This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Chemistry and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
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: 90 days |
Chemistry Project‑class | |||||||
|
Article alerts |
---|
Today's featured articles
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Templates for discussion
Redirects for discussion
Miscellany for deletion
Featured article candidates Good article nominees
Good article reassessments
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
Articles for creation
|
I might be wrong, but my feeling is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry (project page) was getting old and dusty. So I removed almost all of the to-do list (most had been done), and rewrote some global statements. Others are encouraged to revise or revert or overwrite what is there. Goals of this page might be to welcome, guide, and, maybe, boast a little. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Somehow, I've only just become aware of this Bot, which keeps track of editors on any given wikiproject:
Between about 120-130 editors edited 5 or more pages associated with WP:Chem or WP:chemicals in the last 30 days. Looking at the lists I can see everyone I would expect to see, plus highly active WikiGnomes and some spill over from adjacent WikiProjects - but about two-thirds to three-quarters I don't recognise. Obviously there will be false positives, but I thought the list might be useful to identify orphan editors or trouble makers. Project Osprey ( talk) 21:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Continuous distillation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Polymorphism (materials science)#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 12:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm working on the Wikipedia article for Draft:Troy Bronson 2024, particularly his role in "Oppenheimer" where he portrays Joseph W. Kennedy, a chemistry key figure in the discovery of plutonium. This part of the article touches on significant scientific achievements and the portrayal of chemists in popular media.
I thought it might be interesting and beneficial to bring this to the attention of experts here. I'm curious about your thoughts on how chemists and their work are represented in films and media, especially in historical contexts like the Manhattan Project. Are there aspects or nuances about the portrayal of chemists and their discoveries that you think are often overlooked or misrepresented?
Your insights could help ensure the article not only highlights Bronson's role but also respects the scientific integrity and contributions of the real-life figures it depicts. Plus, it could be a fun way to bridge the gap between chemistry and popular culture in our content.
Looking forward to any thoughts or comments you might have!
EagleSleuth~~~~ EagleSleuth ( talk) 05:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be a shift in the opinions regarding the quality of Wikipedia articles. Some of us veterans may still remember the times when referring to our articles was faced with scoffs and ridicule. Few years ago I spotted a book published by Elsevier that had utilized Wikipedia content to the extent it was then withdrawn. Now I found another, Heterocyclic Chemistry by Alvin Pugh published by Edtech Press. If one compares the entries of this book to the corresponding Wikipedia articles they might find surprising amount of similarities. The optimist in me sees this as a sign of high quality in our end and not as just the laziness and greed of authors and predatory publishers. Any other views? Nitraus ( talk) 12:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Atrane: "Silatranes exhibit unusual properties as well as biological activity in which the coordination of nitrogen to silane plays an important role. Some derivatives such as phenylsilatrane are highly toxic." Identical." Benzbromarone: "Benzbromarone is a uricosuric agent and non-competitive inhibitor of xanthine oxidase[1] used in the treatment of gout, especially when allopurinol, a first-line treatment, fails or produces intolerable adverse effects." -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I am not an expert in chemistry, but I have an article related to this topic. In this source, the bicapped square antiprism may have an example of such cluster, that is . But I do not know whether this is correct (from the article I linked). I really appreciate someone explaining the technical of this chemistry topic. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
It appears that we lack an article on functional group compatibility. If anyone wants to create it, the new article or new section would be immediately linkable to multiple pre-existing articles, which is always very satisfying. One thought is that it could be a section within Protecting group or within functional group. March's organic text refers to the term 5x within the context of specific reactions. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
For Tahoka Formation, how do I write the dot between the water and the rest of the formula? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I propose splitting X-ray diffraction out of X-ray crystallography, discussion started at Talk:X-ray crystallography#Split x-ray diffraction and crystallography. The two are not the same, and there are many areas of XRD where the focus is not on detailed determination of atomic positions. Examples are powder diffraction where comparison is made to known samples, SAXS and many more. There are many areas/pages where it is relevant to say "use XRD" but wrong to say use "X-ray crystallography This would also help to improve the current rambling X-ray crystallography page. Comments to the X-ray crystallography talk page please. Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason the definition of chemical element seems to vary according to the date you look at the article ? Currently it is defined as a monotypical atomic substance, but a few years ago it was the "species of atom with same atomic number" that was used. I wonder why it's not even mentioned in the article now, the Goldbook cited in the introduction gives the two. frwiki, dewiki, itwiki uses the atomic one, if I'm not mistaken.
The first one seems more complicated and actually a bit dated/historical, the second one is more convenient. The first one is « simple substance » on Wikidata and there are several wikis that have articles about that. Maybe we should sort the interwikis and move articles to the right item ? TomT0m ( talk) 19:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)