[DigiTan]

Looking around on the web at chemistry projects and MSDS, I notice a lot of sources still use the common naming convention over the Stock system.  I had the impression from Chem class that Stock naming was meant to replace the common system.  Is common naming still acceptable in most situations or are we just doing a bad job of converting to Stock?

[Arkcon]

One time, at work, I rapidly said "aitch-too-oh", and left more than a few people wondering what I'd said, when I should have just said "water". The underlining principle is the same, in casual conversations, the common name will always win out.

[DigiTan]

So basically both standards are here to stay?  But probably Stock is best for non-conversational use?

[Arkcon]

So basically both standards are here to stay?  But probably Stock is best for non-conversational use?

Yes, in technical written articles, where you define your terms and abbreviations in the glossary, stock is best for people to read.

[arian487]

biologists only use the common name. chemists use the IUPAC system. But you should still have a good idea of the common naming system, since a lot of its terms have creeped into the IUPAC system (like benzene, etc...)