The result of the debate was no consensus. Try RFC for this content dispute. -- Ezeu 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The mass-to-charge ratio article is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature and should be deleted based on No original research standards. Those portions that are not primary research should be merged with the mass spectrum article. The article arose from m/z misconception (deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M/z misconception) and in edits of the mass spectrometry page (see Talk:Mass_spectrometry#Could_the_m.2Fq_vandal_please_stop). Mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-10 mass-to-charge ratio resulted in a POV fork between mass-to-charge ratio and mass spectrum. The part of mass-to-charge ratio that did not relate to mass spectrometry was supposed to go in mass-to-charge ratio and the mass spectrometry part was supposed to go in the mass spectrum article. Unfortunately, all but one sentence of the mass-to-charge ratio article relates to mass spectrometry. The remainder either duplicates existing information in the mass spectrometry entry or constitutes original research that is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature (it is referenced five times in the mass spectrometry article and the article's novel proposal to replace the accepted m/z with the new m/q notation makes this Wikipedia entry the top Google hit for 'm/q "mass spectrometer"). This notation is in conflict with the definitions that exist in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g. American Society for Mass Spectrometry [1] and IUPAC [2] - for an simplified overview see Ken Busch's Spectroscopy Magazine article: [3]), books (e.g. McLafferty ISBN 0935702253, Dass ISBN 0471330531, Siuzdak ISBN0126474710, Sparkman ISBN 0966081323, Grayson ISBN 0941901319, etc.) and on-line glossaries (e.g. The Little Encyclopedia of Mass Spectrometry [4], Pharmaceutical Mass spectrometry glossary [5], Base Peak Mass Spectrometry Glossary of Terms [6], Spectroscopy Magazine Glossary [7], Shimadzu Mass Spectrometry Glossary [8]). The POV and accuracy of the article have been repeatedly flagged and the author has each time removed these flags. The article makes many valid points and contains some novel suggestions on how to improve the existing nomenclature. However, advocating this non-standard point of view in a Wikipedia entry is counterproductive and will only serve to cloud the issue and make consensus building within the mass spectrometry community more difficult.
He is telling the story from the perspective of a small part of the scientific community which has established its own nomenclature which is not used by the rest of the scientific community, nor is it compatible with the international standards issued about exactly this topics, the ISO 31. Here are the facts:
relevant documents:
Please realize the author of the unsigned argument is Kehrli. Please check his user page it will tell you everything you need to know. He is an advocate and makes some good points but he is an advocate nonetheless. The contents of his rant have nothing to do with if the article should be deleted. They have to do with an argument to change an accepted notation system (that happens to be old, antiquated, in desparate need of improvement and largely incompatible with ISO 31) to something new and better. However this change has not happened yet. Someday it will and then we will write an article about it. As Kehrli points out the nomination for deletion was made by the head of the relevant IUPAC commitee. Whatever IUPAC says is standard no matter how we may disagree. -- Nick Y. 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Nick, my nomenclature is in line with
IUPAC green book, whereas yours is not.
Kehrli
The result of the debate was no consensus. Try RFC for this content dispute. -- Ezeu 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The mass-to-charge ratio article is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature and should be deleted based on No original research standards. Those portions that are not primary research should be merged with the mass spectrum article. The article arose from m/z misconception (deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M/z misconception) and in edits of the mass spectrometry page (see Talk:Mass_spectrometry#Could_the_m.2Fq_vandal_please_stop). Mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-10 mass-to-charge ratio resulted in a POV fork between mass-to-charge ratio and mass spectrum. The part of mass-to-charge ratio that did not relate to mass spectrometry was supposed to go in mass-to-charge ratio and the mass spectrometry part was supposed to go in the mass spectrum article. Unfortunately, all but one sentence of the mass-to-charge ratio article relates to mass spectrometry. The remainder either duplicates existing information in the mass spectrometry entry or constitutes original research that is a primary source for mass spectrometry nomenclature (it is referenced five times in the mass spectrometry article and the article's novel proposal to replace the accepted m/z with the new m/q notation makes this Wikipedia entry the top Google hit for 'm/q "mass spectrometer"). This notation is in conflict with the definitions that exist in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g. American Society for Mass Spectrometry [1] and IUPAC [2] - for an simplified overview see Ken Busch's Spectroscopy Magazine article: [3]), books (e.g. McLafferty ISBN 0935702253, Dass ISBN 0471330531, Siuzdak ISBN0126474710, Sparkman ISBN 0966081323, Grayson ISBN 0941901319, etc.) and on-line glossaries (e.g. The Little Encyclopedia of Mass Spectrometry [4], Pharmaceutical Mass spectrometry glossary [5], Base Peak Mass Spectrometry Glossary of Terms [6], Spectroscopy Magazine Glossary [7], Shimadzu Mass Spectrometry Glossary [8]). The POV and accuracy of the article have been repeatedly flagged and the author has each time removed these flags. The article makes many valid points and contains some novel suggestions on how to improve the existing nomenclature. However, advocating this non-standard point of view in a Wikipedia entry is counterproductive and will only serve to cloud the issue and make consensus building within the mass spectrometry community more difficult.
He is telling the story from the perspective of a small part of the scientific community which has established its own nomenclature which is not used by the rest of the scientific community, nor is it compatible with the international standards issued about exactly this topics, the ISO 31. Here are the facts:
relevant documents:
Please realize the author of the unsigned argument is Kehrli. Please check his user page it will tell you everything you need to know. He is an advocate and makes some good points but he is an advocate nonetheless. The contents of his rant have nothing to do with if the article should be deleted. They have to do with an argument to change an accepted notation system (that happens to be old, antiquated, in desparate need of improvement and largely incompatible with ISO 31) to something new and better. However this change has not happened yet. Someday it will and then we will write an article about it. As Kehrli points out the nomination for deletion was made by the head of the relevant IUPAC commitee. Whatever IUPAC says is standard no matter how we may disagree. -- Nick Y. 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Nick, my nomenclature is in line with
IUPAC green book, whereas yours is not.
Kehrli