![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This article is just two sentences and has been for four years! Clearly it should either be made more definitive or merged into something else. Ant ideas? -- Bduke 09:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey folks. Just want to make sure you're aware of this page: Category:Pages needing expert attention from Chemistry experts. Cool? Cool. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BradBeattie ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 November 2006.
Perhaps it would be a good idea also, to have a few people or a group go over articles which are of interest, and mark them up on the assessment scale, changing the status each month. This would make it a lot easier to see the improvement of articles, right? James S 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Chemistry would like to see this portal attain featured status. If you have any tips, tricks or suggestions, please feel free to add them here! Thanks, riana_ dzasta 06:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
To address a larger group of chemists I will also post here, I have posted a mesage on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Special:chemicalsources.2C template:chemicalsources and external links on the given page. I would like to hear comments. Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice there's a lot of biochemistry stubs with no "permanent" categories at all. If there's anyone working on categorisation (or wishing to) would it be useful to have these placed in a "maintenance" category? Or likewise, chemistry-related stubs more generally? Alai 14:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As you may have probably noticed I am editing a bit more nowadays and I feel I could compromise with the Wiki Project Chemistry. Right now my question is one of the proposed goals is having 10 worthy physical chemistry articles, i think reaction rate is one of them, at least from the importance point of view, and could take assessment (and constructive critic). chemical kinetics certainly is a major topic and needs a full rewrite but i don't feel ready to do that, maybe later when some more surrounding articles (methods, approximations...) are present. Knights who say ni 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there are over 100 (1 for each element!) chemical element symbol templates. Since these templates can't be substituted anyway (they contain ParserFunctions) I created a universal template, {{ ce}}. To use this template with a link to the element, you can enter {{ce|element name|number of atoms|charge|atomic mass}}. To use this template without a link to the element, you can enter {{ce|element symbol|number of atoms|charge|atomic mass}}.. Thus,
:{{ce|nitrogen|2|+|14}} :{{ce|n|2|+|14}}
creates:
I hope that this is useful, figured I'd post about this here. Nihiltres 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Aldol reaction is up for featured article status here, the first attempt at a major organic reaction. My personal view is that it still needs work doing on it, but I would like to encourage other chemists (especially organic specialists) to get involved. Physchim62 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. -- ScienceApologist 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any style sheet for reaction schemes around, i.e. preferred settings for bond lengths, fonts etcetera in Chemdraw, preferred colors for reaction partners, that sort of thing? What settings are others using? Dr Zak 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Structure_drawing_workgroup. -- Rifleman 82 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Phosphorene recently survived an WP:AFD deletion attempt. The article needs help. 165.189.91.148 21:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The DiacetyleneC4H2, Triacetylene C6H2 are realities in chemistry I can life with, but strange astro-chemists finding the negative charged C6H- is hard to get, but still possible and the paper gives a good background to this findings.
But the neutral C6H starts to kill my mind. The sextet on two of the carbons or even better the charged mesomeric form are hard to get.
The reaction takes place in a DC glow charge at reduced pressure starting from acetylene which would make hydrogen available in the mixture. The only stable endpoint for the molecule would be Triacetylene C6H2 which would be fine with me. So has anybody a good suggestion what to do with the article and the cited source?-- Stone 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In previous article it is described a little bit better what they observe and what they have in their low pressure atmosphere. It is a radical. [1] The radical can be dislocated over some of the π-bonds and is stabilized. This makes it more likely and a little bit better to understand. This chemical is unstable and will never be available in bulk for spectroskopy in gasphase the situation is different.-- Stone 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw this post and thought I'd add a structure to the page (totally out of character for me!). Considering the proposed name, are we talking about what I've drawn below?
