Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2005

message: Hi, here are some requests for your project (i'm not a chemist, or would offer to contribute)
* IUPAC/ACS system, a simple naming tutorial for us mere mortals
* polymer acroynm naming systm, is there such a thing? (see Fluoropolymer Thermoplastic)
Duk 19:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, from Viton, Viton® fluoroelastomers are categorized under the ASTM D1418 & ISO 1629 designation of FKM.  and from ,  Establishes a system of symbols for the basic rubbers in both dry and latex forms, based on the chemical composition of the polymer chain. Standardizes the terms used in industry and commerce .  If someone has access to these standards it would sure be usefull page, Polymer acronyms or something like that. --  Duk 17:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: See also List of ISO standards.  --Duk 17:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I think alphabetical listings are not always the best way to classify chemical compounds.  For example, what if you want to find out all of the compounds of aluminium that have pages?  Or if you want to know what pages there are for organics containing four carbons, or of formula C4H10O?  To begin addressing this I have begun writing a page Inorganic compounds by element which deals with the first problem.  I thought long and hard, and researched some chem catalogues to try and pick out what I believe to be a pretty complete list of IMPORTANT compounds of those elements.  I have tabulated them and used formulae, in order to keep it extremely concise.  In my opinion, one problem with List of compounds is that it is full of obscure compounds that no one is ever going to write a page on.  Another problem with list of compounds is that it only has one compound per line, so you have to scroll down a lot to find things.
Another nice thing about Inorganic compounds by element is that we can give a direct link from (for example) the aluminium page to Inorganic_compounds_by_element#Aluminium, this would be very useful.
I think we should also have an organics page listed by chemical formula (Hill formula order- C, then H, then others alphabetically) which would address the organics queries mentioned.  Comments, anyone?
Walkerma 19:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigational aids for chemical compounds 

message: I started an article called Phosphorus chlorides.  Phosphorus trichloride, phosphorus pentachloride, and diphosphorus tetrachloride are 3 chlorides mentioned in there.  I inserted references to these in Chloride, Hydrogen chloride, and in Acyl chlorides  in a new preparation section.  Also the Benzoyl chloride stub mentions PCl5.  The article has been expanded slightly and molecular images were added.  Since then :User:Walkerma has written articles on Phosphorus trichloride and Phosphorus trifluoride, in addition to the previous article on Phosphorus tribromide.  It is not clear what will be done about the other phosphorus chlorides.  H Padleckas 16:20, 18 Apr - 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:This was a case of two people working on similar topics at the same time!  As I see it, the question regarding this page is:
:#Should we expand the Phosphorus chlorides page to include POCl3 and PSCl3, and similar?
:#Or should we rename the page Phosphorus halides and make it a much broader page?
:I expect someone will write a specific PCl5 page within the next few months, as it's a pretty important compound, and the same is probably true for POCl3.Walkerma 18:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I would have known how technical Phosphorus trifluoride would have turned out and that it had no bulk industrial applications, I would have recommended that just a brief summary be included in a Phosphorus halides article. But it's already written; let's enjoy it.  H Padleckas 06:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Does this mean you think we should broaden the phosphorus chlorides page to become halides, or not?  Do we include oxyhalides?  Are you going to write the first draft or do you want me to? Walkerma 16:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest expanding phosphorus chlorides to phosphorus halides, otherwise we will eventually have problems with bromides, oxyfluorides etc. on other phosphorus compound pages. There is a beer in Arras (Northern France) for the person who knows the problems posed by the industrial use of phosphorus trifluoride - votes to User Talk:Physchim62. Physchim62 15:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphorus chlorides 

message: I noticed this amino acid article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion: 3,4-Methano-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline-3-carboxylic acid. If you know anything about it (or are willing to learn ;-), please cast your vote. Wipe 12:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been deleted based on strong Delete recommendations.  H Padleckas 08:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article considered for deletion 

message: Please see Talk:Cyanuric acid and see if you know the answer to the question posed there?  H Padleckas 06:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please see [[Talk:Cyanuric acid]] 

message: For those who don't watch Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox, we are working on a major revision of the standard template for the properties table.  Please take a look at the draft version of the new table and leave comments here.  The earlier discussion mainly occurs here. Walkerma 03:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New chembox 

message: Here's something to consider: the normal naming convention for article titles is that the title should be the most commonly used name for the article's topic, with the correct name, if different, being mentioned as soon as possible in the article. We need to work out how we reconcile this with  moving towards IUPAC names as standard within articles. -- The Anome 08:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree with you, and this is one issue that will never go away!  I do not advocate using IUPAC for everything.  The Wikipedia Manual of Style states, "In articles about chemicals and chemistry, use the style of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) for chemical names wherever possible, except in article titles, where the common name should be used if different, followed by mention of the IUPAC name".  Clearly the name of water should not be changed to IUPAC, and I would agree that if a chemical has a common name in widespread use this should be the principal name.  The only case I can see where this as a problem is where you have another important use of the same word, for example "ether" for diethyl ether (aka ethyl ether), where to a chemist in means any ROR' compound.  
The other (more serious) issue is to define what is common.  There are huge differences between different parts of the world (I am a Brit living in the US so I see this a lot!): For example poly(ethene) (IUPAC?? I'm not a polymer chemist!) is known in the US as polyethylene, but in the UK it is always called by the ICI tradename (they invented it), polythene.  The other aspect is between disciplines:  For example an inorganic chemist will tend to use the "correct" name for SmI2, samarium(II) iodide, but since this reagent has become popular with organic chemists, you will often see organic papers where it is referred to by a pseudo-organic name, samarium diiodide.  That's just within chemistry!  When you consider usage of chemicals in other diverse fields such as geology, physics, biology, etc., there are names used that I (as a chemist) had never heard of (such as Blue_stone for copper(II) sulfate).  
Fortunately the redirect command can deal with the worst effects of this problem- I don't really care if I find methylene chloride listed as dichloromethane, as long as there is a redirect to help me find the page.
Walkerma 17:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "In the interest of consistency and clarity the IUPAC standard should be used for chemical names in all science articles."  
Just information for your consideration.  H Padleckas 11:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Familiar names vs. IUPAC names 

