Talk:Chemistry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014

In the section about chemical reactions and chemical equations (near ref 36),

The number of atoms on the left and the right in the equation for a chemical transformation is equal (when unequal, the transformation by definition is not chemical, but rather a nuclear reaction or radioactive decay).

However, the definition given above in reference 36 from IUPAC Gold Book does not make this distinction. Both of these things can be represented using a chemical equation as well. Thus a more accurate depiction based on the standard definitions of the terms is:

In a normal [chemical reaction], the number of atoms on the left and the right in the equation is equal. When the number of atoms on either side is unequal, the transformation is referred to as a [nuclear reaction] or [radioactive decay].

This depiction is made correctly elsewhere on the page, for example in the section "Reaction"

Also, the correct Ref for 36 which is a broken link is here: http://goldbook.iupac.org/C01033.html This is also the same as reference 55. Wijowa (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 16:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Add link to YouTube-series "CrashCourse Chemistry"

The YouTube-channel "CrashCourse" gives a pretty good and fancy introduction to the topic chemistry in the following series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSyAehMdpyI&feature=youtu.be&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtPHzzYuWy6fYEaX9mQQ8oGr

Maybe the link should be added to the "Further reading" section. BuRnZ (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Last reverts

Could you please explain the latest reverts about etymology?--Evropariver (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Mendeleev and Meyer

Hello. I am about to reword the sentence mentioning Meyer and Mendeleev. I searched the archive for this article and found no other discussion of Mendeleev. The citation is sadly inadequate (Timeline of Element Discovery - About.com) and needs to be replaced, which I'll do. I expect other people may have feelings about this so am posting a note here for you guys to reply to. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Great references. Thanks for adding them Theislikerice (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015

Chemistry can be Described as the Study of matter and its behavior under different conditions. -In Chemistry, the smallest unit of matter is called an Atom, it consists of other particles in it. -In an Atom there are Electrons which are negatively charged particle or -1, A Proton which has a positive charge or +1, then a Neutron which has no charge or 0 as its charge. ie: The Proton and Neutron are both located in the nucleus of an Atom and the Electrons are running around the Atom in the Orbits of the Atom AKA Shell. EXAMPLE of an Atom which make elements in the Periodic table of Dimitri Mandeleev are Iron (Fe), Copper (Cu), sodium (Na), etc. -With the understanding of an Atom we get to know a Molecule. -A Molecule is the combination/bond of more than one atom to form a single Substance called the Molecule, the examples may be (Atom)+(Atom)→Molecule therefore its Fe + Fe → Fe2.

For more understanding search for Chemistry and know about a Compound and a Mixture. Brandon B Lunga (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

Add a picture of the periodic table of elements, it is a vital part of chemistry. 82.23.9.159 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Bond angle

How to find bond angles between carbon atoms? Deepak pandey mj (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions are not to be asked here. This talk page is for discussions about the article, not about the content — see wp:talk page guidelines. Please go to our wp:Reference desk/Science. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chemistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-04

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Help:Math#Chemistry: new feature of Mediawiki

I'm introducing <ce> tag in the new features of Mediawiki. It uses the TeX's mhchem package that formats chemical equations automatically. See Help:Math#Chemistry. It's superior, easier, and more maintainable than HTML tags. -- Cedar101 (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

More specifically, the discussion should focus on whether this capability should be used, and to what degree. There have been disagreements on how it has been applied, including uneven use within an article. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. This is the wrong talk page for this discussion. It belongs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Help:Math#Chemistry: new feature of Mediawiki. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I moved it there. -- Cedar101 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No reason given for reversion: Is it is really controversial that chemistry is based on the electromagnetic force?

User:DMacks keeps reverting a sentence in the lede stating key facts supported by WLs, for no reason that isn't undermined by those WLs. Is a citation needed in a lede for a well-known fact stated in the WL atom#Electron cloud?

