Talk:Mechanistic organic photochemistry

Article name

What gives with the article name? The mechanistic part is not explained in the lede and seems to be superfluous. In photochemistry this article is piped as "organic photochemistry", but organic photochemistry redirects to photochemistry. In excited state, even more confusingly, it is piped as "photochemistry". Do you really want to call this article "organic photochemistry"? SpinningSpark 22:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It needs renaming in any case because of MOS:CAP SpinningSpark 22:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• The article that should exist is photochemical reaction. Propose name change V8rik (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Article name is quite accurate

To: Spinning Spark From: HEZ You were correct that the Lede did not refer to "Mechanistic". This is now repaired. However, the title is quite accurate. The article deals only with Organic photochemistry and not with other kinds (e.g. Inorganic) of photochemistry. The Mechanistic describes the thrust of the article.

Without the mechanisms the material would be not understandable, and it is the development of photochemical mechanisms which made the development of organic photochemistry possible.

The problem with Links is that Wikipedia doesn't have other articles specific enough. Thus Organic Photochemistry is a main branch, perhaps the most important one, of photochemistry. The Links do help although they could help more.

I hope this makes sense.

Hez (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but I think you are missing my point. I was not suggesting that organic should not be in the title. I was suggesting that the title should be "organic photochemistry". Is there any part of organic photochemistry that is not included within mechanistic organic photochemistry? Of course there has to be a mechanism for the reaction to take place, but I'm really not getting why this has to be in the title. Put it another way, if this article is not organic photochemistry then what would such an article cover that is different to what we have here? Perhaps a Venn diagram would explain it. By the way, it is usual to indent replies on talk pages here rather than add another heading as you did. SpinningSpark 00:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In Response - I think we both are not understanding one another's points. let me respond first to your question of whether there is any part of "organic photochemistry" which is not included in "mechanstic organic photochemistry".

(1) First there is the question of whether you mean that subtitle of "Organic Photochemistry" within that article named just "Photochemistry".Or (2) what you meant was whether any part of the Subject of Photochemistry is not Mechanistic. Relative to the first (1), that article on "Photochemistry" is a bit primitive and limited. The Sub-section on "Organic Photochemistry" contains little more than a definition. Relative to the second (2) the field of Organic Photochemistry has been mainly non-mechanistic as explained in my Article on "Mechanistic Organic Photochemistry". Over the decades (Centuries) and still to a great extent, mechanisms had not been possible due to lack of appreciation of the role of excited states. That was clarified and a basis laid in 1961. But even now the level of mechanistic understanding is often primitive due to the lack of quantum mechanical understanding by many Organic Chemists. Some would accept a kinetic analysis of a reaction, a delineation of the detailed structural changes, a description of intermediates involved -- as "Mechanistic". The aim of the article "Mechanistic Organic Photochemistry" has been to use the most sophisticated treatment available in each case while, nevertheless, covering the range of Organic Photochemical Reactions available to the user. Thus, Spinning Spark, I hope I have responded sufficiently (obviously too extended). A final statement might be that the title and content would satisfy almost all well-educated Organic Chemists.

Best wishes, HEZ

ok, I think I understand the position. My point is that this is the only article on "organic photochemistry" on Wikipedia and I was looking to move it to organic photochemistry. This would be an incorrect thing to do if, in the future, another article could be written at that title. So I take it you would disagree with such a move? SpinningSpark 22:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To: Spinning Spark - I appreciate your interest in the article. The response to your question is -

It would not be appropriate to change the the title to "Organic Photochemistry". There already is a "Sub-article" part of an article named "Photochemistry". But both the "Photochemistry" and the sub-article "Organic Photochemistry" are much too incomplete. However, there is a link from the Organic Chemistry" sub-article to "Mechanistic Organic Chemistry" so that anyone looking up Organic Photochemistry will get to my article.

Also there is the point that my article covers the subject of Organic Photochemistry but from a more sophisticated standpoint where that is possible. You might term it as a hybrid article.

I suppose in the future someone might write an article entitled "(Low-brow) Organic Photochemical Reactions Treated Qualitatively". To the extent that I can add some of that, it would best be in the "Mechanistic Organic Photochemistry" one since I can make certain that mechanistic aspects are covered where relevant.

Sometime we should compare notes about our backgrounds. It would help both of us understand the ideas of the other.

Very best wishes,

HEZ Hez (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I too feel the article should be renamed to organic photochemistry. (there used to be an article named photochemical reaction but it was brutally redirected to photochemistry). please Howard, try to make the article as broad as possible. Wikipedia works top-down: chemistry then organic chemistry then organic reaction then photochemical reaction then more specialized articles related to organic photochemistry V8rik (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm no longer trying to convince you to change the article title, but you are under a misconception about what you call sub-articles. An article having a sub-section with a particular title does not stop a full article existing with that same name as well. It is very common on Wikipedia to use what we call "summary style". The sub-section is a summary of the main article and the section has a hatnote at the top which looks like this for example;

Main article: Organic photochemistry

You might want to consider using this. A good example of where summary style is used can be found in Electrical engineering. In fact, that article is recognised as one of the very best articles on Wikipedia and is a good place to look to copy stylistic things of all kinds. By the way, there is no rule at all against editing existing articles - in fact this is encouraged. If the existing articles are restraining you from doing the best thing then you are perfectly at liberty to change them. SpinningSpark 21:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

To Spinning Spark

Thanks for the helpful information. I'll take a look at that Electrical Engineering article. It may give me some ideas. Incidentally,I really like your colorful ID "Spinning Sparks" and may at some point learn from it. Your point of there not being a reason to have a main article have the same name as a sub-article somewhere else - is a good one. But in this case the main article is much too brief and "off--center". I think it must have been written by a physicist or physical chemist. But that Sub-article "Organic chemistry" has a link to my "Mechanistic Organic chemistry" one asn so people interested in only a straight organic photochemistry one will be led (Linked) to my article as well.

Your point about possibily working and improving the present other article (i.e. Photochemistry and the sub-Article Organic Photochemistry) is quite valid but it would take a remarkable amount of effort and quite possibly get that author upset with me. Also starting with something poor and fixing it is a real problem. I did that once with the "Birch Reduction" article. It was a mess. I then wrote a good one. I ended up replacing the original but got the author really angry with me. I finally apologized to him and moderated my complaints about the original. A few people did comment that my re-writing was necessary.

It is Sunday evening and I need to quit.

Very best wishes,

Hez (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wording Revision by Smokefoot

The revision in wording by Smokefoot for the most part is all right. However, there are several changes which are not really correct. Thus, the descript of "Italian Sunlight" as just "Sunlight" is less accurate and not descriptive. Similarly, the change of the "the first Correct Structure of Santonin" to "The Structure of Santonin" is not accurate and gives the wrong impression. There were earlier, incorrect structures before the one by Clemo. Sometimes revison of wording can equate with revision in meaning and accuracy.

--Hez (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

COI

This article was written by the late H.E. Zimmerman, a self-absorbed editor who mainly wrote about his own contributions.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)