User talk:Plasmic Physics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reorganization of Category:Silicon compounds cattree

Hi Plasmic Physics. Did you follow a categorization system in a book to reorganize the Category:Silicon compounds categroy tree? Especially when it comes to organosilicon compounds, I am not entirely convinced of the categorization. The term silicon ethers for example is rarely used in literature. --Leyo 08:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I'm basing the remodelling on carbon's cattree. I'm still working on it, as of now it is still incomplete. There are some problems - take disiloxane, it is wholly inorganic yet still clasified as a silicon ether, so technically it cannot be grouped under organosilicon compounds with the other silicon ethers. There are similiar examples, which I will not go into. A silicon ether is by definition a compound with at least one silicon to oxygen single bond, whith another group fourteen element singly bonded to the oxygen, i.e. the basic unit is a silyloxy group. This definition mirrors carbon ethers. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to rely too much on carbon's cattree. I would prefer a Category:Siloxanes rather than Category:Silicon ethers as the former term is much more common.

And what about a Category:Organosilanols? With this edit trimethylsilanol is not anymore part of the carbon cattree. --Leyo 10:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, you can move the ether category to siloxanes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Plasma: many chem editors know of your absolute determination to do something, but your chemical instincts are often unaligned with mainstream thinking and usage. Leyo's comments highlight typical issues. Your fellow editors encourage you to discuss your plans with a broader community of professional chemists before undertaking large-scale changes in nomenclature or classification.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not really happy with Category:Silaalkanes for e.g. Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane. Why not Category:Siloxanes? --Leyo 08:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

While I wouldn't support the proposed category, I will not interfere if you choose to create it. Silaalkanes are alkanes with at least one main branch carbon replaced by a silicon. Please keep the category:Silaalkanes for future additions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer Category:Dimethylsiloxanes? --Leyo 10:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have to, I prefer Siloxanes, Dimethylsiloxanes are too specific. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Silanebis(olates)

This new category is extremely strange and very confusing, certainly when applied without discernement to ... inorganic compounds simply belonging to the general category of silicate compounds. Where is the logic behind it ? It seems not to be advised by IUPAC itself, nor being adopted by most of the chemists of the world. I could not find any information on it by browsing the web with Google. Google most often refers to this page. Moreover, it increases the granularity level of the information in a useless way. I do not think it makes sense. It would be better inspired to keep information simple and straightforward (KISS principle) and to avoid to make things too complex. Remember the citation of Albert Einstein: "As simple as possible, but not simpler than needed". Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

For more information on the nomenclature of inorganic silicates, look at pp. 139-140 of Red_Book_2005.pdf http://old.iupac.org/publications/books/rbook/Red_Book_2005.pdf; Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals‎ page. You are making mistakes with your systematic naming. Example, nitric acid, recently changed by you. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

According to IUPAC's 2005 red book, silanebis(olate) has the formula:

    R1
    |
R2--Si--O-
    |
    O-

Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, in organic chemistry nomenclature, this could be acceptable, although this denomination does not deserve a category in itself. But we have to remember that in this general formula, according to IUPAC and to most of the textbooks published in chemistry, R is a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon group. R is not an inorganic function such as an hydroxyl group or an oxygen atom. In no way this denomination is applicable to silicate in inorganic chemistry. Confusing the rules applied in organic chemistry with these relevant for inorganic chemistry is extremely misleading for the readers without a sufficient scientific background. Applying to the chemical contents of Wikipedia non-validated names, moreover out of their field of validity, can induce in error tenths of thousand of readers, amongst others young students, or simply curious people. Better to simply avoid that. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Silanuides

This very uncommon chemical category does not refer to a widely adopted IUPAC convention but to an obscure website selling chemicals: http://www.molport.com/

http://www.molport.com/buy-chemicals/moleculelink/disodium-hexafluorosilanediuide/158492

This website comprises most of the few results (only 10!) on the topic given by a Google search.

In fact, this kind of category makes no sense and should be better avoided because it can only trow the confusion in the mind of the readers of an encyclopedia.

We need to remember that the ultimate aim of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is to help people to better understand our world and to learn more. So, it is more important to develop essential basic concepts in a well thought and didactic manner than to drown our audience in unnecessary and uncommon details, certainly when the nomenclature question is under debate and when sound arguments exist for refuting irrelevant changes.

It would be wizer to stick to the commonly accepted IUPAC nomenclature than to try to enforce erroneously understood or poorly applied rules. A soundly applied nomenclature has for first aim to simplify the system, not to make it more intricate.

In science, theory and models have always to conform with observations and experimental facts from the real world. Not the reverse. When nomenclature makes problem in the real life, I would propose to simply follow the normal scientific approach: first observe the best applied practices and then derive the general rules. Proceeding in a reverse way is not useful, nor advisable. IUPAC rules have also much more importance in organic chemistry for univocally defining molecular structure, than in mineral chemistry where things are often much clearer. For example, why to name H₂SO₄, tetraoxosulfate of hydrogen when sulfuric acid is commonly used by everyone. In a similar way, why to name sulfate tetraoxosulfate or nitrate trioxonitrate: it renders the name uselessly long and makes everything more kryptic. In fact, nomenclature is a game that all chemists have to learn but to use with caution in the real life. I suggest to reserve the best of IUPAC nomenclature where it must certainly be applied: in organic chemistry and to be extremely prudent in mineral chemistry. It is essential not to be disruptive and to avoid to trow more confusion than to clarify the system.

Our time and resources are limited in Wikipedia as in our real life: better to use them to take care of essential goals than for secondary aspects with less added value. Nomenclature in chemistry is only a communication tool for helping chemists to speak together with an univoque meaning, not an instrument for imposing meaningless or more intricate expressions very far from the reality. Nomenclature also needs common sense, practice and experience, and must not be applied blindly in an irrelevant way.

Consideration for the view point of the wikipedia community is important and is always appreciated by other contributors in the search of a consensus for the general interest: the common good of our work.

Chemistry is a fascinating science and deserves that our readers curiosity always remains insatiable: so, it is essential to present things in a digest way, as simple as possible, and nomenclature must not to make exception to this rule. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

According to IUPAC's 2005 red book, silanediuide has the formula:

  R1   R6
   \  /
R2--Si2---R5
   /  \
  R3   R4

Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the IUPAC red Book (p. 236 of the PDF):

"uide is a suffix specifying the addition of hydride to a parent structure, accompanied by locants and multiplicative prefixes if appropriate, e.g. tellanuide, TeH₃^–".

