Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 11

message: I seem to be in a bit of a dispute on silicon carbide and diamond simulant.  Before again reverting and getting into the dispute, I think I ask for some second opinions.  The person seems to know about the subject, but does not argue, and, I think, misreads some of the things.
On silicon carbide there is a reference to a patent (US5762896) that claims 'A method of producing a finished gemstone having a Mohs hardness of approximately 8.5-9.25, a density (SG) of ..'.  The article contains a note relating to that, explaining why the patent uses these numbers (indeed, Mohs hardness scale does NOT support 9.25, but we are not citing the truth, but we are citing what is verifyable).  The editor in question thinks 9.25 is confusing, and keeps reverting this (I have done a great deal of work earlier on that document in an attempt to clarify that point, but still).
On diamond simulant the discussion is similar (it does contain the same disputed 9.25), and has a second component where I indeed don't exactly know where to go.  The problem there seems to be the definition of the words synthesised and simulated.  I first reverted because of the 9.25 -> 9.0 change (I describe such changes often as vandalism with 'unexplained and unsourced numerical change (by anon)'), later he changed all forms of 'synthetic moissanite' into 'simulated moissanite (synthetic silicon carbide)'.  There I get confused.  Synthetic moissanite would IMHO be a material that is very close to, or exactly the same as moissanite (has the same constitutents etc.) and has actually been made.  A simulated material (a simulated diamond) looks like the material, but it is not the same, or it is not actually being made (in a way a synthetic diamond could be a moissanite simulant).  (I synthesise free carbenes, I do not simulate free carbenes).  
I have left the discussion after a WP:3RR dispute, but I would like to hear some more input on this matter.  I guess the best thing would be to overhaul both articles and to rewrite the disputed parts of it, but I am not the person to do that.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Mohs of 9¼ seems reasonable to me (9.25 implies too great an accuracy). Physchim62 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I am correct, the reference states 8.5-9.25, not 8½-9¼.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the Mohs scale does not recognise quarters, only whole and half numbers (though the wikilinked article here does not state that).  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Mohs scale only recognises halves, then these should be written as, e.g. 9½, NOT 9.5, and so whatever the original source says. I will try to research the Mohs scale to give another opinion on the exact problem. Physchim62 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, here I disagree.  Per WP:A, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."  And I guess there is the whole problem of the dispute; do we say a patent is a reliable source or not (I know, everybody can get a patent).  Hence my suggestion, maybe overhaul both articles, and rewrite the disputed parts of it.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dirk, you are correct on the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, but would you deliberately include material you knew to be misleading? I think not... Physchim62 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I know, and my original attempt was to explain that part (but that is apparently still disputed; and it is either misleading in the article, or misleading with respect to the reference).  The other option is, remove/rewrite the whole disputed part.  It is why I ask for comments here and stay away from the dispute; removal will probably be followed by readdition since we remove a (verifyable) POV; keeping the explanation is disputed.  I just hope someone with a fresh view can resolve these articles.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Another option is to remove it entirely..."zero information preferred over misleading information". --HappyCamper 17:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is a bit off-topic (there is a reference), but removal may indeed be an option.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...how about simply saying that the hardness of X is between that of corundum and diamond? --HappyCamper 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silicon Carbide / Diamond Simulant 

message: I just noticed a :Category:Chemistry articles with comments on some chemistry-related article discussion pages. A handful of items in the category, but no description of what the category actually is and/or how articles get included in it. It looks automatic based on some banner? What is a "comment" in this context? DMacks 01:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they have a /Comments page in their Talk: Talk:Histidine/Comments. I think this was meant for rating and other outstanding items but it appears to have been hijacked for other purposes in some cases. --Rifleman 82 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the first I've noticed or heard mention of the Talk:*/Comments namespace. Got a ref to where it's discussed for its original putpose? DMacks 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used by the 1.0 bot, which can transclude comments from these pages into the assessment tables.  The original discussion is here.  It's a useful feature, but one we've never got around to using here much. Walkerma 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Chemistry articles with comments 

message: Recently, I came across the article 2-methyl,2-nitrosopropane.  Realising the unconventional spelling of the article name, I suggested it be moved to 2-methyl-2-nitrosopropane on the talk page.  User:Pproctor kindly obliged, but rather than performing a page move per se, he/she created a new article with identical content at 2-methyl-2-nitrosopropane, leaving the incorrectly-named 2-methyl,2-nitrosopropane untouched.
Any takers?
Ben 14:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted 2-methyl-2-nitrosopropane and then moved the wrongly named article together with its history to 2-methyl-2-nitrosopropane. JoJan 15:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Take a look at other work by PProctor editor and you will come to appreciate the depth of problem.--Smokefoot 16:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin help required 

message: I have added the autocategorisation to the , and after seeing the huge increase in category-contents I decided to recat the automatic image requests.  There is now a master-category :Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures, which contains the subcategories for the three different infoboxes with this functionality: ,  and .  Hope this helps, and ... happy drawing!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture requests 

message: As above, discussion at talk:Ultrasonic cleaning. --Rifleman 82 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion for [[sonication]] and [[ultrasonic cleaning]]

message: Hello!  This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: , , , , , , , and .  Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject.  The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary.
Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features/additional templates, or bug reports are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion templates

message: Article in bad shape, with lists running out of control and poorly explained synthetic route/industrial production. Also can take a look at Nitration. --Rifleman 82 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nitration and forminc an ester of nitric acid are two total differnt things. You end up either with C-NO2 or C-O-NO2 (C-NO3). With nitration you end up with nitromethane with esterification with nitric acid you end up at methylnitrate. Soemthing has to happen.--Stone 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For cleanup: [[Glycerol]] 

message: I've attempted to improve filtration. Perhaps you guys can drop by and check my contributions, and add some of your own? I'm also thinking of merging the latter article to the former. Filtration is a physical process not quite limited to chemistry, and unless we want to talk about laboratory techniques, there is little point in a separate article. What do you guys think? --Rifleman 82 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Filtration]] / [[Filter (chemistry)]] 

message: Hi everyone - I was browsing around and discovered Wikipedia:Featured topics today! I'm wondering whether there is a good set of chemistry topics we could work on as a group? Just an idea. --HappyCamper 21:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration 

message: See discussion at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Chemistry. --Itub 11:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chemistry]] is a featured article candidate 

message: To any chemical engineers, chemists, and anybody else who might be interested:  
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering#Chemical plant, processes, design, etc..  H Padleckas 23:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chemical plant]], processes, design, etc. 

