Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request

message: Maybe we need to make a distinction between the types images requested, as I'm not always certain what people are requesting. For example does the request for "Picture of a grignard reagent" refer to a photo taken in the lab, or a chemical structure? In this case I'm guessing photo - but I could be wrong. The requests for "Buckminsterfullerene in benzene" is almost certainly a request for a photo of a plum coloured solution. Hence why I think it might be useful for some distinction. HappyCamper - I've used your examples, as you are active on this page (I'm not picking fault with you honest!).
I can envisage 3 main requests:
* Request for a chemical structure - such as :image:TMP chemical structure.png, etc.
* Request for photos of chemicals or chemical phenomena - such as Photoelectron spectra,  Buckminsterfullerene in benzene, etc .
* Request for a photos or diagrams of chemical apparatus - such as :image:Sublimation_apparatus.png), Oil bubbler, etc. 
Your views please and sorry if I've posted this in the wrong section.
Quantockgoblin 18:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a bit of history about this page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Image_wishlist. Hmmm...I don't think we thought too much about this. Sure, I don't see what harm it could be to be more specific, just so long as it doesn't complicate things too much. Having 3 types of image requests would be reasonably harmless I would say :-) Do you want to make the sections, or should I? --HappyCamper 21:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  --HappyCamper, I agree with you about keeping it simple. I'm happy for you to do the changes -- Quantockgoblin 22:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I made some changes...I think it's okay. --HappyCamper 19:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great - thanks Quantockgoblin 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's how I understand it. Fvasconcellos 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that is the case. I propose changing the title to be more clear e.g. "Chemical (photo)" -- Quantockgoblin 14:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Fvasconcellos 14:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction required between the types images requested? 

message: I've notice that the numbering of R-groups is often given in subscript by editors e.g. .
I think it is more clear to give this numbering in superscript. e.g. 
Subscript is usually used to indicate the number of substituents (e.g. -NR2, might be misinterpreted to mean a Nitrogen attached to two R groups). By using superscript, any possible confusion is avoided (i.e. -NR2 means a -R2 group attached to Nitrogen. --Quantockgoblin 10:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R-Groups numbering 

message: From the project page I see that the following is listed:
... :Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures; pages transcluding  automagically categorises pages which have a the request template into this category (replace incorrect drawings with this template).
I check this category page but does anyone else? If I tag chemical pages that I believe need an image, am I wasting my time or is it likely that someone will act on these requests? Is it simply better to post a request on the project page? The tag has the advantage that it cuts all the admin out. -- Quantockgoblin 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do, every day, and I think it is a great idea :) I've added structures to, and I'm not exaggerating, dozens of articles thanks to this category. Fvasconcellos 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I got my wrist slapped last night for 'over tagging'. The suggestion was that no one would act on the request and the tag would just clutter the page up. There might be an argument for the tag being put into the talk page (comments?). In any case since you alone have drawn nearly more images than everyone else put together, I'll take your comments to be a green light to continue tagging -- Quantockgoblin 14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I watch it too and regularly upload images.  Tag away.  --Ed (Edgar181) 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry pages needing pictures -  tagging worthwhile?  

message: Do we have a style guide for chemical images? 
If so can we include a link on project page. -- thanks Quantockgoblin 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have this. I don't know how active it is, how frequently used it is or how up-to-date (e.g., it doesn't provide for SVG graphics) but it's there. Fvasconcellos 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks - added a link to the project page so that if people want to get involved then at least there is some standard to aspire to! -- Quantockgoblin 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't even know we had a style guide hiding there!! Well, nice to know. Thanks for posting it here. --HappyCamper 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem :) Fvasconcellos 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we have a style guide for chemical images? 

message: Shouldn't this be merged with the Wikipedia:Requested images or :Category:Image requests pages and just have a link there? There's enough duplication as it is having these pages both here and on Commons. Richard001 04:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Is it worth archiving all fulfilled wishs? Most of them are just in the form of “wish – done”. IMHO archiving in the history would be sufficient. --Leyo 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also would like to discuss this issue. I do think that it's worth archiving all fulfilled wishes. The reason is that at later time, we can still see what we all have done. Archiving in the history won't show us directly the complete "projects". What do you think? Georginho (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the following? Requests as described in my second sentence above are only archived in the history, but requests containing a discussion are moved to a regular archive. --Leyo 12:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I prefer another way: requests in the form of "wish - done" are moved to a new section underneath as a list. We can call it "Completed requests". It will contain only the Commons link of the image and the Wikipedia page the image belongs. In this way, we still have a kind of archive, but one not making our project page full of "wish - done" requests. How is this? Georginho (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but this is not an option for me. The request page (the current version, not its archives) should be as short and handy as possible. It is currently much too long and contains too many images. --Leyo 23:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Concerning the second point: The requests should be moved to an archive after a while. --Leyo 10:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also good to determine when to archive. "After a while" may be "every year", I think. Georginho (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather say a month or even a week. IMHO the main issue is that all users involved in a thread should have the chance to add a comment (reply on the previous statement) before it is being archived. --Leyo 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed true. I think it will be the best option if you check the project page regularly and decide yourself when to archive it. Georginho (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I have edited this article to replace all the JPEGs. The last structural diagram seemed redundant, so I replaced it with an image showing only the abbreviated name of the branched oligosaccharide that’s displayed above the preceding paragraph.
I’d appreciate it if someone would check the structures and names. There was a closing bracket in the abbreviated name in the original image that seemed extraneous to me, so I didn’t reproduce it. Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Looks good to me, but I am not an expert in nomenclature. The only issue is that :File:Branched oligosaccharide abbrev.svg could be replaced by wiki or TeX code. --Leyo 12:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, probably should be. But I’m not yet sufficiently familiar with either of those languages, or the relevant style standards, to code such things properly. Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What about α-L-Fucp(1→3)-[α-D-Galp-(1→4)]-α-D-Glcp-(1→3)-α-D-GalpOAll ? --Leyo 08:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good to me … (I notice that I neglected to put the chirality symbols in SMALL CAPS in my labels—following the original too slavishly.) Do you think all the written formulae in the article should be removed from the drawings and replaced with (marked-up) text? Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea IMHO. It would also make the drawings language-neutral. --Leyo 07:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now replaced the images, setting the formulae in text, as suggested. Again another pair of eyes to look for typos or any other problems would be appreciated. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine, thank you. --Leyo 17:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oligosaccharide nomenclature]] 

message: I just tagged dozends of poor quality JPG structures. Help is needed to draw SVG versions of them. --Leyo 18:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Chemical images that should be in SVG format]]