theobromide
Theobromide is not a correct name for the chemical compound theobromine.
No primary sources list theobromide as a correct form of this chemical compound. The NIH website PubChem lists 176 alternate names for theobromine, and theobromide is not among them.
Correct according to who? Wiktionary does not appeal to any authority, only to the speakers themselves. So if people use the word that way, then that's what it means.
And which primary sources have you consulted? And more importantly, which have you not consulted? Have you looked on Google Books? Usenet?
See [1]
Which sources? Please see the above comment RE: PubChem, which is a primary scientific source.
If you're okay with people now knowing that this is a common misspelling, then so be it.
What I'm not ok with is just saying it's "incorrect" when there is no clear indication that it is incorrect. It may be incorrect in chemistry circles, but not everyone in the world is a chemist and even chemists might use it for all we know, nobody is perfect. So what gives PubChem the authority to decide how people speak English? I feel quite happy knowing that I can still speak my language the way I feel like it, rather than being restricted by some authority in which words I am allowed to use.
It's a chemical compound with a standardized name. As a chemist, I can assure you that PubChem is a primary source for chemical information, which includes names.
Moreover, no authoritative source lists theobromide as a synonym. Please see the Identifiers section on Wikipedia's description of theobromine.
Furthermore, Wiktionary does list some words as incorrect, e.g., accomodate and occurence.
But that's a different case. In those cases, there is clear evidence that English speakers in general consider it incorrect, so the incorrectness reflects the reality of the attitude of the speakers. But what evidence is there that "theobromide" is regarded as incorrect by the majority of English speakers? I certainly didn't think it was incorrect.
And a technical or scientific term is also a special case because it's standardized.
Most English speakers aren't aware of the standardization of chemical names. You weren't.
Oh I'm aware of it. I just know it's not relevant for Wiktionary, because Wiktionary considers languages regardless of standards. The only standard Wiktionary follows is "real life". That is, it follows what people actually say and use, and what usage we can find evidence for "in the wild", and not what people tell others to use. For example, if there were a durably archived source in which the sentence "There is some theobromide in my coffee" were used, then that would count as valid evidence for inclusion for Wiktionary's purposes. But any source that actually tells people that "theobromide" is not a valid word is not. To say it another way, Wiktionary describes usage, but it does not prescribe/proscribe nor does it regard any prescriptive authority as authoritative.
Maybe you should see WT:CFI. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, then WT:WFW might also be useful.