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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
When trying to learn about a new chemical I find that contrasting a graphical representation of the chemical in question with one another one really aids my understanding, however a lot of chemicals are illustrated in different styles, making this visual comparison difficult. It would be good to standardize the graphics that appear on the top right. For example I wanted to see the difference between Fructose and Glucose, so I opened two browser tabs for comparison and flicking between them it was hard to see the exact difference between the chemical structures, because the graphic styles were so different. Is there a way we could take a vote on the graphics formats and positions so that this is made easier? If all the articles have the graphics in similar styles and position then people will understand them better. If we can agree on the illustration style then we would have to diligently enforce consistency. First prize would be a way to generate the graphics from the Systematic Name specified in IUPAC Nomenclature. I realize that generating graphics for chemical classes like Ester would be hard since there are unspecified functional placeholder chemicals, but it should be possible. If this is already a discussion somewhere please add that link here. Profhof ( talk) 17:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Any program can be used, and any program should be allowed. Mandating a single program is against the ideals of the project. Even "professional" publishers do not limit authors in regards to their choice of chemical editing program. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Structure_drawing recommends ACS settings, which all modern programs can replicate.
Jmol may be able to display structures in a 3D manner, simply using the SMILES. It is already implemented in the Chemboxes (click the Jmol-3D images link, e.g. [1]. The project as a whole is more hesitant about implementing it, itself.
While I sympathise with your problem of trying to compare structures on two different pages, the important thing to remember is that each page is standalone in every way. Even varieties of English are allowed to differ between them. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it time that we remove plasma from the list of 'fundamental states of matter'? It is certainly not a distinct phase from solids, liquids, and gases. There are examples of solid plasmas termed 'dusty/grainy plasmas', there are liquid plasmas such as 'ionic liquids'. We're all familiar with the regular 'gaseous plasma'. It's even possible to create a 'supercritical plasma.' Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads-up about this submission at AfC. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems like we have another problem editor. I encountered him while editting silicon related articles and categories. Recently he created a new category. Following the category style recomendations, I removed excess material from the top of the category that should go in an article, as it does not contribute to the clarification the subject of the category. I was immediately reverted without explanation. I reverted only twice thereafter, with the above reason given and an invitation to discuss. I also gave him goodfaith warning of the 3RR. Then I received the 3RR warning proper in return, posted on my talkpage.
I've also had troublesome encounters with him concerning the categorisation of other silicic articles, this user seems to be engaged in an uncooperative and passive POV style of editting. It would be nice if someone could keep an eye on him. Here is the history of the relevant category: [2]. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A development: there is now a discussion with Andy taking place on my talkpage. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 13:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a requested move on the 2-Pyridone page. There are countless examples of 1-Methyl... or 2-Phenyl.... articles in wikipedia. Should all be moved to 1-methyl... or 2-phenyl....? -- Stone ( talk) 16:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately our MOS covers this. For page titles the first letter is capitalised, as it would be at the start of a sentence. Frankly though, its not a major problem, as the search function isn't case sensitive. Project Osprey ( talk) 18:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if this new article should be merged somewhere... FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 03:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Organic_semiconductor#Organic_semiconductor.23Merger_proposal over merging organic electronics into organic semiconductor. I thought that it may be of interest to your WikiProject. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated Acetic acid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 19:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Charge-transfer complex#Most of this article seems to be off-topic, a discussion is going on about the splitting of [ transfer band] from charge transfer complex. Specifically the now reverted CT band article was to about optical transitions and the CT complex article was to be about salts. These topics are discussed pretty separately often, at least in the classroom, probably because CT bands are seen more commonly in compounds that would not be classified as CT salts, say [Ru(bipy)32+ etc. Advice is welcome if you have some understanding of these phenomena.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments are also welcome at Talk:Catalytic oxidation with regards to how we should handle this very large topic that seems to have been slightly neglected. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Everyone learns that a chemical compound with no numerical prefix attached to the first element represents one atom. But arsenic trioxide has two arsenic atoms; yet it has a name that implies it has one (that is, its name implies AsO3, not As2O3, which would be diarsenic trioxide.) Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I will be overhauling the Environmental Chemistry page over the next week or two, adding a good amount of what I hope will be high quality new material. I would love any and all input and/or suggestions... Aside from editing random sentences here and there on various pages this will be my first major input to an article. For reference and so everyone knows, I am a senior majoring in chemistry with an environmental concentration, at Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. No graduate degree obviously, but I am determined to make additions which will be welcomed by the wikiproject chemistry.
