Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 6

message: Someone take a look at bond length of fluorine created by User:N4nojohn, is this copied from some textbook? If not, we definitely should encourage this guy to continue contributing. Femto 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really doubt it. I really really doubt it. I've taken the liberty to welcome this user with open arms. Join in :-) --HappyCamper 14:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's taken from lecture notes, not a textbook. I have made my comments on Talk:Bond length of fluorine. Physchim62 (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, from lecture notes. At least I was right :P --HappyCamper 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond length of fluorine 

message: (seemingly a journal publisher) has been editing a fair few journal articles. I don't think they've broken any wikipedia rules/guidelines, and they seem to be doing quite a good job with their edits so far, but as they have a vested interest in advertising themselves someone should probably keep an eye on their edits. They're mostly editing chemistry journal articles, hence why I'm posting this here. I noticed them when they edited a physics article I watch, which's my area of speciality. Mike Peel 14:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My God yes, that's definitely our friends from up Milton Road! (that is to say the journal publishing arm of the Royal Society of Chemistry) They don't seem to be doing too much harm for the minute, and are helping with our coverage of scientific journals: I'm a little more sceptocal of their links to "breaking articles" pages, but I think we shouldn't worry too much—or if we should we should have a thorough campaign to improve our articles about journals, RSC and others. Physchim62 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These sorts of accounts need to be discouraged, if not outright blocked. There are two reasons for this. The first, is that there is no manner on Wikipedia for which we can confirm the user behind that account represents that agency. Sending an e-mail is not sufficient. Personally, only the office can really do that. Secondly, it is not possible to tell whether the account is a role account or not. It is akin to someone using the accoung "Harvard University" on Wikipedia, although in this case, RCS publishing is not that well known to the general public. I'm tempted to block or ask for a name change, but as I'm stretched too thinly on Wikipedia, I'll leave one eye open, and one eye closed - for now. --HappyCamper 17:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any big harm yet. As pointed out above there no way to verify this users association with RSC but that would also indicate that we should not have a bias against a particular user name. Now if some bad editing occurs the user's name may be indicitive of motivation and be somewhat damning. For example if they start "mistakenly" overstating the impact factors of all RSC journals then we could more easily say that it was not a simple mistake but motivated by probable association. This is extremely common with vanity articles where the primary editor has a name similar to the article and they make bad edits. Editing articles about ones self is dicouraged but not against any rule. If you do a good job, bravo. Most people in the world are not capable of writing a good article about themselves even if they make the notability cut to begin with. The only blocking of this editor should be based on bad editing.--Nick Y. 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha. Not to worry. --HappyCamper 03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If the RSC wish to complain to the Office then I'm sure that they will be sympathetically listened to; however, this account does appear to be semi-official, and their edits are not in breach of guidelines (the journals are notable, the info appears to be accurate). Although admins are often faced with accounts placing commercially (and politically) misleading information into articles, this account seems merely to be doing work which other editors would eventually have got round to doing themselves: legit editing, in other words. Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Exhausted? I have been travelling a bit and am a bit tired too. But you know what I discovered today? Try this Wikipedian brand of coffee! Quite worldly in flavor I might add. Coffee on me. Cheers! --HappyCamper 02:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't drink coffee; I take tea, my dear. (not an Englishman though :) Gave them a pointer on their talk page to this discussion. This is a nice example why editors associated with the topic shouldn't be too active. Take Annual Reports Section A, Annual Reports Section B, Annual Reports Section C. Basically identical, all praising the RSC as a not-for-profit publisher, all with same "About the Annual Reports" sections. They seem to have been created mainly as a promotional vehicle for placing external links (having not even internal links between themselves, but already 6 external links to rsc.org each). Or if this wasn't the intention, the results are indistinguishable in any case. Why do we need that? Femto 14:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are important and distinct reviews that are published annually by the Royal Society of Chemistry. Perhaps they do need a bit of a tidy up, but they should stay. I think the RSC editor does a better job editing an existing article or stub than when they start an article. I'll try to look at then later but I'm still exhausted and have other things to do. --Bduke 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too - though my trip was only a short distance, I came back exhausted and full of cold!  I think we should let RSC add this information as long as it seems to hold to WP:NPOV and doesn't just read like an advert.  In my experience people who edit for spamming (or other reasons involving deception) use anon or unknown accounts that disappear - by using the name RSCPublishing they are being totally open about who they are.  I think the message is, "We're improving these articles because we want info on our journals to be up-to-date and accurate, but if by any chance we're breaking any rules please let us know and/or revert us." They seem to be factual and well-written, so they should stay, IMHO.  Walkerma 03:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't have any problems with what you are doing and I think you are making valuable contributions to Wikipedia.  However, you may be breaking a couple of minor rules.  According to WP:Username, "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies, groups, or include the URL of a particular website are discouraged and may be blocked."  Also, I think there is a rule against shared accounts, but I can't seem to find reference to it at the moment.  It might be better, therefore, for the three of you to get separate accounts.  You can then use your new userpages to identify yourselves and your employer, if you wish. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSC Publishing editing journal articles 

message: At least one user, well intentioned no doubt, is inserting animated images into various WEChem articles.  If you havent seen such, one is coming to an article near you soon.  I took one out of benzyl alcohol, but I suspect that my edit will be reverted.  A rotation or two of a molecule is fine for me, but the continuous rotation is annoying/distracting, IMHO.  It is just difficult for me to read text when something is wriggling on the same page.  But then, perhaps I am a contrarian or suffering from some perceptual disorder.  Thus, I ask that we strive for some consensus.  My vote is for no animation unless it can be controlled to a fixed few oscillations or toggled on and off.--Smokefoot 01:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree!  We should be nice about this, though, and assume good faith (also "don't bite the newcomers"), because this work is clearly well-intentioned.  The contributor appears to be a biochemist, something we need more of on Wikipedia!  I'll post a gentle comment on their talk page.  Walkerma 03:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you know how much work is needed?  Are we likely to see Jmol in the next few months, or is it years away?  This extension of the software could have an impact outside Wikipedia, as others in the chemistry community are getting interested in wikis. Thanks, Walkerma 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably not a lot of work. Hopefully, I will find time to finish the Jmol extension in November, I have been quite busy recently (office work, Jmol v11, ...). After that, it's up to the Wikipedia administrators to decide to include it. -- NicoV 20:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: FYI: Here are links containing animated graphics that are under discussion: Phenoxyethanol, 2,2,2-Trichloroethanol, 2-Butanol, Bis-tris methane, Benzoin, Bisabolol, Bis-tris propane.--Smokefoot 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I too am annoyed by not being able to stop the molecules from spinning and don't get alot out of them spinning about since I can visulize it easily. I would however like to point out that it may be extraorinarily useful to the billions of non-chemists who don't get what information is being conveyed by static images and those who have difficulty visulizing in 3D (mostly non-chemists of course). Of course the right solution is the jmol implementation but perhaps this is a okay stop-gap measure. Perhaps some outside perspective should be solicited (no pun intended).--Nick Y. 22:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about making stereograms of molecules instead? --HappyCamper 22:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That of course is one of the tools used in some (older?) organic chemistry textbooks to teach geometry of molecules.--Nick Y. 05:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rotating images - views sought

