Talk:Propylene

Title

The article title has been changed despite the fact that it no longer is in harmony with the text (inserted by several different editors). The article is most consistent with "propene" as the title. I would like it to revert to propene.--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the article is all about propene anyway. As a student, I only learn about propene and I find the -ylene names confusing.--212.74.26.3 (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The of this article: Propene v. Propylene

... is currently being discussed here. Yilloslime (t) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) is propene is extracted from natural gas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbhadauria (talk • contribs) 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Continued reverts

This user VMS Mosaic who is not a contributor to this article nor has ever raised the issue on this talk page is repeatedly reverting text to reflect the spelling in the (wholly overwritten) stub version of the article. He is a source of repeated controversy on this issue as his talk page bears out, see [[1]]. Can I ask genuine contributors please to use the discussion page should controversial changes be embarked upon--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is now protected from editing—please work it out instead of reverting one another. However frustrating this may be, saying "WP:ENGVAR is not relevant - text is mine and I use BrEng/Infobox too" as you did in your edit summary is, if you'll excuse me, preposterous. The text is not yours. The whole purpose of WP:ENGVAR is to prevent lame edit wars such as this one, not to fuel them. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

None of my other hundreds of WP:ENGVAR edits since December 2007 have created controversy. I have made at least a thousand WP:ENGVAR edits, and only a very few were ever decided to be incorrect. Just today, two other established editors have reverted this article's spelling to American. I was not going to revert it a second time today because the issue has now become edit warring. There is a short discussion with AssegaiAli on my talk page where I explained my position regarding WP:ENGVAR per this article. He chose not to continue the discussion there. VMS Mosaic (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not true - on your talk page you have been asked to take care over ENGVAR interventions! You would be advised to follow that advice.--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You are pointing out an issue which happened well over a year ago (4/07) when an issue with a "term of art" came up. Yes, agreement was reached that the "term of art" was British. I never claimed to be infallible. The last complaint about one of my WP:ENGVAR edits was 12/07, so yes I did take the advice and have been very careful and objective in my WP:ENGVAR edits. VMS Mosaic (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

When I first looked at this article, it had a mixed spelling dialect (British and American). I checked the history per WP:ENGVAR and found the article was both started in and destubbed in American. It was either all American or intermixed from that time on. The article is not on a British subject, so WP:ENGVAR is clear on what dialect it should use. VMS Mosaic (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at every single version of this article, but it seems that the article was originally written and destubbed in American Englished, and existed that way from July 2004 until March 2008 when AssegaiAli made this edit. So, per WP:ENGVAR it should stay in American English. Also, ENGVAR aside, I think we should never use the word "Inflammable" in an article about a chemical, since the consequences of confusion over the meaning of this term could be deadly. Yilloslime (t) 20:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with this analysis of the history. And strongly concur that regardless the British vs American choice for spelling, we should always use unambiguous terms when they are available (see "Opportunities for commonality" section of ENGVAR). You can look in a dictionary to find that "inflammable" means it can burn, but even better to write "flammable" which has a more obvious meaning (and doesn't look like it means the opposite to those who aren't familiar with the term). DMacks (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... well I have looked at past versions - and the article has been a mixture of spellings almost from the start - i.e. June 2005 actually. The issue is not very clear cut at all. VMS Mosaic's insistent interventions are not supported by the history. In addition none of the original text exists as of this month so the article should just be left as it is--Mountwolseley (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with next above and disagree with DMack etc. It is quite wrong to say it was destubbed in US English. This happened [[2]] and as you can see it contains both. However, the infobox, which IMHO is the main contributor to its upgrade is in BrEng. The article should stay as it is.--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any British English in that version, but I admit I'm no expert. Can you point it out for me? Yilloslime (t) 16:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Earliest form of the page is US ("color" and "odor"). insertion of the infobox used British spellings in the infobox but left US spellings in the article itself. This edit was not an entire rewrite, merely moving content from article into infobox, and it changed spellings while doing so...that's against ENGVAR (should have remained US in the infobox). These spellings (US in article, BR in infobox) then remained until AssegaiAli made this change to BR in the article text. DMacks (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No there were Br spellings in the text as well back in 2006 before destubbing. I don't think ENGVAR is the final arbiter here. Somebody who puts in a couple of sentences to make a stub does not hold everybody else to ransom. The convention should be set at destubbing (then we could easily use ENGVAR) but since it was not - well then the Br one has prevailed so obvioulsy it should be let alone.--Mountwolseley (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The history is not as clear cut as I'd like because the infobox did use British for a period of time after it was added continuing beyond the destubbing (which was hard to follow given the stub tags being moved and changed repeatedly). However, the article has been continuously intermixed since the first edit adding British spellings. "Synthesized" was spelled American until after the edit war started and was removed from the article once I pointed out that fact. If the article history does not show per WP:ENGVAR which variety the article is written in, then the final sentence of WP:ENGVAR(Retaining the existing variety) applies. If that is the case, then I claim to be the first editor who disambiguated the variety (to American English). The editor who added the infobox did not disambiguate the article per WP:ENGVAR and therefore cannot claim to be the first major contributor in regard to WP:ENGVAR particulary given the fact that he changed the spellings in violation of WP:ENGVAR when he moved the words from the text to the infobox.

