Talk:Chemistry/Archive 2

message: i think that we may all find it benifical to list organic chemistry as a related topic.  It is a small alteration that simply eases the use of reading —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.179.232.254 (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition to the related links 

message: "Egyptian alchemy [5,000 BC – 400 BC], Alexandria has the world’s largest library"
Somewhat misleading. It's been created between 300 BC and 200 BC, it seems (more likely between 300 bc and 250 BC). That's what the famous online encyclopedia "wikipedia" says anyway: Alexandria library. 82.241.221.24 14:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll clarify the text. --Sadi Carnot 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexandria library 

message: The unreferenced tag was added to the top of the article today without any justification given. This seems a little broad, so I've removed it, creating this for people to discuss things. I think it would be more constructive if  could be added at the points people want referencing. LukeSurl 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of the article is general, chemistry.  It has a further reading section at the bottom with some chemistry books.  Should it be made more clear where in which book what information can be found?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added a general sentence to the References section to clarify that any book on General Chemistry is a reference for this material. However, the section on "Etymology" does need specific references. On a quick glance it appears that Chemistry (etymology) needs more references than it has. I'm not sure the two references there cover all the material. Once they are added to Chemistry (etymology) they can be copied back here. --Bduke 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: In that case I have placed the wrong tag. I'll replace it with the correct tag.--Sefringle 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: specificly, the introduction has only one source, and I can't find any in the history. How am I supposed to know it isn't WP:OR?--Sefringle 23:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read any of the books in the "reading list for university students", or in fact any chemistry or general science textbook. See the detailed citation guideline above. Iridium77 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline says it still needs at least one source.--Sefringle 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think DNA is a good example of how an article should be sourced, expecially since it was recently a featured article. But as I usuaully don't edit scientific articles, the Scientific guideline doesn't really apply to the articles I edited. But getting back to the guideline, it says "The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements. Therefore, in sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources at the start (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify later statements for which no in-line citation is provided." Hope this clarifies things up.--Sefringle 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced 

message: Hi, here is Britannica's 1911 90-page article on "chemistry".  I think it will be a good guideline to follow as we build this article. --Sadi Carnot 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britannica 1911 

message: "==Chemical Reactions==
Chemical reactions are when two chemicals react to form a different substance."
: Removed from article, because it's not a precise definition.  It's also explained in the rest of the article.  --Bfesser 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed section titled 'chemical reactions' 

message: Wikipedia is not a web directory. The topic is too general; there are thousands of websites about chemistry. The selection currently found in this article is arbitrary (any selection would be). In general the links do not comply with WP:EL. And we have people constantly adding links to their websites, some of which are only tangentially related with the topic and with dubious encyclopedic value. The only semi-reasonable option IMO, other than dispensing with the external links section altogether, would be to link only to a few web directories, which will do a better job of having large collections of links about chemistry. --Itub 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should remove the lot, but we might expand the "See also" list to articles on WP that have good external links. --Bduke 22:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the remove all suggestion. It would be nice to have a few very select high quality external links about this broad subject, but that may be impractical.--Nick Y. 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's get rid of the External Links 

message: Chemistry between people certainly should get at least a single line in an article on the word.
There's a definition of Romantic Chemistry as being mutual, romantic and sexual here:
http://www.eChemistry.com/romantic_chemistry/how_it_was_decoded.htm
Maybe there should be an article on Romantic Chemistry and a link to it here in this article.
Glennenin 12:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't have much to do with chemistry as the science of the structure and transformation of matter, which is the topic of this article. There is already an article in interpersonal chemistry, which is already linked from chemistry (disambiguation). --Itub 12:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chemistry" has a Psychological definition which was totally omitted 

message: I don't think nuclear chemistry should be listed as a main subdiscipline.  It should be in the list at the end of the section along with the likes of organometallic, surface, etc.  It is not a division in many (any?) graduate programs in the United States.  Nuclear engineering, on the other hand, is a significant field of engineering at many universities.  It is misleading to list nuclear chemistry in detailed form when it's not a significant subdiscipline at this point.  Anyone else support my suggestion to remove the detailed description of nuclear chemistry and move it into the list instead? Johnny1926 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong opinion about that. I'm sorry to say that I'd rather remove materials chemistry, given that it doesn't even have a wikipedia article already, and we already have materials science in the list at the bottom (I know it's not the same thing, but closely related, and materials science at least has an article). --Itub 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against this, maybe it is the group of chemists that I know and the fact that we have some excelent nuclear chemists at my uni, but I know a whole bunch of chemists who use neutron activation analysis, Pixie, Pygmy(sp?)etc. --PedroDaGr8 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Chemistry ?!? 

