![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
The relatively benign species acetamide was recently placed in Category:Hazardous air pollutants. because, apparently, the United States's Environmental Protection Agency lists it. Extrapolating, will we have Germany's list of air pollutants as a category? And, eventually Roumania's list of bio-hazards? And Ghana's list of whatever... Smokefoot 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
-- Stone 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Anybody care to take a look at these two articles and contribute/give comments? I'm rather peeved that certain people wish that we be prescriptive than descriptive. While MW is not quite accurate in that weight measures force rather than mass, the fact is, it is most commonly used. Seems like the IUPAC nomenclature vs. systematic nomenclature issues. -- Rifleman 82 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Tetracoordinate looks similar to Tetrahedral molecular geometry, but for Hexacoordinate I have found nothing. Exansion or mergeing would be good.-- Stone 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've created Walter Reppe, of Reppe synthesis fame with the my basic german and the help of Babelfish, but there are some bits which I simply don't understand, and are mangled when automatically translated. I know there are quite a few german-speakers, maybe some help? Thanks! -- Rifleman 82 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[Reset tabs] Roelen certainly invented hydroformylation, another one on my worklist.... Physchim62 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at this deletion debate. It raises some general points. Should it be kept or, as I suggest in the discussion there, partly merged into Bentiromide? I am not familiar with this kind of data. Is it too much information as suggested, or OK? -- Bduke 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The Category:Chemistry is rather large and unwieldy. Are there others working on the category and appropriate subcategories? For starters, I'll propose Category:Types of chemistry to gather up subfields of chemistry; Category:Molecules (which will obviously need significant work) to put various molecule articles into, and to have appropriate subcats for types of molecules; and, possibly, Category:Chemical agents, since there seem to be a number of things described as "chemical agents". It's a purpose-based category rather than an essence-based category but maybe it's okay. Thoughts? -- lquilter 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I just recategorized a bunch of pages that don't belong in the general Chemistry category, but please, there are plenty for everyone! :) I would suggest a category called Category:Fields of chemistry instead of Category:Types of chemistry. Regarding molecules, we might have to think about the relationship between Category:Molecules, Category:Chemical substances, and Category:Chemical compounds. I have the impression that Category:Molecules is used only for articles about molecules in general, while specific molecules are classified in subcategories of Category:Chemical compounds. Regarding Category:Chemical agents, I'm a bit skeptical because I have never seen a precise definition of the term. Itub 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
To get an idea of the problem, people should really try categorizing the articles in Category:Chemistry stubs: this is how many of the current categories came about. Physchim62 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Now everything fits in one page, with about 50 categories and 100 articles! There's still some work to be done, though, and I haven't even looked at the contents of the subcategories yet. Itub 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone heard this term before? I think someone just made it up. I couldn't find anything on google, other than wikipedia mirrors. Itub 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, forgot to post here as well. I'd like to invite you all to take part in a discussion about importance templates @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Importance. Cheers! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Article has been prod'ed for deletion (reason - not notable). It starts "STING (Sequence To and withIN Graphics) is a free Web-based suite of programs for a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between protein sequence, structure, function, and stability." Can anyone help me to determine whether this is notable. The original author has not been here for nearly a year. Should we let it go, or should we remove the prod and let it go to AfD? -- Bduke 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The guys over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology say it is very notable with several peer reviewed journal articles. They have added them and removed the prod notice. Problem fixed I think. -- Bduke 22:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I received this request on my talk page today:
Has anyone heard of it? I looked on ChemFinder and ChemIndustry, but nothing turned up. I searched ChemFinder by structure, too. Still nothing.
Cheers
Ben 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It was requested to rename the article. Discussion at Talk:Salt#Move to salts. Any opinions? Femto 12:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made major improvements to analytical chemistry I would like to encourage others to contribute and check my work too.-- Nick Y. 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Please comment here: Talk:Bohr model#Intro image debate to help reach consensus as to what “Bohr’s atom model” actually looked like. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 07:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Antagonism (chemistry) LeanCP Donald E. Pearson, PhD Melvin A. Cook Jerry March will need a chemist to have a look.-- Stone 09:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wiki-books provides a detailed prep of acetone peroxides. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chemical_synthesis/Acetone_peroxide. I am curious to know if the WE-chem community supports disseminating practical preps of extremely dangerous chemicals that have no conceivable benefits? What I am missing?-- Smokefoot 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia is not: Instruction manuals. Cacycle 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_chemical_formulas , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CAS_numbers_by_chemical_compound
I've noticed that a few of these sort of list are knocking about. It seems from my initial inspection that these pages are updated manually. I'm not too hot on bots, but couldn’t a bot update these pages, simply by looking in the correct infobox box.