Obviously this structure is not a hydride, nor a silane or a siloxane, but an inorganic fluoride and this IUPAC rule has been implemented in the context here in a non-conform way. More care should be taken to apply the rules valid for organic compounds to inorganic compounds. The blind use of a non-validated computer program cannot replace the common sense and a systematic careful verification with the use of the specialized literature. In case of doubt, discussion with other contributors, with friends, with other students, or with teachers in chemistry is the best way to guarantee the correctness of the information.

Moreover, we have also to keep in mind that not all IUPAC nomenclature rules have been agreed amongst the IUPAC committee. And should it be even the case, nomenclature rules have also a well defined range of application and a limited audience.

Let us simply conclude with a comparison between normal languages and Esperanto: Esperanto is a well praised effort of unification between the mainly spoken languages on our planet Earth, but up to now it has not yet replaced English, Spanish or Chinese in our daily lifes, and it will probably never do it. Most of the three millions adepts of Esperanto through the World also do not try the convince the remaining of the World to adopt their favorite language. And Wikipedia is a mirror of the real World: it is a Babel tower with hundred of languages used. As Esperanto, the strict IUPAC nomenclature has certainly its place on Wikipedia, but it has also to remain at its place. No less, but no more. Please, do not replace normal English by Esperanto when editing pages or creating new categories. Most of other contributors will appreciate you can understand this point of view. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

We do not delete deprecated names if anyone is conceivably likely to use them, but redirect to he proper name.. I therefore redirected Dichlorodimethylsilane and Dichlorodimethylsilan to Dimethyldichlorosilane, instead of deleting them. DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I intended to move Dimethyldichlorosilane to Dichlorodimethylsilane. I discovered that the targret page already exists as a redirect. So, now I need the redirect to be deleted. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

True Pyrrole

In what way does True Pyrrole differ from "common pyrrole"? Creation of this sort of nonsense could easily be seen as plain old vandalism. Physchim62 (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Common pyrrole has the formula C₄H₅N, whereaas true pyrrole has the formula C₄H₄N. True pyrrole has markedly different chemical properties, etc.

I hardly see how this could be seen as vandalism. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some references please? Chris (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Need specifics for references. Signing off for now, I'll be back in approximately ten hours. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Need specifics for references? Eh? I mean, where did you get this real pyrrole stuff from? Coz I've had a good look at Web Of Science and Google Scholar, and I can't find anything. Chris (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added at least one reference. I had to call it something, as Smokefoot refuses to recognise the naming discrepancy - to distinguish between the two substances on the pyrrole page. You can't have two different substances called by the same thing can you? (Rhetoric)

Regardless of the naming issue, I think you have failed to adequately identify what exactly the article is supposed to be about. The article as written does not make sense chemically, so I have redirected it to pyrrole for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your argument, in what area have I "failed to adequately identify what exactly the article is supposed to be about"? How does it not make sense chemically? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are few of the reasons I think it doesn't make sense chemically. You say that "It is the neutral species of deprotonated common pyrrole". Simple deprotonation of pyrrole will generate the anion of pyrrole, so referring to it as a neutral species doesn't make sense chemically. The phrase "Treating this compound with an electrophile such as methyl iodide gives N-methylpyrrole" describes a nucleophilic substitution reaction that would be expected of the anion, but not typically by a radical such as 1H-pyrrol-1-yl. You also say it "is more reactive than benzene towards nucleophilic aromatic substitution", but under the standard conditions for nucleophilic aromatic substitution of benzene, I'm not sure the 1H-pyrrol-1-yl radical could even exist. I think this statement would need explanation and clarification, and certainly reference to literature. These are some of the reasons why the chemists have been expressing uncertainty at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals about what the article is even about. In any case, I don't think the 1H-pyrrol-1-yl radical is notable in any way; but if there is something to be written about it, it would be much better located in the pyrrole article than as a separate article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can rewrite that sentence: "It is the neutral species of deprotonated common pyrrole", it must say that compared to common pyrrole, true pyrrole has one less hydrogen atom. The second sentence was supposed to say: "Treating this compound with a nucleophile such as methyl iodide gives 1-iodopyrrole and a methyl radical". Experimental evidence suggests that true pyrrole is stable at stndard conditions, attributed to the delocalization of the unpaired electron. It is slightly more reactive than cyclopentadienyl. I did not originally intend to write something on it, but following Smokefoot's refusal of acknoledgement of its existance, at least on the pyrrole page, I created an article about it instead. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You have written an article about the the pyrollyl radical. That is the title of the reference you gave, and nowhere in that paper does the phrase "true pyrrole" appear. I don't know quite how you think that this radical is somehow a "truer" version of pyrrole than the one everybody else accepts, but you really do need to to stop putting things on Wikipedia under names (and categories) that you think are correct but which nobody else uses. Chris (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already said, "I had to call it something, as Smokefoot refuses to recognise the naming discrepancy - to distinguish between the two substances on the pyrrole page." IUPAC recomends pyrrole to refer to the radical, and 1H-pyrrole to refer to the other, Smokefoot does not recognise this. In short, PIN for the radical is pyrrole, the PIN for the other is 1H-pyrrole. Wikipedia cannot have two articles under the same name, thus I had to create an alternative article name. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, just because I removed the name that you inserted is hardly reason to go create a new article. I am an imperfect schmo too. You could have opened up a discussion (or griped) on the talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. That's what these pages exist for. I confess to not understanding your focus on nomenclature, which has puzzled and, to some extent, irritated so many fellow chemistry editors over the years. I encourage you to discuss your thinking and planning, since you have so much dedication to the project. Oh well, I have begged you to be more consultative previously. I dont understand. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, now we have a discussion. I assumed if you had an alternative other than a new article, that you would have mentioned it in Pyrrole's talk page. Thus, there was no reason for me to believe that anything else would be received with anymore enthusiasm than that which my name clarification generated. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to respond, here are my comments and questions:

• Why insert a name for pyrrole, one that does not match the article title, at the front of the lede? The term would be unrecognized by people who are professionally knowledgeable of pyrrole and, more seriously, would mislead readers who might be susceptible to misinformation? If you want to remind readers that other names exist, as is common, the ChemBox accommodates such entries. We do this all the time.
• Why would you create an article "True Pyrrole" that is deceptive and that is seriously deficient in basic chemistry? The glaring technical deficiency alarmed Physchim, Chris, Edgar (see comments above), editors with track records in contributing chemical content? Why create articles on topics that you barely understand? You seem to be good at other things, such as the numerical data in chemboxes, your forte kind of.

--Smokefoot (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this whole thing is the fact that two unique compounds have the exact same name was confusing to me, until I looked into it. I discovered that the pyrrole in the existing article is actually 1H-pyrrole, things started to make more sense. I thought that if it confused me, it would almost certainly confuse others, so something had to be done. I chose the name "True Pyrrole" personally for a lack of a better one. To me it represented that the pyrrole page did not correspond to pyrrole in its true form, but rather an imposter.

True pyrrole is rarely encountered in the lab, thus it is reasonable to drop the 1H from 1H-pyrrole in common usage of the name. It is naturally taken for granted that when one mentions pyrrole, 1H-pyrrole is intended, but what happens when pyrrole actual is intended instead? ("Pyrrole actual" sounds more conservative than "True pyrrole") Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyclomethicon

Hi again. Have you considered the information given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclomethicon, when you changed the redirect location? The ring size is not specified. See also the HPD entry. --Leyo 09:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not. It's fixed, I've reverted my redirect change. I shall change the decamethylcyclopentasiloxane "OtherNames" entry accordingly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There, it says “Cyclopentamethicone”. --Leyo 12:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're implying, but I changed the entry from "Cyclomethicone" to "Cyclopentamethicone". Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed your edit due to the bot, sorry. --Leyo 13:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Glucose

Why do you put wrong names in the chembox?--Wickey-nl (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not wrong, compare D-glucose to D-glucopyranose. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? would you say glucopyranose is not glucose?--Wickey-nl (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

While glucopyranose and glucose exist in equilibrium in solution, they are not entirely equivalent chemically. Compare acetic acid with acetic anhydride. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to the previous version. White chocolate is not D-glucose, and the change from the ring to the open form needs discussion as well. Could you please discuss further edits like this, where you unilaterally radically change what is displayed in a chembox. I have also noticed that you add wrong information in the chembox, e.g. in Trimethylsilyl (the page, and hence the box, is about the radical, not about the CO adduct). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

At no point in time did I say that white chocolate is D-glucose. If you check the records, you'll actually find that I've added most of the data to the chembox identifier and presection cells so, maybe I change my mind about which structure more acurately decribes glucose.

First, that's not an adduct. Second, chemboxes presented information on mixtures long before I joined Wikipedia (hydrates, amines hydrochlorides, etc.). Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We are talking here about one compound: glucose. And in the chembox of Trimethylsilyl the choosen identifiers are very arbitrary. Would you add all compounds with trimethylsilyl?--Wickey-nl (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, trimethylsilyl is talking about trimethylsilyl. Not about trimethylsilyl-CO. Yes, chemboxes are used for mixtures, but if the page is talking about trimethylsilyl, then the chembox is about trimethylsilyl, and there is, except for the 'related compounds part in that specific module of the chembox, no reason to talk about any property of trimethylsilyl-CO. ¹³C TMS: fine, hydrates: when particularly normal for the substance, fine, but we don't add any/all co-crystallite form(s) of the compound.

This is an important change to chembox policy you are proposing, I urge you to bring it up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Plasmic Physics, that is not a change of chembox policy. Chembox policy has always been that it displays the compound that is the subject of the page, not other compounds. I would even oppose to name CDCl3 in CHCl3 as an alternative, as CDCl3 has its own page here on Wikipedia. Some 'mixtures' do have a defined composition (certain alloys), and those are having a chembox, copolymers also have, but not that the box on polymethylmethacrylate does list polyethylmethacrylate and polypropylmethacrylate as well, or that TMS does get the TMS-CO mixture. And although the box is suitable for mixtures, it is making things confusing, as people expect the first point of data to be the one that the box is talking about, so it is better that a 'mixture-box' is developed for that, and for radicals/anions I would suggest that a 'functional-group-box' is developed (naming to be discussed, and they can be near copies of the chembox, though I would suggest them to be having an own colour scheme, and some other distinct features as to be able to distinguish them from 'real' compounds (whatever that would be). And actually, those discussions have been held sometimes, but never took hold. But I do think that you will find strong opposition in giving them all chemboxes (even while the chembox is suitable for them, note, we can always move these to a newly developed box when it is there).

Generally, the scheme I follow is:

• The CAS and PubChem/ChemSpider IDs of the pure substance is listed first.
• Next, all the isotopic isomers follow starting with the least number of substituted atoms are listed. For multiple isotopic isomers with the same number of substituted isomers, the lowest MW isomer is listed first.
• Next, mixtures with a minimum molar fraction of 0.5 of the pure substance are listed, in order of decreasing molar fraction.

If mixture does not have a component with the exact same structural formula as the topic compound, it cannot be included. If there is a separate article for a isotopic isomer or a mixture, then it cannot be included. I have formulated this scheme based on observations of hundreds of chemboxes.

According to this scheme, CDCl3 cannot be included in CHCl3 as it has a devoted article; polyethylmethacrylate and polypropylmetharcrylate cannot be included in polymethylmethacrylate, as they are structurally different; TMS-CO can be included in TMS, as it is a mixture with a molar fraction higher than 0.5. A TMS radical is not a functional group, but a distict chemical species. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Try ordering TMS radical from Aldrich. You can't. It's not real. Try making it and putting it in a bottle. Same thing. No, it doesn't work. Those should go to an ion/radical box. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Of cource you can't order it, its a metastable radical, too reactive. It does exist however, and you can bottle it under well controlled conditions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That 0.5 rule is stupid. Who thought of that. So MgSO4 can list MgSO4.H2O (0.5 molar fraction) but MgSO4.2H2O (0.33 molar fraction) and all the other hydrates could not be listed. But you can add MgSO4.Al2(SO4)3, MgSO4.D2O, MgSO4.SiO2, think of any arbitrary mixture and you can add it (as long as it does not exist as a separate article, that is). No, this does have to go. Arbitrary rule that is already broken massively (on practically all listed hydrates), and gives cases where this is totally irrelevant (like TMS-CO). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get that rule of 0.5, by the way? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have said molar weight fraction, as for 0.5, it seems logical. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

For glucose as well, for long the cyclic isomer was the one that we are generally talking about (though we can argue whether that is the most representative form of the molecule). That is hence the first image, and the identifiers are for that form. OK, open form identifiers may be added, but well. Then you change the primary image in the image for... white chocolate. And move identifiers around to the linear form, and don't even mention the image of the cyclic form anymore. Just, please be a bit careful with changing these pages, and also be more careful in choosing identifiers for compounds. The chembox is supposed to be about the compound that the page is about, all identifiers or physical data for compounds which are not the title compound (even if the title compound is a part of the mixture) are there by definition wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, really now, I need the source saying that the picture was of white chocolate.

The image I saw looks very much like white chocolate, I found that pretty confusing. Certainly not the first, big image to use. Moreover, again, the cyclic form is the more common form ("These structures are usually discussed in the context of the acyclic isomer, which exists in only minor amounts in solution."), which then does not get put there at all anymore.

I can assure you that the picture was infact of a refined, molded tablet of D-glucose for use in cooking, not white chocolate. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the name of glucose, if it is not in pyranose form, as in not glucopyranose? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the sugars have been a long term problem, as are some other compounds that exist in several forms. But I don't think that there has been any discussion to move to the acyclic form for all, there has been no discussion to remove the cyclic forms, however, there has been (somewhere) discussion that the box should be made suitable for all forms, so that all identifiers could be used. I do think that that needs a general discussion, what form do we use, and then implement that throughout. But you will see, that that is going to run into major problems, as there is no general form for sugars, and then the choice is that which is made original, use the 'most common form', which e.g. for glucose is the cyclic form. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Let it be clear, the chembox is for core information, only about the compound which is subject of the article. Not for labeled isotopes, hydrates or combinations with other compounds.--Wickey-nl (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why does this not apply to all articles? If you read one of my replies above, you'll read that chemboxes presented information on mixtures long before I joined Wikipedia (hydrates, amines hydrochlorides, etc.). Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your examples do not contain a chembox. And please do not move edits. You make it unreadable.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Plasmic Physics, if the article is about a mixture, then the chembox is about a mixture. Although you do see that the article sometimes talks about the free base, and the chembox talks about the HCl salt, generally the chembox talks about the compound that the page is about (and where there is the conflict of free base / HCl salt, there, in principle, I would say that all the primary data should be about the free base (if that is the subject of the page), and one could consider to add as a second identifier the HCl-salt; or, if the HCl salt is more common, move the whole page to the HCl salt, and make the chembox about the HCl salt with a mention of the free base). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I gave no examples Wickey, I move edits inorder to keep conversations separate. It is confusing when conversation topics change so regularly, all I'm doing is trying to group conversation topic together while preserving their correct order.

Again Beetstra, there are no set rules matching what you are recommending here. How many grains of sand makes a heap. User's can't just go about making custom rules for individual chembox identifiers, there has to be some standards. I was never talking about adding identifiers of salts of the topic compound, only mixtures. Example, for ammonia the hydrate is included, the ammonium hydroxide salt is not.

P.S. This section has diverged from the original topic I suggest we split Chembox Identifiers from Glucose conversations by creating a new section Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Splitting off is not a problem, but above there are sections without signature now.--Wickey-nl (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Making up custom rules? First, it is impossible to set strict rules on these, as there will always be exceptions, but it is certainly not a custom rule, it is earlier a standard, that the chembox/drugbox on a page represents the data of the compound under discussion on that page. It may escape you, but there are several people in several different places (not only here) that think that the whole set of isotopologues are pushing it too far, just as the TMS-CO case. The page is about TMS, not about TMS-CO, so TMS-CO is not to be in the box. Indeed, the hydrate of ammonia is common enough, the mixture of TMS radical with CO not. But if you insist, lets see what the wikiproject on chemicals thinks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Note, a similar discussion is actually already there: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Excessive_number_of_chemical_identifiers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

Could you, please, join the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Categories:_Arsenic, and may I ask you to consider following the suggestions given there? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your categories

It appears that few editors (or any) support your planned or recent categorization efforts. We just find the categories too narrow and the titles too strange, both of which IMHO would inhibit use by inexpert readers. If you have major complaint about the current wave of reversions, which is likely, you probably want to raise your issues again at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation

As I suggested here, lets first come up with a better categorisation scheme, before implementing it. Are you really planning to insert all chlorine compounds into Category:Chlorine compounds? I see you started with the first silanes .. there will be no end to that. I think that there are already enough editors not happy with the categorisation that you are implementing, so I really suggest that you stop now, and even consider returning to the previous status quo, before others will implement that for you (which I really consider doing now ...). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not planning on adding every one to chlorine, that is only part of the categorisation scheme. I am working my way from the top of Category:Silicon compounds, when I find the appropriate category that has all the silicon-chlorine compounds I will replace all the individual chlorine compounds with one existing sub-category. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In case you did not notice, I started bringing articles back to the previous situation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me put it this way - Please stop with any categorisation for now, and publish your scheme first, discuss it with others (WT:CHEM is a good place, or another place frequented by members of WT:CHEM more suitable for categorisation discussions) and get consensus. Putting all chemicals in Category:Chlorine compounds, even temporarily, is not helping, it makes it very confusing. Come up with the scheme (discuss, etc.), set it up, and put the compounds directly in the new scheme where needed. In case you did not notice, some regulars are losing their patience, they disagree, they don't see where you are going, which at the very least means that you do not explain your case properly. And I think that, even if you explain it, there will be concerns and some will disagree. That is not the way forward. I am sorry, editors have suggested blocks above, and I don't generally want to block editors who edit in good faith, but I am afraid that it may very well be the next step, and any categorisation for which you did not get consensus first might now result in blocks. Stop and discuss, please. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine, I'll leave categorisation completely alone for the time being. It will take some time to sort out a presentable scheme to publish. Meanwhile, I'll continue to update chemboxes, I'm almost upto the 1000 mark. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you understand that the 'do discuss' part goes for all edits - generally, if someone shows concerns, then please discuss and don't continue. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll continue to update chemboxes, I'm almost upto the 1000 mark.
I hope (and I am likely not alone) that you do not apply to chemboxes the same criteria as for new categories recently created. The number of editions for chemboxes is not a valid criterion to measure, or to assess, the output of a contributor to a project. Attempting high scores (~1000 mark) does not necessarily reflect it makes sense, nor it contributes to the general quality of the information. We invite you to anticipate the impact of your changes on the message delivered to the Wikipedia audience and certainly to avoid being misleading for the inexperienced readers. Keep in mind that the chemical nomenclature is not an aim in itself, but only a tool intended to facilitate the understanding and the exchange of information about chemical structures. Please, make only changes when it is relevant and always with discernment and critical mind. When required, to avoid being disruptive, please, discuss it first with the community. A valuable alternative to quasi-automatic mass edits would certainly be to focus your contributions on the contents of pages dealing with topics that you like, and so sharing your knowledge in chemistry with us. Thanks, Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria of chemboxes are constantly evolving and being refined. One example: recently, we determined that chemboxes should no longer contain mixtures including hydrates. Information on mixtures of considerable interist should be included in the article space instead. Saccharides's data should pertain to the cyclic isomer, not the linear isomer.

I'm not preoccupied with attianing a high number of edits, I focus on information quality, standardisation, and reliability. I spend anywhere between 15 min to 45 min on each chembox, depending on how much attension it needs. All my edits are manually done to shrink room for mistakes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'recently, we determined that chemboxes should no longer contain mixtures including hydrates'? Again, that is a misinterpretation, it is not what was said. Also for the sugar, no .. that is also not the way it was said. Please take care with the edits and the interpretation, Plasmic Physics. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Final warning

This is your last warning; the next time you damage our science articles, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been warned repeatedly about the need to discuss and get consensus for your changes, such as adding "made up" names according to your interpretations of nomenclature rules. You have said you would. And then you do this--you even disregarded (and removed!) the inline note about needing actual evidence of specific new names...I don't see that specific one in the given cite. As you can tell from the long string of discussions with many editors complaining about your edits, we are all tired of spending our time constantly having to clean up behind your well-intentioned but often incorrect actions. In your haste to make "some edits", you are repeatedly misinterpreting others' statements, seeing approval for your action where there is none (or at most there is still ongoing unresolved debate). Given your long history of problematic edits, you should recognize the importance of waiting for resolution before continuing. The final straw is here. You again demonstrated that you are unable to understand the technical terms for various structural features, yet seem insistent upon adding additional details using them. Your error rate is too high, and must stop. Now. DMacks (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the inline note as it was a personal communique directed towards me. Futhermore, the systematic names will always be sources from the IUPAC nomenclature manuals, that is a given. The reference does not list disodium hexafluorosilanediuide specifically, but does how to create the name, it gives an example as hexafluoro-λ⁵-phosphanuide (substitutive). Thus, by the same guidelines sodium fluorosilicate has two systematic names, disodium hexafluorosilanediuide and disodium hexafluoridosilicate(2-). Most of what I changed in nitric acid was correct, is it really such a big crime to get a image caption wrong? Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been warned for months about getting things technically correct but useless, and also about getting things technically wrong. And you keep saying "oops". Your most recent acquiescence/consent was to work very hard on getting chemboxes factually correct and not adding uncited naming. You crossed both lines. As you can see by the extensive history, the WP chemistry community has been very patient and tried to educate you about how to work collaboratively and get consensus for work. That patience has worn out. I had to remove the imidogen pubchem identifier you added because a casual glance at that linked source is partially about phenylnitrene (PhN) rather than HN. A sloppy or unclear source isn't your fault, but perpetuating that in an infobox is a serious problem. Again, you seem to be hasty to get material posted without actually checking that it is sane...there's no race here. Science isn't just about finding one source that supports what you want to say, but about actually knowing what's going on and using things in context. That's probably why you took three edit-cycles to even use the idea of implicit/explicit H correctly. DMacks (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The PubChem link is titled Phenylnitrene, but the page actually is about imidogene. Phenylnitrene is only mentioned twice in name only.

At least I'm taking the time to bother updating the chemboxes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversial use of the term ‘Oxoazinic acid’ in the chembox of Nitric acid

I propose to totally omit the term ‘oxoazinic acid’ from the chembox of nitric acid because it seems mostly to be used by spammers or crasy websites supposed to sell chemicals and never by honorable chemical companies such as, e.g., Sigma Aldrich or Merck.

Before adding obscure, or worse, inexact, nomenclature terms to Wikipedia, it is necessary to pay attention to the impact it might have in the real world. Wikipedia is more and more renowned in the field of science and techniques and increasingly used by students or professionals in various fields. Often now, Wikipedia behaves like a resonance box or an amplification system and is also frequently wildly recopied by other websites for unknown purposes. According an inadequate importance to obscure terms such as 'oxoazinic acid' and worse, promoting them as “SystematicName” or “IUPACName” in chemboxes could encourage their use worldwide and in a few years, it could be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of an erroneous and embarrassing nomenclature. As for a viral infection, a bad habit should be immediately stopped in the egg and no chance left to an ugly contamination to propagate and to develop into a pandemia.

Today, I resumed again my search attempts to collect valuable information about the term 'oxoazinic acid'. Hereafter, the very disappointing results returned by three well established search engines:

• Google: only 245 results (most of them from http://www.molport.com or from spammers sites trying to sell chemicals !);
• Google Scholar: only 1 results !
• ScienceDirect: only 1 results: Article in Press, Corrected Proof, not yet published:
  

“A new approach to predict the strength of high energy materials” Original Research Article. Journal of Hazardous Materials, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 2 November 2010. Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz, Mohammad Ghorbanifaraz, Hadi Rahimi, Mehdi Rahmani. Department of Chemistry, Malek-ashtar University of Technology, Shahin-shahr, P.O. Box 83145/115, Islamic Republic of Iran.

From the abstract of this paper, it is not possible to verify the claim proposed by Plasmic Physics because the term 'oxoazinic acid' does not appear in the abstract itself, nor in the title of the paper. The term 'oxoazinic acid' could be attributable to any of the functional groups associated to the compounds cited in the abstract: nitroaromatics, acyclic and cyclic nitramines, nitrate esters and nitroaliphatics.

Ordering the paper costs US $ 41.95 and could causes notable troubles to the person making the order because of the delicate character of the subject treated and the possible negative implications in the daily life. So, in the practice, the information about 'oxoazinic acid' presumably given in the paper cannot be easily verified and such a reference does not fulfill its basic objective, nor confirm anything.

Adding an isolated and obscure reference from a paper even not yet published does not constitute a proof or a valuable argument to demonstrate a doubtful terminology.

This is why, I propose to also remove this reference from the main page of nitric acid.

The website of http://www.molport.com also contains unreliable information on strange chemical compounds. One of my most surprising finding was the following one:

Oxoazinic acid plutonium: HNO₃Pu

http://www.molport.com/buy-chemicals/moleculelink/about-this-molecule/6107333

Not only, this approximate term does not reflect the very complex chemistry of plutonium, a redox-sensitive radionuclides with multiple valences, but the molport company even proposes to sell it ! As plutonium is a strategic fissile material (and also a highly radiotoxic alpha emitter), its use is severely restricted to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons. International treaties and IAEA safeguard standards severely limit plutonium uses and dissemination. It is highly improbable that the molport company should be authorized to sell such a substance. So, I question the content and the value of this website often used by Plasmic Physics to support strange nomenclature rules.

