Talk:chemical property

Definitions
Candidate definitions: I have just replaced 2 with 3. --Daniel Polansky 10:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RFD discussion: July–October 2022
Inqilābī wanted to rush this through based on the shaky "consensus" in Requests_for_deletion/Non-English. I felt like there was no good reason to ignore due process and take that discussion as sufficient justification to speedy the English entry, especially considering that has expressed uncertainty about this entry while  said they would vote to keep it. See also Talk:chemical property. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Abstain for now. The German potentially qualifies for THUB. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the premature deletion. I still think this is SOP, though, so delete. PUC – 13:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now - I have no strong feelings about the entry. Keep as a THub if there are any languages that use non-SOP terms for it, but otherwise delete. Theknightwho (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term doesn't literally mean "a property of a chemical", since it refers to something that can only be observed after a chemical reaction rather than simply analyzing a substance, so it arguably passes WT:FRIED and/or WT:PRIOR. Additionally, its inclusion in Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com builds a strong case for invoking WT:LEMMING as well. Binarystep (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It might not mean "property of a chemical" (nominal + ), but it does mean "property relating to chemistry" (sense 1 of adjectival  + ). I fail to see how the manner in which those properties can be determined / brought to light has lexical relevance. PUC – 14:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That ambiguity justifies keeping the term per WT:FRIED: "For instance, a fried egg is pan fried, not deep fried, and also not scrambled." Binarystep (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Binarystep (specifically the WT:LEMMING & WT:PRIOR points). AG202 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. An SoP not essentially different from such SoPs as, (as in, the value of a commodity is not a material property of the thing),  (as in, the mind is an immaterial property of the brain), , ...&thinsp;, most of which can have different meanings (like immaterial property in intellectual property right, or  versus ).  --Lambiam 09:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: seems quite SoP to me; doesn’t appear to be a term of art. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Binarystep. Thus, per WT:LEMMING. And this is no obvious SOP: "Any of a material's properties that becomes evident during a chemical reaction". This def is not synonymous to "property relating to chemistry"; the latter phrase is broader. And someone has asked 'What does "chemical property" mean? What are some examples?'; why did they ask if the term is such an obvious sum of parts? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck out part of your message. Let's do without specious arguments, please. PUC – 12:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking out was frowned upon by others in RFD; please don't do it again. My argument is fine; you are free to remain unconvinced. I won't unstrike it though to avoid a silly fight. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * RFD kept: 4:3 for deletion; no 2/3-supermajority consensus for deletion; multiple months have passed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)