CZ Talk:Chemistry Workgroup
This is the Discussion Page for the CZ:Chemistry Workgroup
Analytical Chemistry is often referred to by students as "General Chemistry on Steroids". But then again, Inorganic Chemistry is the study of the rest of the periodic table other than primarily carbon-based molecules.
My question is this: Should General Chemistry considered a subgroup of chemistry or just foundational vocabulary and concepts of the other sub-groups? --William Weaver 08:37, 22 November 2006 (CST)
In many instances you see Analytical Chemistry and Anorganic Chemistry put together and abbreviated to AA-Chemistry. To call it general chemistry would be one bridge too far even though the argument seems logical. How do the others feel about it? Robert Tito 19:09, 1 February 2007 (CST)
Chemistry Related Wikipedia Templates
Should we duplicate the templates for physical properties and what not from the Wikipedia (such as the NIOSH diamonds and other assorted goodies) and use them here? or are we going to use a new template set? --Paul Derry 00:14, 15 February 2007 (CST)
I have added proposed follow up documents on the Talk:Physical chemistry page, see there and add or modify please. Robert Tito | Talk 17:15, 20 February 2007 (CST)
To be approved articles
Please contribute there and add, else we have pages definitive without your approval Robert Tito | Talk 17:16, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Live articles/to be approved articles
Please give your attention to all the live articles and lets try to finish them to a tobeapproved status ASAP and get more articles approved. Thanks, Robert Tito | Talk 11:32, 27 February 2007 (CST)
Chemical Elements
There aren't too many articles yet on the various chemical elements that we all know and love. I believe that we need to start fleshing out that area, once those articles are written their various compounds could then receive some degree of focus.
If we all took an element then the process won't take too terribly long. Even if the article is fairly short it's better than nothing and can be ammended to later on. A category such as Incomplete Articles/Chemistry would organize those articles.
Just a thought, this group seems to be kind of quiet. --Paul Derry 12:12, 7 March 2007 (CST) The main page isn't even approved yet, lets focus on priorities such as these pages first. Elements is something as a detail of chemistry when we have the framework done. When we do the term Elements will be part of an article, and from elements we can elaborate on each and every element - but knowledge of elements does not show what chemistry is about. I would prefer priority set on the main stary, details later. Robert Tito | Talk 12:29, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Aye --Paul Derry 22:44, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Water
The relatively new article titled water could use some work by chemists. The initial sentence said water is a commonplace element. I changed "element" to "substance", with an edit summary saying "element" could be taken to mean it's a chemical element. So the person who originally wrote "element" changed it so that it said water is a "non-chemical element". To me, that seems worse than just "element"; it seems to suggest water is somehow of a non-chemical nature. I changed it back to "substance". Michael Hardy 17:24, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
propose new element_infobox and chem_infobox
Our current Chem_Infobox is in fact really an Element_Infobox and is not really appropriate for any chemicals, so pages like Acetone have no place to put information. I propose that we move the Chem_InfoBox to Element_Infobox now while we have so few actual articles about the elements, and then create a new Chem_Infobox that would be appropriate for all chemical compounds. David E. Volk 13:07, 6 December 2007 (CST)
- I agree. I'll work on the move sometime today, or tomorrow, or this weekend. --Robert W King 13:24, 6 December 2007 (CST)
what info for the new chembox
Robert: first thanks for the quick action of the element box conversions. I was looking at the Wikipedia chembox version for acetone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone), and it is perhaps overwhelming. Something we might consider is to make a simple chem_infobox with things like formula, MW, appearance, melt and freeze points, density, a picture for simple compounds, main hazards (flamability) and so on. Then, we might be better served to have a seperate subpage(s) for all of the details, like contact hazard, inhalation hazards, spectroscopist details like IR or NMR frequencies and so on that could be filled in as people get really, really bored. I did like having a link to an MSDS form, but the R-phase and so on seems pointless. We should probably get addition input from others to decide on the short list of things for the chem box and what else should go on additional subpages.David E. Volk 17:42, 6 December 2007 (CST)
- I have to say, I hate all of WPs infoboxes. They are created by absolute inclusionists and frankly are full of obscure details that a lot of people, even scientists in a field, may not find significant. In my opinion I think a chemical infobox might be a visual summation of the chemical itself. --Robert W King 18:07, 6 December 2007 (CST)
Chemistry Core Article scores- input please Chem authors/editors
I have made the first attempt to score the chemistry workgroup's core article list and move us to catagory 4. I deleted many worthy articles to reduce us down to 99. I gave high scores for the articles regarding theory, such as MO theory, acid-base theory, electron orbitals, etc that will entail much work, with lesser scores for single chemicals and elements. Feel free to speak up for a 1-pointer if you feel it merits more points over another entry.