Talk:Dicarboxylic acid

My apologies for the lack of formatting on the Reference. It's a start though.

THE IONISING CAPACITY
Di carboxylic acids other than oxalic acids don't yield 2 protons on ionisation.hence the factors that affect their ionisation are to be described..

the problem with this article
It says "saturated dicarboxylic acids" and proceeds to list them.... but the article just say "dicarboxylic acids" and start with Carbonic Acid. Formula HOOCOOH. Carbonic Acid's technical name should be "formodicarbonic acid" or "formodicarboxylic acid" or "formodioic acid"... If we are to stick with the methodology of this author, we would use "formodioic acid" as the technical name.

Also, the section on pKa's is wrong, whoever gave some of those measurements on the other wiki pages for those acids used a poor method. The pKa's will definitely be higher numbers further down the line and the curve of numbers should be logarithmic in appearance.

Havabighed (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Article being tagged for clear deficiencies
I did some tidying of the article, after looking in the English encyclopedia for a place to put diphenic acid.

I am tagging the article for clear deficiencies, including sections that are clear hodgepodges of information. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The article should be strongly rewritten. These articles evolve, and for someone who might lack a good grasp of the area, it is easier to enumerate and that is what we have on our hands, a series of lists. Kind of useful, but not very comprehensive overview.   Many of the primary references should be moved to their individual articles or parked into a section labeled "Further reading".  The article also seems to be too focused on bio-derived materials acids, which are probably less important that those used as precursors to polymers.  You might suggest an outline, see if you get buy-in (or complacency, which is more likely), and then implement.  That cycle takes about 10 days.  --Smokefoot (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC).


 * I have removed the excessive tags. In my opinion, the article is a fair representation of the topic. Yes it is bitty, and some material may be better moved to articles on specific compounds, if such articles exist. The main defect is the format of the references. Petergans (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

not dicarboxylic acids
The sections

Fatty acid carbonates Phenyl and benzoic alkanoic acids Fatty acyl-CoA esters Divinylether fatty acids

do not appear to be about dicarboxylic acids at all! Petergans (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. They do not belong in this article. Possibly those sections belong somewhere else. I suggest removing them from the article, and putting them here on this talk page, between "collapse" tags, in case anyone wants to use them elsewhere. Maproom (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree also. Looks out of place, and moving it here gives it a second chance.  Thanks for noticing the issue.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should not be here, perhaps added to new stubs. They have some sort of very lean references, so it looks like they would be notable enough for separate articles. I am happy to create these stubs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking more, "Fatty acid carbonates" looks to be a mistake, as there are no fatty acids involved, just the fatty alcohol derived from a fatty acid. The reference calls them "oleochemical carbonates". benzoic alkanoic acids also seems to be hardly used outside of Wikipedia, but "phenyl alkanoic acids" and the other terms do seem to be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, folks. I think that new stubs would be the best option, with perhaps links in carboxylic acid and/or fatty acid. I'll leave it to you, Graeme.
 * Incidentally, Could you(all) please verify the IUPAC names in the tables. For example, I would have expected malonic acid to be listed as the 1,4- isomer...Petergans (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have created three new pages and merged into another one, see history for details. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have found the source of much of this material: http://www.cyberlipid.org/fa/acid0004.htm. Most of it was copied verbatim from there! Petergans (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well this has a Creative Commons NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License, so unless the author from there (Dr Claude Leray) put it here, we need a rewrite. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most has been re-written, so I don't think this is an issue.
 * Developments: Please look at the first table. I have streamlined it. Is this accetable?
 * Also in this table I have added links to PubChem; this raises a general issue of how much of the PubChem information we might want to duplicate in WP articles. Petergans (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the CAS number, molecular weight, water solubility and melting point. But I would not put more than that in the table. If you have more information for each acid then more tables may be needed, eg properties of the solid, properties of the liquid, solubility information, but since we have articles on most, then this detail can be in the articles, and just the straight forward properties that show the trends can be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you click on any PubChem link like PubChem 971 (oxalic acid) you will see all that stuff and much,much more. The question is this: is the link sufficient or should WP duplicate some of the information? I'll be away for the next 3 weeks, in Perth, W.A. After that, I'll post this question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry Petergans (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting a bit more information, but don't just leave a link, as Wikipedia is not just online, make the table useful in itself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I could debate this with you for a long time. For the moment I’ll just make these points. Petergans (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia exists online.
 * The world has moved on since many of the chemistry articles were created.
 * .Pub Chem is now more comprehensive and is open-access. Many properties are properly referenced. My only reservation is that I don’t think that all contributed entries have been checked independently.
 * I’d go along with formula, mol.wt, CAS no.,. structure, being included in WP, but very little, if anything, else that is contained in PubChem.
 * I hate the clutter caused by the Chem. Boxes (look in the project chemistry archive for my previous suggestions). If one were to want specific information, a PubChem link in the Chem Box would put the info. only one click away and would remove all the clutter.
 * There is a view amongst some Wikipedians that each article should stand on its own. I profoundly disagree. The essence of WP is that it is interactive with articles linked together.
 * Linking to an external database is a logical extension of the WP concept.