The electrons in an atom are attracted to the protons in the nucleus by the electromagnetic force. This force binds the electrons inside an electrostatic potential well surrounding the smaller nucleus, which means that an external source of energy is needed for the electron to escape. 

The dependence of atomic structure on the form of the coulomb force is described in detail here. Do we need that WL too? Ledes anyway are only supposed to summarize the article, which contains any needed citations. If the key role of the electromagnetic force is really unmentioned in the article, correct that omission instead. Layzeeboi (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it again. The perspective is decidedly not mainstream, it's not the sort of detail or unique perspective on chemistry one would expect in the introduction of a highly general article on chemistry. I can open 1000 chemistry text books, and none of the even mention muons or EM force in the introduction even once. Should Wikipedia as a whole have information on this information? Sure, somewhere, in another location, why not? But it just doesn't belong in this article, and definitely not in the lead section as intended for a quick overview for a general, non-technical audience. --Jayron32 16:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Atoms indeed would be different if it weren't for 1/r^2 and I don't dispute that EM is one of the major reasons electrons behave the way they do in molecules, but that's not the only thing that makes atoms and molecules as they are. My original objection is exactly as I wrote it: EM is one aspect, but Nuclear chemistry and nuclear reactions in general are due to Strong and Weak, not electrostatics (which would instead say nuclei heavier than hydrogen or would not exist, and likewise don't agree with the octet rule) and have nothing to do with the electron cloud. There sure is a lot of physics, your own area of interest, down at that level, but it's not a case of "physics rather than chemistry" once you're within an atom. DMacks (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayron32, thanks for sharing your nonchalance about chemistry and WP:PRESERVE. I hope you, as an administrator, are aware that this guideline encourages various alternatives to cavalier deletion. In fact, I was disappointed that an administrator with no apparent expertise in this academic topic would identify no WP guidelines to justify such a deletion. And thanks for making me aware of progress in the dumbing down of western education. (It seems to be a source of some pride.) However, that process appears to be incomplete — I've found a few secondary sources in chemistry that address the fundamentals, sometimes in the first chapter since that seems to be so important. (Just to ensure we're on the same page, I hope we all understand that "EM force" may appear in terms of "coulomb", "electric field", "electric potential", "electric charge", "electric attraction", etc.) I trust you also recall that WP:SCHOLARSHIP does not limit secondary sources to textbooks. So in deference to WP:DUE and the interests of the not-quite-so-general-and-non-technical audience (and since Resistance has recently attained new significance), I've reinstalled a modification of the deeply offending single sentence (one among 7 others in the lede), now citing these sources, simultaneously with posting here following your example. (Did you read my post above before deleting?) I hope I share with you anticipation of further enlightenment. (This is more entertaining than hard work on correction of the multitude of factual errors visible in WP articles about physics. I haven't encountered as much hysteria there, but you may be happy to learn that it's similarly thankless.) Layzeeboi (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I already told you the alternative: Put it in a different article. I won't stop you from doing so. Here, in this one article, it is inappropriate. You know, you don't win just because you put more exasperation in the tone of your response. It belongs at Wikipedia, i already said that, you'll note. It just doesn't belong in the lead section of this one article. --Jayron32 23:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:DMacks, I would be grateful if your could outline what you see as the fundamental differences between the goals of Nuclear Chemistry and Nuclear Physics. Do any theoretical studies in Nuclear Chemistry directly employ information about the features of the strong and weak forces? (Please cite sources if possible.) Do any elements of your reply appear in this article yet? Thanks. Layzeeboi (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayron32, "win"? Do you see this discussion as primarily a game or contest? What about its relevance to the value of WP? Again, I was unable to find in your latest reply any explanation of a direct relationship between the opinion that you are stating and WP policies or guidelines. So it seems to me that your reply is out of bounds. Layzeeboi (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't, I'm interested in quality writing. You seem to be interested in winning given your emotional attachment to the words you wrote here (see WP:OWN). So, please add your text to a more appropriate article. Also see WP:WIKILAWYER, you'll win no friends by demands for policy. Quality writing is expected at Wikipedia. When you introduce writing that lowers the quality of an article, expect people to object. --Jayron32 23:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems even further out of bounds, in the direction of personal comments. Exactly the opposite of what one might hope from an admin. My friendships or otherwise are my concern only. And now at this late stage a new objection appears, about quality of prose. This conversation threatens to diverge. How would you like to rephrase the low "quality writing"? Is the single sentence unclear? Layzeeboi (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The quality of this article is degraded by including information in the lead which is only tenuously related to the the subject of the article, which is a general overview of Chemistry. Put your text in a more appropriate place, not the lead of this article. --Jayron32 02:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how the interaction determining atomic structure can be only "tenuously" related to the subject of chemistry, the study of the ramifications of atomic structure? Layzeeboi (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of a particular passage in the lead of this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RFC is narrowly focused on the singular question of whether the inclusion of the text in this diff is appropriate for the lead of this article. It is not about the truth of the statement, the need to have the information in Wikipedia in general, or any other question other than simply this question: "Does this text belong in the lead of this one article". --Jayron32 02:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Support or oppose

• Oppose as this is a general overview article, and this particular text is too detailed for the lead of this article. --Jayron32 02:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, for same reason. It might be appropriate later in the article, but not in the lede. Also "focuses" was spelled incorrectly as "focusses". StuRat (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The first part of the addition is just a more arcane way of stating what was already there, and the second part is way too tiny a sub-field for the lede of a top-level article. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a little too technical for an overview article like this one, IMHO. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW, I also think the second para "One perspective on the scope of modern chemistry..." could go, too. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, while not false, this is overly focused and way too technical for the lead of a such a broad-scope article. Likewise for similar edits made at physics too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not an inviting reading for the half-layman (as I am: technical background, not chemical). The points touched would need an open (not jargon) description each, which would be too detailed for a lede. -DePiep (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Thats also flatout wrong when described in that general way because Molecular binding is Physics and Chemistry is much more focusing on the 3-dimensional structure and capability, to interact or not with other atoms and/or molecules, of resulting molecules aka chemical structure really. Like a simple molecular formula can not be used to distinct Isomers because they have the same number of elements and binding but yet are usually totally different due to their different chemical structure. --Kharon (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It reads like a physicist's definition of chemistry.JSR (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

General discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

In part 3.1.1 it is stated that "the mass of a NUCLEON is 1,836 times that of an electron", this is flat out wrong, it is the mass of a PROTON. QuarksAndElectrons (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And an electron has 1/1836 the mass of a proton. Go figure.JSR (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@QuarksAndElectrons: are you concerned that a neutron would be different from a proton (saying "nucleon" but only using proton value)? What is the numerical result for each, and what is the average? DMacks (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes exactly. It would be more accurate to state that "the mass of a nucleon is roughly 1,837 times that of an electron" or that "the mass of a proton is roughly 1,836 times that of an electron, while the mass of a neutron is 1,838 times that of an electron", otherwise it leads to confusion. QuarksAndElectrons (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

My edits

I'm new to this page, and plan two things. The first is done: all references to History go to the end of the Article as per WPMOS. The 2nd is a rewrite of the Lead to summarize the contents of the Article, following the order of the TOC. I welcome comment when the revisions are complete. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Isotope and nuclide

A bright metal is in the nuclide; however where did the atom come from? The origins seem to come from many, but in order to keep the atoms alive, it can be dangerous if dispersed immediately, a good scientist needs a molecule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phonixbetternotmesswith (talk • contribs) 17:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A poor definition

In my opinion, the definition occurring at the very beginning of the article, namely: “Chemistry is the scientific discipline involved with compounds composed of atoms, i.e. elements, and molecules, i.e. combinations of atoms”, is rather objectionable and misleading, mostly for scientifically-illiterate people.

Actually, the complementary party of elements are compounds and not molecules, and it is advisable to avoid term “compounds” when trying to give a definition of elements. In addition, the sentence seems make confusion between the two meanings that term “element” has in the chemical literature in English, namely, i) at microscopic level, an atomic species with a given number of protons, and ii) at macroscopic level, a chemical substance consisting of atoms of only one species. Moreover, the sentence seems to exclude that also elements (in their macroscopic-level meaning) may be made up of molecules, and both elements and compounds may be made up of atomic associations other than molecules.

Therefore, I propose to replace the above definition with the following:

“Chemistry is the scientific discipline involved with matter and the various substances it is made of; namely, elements, ultimately composed of atoms of only one kind, and compounds, ultimately composed of atoms of two or more kinds”.

In the proposed new definition, word “kind” could be replaced with “species”, and “substances” better specified as “pure substances”.

I take the occasion of this “new section” to put forward the question of the above-remarked ambiguity of term “element” in the English chemical literature. This causes several misunderstandings and false beliefs among scientifically non-learned people; see, for instance, the availability of hydrogen on our Earth. In my opinion, it would be profitable to replace “elements” (in the macroscopic-level meaning) with “simple substances”, or, better, “simples”. The proposed new definition would then take this form:

“Chemistry is the scientific discipline involved with matter and the various (pure) substances it is made of; namely, simples, ultimately composed of (atoms of) only one element, and compounds, ultimately composed of (atoms of) two or more elements”.

Words "atoms of" could possibly be omitted. "Matter" could possibly be replaced with "ordinary matter", but care has to be exercised to avoid overburdening of the definition. Ekisbares (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You guys couldn't find a better hieroglyph to English translator?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#Etymology

The hyperlink to "Kemet" re-directs you to a really sketchy and NSFW website. I am sure there are more appropriate links. You can even link directly to the appropriate Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Names — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.107.146 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

About the etymology of Alchemy, whence Chemistry

In the section “Etymology”, the article reports two possible origins of word Alchemy (from which Chemistry derives): namely, first, from χημία (khēmía or chēmía), ancient name for Egypt, and, second, from χημεία (khēméia or chēméia),, meaning "cast together".

To my knowledge, rather than χημεία, the meaning of “cast together” is better conveyed by χυμεία (khyméia or chyméia), at its turn coming from χύμα (khyma, or chyma), meaning anything is poured off or flows, fluid, and also ingot, bar, or also from χυμός (khymòs, or chymòs), meaning juice, humour, infusion, decoction, both having ultimately to be related to the root of verb χεῖν (khéin, or chéin), meaning to pour. All this information comes from the Liddell-Scott-Jones authoritative Greek-English lexicon, accessible online. The same lexicon has no direct entry for χημεία, while it does have for χυμεία; in this entry χημεία (and also χειμεία) are quoted as alternative versions of χυμεία, and reported as sub-entries of the main one, in spite of the Greek alphabetical order. The lexicon translates χυμεία as art of alloying metals, alchemy. Of course, there is also a separate entry Χημία, translated as black-land, ancient name for Egypt.

Therefore, in my opinion, in the article it would be preferable to report χυμεία, rather than χημεία, as possible second origin of word Alchemy. A support for χυμεία being the root of "alchemy" is given by the fact that Arabic al-kimiya (الکیمیاء), since its very first translations, was turned into Latin as alchymia (with letter y), notwithstanding the identical vowels in two syllables ki and mi of that Arabic word. Now, why should a European medieval learned scholar have translated Arab al-kimiya into Latin as alchymia (instead of alchimia), unless having got some information of its remote Greek origin as χυμεία? It is to be remarked that word alchymia and related, written with with letter y, persisted in Latin text about alchemy, which was gradually turning into chemistry, up to 1700; accordingly, letter y passed into terms like chymistry and similar in many modern European languages, and lasted until the end of 18th century.Ekisbares (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

The articles Chemistry, Chemical element, and Periodic table have a periodic table on their page. However, each article uses a different file for their periodic table, Chemistry uses Periodic table (polyatomic).svg, Chemical element uses Periodic Table Chart.png, and Periodic table uses Simple Periodic Table Chart-en.svg. For consistency reasons, can you please edit each of the pages so that they include the same file for their periodic table? I do not care which file is used for each of the pages. 2601:183:101:58D0:E009:F9F6:98C8:AA7 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not because I disagree, but because I think a better place to propose this is at WT:CHEMISTRY. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Include biochemistry in examples

The article says: "Examples include plant chemistry (botany)". Botany is actually the study of plants in general, like zoology is the study of animals. The statement could read "Examples include the chemistry of life (biochemistry)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.168.52 (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Outdated terminology and diagram

The paragraph called "Atom" has a diagram appearing to show electrons "orbiting" a nucleus, and the text also used the word "orbiting". I believe this description is now considered misleading. The referenced page "Atom" does not use such ideas. I think the text and diagram here should probably be replaced by that on the "Atom" page (or transcluded or something). Unfortunately my knowledge of Wikipedia and of chemistry are not up to the task of doing this correctly.

MalcolmStory21 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Acid strength definition

If this is the wrong place to make this comment, please move it to the right place.

Buffer capacity for a 0.1 M aqueous solution of an acid with pK_a of 7

Empirically, an acid can be said to be completely dissociated in solution when the concentration of molecules, HA, is below the detection limit for the species. There appear to be two, mutually incompatible, ways of quantifying what a strong acid is. See acid strength and acid dissociation constant for details.

1. An acid with a pK value less than -1.76.This applies only to aqueous solutions
2. An acid which is effectively 100% dissociated in solution

The first is the number -log₁₀ 55.5. 55.5 is the concentration/1M of H₂O pure water. This seems to be the criterion commonly used for designating a compound as a superacid.

The second depends on the buffer capacity of the solvent, which rises very steeply with decreasing pH, starting at about pH 1 in aqueous solutions. This is independent of the pK value of the acid and is the cause of the solvent levelling effect.

What, if anything, should be done in WP about this contradictory state of affairs? Petergans (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2018

chemical properties the study of bond matter inorganic chemistry organic chemistry practical aspect in chemistry>

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6454101/Rare-yellow-snow-blankets-north-west-China-freezing-temperatures-sandstorms.html

86.170.89.228 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• I do not think this would help our chemistry articles forward. Propose archive/remove. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, daily mail. IWI (chat) 16:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course, there is the medical advice by Frank Zappa: "Don't eat the yellow snow", but Wikipedia is not a manual. -DePiep (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha. IWI (chat) 23:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Chembox (again!)

The chembox is unnecessarily intrusive. My latest encounter with this issue is in salen. It is unsightly because of the presence of both chembox and chemical structures in a relatively short article.

I suggest that all but essential items in the chembox should normally be collapsed.

Users cannot work on the chembox because its source code is not editable in WP. Petergans (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove confusing language from Redox subsection 9-27-2019

The statement is made in discussing a change in oxidation state that "Oxidation and reduction properly refer to a change in oxidation number—the actual transfer of electrons may never occur. Thus, oxidation is better defined as an increase in oxidation number, and reduction as a decrease in oxidation number. " I take issue with the bolded text, as it is at best extremely confusing, and I would say that it is wrong.

While oxidation state is a formalism, it is a formalism used to describe the distribution of electrons in a molecule. Even in the case of an intramolecular redox event where an oxidation state of an atom changes but the system does not gain or lose electrons, the change in that number is very much intended to communicate some movement/transfer/reorganization of electrons. To suggest that such a change in number could not connote this completely undercuts the concept and the rationale for continuing to include in standard chemical education.

Request: please delete the bolded clause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.90.19 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Etymology section

Contains tortuously long sentence which would be more easy to understand if broken into parts. The sentence would be better with the author quoted first, followed by the definition. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Similar issue in poorly constructed second sentence of “Matter” definition. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

2409:4072:E85:9498:5088:30DC:7721:71E9 (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Lose more money

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 05:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Difference between chemical compound and molecule

I am quite ignorant in chemistry but I wonder why molecules and chemical compounds are considered as two different things, the chemical compounds from reading the article can be understood that it is as if they were simpler but in the end they are not molecules anyway?

--Unvers (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Scientists like to classify things, so having very specific meanings of terms helps with that. Here are two main ways of seeing the differences between chemical compounds and molecules. First is the scale: a compound is a collection of molecules. There might properties related to it being a bulk amount, for example, how the discrete molecules interact with each other, not just each on its own. Second is the chemical elemental composition: a molecule can be composed of any number of different elements but in order to be a compound, its molecules must contain at least two different elements. One effect of "all same vs several different" relates to symmetry of the bonds and atomic locations, which leads to all sorts of other structural and property differences. By contrast, an allotrope is a molecule containing all the same element. DMacks (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This won't help ;-) but WP:ELEMENTS people have introduced to me: an element per concept is not the substance (think neon Ne, is not Ne₂). -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Atoms, molecules, elements and compounds are all different terms and are definitely different. Atoms and molecules are microscopic entities while as elements and compounds are used to denote bulk pure matter.

An element is a bulk matter made up of single kind of atom while a compound is a bulk matter formed by definite ratio combination of two or more type of atoms.

Atom, on the other hand, is a microscopic particle which is smallest unit of an element showing it's properties and not capable of free existence ( in general) . Molecules are smallest particles of an element or compound that can exist freely and that shows all properties of that element or compound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanshita poddar (talk • contribs) 08:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Four types of chemical bonds?

Why does the summary say there are four types of chemical bonds? Where are metallic and dipole-dipole bonds? AstroRP (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

ionic, covalent, hydrogen bonds, and van der Waals interactions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyle99 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

NaCl polyhedra

Hi, I hope someone here can help me out as I have nominated this image to become a Featured Picture and now there is some questions about this image.
I hope someone here have the knowledge to provide answers to the questions at this link. The questions are;
1) This representation is different to all the others I've Googled. Does it have Academic authentication?
2) But could you add to the description about which colors are which elements.
I'm a graphic worker and have no knowledge of this subject.
I really hope someone here can help me or tell me someone else who might be able, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have got the needed information from another user so this is  Done, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

Changes of view of Electrons existence

Appearance of Electron's Field in aspect of Mathmatical Probability all changes about concepts of Atom's Electrons. The model of Electron Shell was really easy to explain interactions of atoms and molecules and It was adaptable to many relations of atoms and molecules. However, Some complex molecules and compound didn't follow the that model. So, people started to research about its interactions. And then, Scientists found that electrons behave like clouds and they named it Electron Clouds. It was sensational on Academy of Physics and Chemistry. These days, Quantum mechanics theme is dominate in Electrons Fields.( User:Solprin|Solprin) (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevyeung55.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Biochemistry

Being between physics and biology you are furnishing the misconception that chemistry is about biochemistry amd molecular biology, which it is not 2601:540:C401:F290:CC53:F387:A32E:9E12 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected: link fix

interconversion of conformers links to Conformer, when it should link to Conformational isomerism 88.86.159.219 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. --Jayron32 19:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Henrika Šantel - Kemičarka.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

"Department of Chemistry" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Department of Chemistry 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10 § Department of Chemistry until a consensus is reached. Hildeoc (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Chemistry"

The current definition this article uses for what chemistry is, goes like this: "Chemistry is the scientific study of the properties and behavior of matter." This definition seems a little vague to me, and doesn't give the reader a clear idea of what chemistry is all about, and how it differs from other natural sciences; Biology, the science of life. Physics, the science of energy and matter. Chemistry is the science of interactions of electrons of materials. I'd like your thoughts. Oxieltro (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)