Talk:Oxidation number

message: It is my understanding that it is still know as the Stock Number, furthermore it is endorsed more by the international body that governs nomenclature becuase it is more practical to use.
:The reference is given at the bottom of the article: IUPAC recommends the term "oxidation number". Physchim62 (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "as the Stock Number" 

message: What about superoxides?  According to my textbook (Oxtoby), oxygen can have an oxidation number of -1/2 - Reddaly
:That's because you have two different oxygen atoms: one with oxidation number zero, and one with oxidation number -1. The average oxidation state is -1/2. Itub 23:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of it already is taken from an Irish High School textbook.... Physchim62 (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Reverted and warned again (does not yet warrant a block). Femto 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fractional oxidation numbers 

message: Rules 5 and 1 appear to contradict each other. Styrofoam1994 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is more or less correct now.Lim Wei Quan 11:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules in article 

message: What is the relationship between the Oxidation Number and the location of the Elements on the Periodic Table?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.97.186.130 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: What's a "central atom", as referred to in the first paragraph?  Rojomoke (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central 

message: I think this article needs a mention of how biochemists and others tend to use simpler schemes of assigning oxidation numbers. Also, isn't the carbon in C02 considered to have an oxidation number of 4 not 2? It's more oxidized because of the double bonds.
Furthermore, there needs to be mentioned the difference between something's oxidation number and the oxidation number imparted onto other elements.--69.91.133.41 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this article say that the oxidation number of C in CO2 is 2? I don't know what you mean regarding the biochemists and the "number imparted onto other elements". Perhaps this is covered at oxidation state? --Itub (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various assignment methods and CO2 

message: Although this heading seems to imply the opposite, oxidation state is identified to be the same as oxidation number in the elements template. Can someone rectify this?
--The Cowdestroyer (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not to be confused with oxidation state." 

message: and a picture of ethane. This article should merge with Oxidation state again. --80.212.73.51 (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination compound, coordination chemistry , 

message: The first line  stating that "charge that it would have if all the ligands were removed along with the electron pairs that were shared with the central atom" is contradicted by the later section. The IUPAC definition for oxidation number is essentially the first line  of the article. The IUPAC definition of oxidation state and the rules for calculating it have been put in the body of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.26.62.85 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion reigns 

message: Please, login  or create an account for the purpose of editing articles. Because numerous people may be on Wikipedia from your ISP, messages left by bots about edits being reverted are displayed for any number of possible individuals from that ISP. As any user from your ISP loads this Wikipedia page without a login, these bot messages are automatically displayed whether they are the individual to whom the message applies or not. If you don't login, how can we possibly give credit where credit is due for edits? Sandhillman (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to Article 

message: I started out trying to make changes but in the end I have rewritten the article. I have tried to remove the inconsistencies, add references and give a little history, the section on spectroscopic oxidation state I kept unchanged- it needs more work from someone more familiar with the topic.  I hope I have been successful. I have had help from another wikipedian in this but all of the mistakes are mine. Most of the confusion in this area I believe can be laid at IUPACs door, as their Gold Book definition of oxidation number referring exclusively to coordination compounds, reads as if it replaces the use of the term in naming conventions that IUPAC had been recommending since 1940. Being charitable this was an unfortunate oversight as the 2005 inorganic red book still uses the term in naming.   Axiosaurus (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/viewTableH.cfm?tableid=19
-- Rainald62 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are these Roman numbers?