Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:47, 17 October 2012

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chemistry and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55: 45 days

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chemistry and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55: 45 days

Chemistry Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Article alerts

Articles for deletion

28 Sep 2024 – Lectka enantioselective beta-lactam synthesis (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Mdewman6 (t · c) was closed as redirect by OwenX (t · c) on 13 Oct 2024; see discussion (4 participants; relisted)
06 Aug 2024 – Homogeneity and heterogeneity (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Fgnievinski (t · c) was closed as keep by Liz (t · c) on 13 Aug 2024; see discussion (6 participants)
01 Aug 2024 – Salt extraction process (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Walsh90210 (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 08 Aug 2024; see discussion (4 participants)

Proposed deletions

14 Sep 2024 – Milligram per cent (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Mathnerd314159 (t · c) was deproded by Reconrabbit (t · c) on 15 Sep 2024

Categories for discussion

17 Sep 2024 – Category:Toxic enzymes (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c) was closed; see discussion
09 Sep 2024 – Category:Chemistry compounds navigational boxes (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Utopes (t · c) was closed; see discussion
09 Sep 2024 – Category:Chemistry compounds templates (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Utopes (t · c) was closed; see discussion
09 Sep 2024 – Category:Fictional characters with fog or smoke abilities (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Sandstein (t · c) was closed; see discussion
07 Sep 2024 – Category:Oils and fats technologies (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c) was closed; see discussion
07 Sep 2024 – Category:Chemical looping technologies (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Templates for discussion

03 Sep 2024 – Template:AME2012 (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Redirects for discussion

26 Oct 2024 – Chaotolerance (talk · edit · hist) →Chaotropic agent was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion

Decision tree for IUPAC polymer nomenclature.png

file:Decision tree for IUPAC polymer nomenclature.png is missing source, author, and license. According to the edit summaries, there was a problem with copyright on a previous version? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion below, which relates to this image and others like it. Walkerma (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon neutral fuel

Chemical editors might want to offer advice and editing on this new article. Rather than letting this article become a forum for politic correctness verging on original research, the community here could help the article achieve balance with good WP:SECONDARY and WP:NOTNEWS referencing. I think chemists are often skeptical of the topic because the total energy inputs are often hidden from view.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced the article from seven peer reviewed literature reviews in academic journals from international authors, and one APS peer reviewed research report. There are some additional peer reviewed journal articles to show the automobile exaust capture concept, for example, or the most recent seawater extraction work. Further replies at Talk:Carbon neutral fuel#Comments, Sept, 2012. —Cupco 18:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC collaboration on polymer terms

I've been in discussion with someone from the IUPAC Polymer Division, and they would like to work with us over the next few months to improve the IUPAC definitions in polymer articles. My contact notes: "there are Wikipedia pages that literally give the IUPAC definition but there are also places where there are deviations." This sounds like an excellent plan to me, because some of the IUPAC polymer people are happy to do the editing themselves - they just want to make sure that their work is in line with our protocols and style guide.

They are proposing that the dispersity article is a possible model for how the definitions could be included - see this diff to see how the pages might be edited. They wish to insert a small image file containing the definition, as well as editing the text accordingly. They are concerned that text alone might be vandalised, whereas a small image is much harder to vandalise; there is also a benefit that these definitions (posted in Commons) could also be used in other language Wikipedias to align them with IUPAC definitions. I would propose that the image approach is acceptable as long as (a) the definition is also included in text (to help with text searches), (b) the image files are posted in Commons and (c) the original source is properly cited in the article references section and in the Commons file description. Does this sound to be a good approach?

I consider IUPAC definitions to be the gold standard in chemistry, and our style guide states this: "Wikipedia editors strive to be mindful of IUPAC's advice but do not follow this advice rigidly, especially when the advice deviate from mainstream usage (see comments below on nomenclature)." We have previously agreed in these pages that IUPAC definitions are a good thing to include in appropriate places, and I strongly believe that we should not be advocating definitions that are outdated or "not recommended" according to IUPAC unless we have very good reason. I'm thrilled that this group is willing to do much of the editing themselves, and I would hope that we might be lucky enough to gain a couple of permanent chemistry contributors if the project goes well.

