This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I've updated my list of missing chemistry topics - Skysmith ( talk) 13:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few redirects and created the articles Bismuthyl, Bismuth oxychloride and Triphenyltin.
Ben ( talk) 10:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about the melting point and boiling point information in info boxes for different chemicals. I know we should use the MeltingPtC and BoilingPtC to display C, F and K but this template only works for a single point. There are several compounds that only seem to have a range of temperatures for boiling points and melting points. (ie, Boiling Point: 105-107ºC)
I would assume we would look to credible sources to find the exact point but sometimes they cannot be found. What should be done if only a range of temperatures can be found?-- Triesault ( talk) 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
MeltingPt
and BoilingPt
parameters for difficult cases.
Physchim62
(talk) 11:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Why boxes such as {{ Infobox iron}}, {{ Infobox uranium}} etc. are kept in their own page and transcluded? This has the drawback that if I watch Iron, changes to the infobox won't show up in my watchlist. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 10:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there any organic chemists able to help out with an unclear statement in Birch reduction#Basic reaction mechanism, please? The discussion is at Talk:Birch reduction#Basic reaction mechanism. Anyone who can shed a little light would be most welcome! -- RexxS ( talk) 02:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Expert eyes would be welcome at this AfD on a string of suspected hoax articles on alleged compounds up to Potassium hendecasulfate. It would be good to know whether these are definite hoaxes, as a block of the author (who has other suspect articles) may need to be considered. JohnCD ( talk) 06:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there; first time using a Talk page, so please bear with me if I do something silly.
About the Bent bond article: I've seen a particular bond called a tau bond in an organic chemistry book I borrowed from the local library. After not getting any information from the Tau page, I searched on Google, and one page -- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed064p587 (see Abstract) -- apparently says that a tau bond is the same as a bent bond. Since I'm not really sure about this, can I get someone to check and clarify if the term "tau bond" is still used or obsolete already? If it is still used, can the Bent bond article be edited to let people know about this alternative name? Many thanks for any help.
Ziyingjiang ( talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
New article. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 08:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've got the X-ray structure, it's BENICL01 on the CSD.
The reference, along with the dimensions, is given here: File:PhICl2-dimensions-from-xtal-1996-2D-skeletal.png.
Ben ( talk) 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Great! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, a microwave or IR or GED structure would be useful.
Ben ( talk) 11:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
So what do you all think the IUPAC name is? I'm not looking through anything... but I think phenyldichloroiodine would be unambiguous. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Split Dumas method of molecular weight determination from Dumas method. Take a look? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I occasionally work with students that develop new articles for Wikipedia as part of their training in writing about chemistry. This year we will also be improving (hopefully) some articles. The new articles range from prosaic to exotic, but all have some notability. The students are not expected to be expert in wiki-editing tools, so editors are welcome to help with that aspect. I'll list the articles as they appear. If problems arise, feel free to contact me. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
(many need to be renamed and we'll need several redirects each since the titles are complicated and slightly esoteric)
How about Hydromanganese pentacarbonyl --> pentacarbonylhydridomanganese, c.f. pentacarbonylhydridorhenium? Same for the iron complex. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 06:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Smokefoot ... since you're leading these students, would you like to have a word with them about Stock nomenclature? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(I accept the beer, esp if it is from that side of the pond-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC))
Qquadricyclane will be on the Main page soon! Might be a news for the students.-- Stone ( talk) 20:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Danke.
Has anyone heard of this before? I'm unfamiliar with the term and Googling it doesn't turn up much. I found this reference that uses the term, but is the term notable? Thanks, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As I described here, I want to activate my bot to add the syntax {{Portal|Chemistry}} in all the pages that is related to Chemistry. In this manner more readers will visit portal:Chemistry.
-- Aushulz ( talk) 12:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I've come across several Wikipedia articles that briefly mention some of these prefixes that may be used to name deltahedral clusters. There are other articles that probably should discuss these names, but currently do not! Is anyone interested in helping me do this consistently and with the consensus of the Chemistry WikiProject?
Articles with partial coverage:
Articles mentioning the prefixes without really discussing them:
Articles that should redirect to or link to the main description:
All articles on cluster compounds that can in principle take a prefix like closo-, e.g.
I've also proposed a merger of Monomer clusters with Cluster chemistry.
Any help gladly received.
Ben ( talk) 12:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses :)
Smokefoot, thanks for reminding me about Zintl phases. I looked into these a bit when I illustrated Plumbide. I might have a go at tidying up PSEPT, but I don't want to get too drawn in to a massive project, so I will probably make small edits here and there. Variety is the spice of life and all that.
Physchim, good points. This is worth mentioning alongside the explanation of the prefixes. What do you use for metal carbonyls? Just the usual organometallic complex terminology, like μ and η?
Cheers
Ben ( talk) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Another editor created the article Fluoroacetyl chloride which someone else tagged for speedy deletion. I added a reference, but the article is still a stub. It would be helpful if someone could edit the article to indicate how the compound is or was used. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Another recently-created stub is Ammonium arsenate. It would be great if the article could be expanded. This PubChem page may be helpful. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Some pages have empirical formulae where the elements are linked to their respective articles - e.g. pyridine: C5 H5 N. Could we make a template for doing this automatically? Something like:
"{{Template|C2|H6|O}}" -------------> " C2 H6 O" for ethanol.
This would make editing easier, and could also be designed to remove underlines from the links, making the subscript more legible. Lfh ( talk) 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone with patience or influence might try to rebalance the safety bit in sodium myreth sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate. These articles are not the usual ones. Because these surfactants are found in many domestic products, these articles are probably more widely consulted than our usual. The deal is that R(OCH2CH2)nOSO3- under some circumstances degrade somewhat to 1,4-dioxane (cyclization of the PEG), and the resulting 1,4-dioxane is under some circumstances a cancer suspect agent. Overall the link between the cosmetic and awfulness might be noted but is otherwise somewhat tenuous. User:MotherAmy has decided otherwise and seems to have some agenda that exceeds her technical ability and excludes alternative viewpoints. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The lowest melting alloy is 41% caesium, 47% potassium, and 12% sodium. A ip-user changed this to at-% in the
caesium article. I have found a ref in the
Ho-Wi, but there the % in (kg/kg) is not given. For me there is no doubt that this is weight%, but I have no proof. Is there anybody who can give me a a proof for that?
