Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 5

message: I hope this is the right place for this comment. The term Solution is a synoymn for the terms Chemical Solution, within the field of Chemistry, and Business Solution, within the field of Information Technology. 
Within the field of Business and Information Technology (IT) a Solution is defined as some combination of tangible and/or intangible product(s) that address a business problem. 
Currently, there is a redirection from Chemical Solution to Solution. I believe that the redirection should be from Solution to Chemical Solution and to Business Solution. The redirection from Chemical Solution to Solution be removed so the article that is currently in Solution reside on the Chemical Solution article. This will accomodate these two terms and refer to the appropriate term in the appropriate field.--Davidmarten223 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution (Terminology) 

message: I am new to the WikiProject Chemistry, so please correct me if this is not the right place to discuss this. I noticed the new WikiProject Chemistry info boxes on the talk pages of chemistry articles and think they are a great addition. My question is: if there is no rating for quality or importance scale yet, may I add one if I feel I know the topic well enough? Or should I discuss it first? Where? On the talk page of the corresponding article or rather on this page here? In case of the phosphate article I suggest an importance level of 'mid'. Thanks, --Splette  Talk 17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome!  Certainly have a go at assessment according to the criteria, and importance if you are familiar with the topic.  I would rate phosphate as at least "High" importance IMHO because it is one of the major anions; we have many thousands of articles now (including some more specialised topics), and mid-importance is used for things more like caesium fluoride.  See our list for more examples.  Overall there are now over 70,000 articles on Wikipedia assessed using this scheme - please help it grow in chemistry.  Many thanks! Walkerma 21:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphate 

message: You may know that I have been tagging the element talk pages, and adding assessments.  I chose to classify the common elements like oxygen and iron as "Top-importance".  As for the others, I figured that just by being an element (and thus a basic building block of chemistry), any of the others should rank as "High" importance.  Is this OK?  Or do you think elements like promethium should be only Mid? Feedback please? Thanks, Walkerma 01:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are all elements, and are equales in the PSE, but for wikipedia the overall importance of carbon is higher than of selenium and that is higher than that of Astatine. The how often a article is linked should give a good feeling if its really important. tausands (C) to more than 400 (Se) to over 100 (At)--Stone 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to having some of the less common elements marked as Mid-importance: promethium and astatine are obvious candidates, but I would include rubidium, scandium, tellurium, and most of the rare earths (sorry Martin...) My test would be "is there anything interesting about the element apart from the simple fact that it's an element?" Even an inorganic chemist such as myself can answer "No" to that one sometimes! :) Physchim62 (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elements 

message: I'm not going to update the Chemistry COTM this month for two reasons.
# The current collaboration has not been worked on.
# The current nominations have only one person in support and, therefore, are not a collaborations.
Please help out by contributing. ~K 17:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea.  My limited experience with COTMs and the like is that sometimes there's a quiet period.  I think we need to keep this going, though, even if we roll over the COTM for another month sometimes - once it gets established it'll work much better.  I'm sorry I've done so little, but once version 0.5 is released (Nov?) I should have more time to help - I'm really missing working for WP:Chem! Walkerma 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Chemistry Collaboration of the Month|Chemistry COTM]] update 

message: Our good friend caffeine is now featured, but still lacks the first total synthesis by E. Fischer!--Stone 13:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caffeine

message: Hi guys
We don't have an article (or I haven't found one) on PPh3O yet. It's pretty ubiquitous, appearing often when triphenylphosphine is used in reactions. Is it worthy of a full article? Or a section in triphenylphosphine and a redirect to that page?
--Rifleman 82 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would give it a full article, it is thé sideproduct for the Wittig reaction!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely worth a full article!  I'll be cheering you on!  I was going to write one, just never got around to it.  Then again, I'm biased...!  (no need to cite that!)  Seriously, it is useful stuff, and linked from a lot of pages like phosphoryl chloride. Walkerma 19:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've done the easy part. Created the article, added the chembox, drawn the structure, copied in some data. It's not my area of interest so I'll need help to flesh out the article! --Rifleman 82 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Triphenylphosphine oxide]] 

message: There is a long-running dispute concerning whether uranium trioxide gas is a combustion product of uranium.  I have found an expert, Dr. Carl Alexander at Battelle, with 45 years of experience in the subject, who claims that the research literature I have cited indicates that the gas is a combustion product.  A handful of editors stridently opposing me have for several months claimed that the gas is not a combustion product, without any sources supporting that point of view.  I ask that a neutral third party WikiProject participant please phone or email Dr. Alexander, at the number and/or address given at Talk:Uranium trioxide#Discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, and ask him for the reasons he feels that the sources cited there support his and my view that uranium trioxide gas is a combustion product of uranium, and share his responses with all on Talk:Uranium trioxide.  Thanks in advance. LossIsNotMore 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranium 

message: User:Mion started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Hydrogen, see also Hydrogen technologies. He created a number of categories and templates, like the monstrous Template:Sustainability and energy development group now on TfD.
Unfortunately I've got the impression, that his knowledge in the area is rather limited and his actions, as well-intended they may be, will make the affected  articles worse, not better. In the moment, I'm struggling with his intentions to classify the osmosis cell as a fuel cell. He gives sources like a "PC magazine encyclopedia of IT terms" and the OED. Ouch.
Anyone interested to check his contris?
Pjacobi 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fuel cell]]s and  [[User:Mion]] 

message: I could use some help reverting POV in the Combinatorial chemistry article.  I posted the origonal POV edit on the talk page.  Thanks, ~K 03:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Combinatorial chemistry]] POV 

message: Hey guys, i have checked to this article as reference to my study but i found it a little bit confusing, could someone please enhance it or take a look at it?, I believe this article requires rephrasing some concepts to be easily understood for users non familiar with the topic.Cheers --HappyApple 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a look at it this weekend, but no promises! Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cahn-Ingold-Prelog priority rule]] 

message: New here, but just noticed on the information panels for gases (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide ) it gives density information, quoting relevant temperature. Shouldn't these also quote pressure? (I presume they're at 10000 Pa?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.121.243 (talk • contribs) 
:Hi!  You presume right, it is in the bottom of the 'chembox' (stating: 'Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa). Infobox disclaimer and references', so actually, on the carbon dioxide page the 298K could have been omitted.  Hope to see you around!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gases 

message: Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.
The plugin has two main modes of operation:
*Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
*Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)
As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.
For more information see:
*About the plugin
*About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
*User guide
*About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)
Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

message: As far as I can tell we don't have an article on Diamagnetic anisotropy.  Anyone want to take a stab at it?  I don't know anything about the subject matter myself, merely that someone who does know about it thinks that there is a large oversight in not having any information on it.  --69.138.178.196 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamagnetic anistropy 

message: Hi there. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for peer review of [[Enzyme kinetics]]

message: Earlier today I made an effort to improve the parabens article which was a real mess.  There is a bit of controversy about the safety of parabens and I tried to cut out much of the commentary from both points of view.  I did a bit of research and included references to some of the more relevant scientific studies representing both sides.  I feel I made a vast improvement to the article, but shortly afterwards an anon IP came in and copy-and-pasted much of the older stuff back in, with edit summaries referring to my edits as " borderline vandalism" and "POV pushing".  I realize that as a scientist I have a certain perspective, but can others please look at the article and help keep the article neutral and encyclopedic?  Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgar181 (talk • contribs) 
:There are concerns about the safety and chemistry of parabens. Take a look at the parabens article. Thanks. Welcomeall 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Parabens]]