Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/IRC discussions/24 February 2009

L : 79-33-4
 * [2009-02-24 17:08:53] -->| walkerma (n=chatzill@admin-151-108.potsdam.edu) has joined #wikichem
 * [2009-02-24 17:09:16] Hello
 * [2009-02-24 17:10:23]  Hi Martin.
 * [2009-02-24 17:11:18] Student here, back in a minute. Any discussion going on here?
 * [2009-02-24 17:11:26]  Not so far.
 * [2009-02-24 17:13:51] (Back) Thanks for completing 901-1000
 * [2009-02-24 17:14:07] Is Rifleman_82 around?
 * [2009-02-24 17:14:22]  He went off forsome food about 20mins ago.
 * [2009-02-24 17:15:19] I'm giving an exam tomorrow, that's one reason why I didn't call a meeting for today.
 * [2009-02-24 17:15:28] ali_as: What are you working on at the moment?
 * [2009-02-24 17:15:55]  Right now I'm looking at the SDF toolkit in perl.
 * [2009-02-24 17:16:56] Ooh, that sounds like a lot of fun! I wish I knew how to program!  I was taught, but there's not a lot of call for Algol W on punch cards, unfortunately.
 * [2009-02-24 17:17:33]  I'm hoping to read and write the SDF and then using something like imacro to interface to an excel file. It's all perfectly feasable in theory.  Just an insane learning curve for an assembler programmer.
 * [2009-02-24 17:19:15] That would be very useful for us!
 * [2009-02-24 17:20:56] Have you talked to any of our programmers like DMacks or ChemSpiderman about it? They may know a way to do that.  I've learnt that often things can be done - you just have to ask the right person the right question!
 * [2009-02-24 17:21:54]  Not yet, I've talked to Rifleman about AWB which could be used to insert the cascite references automatically.
 * [2009-02-24 17:22:51] I'm not sure I want to see us validating articles via AWB. How would that work?
 * [2009-02-24 17:24:02]  Unsure, I'm looking at all the options I can find. It's possible that an external program might generate a list of 'valid' URLs after manual structure verification.
 * [2009-02-24 17:24:41]  In which case adding cascite after the cas field in chembox becomes pure drudgery.
 * [2009-02-24 17:26:21]  Certainly for 901-1000 virtually all the structures were trivial,nothing chiral and most of the effort was just pressing buttons to edit the pages.
 * [2009-02-24 17:26:29]  hi
 * [2009-02-24 17:26:54] Rifleman_82: Hi! Long time no (IR)C!
 * [2009-02-24 17:27:50]  hi
 * [2009-02-24 17:27:51]  :)
 * [2009-02-24 17:27:56]  yes not been around for a while
 * [2009-02-24 17:27:59]  sorry i'm late
 * [2009-02-24 17:28:02]  was ... making some food
 * [2009-02-24 17:28:14]  i just gave ali_as aka ambix AWB rights
 * [2009-02-24 17:28:19] <Rifleman_82> ali_as: can you try it out?
 * [2009-02-24 17:29:07] <ali_as> I'll need to install on this laptop.
 * [2009-02-24 17:29:19] <Rifleman_82> hmmm... inserting the cascite is qutie easy i guess
 * [2009-02-24 17:29:39] <Rifleman_82> you can replace |Casno = ... with | Casref = | Casno = ...
 * [2009-02-24 17:29:42] <Rifleman_82> or something like that
 * [2009-02-24 17:29:50] <Rifleman_82> i can check the syntax...
 * [2009-02-24 17:29:56] <Rifleman_82> but conceptually that's what i'm thinking of
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:14] <Rifleman_82> the resultant wikitext might be a bit ugly (since everything is usually in a line)
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:20] <Rifleman_82> i'm not sure how to insert a line break
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:28] <ali_as> That could work. I was wondering about searching for end of line.
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:35] <ali_as> Me either.
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:46] <Rifleman_82> i think there are some regex or escape characters...
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:47] Rifleman_82: My concern is that it's too easy to push the button and insert the cascite. The key step in the validation we're doing is to check the structures, which must be done manually
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:51] <Rifleman_82> but quick and dirty is good enough i guess
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:56] <Rifleman_82> yeah...
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:58] <ali_as> There seem to be special charectars for searching for them though, & and another one.
 * [2009-02-24 17:30:59] <Rifleman_82> well
 * [2009-02-24 17:31:09] <Rifleman_82> we can check them, then mark them in one go
 * [2009-02-24 17:31:38] Rifleman_82: Yes, that would be much better, I think
 * [2009-02-24 17:33:11] <Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage&diff=272984225&oldid=272963920
 * [2009-02-24 17:34:35] <Rifleman_82> i think pc had something to talk about?
