Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 3

message: I have created article: Valency number. I am fairly suprised that noone has previously created it! Valence number re-directs to it. I have also added a link to this article on the Chemistry article under "See also". --Kilo-Lima 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation for this may be due to different usages in English, the normal term I have heard for this concept is the single word "valency," which already has an article.  Can you check the valency article?  If it means the same thing, then the two may need to be merged.  I've learnt (the hard way!) that it is often good to check the alphabetical index of articles to see if someone has written an article with a similar (but not identical) name to the one I'm writing. Walkerma 20:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had checked this page before doing major expansion and reconstruction to Kilo-Lima's Valence articles (chalk one up to learnin the hard way).  While valency does mean the same subject as valence number, IUPAC regards valence number as the most correct term. Oxidative State refers to electronic configuration and spin as well as distribution, so while all elements have one valence value they can have multiple oxidative states (albeit not at the same time).Das Nerd 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks anyway, hopefully we can incorporate some of your input if we merge the articles.  However, surely elements can have multiple valencies (or should I say valence numbers?)?  For example can't carbon have a valence no. of 4 in carbon tetrachloride but 2 in dichlorocarbene?  Do you have the IUPAC reference, it may guide us regarding a possible merge of the two articles, and it should be in the article anyway. Thanks Walkerma 04:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I should say that we obviously need a merge here, with lots of redirects. I am currently in the same position with Standard electrode potential and various other articles which have appeared to give virtually the same information. Please feel free to discuss the merge here; if there are problems, I will use my superpowers as justified. Physchim62 (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. An admin will have to do it becuase WP needs it for copyright reasons; and it has a history. --Kilo-Lima 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Aluminium_Amalgam for an article request based on the German Wikipedia article. Can someone provide sources? Also, this appears to be machine translated, so I would appreciate a human translation of the material as well. Especially the last few lines, as I can't translate those myself. I can't seem to get the link between quicksilver and airplanes. - Mgm|(talk) 12:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aluminium amalgam 

message: As you may have already heard, the scientific journal Nature has peer reviewed 50 scientific articles for factual accuracy.  (See Wikipedia:External_peer_review#Nature)  Several of the articles were chemistry related such as Dmitry Mendeleev, Robert Burns Woodward and aldol reaction.  Let's work put some effort into making these articles more factually correct. ~K 04:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us also be grateful for the fact that Nature takes us seriously enough to do the study! But yes, an inaccurate encyclopedia is worse than useless... Physchim62 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, The Nature website gives this story, which was reported by the BBC here.  I will take a look at Mendeleev as I have a suitable book here.  I have felt for a long time that aldol reaction was a bit embarrassing; it was much improved by V8rik though, see how it looked 9 months ago! Still needs a lot of work- the harvest is great, the workers are few... Ethanol had 5 errors, we need to look over that.  Note that term "error" refers to "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements", I suspect that with the Aldol article there are important things missing. I agree with PC about exposure, though it's scary to think that your work might be scrutinised by one of the world's top science journals! Walkerma 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, Martin, both you and I accept such scrutiny (though not of our wiki contributions) as one of the conditions for which we draw our real world salaries... We must respond to criticisms, where possible by improving our offer of information. I should mention that the Mendeleev article did not draw any criticism when shown to a group of French school inspectors (personal, non-controlled test, but ironic all the same!) Physchim62 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't work on Mendeleev after all, at least for now, though others are on it.  Someone from the Evans group is beefing up the aldol page, I can't think of anyone more qualified on the asymmetric stuff except David Evans himself! Walkerma 05:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature peer review 

message: Does anyone feel motivated to write an overview of clock reactions? We have an iodine clock reaction and Old Nassau reaction article but no general article on clock reactions. - Nunh-huh 02:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clock reactions

message: As a preliminary to this, I propose a Collaboration of the Month (COTM) to bring some articles up to standard.  I suggest a month, because I know the peer review for HCl and HOAc took about 6 weeks, we tend to be very picky!  I think I would like to see us start on the main Chemistry article, then consider perhaps some other key general topics like organic chemistry or physical chemistry, but we can debate that. We can put these in our "goals" below, we don't need to have them in our COTM.  Please leave comments and suggested topics below.
Comments on collaboration idea
I propose Chemistry for the first one. Walkerma 16:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that a COTM is an excellent idea.  I am willing to write the WP:CHEM-COTM page to get us started.  Unfortunately, nobody else has chimed in, so I hesitate to start the page for fear that nobody else is interested.  If a few more people can comment here, then we can make a decision. ~K 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this is also an excellent idea. What say everyone else? Jawz 08:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd go for it. And I second Martin's proposal to nominate Chemistry as the first article we'd focus on.  -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The elements have traditionally been handled by Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements rather than here, so any work on an element has to be coordinated with them.  That group contains a lot of physicists, too.  There is a lot of stuff on energy uses such as Hydrogen economy and Hydrogen vehicle, but this is poorly integrated with the hydrogen article at present. Can I take it from this that you're interested in joining a COTW? Walkerma 20:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the month? 

message: Do people think that Green chemistry should be added to this? I think it probably should, as it isn't the same thing as Environmental chemistry, and there is a reasonable article for it. --Petros471 10:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine as is. ~K 19:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BranchesofChemistry Template 

message: I have taken an initiative on this page, which I think has some problems and needs opinions from a wider group of chemists. Please see what I have written on Talk:List of publications in chemistry. Bduke 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of publications in chemistry]] 

message: would you like to create certified articles in chemistry? -- Zondor 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Stable versions#Certification gang]] 

message: This is spawned by an innocent edit of uranium and by the discussion that followed at User talk:Nrcprm2026#Group numbers. Since its early beginning, Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements uses (and mostly kept) the systematic data from http://www.webelements.com/ for its "Group, Period, Block" entries in the infoboxes of the chemical element articles.
WebElements.com omits the group numbers for the lanthanides and actinides. It is supported by the ungrouped elements page. On the other hand, that article gives no reference and might be a self-running soap bubble based on the circular reasoning that we never included group numbers.
It seems just as reasonable to assume lanthanides and actinides altogether are an inset of group 3 (and thus part thereof), below scandium and yttrium. There's the occasional edit to the infoboxes in this regard. What bugs me, trifle that it is, this basic definition affects the consistency of quite a number of articles.
The definition at periodic table group as a "vertical column in the periodic table" is not at all clear, and the discussion at talk:periodic table about whether or not Lu and Lr are placed into group 3 would not make sense if they'd be group 3 in any case. The group 3 element article puts them all in group 3 but other than that is no help either and it lost me at "All of these elements are classed in Group 3 because their outer electron shells hold three electrons."
So, the question is what the heck is group 3 anyway? Is this a matter of convention without clear definition (like what's part of the lanthanides), and one might find references either way if one digs deep enough? None of the above comes close to being a definite, authoritative reference. Could a real chemist set this straight please? Femto 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, would very much like to know whether some or all of the f-block elements are considered part of group 3, and if so, which.  I have promised to check the IUPAC Red Book soon, but that may take a week. --James S. 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked the Red Book (IR-3.6) for you, and it doesn't seem to give much help. The current definitions are inconsistent, as they admit themselves, as to whether the lanthanoids start at lanthanum or cerium: this is the result of a compromise, as can be seen in the definition of transition element.  IUPAC never went near the question as to how they numbered the "groups" in the f-block, although they did institute a new numbering for the other groups which has now been largely accepted. My advice would be that elements between cerium and ytterbium and between thorium and nobelium have no accepted group number. The situation is more difficult for lanthanium, lutetium, actinium and lawrencium, but the current Wikipedia practice of placing La and Ac in group 3 is widely followed in published periodic tables. Hope this helps! Physchim62 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Very much. So they can tackle the spelling of aluminium, but they chicken out on the basic definitions? :) See further Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Group number convention. Hope I got it all right. Femto 19:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that Group 3 element currently lists lanthanides and actinides as members, should this be updated?  Or should we just say "some authorities also include the following as members of group 3, but IUPAC has not yet made an official ruling." Walkerma 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the time being, it should suffice to make the page more neutral and less definite. The exact nature of the example becomes secondary then. (The latest addition has only muddled it further I'm afraid. First there's "elements in group 3 (IUPAC style):", then "it seems that IUPAC does not include the Lanthanides and the Actinides in group 3". That's not neutral, that's confusing.) See also the talk that followed at WikiProjectElements about my opinions on the need for more coordination of these pages and the strict separation between neutral descriptions and defining coherent examples. Femto 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I might might venture my opinion, IUPAC haven't bothered to give a precise definition here because there isn't a precise and useful definition to be had! The concept of verticle groups, whilst provided a marvellous way to label several elements together and compare trends in the properties in *some* cases (eg alkali metals, noble gases, halogens...), isn't that much use for the f-block. Already in the d-block, horizontal trends begin to be important, and by the f-block, horizontal trends are key. People doing comparative chemistry on actinides and lanthanides look horizontal, not in vertical groups. There are certainly very few useful vertical comparisons to be made between the bulk of the actinide sequence, and scadium and yttrium. Defining a 'Group 3' largely makes most sense in terms of electronic configuration, in which case you can make the best case for Group 3 being a d-block group of Sc, Y, Lu, Lr, and have the lanthanides and actinides as f-block footnotes. You can also compare this scheme to a Group 3 of Sc, Y, Ln, Ac - although Ln and Ac do have more behaviour involving partially-filled f-orbitals, so this is second best. --feline1 16:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia should not follow http://www.webelements.com in terms of the layout of the table because the webelements table is misleading.  IUPAC is definite about Lu being a lanthanoid and Lr an actinoid (see the second to last page here: http://goldbook.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/RB-prs310804/Chap3-3.04.html). The webelements administrator wrote last summer: "We could certainly argue that my WebElements home page (and a lot of books) is a bit loose in that I have labelled the first row of the f-block as lanthanoid without making it clear that Lu is one as well. I'll find a way to clarify that..." but they haven't done so yet.  See the lengthy (and sometimes very silly) discussion here: http://forums.webelements.info/viewtopic.php?t=2334&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0. I think an encyclopedia should represent conventions the best way it can without making stuff up, so I was surprised by the ungrouped elements article, since I've never heard this term before. Flying Jazz 00:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group 3 

message: I have just made an Analytical chemistry stub template, i belive there are many articles should require it, what does wikichemists and community thinks about it?.HappyApple 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. ~K 22:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, nice. Put it on the Wikiproject page, and start using it. Wim van Dorst 23:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ditto. Great. Use it. Bduke 23:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analytical chemistry stub template 

message: Can anyone tell me what compound this is?
Thanks 68.63.88.28 03:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a disaccharide of some kind, i.e. something related to sucrose (sugar).  However several of the OH groups seem to be axial (if I'm seeing it right), which rules out any of the common disaccharides since these all contain at least one glucose component. Walkerma 04:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one to the right is glucose (α-D-glucopyranose). The one to the left is a furanose, but I haven't identified it yet (unclear image). --Eddi (Talk) 02:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification 

message: There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia, where authors insert a math equation and use the equivalent of a resonance arrow for an equilibrium arrow.  Is there anyway in the math equation to use a more proper arrow?  Should pictures be inserted instead?
:Try \overrightarrow{\leftarrow}, e.g:
::Na^+ + Cl^- \overrightarrow{\leftarrow} NaCl produces Na^+ + Cl^- \overrightarrow{\leftarrow} NaCl
:I would rather use "harpoons" than arrows, but after experimenting with math formats for half an hour, I doubt they are workable. --James S. 18:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equilibrium arrows 

message: Hi, everyone. I'm starting to spearhead the development of the Photochemistry article. And from stuff that I am thinking about covering, it is going to be huge :S (might have to split off into other articles too! :D) So far, I've been copying stuff from wikipedia -- light, optics, specialized articles into the photochemistry article. Everyone is welcome to pitch in or let me know how I'm doing, or give me suggestions. I am a busy university student so this will be a slow work in progress. Most of the information at the top is a place holder until the main article is done. Jawz 06:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photochemistry 