 * For this article we don't want too much in the table, since it is just a summary of the whole class. Some information may be better presented on a graph to show trends.  But I do think the table has to stand by itself with useful information, people are not going to click through to each listing, but they may do for one or two.  The infobox on the articles about the individual compounds is a different requirement, but no need to talk about that here. Another remark is that Pubchem does not have all the information, and not all the compounds either, and some of the information may be very junky, ie predictions or nonuseful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for junky information, look at the pK values in the "original" table
 * {| class="wikitable"

!n!! Common name!!pKa1!!pKa2!!
 * 0||Oxalic acid||1.27||4.27
 * 1||Malonic acid||2.85||5.71
 * 2||Succinic acid||4.21||5.41
 * 3||Glutaric acid||4.34||5.41
 * 4||Adipic acid||4.41||5.41
 * 5||Pimelic acid||4.50||5.43
 * 6||Suberic acid|| 4.526 || 5.498
 * 7||Azelaic acid|| 4.550 || 5.498
 * }
 * The value of pK2 for malonic acid is obviously wrong (it should be intermediate between oxalic and succinic, now corrected) and other values are not credible - identical values for succinic, glutaric and adipic acids! I discovered this when graphing the values, but decided not to put the graph in here. Petergans (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 5||Pimelic acid||4.50||5.43
 * 6||Suberic acid|| 4.526 || 5.498
 * 7||Azelaic acid|| 4.550 || 5.498
 * }
 * The value of pK2 for malonic acid is obviously wrong (it should be intermediate between oxalic and succinic, now corrected) and other values are not credible - identical values for succinic, glutaric and adipic acids! I discovered this when graphing the values, but decided not to put the graph in here. Petergans (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 7||Azelaic acid|| 4.550 || 5.498
 * }
 * The value of pK2 for malonic acid is obviously wrong (it should be intermediate between oxalic and succinic, now corrected) and other values are not credible - identical values for succinic, glutaric and adipic acids! I discovered this when graphing the values, but decided not to put the graph in here. Petergans (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, such good apple pie, sweet as sugar!
I learned it as "sweet as sugar", not "soup and syrup". The former is more common than the latter, 48 vs. 6 google hits. (I realize that 48 isn't very common at all but it's still 8 times the other.) Many or most of the few google hits for "soup and syrup" appear to be taken from this page, rather than having an independent existence. This page had it as "sweet as sugar" before it was "soup and syrup". The latter doesn't make much sense, syrup not generally being considered as enough of a food (as opposed to a condiment to be added to food) to merit inclusion in a list of foods being praised.

Alkyne is monounsaturated?
Noticed that acetylene dicarboxylic acid is listed as monounsaturated. My guess is that it is doubly unsaturated and its inclusion in this listing is overall confusing, so I suggest we just remove it. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)