Talk:Curium(III) oxide

message: | IUPACName = Curium(III) oxide
| SystematicName = Curium(3+) oxidandiide
See the difference in editing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curium_oxide&diff=prev&oldid=407807816
The term oxidandiide cannot be found in the IUPAC Redbook 2005Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry IUPAC Recommendations 2005 - Full text (PDF), Table IX Continued, p. 319 (paper) or p. 331 (PDF).
I can only find the following terms for oxide: 
O2–, oxide(2–); oxide
Oxidanide, a very rarely encountered chemical term, seems to have been attributed to the hydroxide anion (OH–), but is never used in the practice by most of the chemists.
It is very strange that the term oxidandiide — such a crucial potential alternative term for oxide — would not have been explicitly described in the IUPAC Redbook 2005. The tentative deduction of "oxidandiide" from other terms also ending with the suffix "diide" in the IUPAC 2005 Redbook (from P-, S-, and Se-based compounds) without controlling the most common use of the term is a rigid and useless  application of a non-validated rule. It seems that the IUPAC Redbook 2005 is itself still severely flawed. This is one of the most striking illustrations I have encountered.
Moreover, curium is an artificial element. It is a minor actinide only produced by cumulative neutron captures of americium in nuclear reactors: it is also a very strong alpha emitter.
Applying such an intricate name to an extremely radioactive compound extremely difficult to isolate in ponderable quantity and prone to intense radiolysis makes no sense. The name curia is also never used: it was likely derived by analogy with silica, zirconia and thoria, other ceramics of tetravalent elements. Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The systematic name oxidandiide is inadequate for oxide

message: | OtherNames = Curic oxide
Curic oxide is never used, or obsolete. 
A simple Google search or a Google Scholar search most often points to Mer-curic oxide
A Chinese chemical selling site quite strangely presents such an unknown compound under this name:
http://www.ecplaza.net/tradeleads/seller/6902259/curic_oxide.html
One has to keep in mind that no minor actinide, nor alpha emitter are freely available on the market. Their trade for scientific and industrial uses is seriously controlled by strong safeguard and radioprotection regulations. 
Curium as americium is essentially a trivalent element. Consequently, the suffix -ous or -ic does not apply for curium. For analogy, one never use aluminic for Al, lanthanic for La, yttric for Y, etc, ... other well known trivalent elements. The same is also true for simple divalent metallic elements. 
It is not necessary, nor required, to fill all possible names in the chembox of a compound, certainly for a very rare substance such as curium oxide. Shinkolobwe (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, the filling of empty fields is encouraged. The suffixes does apply, scandic/scandous, alumanous/alumanic. In these cases the -ic suffix is implicit, but nonetheless used. --Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curic oxide is a name never used