Talk:Gold monoiodide

Reaction time of gold and iodine[edit]

does it really take four months ? also at 120 degrees Celsius Iodine is a liquid it also very actively sublimes at that point the pressure build up in tube can lead to detonation so other way of making it including iodine vapor should be discussed. Copper Chopper (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. After extended discussion, there is no consensus for the proposed move. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gold monoiodide → Gold(I) iodide – Almost all GScholar results about this compound call it "gold(I) iodide". A hypothetical gold(III) iodide is documented on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the current title is more interpretable (precise and recognizable) than the proposed title with the cryptic parethetical notation in the middle of it. Alternatively, use Gold iodide and include other possible gold iodides in the same article; that would be my preference for these two tiny articles. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Stock nomenclature is pretty standard for these types of compounds and is supported by our MOS. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Gold monoiodide and Gold(III) iodide at Gold iodide. I agree the best option is to merge these stubs under a holistic title, with proper redirects for each specific compound. Absent that, I support the proposed move to Gold(I) iodide per chemistry naming conventions. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is an option but it would leave multiple chemboxes in a single article, which is visually quite messy. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The linked chemistry naming conventions do not say to use the Stock nomenclature, just that it's one possibility. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That is true, but if you look at Category:Gold_compounds it is how we mostly do it. It would at least give consistent naming to the gold halides. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – gold compounds have substantial covalency (it is more electronegative than mercury), and this is one of the exceptions the naming conventions allow for (see item #4 in Dicklyon's link). Also commenting that I'm not sure there's a good reason to have an article for the hypothetical gold(III) iodide when it is not known to exist. Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.