This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2017. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
What about naming chemical compounds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.36.61.40 ( talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.152.229 ( talk) 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Dwarf King's entry about a compound being the most complex pure substance. I reworded his statement to hopefully make it more clear, but I'm not sure it's strictly correct, and I'm not sure it belongs in the article. In truth, I think some fleshing out might make it obviously worthy, but am not currently clear on just how to state it. The validity of the comment depends on the definition of 'purity' and so perhaps it doesn't belong. Be bold! Catbar (Brian Rock) 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"... two or more elements chemically-bonded together in a fixed proportion by mass"
shouldn't the definition of a chemical compound rather be based on stoichiometry than on mass?
The substitution of one isotope for another one won't change the chemistry but certainly the mass proportion, so I think a definition based on mass is completely out of the reason. 130.238.197.120 11:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"The atoms in the molecule can be held together by bonds, covalent bonds or ionic bonds."
This originially was "...by no bonds,..." which also doesn't make sense. It's been a while since I took a chemistry class, but I thought there were three types of bonds: hydrogen bonds, covalent bonds, and ionic bonds. Can someone in the know please decipher what it should be? -- Wizard191 ( talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I came here and noticed many instances of vandalism. ive proposed it be semi protected. i question the appropriateness of the section called "Elementary concepts", it doesnt seem like it fits here, is unrefed, and unfortunately was added by a questionable new user. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 15:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
FTA: "Elements in a compound cannot be separated by physical methods." Isn't electrolysis a physical method of decomposing a substance ?
If you go to chemical substance it says much the same thing. The problem is that this is true only part of the time (i.e. for only some types of compounds). Yes, some chemical substances and chemical compounds have fixed ratios of atoms held together by chemical bonds, but others do not, and yet are clearly NOT just mixtures. Atoms in a sample of matter may all be held together by ionic or covalent bonds, but they don't need to have (in fact usually do not have) neat empirical formulas you can write down on a bottle label. Most of the mantle and crust of our planet is such stuff--for example, the plagioclase feldspars which don't have clearly defined stoichiometry. These articles are all confused. The chemical compound article refers to chemical substances, and vice versa. We need to make it clear that whole-number stoichiometry sometimes happens, but usually it is just an ideal. Fixed ratios of atoms are the exception in nature, not the rule. S B H arris 06:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The term "chemical compound" has a meaning, and stoichiometry is what differentiates "compound" from "substance", to whit: "A substance formed from two or more elements chemically united in fixed proportions" as states the title terms Oxfords' definition. This article needs to move from meaningless and irrelevant to serve the important role that fundamental articles at WP are meant to serve. Start here IUPAC Goldbook and here Oxford dictionary, here Merriam-Webster dictionary, and, cf. here Goldbook, on substance. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 ( talk) 16:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I proposed deletion because the article has a large amount of text which is almost entirely devoid of sources. The new version should include enough sources from the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamaplayer33 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
...what would have been a reasonable attempt to move this article, helpfully, toward resolving fundamental discrepancies between it and the most basic definitions of the title term—that is, by deleting and starting afresh—@ Alansohn:, @ StarryGrandma:, @ Xxanthippe:, @ Bduke:, @ Yellow Diamond:, @ 99of9:, I invite you to dedicate your time and attention to resolving the issues laid out in the article tag, and in this Talk section above. Had the article been reduced to a stub, so one did not need to battle the politics of large revisions, I would have joined in again to move a short stub toward being an authoritative article. But I am not wasting time over reams of very old, unsourced, inaccurate material. You have, in your expertise, indicated the article is of value. Please, fix it, beginning with the discrepancies that have been tagged at the article top, since 2015, at least so the article reflects the basic insights of the Oxford and IUPAC sources presented above. For an outsider's perspective on the longevity of inaccurate chemistry content at Wikipedia, see this recent article by a Harvard contributor. Cheers, await your efforts. If the article becomes workable, I too will join in. But this mire, no. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 06:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The slipperiness of the notion of compound, as regard to stoichiometry, is a result of the history of chemistry, where the discovery of the law of definite proportions and the law of multiple proportions provided convincing indirect evidence for the atomic theory long before individual atoms could be imaged. Fortunately, most of the substances involved in these discoveries were highly stoichiometric, so that the subsequent discovery and investigation of non-stoichiometric compounds served to refine the atomic theory, rather than undermining it or delaying its discovery. I think the present article expresses this situation fairly well, and is well on the way to becoming as well written as its topic deserves. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 20:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
In the "Definition" section it says "Any substance consisting of two or more different types of atoms (chemical elements) in a fixed proportion of its atoms (i.e., stoichiometry) can be termed a chemical compound; ...". Doesn't this definition falsely include mixtures (rather than just compounds) because it says nothing about anything being chemically bound etc., unless we assume that by "substance" we mean a pure chemical substance? Even then, it's a very indirect way of implying that a chemical compound is made up of molecular entities / bound atoms. The definition in the beginning of the lead seems more complete or at least clearer, and covers both senses of compound: one molecular entity itself, or a pure substance made up of such molecular entitities of a single species. QuoJar ( talk) 18:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox should not be used directly. Use appropriate infobox or remove it. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
To whom it may concern, I want to request for an edit for the article on chemical compound. This article needs to be added the Hill system formula, because it is well related to the area/field of chemical compounds. The topic is about writing the chemical formulas in alphabetical order when the atoms Carbon and Hydrogen are absent.
The content I want add: The Hill System or also known as the Hill Notation is a form of writing chemical formulas idea by Edwin A. Hill. It is used to set the order of the Carbon atom as first and Hydrogen atom as the second of a chemical formula. Ex. C12H22O11 If the following chemicals are not present, the chemical formula should be written in alphabetic order. Ex. AgCNO
The citation: The Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1900, vol 22, p.478-494 - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja02046a005
It should be written in its own content/tab, below the "Reactions" tab.
Thank you. Danish.Asif001 ( talk) 17:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Following existing article text "Pure chemical elements are generally not considered chemical compounds", can the article likewise clarify that the term doesn't apply to chemical groups/
moieties?
—DIV (
49.186.57.131 (
talk)
03:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC))
Support
good-faith
IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping
range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse
collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as
semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.
The Wikipedia article 'Helium Hydride Ion' claims it is a (chemical) compound. HeH(+) is NOT a compound, imho. I looked thru this article and could find *nothing* that prevents claims that any fragment can be a "chemical compound" whether charged, unstable or what have you. I know it is a bit 'in the weeds' but generally a chemical compound is "isolate-able". It exists for a (context relevant) length of time without immediate decomposition (in a understood or explicit environment). that is: it is stable, and is electrically neutral. I'd like to see, at least, electrical neutrality mentioned here. I'm not sure if any elementary source will include this, it's a bit more than what a layperson needs to know... 98.21.212.117 ( talk) 23:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2017. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
What about naming chemical compounds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.36.61.40 ( talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.152.229 ( talk) 02:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Dwarf King's entry about a compound being the most complex pure substance. I reworded his statement to hopefully make it more clear, but I'm not sure it's strictly correct, and I'm not sure it belongs in the article. In truth, I think some fleshing out might make it obviously worthy, but am not currently clear on just how to state it. The validity of the comment depends on the definition of 'purity' and so perhaps it doesn't belong. Be bold! Catbar (Brian Rock) 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"... two or more elements chemically-bonded together in a fixed proportion by mass"
shouldn't the definition of a chemical compound rather be based on stoichiometry than on mass?
The substitution of one isotope for another one won't change the chemistry but certainly the mass proportion, so I think a definition based on mass is completely out of the reason. 130.238.197.120 11:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"The atoms in the molecule can be held together by bonds, covalent bonds or ionic bonds."
This originially was "...by no bonds,..." which also doesn't make sense. It's been a while since I took a chemistry class, but I thought there were three types of bonds: hydrogen bonds, covalent bonds, and ionic bonds. Can someone in the know please decipher what it should be? -- Wizard191 ( talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I came here and noticed many instances of vandalism. ive proposed it be semi protected. i question the appropriateness of the section called "Elementary concepts", it doesnt seem like it fits here, is unrefed, and unfortunately was added by a questionable new user. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 15:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
FTA: "Elements in a compound cannot be separated by physical methods." Isn't electrolysis a physical method of decomposing a substance ?