In the next few days I will prepare a list of major changes I intend to make and post it on the talk page for discussion. In the mean time, I've edited the intro quite a bit so far, which I consider as 'under construction.' EzPz ( talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
sodium diacetate
sodium sesquicarbonate
acid salt — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.171.99.229 (
talk) 18:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Acid salt is a real thing, it's sometimes also called a 'half salt'. Say you have a molecule with two acidic groups (e.g. Malonic acid) and you neutralise one of them; what you're left with is part salt, part acid - hence an acid salt. The other two I do not like, they appear to just be a 1:1 mixtures that have been given special names. Project Osprey ( talk) 19:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Please join the
Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history! |
We would love to have you join us in the Edit-a-Thon next week (remotely or in person). Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any clear definition on what a homologous series and an oligomeric series are? If we consider e.g. cyclic alkanes, cyclic dimethylsiloxanes or crown ethers of different ring sizes, what would be the more appropriate term? Thank you in advance, 129.132.225.23 ( talk) 12:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that it is a good idea to split Hydrogen into Hydrogen and Hydrogen (chemical). Any second opinions? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This gives the reader the ability to investigate hydrogen as an element, or alternatively, to investigate the chemistry of diatomic hydrogen specifically. It also frees up space/opportunity for more speciallised information on dihydrogen as a chemical. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hydrogen can handle hydrogen as a component of other compounds, hydrogen-bonding, hydrogen physics, etc. While Hydrogen (chemical) can handle hydrogen uses, reactions that consume or produce dihydrogen, and its economic value, etc. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to split, this article gives a nice overview now, and is not too big. It was even featured in this form in the past. Perfect. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Expanding on my earlier comments:
Regards, EdChem ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
We have resisted splitting articles on many elements into articles on the free element vs. everything else. We already have hydrogen atom and I expect there is room for a similar hydrogen molecule (now redirects to hydrogen) if you want to discuss the quantum mechanics of it. There may even be room for an article on hydrogen chemistry (as we have organic chemistry for carbon!), but leaving a summary behind in hydrogen, not splitting it out. We cover a lot of production stuff and use of the element in hydrogen fuel, yet a summary remains behind in hydrogen. In short, I think this a bad idea. Write the subarticles and summarize them in hydrogen. There is no limit to this, as you see in the examples above, from water to fire to Earth to air. So I vote no. S B H arris 02:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There was a very short discussion on the splitting of the oxygen article. Number 33 in the index Talk:Oxygen/Archive_1 Split O2 to its own article.-- Stone ( talk) 09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
In this case, neither one can be said to be the master article, so perfect nested outline form is sometimes not possible on Wikipedia. In other cases, it is. As I said in TALK:alcohol to somebody who wanted to shoehorn in a long section on alcohol and cortisol, that article is long enough to stand alone, and per WP:SS should have been a "main article" for an adrenal or cortisol effects subsection in the already existent Long term effects of alcohol which in turn is a subarticle for alcoholism which in turn is a subarticle for ethanol which is in turn a subarticle for alcohol which (in the case of that article) refered to a general chemical class of R-OH compounds, of which ethanol is (of course) only one. You see the point? S B H arris 00:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I was trying to find a destination to wikilink Volatile sulfur compounds and found no ideal target. We have Organosulfur compounds, volatile organic compounds and Volatility (chemistry) ... but as I understand it not all VSC are organic, e.g. H2S, and presumably not all organosulfur compounds are volatile.
Does Wikipedia need a VSC article? If no what article(s) should I link VSC to please?
Thanks,
Lesion ( talk) 18:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for advice. Thiol#Odor and Thioether#Odor do seem to be the most relevant pages for this. Yes it was for the halitosis page which I'm currently working on. I have limited understanding of chemistry, so I ask can the 3 main VSC that keep getting mentioned in sources: H2S, CH3SH and CH3SCH3; all be called both thioethers and thiols? Per the thioether page, R-S-R would mean yes, but the lead says that it is C-S-C, which would mean that the first 2 are not thioethers? Conversely, the first 2 could be called thiols, but not sure if dimethylsulfide is a thiol since there is no H directly bonded to the Sulfur? Sorry to be a pain, but still confused. Lesion ( talk) 09:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
... [[Volatility (chemistry)|volatile]] [[sulfur]] [[Chemical compound|compounds]] such as [[hydrogen sulfide]], [[methyl mercaptan]], [[dimethyl sulfide]], and [[allyl methyl sulfide]]. All these [[sulfide]]s are classed as [[organosulfur compound]]s apart from hydrogen sulfide, which does not contain carbon.
Organosulfur compound also looks like a parent article for thiols and thioethers etc. Lesion ( talk) 11:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Even just looking at the edit history, and more importantly after a discussion on my talk page, this is a desperately needed article and would help fill gaps in WP on group theory in theoretical physics and chemistry. I thought that at least something of a definition with some links and sources (to be moved inline) is far better than the annoying redirect to simple module, and decided put the draft in mainspace so others with expertise/interests in group theory can see and/or edit it. Needs a lot of work which I'll hopefully get to finish (recently busy...). M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 21:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I have created an article on ChemWeb which now resides on one of my personal sandbox pages. I am wondering if this is considered a notable topic and there is a discussion taking place at WikiProject Academics, here. And so, it was suggested that I also solicit comments from members of this project. I thought this was a good idea. Therefore, your comments and suggestions over at WP Academic Journals would be much appreciated. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I need your feedback about the properties used to describe a chemical in Wikidata: do we need more properties ? If yes, which ones ? Please have a look at Wikidata and give me an answer here or there. Thanks Snipre ( talk) 07:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Radon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear chemistry experts: There is an article at Afc right now, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patchy Particle which is difficult to review because the submitter has limited skill at writing in English. It could use some attention from someone who has a clue what patchy particles are, and can copyedit the text without incorporating errors. Am I asking in the right place? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that this 19-hours-old article is an illegitimate content fork of orbital hybridisation? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi All, I recently did an readout of all chembox properties templates and I found and fixed a lot of wrong written parameters, which prevented the values from being displayed. I also documented some parameters which are implemented but were not documented. I found that the following implemented parameters are only used a single time and could be discontinued to reduce complexity, because they are much to specific:
Instead I suggest we support the following parameters which were used by authors several times assuming they work:
Another thing is that the Parameter: Dipole is used and implemented in both this section and the structur section this should be consolidated. But where? -- Saehrimnir ( talk) 05:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
*Bulk Conductivity, Sheet Resistance, Methacrylate Equiv Wt are only used in
PEDOT-TMA not implemented but documented?!?