All that, simply to say that referring to websites such as http://www.molport.com/ or http://www.chemaxon.com/ for systematic nomenclature purposes can be problematic. Such sites can be useful to draw chemical structures but must always be used with discernment and critical mind. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I never use Molport, Sigma Aldrich or Chemaxon for my references. In a earlier discussion we established that these are not appropriate references. The reference I gave in the nitric acid page conforms to the guidelines, despite the source not being publically available, this is allowed as per the relevant wiki template page. The source itself, references a book: Homburg, Explosives (sixth ed.), Wiley-VCH (2007), for the term oxoazinic acid. More over, oxoazinic acid fully complies with substitutive IUPAC nomenclature as per the red book. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigma Aldrich is well a reliable source in contrast to Molport and Chemaxon (which are not). For the rest of my answer, please look at the chemistry portal here: Controversial use of the term ‘Oxoazinic acid' in the chembox of Nitric acid, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so, the citation rules regarding compound names of any kind, specifically excludes using any and all chemical providers as references. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Fluoxetine" is an IUPAC preferred name?

In this edit, you indicated that "fluoxetine" is an IUPAC preferred name and you say, "reference available if needed". Can you please provide that reference? I'm curious about this. 96.227.89.95 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, FDA entry. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Is a unique drug name the same as an IUPAC chemical name? Those look more like International Nonproprietary Names ("generic drug names") and you can see from the info about that site that it's definitely not the same idea as purely chemical-structure algorithm ones. Has IUPAC blessed aspirin as a retained nonsystematic name? DMacks (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Plasmic Physics, I propose you to stop all edits now and come back after you have finished a chemistry schooling. You have damaged enough articles now.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no way the information on that page should be seen as evidence that "fluoxetine" is an IUPAC preferred name. 96.227.89.95 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

DMacks and 96.227.89.95: it seems there is a misunderstanding - I assumed that based on the nature of the source, "preferred name" meant "preferred (IUPAC) name", a simple error anyone can make.

Wickey-nl: don't talk down to me, you also make mistakes in chemical nomenclature as you so recently proved. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Jeepday (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Plasmic Physics (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No reason was given for block, "vandalism" is too vague. All recent edits, post-discussion on the Chemistry Project talk page, follow chembox requirements and concensus concerning naming. Plasmic Physics (talk) 7:56 pm, 21 December 2010, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC−7)

Accept reason:

Unblocked by blocking admin. Brandon (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have asked at User talk:Jeepday for the blocking admin to look at this. I don't know what the reason for the block was. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I second this. I had declined this at AIV when it was reported by a user with far fewer edits; even if it had been deliberately counterproductive editing, it was clearly outside the explicitly-stated scope of that page as the user was discussing his edits, had been inadequately warned and was clearly acting in good faith (thus if anything it was for AN/I, not AIV). I will put the request on hold. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the block, based on the comments on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Problematic category: Oxosilicon

Category:Oxosilicons you have systematically added to silicon dioxide compounds (e.g., see here) is making a double use with the already existing and well known Category:Silicon dioxide. I suggest you suppress Category:Oxosilicons which does not make sense for a chemist or a mineralogist and confuses the audience. Strictly speaking, according to the IUPAC Red Book, it should also have been named Category:Oxidosilicons, but it should not be well advised to rename oxo in oxido, nor to extent such a practice to other oxides. The only silicon compound extremely improbable on Earth under natural conditions and which does not belong to the Category:Silicon dioxide is silicon monoxide. Keep also in mind that the aim of categories is to facilitate the discovery of other related compounds, not to establish a personal chemical classification on Wikipedia, nor to promote overspecialized IUPAC practices that do not help the reader. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The category was named based on definition of Category:Oxocarbons, oxocarbons are compounds that consist only of carbon and oxgen and does not represent systematic naming in any way. On revision of the of the carbon categories, I see that all articles related to carbon dioxide specifically, is only under Category:Carbon dioxide and not under Category:Oxocarbons. It seems logical that the same strategy should be applied to silicon dioxide realted articles, but if this strategy is applied then Category:Oxosilicons would be made redundant, as almost all candidates pertain to silicon dioxide. Go ahead and make the change. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I have now removed Category:Oxosilicons from the pages dealing with silicon dioxide. This category is now empty and can be safely suppressed without risk of loosing information. Shinkolobwe (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Substitutive IUPAC nomenclature rules are most often not appropriate for simple inorganic compounds

Please, have a look at the new discussion thread on the use of the IUPAC compositional, additive and substitutive nomenclature rules for inorganic compounds open here at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals. A careful reading of the introduction of the guidelines of the IUPAC Redbook (2005) is certainly worth. In fact, many applications of these rules simply depend on their judicious interpretation. The case of simple inorganic compounds is a particular case for which the compositional IUPAC nomenclature rules seem to be the best adapted. More details on the WikiProject Chemicals discussion page. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Disodium oxosilanebis(olate) = inappropriate SystematicName for sodium silicate

Hereafter, a practical example encountered in the case of sodium silicate.

Problem with some SystematicName that you have introduced in the chembox of sodium silicate:

| SystematicName = Disodium oxosilanebis(olate)

In organic chemistry, the suffix "olate" commonly refers to an alcoholate, not to the conjugated base of an inorganic acid. Disodium oxosilanebis(olate) is very misleading for the reader. The conjugated base of the metasilicic acid has to follow the same rules as for these of other inorganic acids whose base is also an oxyanion, e.g.:

• sulfuric acid: sulfate and not sulfonate;
• phosphoric acid: phosphate and not phosphonate.

All the rules of organic chemistry nomenclature are not directly transposable to simple inorganic compounds. The analogy with the carbon atom has its limits, even for silicon a close cousin of carbon.

Metasilicate represents a specific unit making a linear chain when concatenated together. According to the IUPAC Redbook (see Table IR-8.1, p. 128 on paper, p. 140 in the PDF file), the additive name of metasilicate is: catena-poly[(dioxidosilicate-µ-oxido)–1]. This name explicitly represents the species and is much more appropriated than the substitutive form only provided by you. However, the compositional nomenclature "sodium metasilicate" is correct and should be sufficient for the chembox.

The same approach also applies to beryllium oxide for which the substitutive name clearly makes no sense. Better to limit the name to the compositional name in this case also. The simplest solution to a problem is always the best. Kind regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hidden systematic names

Dear Plasmic Physics,

Recently, you have kept on adding systematic names never used in literature and unfortunately also useless, or of low-added value and sometimes even misleading for the reader. This, along with the recent reverting of edits of another user, has triggered the creation of a discussion thread about your behaviour on Wikipedia at WT:Chem. Sunday 16-01-2011, I have contributed to this thread to explain my personal feeling about your recent edits dealing with hidden systematic names (also dubbed Zombie names) that you surreptitiously reintroduced in the hidden code of the pages after they were recently suppressed from the chemboxes by other users because of their problematic character.