 * [2009-02-24 17:34:58] Yes, but he's away for about another half hour.
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:02] <Rifleman_82> heh okay
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:07] Rifleman_82: Did you find the ref you wanted on paraquat?
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:13] <ali_as> Can I bring up the ugly topics of cascite in drugboxes and casciting multiple CAS numbers?
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:16] <Rifleman_82> yeah, i got it in the end
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:18] (Student here, back in 10 mins)
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:27] <Rifleman_82> heh... this will beinteresting
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:29] OK, I have a couple of papers on paraquat
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:35] <Rifleman_82> walkerma: i found it on google books in the end
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:39] <Rifleman_82> oh? hmm
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:41] But ali_as, you go ahead I'll read it later
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:47] <Rifleman_82> if you have them on soft copy, if you don't mind, perhaps you can email me?
 * [2009-02-24 17:36:54] <Rifleman_82> i'll read digest and .. yeah
 * [2009-02-24 17:37:05] <Rifleman_82> walkerma: i have another problem for you maybe later
 * [2009-02-24 17:37:26] <Rifleman_82> ali_as: what's up with cascite?
 * [2009-02-24 17:37:56] <ali_as> Hang on, marshalling thoughts.
 * [2009-02-24 17:39:17] =-= Beetstra_ is now known as Beetstra
 * [2009-02-24 17:39:26] <Rifleman_82> sure, take your time
 * [2009-02-24 17:39:27] <Rifleman_82> heya Beetstra
 * [2009-02-24 17:40:46] <ali_as> Ok. The one possible useful thought I had was mutiple images in chemboxes have a logical structure, | ImageFile = Dichlorvos.svg| ImageFile1 = Dichlorvos3d.png, Don't know how far this can go, but how about extending CASNo to CASNo1 CASNo2 etc, then we can have CASNo_Ref, CASNo_Ref2, etc for every CAS.
 * [2009-02-24 17:45:13] <Rifleman_82> hmmm
 * [2009-02-24 17:45:17] <Rifleman_82> and then cas notes
 * [2009-02-24 17:45:25] <Rifleman_82> anhydrous, mono, di, tri, ... n-hydrate
 * [2009-02-24 17:45:36] <Rifleman_82> hydrochloride, sulfate, acetate, etc?
 * [2009-02-24 17:49:46] <ali_as> Those are being put in with the cas currently, not ideal I suppose.
 * [2009-02-24 17:50:11] <ali_as> For example CASOther = 50-21-5


 * [2009-02-24 17:52:45] <ali_as> I have a green light on AWB, thanks! I'll setup a sandbox page and experiment.
 * [2009-02-24 17:59:00] <ali_as> Yow.
 * [2009-02-24 18:00:11] <Rifleman_82> hmm...
 * [2009-02-24 18:00:13] <Rifleman_82> :)
 * [2009-02-24 18:00:17] <Rifleman_82> how is it?
 * [2009-02-24 18:01:21] <ali_as> I'm still figuring out how to use it.
 * [2009-02-24 18:01:31] <Rifleman_82> alright
 * [2009-02-24 18:05:39] <Physchim62> OK, I'm here in person now
 * [2009-02-24 18:05:53] * Physchim62 reads the thread
 * [2009-02-24 18:06:51] <Rifleman_82> heya pc
 * [2009-02-24 18:08:01] <Physchim62> Hi RM, hi ali, hi Martin etc etc
 * [2009-02-24 18:08:07] <ali_as> PC :)
 * [2009-02-24 18:09:33] <Physchim62> I would be very wary about using AWB for CAS verification. It's not impossible, but I would like any person doing so to take the time to explain how they're doing it *before starting* ;)
 * [2009-02-24 18:10:05] <Physchim62> any person includes myself, of course
 * [2009-02-24 18:10:16] <ali_as> I'm not in any danger of trying something soon.
 * [2009-02-24 18:10:39] <Physchim62> good! ;) AWB is a useful tool, when used carefully!
 * [2009-02-24 18:10:46] <Rifleman_82> ah... we were thinking tagging, rather than verifying
 * [2009-02-24 18:10:59] <Physchim62> walkerma, are you around?
 * [2009-02-24 18:11:09] <Rifleman_82> verifying would require human intervention... reading /looking at the image
 * [2009-02-24 18:11:15] <ali_as> With a student last he said.
 * [2009-02-24 18:11:38] <Physchim62> even with tagging, you have to be aware of the problems, even if the risks are not as high.
 * [2009-02-24 18:12:50] <ali_as> SOmething else I wanted to bring up, molecular mass. Should we be working toward not having this and having C=3 | H=2 style formulas?
