Jump to content

Talk:International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 222.67.217.95 (talk) at 02:54, 12 February 2010 (→‎Could the volunteers to the IUPAC topics please generate the template for the following....). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChemistry Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I'm pretty sure there's been a mistake

I have a periodic table that was approved by the IUPAC, and it uses aluminum (as opposed to aluminium). I'm not going to change the article to reflect this, but it's a thought. Random the Scrambled 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind... I read the article on Aluminum, and it said that the IUPAC has several periodic tables that use only the 4-syllable spelling. Random the Scrambled 12:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
American publishers may use their aluminum/sulfur/cesium, British publishers their aluminium/sulphur/caesium, both variants are IUPAC approved. Regionally independent publications use the standard aluminium/sulfur/caesium recommendation. Femto 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing confuses me. If Google searching for aluminum comes up with over twice as many results as aluminium, and searching for cesium brings up just under 3 times the results that caesium does, then why does the IUPAC use aluminium and caesium? (oh yeah, I remember why aluminium, other languages use spellings similar to it, but caesium?) Random the Scrambled 12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows why, but Platinium's a redirect. BioTube 04:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because IUPAC are smart enough to know Google searching doesn't really prove anything except that American's dominate the Internet? Nil Einne 15:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other good search engines out there too.Dogpile.com for example Kinglou135 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetogyric ratio/Gyromagnetic ratio

There seems to be some inconsistency in the name given to this ratio by different scientists. If anybody's interested, there's some discussion over the article title at Talk:Magnetogyric ratio. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is there any similarities between mercury as a planet and as an elemnt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.253 (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UIPAC Names on Wikipedia

I really think we should use the IUPAC names of elements and compounds as the article names for Wikipedia. The common name can be mentioned shortly after the IUPAC name in the style of "(also known as...)".

If IUPAC really does exists to standardize the naming of elements and compounds, why aren't we using it on Wikipedia of all places?

Bdfortin (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been talked about several times on the Chemistry Project pages, probably on the talk page or its archive pages. It is best discussed there rather than here if you want to raise it again. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC name search from LookChem works to me....

and I love to see more comments using that service by others--222.64.222.67 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steering committee of the org...???

--222.64.218.117 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.64.218.117 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC name vs CAS index name....

from Google scholar

--124.78.210.114 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that not many reviews have been done in this field. If the IUPAC names become conventional, then a steering committee is very necessary. The reason is that the interpretations of the IUPAC rules according to its publication can vary from one to another--124.78.210.114 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned to publish the IUPAC names annualy a few days ago when I found that the IUPAC names for one chemical can be more than one even from one website.--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I put words something like Appeal for publishing printed version of IUPAC names annualy here somewhere after I visited the pages of nomenclature, Ponceau 4R, Sunset Yellow FCF and Tartrazine. I also said, maybe in another page something like I personaly prefer CAS index name. However welcome to adopt IUPAC name. People just keep reverting my editions....what for....???--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have to state that the CAS index names have to be from printed version too. If an electronic version is cited, then at least another verification is required. Such words have been mentioned by me a few days ago too.

Have a look at the topic of Calcium phosphate and the CAS numbers of its related compounds and the following....

--124.78.210.114 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The words that I mentioned somewhere at this site

--124.78.210.114 (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Is this the problem from Google scholar or from wikipedia's...???

--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that Google does not indexing the content of discussion pages....right...??? The following I copied and pasted the exact words...nothing can be found from Google search....

--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could the volunteers to the IUPAC topics please generate the template for the following....

as the topic layouts are changing from one day to another and are too hot to handle....^__^--222.67.217.95 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as examplified by

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Union_of_Pure_and_Applied_Chemistry&oldid=343474802"