Talk:Glossary of chemical formulae

message: * What is Titanium(4atoms here)Chloride's chemical symbol?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.238.121 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding whether or not to include -, = etc in formulae, you need to consider what your naive student of chemistry is likely to find in their book.  If the book uses both forms, then ideally you should have both.  However, there are many cases (even simple ones like benzene) where you simply can't write the formula with text any other way than the molecular formula, C6H6. So I would suggest that you have a policy of initially just trying to write formulae without hyphens etc, then just add a few of the simpler formulae like butane later if you feel the need (this is what I think you did anyway!).  Walkerma 03:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  En-dashes look better than hyphens for single bonds.  Physchim62 11:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  I think, for consistency, it would be better to not include these.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 11:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  I suspect that it's not necessary to include hydrates, as this would just add a lot of extra work for little gain.  If they are included, the normal Wikipedia format uses · for hydrates.  For complexes, that format is rather obsolete (at least 50 years old?), the usual way these days uses square brackets, as you have used.  If by complex you mean things like Lewis acid/base adducts (e.g. BF3·OEt2) then I think the middot is the way to go.  Walkerma 03:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  I agree; hydrates do not seem to add much.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 11:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  Middots should be used for hydrates, [square] brackets for complexes (except the simple P-block cases mentioned by Martin).  Physchim62 11:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  The use of Me as an abbreviation of methyl is not to be encouraged (it causes problems for German speakers), other abbreviations should be listed at the appropriate place in the order of empirical formulae.  Physchim62 11:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text:  From looking at the organic compounds, the tables may get very unwieldy if parenthesized formulas are included.  In my opinion, it would be better to avoid these as much as possible.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 21:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: They are the same, so I have removed the second listing.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Is this page in use anymore? Dictionary_of_chemical_formulas/F? If not it should be deleted. -Ravedave 06:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and so should: Dictionary_of_chemical_formulas/Merge/C30-C39 - Ravedave 06:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The pages that have become redirects due to page moves could be deleted, I suppose, though there isn't a pressing need to.  Note that Dictionary of chemical formulas/F and some other letters are transcluded by Dictionary of chemical formulas.  The merging of Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge is also not finished.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Danaman5 created a category and I applied it to F since it wasn't on it. Good enough for me. -Ravedave 00:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page to delete 

message: There were many uncategorized articles associated with this dictionary, so I created the new category "dictionary of chemical formulas" and placed everything associated with this dictionary into it.  Feel free to change this system or suggest a better one, but for now I just felt that the articles needed to be categorized somewhere. Danaman5 23:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: Would it be beneficial to also include IUPAC name of the compound into the table as well?
MathStuf 21:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming System 

message: When checking the checksums of the CAS numbers (last digit) with my script, I get the below errors. Hermann
AuF3      gold trifluoride    14270-21-9     Wrong checksum (correct: 4)
Ba(CN)2   barium cyanide      524-62-1       Wrong checksum (correct: 9)
CdTiO3    cadmium titanate    12104-14-1     Wrong checksum (correct: 2)
Cd3P2     cadmium phopshide   1214-28-7      Wrong checksum (correct: 4)
YBr3      yttrium bromide     13469-92-2     Wrong checksum (correct: 6)
YSb       yttrium antimonide  12186-97-7     Wrong checksum (correct: 9)
: All have now been corrected.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check of CAS numbers 

message: I think it would be useful to create a redirect to this page for each chemical formula listed here.  That would help search engines find the page, and deal with the fact that most people won't use subscripts when entering search terms. -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects 

message: It seems that multiple naming schemes are used. Shouldn't only one be used or list all common names for the chemical? For instance, the list has "silver flouride" (which I dabb'd to "silver(I) flouride"), but "silver(I) carbonate" instead of "silver carbonate". Either we should stick with one naming scheme, or list both when possible. Also, when the formula represents molecules with multiple forms, shouldn't all of those forms be listed? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on Silver(I) fluoride, as Silver(II) fluoride is an existable compound too, and as it links bleu, is in WEikipedia. On the other hand, old customs are hard to change. T.vanschaik (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  chemical naming schemes 

message: suggest merging with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CAS_numbers_by_chemical_compound this and the other seems to be of simular content. 
some on that page are not on this page. eg, BiVO4 if i am in error provide a link between the two. if you want to go way further you can merge with (or provide a link to) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inorganic_compounds and all its sister pages. there is a few too many lists on Wiki!
Charlieb000 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The represent different chemical concepts, so I am not sure this is a good idea. What would the chemical formula of formalin be? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggest merging with List_of_CAS_numbers_by_chemical_compound 

message: i suggest a new page based on this (and my previous suggestion) where they are sorted by the elements they contain (it does exist but is not "complete" with these list items, so i leave this section here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_compounds_by_element). then provide a link from the element page via "category: <element> compounds" this will be much more comprehensive than the current link which only shows compounds which have a page on wikipedia. a good alternative is one page (ONLY!) with a sortable wikitable, more info in above article's talk page. this ensures all elements are mentioned and user can select mode of viewing instead of the numerous tables we have already Charlieb000 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As most chemical compounds are categorized as a compound containing element, eg as Silver compounds and as Fluorides for Silver(II) fluoride, searching for compounds per element do not need a special additional ation. T.vanschaik (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  sort by element 

message: Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#List_of_organic_compounds about inclusion of organic compounds in this list. Biscuittin (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 33#List of organic compounds.--Quest for Truth (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organic compounds 

message: For example, Lithium fluoride is listed as both LiF and FLi. Isn't it standard to list the cation first? I propose that we should remove all the listings that have the anion first and make sure they appear once with the cation first, or at least have the formula written out in the most common/consistent fashion (e.g. nitrosyl fluoride appears here once as FNO, but on its Wikipedia page it appears as NOF).
Just a thought.
Albatronix (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting order of elements in the compounds? 

message: While different compounds with same sum formulas often have different ring, ring connecting bridge and side chain ramification counts extending the formulas with these 3 numbers would already drastically decrease the masses of compounds under same formulas to very few internal-permutation isomers so that categorization were vastly improved and sharpened. E.g. these 12 different structural isomers of C6H6 can be fully distinguished with those 3 additions extended behind C's count number:
C6, 2, 5, 1H6 	Methyl-(2.2)Spiropentadiene CC1=CC12C=C2        	2 cyclopropane rings (each –2) → 1+1, 2 ring internal double bonds + a spiro bond 2+2+1, 1 side chain
C6, 2, 7, 0H6 	Bi(cyclopropene) C1=CC1C2C=C2                   	2+2+3 due to counting a non-fusing bond between rings as 3, a fusing methylen as 4, non-fusing methylen as 5 …
C6, 3, 4, 1H6 	Fulvene, Methylenecyclopentadiene               	
C6, 3, 5, 0H6 	(2.3)Spirohexadiene                             	
C6, 4, 5, 0H6 	Dehydrospirobicyclobutane C1=CC12C3C2C3         	
C6, 4, 6, 0H6 	Benzene                                         	
C6, 5, 6, 0H6 	Bicyclo[2.2.0 / 3.1.0]hexadiene (Dewar benzene) 	+1 from position 3 on → 2+2+1, 3+1+1
C6, 5, 8, 0H6 	Bicyclo[2.1.1]hexadiene                         	2 internal double bonds + 1 fusing methylen → 2+2+4
C6, 6, 8, 0H6 	1,1,2-Propellene, Tricyclo[2.1.1.01,4]hexene    	
C6, 7, 6, 0H6 	Tricyclo[3.1.0.02,6]hexene, Benzvalene          	
C6, 8, 6, 0H6 	Tetracyclo[3.1.0.01,4.02,4]hexane C12CC13C24C3C4	(4 trigons in a plane)
C6, 10, 6, 0H6	Prismane                                        	
Also e.g. the C6H10O4 would provide much more distinguish and recognition:
*C6, 0, 0, 2H10O4 .. aceburic acid, adipic acid
*C6, 0, 0, 3H10O4 .. ethylidene diacetate
*C6, 4, 2, 3H10O4 .. glucal
*C6, 4, 2, 4H10O4 .. conduritol
*C6, 7, 2, 2H10O4 .. dianhydrohexitol
So this would give much more compound information quickly and a great gain for every sum formula compound glossary? --LKreissig (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using extended sum formulas 

message: The proper plural form of formula should be formulae...? I'm  Caker18! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  05:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulas or Formulae? 

message: Lists are largely redundant, I fail to understand why these are separate pages. Reywas92Talk 23:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[:List of CAS numbers by chemical compound]] into [[:Glossary of chemical formulae]]  

message: I just merged the unnecessary duplicate Inorganic compounds by element to List of inorganic compounds but now I fail to understand why this duplicate is necessary either. No need to filter out the organic compounds that mostly start with C anyway. (List of organic compounds was redirected here five years ago). Not sure if there's really anything in either case here to merge, but they've grown independently which is why you shouldn't be making duplicate articles in the first place... Reywas92Talk 23:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - We should not mix organic and inorganic compounds. The organic compounds are already listed in 20 articles named List of compounds with carbon number 1 to 100. And listing the compounds after the formula isn't a good idea. If its done alphabetically it should CH and the rest of the letters alphabetic. Christian75 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummmm Glossary of chemical formulae already mixes organic and inorganic compounds... My point is that List of inorganic compounds is redundant to the glossary. What does "And listing the compounds after the formula isn't a good idea" mean? That's what all of these pages do; the glossary is a sortable list by either formula or name. Ugh this is why I do WP:BOLD merges, these pages are just duplicates of each other, just big and a lot of work. Reywas92Talk 21:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Glossary of chemical formulae lists the formula by their chemical formula. List of inorganic compounds lists the comopund ordered by their central atom, e.g. HIO3 is in the former listed under H and in the latter under I. IMHO, you can redirect Glossary of chemical formulae wherever you want. Christian75 (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Strongly Oppose I don't like you proposal.Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[:List of inorganic compounds]] into [[:Glossary of chemical formulae]]  

message: Some formulas listed here are wrong. For instance, that of goethite, written as "FeO2H" - is completely wrong. It does not show the role of H in this compound. Goethite is an example of oxyhydroxide - a well-known group of minerals. The correct formula is FeO(OH). The formula listed here is even wrong as compared to formulas written using well-known in chemistry alphabetical order, which would give HFeO2. Eudialytos (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that no-one will complain if you fix them; go ahead and BOLDly fix them. Klbrain (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong formulas

message: Can someone help me update this list? I've noticed a lot of superheavy elements missing. UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superheavy elements  

message: Can we make the list blue link only? Like the description says, "there is no complete list of chemical compounds since by nature." Shouldn't we only add notable compounds to this list. The best way for us to do that would be to only add chemicals with pages. If not, we could fill this list with millions non-notable molecules.Herravondure (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a new rule