Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 14

There seems to have been some kind of edit war brewing over the last weeks at the heat and thermal energy articles between several editors, primarily User:The Way, that caused User: ScienceApologist to quit Wikipedia. In any event, the situation still continues; please review Talk:Heat (disambiguation) and Talk:Heat and give your opinion or vote here . --Sadi Carnot 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I started a page called homologation reactions. I don't have a lot of experience with the term and would appriciate if others would contribute. Thanks. M stone 22:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Looks great, you can consider moving Homologization to the new page. V8rik 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The homologation article has no chemistry content. You probably meant homologous series. --Itub 09:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • No somebody switched the redirect without bothering to port the linked articles. I have fixed it. V8rik 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • My bad! Sorry about it! --Rifleman 82 16:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Can some one read and correct my additions to the chemist and noble prize laureat Fritz Pregl? --Stone 12:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what should be done with the article Monoatomic gold? Perhaps a scientifically valid article could be written about the topic, but this article references a website that is pure nonsense. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The same kind of nonsense as Talk:Gold#G-ORMES_Gold. I say delete the article, unless someone is willing to write a real one. There is the topic of monoatomic gold wires in nanotechnology, as a few Google books hits suggest: [1] --Itub 14:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, after searching for "monatomic gold" (not monoatomic)in Google books,[2] one could argue that this is a legitimate topic in alchemy, which could be the subject of an article. But it should certainly not be presented as chemistry! --Itub 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Physchim62 went ahead and speedily deleted it as "pure nonsense". Thanks, Physchim. Based on Itub's links, there is quite a bit out there about monatomic gold as an alchemical and/or mythical New Age substance, and Chem Abstracts turns up several nanotechnology references pertaining to "monatomic gold nanowires", so maybe I'll have a little fun and recreate a new article on the topic covering both the real and the fictional/mythical materials. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do, if you feel like it! The stub that was there had an information content that was less than zero, IMHO, but that doesn't mean that a better article can't be written about the subject. Physchim62 (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh...I hope my "Thanks, Physchim" comment didn't come across as sarcasm. It really was meant as a thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Law of multiple proportions is in serious need of a cleanup. I mention it here in case someone likes that type of dirty job, but I'll pass... ;-) --Itub 09:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've got a new bot. I've used it so far to remove {{ChemicalSources}} to orphan it before {{Tfd}}. I've also helped Dirk out with a list of chemicals - putting {{Chemicals}} and removing {{Chemistry}}. If there are any other jobs which need to be done for the articles we take care of, drop me a note! --Rifleman 82 16:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How are we going in the removal of {{ChemicalSources}}: I can kill it under WP:SNOW without having to bother with TfD, but only if I'm sure that my deletion won't cause any problems. Physchim62 (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• No problems from my side (creator). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the creator does not object, I won't either :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was meaning more along the lines of technical problems (I know that deletion has consensus here). I have just removed the template from Sildenafil (aka Viagra), but that appears to be its last article-space usage. See here for usage links. Physchim62 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the list, they are now mainly pointers to the template (not transclusions), or transclusions in sandboxes (guess users will delete those themselves). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey I am trying to clean up the hydrophobic effect page as it needs some attention. Particularly in terms of the thermodynamics of the effect. Does anyone know if there are relevant molecular cartoons that describe the ordering of water around hydrophobic objects? M stone 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we have a figure already in Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, but you can look for examples in a book and try to draw something similar. For example, [3]. --Itub 07:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this article a joke? Not only I have never heard that term, but I can't find any hits on google books or google scholar. Perhaps we could redirect it to Hydrion paper, also known as pHydrion, as a plausible typo. --Itub 16:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bite Angles in Diphosphine Catalysis needs some attention.--Stone 13:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• 4-Nitroaniline is another organic one.--17:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

These recently started pages would also benefit from critique: Dinitrogen complex, Non-innocent ligand, Chemical transport reaction, Tube furnace, 1,2-bis(dimethylarsino)benzene, Phenylarsonic acid.--Smokefoot 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Isotopes, and help decide what is to be done. My view is that it should be kept, and at the very least, the discussion at the talk page should be archived somewhere. Carcharoth 00:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody want to cite a source for this article? It's been waiting for over a year... 24.4.253.249 03:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Acetoacetic acid article states that the compound decarboxylates at room temperature, which is possible, but a reference to proof it is needed.--Stone 08:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a reference for "very readily": Fieser, Louis F.; Fieser, Mary (1950). Organic Chemistry (2nd Edn.). London: Harraps. p. 492. Physchim62 (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As I do not have the book I trust you! --Stone 11:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Merck Index refers to it as "unstable", and I know that you can't buy it from the regular commercial suppliers (Alrich, etc). So I think it's reasonable to say that it decarboxylates at RT (although what the rate of that reaction might be, I don't know). MI also says that it violently decomposes into CO2 and acetone at 100 C. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The point about rate of reaction is quite an important one: the impression I got from Fieser and Fieser was that it wasn't instantaneous at rt, merely inconveniently rapid. Physchim62 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've combined all the condenser articles into this. The original articles had a lot of duplication (mostly the purposes of a condenser, heat exchange), and they were not very expandable. Thus it made great sense to merge them. I think this is a positive change. --Rifleman 82 07:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea and well done! DMacks 21:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Proposed Infobox chemical analysis and comment in the Proposed Infobox chemical analysis talk page. This infobox would be used on analytical chemistry technique pages (e.g. those listed in Analytical chemistry:Specific Technologies and Instrumentation. Thanks. --Kkmurray 19:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a prank, but it is well done, as I have not yet been able to find anything that specifically calls Booz2Go a hoax. Clues:

• three percent alcohol content Since you mix it with water, how do "they" control the percent of alcohol by volume?
• The drink was reportedly invented by...
• Because the alcohol is not in liquid form, we can sell it to people below 16. Just sounds like a hoax.

Yes, it looks like the register and Reuters were taken in. I thought I would post this here because the concept of powdered alcohol than turns into liquid alcohol with water sounds like a prank, and I figured people who frequent this project would be able to show that it is a bunk article (even if cited). (I am no chemist, so if I am wrong, my apologies). TableManners 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help us to restore this article at Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history. Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

this article was kept at deletion review,but with the comment:

" it is restored, with the caveat that the over-riding consensus at this DRV is that the content must be "fixed" in order to remain in the long run. Should the content remain unchanged in a month, another AfD would probably gain wide support. " DGG (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone’s help in getting this restored. The article is now called people known as the founder, father, or mother of something, it has a “reason” column, is being ordered by “subject”, and only important world-view people are being included. Note also that the terms founder of, father of, and mother of link here; if you edit related historical articles, please link these to this article. Thanks and come and help build this fun article. --Sadi Carnot 17:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• My thanks to Sadi, for doing a lot of work on this article. My faith in the admin system is also somewhat restored V8rik 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

List of chemical compounds with unusual names has been nominated for deletion again with the nominator claiming it is an "extreme case of original research with entirely subjective inclusion criterion". Keeping in mind that a deletion debate is not a majority vote, the discussion does need the input of chemists. JustAnotherChemist 08:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

discussion closes on sunday the 20th, DGG (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The American Chemical Society is actually portrayed as supportive of the IPCC position about anthropogenic global warming (see Scientific opinion on climate change). There has been a discussion about how to correctly interpret their statement [4] about this, which was unfortunately not satisfying in my point of view (I felt the ACS statement was non-committal due to the nature of their qualifiers). I thought it could be worthy to drop a note here so perhaps one or some specialists might take a look at the issue and make sure that the ACS statement is not mischaracterized or misrepresented. It may well be that I was not in the right, but I only suggest this issue is checked by some specialists with no strong feelings about global warming. Best. --Childhood's End 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I intended to post this last night but the internet conncetion gave out. Anyway, I've merged the articles/sections from centrifuge and centrifuge tips into one single article encompassing what is done in the laboratory. I tried merge centrifugation in as well, on the basis that the current article talks exclusively of laboratory centrifugation but I met with objections. Anyway, do pop over and comment/improve the article. --Rifleman 82 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone else is in Boston for the national ACS meeting, please let me know! It would be nice to have a little WP:CHEMISTRY meetup. Walkerma 02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I went to the chemical information lunch today, and the talk was on....Wikipedia! Two IBM folk (one was Fernanda Viégas, the other was Martin ?) gave a very detailed study where they presented visualizations of editing patterns, by both user and by article. It was a general study, not specifically chemistry. They were generally very positive about WP. I've made contact with them, so we may be able to enlist their help in the future. Also, a podcast or webcast was made, I'll let you know if it gets put up. Walkerma 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been listed at AfD for deletion, and the discussion is at CSA_Trust. Expert assistance is needed in deciding whether or not the organization is important. Discussion closes Monday the 21st. DGG (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a category for ways of representing chemical structures visually. Chemical formula, skeletal formula, Lewis structure and Fischer projection are some examples. Is there any article that encompasses all these representations, e.g. chemical notation? Richard001 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, structural formula seems to be what I'm looking for, and Category:Chemical formulas (sic) should fit the bill. Richard001 01:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at these articles. There were objections to my proposed deletion. I proposed deleting them, because I think that, although the idea makes sense, the terms themselves are not notable and not worthy of an article (or even a redirect; also note that nothing links to them!). They are one-sentence stubs with little or no possibility for expansion (at least without duplicating lots of information from the protein article or elsewhere). Any thoughts or suggestions, or should I send them to AfD? --Itub 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we explain them both at stereochemistry and protein, and then redirect to protein? --Rifleman 82 05:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They look like 'proteincruft' to me. They should at absolute minimum be merged into one e.g. 'handedness of proteins', but I think we already have enough on that sort of thing. Richard001 05:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

They are viable search terms, so they should definitely at least be redirected rather than deleted, probably to Chirality (chemistry) (although it doesn't actually mention proteins much, so a one-sentence merge might be in order).--ragesoss 06:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Could an inorganic chemist with access to the literature check whether ditellurium decafluoride exists? I've left a note on the talk page there, citing a textbook, a website and two articles that suggest that what was isolated was not Te₂F₁₀ but in fact O(TeF₅)₂.

Ben 18:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Scifinder has 7 refs for CAS 53214-07-6, Te2F10. The only one after the Watkins paper is Fluoride and oxyfluoride compounds of niobium, antimony and tellurium. Corbin, Odile. Cent. Etud. Nucl. Fontenay-aux-Roses, CEA, Fontenay-aux-Roses, Fr. Avail. INIS. Report (1982), (CEA-BIB-236), 81 pp. From: INIS Atomindex 1982, 13(20), Abstr. No. 702018. --Kkmurray 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone check into this article and see if it's legit? Best, --Shirahadasha 16:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's yet another incarnation of "HHO gas" (or self-supported theory behind it, etc). Merge back into Ruggero Santilli or Oxyhydrogen? Given lack of third-party support (i.e., apparently anyone other than RS, something the article explicitly states), doesn't sound notable in the wikipedia sense (even with that standard's liberal acceptance of fringe theories, pseudoscience, etc). DMacks 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I heard about this "breakthrough" from amused colleagues. The publication in Int. J. Hydrogen Energy is real enough, but the editorial board is unconventional. The paper originates from Institute for Basic Research, whose website is under construction (although they welcome contact from potential investors). I would support merging it with a redirect as recommended by DMacks.--Smokefoot 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this starnge dicrepancy between the german Gattermann reaction and the english one and I corected it in a way I think it works out. My Jerry March als are states that the Gattermann reaction should not confused. I for my part never heard of this second Gattermann reaction, although it was also dicovered by Gatterman.--Stone 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In this article, an example is given:

For example the nucleophilic aliphatic substitution reaction of an aqueous sodium cyanide solution with the alkyl halide 1-bromobutane does not ordinarily take place because 1-bromobutane will not dissolve in the aqueous solution. By the addition of 1% of the quaternary ammonium salt tetrahexylammonium chloride however cyanide ions are ferried into the organic phase from the water phase. With the phase transfer catalyst, 1-cyanobutane forms quantitatively in a matter of minutes.

Does anyone have a cite for that? Or any similar reaction where the use of PTC drastically improves the rate of reaction? I've tried searching the web and Organic Syntheses but to no avail. My favorite online Organic Chemistry textbook doesn't mention it either. --Rifleman 82 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved by User:Walkerma. Thanks. --Rifleman 82 05:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've amended the example a little so I could use examples from actual papers. I've cited the classic Starks paper (the "birth" of PTC should be in there!) plus another showing milder conditions. Please take a look to make sure it looks OK, as I'm a bit tired - it may even need a rewrite. Thank heavens for this citation tool - find your paper in Google Scholar, click "Wikify" and Hey Presto, it's ready to paste the citation into Wikipedia! Made this edit much faster. Walkerma 05:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Could the many chemists here take a look at either these pages, and at the discussion at Talk:Aurum Sulfides? I've redirected the former to Gold chalcogenides, but the second article popped up and I've now placed a speedy tag as a hoax. --Rifleman 82 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is not a hoax, but it is as serious as homeopathy can be. A more common name, however, is aurum sulphuricum.[5] --Itub 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gold(III) sulfate? --Rifleman 82 16:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you ask me, I'd say it's pure water/alcohol/sugar/whatever. ;-) Now seriously, this could potentially be an article about the homeopathic remedy, which would be best kept separate from the chemistry articles. I'm not exactly sure about the chemical composition of the (undiluted) substance, that would require finding a reference that speaks both in chemical language and homeopathic language (something unlikely). Just for reference, the homeopathic remedies based on salt call it "natrium muriaticum". --Itub 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I for now redirected it to the chalcogenides page (gold chalcogenides), and put it in a section there. May need some work. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it distasteful dealing with such quack medicine, but perhaps it should redirect/move to aurum sulphuricum per Itub instead because it seems to be a sulfate and not a sulfide, unless it is supposed to be gold(III) sulfide (Aurum sulphuratum).[6] Unless homeopathic practitioners don't use the same sort of chemistry as we do. Oh, but their response is inversely proportional to the dose... --Rifleman 82 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right and aurum sulphuratum was meant instead of aurum sulphuricum. In any case, I don't know much about it, and I think it doesn't fall under the scope of this wikiproject. I'd rename the article and forget about it (just don't list it under the chemical compound categories!) --Itub 16:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Have fixed accordingly.- JJJ999 16:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I have just found out that there is a compound known as golden sulphide, but it has no gold in it, but antimony! [7] I wonder if that could be real compound? That could be reconciliated with Rifleman's statement that gold does not really form stable sulfides. --Itub 16:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, after more searching it turns out that they call antimony sulfide "antimonium crudum". [8] --Itub 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call these contibutions hoaxes: they seem to be a mixture of spam and honest misunderstanding. Gold sulfides are at best metastable, especially in the presence of water; gold selenides and tellurides are non-stoichiometric and metallic (Ref: Greenwood & Earnshaw). Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles hydroxagen and hydroxycitric acid could use the attention of someone with chemistry knowledge. I'm certain that both articles are taking real research and spinning the results deceptively to promote weight loss products and/or scams. It would help if an expert could weigh in. Thanks. Deli nk 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote hydroxycitric acid from scratch with sourced content - others can feel free to add additional content to expand it more if necessary. Hydroxagen was sent to AFD, then speedily deleted by Physchim as advertising. Hopefully, the situation is resolved for now. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not directly related to the Chemistry Project, but Zwiesel Kristallglas AG has recently been up for AfD. The article currently looks like a translation from the German, and doesn't talk much about the Schott lab glassware side - I figured that some people here might like the products enough to give the company some Wikilove? FlagSteward 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on the deletion page, this company doesn't seem to be the one which produces Schott glassware. Physchim62 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The article titled Elective Affinities used to begin by saying Elective Affinities is a novel by Goethe, inspired perhaps by a concept in chemistry. The along came user:Sadi Carnot and rewrote it so that the first section of the article explains to the reader that "elective affinities" is a concept in chemistry, and doesn't even hint that there is a novel by that title. Except that the two words both begin with capitals---appropriate for a novel's title and inappropriate under Wikipedia's conventions for an article about a concept in chemistry---and it is italicized---also appropriate for a novel's title and inappropriate for an article about a concept in chemistry---and it is plural---also appropriate if the novel's title is plural and inappropriate under our conventions for an article about a concept in chemistry.

So the first section looks as if it's about chemistry and has a mis-formatted bolded title phrase. Then the second section talks about Goethe's novel and sociological theories. In an article about chemistry, any novel or any sociological theory inspired by it might rate a terse link to another article treating those topics---not a whole section taking up a major part of the article.

user:Sadi Carnot's edits are abusive to the reader.

So should we move the article to elective affinity and get rid of all mentions of Goethe except maybe a link, or should we replace the first section with an honest one saying what the article is about? Being ignorant of chemistry beyond the high-school level I hesitate to decide before hearing comments. Michael Hardy 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

M.H., possibly you are misinterpreting things. Goethe’s Elective Affinities is three different articles in one and all contained in his 1809 book. The modern chemical theory is called chemical affinity. In the 18th and into the 19th century, however, it was called Elective Affinities (or elective attraction) the quintessential book being Torbern Bergman’s 1775 textbook A Dissertation on Elective Affinities. Elective affinities, according to Lavoisier in his 1787 Elements of Chemistry, "holds the fame place with regard to the other branches of chemistry." Goethe, in turn, based his novel on Bergman’s book, and the entire novella is sewn together with the chemical theory affinities, “the force of reaction”. There have been several books written on this, e.g. “Goethe’s use of chemical theory in his Elective Affinities” (ch. 18 by Jeremy Adler) from the 1990 book Romanticism and the Sciences, which goes through all the chemists and chemical affinity reactions Goethe used in the novel.

On the opening page of Astrida Tantillo’s 2001 book Goethe’s Elective Affinities and the Critics, for instance, it states:

“From the time of its publication to today, Goethe’s novel, Die Wahlverwandtschaften (Elective Affinities, 1809), has been aroused a storm of interpretive confusion. Readers fiercely debate the role of the chemical theory of elective affinities presented in the novel. Some argue that it suggest a philosophy of nature that is rooted in fate. Others maintain that it is about free choice. Others believe that the chemical the chemical theory is merely a structural device that allows the author to foreshadow events in the novel and bears no relevance to the greater issues of the novel.”

Also, try reading science historian Mi Gyung Kim’s 600-page, 2003 chemistry history book Affinity, That Elusive Dream – A Genealogy of the Chemical Revolution, which quotes Goethe on the opening page, to get a better picture of this intricate term. In short, the science of elective affinity was then what chemical thermodynamics and quantum chemistry are now, the latter two have supplanted the former.

In sum, this is a big topic, certainly more of the needs storyline in it, e.g. here’s the German Wiki version (English Google translation), but my efforts are only to clarify both the book and the theory used to write the book. I hope this helps. I’ll try to make the article better soon. --Sadi Carnot 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That German version says right at the beginning that it's a novel. This version did not do that at all (now it does). Michael Hardy 01:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope its better now. Elective Affinities is a difficult topic. I first heard about it several years ago in the footnotes of Belgian Nobelist and chemical engineer Ilya Prigogine's 1984 book Order Out of Chaos, where he states:

Let me know if see any other areas for improvement. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 01:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The sulfur dioxide page has a bonding picture that shows two double bonds, which is not the generally "as taught" view. Similarly the illustrations of SO₃ and the sulfate ion also show a single canonical. In contrast other articles have pictures with dotted bonds to show delocalisation, e.g. nitrogen dioxide. Firstly is there an agreed convention that we only illustrate a single canonical as implied in the SO₂ discussion?
Personally, I have considerable sympathy with the criticisms made. To illustrate bonding with one canonical is questionable as it can mislead the reader and I believe we should generally show a dotted bond as this makes clear the extent of delocaisation and is VB/MO neutral so to speak. I suggest that

• where we have canonical illustrations already they are annotated and the article text makes it clear what is being shown
• if new canonical illustrations are introduced we pick a "conventional" uncontroversial canonical, (IMHO for SO₂ and SO₃, one where the octet is not expanded.)

The sulfate article (and phosphate) poses more of a problem, you either like to see a double bond and then term sulfur as hypervalent, or you don't. Axiosaurus 09:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is arguably more correct to show the resonant structures for SO2, sulfate, etc. However, in practice a lot of educated people draw them with double bonds, whether as a convention of out of laziness. This makes me a bit ambivalent about the best solution. Structures with dotted bonds also tend to be more confusing, and showing the resonance takes more space and also confuses some people. --Itub 09:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If we aim for more perfect descriptions, communication could be compromised. It is routine to see diborane with eight single bonds, SO₂ with two double bonds, benzene with alternating double and single bonds, F-H-F^- with two bonds, etc. The issue is a little like the struggle between IUPAC vs. simplified naming conventions. Readers need to understand that simple bonding conventions work well in organic chemistry, but after that - one must be careful. For some compound articles, it would be helpful to have a section on bonding that presents MO's or, less effectively in my humble view, resonance structures.--Smokefoot 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert opinion required to determine if Dale L. Boger is sufficiently notable for an article to be included in WP. Please provide some guidance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale L. Boger.--Gavin Collins 10:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Result was speedy-keep/WP:SNOW. DMacks 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Water-in-water emulsion is a nearly orphaned article---only emulsion links to it. If there are other articles or topics lists that should link to it, could the chemists or chemistry-buffs here please attend to that? Michael Hardy 22:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In another attempt to chip a few off the huge Category:Biochemistry stubs, I've proposed types for lipids, and for carbs. If anyone has any additional ideas for further sub-types, I'd be very glad to hear them... Alai 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please could some one edit the elemnt box to add a space for placing a Pourbaix diagram for the element. I think that wikipedia will be more useful if it gives some details of the corrosion properties of each of the elements. I have found some free software which is very good for drawing such diagrams (and other diagrams). See http://www.kemi.kth.se/medusa/ for a copy of medusa.Cadmium 17:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)