Talk:Royal Society of Chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United Kingdom  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


I have created and populated Category:Royal Society of Chemistry. I think I have probably got all the articles that need it. Going through them brought up a number of issues:-

I have now altered Chemical Biology to redirect to Chemical biology. This gets confusing. --Bduke 12:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
RSCPublishing response: Analytical Abstracts article will be added soon. Unfortunately we don't know anything about the medals. Molecular BioSystems (note the UC 'S') has a full article. Chemical Biology Virtual Journal links will be removed. We have an article on our Chemical Biology supplement in progress, so this should take care of this last point.
RSCPublishing response: We'll look into this.
I have removed links for Faraday Division and started discussion of Divisions on the main page. --Bduke 12:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Many articles contain the sentence, "The RSC is a not-for-profit publisher: surplus made by its publishing business is invested to support its aim of advancing the chemical sciences". I think this reads a bit like an advert and is non-encyclopedic. I suggest it be deleted.
RSCPublishing: We understand your concerns. Would it be OK to have the phrase on the Royal Society of Chemistry page instead?
  • Several articles on RSC Journals have external links to other RSC journals, when they should be internal links to WP articles. These need to be edited as we go along.
RSCPublishing responses: They were added as external links as we didn't have Wiki pages at that time. As most of our pages are now in place, we can edit these.

Please comment on these suggestions. --Bduke 06:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The David Garner listed as a past-predsident of the RSC has a hyperlink to a biography on Wikipedia. Sadly, this is not the actual Dave Garner who served as President of the RSC, simply a New Zealand scientist with the same name. Can this link be removed please?

Many thanks for your helpful comments and suggestions. Perhaps you have guessed that we are new to Wiki editing! We are a group of three users, all employed by the publishing arm of the Royal Society of Chemistry, which is based in Cambridge, UK. Our objective in setting up the account was to add correct, factual information to some existing articles and stubs describing RSC journals (or to create new articles where none existed). Specifically, we wanted to make sure that publication histories, ISSNs, coverage, etc details were up-to date. We felt it best to do so as a registered user rather than to make changes anonymously. We have tried not to contravene any policies that are in place, and will be happy to change anything that is not deemed appropriate. We will post this comment to the forum page to explain who we are and why we have been editing pages. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are any other problems.RSCPublishing 10:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to format your insertions above. It is best to add comments after a ":" and then sign them with ~~~~. I have no problem what so ever with what you are doing. So join in the wikifun and see whether we have a consensus about the points I make above. The new articles - I am happy for you to write them. The redlinks that I think should not be articles - I am happy to be convinced by anyone, but if not, I will remove them. I see your point replacing external links to other journals by internal links. We can work together to get this done. What about the "not for profit" puff? I am not so sure about it being on the RSC page itself. That would be better, but I do not see the need for it. I think the encyclopedic view is that RSC is a professional society. To me "not for profit" is just business guff. But OK, lets put it in the main RSC article for now and see if anyone else disagrees, and delete it from individual journal articles.

Molecular BioSystems with lower case "s", I think exists. I'll try to find them and fix them.

Medals. Since writing the above I got my "Chemistry World" and the other inserts in the post. I realised that there are far too many medals for each to have a separate article. I'll have a go at sorting this out.

I think we are getting to a rather impressive set of pages on RSC. Perhaps you could help on the main RSC page to get this up to featured article standard. It is late at night. I hope this is clear. --Bduke 13:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge here of Marlow Medal[edit]

I am proposing that this article be merged here for several reasons. First, it is quite short and unlikely to expand much. Second it is the only article on a RSC Medal, but there are around 30 medals and named lectureship offered by RSC. I do not think we can have articles on all of them. I suggest we develop material on all of them in the main article. When it gets too long we can move the material to Royal Society of Chemistry Medals and Lectureships. Comments please. --Bduke 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you're planning for a move: why not just set up Royal Society of Chemistry Medals and Lectureships immediately and merge Marlow Medal into it? 30 October 2006.

Because it is the only one at present. Please sign your comments. --Bduke 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This merge has been done under a section on the Faraday Division. If information on medals is put under the Division and the article gets too large we can spawn off articles on the Divisions, or as suggested before, an article on medals. --Bduke 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge of magazine and supplements[edit]

While I am willing to be convinced otherwise, it seems to me that Chemical World, the article on the Society's magazine, and the articles on the 3 supplements, Chemical Technology, Chemical Science and Chemical Biology (journal) should be merged into the main article as headed sections. They are unlikely to grow much larger. Magazines and supplements are not as notable as peer-reviewed journals and it could be argued that they are not notable enough to be separate articles. Please indicate your support or opposition below:-

  • Support as above. --Bduke 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Articles don't have to be big, a 4 line article can be telling it all (see also the article list on the American Chemical Society page, though the journals are marked stub as well). But having said that, redirecting it here also seems viable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to article[edit]

(copied from user talk:Beetstra by Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC))

Greetings. You have made some good changes to this article, but I wish you had discussed some of them first. I'm not going to change anything now. I specifically put the Divisions under headings and the Marlow Medal under the Faraday Division because of the one objection to merging in the Marlow Medal. It seemed to me, after reflection and changing my original view, that if all the other medals are described here and are described under the Division that sponsors them, them me might solve the problem of size (there are lots of medals) by splitting off new articles on each Division. I thought my structure made that easier. Your structure makes it more difficult to add details of other medals. I am also concerned about the merge tags I added for articles that were created by the people at RSC Publishing in Cambridge. I think they could be targets for deletion that migh raise the whole question of articles on journals, which I think are important. I want to facilitate that set of merges. Lets see how it goes. --Bduke 11:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not discuss it first, though I only did formatting, no real changes. The format of the article as it was, was just .. strange. I mean, a heading "Organic Division", which only contains "for organic chemistry" .. made no sense at all (I now see that you just made the sections yesterday, sorry :-) ). If the text grows to say, three-four sentences per division, then it is indeed better to split them up again (which is very easily done). If it grows even further, I would even suggest to give the divisions an own, main article (but I don't think it will get that far). And I personally do not like single sentence paragraphs, there must either be more to tell, or they are probably telling something similar as other paragraphs, so can be merged. I think, that the article as it is now, might even be at start class, while in the previous format it was more a stub, and that without adding extra info!
About prizes and medals: Only the Faraday division had more info, but the medal does not tell about the Faraday division. But I think that should grow into a full list of presented prizes and awards (there must be way more!), and then might be an own section "Awarded prizes and awards".
I have been following the article for some time, and saw your edit of earlier today, and had a look. I know that RSC was making these articles, and as such, I do not really object, if they keep a NPOV (I have been 'fighting' that for some time with some pages, in this case I can't say that I needed to do much about it, but may not have followed this article fully). I am a bit ambiguous about the merging of the journals. I believe that also 4 line articles can be complete, and can exist. They don't have to be big. But also redirecting Chemistry World to Royal Society of Chemistry is possible (would it be silly to add a neutral vote to the merger discussion?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy you have moved the discussion here. You replied just after I went to bed! Several points, all fairly minor:-

  1. There are over 70 medals and named lectureships. Soime day someone is going to want all of them mentioned somewhere. In merging the article on the Marlow Medal I tried to prevent the start of lots of stubs. Medals are very much a Division matter and should be under that heading at some point. I'm happy about the article as it is for now.
  2. I do not think that "Chemistry World" is a journal. The article is in the Chemistry journal category, but it is also in the Trade magazine category and that, to me, is more accurate. This makes it less notable than journal articles.
  3. The other 3 suggested for merging are not journals either but inserts in other journals to highlight key papers. Again I have doubts about notability. I do not think we should call them "journals".
  4. I had not seen the ACS list and I think it is unnecessary as they are all in the ACS Category. Likewise all the RSC Journals are in the RSC Category (except I think one that does not have an article - all the rest do - and the RSCPublising user has said it will be written). However, I will not object if someone creates such a list on the main article.
  5. Of the ACS articles, I think ACS style will always be small and should be merged into the main article. I have edited or started some of the ACS journal articles, but it will be a time before I move back there.
  6. The RSCPublishing user(s) will not do anything on articles that are not on publications. They told me for example that they know nothing on medals. I agreed with them that the para on 'not-for-profit organisation" could go on the RSC page and I, or them, have deleted it from all journal articles. I think it is OK once on the main article. I have also removed POV and advertising-like stuff of the journal articles. I went through all of them the other day.
  7. A neutral vote or comment is perfectly acceptable. What I fear is that we will get very few comments.
  8. I agree about the start category. Lets see if we can get it better.

--Bduke 22:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section on publications, removing the reference to Chemistry World as a journal and adding some information on the supplements and on books published by RSC. We can add to the latter when we get our subscription reminder which I'm sure will have details of all RSC publications, at least those still in print. What do you think? --Bduke 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Not all medals are divisional. For example the most prestigious ones (Meldola and Corday-Morgan) are awarded centrally by the RSC. (Monaco10) - above was added by anon User: Please sign your contributions to talk pages with ~~~~. --Bduke 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The ones that cover the whole Society are prestigious and they should be covered in the main article. The Division medals can be covered under the Division heading until it all gets too large and we move those sections to separate articles on the Divisions. Perhaps we should start with the two medals you mention. --Bduke 22:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi apologies for not signing - I'm a bit new to this. There should therefore be an Awards subsection added to the article - I don't know how to do that --monaco10

No problems. I'm a bit tied up with other things both on and off Wikipedia and I have spent a lot of time recently on RSC articles. I would like to leave the medals for a while, perhaps until the 4 proposed merges have been decided. However feel free. I think the Meldola and Corday-Morgan medals should be under a heading of "Medals and awards". Earlier I put the Marlow medal under a Faraday Division heading, with all divisions having a heading. If you care to write something and add it here on the talk page, I'll notice it and move it into the article. The Marlow medal can go under the same heading for now, but when we get more we probably should put Division medals under Division headings again and later move these to Division articles. Go for it. You will soon get the hang of it. --Bduke 20:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a go at editing the main page and adding a section on Medals and awards to cover the centrally awarded prizes Monaco10 18:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Was about to find time to do something about that, just saw two lectures yesterday by the Mendola medal winner of this year, Dr. Matthew Clarke, and an award (forgot to put the name), Prof. Odile Eisenstein. But I'll wait. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section that specifically mentions the Meldola and Corday-Morgan. There is a risk that this section could become enormous so I guess a good idea (as I think has already been suggested) might eventually be to have a more comprehensive separate page for awards. I hope what I have added reads OK. Monaco10 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lovely. I have added some links to articles on recipients but may have missed some. It certainly points to some famous chemists who should have articles and do not appear to have them. Nyholm for me stands out. I could not find an article on him. I also moved the Medola medal under this section and formatted it in the same way that you did. In the future, we have two choices, an article on medals and awards of RSC, or leave the two main ones here and create articles for each division to hold the division medal details. I favour the latter. The former would be really long if all RSC medals and awards are mentioned. Note I have added a header above to split this rather long section of this talk page. --Bduke 22:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Journal articles[edit]

Using the order form for journals that reached me today to renew my subscription, it seems that we do not have articles for the following journals:-

Just a check list. We have articles for 22 journals from RSC. --Bduke 10:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we copy the list to User talk:RSCPublishing? ;P Physchim62 (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms[edit]

It would be good to add the RSC coat of arms to this page - can we use the crest from the RSC website?Monaco10 19:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved your comment down to the bottom and put it under a heading. Take a look at Image:RIC Crest.jpg which is on the Royal Institute of Chemistry page and understand the copyright issues. I presuime something similar can be done, but I am really not into image issues. Anyway it is probably best if someone in UK handles getting RSC permission. Are you in UK? --Bduke 21:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I'm in the UK. The RIC coat of arms prompted me to suggest adding the RSC arms as they are derived from it. I'll take a look at the copyright information.Monaco10 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would contact the RSCPublishing account that has added information recently but can't figure out how to contact them as their account name on the discussion page is not a link. I could contact RSC publishing directly but would rather approach them via their wikipedia user account. Bduke - is it possible to send a message to this account?Monaco10 20:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You can put a message on their talk page, but they have not edited since November 6th and have not replied to a message I left there on November 10. Also, I suspect they will say they only know about publishing and the Cambridge office, not what goes on in Burlington House, as they said earlier about medals. I suggest you phone Burlington House and explain the problem. --Bduke 21:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This Template:Coat of arms gives some important information, but it is up for deletion. --Bduke 01:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I have added the arms, but I created them by looking at the image on their website here. I do not have the blazon to include in the template. I don't trust my skills enough to describe the arms properly. But atleast the image is up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by A1 Aardvark (talkcontribs) 07:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


I have merged in Chemistry World as there was no objection and some mild support. I have fixed the main redirects. I have left the supplements for now, but will do them later, unless this prompts people to object. --Bduke 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The three supplements have been merged into the RSC article. --Bduke 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Soft Matter[edit]

Btw, you're missing Soft Matter (journal) published by RSC. IlyaV 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add it. Note I moved your comment to the end which is normal use. --Bduke (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

  1. I think that the content in the Chemistry Centre article can easily be explained in the context of Royal Society of Chemistry, and the Royal Society of Chemistry article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Chemistry Centre will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.
  2. Chemistry Centre article has unproven notability as a standalone article (no secondary source, only a single primary source from organisation itself)
  3. As a public-facing part of the RSC, it is integral to it, and should be part of the article
  4. A separate location of an organisation does not require a separate article
  5. The content and external links of Chemistry Centre overlap Royal Society of Chemistry, and the article requires context of the RSC article Widefox (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been a long time, so I have done the merge. It needs more work and I will try to find time to do that but help would be welcome. I think the article needs a separate section on the history of the RSC and then the subsection on the history of the centre can be moved there. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

New logo?[edit]

The RSC has recently changed its logo - worth updating the infobox picture?

Joemalt1832 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)