message: Greetings, this is my first post on this side of wikiversity!
I've been doing some research on Chemical Markup Language, in order to be able to access all of the databases with a single standard, and I found the following Google Video that I think is quite interesting:
* Google Video on GoogleInchI
I guess you already have visited the page but here is wikipedias article:
* Chemical Markup Language
I think it would be a good idea to get in contact with this people and see what can be done on wikipedia!
best regards!
WiKimik 03:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed this earlier!  The Google Video is very helpful, thanks.  We ARE in contact with these folks; in fact User:Petermr is Peter Murray-Rust, co-developer of CML.  I have been sounding out several Wikipedians about the idea of setting up a WikiProject on chemical information/informatics, and a major goal of such a project would be to coordinate chemistry standards between the outside chemical community (ACS/CAS, Blue Obelisk, RSC, Pubchem, Chemistry Central) and Wikipedia.  IMHO we need to have ways of attaching InChI metadata to chemical structures automatically, and I'd also like to see us improve our linking to DOIs.  I have a chemistry wiki under development, where I hope to catalyse some of this work.  If we get this project going, would you be willing to help out, WiKimik?  Anyone else? Thanks, Walkerma 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, unless someone else wants to take the lead on this, I want to hold off starting this project for a month or two, by which time I should have much more wiki-time.  I want to make sure that the project is lively and can have an impact - that takes a bit of time & commitment. Watch out for me spamming you in December! Walkerma 15:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, looking forward to that. Don't forget! --HappyCamper 04:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GoogleInChI and other Mashups / Chemical Markup Language 

message: The IUPAC nomenclature states that the position numbers of substituents should be put directly before the multiplying prefix of the substituents; yet in many alcohol articles the systematic name (presumably IUPAC name, as is linked there) is given as something like "1,2-propanediol" instead of something like "propane-1,2-diol". What's happened with the names? Is my concept about nomenclature incorrect or are the articles incorrect (I've consulted the page alcohol#Nomenclature: my concept's correct) - or do we have two separate "systematic nomenclatures"? --Deryck C. 09:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the articles are wrong! The position numbers should be placed after the stem indicating the number of carbon atoms, although for simple alcohols it is very common to see them at the start of the name. This is tolerable so long as it doesn't lead to any confusion as to the structure. Physchim62 (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the textbooks in the US all seems to advocate the "1,2-propanediol" format, including the one I use (though at least they use "acetic acid" not "ethanoic acid").  Presumably this is another example of the US chemistry community not wanting to harmonize their naming with the rest of the world? Walkerma 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The prefix/infix differences have been discussed a few times on Talk:IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry. Executive summary: "the great thing about having standards is having so many different standards to choose from"--IUPAC vs CAS, common name vs systematic, etc. DMacks 17:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case shall I change all the names labelled "IUPAC names" into the propane-1,2-diol format? --Deryck C. 10:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature of alcohols 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Hi Chem folks,
Can we get your opinion on Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines...?  It's a proposed guideline, put up and supported by the Physics and Math wikiprojects, to deal with what we view as overzealous demands for inline citations of undisputed textbooks facts.  Perhaps it won't be suitable for all areas of science (and we'll have to change the name), but the construction of the guideline was inspired by how we're told things are done in Chemistry articles, so it makes sense to see if you folks agree with it.  Any thoughts? -- SCZenz 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks excellent to me!  If this is the product of the endless discussions at WP:GA, then it has been useful for clarifying policy in this important area.  There is much more scrutiny of references, and I hear/read more & more from outside the community that one of the most useful things in Wikipedia is the list of references!  This guidelines page looks to have been well put together and well-written, a very nice piece of work.  I certainly don't disagree with anything in there.  I have only one suggestion - could we try to make it standard policy to include the DOI for every journal ref and ISBN for every book ref?  I'm hoping to see us connect Wikipedia up seamlessly with Chemistry Central, PubChem, ACS and RSC publications and others, and these simple links will really draw in chemists.  Great job, guys! Walkerma 06:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific citation guidelines 

message: I'm wondering...what sorts of images are on our WikiChemists' wishlists? --HappyCamper 04:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well the standard of what many chemical viewers hate are the ugly, persistently rotating images such as that on benzyl alcohol.  Low chem-art drives people away from the field.  More positively, what I would most like to see but figure is impossibly far off:
*for molecular species: a structure that can be rotated upon command, morphed with a click from (i) wire-framework with atom labels to (ii) space-filling to (iii) charge density. 
*for most polymeric solids, such as most binary oxides and halides, we'd want (i) wire-framework with atom labels of the asymmetric unit, (ii) some subset of the options in SHELX's drawing module, and (iii) "pack" where one could look at multiple unit cells.
--Smokefoot 13:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that image already, though I think it'll be reverted soon. I don't like those images either. --Rifleman 82 16:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I was thinking of some other things entirely, say, hard to obtain things. For example, images of radioactive compounds from the lab. Illustrative absorption spectra, and the like. Test tubes of transition metal ions and their colours. Stuff that would really interest the generally reader... --HappyCamper 21:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That there are many chemistry professionals here... makes it easier to collect these things. I've been taking some photographs of distillations, etc. Perhaps we can set up a separate sub-project where requests can be posted and fulfilled? --Rifleman 82 22:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there enough momentum for a project like that to be feasible and sustainable? Maybe a simple subpage would do? --HappyCamper 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes!! --HappyCamper 15:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi chemists.  This isn't exactly a wish, but an image-related dispute.  Over at selegiline, one user, Jclerman, has decided that all chemical structures in Wikipedia should be screenshots of ChemIDPlus.  He promptly replaced a structure I added to selegiline's infobox with a JPEG from this site, explaining that the infobox must be internally consistent, and since it has links to ChemIDPlus from the CAS number and so on, we must use the image from that site.  I've suggested he continues discussion of standard image styles here.  Anyone want to help? --Ben 03:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben's image is far superior, and furthermore it seems to comply with our style guide.  This government image is not only very poor in quality, it is also not in ACS format (which we all agreed upon) - so even if cleaned up it would be non-standard.  I'm all for us interlinking with other sites, and particularly open access & non-commercial sites, but that surely doesn't mean we have to use their JPG files as well!  Or am I missing something?  Walkerma 05:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that Ben's image is better and support the re-introduction of his images that he did today.  I also switched to his image at the related article Emsam. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "internally consistent" mean here? --HappyCamper 13:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose User:Jclerman believes that there is only one true depiction of the molecule, and that truth resides at ChemIDPlus. I interpret it that he expects all images of molecules in wikipedia should come from that ChemIDPlus so that they look "consistent" in terms of style (bond length, width, element font size, etc.). That said, if he were able to manipulate molecules, twist them around in his mind, he'd should see that they are one and the same and no canon is necessary. Side note: emsam and selegiline seem to be the exact same molecule. Why are they different articles? Both articles claim that they are MAOI. Should they not be merged? Rifleman 82 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That puzzled me too...article seems to say that emsam is a commercial patch with Selegiline on it. --HappyCamper 13:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image wishlist 

message: Hi over there, although i am not active on weekdays on wikipedia i am still keeping an eye in some. The othey day I've found Huckel's rule article is rather short and it has no images or any example of how is it used. I tried to use the information already writen on the article for my study, however i believe it is quite a stub, will somebody enhance it a little? or at least to put an image of a benzene or cyclic ring to explain the rule?. I would appreciate someone would do so. Cheers --HappyApple 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the article could certainly use some expansion and good editing.  My German is a bit rusty, but it looks like there is a better article at the German Wikipedia which could be a good source of material for expanding the English version.  --Ed (Edgar181) 16:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have improved it a bit.--Nick Y. 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huckel's rule a stub? 

message: I'm asking about a convention - is the custom here to name the article "3-methylheptane" or "3-Methylheptane", ie. should we capitalize the first alphabet of the name if the name starts with numbers? --Deryck C. 05:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be 3-Methylheptane, but I'd suggest adding a redirect from 3-methylheptane. See here.  Walkerma 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very very much. I appreciate very much your rapid reply. --Deryck C. 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, completely agree with Martin. Can I take this opportunity to remind editors that the redirect is essential in these cases, because the MediaWiki software will not recognise 3-methylheptane and 3-Methylheptane as the same article (it is only case-insensitive for the first character). Physchim62 (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article names starting with numbers 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. The proposal currently has the formal support of both the math and the physics projects but we need to know if other science projects agree with it or not. (both math and physics held straw polls, that may be a reasonable method of determinining things. I'll  presume that how you decided consensus is an internal matter). JoshuaZ 21:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for citation guidelines