message: Apparently there are some concerns that we chemists think that chemistry is the center of the universe, and that this article somehow reflects that. ;-) To temper this, there is something that should IMO be added to the article because it is an important concern among current chemists, as well as historians and philosophers of chemistry. Has chemistry become a "service science"? This is a view expressed by Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Isabelle Stengers in their book A History of Chemistry, and by David M. Knight in Ideas in Chemistry: A History of the Science. The books are not freely available online, but some reviews or summaries are: , , , , .
One of them expresses the concern nicely: "The authors also address contentious issues of concern to contemporary scientists: whether chemistry has become a service science; whether its status has 'declined' because its value lies in assisting the leading-edge research activities of molecular geneticists and materials scientists; or whether it is redefining its agenda.". I'm writing this here in the talk page instead of being bold because I'm not sure which would be the best place to add such information. Somewhere in the introduction? Should we create a subsection about the relationship between chemistry and the other sciences? In such a section we could mention, besides the issue of "service", other issues such as "reducibility". --Itub 08:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * This is a matter of perspective.  I think that it is just as easy to say that chemistry has taken over a large portion of biology at this point.  Most biology/medical questions are basically chemistry problems.  Research in these areas are now asking what is the underlying chemical reason for the phenomenom.  I have heard that all the big problems in chemistry have been solved.  I disagree.  I think the orgin of life is a chemistry problem not a biological one.  The function of cells is also a complex chemical question.  The energy crisis/global warming is a chemistry problem.  Nanotechnology is basically dominated by chemists. Check out Priestley Medalist George M. Whitesides' address "Revolutions In Chemistry" Chemical and Engineering News March 26, 2007 Volume 85, Number 13 pp. 12-17. M stone 22:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is a matter of perspective, but I have also seen several letters in Chemical and Engineering News by readers worried about this issue. Worried in the sense that chemistry departments seem to be shrinking or being "taken over" by the biologists and materials scientists. Less "pure" chemistry is being done, with a major chunk of the funding going now to things that have bio- or nano- as prefixes. ;-) That's just the way things go, and not necessarily a bad thing, depending on perspective. The "problem", so to speak, is that chemists can't play chemistry alone anymore, but need to work with (and sometimes for) the biologists. I'm not making this up; I cited two books by reputable historians who reached this conclusion by looking at the big picture. Many people may disagree (I'm not sure if I agree or disagree yet...), but it is a point that deserves mention in the article. --Itub 07:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add, I think you are almost taking the same view of biology that our anonymous friend has toward chemistry from the point of view of physics. Do you really think you can predict how a drug works just using "chemistry"? Physiology is not that simple, it operates on its own level of complexity. That's why we need so many biological and clinical trials before launching a new drug! Some things are just impossible to predict from a reductionist point of view. Do you think global warming is a chemical problem? Certainly there's chemistry involved, but what about all the geophysics, ecology, oceanology, etc.? The Earth is more complex than a round-bottom flask with N2, O2, Ar, H2O, and CO2. And so on... --Itub 07:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree that most of biology cannot be explained or described by chemistry. I would never characterize biology as a subset of chemistry. However, chemists are not working for biologist they are tackling important chemistry problems.  Many recent advancements in biology and medicine are driven by a better understanding of the complex chemistry.  The sequencing of the human genome and the field of proteomics are the study of the molecules aka chemistry.  How do you study these huge molecules? Drug development is a chemistry problem since a drug is a molecule and thus must be identified and then the protein (another molecule) that it interacts with must also be identified. Of course it involves biology and medicine as well. Chemistry is becoming very interdisciplinary.  I do think chemistry will play a big part in the energy problem and thus global warming.  We need to develop all kinds of new things, such as solar cells, biodiesel, new sources of raw materials for plastics. Chemistry is far, far more complex than a round-bottom flask! M stone 18:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry as a service science 

message: Has the Schrödinger equation ever been solved for molecules? I don't mean an approximate solution. If so then chemistry is a subset of physics.  If not then chemistry is distinct and separate describing an area of science that physics cannot. M stone 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does indeed point to a serious problem. In strict quantum mechanics, molecular structure is not present. It only appears if we use the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. That approximation is deeply flawed, because QM says we must have a wave function of indistinguishable like particles which includes like nuclei as well as electrons, while the BO approximation gives us a function of indistinguishable electrons but distinguishable like-nuclei. This is one reason why philosophers of chemistry argue for the independence of chemistry and for it not being reducible to physics. It is a matter of current debate, and I am undecided. --Bduke 23:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chemistry is a whole lot more than simple molecules.  It is a common fallacy (IMHO) that chemistry can be reduced to physics.  I challenge any physicist to dare to predict the outcome of any reaction I might try in my research (organic chemistry methodology work) - or even to explain adequately the outcome of some reactions I've already done.  Trying to argue that organic chemistry is a subset of physics is like saying psychology is a subset of chemistry - in terms of abstract principle it may be true, but there is no predictive capability, nor any foreseeable possibility for it to be so.  That's why I use the laws of chemistry, and the laws of physics are largely irrelevant in my work (except perhaps for pV=nRT). Until we have physics laws predicting real chemical outcomes, defining chemistry as a subset of physics in the opening paragraph is irrelevant and unhelpful.  Walkerma 03:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can physics decribe molecules? 

message: I have create a page called "central science". I think that some of the recent discussions on this page would be appropriate for this new page. The relationship between chemistry and physics as well as the relationship between chemistry and biology are both included by this term.  M stone 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some nice material but I think it should be merged into Chemistry as a section. The title is very POV - OK, our POV as chemists, but still POV. We call our subject the central science. I do not see others doing so. --Bduke 00:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agre with Bduke that this is better as a section of the chemistry article (although we can work on the central science article until some admin decides to deprotect the chemistry article). I must also say that the first two references you used, although they are very interesting and are potentially useful for this discussion, in no way support the sentence to which they are attached ("Chemistry is often called the central science because..."). The use the words "central science" once or twice, but they never explain why; they assume that the reader already knows that chemistry is called this way. If I may say so, I think the two references I added to the Chemistry article are much more relevant to this statement (if you want to check them out and don't have the books, you can view parts of one in google books and the other with amazon.com "look inside" feature [user account probably required...]). Of the two references you give, the first one would be more useful for a discussion of the role of chemistry in American society during the 20th century and possible role in the future, and the second is more relevant to the question of chemistry as a service science that we've been discussing above (called "back-office technical activity" in the title). --Itub 08:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to pipe in and express my support for the level-headed responsible editors such as Itub, Bduke et al. Regarding my take on this I would suggest that the fact that some physicists seem to think of chemistry as a subset of physics and that some chemists are afraid that they are becoming biologists or material scientists combined with the fact that these same extreme physicists don't claim biology to be a subset of physics since it is too much of a stretch is precisely the reasons why chemistry is commonly called the central science. I would note to the anon's that central does not mean superior just as they claim (with a little less validity) that being a subset is not inferior. Clearly both chemistry and physics are subsets of science. From a philosophical point of view, yes ideally if science could produce a single equation that could predict everything at every moment for all of eternity we would only need that equation but rather than having one science we would actually have none. It would be the end of science because science is a process of discovery. The tools and subdivisions of science will evolve and the more contributions that physics can make to chemistry the better but at this point it is really fairly limited in any predictive power and prediction and hypothesis testing are the core of all science.--Nick Y. 21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This whole discussion is sort of moot isn't it? The goal of this portal is to provide the reader with a basic understanding of what chemistry is and what the people do whom busy themselves with it. Chemistry is everywhere, of course it is, but so is physics (and biochemistry etc.). So what's the point. There is no such thing as "in the middle", between biology and physics. If anything, all these disciplines are approaching each other rahter quickly. I know this, I'm a bio physical chemist myself  Sikkema 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you misunderstand the meaning of "central" in this context. It doesn't mean "most fundamental", but something like "in the middle" (the most common example is "between physics and biology"). I suspect that the phrase predates Brown's book by decades, but I haven't found solid proof yet. :) --Itub 08:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Itub. The term is widely used in Australia where Brown et al's textbook is not particularly well known. It means that a whole lot of students have to learn chemistry to pursue their own discipline. It is is in the middle with relevance to many other disciplines. --Bduke 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bduke, at Eastern Kentucky University even the firefighters have to take chemistry(the school has a top ranked law enforcement/forensic science/firefighting departments)as do the engineers, medical students, etc. --PedroDaGr8 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Sadi Carnot that the term The central science is "basically pointless."  References are provided to demonstrate that this term is a commonly used.  A view that is supported by this discussion.  Also it a term used to describe chemistry, which is not the same as being chemistry. Thus I do not believe The central science should not be merged and have removed merge tags. M stone 05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've readded the tags, as there is certainly no consensus that the article should not be merged. There are at least three people here who think the article should be merged. In case it's not clear, I'm one of them. I disagree with Sadi Carnot's view of the term, but I don't think it warrants a separate article. It's just a way of calling chemistry, a nickname if you will, and it can be addressed well enough in a section of the chemistry article. Would you create articles called "the science of life", "the science of the mind", "the only science", etc. just because other sciences are called those ways? --Itub 07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What's the harm in having the page?  Wikipedia is not running out of space! Obviously it the term has been discuss in writing. If a term is commonly used and discussed in writing then why shouldn't it have its own page? Chemistry is too big to discuss all aspecs in detail.  Having its own page does not exclude its discussion here.  Plus this term is also relevant to the philosophy of chemistry.  M stone 12:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (unindenting) Not doing any harm is not a reason for keeping an article. The main problem is that the article as it exists doesn't really add anything that is not already in the Chemistry article, and is therefore redundant. If it were so much more detailed that it couldn't fit as a section of the chemistry article, and if it had proper references (see the comment I made above on May 7), I might be more inclined to keep it as a separate article. --Itub 12:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise a valid point that at this point The central science page is not adding much additional information.  However, I think that you should you also consider that the article is 2 weeks old!  Also I would add refs but I do not have access to those texts. It would be good if you could. I propose removing the merge tags and reevaluating the article in 6 months.  If it has not grow into something more distinct then lets merge. M stone 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's OK with me, I'm not in a hurry. :) But let's wait a few days to see if there are any other opinions. --Itub 08:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree. Not only is it slightly arrogant, it is simply not true. The term central science should be abolished asap; it is not at all descriptive of mainstream thinking. See my remarks above. Sikkema 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to fight for abolishing terms that are in common usage in the real world. Whether you think it is True is irrelevant; what matters is that we can verify that the term is used. See Wikipedia's verifiablity policy for details. --Itub 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the case with "the central science" is special. The term is very widely used, and this issue of "centrality" has been a matter of serious discussion among chemists and philosophers, as some of the references provided have shown. If Balaban and Klein (ref. below) decided to write a scientific article about it, it does not seem to me at all implausible that a student might want to write a term paper about it too. The topic is notable enough, and it is possible to write an article about it, although it requires quite a bit of research. My only objection was the length redundancy of the actual incarnation of the article, but I'm willing to give it time. --Itub 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created "Central science" 

message: I have been away from this page for a few days, I may have been hard with my comments, but my point still stands.  I don’t think that "The central science" should be an article.  It reflects poorly on other articles, in that a reader doesn't really gain anything by it, and weakens our combined work here at Wikipedia as such.  In other words, its like writing up an article on the most used adjective of any given article.  If we use green chemistry as an example, according to Mstone’s logic, we could then find a reference for the The green science and then write up a stub for why chemistry is The green science. Then we could do this for the other branches of chemistry, e.g. The bio science to discuss biochemistry, etc.  Then we could start up a :Category:Most common adjectives used to describe the science of chemistry, or something similar. I hope this clarifies my point.  Again, what is the point of this article. Is a student actually going to reference this article for a term paper? Note also that Mstone cares so much for this article that he doesn't even take the time to spell check a basic redlink: themodynamics? --Sadi Carnot 15:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Not only is it slightly arrogant, it is simply not true. The term central science should be abolished asap; it is not at all descriptive of mainstream thinking. See my remarks above. Sikkema 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to fight for abolishing terms that are in common usage in the real world. Whether you think it is True is irrelevant; what matters is that we can verify that the term is used. See Wikipedia's verifiablity policy for details. --Itub 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the case with "the central science" is special. The term is very widely used, and this issue of "centrality" has been a matter of serious discussion among chemists and philosophers, as some of the references provided have shown. If Balaban and Klein (ref. below) decided to write a scientific article about it, it does not seem to me at all implausible that a student might want to write a term paper about it too. The topic is notable enough, and it is possible to write an article about it, although it requires quite a bit of research. My only objection was the length redundancy of the actual incarnation of the article, but I'm willing to give it time. --Itub 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The central science]]

message: I just found a very interesting article on this topic (but it requires subscription). Alexandru T. Balaban and Douglas J. Klein. Is chemistry 'The Central Science'? How are different sciences related? Co-citations, reductionism, emergence, and posets. Scientometrics 2006, 69, 615-637.  --Itub 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting article about chemistry as the central science