As for the names for the new parameters I would suggest:
I think the only other spelling difference would be vapor and vapour. In VaporPressure and if implemented in VaporizationEnthalpy. -- Saehrimnir ( talk) 21:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I got a very encouraging response from dr brady of the periodicvideos youtubechannel saying we may be able to use some screenshots if we provide them with sufficient credit. Are there any gaps on here where certain of their videos might illustrate something interesting? -- عبد المؤمن ( talk) 01:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Lithium, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone, preferably with some knowledge of biochemistry, please take a quick look at this talk page query? If the user is correct, the article needs to be reworded, but this is way outside my sphere of competence. Rivertorch ( talk) 18:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone look at 10-Hydroxy Lycopodium Alkaloids and File:10-Hydroxylycopodine, Deacetylpaniculine and Paniculine.jpeg ? These are out of shape (and the permission required for the file is missing) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 01:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at this submission. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Chemistry. User:UMChemProfessor was requesting a course instructor user right at WP:ENB. Have people been happy with the progress of their student's work? (See the user page.) Just checking. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This word is ridiculous! In decane, the c is pronounced like a k the way we would expect. If decene is pronounced this way, it should be spelled dekene. C before e is soft. Georgia guy ( talk) 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know: I nominated the above category for deletion. In addition, there in an ongoing CfD on Category:Phenolic compounds found in castoreum. -- Leyo 13:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a note at WT:PHYSICS about a discussion at template talk:Science concerning Template:Science ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I modified this template translating from Italian. Is that fine? -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 08:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
In the
Italian WikiProject Chemistry
we agree to use the plural form for all the classes of organic chemical compounds, because in this case the subject of the page is referred to all the compounds of the class as a whole, instead of a single compound only.
Moreover, the introduction of these type of pages in general contains the plural form (e.g. the introduction of
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon is "Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), also known as poly-aromatic hydrocarbons ...").
If you agree and you want to follow this criteria in en.wikipedia also, the following pages for example need to be moved:
To facilitate the renaming procedure, in it.wikipedia we created a category called "Classi di composti organici" (that means "Classes of organic compounds"), so we know that all the pages inside that category need to have the title with the plural. -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 08:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I nominated the subcategories of the recently deleted Category:Chemical compounds found in animals for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 1. -- Kkmurray ( talk) 04:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Standard enthalpy change of combustion duplicates Heat of combustion. I suggest that these articles are to be merged. As heat of combustion is still a much more common term, standard enthalpy change of combustion could be redirected to it. -- Fedor Babkin ( talk) 05:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Care to have a look? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paramenthane Hydroperoxide. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
file:Polonium.jpg and File:Radon.jpg are up for non-free content review. As this revolves around issues of radioactivity, this may impact on images used by this project. -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 13:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Although the terms "chemical element" and "simple substance" are often used as synonymous, they aren't!
In fact a "simple substance" is a chemical substance formed by atoms of the same chemical element. In other words, the "chemical elements" are not atoms neither materials. They are instead the names that define a "typology" of atoms.
Chemical element are simply the abstract classes of atoms defined by the periodic table, while the chemical substances are real aggregates of matter.
For this reasons, for simplicity we can use "chemical element" as a synonymous of "simple substance", but I suggest to clarify this difference between the meanings of these two terms at least in the pages
Chemical substance and
Chemical element. --
Daniele Pugliesi (
talk) 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There is the discussion at the Wikiprojects Elements to make the elements zinc, cadmium and mercury poor metals, for me this looks strange. I could not find any of my chemistry text books (German) doing so. Is this only for me strange or is this referencable from anywhere? -- Stone ( talk) 09:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Chemical compounds found in Acanthaceae and related categories of the form Chemical compounds found in foo and Phenolic compounds found in bar have been nominated for possible deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. These are the plant, food, etc. categories similar to the Chemical compounds found in animals categories that were recently deleted. [3] -- Kkmurray ( talk) 17:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Society, the UK's science academy, is recruiting a Wikimedian-in-Residence to help them work more closely with Wikipedia. The position is part-time (one day per week) for a fixed term of 6 months. See here for more information and details of how to apply. For additional information please contact me at francis.bacon [AT] royalsociety.org Andeggs ( talk) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I am writing my first wiki page: /info/en/?search=User:Stevesnee/CPhos
However I can't seem to upload a decent quality molecular structure. Can anybody please explain how to do it using accelrys and any other standard / free software?
I have read the following guide: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Structure_drawing
This seems to suggest that the diagram must created, printed and then scanned back into the computer. Can this be correct?
