Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physical Chemistry

Categories

Should Category:Industrial hygiene be moved up one to Category:Chemistry?
Should Category:Ions be under Category:Physical chemistry?
Should Category:Nuclear magnetic resonance be under Category:Physical chemistry?
Should Category:Phase changes be removed from Category:Physical chemistry and only be under Category:Phases of matter which is directly below Category:Chemistry?
Category:Polymer chemistry is under both Category:Polymers and Category:Physical chemistry but is the topic of another WikiProject.
Category:Spectroscopy is the topic of a newly created WikiProject but should remain under Category:Physical chemistry.
Should Category:Electrolysis be deleted and its contents moved to its parent category Category:Electrochemistry?

1. Category:Industrial hygiene should really be combined with Category:Chemical safety.

I agree with this it will help control clutter and help the first time readers to not feel overwhelmed with how many articles and links there are.-DylanBlades23 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. not sure. a new Category:Ionic properties would fit better, but are there enough articles to put in it?

3. I would suggest that NMR is better under Category:Spectroscopy, as this is by far its most widespread use

4. Neutral: I would say that the study of phase changes is an important (if small) part of physical chemistry.

5,6. Category:Polymer chemistry should be directly under CAT:Chem. I would suggest that this would be appropraite for Category:Spectroscopy as well.

7. Yes, unless anyone can come up with objections which I haven't thought of yet!

Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining in. I'm going to think about these slowly.

7. Category:Electrolysis is just one, I now realise, category under Category:Electrochemistry. Moving them all would be two complex and without doubt raise objections somewhere along the line, so I'm inclined to leave it. However, it also has Category:Physical chemistry as a parent category which is also the grandparent category so I have removed it from there.

5,6. I agree with you now on both. However it is complex. Category:Polymer chemistry is under Category:Polymers which is under Category:Chemical substances which is under Category:Chemistry, as well as under Category:Physical chemistry which is under Category:Chemistry. The proposer of the new Project on Spectroscopy rightly points out that Spectroscopy comes under Analytical Chemistry as well as Physical Chemistry, but it is already under both these categories. Any thoughts on both of these. On the latter, we might just move it out of both and put it directly under Category:Chemistry. On the former, I'm rather lost in the complexity!

3. Not sure. Under Category:Nuclear magnetic resonance is Category:Magnetic resonance imaging. Since NMR is greatly used by other chemists, particularly organicers, I'm inclined to put it directly under the parent Category:Chemistry.

I'll think about the others later. --Bduke 09:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category structure is not meant to be perfectly pyramidal, merely to guide users. If you try to draw a map of Category:Chemistry you had better have your best four-dimensional paper handy! Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and it twists into other universes too, particularly the physics universe. --Bduke 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excited to be pitching in. Here's my thoughts.

1. Yes. I don't consider hygiene and safety to be components of physical chemistry.

2. I don't know. This isn't my area of expertise, so I am inclined to agree with Physchim62 on this.

3. No. I am with Physchim62 on this, too. I'd rather see it under Category:Spectroscopy than directly under Category:Physical chemistry.

4. No. Again, this isn't my area, but I think phase changes are an important-enough topic that they should have a category under Category:Physical chemistry.

5. I agree with Physchim62 again. Polymer chemistry seems to be so multi-disciplined that its category should belong under Category:Chemistry.

6. Agree. Spectroscopy is multi-discipline as well and so should have a place under Category:Chemistry but is a significant component of physical chemistry, too.

7. Yes. I'm not an electrochemist, so I may be biased on this. Electrolysis or related topics were never covered in any undergraduate- or graduate-level p-chem class I took. Rather, these were left for analytical courses. I think it's fine being moved to Category:Electrochemistry.

--Atmosphyschem 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Atmosphyschem. I just corrected a minor error that put this talk page in a category - use ":" before Category. I'll respond later with more thoughts on all this and try to summarise the reponses, but I'm far to busy on other things right now. --Bduke 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

We should try to get our keystone article, Physical chemistry, up to featured article status. It is far from that now. Any suggestions? Let us do a mini-review here, make changes and then put it forward for peer review. It also needs some photographs. --Bduke 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment is bloody awful (read {{Chem Stub}}). Dump it and write something from scratch. Physchim62 (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The German article is marked "as need of improvement" (it's still better than ours...), The Spaniards have a nifty navigational template which we might like to steal from them... The best I've seen on a quick survey of other languages is in Russian, but I don't really feel like translating it! Physchim62 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Physchim62. Someone should take the initiative and re-write the darn thing. --Atmosphyschem 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor, at least to this project, is doing good things to Physical chemistry, but I guess he needs help. --Bduke 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthohydrogen

I'm here because of some general talk on references at Talk:Hydrogen. There are links to orthohydrogen (and its redirect parahydrogen) in the hydrogen article, but orthohydrogen itself does not have references, categories, nor is otherwise integrated in the hierarchy of topics. I found no article describing the general concept of spin isomerism. Here's something to put on the todo list. Femto 13:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Hi, for all those chemists who are active on IRC, Rifleman_82 and I have set up a channel on IRC for chemistry on wikipedia. You can find us here: the wikichem channel. To be able to talk with other online chemists there, you need an IRC program, like mIRC, the Chatzilla plugin for firefox, Opera (built in), and there will probably be more programs out there. At the moment User:Rifleman_82 and I are the 'keepers/moderators' of the channel, but anyone can enter and talk! Hope to see you there! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid

Article Liquid is currently protected, after I reverted contributions by User:Logger9. He is currently working in his sandbox: User:Logger9/Liquid. In my view, his writing is unencyclopedic, verbous, explaining elementary-school knowledge in a condescending way, and putting unproportionate emphasis on fringe aspects of the lemma.

I would like to invite you to have a look at both Liquid (undoubtedly a poor stub) and at User:Logger9, and to vote on Talk:Liquid which version is the better starting point for future collaboration. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum theory and specific heat capacity

That some elementary quantum theory is necessary to calculate specific heat capacities from first principles, is an undergraduate textbook subject. For example, my own (dated-- 1966!) copy of W. Kauzmann's Kinetic Theory of Gases, has a full chapter on it. He not only treats the easy cases where the equipartition theory asigns the full R/2 heat capacity per degree of freedom in gases (with a guess as to which degrees will be fully excited and which fully frozen out) but also treats the harder cases in which either rotational or vibrational modes are only partly participating, so that heat capacities are intermediate. Example: chlorine has a Cv heat capacity of 2.5 R if no vibrational modes are exited, and 3.5 R if they all are. The observed value for 25 ^oC is 3.1 R in modern sources, (2.9 R in the heat capacity article, which needs changing; but 4.1 for Cp = 3.1 Cv in the chlorine article)-- right in the middle of these two equipartitial values. The quantum theoretical value (from Kauzmann) assuming partial excited vibration is 3.1 R, which is better that his experimental data (which is 3.0 R). Evidentally, though, these things come out fairly well. I can give other examples in a table as Kauzmann does, and perhaps should.

Now, user:Kbrose has worked to remove all mention of quantum effects in the LEDE of specific heat capacity, saying (in the diff) "quantum theory is not used to predict thermodynamic systems, semiempirical methods are hardly successful." Rather than argue with somebody who does not know what he is talking about (this is not an expression of bad faith, it is a self-evident fact) I'm going to put the matter here and in some chem-group talk pages, and let you all tell him what I just did. Perhaps he'll listen to some of you. S B H arris 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to expand/rewrite physical chemistry

Could those active here have a look at Talk:Physical chemistry? There are some new talk page sections I've started in an attempt to get some advice on how best to rewrite/expand the article. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosol - which wikiproject?

Hi folks. I have been trying to rationalise the content of the articles aerosol and atmospheric particulate matter. I am currently scratching my head over which wikiproject aerosol should be within the scope of. It currently is in both physics and chemistry wikiprojects. I think perhaps it should be in this project. Do you agree? The article currently in the Physical chemistry category (although the aerosol related categories need a clean up as well). Also any comments on the direction I am taking the article in would be welcome.--NHSavage (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Year of Crystallography 2014

UNESCO proclaimed the "International Year of Crystallography 2014". It can be an important opportunity for wikipedians to contribute in an international initiative, spreading the scientific knowledge, in particular about crystallography.
These are my proposals to participate to this event:

to create the page International Year of Crystallography 2014 in all the Wikipedias
to improve substantially during this year the page Crystallography, Crystal and other important pages about crystallography, in all the Wikipedias
to create and translate pages related to crystallography
to create a Portal:Crystallography
to organize better the pictures in commons:Category:Crystallography and encourage the creation of new pictures
to contact all the Wikipedias, other Wikimedia projects, Wikimedia Foundation and the organizing committee of the "International Year of Crystallography 2014" (here you can see their contacts) to communicate our adhesion to this initiative.

Do you have any other opinion or suggestion? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newly-revised recommended physical constants

As of June 2015, CODATA has released updated values for the fundamental physical constants. See, for example: NIST CODATA. I have started updating some of the relevant pages and have noticed that some of the pages have already been changed, but these values are so deeply embedded in all of Wikipedia, that it will probably take a while to update them all. To make matters more challenging, updating these values should be done periodically as new values are available. Any help swapping out the new values will be greatly appreciated! JCMPC (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they are going to change frequently, maybe we should use a template, so they can be updated in a central place? 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 14:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

0x0077BE, great suggestion. Apparently, someone in WikiProject Physics already has one and is currently in the process of updating its values. The template is {{{physconst}}. I think that we should start using it any time a fundamental physical constant is included in an article. JCMPC (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrated electrolyte solutions activity coefficient

Hello wikifellows! Can someone take a look at Activity coefficient#Concentrated solutions of electrolytes and access the cited source for the formula mentioned in article for the statistical part of the activity coefficient in order to add further details of its derivation?--82.137.10.15 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of solid state?

Hey all, been perusing a number of pages related to solid state chemistry/condensed matter physics and finding a number of issues. Curious if these topics fall under your purview? Is there a better wikiproject or taskforce out there? Thanks. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not "better" as in cooler than you guys, btw, just - more appropriate/focused? -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Science Competition 2021

Hi, I'd like to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland. These national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice image or video to Commons, please consider to submit them using WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]