→A metaphoric cup of tea?: I just caught up with your eoi |
→Group 3 article written by Sandbh: r Sandbh |
||
(12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
:Well, I think you have a point about the suggested text thing. So I'll first talk about the sources – and while doing so just mention what I think the relevant sources are and what I think that implies we should say. But I'll stick to just PT illustrations for the latter; not much sense drafting proposed text when it's not agreed yet ''what'' we should say, indeed. Anyway, you may have to wait a couple more days for it, so please don't worry about your time availability; I'm also going to be somewhat busy. ^_^ [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC) |
:Well, I think you have a point about the suggested text thing. So I'll first talk about the sources – and while doing so just mention what I think the relevant sources are and what I think that implies we should say. But I'll stick to just PT illustrations for the latter; not much sense drafting proposed text when it's not agreed yet ''what'' we should say, indeed. Anyway, you may have to wait a couple more days for it, so please don't worry about your time availability; I'm also going to be somewhat busy. ^_^ [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
==Group 3 article written by Sandbh== |
|||
Hi EdChem |
Hi EdChem |
||
I see you live down under. I’m next door, in the ACT. My article on group 3 is open access, [https://www.google.com/search?q=location+and+composition+of+the+group+3&rlz=1C9BKJA_enAU705AU705&oq=location+&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j69i61l3j69i59j0.4635j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 here]. Thank for your interest in reading it. |
I see you live down under. I’m next door, in the ACT. My article on group 3 is open access, [https://www.google.com/search?q=location+and+composition+of+the+group+3&rlz=1C9BKJA_enAU705AU705&oq=location+&aqs=chrome.4.69i57j69i61l3j69i59j0.4635j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 here]. Thank for your interest in reading it. |
||
[[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{u|Sandbh}}... A couple of questions: |
|||
:#Is the ''R''<sup>2</sup> for the Sc – Y – Lu – Lr series correct? By eye, it looks like a stronger correlation than the Sc – Y – La – Ac series, yet the given values are nearly identical. |
|||
:#Figure 7 has La appear twice... presumably the first point is meant to be Sc? |
|||
:I don't have time to keep reading now, but I will come back to the article. :) [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem#top|talk]]) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
#That's curious. I rechecked the R<sup>2</sup> values for the Lu-Lr series. They are correct. By my eye, Figs 4 and 5 support La-Ac; Figs 6 and 7 support Lu-Lr. What is the story that your eye is telling you? |
|||
#Yes, that's right. The first point is meant to be Sc. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 22:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::*I mean Figure 6... it gives ''R''<sup>2</sup>(Sc – Y – Lu – Lr series) = 0.727 and ''R''<sup>2</sup>(Sc – Y – La – Ac series) = 0.712. The correlation appears much better for the Lu / Lr series so I wonder about the ''R''<sup>2</sup> values or model leading to your values. |
|||
::*Figures 2 and 3 might be better if matching the styles of 4, 5, 6, and 7, with a trendline and ''R''<sup>2</sup> for each of the two series. |
|||
::*On their face, 4 and 5 do appear to support La / Ac and 6 and 7 support Lu / Lr but any assessment by me of the paper independent of the literature is OR and not a basis for article-space content. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem#top|talk]]) 23:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I have now read the full article, {{u|Sandbh}}. It's interesting and some parts explore some thoughts I've had since getting involved at the WT:ELEM discussion. As you would expect, some of it is more persuasive than other parts and I what I take away from it is more about the purpose of the PT than about which "side" to take on La v Lu. Sadly, the parts I find most interesting need more unpacking and exploration in the literature before they would be DUE for inclusion. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem#top|talk]]) 22:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks. It's good to hear you found my article to be interesting. Yes, you're right about the take away. I don't quite understand what there is to be sad about. Subject to your RL obligations, could you elaborate? All the content, except perhaps argument 10, is in the literature. The actual question of the composition of Group has been under discussion for about 100 years. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 00:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sad because the epistemological issues are interesting and relevant to the ongoing discussions but are not (to my knowledge) explored in the literature. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem#top|talk]]) 04:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Young soul trapped in an old brain == |
== Young soul trapped in an old brain == |
||
Line 134: | Line 149: | ||
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh|Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 23:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC) |
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh|Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 23:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
== File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.jpg listed for discussion == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] A file that you uploaded or altered, [[:File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 26#File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.jpg|'''discussion''']] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 02:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I took a peek at your uploads with an eye towards redoing any others that needed it. I saw [[:File:Dimethylacetylene cyclotrimerisation with titanium tetrachloride catalyst.jpg]] is relevant to [[Hexamethylbenzene#Preparation]]. However, I don't see a ref there that supports this level of mechanistic detail. Do you know what page of March's ''Advanced Organic Chemistry'' is the basis? Editorially (and in terms of time-priority), TiCl<sub>3</sub><sup>+</sup> is only one of three different catalysts discussed there. Is it worth overhauling this image at all? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 02:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I think it is one of two catalysts mentioned, isn't it? The image might also be usable at [[Titanium tetrachloride#Organometallic chemistry]]. I don't have a copy of March to hand right now, though, so I can't give you the page reference at the moment. I would like a suitable SVG image but it's up to you if you want to take the time to make it – the one I did is very crude and not mainspaceable, I am sure you agree. Thanks, [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem#top|talk]]) 04:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:36, 28 October 2020
|
|||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome!
Hello, EdChem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:
- Courcelles (submissions)
- Kosack (submissions)
- Kees08 (submissions)
- SounderBruce (submissions)
- Cas Liber (submissions)
- Nova Crystallis (submissions)
- Iazyges (submissions)
- Ceranthor (submissions)
All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:
- Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
- Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
- Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
- Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
- Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
- Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
- Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.
Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).
WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
- L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
- Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
- MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
- Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
- Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
- Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).
Appreciation
If I may say something quickly here, to avoid adding too much to an already bloated thread: I really appreciate all the work you've done to keep us on track. Please forgive my going out of bounds in terms of venue; it's due to my unfamiliarity with how things should work at ANI, but I'm aware that this unfamiliarity doesn't excuse it and am trying to improve. Thanks to you I am learning, and I will try to do it faster; I really cannot thank you enough for it. I've struck the comments of mine there that I think you were referring to, and left a comment saying that I've done it. To avoid bloating the thread further, I'll make sure to avoid posting more things in it after that. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Double sharp, thanks for the kind words. Regarding the ANI thread, there's little point in adding to it unless there is something new to say on behavioural issues. What might be done at WT:ELEM can be discussed there. :) EdChem (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome, and I understand. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Double sharp, thanks for the kind words. Regarding the ANI thread, there's little point in adding to it unless there is something new to say on behavioural issues. What might be done at WT:ELEM can be discussed there. :) EdChem (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
A metaphoric cup of tea?
Hi EdChem
Are you inclined to drop by at WP:ELEM sometime, for a metaphoric cup of tea, or your refreshment of choice?
I feel you would be most welcome.
best regards, Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Sandbh, I am contemplating dropping in though my time is somewhat limited and the ANI thread is, in some ways, discouraging. I certainly appreciate the offer of tea, though I am definitely in the coffee camp on that one! I'll try to remember that my stubborn unwillingness to compromise and drink tea is not a model for WP discussions. :) EdChem (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it seems that this really will go somewhere well! Please, don't worry that your time is limited; I need some as well. In fact I'd like to request that I be given some time (maybe a couple of days?) to start a new thread there, to summarise what exactly I've been proposing wrt content and my reasons for it. I think it will be more useful than making you wade through the mass of previous discussions to get at that – particularly since earlier I was not doing what I now know is the proper thing of keeping content and contributor issues separate from each other, among other things. I apologise also for being in the tea camp. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Sandbh, I am contemplating dropping in though my time is somewhat limited and the ANI thread is, in some ways, discouraging. I certainly appreciate the offer of tea, though I am definitely in the coffee camp on that one! I'll try to remember that my stubborn unwillingness to compromise and drink tea is not a model for WP discussions. :) EdChem (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- My perception of ELEM is that we try to keep the WP:ANI matters separate from the good stuff i.e. elements discussions.
- Currently, we've been discussing how we chunk the parts of the periodic table into metal and nonmetal categories. Also, as flagged, Double sharp would like to discuss the composition of group 3. That's about it, I believe.
- I tend to start my day with a cup of tea, followed by a mid-morning coffee. Best of both worlds. Double sharp once suggested referring to the noble gases as "cup of tea nonmetals", and I liked that idea so much I included it in a recent article published in Foundations of Chemistry, along with a credit. Sandbh (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just confirming that Sandbh is correct about what I would like to discuss: I plan a new section detailing my proposal for how we colour things in and show group 3 on
{{Periodic table}}
, and what I would prefer as text for the article Periodic table itself regarding these matters, referring to what I feel are the relevant sources. Double sharp (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Just confirming that Sandbh is correct about what I would like to discuss: I plan a new section detailing my proposal for how we colour things in and show group 3 on
On my time availability:
- the end-of-high-school examinations in NSW (where I live) start in a week and so there is a lot going on for me at the moment.
- one of those things is an ongoing respiratory problem (over two months at this moment, but not COVID... I have multiple tests to prove that!) and that has an unpredictable potential for impacting availabililty.
On tea:
- My partner suggested honey and lemon tea yesterday. He wisely prefaced the suggestion that I would not like the idea. I am happy to say that my look in response did not cause him to spontaneously combust but did convey that he should seek another alternative. I wish all tea-drinkers great satisfaction in their ingestion of same; with the exception of an occasional green tea with a Chinese meal, I shall not be joining you.
Double sharp, on your comment about proposing text for the PT article:
- you might want to reflect on the question I just posed at the discussion you pinged me to on YBG's user talk page. Is the discussion at the point that you spending time on suggested text is justified? That is, would that be helpful at this point or would it be better suited further on? I have not read the prior discussions, though I have skimmed some parts, and am wondering whether we might start (at WT:ELEM) with seeing if we (ie. everyone already involved) have consistent views on what is and is not agreed.
- I don't mean to discourage you, I'm just thinking about what is the most productive use of your time. Please note, this is a genuine question, I don't know the answer, and I do like your emphasis on the "relevant sources" – but if what those are is not agreed then trying to distil article text from them may be premature. I am reminded of helping graduate students with sections of their theses / dissertations and seeing that much time was spent polishing text and making incremental improvements without taking a broader perspective and recognising that the underlying structure was wrong, and thus that much of the polishing was wasted effort.
Sandbh, on your recent article:
- is it freely available? I would like to read it.
Cheers. EdChem (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
PS: Yes... milk and sugar – or, as an occasional treat, cream and sugar :) EdChem (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I think you have a point about the suggested text thing. So I'll first talk about the sources – and while doing so just mention what I think the relevant sources are and what I think that implies we should say. But I'll stick to just PT illustrations for the latter; not much sense drafting proposed text when it's not agreed yet what we should say, indeed. Anyway, you may have to wait a couple more days for it, so please don't worry about your time availability; I'm also going to be somewhat busy. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Group 3 article written by Sandbh
Hi EdChem
I see you live down under. I’m next door, in the ACT. My article on group 3 is open access, here. Thank for your interest in reading it. Sandbh (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh... A couple of questions:
- Is the R2 for the Sc – Y – Lu – Lr series correct? By eye, it looks like a stronger correlation than the Sc – Y – La – Ac series, yet the given values are nearly identical.
- Figure 7 has La appear twice... presumably the first point is meant to be Sc?
- I don't have time to keep reading now, but I will come back to the article. :) EdChem (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's curious. I rechecked the R2 values for the Lu-Lr series. They are correct. By my eye, Figs 4 and 5 support La-Ac; Figs 6 and 7 support Lu-Lr. What is the story that your eye is telling you?
- Yes, that's right. The first point is meant to be Sc. Sandbh (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I mean Figure 6... it gives R2(Sc – Y – Lu – Lr series) = 0.727 and R2(Sc – Y – La – Ac series) = 0.712. The correlation appears much better for the Lu / Lr series so I wonder about the R2 values or model leading to your values.
- Figures 2 and 3 might be better if matching the styles of 4, 5, 6, and 7, with a trendline and R2 for each of the two series.
- On their face, 4 and 5 do appear to support La / Ac and 6 and 7 support Lu / Lr but any assessment by me of the paper independent of the literature is OR and not a basis for article-space content. EdChem (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have now read the full article, Sandbh. It's interesting and some parts explore some thoughts I've had since getting involved at the WT:ELEM discussion. As you would expect, some of it is more persuasive than other parts and I what I take away from it is more about the purpose of the PT than about which "side" to take on La v Lu. Sadly, the parts I find most interesting need more unpacking and exploration in the literature before they would be DUE for inclusion. EdChem (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's good to hear you found my article to be interesting. Yes, you're right about the take away. I don't quite understand what there is to be sad about. Subject to your RL obligations, could you elaborate? All the content, except perhaps argument 10, is in the literature. The actual question of the composition of Group has been under discussion for about 100 years. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Young soul trapped in an old brain
Thanks for the ping, but... are you sure I said something smart in that thread? This is the big WP:ELEM thread, right, with DePiep and R8R? I sort of remember reading parts of it, but DePiep doesn't like me and wouldn't value my input, so I was sure I decided not to say anything. Did I ... did I actually say something and forget already? Is it a different thread you're talking about? Please tell me there's an explanation that doesn't involve me commenting on something and completely forgetting I've done so a week later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Floquenbeam... I have good news for you and bad news for me.
- The good news: You did not say something a week ago that you have forgotten already. There is an explanation that doesn't involve you having commented on something and completely forgetting that you'd done so a week later.
- The bad news: The explanation is embarrassing for me, involving mistaken identity and faulty recollection. :(
- The explanation: The comments that I was referring to about RfCs in the recent mega ELEM-thread at ANI were made by Softlavender. They were good comments, though, so I hope you would agree with them. At the time, I was looking at the ELEM thread and the COVID thread about the WH cluster. If I recall correctly (and we've just proven my recollection is imperfect), you hatted a sub-thread on the WH topic as redundant, having been about an issue that was already addressed above. At around the same time, Softlavender hatted a sub-thread in the ELEM topic that was raising a point that had already been made by DePiep on several occasions. I commented to DePiep that making the same point over and over, when it has already been largely rejected / disregarded, was not helpful to the case he sought to present. I think the somewhat similar hattings led me to confuse you and Softlavender.
- Apology: I apologise to both of you, Floquenbeam and Softlavender, for mis-attributing comments and not checking on my recollections, and for wasting your time and causing you to question your own recollections. Both of you were contributing helpfully to the respective ANI threads and I am in agreement with the advice offered by Softlavender, that I attributed to Floquenbeam, and to to which I referred in the thread at user talk:YBG. I hope neither of you is too upset by my mistake and I am embarrassed to have made it.
- Kind Regards to you both, EdChem (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh goodness, certainly no apology needed for me. It's easy to get confused about other people. It would have been much harder to explain getting confused about myself. Anyway, thanks and cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Floquenbeam... I have good news for you and bad news for me.
Notification (ANI)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Trouble at WP:ELEM, round 3: conduct of User:Sandbh. Thank you. Double sharp (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2-Methylcyclohexanone to 2,2- and 2,6-dimethylcyclohexanone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I took a peek at your uploads with an eye towards redoing any others that needed it. I saw File:Dimethylacetylene cyclotrimerisation with titanium tetrachloride catalyst.jpg is relevant to Hexamethylbenzene#Preparation. However, I don't see a ref there that supports this level of mechanistic detail. Do you know what page of March's Advanced Organic Chemistry is the basis? Editorially (and in terms of time-priority), TiCl3+ is only one of three different catalysts discussed there. Is it worth overhauling this image at all? DMacks (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is one of two catalysts mentioned, isn't it? The image might also be usable at Titanium tetrachloride#Organometallic chemistry. I don't have a copy of March to hand right now, though, so I can't give you the page reference at the moment. I would like a suitable SVG image but it's up to you if you want to take the time to make it – the one I did is very crude and not mainspaceable, I am sure you agree. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)