Talk:DBNPA
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Other Names[edit]
This article lists 2,2-dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide on the first line of the article, and then suggests that this name needs a citation. The IUPAC name is referenced as PubChem, but the other names are also listed in the same location. If you are willing to accept PubChem as a source for the IUPAC name, then it should also be a source for other names. JSR (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it does not make any sense at all to request citations for names that are used in the sources that are linked to from the infobox. Either we trust the content of those databases and link to them, or we don't. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- As it is not peer-reviewed, PubChem is not suitable as a source for other names. The synomyms list can often give rubbish or brand names. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- The list there is generally good, although it does contain some product names and other designations, but part of being a chemist is separating the good ones from the bad ones. The ones that are currently residing in this topic are perfectly good synonyms and are verified by PubChem. A synonym is a name that others use, and even a product name fits the category, but obviously, one needs to use some judgement. I don't have a problem with you asking me if you have any questions.JSR (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is policy not to include brand names in the chemboxes, it is non-scientific. It has also been decided by the Chemistry Project that sorting synonyms is a form of original research, which is also against policy. That is why only peer-reviewed sources, such as journals, are allowed to be used as sources for synonyms. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- So, one shouldn't rely on PubChem for IUPAC names either as it isn't peer-reviewed? Also, Cyanogen, ethanedinitrile is listed on PubChem as an IUPAC name. It is completely possible to have multiple IUPAC names for the same compound. I used to manufacture a chemical that had two proper IUPAC names and had a CAS number for both names. JSR (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is possible to use PubChem for IUPAC names, as long as you compare with IUPAC standards used for creating the name. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- So, one shouldn't rely on PubChem for IUPAC names either as it isn't peer-reviewed? Also, Cyanogen, ethanedinitrile is listed on PubChem as an IUPAC name. It is completely possible to have multiple IUPAC names for the same compound. I used to manufacture a chemical that had two proper IUPAC names and had a CAS number for both names. JSR (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is policy not to include brand names in the chemboxes, it is non-scientific. It has also been decided by the Chemistry Project that sorting synonyms is a form of original research, which is also against policy. That is why only peer-reviewed sources, such as journals, are allowed to be used as sources for synonyms. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- The list there is generally good, although it does contain some product names and other designations, but part of being a chemist is separating the good ones from the bad ones. The ones that are currently residing in this topic are perfectly good synonyms and are verified by PubChem. A synonym is a name that others use, and even a product name fits the category, but obviously, one needs to use some judgement. I don't have a problem with you asking me if you have any questions.JSR (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- As it is not peer-reviewed, PubChem is not suitable as a source for other names. The synomyms list can often give rubbish or brand names. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DBNPA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016103917/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/3056.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/3056.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)