User:Sadi Carnot/Barnstars
Thanks for the help on Timeline of chemistry
[edit]
|
The Chemistry Bond Star | |
|---|---|---|
| For all the help in getting Timeline of chemistry promoted as a featured list. Thanks! | ||
--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Jayron32, thanks for the chemistry bondstar. I wish I could have contributed more during the buildup, but I'm knee-deep in finishing the wrap-up details for the publication of new 500-pg textbook on human chemistry; it's quite interesting how mathematically-thick it turned out to be. See the new webpage I started last week to get a loose idea: Human Chemistry. The webpage is only one page presently, but maybe down the road I'll be able to make it into a multi-level education-type website on the subject. To note, the timeline of chemistry needs a section on 21st century contributions. We might want to check out the Nobel Prize in chemistry during the last decade to get an idea or put something in there about nanotechnology or drug design, which have been big topics recently. Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 08:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting looking book! Oh, and WRT the additions for recent discoveries, other editors noted that shortcoming as well. Still, it doesn't seem like even every Nobel Prize ultimately rewards the kind of pardigmatic changes that this list should contain. It would be very easy for the list to become bogged down by everyone's pet field of chemistry, and clogged with interesting but otherwise esoteric discoveries.
- As an example, I had added an entry on the invention of Chemical ionization mass spectrometry, which has become one of the most important "soft" ionization techniques, and is used in many diverse areas of analytical chemistry. However, I later removed it, because I realized that the addition was purely personal. One of the inventors, Burnaby Munson, was my advisor and mentor in college; though this does not undervalue his role or the importance of his discovery, its inclusion here was probably a little TOO esoteric for inclusion. Likewise, another close mentor of mine, J.L. Burmeister, has been cited as the "Father of ambidentate ligand chemistry". Fairly big in its field, but not really valid inclusion in an omnibus timeline like this.
- The key is finding discoveries whose importance has been noted so often that it has become pervasive in the literature. Discoveries of the past 10 years MAY someday reach that level of import, but it is hard to decide which recent discoveries will seem important say, another 10 years from now, and which ones will look out of place in a list like this.
- I have added some nanotechnology related discoveries, such as Kroto et al. and fullerenes, and its offshoot discoveries related to carbon nanotubes. Still, if you have specific examples you would like adding, please feel free to add them yourself, or if you are short on time, drop a note at the article's talk page. I can do the research and add more entries for you if you have specific things. Thanks again for all of your help! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Jyron, I agree about the 10 year waiting period, sometimes it’s even 30 years. I’ll try to keep my eyes open for possible recent innovators in chemistry. Soon as I get caught up, you’ll probably see me back digging around in the table, trying to tighten it. P.S. what gave you the urge to make the timeline? Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 13:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you are watching my talk page. Makes it easier to keep the conversation going. Well, several things: 1) I noticed it was missing and probably needed, since there were smaller timelines dealing with specific chemistry fields, but no omnibus chemistry timeline. 2) I have always been very interested in History of Science type stuff. I majored in chemistry and minored in history in college, and was very close to a double major(B.S. Chemistry/B.A. History), but that would have required staying an extra year, and events conspired to make that unlikely. 3), I was eager to see what it took to get an article featured. I have never had the gumption to nominate any of my articles for feature status, and it wasn't much of my intention of getting this one there, but as it started to develop, I realized that this might be a good shot for my first test case. It worked out pretty good. My second attempt at a feature, one on Plymouth Colony, isn't going as well. It seems featured lists are much easier than featured articles.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, good work. I see your perspective better now. I've had similar thoughts about FA status, many times people have suggested this option to me on some articles I've wrote, but from other experiences in Wikipedia, it seems like it's more of mental strain than it's worth to push out FA's. --Sadi Carnot 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)