Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Equilibrium symbol found!

I thought there was a discussion about the equilibrium symbol here...Anyway, I thought it would be nice to point out that there are these symbols ⇌ (⇌) and ⇋ (⇋) in Unicode. HappyCamper 15:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there was that discussion last year. It is now archived. And thanks for finding the symbols for proper chemical reaction formulae. Wim van Dorst 16:09, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Unfortunately these symbols are not rendered in MS Internet Explorer (not that I regularly use this crappy program). Cacycle 21:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a die-hard user of Mozilla (and variant) I was pretty pleased with these nice symbol, but now at work I see that you're right: just a stupid block in MSIE. Wim van Dorst 07:18, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC).

They appear OK for me in IE6.0. Physchim62 11:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm this, in April my IE didn't render it. If it now appears to be OK in the latest IE (which Microsoft almost forces us to have), and it's fine in Mozilla, can we "officially" adopt this? I'm someone who likes to make code etc backwards-compatible if at all possible, but it is a real nuisance having to write image files for simple equilibria, such as Image:Potassium_prep.gif. It also removes the temptation for people to use the two-headed resonance arrow as a poor imitation of an equilibrium symbol, all too common on Wikipedia. Walkerma 18:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, it works fine in Opera. Vsmith 18:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Which one to use, the first one or the second one? --HappyCamper 20:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The 8652 one (⇌) is the more usual way round, though we should be able to allow both, shouldn't we?Walkerma 23:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

They appear in my browser (Apple's Safari) just fine. HereToHelp 20:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria

{{inorganic-cpd-stub}} and {{organic-cpd-stub}}

The cpd stands for compound. These two stubs would help take some of the pressure off {{chem-stub}} (currently over 1000 stubs). At a rough estimate, I would say 200 articles for the former and 300 for the latter. The image from {{chem-stub}} could be retained. Physchim62 01:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, anonymous 85.76.79.172 changed the picture of the {{chem-stub}}. Shall we keep it or revert it? Wim van Dorst 21:35, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC).

chemical images

Just to inform, there is a wikimedia latex for chemistry elements. Although it is not working in Wikipedia, it can be used to easily make chem graphics. See in WikiTeX

This is very interesting . See Wikipedia:Chemical image

Polymers and Polymer Chemistry

I'd like to add information about polymers to Wikipedia, but I think there are two types of polymer information we can add. There's information just about particular polymers like nylon, polystyrene, etc...and there's information about polymer chemistry - how to actually make polymers. Would it be a good idea to make two subprojects, or just one to organize these topics? HappyCamper 04:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a polymer chemist, but I think something equivalent to this problem arises with any of the chemical substance pages. There needs to be information on the product itself and how it is used for nylon backpacks, polyethene shopping bags, etc, but then there should also be information on how nylon, polyethene, etc are made. IMHO, much of this can be addressed on an individual polymer page using subtitles- you have the introductory overview, then sections like History (discovered by Carruthers in 1933 etc.), Properties (dealing with melting and transition temperatures of different forms, hardness, elasticity, solubility, or whatever is relevant), Applications (used to make waterproof clothing, tents, etc.), Manufacture (made by anionic polymerisation of N-acetylcaprolactam..... or via Schotten-Baumann reaction...etc.). This can be supplemented by pages on things like the Ziegler-Natta catalyst, addition polymerization etc. which can be wikilinks in the individual polymer pages.

There are quite a few polymers listed at Category:Organic polymers, and polymer related articles at Category:Polymers, but as yet I don't know of any List of polymers, we probably need one. We also need one single page that helps people navigate their way through the forest of acronyms like PVDF, HDPE, etc. We probably would need a template like we have at Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox, there is a table on the PVDF page that might be a starting point for that. We really need people who know this stuff to work on this important area. Walkerma 16:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I made a little list on my page of the topics I'd like to improve/add to Wikipedia. It will take a while for me to get into it, but the list is a start. I'm more familiar with the chemistry than with their usage, but I think for polymers it would be very useful to separate the two. I'd be happy to help out with templates for polymers and any other things that might be useful. HappyCamper 01:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You 've quite the (little?!) list there- great if you can get them all done! In the Chemicals Wikiproject we have set ourselves the goal (among others) of writing a FULL page on 30 specific polymers. You can see the start of our list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization#Polymers, though this list is very new and doesn't even list 30 yet! Henry Padleckas has contributed things on polymer-related topics recently such as polycarbonate, but the rest of us are not active in this area. Would you be willing to have a go at refining our "top 30" and bringing these pages up to Features Article standard? I think you would probably need to write your own template- we can give you our comments, but I for one wouldn't feel qualified to design it. Share your plans with Henry. Cheers, Walkerma 02:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite the project! I'd be glad to lend a hand! :) HappyCamper 03:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update for those who stumble across this later - this "little list" has now grown into a fully-fledged Wikiproject on polymers. Sign up today! Walkerma 20:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yippie!! Score +1 for the Magic of the Wiki :-) --HappyCamper 00:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Organic reaction vs Category:Organic reactions