message: Note that the intro currently reads:
:Geber (d. 815),John Warren (2005). "War and the Cultural Heritage of Iraq: a sadly mismanaged affair", Third World Quarterly, Volume 26, Issue 4 & 5, p. 815-830.Dr. A. Zahoor (1997). JABIR IBN HAIYAN (Geber). University of Indonesia.Paul Vallely. How Islamic inventors changed the world. The Independent. Robert Boyle (1661), Antoine Lavoisier (1787) and John Dalton (1808) can be considered the fathers of modern chemistry.
Beyond this, I have seen others referred to also as the “father of chemistry”.  Possibly we could do an article on this to clarify who the actual father is?  Anybody have ideas or like this proposal? Personally, I would likely argue that Lavoisier is the father, and that other’s are subsidiary, but near-to-equal in importance. --Sadi Carnot 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of a lot more men (!) that merit inclusion: Mendeleyev, van 't Hoff, Fisher, Galvani, Berzelius, Avogadro, Lomonosov and Priestley.... It is therefore very dangerous to call someone "father". I would be in favor of deleting the whole sentence. As is the case with a lot of things, it gives the impression that, out of the blue, chemistry was born. This is of course absurd. Geber is a name I've never come across. Sikkema 21:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Who the father is is a mater of opinion, of course. However, I think it is true that Lavoisier is the one most commonly named as the father of modern chemistry, although Boyle and Dalton are also often named. However, it makes absolutely no sense to list Geber as a father of modern chemistry, so I have reverted the introduction to an earlier version where he is listed as the father of chemistry (not modern chemistry). I like the idea of an article about the father(s) of chemistry. --Itub 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as the intro to the chemistry article that could go, but in a stand alone piece, if we use published views of what chemistry historians think about the matter, Geber would merit inclusion.  Also, there is some Arabic chemist (in Wikipedia somewhere) that I’ve read referred to as the “father of chemistry”.  Also, to give a loose idea, Google search results for father of chemistry lists Boyle, Geber, Dalton, and Lavoisier, in that order.  There’s also this talk-page/question-answer link: Who is known as the "Father of Chemistry"?, where a user says “it seems there are many fathers of chemistry. Things like this might justify the need for a short article on this topic. Just some loose ideas. --Sadi Carnot 15:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Geber merits inclusion, but he is not the father of modern chemistry any more than Archimedes is the father of modern mathematics, Aristotle the father of modern physics, or Hippocrates the father of modern medicine. :) --Itub 15:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fathers of chemistry]] 

message: The link to the article through the External links is non functional, most likely bacause of the / after the url. I tried to repair it but cannot because it is protected. Can someone who has the rights do it?202.141.141.7 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical energetics external link 

message: As you should know, electrons do not orbit around the nuclei, that's and old atomic model, electrons move in a miscellaneous way...
We should find another atom's image or find another chemistry's symbol. A laboratory full of flasks, an erlenmeyer with a green liquid inside (yeah, that's something very cartoonish, but it's really a symbol), a molecule, etc
--24.232.126.30 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the preceding comment. The first thing I thought when I got to the Chemistry page was "wow that image is just an atom, that would better fit the Atom article." Does anybody have an idea for an image or diagram that would better symbolize Chemistry?76.24.39.47 06:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atom's Image 

message: OK, Hallenrm has added a whole lot here, Sadi Carnot has moved it to chemical thermodynamics and Hallenrm has reverted, all with neither of you discussing these major changes on this talk page. Let us not have a revert war. Please leave it as it is and discuss the reasons for the changes you both want. My own thoughts start with the fact that these two sections are now quite a bit longer than any other section on a part of chemistry. Only more general sections are larger. They should be shorter. I am therefore inclined towards Sadi's solution of moving a great deal to chemical thermodynamics, but I would leave rather more than he did in the two existing sections. Can we have some general input here on this? --Bduke 05:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be written summary-style, with the more specialized content moved to more specific articles. I agree with Sadi Carnot's edit, but it is certainly possible to leave a slightly longer summary. --Itub 08:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, better summary is needed; I'll I did was cut-n-paste. --Sadi Carnot 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I indeed sensed that! That is the reason I have already trimmed the section that can be easily moved to the Chemical thermodynamics page. I also intend to trim the subsection here a bit further.Hallenrm 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallenrm, you have reverted me three times now.  The idea at Wikipedia is to work together.  In any standard chemistry textbook, the energy sections are listed in the chemical thermodynamics chapter.  The chemistry article is pushing 50 kb; the goal is to keep all articles at about 32 kb, the tension-span length of the average internet reader.  I was attempting to reorganize the material you added in this direction.  Now that you have reverted this, please go back and fix the changes you made, i.e. write a one to two paragraph summary (similar in size to the other chemistry article headers: “chemical bond”, “chemical reaction”, etc. (see: Wikipedia:Summary style), and move the rest of the energy material to other specific articles: spectroscopy, activation energy, bond energy, thermochemistry, chemical thermodynamics, free energy, etc.  Thank you for your cooperation. --Sadi Carnot 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is indeed heartening to know that you are aware of the 32 kB limit, I hope you also remember that I peorganized the Energy article just to that end, but you and your friends opposed it vehemently. you offered to write it afresh but disappeared from the scene after a straw poll. So far as I can see, your only intention is to interfere in my edits so that you do not face any competetion from me. Any way, as you can very well see from the above comments from Bduke your actions were hardly appropriate, I have already started pruning the energy section, and please at least remember how to count, I have not reverted you three times on this article, only once! Hallenrm 03:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical energetics & chemical energy 

message: The section on quantum chemistry was very conspicous by its presence in the article, since other sub-disciplines of Chemistry cannot be accorded similar treatment (because then the article would become unduly long) I have merged it with rhe main article on quantum chemistry. If any editor has any objection to this edit, s/he is welcome to undo it.Vig vimarsh 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. The lead in Quantum chemistry may need a bit of effort, but I'm too busy to look at it now. I see there has been a small tweak since you added it.  --Bduke 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse your actions. I was thinking about bringing this up myself it was so glaring of an issue.--Nick Y. 18:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The application of quantum theory to chemistry. It is both a sub set of theoretical chemistry, which covers a range of theory including quantum theory and statistical mechanics, and of computational chemistry, which also includes molecular dynamics. The programs GAUSSIAN and GAMESS for example, do computational quantum chemistry. --Bduke  (Discussion) 23:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Chemistry 

message: Chemistry cannot be reduced to the interactions between electric charge among atoms. The solution to the Schrodinger Equation for a given protein for example still an elusive achievement. Furthermore, there is no known way yet to predict (from purely theoretical principles only) the reaction rates for a given particular chemical transformation beetween two species, no matter if we can predict the products that form. The past intent to consider chemical interactions as simple charge interaction among atoms or sub-atomic particles with classical physics methods failed (e.g. the atomic models of Bohr and Rutherford). Quantum Mechanics becomes prohibitively complex as more electrons are involved in atomic interactions, and this doesn't include further complexity as with bonding. Because of basic instrumentation needs and the Uncertainty principle, electrical charge interactions are primarily determined in chemical phenomena only after the basic materials of the assembled instrumentation are properly applied. This cannot be deduce merely from charges since those charges are determined based on element and compound information and the periodic table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.122.69 (talk) 
:I'm not sure how to find the author of the preceding comment, but it would be more helpful if you suggested possible revisions or improvements. wingman358 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a false argument.  That one cannot solve a protein from first principles within a reasonable computational time is not a valid argument against electronic interactions being the 'stuff' of chemistry.  Given infinite computational time, a solution (or set of solutions) could be found, and the rest as they say is a question of funding/engineering.  While the properties of individual atoms can not and should not be dismissed from consideration of 'chemical transformations', atoms are ultimately the scaffolding upon which 'chemistry' occurs through the 'motion' of electrons.  In some cases, such as with Hg+ and its relativistic effects, the scaffolding introduces some (severe) quirks to the behavior of the electrons, but in most cases the scaffolding can be given much less attention.  Sorry  that was longer than I intended.  Also, the Born-Oppenheimer approx is valid so lets move on with our lives and leave nitty gritty atomic stuff to physic people and their toys.Dbuschho (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry 

message: I am getting a feeling that the user 24.36.181.171 is rather obsessed with Lavoisier, all his/her edits are centered around the contributions of Lavoisier and nothing else. If s/he continued like this very soon the articles will be swamped by info on lavoisier. Definetly the Chemistry article is not the place where all the achievements and contributions need be. I therefore am deleting his recent additions, please discuss Vig vimarsh 08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In looking at the recent history it does not seem that 24.36.181.171 is obsessed with Lavoisier as much as you make it sound. S/he has made several edits unrelated to Lavoisier that are genuine improvements. The Lavoisier contributions are generally pretty far up there in terms of importance and are reasonable although perhaps as an editorial choice may not be consensus or fit within the space limitations. I would encourage 24.36.181.171 to engage in a discussion here and perhaps register. Vig - I don't think your questions and actions are misplaced but I think that there is no real problem brewing. S/he just needs to engage and is likely very reasonable and un-obsessed.--Nick Y. 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it that Antoine is directly called the "father of modern chemistry", while on the page that those words are linked to, there are actually four people listed under that category?  Seems a little "obsessed" to me.  This whole page seems very Lavoisiercentric. Sbrools (talk . contribs) 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antoine Lavoisier 

message: I'm not fond of the picture used to illustrate the article.  First, it's just an atom, it'd be better on the atom page.  Second, electrons don't "orbit" as they do in the picture.  I think it's kinda misleading.  I know exactly what picture I'd like for this page, but I can't seem to find it.  Something along the lines of http://www.flickr.com/photos/skycaptaintwo/664439091/] or the like, some sort of close-up on a couple of flasks or something along the same lines.  Thanks!  Sbrools (talk . contribs) 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but while I tried to view the picture, you have provided the link for, I was unsuccessful, rather I was led to the Google homepage. I would suggest that you post a more appropriate and interesting image that can survive. Thanks! Hallenrm 07:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's weird, because when I click on it, it takes me to the page I intended, and it's not just my computer's cache.  And I wasn't intending to use that picture, I'm not even sure it's under an appropriate licence, it was just the thing that came closest to the picture for which I'm looking.  Plus, I think that picture is very interesting, much more interesting than the false depiction of an atom.  Sbrools (talk . contribs) 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how a picture of a few pieces of glassware can be more interesting or relevant to chemistry than the atom, which is arguably the most central concept in chemistry. However, the point remains that the current picture is a cartoon, and that it is difficult to have a picture of an atom that is realistic and illustrative at the same time. Someone suggested long ago using a picture of the periodic table. I think that would be much better, because the periodic table is characteristic of chemistry and is actually used by real chemists (unlike a cartoon of the atom). Another option would be a picture of a molecule, which again wouldn't be realistic but at least would be a picture that is used in the real world. Finally, yet another option would be to do the same as the physics article--forget about trying to find something that illustrates the entire science, but just something that looks cool (a levitating superconductor in the case of the physics article; we could use a dramatic reaction such as the thermite). --Itub 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an idea, How about a drawing of a tree. The trunk would represent the general chemistry, and its branches the various subdisciplines. Perhaps, they can tagged in the drawing.Vig vimarsh 07:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I see your point, and that does illustrate chemistry, I don't really think it's suitable for the article.  It's the same problem as the atom picture, it doesn't really have anything to do with chemistry, it just illustrates it.  In other words, the article isn't about cartoon trees.  On the other hand, it is a nice drawing of a tree.  Maybe we can find some other use for it?  In the meantime, I'm So far, I'm liking the periodic table or the just 'artsy' picture the best.  Although, we could use a picture of a molecule, as 3d representations are used by chemists on a regular basis.  Sbrools (talk . contribs) 17:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The helix of DNA, or perhaps a protein, may be the only molecular structure most people recognize as having something to do with science.  How about a nice image of a DNA segment, perhaps from molecular mechanics (etc.) software, to open the article? -- Astrochemist 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most chemistry textbooks seem to have pictures of molecules on the cover, sometimes combined with pictures of materials or reactions. DNA is an option, but has the disadvantage that it is often more closely associated with biology. Perhaps we could do something like the allotrope picture of the right (the picture could perhaps be beautified, and the exact example replaced with something more "dynamic" that also depicts the idea of chemical reactions). --Itub 15:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I was browsing today and came across something akin to what I would like, but unfortunately, it's copyrighted, but if we could get something similar to this, I think the article would look great.    Sbrools (talk . contribs) 17:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a picture of that sort in the Commons already (Chemicals in flasks, right). But I'm still not convinced that pictures of colorful flasks or tubes are of any use. I'd much rather have something showing molecular structure or a chemical reaction. --Itub 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be ideal, but at least it's better than that tree diagram we had for a while... I've added it for now, and the caption is just the opening sentence of the article, feel free to write a better caption though.  Sbrools (talk . contribs) 03:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The first line of the article should be simple and inviting. Not scholarly and insightful. Everyone who disagrees, say Naye! : *  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition needs simplification 

