Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physical Chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
NA	This non-article page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Categories 2 Featured article 3 Orthohydrogen 4 Project directory 5 Wikipedia Day Awards

[edit] Categories

1. Should Category:Industrial hygiene be moved up one to Category:Chemistry?
2. Should Category:Ions be under Category:Physical chemistry?
3. Should Category:Nuclear magnetic resonance be under Category:Physical chemistry?
4. Should Category:Phase changes be removed from Category:Physical chemistry and only be under Category:Phases of matter which is directly below Category:Chemistry?
5. Category:Polymer chemistry is under both Category:Polymers and Category:Physical chemistry but is the topic of another WikiProject.
6. Category:Spectroscopy is the topic of a newly created WikiProject but should remain under Category:Physical chemistry.
7. Should Category:Electrolysis be deleted and its contents moved to its parent category Category:Electrochemistry?

1. Category:Industrial hygiene should really be combined with Category:Chemical safety.

2. not sure. a new Category:Ionic properties would fit better, but are there enough articles to put in it?

3. I would suggest that NMR is better under Category:Spectroscopy, as this is by far its most widespread use

4. Neutral: I would say that the study of phase changes is an important (if small) part of physical chemistry.

5,6. Category:Polymer chemistry should be directly under CAT:Chem. I would suggest that this would be appropraite for Category:Spectroscopy as well.

7. Yes, unless anyone can come up with objections which I haven't thought of yet!

Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in. I'm going to think about these slowly.

7. Category:Electrolysis is just one, I now realise, category under Category:Electrochemistry. Moving them all would be two complex and without doubt raise objections somewhere along the line, so I'm inclined to leave it. However, it also has Category:Physical chemistry as a parent category which is also the grandparent category so I have removed it from there.

5,6. I agree with you now on both. However it is complex. Category:Polymer chemistry is under Category:Polymers which is under Category:Chemical substances which is under Category:Chemistry, as well as under Category:Physical chemistry which is under Category:Chemistry. The proposer of the new Project on Spectroscopy rightly points out that Spectroscopy comes under Analytical Chemistry as well as Physical Chemistry, but it is already under both these categories. Any thoughts on both of these. On the latter, we might just move it out of both and put it directly under Category:Chemistry. On the former, I'm rather lost in the complexity!

3. Not sure. Under Category:Nuclear magnetic resonance is Category:Magnetic resonance imaging. Since NMR is greatly used by other chemists, particularly organicers, I'm inclined to put it directly under the parent Category:Chemistry.

I'll think about the others later. --Bduke 09:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The category structure is not meant to be perfectly pyramidal, merely to guide users. If you try to draw a map of Category:Chemistry you had better have your best four-dimensional paper handy! Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

and it twists into other universes too, particularly the physics universe. --Bduke 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Excited to be pitching in. Here's my thoughts.

1. Yes. I don't consider hygiene and safety to be components of physical chemistry.

2. I don't know. This isn't my area of expertise, so I am inclined to agree with Physchim62 on this.

3. No. I am with Physchim62 on this, too. I'd rather see it under Category:Spectroscopy than directly under Category:Physical chemistry.

4. No. Again, this isn't my area, but I think phase changes are an important-enough topic that they should have a category under Category:Physical chemistry.

5. I agree with Physchim62 again. Polymer chemistry seems to be so multi-disciplined that its category should belong under Category:Chemistry.

6. Agree. Spectroscopy is multi-discipline as well and so should have a place under Category:Chemistry but is a significant component of physical chemistry, too.

7. Yes. I'm not an electrochemist, so I may be biased on this. Electrolysis or related topics were never covered in any undergraduate- or graduate-level p-chem class I took. Rather, these were left for analytical courses. I think it's fine being moved to Category:Electrochemistry.

--Atmosphyschem 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Atmosphyschem. I just corrected a minor error that put this talk page in a category - use ":" before Category. I'll respond later with more thoughts on all this and try to summarise the reponses, but I'm far to busy on other things right now. --Bduke 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

We should try to get our keystone article, Physical chemistry, up to featured article status. It is far from that now. Any suggestions? Let us do a mini-review here, make changes and then put it forward for peer review. It also needs some photographs. --Bduke 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My assessment is bloody awful (read {{Chem Stub}}). Dump it and write something from scratch. Physchim62 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The German article is marked "as need of improvement" (it's still better than ours...), The Spaniards have a nifty navigational template which we might like to steal from them... The best I've seen on a quick survey of other languages is in Russian, but I don't really feel like translating it! Physchim62 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Physchim62. Someone should take the initiative and re-write the darn thing. --Atmosphyschem 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A new editor, at least to this project, is doing good things to Physical chemistry, but I guess he needs help. --Bduke 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthohydrogen

I'm here because of some general talk on references at Talk:Hydrogen. There are links to orthohydrogen (and its redirect parahydrogen) in the hydrogen article, but orthohydrogen itself does not have references, categories, nor is otherwise integrated in the hierarchy of topics. I found no article describing the general concept of spin isomerism. Here's something to put on the todo list. Femto 13:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)