Talk:Dioxin
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Move?
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus. —harej (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Dioxin (disambiguation) → Dioxin — it has a number of meanings so it needs "dioxin" as prim dab page. — -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- This was moved in the opposite direction just 2 weeks ago. Perhaps you should talk with the original mover to see why he thinks there's a primary topic. If you can't come to an agreement, then file a full move request here. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the obvious primary meaning is the pollutant chemical 76.66.193.221 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Misleading
This article is really an insufficient hub to direct people searching for information on Dioxin. I would contend that the vast majority of users would be interested only in the concept of dioxin as a environmental hazard and toxin, and at present the structure of this topic on wikipedia has some serious flaws and inaccuracies.
Please see the chat here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Toxicology_task_force#Dioxin and contribute with ideas on how to make this topic on wikipedia relevant and useful to readers. Arthurbagwaste (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Page does not respect DAB guidelines
This DAB page does not respect the guidelines. It contains largely too many explanations. I suggest reverting to this revision. See other pages in Category:Chemistry disambiguation pages for comparison. --Leyo 12:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am not a chemistry expert, so I have no opinion. My page edits are only trying to clean up and categorize the apparently competing definitions. DMahalko (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- You don't have to be a chemistry expert, rather a DAB expert. :-) The problem existed before you edited the page. --Leyo 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- The revision simply leaves the initial problem of having no adequate starting point for researching dioxin on wikipedia, this version is a vast improvement IMO. The problem with the earlier revision was that it did not disambiguate anything, rather just confused the reader with a list of technical terms with no context. This page is more fit for purpose as a disambiguation page even if it bends the rules. Arthurbagwaste (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- perhaps it would solve the problem if it were no longer known as a disambiguation page, and the bulk of information on dioxin-like toxicity was moved here/merged with from dioxins and dioxin-like compounds and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins. The only real ambiguity exists in the situation of the 1,2 and 1,4 dioxin monomers, the article as it is, addresses this and could be expanded with diagrams etc. to give all relevant information in a single coherent article. I would not be happy to see a return to the previous dab page. It is not a useful resource. Arthurbagwaste (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The term “dioxin” is falsely/inappropriately used for polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and related compounds, at least from a chemical perspective (where a dioxin is a six-membered heterocycle containing two oxygen atoms and two double bonds). Hence, a DAB page is the maximum that can be done. The problem is, that the DAB page currently does not follow the guidelines. I know you are a rather inexperienced Wikipedia user, but you could still try to adapt the page to follow the guidelines. --Leyo 11:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dioxin is a widely used and accepted term for the toxicity associated with PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs with thousands of published journal articles, governmental reports and media publications all using the term to represent this form of toxicity. Entering "dioxin" into google will verify this immediately. 1,2/1,4-dioxin is a little used chemical solvent with no environmental or toxicological relevance. My contention is that the content linked to should reflect this balance. I understand what a DAB page is, despite my inexperience, but I have already made the point that the previous revision does not serve to disambiguate, rather to confuse the lay reader with additional technical terms with no context.
- The term “dioxin” is falsely/inappropriately used for polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and related compounds, at least from a chemical perspective (where a dioxin is a six-membered heterocycle containing two oxygen atoms and two double bonds). Hence, a DAB page is the maximum that can be done. The problem is, that the DAB page currently does not follow the guidelines. I know you are a rather inexperienced Wikipedia user, but you could still try to adapt the page to follow the guidelines. --Leyo 11:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- perhaps it would solve the problem if it were no longer known as a disambiguation page, and the bulk of information on dioxin-like toxicity was moved here/merged with from dioxins and dioxin-like compounds and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins. The only real ambiguity exists in the situation of the 1,2 and 1,4 dioxin monomers, the article as it is, addresses this and could be expanded with diagrams etc. to give all relevant information in a single coherent article. I would not be happy to see a return to the previous dab page. It is not a useful resource. Arthurbagwaste (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The revision simply leaves the initial problem of having no adequate starting point for researching dioxin on wikipedia, this version is a vast improvement IMO. The problem with the earlier revision was that it did not disambiguate anything, rather just confused the reader with a list of technical terms with no context. This page is more fit for purpose as a disambiguation page even if it bends the rules. Arthurbagwaste (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You don't have to be a chemistry expert, rather a DAB expert. :-) The problem existed before you edited the page. --Leyo 17:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
So my suggestion is to link dioxin directly to a full wikipedia entry which properly explains the term and its uses in full - to combine content from polychlorinated dibenzodioxins dioxins and dioxin-like compounds and 1,2-Dioxin to create a coherent and comprehensible explanation of the topic. This seems to me the only logical approach to solving the issue. As a researcher in the field of dioxin, again I can only reiterate that the information I found on wikipedia on this issue has been not fit-for-purpose, confusing, contradictory and often inaccurate. The previous revision of the DAB page was a major part of that. If you wish to revert to that situation, please feel free. I am willing to give of my time and expertise to provide accurate referenced content to the best of my ability, but I have no intention of fighting pointless pedantic battles where the rules of wikipedia conflict with the accuracy of the articles.Arthurbagwaste (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
how is it formed?
It'd be nice to quickly look at the formation of dioxin within oils (both motor oil, as cooking oils), and what happens to a life form (like a human) ingesting dioxin at high rates.