 | This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English with Oxford and IUPAC spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise; aluminium, sulfur and caesium) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide and chemistry naming conventions, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 2010. Further details are available here. |
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)[reply]
There are some other good search engines out there too.Dogpile.com for example Kinglou135 00:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
is there any similarities between mercury as a planet and as an elemnt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.124.253 (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IUPAC approved several spellings of some elements as there is debate as to what the right one is. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
and I love to see more comments using that service by others--222.64.222.67 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--222.64.218.117 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--222.64.218.117 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused about the part you added about the steering committee. IUPAC is made of many different committees but none go by a specific name. There is an executive committee. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--222.67.213.2 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
from Google scholar
--124.78.210.114 (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that not many reviews have been done in this field. If the IUPAC names become conventional, then a steering committee is very necessary. The reason is that the interpretations of the IUPAC rules according to its publication can vary from one to another--124.78.210.114 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned to publish the IUPAC names annualy a few days ago when I found that the IUPAC names for one chemical can be more than one even from one website.--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I put words something like Appeal for publishing printed version of IUPAC names annualy here somewhere after I visited the pages of nomenclature, Ponceau 4R, Sunset Yellow FCF and Tartrazine. I also said, maybe in another page something like I personaly prefer CAS index name. However welcome to adopt IUPAC name. People just keep reverting my editions....what for....???--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to state that the CAS index names have to be from printed version too. If an electronic version is cited, then at least another verification is required. Such words have been mentioned by me a few days ago too.
Have a look at the topic of Calcium phosphate and the CAS numbers of its related compounds and the following....
--124.78.210.114 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The words that I mentioned somewhere at this site
--124.78.210.114 (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the problem from Google scholar or from wikipedia's...???
--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that Google does not indexing the content of discussion pages....right...??? The following I copied and pasted the exact words...nothing can be found from Google search....
--124.78.210.114 (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this post has been modified because I remembered that I found my post right after I wrote the above comments. Where are they now...??? I'm sick of this kind of political football/political soccer --222.67.213.2 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
as exemplified by
If you could expand on your request it would be greatly appreciated. Salamakajakawaka (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think you article looks good. There are a lot of tables, that are a bit overwhelming to look at. I think that if they were a little smaller they would be easier to read. I had to keep scrolling down to see them, and it was a bit confusing. I think your opening paragraph is very good, and the information is very credible. You did a good job with getting good information, however it could be displayed a little more clearly and the flow would be better. Overall good article. hersh016 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.146 (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am currently taking organic chemistry and I found this article to be very interesting. you did a great job using the tables. There is alot of info in them, I would suggest maybe sorting through them and cutting them down. I found a couple gramatical errors which i changed for you. lastly, in the creation and history section the last couple sentences about germany i think could be excluded. Kishwa (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer: Chris (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer: Chris (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
