Talk:NOx

message: The following equation appears in the section "NO from N2O":
:N2O + O → NO + N(thermal NO)
This plainly can't be right. Two nitrogens and two oxygens can't make two nitrogens and one oxygen, not without magic or nuclear annihilation. Moreover, the reference to "thermal NO" suggests that this should be an equation listed higher up in the article that yields the same products:
:N2 + O → NO + N
But if this is the correct reaction, then it doesn't belong in a section titled "NO from N2O" at all! Can someone with the appropriate subject knowledge clear this up? --Perey (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , I removed now the section with equations. "No sources. contested on the talk page for more than 6 months.".--200.223.199.146 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magical disappearing oxygen? 

message: currently the article reads "Nitrous oxide plays hardly any role in air pollution..." in its introduction blurb. Should there not be a reference for this and, more importntly, why is Nitrous oxide discussed in the blurb for NOx in general? Surely this sentence should be moved to a later section rlating only to nitrous oxide, otherwise it might cause some confusion, i beleive  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.193.191 (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardly any role in air pollution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NOx. 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/20150929073006/http://blueoceansoln.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Wet-Package-2008-1.pdf to http://blueoceansoln.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Wet-Package-2008-1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: What is the typical typography in the literature for the X in NOX?  To capture both NO1 [sic] and NO2, I could imagine using a half-height x (NOx), a subscripted full-height X, (NOX), or an X is that both half-height and subscripted (NOx).  What do the scientists use?  64.132.59.226 (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use  to get . Also see IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find any mention of the proper typography of NOX in the Wikipedia articles IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry and IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005.  For instance, knowing that the dioxide is NO2 does not indicate to me whether a subscripted X for NOX should be full height (X) or half height (x).  What is the evidence that the current implementation of the  template is correct?  64.132.59.226 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The EPA uses NOx with a lower case x that is not in italics.  Is that the proper standard rather than the  with italics?  64.132.59.226 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Proper" isn't really a thing. The IUPAC rules are at ; if you work for the EPA I suppose they publish their own manual of style somewhere.  On Wikipedia the best choice is almost always to use templates like  or  or  because the template is always going to spit out whatever the general consensus is among editors. If they decide to change the x to half height instead of subscript or italic or whatever, it will change on every single article that uses the template, rather than having to track down each instance and bring it up to date. If the template is wrong, then the place to raise the issue is at Template talk:NOx or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry so that it will be fixed everywhere and not just one article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

text: NO2 and its relatives are almost universally written with the number as a subscript. In the few places that don't it is because that place doesn't support subscripts (eg in plain text with no formatting available). Therefore it makes sense for  to also use subscripts. The explanation by Dennis for using templates like  is exactly what I was thinking of when I created it 5 years ago - only one place needs to be updated if consensus changes. I originally created it using CSS to simulate the subscript so that I could make it hug the NO a bit closer and make less of an effect on the spacing between that line and the next (subscripts increase the spacing a little). It got changed to a plain subscript about 2 years but I was too busy to challenging it at the time.   Stepho  talk  09:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half height or subscript or both, for the X 

message: In the introduction, the article states that in Atmospheric chemistry,  means NO + NO₂.  Then it says that in Chemistry,  is any of a much larger set of molecules and radicals.  The article then goes on to cover NO and NO₂ exclusively, and implicitly refers to N₂O as a non-.
I think the introduction could be clearer on this point, explaining the "conflict" between the general chemistry and atmospheric chemistry usage of the term, and then stating explicitly that this article only considers the narrower atmospheric understanding of .
Kjetilho (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of {{NOx}} 

message: The text currently says, "In conclusion, considering several direct and indirect effects,  emissions have a negative contribution to global warming.[32]".  Is this good or bad?  It is not at all clear.  Reference 32 is to IPCC 2013, which was behind a paywall for me, but I found a copy on their web page.
Clear as mud for a lay-person like me, but from the context I can tell that negative forcing is good.
My suggested edit:  "In conclusion, considering several direct and indirect effects,  emissions likely contribute to reduce global warming."
Kjetilho (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warming effect 

message: In the 'prompt' section, it doesn't say why it is called prompt NOx. Does anybody know what it stands for?  Stepho  talk  10:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prompt