Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 10

message: I have upgraded the chembox, I would like to hear comments on it on Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox.  Cheers!  --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template: chembox new 

message: Today while working on the  I ran into a whole set of commercial suppliers on a set of articles.  I decided to remove these commercial links, and insert, where data was available, a chembox.  Within the chembox are quite some identifiers which link to external sites.  After that using the linksearch facility of I reverted some other links as well (per WP:EL).
Now I know that we had this discussion months ago (I think on the wikiproject chemicals), where at that point the idea was, the links that are there can stay since they do provide extra infomation.  In the meantime external, non-commercial databases have grown, and the data is also available now from non-commercial sites (and this is also true for non chemical compounds).  At this point, I would vote in favour the removal of all commercial links in chemistry related pages (even when the intent is non-commercial, the linking is still biased), attempting to retrieve the data from the non-commercial sites.  What are the opinions now on this subject?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial suppliers 

message: The box at the top of this project page refers to a few subpages that are not subpages of this wikiproject. For example, the box refers to:
* WikiProject Chemistry/Materials which is a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Materials
* WikiProject Chemistry/Collaborations, which I assume you meant to be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Collaborations?
I'm guessing this stemed from using  rather than . I will take care of the moves and page deletion notices to get this all fixed, but I wanted to make sure that I am guessing the intention correctly. - grubber 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few logistics on subpage locations 

message: In deference to WP:100K, you might want to add some realistic status report to the top of this project, such as:
:At the start of 2007, of the five artcles that are both FA status and Top importance, four of them are elements and the other is Aldol reaction. Surely, more of the non-element, non-biography articles in :Category:Top-importance chemistry articles can be brought to FA status this year.--70.231.149.0 19:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status report? 

message: Hi, please comment here.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rfc on image

message: I've added EC information and more of a world-wide slant to the volatile organic compound page.  This is my first Wikipedia edit, comments / further edits invited.--Michelle Carey 03:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VOC

message: This deletion discussion covers a whole list of other sub-pages which are not allowed in article space. The likely conclusion is to userfy them all to User:Eequor. Does anyone know what this is all about? --Bduke 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dictionary of chemical formulas/Merge]]

message: It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.
Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.
If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 02:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review]]

message: I don't consider myself an expert in chemistry, but I've collected a short list of missing topics. I've tried to purge the list o anything that could be handled with a redirect but I would still appreciate if anyone could have a look at it - Skysmith 12:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that looks like a very useful list. A few of the topics could indeed be handled with a redirect, IMO this is the case for Organic cyanide and Van't Hoff's law, for example. Itub 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, on a quick look at least half of them cannot be done by redirects so deserve articles. Volonteers? Physchim62 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've started the electrochromatography article. Relatedly capillary electrochromatography is missing too.--Nick Y. 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I created benzotrichloride and ethyl acrylate, plus a couple of redirects for articles that existed at synonyms.  I'll try to get a couple more of the chemical compounds over the next few days.  --Ed (Edgar181) 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing topics about chemistry 

message: Could someone please replace :Image:Con polymer.png with a version that has licensing and source information? I would tag it with  and , but I doubt whether this image can be deleted (due to technical concerns). Thanks. MER-C 08:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reported at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Con polymer.png]] needs replacing 

message: Please help out on improving Chemical element, the current Wikipedia 1.0 Core Topics Collaboration.  This project has tried to identify the most important topics on Wikipedia, and improve these up to A-Class if possible.  This particular article is now around the Start/B border, it should be a lot better for such an important topic.  Please help! Walkerma 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical element is now the Core Topics Collaboration 

message: Hi,
many of you, who are using incscape to create SVGs of chemical formulas will have noticed that subscript and other baseline elements are not correctly rendered by MediaWiki software. There exists an appropriate bug report on Mediazilla, but there are still not enough votes to get any attention for this issue. As user on German Wikipedia I just wanted to ask you to vote for this bug, so that we don't need categories like this any more. Thanks. --TaxmandeTalk (de) 12:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heartily second! While SVG may or may not be the way forward for chemical structure images (there are problems of scaling which are unrelated to this bug), it is as good as most images we have at the minute if it is correctly rendered. Physchim62 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediawiki SVG Bug