To go to the point and to avoid absurd edit wars and an immense lost of time and energy for you and for all of us, let me summarize the essential I can remember from all these discussions since about two months (I refer hereafter, amongst others, to well thought ideas borrowed to two other users: Chris and DMacks):

None of us has a mission on Wikipedia. Editing Wikipedia must be funny and it must remain a pleasure for everybody, comprised you. We must all be able to enjoy to share our knowledge with others and especially with the readers of Wikipedia. The care of the reader is central to our contributions.

Many of your recent edits dealing with the systematic names of simple inorganic compounds were at best irrelevant (nobody uses them), or inappropriate. Because you are creating them by the application of a complicated set of rules there is no guarantee that they are correct and they are sometimes also difficult to verify.

Wikipedia is about helping readers get information, not about showing off how well you can rigorously follow a rule even to cases where the rule does not necessarily apply. If an arbitrary reader wants to know a useless derived value from given data, he/she can just derive it.

We have also to be careful here on Wikipedia because of the ever-increasing popularity of the site and its use as a reliable source (particularly by undergraduates writing lab reports), and the danger is that your actions lend legitimacy to these names. You need to realize that it is not because IUPAC has mandated a set of rules for the naming of chemical compounds, that it does mean that chemists use or even accept them. These pages have all been built by working chemists according to naming and classification schemes that reflect those used in working chemical laboratories, and it works. Your attempt to impose IUPAC nomenclature on the chemistry wikiproject has resulted in an awful lot of man-hours being spent undoing it. People are getting annoyed. Please desist. Whilst I do not doubt that your efforts are in good faith, your edits in these areas are creating problems rather than contributing constructively.

Complex systematic names are often used to carry information on the connectivity between atoms or chemical groups in a complex molecule or supramolecular system. This is particularly the case in organic chemistry, organo-metallic chemistry and coordination chemistry where it plenty makes sense.

However, in the frame of simple inorganic compounds (e.g., binary components), the systematic names you derived are most often inappropriate and never used, except in class rooms to learn how it works and to illustrate the naming working principle.

You probably also did not realize that a strict and blind application of a set of rules valid for carbon to all other elements present in the Mendeleev table is extremely irritating for most inorganic chemists and mineralogists. Organic chemists would probably experience exactly the same frustration feeling if they were forced by a small panel of mineral chemists to rename "methane" in "carbane" or "methyl" in "carbyl". I let you imagine the revolution it would represent in organic chemistry: nobody would accept it !

However, such a tentative of systematic renaming for organic carbon would be a quite logical choice from a purely theoretical point of view, but a true heresy from a historical and social point of view. This eventuality was envisaged, but rejected with wisdom, in the IUPAC RedBook 2005, as illustrated in the footnote of Table IR-6.1 Parent names of mononuclear hydrides (p. 85 on paper, p. 97 on PDF):

The systematic analogue to "methane" is "carbane", but because of the universal use of the name "methane" for CH₄, "carbane" is not recommended.

Anyone, simply mirroring this comparison to inorganic chemistry, will easily understand what could feel an ordinary chemist forced to replace in his systematic names "oxide" by "oxidandiide" or "sodium silicate" by "disodium oxosilanebis(olate)", without mentioning the tentative replacement of "nitric acid" by the very misleading "oxoazinic acid" (a faulty syntax!). Quite ironically, replacing "carbide" by "methanide" was no more appreciated, without speaking of the famous "silanuide" which ignited the categorisation war in the fall 2010.

I hope you can understand what I personally felt, as many other users, and also understand the reasons for which many of your recent edits have annoyed so many people.

If you could refrain from editing problematic systematic names for simple inorganic compounds, it would solve this painful conflicting situation and everybody would win considerable time and energy for the best of Wikipedia, and you the first. Hoping you can understand this point of view and aggree. It would be appreciated as a sign of good faith and all of us could find again more fun in Wikipedia. Shinkolobwe (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Such edits are not to be saved, as they spam watchlists and WP dabases. Admins get blocked for repeatedly doing that. Materialscientist (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, part of the edit are you refering to? --Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not notice you were changing inorganic to organic and thought it was just reshuffling of tags and space deletion. Apologies. Materialscientist (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Once we are here. You were changing oxalates from inorganic to organic that left Cerium(III) oxalate inconsistent. It would be nice and appropriate if you could provide reliable references saying whether oxalates are regarded organic, inorganic or both. Materialscientist (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to refer you to Talk:Fluoromethylidyne#Definition of inorganic compound --Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read organic compound before, and this thread doesn't add to my understanding of the issue, which is if carbonates are inorganic then why oxalates are organic? I don't know the answer and would ask the project. If I had to decide, I would avoid either organic or inorganic in the article and if a stub template is required, choose something neutral like {{chemistry-stub}}. Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will replace the stub-templates for for all oxalates with chemistry-stub. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thus do you know or not? Maybe their tagging is correct? Materialscientist (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not know for a fact whether or not oxalate salts are onganic or not. In my opinion, organic compounds require a C-H bond or a C-Q-H moeity. By this definition, I would call oxalate salts inorganic, I would also call fluoromethylidyne inorganic, but Shinkolobwe disagrees. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My point was that such questions need to be settled first before mass-changing articles, or there will be waves of mass reverts, forth and back. Sometimes the project doesn't know either, but it can vote and decide the convention. Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Very well, submit the problem at WT:Chem, and I'll postpone stub updating of oxalate salts. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thinking loud: it would be appropriate if you did so before changing articles - at least this is what I do. I should normally do other things right now. I would ask the project for you, but would not restrict the question to oxalates. On the other hand, I won't go around and change stub templates myself - a bot can do that, time is not to be wasted. Materialscientist (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What other compound groups are you going to bring up at WT:Chem, so that I may avoid them too? --Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not going, I would advise you ask opinion of the project on anything you are not sure about, before mass changing. Oxalates are just an example. It is not just about learning or being wright or wrong, it is more about staying in harmony with other editors. Materialscientist (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