I just learned of a new category: Category:Organic reactions. (Note the "s".) Unfortunately, this category already exists and is called: Category:Organic reaction. I feel we should consolidate these two nearly identical categories into one. The questions are: Which category should be merged into which? How do we do this? ~K 22:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, Category:Organic reactions should be the category name- the norm for chemistry categories seems to be the plural form (substances, processes, chlorides etc). Also I notice that reactions has 41 articles and has a long history, whereas "reaction" seems to be an orphan category with one article. Let's merge that one article into "reactions". I don't know how you delete unwanted cats. We have a similar problem with sulphur compounds vs sulfur compounds, the former is non-standard and should be deleted.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, there is frantic activity by person unknown creating a cat for every element. Now we're getting to the stage where we may conceivably have several compounds of things like chromium or rhodium (at least 2 for both those already) I think this is very useful. They are standardising on the category name (element name) compounds, such as Category:Silver compounds. Walkerma 16:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC) See Category:Chemical compounds by element for a semi-complete list. Walkerma 16:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Chemistry had a cleanup tag on it (about 500 articles), and so it got cleaned-up! The standard for category titles is the plural form, hence Category:Chemical reactions. Note that there is also a Category:Chemical processes which seemed useful in its own right for discussing industrial processes. The current category structure is by no means perfect, and any peer review would be welcome (especially of Category:Organic compounds and its sub-categories). And if anyone is really brave, the majority of articles in Category:Chemistry stubs are not correctly categorized: there are about a thousand to choose from... Person unknown 17:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added merge headers at the top of both categories. There are 99 articles to move over, so let's start merging! ~K 19:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P through to the end now completed. Walkerma 21:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I owe you an apology- the numbers I quote above refer to Category:Chemical reactions and reaction, the numbers now 46 reactions vs. 1 reaction. Still, I think the move is worthwhile in the long run, as the plural does seem to be the norm, at least in the chemistry categories.

H-O now completed. Walkerma 06:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All articles have now been transferred to Category:Organic reactions. Person unknown 22:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that was done in record time. Thank you everyone. ~K 00:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

gasoline

So sorry to bring you into this, but could a chemist answer the question of whether the suffix -ole in gasoline means

"A usually heterocyclic chemical compound containing a five-membered ring" or "A chemical compound, especially an ether, that does not contain hydroxyl"? - Omegatron 23:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the etymology of the word "gasoline" has much to do with the IUPAC naming conventions with respect to ethers or heterocyclic rings. --HappyCamper 00:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Correct. Gasoline has absolutely nothing to do with IUPAC nomenclature. Gasoline is a complex mixture of saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons with many additives that are needed for a "cleaner" burn, better engine performance, etc... ~K 00:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I get [GAS + –OL(E) + –INE2] as the etymology. http://www.answers.com/gasoline&r=67 -ole links to those two definitions. - Omegatron 01:04, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see...that's sort of surprising actually. If anything, "ole" could come from the Latin "oleum" for "oil", as what the website you provided describes. I wouldn't take the association with heterocyclic rings too seriously though. Take a look at this link. --HappyCamper 01:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aha. Answers.com gets their def from American Heritage, which does not link that suffix [1] Merriam-Webster lists it as -ol meaning 2 [2] which links to -ole which means "by alteration". [3] - Omegatron 20:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Diesel