message: For those of you who may be attending the American Chemical Society national meeting in Atlanta, I would like to encourage you to attend my talk, "Wikipedia: Social revolution or information disaster?"  It takes place at 10:35 am on Sunday, 26th March, as part of the Chemical Information Division's session on "Social Software."  I'd appreciate any thoughts & suggestions you may have.  I plan to present an NPOV (of course!), showing the pros and cons of Wikipedia, focussing on its use and value as a chemistry resource.  Many of the attendees for the talk are likely to be science librarians, though there will be many chemists too. Come and ask some thought-provoking questions! Walkerma 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be able to get to the meeting.  (I'm very jealous of you.) Could you post your slides somewhere either before or after the meeting, so we can have a peek? ~K 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please show off my recently un-stubified Chemist article. --James S. 22:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Now with added Erlenmeyer flasks!) --James S. 02:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia talk at ACS Atlanta 

message: is is userbox that is a specific use of Template:Participant. It shows a link to "participant" that calls Category:Participants in WikiProject Chemistry. This category does not exist. Do we want it to? If so how do we do it? Or do we want a different userbox that indicates participation in this project? Bduke 10:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just clicked on the redlink and saved the category with a link back to the project article. Anyone can add  to their userpage. --James S. 18:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Checking recently, I see that Category:Participants in WikiProject Chemistry has nobody in it, except this talk page and I have just fixed that by "nowiking" the Cat above. On reflection I do not think we want that category and I have seen some move against categories for Wikipedians. I suggest we have a userbox like the one above but without the Category being added by the template automatically. --Bduke 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I did not fix it. Displaying the box of course adds this page to the category. --Bduke 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project template 

message: I have been tireless working in Electrochemistry article, for over a couple of weeks. I have added substancial information regarding the history of electrochemistry and a summary of what is involved, most of the article has reference in Brown LeMay Bursten General Chemistry book and Chang Raymond too, thus i attempted to do an introductory article showing a general view of the whole aspects (or most of them) studied on electrochemistry. 
I would like to know what do other wikichemists think about it?.HappyApple 07:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice. A little style stuff and grammar here and there, but I like it. I really do. Jawz 08:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great! I for one really appreciate all the work that went into it. It's also one of the "proposed goals" articles for WP:Chemistry.  Thanks a lot! Walkerma 05:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Electrochemistry]] article 

message: For some reason this person keeps revising the oxidizing agent site.  This is a minor site, but I am trying to figure out what this dude is trying to get at, check out the following things that keep creeping into this article:
“An oxidizing agent is a acid that oxidizes another substance”  an ACID?
“This reduction process means that the other substance forms an ionic bond between the two molecules”
And what is this state supposed to mean, I see words but no meaning.
Am I being hypersensitive?
Smokefoot 01:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankfully in chemistry we have less controversy to worry about than (say) in politics, although we did have someone trying to claim that Aldol reaction had a POV problem recently!  However we do get schoolkids who have taken a chem class or two and think they know it all: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Thankfully we have enough PhD chemists around here that we can usually deal with the problems, usually with a dozen refs to back it up! And let's remember too, we all get things wrong.  One of my favourites from when I joined Wikipedia is here.   Welcome to Wikipedia...! Walkerma 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: POV on Aldols rxn? That must've been interesting. Yes, I will remember that everyone makes mistakes -- You will probably get to talk to me again once and a great while. I have gotten a few things wrong recently in my endeavour to try and help the wikiproject. Thanks for your words Jawz 02:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was doing a little research through my analytical textbook the other night, and came across something (no more than a few sentences) that discusses this. If you want the reference I can provide it; it said something to the effect that acids/bases can participate in redox, but it is not a true redox it is a "conjugate redox" -- and that vocabulary isn't used. Very much. at all. So, maybe that makes more sense for those who were slightly confused? (like me? :) ) Jawz 02:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiot at work? 

message: Can these two articles be merged, with a redirect from heterocycle to heterocyclic compound?  I put a merge notice at the top of both.  Olin
I have edited the merge tags to the specific mergeto and mergefrom tags to clarify what you want. This alters the article for discussion to Talk:heterocyclic compound, as it should be as the final main article, and it is actually where the discussion had actually started. It would be very obvious and easy to do. I suggest you just do it.  I only noticed this when coming to write the section below. --Bduke 07:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heterocycle]]/[[Heterocyclic compound]] 

message: Can someone check Lanthanide contraction?  It needs expert attention.  Wendell 03:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the stuff in the article are the consequenzes of the Lanthanide contraction not the Lanthanide contraction. I always thougt the Lanthanide contraction is that the Lanthanides decrease their ion radii while more and more electrons are added in the periodic table. This happens due to the fact that the electrons are added to a relative low shell and the increasing number of protons atract the new electrons. The effect is the Ion gets smaller with increasing core charge. The results of this are the things mentioned in the article.Stone 10:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to do something but the increase and decrease words I use to often. So somebody should have a look. The chemistry should be clear, but the language is my problem.Stone 09:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check Lanthanide contraction article 

message: What should we do about CsLiB6O10? --HappyCamper 02:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article contains no links and the very very very technical language makes it only useful for specialists. Non linear optics is very interesting but someone with knowledge should read this and add some links. Sorry, physical chemistry was never my favorite so I know only the basics.Stone 10:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caesium Lithium Borate 

message: Would some expert look at phosphorous acid and phosphite and pass on advice here.  The acid site is semi-lame, but want to hear advice before working on it.  Probably chemical wikidedians have already debated and resolved the need for articles on the acids and their conjugate bases. On some talk page I saw a comment suggesting that we have an article on oxyanions, which would be one way to address the problem with HPO32- etcSmokefoot 18:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Phosphorous acid and phosphite

message: Don't you think the article titles of some compounds should their systematic names according to the IUPAC regulations? For example, the 'formic acid' article should be titled 'methanoic acid', because that is its proper name. That's how they teach it in schools, and it is these names that are more internationally recognised.
Obviously it wouldn't be practical to title the 'insulin' article with its IUPAC systematic name, but where feasible, I think it should be done. snellios
:Actually, I would only agree if there are links from the common names.  Remember the audience for Wikipedia is the general public, who is much more likely to have heard of acetic acid rather than ethanoic acid.  Olin 13:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advocate that we choose the name which would be most educational for the reader. --HappyCamper 13:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but I think it's more educational to point out that formic acid is the IUPAC preferred name for this compound :) Physchim62 (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with PC.  If children are learning names like methanoic acid in schools, it's our job to try to teach them the correct names (see the IUPAC rules).  Reinforcing this, when a particular name predominates in common usage, we prefer to use that name.  A Google search gives 40 "formic acid" hits for every 1 "methanoic acid" hit. Walkerma 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on this one, IUPAC nomenclature should be preferred and used.HappyApple 03:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic names 

message: In working through creating articles on chemistry journals, I generated a redlink for chemical education. This surprised me and a search that found nothing surprised me more. Am I missing something? If not, do people have ideas about what might go into such an article. I'll then have a go at starting it. I think we need one. Of course, if someone else wants to go for it, then go for it. --Bduke 02:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, amazing!  Last year I was surprised that there was no :Category:Chemical education (there is now), but I didn't realise there was no article on the topic.  You should definitely have a go at writing one, I'll try and help.  Or maybe we should have it as a first Chemistry COTM? Walkerma 03:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I found the Category after writing the above. There is an article Science education and one on Physics education so we definitely should have one. Looking at other COTMs it seems some have difficulty in finding articles and it does not mean much when they do. Is there a move towards a Chemistry COTM? I'll think about the article, but off to a Cider tasting very soon! --Bduke 03:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical Education

message: I have recently added some sorts of data into the article amine.
This is my first major edition to a chemistry article, and I am not sure that whether there is any misconceptions.
May anyone see if there is any problems?
Ray Leung 18:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't "alkanol" an attempt by IUPAC to bring the nomenclature of functional groups inline with alkanes and such? I remember reading about it in some article on Chemistry education (along with cousins "alkanal" and "alkanone") but apparently didn't catch up, so I think it's not used anymore... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I concede, maybe the alcanol is an industrial thing - not my world - I never see it in my work, although I would know what it is.  What about my comment on plurals of elements?--Smokefoot 21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: One comment:  Sometimes R with a subscript number looks like multiple R groups (R2 as two R's).  It's probably not worth changing all of your diagrams though. Olin 21:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on "amine" needed 