 * [2009-02-24 18:12:56] <Physchim62> with tagging you can piss people off for little reason and little benefit; that is the risk to be very aware of.
 * [2009-02-24 18:13:32] <Rifleman_82> if you can write a script to convert C6H12O6 --> C=6 | H = 12 | O = 6
 * [2009-02-24 18:13:33] <Rifleman_82> it'll be nice
 * [2009-02-24 18:13:38] <Physchim62> ali_as, maybe, some people like them, some people don't, so the two styles coexist
 * [2009-02-24 18:14:23] <ali_as> The chembox seems capable of working out a molecular mass from the C=n type, will it do that for the other sort?
 * [2009-02-24 18:14:25] <Rifleman_82> heh, maybe one day we might be able to search by molecular formula
 * [2009-02-24 18:14:31] <Rifleman_82> by integers or ranges
 * [2009-02-24 18:15:08] <Physchim62> If we're able to search by InChI, we're able to search by molecular formula!
 * [2009-02-24 18:15:24] <Physchim62> the objective is to be able to search by some form of InChI
 * [2009-02-24 18:15:28] <ali_as> I assumed it wouldn't and I'm thinking a MW line in the chembox is probably not a great thing if this can be worked out automatically.
 * [2009-02-24 18:15:58] <Rifleman_82> hm...
 * [2009-02-24 18:16:10] <ali_as> I'm also wondering where the MWs we have in the Union SDF come from as they don't seem to come from CAS.
 * [2009-02-24 18:16:19] <Physchim62> ali_as, I /think/ the chembox can currently handle all formulas, but you'd have to ask Beetstra
 * [2009-02-24 18:17:06] * Physchim62 gives Beetstra a shot of something strong to wake him up on the Cardiff bus
 * [2009-02-24 18:17:42] <ali_as> I'm not sure dettol was what he'd have in mind.
 * [2009-02-24 18:18:15] <Physchim62> Dettol doesn't count as "strong" in Cardiff
 * [2009-02-24 18:18:31] * ali_as laughs.
 * [2009-02-24 18:21:33] <Physchim62> Rifleman_82, what are your thoughts about the current arrangement?
 * [2009-02-24 18:21:46] Back
 * [2009-02-24 18:22:03] <Rifleman_82> what about?
 * [2009-02-24 18:22:28] <Rifleman_82> i think there are great advantages for using the C=6 method
 * [2009-02-24 18:22:33] <Rifleman_82> and i've never been reverted yet
 * [2009-02-24 18:22:41] <Physchim62> RM, about our way of displaying formulae and MWs
 * [2009-02-24 18:23:04] <Rifleman_82> i think there are some difficulties for nonstoichiometric compounds, but i don't see how the chembox won't display them wrongly
 * [2009-02-24 18:23:23] <Rifleman_82> i think the bigger question is the molecular formulae for hydrates etc
 * [2009-02-24 18:23:36] <ali_as> Good point.
 * [2009-02-24 18:23:38] <Rifleman_82> we still have'nt adequately resolved the problem of multiple hydrates
 * [2009-02-24 18:24:03] <Rifleman_82> i've mentioned before that the chembox should contain the anhydrous compound only, by convention
 * [2009-02-24 18:24:25] <Rifleman_82> but it doesn't seem to be very accepted ... the last i remember smokefoot talking about how some dihydrate was most common
 * [2009-02-24 18:24:46] <ali_as> Well, who's going to want data on anhydrous copper sulphate :/
 * [2009-02-24 18:25:09] <Physchim62> OK, I think we have general support for the X=x method where it is applied, but there are still unresolved probelms
 * [2009-02-24 18:25:20] <Physchim62> such as my spelling ;)
 * [2009-02-24 18:25:58] <Rifleman_82> alias: you disagree with having anhydrous only data for formula and FW?
 * [2009-02-24 18:26:31] <Physchim62> I suggest putting the problem on the agenda for next week, to get input from the people who maintain the chembox code
 * [2009-02-24 18:27:50] <Physchim62> What I wanted to discuss here today is very simply "how good are our chemicals articles"?
 * [2009-02-24 18:27:56] <ali_as> Using anhydrous compounds makes logical sense but it gets in the way of giving users the data they are most likley to need.
 * [2009-02-24 18:27:56] <Rifleman_82> ok
 * [2009-02-24 18:28:02] I think it's better to calculate the MW, but I can see why we allow both. Many chemboxes are written by people unfamiliar with the system.  If we get a way to convert C6H10O2 to | C=6 | H=10 | O=2| then we could do AWB or bot runs periodically on all of the new Chemboxes
 * [2009-02-24 18:28:20] As for the anhydrous ones, yes, let's talk about that next week
 * [2009-02-24 18:28:43] <Rifleman_82> well... if you're trying to spoon it out of a bottle, you should have the fw on the bottle of the pentahydrate anyway
 * [2009-02-24 18:28:58] <Rifleman_82> so i think considering only anhydrous chemicals for formula & FW is convenient and simpler
 * [2009-02-24 18:28:58] <Physchim62> we have an assessment system, as many of you already know, which suffers from a lack of attention (BIG HINT)
 * [2009-02-24 18:29:00] We should raise the issue on-wiki to try and get a consensus building before we talk on IRC
 * [2009-02-24 18:29:18] <Rifleman_82> and i wonder if we're going overboard with the crystal structures in lieu of simple Na+ Cl-
 * [2009-02-24 18:29:39] <Rifleman_82> or the Grignards
 * [2009-02-24 18:29:48] <Rifleman_82> as etherates
 * [2009-02-24 18:29:57] <Rifleman_82> which don't match the contents/titles of the chembox
 * [2009-02-24 18:30:01] Rifleman_82: That's a classic organic vs inorganic perspective thing!
 * [2009-02-24 18:30:15] <Rifleman_82> hahaha yeah ...
 * [2009-02-24 18:30:23] Grignards ARE etherates, though, they can't exist in isolation from the ether
 * [2009-02-24 18:30:24] <Physchim62> we have representations of structures, that has been a problem in chemistry since the XVIIIe century
 * [2009-02-24 18:30:26] <Rifleman_82> well i'm an OM chemist so i'm split down the middle...
 * [2009-02-24 18:30:41] <ali_as> OM?
 * [2009-02-24 18:30:46] <Rifleman_82> organometallics
 * [2009-02-24 18:30:55] * Physchim62 offers to split Rifleman down the middle to determine his loyalty
 * [2009-02-24 18:31:00] <ali_as> Ahh. Werner complex chemistry.
 * [2009-02-24 18:31:10] <Physchim62> ali_as, absolutely not
 * [2009-02-24 18:31:18] <Rifleman_82> i get annoyed with students when they write draw CH3COONa
 * [2009-02-24 18:31:19] <ali_as> No?
 * [2009-02-24 18:31:29] <Rifleman_82> as in, with straight bonds, implying a O-Na covalent bond
 * [2009-02-24 18:31:37] <Rifleman_82> so that's my schizophrenia
 * [2009-02-24 18:31:42] <Physchim62> Werner-type complexes are a simple game compared to organometallics ;)
 * [2009-02-24 18:31:55] <Rifleman_82> werner need not imply organomet
 * [2009-02-24 18:32:03] <ali_as> Ahh.
 * [2009-02-24 18:32:15] <Rifleman_82> hm... in fact, i think some OM chemists still are undecided if carbonyl complexes are inorganic or organometallic
 * [2009-02-24 18:32:22] <ali_as> I've just insulted you, I apologise ;)
 * [2009-02-24 18:32:28] <Rifleman_82> no, no insult at all
 * [2009-02-24 18:32:40] <Physchim62> Werner (these days) implies the opposite: a complex in which crystal field theory is a valid approximation
 * [2009-02-24 18:32:44] <Rifleman_82> carbonyl and cyanide
 * [2009-02-24 18:33:44] <Rifleman_82> anyway, PC wanted to talk about how good our chemicals articles are?
 * [2009-02-24 18:33:45] <ali_as> Mellor treats carbonyls as inorganic and all cyanides as organic.
 * [2009-02-24 18:33:49] <Rifleman_82> how good are they?
 * [2009-02-24 18:34:33] <Physchim62> crap
 * [2009-02-24 18:34:53] <Physchim62> but don't say that to anyone else, OK ;)
 * [2009-02-24 18:35:05] <Rifleman_82> hahaha
 * [2009-02-24 18:35:06] <ali_as> We won't tell.
 * [2009-02-24 18:35:34] <Rifleman_82> i was thinking of uneven
 * [2009-02-24 18:35:37] <Rifleman_82> but do go on, c
 * [2009-02-24 18:35:38] <Rifleman_82> pc
 * [2009-02-24 18:36:00] <Physchim62> there is a general move in the rest of WP to "verify" A-class articles
 * [2009-02-24 18:36:25] Led by yours truly
 * [2009-02-24 18:36:41] <Rifleman_82> heh, i'm still hoping for a WP on DVD
 * [2009-02-24 18:36:42] <Rifleman_82> :)
 * [2009-02-24 18:37:06] <Rifleman_82> PC?
 * [2009-02-24 18:37:11] <Rifleman_82> i think our articles are spotty
 * [2009-02-24 18:37:19] <Rifleman_82> uneven
 * [2009-02-24 18:37:29] <Rifleman_82> but it'll always be work in progress
 * [2009-02-24 18:37:33] <Physchim62> We have already had sulfuric acid down-graded, correctly in my humble opìnion
 * [2009-02-24 18:38:13] <ali_as> One of the highest tonnage chemicals on the planet downgraded?
 * [2009-02-24 18:39:02] <Physchim62> well yes, the article, more than 40 kB, had only seven references
 * [2009-02-24 18:39:02] <ali_as> Ahh, I see A-Class = A grade, not importance.
 * [2009-02-24 18:39:23] <Rifleman_82> 9 refs for such a long article
 * [2009-02-24 18:39:28] <Rifleman_82> yeah, that's badly referenced
 * [2009-02-24 18:39:39] <Physchim62> what I think we should be doing is looking at our other A-class articles to try to identify the problems before someone else does it for us
 * [2009-02-24 18:40:19] <Physchim62> ideally, we should also be trying to do some of the 300 B-class articles to find those which could be easily improved
 * [2009-02-24 18:40:31] <Rifleman_82> low hanging fruit?
 * [2009-02-24 18:40:52] Physchim62: Yes, I commend you for raising this! We should focus some real effort on this, I think
 * [2009-02-24 18:41:43] <Physchim62> this should not be a session of grade deflation, just killing off bad A-classes without trying to improve them or without trying to bring others up tothe standard we ask for.
 * [2009-02-24 18:41:47] <Rifleman_82> seems like the same comments we've had months and years ago... that the important articles aren't the best
 * [2009-02-24 18:41:53] FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Summary_of_the_IRC_discussion
 * [2009-02-24 18:42:21] <Physchim62> yes, but this time, if we don't do it ourselves, someone else with a lesser knowledge of chemistry will do it for us :P
 * [2009-02-24 18:42:51] <Physchim62> so I'm looking for volunteers :)
 * [2009-02-24 18:43:16] <Rifleman_82> if we're gonna do that...
 * [2009-02-24 18:43:26] <Rifleman_82> can we ratify and implement the style guide i did the last time?
 * [2009-02-24 18:43:38] Rifleman_82: We have some, like H2SO4 which are decent but not A, and we have others like NaHCO3 which are really important/popular but terrible
 * [2009-02-24 18:43:46] <Rifleman_82> it's as done as i can....
 * [2009-02-24 18:43:51] <Rifleman_82> oh... i hate the bicarb article
 * [2009-02-24 18:44:11] <Rifleman_82> the style guide is as done as i can make it, i've raised it in our wikitalk and nobody's made many changes/comments
 * [2009-02-24 18:44:27] <Rifleman_82> if we're going to do a major revamp, we should probably have the roadmap in place first
 * [2009-02-24 18:44:33] Rifleman_82: Why don't we make the ratification be THE agenda for next Tuesday - other things can perhaps wait?
 * [2009-02-24 18:44:34] <Rifleman_82> IMHO
 * [2009-02-24 18:44:44] <Rifleman_82> okay then
 * [2009-02-24 18:44:56] URL please?
 * [2009-02-24 18:45:07] <Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHEMMOS
 * [2009-02-24 18:45:18] <Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft
 * [2009-02-24 18:45:36] <Physchim62> OK, let's go for that
 * [2009-02-24 18:45:58] With details like the MW issue, we can discuss that at a later date
 * [2009-02-24 18:46:07] <Physchim62> and we will need to discuss at WT:CHEM before hand
 * [2009-02-24 18:46:12] Yes
 * [2009-02-24 18:46:32] <Rifleman_82> i'm looking at it now
 * [2009-02-24 18:46:47] <Rifleman_82> it's been a long time since i wrote it and i realise i have subpages which are red
 * [2009-02-24 18:47:04] <Physchim62> I know the feeling
 * [2009-02-24 18:47:32] <Rifleman_82> haha
 * [2009-02-24 18:47:49] <Rifleman_82> structure drawing workgroup needs to be tidied a bit
 * [2009-02-24 18:48:18] <Rifleman_82> thinking back, the style guide gives the skeleton of an article
 * [2009-02-24 18:48:27] <Rifleman_82> and i think we can still use it, barring violent disagreements
 * [2009-02-24 18:48:48] I think it's a good start.
 * [2009-02-24 18:48:53] <Rifleman_82> perhaps if there's nothing to be expanded in the subpage, so be it?
 * [2009-02-24 18:49:04] <Rifleman_82> structure drawing will be needed
 * [2009-02-24 18:49:20] It will grow as needed, perhaps if people at WP:Chem know we're going to start using it as our MoS
 * [2009-02-24 18:49:35] <Physchim62> I don't think we should be assessing against strict adherence to our style guide: aldol condensation would have failed on those terms
 * [2009-02-24 18:49:56] (I'm thinking especially of the redlinks)
 * [2009-02-24 18:49:58] <Rifleman_82> we always have WP:IAR
 * [2009-02-24 18:50:08] <Rifleman_82> i think i should give it a polish before we present
 * [2009-02-24 18:50:20] <Rifleman_82> it's wednesday here... give me maybe 2 days
 * [2009-02-24 18:50:34] It would be better to avoid having obvious discrepancies between theory and practice, IMHO
 * [2009-02-24 18:50:44] <Physchim62> we should be assessing against the criterion of "can we find anythin (seriously) missing or (seriously) wrong"
 * [2009-02-24 18:51:21] <Rifleman_82> ./chemicals should cut to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Style_guidelines#Article_format
 * [2009-02-24 18:51:27] I'm going to be very busy on 0.7 in the next couple of weeks - getting that DVD ready that RM wants - so I may be quite quiet
 * [2009-02-24 18:51:39] <Rifleman_82> i mean, take #article format and put it into a new article
 * [2009-02-24 18:51:42] <Rifleman_82> and we can leave out the rest
 * [2009-02-24 18:52:51] Structure Drawing will stay won't it?
 * [2009-02-24 18:53:04] as a link?
 * [2009-02-24 18:53:22] <Rifleman_82> sure, structure drawing will stay
 * [2009-02-24 18:53:26] <Rifleman_82> give me a few minutes
 * [2009-02-24 18:53:30] <Rifleman_82> lemme flesh it out from what we have now
 * [2009-02-24 18:53:42] <Rifleman_82> you wanna continue tlaking about quality in general?
 * [2009-02-24 18:55:26] <Rifleman_82> alright /chemicals should be blued
 * [2009-02-24 18:56:41] Rifleman_82: OK, though I have to be in and out of this discussion
 * [2009-02-24 18:58:12] <Rifleman_82> well if everyone can take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft now
 * [2009-02-24 18:58:21] <Rifleman_82> two sections are not complete
 * [2009-02-24 18:58:27] <Rifleman_82> ./nomenclature and /reactions
 * [2009-02-24 18:59:13] <Rifleman_82> i've been thinking of /reactions for a while
 * [2009-02-24 18:59:29] <Rifleman_82> and i attempted an infobox which gives fast facts on reactions
 * [2009-02-24 18:59:35] <Rifleman_82> scope, substrate, reagent/catalyst, product
 * [2009-02-24 18:59:45] <Rifleman_82> floated a balloon but nobody said anything...
 * [2009-02-24 19:00:16] <Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rifleman_82/Heck_reaction
 * [2009-02-24 19:00:36] <Rifleman_82> but maybe that for a later stage
 * [2009-02-24 19:08:46] <ali_as> Could be useful.
 * [2009-02-24 19:09:18] <Rifleman_82> you're talking about the infobox reaction?
 * [2009-02-24 19:09:25] <ali_as> Yes, SN1/SN2 section?
 * [2009-02-24 19:09:36] <Rifleman_82> yeah, implementation will be a bitch, and it'll be a long time before everything will have one
 * [2009-02-24 19:09:46] <ali_as> Stereochemistry of products?
 * [2009-02-24 19:09:52] <Rifleman_82> yeah we can talk about that too
 * [2009-02-24 19:09:59] <ali_as> It looks like a big task.
 * [2009-02-24 19:10:35] <Rifleman_82> yeah, that's why i think we should keep it in view for the moment
 * [2009-02-24 19:11:12] <ali_as> 'Solvent' maybe seperate from reagents.
 * [2009-02-24 19:11:54] <Rifleman_82> yeah, we could do that
 * [2009-02-24 19:12:14] <Rifleman_82> i think i was talking to walkerma about htis
 * [2009-02-24 19:12:21] <Rifleman_82> that perhaps using the template
 * [2009-02-24 19:12:31] <Rifleman_82> one day we could search for all reactions which use.... alkyl halides as reactants
 * [2009-02-24 19:12:33] <Rifleman_82> for example
 * [2009-02-24 19:12:41] <Rifleman_82> using the box and perhaps some hidden categorization
 * [2009-02-24 19:12:42] * ali_as nods.
 * [2009-02-24 19:13:04] What did you want to ask me about?
 * [2009-02-24 19:13:10] <Rifleman_82> but this is something on the order of doing away with the bulk of the chembox and simply uploading a jmol file or something
 * [2009-02-24 19:13:21] <Rifleman_82> where everythign else is calculated on the fly
 * [2009-02-24 19:13:22] <Rifleman_82> heh
 * [2009-02-24 19:13:30] <Rifleman_82> = nice to have, very useful, but not going to happen anytime soon
 * [2009-02-24 19:13:49] <Rifleman_82> walkerma: i was talking about using the infobox reaction template to allow searching
 * [2009-02-24 19:14:10] <Rifleman_82> my "OrgSynth" idea
 * [2009-02-24 19:14:31] Great idea!
 * [2009-02-24 19:14:45] <Rifleman_82> hehe
 * [2009-02-24 19:14:55] <Rifleman_82> next time!!!
 * [2009-02-24 19:15:14] <Rifleman_82> have you seen the infobox reaction?
 * [2009-02-24 19:15:18] <Rifleman_82> if all the fields were searchable
 * [2009-02-24 19:15:25] <Rifleman_82> yeah, we could call them up that way
 * [2009-02-24 19:15:41] <Rifleman_82> the organic chemist POV...
 * [2009-02-24 19:15:47] <Rifleman_82> every reaction is named for somebody
 * [2009-02-24 19:15:53] That would be brilliant - kind of like online Larock
 * [2009-02-24 19:16:01] <Rifleman_82> it's not O-alkylation, no, it's gotta be the williamson ether synthesis
 * [2009-02-24 19:16:05] <Rifleman_82> well at least they mention "ether"
 * [2009-02-24 19:16:08] http://www.amazon.com/Comprehensive-Organic-Transformations-Functional-Preparations/dp/0471190314/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235499310&sr=1-3
 * [2009-02-24 19:16:30] <Rifleman_82> walkerma: we had some chap wanting to contribute his website?
 * [2009-02-24 19:16:31] <Rifleman_82> remember?
 * [2009-02-24 19:16:34] <Rifleman_82> it's been so long ago
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:01] Rifleman_82: Actually, many basic reactions don't have a person's name attached - e.g. NaBH4 + ketone -> alcohol
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:11] <Rifleman_82> true true
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:18] <Rifleman_82> but the number of name reactions is huge!
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:25] <Rifleman_82> and many are simply variations of a theme
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:28] <Rifleman_82> specialized conditions
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:33] Mark Leach
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:42] <Rifleman_82> gatterman-koch is a modified friedel crafts too
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:49] <Rifleman_82> whoops, there you have another name reaction!
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:56] <ali_as> Williamson has 2 ether synthesis methods though.
 * [2009-02-24 19:17:59] <Rifleman_82> or the finkelstein halide displacement...
 * [2009-02-24 19:18:13] http://www.chemthes.com/
 * [2009-02-24 19:18:18] <Rifleman_82> ah yeah, mark leach
 * [2009-02-24 19:18:19] <Rifleman_82> :)
 * [2009-02-24 19:18:38] <Rifleman_82> dunno, the ligand-making side of me used to go alkylating everything ... S, O, N...
 * [2009-02-24 19:18:51] <Rifleman_82> so i had to switch gears when i was teaching the williamson ether synthesis some time back
 * [2009-02-24 19:18:57] I'm still in touch, occasionally, with ~K who wrote most of our reaction pages
 * [2009-02-24 19:19:25] Maybe we can coax him back onto WP with this!
 * [2009-02-24 19:19:29] <Rifleman_82> :)
 * [2009-02-24 19:19:52] He moved states/jobs a while back, that's why he left really
 * [2009-02-24 19:20:42] He writes very good short overviews of named reactions
 * [2009-02-24 19:21:04] One thing you need to consider is the old chestnut of specific vs classes of reactions
 * [2009-02-24 19:21:08] <Rifleman_82> he wrote almost all of them!
 * [2009-02-24 19:22:05] Luche reaction is really a subset of the NaBH4 reaction I mentioned. Williamson ether synthesis is a subset of SN2, which is a subset of nucleophilic substitution, which is a subset of substitution
 * [2009-02-24 19:22:42] Unlike with chemicals, there is no hard and fast boundary for classifying a reaction
 * [2009-02-24 19:23:01] <Rifleman_82> nucleophilic and electrophilic are two sides of a coin
 * [2009-02-24 19:23:21] <ali_as> Williamson also has the continous process which is the classic ethyl ether synthesis.
 * [2009-02-24 19:23:34] <ali_as> Things get confusing.
 * [2009-02-24 19:23:48] <Rifleman_82> http://www.organic-chemistry.org/namedreactions/luche-reduction.shtm
 * [2009-02-24 19:23:54] Cope elimination, Cope reaction, Coper rearrangement, etc
 * [2009-02-24 19:23:55] <Rifleman_82> with this website, i wonder why i bought clayden...
 * [2009-02-24 19:24:06] <ali_as> I'm trying to remeber what aldol is with nitrogen instead of oxygen.
 * [2009-02-24 19:24:16] <Rifleman_82> i found reactions not explainable by a single pair of electrons scary...
 * [2009-02-24 19:24:21] <Rifleman_82> enamine?
 * [2009-02-24 19:24:41] Is an aza-Cope rearrangement a Cope or is it a separate reaction?
 * [2009-02-24 19:24:50] Classifications are hard
 * [2009-02-24 19:24:51] <ali_as> Or Oxycope.
 * [2009-02-24 19:25:03] <ali_as> WHich are 3 3 sigmatropic ;)
 * [2009-02-24 19:25:31] <Rifleman_82> yeahi hate them all
 * [2009-02-24 19:25:35] (Must get a letter emailed...)
 * [2009-02-24 19:31:10] <ali_as> Mannich reaction I think. (One chemistry lecuturer I recall insisting it was nothing but an aldol).
 * [2009-02-24 19:32:31] <ali_as> It's a fair point but at the time I was having big problems with aldol, A-Level here doesn't leave you in a state of mind where you can accept carbon bonds jumping all over the place in dilute base.
 * [2009-02-24 19:33:05] <Rifleman_82> ali_as: you're in the UK?
 * [2009-02-24 19:33:10] <ali_as> Yes.
 * [2009-02-24 19:33:28] <Rifleman_82> oh okay
 * [2009-02-24 19:34:48] <Rifleman_82> sigh
 * [2009-02-24 19:34:49] <Rifleman_82> what a mess
 * [2009-02-24 19:34:56] <Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Summary_of_the_IRC_discussion
 * [2009-02-24 19:35:19] <Rifleman_82> so, to improve our articles
 * [2009-02-24 19:35:23] <Rifleman_82> once again
 * [2009-02-24 19:35:32] <Rifleman_82> maybe we should turn back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Summary_of_the_IRC_discussion
 * [2009-02-24 19:35:33] <Rifleman_82> oops
 * [2009-02-24 19:35:35] <Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Worklist
 * [2009-02-24 19:37:31] <Rifleman_82> "Functional groups" is the easiest to do
 * [2009-02-24 19:37:42] <Rifleman_82> simply get any good organic text and start referencing
 * [2009-02-24 19:37:50] <Rifleman_82> from there you see gaps which need to be filled
 * [2009-02-24 19:38:07] <Rifleman_82> i've given it a go at acyl chloride
 * [2009-02-24 19:50:26] <Rifleman_82> heya pc
 * [2009-02-24 19:50:33] <Rifleman_82> where did you leave us?
 * [2009-02-24 20:06:59] * Beetstra forgot about the meeting .. hi guys
 * [2009-02-24 20:07:37] <Beetstra> Yes, Physchim62/ali_as, it can handle all elements afaik
 * [2009-02-24 20:09:33] <Beetstra> at least the ones mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Chembox_Elements&action=edit
 * [2009-02-24 20:09:42] <Beetstra> (why is that template not fully protected ..)
 * [2009-02-24 20:14:39] Sorry, I've been busy, and now I have to go (late) to a meeting. Thanks for your work on acyl chloride, RM, we will need to decide how we lay out functional group/organic family pages
 * [2009-02-24 20:14:53] I'd better say tata for now
 * [2009-02-24 20:18:26] |<-- walkerma has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.6/2009011913]")
 * [2009-02-24 20:24:06] <Rifleman_82> okay protected
 * [2009-02-24 20:46:43] <Physchim62> I'm back again
 * [2009-02-24 20:47:44] <Physchim62> OK, let me read what it had to miss
 * [2009-02-24 20:48:18] <Rifleman_82> heya
 * [2009-02-24 20:48:18] <Rifleman_82> okay
 * [2009-02-24 20:48:21] <Rifleman_82> nothing much i gues
 * [2009-02-24 20:48:21] <Rifleman_82> s
 * [2009-02-24 20:48:37] <Rifleman_82> just some ideas
 * [2009-02-24 20:48:39] <Rifleman_82> anyway
 * [2009-02-24 20:48:40] <Rifleman_82> i gotta go
 * [2009-02-24 20:48:41] <Rifleman_82> nigth guys
 * [2009-02-24 20:48:42] |<-- Rifleman_82 has left irc.freenode.net