Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 8

message: This article is just two sentences and has been for four years! Clearly it should either be made more definitive or merged into something else. Ant ideas? --Bduke 09:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have Empirical formula, which is the same subject and more in-detail. Dr Zak 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chemical composition]]

message: Perhaps it would be a good idea also, to have a few people or a group go over articles which are of interest, and mark them up on the assessment scale, changing the status each month. This would make it a lot easier to see the improvement of articles, right? James S 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, today I was surfing around and many articles are not rated at all in any way. I would gladly give a hand there Knights who say ni 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd love to do it. Anyone interested in setting up how we're going to do this? It'd be a great idea to be able to get some form of "Team" set up, and a date it's going to start each month? I wouldn't mind doing it. JCraw 13:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monthly Review 

message: WikiProject Chemistry would like to see this portal attain featured status. If you have any tips, tricks or suggestions, please feel free to add them here! Thanks, riana_dzasta 06:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Chemistry]]

message: To address a larger group of chemists I will also post here, I have posted a mesage on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Special:chemicalsources.2C template:chemicalsources and external links on the given page.  I would like to hear comments.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special:Chemicalsources, [[:template:ChemicalSources]] and external links 

message: I notice there's a lot of biochemistry stubs with no "permanent" categories at all.  If there's anyone working on categorisation (or wishing to) would it be useful to have these placed in a "maintenance" category?  Or likewise, chemistry-related stubs more generally?  Alai 14:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{cl|uncategorised biochemistry stubs}}? 

message: I noticed that there are over 100 (1 for each element!) chemical element symbol templates. Since these templates can't be substituted anyway (they contain ParserFunctions) I created a universal template, . To use this template with a link to the element, you can enter . To use this template without a link to the element, you can enter .. Thus, :
: creates:
:14N2+
:14N2+
I hope that this is useful, figured I'd post about this here. Nihiltres 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical element symbol templates 

message: Aldol reaction is up for featured article status here, the first attempt at a major organic reaction. My personal view is that it still needs work doing on it, but I would like to encourage other chemists (especially organic specialists) to get involved. Physchim62 (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Aldol reaction on FAC further up. :-) Dr Zak 20:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aldol reaction]] as FAC 

message: Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. --ScienceApologist 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific citations

message: Is there any style sheet for reaction schemes around, i.e. preferred settings for bond lengths, fonts etcetera in Chemdraw, preferred colors for reaction partners, that sort of thing? What settings are others using? Dr Zak 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In summary, we debated a lot of possibilities, and settled on using standard ACS settings as found in J. Org. Chem.  See Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines for all sorts of guidelines.  If you need more specific help, please ask. Walkerma 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylesheet for reaction schemes 

message: Phosphorene recently survived an WP:AFD deletion attempt.  The article needs help. 165.189.91.148 21:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might take a look at the molecule HCCP...probably better to redirect. --HappyCamper 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Phosphorene]] needs attention 

message: The DiacetyleneC4H2, Triacetylene C6H2 are realities in chemistry I can life with, but strange astro-chemists finding the negative charged C6H- is hard to get, but still possible and the paper gives a good background to this findings. 
But the neutral C6H starts to kill my mind. The sextet on two of the carbons or even better the charged mesomeric form are hard to get. 
The reaction takes place in a DC glow charge at reduced pressure starting from acetylene which would make hydrogen available in the mixture.  The only stable endpoint for the molecule would be Triacetylene C6H2 which would be fine with me. So has anybody a good suggestion what to do with the article and the cited source?--Stone 11:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you doubting the conclusions of the Astrophysical Journal article?  It doesn't seem implausible to me that under harsh conditions (I'm not sure what a "DC glow charge" is, but I'm willing to bet it's very high energy) of the experiment, exotic things like C6H and C6H- will be formed.  No one is going to put C6H in a bottle, but it only needs to exist transiently to be observed using spectroscopy before being converted to triacetylene.  My question is, can anyone come up with a proper name for C6H? --Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hexatriynyl radical, perhaps.  MikeParker 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hexatriynyl would indeed be the systematic name. We would accept diacetylene for C4H2 under our "virtually universally used names" rules, and triacetylene for the trimer as well I don't doubt. The Astrophys. J. article is not available without a subscription, which should be noted: the abstract is available here. Physchim62 (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In case anyone's curious, what sparked me to write that article was a blog entry at . I read it and went "that's a weird molecule," so tried to find out more about it on Wikipedia. Since I couldn't find more about it in a quick search and didn't want to mess around with using a blog entry as a source (even though IMO Centauri Dreams is quite a good science blog as these things go), I figured the cited abstract was enough for a simple "this thing exists" stub. I'm already learning more now. :) Bryan 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a chemist working with real molecules it is always hard to step over the boarder into the undiscovered land of radical , low pressure and deep temperature chemistry. The molecules detected in the near vacuum enviroment are sometimes not stable under normal conditions and therfor hard to synthesis. These radicals have a high chance of polymerisation if concentration is high enough. What I especially like on the article in ApJ is that they tried to do the messurments also as an experiment and not  like most of the time only by a simulated spectra.--Stone 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's the radical. We can add that to the article. The anion is the analogue to ethyne without one of the H's. I've looked that the article from Astrophysics - it refers specifically to identification of the species C6H-. Also, in JCP, it looks like two ab initio studies were done in the early 1990s. But that was for the radical species. Adding this stuff there. --HappyCamper 17:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[C6H]]

message: This article is a clear state for deletion. I found nothing except some e-bay pages. This chemical seams to be a hoax. The living death and the others can play with it but for a chemistry page it lacks the information.--Stone 17:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prodded it. JCP doesn't have anything on it either. --HappyCamper 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a Chemical Abstracts search, which turned up no mention of "trioxin" in the chemical literature.  Unless trioxin is a rarely-used synonym, it's probably not real.  Maybe the author of trioxin meant trioxane, or more specifically 1,3,5-trioxane, which hydrolyzes in water to form formaldehyde, which is used for tissue preservation, and might therefore be used by moriticians.  --Ed (Edgar181) 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NIST names the compound (here), it is indeed, as Edgar181 is saying, a synonym for 1,3,5-trioxane.  I'll create a redirect (thereby deleting the deletion template).  --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding to this, the trioxin framework seems to come up in many pubchem compounds (then mainly the 1,2,4-isomer).  Maybe my redirecting was to quick .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Trioxin]]

message: There's a copyvio at this article. The material is taken from the Organometallic Hypertextbook at http://www.ilpi.com/organomet/coordnum.html. I didn't tag it as  because that will cause the article to be deleted in a week. However, it does need to be rewritten. Any takers? --Rifleman 82 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits with copyrighted edits need to be removed; I just did that. --HappyCamper 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually removed the edits from the page history instead of blanking them , so they are only visible to admins now. The cut and paste section was a paragraph from Rifleman's link entitled "Determining Coordination Number". --HappyCamper 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio - [[Coordination number]] 

message: Debate over on Talk:Pressure as to whether that & related articles should refer to 'gauge pressure' or 'gage pressure', accompanied by reverting on the article. 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on 'gauge pressure' vs 'gauge pressure'

message: is in bad shape. there are several parts without connection and a Still to be merged: line in the middle. Anybody of the native speacker smight have a look!--Stone 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you expect, he's been dead for 122 years :P The French version isn't much better, but I will se if a bit of bilingual cleanup can help. Physchim62 (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a job. I have some contemporary papers which I shall add to Wikisource, but if anyone has a table of Dumas's equivalent wieghts I would be grateful... Physchim62 (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jean-Baptiste Dumas]]

message: The worklist currently has a section for 15 major reaction classes. What do people think about adding a section for specific reactions (mainly "name reactions")? Here's a list of 20 important reactions off the top of my head, that could be used for inspiration:
#Hydrogenation
#Wittig reaction
#Aldol reaction
#Diels-Alder reaction
#Friedel-Crafts reaction
#Ozonolysis
#Michael reaction
#Birch reduction
#Claisen condensation
#Claisen rearrangement
#Sharpless epoxidation
#Williamson ether synthesis
#Mannich reaction
#Fischer esterification
#Saponification
#Grignard reaction
#Reductive amination
#Haloform reaction
#Fischer indole synthesis
#Knorr pyrrole synthesis
If this is too much detail for this project, we could also consider a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemical_Reactions project... Itub 23:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have talked in the past about an Organic Chemistry WikiProject, but most of us organic chemists are already quite tied up with activities.  I think that would probably be better than a project focusing just on reactions.  I think your point is well taken, these are important topics that are not covered currently.  I'm not sure I'd include Knorr pyrrole synthesis or haloform on my list, but otherwise I think it looks like a good set of articles to target.  Walkerma 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, although I personally find the ratings helpful for getting a quick overview of the state of each article. For example, if I saw on the list that the Williamson synthesis was a stub, and I happen to like that reaction, I might be motivated to expand it. If I just see the big list of organic reactions, I might not notice (although it is already very helpful for noticing articles that don't exist yet). I won't insist, since I've never participated "officially" in this wikiproject (I just create and edit chemistry articles at random when I'm in that mood...) Itub 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding specific reactions to the worklist 

message: Some science articles are starting to produce introductory versions of themselves to make them more accessible to the average encyclopedia reader. You can see what has been done so far at special relativity, general relativity and evolution, all of which now have special introduction articles. These are intermediate between the very simple articles on Simple Wikipedia and the regular encyclopedia articles. They serve a valuable function in producing something that is useful for getting someone up to speed so that they can then tackle the real article. Those who want even simpler explanations can drop down to Simple Wikipedia. What do you think?--Filll 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree. I think the main article should be accessible at all levels including, at least in its lead paragraph, to beginners. If there are parts that are very inaccessible, they should be hived off to more advanced article. It is the wrong way round and just allows what should be main articles that can develop to FA status to get more and more complex instead. --Bduke 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple Introduction

