Talk:M/z

This article presents the shortcomings and inconsistencies of this notation in an effort to convince people to stop using it. Note that the author User:Kehrli is involved in several other articles in dispute involving the same subject, such as Mass-to-charge ratio, Mass spectrum, Mass chromatogram and Thomson (unit). Additionally there is a current request for arbitration regarding these matters.--Nick Y. 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article exclusively presents the rules of the wider scientific community as described in the IUPAC green book and the ISO 31.  Therefore NPOV is not a problem. --Kehrli 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Nick Y. that this article can be quite misleading and does not use NPOV. Regardless of what the IUPAC green book suggests, the use of m/z as a symbol for Mass-to-charge ratio is well entrenched within the mass spectrometry community thanks to years, if not decades of use.  Wikipedia should not be the place for trying to change terminology used in scientific literature.  Alchemistmatt 06:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alchemistmatt,
 * 1) you seem to think that scientific literature consists only of mass spectrometry articles. Mass-to-charge ratio is used by many other fields of science which all keep to the rules of ISO 31 about quantities and units.  Only the mass spec community seems to think they need to go a special track.  This is ok with me, but they should not think that wikipedia should represent their minority opinion.  This is not a MS wiki.
 * 2) it is the mass spec community itself that discintinued the use of mass-to-charge ratio. (It seems that you are not even aware of this.) Please read the main article - it is exactly about this issue.  --Kehrli 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)