Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Chemistry page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Chemistry page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Chemistry Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Discussion of the WikiProject Chemistry - Please add your comment and discussion here. Older discussions are archived.

This discussion page is about the Chemistry project itself, for detailed, in-depth discussions about specific topics, you'd be best served at the talk page of the specific subject, e.g., Chemicals, Chemical infoboxes, etc. There is also an image request page which might be of interest to you.

Guys, can you create the article Non-ferrous metals? It is currently a redirect up for deletion. Thanks. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the redirect by a stub. Please review and expand.  --Lambiam 09:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it and nominated it for DYK. I hope it passes. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the expansion. What the article clearly needs most now, is information on current uses of non-ferrous metals.  --Lambiam 11:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before any publicity, an experienced chemist, materials person, or metallurgist should have a go at refining the article. It is pretty green.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) It got promoted :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know some people like lists, But is there a real need for this page? I could see a minor use for it as a sort of DAB page, showing all the WP organic compounds, but that does not fit in with the title line This is a list of well-known organic compounds, including organometallic compounds, to stimulate the creation of Wikipedia articles - then strictly speaking, neither does the current list - if it's main purpose is to stimulate the creation of Wikipedia articles, then by definition they should all be red links! What constitutes "well known"? - chemicals on sale? If so I could go to work tomorrow and export the Alfa Aesar catalogue and quickly add 30,000 red links (and just to keep it neutral - I expect a Sigma Aldrich employee could do the same).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's redirect it to organic compound. This list is too well-visited (1k hits a day) to delete outright. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I've a feeling that as soon as I do that, 1001 people will be reverting... I think I will add a note o0n the talk page - pointing here first.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I was just wondering where this had gone. I used it as a basis for creating several hundred entries in Wiktionary a few months ago, and wanted to link back. Ah well! 86.182.222.189 (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to go about compiling a list of vegetable fats? In this discussion, two other editors and I have determined that the vegetable fats currently listed on List of vegetable oils should probably be split off into their own list at List of vegetable fats, but we're unsure how many other vegetable fats there are or how we might determine what they are. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an AfD on Basic concepts of quantum mechanics that raises some important questions for many technical articles:

1. Should there be separate articles for explanations at different knowledge levels?
2. If so, how many levels, and how can readers be guided to the level that is appropriate for them? RockMagnetist (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This chemistry-related AFD has been relisted because of few comments, so it's probably worthwhile for a few chemists to drop by and give their opinion. ChemNerd (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phenols is, in my opinion, way too subdivided into subcategories. According to this tool, there are 308 (!) subcategories. Many contain only one or two articles. I'd like to start a discussion on how to trim this down considerably. To start, I would suggest that categories that make the distinction between natural and synthetic are unnecessary (and in many cases that distinction is meaningless because phenols isolated from natural sources may also be prepared synthetically). Below in the collapsed box is a list of all 308 subcategories (some may be duplicates, though). ChemNerd (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree — especially with your comment about natural vs. synthetic. ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, this overcategorization is nutty, almost clinically. Removing the synthetic vs natural distinction will be a big step. Merge the salicylate categories, the naphthol categories, the flavonols. I would just use your common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefoot (talk • contribs)

As in the past, I work with aspiring chemists in developing articles for Wikipedia. This fall we aimed a little more on article improvement vs article creation. Already these articles have been considerably upgraded by colleagues here, especially Rifleman 82 and Materialscientist. We're not quite done, but here is the list: thiourea dioxide (unusual reagent used in textiles), boroxine (class of heterocycles), ceiling temperature (concept in polymer chemistry), 1,2-diaminopropane (smallest chiral diamine), levopimaric acid (major component of tree rosin), titanium ethoxide (used in sol-gel processing, also info on Zr derivative), chain walking (concept in polymer chemistry) mineralizer (tool in producing synthetic minerals), , humulone (component of good beer, apparently), sulfenamide (a functional group useful in vulcanization), sodium decavanadate (focused on the polyoxovanadate anion), benzotriazole (expanded, used as a corrosion inhibitor with Cu), aluminium phosphide (expanded description of a rodenticide, also phosphide).--Smokefoot (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should mention this boroxin(e) to avoid confusion in terminology. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a request at the help desk for a chemist to review the new article Ditetrahydrofurylpropane. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chembox subst explosive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, someone is creating lists which just seem to be copied from some database (WP:NOTADIRECTORY). Perhaps someone from this project could take a look at whether this is justified, as this is not my field. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look. I think they're a violation of WP:NOT DIRECTORY. The purposes of an encyclopedia would be better served by a category for those few substances on the list which are notable and have articles. As the number is arbitrary, the numerical arrangement of them gives no information. Regardless of copyright, this is essentially equivalent to a list of all chemicals numerically by CAS number, a function appropriate for CAS. The Commission has a good public website for looking upthis information, and for downloading it. I'm noinating for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea if Hydroboration–oxidation reaction and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hydroboration are covering the exact same subject, cross over, or completely different things. Clearly, a more expert opinion and review needed here. Thanks muchly for any help that can be given. sonia♫ 08:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are talking about the same things. ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a note from Smokefoot on one of my students pages, and I now feel guilty for not posting here sooner.

I teach a graduate-level course on "organic reactions" and, as part of that course, I help students identify important (to organic chemists) reactions which have no article or only a very short article (generally limited to Stub-class). We spend a few class periods discussing the Wikipedia, audience analysis, peer/self review, and some technical aspects of the Wikipedia (making graphics, mostly). For the writing part, we bring in a professional instructor in scientific writing. The students outline an article, get feedback, write a draft, get peer review, revise, get reviews from me, and finally revise once more. The finished products are moved into the articles. I emphasize etiquette: we strive to choose articles that are not under active development and they are told to note their work-in-progress on the "Talk" page. It is not my intention to "drop" a large bolus of mediocre articles on the community - each article, although not perfect, has actually been reviewed for writing, content, etc. by at least three people before making it out of the sandbox! A list of articles we have contributed to can be found at my user page and if you have any major problems with one of my users, please don't hesitate to contact me.

In the future, some highly motivated graduate students are forming a club in our department to do further work on the Wikipedia. I will be supervising. We hope to work on some of the bigger game - higher impact, longer articles - as a group in addition to smaller edits on our own pet areas.

I think this is also the appropriate venue to thank you all for your collective work to make Wikipedia a better, more reliable source. I have seen it come a long way in chemistry in the past few years. Thank you also for the WikiProject Chemistry documents, especially the style manual! I found them clear and very helpful. We have developed some nice work-flows for making reasonable SVG graphics for chemists, which I'd like to post.

Thanks again for all your hard work. I hope we have helped in a small way and I hope that we will contribute more in the future.Dweix (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by. I noticed your comments on the Sonogashira coupling; that's a great example of the sort of involvement we hope from instructors engaged in Wikipedia projects. Thanks too for reminding your students of the important copyright issues. I have a suggestion: have the students start working ON the article, rather than making large-scale changes in singular edits. Do encourage them to drop by and say hi here. This way, they can get support from the beginning, and they can benefit from people showing them how to do stuff (e.g. use the <ref> method of citation), followed by their emulation. That way, we reduce any stylistic re-work. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the person editing that article now is not my student. Jcap17 did the major edit and did not have copyright issues or referencing issues (we take care of that in-class). I was looking over her work when I noticed the problems.Dweix (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do remind them to check out the article and user talk pages from time to time. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to figure out how to get an email sent when a new comment is placed on a page, then I could just have them do that.Dweix (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is to keep the edits interactive: announce intentions, listen to responses, add changes in chunks. My personal preference is to try to teach students about using secondary sources (reviews and books), per WP:SECONDARY. As we say, "any idiot can find journal articles," (they're not really idiots, I know), but the higher level skill lies in finding the overviews. The other problem is that journal picking tends to favor English-language sources, which gives students a parochial impression of the scientific world.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two OrganicBox templates have been nominated for deletion, I don't know where in the coding that the infobox calls these, so if someone knows, they should check it, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_20

76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]