Anybody else think the initial definition of chemistry is really poor? We fixed the correspondingly poor definition of physics (formerly: "the science of energy and its interactions with matter"). Describing chemistry as the science of matter is overly broad: quarks, muons, and the Z0 particle are "matter" but decidedly not within the domain of chemistry.Scrutchfield
Does anybody notice that the 'Chemistry' mainpage is absolutely unreadable? Definitions are cryptics. The exact words a definition tries to explain is being used again.
The main page is also becoming nothing more than collection of links to other articles, to which only very little information is added.
Please consider content and readablity before giving up the urge to open new article or parring down definition. There is elegance and there is simplistic.
- I agree with you entirely. I'm not sure how it can be rewritten, though. Perhaps we could start with a summary of each of the articles that it links to.
- Acegikmo1 05:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There should be an article called chemical substance. Andres.
- I think it would be that much more usefull to have one principal article/subsection in main page describing how chemistry view/organize the notion of matter (compounds, susbtance, mixture, elements, molecule, atoms...etc) then from there obscure definitions that need elaborations are put on seperate page. Otherwise we will have myriads of small pages that doesn't give coherent picture. It's very hard to read a page with plenty of links to small definition but no narration. Any thought?
You all can add more information to separation of mixtures.
How write a chemical formula
O = C - R in threedimensional form ( with oxygen over the C and = ).
and more complex ones ???.
- You could try TeX_markup. I've never used it though, so I don't know if that would help. The village pump is a good place to ask things like this. Angela 13:54, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- That's all but impossible, even using TeX Markup. I personally use a separate program (ChemSketch), which works well for just about everything. The pictures of acetonitrile, acrylonitrile, etc. are drawn using it.
Isn't there a more easy way to write MnO4- than
MnO< sub>4< sup>-? Such as MnO,,4,,^-^?
- Hmm... try this:
- Of course, that does create a picture sometimes, but... :-\ ugen64 02:23, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
Anybody interested in contributing to the page Colors of chemicals which is currently rather shabby ???
If you check the lidocaine page, it gives the chemical formula as C14H22N20 HCl H2O. That's fine, except I'm wondering where the HCl and H2O came from. Are they inherently present in lidocaine? If so, how? Are they somehow attached (which is impossible, considering the formula)? I've drawn lidocaine's structure on ChemSketch, and will upload it soon, but I don't have the HCl and H2O anywhere...? ugen64 02:22, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
- Lidocain is often supplied as the HCl salt. The HCl is not bonded to the main drug molecule directly. The H2O is a hydrate, which will be loosely attached, probably through hydrogen bonding. Iridium77 22:31, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I removed the disturbingly misrepresentative photo (right) which previously headlined this article, primarily because it shows a "chemist" working without taking even the most basic safety precautions (e.g. no eye or skin protection whatsoever). When I worked in a university chem lab as an impressionable undergraduate, I would have been summarily booted had I attempted to do what was depicted here. -- Seth Ilys 13:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm the one who had added that pic. I guess I agree with you. I'll look for a better one. Quadell 13:36, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
uhm, guys... Is it me or these pictures are not necessary? I know it looks pretty but we have to remember a lot of people are trying to fit these encyclopedia on a limited memory. Shouldn't we limit picture to 'absolute necessary' item? (Diagram, illustration, equations)
The first one looks appropriate Quadell!. I did not add that coz i dint know whether they were copyrighted.:SudhirP 04:26, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
- They are all public domain. I'm adding pic 1 to the article (as an addition to, not replacing, the test-tube pic). Quadell 12:30, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
The test tube is ok, but the scientist is a more clear representation of chemistry (study). Bensaccount 16:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
- C'mon, there's gotta be somebody here who works in a lab - go take a picture of it! (Or sneak into someone else's lab :-) ) Stan 04:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
- Most labs are suprisingly uninteresting places. And why is a lab representative of chemistry anyway? Most chemistry is done in industrial facilities. I don't think that we need a cheesy pic on the front page, so I've taken it off as part of the major edit that I've just done.
- I still have some issues with this page. I want to shorten the "fundamental concepts" section somewhat, perhaps in the same way that I just did to branches of chemistry. There is no point duplicating information when it only makes the thing harder to navigate. Succint points, yes. Large paragraphs, no.
- Iridium77 11:45, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- Pictures of labs are maybe uninteresting to you, but consider high-school students in Gabon - to them a firsthand look at where chemistry is done would be completely fascinating, maybe even inspire them to study it further. A picture of an industrial facility wouldn't come amiss either. Stan 13:22, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- But what is the point of a picture of a lab? The kind of lab that one does synthesis in is one thing (usually a smelly, dirty place), the labs that the physical chemists use look totally different, analysts have something different again, perhaps the most chemistry is actually done in a library.
- My point is this: the article is about chemistry, and chemistry is a whole lot more than a picture of a lab or a refinery or whatever. Chemistry is about knowledge, not about some guy in a white coat looking studious.
- There's a decent picture of a workstation at a lab under laboratory, which in my opinion is where it should stay. Chemistry is not what happens in a lab, chemistry is understanding what happens in a lab.
- Iridium77 19:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
I changed "scientific study" to "science". Science refers to the systematic acquisition of new knowledge about nature and the body of already existing knowledge so gained. Bensaccount 01:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Hoping that a few chemists may notice this here... This article links to Chemics, which I'd never heard of. Reading the article, it is basically supposed to be where chemistry meets other fields of study. I have never heard this term before, and I am a working chemist. Has anybody else come across it? Would anybody like to be a peer-reviewer, to back me up in suggesting that that page should be deleted? Iridium77 22:41, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's a duplicate. SOmebody better erase that page.
- They did, and redirected it to Chemistry Iridium77 08:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)