Talk:Trioxidane
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Project Osprey in topic Sources for nomenclature
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Sources for nomenclature
editThe first sentence lists 4 names for this molecule. Trioxidane is sourced in the Infobox to a IUPAC document, and I have today sourced hydrogen trioxide and dihydrogen trioxide each to two existing references in the article which use these names in their titles.
However I am completely mystified by the supposedly systematic name "μ-trioxidanediidodihydrogen". Can someone provide a source and/or explain this name? What does "diido" mean?? Looks similar to diiodo, but I don't see any iodine atoms! Dirac66 (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- That was added by User:Plasmic Physics many years ago.[1] I vaguely recall that editor was on a tear to apply various "by the rule" names to a ton of chemical-articles for which nobody actually seems to use them. But I also don't recognize some of the technical details of this specific case either. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Eight plus years since it was added and no sign of a source. I have now added a "citation needed" tag. If no one posts a source in a week or so, I plan to delete this claimed systematic name. Dirac66 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Typical nomenclature by very eccentric editor. Thank you for flagging this one. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's wrong anyway. PP always used IUPAC additive nomenclature but binary compounds should be described using compositional nomenclature (see here). So the systematic name is dihydrogen trioxide. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Typical nomenclature by very eccentric editor. Thank you for flagging this one. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Eight plus years since it was added and no sign of a source. I have now added a "citation needed" tag. If no one posts a source in a week or so, I plan to delete this claimed systematic name. Dirac66 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)