On a related note, I was looking into diesel fuel as it relates to biodiesel and found the diesel article surprisingly lacking in info on the fuel's chemical makeup. After I found one source (still looking for more) for the makeup of diesel and added a bit of that to the article, I reallized Wikipedia's coverage of the components of diesel fuel is rather wanting. I went looking for info on the physical and chemical properties of cycloparaffins and found very little, not to even mention some of the other components, or how they interact in the fuel as a whole. I posted the a question at cycloalkane but I don't know if that will be widely seen, so I thought I'd ask here. Additionally, some of the other components ot diesel fuel as listed in the source I found don't have Wikipedia articles at all. I don't know enough about this to even properly look up the information I want or to know it the names used in that source are standard or not. Anyway, hope this is the right place. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 16:57, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, "biodiesel" refers to fuel which is made through a "biologial" process, and usually has connotations of renewable energy. However, this isn't definitive - there are many uses for such words. The chemical makeup of diesel fuel made from crude oil is extremely hard to describe and classify. It is better to think of it in terms of the cracking process. The idea is, you start off with this extremely thick goo, and you want to end up with something that looks like an oil. You do this, because for one thing, the oil burns easier and cleaner. The composition of this "goo" could be thought of as a bunch of long chain polymers. These polymers don't have to be of any particular lengh or shape - there is a statistical distribution of them. The cracking process is essentially an oligomerization reaction, where the chain lengths are (randomly, but controllably) chopped into smaller pieces. These pieces can come in any number of sizes and shapes. So, you'll end up with a mixture with lots of components (as your pdf link shows). The mixture is highly dependent on the cracking process. The whole oil industry is built on tweaking this process!

Yeah, I was looking for some more detail on the distribution of the components. Our oil refinery article covers the refining process, but from my knowledge at least, it contains a number of errors on the chemistry. I know you don't have to crack any of it to get the compounds that form diesel fuel, since those can be gotten by distillation of the crude, but the cracking does break down the larger chains into those that are more suitable to be burnt as fuel since there is more market demand for that. I'm sure it varies by the source of the crude oil too. I searched for a long time for a readable breakdown of the standard for the different components and couldn't find any details beyond what is in that pdf. As for biodiesel, I am actually one of the main contributors to that article. 100% FAME or fatty acid methyl esters is usually considered the official definition of pure biodiesel (and is in the US standard at least I believe). But it is true that the press especially use the term biodiesel for a wider range of bio based things that can be burned in a diesel engine. I'm trying to figure out how to cover that in the article without wasting a lot of words. - Taxman ^Talk 22:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

The cycloalkanes are usually found in rings of length 6 or less. The ones that are less than 6 have strained carbon-carbon bonds, so they are more reactive and burn easier. Cycloparaffins don't burn so well likely because of their high molecular weight and geometry.

Ok, this is some of the detail I was looking for. I guess that pdf was using the term paraffin in the more general sense of any alkane then. I sort of assumed they were referring to the high molecular weight (20+ carbons, solid at room temp when pure) cycloparaffins when they used the word paraffin. The source above notes the fuel at the 11-20 carbon range and other sources I've seen as high as 25. Wouldn't the smaller, strained ring forms be broken up in the cracking process? And actually one source did say the higher molecular weight compounds are the ones that provide the greater total energy, they just don't ignite as easily of course. - Taxman ^Talk 22:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

So to sum it up: diesel is a mixture of hydrocarbons. This mixture is not fixed - it can only be described as a distribution of hydrocarbons of varying lengths and properties. For certain applications, it's desirable to have a certain proportion of these compounds in the fuel. The interaction between fuel and burning is an extremely complicated process! --HappyCamper 17:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite used to statistics and variability, so that makes sense, so detailed info on what the common components are and general info on their distribution and properties would be what I am looking for. i.e. what range of carbons are common in the n and the iso forms, and the mono, bi, and tri cyclo forms. Then make sure wikipedia has some info on those. If you have a source that has the melting and boiling points for the various cycloalkanes, and can show me how to interpret the data, I'd be more than happy to look it up. I gave up on http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/ when all I saw was heat of fusion (is that mp?) etc, and nothing that looked like boiling points, or just low pressure measurements. - Taxman ^Talk 22:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...let me respond to this on your talk page... --HappyCamper 00:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And the etymology of diesel is of course easy: it is stuff that can be burned in an engine as invented by Rudolf Diesel. Much easier than that of gasoline. BTW petrol and petroleum are from petros, Greek for 'rock' and oleum as pointed out above. Wim van Dorst 19:03, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC).

Anionic addition polymerization

Originally, this was a stub with just a chemical equation. I put it up for Cleanup, but obviously nobody wanted to touch this subject. Then I did it myself, but my school days were in prehistoric times (more than 40 years ago) and my field of interest lies more in botany. Therefore, this article could use a review. I also wanted to write the chemical equation for the polyether formation (with red curved arrows showing the movement of the electrons) and the chemical formula for ethylene oxide, but this probably requires a special software. Anyway, take a fresh look at this article. There is probably much more to be said of these reactions. Furthermore the article : cationic addition polymerization still has to be written. JoJan 4 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the article - it's a great beginning! I will help out, but I don't think I can contribute significantly until the end of August. I think what we really need is a WikiProject group dedicated to polymerization methods and their characterization. This I think should be entirely separate from the current project of expanding polymer articles (described somewhere above). --HappyCamper 4 July 2005 20:32 (UTC)

To do the formulae and equations you will need a molecule editor: I prefer ACD/ChemSketch, others on WP:Chem use Isis ChemDraw (both available as freeware, links in article). Polymer articles are currently sitting on WikiProject Chemicals without much progress being made: any help, either through WP:Chem or through a new WikiProject would be more than welcome! Personally, I think that polymerization reactions and polymer properties should be treated by the same Project, more so than for other chemicals. Physchim62 5 July 2005 08:36 (UTC)

Check back in a little bit, I've got a nice surprise for everyone... --HappyCamper 5 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)

WikiProject Polymers

Well, I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers page, but I think I need a lot of help to get it up and running! --HappyCamper 22:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent idea to me! I have felt for a while that polymers are the oddball group in the chemicals Wikiproject, and as you point out, there are many other articles that need to be written on polymer-related topics. This is a hugely important part of the chemical- sadly, one I know little about, or I'd offer to help, but good luck. Let me know if there is anything I can do. Don't get disillusioned if it takes a while to get to critical mass- the chemicals project had only one participant for over a year I think. Walkerma 03:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Air ionisers

Related to chemistry, since they supposedly ionize air and shoot out magical ions and create ozone and blah blah marketing hype. Does anyone know how they really work? Check out the talk page for some other links.

"This article could use a careful review by an editor knowledgeable in chemistry."

So I asked here.- Omegatron 15:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this reply here for a while, but I don't know how they work really. I'd be willing to go through a few technical documents and make suggestions though, if that helps. --HappyCamper 21:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading up and learning a lot about this stuff. It creates a corona discharge between two electrodes, ionizing the air and breaking up diatomic oxygen. The ions become neutral again at the other electrode, but the monoatomic oxygen sometimes recombines into ozone. When the voltage is high enough, nitrogen breaks up, too, and can recombine with the oxygen to make NOx.

Does that sound sound? :-) Do the energies of the bonds or whatever coincide with the voltage?

I don't know everything, but I'm learning more. - Omegatron 21:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Sounds like that ionizer just sets up a large potential between the two plates, and causes a discharge in the air. This should be something that looks like a spark, or a mini lightning spike. This dischage then makes a whole slew of things, some of which are free monotomic oxygen atoms, which then combine with the normal O2 in the air and make ozone O3. The production of NOx is expected too - this happens naturally in thunderstorms, and in fact, when this is mixed with rain, you get a natural supply of nitrates and nitrites for the soil. The two plates and the air between them actually act like a capacitor. So, for the discharge to occur, the voltage must exceed a certain value, which is dependent on the dielectric constant for the air, and the distance between the two plates. I don't think this depends so critically on the bond strength (but then again, the dielectric constant is dependent on bond strength, although I have no idea in what manner though) --HappyCamper 23:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Vladimir Sklenar

This probably non-notable czech chemist has a stub that's been sitting un-expanded since 2003. His CV is linked - it doesn't seem notable, but I wanted to alert you all in case he is, since I'm putting it up for VfD. Feel free to weigh in either for or against deletion. I hope he's notable, but the stub is tiny and wouldn't be much work to replace, if it is necessary. JesseW 07:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Missing science topics

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Missing science topics, which contains a lists of missing chemistry topics. Bluemoose 10:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoever compiled the list should be aware that article names typically have only the first word capitalized, and many of the items on the list are improper names for extant articles. Shimmin 13:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

- Yes, so the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles process is to create a redirect from the mis-capitalized article to the correct Wikipedia one. If you see those, please make the redirect, since those are easy ones to take care of and eventually get the list finished. - Taxman ^Talk 16:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article History of chemistry has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 06:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Fenice 06:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sub and super markup feature request

I've requested that markup be added to simplify entering sub and superscript at Bug 3080. It's just TeX markup with mandatory brackets. I think it will clean up the markup and be a lot easier to type than HTML.

