Talk:Chemistry/Archive 1

message: :Category:Chemistry now has 172 articles in the main category. Many of these should be put in subcategories and taken out of the main cat. I don't know much about the subject. I'd appreciate any help.
Also, I created Template:Chem-cat to ask for help with this. But it has been listed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Maurreen (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: I have unlinked Chemical nomenclature, as its content is repeated in full in the summary below.  It still serves as a useful disambig page, but unlike the other "Main articles" it does not contain any new content.  If you disagree, feel free to revert, but I'd be curious what your reasoning is. Thanks to all who helped build this excellent article. JesseW 06:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chemical nomenclature]] - should this be linked? 

message: Do people feel that a summary of the History of Chemistry article would be valuable in the same-named section?  I'll get to writing it, but I wanted to leave some time for people to comment on my change above, so I thought I'd ask for responses first. JesseW 06:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes a nice very short summary would be good.
tmcsherry- Your changes seem out of place in the History section. They seem more appropriate in the Bohr model article.--Nick Y. 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of Chemistry]] summary? 

message: Umm... as I ran into this article, I noticed that the first (and most prominent) link is that for the Chemistry portal. That would be perfectly fine, but the only problem is that it is a redlink. Shouldn't the link be made until the portal is up and running? --Titoxd 22:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The portal is running now. The link should be good. ~K 18:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonexistent Wikiportal 

message: Hello, there is a content dispute at Methodological naturalism that I've filed an article RFC for 
The original question is whether or not the scientific method is a natural method or a supernatural method of scientific investigation. One editor (Markus Schmaus) refuses to allow the scientific method be listed as a natural method unless a link can be provided to support the claim. I assume he is a proponent of Intelligent Design which pushes the view that ID is "scientific" even though it investigates supernatural causes such as how God must have creaeted life on earth. I assume it is this POV that is getting pushed, and Schmaus will not allow the scientific method be listed as an example of MN because then ID would not fit in the scientific method.
In an attempt to resolve the dispute until some sort of consensus was reached, I removed the mention of the Scientific Method as an example of methodolgical naturalism and instead inserted "astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics" are examples of methodological naturalism. Schmaus is now disputing that these are examples of MN and insists on a URL to prove that they are natural methods rather than supernatural methods of scientific investigation.
Since methodological naturalism is a minor article with only a few editors, the dispute has remained unresolved for lack of any sort of consensus. Please weigh in with your comments at the following links: 
Scientific method is natural or supernatural
astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics are natural or supernatural methods
If you have links to support whether it is supernatural or natural, that would be greatly appreciated. FuelWagon 18:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: supernatural?

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: There is an apparent incosistency in the etymology of the words Chemistry and Alchemy as describes in the two Wikipedia lemmas. The Chemistry lemma states that 
"Chemistry (derived from the Arabic word kimia, alchemy, where al is Arabic for the) is the..."
while the Alchemy lemma states that
"The word alchemy comes from the Arabic al-kīmiyaˀ or al-khīmiyaˀ (الكيمياء or الخيمياء), which is probably formed from the article al- and the Greek word chumeia (χυμεία) meaning "cast together", "pour together", "weld", "alloy", etc. (from khumatos, "that which is poured out, an ingot"). A decree of Diocletian, written about 300 CE in Greek, speaks against "the ancient writings of the Egyptians, which treat of the khēmia [transmutation] of gold and silver".
The etymology of the word Chemistry has been a matter of debate for decades, and I believe that one should write in both lemmas that there are two main origins of the word Chemistry, the Greek and the Arabic one, with the Greek - in my view - being much more credible. Indeed in the word "Χημεία" (Modern Greek for "Chemistry") used to be written as "Χυμεία" in Byzantine times. Ioannis, PhD Chemistry--195.134.76.249 14:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. CarlGH 07:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: The etymology section of this article is about the etymology of alchemy instead of chemistry. "Chemistry" is a derivative from "alchemy" as alchemists are called chemists in short form, then a "-try" is added to this to make "chemistry". --Deryck C. 16:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology again 

message: There seems to be continuous change to the definition such that it wobbles around being accurate but only is for short periods of time. The most recent iteration on this is once again the exclusion of monatomic species from chemistry. Please lets not make the same mistakes over and over again. The periodic table is essential to chemistry and so are the elements. Many chemists, to this day, work with monatomic elements both in theory and in practice, let's not leave them out of our definition. I have weakly edited the definition to reflect this with as little change as possible.--Nick Y. 23:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition Again 

message: The newly introduced or expanded phase paragraph seems a little too long for the introduction. Phase changes may be a good example but leave the details for the proper article.--Nick Y. 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction