Talk:IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry

Untitled

"Cations able to take on more than one positive charge"

this sentence is ambiguous. Calcium takes on two positive charges, this is more than one positive charge. However the sentence is referring to cations such as cations of copper which can take on more than one amount of positive charge! Surely it isn't quoted from a IUPAC guide on naming convention. Provided these steps were written by wikipedians, they should be made clearer.144.136.38.19 03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing affix defining ligands

This article is missing the nomenclature for bridging ligands like mu- bridge. See this entrance in the GoldenBook of the IUPAC.[1]. And also when metal-ligand bond is made with a pi-electron ligand (called η (eta or hapto) ). See this entrance [2]. Thanks. --130.79.34.94 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Root of sulphur

The article says that the root of the element name is used in compounds, except for sulphur, where the whole word is used. But isn't the root of sulphur sulphur? (Latin sulphur, sulphur-is; contrast with Latin chlorum, chlor-i for chlorine.) I think that this so-called "exception" should be deleted from the article. Rwflammang (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope of this article

This article is not clearly separated from IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005. Here should be only general information and the history of "nomenclature of inorganic chemistry" (e.g. different versions). Not specific information about (current) nomenclature. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing affix defining ligands

A troll wrote "DICKS" here. Also, the link to the ACS webpage is broken. ThorHammer17 (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Caffeine example

Hello, I think "The names "caffeine" and "3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione" both signify the same chemical." isn't really the best example to use because it is organic? I'm not too sure, maybe a different one could be used, or this could be kept if its ok Ajlee2006 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

For now, how about we stick with the caffeine metaphor since it is well-sourced (and an extreme example of an unwieldy systematic name, which is hard to find in inorganics). However, shall we add a note pointing out that caffeine is organic, but such an example relates to inorganics as well? 35drake (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219122415/http://www.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/connelly_310804.html to http://www.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/connelly_310804.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Typo

Shouldn't it be tetraphosphorousdecoxide instead of tetraphosphorousdecaoxide? 37.111.206.115 (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"-ic" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect -ic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2 § -ic until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH ^talk! 21:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)