <0
Except where noted otherwise, data is given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)
Infobox references


Gallane[edit]

Plasmic Physics
Names
Systematic IUPAC name
gallane (substitutive)
trihydridogallium (additive)
Identifiers
13572-93-5
ChEBI CHEBI:30427
ChemSpider 22419
48991
Jmol-3D images Image
PubChem 23983
Properties
H3Ga
Molar mass 72.75 g·mol−1
Appearance colourless gas
hydrolyses
Except where noted otherwise, data is given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)
Infobox references

IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005[edit]

I noticed your revert of my edit on IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005. You are wrong about the spelling as you can easily verify by consulting many sources such as this one. Monoatomic is incorrect. After you have checked perhaps you would like to revert your revert and in future get your facts right before you resort to your reverting weapon. Jodosma (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you prove that "monoatomic" is incorrectly spelled? No, you can't, because it's not. It's an alternate spelling, and it is also lexographically adequate as the constituents are more evident and inferable. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)/@Jodosma:/(edit conflict) - Plasmic Physics is correct here (though the revert could have been explained in an additional edit summary) - IUPAC used the term 'monoatomic' in their 2005 recommendations. And it is indeed likely an alternative spelling. It may be 'incorrect' based on dictionaries, I would use those dictionaries with care in case of specialist terms and/or parts that are mentioned in external documents ('quotes'). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
God help us if the day ever comes when scientists and the like decide how we should spell things. The Concise Oxford gives monatomic and I can see no reason for anyone to reinvent the wheel no matter who they are. Jodosma (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jodosma: God help us if the day ever comes when linguistic purists and the like decide how to quote original texts .. go complain to IUPAC if you want to revise their texts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jodosma: .. by the way, did you mean monatomic ('also monoatomic') or monatomic .. So it is an alternate spelling that is defined in some dictionaries. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
IUPAC is wrong and so are you. The Shorter Oxford has monatomic, citing 1848 as a first appearance in English. Jodosma (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Still funny that Oxford does also consider monoatomic as a possible spelling, Jodosma. At least we do not have consensus here, so maybe a wider discussion is in place before you blanket replace all these instances. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Do what you like. Jodosma (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)