message: We do not appear to have fully discussed endorsing this, although there was a very positive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/archive06#Citation guidelines proposal. I see that Projects other than the Maths and Physics Projects, who initiated it, have done so. The Maths discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive18#Citation guidelines proposal (note it is archived, lots of the links to the debatre elsewhere are to the pre-archive section). The Physics discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive10. Note go to section "Citation guidelines proposal" at 42 in the TOC, not the one with the same name at 4 in the TOC. There is more discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals#Scientific citations.
I propose we "vote" whether we support it and if so, let the other prpjects know. --Bduke 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines]]

message: (copied from Talk:Hexol, also on Transition metal carbene complex)
I am inclined to remove this silly assessment tag: please specify in detail what it is that you find lacking in this article. V8rik 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment tags 

message: Progestagen, Propofol, Zinc oxide, Lithium hypochlorite, Thiocarbanilide, Membrane reactor, Orgonite, Metalorganics, Nimesulide 
might also need some cats--Stone 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an off wiki tool that helps us do the categorization? --HappyCamper 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert needed

message: Does WikiProject Chemistry not have a deletion page? I recently nominated this page for deletion. Please check. frummer 04:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Ref. Rest is OK!--Stone 08:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion page

message: Really fisch article with no real google hits! Biochemistry and enzyme people should have a look and than add a credible citation or flush it down to the other deleting canidates.--Stone 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Naphthenase]]

message: Have added an WP:RFC for the Nitrogen article, requested to cross post here - 
*Talk:Nitrogen#Liquid to solid Nitrogen Video I do not want to get into a revert war over a potential health safety issue over a link to a YouTube amateur video -  outside opinions are welcomed. Lethaniol 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health and Saftey on [[Nitrogen]] - also RfC 

message: Hi. I tried adding myself to the list, but didn't save my changes because I couldn't figure out how to keep the bottom of the table in place, so I canceled my edits. Also, I couldn't figure out where to add my name, because it didn't seem alphabetical. AstroHurricane001 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there! Which list are you thinking of? I think there's a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Participants, but I haven't looked at it in ages. Generally, this WikiProject is quite relaxed and informal, so don't worry about doing things in an "official" way. WikiChemists are a friendly bunch - we generally drop by every now and then and follow up on discussions similar to the thread above. --HappyCamper 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, see the note at the top of the list of participants. It says that if you do not know how to add your name to the table, just add your details at the end and one of us will add it. There are some additions to the list that are not in alphabatical order. I'll try to fix that soon. Happy Christmas. --Bduke 23:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants list 

message: Hi WikiChemists!  You guys are great, I love contributing here.  To wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year, I present this space-filling diagram of a (fictional!) molecule I call hollyberryine.  Enjoy!
Ben 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasons greetings 

message: I've noticed a recent flurry of chemical activity by Spoon!.  See Special:Contributions/Spoon! for details.  He/she is making subtle changes to the way trivial retained names and fully systematic names are described.  I wonder if we should invite Spoon! here to discuss it?  I reverted a couple of Spoon!'s edits to acetylene but in retrospect I think I should have let them stay.
Thoughts?
Ben 11:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoon! seems to know what he/she is doing, judging from the edits I've seen go past on my watchlist. Edits are correct, and referenced. Physchim62 (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUPAC retained names 

message: One of the most famous molecules of all time! This article needs a little more rigorous chemistry that I can manage, some feedback from an expert would be appreciated. Thank you. TimVickers 14:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is now a FAC. Its nomination page is here. Thank you. TimVickers 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Peer review/DNA/archive1|Peer review of DNA]]

message: Hi everyone, user DIV, i.e. User talk:128.250.204.118, is demanding that both the Gibbs free energy and Helmholtz free energy articles be moved to “Gibbs energy” and “Helmholtz energy” per IUPAC definitions, and is continuously rewriting the articles on these views.  This has been going on now for seven months.  If you have an opinion on this issue could you please comment here.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 23:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move debate opinions needed

message: Can we please stop using "Further Reading" within articles? We're not teaching people, we're informing them neutrally. Also, why are there so many articles with language such as "consider a dienophile..." or something similar; consider changing your tone! :-/ James S 19:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with avoiding Further Reading altogether; I think it is a useful way of "referencing" important works that are not technically references because they were not cited explicitly. However, I have no problem with avoiding second-person usage such as "consider a dienophile..." (I think that is already covered by the manual of style). Itub 20:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Itub. We are providing a learning resource. --Bduke 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolition of "Further Reading" within articles 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 17:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards