Category talk:Chemistry

Chemicals
Please see the talk page for Chemicals as to why I parented it here. I think this category could use some re-organization but I do not know the subject well enought to do it myself. Thanks Sortior 04:58, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't feel bad saying this, this category is a mess. I've sorted through 200 math and 150 physics articles. Someone needs to do same for chemistry.linas 09:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have done a bit of cleanup on this in the past, I will go through it some more in the next couple of weeks. I presume that the (unspecified) problem refers to the fact that this is a very general cat, and as such there should only be very general articles- is this it, or am I missing something? Walkerma 17:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My impression is that it has too many articles that would be better placed under an appropriate subcategory, or maybe a subcategory that has yet to be created. If somebody agrees, i will help clean it up. Firestorm 14:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your analysis. One problem is that this cat is just the tip of the iceberg- as you go to the next sub-cat, you find many that need to be at lower levels still.  I will work on this too in idle moments, but I think several people need to be working on it, thanks!


 * Would anybody disagree with adding a Chemical bonds subcategory?


 * I don't understand how this would work. If you mean things like C=O, I think a more reasonable category would be things like Category:aldehydes or Category:ketones, which already exist to some extent. Inorganics tend to be categorized by the constituent parts, such as Category:Nitrogen compounds and Category:chlorides for NCl3. Walkerma 17:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In Category:Chemical bonds or whatever it would be called, things such as Chemical bond, Covalent bond, Coordinate covalent bond, Chemical polarity, Bond strength (chemistry), etc. would go there. Im thinking for Category:Chemistry as a whole, general articles should be here, with general subcategories. In those subcategories would go more specific articles and more specific subcategories, etc. But 430 articles in the category is way too many.Firestorm 19:09, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me, go ahead. I will focus mainly on moving compounds, as I am familiar with the subcats in that area. Walkerma 20:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * How about Category:Chemical bond properties so people don't make the mistake I made? Walkerma 20:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

done. I am in the process of moving articles to thqat and the new Category:Acid-bases. I am putting 'Chemistry Revamp' in the edit summaries, and i would advise others to do the same to avoid confusion. Firestorm 20:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we've gotten the article number down from 430 to 412. Not bad progress, but we need more and i cannot do more today.

not a single article in the chemistry category?
Some time ago there was a discussion about the number of articles that should have a place in the chemistry category. I suggested that the number should stay below 150 and there was some consensus. Now we have a tag suggesting no articles should be in chemistry and indeed most articles have been relocated to subcats. I do not understand why. What is wrong about selecting the top-150 key articles (excluding portal articles like organic chemistry or analytical chemistry) that would explain everything you need to know about chemistry. I would suggest articles like periodic table, covalent bond, chemical equilibrium and so on. By the nature of these articles (concepts well established) I would expect not a lot of mutations in these articles especially as they will become featured. Also note that the physics cat does not bother with this tag, biology does but contains many more articles, so there is no consensus in the overall sciences. Chemistry is not an empty science. V8rik 19:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"CAT:CHEM" and ("CAT:Chem") listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CAT:CHEM&redirect=no CAT:CHEM] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)