Talk:Catalytic reforming/Draft

	NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page.
	I released this article to Wikipedia. In particular, the identical text that appears there is of my sole authorship. Therefore, no credit for Wikipedia content on the Citizendium applies.
	Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice.

I was the original sole author of this Wikipedia article

I copied it to here at Citizendium as is with the Wikipedia title ... and will now delete all of the Wikipedia links and certain sections. I will also be making some wording changes. - Milton Beychok 18:11, 29 January 2008 (CST)

description of Feed stream in diagram

In the text, the feed stream for catalytic reforming is described as "heavy naphtha". I would recommend to use the same description in the schematic drawing, instead of "Dehexanized Naphtha", in order to prevent confusions. Guido van der Lans 08:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Guido. Changing a drawing requires quite a bit of time and effort. So, instead, I changed the wording in the text to reflect your comment. Milton Beychok 07:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I probably should have nominated along with naptha...nominating now

Since they are rather interdependent. Your call, but I'd move the TOC to the top to remove whitespace. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

bottoms

The last sentence in "Process description" begins: "The bottoms product ..." -- is this correct, or should it be "The bottom's product ..." or the "The bottom product ..." ? --Peter Schmitt 23:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter, first let me thank you for picking up some hyphens and other typos. It is very common in the refining industry to refer to the product leaving the bottom of any distillation tower as "the bottoms" product. So yes, that sentence is okay as it stands. Milton Beychok 00:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked because it suspected this, but it could have been a typo as well. --Peter Schmitt 00:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Approval?

Howard's approval notice is still for the version of August 2nd. If you want me to approve that one, I will. If not, please fix things up. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I will update the link to cover typo fixes, although the August 2nd version is still the base. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. There are at least a dozen edits since August 2. If you call the version of August 8th "August 2nd", that doesn't make sense, at least not to me. Either please update the DATE on the green thingee, or I will Approve the *real* August 2nd version. Or I won't do anything at all, and will leave it for Matt to figure out. Hayford Peirce 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. My understanding was that corrections such as link and copy edits would not change the approval date, while substantive content edits would. There have been no substantive content edits since August 2, but there have been copy edits. How do you want this shown? Putting August 8 as the "now" date would be confusing, in that it would logically change the approval date. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's subjective -- I did a compare between the latest version and the August 2nd and there is a fair amount of red showing. To me, too much. As to changing the "now" date to August 8th, why would that change the Approval date? It was decided *months* ago that although we had *traditionally* been giving a week or so for the changes to be looked at, there was NO reason NOT to make the Approval date the *same* even as the Editor's date. So just change your date to the 8th and on the 9th I'll do the Approval. Hayford Peirce 19:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Congratulations, Milton, and all the others! Hayford Peirce 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)