message: I have recently started to upload all new images of chemical structures to the Wikimedia Commons. This way it is possible to use the structures in all different wikipedia projects. I upload high resolution, black/white PNG images. These are of surprisingly small file size (the ethylene glycol image to the right has a size of only 3,198 byte at a resolution of 1372 x 469 pixels). Because of the high resolution they can be rescaled dynamically to any size on wikipedia. Additionally, they can be used for printing and projection without pixel artifacts. 
Linking is exactly the same as if the images were upladed to en.wikipedia: 
: 
The category  Category:Chemical structures is a Wikimedia Commons category for all chemical structures there.
=== How to draw and upload a chemical structure ===
This is the procedure I currently use for my images:
:ChemDraw molecule editor settings:
:* Line width: 0.107 cm
:* Bond length: 2.566 cm
:* Font: Arial 45 pt
:* Save as: TIFF black/white bitmap.
: Image processing (Photoshop or Irfan view):
:* Add canvas of 75 pixels to all four sides (Photoshop: Image:Canvas Size, relative, 150 pixels width, 150 pixels height)
:* Save as a PNG black/white bitmap.
:Wikimedia Commons:
:* Upload under http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload (bookmark address)
:* Paste the summary template from below.
:* Add the substance's article link to en.wikipedia, the user name, and the date.
:Linking:
:* As if it were uploaded to en.wikipedia.
:* Add the horizontal image size "|200px|" (no frame) or "|thumb|200px|" (frame) to the image link:
::: 
Wikimedia Commons summary template:
----
:* Description: Chemical structure of .
:* Author, date of creation: selfmade by , 11 April 2005.
:* Source: -
:* Copyright: GNU Free Documentation License. (GFDL)
:* Comments: high-resolution b/w PNG; ChemDraw / Photoshop.
:
:Category:Chemical structures
----
Cacycle 15:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical formula images 

message: This is the procedure I currently use for my images:
:ChemDraw molecule editor settings:
:* Line width: 0.107 cm
:* Bond length: 2.566 cm
:* Font: Arial 45 pt
:* Save as: TIFF black/white bitmap.
: Image processing (Photoshop or Irfan view):
:* Add canvas of 75 pixels to all four sides (Photoshop: Image:Canvas Size, relative, 150 pixels width, 150 pixels height)
:* Save as a PNG black/white bitmap.
:Wikimedia Commons:
:* Upload under http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload (bookmark address)
:* Paste the summary template from below.
:* Add the substance's article link to en.wikipedia, the user name, and the date.
:Linking:
:* As if it were uploaded to en.wikipedia.
:* Add the horizontal image size "|200px|" (no frame) or "|thumb|200px|" (frame) to the image link:
::: 
Wikimedia Commons summary template:
----
:* Description: Chemical structure of .
:* Author, date of creation: selfmade by , 11 April 2005.
:* Source: -
:* Copyright: GNU Free Documentation License. (GFDL)
:* Comments: high-resolution b/w PNG; ChemDraw / Photoshop.
:
:Category:Chemical structures
----
Cacycle 15:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to draw and upload a chemical structure 

message: I think we need to have some means of tracking our progress towards the goals.  The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization work-list page is clearly the centre of this, but at present we can only see a blue or red link, unless comments have been added.  We need to be able to tell whether something is a short stub, a fairly complete article that needs a little work, or something that is "complete".  To that end I have put up a system for article assessment system at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Assessment, and the letters range from F (should be deleted) through E (short stub) to A (Done!).  
A necessary part of this system would be people to actually perform the assessments.  I propose that each one of the sections of our detailed progress on goal lists should have a coordinator who is responsible for that list.  They would perform a regular (is monthly too often?  Every three months?) check on each one of the pages in their list, and give a quick assessment.  For example "Joe" might go through the inorganics list, while Fred does the polymers.  If it gets too much, maybe two people can share the responsibility, doing the assessment every other time.  The letter could be entered in just after the Wikilink.  Once every entry has an A next to it we can say that the goal has been reached.  I will give my assessments for the inorganics section (soon) so that people can get a sense of what I mean.  I will not assess articles written mainly by me.
One natural cause for concern is if (say) I write an article that I think is great and at the "A" level, then the coordinator gives it a "B" and my feelings are hurt.  Are we all grown up enough to handle this?!  As explained on the Assessment page it needs to be understood that everyone will have a different view of what is the perfect article, and that's why I think we need a single coordinator for each list.  Presumably if anyone does get offended, the coordinator can either perform an edit or be able to say, "We need to have a section on how it is prepared, and perhaps one or two more references."  Speaking personally, I have a great deal of respect for the regular contributors to this project.
I think one strict rule should be, however, that the first version of an article should always be independently assessed- if written by the coordinator then it should initially be assessed by someone else.  Thereafter the coordinator can assess the progress of that page.
Is this getting way too "overorganised" for a Wikipedia group?  The problem is (IMHO) that we have to be able to monitor our progress, and at present it's hard to tell whether our 50 reagent articles include 45 stubs and 5 good articles, or 45 good articles and 5 that need a bit of work.  There is also no one person who is systematically assessing them at regular intervals.  I think section coordinators are probably a good idea- they can take the lead on things like template changes, goal changes, nominations for featured article, etc.
If people like this idea then I will probably try recruiting coordinators by leaving messages on personal talk pages.  Please give comments on this idea after you have looked at the guidelines.  Walkerma 22:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessing articles for completeness & coordinating this 

message: The three-way split of this important list is almost complete, and I have set a date of May 31st for the end of this page as a list.  After that, users will be advised to visit one of the three parts of the list, namely List of inorganic compounds, List of organic compounds, or List of biomolecules.  I added a note at the top of the page.  At this point the only work left to do is to pull out any biomolecules from the organics list that don't belong there, and to make sure that the biomolecules list is as complete as it should be.  So far I have done this up to end of the letter C.  Walkerma 18:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of compounds]] 

message: I think it was a good idea for Physchim62 to separate out the Biochemicals from the Other (miscellaneous) Compounds List on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Organization page.  H Padleckas 02:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New target: 50 biochemicals 

message: In User talk:Walkerma/Archive2, it was mentioned that the article Nuclear Magnetic Resonance concentrated on the physical phenomenon and left much to be desired on the analytical applications aspect of NMR Spectroscopy.  It was also mentioned that a separate NMR Spectroscopy article should be written up covering these analytical applications using an NMR instrument.  As of May 19, 2005, such a separate article has been written by User:Lee-Jon; see NMR Spectroscopy.  Also, as of today, I have just written an article discussing the NMR standard tetramethylsilane, often called TMS.  H Padleckas 08:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NMR Spectroscopy

message: Is it worth merging all those haloalkane articles?  A number of them, although not very large, have enough unique material to be stand alone articles, instead of just stubs. I mentioned a counterproposal in Talk:Haloalkane, for what it's worth.  H Padleckas 10:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it worth merging Haloalkane articles 

message: Having said that, I don't think we should forget that we agreed with K's suggestions for writing a  "Chemistry Style Guide."  That was a great idea too, let's include it in our goals- but after a short break, perhaps? Walkerma 05:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Walkerma, I think your idea is even better.  Let's concentrate on some good articles now.  If someone can start the "Chemistry Style Guide" page, then I'll start work on that.  I have ideas about it, but don't know where it should go or what it should be titled. ~K 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As pointed out by PC, a very reasonable start is available at wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry). That page can do with a new broom, indeed: it looks a bit like a talk-page. See at wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for recommendations how to do it. The title of Naming convention (chemistry) is reasonably apt, too. A  self-defined new Chemistry Style Guide in wikipedia would perhaps be out of place. Besides, there are quite a few good Style Guides available for the chemical world: see for instance style guide for references. I recommend that we adopt a good official one, as we do follow IUPAC nomenclature, and abbreviate that for the wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry). Wim van Dorst 22:07, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC).
I think it's probably good to get this page looking more formal.  Henry pointed out the Science Wikiproject standard on this, which should be borne in mind.  Names are our biggest issue, but not the only one- I think a more general style guide is needed, because of issues of:
# Coverage: There is a lot more to style than just names- conventions on structures & formulae, use of acronyms & abbreviations, references, units, language style, use of infoboxes, when  & how to include experimental conditions, mechanisms, etc.  Many of these issues are specific to chemistry, while others have certain aspects that are specific to chemistry or chemistry conventions.
# Audience: Many people reading our articles are non-chemists, struggling with even basic concepts.  Those familiar with my articles know that I don't avoid putting in technical info, but I also make sure there is plenty in the article that a high school kid could get from the article for their term paper. A JACS paper can assume that its audience understands a good deal of chemistry- we can assume that many do not.  I learnt this on my second ever article when I was taken to task (quite rightly, in my opinion) for not explaining the "(I)" in the name. 
# Medium: An online encyclopedia is a lot different from a JACS paper.  We are online, with an emphasis on wikilinks.  We have issues not even discussed in the ACS style guide: Should journals such as Journal of the American Chemical Society be wikilinked from the reference?  If yes, should it be once in the refs section, or in every citation?  What about authors?  Also, do we recommend that certain headings be present in the article- such as chemical properties, preparation, uses, etc.? (These were in the main template, but got lost somewhere in an edit- would people mind if I put these back in?)  
# Boundaries: This is a whole issue we need to discuss separately- how do we deal with our interface with physics, geology, pharmaceuticals/medicine, biology, etc? We can't impose our style on the paracetamol article- so what is appropriate? 
I think that simply referring vaguely to published style guides is not the answer, namely:
# Which style to follow, where IUPAC has nothing to say? RSC, ACS or whatever you feel like?
# Most people composing articles will not have the ACS style guide (which would be my first choice as a starting point) on their desks- so we need to spell out the basics online. 
# As mentioned above, some of the issues are specific to Wikipedia.
As I mentioned above, I want to focus my energies in the next couple of weeks on adding content, but I am willing to participate in writing such a style guide if others think it's worthwhile. Walkerma 21:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New activity proposed: chemistry style guide 

message: Proposal copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria
: and 
::The cpd stands for compound. These two stubs would help take some of the pressure off  (currently over 1000 stubs). At a rough estimate, I would say 200 articles for the former and 300 for the latter. The image from  could be retained. Physchim62 01:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We appreciate it, at least! Walkerma 21:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new stub templates 

message: I am in the process of writing a new article called which I plan to call Phosphoric acids and Phosphates.  It is currently on the following Temp page: User:H Padleckas/Temp (Phosphoric acids and Phosphates), because I have not created the main illustration yet.  A section at the bottom of this temp article: User:H Padleckas/Temp (Phosphoric acids and Phosphates)#Phosphate and Phosphite Esters covers "Phosphate and Phosphite Esters" until a separate article on the subject can be developed.  Two images of general chemical structures have been included in this section, one of a phosphate triester and one of a phosphite triester.  
If anybody has any philosophical comments on this endeavor, let me know.  H Padleckas 16:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not a substitute for a chemistry section of orthophosphoric acid, currently and reasonably called simply Phosphoric acid.  Eventually, I think the (ortho)phosphoric acid article should have its own "Table of Properties", a mention that it's a triprotic acid and mention of the three different Ka (and pKa values), mention of the commonly used syrupy 85% aqueous o-phosphoric acid reagent, a link to the (ortho)phosphate article, a link to the future Phosphoric acids and Phosphates article, the use of o-phosphoric acid in buffer solutions, rudimentary safety discussion, links to MSDS, and any other chemistry aspects exclusively of only orthophosphoric acid.  Similar discussions also apply to the (ortho)phosphate article, where its basicity, etc. is covered.  However the rather stubby Trisodium phosphate article may be merged with (ortho)phosphate ??  Alternatively, Trisodium phosphate may be kept as a separate chemical compound article with its own "Table of Properties" and photo of the solid.  H Padleckas 17:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphoric acids and Phosphates 

message: Just mentioning that I have posted some new pictures on Commons- best to start  here.  The compounds are Al & Ca sulfates, SbF3, Sb2O3, As2O3, Bi2O3, Na3PO4, KNO3, KMnO4, CaF2, Ca(OH)2, Na2S2O3, silicic acid, boric acid, CAN, PdCl2, CsCl, ZnO.  I also redid pictures of KCl & LiCl (I'm getting better at taking then now), and uploaded a few older ones to Commons too.  I will probably be adding a few more new ones this coming week too.  I will add pictures to the pages where we have them as time allows this week, but if you are planning on working on any of the above you should take note.  Also, if you have any requests for pictures, please let me know- this week is about the best week for it for the light- though be aware that it is extremely humid here, and my attempt at a new FeCl3 picture saw the sample turning liquid before my eyes! Walkerma 18:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I request a photograph of potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7),  potassium (or Na if K not available) chromate (K2CrO4),  and chromium trioxide (CrO3).  A photo of chromium(III) chloride and Jones reagent would be nice, too.  Also, aqueous Cr(VI) solutions being reduced to Cr(III) and a purple potassium permanganate solution would be nice, but don't go through much trouble to produce it.   Thank you.  In return, I can make some structure diagrams for you if you like.  :-)  H Padleckas 07:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your response.  The chromium(III) chloride picture will make do, although the interesting "bluish-green" color doesn't show that well; it seems almost too dark to make out the color well.  I wanted to show a picture comparing Cr(VI) color with Cr(III) color.  H Padleckas 07:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pictures of all and any chromium(III) compounds would be welcome. Physchim62 15:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of chemical compounds 

message: Does someone want to write a quick stub to replace this ****? Physchim62 09:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will put together a short stub, and move most of the text to the talk page (which seems more appropriate for a discussing issues like this).  My old employer in England used to use MIBK a lot as an extraction solvent so I'm familiar with it. Walkerma 21:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Now completed, a short article with table. Walkerma 06:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Methyl isobutyl ketone]] 

message: I happened across this article, Aliphatic compound, and it seemed like it could use some expansion, although, not being a chemist, I don't know exactly what.  It's not listed on your worklist, so I thought I'd mention it here in case you'd like to take it in hand.  Thanks for all your good work on Wikipedia! JesseW 08:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aliphatic compound]] expansion... 

message: I have archived all the older discussions on this page, as a nice summer clean-out. This leaves only the active things to work on during the rest of the summer, notably all the things on the List of A-Class articles and of course the worklist of the Chemicals WikiProject. I wish everybody (including myself ;-) success with it. Wim van Dorst 21:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summer work 

message: Sodium_hypochlorite -- I cannot figure if the article has been vandalized to a POV or just hasn't been expanded. Please help.
:I believe the article had been vandalised in minor ways several times recently, though it seems to have had these problems fixed.  I don't see any obvious POV problem, though, so I agree with the removal of the POV notice. I'm watching this page from now on, though! Walkerma 21:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sodium Hypochlorite 

message: I have uploaded collections of gas densities, viscosities and solubility products which people might find useful in filling out chemboxes. Enjoy! Physchim62 00:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Data book|Data book]] 

message: *Just did some assessment work on the Problematic Preliminary A-Classifieds. I'm open for comments. Wim van Dorst 21:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update of [[wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/List of A-Class articles|List of A-Class articles]] 

message: And shall we delete RNA and Peptide from the worklist, just as we did Protein and DNA. Wim van Dorst 22:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entries on the Worklist 

message: In the worklist the building block malonic ester is mentioned. Which ester would that be? PC already suggests dimethyl malonate, although diethyl malonate (DEM) is an alternative. Or would perhaps malonic acid be a better alternative instead? (I'm going for the unclassifieds, if anyone had noticed). Wim van Dorst 22:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed this to diethyl malonate and added dimethyl malonate to the list as well.  Malonic acid is said to be relatively unstable, with few uses, so is probably not notable enough for this section.   ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 23:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just keep the diethyl malonate on the list and remove the dimethyl ester if PC doesn't mind.  I'm making malonic ester as redirect to this.  For the malonic ester synthesis, either ester will work fine, and since we have the ethyl ester now let's go with that for now. Walkerma 19:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which malonate 

message: I propose that we omit this from the building blocks list, just because it's not an isolable compound on Earth at room temperature.  Thus I think you would be unable to get MP, BP, density etc, and it is not used on Earth as a building block in an organic synthesis (though acetaldehyde, the tautomer, is a building block).  Walkerma 20:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see; interesting.  I'll take it out, then.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 20:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ethenol]] as building block 

message: Hmm.... Well, head on over and give your two bits, if you want. ~K 18:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Benzene]] is a [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Benzene|Featured Article Candidate]] 

message: OK, we've all been putting it off, but if benzene is not going to be an FA just yet, should we work on one?  If it is to be a compound I think it should definitely be an organic compound, to complement the inorganic FA in the spring.  An alternative could be a reaction or process, or perhaps a concept, but the compounds have been generally more peer reviewed because of this project.  It also needs to be something the general person will have heard of or would be interested in (though please can we avoid illicit drugs!?). Benzene would certainly be a possibility, with some work it could be good.  Do other people have suggestions Walkerma 04:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next chemistry FA? 

message: I'm no good at chemistry, but I know that Sodium hydroxide needs you guys' attention. There's no picture, the hard chemical data is mediocre, and a few other things are bad, too, see the talk page. Thanks! HereToHelp 20:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on this during October.  It is definitely a poor page for such an important compound. Walkerma 21:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A safety section is in progress. Physchim62 09:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sodium hydroxide]] needs work 

message: I am sorry if I am spoiling anything but I would like to be somewhat involved in this wikiproject. Is that possible, as chemistry is my favourite subject?Xeno Neon
* sure, no problem. Just put your name on the wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals members list for registration, then find a Chem Stub article on the worklist, and start adding useful information to that article. And if you're done, just tell everybody about it on this page, so that the article can be re-assessed, preferably to A-Class. Success. Wim van Dorst 20:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome Xeno Neon!  This Wikiproject focuses on writing pages on chemical substances, as listed on the worklist Wim mentioned.  This wikiproject is certainly the liveliest area for chemistry at the moment, and we are making a lot of progress, but we could definitely use some help.  We are trying to get 380 feature-article quality (or close) articles!  If you don't want to work on specific compounds, then instead you can work on reactions like ozonolysis, particular chemists, organic functional groups or general aspects (e.g. Lewis acid).  These are very loosely coordinated through Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry.  There are also separate projects on polymers, elements and isotopes.  If you look on my user page I have a list of the most useful pages (lists etc.) for chemistry.  This is a friendly group so please ask for help if you need it. Walkerma 21:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New member

message: For information on chemicals, go to http://www.chemicalland21.com and click on one of the colored bars in the left frame (Industrial chemicals, Life science products, etc). Note: I have no connection to this site. I just discovered it 30 minutes ago, and it's been helpful.
If anyone has any other useful resources, please add them. Twilight Realm 23:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A useful website 

message: Hi all, with the last worklist compound ethyl bromoacetate now having an nice stub article (I even unhumbly classified it as Chem Start), we have now reached the stage that we can only go up. There are no unclassified to drop off any more (e.g., zirconium(IV) chloride), nor are there obvious articles to be weeded from the list as they might be vague as a single compound (e.g., Protein and DNA). So in a week or so when we make up the next statistics table, the total number (380 if I counted right) is consisting of only real articles! Wim van Dorst 22:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work on getting stubs going and tables put in place, Wim and Eequor!  You are both hereby offered a free beer in Potsdam, New York, next time you visit our great metropolis! Walkerma 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant to thank you for this... though I don't know when I'd be able to take you up on the offer, and I don't drink anyway.  ^_^  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 04:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next milestone: no unclassifieds 

message: I came across :de:Alkane as a (deservedly) featured article in the German Wikipedia, and I'm in the process of translating it into English for here. Other German featured articles of interest to us are Ethylene, Benzene, Toluene and Anthocyanin, as well as Arsenic and Barium among the elements. Anyone else interested in a bit of translation work? Physchim62 12:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured articles from German

message: While attacking the Chem Stubs in the list, I found those that should in my humble opinion be Chem Start and simultaneously I found Chem Starts that should be Chem Stub. The fine line between the two should be drawn a little clearer, therefore I propose the following rewording of the wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Assessment
Grade	Description                                                                                                                                                                                    	Summary
Stub 	The article is a very short article or a stub that will need a lot of work to bring it to A-Class level. It may lack most or all significant sections.                                         	limited text, no chembox, no refs
Start	The article is short, but has some good sections, such as a chembox data table description of uses, production and/or chemical and physical properties. It may lack several signicant sections.	some text+chembox, limited in the sections
I could think of a rewording in this line for B-Class as well, but I'm not working on those yet. The rephrasing for Stub and Start would make it possible to re-categorize all Stubs and Starts into proper work targets (viz., no Stubs and at least Starts). Wim van Dorst 12:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me.  I treat the chembox as "content"- so a lot of text + sections but no chembox is a start, and so is less text (a couple of sections) with a chembox.  There have been a couple of starts that I thought should have been stubs, such as tellurium dioxide and ethyl bromoacetate, but instead of complaining I just added enough to make them starts.  Also, section headings without content should not be seen as adding much content!  Other than that, I think your clarification is excellent, thanks. Walkerma 16:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrasing proposal for [[wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Assessment|Stub and Start assessment]] 

message: Now that I have a liitle bit of time to breathe, I am in the process of implementing a chemical safety project that Eequor and I discussed over the summer. Each code for the R- and S-phrases will correspond to a template (I've done most of the R-phrases so far, hope to finish this weekend): for example, R45 corresponds to Template:R45, and when you type  you see  on the page. Now hold the cursor over the link...
The templates use the  template: for the example above, the code is .
The official R- and S-phrases for any compound may be found on the site of the European Chemicals Bureau:
*Click "Classification & Labelling"
*Click "SEARCH CLASSLAB"
*Click "Search Annex 1"
Feel free to use these templates liberally, in the interests of public information! Physchim62 06:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates for R- and S-phrases

message: Hi all, acetic acid has been up for a month on Peer Review (read archived text here), during which it saw numerous improvements even after it had been classified already as Chem A-Class. The current article is to me now excellent enough to be proposed for FAC. Shall we move on? Wim van Dorst 14:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's go for it. ~K 15:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to hold off for a few days.  I think there is still some cleanup to do, and I'd also like to create a few stubs for things like isobutyl acetate to reduce the red links.  Not too long, though! Walkerma 16:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Martin, it can wait a week or so more to try and finish the polishing and reduce the number of red links. Physchim62 17:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see if there are any more improvements in the pipeline... (but I still think we're near the point where we should move on to the next step). Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 18:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I would like to review Acetic acid this afternoon or this evening.  H Padleckas 18:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been extremely busy at work over recent weeks, but I got a breathing space to put in some stuff this afternoon on the applications section.  (Sorry I created three new red links, but only got rid of one!) I still would like to insert a bit more on chemical properties (I think it's a bit weak there), but that's about all.  I think it'll be ready to submit tomorrow, so we all have a chance to give it a final look over. Walkerma 21:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  I'm finished with my additions.  Please feel free to delete or edit parts you don't think are appropriate.  I'm conscious of the fact that when we did HCl we explained even what an acid was, whereas this time we wrote for a more advanced reader.  I tried to put a little more basic info in for the schoolkid and the student, e.g. the equation for the baking soda/vinegar reaction.  I also added a nice book ref which may be more accessible to a lay reader than obscure Japanese journals.  When chemists peer review chemists, we can forget that non-chemists may be reading the final article! I vote for sending it for FAC later on Nov 2nd.  Walkerma 23:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple more rather minor changes I would like to make to Acetic acid.  Then it could be submitted as FAC.  Unfortunately, I was unable to make them last night because of a malfunction of some sort; my computer or internet service provider did not let me get access to Wikipedia pages.  H Padleckas 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I will now write up some philosophical comments about the Acetic acid article in the talk page after my review and a few edits I made.  H Padleckas 00:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acetic acid to FAC? 

message: I've added a couple of templates we might use to keep track of article progress.  These are  and :


Each of these has a category for its articles, :Category:Incomplete inorganic compound articles and :Category:Incomplete organic compound articles.  The idea is to list all the  articles, including those not on the worklist.  How does this sound?  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 18:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Eequor, aren't these just euphemisms for  and ? What the profit to use yet another set of templates? Wim van Dorst 20:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking of using these on articles that were no longer stubs, but not B-class either.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 21:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks- seems good to me! We probably need to make sure people outside WP:Chem know what they mean, though. Walkerma 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yep, lets see how they work, and if the categories actually get populated. Chemistry is an experimental science, after all! Physchim62 11:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment templates 

message: For the moment, there is no guidance on creating articles about acids and their conjugate anions. The following proposal is current practice, I will add it to the guidelines if there is support among editors:
*Inorganic anions have individual articles which discuss the chemistry of their salts in addition to the article about the parent acid. The parent acid has an article even if it is only stable in solution (see also sulfurous acid).
*The names of all but the most common organic anions redirect to the article on the parent acid (Exception: acetate).
Again, comments please. Physchim62 21:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Walkerma 02:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Acids and anions

message: While we're talking about these sorts of issues, it seems to me that we have a big need for pages that cover the chemistry of a metal in its compounds.  Non-metals get the equivalent- we have oxygen and oxide, chlorine and chloride, so why not iron and iron compounds (or compounds of iron or chemistry of iron)?  The element page clearly focusses on the metal itself, with compounds as a simple add-on.  The individual compound pages are too narrow a focus to cover the whole chemistry.  And more obscure compounds that perhaps one interesting aspect either get a silly stub, a random mention on another (random) page such as the chloride (e.g., you can make this interesting complex from MCl3), or you get nothing.  It would give a broader view, reviewing all of the compounds e.g. from Fe(CO)5 to FeSO4 to haemoglobin, all in one article.  I'd held off even mentioning this idea knowing that we already have a mountain of work to do- but as we plan the future direction of substance articles I thought it was worth mentioning.  Comments anyone? Walkerma 02:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  What do you have in mind for the layout and content of these articles?  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 03:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced, especially not by the example you give. People write entire books on iron chemistry, a single article could never be comprehensive. However I accept the point you are making, we are going to have to do something about the problem. For the example of iron, we will need articles on Low oxidation state complexes of iron, Biochemistry of iron, possibly something like Aqueous solution chemistry of iron, not to mention Analytical chemistry of iron (enough material there for an article). We also, IMHO, need to take care about the coherence of our approach with the material that appears in the artcle about the element, which should contain a very short introduction to the chemistry. For some elements (Astatine springs to mind), everything can go on the element page but these are obviously the minority. I don't think we can have a "one size fits all", inorganic chemistry just doesn't work like that! Physchim62 09:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal compounds 

message: This last summer WikiProject Polymers was initiated in Wikipedia.  During the last couple of months, more participants have signed up and this WikiProject is starting to become more active.  For example, H Padleckas has signed up to participate.  On the WikiProject Chemicals/Organization page, there is a list of Polymers.  I would like to suggest moving this list over to WikiProject Polymers.  Being active Wikipedia participants, you can still work on these polymer articles over there too and sign up like I did.  Does this seem OK to you guys?  H Padleckas 06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Polymers 

message: I'm currently working through the chemboxes on inorganics articles, creating data pages and listing MSDSs etc. It struck me that some articles which have been assessed as starts are really only stubs, so I went through the entire list of inorganic starts. The articles to which I refer are:
*Beryllium oxide
*Bismuth trioxide
*Cadmium sulfide
*Calcium carbonate Now stub
*Hydroiodic acid Now stub
*Lithium hydroxide
*Magnesium carbonate Now stub
*Mercury(I) chloride
*Tantalum(V) chloride Now stub
*Tellurium dioxide
*Tin(IV) chloride
*Ytterbium(III) oxide Now stub
*Yttrium barium copper oxide Now stub
Can someone else have a look over them and regrade if necessary. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 12:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We may be suffering from a little grade inflation!  I partially agree with PC, and I suspect that some of our organic starts may be a little too brief also.  I have regraded some of the above on our worklist, see the list above for changes.  I think it's not too simple to make assessments, however.  There are various complicating factors:
# Table vs. no table.  For a page like beryllium oxide, if we took out the table and turned the table information into prose, it would probably pass as "start" quite easily because it would look much longer – remember that the table is a very concise way of providing information.  We should not penalise a page for being concise! Hence I have left some of the above as starts.
# Scope of subject. For a page like calcium carbonate we know that there is a Mg of information out there, so we would expect the A-class article to be long, with a wide variety of sections.  With tantalum(V) chloride, much less is known, and we would expect it to be narrower and shorter.  (Likewise compare ammonia with gold(III) chloride for A-class examples).  With compounds such as yttrium barium copper oxide that have one major application that dominates, the page will be likely to focus on that, and there is probably comparatively little known about aspects outside that.  Such "one use" compounds are very difficult to assess. Walkerma 18:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inorganic starts 

message: Hi - you use a template on your organisation page catted , designed to add the word "stub" to the tables you have there. There is a discussion underway at WP:SFD#.7B.7BStub-Class.7D.7D_.28no_category.29 which directly affects this template, and which we would value your input on. In summary:
*a virtually identical template is being used by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial_Team;
*neither your template nor theirs are actually stub templates, although they are named as such;
*your template has an unnecessary category link which means that your organisation page is listed as a stub;
*if your template had no category link, then it would be usable by any wikiproject that wanted to use it (and could make the Version 1.0 one redundant);
*ideally it should also be renamed to something not containing the word stub.
Your opinions are welcomed! Grutness...wha? 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for causing problems here, my WP1.0 template is a blatant copy of the Chem one, but it was marked for deletion principally because it had no category.  I wanted a set of templates we could use for any article, knowing that people would feel odd using a Chem Stub template in their table of history articles.  You can see the templates in use on the WPv1.0 project (for example here as well as by the Business & Economics WikiProject. Sorry for causing so much trouble! Walkerma 17:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: * Here too, no apologies are necessary. The problem was just a misunderstanding: due to the name starting with Stub, people mistakenly thought it was a Stub template as normally used in main text, which require a category. Hence the probably intentional choice  for our lowest designation. Wim van Dorst 18:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I can't remember which of us implemented that bit! If it was me, there is a fair chance that it was intentional, and a fair chance that it wasn't! Never mind, I don't fancy going through the tables to change all the templates: maybe the solution is to have fewer stubs... Physchim62 (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template discussion

message: I have noticed that sometimes the elements in chemical formulas are linked to the element articles. I think this looks confusing because of the underlined characters and it is unnecessary as long as there is a link to chemical formula nearby. The formula is usually only interesting for people which already know how to read the formula, all others should read the article on chemical formulas where the common elements are explained. The only exception could be non-common elements (not C, H, N, O, and S). What do you think. Cacycle 22:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. Wim van Dorst 22:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I like having the links, myself; I don't see  as being very much different from m/s2.  It's at least somewhat helpful to link these symbols directly to their elements — even without following the link, one can pass one's mouse over K and see that it represents potassium.  Underlining only strikes me as problematic in situations like C6H6, where the numbers become difficult to read.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 23:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formula elements as links 

message: The vote is open after a recent page move. Note that Isobutane exists as a substub. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Butane Walkerma 15:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The link for the names of the butanes is here, and for acetyl chloride (mentioned above) here. Physchim62 (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From Physchim's second link above, it seems the names methanoic, ethanoic, propanoic, and butanoic acids are out of IUPAC terminology and formic, acetic, propionic, and butyric acids are now the official IUPAC names.  H Padleckas 10:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They always have been... You have to take care with substituted acids, only acetic can be used as a basis for substituted names (although formic is widely used as a basis as well): hence Propionic acid but 3-Chloropropanoic acid. Physchim62 (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Regarding Henry's (possibly rhetorical?) question, my view is that WP:Chem does aim to have an article on every significant compound.  Of course the debate is on the subject of significance!  It depends on (a) personal opinion, (b) perspective of the contributor (long term or short term) and (c) the extent of the existing articles.  This last variable (c) is of course growing; at present, having separate articles on each isomer of p-toluidine seems a bit much, but in a couple of years time it will probably seem very reasonable.  Thanks a lot for listing out all of the family pages up above, Henry, it's been great to have a chance to discuss these.Walkerma 06:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I actually think it's much easier to write a single compound article than a family page, because each compound has specific properties and reactions.  My feeling is that I was able to write four articles on the phosphorus(III) halides in only a little more time than it would take to write one big article on those four compounds.  IMHO, this is where we want to go anyway, so it saves a lot of time over the longer term (1-2 years).  Also, the goals for WP:Chem are for specific compounds – this is not coincidence, because I was the one who conceived the goals.  These goals reflect the dire state of compound articles that existed a year ago, but this project has turned things around completely since then.  If we want to consider goals on family pages or isomer sets, then we should perhaps discuss this, but at present such pages strictly lie outside our specified goals.  I think some family pages like phosphorus halides provide a useful broad perspective and should remain forever, but I regard some like the old propanols page as simply a stepping stone to the individual articles.  Certainly our functional group/larger family pages are in dire need of help, and (as PC pointed out) should be part of any future plans and goals. Walkerma 06:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[n-Butane]] or [[Butane]] 

message: On a related note, where should we draw the line for alkane articles? At present, we have articles for all straight-chain alkanes up to hexatriacontane (C36H74), which seems to me to be overkill! My proposal is to merge all articles from nonane to hexatriacontane into a higher alkanes article, while keeping a seperate article for tetradecane hexadecane (because of its role as the basis for cetane numbers). I am currently working on the hexanes, so watch this space! Physchim62 (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if these articles aren't merged, it would be good to have Higher alkanes as an overview.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 10:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Nonacosane is worth keeping as a seperate article too. Physchim62 (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Higher alkanes is a great idea.  Can I suggest that we keep separate articles at least until C20?  This is just that fatty acids go this sort of length, and the alkanes are the parents of the systematic names too, twenty seems like a good cutoff. Walkerma 17:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I see your point; the problem is that there is very little on most of these pages (with the notable exceptions of hexadecane and nonacosane). Maybe the fatty acid problem is best solved by starting with the articles for the saturated fatty acids C14 to C24. Physchim62 (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any advantage in removing those articles.  I would probably have argued against the effort of creating them in the first place, but once it's already done they aren't doing any harm.  Even if they are trivially short and perhaps redundant now, many of them may eventually end up with useful/interesting information on them - such as is the case with nonacosane. Edgar181 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alkanes

message: I've started Wikipedia: WikiProject Chemicals/Data as a repository of useful web sites for finding physical properties & other info in composing chemical compound articles. Shimmin 17:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data repositories 

message: === Methane entry needs a complete overhall ===
The information on methane and its presentation is not up to the standard of other articles in Wikipedia.
Much of it is simply unintelligible (perhaps written by people who speak English as a second language?). There are many statements that are, at best, misleading, and at worst complete nonsense, eg: 
"Methane acts on organic rich shales and produces a minor contribution (1-3%) to form petroleum with true biomarkers as hopanoids and others insaturated hydrocarbons (n-alkenes). Methane interacts with peats, forming coal and bearing mercury, nickel, arsenic,cadmium, selenium, vanadium, uranium and other toxic metals."
Someone with a good knowledge of organic geochemistry AND the English language please should rewrite the entire entry.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.210.13 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree. That article is a real mess.  However, the article on methane in the German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methan) seem to me to be very good (based on my rusty German).  That would probably be a good place to start in order to get the English version up to a higher standard. Edgar181 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer from [[Talk:Methane]] 

message: The information on methane and its presentation is not up to the standard of other articles in Wikipedia.
Much of it is simply unintelligible (perhaps written by people who speak English as a second language?). There are many statements that are, at best, misleading, and at worst complete nonsense, eg: 
"Methane acts on organic rich shales and produces a minor contribution (1-3%) to form petroleum with true biomarkers as hopanoids and others insaturated hydrocarbons (n-alkenes). Methane interacts with peats, forming coal and bearing mercury, nickel, arsenic,cadmium, selenium, vanadium, uranium and other toxic metals."
Someone with a good knowledge of organic geochemistry AND the English language please should rewrite the entire entry.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.210.13 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree. That article is a real mess.  However, the article on methane in the German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methan) seem to me to be very good (based on my rusty German).  That would probably be a good place to start in order to get the English version up to a higher standard. Edgar181 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methane entry needs a complete overhall 

message: Now that we've worked hard and acetic acid is a featured article, it will be on the main page on December 1st, 2005.  I don't know exactly what this will mean for the acetic acid page itself, but I can guess that there will be a LARGE amount of editting to the article that day.  I'm guessing that some of the edits will be useful, some will be useless, but most will be vandals.  I just want to ask people to keep an eye out for vandalism and useless edits. ~K 08:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Acetic acid on the English Wikipedia front page now.  H Padleckas 01:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Acetic acid]] will be on the [[Main Page]] on Dec. 1st, 2005 

message: I just wanted to say congratulations on getting acetic acid featured. It's not easy to write featured-quality articles on technical subjects. And I'd like to see more science-related featured articles. Incidentally, we borrowed your organization scheme for WP:MED—good idea! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations!