The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep: Withdrawn by nominator and clear consensus. Bduke (Discussion) 00:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury hydride

[edit]
Mercury hydride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TWODABS - "If there is a primary topic located at the base name, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page, or merely to link to all the other meanings from a hatnote on the primary topic article. If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." There is indeed a primary topic, that being the dihydride. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

Overwhelming opposition. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted pages are automatically converted into redirects by the deletion process, so you don't need to protest about that point. Regarding the primary topic argument, see below. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's just completely untrue. Deleted pages are not automatically converted into redirects by the deletion process. Read WP:Guide to deletion. Furthermore, there is no conceivable to delete the article history here, so AfD is completely the wrong place for this discussion. However, now that it's here, no, there is no primary topic. -- 101.117.57.51 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I simply change my proposal to redirect instead. However, this is just a formalism, as you're the only one concerned at this point. I was only of the persuasion that was how the deletion process operates, since that was my past experience, so please pardon my ignorance on that matter. It is your prerogative to have an opinion concerning the primary topic, but do not confuse it for fact. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to be concerned about whether or not the dihydride is the primary topic. Conventions set out by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has already predetermined that it is the primary topic. We can deal with those examples later. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A link to that advice would be helpful. However, it is interesting to note that Mercury(I) hydride is, as the article notes, systematically named mercury hydride. So if someone searches for that term they may expect the (I) compound, but get redirected or somehow referred to the (II) compound, that could be confusing or annoying. We have to remember that WP is not a reference just for chemists, and so we ought to make navigation as smooth for the general reader as possible. There is no value in deleting this disambiguation page simply becuase IUPAC has decided that (II) is the primary meaning when most people probably haven't heard of IUPAC. BethNaught (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, IUPAC has not decided that (II) is the primary meaning. There is nothing at all in the "Red Book" to support that idea. What's more, a search of Google Scholar shows that the phrase "mercury hydride" in the chemistry literature always refers to HgH. NIST also uses the phrase to refer to HgH. I think the nom is misunderstanding both the AfD process and the nomenclature rules of chemistry (or else is being intentionally disruptive). -- 101.117.57.51 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That is correct, mercury(I) hydride is systematically named mercury hydride, but you miss the point that systematic nomenclature is designed specifically for chemists. So if someone who is not a chemist, searches for that term, they should have no expectation to preferentially arrive at either page. However, if a chemist searches for that term, they should expect to arrive at the dihydride, unless they mean for the term to refer to the monohydride. There is a precedent that demonstrates this concept - 'beryllium hydride' as a term, describes both the common hydride of beryllium, which is the dihydride, as well as the monohydride; however, chemists expect to arrive at the dihydride by default. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might. But as the IP 101 has said above, IUPAC hasn't made the determination you said. It seems that the only argument you have is your personal opinion, which may be shared by many chemists you know but should not be presumed. For the record, I am not totally ignorant of chemistry, having studied it in sixth form (~= high school to Americans), and realise that the more common one is what is typically meant, but as far as I understand it this does not necessarily apply to all elements. What I'm saying is this AfD appears to be more about your interpretations than helping readers out with a helpful disambiguation page. BethNaught (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The section in the IUPAC Recommendations 2005 that contains the aforementioned convention is section IR-5.2, which states "Multiplicative prefixes need not be used in binary names if there is no ambiguity about the stoichiometry of the compound (such as in Example 10 above). The prefix ‘mono’ is, strictly speaking, superfluous and is only needed for emphasizing stoichiometry when discussing compositionally related substances, such as Examples 2, 3 and 4 above." Which is why the second most common term after 'water', for the H
2O molecule, is 'hydrogen oxide', not 'dihydrogen oxide', or even 'dihydrogen monoxide'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about multiplicative prefixes. Explain to me how that passage shows that the dihydride is the primary meaning of hydride. Indeed, the whole point of the disambiguation page is that there is ambiguity about the stoichiometry of the compound. BethNaught (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the II oxidation state is the most common for mercury (which is also the traditional method for determining the primary stoichiometry of any binary compound); secondly, the dihydride is the most thermodynamically stable, and is virtually the only hydride of mercury encountered or synthesised at anything approaching normal experimental conditions. On the contrary, the monohydride is highly unstable, and esoteric. Yes, the monohydride is a favourite topic for studies, but that does not indicate its primacy. Another point to consider, HgH is a mercury hydride, but is not the mercury hydride. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although the term 'ambiguity' may seem to be subjective as it appears in the except, it is defined by traditional interpretation of trends in the periodic table, of I'm certain you would have learnt of in a fourth form science class. For instance, how you were possibly asked to give the stoichiometry of calcium oxide, or zinc phosphate. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're simply giving your personal opinion here. Thermodynamic stability etc. are not IUPAC nomenclature criteria. What is relevant (in terms of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) is that of the 985 Google Scholar hits for "mercury hydride," over 80% refer to the monohydride HgH. As noted above, that's also what NIST uses the phrase to mean. If there was a primary topic, the monohydride would probably be it. As it stands, however, there's ambiguity which requires that this disambig page be kept. -- 101.117.30.194 (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That is by no means personal opinion, but the general one among most chemists. WP:GTEST may be useful, but is subject to bias. To summarise the weakness of the G-test, "That Google searches pull up the one now is a matter of public popularity only, and not a guidance for science writing! Moreover, Google is a purely commercial enterprise, only the poorest of academic search tools, certainly vis-a-vis chemistry searching; its prioritization of reported hits is not under user control." - Le Prof. The G-test is indicative, but not guaranteeing of the association of the term. Furthermore, NIST is wholly unreliable for this purpose, just ask the Chemistry Project. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is not the same as "Google." Google Scholar searches the academic literature. And perhaps we should ask the Chemistry Project what they think about your recent editing. -- 101.117.57.173 (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference whether Google Scholar is used instead, the issue remains. Which recent editing? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. You'll find that I am using the exact same reasoning which they used to counter my argument, when discussing the moving hydride articles. They used the example of zinc hydride, I don't think that you will be anymore successful than myself in convincing them otherwise, but feel free to try. Since I'm am rephrasing their argument, I can't be incorrect, unless they are duplicitous. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast, check WP:BLAR. Herein it, it instructs to formally submit the article to a deletion discussion. Ergo, this is the correct forum. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the Red Book supports your primary topic claim nor should it have primacy. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the Red Book, why should it not have primacy? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained, neither chemists, nor non-chemists normally use the stoichiometric specific naming to search for chemicals. It is the exception, not the rule. And again, the G-test is indicative, but does not automatically guarantee that the primary topic is associated with the term. Regardless of which is the primary topic, I appreciate that you agree that the disambiguation page is rather pointless. For what it's worth 'mercury hydride' is also one of the systematic names for HgH
2. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More