Hello, someone on the french Graphic Lab has created this diagram for the french article. He would like to know if it could be useful to translate the diagram in english (if you are interested)? Frakir ( talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is the Category:Oxidizing agents so small? I started to expand it, but I don't know whether there is a reason for its minuteness. Many oxidizing agents, like chromates, aren't even included. Would it be good to expand it? Thanks. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently Fraser Stoddart redirects to James Fraser Stoddart. Whilst the latter is technically his correct name, he is universally known as Fraser, so the article should be there and JFS redirect to it. Could somebody who is an admin swap them over? Chris ( talk) 06:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Does the newly created category Category:Classes of organic compounds serve any useful purpose? Our organic compounds are generally categorized by functional group and/or by some inherent property (such as Category:Carcinogens). Nearly all the articles in this category are already in Category:Functional groups, so it seems redundant to me. Also, are there any articles in Category:Classes of organic compounds that aren't already in Category:Organic compounds or one of its subcategories? ChemNerd ( talk) 11:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
These articles need clarification. Any thoughts on definitions that should be picked for each category? My idea: Alkali should be a hydroxide base of groups IA and IIA metals, including ammonia. Base should be any hydroxide base, including Lewis bases and Bronsted-Lowry bases. Alkali salt should be merged with basic salt. The definition would be: any salt of a weak acid and a strong base. Alkali salt, a subcategory, would be a salt of the alkali metals and a weak base. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hence, calcium carbonate is not a basic salt, nor is sodium carbonate: Malachite is an example of a basic salt by this definition. I've never come accross the term "alkali salt". Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a new WP:JCW report. Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope. (Some of these I didn't know if I should include, so feel free to remove those that seem out of place.)
See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects ( Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from chemistry from the list. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been trying to improve my article on "Mobius-Hueckel concept" by putting in the requested Links. But some of the links work and some do not. Where they do not work, the link is left in red and one gets the statement that an article on Moebius-Hueckel concept does not exist.
Also an attemting to do a search (or go) to the article doesn't work. What does work is using an old redirect: user:hezimmerman/Moebius-Hueckel concept.
I seem to be able to put in umlauts for Moebius and Hueckel only be cutting and pasting from words with the umlaut-o and umlaut-u. There must be a way of typing these in directly in Wikipedia rather than just using "oe" and"ue".
In any case, some help would be appreciated.
--Howard E. Zimmerman 15:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman ( talk • contribs)
There is an AFD relevant to this project at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hill (chemist), if anyone is interested in contributing to the discussion. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Which reaction would seem right for the decomposition of chromium(VI) peroxide?
If you have any other suggestions, contact me on my talk page. PS: I didn't post this on the science reference desk since it is sort of specialized and neither of them might be right. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 20:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Why does sodium selenide redirect to selenide? -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 14:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made it into a stub. Expansion welcomed.
Ben ( talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Zinke nitration should be moved to Zincke nitration. The reactions is named after Theodor Zincke. The redirect has to be deleted and the article than moved, so it is work for the people holding the mop.--19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
(I am replacing an earlier message by adding that issues are being resolved). BTW, the artices on organometallic chemistry of the elements are always welcoming of edits, e.g. organoiron chemistry, organoselenium compounds, organoiodine compounds, etc. These overview articles will become important resources in the future.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Gurps npc (and his IP, Special:Contributions/144.211.101.117) recently added a series of changes to the elements articles involving how they are created. The edits appear to be in good faith, but it would help if someone could please review them for accuracy as they are (as yet) unreferenced. Thanks; I've also left a note for the "Elements" project. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It might be enough in the Chloryl article to keep it but now it reads in a way that even I do not get the message.-- Stone ( talk) 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where is most appropriate for discussing this, but here seems like the best place to get directed to the right place. :-) I've been noticing recently that NFPA values vary from source to source. For example, this MSDS claims that the NFPA values for xenon difluoride are H=1, F=0, R=1, OX, whereas this other MSDS claims that the NFPA values are H=3, F=0, R=2, OX. Which of these values should go into the chembox for xenon difluoride? This particular compound isn't the only source of confusion: see this edit, for example. I don't see how we can resolve this, unless we arbitrarily designate a particular source as the "official" source for NFPA values. I suspect that some of the inconsistencies may arise because different distributors ship the compound in different forms (differences in solvent, concentration, pressurization of container, etc.), which may affect these values. But still, the lack of agreement is disturbing. What should be done in such cases?— Tetracube ( talk) 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magnesium_lasering. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The topic Bond energy / Bond dissociation energy seems unclear to me and contains some errors. The enthalpies and energies are mixed, the values cited (from ref 3) do not correspond to the given temperature. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia process. I'd appreciate a collaborative revision.
134.59.1.31 ( talk) 10:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)JF Gal
What is the formula for a chromite? It is only mentioned in passing in the chromium(III) oxide article. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The Oobleck stub is currently at AfD, and needs some expert input. Does anyone here have ideas for a better title (that covers all these substances: oobleck, glurch, goop, gloop), and some time to briefly overhaul the article to better fit the science topic? Any assistance or advice (at the article or AfD) would be appreciated. -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Dearest wikipedians,
I am currently working on fr:wp on a project whose goal is to replace every thermodynamic properties tables with graphs, such as heat capacity toward temperature or vapor pressure toward temperature (if you are familiar with French, you may have a look at the discussions here and here). This action would benefit to all wikipedia projects by supplying them with english-written graphs of various physical properties. In spite of a quick search, I haven't been able to find many tables on your articles. It looks like we use them more extensively on fr:wp than you.
I've however noticed a legal issue with that. Many online resources, such as the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and the Dortmund Data Bank, have restricted their content to professional use in their User Agreement or Terms of Use. Data republication or distribution to third parties are thereby forbidden. I've questionned our french juridical staff, but they proved unable to tell me if Wikipedia was wrong by republishing these data, either as tables or graphs. Since the USA do not recognize any database protection law, is the interdiction stated in the User Agreement of these online databases still consistent? Have you already debated over this matter?
Yours sincerely, Tachymètre ( talk) 12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
My semi-regular plea: we consider organizing a clean-up of organic electronics, molecular electronics, organic semiconductor, and conductive polymer. These articles are written in a way that elevates the achievements of User:Pproctor's advisor John McGinness (whose biography is largely maintained by Pproctor), whilst subtly but soundly deminishing the achievements of the Nobel Prize winners. The articles detract from Wikipedia's reputation.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I created this page today, and am in talks with the producer of those videos, Brady Haran, to get many element pictures and videos freely licensed for our use. I'm trying to get as many featured pictures (my tracking table) of the elements as I can, sorta a pet project a few of us over at the WP:FPC side has been hoping to do. Thought I'd give y'all a heads up on those plans. They recently updated their Fluorine video ( link) with lots of footage of the element, in liquid form, and it reacting, so that was one of the first I requested images of for the article, since we're really lacking good picture of the element there. — raeky ( talk | edits) 00:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Heres my silly template below. — raeky ( talk | edits) 03:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I was informed by Materialscientist not to add links to these videos on the elements page. And a discussion ensued on my talk page in regards too this. He seemed to indicate they where SPAM and POV. My counterargument is they are non-commercial and from a reputable institution ( University of Nottingham) and have quite a few third party references including direct endorsement from noble prize winners and and a EPSRC grant for continued production of these videos. — raeky ( talk | edits) 04:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, I have stopped user:Raeky in the middle of mass-adding youtube video links to the elements articles ( example of a link, other elements videos). There are numerous pros and cons here. This might be a great video addition, but as a skeptic I'll focus on cons: (i) Promotion. On my PC, rather commercial Google ads appear below the youtube video vindow. (ii) Promotion. There is no monopoly on basic information, but all videos put in front explicit names and people. Important detail - those videos extend over all elements and many chemical compounds, thus we are talking about mass addition of those links to hundreds WP articles. (iii) Quality of information. Many videos I saw are short and focus on specific details. For example, the Al video focuses on shaky hands and Al coated mirror as representation of Al; some other videos I saw, together with nice lab. demos, have plenty of odd and stray details and comments - they do look like "chemistry is fun" for me, but is this encyclopedic? Many WP articles they link to are much more detailed.
