Talk:Dibenzo-1,4-dioxin

Article on dibenzo-p-dioxin[edit]

I am unhappy with mixing also dibenzo-o-dioxin into the chembox. Like this, it is unclear, which properties belong to which substance. The structure of dibenzo-o-dioxin should only be shown outside the box. It is an additional information, not the topic of the article. We might consider moving the article to Dibenzo-p-dioxin. --Leyo 13:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article refers to both isomers. The chembox is additional and should not suggest a different subject. If the properties differ they should be left out, or no chembox. Or the page title should be changed.--Wickey-nl (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then let's move the page. Right now it is not clear that e.g. the CAS number, melting and boiling point refer to dibenzo-p-dioxin only. --Leyo 16:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If dibenzo-o-dioxin is highly unstable and few details are known, page move is appropiate and dibenzo-o-dioxin can be a redirect.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good idea to redirect Dibenzo-o-dioxin to Dibenzo-p-dioxin. If you want to have a redirect, then name should remain Dibenzodioxin. --Leyo 13:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect does not mean they are synonyms. There has to be only a short text, saying "Dibenzo-o-dioxin is an unstable isomer of dibenzo-p-dioxin" e.g. If there is enough content it can have its own page (I am not familiar with the subject). The chembox has to correspond with the page name to keep it clear and consistent.--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“The name generally refers to the dibenzo-p-dioxin ...”

That's clear enough. --Leyo 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemically that is incorrect and misleading.--Wickey-nl (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean. --Leyo 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both, 1,3-Cyclohexadiene and 1,4-Cyclohexadiene are cyclohexadiene. You cannot say one is cyclohexadiene, the other not.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, both actually do exist, what is not the case for dibenzodioxin. --Leyo 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we have an article that is primarily about a single known compound, and which also makes passing mention of some other compound? That's a pretty common situation (how many articles about Thing A don't also briefly comment about Thing B Related To A?). So infobox would be about the known compound (since that's got the most actual data and is most likely useful to readers looking for data about this set of compounds) and the article would be titled for that main compound. If the generic name is also commonly used to refer to that specific compound, no harm in leaving it at this name (with redirect from its more specific name). In the section or sentence-or-two or whatever area mentions the other isomer, could put its structure there loose...don't need an infobox, and the specific name of that isomer could redirect to that section of this article. DMacks (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both isomers have the general name used for this page. Adaptation of the page name, as suggested by User Leyo, is the most logical solution and will prevent confusion.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]