Talk:International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

message: I have a periodic table that was approved by the IUPAC, and it uses aluminum (as opposed to aluminium). I'm not going to change the article to reflect this, but it's a thought. Random the Scrambled 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, never mind... I read the article on Aluminum, and it said that the IUPAC has several periodic tables that use only the 4-syllable spelling. Random the Scrambled 12:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: American publishers may use their aluminum/sulfur/cesium, British publishers their aluminium/sulphur/caesium, both variants are IUPAC approved. Regionally independent publications use the standard aluminium/sulfur/caesium recommendation. Femto 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing confuses me. If Google searching for aluminum comes up with over twice as many results as aluminium, and searching for cesium brings up just under 3 times the results that caesium does, then why does the IUPAC use aluminium and caesium? (oh yeah, I remember why aluminium, other languages use spellings similar to it, but caesium?) Random the Scrambled 12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who knows why, but Platinium's a redirect. BioTube 04:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Because IUPAC are smart enough to know Google searching doesn't really prove anything except that American's dominate the Internet? Nil Einne 15:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm pretty sure there's been a mistake 

message: There seems to be some inconsistency in the name given to this ratio by different scientists.  If anybody's interested, there's some discussion over the article title at Talk:Magnetogyric ratio.  Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetogyric ratio/Gyromagnetic ratio 

message: I really think we should use the IUPAC names of elements and compounds as the article names for Wikipedia. The common name can be mentioned shortly after the IUPAC name in the style of "(also known as...)".
If IUPAC really does exists to standardize the naming of elements and compounds, why aren't we using it on Wikipedia of all places?
Bdfortin (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been talked about several times on the Chemistry Project pages, probably on the talk page or its archive pages. It is best discussed there rather than here if you want to raise it again. --Bduke  (Discussion) 07:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC Names on Wikipedia 

message: and I love to see more comments using that service by others--222.64.222.67 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC name search from LookChem works to me.... 

message: from Google scholar
* http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+IUPAC+CAS&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--124.78.210.114 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC name vs CAS index name.... 

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=IUPAC&fulltext=Search
as the topic layouts are changing from one day to another and are too hot to handle....^__^--222.67.217.95 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could the volunteers to the IUPAC topics please generate the template for the following.... 

message: looking good so far.  I think you'll be better off putting those subcomittees into a table, rather than simply a list.  Will probably look better, and take up less space also.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: I've tweaked some of the refs, which had errors in them.  Probably the names of the texts don't need to be wikilinked.  Given how quickly scientific textbooks go out of print, it's unlikely that there will be an article.  Be sure that you search on some of the redlinks.  There likely is an article on Aquatic systems, for example, but it might be called Aquatic ecosystems.  Go through once more for the links and and to streamline some of the text (it's a bit wordy), then do the GA.  Nice work. Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: ;Well-written
*Creation and History section
**Last two sentences of the opening paragraph seem repetitive. Rewrite.
***Fixed. DMacks (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review comments 

message: The section "Creation and history" starts with the sentence: "Frkekuléinue work on the standardizing of chemistry." What on earth does that sentence mean? 92.231.105.216 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange

message: This article's section on the color books is terrible. It isn't even complete. According to the IUPAC web site (accessed July 7, 2016) there are 8 color books: Gold, Green, Red, Blue, Purple, Silver, Orange, and White. Only a couple of them are included here and for gosh sakes! the table doesn't even mention the colors!! Wow! Epic fail! The table does contain some information of some interest, but it needs a complete rewrite, imho. Better to simply replace it with the IUPAC Color Book article and start with that. I VOTE for Merge.71.29.172.222 (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the discussion on the proposal to merge? 

message: This section has been mauled. I see the following problems: 1) Kekule was born Hessian (admittedly part of the German Confederation, but its likely to my uninformed mind that his father would have claimed Hessian and not German nationality. 2) Kekule's name wasn't changed to von Stradonitz until 1895, in 1860 he called himself August Kekulé and that is what he is known as for most of the world (see for example Organic Chemistry, Morrison & Boyd 3rd ed. pg 2). 3) The Fennel reference (# 11 ) is used 3 times in a single paragraph. It only serves to interrupt the reader's flow. 4) The claim is made that IUPAC nomenclature is "official" but nowhere is that explained. In this context, by "official", I would presume some governmental body (the UN, or various nation-states) has endowed that title? It needs to be justified. 5) The sentence:"Since this time, IUPAC has been the official organization held with the responsibility of updating and maintaining official organic nomenclature." is just not true. There were both American and French (perhaps others, IDK) organizations which were also attempting to standardize nomenclature. Also, the split during WWII resulted in a couple of discrepancies, iirc. This is ignored here. I'll also mention the use of "held" is awkward, is this from a translation of the Deutsch? "held with the responsibility"? By whom? 6) Finally, no clear mention is made that the IUPAC is also the originator of some Physics content, having little to do with chemistry (arguably).71.29.172.222 (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation and History 

message: I find it odd that this article is meant to be written in Oxford spelling when IUPAC itself clearly favours American spelling. Like they spell colour, as in colour books, as color. This article accordingly currently spells colour as color too, so why use Oxford spelling in an article that pertains to a union that clearly favours American spelling? Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 10:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In English Wikipedia, spelling is dependent on national ties with the subject and broad consensus, not the preference of the subject itself. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :IUPAC spelling. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 18#IUPAC spelling until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "IUPAC spelling" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]