message: Template:Alcohols, is it missing Undecanol? Thanks, Marasama 06:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that's because there is no article on undecanol, and the authors of the template didn't want it to have red links. --Itub 07:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article created.--Nick Y. 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, that make sense... Thanks, Marasama 03:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Undecanol]]? 

message: Sorry, I noticed a big problem with the explanation of different fields of chemistry... Organic chemistry is not the study of organic matter, but rather the study of compounds containing carbon and hydrogen. Right? []
- Guest  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.74.82 (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the study of organic compounds. Most organic compounds have C and H, but not all. --Itub (talk) 08:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a valuable point is being made here.  'Organic chemistry is the study of organic matter' could be taken to refer to soils, for example.  Further, my understanding of organic chemistry is that all organic compinds must contain C, but that not all C containing compounds are organic.  For example, CCl4 is organic, but NaCN is not. EdChem (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that organic chemistry is the study of compounds that contain carbon.  See, for example, the introduction to this organic chemistry textbook (Basic Principles of Organic Chemistry).  We could get more subtle than that, but I don't think that it is appropriate for this article's introduction.  Shanata (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are always some exceptions. The study of calcium carbonate, for example, is not considered to be organic chemistry. Generally we exclude those compounds that fit naturally into inorganic chemistry because of their similarities with other compounds. --Bduke (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that I still feel that the brief definition given in the introduction of this page ('the study of organic matter') could be improved.  Perhaps something similar to what's stated on the organic chemistry page, such as 'the study of compounds consisting primarily of carbon and hydrogen'? Shanata (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organic Chemistry 

message: Dec. 25, why is this page protected?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.120.178 (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Protected? 

message: Shouldn't this article, and/or the legend of some of the images in it, point to Skeletal formula, or its redirection page Bond line formula?
--66.68.107.5 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  graphical convention 

message: Is there some reason for the use of all the colours in the SF of taxol on this page?  At first I thought it was supposed to indicate biosynthesis - as taxol is a derivatised terpene, the colours could have been intended to relate to the isoprene rule - but if so, it appears incorrect. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it highlights the origin of the atoms in the Nicolaou Taxol total synthesis. However, I don't think it is a good idea to highlight them in this page! --Itub (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that makes sense - there is a b&w image at talk:Nicolaou Taxol total synthesis, maybe we should change it for that.  (I'd boldly make the change, but haven't tried changing images yet.) I have made the change as the colour is certainly potentially confusing EdChem (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxol structural formula 

message: The way the further reading texts are listed appear arbitrary to me.  In particular, I note that the Claydon et al book is a fairly advanced organic chemistry text (although it does start at a more elementary level).  I would like to suggest perhaps also adding more "general blurb" under "introductory university chemistry textbooks" 68.75.21.131 (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Partly this reflects different countries' systems - in the UK (where students specialize from age 16) books like Clayden and Shriver/Atkins might be used by incoming freshman, but in the US (where students don't specialize until college) they wouldn't use them until their 2nd/3rd years.  But there definitely should be more examples of general chemistry.  I also notice that someone here (certainly not me!) seems to really like Atkins...! Walkerma (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading section 

message: Why can't I edit this article?  It says 'view source' at the top instead of 'edit this article'.
The change needed:  "Chemistry can be called "the central science"" should be changed to "Chemistry has been called "the central science"".  Thanks for giving me permission and all, but "has been called" is more accurate.  12.49.208.69 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't edit - change needed 

message: In the second to the last paragraph of the Energy section, a sentence reads, "Because, the electronic energy levels are not so closely spaced, ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation is not transferred with equal felicity, as is also the case with electrical energy" which is very awkwardly worded at the end and difficult to discern.  A rewording and removal of the unnecessary comma after "Because" would be appreciated.  Also, there is a disagreement in wording from the previous sentence to this one where "placed" in the preceding sentence is used to mean the same as "spaced" in this sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panserbjorne51 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording Needed 

message: I think that someone should add an external link for reference [24]. A good site at  provides a free access to the cited article and some of its updates.--Bjemachem (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that Wiktionary is wrong. --Itub 05:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: No mention of the Greeks and Romans in relation to Chemistry?  Im surprised.  Weren't they the first to distinguish the relation between acids and bases?  Don't we still use this today?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A708257
http://misterguch.brinkster.net/acidtutorial.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtd00123 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Greeks and Romans? 

message: There is no activity on Wikibooks or WIkiversity with respect to chemistry. Is anyone here active with regard to that or interested in it. It is a mess in both places. Does anyone even use those resources?
--Bgreeson (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibook and Wikiversity Chemistry 

message: The following link is to a site with interactive blogs on Harvard undergrad class lectures.  This particular one is essentially the main intro class to science classes at Harvard, and covers topics ranging from chemistry to molecular and cellular biology.  I found this page extremely helpful when I was taking the class and I think that the posted lecture notes are pretty interesting for anyone remotely interested in the topic.
 http://www.thefinalclub.org/blogs/fall2006/LifeSciences1a/public/
Anyone can read and contribute to the commentary of the texts on the site.   If you read through a lecture or two and agree, I'd encourage someone with more Wikipedia clout than myself to post on the actual chemistry and/or mcb pages.  Let me know what you all think.  I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Bbrasky100 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: The last sentence in the 1st paragraph of the history section (Extracting metal from their ores,making pottery and glazes, fermenting beer and wine, making pigments for cosmetics and painting, extracting chemicals from plants for medicine and perfume, making cheese, dying cloth, tanning leather, rendering fat into soap, making glass, and making alloys like bronze.) is not a complete sentence, it needs something like (Extracting metal from their ores,making pottery and glazes, fermenting beer and wine, making pigments for cosmetics and painting, extracting chemicals from plants for medicine and perfume, making cheese, dying cloth, tanning leather, rendering fat into soap, making glass, and making alloys like bronze are all examples of ancient chemistry.) i would do that edit as a temporary fix, but i am not autoconfirmed yet, so i cant edit it --Tjayh913 (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix 

message: " spaced then electronic energy levels,"
Improper use of "then", should read "than"...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.172.216 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please edit 

message: "For example, ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation is not transferred with as much felicity."
Would "facility" be more appropriate? ie: ease vs intense joy.
S: (n) felicity, felicitousness (pleasing and appropriate manner or style (especially manner or style of expression))
S: (n) happiness, felicity (state of well-being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.172.216 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree felicity is clearly wrong (perhaps even a joke). "Facility" is good. Perhaps "efficacy"?--Nick Y. (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I question the use of felicity 

message: I'm not sure that the definition of chemistry by Chang, i.e. "Chemistry (1998) – the study of matter and the changes it undergoes (Chang).", is fundamentally different from that of Pauling, i.e. "Chemistry (1947) – the science of substances: their structure, their properties, and the reactions that change them into other substances (Pauling)."  In fact, Pauling's definition seems more accurate and specific in representing the main tenets of chemical thought to this day, whereas Chang's definition is more ambiguous (e.g., nuclear fission and fusion are certainly changes in matter, but are physical rather than chemical).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.8.6 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nuclear chemistry is chemical. Nuclear transmutations are also chemical since they deal with radioactive decay. (Fireyair (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: Could someone please remove the use of the word pseudoscience in reference to alchemy? In the context this is incorrect: The alchemy from which modern chemistry developed could not have been pseudoscientific, as the modern definition of science had not yet emerged. It's also unnecessarily pejorative (please see Wikipedia's article on pseudoscience). Thank you! I'm unable to edit as the article is semi-protected. Peramelemorphia (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point on the chronology of a definition of science versus the early days of alchemy, but given that the subsequent sentence mentions "chemistry, metallurgy, philosophy, astrology, astronomy, mysticism and medicine", we can't really call them all science.  At any rate, the alchemy page doesn't generally seem to describe alchemy as a pseudoscience, so for now I'll just replace it with a more accurate, but ambiguous, phrase that some one else can clarify, as appropriate. Shanata (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Corrected (hopefully). Materialscientist (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please edit 

message: Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: --Oneiros (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automate archiving? 

message: A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of . Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 6 edits by Jagged 85 in August 2007 and 6 more edits in May 2007.  Tobby72 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of sources 

message: FOOD
SHELTER
CLOTHING
ENERGY
HEALTH AND SANITATION
EDUDATION AND COMMUNICATION
TRAVEL AND EXPLORATION
WEAPON  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.247.160 (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIVE THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROGRESS OF CHEMISTRY IN THE FOLLOWING AREA: 

message: I very much like Cologne ,its University also,but would it be agreeable to replace the picture (or just the caption )after a while with one from my own favourite University and so forth?Nobody would notice the difference anyway. Cleanthis (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  U of Cologne image 

message: There has been an extensive discussion on the Talk:Science of what the lead definition of the science article should be. I suspect this might be an issue that may be of interest to the editors of this page. If so, please come to the voting section of the talk science page to vote and express your views. Thank you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to editors to vote/discuss definition of science in Talk:Science 

message: This article has been criticized for its lack of coherence (in past nominations for featured and good article). One reply was that chemistry is a hodge-podge of many subfields, and it is difficult to condense the nature of chemistry in a short article for the general public. To counter this argument, I would like to open a discussion about the underlying themes of chemistry. These major themes should help group the material presented into larger chunks, and help to set chemistry apart from physics, biology and engineering while also showing the connections.
To get the discussion started, here is my choice of five themes, together with a suggestion for the first sentence of the article:
Chemistry is the science of matter and of the changes it undergoes through chemical reactions. Five themes fundamental to chemistry are:
#Matter consists of atoms
#Chemical bonds between atoms give rise to the >50 million known substances
#Chemists use chemical reactions to synthesize new substances with novel properties
#Separation techniques allow chemists to purify substances from mixtures to study their properties
#The laws of thermodynamics govern in which direction reactions proceed and at which point they reach equilibrium
If we could distill a handful of themes that encompass as much of the field of chemistry as possible, this would bring focus to the article. The Biology article in my opinion succeeds at that and is a good example of what could be done here as well.
Theislikerice (talk) 04:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the main themes of Chemistry? 

message: This article asserts that there exists an infinite number of chemical combinations when in fact this can not be substantiated. There exists not even a proof of the infinite amount of prime numbers let alone chemical combinations. Also, this article states that the CAS uses a numerical number to identify a chemical. I'd like to know what non-numerical numbers exist, because, henceforth there were exactly zero of them. We should change this quickly and I'll tell you why. So, that we don't appear foolish.
I suggest that we omitt the word 'infinite' and the word 'numerical' entirely. For those who wish to know specifically where the mistakes exist: Just use the find on page option under the edit heading as there is only one occurrence of each word.
-- Scotty Glenn Cornog user:scottyglenncornog
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyglenncornog (talk • contribs) 
:Both are blunders and I went bold and corrected them in the article. Thanks for a note. Materialscientist (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical misadventures... (for the sake of science, EDIT!) 

message: It begins: "It is a physical science which studies of.." and makes no sense to me. You can't use a word simultaneously as a verb and noun as is done here with "studies". Please fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.129.136 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Bduke  (Discussion) 21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Sentence makes no sense 

message: I'm looking for information on prebiotic organic chemistry.  I tried prebiotic but it leads me to Prebiotic (nutrition).  There is another sense of prebiotic that means "occurring before the advent of life" (per Wiktionary: Wiktionary:prebiotic).  I can't seem to find anything in Wikipedia that addresses Prebiotic (chemistry or Prebiotic (biology) (the latter being, it would seem, an oxymoron perhaps).  I may be looking in the wrong places.  Does Wikipedia perhaps have an article on the subject under another name?  Or should we add the concept to the list of topics that perhaps could warrant an article?  N2e (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I added a redir for Prebiotic (chemistry) and made Prebiotic a disambig page.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a couple of minor changes to the disambig page, and also added a redirect from "Early Earth Chemistry". -- Ithacagorges 23:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prebiotic organic chemistry 

message: Under the Element subheading, a sentence is started with the numeral 94. If I recall correctly, it is considered unacceptable to begin sentences with numerals, therefore, this situation ought to be corrected. (I apparently don't have the right to edit things just yet.) -- Techpriest88 (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I learnt in English class ... fixed. Vsmith (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kick it off with a numeral 

message: The parenthetical note "the etymology of the word has been much disputed" is a bit too editorial, particularly for this type of article. Furthermore it reads like a caveat which is unrelated to the actual subject of the article. Suggest using something shorter, for example:
* Chemistry (etymology[note])
* Chemistry (etymology disputed[note])
- 67.161..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.54.63 (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology note 

message: In the past month, this article has been changed substantially. I like that the "summary" section has been removed, but I think the lead section could be substantially improved by shortening it, and removing detail from it, as suggested in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. In particular, the lengthy discussion of the difference between physics and chemistry should be removed or moved into a footnote. In my mind, a succinct lead paragraph should mention atoms and molecules, chemical bonds, chemical reactions, what chemists do (synthesize new compounds, characterize samples through separation and instrumental techniques such as spectroscopy, etc) and what chemistry accomplishes (synthesis of substances such as polymers, synthesis of man-made bioactive compounds such as statins). For an example of how brief this could be, see User:Theislikerice/chemistry.
Theislikerice (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section should be shortened 

message: Is it a term I'm not aware of, or is "mixt bodies" a typo?
Under "Definitions":
 - Chymistry (1661) – the subject of the material principles of mixt bodies (Boyle). -
Clarification or editing would be appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.237.231.137 (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixt bodies? 

message: The article states:
changed by either loseing(sic) electrons(reduction) or gaining electrons(oxidation)
When the opposite is true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippy54 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job spotting the error.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redox 

message: Template:Periodic table (extended) & Template:Compact extended periodic table, the numbering seems to not match.  Is this correct?  Thanks, Marasama (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended periodic chart - the grids incorrect? 

message: The sentence below should either have a matching quotation mark added before the second instance of the word "a" or the ending quotation mark removed.  As this article appears to use American English, if the second quotation mark is added, the period should be moved inside the quotes.
According to the IUPAC gold book a chemical reaction is a process that results in the interconversion of chemical species". 144.211.101.117 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested copyedit 

message: There are several references to Skeletal model in this article that are unlinked. Erinius (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I only see a single instance of that term (in an image-caption for benzene), so I linked it. Could you clarify what further you think needs to be linked? DMacks (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I'm hoping to better organize the article and would like feedback into how the sections should be arranged. Right now my thoughts look something like this:
*History
**Etymology
*Theory
**Atom
**Element
**Compound
**Substance
**Molecule
**Mole and amount of substance
**Ions and salts
**Acidity and basicity
**Phase
**Bonding
**Reaction
**Redox
**Equilibrium
**Energy
**Chemical laws
*Practice: talk here about the lab, common techniques and lab equipment, etc.
**Subdisciplines
**Chemical industry
**Professional societies
In summary I would like to move history to the first section, and make etymology a subsection of history. Remove the Basic Concepts section which is just one sentence and just move all of its subsections under theory, and lastly create one Practice section which will discuss how chemistry is practiced and applied, and make the remaining sections into subsections of practice. I'd like to start reorganizing as soon as some form of consensus can be produced on how this article should be organized, so any feedback is much appreciated.OakRunner (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per a silent consensus, I'm going to go ahead and be bold and make these changes. Feel free to revert and/or talk about this if you have any issues.OakRunner (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A year on, this still looks brilliant. Thanks! Techhead7890 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organization proposal 

message: Ref 55 is marginal (at best). I think this one is more authoritative. In fact, several other options are available that would improve upon this reference.  Kyle (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved References 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housane
There is a problem with this article. I don't have the wikipedia or chemistry knowhow to fix it, but I'm posting it here in the hopes that somebody does.
76.10.169.183 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with a chemical page 

message: I'm probably just being dense, but I've tried several different approaches, to no avail. When I visit a page that is about a particular chemical, I see different representations of the chemical (ball-and-stick, for example), but nowhere have I been able to find a Wikipedia page that actually explains the different types of diagram, how they are made, and what they represent. It appears to me that they are useful in different ways, depending on what one is trying to represent, and I'd like to learn more, but I can't figure out where.
Anyone?
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representation? 

message: In the section "Reaction":
:It results in some energy exchange between the constituents of the reaction as well with the system environment which may be designed vessels which are often laboratory glassware.
should be
:It results in some energy exchange between the constituents of the reaction as well as with the system environment, which may be designed vessels, which are often laboratory glassware.
but might be better worded as
:It results in some energy exchange between the constituents of the reaction as well as with the system environment, which may be designed vessels—often laboratory glassware.
98.23.158.64 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the suggestion! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2014