Talk:Inorganic nomenclature

I noticed an error- a claim that the Stock system (with Roman numerals) can be used for nonmetal compounds. This is in direct contradiction of the IUPAC system (the Wikipedia standard, see the Manual of Style]; Rule 2.252 states, "The Stock notation can be applied to both cations and anions, but preferably should not be applied to compounds between nonmetals." I have deleted this, and replaced it with a link to systematic name, this covers such names in detail. When I get time I will add that material over here too. For more detail see http://www2.potsdam.edu/walkerma/inorg_naming.pdf Walkerma 20:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The key phrase is: preferably should not be applied... I agree, however, the Stock System can be used for non-metal compounds to demonstrate the consistency of the system. The problem is that the Stock system is basically used for empirical formulas, which are the rule for ionic compounds, but not for molecular compounds. So, the usage was not in error, just needed qualification due to the molecular formula ambiguity (NO₂ vs N₂O₄). That said, I won't put it back into the article (now). -Vsmith 02:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I take the point that IUPAC does not expressly forbid such usage- maybe if we end up with a really detailed article on this we can mention it. My concern was that the approved format was not listed, and readers might think that the Stock system is the usual system for nonmetal compounds. Also- these rules were written in 1960, when perhaps some people were using this system. However if it was used it has now become obsolete (at least in the UK and the US, which I am familiar with)- so I think the "preferably should not" has become a de facto "should not" over the years. I am getting a 1999 book from IUPAC on inorganic nomenclature by interlibrary loan, so that should clarify it.

By the way- would you like to join us on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals? Walkerma 14:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The lists of ions and names should be made into a table. When I tried this the subscripts were chopped off. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 05:20, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)