When was the last time that the Project successfully voted on something? First things first, we have to conclude the SN issue, before we move to a new motion requiring a vote. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how these are related. The project always voted decisively in my history, as soon as a clear yes/no question is asked (say, are oxalates organic or inorganic, actinides or actinoids, etc, but first question then vote). I don't see such a question with SNs - they are to be used, but not for all compounds and there is no clear edge where. Common usage is an important factor. Note that the project chose actinide against IUPAC, because of the usage. Materialscientist (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, they are very much related: neither of the issues have clear cut answer, we will never find a solution from this approach. The best we can hope to accomplish, is to design a foolproof system to circumvent and accomodate the problem simultaneously. In a siege of a fort, it could consume less resources to dig under the wall instead of breaching the gate, or scalling the walls. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A siege mentality is a pretty poor way of considering a collaborative environment like wikipedia. If you continually do your own thing and others repeatedly tell you that your own thing is disagreeable and you continue trying to sneak them in, you will find yourself increasingly excluded (by technical features if necessary) from the whole kingdom, not cleverly inside the castle. DMacks (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not try to sneak anything in, I do my own thing because I'm given no alternative. It also seems as if you're missing the point of the conversation, I am critisising the current approach of the Project, or lack there of, towards certain types of issues; the futility of submitting this issue. I am suggesting a different approach to finding a solution. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my spontaneous and often clumsy comments and stupid advice: try to think positive. I look at all this from aside and see that (nearly) everyone is trying to help you out (and everyone get edgy when meets an edgy response). Embrace and collaborate instead of blaming others. Specifically, the project opposes your spreading SNs - move on, there is so much else you can do. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why specifically my spreading SNs and no one else's? --Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand .. maybe because you and I are talking here. If you mean non-systematic additions by IPs and some other random editors, better treat them as separate and irrelevant issue. Materialscientist (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to alter my question, why are my additions of SNs to be treated separately and irrelevantly? Hypothetically, would it make a difference if all my added SNs were made by IPs or other editors, instead of me? --Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you are treated as a single person with a certain history of WP edits, behind an account named Plasmic Physics. Materialscientist (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that the problem is that I'm the only major contributor, and all would be solved if more IPs and random editors do what I do, instead of just me? --Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Stay with reality. They are or will be treated separately. You have done some work and demonstrated some skills, and thus are treated accordingly. Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's all very good, but you haven't answered my question. Every user is treated as a single person, that much is a given, why are my edits treated differently? --Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They were not meant to be treated differently. They might be treated somewhat differently now, because of the history of communication with you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I just don't understand why I'm being made an example of. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you are a regular editor, and regular editors (if constructive) by default enjoy some respect for dedication to the project. Materialscientist (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What does constructive editing mean to you? --Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Building an encyclopedia: adding notable, information referenced to reliable sources; providing images, sound, video files; helping others to do all that (advice, copyedit, etc.). There are other forms of constructive activity which are not directly building, but maintaining the site (antivandalism, rearranging information, cleaning up code, articles, images, etc, etc). The range of activities is vast, and if you are really looking to where to apply yourself, I could answer more specific questions. Materialscientist (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So, you are saying that I'm being targeted because unlike other users, I'm a regular editor of the SN field, and that my SN edits are not constructive? Conversely, members from the Project have established that SNs are in their nature unsourceable. Consequently, SN edits can never be constructively edited by anyone according to your definition. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith and avoid speculations (be it data or editor motives). Some SNs have reliable sources some don't, some are used some not. Materialscientist (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What speculation should I avoid?

On what I meant to say. Materialscientist (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked specific questions in order to avoid speculation, I simply compounded you're answers. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How are "some SNs" reliably sourced? Unlike properties of chemicals which are universally agreed upon, there is no standard SN. Every reliable source may have different POVs on how to construct a SN. Why should an unused SN be excluded? --Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is not notable, and because its construction might be unreliable. Notability and reliable sources are two keys of wikipedia. POV in sources is secondary to that. Materialscientist (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How do we decide which reliable source is correct if there are at least two?

I will not be online for around 17 more hours. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No hurry. Ideally, we are not supposed to decide, but to include both, saying that there are two opinions. However, we sometimes analyze the "reliability" based on obvious criteria (publisher, author, etc.) Materialscientist (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I will add references to SNs I add, and insert {{Reference necessary}} in those which I find. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not fine. Adding a name with {{citation needed}} tag is poor editing habit. It is used only when you know something for sure but don't have a reference at hand. Dioxidosilicon is not used, please reconsider. Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't keep record of what SNs were submitted by me. I did not say that I would add a citation needed template to my own SNs, this was a coicidence. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, it was Shinkolobwe who added dioxidosilicon. Sigh. Materialscientist (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I also fully aggree with the removal of dioxidosilicon as systematic name. I did not add it from nowhere for the pleasure, nor without reason. In fact, I tentatively simply attempted to replace silanedione by something better, and I was also not too happy with this possible candidate. <br\><br\>

-| SystematicName = Silanedione  + | SystematicName = Dioxidosilicon 

<br\>In fact, oxido makes only sense when it describes a ligand in an isolated molecule. In silicates, the central silicon atom is surrounded by four oxygen atoms disposed at the summit of a tetrahedron, so the silicate anion can be named as tetraoxidosilicate(4–), but this name is also never used. In SiO₂, the name silicon dioxide only refers to the chemical composition of the compound, not to the coordination state of the silicon atom, so dioxidosilicon is certainly not correct and the IUPAC RedBook 2005 (see Table IX, p. 333 on paper and 345 in PDF) only mentions silicon dioxide as systematic name for SiO₂. Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, chemboxes contain information on monomers in preference over polymers. Only when then article is specifically refering to the polymer, should the chembox contain information on the polymer. The silicon dioxide monomer is correctly named silanedione, or dioxidosilicon. This is no longer an issue, as both names have been removed for lack of reference. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

SiO₂ mainly exists on Earth as quartz or as silica in various other solid forms, i.e., as a tectosilicate, a 3D network of tetrahedral silicon oxide. Tectosilicates, or "framework silicates," have a three-dimensional framework of silicate tetrahedra with SiO₂ or a 1:2 ratio.
The concept of SiO₂ as monomer is purely theoretical as it could only be found in the gas phase at extremely high temperature (> 2230 °C) in stellar objects or as isolated molecule lost in the cosmic vacuum between stars and galaxies. Except some very particular observations in spectral analyses made in astronomy, the monomeric species has practically no other meaning or applications on Earth. So, silicon dioxide always implicitly refers to crystalline quartz or silica (the polymer) in a mineralogical or geological context or to amorphous fused silica in materials science. Shinkolobwe (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of identifiers. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't read through the last comments (traveling). Just a note why removed Dioxidosilicon - no Google hits. As to connectivity (chain structure), it is different for different forms of SiO2 (see table in silicon dioxide). Amorphous SiO2 is not a polymer, it is an amorphous solid with no clear chains. In geology/mineralogy, quartz is not the identifier of crystalline SiO2 - other forms are important. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's is a discussion for you and Shinkolobwe, I have no qualms about removing dioxidosilicon. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)