Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 2

message: ::Well, I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers page, but I think I need a lot of help to get it up and running! --HappyCamper 22:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like an excellent idea to me! I have felt for a while that polymers are the oddball group in the chemicals Wikiproject, and as you point out, there are many other articles that need to be written on polymer-related topics.  This is a hugely important part of the chemical- sadly, one I know little about, or I'd offer to help, but good luck. Let me know if there is anything I can do.  Don't get disillusioned if it takes a while to get to critical mass- the chemicals project had only one participant for over a year I think. Walkerma 03:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Polymers 

message: This probably non-notable czech chemist has a stub that's been sitting un-expanded since 2003.  His CV is linked - it doesn't seem notable, but I wanted to alert you all in case he is, since I'm putting it up for VfD.  Feel free to weigh in either for or against deletion.  I hope he's notable, but the stub is tiny and wouldn't be much work to replace, if it is necessary. JesseW 07:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vladimir Sklenar]]

message: You may be interested in Wikipedia:Missing science topics, which contains a lists of missing chemistry topics. Bluemoose 10:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Missing science topics]] 

message: The article History of chemistry has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 06:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I recently added a disambiguation page to cater for the various uses of the word abundance, and undertook some cleanup of the referents. I'm not sure what to do about this pair though:
*Chemical abundance - redirect to Natural abundance, which describes the generic sense in the physical sciences
*Abundance (chemistry) - as used of a reactant in a chemical reaction
Neither of the two leaf articles refers to the other. In fact, nothing correctly links to the latter (I fixed up the source error in Hydrogen, but  left the two user-owned copies of the error.) Hv 11:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a real need to maintain both? The difference is so subtle that it might warrant a VFD on the redirect. What do you think? --HappyCamper 14:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which difference is subtle? I think there is a big difference between abundance of aluminium in the earth's crust and abundance of water in a testtube. However I think it is arguable that chemical abundance is not a synonym for natural abundance, in which case removing the redirect (and fixing up the one link from Helium) would be an appropriate thing to do. Hv 16:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: There is no semantic difference between the two examples you give: however it might help if you could provide some more examples of the (supposed) second usage. 212.228.222.97 19:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Abundance (disambiguation)]] 

message: I noticed that the page on Boric acid has it listed as having an NFPA rating of 4/4/4/ox, which I thought was unusual, since the article described it as a weak acid which has cosmetic and medical uses.  I found some other sites that listed it as having different ratings, but they seem to disagree; one site lists it as 0/1/0, while another site lists it as 2/0/0.  Since I don't actually know anything about chemistry, or have any appropriate reference books, I was hoping someone could find out.  I hope this is an appropriate place to have posted this.  Thanks.  -- Creidieki 14:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good place to start. I don't have the time to trace through the article's history, but I don't think Boric acid has such a high rating on the NFPA, it simply does not make sense. I'd actually like to track down who added that there and see if any vandalism is associated with it. --HappyCamper 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a problem generated when people use the new chemboxes without looking at the NFPA aspect.  (It's the same problem that leads to tables on things like methane having an optical activity entry.)  The infobox is set so as to produce 4/4/4/ox as a default, so I've seen this problem before, please change it to the correct value.  I have to run now, but I will try and set up the infobox so as to be foolproof in future.  Thanks for catching that, I don't want to wash my child's cut with boracic acid and find her erupting in a ball of toxic fumes! Cheers, Walkerma 15:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see now. Elegant. Can we make it default to something else then, say XXXX? --HappyCamper 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No need to track down the culprit, 'twas I! I edited Boric acid for the acid propeties and updated the infobox, but I didn't notice the default settings on the NFPA triangle... sorry! Physchim62 18:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry too...I have been doing some vandal hunting and became a bit cynical of late. --HappyCamper 19:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm going with the International Chemical Safety Card 0991, which does not give NFPA ratings for boric acid. Page updated accordingly. Physchim62 19:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boric acid]] NFPA ratings 

message: There are several active merge notices, I wondered if people might care to comment. 
*Talk:Solution The most lively one, where someone wants to merge solvent, solution and soluble, on the grounds that they all relate to the same thing.
*Talk:Nucleophilic_substitution- proposed merge of nucleophilic substitution and nucleophilic substitution reaction.
*As for the Electrophilic substitution and Electrophilic aromatic substitution debate, V8rik has sorted that one out already. (Thanks a lot!) Walkerma 17:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges 

message: :Category:Chemistry now has 172 articles in the main category. Many of these should be put in subcategories and taken out of the main cat. I don't know much about the subject. I'd appreciate any help.
Also, I created Template:Chem-cat to ask for help with this. But it has been listed at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Maurreen (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Hi, still working on Wikipedia:Missing science topics/Chemistry, and for that, someone redirected irreversible reaction to Reversible reaction. There was nothing there, so I pulled a bit from a couple sources. I'm no chemist, so I was hoping someone here could check that out fact wise and see they could improve it. As of yet I don't see the need for it to have it's own article as it is so small. Thanks - Taxman Talk 17:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Hmm...I think it's okay, but there will need to be some clarification. In some texts, all chemical reactions are considered "reversible". It's just that some proceed so favourably towards one side of the reaction that the equilibrium is shifted very close to either the products or the reactants. In these cases, these are effectively (and practically) "irreversible". --HappyCamper 04:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No article would be better than this one... Better post a request the next time. Cacycle 22:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irreversible reactions. 

message: Hello,
Please notice this project. 
I hope that the List of publications in chemistry will be adopted by the chemistry porject.
Thanks,APH 06:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote yes. Walkerma 21:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great. Please write yourself at the project page at the chemistry entry (and in any other entry that you wish contributing to). I'd like to have an organized list of the contributors and see which list still need finding a "loving hand". APH 05:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll help with the list. ~K 14:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls| Science pearls]]

message: Doctor Who has one, Bucharest has one, even James Bond has one, yes, I mean portals.  Isn't it about time we created a chemistry Wikiportal?  If so, who is going to set up Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Chemistry?  Who is going to supervise it?  I'm willing to lend a hand, but I don't have the technical know-how to run it.  Walkerma 14:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll set it up.  One thing I am concerned about is the on-going maintainence of the portal.  Someone will need the energy to update the portal every now and then.  And WikiEnergy is something I don't have consistently.  ~K 17:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: So Portal:Chemistry is up and running.  It's about 95% complete.  I've designed the portal to be mainly a reader-aid, but also partially an editor-aid.  I've removed the 'In The News' and the 'Did You Know...' sections to ease upkeep of the portal.  The only 'dynamic' content is the 'Things you can do', 'Featured article', and 'Featured picture' sections.  Updating the 'Featured article' section should be easy.  I'll set up a sub-page to featured article nominations, suggestions, and comments.  Updating the 'Featured picture' section will be much more difficult, since I've found very few chemistry images.  I'm hoping everyone can help update the 'Things you can do' section, since it is the most dynamic of all sections.  If you have comments and/or suggestions, please leave them on the Portal Talk page. ~K 19:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds great! ~K 23:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the Wiki software internally creates a smaller version of the picture, and lets the browser download that instead. The large picture is only downloaded if the picture is clicked on and opened up. --HappyCamper 00:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Chemistry|Wikiportal for chemistry]] 

message: Hi, I'm not a project member but I'd like to contribute a little. I've found some icons that you may wish to consider using in your project.
Image:Nuvola apps edu_science.png|
Image:Nuvola apps kalzium.png
Image:Nuvola apps katomic.png
Hope this helps! (chemistry was my worst subject in HS) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  images to consider 

message: There are 8 chemistry-related Featured Articles, which is fine for the next 7 months.  My question to WPChem is should we consider other articles for the 'Featured Article' section of our Portal? ~K 16:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. We are currently incapable of creating a WP featured article every month, so yes, I think we are going to have to have "Portal featured articles" well. This would let us cover a wider range of chemistry than the current list of features (mostly chemicals and elements, if I remember correctly). Physchim62 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, make them show up. Nice idea. And I agree with PC, given the effort it takes with acetic acid in its peer review now, I'm sure there'll be another Featured Article in a couple of weeks, but not one every month. Wim van Dorst 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Chemistry - Featured Articles