The article title has been changed despite the fact that it no longer is in harmony with the text (inserted by several different editors). The article is most consistent with "propene" as the title. I would like it to revert to propene.-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree - the article is all about propene anyway. As a student, I only learn about propene and I find the -ylene names confusing.-- 212.74.26.3 ( talk) 14:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
... is currently being discussed here. Yilloslime (t) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) is propene is extracted from natural gas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbhadauria ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This user VMS Mosaic who is not a contributor to this article nor has ever raised the issue on this talk page is repeatedly reverting text to reflect the spelling in the (wholly overwritten) stub version of the article. He is a source of repeated controversy on this issue as his talk page bears out, see [ [1]]. Can I ask genuine contributors please to use the discussion page should controversial changes be embarked upon-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Not true - on your talk page you have been asked to take care over ENGVAR interventions! You would be advised to follow that advice.-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No there were Br spellings in the text as well back in 2006 before destubbing. I don't think ENGVAR is the final arbiter here. Somebody who puts in a couple of sentences to make a stub does not hold everybody else to ransom. The convention should be set at destubbing (then we could easily use ENGVAR) but since it was not - well then the Br one has prevailed so obvioulsy it should be let alone.-- Mountwolseley ( talk) 12:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The history is more than clear cut enough, just not perfectly clear cut. When I found the article it had three British and two American spellings. The spelling proportions have remained about the same since British was first added including at the destubbing. No spelling has been predominate since WP:ENGVAR was first violated. I have made more than a thousand WP:ENGVAR edits/reverts and do not have the time to open a discussion on each and every one of them. The history was more than clear enough to apply WP:ENGVAR without discussion. Unfortunately I have had to leave several large articles in an intermixed state because the histories were not clear, and I knew an idiotic debate like this one would occur.
Unfortunately, some people here are looking for any excuse to ignore WP:ENGVAR. Once more: the article started in American, became intermixed and stayed that way without either spelling ever predominating. To make the article all British at this point would ignore the whole point of WP:ENGVAR. Unfortunately, some here have taken the position that WP:ENGVAR is not relevant and that article ownership should be what matters (in sprite of WP:OWN).
I agree with User:Yilloslime that it needs to be proved that British English has been the predominate spelling since the destubbing (by more than just one word). Actually it is a little silly to even talk about which predominated given the small numbers involved, and that what needs to be proved is if the article ever became entirely British. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"No spelling has been predominant" and then you say that Br has exceeded US (go & look up predominant.) Then - the article's state at destubbing prompted your intervention - quietly dropped when that contradicts your argument. Obviously VMS Mosaic believes that the ones who disagree with him should prove him wrong. Not so fast matey - you started this by swanning in and making changes. You prove yourself. So far you've changed your story several times. In addition if this is an "idiotic debate" - then why are you taking part in it? Unfortunately some people here are so used to getting their own way that when someone disagrees with them, they think that nobody is as correct as they are. ENGVAR assumes that consensus is reached - by the time it is destubbed is a good choice (avoids a couple of random opening sentences determining the whole future). In this case it was not so your argument does not hold. One form prevailed with the exception of one word that is no longer present. That form is the one that should be left-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we just vote and settle the matter sooner rather than later. It seems to be taking an inordinate amount of time and effort to understand and apply policy. All we need is to choose between American and British and make it clear to all future editors that this must be followed. It's not like American and British English are so different that anyone will be confused about the meaning of the words in question. Then we can all focus on the important thing - content!
Ben ( talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
To the editor above - kindly stop criticising other editors and describing people who disagree with you as hardliners. This is enflaming the issue. -- Mountwolseley ( talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not about spelling or about WP policies at all. This is about arrogance isn't it. Some people show this more clearly than others though, a) saying that explaining their actions to others is "idiotic" or "silly";
b) dismissing criticism of poor use of a word as having its meaning "debated"; (why not this is supposed to be an encyclopedia)
c) describing people with similarly strong yet opposite views as "hardliners". Intelligent people would just drop this. No further comment-- 79.70.254.194 ( talk) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing to indicate this issue will be settled anytime soon, so we need to ask an administrator to set the protection to indefinite. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
DMacks ( talk) 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is the molecular mass not shown in the properties table? 77.87.224.99 ( talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
How does this gas react with excess oxygen and limited oxygen? 76.124.224.179 ( talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The external link to the MSDS leads into Nirwana. 160.62.4.100 ( talk) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Propene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I figured that some organism had developed a way to make propene, but SciFinder came up with few hits under "propylene biosynthesis". I found three patents on engineered organisms:
So, apparently it is not made naturally. It is bioactive as a competitor with ethylene as a plant hormone. One more note: SciFinder lists ~83,601 citations for propene.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Propene → Propylene – The article title for this compound should be its trivial name or common name, propylene, rather than its systematic or preferred IUPAC name, propene, per WP:OCHEMNAME. Compare with ethylene versus its redirect ethene and polypropylene versus its redirect polypropene. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm new to Talk and comments, but not new to chemistry. (Or new to edits over the years). I haven't done any edits here, but found the tone of the last phrase of the last paragraph in the "Production" section leaving a reader feeling "bluntly final", regardless if it's true or not that biosynthesis is impossible...
For no apparent reason it's somewhat pessimistic or perhaps slightly negative sounding regarding biosynthesis? At the least in quite contrast to the previous paragraph. (Regarding the section: Production: FCC vs. "Market...").