I am happy to work with the group, but then again I'm not a polymer chemist, so please jump in and help us if you can. If the consensus is to proceed, then we'll probably start in the next month or so. I'll be sure to post the article working list here so we can all keep an eye on the changes. Walkerma (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems school teacherish approach that emphasizes IUPAC vs explaining science & technology, which is our mission. At least that is my mission vs forcing nomenclature down readers' throats (that was User:Plasmic Physics' gig) To use your example: "the use of the term polydispersity index is strongly discouraged by IUPAC because it is not an index and the term polydispersity is tautologous." This kind of wording in an article seems reproving and reliant on the bureaucratease that readers cannot understand. We're supposed to look up "tautologous"? Let's focus on the science and leave the definitions to editors who dont have anything better to do. Jeesh.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced at that article and didn't catch that image the first time. Um yeah. I don't think it's such a great idea. Firstly, text should be rendered as text, not as an image. If their entire definition should be included (and I'm ambivalent at present), it should be rendered as a text box. Secondly, we already reference the Gold Book formally, so I'm not sure that they need the extra prominence. Specific to this article, as a bit of a polymer chemist, I don't think the term "dispersity" with D-stroke is catching on at all. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I thought the image boxes were small enough, but maybe we can work with text only if that is the consensus - though I do think the image boxes are more vandal-resistant. I completely agree with Smokefoot in that I hate the focus of some on rule-following rather than explaining, but that's not the debate here, IMHO - the issue is (I think) how best to insert the polymer definitions into the articles, and to work with the IUPAC people in doing that. We cannot pretend that IUPAC definitions carry no authority; they are a part of an educational article just as much as the R/S numbers and CAS numbers in a substance article. One wouldn't think of writing an article on the metre without including the SI definition, and I think the same applies to the relevant articles on polymer terms. Nevertheless, I will report here the articles that are being edited, and I think this group should have the final say on which definitions are relevant. Are there any other opinions on the definitions being in image boxes? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the use of an image to entrench a piece of text against editing kind of goes against the open nature of Wikipedia, and is probably against some guideline somewhere. A reference or an external link to the IUPAC website would be better as a means of increasing awareness of the stable IUPAC version.

I don’t know about a general guideline, but I’m pretty sure that images like the sample should at least be in a vector format (viz SVG). Personally I agree with Rifleman that text should be text wherever possible, for searchability if nothing else. If these items were made into templates, if it turned out they really do attract vandals the templates could be semi-protected or whatever.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue that Wikipedia should be descriptive rather than prescriptive; we have make it clear if there's a difference between the widely-used term and what is formally defined. All that being said, collaborating with IUPAC to improve these articles would certainly be helpful. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working with Org. Synth.

Thanks Martin, for reminding me. I've been in touch with the folks from Org. Synth. too. We reference that "journal" (book series, really) extensively. Their recent article URLs have deviated from their old convention, reducing the functionality of Organic Syntheses {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help).. DOIs are out because Wiley owns them. I don't think there's resolution at present, but we do have an open channel of communication now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead electronegativity

Hello! I'm from it.Wikipedia, and i'm here to signal this talk. I noticed that lead electronegativity is 2,33 in the most part of Wikipedias but in a lot of books it's different: 1.8, 1.9, 2.33 or 3,33 (Pauling's scale). We chose 1.8 because in our opinion, according to Enciclopedia della Chimica (chemistry encyclopedia) 2.33 and 3,33 are lead(II) & lead(IV) ions value of electronegativity. We need your opinion, thanks. Bokuwa (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Xray Crystallography

Portal:Xray Crystallography, a portal in which you may be interested, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Xray Crystallography and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Xray Crystallography during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resonant Electrolysis

Hello. Today, I deleted an attack page claiming that the subject is the inventor of this process. Both the articles have the same creator. Could anyone check it for accuracy? Thanks. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks completely bogus to me (not that I’m particularly qualified to comment). The only hit I get searching the Web for “aqua elemental analysis” is that page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is complete nonsense and should be deleted. ChemNerd (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinions. My knowledge of chemistry is almost non-existent. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organic

Hi my question be about the ingredients of the organic substance If protein be a ingredient of a orange what other type of ingredients are present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.125.153 (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very briefly, the main organic components aside from proteins would be carbohydrates—sugars and cellulose—with some oxoacids, esters, and the like. The main inorganic compounds present would be water and electrolyte salts.

This isn’t an appropriate forum for general information requests: it’s mainly for discussions about editing chemistry-related articles. If you have more questions, please ask at the Science Reference Desk.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scandium trihydride

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Scandium trihydride. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantamine

I wanted to notify this WikiProject that this article has been nominated for deletion and I feel it needs urgent attention from chemistry experts. To voice your concerns or comments, visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantamine. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to change this article about CAS#768-94-5 into a redirect to Amantadine (CAS#768-94-5). I dont understand the hand-wringing. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned at the nomination page and per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion, the deletion template should not be removed while the article's debate is continuing as this may confuse viewers and obstruct a proper consensus. I appreciate your efforts and you are free to improve the article if you wish. SwisterTwister talk

You actions are amazingly bureaucratic.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Georgia, Graduate Chemistry Course

This class again will be working on some contributions to transition metal chemistry topics. These projects generally were successful the last time (during Fall 2010), and we're aiming for even better products this year. Note that I allow the students to choose their own topics.

