Portal talk:Chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The Chemistry Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
December 6, 2006 Featured portal candidate Promoted

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Portal about Chemistry; content disputes should take place on the appropriate article's talk page. Please ensure this portal's details are listed in the Portal directory and its status is assessed. For discussion about Portals generally, please see the WikiProject on Portals.

	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.

Archives

Old discussions   Archived here

About archives • Edit this box

Contents 1 wikEd formula formatter 2 Automatic/random rotation of archived content 3 French industry icon 4 Portal layout design suggestions 5 Hide/Show boxes in portal sections? 6 Selected/featured picture 7 Image captions 8 it is not easy to be green 9 Chemical elements 10 Wikisource 11 Major topics in chemistry 11.1 Portal:Chemistry/Categories 11.2 Fields of science#Chemistry 11.3 List of academic disciplines#Chemistry 12 Featured portal tips 12.1 Thanks everybody! 13 Wikiproject 14 string of numbers 15 Cyanamide infobox structural formula error 16 Watch out for typos 17 'Textbook' 18 Carbon 19 Help, I cannot correct the page, Formaldehyde

[edit] wikEd formula formatter

wikEd is a Wikipedia editing extension that has an integrated tool to wikify chemical formulas with one click:

Before	After
h2o	H2O
C8H10N4O2	C8H10N4O2
2 Na+ + OH- + H2SO4 --> 2 H2O + Na2SO4	2Na+ + OH- + H2SO4 → 2H2O + Na2SO4

Other features include: • pasting formatted text, e.g. from MS-Word (including tables) • converting the formatted text to wikicode • wikicode syntax highlighting • regular expression search and replace • server-independent Show preview and Show changes • fullscreen editing mode • single-click fixing of common mistakes • history for summary, search, and replace fields • and much, much more.

For a full feature list and installation instructions see the wikEd homepage and the wikEd help page. wikEd works only for Mozilla Firefox and other Mozilla browsers and is installed simply by pasting a single line to your Wikipedia User:Username/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic/random rotation of archived content

Hi, nice portal! :-) Have you all considered automatically/randomly rotating the sections with archived content? A weekly rotation example is at Philosophy. Some random examples are listed at Randomized portal component. Another randomized approach is used at Cats and Dogs. Rfrisbie^talk 05:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Walkerma and ~K have been manually rotating selected pictures and featured articles on a monthly basis (approximately), and Walkerma updates any news. Many of the sections are brand new, though. I'll try to figure out what you mean by randomised components... :) riana_dzasta 06:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I figured out what you're talking about! I'm busy now, but I'll try to get my head wrapped around it a bit tigheter later on. riana_dzasta 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. If you decide to go with the randomized approach, I recommend you use {{Random portal component}}. It's easy to use and I just added some extra flexibility to it for different types of page designs. You can see an example of the new options in use at Portal:Psychology. Rfrisbie^talk 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That's so brilliant, I'm going to give it a try now. I'm also trying something rather ambitious, to spin a random element when the cache is purged. Let'see if it works out... riana_dzasta 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre did a great job of converting the element box over to using the switch function! :-) I then threw in the same randomizing code from the Random portal component to show how it realtes. I still think it would be cool to randomize the selected articles, pictures and biographies. Then you can add a purge update link between the sections that will update the element box as well. Rfrisbie^talk 21:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

'Tis underway! Give me half an hour. riana_dzasta 05:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe more than half an hour, I need to write some biography blurbs up. riana_dzasta 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French industry icon

Hello,
Someone asked for image:icone industrie chimique.png on fr-wp (here, this icon is now on commons. K!roman 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh my God, it worked! :) Thanks so much. Although we're not sure if we want it anymore... riana_dzasta 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal layout design suggestions

Here are some portal layout suggestions.

• Switch the picture and chemist biography boxes. The picture is too big for an 800X600 display, which some readers still use. That's a no-no for featured portal status. Switching it with the biography box would give it more room.
• Add a frame and background color to the whole page. Portal:Cats is a nice example. I have lots of palettes and tools at User:Rfrisbie/Palettes that can be used for testing samples.
• Use layout templates for rotated content to simplify design consistency and updates. Portal:Dogs/Selected breed shows how that can be used.
  • Oh, I see you already did that! I'll make some layout changes to the subpages after the randomizer is switched to the main page template. Rfrisbie^talk 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Done. Rfrisbie^talk 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

For anything folks want to implement, I'm more than willing to work on :-) Rfrisbie^talk 20:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a test page that adds a frame and background based on the current grey/cyan palette, with some adjustments. The bio header is a different color (depending on the current values at Portal:Chemistry/box-header/test) because of the randomizer template (it can change later). The selected picture and bio also are switched. Rfrisbie^talk 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind having the bio up there. I just moved the picture up there for a bit more visual impact, because it was hiding below the FA before, with the news next to the FA... not very attention-grabbing. But the bio should do the trick. What do other people think? As for frames - meh... it looks a little claustrophobic IMHO (not just yours, the one I did before had the same effect). Still... what do other people think? :) riana_dzasta 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've been informed that the grey/green palette is UGLY. And girlie. Anyone else agree? I'm totally crushed by that information, personally... :p riana_dzasta 03:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of all the grey in Wikipedia anywhere. That's why I created User:Rfrisbie/Palettes and started adding color to lots of pages. Quite a few images here are in black and white, so things tend to look a bit drab at this portal. Quite a few samples are at User:Rfrisbie/Palettes/Headers. Do any of those look interesting? Rfrisbie^talk 03:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I quite like anything between 140 and 170. We just have to make sure it doesn't look too similar to the Biology portal :) I just tested 150. riana_dzasta 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh, I like 150 :) Any other takers? riana_dzasta 03:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, adding any background too dark makes the whiteness on the images too clear. I might add transparencies to the images later on, if anybody likes this background. On second thoughts, I'm changing the background to make it lighter. riana_dzasta 03:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

H150 is good. That's what's used for Main Page featured articles, Wikipedia:Community Portal#Todo, and other places. Then there's shade... Rfrisbie^talk 03:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

← What's shade? riana_dzasta 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm liking this one maybe with a little darker border to better contrast the header. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Now? riana_dzasta 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Loooking Goood... ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 04:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wicked. I have to go study now - don't do anything too dramatic without me :p All the space cleared by shifting the biography should hold a DYK section nicely. Now I have to write the darn thing... Thanks for all your help, Rfrisbie :) riana_dzasta 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what's the deal with the border and background?! ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think switching the pic and the bio made it look a lot less dense, so the border and background don't quite constrict it so much anymore. Maybe it's just me :) riana_dzasta 16:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I also moved the bio image over to the right to open up things even more. Hurrray for templates! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 20:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, much better. By the way, you were so right about getting combinations of random components over and over again. I would say that out of the 14 selected pictures, about 6 show up regularly and the others come up once every 15-20 purges, or not at all. 3 of the bios turn up over and over again, although admittedly there ain't much to choose from. The FAs are OK, though. Oh, well, it could be worse. riana_dzasta 22:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that "seed" value takes care of mixing things up. That's why they're set to different values for each section. Your comment made me suspicious, so I checked the picture "max" value. It was set to "7", so I updated it to "14". For the three randomized sections, their "max" values need to be updated whenever a new item is added before they will show up. >;-o) Hopefully, things should display better now. :-) Rfrisbie^talk 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot that... *slaps forehead* riana_dzasta 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hide/Show boxes in portal sections?

According to this discussion, Hide/Show boxes in portal sections probably aren't a good idea. They're iffy at best. Rfrisbie^talk 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selected/featured picture

The name of this was changed from "featured" to "selected" because "Featured" carries the connotation in Wikipedia of Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Most of the pictures we have used do not classify as Featured Pictures as defined there. However, there is nothing to stop us from using FPs in the selected slot. I realise I'm about as clear as Donald Rumsfeld, but hopefully you get the idea! Walkerma 21:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. I just thought that there was a problem with using featured pictures, that portals weren't allowed to use them or something, but I realised that couldn't be true when I saw the gallium pic. Never mind me... :) riana_dzasta 03:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image captions

Another requirement for featured portal status is that all images should have captions. The "mouseover" variety is fine. Rfrisbie^talk 16:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I added captions for the article, bio, and picture images, where needed. Rfrisbie^talk 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was so sure I'd already done that. Musta forgotten the bios in my rush to get them online. Thanks heaps, you're a legend :) riana_dzasta 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] it is not easy to be green

pretty horrible choice of color (green), also try loose the big border. News should be more prominent, in general try to emulate the physics portal.......for consistency V8rik 23:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just not good with colours... someone else can choose this time :) I've tried it with the border on and off and they look about the same, but if people don't like it, I don't mind removing it. I'll go check out the Physics portal - just that it didn't have much impact with the news right next to the FA before. riana_dzasta 04:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you prefer this version, with no border or background? There is also this version, which has a background but no border. The border without a background looks a little too ick. riana_dzasta 04:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Switched bio and news, per request. I have to admit, I think it looks better now... two images so close together didn't let you focus on either one of them. Do we still not like colours/borders? riana_dzasta 10:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the great work you are doing, this style definitely is my favorite, nice color too, it is also the style as the other science portals. I also like the featured article and News section in the second row V8rik 17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm glad we both agree on that. :) riana_dzasta 06:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• final note: when you have a white background, many images already with a with background will look better, anyone for making this switch? V8rik 22:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't mind at all, I see Rfrisbie has gone ahead and made the change already. I thought that most of the images I added had transparencies, but I see that's not true. It looks great :) riana_dzasta 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict ;-) I switched the box background to be the page background and made the boxes white. Since so many of the icons have white backgrounds, I agree it looks better for the boxes to be white too. The green page background is the same hue as the box headers, which complements them better. I didn't use a border to make it more subtle. Rfrisbie^talk 04:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Naaaice! What do we still need to get this to featured, Frisbie? riana_dzasta 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Ask for feedback, then address it until things calm down. I usually post a feedback section on the portal talk page, individually ask active portal reviewers on their talk pages, and track specific suggestions and actions taken on a to do list. When all recommendations are addressed (done or no change with rationale), I submit the nomination. Rfrisbie^talk 05:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Let the spam begin, then :) riana_dzasta 05:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I think you should do the honors! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical elements

I'm not sure that the list of elements really does us much use here: there are already various lists available on Wikipedia. Removing it would free up some space to allow other section (such as "Chemistry in Society" or maybe "Techniques") to be more visible. Physchim62 (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but as I understand it, the point of a portal is to have an overview of all the topics in a certain subject. What do non-chemists think of when they think of chemistry? Chances are it involves test-tubes, explosions and a periodic table. I could replace the lengthy list with, say, a miniature periodic table or something. Would that work? I'm still unsure about removing it altogether, though. Let me know how you feel about that. And yeah, I'll add on the Wikisource bit to the Wikimedia box, I didn't know about it :) Cheers, riana_dzasta 12:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

An example of a nice mini table is here, if you're interested. riana_dzasta 13:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

::Current revision uses a mini periodic table. I think it's kinda cute :) Let me know how you feel. riana_dzasta 13:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Only looks good on some monitors. riana_dzasta 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource

There is now a wikisource:Category:Chemistry to assemble public domain materials which fit within Wikisource inclusion policy (no data collections or MSDS). Any chance of expanding the projects bar at the bottom to include it? Physchim62 (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

riana_dzasta 13:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major topics in chemistry

I would start this section by looking at how things already are orginized on different pages, consolidate to the "main fields of chemistry" articles then add supporting artilces, where available. Here are three lists.

[edit] Portal:Chemistry/Categories

Fields of Chemistry

• Analytical chemistry: Chromatography, Spectroscopy
• Biochemistry: Molecular biology
• Environmental chemistry: Geochemistry
• Inorganic chemistry: Inorganic reactions
• Materials science: Nanotechnology, Glass
• Medicinal chemistry
• Nuclear chemistry
• Organic chemistry: Functional groups, Organic compounds, Organic reactions
• Organometallic chemistry
• Pharmacy
• Pharmacology
• Physical chemistry: Electrochemistry, Quantum chemistry
• Polymer chemistry
• Supramolecular chemistry
• Theoretical chemistry: Computational chemistry

[edit] Fields of science#Chemistry

Analytical chemistry Biochemistry Computational chemistry Electrochemistry Inorganic chemistry Materials science Organic chemistry

Polymer chemistry Physical chemistry Quantum chemistry Spectroscopy Stereochemistry Thermochemistry

[edit] List of academic disciplines#Chemistry

Analytical chemistry Biochemistry Materials science Cheminformatics Computational chemistry

Quantum Chemistry Inorganic chemistry Organic chemistry Physical chemistry Theoretical chemistry

I looked at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chemistry articles by quality, but most of the top/high importance articles seem to be elements/compounds. Most others are fields or people. You already have a periodic table. I don't know if a compounds list is worth it or not. An "important chemists" list might be interesting. Rfrisbie^talk 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not much change from what's already there, is it? All that is basically there with the 'Categories' subsection. I really could use some help on this one from WikiProject Chemistry members, but I don't want to be accused of badgering :) Compounds list gone. Important chemists list... IMHO we shouldn't have any more lists, as it is it's quite a lengthy portal, I might have to go and do what you've done on Portal:Science and what Kirill's done on Portal:Military History (with the tabs), although I'll probably face some opposition per the above conversations ;) I'll wait a little, but yeah, still need some help with major topics. riana_dzasta 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that means it's in good shape. Let the reviewers have their say and do what comes of it. Rfrisbie^talk 05:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured portal tips

WikiProject Chemistry would like to see this portal reach featured status. Please add any tips, tricks, and trade secrets in this section :) Thanks, riana_dzasta 05:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, in my opinion, it's very well laid out. However it's missing a little jump that could make it featured status. Template:Dsig
  • I'm all ears :) riana_dzasta 12:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • PS your sig doesn't have a datestamp with it, could you fix that? Thanks! riana_dzasta 12:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Like I have said for other portals, there are enough blue backgrounds already, so could you change the color scheme to green? Thanks, --Gphoto^talk 14:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we had a discussion about this a few sections above :) I loved the green, especially because we have a few selected pictures that are green, but some others don't. I'm adjustable. riana_dzasta 14:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I tried some cyan/aqua shades...maybe they're greenish, maybe they're blueish...maybe they're greenieblueish! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 15:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe a pinch of green... riana_dzasta 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • There's a notch greener to H170. Rfrisbie^talk 17:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Oooh, I like it. I know there will be people who won't, but I like it :) riana_dzasta 18:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• The caption for the picture could be brought a little closer to the picture. Minor point, though. Also, the portal does seem to be fairly category and link heavy. I have no idea if that would cost it support, and think it probably wouldn't, but find it rather remarkable anyway. Otherwise, no objections I can find. For trade secrets, Rfrisbie is probably the man to go to. I know nothing about how to create these things, I just sit back and criticize the work of others. :) Badbilltucker 14:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh, yeah, Rfrisbie has been invaluable :) I'm trying to cut down the links and put everything into a major topics section, so stay tuned for that... riana_dzasta 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Moved photo credit closer to photo. riana_dzasta 08:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks everybody!

Thanks to everybody for their great suggestions, and for WikiProject Chemistry for beginning this portal. It is now featured. Great work, everyone! riana_dzasta 03:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Great job riana_dzasta! You're the one who pushed this little portal to a featured portal. You deserve the credit. ~K 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject

Sorry for asking a probably obvious question, but could someone tell me how to join wikiproject science? I've been searching for a half hour and don't think I'll find it. Thank you. Kkrouni (usurped) 00:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science. Maybe I'll add a link from here and from WP:Chemistry. Walkerma 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Kkrouni 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] string of numbers

Does anyone here get a long string of numbers at the bottom of this page. Is it a browser issue on my end?

67.169.86.213 02:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that was a page of numbers being transcluded. It's been fixed now :-) --HappyCamper 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyanamide infobox structural formula error

There is, I believe, an error in the info box for cyanamide. The C was left out at the end of the triple bond. Sometimes structural formula conventions, like skeleton structures, leave out the carbons and of course many organic structures eliminate the H's. But with such a simple structure I think it would be appropriate to "spell out" all the atoms in the structure. I don't know what convention is being used to draw the structures in the infobox so I was reluctant to change anything. BTW for professionals with a lifetime of experience, the problems of navigating through the editing process is extremely time consuming. I have noted errors in various articles but the effort to correct them has proven overwhelming. I have little time to spend winding through the tortuous path to edit an article. My time is valuable but wikipedia is a great resource and I, like probably many other professionals, would like to contribute. Better access would be very helpful.

[User:Moskalski] 16:23, 29 May 2007

Unlabeled places where bonds end are presumed to be carbons in a skeletal formula. Doesn't solve the issue that editing images is a multi-step process that requires specialized software, isn't really amenable for quick and simple changes, and has something of a sharp learning curve for newbies. DMacks 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watch out for typos

Let's avoid allowing the public impression of Wikipedia to be accurate. This really is a pretty reliable source of information. But there are occasionally things that shake my confidence a bit. Take the article on acetone, for example. The person who created the infobox made an understandable typo, and entered the boiling point as 56.3°C (see [1]). This typo stood for over 3 years, until I noticed it and fixed it (see [2]). Not only that, but the edit right before mine corrected the flash point for the first time, I believe, since the infobox was created. The correct boiling point has been in the article text this whole time, and the flash point in an external link, but the infobox has been wrong this whole time, miseducating who knows how many people. It's a small thing, but, as I said, it shook my confidence a bit in Wikipedia. I just thought I'd bring this to your attention in case there are other mistakes like this out there that people should be looking for. Twilight Realm 14:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Textbook'

I have removed this from the page as I'm not sure it's very useful. It is also pretty cluttered and makes the page way too long. This is a portal, after all, just a basic overview of topics. I would rather prefer a topics box like Portal:Biology/Major topics if we have to have something like that. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you are not sure it is useful, then I know it is useful. Now you simply removed the textbook without even relinking the page. Also wikibooks is wikibooks and of no concern to wikipedia. V8rik 17:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, without relinking? The page still exists, I didn't delete it ;) Portal:Chemistry/Textbook - The idea is OK but it was pretty messily executed and unbalances the way the portal looks. I am going to use the topics as a base for a slightly differently formatted box. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Riana ⁂, No you did not delete the article but it currently no articles linking to it, in other words it is orphaned: see Wikipedia:Orphaned Articles. V8rik 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon

I think people here might be interested to know that the Carbon article has been nominated for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Nergaal (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help, I cannot correct the page, Formaldehyde

I found a link for a citation, however, due to the extreme characters in the link, it destroyed a header on the page. I cannot fix this to have the link corrected.

• Analysis of Cosmetic Products, by Amparo Salvador, Alberto Chisvert
• Location of the cite, /* Safety */ Added reference to it being banned in Sweden and Japan

I undid the changes. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)