Talk:hypo-

This entry has passed Wiktionary's verification process without prejudice.

This means that, while adequate citation may not have been recorded, discussion has concluded that usage is widespread and content is accurate
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so. See Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion

---

hypo-

Two senses particular to chemistry and photography. These senses of the prefix can be verified by adding three derived terms each to the entry (each of which must itself satisfy the CFI). More work needs to be done on this entry (see WT:RFC#hypo). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The photography sense is real but should be at hypo, not hypo-. Widsith 14:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So it’s a noun which denotes that sense rather than a sense denoted by this prefix, yeah? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

'Zackly. Widsith 14:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall we declare the fourth sense RFVfailed, then? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The photography sense is real and is already listed at hypo. But in hypo, it lists both sodium hyposulfite and sodium thiosulfate (which is what I remember from my chemistry days). While we are on the subject can anyone confirm or refute this, rather than me listing it as a separate entry for now. Thanks--Dmol 16:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty hypo-chemistry. Any salt in which the central atom of the complex anion is in a lower oxidation state than normal can be called that way, but the nomenclature is a bit archaic. hyposulfite and thiosulfate are not the same but they are both pretty good reducing agents. I guess either would do Jcwf 01:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here (at page 69) is IUPAC's characterization of the use of "hypo-". As I read it, Jcwf's statement that it is out of date seems supported. They further say that the term is not used consistently as a prefix to different elements. The reference seems rather useful for us, BTW. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a demonstration of why we should welcome WikiChemipedia when someone is motivated to create it. We don't have the expertise to handle any but the most basic words (which chemical nomenclaturists call "trivial") and those used in literature or the news. Similarly for taxonomic names and WikiSpecies. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup debate

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Etymology needs Ancient Greek script and antonyms, derived terms, synonyms, and translations all need categorising. The German section also needs a pronunciatory transcription. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Now all that is left to do is to correctly categorise the translations and to give the German section a pronunciatory transcription. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Added German pronunciation. —Stephen 23:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)