Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! -- Lost^(talk) 07:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Helpful copy edits on this page. Great work.Obina 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - glad to be of help! -- TinaSparkle 09:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I liked what you did and what you're proposing for cosmetics. The big problem I have is that much of the information about cosmetics and the cosmetic industry either isn't published anywhere, is proprietary information, is in sales literature from cosmetic ingredient suppliers, or is published only in specialized trade journals, most of which aren't on the web. I've been a cosmetic chemist for many years, but I can't just write down what I know and load it onto Wikipedia - I don't have sources for half of it outside of personal experience, and the other half is proprietary and/or copyrighted. See http://www.ctfa-buyersguide.org/ and try to look up an ingredient (water?) for an understanding of what I mean.

I'd like to help, though. If you can think of a way, or of a specific topic, let me know. Bobzchemist 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughts, and for your offer of help - I'd be delighted if you could, in any way you like. Sounds like you have a perfect background for doing so!

The issue of proprietory/copyright information is presumably quite a serious one for Wikipedia, and I'm really glad you've raised it. In terms of cosmetics, I realise it may not be possible to do things like listing the ingredients in specific products. I was inspired by the piecemeal but interesting section on the article Cosmetics: I'm thinking of pages that might list or identify the sort of ingredients that create pearlescence, for instance, or specific pigments. What I'd really like to see are articles that blend the scientific facts with history and culture - the composition of Elizabethan white lead face-paint, for instance, or Ayurvedic recipes for kohl. I think it might be useful to link cosmetic products (current and past) with information on allergens, animal products, the geographical origins of various ingredients, etc.

As for what I suppose must be patented things such as Retin-A or Boswellox: I realise this could be legally complicated. But there must be at least some information in the public domain. -- TinaSparkle 20:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• In recent years there has been a growing number of books on chemistry in everyday life - aiming at a greater public, but probably read by students or teachers of chemistry only. Food and cosmetics are the topics mainly dealt with. That information on pearlescence looks like it is from one of those books, I'm not sure but I might have come across it there. Then there is the occasional bit of information in modern chemistry textbooks like the excellent "Organic Chemistry" by Clayden/Warren.
• I don't see problems with patented compounds or systems. A patent IS a publication, as simple as that. At university we access that kind of information all the time. The problem is that it is difficult or costly for lay people to do so, and to work up the raw information into something useful is incredibly labor-intensive and difficult, even for chemists (It might even amount to original research, not sure...). But it needs not to be done, because that's basically what authors of the above books did already, plus adding whatever they happen to know from insiders like Bob, thus making it published information that can be quoted.
• I like your project and will see how I can help as an organic chemist interested in history of science and chemistry (and reader of some of those "popular chemistry" books). What do you have in mind? Expanding the "incredients" section and split it from the original article? Or giving the "history of cosmetics" article a chemical focus?

Ahem, the reason I actually ended up on your userpage: Thank you very much for your great copyediting of the Elizabeth Báthory article! I've since added some more portions of text, with the occasional clumsy phrasing, probably. Maybe you could spare some minutes to see what it has become?--Sam195 10:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Sam195! I'd be delighted if you could help with the Cosmetics project. I've been to the Báthory page and copyedited it again; I think the additions you have made are fantastic. -- TinaSparkle 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your effort there! Well, here is an article I think needs to be written (What you wrote about listing incrediences reminded me of something I've seen in the text book mentioned): Actually incrediences are listed on each cosmetic product, but in a jargon that makes sense only to the initiate. Clayden and Warren translated this mumbo jumbo for a handful of substances, this should be done for all of them.

I think of purely table form, alphabetic order. One column could be "chemical meaning", another one "purpose".

Examples (taken from Clayden/Warren):

aqua - water - solvent

PEG-150 distearate - polyoxyethylene glycol diester - surfactant.

This could even work as a kind of translation request: anybody can enter in the first column whatever he/she finds on a product, a short web search will in most cases yield the chemical meaning, and somebody in the know can add the purpose. Of course we would link to that list from the general cosmetics articles, but we could also consider using that list as a central piece from where to link to more specific articles. I will collect a few items, so there is enough to start that article. --Sam195 08:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply

P.S.: The article on INCI gives a rough idea, and shows the problem: there are lists available online, but mostly limited to the products of a single brand, and not really systematic in some cases, and having such a list with an extra column for "purpose" would be really novel and highly useful. And I was glad to see that for quite a few compounds there are already useful wiki articles I can link to. So I should be able to start that article soon, though the "purpose" column still has a lot of blanks. I think I will replace the the list on the INCI article by a link to that new article. Any idea how to call it? --Sam195 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)reply

Sorry not to have replied earlier, by the way. My feeling is that this is a great idea, especially on the basis of the article on INCI, though I can't pretend to have the technical knowledge to help much. I think the 'purpose' column would be really useful, though might it be controversial in some cases? Probably not if a reference was provided to whatever claim was being made. I'm thinking of companies that add, say, emerald dust (I think it's in Creme de la Mer lip balm), which I expect has the purpose of 'making the product more expensive so that silly people will buy it'. But, as I say, I'm not an expert. Maybe emerald dust is the secret of eternal youth.

So, yes, I reckon that a new article to incorporate the INCI information would be ideal: the present items on that list could be footnoted to INCI via the CTFA website referenced on the article now. The new page should probably just be called 'Cosmetic ingredients'. That fits with the INCI style, and is also the term that readers are most likely to search for.