If you go to chemical substance it says much the same thing. The problem is that this is true only part of the time (i.e. for only some types of compounds). Yes, some chemical substances and chemical compounds have fixed ratios of atoms held together by chemical bonds, but others do not, and yet are clearly NOT just mixtures. Atoms in a sample of matter may all be held together by ionic or covalent bonds, but they don't need to have (in fact usually do not have) neat empirical formulas you can write down on a bottle label. Most of the mantle and crust of our planet is such stuff--for example, the plagioclase feldspars which don't have clearly defined stoichiometry. These articles are all confused. The chemical compound article refers to chemical substances, and vice versa. We need to make it clear that whole-number stoichiometry sometimes happens, but usually it is just an ideal. Fixed ratios of atoms are the exception in nature, not the rule. S B H arris 06:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The term "chemical compound" has a meaning, and stoichiometry is what differentiates "compound" from "substance", to whit: "A substance formed from two or more elements chemically united in fixed proportions" as states the title terms Oxfords' definition. This article needs to move from meaningless and irrelevant to serve the important role that fundamental articles at WP are meant to serve. Start here IUPAC Goldbook and here Oxford dictionary, here Merriam-Webster dictionary, and, cf. here Goldbook, on substance. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 ( talk) 16:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I proposed deletion because the article has a large amount of text which is almost entirely devoid of sources. The new version should include enough sources from the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamaplayer33 ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
...what would have been a reasonable attempt to move this article, helpfully, toward resolving fundamental discrepancies between it and the most basic definitions of the title term—that is, by deleting and starting afresh—@ Alansohn:, @ StarryGrandma:, @ Xxanthippe:, @ Bduke:, @ Yellow Diamond:, @ 99of9:, I invite you to dedicate your time and attention to resolving the issues laid out in the article tag, and in this Talk section above. Had the article been reduced to a stub, so one did not need to battle the politics of large revisions, I would have joined in again to move a short stub toward being an authoritative article. But I am not wasting time over reams of very old, unsourced, inaccurate material. You have, in your expertise, indicated the article is of value. Please, fix it, beginning with the discrepancies that have been tagged at the article top, since 2015, at least so the article reflects the basic insights of the Oxford and IUPAC sources presented above. For an outsider's perspective on the longevity of inaccurate chemistry content at Wikipedia, see this recent article by a Harvard contributor. Cheers, await your efforts. If the article becomes workable, I too will join in. But this mire, no. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 06:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The slipperiness of the notion of compound, as regard to stoichiometry, is a result of the history of chemistry, where the discovery of the law of definite proportions and the law of multiple proportions provided convincing indirect evidence for the atomic theory long before individual atoms could be imaged. Fortunately, most of the substances involved in these discoveries were highly stoichiometric, so that the subsequent discovery and investigation of non-stoichiometric compounds served to refine the atomic theory, rather than undermining it or delaying its discovery. I think the present article expresses this situation fairly well, and is well on the way to becoming as well written as its topic deserves. CharlesHBennett ( talk) 20:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
In the "Definition" section it says "Any substance consisting of two or more different types of atoms (chemical elements) in a fixed proportion of its atoms (i.e., stoichiometry) can be termed a chemical compound; ...". Doesn't this definition falsely include mixtures (rather than just compounds) because it says nothing about anything being chemically bound etc., unless we assume that by "substance" we mean a pure chemical substance? Even then, it's a very indirect way of implying that a chemical compound is made up of molecular entities / bound atoms. The definition in the beginning of the lead seems more complete or at least clearer, and covers both senses of compound: one molecular entity itself, or a pure substance made up of such molecular entitities of a single species. QuoJar ( talk) 18:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox should not be used directly. Use appropriate infobox or remove it. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
To whom it may concern, I want to request for an edit for the article on chemical compound. This article needs to be added the Hill system formula, because it is well related to the area/field of chemical compounds. The topic is about writing the chemical formulas in alphabetical order when the atoms Carbon and Hydrogen are absent.
The content I want add: The Hill System or also known as the Hill Notation is a form of writing chemical formulas idea by Edwin A. Hill. It is used to set the order of the Carbon atom as first and Hydrogen atom as the second of a chemical formula. Ex. C12H22O11 If the following chemicals are not present, the chemical formula should be written in alphabetic order. Ex. AgCNO
The citation: The Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1900, vol 22, p.478-494 - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja02046a005
It should be written in its own content/tab, below the "Reactions" tab.
Thank you. Danish.Asif001 ( talk) 17:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Following existing article text "Pure chemical elements are generally not considered chemical compounds", can the article likewise clarify that the term doesn't apply to chemical groups/
moieties?
—DIV (
49.186.57.131 (
talk)
03:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC))
Support
good-faith
IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping
range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse
collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as
semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.
The Wikipedia article 'Helium Hydride Ion' claims it is a (chemical) compound. HeH(+) is NOT a compound, imho. I looked thru this article and could find *nothing* that prevents claims that any fragment can be a "chemical compound" whether charged, unstable or what have you. I know it is a bit 'in the weeds' but generally a chemical compound is "isolate-able". It exists for a (context relevant) length of time without immediate decomposition (in a understood or explicit environment). that is: it is stable, and is electrically neutral. I'd like to see, at least, electrical neutrality mentioned here. I'm not sure if any elementary source will include this, it's a bit more than what a layperson needs to know... 98.21.212.117 ( talk) 23:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)