A discussion could be overly long, thus I would suggest voting instead. Please look beyond my hasty and naive comment - you will likely see more than I did in those few minutes I had to write this. I believe we do need a proper vote to avoid potential edit wars (like those spelling wars). To keep the vote centralized, I post this here and link from WP:ELEMENTS. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
More interesting points about aluminium include:
In short the video really was not particularly informative, and I feel that yes, this has a bit of a PR feel, and sympathise with User:Materialscientist's comments. User A1 ( talk) 11:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
User A1 ( talk) 11:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Has there been any update on this? I don't support the idea of a vote; but currently I would say there isn't any consensus to keep these videos. As for the comparison to the opencourseware videos -- this is somewhat incorrect as the OCW videos are licenced under a CC-BY-NC licence; you could chop off the labelling if you had a mind to. Secondly, although technical (somehow this is "dry?" -- are we not a reference material?) they make some exceptionally good points in the OCW videos that I have seen -- if you have any interest in mathematics, for example, the gilbert strang series is very good; and the presentational flow makes the video format actually useful. I don't think the comment about inline rich media needs be addressed here, this opens up its own can of worms. (eg Many readers of WP are from non-western countries where bandwidth may be limited.). In short I would like to see a "wrap up" or extension of this discussion, lets not have it simply peter out. User A1 ( talk) 13:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
In a related discussion, Materialscientist ( talk · contribs) raised the issue of WP:EL: in my (rarely humble) opinion, these links fall under point 4 of Links to be considered, namely "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Physchim62 (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed that when on an article of a specific chemical element, the main illustration (the periodic table with electron configurations and structure) the electron config can't be seen clearly as it is too small. Anything we can do?-- 202.156.14.98 ( talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Would a polymer process expert please take a look at Cobalt mediated radical polymerization and Catalytic chain transfer. They look like notable subjects but need bringing up to snuff per MOS etc. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I just wrote a stub on metadynamics. If anyone wants to jump in and help, just do! -- Cyclopia talk 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing a little editing of the bullvalene article and noticed something I don't know how to fix. In the section bullvalene#semibullvalene the following synthesis is given:
The accompanying text states that the "compound was first prepared by photolysis of barrelene in toluene with acetone as a photosensitizer". But, looking at the scheme, we have the substance (CH3)2CH2CH2CH3 which can't possibly exist (note the pentavalent carbon). I don't know if this is meant to be toluene (to match the text) or is mis-written methylbutane or what... can the scheme be edited, or failing that replaced, and does anyone know what the correct chemistry is? Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I started the article gold-sulfur bond. I want to expand and improve over the next few days, and add elaborations and numerous sources, and of course pretty images, but it is difficult with my current workload. I do wish to make the five day deadline...thanks! John Riemann Soong ( talk) 09:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There's your lesson for the day, right there: get your sources ready before you write an article!
I am interested in gold and sulfur, so I'll make a draft article on Au-S chemistry and you can see how I would go about it.
Then you can pinch any good bits of my draft and use them to expand Gold-sulfur bond.
Ben ( talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There's some stuff in this article I'm concerned about, like this:
Other types of water that may be present in a crystal are anion water (with hydrogen bonds to anions), [1]
lattice water (no direct bonding with an ion) and constitution water (water present as hydroxyl groups). Zeolite water is water that occupies vacancies (empty sites in the crystal lattice) and may be removed without changing the crystal structure. [2] [3] [4]
Classically, "water of crystallization" refers to water that is found in a crystalline framework of a metal complex but that is not directly bonded to the metal ion.
Anion water and constitution water anybody? User_talk:Wickey-nl has been going round linking things to this page which I'm not sure are appropriate. Anybody else have any opinions? Furthermore, they've changed the redirect at Epsom salt from Magnesium sulphate to Epsomite, which is technically not incorrect but not useful, since all the medicinal uses of Mag Sulphate are at the former. Am tempted to revert.... Chris ( talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. I commented out the section I disagree with. It comes from this source here, but this does not actually say that the things mentioned are Water of Crystallisation. It also says "Coordinated water: Water forms a chelate ion in a chelate complex", which is just plain nonsense. In my opinion, as a reputable source this is useless (I suspect it's just a bad translation from the Japanese). I also reverted the Epsom salt redirect. Epsomite should be a page about the mineral, and Magnesium sulphate about the chemical. Chris ( talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anybody undistort the picture in the infobox at 2,2'-bipyridine so that the rings are hexagonal? Ta, Chris ( talk) 08:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I never thought of that. Chris ( talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone else from here attending the Boston ACS meeting next week? I'll be there, and giving a talk about chemistry on Wikipedia (CHED session, Sunday afternoon), so you can come along and heckle me if you like. User:ChemSpiderMan will also be there, and probably others too. We could maybe meet for lunch or something. Please be sure to say hello, at least! Walkerma ( talk) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
As a result of a decision made in 2005, the article Dalton (unit) was merged into and redirected to the article Atomic mass unit. Since then the standards bodies appear to have changed their stance. I have proposed that the Dalton (unit) become the definitive article and that Atomic mass unit consists of a redirection. Please comment on this proposal at talk:Atomic mass unit.
This notice appears at both the Physics and the Chemistry Wikiproject pages. Martinvl ( talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There’s a good number of people, e.g. Kww ( talk), Tim Vickers ( talk), Coren ( talk), among many others, who have expressed desire to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia for writing on the subject of the “human molecule”, efforts of which resulted in a one year ban on me, back in 2007. To exemplify one objection, as expressed by Coren earlier this year: “You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to document your novel theories.” The central problem here is that this is not “my novel theory”; but rather the theory dates back over two hundred years, with over ninety different people publishing content on this subject:
There have been at least six books written on the subject, one painting, four aluminum Molecule Man statues (one 100-foot tall), movie mentions, articles, over a dozen videos, many debates, posters, as well as college courses (dating back to 1894) taught utilizing the human molecule perspective as a basis. What seems to be the case is that either: (a) I have been mis-labeled as an editor with aims of self-promotion over that of an editor with a genuine interest in a subject (that very few people write on or know about); or (b) the subject is an anathema to many editors (and as such are using the various bylaws of Wikipedia in their favor to block the subject from Wikipedia)? To give a bit of history of my failed efforts to write neutral overview article on the subject:
Article | EoHT article | Deletion #1 | Deletion #2 | Desired neutral article |
---|---|---|---|---|
Human molecule | ( human molecule) | AFD (I requested deletion) redirect to nanoputian (10 Oct 2007) | Delete per WP:CSD#G4 (11 Jun 2010) |
What I am looking for, at this point, being that there obviously exists some form admitable of conflict of interest (being that I wrote a history book on the subject of the human molecule in 2008 and that I seem to be one of only three people, including Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000), who have every made an attempt at the calculation of the molecular formula for one person), is for a minimum of about two or three neutral volunteer editors to write up a one page article (or even stub paragraph) on the subject of the “human molecule” (encompassing its derivative terms human atom, social atom, human chemical, human element, etc.), and I will confide my contributions or guidance of the article to the talk page. The topic, to note, is very controversial being that it is at odds with many cherished theories, particularly those of religion as well as many secular theories, such as life, free will, choice, purpose, etc.
My interest in having a Wikipedia article on this subject is so that children, age 15 or younger, will know that there is an alternative viewpoint out there on what it means to be a “human” (in contrast to the dogma of outdated subjects such as religion or other secular philosophies), and that this subject has been tossed around for at least 200-years now. At a minimum I would like to see:
It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 (talk) put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events". I would like to think that there are more than myself and Physchim62 amenable to having a short stub article on the subject of the human defined atomically. I will post this help-message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry talk pages. Comments welcome. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 19:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
As you see on that deletion "debate" here I encourage you to candidate for an admin on commons. I will also do that and I will support you. We have plenty of pictures to maintain, update - or - decide deletion debates by person with some deep knowledge in chemistry and biochemistry, respectively. Not to speak of those categories...-- Yikrazuul ( talk) 13:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I tried to make an illustration that would show a very concrete pedagogical example of " activity coefficients" -- an example where activity (which determines equilibria, etc.) is very obviously different from concentration. I came up with the diagram and caption on the right. I knew from the start that it wouldn't be very clear, and now Petergans ( talk · contribs) has pointed out on my talk page that it's also incorrect! (Or at least misleading.) Can anyone suggest improvements to salvage this animation? Or, I can do something completely different from scratch. (Making this animation only took 20 minutes, using MS Powerpoint, no big deal.) What is the simple picture that you imagine when you think about activity coefficients affecting some chemical process? Or another way to put it: When you think about a non-ideal solution, what does the non-ideality look like in your mind's eye, and why does it alter equilibrium concentrations? I was thinking of dissolved chemicals originally, but a gas ( fugacity) example would also be worthwhile.
The textbooks I've seen so far don't have the kind of concrete pedagogical examples I'm looking for, they just go through formal derivations.
Thanks! :-) -- Steve ( talk) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an issue of a very general nature here, that is, the near impossibility of reconciling thermodynamics with molecular structure, especially when dealing with equilibria in aqueous solutions. It comes down to the difficulty of separating enthalpy and entropy components of delta G. petergans ( talk · contribs)
Here's my second try, to the right. Any suggestions? Concerns? (I'm trying to convey a very very simple idea here.) Thanks! :-) --
Steve (
talk) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Pi interaction is a nearly orphaned article, i.e. very few other articles link to it. If possible, work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, I am new here, but have always had an interest in chemistry and have poked around Wikipedia a good bit. I noticed the cleanup list was last updated on March 23, 2010! After looking at a few entries I realized how very outdated it was, many of the articles there no longer require attention etc. Is it normal for this much time to elapse between updates?
Also, what is the general direction of the project at this point? Have the stated goals on the main page been met?
Excited to hear back! Scientific29 ( talk) 06:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems others have encountered this difficulty as well, and a new bot is currently being tested. Please do respond to other questions though!!! Scientific29 ( talk) 03:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The Chemistry section of this incubator article is beginning to fill in. Is any one willing to give me some constructive feedback? There's a strong possibility that this very-controversial 25-page article will end up in afd. As many will remember, in 2007, I was banned for an entire year for attempting to write on this subject, particularly through the efforts of biochemist Tim Vickers's whose efforts to smear my name, painting a picture of me as a fringe theory conman, has resulted to turn me into a Wikipedia demon, not only in Wikipedia but in conversations with other physicists and chemists outside of Wikipedia. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the article being “overly-long and unfocused”, I have been forced into this predicament, out of necessity. My very first edit to Wikipedia, in 2005, of over 10,000 edits (and 100+ new articles) was a stub on “human thermodynamics” a subject defined by C.G. Darwin in 1952 as the statistical mechanics of systems of “human molecules”. This was soon driven out of the village as pseudoscience. I attempted a similar stub on “human chemistry”, in 2007, a subject defined by Henry Adams in 1885 as the study of the attraction of equivalent “human molecules”. This was again driven out of the village as witchcraft, for which I was burned at the stake. On June 10th, of this year, deciding to forgo attempts at re-writing an article on either human chemistry or thermodynamics, I attempted a simple 5-reference stub on the 2002 published calculation for the molecular formula for one “human molecule”, by Sterner and Elser, cited over 750 times, with a short mention that others have attempted chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics formulation of this subject. This was quickly driven out of the village by User:Tim Vickers (the same person who drove me out of the village in 2007) on the grounds that the article human molecule is “hoax/fringe”, and that I was simply writing this article to promote my books. I am thus sick and tired of getting driven out of the village to be burned at the stake, by people like Tim Vickers, and am thus slowly adding enormous numbers of references to substantiate, what in any other non-controversial article, would have been appeased with ten or fewer references. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Try getting permanently banned for doing such mundane things as mentioning, by suggestion, that photon exchange is a component of heat, or writing a stub on "human chemistry", and possibly you won’t be writing such short defensive statements? Re: "Answers to "why" above would be self-serving", I don't know what this means? -- Libb Thims ( talk) 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I’ll take the following three in-context comments by admin kww directed at being representative of his view of me:
These are three of dozens directed at me by Kww all for writing a stub article that “human chemistry: the study of the attractions of human molecules” ( Henry Adams 1885 definition). Kww was the one who improperly speeded my 2010 attempt at a rewrite of the human molecule article. Hence, I do not take lightly these types of attacks on me personally regarding this subject, especially by someone, who, in Kww's own words, "wields a few of the magic admin buttons", and improperly uses them against topics he doesn't like. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologize to everyone if I seem on edge, but I have been persecuted to no end, since my very first (2005), with mention of anything and anyone who has developed theory about the behaviors of "human molecules". At one time, Bduke and I used to be on good terms. I assume everyone in the WikiProject chemistry now hates me? Whatever the case, everyone's dislike of me aside, does anyone have any feedback as to why, potentially, the human molecule could get deleted? -- Libb Thims ( talk) 02:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
I've updated my list of missing chemistry topics - Skysmith ( talk) 13:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I've made a few redirects and created the articles Bismuthyl, Bismuth oxychloride and Triphenyltin.
Ben ( talk) 10:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about the melting point and boiling point information in info boxes for different chemicals. I know we should use the MeltingPtC and BoilingPtC to display C, F and K but this template only works for a single point. There are several compounds that only seem to have a range of temperatures for boiling points and melting points. (ie, Boiling Point: 105-107ºC)
I would assume we would look to credible sources to find the exact point but sometimes they cannot be found. What should be done if only a range of temperatures can be found?-- Triesault ( talk) 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
MeltingPt
and BoilingPt
parameters for difficult cases.
Physchim62
(talk) 11:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Why boxes such as {{ Infobox iron}}, {{ Infobox uranium}} etc. are kept in their own page and transcluded? This has the drawback that if I watch Iron, changes to the infobox won't show up in my watchlist. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 10:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there any organic chemists able to help out with an unclear statement in Birch reduction#Basic reaction mechanism, please? The discussion is at Talk:Birch reduction#Basic reaction mechanism. Anyone who can shed a little light would be most welcome! -- RexxS ( talk) 02:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Expert eyes would be welcome at this AfD on a string of suspected hoax articles on alleged compounds up to Potassium hendecasulfate. It would be good to know whether these are definite hoaxes, as a block of the author (who has other suspect articles) may need to be considered. JohnCD ( talk) 06:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there; first time using a Talk page, so please bear with me if I do something silly.
About the Bent bond article: I've seen a particular bond called a tau bond in an organic chemistry book I borrowed from the local library. After not getting any information from the Tau page, I searched on Google, and one page -- http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed064p587 (see Abstract) -- apparently says that a tau bond is the same as a bent bond. Since I'm not really sure about this, can I get someone to check and clarify if the term "tau bond" is still used or obsolete already? If it is still used, can the Bent bond article be edited to let people know about this alternative name? Many thanks for any help.
Ziyingjiang ( talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
New article. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 08:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've got the X-ray structure, it's BENICL01 on the CSD.
The reference, along with the dimensions, is given here: File:PhICl2-dimensions-from-xtal-1996-2D-skeletal.png.
Ben ( talk) 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Great! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, a microwave or IR or GED structure would be useful.
Ben ( talk) 11:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
So what do you all think the IUPAC name is? I'm not looking through anything... but I think phenyldichloroiodine would be unambiguous. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Split Dumas method of molecular weight determination from Dumas method. Take a look? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I occasionally work with students that develop new articles for Wikipedia as part of their training in writing about chemistry. This year we will also be improving (hopefully) some articles. The new articles range from prosaic to exotic, but all have some notability. The students are not expected to be expert in wiki-editing tools, so editors are welcome to help with that aspect. I'll list the articles as they appear. If problems arise, feel free to contact me. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
(many need to be renamed and we'll need several redirects each since the titles are complicated and slightly esoteric)
How about Hydromanganese pentacarbonyl --> pentacarbonylhydridomanganese, c.f. pentacarbonylhydridorhenium? Same for the iron complex. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 06:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Smokefoot ... since you're leading these students, would you like to have a word with them about Stock nomenclature? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
(I accept the beer, esp if it is from that side of the pond-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC))
Qquadricyclane will be on the Main page soon! Might be a news for the students.-- Stone ( talk) 20:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Danke.
Has anyone heard of this before? I'm unfamiliar with the term and Googling it doesn't turn up much. I found this reference that uses the term, but is the term notable? Thanks, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As I described here, I want to activate my bot to add the syntax {{Portal|Chemistry}} in all the pages that is related to Chemistry. In this manner more readers will visit portal:Chemistry.
-- Aushulz ( talk) 12:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I've come across several Wikipedia articles that briefly mention some of these prefixes that may be used to name deltahedral clusters. There are other articles that probably should discuss these names, but currently do not! Is anyone interested in helping me do this consistently and with the consensus of the Chemistry WikiProject?
Articles with partial coverage:
Articles mentioning the prefixes without really discussing them:
Articles that should redirect to or link to the main description:
All articles on cluster compounds that can in principle take a prefix like closo-, e.g.
I've also proposed a merger of Monomer clusters with Cluster chemistry.
Any help gladly received.
Ben ( talk) 12:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses :)
Smokefoot, thanks for reminding me about Zintl phases. I looked into these a bit when I illustrated Plumbide. I might have a go at tidying up PSEPT, but I don't want to get too drawn in to a massive project, so I will probably make small edits here and there. Variety is the spice of life and all that.
Physchim, good points. This is worth mentioning alongside the explanation of the prefixes. What do you use for metal carbonyls? Just the usual organometallic complex terminology, like μ and η?
Cheers
Ben ( talk) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Another editor created the article Fluoroacetyl chloride which someone else tagged for speedy deletion. I added a reference, but the article is still a stub. It would be helpful if someone could edit the article to indicate how the compound is or was used. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Another recently-created stub is Ammonium arsenate. It would be great if the article could be expanded. This PubChem page may be helpful. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Some pages have empirical formulae where the elements are linked to their respective articles - e.g. pyridine: C5 H5 N. Could we make a template for doing this automatically? Something like:
"{{Template|C2|H6|O}}" -------------> " C2 H6 O" for ethanol.
This would make editing easier, and could also be designed to remove underlines from the links, making the subscript more legible. Lfh ( talk) 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone with patience or influence might try to rebalance the safety bit in sodium myreth sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate. These articles are not the usual ones. Because these surfactants are found in many domestic products, these articles are probably more widely consulted than our usual. The deal is that R(OCH2CH2)nOSO3- under some circumstances degrade somewhat to 1,4-dioxane (cyclization of the PEG), and the resulting 1,4-dioxane is under some circumstances a cancer suspect agent. Overall the link between the cosmetic and awfulness might be noted but is otherwise somewhat tenuous. User:MotherAmy has decided otherwise and seems to have some agenda that exceeds her technical ability and excludes alternative viewpoints. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The lowest melting alloy is 41% caesium, 47% potassium, and 12% sodium. A ip-user changed this to at-% in the
caesium article. I have found a ref in the
Ho-Wi, but there the % in (kg/kg) is not given. For me there is no doubt that this is weight%, but I have no proof. Is there anybody who can give me a a proof for that?
Hello, someone on the french Graphic Lab has created this diagram for the french article. He would like to know if it could be useful to translate the diagram in english (if you are interested)? Frakir ( talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is the Category:Oxidizing agents so small? I started to expand it, but I don't know whether there is a reason for its minuteness. Many oxidizing agents, like chromates, aren't even included. Would it be good to expand it? Thanks. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently Fraser Stoddart redirects to James Fraser Stoddart. Whilst the latter is technically his correct name, he is universally known as Fraser, so the article should be there and JFS redirect to it. Could somebody who is an admin swap them over? Chris ( talk) 06:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Does the newly created category Category:Classes of organic compounds serve any useful purpose? Our organic compounds are generally categorized by functional group and/or by some inherent property (such as Category:Carcinogens). Nearly all the articles in this category are already in Category:Functional groups, so it seems redundant to me. Also, are there any articles in Category:Classes of organic compounds that aren't already in Category:Organic compounds or one of its subcategories? ChemNerd ( talk) 11:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
These articles need clarification. Any thoughts on definitions that should be picked for each category? My idea: Alkali should be a hydroxide base of groups IA and IIA metals, including ammonia. Base should be any hydroxide base, including Lewis bases and Bronsted-Lowry bases. Alkali salt should be merged with basic salt. The definition would be: any salt of a weak acid and a strong base. Alkali salt, a subcategory, would be a salt of the alkali metals and a weak base. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hence, calcium carbonate is not a basic salt, nor is sodium carbonate: Malachite is an example of a basic salt by this definition. I've never come accross the term "alkali salt". Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a new WP:JCW report. Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope. (Some of these I didn't know if I should include, so feel free to remove those that seem out of place.)
See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects ( Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from chemistry from the list. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been trying to improve my article on "Mobius-Hueckel concept" by putting in the requested Links. But some of the links work and some do not. Where they do not work, the link is left in red and one gets the statement that an article on Moebius-Hueckel concept does not exist.
Also an attemting to do a search (or go) to the article doesn't work. What does work is using an old redirect: user:hezimmerman/Moebius-Hueckel concept.
I seem to be able to put in umlauts for Moebius and Hueckel only be cutting and pasting from words with the umlaut-o and umlaut-u. There must be a way of typing these in directly in Wikipedia rather than just using "oe" and"ue".
In any case, some help would be appreciated.
--Howard E. Zimmerman 15:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman ( talk • contribs)
There is an AFD relevant to this project at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hill (chemist), if anyone is interested in contributing to the discussion. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Which reaction would seem right for the decomposition of chromium(VI) peroxide?
If you have any other suggestions, contact me on my talk page. PS: I didn't post this on the science reference desk since it is sort of specialized and neither of them might be right. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 20:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Why does sodium selenide redirect to selenide? -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 14:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've made it into a stub. Expansion welcomed.
Ben ( talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Zinke nitration should be moved to Zincke nitration. The reactions is named after Theodor Zincke. The redirect has to be deleted and the article than moved, so it is work for the people holding the mop.--19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
(I am replacing an earlier message by adding that issues are being resolved). BTW, the artices on organometallic chemistry of the elements are always welcoming of edits, e.g. organoiron chemistry, organoselenium compounds, organoiodine compounds, etc. These overview articles will become important resources in the future.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Gurps npc (and his IP, Special:Contributions/144.211.101.117) recently added a series of changes to the elements articles involving how they are created. The edits appear to be in good faith, but it would help if someone could please review them for accuracy as they are (as yet) unreferenced. Thanks; I've also left a note for the "Elements" project. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It might be enough in the Chloryl article to keep it but now it reads in a way that even I do not get the message.-- Stone ( talk) 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where is most appropriate for discussing this, but here seems like the best place to get directed to the right place. :-) I've been noticing recently that NFPA values vary from source to source. For example, this MSDS claims that the NFPA values for xenon difluoride are H=1, F=0, R=1, OX, whereas this other MSDS claims that the NFPA values are H=3, F=0, R=2, OX. Which of these values should go into the chembox for xenon difluoride? This particular compound isn't the only source of confusion: see this edit, for example. I don't see how we can resolve this, unless we arbitrarily designate a particular source as the "official" source for NFPA values. I suspect that some of the inconsistencies may arise because different distributors ship the compound in different forms (differences in solvent, concentration, pressurization of container, etc.), which may affect these values. But still, the lack of agreement is disturbing. What should be done in such cases?— Tetracube ( talk) 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magnesium_lasering. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The topic Bond energy / Bond dissociation energy seems unclear to me and contains some errors. The enthalpies and energies are mixed, the values cited (from ref 3) do not correspond to the given temperature. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia process. I'd appreciate a collaborative revision.
134.59.1.31 ( talk) 10:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)JF Gal
What is the formula for a chromite? It is only mentioned in passing in the chromium(III) oxide article. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The Oobleck stub is currently at AfD, and needs some expert input. Does anyone here have ideas for a better title (that covers all these substances: oobleck, glurch, goop, gloop), and some time to briefly overhaul the article to better fit the science topic? Any assistance or advice (at the article or AfD) would be appreciated. -- Quiddity ( talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Dearest wikipedians,
I am currently working on fr:wp on a project whose goal is to replace every thermodynamic properties tables with graphs, such as heat capacity toward temperature or vapor pressure toward temperature (if you are familiar with French, you may have a look at the discussions here and here). This action would benefit to all wikipedia projects by supplying them with english-written graphs of various physical properties. In spite of a quick search, I haven't been able to find many tables on your articles. It looks like we use them more extensively on fr:wp than you.
I've however noticed a legal issue with that. Many online resources, such as the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and the Dortmund Data Bank, have restricted their content to professional use in their User Agreement or Terms of Use. Data republication or distribution to third parties are thereby forbidden. I've questionned our french juridical staff, but they proved unable to tell me if Wikipedia was wrong by republishing these data, either as tables or graphs. Since the USA do not recognize any database protection law, is the interdiction stated in the User Agreement of these online databases still consistent? Have you already debated over this matter?
Yours sincerely, Tachymètre ( talk) 12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
My semi-regular plea: we consider organizing a clean-up of organic electronics, molecular electronics, organic semiconductor, and conductive polymer. These articles are written in a way that elevates the achievements of User:Pproctor's advisor John McGinness (whose biography is largely maintained by Pproctor), whilst subtly but soundly deminishing the achievements of the Nobel Prize winners. The articles detract from Wikipedia's reputation.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I created this page today, and am in talks with the producer of those videos, Brady Haran, to get many element pictures and videos freely licensed for our use. I'm trying to get as many featured pictures (my tracking table) of the elements as I can, sorta a pet project a few of us over at the WP:FPC side has been hoping to do. Thought I'd give y'all a heads up on those plans. They recently updated their Fluorine video ( link) with lots of footage of the element, in liquid form, and it reacting, so that was one of the first I requested images of for the article, since we're really lacking good picture of the element there. — raeky ( talk | edits) 00:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Heres my silly template below. — raeky ( talk | edits) 03:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I was informed by Materialscientist not to add links to these videos on the elements page. And a discussion ensued on my talk page in regards too this. He seemed to indicate they where SPAM and POV. My counterargument is they are non-commercial and from a reputable institution ( University of Nottingham) and have quite a few third party references including direct endorsement from noble prize winners and and a EPSRC grant for continued production of these videos. — raeky ( talk | edits) 04:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, I have stopped user:Raeky in the middle of mass-adding youtube video links to the elements articles ( example of a link, other elements videos). There are numerous pros and cons here. This might be a great video addition, but as a skeptic I'll focus on cons: (i) Promotion. On my PC, rather commercial Google ads appear below the youtube video vindow. (ii) Promotion. There is no monopoly on basic information, but all videos put in front explicit names and people. Important detail - those videos extend over all elements and many chemical compounds, thus we are talking about mass addition of those links to hundreds WP articles. (iii) Quality of information. Many videos I saw are short and focus on specific details. For example, the Al video focuses on shaky hands and Al coated mirror as representation of Al; some other videos I saw, together with nice lab. demos, have plenty of odd and stray details and comments - they do look like "chemistry is fun" for me, but is this encyclopedic? Many WP articles they link to are much more detailed.
A discussion could be overly long, thus I would suggest voting instead. Please look beyond my hasty and naive comment - you will likely see more than I did in those few minutes I had to write this. I believe we do need a proper vote to avoid potential edit wars (like those spelling wars). To keep the vote centralized, I post this here and link from WP:ELEMENTS. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
More interesting points about aluminium include:
In short the video really was not particularly informative, and I feel that yes, this has a bit of a PR feel, and sympathise with User:Materialscientist's comments. User A1 ( talk) 11:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
User A1 ( talk) 11:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Has there been any update on this? I don't support the idea of a vote; but currently I would say there isn't any consensus to keep these videos. As for the comparison to the opencourseware videos -- this is somewhat incorrect as the OCW videos are licenced under a CC-BY-NC licence; you could chop off the labelling if you had a mind to. Secondly, although technical (somehow this is "dry?" -- are we not a reference material?) they make some exceptionally good points in the OCW videos that I have seen -- if you have any interest in mathematics, for example, the gilbert strang series is very good; and the presentational flow makes the video format actually useful. I don't think the comment about inline rich media needs be addressed here, this opens up its own can of worms. (eg Many readers of WP are from non-western countries where bandwidth may be limited.). In short I would like to see a "wrap up" or extension of this discussion, lets not have it simply peter out. User A1 ( talk) 13:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
In a related discussion, Materialscientist ( talk · contribs) raised the issue of WP:EL: in my (rarely humble) opinion, these links fall under point 4 of Links to be considered, namely "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Physchim62 (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I just noticed that when on an article of a specific chemical element, the main illustration (the periodic table with electron configurations and structure) the electron config can't be seen clearly as it is too small. Anything we can do?-- 202.156.14.98 ( talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Would a polymer process expert please take a look at Cobalt mediated radical polymerization and Catalytic chain transfer. They look like notable subjects but need bringing up to snuff per MOS etc. Thanks. – ukexpat ( talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I just wrote a stub on metadynamics. If anyone wants to jump in and help, just do! -- Cyclopia talk 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing a little editing of the bullvalene article and noticed something I don't know how to fix. In the section bullvalene#semibullvalene the following synthesis is given:
The accompanying text states that the "compound was first prepared by photolysis of barrelene in toluene with acetone as a photosensitizer". But, looking at the scheme, we have the substance (CH3)2CH2CH2CH3 which can't possibly exist (note the pentavalent carbon). I don't know if this is meant to be toluene (to match the text) or is mis-written methylbutane or what... can the scheme be edited, or failing that replaced, and does anyone know what the correct chemistry is? Thanks, EdChem ( talk) 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I started the article gold-sulfur bond. I want to expand and improve over the next few days, and add elaborations and numerous sources, and of course pretty images, but it is difficult with my current workload. I do wish to make the five day deadline...thanks! John Riemann Soong ( talk) 09:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There's your lesson for the day, right there: get your sources ready before you write an article!
I am interested in gold and sulfur, so I'll make a draft article on Au-S chemistry and you can see how I would go about it.
Then you can pinch any good bits of my draft and use them to expand Gold-sulfur bond.
Ben ( talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
There's some stuff in this article I'm concerned about, like this:
Other types of water that may be present in a crystal are anion water (with hydrogen bonds to anions), [1]
lattice water (no direct bonding with an ion) and constitution water (water present as hydroxyl groups). Zeolite water is water that occupies vacancies (empty sites in the crystal lattice) and may be removed without changing the crystal structure. [2] [3] [4]
Classically, "water of crystallization" refers to water that is found in a crystalline framework of a metal complex but that is not directly bonded to the metal ion.
Anion water and constitution water anybody? User_talk:Wickey-nl has been going round linking things to this page which I'm not sure are appropriate. Anybody else have any opinions? Furthermore, they've changed the redirect at Epsom salt from Magnesium sulphate to Epsomite, which is technically not incorrect but not useful, since all the medicinal uses of Mag Sulphate are at the former. Am tempted to revert.... Chris ( talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. I commented out the section I disagree with. It comes from this source here, but this does not actually say that the things mentioned are Water of Crystallisation. It also says "Coordinated water: Water forms a chelate ion in a chelate complex", which is just plain nonsense. In my opinion, as a reputable source this is useless (I suspect it's just a bad translation from the Japanese). I also reverted the Epsom salt redirect. Epsomite should be a page about the mineral, and Magnesium sulphate about the chemical. Chris ( talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anybody undistort the picture in the infobox at 2,2'-bipyridine so that the rings are hexagonal? Ta, Chris ( talk) 08:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I never thought of that. Chris ( talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone else from here attending the Boston ACS meeting next week? I'll be there, and giving a talk about chemistry on Wikipedia (CHED session, Sunday afternoon), so you can come along and heckle me if you like. User:ChemSpiderMan will also be there, and probably others too. We could maybe meet for lunch or something. Please be sure to say hello, at least! Walkerma ( talk) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
As a result of a decision made in 2005, the article Dalton (unit) was merged into and redirected to the article Atomic mass unit. Since then the standards bodies appear to have changed their stance. I have proposed that the Dalton (unit) become the definitive article and that Atomic mass unit consists of a redirection. Please comment on this proposal at talk:Atomic mass unit.
This notice appears at both the Physics and the Chemistry Wikiproject pages. Martinvl ( talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There’s a good number of people, e.g. Kww ( talk), Tim Vickers ( talk), Coren ( talk), among many others, who have expressed desire to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia for writing on the subject of the “human molecule”, efforts of which resulted in a one year ban on me, back in 2007. To exemplify one objection, as expressed by Coren earlier this year: “You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to document your novel theories.” The central problem here is that this is not “my novel theory”; but rather the theory dates back over two hundred years, with over ninety different people publishing content on this subject:
There have been at least six books written on the subject, one painting, four aluminum Molecule Man statues (one 100-foot tall), movie mentions, articles, over a dozen videos, many debates, posters, as well as college courses (dating back to 1894) taught utilizing the human molecule perspective as a basis. What seems to be the case is that either: (a) I have been mis-labeled as an editor with aims of self-promotion over that of an editor with a genuine interest in a subject (that very few people write on or know about); or (b) the subject is an anathema to many editors (and as such are using the various bylaws of Wikipedia in their favor to block the subject from Wikipedia)? To give a bit of history of my failed efforts to write neutral overview article on the subject:
Article | EoHT article | Deletion #1 | Deletion #2 | Desired neutral article |
---|---|---|---|---|
Human molecule | ( human molecule) | AFD (I requested deletion) redirect to nanoputian (10 Oct 2007) | Delete per WP:CSD#G4 (11 Jun 2010) |
What I am looking for, at this point, being that there obviously exists some form admitable of conflict of interest (being that I wrote a history book on the subject of the human molecule in 2008 and that I seem to be one of only three people, including Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000), who have every made an attempt at the calculation of the molecular formula for one person), is for a minimum of about two or three neutral volunteer editors to write up a one page article (or even stub paragraph) on the subject of the “human molecule” (encompassing its derivative terms human atom, social atom, human chemical, human element, etc.), and I will confide my contributions or guidance of the article to the talk page. The topic, to note, is very controversial being that it is at odds with many cherished theories, particularly those of religion as well as many secular theories, such as life, free will, choice, purpose, etc.
My interest in having a Wikipedia article on this subject is so that children, age 15 or younger, will know that there is an alternative viewpoint out there on what it means to be a “human” (in contrast to the dogma of outdated subjects such as religion or other secular philosophies), and that this subject has been tossed around for at least 200-years now. At a minimum I would like to see:
It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 (talk) put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events". I would like to think that there are more than myself and Physchim62 amenable to having a short stub article on the subject of the human defined atomically. I will post this help-message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry talk pages. Comments welcome. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 19:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
As you see on that deletion "debate" here I encourage you to candidate for an admin on commons. I will also do that and I will support you. We have plenty of pictures to maintain, update - or - decide deletion debates by person with some deep knowledge in chemistry and biochemistry, respectively. Not to speak of those categories...-- Yikrazuul ( talk) 13:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I tried to make an illustration that would show a very concrete pedagogical example of " activity coefficients" -- an example where activity (which determines equilibria, etc.) is very obviously different from concentration. I came up with the diagram and caption on the right. I knew from the start that it wouldn't be very clear, and now Petergans ( talk · contribs) has pointed out on my talk page that it's also incorrect! (Or at least misleading.) Can anyone suggest improvements to salvage this animation? Or, I can do something completely different from scratch. (Making this animation only took 20 minutes, using MS Powerpoint, no big deal.) What is the simple picture that you imagine when you think about activity coefficients affecting some chemical process? Or another way to put it: When you think about a non-ideal solution, what does the non-ideality look like in your mind's eye, and why does it alter equilibrium concentrations? I was thinking of dissolved chemicals originally, but a gas ( fugacity) example would also be worthwhile.
The textbooks I've seen so far don't have the kind of concrete pedagogical examples I'm looking for, they just go through formal derivations.
Thanks! :-) -- Steve ( talk) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an issue of a very general nature here, that is, the near impossibility of reconciling thermodynamics with molecular structure, especially when dealing with equilibria in aqueous solutions. It comes down to the difficulty of separating enthalpy and entropy components of delta G. petergans ( talk · contribs)
Here's my second try, to the right. Any suggestions? Concerns? (I'm trying to convey a very very simple idea here.) Thanks! :-) --
Steve (
talk) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Pi interaction is a nearly orphaned article, i.e. very few other articles link to it. If possible, work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello all, I am new here, but have always had an interest in chemistry and have poked around Wikipedia a good bit. I noticed the cleanup list was last updated on March 23, 2010! After looking at a few entries I realized how very outdated it was, many of the articles there no longer require attention etc. Is it normal for this much time to elapse between updates?
Also, what is the general direction of the project at this point? Have the stated goals on the main page been met?
Excited to hear back! Scientific29 ( talk) 06:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems others have encountered this difficulty as well, and a new bot is currently being tested. Please do respond to other questions though!!! Scientific29 ( talk) 03:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The Chemistry section of this incubator article is beginning to fill in. Is any one willing to give me some constructive feedback? There's a strong possibility that this very-controversial 25-page article will end up in afd. As many will remember, in 2007, I was banned for an entire year for attempting to write on this subject, particularly through the efforts of biochemist Tim Vickers's whose efforts to smear my name, painting a picture of me as a fringe theory conman, has resulted to turn me into a Wikipedia demon, not only in Wikipedia but in conversations with other physicists and chemists outside of Wikipedia. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the article being “overly-long and unfocused”, I have been forced into this predicament, out of necessity. My very first edit to Wikipedia, in 2005, of over 10,000 edits (and 100+ new articles) was a stub on “human thermodynamics” a subject defined by C.G. Darwin in 1952 as the statistical mechanics of systems of “human molecules”. This was soon driven out of the village as pseudoscience. I attempted a similar stub on “human chemistry”, in 2007, a subject defined by Henry Adams in 1885 as the study of the attraction of equivalent “human molecules”. This was again driven out of the village as witchcraft, for which I was burned at the stake. On June 10th, of this year, deciding to forgo attempts at re-writing an article on either human chemistry or thermodynamics, I attempted a simple 5-reference stub on the 2002 published calculation for the molecular formula for one “human molecule”, by Sterner and Elser, cited over 750 times, with a short mention that others have attempted chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics formulation of this subject. This was quickly driven out of the village by User:Tim Vickers (the same person who drove me out of the village in 2007) on the grounds that the article human molecule is “hoax/fringe”, and that I was simply writing this article to promote my books. I am thus sick and tired of getting driven out of the village to be burned at the stake, by people like Tim Vickers, and am thus slowly adding enormous numbers of references to substantiate, what in any other non-controversial article, would have been appeased with ten or fewer references. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Try getting permanently banned for doing such mundane things as mentioning, by suggestion, that photon exchange is a component of heat, or writing a stub on "human chemistry", and possibly you won’t be writing such short defensive statements? Re: "Answers to "why" above would be self-serving", I don't know what this means? -- Libb Thims ( talk) 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I’ll take the following three in-context comments by admin kww directed at being representative of his view of me:
These are three of dozens directed at me by Kww all for writing a stub article that “human chemistry: the study of the attractions of human molecules” ( Henry Adams 1885 definition). Kww was the one who improperly speeded my 2010 attempt at a rewrite of the human molecule article. Hence, I do not take lightly these types of attacks on me personally regarding this subject, especially by someone, who, in Kww's own words, "wields a few of the magic admin buttons", and improperly uses them against topics he doesn't like. -- Libb Thims ( talk) 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologize to everyone if I seem on edge, but I have been persecuted to no end, since my very first (2005), with mention of anything and anyone who has developed theory about the behaviors of "human molecules". At one time, Bduke and I used to be on good terms. I assume everyone in the WikiProject chemistry now hates me? Whatever the case, everyone's dislike of me aside, does anyone have any feedback as to why, potentially, the human molecule could get deleted? -- Libb Thims ( talk) 02:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)