Talk:Copper sulfide

Merger proposal
On Copper sulfide, the idea of merging copper(I) sulfide and Copper(II) sulfide is proposed. *support. There is no copper(II) sulfide - covellite is a blend of copper(II) and copper(I). This awkward fact suggests that the separation of articles based on oxidation state is artificial and misleading.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * stong object. If I read it right the three articles below are all being proposed for merger to produce one article covering all of the binary compounds of copper and sulfur. The current three articles (see below) describe different aspects of the binary compounds of copper and sulfur and merging them would be a bizarre step at variance with the direction that the chemicals project has been going in for years, and the next step would be merging for example all the FexOy articles.
 * copper sulfide describes the family of copper sulfides, CuxSy (there are many of these)
 * copper monosulfide describing the notable chemical compound CuS (occurring naturally as covellite) which has a complex structure which has been described in different ways (see discussion at the talk page including the traditional one (Greenwood) with distinct Cu(I) and Cu(II). I think Smokefoot is objecting to the name copper(II) sulfide as being incorrect and I do not think any one would disagree with that however such an objection does not in my opinion support a merge. It is often called copper(II) sulfide purely on the basis of stoichiometry, and there is a redirect on copper(II) sulfide to copper monosulfide.
 * copper(I) sulfide another distinct chemical compound, where there is no debate as to the oxidation state of copper!
 * Nothing dramatic is likely to happen here. The merge proposal was made by User:Kpstewart who has no serious experience editing chemistry, so it's a "drive-by proposal" by a disinterested party (the same editor proposed merger of hydrogen bromide and hydrobromic acid, a topic which we have dealt with long ago).  I do not supporting merger of all of these Cu-S articles.  But the situation is worth reviewing in view of the fact that in parallel with the Cu-S articles we have a family of mineral articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I am confused - do you support the merger of these three articles or not?--Axiosaurus (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No Support: I see a distinct chemistry article about a group of chemical compounds with copper and sulfur atoms/ions, with a right in its own on being there. And I see two chemicals articles about apparently different chemical compounds Cu2S and CuS. That either of these two compounds is perhaps vapourware should be described in the article, but is no reason to merge it into another article.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  21:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Object: I accept Axiosaurus's arguments (sorry, I wasnt paying attention).--Smokefoot (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So I took the initiative and removed the merge tags. Should we move Copper monosulfide to Copper(II) sulfide for consistency with Copper(I) sulfide?? Chris (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose myself! Having actually read the article, I realise that it's not a Copper(II) compound. Sorry ;) Chris (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)