Talk:Juglone

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Untagged, clearly not. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Article about Walnut states that birch is affected by juglone. None of the articles cites a source to support their stance. --Zslevi (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Betula until evidence to the contrary. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually the complaint was the other way around. I am restoring Betula to the list of plants not affected. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The article gave Iuglon, Yuglon, Juglane as alternate names. The first two seem to be foreign names (German and Russian?) If so they do not belong here, they should be in the German Wikipedia. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate names 

message: I would guess that "walnut extract" is a complex mixture of chemicals besides juglone.  If so it should not be given as an alternate name. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walnut extract 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Juglone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150212041801/http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/fruits/blkwalnt.htm to http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/fruits/blkwalnt.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: re:
Spectral data
The 13C NMR shows 10 peaks indicating the correct number of unique carbon atoms in the molecule as well as peaks at 160.6 ppm, 183.2 ppm, and 189.3 ppm for the carbon attached to the hydroxyl group and the two carbons part of the two carbonyl groups.[30][11]
Surely the correct units are pm, picometers, rather than ppm, parts per million, or the really obscure peaks per meter. Is it not so? But I am not expert in this specialty area, so I leave it to the experts to review, correct and/or clarify.
Also, while I recognize the way of depicting wavenumber as in peaks at 3400 cm-1, that will clearly be confusing to people not already familiar with spectrographic jargon and/or scientific notation of inverse numbers. In this case, waves per centimeter.
Since these are unusual (though not improper) units of measurement, shouldn't there at least be hotlinks (with brief popup explanations) to articles explaining about picometers and wavenumber and the specialty fields where these are used? 
Otherwise, I fear that curious students will find their scientific curiosity hampered or even killed by the constant encounters with alien concepts that are simple concepts to experts. Why make things confusing or intimidating to novices? We need MORE scientists, and a MORE scientifically literate public, not less. 
Finally, I only chanced upon these particular examples of what is probably a very widespread phenomenon on Wikipedia. Is there a way to elevate these concerns so that all such instances of specialty jargon and uncommon units of measure/notation are automatically tagged for clarification? Or better still, handled automatically where feasible?
(Emphasis added to example phrases I am wondering about.)
YodaWhat (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything appears fine and dandy with the data presentation.  Its unusual for Wikipedia to report such though--Smokefoot (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent terminology error in Spectral data section 

message: Content is presented in a more neutral and concise manner, aligning with Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. The unnecessary wordiness and name-dropping have been reduced - please give me some feedback if anyone have an other view on it - i am very open for critical feedback. Aritonoko (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes on Juglone