Talk:Silver(I) fluoride

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dentistry Low‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.DentistryWikipedia:WikiProject DentistryTemplate:WikiProject Dentistrydentistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Can someone explain what the (I) stands for in the name? It is annoying to read an encyclopedia article and couldn't figure out what it says. Should encyclopedia article be self explantory even to laymen, instead of requiring an PhD in Chemistry to understand? If it is too much to explain, perhaps a See Also section that links to Silver(II) Fluoride and Silver(III) Fluoride would at least how readers to figure out what that (I) is for. -- Kowloonese 22:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The I in the name refers to the oxidation number of the metal, in this case silver. This naming system is always used whenever the metal has more than one oxidation number, to make it clear. If the compound is purely ionic, then this number also equals the charge on the metal, so silver(I) fluoride would contain an Ag+ ion and an F- ion.

This naming system is the standard one used in introductory chemistry books at the college level in the US, but I realise that many schools still use the old naming system of "argentous fluoride" and the like. Bearing in mind that we may soon have thousands of pages on Wikipedia with this notation, do you have any suggestions on how we could explain the meaning of such things? Is there a page on chemical notation?

Thanks for raising this important point, Martin A. Walker

I have been informed that there is a page on this topic, called Systematic name. I am currently trying to get agreement on how these Roman numerals will be dealt with, and I think we could probably include your point in the discussion. Martin A. Walker Walkerma 17:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the pointer. I've added a link to the naming system in the See Also section. Kowloonese 19:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Preparation[edit]

I reinsterted the information about standard laboratory preparation - I read the WP:NOTMANUAL policy but I wasn't really going into excessive detail as to how do it and you'd need a lot of research experience to be able to construct a good experimental method from the sketch in the article. I feel it's important that we have the info about prep (e.g. you start from AgNO3/you use a centrifuge), but if this is not done on Wiki, just tell me ! --TatanyaGolding (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is quite nice. The following aspects of the prep are completely incidental: silver nitrate is a precursor (one needs Ag2O, no matter how it is obtained), the use of Pt cup (one can use all sort of gear, such as Teflon), acetone as the precipitating solvent (probably many other anti-solvents miscible with water could be used), the fact that one filters. etc. The concept to be conveyed (in my opinion) is that AgF is obtained from Ag2O and HF. Here is another way to appreciate the predicament: imagine the impact if for every prep in Wikipedia we give comparable details. The solvent, the container, the fact that one filters or distills. Think about the procedures that invoke all sorts of specialized driers, grinders, air blowers, etc etc. The concept of WP:NOTMANUAL is to keep us focused on concepts and away from details. But those are my opinions. My main message is to compliment you on writing a pretty good article, so keep it up (and maintain the focus on good sources WP:SECONDARY). --Smokefoot (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, see where you're coming from - many thanks ! --TatanyaGolding (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AgF literature update: Jan 15, 2014[edit]

According to Chemical Abstracts 1273 articles, books, reviews, patents, reports have appeared on AgF. The magnitude of that number is one reason that AgF is notable, but also incentive to be mindful of WP:SECONDARY.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]