In short, the article started in American English, became intermixed, and remained intermixed until I disambiguated the spelling per WP:ENGVAR. Unless I am mistaken in this analysis of the edit history, the article should be restored to and remain in American English. VMS Mosaic (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not clear cut yes - exactly why no one should be carrying out interventions and reverts willy-nilly and without raising any discussions beforehand! In any case VMS Mosaic is quite wrong US spelling was not the predominant one at the time of destubbing (let's make that quite clear) and it has not been predominant at any time since either. In fact Commonwealth spelling has predominated throughout.

The fact that one US spelling form survived has usually been a reason for removing it elsewhere in WP but here it is being used as the spurious excuse for changing everything else . No the article should stay as it is--Mountwolseley (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The folks claiming that this article was a mix of British and American English from the get go need to provide specific examples of words and versions, because I and others have looked at older versions of the article and not been able to find any instances of British English other than the infobox prior to Assegai coming along. Up to now this discussion has been quite silly and useless, with one faction claiming the article always has had some British spellings, and another claiming it hasn't. If people would provided actual evidence, we could have settled this already. And since one cannot prove a negative, the burden is in on the "yes there always was British English" crowd to prove their contention. Let's establish the facts first, then argue about how to apply WP:ENGVAR or common sense or whatever. Yilloslime (t) 15:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The history is more than clear cut enough, just not perfectly clear cut. When I found the article it had three British and two American spellings. The spelling proportions have remained about the same since British was first added including at the destubbing. No spelling has been predominate since WP:ENGVAR was first violated. I have made more than a thousand WP:ENGVAR edits/reverts and do not have the time to open a discussion on each and every one of them. The history was more than clear enough to apply WP:ENGVAR without discussion. Unfortunately I have had to leave several large articles in an intermixed state because the histories were not clear, and I knew an idiotic debate like this one would occur.

1. The article was all American English from the start in 7/04 to 6/05.

2. There has never been a time (until the edit war) when the article has been predominantly British especially considering that the number of words with a variant spelling has usually been about five. I believe British never exceeded American by more than one (possibly two; I checked the entire history but could have missed something).

Unfortunately, some people here are looking for any excuse to ignore WP:ENGVAR. Once more: the article started in American, became intermixed and stayed that way without either spelling ever predominating. To make the article all British at this point would ignore the whole point of WP:ENGVAR. Unfortunately, some here have taken the position that WP:ENGVAR is not relevant and that article ownership should be what matters (in sprite of WP:OWN).

I agree with User:Yilloslime that it needs to be proved that British English has been the predominate spelling since the destubbing (by more than just one word). Actually it is a little silly to even talk about which predominated given the small numbers involved, and that what needs to be proved is if the article ever became entirely British. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic points - if you have nothing new to say just repeat it all at great length......

"No spelling has been predominant" and then you say that Br has exceeded US (go & look up predominant.) Then - the article's state at destubbing prompted your intervention - quietly dropped when that contradicts your argument. Obviously VMS Mosaic believes that the ones who disagree with him should prove him wrong. Not so fast matey - you started this by swanning in and making changes. You prove yourself. So far you've changed your story several times. In addition if this is an "idiotic debate" - then why are you taking part in it? Unfortunately some people here are so used to getting their own way that when someone disagrees with them, they think that nobody is as correct as they are. ENGVAR assumes that consensus is reached - by the time it is destubbed is a good choice (avoids a couple of random opening sentences determining the whole future). In this case it was not so your argument does not hold. One form prevailed with the exception of one word that is no longer present. That form is the one that should be left--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "use whatever's already present" is essentially what ENGVAR does say, and I don't see anything about "unless someone else adds a huge chunk of content that uses the other variant". The instant/edit you have chosen of destubbing is poor IMO precisely because that was about the time the mix was created (not switched, but pure mixing). If you don't think "use page's own precedent unless there's a reason to choose some specific variant" is a good idea, that sounds like a broader concern than this page, and you should definitely bring it up on the ENGVAR talk-page. DMacks (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(clicked "save" too soon). The guideline of "use whatever form at the time of destubbing" is a good one--if there was a clear-cut point when the article went from "essentially nothing" to "start class at least". But the recent edit that removed the stub-tag was pretty late...the article already had lots of content and the edit that gave it more (which I assume is what is being claimed as the destubbing edit) really didn't add massively more content (less than doubled it). Seems like the article kind of grew up and nobody cared about the long-standing mix or the presence of a stub-tag well after the article had actual content. DMacks (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Assegai, 217, etc.: The article was created in American English and existed that way until the infobox was added, when it became mixed. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do. Please do not simply repeat yourself, as this won't get us anywhere. Yilloslime (t) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To DMacks that destubbing is not the operative one, it was [[3]] by Ksbrown when Commonwealth English existed in both text and box and US English in text. Perhaps destubbing was early or late but we can't tell now. The moment, as you say, was missed to set the convention definitely. Instead it has evolved in one direction. That is why it should stay as it is. --AssegaiAli (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the spelling count in [[4]] is four to four unless I am missing something.VMS Mosaic (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you indulge me for just moment? For Am Eng, I see "colorless" "odorless" "odor" and "synthesized." For Br Eng, I find "colourless" "odourless" and "vapour". What am I missing? Yilloslime (t) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"behaviour". In an easy place to miss it. VMS Mosaic (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A-ha. Thanks! Yilloslime (t) 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just vote and settle the matter sooner rather than later. It seems to be taking an inordinate amount of time and effort to understand and apply policy. All we need is to choose between American and British and make it clear to all future editors that this must be followed. It's not like American and British English are so different that anyone will be confused about the meaning of the words in question. Then we can all focus on the important thing - content!

Ben (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A vote may be the only solution, particulary now that we have reached the point of debating the meaning of "predominate". If we used User:AssegaiAli's meaning, then the final sentence of WP:ENGVAR(Retaining the existing variety) would have no meaning except when the number of spelling variants was exactly equal. That is clearly not what that final sentence means. We will end up just going in endless circles if we have to debate the exact meaning of every word.

One question for all the British hardliners. Where were you when the article was clearly intermixed? Why did none of you apply WP:ENGVAR? Why was it okay to leave American spellings? VMS Mosaic (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

To the editor above - kindly stop criticising other editors and describing people who disagree with you as hardliners. This is enflaming the issue. --Mountwolseley (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pot Kettle Black. My edits were "insistent"? Other than the possible poor use of the word "hardliner", where did I criticize anyone in that comment?

I am still interested in knowing why the article was allowed to continue undisambiguated, but the minute an editor tried to disambiguate it with a good faith edit, the article suddenly had to be all British or else. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would assent to a binding vote if it comes to it, but I predict that it's not going to solve anything because at least one of the following things will happen:

1. Not everyone will agree to a vote
2. One or more previously involved editors will vanish during the voting, only to come back after it has concluded and claim that the vote doesn't count since not all interested parties were able to participate.
3. Those on the "losing side" will claim (correctly) that casting votes does not allow editors to sidestep policy. The "winning side" will point out that WP:ENGVAR is just a guideline.