At the moment, the article name is a bit cryptic. Ben 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is a clear state for deletion. I found nothing except some e-bay pages. This chemical seams to be a hoax. The living death and the others can play with it but for a chemistry page it lacks the information.-- Stone 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a copyvio at this article. The material is taken from the Organometallic Hypertextbook at http://www.ilpi.com/organomet/coordnum.html. I didn't tag it as {{ copyvio}} because that will cause the article to be deleted in a week. However, it does need to be rewritten. Any takers? -- Rifleman 82 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
In article Phenols it is stated that "phenols have unique properties and are not classified as alcohols", but whole Category:Phenols is located within Category:Alcohols. It shouldn't be like that, should it? 83.12.106.50 10:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) I don't see the need to rename phenols as aromatic hydroxy compounds, as phenols is the usual term. IMHO it's down to three choices
So which is best? I'm not really sure! Walkerma 04:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Debate over on Talk:Pressure as to whether that & related articles should refer to 'gauge pressure' or 'gage pressure', accompanied by reverting on the article. 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
is in bad shape. there are several parts without connection and a Still to be merged: line in the middle. Anybody of the native speacker smight have a look!-- Stone 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The worklist currently has a section for 15 major reaction classes. What do people think about adding a section for specific reactions (mainly "name reactions")? Here's a list of 20 important reactions off the top of my head, that could be used for inspiration:
If this is too much detail for this project, we could also consider a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemical_Reactions project... Itub 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Some science articles are starting to produce introductory versions of themselves to make them more accessible to the average encyclopedia reader. You can see what has been done so far at special relativity, general relativity and evolution, all of which now have special introduction articles. These are intermediate between the very simple articles on Simple Wikipedia and the regular encyclopedia articles. They serve a valuable function in producing something that is useful for getting someone up to speed so that they can then tackle the real article. Those who want even simpler explanations can drop down to Simple Wikipedia. What do you think?-- Filll 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to clean up these three articles. Could someone back me up by making sure I didn't make any mistakes? Also, I think these articles are pretty fundamental. Perhaps they could use some attention. -- Rifleman 82 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
We do not appear to have fully discussed endorsing this, although there was a very positive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/archive06#Citation guidelines proposal. I see that Projects other than the Maths and Physics Projects, who initiated it, have done so. The Maths discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive18#Citation guidelines proposal (note it is archived, lots of the links to the debatre elsewhere are to the pre-archive section). The Physics discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive10. Note go to section "Citation guidelines proposal" at 42 in the TOC, not the one with the same name at 4 in the TOC. There is more discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals#Scientific citations.
I propose we "vote" whether we support it and if so, let the other prpjects know. -- Bduke 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
HappyCamper asked me on my talk page to be our ambassador on this matter so I have put a note on Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines to say we support the proposals. Our support 'vote' was higher than that on the Mathematics and Physics Projects (OK by 1!) but please add to it if you want to. -- Bduke 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Hexol, also on Transition metal carbene complex) I am inclined to remove this silly assessment tag: please specify in detail what it is that you find lacking in this article. V8rik 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we have a presence over at the Wikimedia Commons? There are a handful of WikiProjects who have a Commons page and guidelines for categorising media and organising categories. See Category:Commons projects for a list. May I propose we start Commons:Wikiproject Chemistry? Yesterday I found myself in a stupid argument with an editor at the Commons, who decided that nonmetals don't include halogens. Since we are all encouraged to contribute our images to the Commons, not just to WP, I think it'd be good if we had some expert chemists running things, so that cranks don't ruin the fun.
What are your thoughts?
Ben 16:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, if anyone cares about having images in Commons categorized correctly, please comment at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Categories#Proposals or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Halogen_oxides . We still have this user insisting that halogens are not nonmetals, so could be useful to show that there is consensus that he is in fact wrong. Itub 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Progestagen, Propofol, Zinc oxide, Lithium hypochlorite, Thiocarbanilide, Membrane reactor, Orgonite, Metalorganics, Nimesulide might also need some cats-- Stone 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Does WikiProject Chemistry not have a deletion page? I recently nominated this page for deletion. Please check. frummer 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Really fisch article with no real google hits! Biochemistry and enzyme people should have a look and than add a credible citation or flush it down to the other deleting canidates.-- Stone 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Have added an WP:RFC for the Nitrogen article, requested to cross post here -
Dirk and I were discussing the definition of a hydride, after I called H2S a hydride. We noticed that the WP article hydride seems to contradict itself, in that it defines hydrides as compounds of hydrogen and a more electropositive element, yet lists NH3 as a hydride, despite N being more electronegative than H.
In my experience, the term hydride is used to refer generally to all binary hydrogen compounds of the form AxHy. Dirk's gut instinct was to reserve the term for those compounds where hydrogen is the more electronegative element. I consider Dirk-type compounds to be a subset of the hydrides.
We thought it would be productive to poll WikiChemists on this issue, and then improve the hydride article as necessary.
Ben 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We could use the general term hydrogen chalogenides for the compounds H2O, H2S, H2Se, H2Te and H2Po, avoiding chalcogen hydrides as it has the potential to confuse readers, and that's exactly the opposite of what we try to achieve here. Ben 22:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My old copy of Cotton and Wikinson "Advanced Inorganic Chemistry" (4th Ed., 1980) has an interesting diagram on page 247 of the periodic table headed "A classification of the hydrides". It divides the periodic table into 5 zones, with 4 of them labelled "Saline hydrides" (Li-Fr, Ca-Ra), "Transition metal hydrides" (Sc-Pt, but interestingly also Be and Mg), "Borderline hydrides" (Cu-Au, Zn-Hg, In-Tl) and "Covalent hydrides" (B-Ga, C-Pb, N-Bi, O-Po, F-At). The 5th group is He-Rn. It also stars the transition metals for which molecules or ions containing M-H bonds are known. Maybe we should follow this scheme. -- Bduke 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I tried adding myself to the list, but didn't save my changes because I couldn't figure out how to keep the bottom of the table in place, so I canceled my edits. Also, I couldn't figure out where to add my name, because it didn't seem alphabetical. AstroHurricane001 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi WikiChemists! You guys are great, I love contributing here. To wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year, I present this space-filling diagram of a (fictional!) molecule I call hollyberryine. Enjoy!
Ben 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed a recent flurry of chemical activity by Spoon!. See Special:Contributions/Spoon! for details. He/she is making subtle changes to the way trivial retained names and fully systematic names are described. I wonder if we should invite Spoon! here to discuss it? I reverted a couple of Spoon!'s edits to acetylene but in retrospect I think I should have let them stay.
Thoughts?
Ben 11:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, I wasn't suggesting Spoon! was wrong. I just thought we could help out, making similar changes to other articles. It's a lot of work for one person!
Ben 11:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the most famous molecules of all time! This article needs a little more rigorous chemistry that I can manage, some feedback from an expert would be appreciated. Thank you. TimVickers 14:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
copied from Talk:Boric acid
What is the name of the anion B(OH)4−? I can't find a definitive answer anywhere! The only name I've seen is borate, but that is also used to refer to BO33−. The only reason I want to know is because I've made an image of the structure of this anion and before I can upload it, I need to give it a filename!
Cheers
Ben 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, user DIV, i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting the articles on these views. This has been going on now for seven months. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 23:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we please stop using "Further Reading" within articles? We're not teaching people, we're informing them neutrally. Also, why are there so many articles with language such as "consider a dienophile..." or something similar; consider changing your tone! :-/ James S 19:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Chemists, has anyone other than me realized that there is no page for
Pure chemistry and
Applied chemistry? As a important part of chemitry, I and another user,
User:Benjah-bmm27 believe they should have their own pages. So if you can, could you help me?
PatPeter 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I agree with Smokefoot that the distinction between pure and applied chemistry is not usefull. I think it was once and that is why the term is included in the title of IUPAC but it is no longer usefull. Quantum mechanics is very far from being an excellent example of pure chemistry. Since my retirement I have been using it to assist people designing new drugs - very much applied. Note that we do have Chemical industry and also Chemical technology now redirects there but should possibly be a separate article. -- Bduke 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have given this some more thought and removed the false claim about quantum mechanics from pure chemistry. The distinction between pure and applied chemistry is no longer a real distinction and is widely rejected by chemists. I think it will be quite impossible to develop this article into something important and there will be arguments all the way about what is an example of pure chemistry. I think it should be deleted. Probably the best way is to put a prod tag on it, but I thought I would give people an opportunity to defend it here first. -- Bduke 01:00, 31 December 2006 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
This article is just two sentences and has been for four years! Clearly it should either be made more definitive or merged into something else. Ant ideas? -- Bduke 09:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey folks. Just want to make sure you're aware of this page: Category:Pages needing expert attention from Chemistry experts. Cool? Cool. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BradBeattie ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 November 2006.