message: As a whole, there is a lot of redundancies on pages about acids and bases, and many of them need work.  I did some on acid the other day.  Some of the pages include the following: acid, base, strong acid, strong base, weak acid, weak base self-ionization of water, pH, acid dissociation constant, acid-base reaction theories, polyprotic acid, neutralization, Bronsted acid, Brønsted-Lowry, Lewis acid, Lewis base, buffer solution and Henderson-Hasselbalch equation.
I realize it's OK to have duplication, but some of it is annoying to me, at least.  Ka is defined at least three different times, and pH is defined at least three times.  The Ka's for a polyprotic acid (Ka1, Ka2, etc.) are defined at acid, but not under acid dissociation constant or polyprotic acid.  The Arrhenius, Bronsted-Lowry, and Lewis definitions are given at acid and acid-base reaction theories (the latter has two additional defintions), as well as at Bronsted acid, Brønsted-Lowry, Lewis acid, Lewis base (where appropriate).  Also, "acids and bases" redirects to pH whereas "acid-base" redirects to acid-base reaction theories.  There's a category acids and a category acid-bases, most of which have nothing to do with each other.
I'm not sure how much time I'm going to have in the next few days, but any movement toward clean-up or suggestions for clean-up of these articles as a whole would be appreciated.  In some ways, I think it'd be good to have one article with good linking (or some consolidation, at least), but I suspect that would be disfavored by wikichemists judging from previous discussions.  Olin 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding merges on pages like hydrogen bromide and hydrobromic acid, I think we need to consider the importance of each form, and also how much difference there is.  In the case if HBr and HI, I think they are both important enough to warrant separate pages, just like with HCl.  There are many organic procedures using hydrobromic and hydriodic acids, for example. However when writing material for vanadium(V) oxide, I included some chemistry of "vanadic acid", because the latter is unlikely ever to have a separate page (though vanadate may end up with a page, rather than a redirect). Each case needs to be judged on its own merits.  I think Olin's comments on acid/base pages in general are warranted - there is a lot of duplication, and cleanup is definitely needed.  We probably need to keep separate pages for distinct topics like Lewis acid, though, with that nice article list/box to guide us.  Walkerma 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  acid and bases pages 

message: I would like to invite interested wiki-chemists to help edit the article Oil (liquid) with their knowledge about this mysterious substance. 
While formatting the Oil disambiguation page, I noticed that an article describing oil in general seems to be missing (I do hope that I am wrong). I created a stub from interwiki sources, but help from experts is very welcome. -- Ravn 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I am too prickly, but the article begins with the comment that an oil is a "chemical substance" - do substances exist that are not "chemical"? (does anything exist that is not chemical,  but again maybe such views are excessively pedantic0.  My own worry about oil is that the topic is, well, amorphous.  Probably someone official has decreed that oil must have such-and-such a threshhold viscosity, end of story unless one aims to write about liquids of certain viscosities. --Smokefoot 20:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An oil is usually hydrophobic as well (oil of vitriol is a notable exception). Seems enough there for a stub. Physchim62 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oil (liquid)]] 

message: FYI: This project gets a mention in the chemical press! Take a look at
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2006/February/24020602.asp
I apologise to folks for the "vandalism challenge", that was supposed to be an aside to the writer only - I hope that most chemists will be responsible enough not to take up the challenge!  I was merely trying to indicate that most vandalism is well under control.  By the way, I don't believe that Wikipedia will replace Chem Abs/Scifinder, though the article might read that way.  But I do think Wikipedia will replace the Aldrich catalogue, the Merck Index, the "Rubber bible", the Chemists' Companion, and maybe even March and Greenwood/Earnshaw as one single source of general chem info and lead refs.  I think it will stir up some discussion about Wikipedia as a source of chemical information, though, and we need to realise, the (chemical) world is watching what we do!  Walkerma 17:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This will help as long as some of them get up and contribute to the project. Most of the stuff in literature like synthesis and analytical data is ideal for wikipedia. For most of the world the terrible expensive journals are not availabel, and wikipedia information is free for everybody. Sometimes I which I could edit articles in the good journals like a article of wikipedia. But a NPOV tag to it, writte a comment that the synthesis does not work, or that the interpretation of the analytical data is wrong, or that the old articleis now substituted by a better one. But we can use all help we can get, and the vandales died out hundreds of years ago and with the few survived in the net we can handle.Stone 19:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chemistry World" piece