Sorry if that sounds cynical. I would love to be proven wrong and see a vote happen without any of the above nonsense happening. Yilloslime (t) 20:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We could ask for a mediator. All involved would have to agree which I suspect would be unlikely. I just want the issue resolved one way or the other as long as WP rules and practices are followed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not about spelling or about WP policies at all. This is about arrogance isn't it. Some people show this more clearly than others though, a) saying that explaining their actions to others is "idiotic" or "silly";

b) dismissing criticism of poor use of a word as having its meaning "debated"; (why not this is supposed to be an encyclopedia)

c) describing people with similarly strong yet opposite views as "hardliners". Intelligent people would just drop this. No further comment--79.70.254.194 (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR debates are the prime example used by Wikipedia as "lame" (aka idiotic) which is the word I should have used but chose another because "lame" had already been used here by the editor who protected the page.

To extend a lame discussion by debating the exact meaning of each and every word is, well, lame. It is often simply a way to avoid the actual issue(s).

At this point I don't care which way the spelling ends. What I care about is that WP rules and practices be followed. I believe the main issue is actually WP:OWN because at least one editor seems to believe he "owns" the article. A secondary issue is WP:GOODFAITH. My initial edit was done in good faith but has been treated almost like it was vandalism (primarily I think due to ownership issues).

Your comments are at least as arrogant as anyone else's here (i.e., if I were intelligent, I would shut up and go alway).

Yes, I may have made better word selections, but some of them were prompted by trolling comments which have since been removed. And yes, I do not believe it would be too far from the truth to say I was a "hardliner" when it comes to following WP rules and practices. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to indicate this issue will be settled anytime soon, so we need to ask an administrator to set the protection to indefinite. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

So long as you guys are NOT revert-warring on the article page, that is quite unnecessary. I trust that all parties will sort this out HERE and not on the article? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. So far edit-warring has not re-commenced, and I have some non-ENGVAR and hopefully non-controversial updates I'd like to make, so I'd like to see the page remain unprotected. If warring breaks out, it can always be re-protected. I see no reason act preemptively.

The problem is that the ones in favor of leaving the article as is are no longer responding. I fear that the only way to get a response would be a revert back to the state at which the edit war started. I'd be happy to continue the discussion without the protection if there was any discussion. Perhaps reverting the article back to its WP:ENGVAR state prior to my initial edit and then unprotecting it would be a solution acceptable to all. Then if any one trys to make it all British or all American without discussion, protection could be put back in place. VMS Mosaic (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new has been added to discuss so the debate folded--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since no one objected or proposed a better idea, I restored the spelling state (as much as possible given the other non-WP:ENGVAR edits) to what it was prior to the edit war. Just because the debate "folded" does not mean the dispute has ended. VMS Mosaic (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to return to a mixed spelling per the above, I won't revert the spelling again. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit -ideas

• "Propene has a higher density and boiling point than ethylene due to the greater size of the molecule, and the molecule has a small dipole moment even though it has no strongly polar bonds because of its reduced symmetry (its point group is Cs)."

Unclear what "because of" is explaining (and it sounds like it's explaining why it has no strongly polar bonds, which is obviously not the intent). Suggested replacement:

"Propene has a higher density and boiling point than ethylene due to the greater size of the molecule and because the molecule has a reduced symmetry and a small dipole moment (its point group is Cs) even though it has no strongly polar bonds.

Still wordy and maybe too much for one sentence, but at least now (IMO) correct.

• "All propene is obtained from non-renewable sources; petroleum or natural gas deposits (and coal to a lesser extent). It is a fossil fuel."

Natural gas is mostly methane, which is renewable and not (or at least not only) a fossil fuel. Is it really obtainable from methane, or is it just a fossil fuel that often is found mixed with it in natural-gas wells?

DMacks (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• About the point group I agree or what about taking that out of the text and putting in the infobox?

• About natural gas, well that is a mineral so is not renewable and originates from deposits of dead animals and plants, making it, I suppose, a fossil fuel. Biofuel methane itself (i.e. not natural gas) is renewable but doesn't come into this as it does not contain propene or other alkenes in it. (Although it does contain traces of other organic compounds such as dimethyl sulfide.)--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, point-group in the infobox would be good! Then the article itself could just be "…because the molecule has a small dipole moment." If we want to get into more structural detail, could put it elsewhere. My point about natural gas is exactly the confusion you just taked about...in common use (and per our natural gas article), it is mostly methane, which is renewable. By just saying "from natural gas wells", we're leaving it to the reader to figure out that it's a component of the mixture that is "natural gas" (or read that article) instead of relying on common knowledge of "mostly methane therefore made from methane". Again we need to be clear that it's not manufactured from methane. Otherwise the sentence might be pedantically correct, but not clear (and contradicts common-language use of terms). DMacks (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The "because of" was referring to why the molecule has a dipole moment, not why it has no polar bonds. And I'm not sure that the fact that propene has a dipole moment sheds much light on it's density or bp vis-a-vis ethylene. I would suggest as an improvement: Propene has a higher density and boiling point than ethylene due its greater size. It lacks strongly polar bonds, but still has a small dipole moment due to its reduced symmetry (its point group is C_s). Thus while more symmetrical alkenes like ethylene or 2-butene are more volatile than their saturated congeners (ethane and butane, respectively), propene is less volatile than propane. Or something like that. This might be too much detail, and I'm actually not sure whether this is the usual explanation proffered to explain bp trends--it makes sense and works for C1-C3 alkenes/alkanes at least, but I haven't checked any textbooks to see if it's the official rationalization. (I would also be fine putting the point group in the infobox)

With regard to renewable/non-renewable, last time I checked natural gas was a fossil fuel and most methane came directly from oil wells or from petroleum, so neither are renewable. Methane can be produced from renewable sources, but very little actually is, so if we're going to make a brief passing mention of the renewability/non-renewability of propene or methane and not go into further explanation, then it would be best to say it's non-renewable and leave it at that. Yilloslime (t) 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some other ideas for improvement:

• "and at room temperature sealed liquid canisters must be stored under greater pressure than for propane." I've never heard of this before. Is this true? If true, is this worth mentioning? I don't think this is even if its true, but perhaps others feel differently.
• "Recently hydrogen peroxide/propene has been proposed as an inexpensive Single Stage To Orbit propellant...." Is this relevant? I have my doubts.
• I think a reference to the Cumene process is needed somewhere, since this is an important industrial reaction involving propene. At the very least I think we need a See Also link. It's use as monomer for polypropylene is mentioned, but I think we could go into a little more detail, mentioning the Ziegler-Natta and Kaminsky catalysts, tacticity, and related concepts. I realize that these catalysts and concepts apply to higher alkenes as well, but in most textbooks the polymerization of propene is used as an example, and we might want to follow suit here. Yilloslime (t) 04:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Figures, we have xtal properties (including space-group) but not molecular ones (point group). OTOH, we do have numeric dipole, which is nice support for the bp/density discussion. DMacks (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a point about the pressure for the sealed canisters - it is certainly true helium and hydrogen are usually stored under highest pressure, butane under the lowest. Personally I think it is worth mentioning as it does give useful information about the properties of propene that relate to the way it is physically handled. It is also seldom mentioned in other sources of info on propene. Does anyone mind if I put it back in?(It took a few days to check the validity of the fact; hence the delay in responding.--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about this, which I removed: "Propene is much more volatile than propane, and at room temperature sealed liquid canisters must be stored under greater pressure than for propane." I was about to say that the first part is wrong: propane is more volatile than propene, as its bp is lower. However, I realize that I'm wrong: propene's bp is lower. So I'm going to go remove that stuff I added about it's dipole making it less volatile that propane. Still, I'm not sure that the degree of pressurization of stored cylinders is really relevant or notable, especially since once you start using the gas, the pressure in the tank with change. Yilloslime (t) 18:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Molecular mass

Why is the molecular mass not shown in the properties table?77.87.224.99 (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Combustion

How does this gas react with excess oxygen and limited oxygen? 76.124.224.179 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed -- rdmenotte (rdmenotte) 07:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Link broken