One other point. It seems to me that the table of cosmetic ingredients is likely to get very long very quickly. Should it be subdivided into sections, and, if so, how? My first thought is something like 'solvents', 'emollients', 'surfactants', 'other' etc, but I see that this will mean ascertaining the purpose for most things before you start, which could be awkward. Maybe there's a better way? -- TinaSparkle 09:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)reply

Those are difficult questions. Let's first answer to your last paragraph. I think there will be 300+ items in the list, maybe many more (so far I've found search engines, but not complete lists... not a good sign). Some compounds will have more than one purpose, like surfactants that are acids. I'm afraid anything but alphabetic wont work.

'Purpose' will be a short characterization of why things are added, describing the nature of the compound and it's role in a mixture. By sticking to technical/chemical discriptions, I think it should be possible to keep that information non-controversial. INCI seems not to list useless or fantasy compounds but chemicals that are added usually and for a reason (I hope I am not wrong on that...).

Verifiability could become difficult, because the discription is very brief and basic. When I see 'sodium hydroxide' in the list, I just add 'base', like any chemist would, and on some I don't know yet were to get the information from at all... I will look around, there MUST be at least some books dealing with cosmetic industrial chemistry, to obtain most of the information from one source. Information in chemical text books is awfully scattered.

Then I think there should be two articles (which could both be described 'Cosmetic ingredients'...). One is the list I am working at, with the very chemical/INCI focus. Although I know some people (chemists...) who would read it for fun, one would typically use that list only for looking up what is in one's body lotion. Second would be an article in prose, giving a general idea how cosmetics are made, from what kind of substances, from which resources - a bit like the existing 'incredients' section in 'cosmetics', only better and verified. The natural division of such an article would of course be by categories, just as you proposed. Maybe using a disambiguation page?

I'm glad those questions can be discussed before any of the articles exists, that makes things much easier.--Sam195 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)reply

P.S. A disambiguation page for those two artcles, I mean. And did I write 'some books'? There are hundreds - so no problem there. --Sam195 12:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)reply

Good to know. References from real books are always a great thing. :)

Definitely in agreement about needing two articles. Is it worth doing 'Cosmetic ingredients' as a prose piece, and 'List of cosmetic ingredients' as something like the INCI article? I think they should probably have a disambiguation page, as you suggest. Also, have you considered doing the non-prose piece as a standard Wikipedia list (like List of biomolecules), or would this prohibit the inclusion of chemical meaning & purpose? I haven't done a list before, so this is all new to me.

Sounds very much like you're right about the list needing to be alphabetical, though. As for references for stuff like "sodium hydroxide = base", I think if that would just be incredibly obvious to any chemist it doesn't necessarily need a reference. We don't have to have references for things like people's dates of birth on Wikipedia, for instance, unless they're disputed. If it's completely accepted fact I don't think you need to worry about it too much. -- TinaSparkle 13:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)reply

I thought of a table, looks like they offer a lot of flexibility (and are fun to make). Those wiki lists seem to bundle existing articles. For some of the incredients there are articles, some of them really good (though not necessarily focused on application in cosmetics), but most will be chemical stubs. And some compounds are probably too unimportant for ever getting an article of their own. I will of course link to all the articles I can find, so the first or second column will very much look like a wiki list. --Sam195 15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)reply

ok, done! List of cosmetic ingredients exists. --Sam195 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)reply

I have already executed a stub-class article on a late-1980's celebrity scent; since perfumes and fragrances are associated with cosmetics manufacturers, I consider perfume listings such as Electric Youth (fragrance) a potential include for WikiProject Cosmetics. Is this reasonable, or would you suggest a separate WikiProject on fragrances? - B.C.Schmerker 05:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply

Unfortunately, WikiProject Cosmetics never really got off the ground. I'd love to see a WikiProject Fragrances (though I think it should be broadened to WikiProject Perfumery); it's a topic very underrepresented on Wikipedia, and as you can see from my user contribs I've been adding articles about perfumers recently. I'd definitely join such a project or help administer it, but I don't really have time right now to run it myself. -- TinaSparkle 08:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)reply

Understood. I've re-prepped Electric Youth (fragrance) for the proposed WikiProject Perfumery; it is still a Stub-class, as I have little info on this product, other than what Revlon Consumer Products Corp. released back in the day. - B.C.Schmerker 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply

The project Page for Pakistan has been started Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan plese join it so that we all could benifit from your input thankyou Hussain 08:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)reply

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the India WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Please participate in any of our descendant workgroups that might interest you.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every India article in Wikipedia.
• Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 05:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)reply

Thanks for your edit in Suhrawardy's article. But Categorizing Maulana Akram Khan to only Akram Khan is misleading as it refers either to the cricketer of BD or the Dancer from India, So..... I have reverted it again to Maulana Akram Khan( the famous politician and Editor of Daily Azad of Calcutta/Dhaka)asdone before by Al-minar.

Thank you once again!

Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury 06:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)reply

I understand your position and sincerely thank you for creating a page for Maulana Akram Khan.

Regards,

Hossain Akhtar Chowdhury 04:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)reply

I agree entirely with your comments about the merger. Might a politely suggest they may be more credible if you correct the apparent slip refering to her as Gerard's wife - she is in fact his sister.  :-)Winstonwolfe 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)reply

Whoops! Many thanks for the tip-off. I stand corrected (as does the page). -- TinaSparkle 09:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)reply