Talk:Organofluorine compound

This redirect 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

Medicine: Toxicology

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
	This redirect is supported by the Toxicology task force.

Do not delete material using a redirect

-Shootbamboo (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC) edit here:[1] -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen we have this very elaborate article on organofluorine chemistry that is sculpted from our much displuted fluorocarbon article. I will inspect your version but the content was far less than in the reincarnation approach. Maybe we should appeal for some arbitration from some of the other editors? What do you think?--Smokefoot (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting the content I established while referring to the "elaborate article" that is simply your take on the fluorocarbon article. Are you going to keep reverting the content to this page with a redirect? -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the final title is, it is a bit ridiculous to have two articles on essentially the same topic. But the current title is bad, it looks like a dangling adjective. --Itub (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itub, in preparation for the good faith edit I am about to make to the fluorocarbon page, which really, is why we are all here, I am going to take down your dispute templates. Of course, on a logical basis, I say to please look at the consensus of the Organofluorine chemistry page. The consensus there is to keep it chemistry, not chemicals. I hope you can put my bold edits, that probably offended you, behind you as a personal matter. I hope there is no bad faith. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Merging to the most general term, organofluorine, makes the most sense to me, instead of the more specific organofluorine chemistry. On a side note, fluorocarbon should stay for now, IMHO, as the perfluorocarbon page is a poorly written article, in my mind. It seems wise to segregate the mess at least temporarily. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply at Talk:Organofluorine chemistry because it is too confusing to have multiple threads about the same merge. --Itub (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To rid this page of the "dangling adjective," organofluorine, at least temporarily. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your requested move at Organochloride doesn't contain a "compound" 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is wrong with a main entry that is an adjective? Things ought not to be made more complex without good cause. --Bejnar (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It goes against naming conventions. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives). --Itub (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Merger proposal

What about merging this into organofluorine chemistry? My feeling is that 99% of readers want one article. But I've been wrong before. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wrong before as well, but I'd go the other way, with the compound article as the parent. Logically, it appears that organofluorine chemistry is the chemistry of organofluorine compounds, with Organofluorine compound#Chemistry being the natural result. There are chemical properties as well as physical properties. Logically, it seems equivalent to also propose merging the "chloroflurorcarbon" article into a theoretical "physical properties of chlorofluorocarbons" article, which sounds absurd. Is that a convincing counter-argument? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support While there is no consistency in naming articles like this (e.g., we also have Organochloride), the proposal to merge looks good to me. How about one article on organofluorine chemistry, with redirects from organofluorine compound and organofluoride for easy searching? --Mark viking (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]