Perhaps it would be a good idea also, to have a few people or a group go over articles which are of interest, and mark them up on the assessment scale, changing the status each month. This would make it a lot easier to see the improvement of articles, right? James S 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Chemistry would like to see this portal attain featured status. If you have any tips, tricks or suggestions, please feel free to add them here! Thanks, riana_ dzasta 06:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
To address a larger group of chemists I will also post here, I have posted a mesage on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Special:chemicalsources.2C template:chemicalsources and external links on the given page. I would like to hear comments. Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I notice there's a lot of biochemistry stubs with no "permanent" categories at all. If there's anyone working on categorisation (or wishing to) would it be useful to have these placed in a "maintenance" category? Or likewise, chemistry-related stubs more generally? Alai 14:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As you may have probably noticed I am editing a bit more nowadays and I feel I could compromise with the Wiki Project Chemistry. Right now my question is one of the proposed goals is having 10 worthy physical chemistry articles, i think reaction rate is one of them, at least from the importance point of view, and could take assessment (and constructive critic). chemical kinetics certainly is a major topic and needs a full rewrite but i don't feel ready to do that, maybe later when some more surrounding articles (methods, approximations...) are present. Knights who say ni 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there are over 100 (1 for each element!) chemical element symbol templates. Since these templates can't be substituted anyway (they contain ParserFunctions) I created a universal template, {{ ce}}. To use this template with a link to the element, you can enter {{ce|element name|number of atoms|charge|atomic mass}}. To use this template without a link to the element, you can enter {{ce|element symbol|number of atoms|charge|atomic mass}}.. Thus,
:{{ce|nitrogen|2|+|14}} :{{ce|n|2|+|14}}
creates:
I hope that this is useful, figured I'd post about this here. Nihiltres 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Aldol reaction is up for featured article status here, the first attempt at a major organic reaction. My personal view is that it still needs work doing on it, but I would like to encourage other chemists (especially organic specialists) to get involved. Physchim62 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. -- ScienceApologist 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any style sheet for reaction schemes around, i.e. preferred settings for bond lengths, fonts etcetera in Chemdraw, preferred colors for reaction partners, that sort of thing? What settings are others using? Dr Zak 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Structure_drawing_workgroup. -- Rifleman 82 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Phosphorene recently survived an WP:AFD deletion attempt. The article needs help. 165.189.91.148 21:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The DiacetyleneC4H2, Triacetylene C6H2 are realities in chemistry I can life with, but strange astro-chemists finding the negative charged C6H- is hard to get, but still possible and the paper gives a good background to this findings.
But the neutral C6H starts to kill my mind. The sextet on two of the carbons or even better the charged mesomeric form are hard to get.
The reaction takes place in a DC glow charge at reduced pressure starting from acetylene which would make hydrogen available in the mixture. The only stable endpoint for the molecule would be Triacetylene C6H2 which would be fine with me. So has anybody a good suggestion what to do with the article and the cited source?-- Stone 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
In previous article it is described a little bit better what they observe and what they have in their low pressure atmosphere. It is a radical. [1] The radical can be dislocated over some of the π-bonds and is stabilized. This makes it more likely and a little bit better to understand. This chemical is unstable and will never be available in bulk for spectroskopy in gasphase the situation is different.-- Stone 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw this post and thought I'd add a structure to the page (totally out of character for me!). Considering the proposed name, are we talking about what I've drawn below?