Any help would be much appreciated, Stevesnee ( talk) 18:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The introduction of a new article borane on the monomeric BH3 compound has meant that the previous article borane (a family article giving an overview of polyhedral boron compounds) has been renamed to boranes. It has dropped from google (why?) so I think a new name is in order, any ideas? Axiosaurus ( talk) 11:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
A claim (see User talk:Dvwynn) has been made that lowercase aromatic symbols in the SMILES specification (1) has been deprecated and (2) does not work in several chemical GUIs (Reaxys, SciFinder). While changing aromatic to Kekulé SMILES is probably harmless, before making large number of changes to SMILES strings in articles, it would be wise to first obtain consensus. Are there any opinions on what the preferred SMILES format should be? Boghog ( talk) 20:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I am still concerned about the intrusive nature of some of the large Chem boxes. If nothing else, they can interfere with the layout, particularly with the showing of images. See, for example, ascorbic acid. Besides, there is no need to show all this data up front.
The chembox documentation suggests moving some of the information on to a data page. I have tried out a variation on this theme with the topic ethanol for which ethanol (data page) already exists. I simply copied the whole of the existing chembox on to the data page. Then, I removed all but a few items from the chembox on the article page. This results in a chem box on the article page of reasonable size, with all the original data being only one click away on the supplementary data page. The same process can be applied to other boxes like elementbox ( vanadium), drugbox ( aspirin). Others?
The choice of what to retain is obviously a matter for which consensus should be reached. I suggest we delay that process and concentrate initially on whether or not this change is a good idea, or not. Petergans ( talk) 14:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed an upsurge in edits by infrequent editors who seem only to come to Wikipedia to insert citations to their own work or at least work by one team of researchers. In the past, I have left a message at their talk pages as follows:
==Welcome, but be careful==
Editors like me are wary when we observe a new editor such as yourself citing repeatedly work by one team, it seems to be likely COI. If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing.--~~~~
We are supposed to be welcoming to new editors, and I strive to follow that guideline, but this self-citation behavior seems usually, not always, to be inappropriate. But maybe the community does not agree with my actions in which case I welcome discussion. I fear however that articles will become filled with the latest "vanity citations". On the other hand, content is content, which gives me pause. A recent example of the behavior that I am referring to are the recent chem entries here.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 04:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi chemists, please stop by this RFC on modifying the icon images in the Elements Infobox: [4]
208.44.87.91 ( talk) 01:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone help clean up this article? It's quite sad that something as essential as molecular weight has such a poor quality article to describe it. My immediate concerns are summarized on the article talk page. Thanks. (+)H3N- Protein\Chemist- CO2(-) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added the article chalcogen to the Chemistry project, currently it is marked up as Project Elements and an enthusiastic group of editors is pushing it on. It has been rated as GA. The chemical compounds section lets it down. IMHO it requires either drastic improvement and enlargement in terms of detail or a complete rethink and rewite to highlight chemical trends. Of all the groups this must be one of the most difficult to tackle as O is so different from S, Se and Te and Po is different again, which is of course why most text books treat oxygen as a separate topic from the rest of the group. Axiosaurus ( talk) 11:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The zinc article and the Zinc and the common cold article are edited by a person with a near identical user name to the added references. This might be COI or good work I can not find out in short. If somebody want to have a look or help?-- Stone ( talk) 20:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Colleagues, currently Aurum fulminans redirects to Fulminate. However this redirect seems to be incorrect. Quoting from Peter Krehl's History of Shock Waves, Explosions and Impact, p. 200:
Proposed merging Light-activated resin to Photopolymer. Same thing, but dentists and stereolithography people use different terminology. Both articles are brief, under-cited, and could use some attention. Please discuss at Talk:Photopolymer. Thanks. -- John Nagle ( talk) 20:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you go over this submission and this one? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
As requested, I am reporting a chemistry-related submission at Afc. Would someone here like to review it? We have a backlog of over 1400 submissions right now; any help would be appreciated. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
One more: User:Seppi333/P-hydroxyphenylacetone. Thanks Seppi333 ( talk) 17:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have done a major rewrite of Bent's rule, an article that was previously a "C-Class" article of "High-importance" in this WikiProject. I am still actively working on it, but I would appreciate any feedback you might have. Thanks. B Levin13 ( talk) 19:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a few periodic table-related discussion being held at WT:ELEMENTS. You might find them interesting.
one -- how to color elements that can be considered a part of more than one categories: should those cases be shown on a table, should we change nonmetal categories, etc.
two -- what table use in an infobox of a chemical element: 32-column one (we have now) or 18-column one (we might switch to).
three -- should we switch to rare earth metals category instead of lanthanides we have today?
Please take part-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
UNESCO proclaimed the
"International Year of Crystallography 2014". It can be an important opportunity for wikipedians to contribute in an international initiative, spreading the scientific knowledge, in particular about crystallography.
These are my proposals to participate to this event:
Do you have any other opinion or suggestion? -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 10:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I just want to ask if there is an interest to link analytical reference data such as reference spectra for gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC-MS) from the WikiPages of certain chemicals. For example: this spectrum for Alanine could be linked from the Wikipedia page for Alanine. I appreciate any comments on that! Best regards, Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahu54321 ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 November 2013 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
When trying to learn about a new chemical I find that contrasting a graphical representation of the chemical in question with one another one really aids my understanding, however a lot of chemicals are illustrated in different styles, making this visual comparison difficult. It would be good to standardize the graphics that appear on the top right. For example I wanted to see the difference between Fructose and Glucose, so I opened two browser tabs for comparison and flicking between them it was hard to see the exact difference between the chemical structures, because the graphic styles were so different. Is there a way we could take a vote on the graphics formats and positions so that this is made easier? If all the articles have the graphics in similar styles and position then people will understand them better. If we can agree on the illustration style then we would have to diligently enforce consistency. First prize would be a way to generate the graphics from the Systematic Name specified in IUPAC Nomenclature. I realize that generating graphics for chemical classes like Ester would be hard since there are unspecified functional placeholder chemicals, but it should be possible. If this is already a discussion somewhere please add that link here. Profhof ( talk) 17:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Any program can be used, and any program should be allowed. Mandating a single program is against the ideals of the project. Even "professional" publishers do not limit authors in regards to their choice of chemical editing program. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Structure_drawing recommends ACS settings, which all modern programs can replicate.
Jmol may be able to display structures in a 3D manner, simply using the SMILES. It is already implemented in the Chemboxes (click the Jmol-3D images link, e.g. [1]. The project as a whole is more hesitant about implementing it, itself.
While I sympathise with your problem of trying to compare structures on two different pages, the important thing to remember is that each page is standalone in every way. Even varieties of English are allowed to differ between them. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it time that we remove plasma from the list of 'fundamental states of matter'? It is certainly not a distinct phase from solids, liquids, and gases. There are examples of solid plasmas termed 'dusty/grainy plasmas', there are liquid plasmas such as 'ionic liquids'. We're all familiar with the regular 'gaseous plasma'. It's even possible to create a 'supercritical plasma.' Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads-up about this submission at AfC. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems like we have another problem editor. I encountered him while editting silicon related articles and categories. Recently he created a new category. Following the category style recomendations, I removed excess material from the top of the category that should go in an article, as it does not contribute to the clarification the subject of the category. I was immediately reverted without explanation. I reverted only twice thereafter, with the above reason given and an invitation to discuss. I also gave him goodfaith warning of the 3RR. Then I received the 3RR warning proper in return, posted on my talkpage.
I've also had troublesome encounters with him concerning the categorisation of other silicic articles, this user seems to be engaged in an uncooperative and passive POV style of editting. It would be nice if someone could keep an eye on him. Here is the history of the relevant category: [2]. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A development: there is now a discussion with Andy taking place on my talkpage. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 13:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a requested move on the 2-Pyridone page. There are countless examples of 1-Methyl... or 2-Phenyl.... articles in wikipedia. Should all be moved to 1-methyl... or 2-phenyl....? -- Stone ( talk) 16:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately our MOS covers this. For page titles the first letter is capitalised, as it would be at the start of a sentence. Frankly though, its not a major problem, as the search function isn't case sensitive. Project Osprey ( talk) 18:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if this new article should be merged somewhere... FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 03:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Organic_semiconductor#Organic_semiconductor.23Merger_proposal over merging organic electronics into organic semiconductor. I thought that it may be of interest to your WikiProject. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated Acetic acid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 19:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Charge-transfer complex#Most of this article seems to be off-topic, a discussion is going on about the splitting of [ transfer band] from charge transfer complex. Specifically the now reverted CT band article was to about optical transitions and the CT complex article was to be about salts. These topics are discussed pretty separately often, at least in the classroom, probably because CT bands are seen more commonly in compounds that would not be classified as CT salts, say [Ru(bipy)32+ etc. Advice is welcome if you have some understanding of these phenomena.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments are also welcome at Talk:Catalytic oxidation with regards to how we should handle this very large topic that seems to have been slightly neglected. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Everyone learns that a chemical compound with no numerical prefix attached to the first element represents one atom. But arsenic trioxide has two arsenic atoms; yet it has a name that implies it has one (that is, its name implies AsO3, not As2O3, which would be diarsenic trioxide.) Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I will be overhauling the Environmental Chemistry page over the next week or two, adding a good amount of what I hope will be high quality new material. I would love any and all input and/or suggestions... Aside from editing random sentences here and there on various pages this will be my first major input to an article. For reference and so everyone knows, I am a senior majoring in chemistry with an environmental concentration, at Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. No graduate degree obviously, but I am determined to make additions which will be welcomed by the wikiproject chemistry.
In the next few days I will prepare a list of major changes I intend to make and post it on the talk page for discussion. In the mean time, I've edited the intro quite a bit so far, which I consider as 'under construction.' EzPz ( talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
sodium diacetate
sodium sesquicarbonate
acid salt — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.171.99.229 (
talk) 18:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Acid salt is a real thing, it's sometimes also called a 'half salt'. Say you have a molecule with two acidic groups (e.g. Malonic acid) and you neutralise one of them; what you're left with is part salt, part acid - hence an acid salt. The other two I do not like, they appear to just be a 1:1 mixtures that have been given special names. Project Osprey ( talk) 19:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Please join the
Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history! |
We would love to have you join us in the Edit-a-Thon next week (remotely or in person). Mary Mark Ockerbloom ( talk) 20:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there any clear definition on what a homologous series and an oligomeric series are? If we consider e.g. cyclic alkanes, cyclic dimethylsiloxanes or crown ethers of different ring sizes, what would be the more appropriate term? Thank you in advance, 129.132.225.23 ( talk) 12:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that it is a good idea to split Hydrogen into Hydrogen and Hydrogen (chemical). Any second opinions? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This gives the reader the ability to investigate hydrogen as an element, or alternatively, to investigate the chemistry of diatomic hydrogen specifically. It also frees up space/opportunity for more speciallised information on dihydrogen as a chemical. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hydrogen can handle hydrogen as a component of other compounds, hydrogen-bonding, hydrogen physics, etc. While Hydrogen (chemical) can handle hydrogen uses, reactions that consume or produce dihydrogen, and its economic value, etc. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to split, this article gives a nice overview now, and is not too big. It was even featured in this form in the past. Perfect. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Expanding on my earlier comments:
Regards, EdChem ( talk) 01:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
We have resisted splitting articles on many elements into articles on the free element vs. everything else. We already have hydrogen atom and I expect there is room for a similar hydrogen molecule (now redirects to hydrogen) if you want to discuss the quantum mechanics of it. There may even be room for an article on hydrogen chemistry (as we have organic chemistry for carbon!), but leaving a summary behind in hydrogen, not splitting it out. We cover a lot of production stuff and use of the element in hydrogen fuel, yet a summary remains behind in hydrogen. In short, I think this a bad idea. Write the subarticles and summarize them in hydrogen. There is no limit to this, as you see in the examples above, from water to fire to Earth to air. So I vote no. S B H arris 02:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There was a very short discussion on the splitting of the oxygen article. Number 33 in the index Talk:Oxygen/Archive_1 Split O2 to its own article.-- Stone ( talk) 09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
In this case, neither one can be said to be the master article, so perfect nested outline form is sometimes not possible on Wikipedia. In other cases, it is. As I said in TALK:alcohol to somebody who wanted to shoehorn in a long section on alcohol and cortisol, that article is long enough to stand alone, and per WP:SS should have been a "main article" for an adrenal or cortisol effects subsection in the already existent Long term effects of alcohol which in turn is a subarticle for alcoholism which in turn is a subarticle for ethanol which is in turn a subarticle for alcohol which (in the case of that article) refered to a general chemical class of R-OH compounds, of which ethanol is (of course) only one. You see the point? S B H arris 00:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I was trying to find a destination to wikilink Volatile sulfur compounds and found no ideal target. We have Organosulfur compounds, volatile organic compounds and Volatility (chemistry) ... but as I understand it not all VSC are organic, e.g. H2S, and presumably not all organosulfur compounds are volatile.
Does Wikipedia need a VSC article? If no what article(s) should I link VSC to please?
Thanks,
Lesion ( talk) 18:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for advice. Thiol#Odor and Thioether#Odor do seem to be the most relevant pages for this. Yes it was for the halitosis page which I'm currently working on. I have limited understanding of chemistry, so I ask can the 3 main VSC that keep getting mentioned in sources: H2S, CH3SH and CH3SCH3; all be called both thioethers and thiols? Per the thioether page, R-S-R would mean yes, but the lead says that it is C-S-C, which would mean that the first 2 are not thioethers? Conversely, the first 2 could be called thiols, but not sure if dimethylsulfide is a thiol since there is no H directly bonded to the Sulfur? Sorry to be a pain, but still confused. Lesion ( talk) 09:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
... [[Volatility (chemistry)|volatile]] [[sulfur]] [[Chemical compound|compounds]] such as [[hydrogen sulfide]], [[methyl mercaptan]], [[dimethyl sulfide]], and [[allyl methyl sulfide]]. All these [[sulfide]]s are classed as [[organosulfur compound]]s apart from hydrogen sulfide, which does not contain carbon.
Organosulfur compound also looks like a parent article for thiols and thioethers etc. Lesion ( talk) 11:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Even just looking at the edit history, and more importantly after a discussion on my talk page, this is a desperately needed article and would help fill gaps in WP on group theory in theoretical physics and chemistry. I thought that at least something of a definition with some links and sources (to be moved inline) is far better than the annoying redirect to simple module, and decided put the draft in mainspace so others with expertise/interests in group theory can see and/or edit it. Needs a lot of work which I'll hopefully get to finish (recently busy...). M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 21:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I have created an article on ChemWeb which now resides on one of my personal sandbox pages. I am wondering if this is considered a notable topic and there is a discussion taking place at WikiProject Academics, here. And so, it was suggested that I also solicit comments from members of this project. I thought this was a good idea. Therefore, your comments and suggestions over at WP Academic Journals would be much appreciated. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 23:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I need your feedback about the properties used to describe a chemical in Wikidata: do we need more properties ? If yes, which ones ? Please have a look at Wikidata and give me an answer here or there. Thanks Snipre ( talk) 07:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Radon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear chemistry experts: There is an article at Afc right now, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patchy Particle which is difficult to review because the submitter has limited skill at writing in English. It could use some attention from someone who has a clue what patchy particles are, and can copyedit the text without incorporating errors. Am I asking in the right place? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that this 19-hours-old article is an illegitimate content fork of orbital hybridisation? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi All, I recently did an readout of all chembox properties templates and I found and fixed a lot of wrong written parameters, which prevented the values from being displayed. I also documented some parameters which are implemented but were not documented. I found that the following implemented parameters are only used a single time and could be discontinued to reduce complexity, because they are much to specific:
Instead I suggest we support the following parameters which were used by authors several times assuming they work:
Another thing is that the Parameter: Dipole is used and implemented in both this section and the structur section this should be consolidated. But where? -- Saehrimnir ( talk) 05:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
*Bulk Conductivity, Sheet Resistance, Methacrylate Equiv Wt are only used in
PEDOT-TMA not implemented but documented?!?
As for the names for the new parameters I would suggest:
I think the only other spelling difference would be vapor and vapour. In VaporPressure and if implemented in VaporizationEnthalpy. -- Saehrimnir ( talk) 21:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I got a very encouraging response from dr brady of the periodicvideos youtubechannel saying we may be able to use some screenshots if we provide them with sufficient credit. Are there any gaps on here where certain of their videos might illustrate something interesting? -- عبد المؤمن ( talk) 01:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Lithium, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Could someone, preferably with some knowledge of biochemistry, please take a quick look at this talk page query? If the user is correct, the article needs to be reworded, but this is way outside my sphere of competence. Rivertorch ( talk) 18:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Can someone look at 10-Hydroxy Lycopodium Alkaloids and File:10-Hydroxylycopodine, Deacetylpaniculine and Paniculine.jpeg ? These are out of shape (and the permission required for the file is missing) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 01:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please have a look at this submission. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Chemistry. User:UMChemProfessor was requesting a course instructor user right at WP:ENB. Have people been happy with the progress of their student's work? (See the user page.) Just checking. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This word is ridiculous! In decane, the c is pronounced like a k the way we would expect. If decene is pronounced this way, it should be spelled dekene. C before e is soft. Georgia guy ( talk) 18:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know: I nominated the above category for deletion. In addition, there in an ongoing CfD on Category:Phenolic compounds found in castoreum. -- Leyo 13:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a note at WT:PHYSICS about a discussion at template talk:Science concerning Template:Science ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I modified this template translating from Italian. Is that fine? -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 08:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
In the
Italian WikiProject Chemistry
we agree to use the plural form for all the classes of organic chemical compounds, because in this case the subject of the page is referred to all the compounds of the class as a whole, instead of a single compound only.
Moreover, the introduction of these type of pages in general contains the plural form (e.g. the introduction of
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon is "Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), also known as poly-aromatic hydrocarbons ...").
If you agree and you want to follow this criteria in en.wikipedia also, the following pages for example need to be moved:
To facilitate the renaming procedure, in it.wikipedia we created a category called "Classi di composti organici" (that means "Classes of organic compounds"), so we know that all the pages inside that category need to have the title with the plural. -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 08:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I nominated the subcategories of the recently deleted Category:Chemical compounds found in animals for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 1. -- Kkmurray ( talk) 04:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Standard enthalpy change of combustion duplicates Heat of combustion. I suggest that these articles are to be merged. As heat of combustion is still a much more common term, standard enthalpy change of combustion could be redirected to it. -- Fedor Babkin ( talk) 05:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Care to have a look? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paramenthane Hydroperoxide. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 16:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
file:Polonium.jpg and File:Radon.jpg are up for non-free content review. As this revolves around issues of radioactivity, this may impact on images used by this project. -- 70.24.244.158 ( talk) 13:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Although the terms "chemical element" and "simple substance" are often used as synonymous, they aren't!
In fact a "simple substance" is a chemical substance formed by atoms of the same chemical element. In other words, the "chemical elements" are not atoms neither materials. They are instead the names that define a "typology" of atoms.
Chemical element are simply the abstract classes of atoms defined by the periodic table, while the chemical substances are real aggregates of matter.
For this reasons, for simplicity we can use "chemical element" as a synonymous of "simple substance", but I suggest to clarify this difference between the meanings of these two terms at least in the pages
Chemical substance and
Chemical element. --
Daniele Pugliesi (
talk) 13:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
There is the discussion at the Wikiprojects Elements to make the elements zinc, cadmium and mercury poor metals, for me this looks strange. I could not find any of my chemistry text books (German) doing so. Is this only for me strange or is this referencable from anywhere? -- Stone ( talk) 09:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Chemical compounds found in Acanthaceae and related categories of the form Chemical compounds found in foo and Phenolic compounds found in bar have been nominated for possible deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. These are the plant, food, etc. categories similar to the Chemical compounds found in animals categories that were recently deleted. [3] -- Kkmurray ( talk) 17:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Society, the UK's science academy, is recruiting a Wikimedian-in-Residence to help them work more closely with Wikipedia. The position is part-time (one day per week) for a fixed term of 6 months. See here for more information and details of how to apply. For additional information please contact me at francis.bacon [AT] royalsociety.org Andeggs ( talk) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I am writing my first wiki page: /info/en/?search=User:Stevesnee/CPhos
However I can't seem to upload a decent quality molecular structure. Can anybody please explain how to do it using accelrys and any other standard / free software?
I have read the following guide: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry/Structure_drawing
This seems to suggest that the diagram must created, printed and then scanned back into the computer. Can this be correct?
Any help would be much appreciated, Stevesnee ( talk) 18:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The introduction of a new article borane on the monomeric BH3 compound has meant that the previous article borane (a family article giving an overview of polyhedral boron compounds) has been renamed to boranes. It has dropped from google (why?) so I think a new name is in order, any ideas? Axiosaurus ( talk) 11:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
A claim (see User talk:Dvwynn) has been made that lowercase aromatic symbols in the SMILES specification (1) has been deprecated and (2) does not work in several chemical GUIs (Reaxys, SciFinder). While changing aromatic to Kekulé SMILES is probably harmless, before making large number of changes to SMILES strings in articles, it would be wise to first obtain consensus. Are there any opinions on what the preferred SMILES format should be? Boghog ( talk) 20:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I am still concerned about the intrusive nature of some of the large Chem boxes. If nothing else, they can interfere with the layout, particularly with the showing of images. See, for example, ascorbic acid. Besides, there is no need to show all this data up front.
The chembox documentation suggests moving some of the information on to a data page. I have tried out a variation on this theme with the topic ethanol for which ethanol (data page) already exists. I simply copied the whole of the existing chembox on to the data page. Then, I removed all but a few items from the chembox on the article page. This results in a chem box on the article page of reasonable size, with all the original data being only one click away on the supplementary data page. The same process can be applied to other boxes like elementbox ( vanadium), drugbox ( aspirin). Others?
The choice of what to retain is obviously a matter for which consensus should be reached. I suggest we delay that process and concentrate initially on whether or not this change is a good idea, or not. Petergans ( talk) 14:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed an upsurge in edits by infrequent editors who seem only to come to Wikipedia to insert citations to their own work or at least work by one team of researchers. In the past, I have left a message at their talk pages as follows:
==Welcome, but be careful==
Editors like me are wary when we observe a new editor such as yourself citing repeatedly work by one team, it seems to be likely COI. If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing.--~~~~
We are supposed to be welcoming to new editors, and I strive to follow that guideline, but this self-citation behavior seems usually, not always, to be inappropriate. But maybe the community does not agree with my actions in which case I welcome discussion. I fear however that articles will become filled with the latest "vanity citations". On the other hand, content is content, which gives me pause. A recent example of the behavior that I am referring to are the recent chem entries here.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 04:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi chemists, please stop by this RFC on modifying the icon images in the Elements Infobox: [4]
208.44.87.91 ( talk) 01:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone help clean up this article? It's quite sad that something as essential as molecular weight has such a poor quality article to describe it. My immediate concerns are summarized on the article talk page. Thanks. (+)H3N- Protein\Chemist- CO2(-) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added the article chalcogen to the Chemistry project, currently it is marked up as Project Elements and an enthusiastic group of editors is pushing it on. It has been rated as GA. The chemical compounds section lets it down. IMHO it requires either drastic improvement and enlargement in terms of detail or a complete rethink and rewite to highlight chemical trends. Of all the groups this must be one of the most difficult to tackle as O is so different from S, Se and Te and Po is different again, which is of course why most text books treat oxygen as a separate topic from the rest of the group. Axiosaurus ( talk) 11:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The zinc article and the Zinc and the common cold article are edited by a person with a near identical user name to the added references. This might be COI or good work I can not find out in short. If somebody want to have a look or help?-- Stone ( talk) 20:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Colleagues, currently Aurum fulminans redirects to Fulminate. However this redirect seems to be incorrect. Quoting from Peter Krehl's History of Shock Waves, Explosions and Impact, p. 200:
Proposed merging Light-activated resin to Photopolymer. Same thing, but dentists and stereolithography people use different terminology. Both articles are brief, under-cited, and could use some attention. Please discuss at Talk:Photopolymer. Thanks. -- John Nagle ( talk) 20:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you go over this submission and this one? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
As requested, I am reporting a chemistry-related submission at Afc. Would someone here like to review it? We have a backlog of over 1400 submissions right now; any help would be appreciated. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
One more: User:Seppi333/P-hydroxyphenylacetone. Thanks Seppi333 ( talk) 17:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have done a major rewrite of Bent's rule, an article that was previously a "C-Class" article of "High-importance" in this WikiProject. I am still actively working on it, but I would appreciate any feedback you might have. Thanks. B Levin13 ( talk) 19:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a few periodic table-related discussion being held at WT:ELEMENTS. You might find them interesting.
one -- how to color elements that can be considered a part of more than one categories: should those cases be shown on a table, should we change nonmetal categories, etc.
two -- what table use in an infobox of a chemical element: 32-column one (we have now) or 18-column one (we might switch to).
three -- should we switch to rare earth metals category instead of lanthanides we have today?
Please take part-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
UNESCO proclaimed the
"International Year of Crystallography 2014". It can be an important opportunity for wikipedians to contribute in an international initiative, spreading the scientific knowledge, in particular about crystallography.
These are my proposals to participate to this event:
Do you have any other opinion or suggestion? -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 10:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I just want to ask if there is an interest to link analytical reference data such as reference spectra for gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GC-MS) from the WikiPages of certain chemicals. For example: this spectrum for Alanine could be linked from the Wikipedia page for Alanine. I appreciate any comments on that! Best regards, Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahu54321 ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)