Examples:

x^{3} → x³ (powers)
CO_{2} → CO₂ (carbon dioxide symbol)
1^{st} → 1^st (ordinals)
^{2}H_{2}O → ²H₂O (isotopes)

I can't think of anything this would conflict with, can you? Vote for it if you like it. Suggest a different syntax if you don't. Other syntaxes were suggested, which I really don't like. - Omegatron 21:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Would the old option of using HTML tags still be available? --HappyCamper 21:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course! - Omegatron 21:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...well, in that case I don't see anything wrong with the new notation. Can it do the equilibrium symbol? --HappyCamper 23:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Not if you mean ↔. This is for ^superscripts and _subscripts and nothing else. If you want syntax for other things you'll have to ask separately. Convincing people to change one thing is difficult enough... - Omegatron 02:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Abundance (disambiguation)

I recently added a disambiguation page to cater for the various uses of the word abundance, and undertook some cleanup of the referents. I'm not sure what to do about this pair though:

Chemical abundance - redirect to Natural abundance, which describes the generic sense in the physical sciences
Abundance (chemistry) - as used of a reactant in a chemical reaction

Neither of the two leaf articles refers to the other. In fact, nothing correctly links to the latter (I fixed up the source error in Hydrogen, but left the two user-owned copies of the error.) Hv 11:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there a real need to maintain both? The difference is so subtle that it might warrant a VFD on the redirect. What do you think? --HappyCamper 14:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Which difference is subtle? I think there is a big difference between abundance of aluminium in the earth's crust and abundance of water in a testtube. However I think it is arguable that chemical abundance is not a synonym for natural abundance, in which case removing the redirect (and fixing up the one link from Helium) would be an appropriate thing to do. Hv 16:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no semantic difference between the two examples you give: however it might help if you could provide some more examples of the (supposed) second usage. 212.228.222.97 19:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Boric acid NFPA ratings

I noticed that the page on Boric acid has it listed as having an NFPA rating of 4/4/4/ox, which I thought was unusual, since the article described it as a weak acid which has cosmetic and medical uses. I found some other sites that listed it as having different ratings, but they seem to disagree; one site lists it as 0/1/0, while another site lists it as 2/0/0. Since I don't actually know anything about chemistry, or have any appropriate reference books, I was hoping someone could find out. I hope this is an appropriate place to have posted this. Thanks. -- Creidieki 14:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a good place to start. I don't have the time to trace through the article's history, but I don't think Boric acid has such a high rating on the NFPA, it simply does not make sense. I'd actually like to track down who added that there and see if any vandalism is associated with it. --HappyCamper 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a problem generated when people use the new chemboxes without looking at the NFPA aspect. (It's the same problem that leads to tables on things like methane having an optical activity entry.) The infobox is set so as to produce 4/4/4/ox as a default, so I've seen this problem before, please change it to the correct value. I have to run now, but I will try and set up the infobox so as to be foolproof in future. Thanks for catching that, I don't want to wash my child's cut with boracic acid and find her erupting in a ball of toxic fumes! Cheers, Walkerma 15:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Elegant. Can we make it default to something else then, say XXXX? --HappyCamper 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No need to track down the culprit, 'twas I! I edited Boric acid for the acid propeties and updated the infobox, but I didn't notice the default settings on the NFPA triangle... sorry! Physchim62 18:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry too...I have been doing some vandal hunting and became a bit cynical of late. --HappyCamper 19:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going with the International Chemical Safety Card 0991, which does not give NFPA ratings for boric acid. Page updated accordingly. Physchim62 19:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Merges

There are several active merge notices, I wondered if people might care to comment.

Talk:Solution The most lively one, where someone wants to merge solvent, solution and soluble, on the grounds that they all relate to the same thing.
Talk:Nucleophilic_substitution- proposed merge of nucleophilic substitution and nucleophilic substitution reaction.
As for the Electrophilic substitution and Electrophilic aromatic substitution debate, V8rik has sorted that one out already. (Thanks a lot!) Walkerma 17:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Irreversible reactions.

Hi, still working on Wikipedia:Missing science topics/Chemistry, and for that, someone redirected irreversible reaction to Reversible reaction. There was nothing there, so I pulled a bit from a couple sources. I'm no chemist, so I was hoping someone here could check that out fact wise and see they could improve it. As of yet I don't see the need for it to have it's own article as it is so small. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 17:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I think it's okay, but there will need to be some clarification. In some texts, all chemical reactions are considered "reversible". It's just that some proceed so favourably towards one side of the reaction that the equilibrium is shifted very close to either the products or the reactants. In these cases, these are effectively (and practically) "irreversible". --HappyCamper 04:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No article would be better than this one... Better post a request the next time. Cacycle 22:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls

Hello, Please notice this project. I hope that the List of publications in chemistry will be adopted by the chemistry porject. Thanks,APH 06:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I would vote yes. Walkerma 21:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Great. Please write yourself at the project page at the chemistry entry (and in any other entry that you wish contributing to). I'd like to have an organized list of the contributors and see which list still need finding a "loving hand". APH 05:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll help with the list. ~K 14:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikiportal for chemistry

Doctor Who has one, Bucharest has one, even James Bond has one, yes, I mean portals. Isn't it about time we created a chemistry Wikiportal? If so, who is going to set up Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Chemistry? Who is going to supervise it? I'm willing to lend a hand, but I don't have the technical know-how to run it. Walkerma 14:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll set it up. One thing I am concerned about is the on-going maintainence of the portal. Someone will need the energy to update the portal every now and then. And WikiEnergy is something I don't have consistently. ~K 17:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for setting that up, K, and I apologise if the link I gave above led to the wrong place (despite my copy & paste from another portal). I hope you don't mind that I declared it "open" and added the appropriate links to the lists, as it seemed pretty complete. I'd be happy to update it now & again, though I hope others will pitch in now & again too. See the portal at Portal:Chemistry. You did a nice job K, thanks a lot. Walkerma 16:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

So Portal:Chemistry is up and running. It's about 95% complete. I've designed the portal to be mainly a reader-aid, but also partially an editor-aid. I've removed the 'In The News' and the 'Did You Know...' sections to ease upkeep of the portal. The only 'dynamic' content is the 'Things you can do', 'Featured article', and 'Featured picture' sections. Updating the 'Featured article' section should be easy. I'll set up a sub-page to featured article nominations, suggestions, and comments. Updating the 'Featured picture' section will be much more difficult, since I've found very few chemistry images. I'm hoping everyone can help update the 'Things you can do' section, since it is the most dynamic of all sections. If you have comments and/or suggestions, please leave them on the Portal Talk page. ~K 19:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a large collection of pictures of compounds, and I also know where there are some nice images, so I can probably manage to change the picture every month or so, if that's OK. Walkerma 20:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great! ~K 23:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Great work K! I will try to keep an eye on the 'Things to do' section as I rabbit around the various chemistry categories. Physchim62 14:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have put up a picture of Wöhler on the Wikiportal to make a change (and to see if I could do it!), but I had a question for those more knowledgable. The original picture is 303k, but I shrunk it down somewhat (it's a jpg, rather big, but it's a nice portrait). If someone is looking at this via modem, do they have to download all 303k, or does the Wiki software automatically reduce that if the picture is smaller? If they have to download it all, we should probably limit the picture to around 60k IMHO. Walkerma 16:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the Wiki software internally creates a smaller version of the picture, and lets the browser download that instead. The large picture is only downloaded if the picture is clicked on and opened up. --HappyCamper 00:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

images to consider

Hi, I'm not a project member but I'd like to contribute a little. I've found some icons that you may wish to consider using in your project.

Hope this helps! (chemistry was my worst subject in HS) Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Chemistry - Featured Articles

There are 8 chemistry-related Featured Articles, which is fine for the next 7 months. My question to WPChem is should we consider other articles for the 'Featured Article' section of our Portal? ~K 16:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point. We are currently incapable of creating a WP featured article every month, so yes, I think we are going to have to have "Portal featured articles" well. This would let us cover a wider range of chemistry than the current list of features (mostly chemicals and elements, if I remember correctly). Physchim62 17:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, make them show up. Nice idea. And I agree with PC, given the effort it takes with acetic acid in its peer review now, I'm sure there'll be another Featured Article in a couple of weeks, but not one every month. Wim van Dorst 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC).