Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/IRC discussions/4 Mar 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
--- Log opened Tue Mar 04 11:01:01 EST 2008
11:01 -!- walkerma [n=chatzill@admin-151-108.potsdam.edu] has joined #wikichem
11:01 <+Rifleman_82> i gave up 2/3rd down
11:01 <+Rifleman_82> hey chief :)
11:01 <+Rifleman_82> not many people here today, not yet at least
11:02 <walkerma> Hello another chief!
11:02 <+Rifleman_82> hahahaha, sheesh
11:02 <walkerma> I guess with MArk not coming, maybe people thought nothing much would be happening, or
11:02 <walkerma> maybe they worried that we might pick on them to do some of these tasks!
11:03 <+Rifleman_82> heh, maybe
11:03 <+Rifleman_82> i like the new image maps, btw
11:03 <+Rifleman_82> i just hope it won't be underutilized
11:04 <walkerma> Good, I was hoping people would like them. I was amazed how quick & easy it was to do those - 5 minutes to do that menthol one
11:04 <+Rifleman_82> oh?
11:04 <+Rifleman_82> do you need a tool?
11:04 <+Rifleman_82> you just need to define the x and y right?
11:04 <+Rifleman_82> will it "ruN" if you resize the image?
11:05 <walkerma> Yes, you do, but I don't know how to do that. Yes, I think it will work at all sizes, because the tool works with the original image, not the image on the page
11:05 <+Rifleman_82> oh okay
11:05 <+Rifleman_82> are we going to start? or you want to wait a while?
11:06 <+dmacks> If the image-file has any chemical information in it (or can be converted to such), easy to automatically extract the rectangular region for each molecule automatically.
11:06 <+Rifleman_82> hmmm
11:06 <+Rifleman_82> are you thinking of a normal png?
11:07 <+dmacks> Will have to play with png to see.
11:07 <+Rifleman_82> i don't think there's any meta data from chemsketch --> tiff --> irfanview --> png
11:08 <+dmacks> Yeah, probably not:(
11:08 <walkerma> Well,I was wondering if PC or Chemspiderman were going to come, but it's now 11:08 so I think we should start
11:08 <+Rifleman_82> ok
11:08 <+dmacks> okay
11:08 <walkerma> Is that OK? We can come back to image maps later anyway
11:09 <+dmacks> yup
11:09 <walkerma> I just thought it might be good to step back and look at the bigger picture
11:09 -!- axiosaurus [n=chatzill@host217-43-57-74.range217-43.btcentralplus.com] has joined #wikichem
11:09 <+Rifleman_82> hi axio!
11:09 <+Rifleman_82> we just started a few seconds ago, don't worry, you didn't miss anything
11:09 <axiosaurus> hi all sorry held up
11:10 <walkerma> Hi! We're just getting started. What are the main things we should work on? We've talked about a lot, but I think we need to translate things into action
11:10 <+Rifleman_82> probably a good idea, i saw you tidying up the last few agenda/minutes
11:11 <walkerma> I'd like to come away with a list of things I personally need to do, and for others to have the same
11:11 <walkerma> Sorry I haven't managed to write up all of the meetings yet! But hopefully the agenda will remind you of the main points
11:12 <walkerma> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/IRC_discussions#Past_meetings
11:12 <walkerma> I guess one thing is to build a chemistry manual of style
11:12 <walkerma> A lot of what we are doing is (in effect) part of that.
11:12 <+Rifleman_82> we actually have it already, in dribs and drabs
11:12 <+Rifleman_82> just need to rewrite it into a all-inclusive document
11:13 <walkerma> Should we each agree to try and complete one section of that by the end of March?
11:13 <+Rifleman_82> why don't we do a gap analysis first? see where we are lacking. i suspect there isn't much
11:14 <walkerma> I know when I met up with Physchim62 in December, a chemistry MOS was one of his top priorities
11:14 <+Rifleman_82> not much to "write" per se - more of organizing and rearranging the few documents we have
11:14 <walkerma> Well, you have your functional groups pages, Rifleman_82
11:14 <+Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines
11:14 <+dmacks> (/me was just about to ask where that page was!)
11:15 * Rifleman_82 tracking them down
11:15 <+Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rifleman_82/Functional_groups_style_guidelines
11:16 <+Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Structure_drawing_workgroup/SVG_guide
11:16 <walkerma> And we need to integrate Itub's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Itub/Ambiguous_chemical_identifiers
11:16 <+Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Structure_drawing
11:16 <axiosaurus> chemicals style guide -not very well referenced - cant see it on the chemicals page
11:17 <+Rifleman_82> as a related issue, should we collapse wikiproject chemicals into chemistry? two sides of a coin
11:17 <+dmacks> I played with making phylogenetic maps of the functional-group relationships. It got ugly and hard to automate the image-maps *very* quickly:(
11:17 <+Rifleman_82> are there any more guides we missed?
11:18 <+dmacks> There's a more general math or science WP:MOS subpage I think
11:18 <+dmacks> a fall-back for general writing, not specific chemical issues
11:19 <+Rifleman_82> can we ignore it for the moment? i think we can cover everything to do with chemistry
11:19 <+Beetstra> Guess the drugs and protein guys also have parts which may be of interest for us
11:19 <+dmacks> Rifleman_82: okay
11:19 <walkerma> Yes there is, but it's pretty brief as it should be - it mentions the IUPAC vs common name issue - and it does link to our current MOS
11:19 <walkerma> Yes - I think if I were a chemist who dropped onto WP to write or expand a chemistry page, I would have trouble knowing that such a page even existed!
11:19 <+Beetstra> Elements Project
11:20 <+Rifleman_82> ah yes, elements
11:20 <walkerma> Until I got a nastyxxxxx friendly message from one of us
11:20 <axiosaurus> don't forget minerals - a little overlap there
11:20 <walkerma> I think we need to coordinate with all of our neighbours - medicine, pharmacology, physics, geology, etc
11:20 <+Beetstra> Yep
11:21 <axiosaurus> coordinate- sounds like slowing down?
11:21 <walkerma> As well as within the chemistry ones - chemistry, chemicals, elements (and polymers never really took off)
11:21 <+Rifleman_82> not enough polymer chemists
11:21 <+Rifleman_82> nasty message?
11:22 <walkerma> Axiosaurus: To me it means (1) making sure we don't conflict with their rules and
11:22 <+Beetstra> The others may have interest, like technical chemistry .. they may like other data than that we usually use
11:22 <walkerma> (2) we agree on "borders" (we don't try to put chemboxes onto drugs pages, etc) and
11:23 <walkerma> (3) we reach agreement on knotty issues that affect both projects. (End)
11:23 <walkerma> Beetstra: Yes, that's a good example
11:23 <+Rifleman_82> ah, disagree with #2
11:23 <+Rifleman_82> :P
11:24 <+Rifleman_82> eventually i think drugboxes should be replaced with chemboxes with drugbox modules, but you'v eheard that from me enough
11:24 <+Rifleman_82> i've replaced most of the explosiveboxes already
11:24 <+Rifleman_82> without a squeak from them, too
11:24 <+Beetstra> I would like that .. but I am afraid the Fvascoscellas (err .. typos?) is going to object
11:25 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: That's fine, if they want it - but if we tried replacing 3000 drugboxes with chemboxes, there would be war! Rightly, too, IMHO!
11:25 <+Rifleman_82> i really see no real reason to object other than WP:OWN
11:25 <+Rifleman_82> drug module covers everything they cover already
11:25 <walkerma> Most of the key information you want on a drug is different from the info you want on a substance,
11:26 <walkerma> But I agree it may be possible to harmonise the boxes - but only if they want that
11:26 <walkerma> Also, we have other important tasks to fill our time with, IMHO!
11:27 <+dmacks> At some point it becomes such a general infobox with so many (sub)sets of fields, not worth keeping it all in one infobox template.
11:27 <+Rifleman_82> yeah, drugbox can wait for now
11:28 <+Beetstra> Basically, the drugbox is ok, the data can be sourced
11:28 <+Beetstra> (I am not talking about the correctness of that data)
11:28 <walkerma> I could offer to do the following tasks: (1) Design a better navigation system around the chemistry pages (projects, portal, MOS), so that newcomers can find stuff more easily, and
11:29 <walkerma> (2) Talk to the neighbouring projects, and get their opinion on our MOS additions. Is that what I should do?
11:29 <walkerma> Or do we have other volunteers for those tasks!?
11:30 <+Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28chemistry%29
11:30 <+Rifleman_82> i'll volunteer to rewrite the style guide
11:30 <+Rifleman_82> to talk to neighboring projects, we can just drop notes and invite comments at the talk page
11:30 <+Rifleman_82> not too difficult, or do you mean talk to them personally?
11:31 <walkerma> Rifleman_82, that would be great! I just meant that I would drop notes onto the project talk pages - I don't actually know people to "talk" more directly
11:31 <walkerma> Does anyone else?
11:32 * dmacks doesn't know 'em. I can work on style-guide, probably better for someone !me to do nav stuff (don't have a good handle on all that is available)
11:32 <+Rifleman_82> can talk to fvas
11:33 <walkerma> Cacycle is active on pharmacology too, we can get his input
11:34 <walkerma> dmacks: Is there one particular area you want to work on?
11:34 <+Rifleman_82> dmacks: you can take the MOS if you want, or i can help you too, whichever you prefer
11:34 <+Rifleman_82> i don't mind doing the navigation etc
11:34 <+dmacks> What part(s) of MOS are most in need of overhaul?
11:35 <+Rifleman_82> images
11:35 <+dmacks> Or should I mainly put together and clean up the already-mentioned pages?
11:35 <+dmacks> Okay, I'll work on that.
11:35 <+Rifleman_82> maybe ben should come and help on that
11:35 <+Rifleman_82> i find images too ... messy
11:35 <+Rifleman_82> that's my personal opinion
11:35 <+Beetstra> I'll try to keep an eye and do something on the MOS as well ..
11:35 <+Rifleman_82> too complicate
11:35 <+Rifleman_82> d
11:35 <+dmacks> (/me rmembers being frustrated with it when I started doing image)
11:35 <+Rifleman_82> and it's really relaly out of date
11:36 <+Rifleman_82> it needs to be put together too
11:36 <+dmacks> NEed to separate style from how-to-use-tools/how-to-upload.
11:36 <+Beetstra> With the current ideas of the chemwiki-wiki, it would be nice that these two guidelines overlap ..
11:36 <+Rifleman_82> the style of the MOS itself should be self consistent
11:36 <+Rifleman_82> dirk: they should overlap as far as practicable... for ease of porting back and forth
11:37 <+Beetstra> and also .. a content guideline here might be of interest. What would we like to see here on wiki for a chemical compound, and what should be kept out
11:37 <+Rifleman_82> yes, very true
11:37 <+Beetstra> Do we have anything like that, anyway?
11:38 <+Beetstra> Is a bit in the MOS, I think
11:38 <+Rifleman_82> i can make a dozen imidazolium salts, i can even source them all, but are all of them encyclopedic?
11:38 <+Rifleman_82> dmacks: would be good if you get ben to help you with images, since we've been uploading many images there and he's been doing the janitorial work recatting them, etc
11:39 <+Beetstra> Hmm, yeah, the MOS describes 'article format'
11:39 <+Beetstra> Rifleman_82: here, no .. no need to mention them all .. but I was more thinking of what info on a notable compound do we include
11:40 <+dmacks> Okay.
11:40 <walkerma> Yes, Bem should definitely be involved on images
11:40 <walkerma> Ben
11:41 <+dmacks> This is user:benmm57 or some name like that?
11:41 <+Rifleman_82> oh..
11:41 <+Rifleman_82> we have that
11:41 <+Rifleman_82> already
11:41 <+Rifleman_82> let me get it for you
11:41 <+Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines
11:41 <+Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rifleman_82/Functional_groups_style_guidelines
11:41 <+Rifleman_82> benjah-bmm27
11:42 <+dmacks> yeah
11:42 <+Beetstra> I invited him here once .. but he does not have IRC, apparently
11:42 <+Beetstra> Seemed interested, though
11:43 <+Rifleman_82> i've updated them to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28chemistry%29
11:44 <walkerma> Beetstra: I think it would be worth reviewing what we have in that area as we rewrite the MOS, it's very central to what we do.
11:45 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: I think all the information will need to be organised and structured well - you'd be good at that, I think?
11:45 <walkerma> I think the MOS should be written in summary style, with sub-pages giving the details such as settings for structure drawing, fine details of naming, how to write a functional group page, etc
11:45 <walkerma> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Summary_style
11:45 <+Rifleman_82> martin: okay, i can do that
11:46 <+dmacks> Yes. That would help integrate "what we have so far" well
11:46 <+Rifleman_82> this will simplify the process
11:47 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: Thanks
11:47 <+Rifleman_82> one of the main problems about the functional group pages are ... trying to separate imidazole from imidazoles, for example
11:47 <+Rifleman_82> and that "functional group" itself is such a slippery term
11:47 <walkerma> Yes, we had a problem with borane along the same lines
11:48 <+dmacks> And now fluoride is going to hell^W^W^Wgetting conflated.
11:48 <walkerma> And ether was at one time (I think) just about Et2O - back in the dark ages
11:48 <+Rifleman_82> hahaha
11:48 <axiosaurus> sorry about borane!
11:48 <+Rifleman_82> does it serve our purposes to split them into imidazole and imidazole (compound class) ?
11:48 <+Rifleman_82> or is it confusing?
11:49 <+Rifleman_82> another point - nomenclature for inorganics is really sloppy!
11:49 <walkerma> Axiosaurus -this is just one example that comes to mind - it's a problem with WP and our article names, nothing more
11:49 <+dmacks> It's clearer that way than imidazole imidazoles, Rifleman_82
11:49 <+Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenium_tris(bipyridine)_chloride
11:49 <walkerma> Axiosaurus: Could you work on the inorganic nomenclature?
11:50 <+Rifleman_82> true, better than imidazole and imidazoles
11:50 <+Rifleman_82> IUPAC has a specific set of recommendations for organomet (i'll take the mainstream view and consider them a subset of inorg)
11:51 <+Rifleman_82> http://www.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/connelly_310804.html
11:51 <+dmacks> Presently, WP:CHM "Guidelines" goes to the chemicals-specific page; should it go to our new summary-style-of-all-guidelines page?
11:51 <+Rifleman_82> yeah, it should
11:51 <+Rifleman_82> perhaps as a subpage
11:51 <walkerma> dmacks, yes it should
11:52 <axiosaurus> yep- will do-- lots of bad examples in wiki--not helped by IUPAC guidelines IMHO
11:52 <+CheMoBot> user:DMacks has edited monitored page Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry - diff - (+0)- summary: more guidelines than just the chemicals-pages
11:53 <walkerma> We have a perennial problem with naming, though, that you must always watch for: In an academic lab in one country, there may be a "common name" which dominates, in an industrial setting in another country there may be another - and another group of chemists may consider the IUPAC name to be the usual name
11:53 <+Rifleman_82> you can put them in the subpages listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28chemistry%29/draft
11:53 <walkerma> This is a big, ongoing problem
11:53 <+Rifleman_82> when we're done, i'll move it from /draft to MOS (chemistry), and all the links will still work
11:54 <+Rifleman_82> oops, i see what you mean dmacks
11:54 <+Rifleman_82> it doesn't make much sense to move it now, because it refers specifically to chemicals
11:54 <axiosaurus> who are our target audience? if its scholars then we should be influenced more by textbooks and academe- if industrial chemists then carbide is whatever you like!
11:54 <+Rifleman_82> i'd suggest copying and pasting to the subpages and fixing it there first
11:54 <+dmacks> Right. I'm just trying to get all the existing real pages listed together in a real-article-namespace page.
11:55 <walkerma> Rifleman_82, dmacks: History is the reason for all this. For 2005, WP:Chemistry was pretty inactive, but Chemicals was very active
11:55 <+Rifleman_82> dmacks: check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28chemistry%29
11:55 <+Rifleman_82> all listed there already
11:55 <walkerma> That's also why WP:Chem directs to Chemicals, not Chemistry
11:55 <+Rifleman_82> can we merge the two wikiprojects and preserve the history of discussion as an archive?
11:55 <+dmacks> Ooh lookie, yes they are Rifleman_82!
11:56 <+Rifleman_82> :)
11:56 <+Rifleman_82> look at the draft too
11:56 <+CheMoBot> user:DMacks has edited monitored page Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry - diff - (-5)- summary: oops, duplicating work is bad
11:56 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: I don't think we should, just because the scope of the chemicals project is already pretty big, and many of the discussions that arise are specific to that area
11:57 <walkerma> Non-chemicals pages typically don't have chemboxes, for example!
11:57 <+Rifleman_82> hmm, fair enough
11:58 <+Rifleman_82> what's up with smart project management?
11:59 <+Rifleman_82> axio: can you elaborate on your opinion on nomenclature?
11:59 <walkerma> The SMART idea is that we choose a goal, and try and go for it, rather than just doing "whatever"
12:00 <walkerma> It was the way we tried to work at WP:Chemicals in 2005
12:00 <walkerma> Then we all got busy doing our own thing, as ever...!
12:00 <walkerma> It worked very well for a while
12:00 <+Rifleman_82> not that it's a bad thing
12:00 <+Beetstra> I am not too worried about the naming .. we have redirects and disambigs for that. The guideline now says that we use the commonly used name, and if that conflicts, we choose one and make up with redirects and disambigs .. as long as all are there ..
12:00 <+Rifleman_82> yeah, worked pretty well... a million monkeys with a million typewriters gives you shakespeare
12:01 <walkerma> Yes, and we're the monkeys!
12:01 <+Rifleman_82> beetstra: no argument with that, but there are times when the names are patently wrong - like Iron (III) chloride for a made-up example (note the space between the space and the oxidation state)
12:01 <+dmacks> No, we're humans, created as our own kind. Macroevolution is crap!
12:01 <+dmacks> Er, sorry:)
12:01 <axiosaurus> RM: if we target scholars they will use names heard in class or seen in books- generally IUPAC like
12:02 <+Rifleman_82> we need not strictly follow IUPAC, Zeise's salt is fine
12:02 <+Rifleman_82> i'm more concerned about those compounds which don't have a name bestowed upon them - those which we need to refer to by chemical formula
12:02 <+Rifleman_82> i mean, not chemical formula but by a structure-descriptive name
12:03 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: I tried telling one website that, but to no avail, see http://www.webelements.com/webelements/compounds/text/Fe/Cl3Fe1-7705080.html
12:03 <+Rifleman_82> DPPF, DPPM, DPPE etc is fine as is
12:03 <+Rifleman_82> walkerma: hahaha
12:03 <+Rifleman_82> axio: i took quite a while to get the names right for the group of Re compounds:
12:04 <+Rifleman_82> Dirhenium_decacarbonyl, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromopentacarbonylrhenium%28I%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacarbonylhydridorhenium
12:05 <+Rifleman_82> btw i think the last two don't agree
12:05 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: Nice work
12:05 <+Rifleman_82> i recall charged ligands first, followed by uncharged ligands?
12:07 <axiosaurus> RM:in C&W they rarely use names- avoids a lot of hassle- a luxury we don't have sadly
12:07 <+Rifleman_82> C&W?
12:08 <axiosaurus> cotton and wilkinson --used to be gods but now NN greenwood has moved in
12:08 <+Rifleman_82> i've heard that on many occasiosn, and i agree that a structure is probably the easiest way to define a name
12:08 <+Rifleman_82> :)
12:08 <+Rifleman_82> oh cotton & wilkinson :)
12:08 <+Rifleman_82> we don't need ot agree on something today, but something to thinkk about..
12:09 <walkerma> OK, can I try and recap who is going to do what?
12:09 <+Rifleman_82> ok
12:09 <+dmacks> I think I'm working on images-mos-thing page.
12:10 <walkerma> dmacks: Yes
12:10 <walkerma> Rifleman_82 will try to organise the MOS into a coherent body of work?
12:10 <+Rifleman_82> i'm doing the main MOS page
12:10 <+Rifleman_82> splitting off into sub pages where desirable
12:10 <+Rifleman_82> i'll try to keep it short and sharp, leaving the gist in the sub pages - is that what you guys agree with?
12:10 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: Yes, I think so
12:11 * dmacks concurs
12:11 <walkerma> I think reading a MOS is about as exciting as watching paint dry
12:11 <walkerma> So you need people to find info fast
12:11 <walkerma> And I'll try to improve the navigation, and I'll contact some projects - is that OK?
12:11 <+Rifleman_82> who's doing the reactions guide?
12:12 <+Rifleman_82> there's overlap with the images
12:12 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: I think that may have to wait a little while?
12:13 <+Rifleman_82> i can put up a rough draft including what we've decided on about state symbols and the like if you want, as a placeholder
12:13 <+dmacks> Yeah, I'm not sure there's a lot to say about reactions MOS themselves. Back-burner it for now
12:13 <axiosaurus> Walkerma: sounds good- I will look at inorg names guidelines and what we have already
12:13 <walkerma> It is very important, though, we will need to address how we write ARTICLES ABOUT REACTIONS. For now we have the basics about formatting reactions WITHIN articles
12:14 <walkerma> I'll get in touch with ~K, he has single-handedly written about half of the organic reaction pages on WP
12:14 <+dmacks> Ah, misunderstood the topic:)
12:14 <+Rifleman_82> ah, named reactions - who's name to put, etc
12:15 <walkerma> Yes. I've only worked seriously on a couple of reaction articles, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittig_reaction
12:15 <walkerma> But they do form a major part of the WP:Chemistry articles
12:16 <walkerma> TO see K at his best, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indole#Other_indole_forming_reactions !
12:16 <+Rifleman_82> backbones of drugs! :)
12:17 <walkerma> He moved jobs, and has been fairly quiet since, but I'll try contacting him. We had dinner together in 2006.
12:17 <walkerma> In his last email he mentioned wanting to get back into WP again after his move!
12:18 <+dmacks> cool!
12:18 <walkerma> Axiosaurus: Would you be willing to help with the inorganic naming part of the MOS? Or are you too busy?
12:19 <axiosaurus> yep will help
12:20 <+Beetstra> About that, do we have an IUPAC representative active on Wikipedia?
12:20 <walkerma> Axiosaurus: Thanks!
12:21 <walkerma> Beetstra: Regarding IUPAC - PC was our representative, but he hasn't been so active lately
12:21 <+Beetstra> I really meant someone that works for IUPAC ..
12:22 <walkerma> Beetstra: Sorry - I have a name of someone I've been talking with
12:22 <walkerma> I'm not sure that she would see herself as a IUPAC representative, though!
12:22 <+Beetstra> Might be useful to get that person to work on that
12:22 <+Beetstra> heh
12:23 * Beetstra gets handed 4 CD's with some very early versions of his thesis and similar back ups .. good laugh
12:23 <walkerma> She told me that very few people actually have a pay packet from IUPAC, it relies on volunteers
12:24 <+Rifleman_82> there are three exceptions: sulfur, caesium, aluminium. am i missing something?
12:24 <+Beetstra> OK .. forget that idea
12:24 <walkerma> So if we nominate someone from among our group to be the IUPAC rep, that person in effect "works for IUPAC"
12:24 <walkerma> The same way I "work for the ACS"
12:25 * Beetstra hides
12:25 <+dmacks> heh
12:25 <+Rifleman_82> phosphines: we prefer this over phosphanes?
12:25 <walkerma> It's a shame PC isn't so active, he knows IUPAC inside out like no one else I know.
12:25 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: Please don't raise that!
12:26 <walkerma> I think it could be a long argument/discussion!
12:26 <+Beetstra> Indeed .. for wikipedia I would leave it to phosphines .. even though it is correct to call it phosphanes
12:26 <walkerma> Beetstra: I think that's what we agreed before
12:27 <+Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28chemistry%29/draft#English variation
12:27 <+Beetstra> I think that what most people use .. mass IUPAC ignoring there
12:27 <+dmacks> Should we correct Cesium 137 (band) ?
12:28 <walkerma> No! BTW, my adviser's son was the leader of this band, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemlab
12:29 <walkerma> You can guess, he got the band name from his dad's profession!
12:30 <walkerma> Well, should we wrap things up there?
12:30 <+Rifleman_82> hey, if you guys don't agree with what i'm writing, please don't feel offended... i'm sure we can work something out!
12:30 <+Rifleman_82> oops
12:30 <+Rifleman_82> martin: i'll suppose you'll talk to axio about the image maps?
12:31 <+Beetstra> walkerma, Rifleman_82, i am writing some things on content on http://pluto.potsdam.edu/chemwiki/index.php/ChemWiki:Content_policy#Reactions
12:32 * Beetstra has to go for dinner
12:32 <walkerma> Beetstra: OK, bye! Thanks for the superb email you sent, as well.
12:32 <+Rifleman_82> okay dirk, cya!
12:33 <+Beetstra> See you all later
12:33 -!- Beetstra is now known as Beetstra_away
12:33 <walkerma> Axiosaurus: Rifleman_82 is referring to image maps such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryoji_Noyori#Chemistry
12:34 <walkerma> or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_aluminium_hydride#Use_in_organic_chemistry
12:34 <axiosaurus> seen them - v pretty
12:34 <axiosaurus> could be useful for e.g. SO2?
12:34 <walkerma> I think the ability to do image maps is new to WP (new to me, at least!) but I stumbled across one in the Kuiper belt
12:35 <+Rifleman_82> :)
12:35 <+Rifleman_82> dewar benzene and zeise's salt need chemboxes, if anyone has the time
12:35 <walkerma> How would you use an image map on SO2?
12:36 <+Rifleman_82> are chemical instruments and analytical techniques within the scope of our project?
12:36 <walkerma> Yes, definitely
12:36 <axiosaurus> just for recations as per LiAlH4
12:36 <walkerma> OK
12:36 <axiosaurus> how are image maps built?
12:37 <walkerma> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/ImageMapEdit/ImageMapEdit.html?en
12:37 <+dmacks> There's a list of regions (corners of rectangles, center/diameter of round, etc) and a link-target for each region.
12:37 <walkerma> It's so easy to use, even I was able to figure it out! I was amazed! It only takes a few minutes to do even a complex one
12:38 <axiosaurus> I will experiment
12:38 <walkerma> Created a blank rectangle, clicked the left button then the right to define the area, and gave it a link, and that's it
12:39 <+dmacks> Wow walkerma, that's a nice editor!
12:39 <walkerma> I agree! I think this will be a real boon for organic reactions, particularly industrial processes, where there may be lots of things in the image that have articles
12:40 <+dmacks> Will have to sync with structure-drawing-workgroup...I don't know if svg can be imagemapped
12:40 <+Rifleman_82> monsanto process :)
12:40 <walkerma> So, as our new Vice-President for Image Policies, dmacks, do you think people would generally support the use of image maps?
12:41 <+dmacks> I think so, if they were either widely used or had some obvious note on the image that they were mapped.
12:42 <+Rifleman_82> that's important - if not the benefits are lost
12:42 <+dmacks> (as a user, otherwise one would keep mousing around hoping for the best and quickly give up if the first few places tried didn't work)
12:43 <+Rifleman_82> should we leave chemists out of our scope?
12:43 <+Rifleman_82> leave it to the biographical people
12:43 <walkerma> There are options: If you have "desc bottom-left" as I did on the Noyori page, then you get that little icon. For illustration purposes, I used "desc none" on the LAH page, and that omits the icon - but I think it's probably better to have it in
12:43 <+dmacks> yes
12:43 <+dmacks> (@walkerma)
12:44 <walkerma> Rifleman_82: I think we should include chemists, but only to a limited extent
12:45 <+Rifleman_82> okay, i'll leave a placeholder. backburner for now, ok?
12:45 <walkerma> The biography project probably has close to a million articles now to worry about. That means they (rightly) should make policies about biographies in general. But we need to make sure that chemists who come to our projects wanting to write such pages are given some basic pointers. Is that reasonable?
12:45 <+dmacks> I gotta say, that "i" icon is even worse than useless for imagemap; it doesn't indicate that the image is mapped and it also indicates that the "i" will take one toa page where the use of the image (i.e., the mapping) would be described, which it doesn't. It's useful for WP editors, not readers:(
12:46 <+Rifleman_82> ok warlker
12:46 <+Rifleman_82> oops
12:46 <+Rifleman_82> ok walkerma
12:46 <walkerma> Whenever I meet a notable chemist, I try to get a photo and I may add a short piece if appropriate
12:46 <walkerma> (That Noyori pic was one I arranged, BTW!)
12:47 <+Rifleman_82> heh, i recall :)
12:48 <+Rifleman_82> i just stumbled upon hydroamination - wrote that eons ago
12:48 <walkerma> I had an email from a chemistry Wikipedian (astrochemist) who is quite a significant academic himself, who had been expanding the article on Hooke
12:48 <+Rifleman_82> maybe you guys can take a look and do a sanity check when you have the time
12:48 <+Rifleman_82> that article was mostly a summary of the introduction to my thesis some time back
12:49 <walkerma> Yes, fine, let's stop there. dmacks, if you have any ideas on the image map thing, maybe you can let us know.
12:49 <+Rifleman_82> yup okay
12:49 <walkerma> I think once we have put all these things in place we can look over the remaining action items and see what still needs to be done or resolved
12:49 <+dmacks> Okay. I've used them lots in general, but never the WP extension...will experiment a bit.
12:50 <walkerma> Beetstra: Can I give you a list of little things to consider for the ChemBox? Perhaps I could list them at WT:Chem?
12:50 <walkerma> Oh, he's gone, I forgot
12:51 <walkerma> OK, I think we all need to get on!
12:51 * dmacks has to run momentarily:(
12:52 <+dmacks> Meeting adjourning?
12:52 <walkerma> Yes, let's close the official meeting now!
12:53 <+Rifleman_82> :)
--- Log closed Tue Mar 04 12:53:21 EST 2008