At the moment, the article name is a bit cryptic. Ben 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is a clear state for deletion. I found nothing except some e-bay pages. This chemical seams to be a hoax. The living death and the others can play with it but for a chemistry page it lacks the information.-- Stone 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a copyvio at this article. The material is taken from the Organometallic Hypertextbook at http://www.ilpi.com/organomet/coordnum.html. I didn't tag it as {{ copyvio}} because that will cause the article to be deleted in a week. However, it does need to be rewritten. Any takers? -- Rifleman 82 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
In article Phenols it is stated that "phenols have unique properties and are not classified as alcohols", but whole Category:Phenols is located within Category:Alcohols. It shouldn't be like that, should it? 83.12.106.50 10:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) I don't see the need to rename phenols as aromatic hydroxy compounds, as phenols is the usual term. IMHO it's down to three choices
So which is best? I'm not really sure! Walkerma 04:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Debate over on Talk:Pressure as to whether that & related articles should refer to 'gauge pressure' or 'gage pressure', accompanied by reverting on the article. 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
is in bad shape. there are several parts without connection and a Still to be merged: line in the middle. Anybody of the native speacker smight have a look!-- Stone 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The worklist currently has a section for 15 major reaction classes. What do people think about adding a section for specific reactions (mainly "name reactions")? Here's a list of 20 important reactions off the top of my head, that could be used for inspiration:
If this is too much detail for this project, we could also consider a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemical_Reactions project... Itub 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Some science articles are starting to produce introductory versions of themselves to make them more accessible to the average encyclopedia reader. You can see what has been done so far at special relativity, general relativity and evolution, all of which now have special introduction articles. These are intermediate between the very simple articles on Simple Wikipedia and the regular encyclopedia articles. They serve a valuable function in producing something that is useful for getting someone up to speed so that they can then tackle the real article. Those who want even simpler explanations can drop down to Simple Wikipedia. What do you think?-- Filll 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to clean up these three articles. Could someone back me up by making sure I didn't make any mistakes? Also, I think these articles are pretty fundamental. Perhaps they could use some attention. -- Rifleman 82 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
We do not appear to have fully discussed endorsing this, although there was a very positive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/archive06#Citation guidelines proposal. I see that Projects other than the Maths and Physics Projects, who initiated it, have done so. The Maths discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive18#Citation guidelines proposal (note it is archived, lots of the links to the debatre elsewhere are to the pre-archive section). The Physics discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive10. Note go to section "Citation guidelines proposal" at 42 in the TOC, not the one with the same name at 4 in the TOC. There is more discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals#Scientific citations.
I propose we "vote" whether we support it and if so, let the other prpjects know. -- Bduke 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
HappyCamper asked me on my talk page to be our ambassador on this matter so I have put a note on Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines to say we support the proposals. Our support 'vote' was higher than that on the Mathematics and Physics Projects (OK by 1!) but please add to it if you want to. -- Bduke 01:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Hexol, also on Transition metal carbene complex) I am inclined to remove this silly assessment tag: please specify in detail what it is that you find lacking in this article. V8rik 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Should we have a presence over at the Wikimedia Commons? There are a handful of WikiProjects who have a Commons page and guidelines for categorising media and organising categories. See Category:Commons projects for a list. May I propose we start Commons:Wikiproject Chemistry? Yesterday I found myself in a stupid argument with an editor at the Commons, who decided that nonmetals don't include halogens. Since we are all encouraged to contribute our images to the Commons, not just to WP, I think it'd be good if we had some expert chemists running things, so that cranks don't ruin the fun.
What are your thoughts?
Ben 16:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, if anyone cares about having images in Commons categorized correctly, please comment at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Categories#Proposals or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Halogen_oxides . We still have this user insisting that halogens are not nonmetals, so could be useful to show that there is consensus that he is in fact wrong. Itub 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Progestagen, Propofol, Zinc oxide, Lithium hypochlorite, Thiocarbanilide, Membrane reactor, Orgonite, Metalorganics, Nimesulide might also need some cats-- Stone 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Does WikiProject Chemistry not have a deletion page? I recently nominated this page for deletion. Please check. frummer 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Really fisch article with no real google hits! Biochemistry and enzyme people should have a look and than add a credible citation or flush it down to the other deleting canidates.-- Stone 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Have added an WP:RFC for the Nitrogen article, requested to cross post here -
Dirk and I were discussing the definition of a hydride, after I called H2S a hydride. We noticed that the WP article hydride seems to contradict itself, in that it defines hydrides as compounds of hydrogen and a more electropositive element, yet lists NH3 as a hydride, despite N being more electronegative than H.
In my experience, the term hydride is used to refer generally to all binary hydrogen compounds of the form AxHy. Dirk's gut instinct was to reserve the term for those compounds where hydrogen is the more electronegative element. I consider Dirk-type compounds to be a subset of the hydrides.
We thought it would be productive to poll WikiChemists on this issue, and then improve the hydride article as necessary.
Ben 21:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We could use the general term hydrogen chalogenides for the compounds H2O, H2S, H2Se, H2Te and H2Po, avoiding chalcogen hydrides as it has the potential to confuse readers, and that's exactly the opposite of what we try to achieve here. Ben 22:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
My old copy of Cotton and Wikinson "Advanced Inorganic Chemistry" (4th Ed., 1980) has an interesting diagram on page 247 of the periodic table headed "A classification of the hydrides". It divides the periodic table into 5 zones, with 4 of them labelled "Saline hydrides" (Li-Fr, Ca-Ra), "Transition metal hydrides" (Sc-Pt, but interestingly also Be and Mg), "Borderline hydrides" (Cu-Au, Zn-Hg, In-Tl) and "Covalent hydrides" (B-Ga, C-Pb, N-Bi, O-Po, F-At). The 5th group is He-Rn. It also stars the transition metals for which molecules or ions containing M-H bonds are known. Maybe we should follow this scheme. -- Bduke 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I tried adding myself to the list, but didn't save my changes because I couldn't figure out how to keep the bottom of the table in place, so I canceled my edits. Also, I couldn't figure out where to add my name, because it didn't seem alphabetical. AstroHurricane001 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi WikiChemists! You guys are great, I love contributing here. To wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year, I present this space-filling diagram of a (fictional!) molecule I call hollyberryine. Enjoy!
Ben 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed a recent flurry of chemical activity by Spoon!. See Special:Contributions/Spoon! for details. He/she is making subtle changes to the way trivial retained names and fully systematic names are described. I wonder if we should invite Spoon! here to discuss it? I reverted a couple of Spoon!'s edits to acetylene but in retrospect I think I should have let them stay.
Thoughts?
Ben 11:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, I wasn't suggesting Spoon! was wrong. I just thought we could help out, making similar changes to other articles. It's a lot of work for one person!
Ben 11:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the most famous molecules of all time! This article needs a little more rigorous chemistry that I can manage, some feedback from an expert would be appreciated. Thank you. TimVickers 14:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
copied from Talk:Boric acid
What is the name of the anion B(OH)4−? I can't find a definitive answer anywhere! The only name I've seen is borate, but that is also used to refer to BO33−. The only reason I want to know is because I've made an image of the structure of this anion and before I can upload it, I need to give it a filename!
Cheers
Ben 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, user DIV, i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting the articles on these views. This has been going on now for seven months. If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 23:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we please stop using "Further Reading" within articles? We're not teaching people, we're informing them neutrally. Also, why are there so many articles with language such as "consider a dienophile..." or something similar; consider changing your tone! :-/ James S 19:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Chemists, has anyone other than me realized that there is no page for
Pure chemistry and
Applied chemistry? As a important part of chemitry, I and another user,
User:Benjah-bmm27 believe they should have their own pages. So if you can, could you help me?
PatPeter 19:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I agree with Smokefoot that the distinction between pure and applied chemistry is not usefull. I think it was once and that is why the term is included in the title of IUPAC but it is no longer usefull. Quantum mechanics is very far from being an excellent example of pure chemistry. Since my retirement I have been using it to assist people designing new drugs - very much applied. Note that we do have Chemical industry and also Chemical technology now redirects there but should possibly be a separate article. -- Bduke 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I have given this some more thought and removed the false claim about quantum mechanics from pure chemistry. The distinction between pure and applied chemistry is no longer a real distinction and is widely rejected by chemists. I think it will be quite impossible to develop this article into something important and there will be arguments all the way about what is an example of pure chemistry. I think it should be deleted. Probably the best way is to put a prod tag on it, but I thought I would give people an opportunity to defend it here first. -- Bduke 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)