Also could you not get the bot to also create a redirect page for each compound formula to the wiki page concerned with this compound e.g. C6H6 diverts to benzene. A person might want to find the name of a compound that they only have the formula for. Obviously in the case where more than one isomer exists for a certain formula, the bot would have to create a disambiguous page for these formula rather than a divert page. If this has already been raised in some way before (and dealt with) ... sorry to bring it up again! -- Quantockgoblin 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As a newcomer to Wikipedia I am a bit confused as to how the chemistry of an element is documented. Different styles have been adopted for different elements, for example there is a section Compounds in aluminium as well a section Chemistry which does not appear in any of the small sample of elements I have browsed. What should appear in the element entry and what should appear in the related chemical compound entries?
Axiosaurus 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You found the weak point of a encyclopedia compared with a text book of inorganic chemistry! The chemistry of certain elements would generate a article of its own and from most of the elements nobody started this kind of article yet. Most of the time there are single compounds without the overall conection between them. The comparing of chlorides and fluorides of P As Sb would be a article giving a good overview of the bonding in halogen compounds, but the info is deverted between all the compound pages. This will not chnage in short time. A section Chemistry in the element article should be the first aim, and if this is big enough make it a article of its own. As there are only a few contributors able two write a section like chemistry of aluminium in a way that it would help to understand chemistry of aluminium this will take some time.--
Stone
18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Axiosaurus 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert at chemistry, but I'm pretty sure that there is something wrong with the coloring of the wide periodic table. As far as I'm concerned I'd say that oxygen and carbon are not considered metalloids, nor is flour a lanthanide. I won't try to change it as I'm no expert, but isn't there something wrong?? Snailwalker | talk 18:37, 1 February 2007 (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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
The relatively benign species acetamide was recently placed in Category:Hazardous air pollutants. because, apparently, the United States's Environmental Protection Agency lists it. Extrapolating, will we have Germany's list of air pollutants as a category? And, eventually Roumania's list of bio-hazards? And Ghana's list of whatever... Smokefoot 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
-- Stone 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Anybody care to take a look at these two articles and contribute/give comments? I'm rather peeved that certain people wish that we be prescriptive than descriptive. While MW is not quite accurate in that weight measures force rather than mass, the fact is, it is most commonly used. Seems like the IUPAC nomenclature vs. systematic nomenclature issues. -- Rifleman 82 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Tetracoordinate looks similar to Tetrahedral molecular geometry, but for Hexacoordinate I have found nothing. Exansion or mergeing would be good.-- Stone 12:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've created Walter Reppe, of Reppe synthesis fame with the my basic german and the help of Babelfish, but there are some bits which I simply don't understand, and are mangled when automatically translated. I know there are quite a few german-speakers, maybe some help? Thanks! -- Rifleman 82 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[Reset tabs] Roelen certainly invented hydroformylation, another one on my worklist.... Physchim62 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at this deletion debate. It raises some general points. Should it be kept or, as I suggest in the discussion there, partly merged into Bentiromide? I am not familiar with this kind of data. Is it too much information as suggested, or OK? -- Bduke 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The Category:Chemistry is rather large and unwieldy. Are there others working on the category and appropriate subcategories? For starters, I'll propose Category:Types of chemistry to gather up subfields of chemistry; Category:Molecules (which will obviously need significant work) to put various molecule articles into, and to have appropriate subcats for types of molecules; and, possibly, Category:Chemical agents, since there seem to be a number of things described as "chemical agents". It's a purpose-based category rather than an essence-based category but maybe it's okay. Thoughts? -- lquilter 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I just recategorized a bunch of pages that don't belong in the general Chemistry category, but please, there are plenty for everyone! :) I would suggest a category called Category:Fields of chemistry instead of Category:Types of chemistry. Regarding molecules, we might have to think about the relationship between Category:Molecules, Category:Chemical substances, and Category:Chemical compounds. I have the impression that Category:Molecules is used only for articles about molecules in general, while specific molecules are classified in subcategories of Category:Chemical compounds. Regarding Category:Chemical agents, I'm a bit skeptical because I have never seen a precise definition of the term. Itub 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