It's actually where I decided to stop reading for pleasure and go back to work, frankly. That's all. This was supposed to be a quick comment. Janka441 ( talk) 02:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Someone please add pressure for liquid in density part of the infobox. 141.134.140.104 ( talk) 01:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The article title has been changed despite the fact that it no longer is in harmony with the text (inserted by several different editors). The article is most consistent with "propene" as the title. I would like it to revert to propene.-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree - the article is all about propene anyway. As a student, I only learn about propene and I find the -ylene names confusing.-- 212.74.26.3 ( talk) 14:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
... is currently being discussed here. Yilloslime (t) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) is propene is extracted from natural gas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbhadauria ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This user VMS Mosaic who is not a contributor to this article nor has ever raised the issue on this talk page is repeatedly reverting text to reflect the spelling in the (wholly overwritten) stub version of the article. He is a source of repeated controversy on this issue as his talk page bears out, see [ [1]]. Can I ask genuine contributors please to use the discussion page should controversial changes be embarked upon-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Not true - on your talk page you have been asked to take care over ENGVAR interventions! You would be advised to follow that advice.-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No there were Br spellings in the text as well back in 2006 before destubbing. I don't think ENGVAR is the final arbiter here. Somebody who puts in a couple of sentences to make a stub does not hold everybody else to ransom. The convention should be set at destubbing (then we could easily use ENGVAR) but since it was not - well then the Br one has prevailed so obvioulsy it should be let alone.-- Mountwolseley ( talk) 12:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The history is more than clear cut enough, just not perfectly clear cut. When I found the article it had three British and two American spellings. The spelling proportions have remained about the same since British was first added including at the destubbing. No spelling has been predominate since WP:ENGVAR was first violated. I have made more than a thousand WP:ENGVAR edits/reverts and do not have the time to open a discussion on each and every one of them. The history was more than clear enough to apply WP:ENGVAR without discussion. Unfortunately I have had to leave several large articles in an intermixed state because the histories were not clear, and I knew an idiotic debate like this one would occur.
Unfortunately, some people here are looking for any excuse to ignore WP:ENGVAR. Once more: the article started in American, became intermixed and stayed that way without either spelling ever predominating. To make the article all British at this point would ignore the whole point of WP:ENGVAR. Unfortunately, some here have taken the position that WP:ENGVAR is not relevant and that article ownership should be what matters (in sprite of WP:OWN).
I agree with User:Yilloslime that it needs to be proved that British English has been the predominate spelling since the destubbing (by more than just one word). Actually it is a little silly to even talk about which predominated given the small numbers involved, and that what needs to be proved is if the article ever became entirely British. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
"No spelling has been predominant" and then you say that Br has exceeded US (go & look up predominant.) Then - the article's state at destubbing prompted your intervention - quietly dropped when that contradicts your argument. Obviously VMS Mosaic believes that the ones who disagree with him should prove him wrong. Not so fast matey - you started this by swanning in and making changes. You prove yourself. So far you've changed your story several times. In addition if this is an "idiotic debate" - then why are you taking part in it? Unfortunately some people here are so used to getting their own way that when someone disagrees with them, they think that nobody is as correct as they are. ENGVAR assumes that consensus is reached - by the time it is destubbed is a good choice (avoids a couple of random opening sentences determining the whole future). In this case it was not so your argument does not hold. One form prevailed with the exception of one word that is no longer present. That form is the one that should be left-- AssegaiAli ( talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we just vote and settle the matter sooner rather than later. It seems to be taking an inordinate amount of time and effort to understand and apply policy. All we need is to choose between American and British and make it clear to all future editors that this must be followed. It's not like American and British English are so different that anyone will be confused about the meaning of the words in question. Then we can all focus on the important thing - content!
Ben ( talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
To the editor above - kindly stop criticising other editors and describing people who disagree with you as hardliners. This is enflaming the issue. -- Mountwolseley ( talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not about spelling or about WP policies at all. This is about arrogance isn't it. Some people show this more clearly than others though, a) saying that explaining their actions to others is "idiotic" or "silly";
b) dismissing criticism of poor use of a word as having its meaning "debated"; (why not this is supposed to be an encyclopedia)
c) describing people with similarly strong yet opposite views as "hardliners". Intelligent people would just drop this. No further comment-- 79.70.254.194 ( talk) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing to indicate this issue will be settled anytime soon, so we need to ask an administrator to set the protection to indefinite. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
DMacks ( talk) 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is the molecular mass not shown in the properties table? 77.87.224.99 ( talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
How does this gas react with excess oxygen and limited oxygen? 76.124.224.179 ( talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The external link to the MSDS leads into Nirwana. 160.62.4.100 ( talk) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Propene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This
level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I figured that some organism had developed a way to make propene, but SciFinder came up with few hits under "propylene biosynthesis". I found three patents on engineered organisms:
So, apparently it is not made naturally. It is bioactive as a competitor with ethylene as a plant hormone. One more note: SciFinder lists ~83,601 citations for propene.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Propene → Propylene – The article title for this compound should be its trivial name or common name, propylene, rather than its systematic or preferred IUPAC name, propene, per WP:OCHEMNAME. Compare with ethylene versus its redirect ethene and polypropylene versus its redirect polypropene. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm new to Talk and comments, but not new to chemistry. (Or new to edits over the years). I haven't done any edits here, but found the tone of the last phrase of the last paragraph in the "Production" section leaving a reader feeling "bluntly final", regardless if it's true or not that biosynthesis is impossible...
For no apparent reason it's somewhat pessimistic or perhaps slightly negative sounding regarding biosynthesis? At the least in quite contrast to the previous paragraph. (Regarding the section: Production: FCC vs. "Market...").
It's actually where I decided to stop reading for pleasure and go back to work, frankly. That's all. This was supposed to be a quick comment. Janka441 ( talk) 02:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Someone please add pressure for liquid in density part of the infobox. 141.134.140.104 ( talk) 01:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)