Plans for 2012 entries:

Dirhenium decacarbonyl – article expansion
metallocene – article expansion
tropocoronand ligand – new entry
Ni-Fe nitrogenase – new entry
carbido complexes – new entry
Z-type ligands – new entry
ligand bond number – new entry
η⁶-C₆H₆ piano stool complexes – new entry

2010 entries:

Jacobsen's catalyst – successful article expansion
started transition metal oxo complex
photochemical carbon dioxide reduction – new entry
bent metallocenes – new entry (to be integrated into metallocene)
aurophilicity – article expansion
tuck-in complex – new entry

I welcome your feedback. Regards, ChemPunk (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phenylethanolamine

Another editor created Phenylethanolamine, which was quickly tagged for speedy deletion. I added a reference and removed the speedy tag, but the article is now just a stub with a page on ChEBI as the only reference. Could someone expand the article, if the article is worth expanding? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dioxandrolon

I have nominated the new article dioxandrolon for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dioxandrolon. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. ChemNerd (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hmd-reaction.PNG

A different image exists under the same name on Commons (Commons:File:Hmd-reaction.PNG), but seems to show the same thing. Since the images are a bit different, does it mean that one of them is wrong, or do they show two different valid representations of the same thing? Also, do we really need both images? Ideally, the files would, of course, be in SVG format instead of PNG. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC) The former color-coded one I think is correct. The reaction delivers H- to only one face of the cation. It is unfortunate that the ChemDraw settings are so poor though. It's a step in the methanogenesis process. That part of Wikipedia needs help. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of the articles polyiodide and polyhalogen ions

I have created the article polyhalogen ions, and much of the contents in the article polyiodide have already been covered in the former one. Therefore I propose either to delete the polyiodide article, or move the polyiodide-related contents from polyhalogen ions to retain it, to avoid redundancy in both articles. Anyone can give me some suggestions? LHcheM (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good work.

Polyiodide ions are by far the most known, and especially I₃^- has enough notability by itself to warrant at least that article. For the other halides the ions are less known, and could be merged into one I would say. My suggestion: move/merge the section on polyiodide from the polyhalogen ions into polyiodide, leaving a section header for it, a {{main}} pointing to polyiodide, and a 3-4 sentence paragraph taking the most important points. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elements and molecules as separated articles

I propose to do the same change we did in Spanish wikipedia: separate elements from molecules. They are different things (one compound from the other), with different properties. The element article has an element infobox, with element's information (like mass), and each molecule of that element has a separated article with the IUPAC name, with a molecule/compound infobox and with molecule information (like mass, which is different).

So we have an article Hydrogen with the element information, the atomic mass, the reference to metallic hydrogen, etc. And on the other hand we have the dihydrogen (or molecular hydrogen, H₂) with the molecular information, like the molecular mass, and the molecular properties. So, it is clear when we talk about an element and an atom, and when we talk about a molecule.

The same with the element oxygen, and the molecules like dioxygen (or molecular oxygen, O₂), ozone, etc.

When put all together in one single article, it is not clear when some info refers to the element or to the most common molecule.

Eloy (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 131: / Line 131: @@
 :Thanks!  Good work.
 :Polyiodide ions are by far the most known, and especially I<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> has enough notability by itself to warrant at least that article.  For the other halides the ions are less known, and could be merged into one I would say.  My suggestion: move/merge the section on polyiodide from the polyhalogen ions into polyiodide, leaving a section header for it, a {{tl|main}} pointing to polyiodide, and a 3-4 sentence paragraph taking the most important points.  I hope this helps.  --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
+== Elements and molecules as separated articles ==
+I propose to do the same change we did in Spanish wikipedia: separate elements from molecules. They are different things (one compound from the other), with different properties. The element article has an element infobox, with element's information (like mass), and each molecule of that element has a separated article with the IUPAC name, with a molecule/compound infobox and with molecule information (like mass, which is different).
+So we have an article [[:es:Hidrógeno|Hydrogen]] with the element information, the atomic mass, the reference to metallic hydrogen, etc. And on the other hand we have the dihydrogen (or molecular hydrogen, H<sub>2</sub>) with the molecular information, like the molecular mass, and the molecular properties. So, it is clear when we talk about an element and an atom, and when we talk about a molecule.
+The same with the element oxygen, and the molecules like dioxygen (or molecular oxygen, O<sub>2</sub>), ozone, etc.
+When put all together in one single article, it is not clear when some info refers to the element or to the most common molecule.
+<DIV align="right">[[User:Eloy|Eloy]] ([[User talk:Eloy|talk]]) 08:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)</DIV>