To get an idea of the problem, people should really try categorizing the articles in Category:Chemistry stubs: this is how many of the current categories came about. Physchim62 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Now everything fits in one page, with about 50 categories and 100 articles! There's still some work to be done, though, and I haven't even looked at the contents of the subcategories yet. Itub 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone heard this term before? I think someone just made it up. I couldn't find anything on google, other than wikipedia mirrors. Itub 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, forgot to post here as well. I'd like to invite you all to take part in a discussion about importance templates @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Importance. Cheers! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Article has been prod'ed for deletion (reason - not notable). It starts "STING (Sequence To and withIN Graphics) is a free Web-based suite of programs for a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between protein sequence, structure, function, and stability." Can anyone help me to determine whether this is notable. The original author has not been here for nearly a year. Should we let it go, or should we remove the prod and let it go to AfD? -- Bduke 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The guys over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology say it is very notable with several peer reviewed journal articles. They have added them and removed the prod notice. Problem fixed I think. -- Bduke 22:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I received this request on my talk page today:
Has anyone heard of it? I looked on ChemFinder and ChemIndustry, but nothing turned up. I searched ChemFinder by structure, too. Still nothing.
Cheers
Ben 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It was requested to rename the article. Discussion at Talk:Salt#Move to salts. Any opinions? Femto 12:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made major improvements to analytical chemistry I would like to encourage others to contribute and check my work too.-- Nick Y. 21:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Please comment here: Talk:Bohr model#Intro image debate to help reach consensus as to what “Bohr’s atom model” actually looked like. Thanks: -- Sadi Carnot 07:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Antagonism (chemistry) LeanCP Donald E. Pearson, PhD Melvin A. Cook Jerry March will need a chemist to have a look.-- Stone 09:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wiki-books provides a detailed prep of acetone peroxides. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chemical_synthesis/Acetone_peroxide. I am curious to know if the WE-chem community supports disseminating practical preps of extremely dangerous chemicals that have no conceivable benefits? What I am missing?-- Smokefoot 01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia is not: Instruction manuals. Cacycle 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_chemical_formulas , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CAS_numbers_by_chemical_compound
I've noticed that a few of these sort of list are knocking about. It seems from my initial inspection that these pages are updated manually. I'm not too hot on bots, but couldn’t a bot update these pages, simply by looking in the correct infobox box.
Also could you not get the bot to also create a redirect page for each compound formula to the wiki page concerned with this compound e.g. C6H6 diverts to benzene. A person might want to find the name of a compound that they only have the formula for. Obviously in the case where more than one isomer exists for a certain formula, the bot would have to create a disambiguous page for these formula rather than a divert page. If this has already been raised in some way before (and dealt with) ... sorry to bring it up again! -- Quantockgoblin 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As a newcomer to Wikipedia I am a bit confused as to how the chemistry of an element is documented. Different styles have been adopted for different elements, for example there is a section Compounds in aluminium as well a section Chemistry which does not appear in any of the small sample of elements I have browsed. What should appear in the element entry and what should appear in the related chemical compound entries?
Axiosaurus 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You found the weak point of a encyclopedia compared with a text book of inorganic chemistry! The chemistry of certain elements would generate a article of its own and from most of the elements nobody started this kind of article yet. Most of the time there are single compounds without the overall conection between them. The comparing of chlorides and fluorides of P As Sb would be a article giving a good overview of the bonding in halogen compounds, but the info is deverted between all the compound pages. This will not chnage in short time. A section Chemistry in the element article should be the first aim, and if this is big enough make it a article of its own. As there are only a few contributors able two write a section like chemistry of aluminium in a way that it would help to understand chemistry of aluminium this will take some time.--
Stone
18:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Axiosaurus 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert at chemistry, but I'm pretty sure that there is something wrong with the coloring of the wide periodic table. As far as I'm concerned I'd say that oxygen and carbon are not considered metalloids, nor is flour a lanthanide. I won't try to change it as I'm no expert, but isn't there something wrong?? Snailwalker | talk 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)