message: Curious if anyone has input to improve the titration curve examples currently being developed by User:JWSchmidt and I to improve the titration article, and maybe others.
*User_talk:Atropos235#your_data
*User_talk:JWSchmidt#Titration_Data
Atropos235 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get the data for it, I think a titration curve showing the orthophosphoric acid (H3PO4, commonly called simply phosphoric acid) titrated with an NaOH solution all the way to orthophosphate (PO4-3) would be picturesque.  Orthophosphoric is one of the few triprotic acids which shows all three of its endpoints clearly since its pKa values are far enough apart.  In the oxalic acid titration curve shown here, the first endpoint does not seem very distinct.  H Padleckas 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I love phosphoric acid, I have to say that the third equivalence point is not that clear because the pKa is too high. See this page for an example: . The oxalic acid plot looks pretty good. Besides phosphoric acid, you could also consider carbonic acid; these two examples have the advantage of being of great biological interest. But don't worry, oxalic acid is a good didactic example. --Itub 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Phosphoric acid can't be done by a simple pH titration, as the third pKa is too high to give a good inflection. The third pKa has to be determined by conductimetry. Physchim62 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not generate a curve from a fictitious polyprotic acid where all the transitions can be clearly illustrated? --HappyCamper 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some aminoacid will have at least two clear equivalence points. --Itub 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titration curves 

message: What about some Wiki-love? I know Barn-stars aren't everyone's cup of tea, but if you dig them, then I propose "The chemistry star" as an award for anyone you feel is doing good work in chemistry related articles:
		The Chemistry Star
		Message here ... -- Quantockgoblin 01:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second version looks completely blank on my screen, but if I pull up the image I can see it. Is this a browser problem on my part? --HappyCamper 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's blank on my screen too. The problem is in the scaling of the GIF formatted picture. These are notably bad at scaling. PNG format highly preferred, and the real trendy format is SVG (which is excellent at scaling, but limited on picture quality itself). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I like both. There's no reason why we can't have the best of both worlds? --HappyCamper 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chemistry Star 

message: I'm just wondering if any other wikichemists will be at the Chicago American Chemical Society meeting next week.  If you are, please leave a note here or send me an email so we can meet up.  My short talk on Sunday is one of many wiki talks the CINF & CHED divisions have sponsored; there is a Tuesday CINF session where Henry Rzepa will be talking about his vision for a wiki-based peer reviewed journal.  
*Sunday morning
*Sunday afternoon
*Tuesday morning CHED
*Tuesday morning CINF
If people would like, I can post any relevant highlights here during the conference.  There is also an ACS Chicago conference wiki, and I plan to post a couple of things there - hopefully WP people can add their edits & comments there too. Walkerma 18:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard Walkerma's presentation at ACS - he provided a concise survey of the wikiworld, esp WE-chem to a highly attentive audience who had lots of questions. Obviously many educators are very interested in this phenomenon.--Smokefoot 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry V8rik, the presentation wasn't podcast or anything like that!  I can send you my outline by email...! I learnt about lots of interesting developments such as this and I met lots of interesting people.  Do you want me to write a quick summary of the talks?  I did record a pencast of quite a few so I could do this.  Cheers, Walkerma 04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACS meeting in Chicago 

message: According to the naming conventions, these should be moved to Group (periodic table), Period (periodic table). However, are there better names for these? Perhaps "Group (chemistry)" or something of that nature? --- RockMFR 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Group (periodic table) and period (periodic table) are ok, go ahead. Cacycle 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming for [[Group (Periodic table)]], [[Period (Periodic table)]] 

message: Maybe others already know about this, but I came across this neat tool that generates templates for use in references.  Link For example, you simply enter a PMID for an article and it outputs a filled in  template that you can just cut and paste into an article.  --Ed (Edgar181) 23:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful tool 

message: Perhaps this page stating the preferred chembox to use should be updated? --Rifleman 82 05:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CHEMBOX]] 

message: Wikipedia has hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on chemical compounds, generally found in the many subcategories of :Category:Chemical compounds by element. Unfortunately, many of these are permanent stubs and low on content, such as those listed here. Wikipedia:Chemical compounds has been created to discuss what to do with all this. Deletion is arguably a waste, but perhaps some articles can be combined into lists for greater comprehensiveness. Please join the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Chemical compounds. >Radiant< 16:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical compound stubs

message: There is a proposal to merge this list into :Category:Chemists. The discussion is at Talk:List of chemists. Of course this is really a proposal to delete the list after ensuring that all entries are in the appropriate category. Nevertheless I think it worth while to discuss it as a merge and then perhaps move to a delete. What do people think? --Bduke 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of chemists]]

message: At WP:FLC, two chemistry lists have been nominated for featured status.  If you have the time, please go to WP:FLC and comment on these nominations.  Thank you.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two chemistry articles nominated at [[WP:FLC]]