The external link to the MSDS leads into Nirwana. 160.62.4.100 (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed. I replaced the broken link with a working one. Thanks for catching the problem and reporting it here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

2-bromopropene

• Formula of 2-bromopropene is not CH2=CH-CH2Br, but CH2=CBr-CH3.--Brane.Blokar (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Propene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006095526/http://www.praxair.com/~/media/North%20America/US/Documents/SDS/Propylene%20C3H6%20Safety%20Data%20Sheet%20SDS%20P4648.ashx to http://www.praxair.com/~/media/North%20America/US/Documents/SDS/Propylene%20C3H6%20Safety%20Data%20Sheet%20SDS%20P4648.ashx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Propene biosynthesis, not

I figured that some organism had developed a way to make propene, but SciFinder came up with few hits under "propylene biosynthesis". I found three patents on engineered organisms:

• Propylene synthesis using engineered enzymes

By Silverman, Joshua A.; Purcell, Thomas Joseph

From U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. (2015), US 20150232886 A1 20150820.  |  Language: English, Database: CAPLUS

The present disclosure relates to biosynthetic methods for producing propylene and to genetically engineered organisms ..

• Propylene synthesis using engineered enzymes derived from C1-metabolizing microorganisms

By Silverman, Joshua; Purcell, Thomas Joseph

From PCT Int. Appl. (2014), WO 2014047209 A1 20140327.  |  Language: English, Database: CAPLUS

A synthetic pathway for the manuf. of propylene from C1 compds. is described... convert a C1 compd. to 3-hydroxybutyryl-CoA ,, crotonic acid... decarboxylation...

• Metabolic engineering of microorganisms for producing propylene and metabolic pathways and enzymes related thereto

By Burgard, Anthony P.; Osterhout, Robin E.; Sun, Jun; Pharkya, Priti; Burk, Mark J.

From U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. (2012), US 20120329119 A1 20121227.  |  Language: English, Database: CAPLUS

The invention provides non-naturally occurring microbial organisms having a propylene pathway...

So, apparently it is not made naturally. It is bioactive as a competitor with ethylene as a plant hormone. One more note: SciFinder lists ~83,601 citations for propene.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I reformatted to clarify each patent's details This ref I added recently to the article says plainly "Propylene, according to GBE, has never been naturally directly produced by microorganisms", and also mentions several companies that are working on engineered enzymes to do it (predates the patents you found). DMacks (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Apparently my search term "propylene biosynthesis" was not ideal to find earlier citations. Kind of interesting that nature overlooked this small molecule.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Propene → Propylene – The article title for this compound should be its trivial name or common name, propylene, rather than its systematic or preferred IUPAC name, propene, per WP:OCHEMNAME. Compare with ethylene versus its redirect ethene and polypropylene versus its redirect polypropene. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom and ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Clearly passes WP:OCHEMNAME. Tevildo (talk)
• Support. Propylene is what earthlings call this stuff, but be prepared for pushback.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Consistent with article entitled ethylene versus ethene as already stated. Sandcherry (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Production: FCC/Market... Tone

I'm new to Talk and comments, but not new to chemistry. (Or new to edits over the years). I haven't done any edits here, but found the tone of the last phrase of the last paragraph in the "Production" section leaving a reader feeling "bluntly final", regardless if it's true or not that biosynthesis is impossible...

For no apparent reason it's somewhat pessimistic or perhaps slightly negative sounding regarding biosynthesis? At the least in quite contrast to the previous paragraph. (Regarding the section: Production: FCC vs. "Market...").

It's actually where I decided to stop reading for pleasure and go back to work, frankly. That's all. This was supposed to be a quick comment. Janka441 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I tweaked the phrasing. I possibly/probably wrote the bit that bothered you somewhat. The issue encountered in Wikipedia is so filled with idealists and tree-huggers that they often write in ways that imply that green routes are just around the corner. That wish is usually unfounded, based on my reading. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Add pressure for liquid in density part of infobox

Someone please add pressure for liquid in density part of the infobox. 141.134.140.104 (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)