Talk:Exergonic reaction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Stub-class, Low-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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Please do not merge these separate 6 pages[edit]

The merge debate goes back to '05 (see: Talk:Endergonic). The result of the debate was to not merge. Moreover, it is standard protocol, e.g. according to both The Essential Dictionary of Science (Clark 2004) and the A to Z Dictionary of Thermodynamics (Perrot 1998), to have separate entries for such closely-related but subtly-different topics such as:

  • Exothermic – a process or reaction that involves the release of energy; usually in the form of heat.
  • Exothermic reaction – a chemical reaction in which heat is given out.

a exergonic reaction is... sorry im still learning about this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.188.26.95 (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As well as for the other terms: endothermic, endothermic reaction, etc. For example, the melting of an ice-cube is an endothermic process; combustion evolves an exothermic reaction, warm-blooded animals are endothermic, arguing with other Wikipedians is an endergonic activity, etc. Help us expand on these separate stubs, but please don't merge. Wikipedia has unlimited storage space. Articles are sure to grow. Thanks:--Sadi Carnot 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I suggest we do merge these pages; they are all very short and my guess is that, when a reader gees to one they may well be either confused as to which one they want or intending to consult another as well. Combining them will make many reader's task easier and I can't see how it will make life more difficult for anyone. The previous (2005) consensus referred to above was pretty limited in scope and shouldn't deter as seven years later from improving things. Abtract (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Bad idea, people visiting this page just want information on topic at hand: exergonic reaction. Why not focus on creating new content? V8rik (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)