Talk:Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy

Isotope effects

Other issue: there seems to be an error in the section "Isotope effects" there: "The reduced masses for ¹⁶O–¹⁶O and ¹⁸O–¹⁸O can be approximated as 8 and 9 respectively." One line above the rediced mass is defined. The (quite common) expression yields 0.5 if m_A = m_B, so I fail to see how it should evaluate to 8 or 9. The latter value probably already includes the spring constant k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.130.27.17 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant to post this at Talk:Infrared spectroscopy, not here. (But to answer your comment: I think you should check your math ... If m_A = m_B, the reduced mass is m_A/2, not 1/2.) --Steve (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Keep the hyphenated title. Steve (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy → Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy – Mikhail Ryazanov‎ (talk · contribs) has changed the page name from "Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy" to "Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy" citing MOS:HYPHEN. I propose to change it back. I think that whatever MOS:HYPHEN says is trumped by WP:TITLE: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." I have seen it written "Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy" in countless books, articles, vendor websites, course notes, etc. etc. I have never seen it written "Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy" as far as I can remember. Wikipedia needs to write the term the way everyone else writes it. So I propose to move the page back. What do other people think? (Note: I opened this conversation on 11 August 2017 but didn't add the template until the 17th.) Steve (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Is IUPAC Gold Book a sufficiently reliable example? Regarding other sources, I have seen even "Fourier transform-infrared spectroscopy", so should we follow those who do not understand grammar? Or better use the WP:MOS-compliant variant? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, sure, the IUPAC gold book is reliable. You'll notice that they have 3 consecutive entries: "Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance (FT-ICR) mass spectrometer", "Fourier transform spectrometer", and "Fourier-transform spectroscopy". Two of the three have no dash between "Fourier" and "transform". None of the three is the exact title of this article.

Better than a single cherry-picked example (which, as I said, I think barely supports your argument anyway) is a google books search. Out of the first 60 exact phrase matches for the title of this article, 100% of them had no dash between "Fourier" and "transform"! Finally on page 7 of the google books results I found one book that used the dash. If "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources", then should we base it on the ~98% of reliable sources that write "Fourier transform" or the ~2% that write "Fourier-transform"?

Finally, I do not think that this is an issue of "understanding grammar". Neither MOS nor any style guide to my knowledge says that compound modifiers must always be hyphenated with no exceptions, but rather that it is often done and may be a good idea. And indeed, there are plenty of well-known widely-accepted exceptions, i.e. compound modifiers that are (almost) never hyphenated in the real world, like "internal-combustion engine" or "real-estate agent" or "Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy". (Do you, personally, hyphenate "internal-combustion engine"? Just curious.) --Steve (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Arguments with emphatic always/never do not look serious. For example, Britannica hyphenates "internal-combustion engine". The confusion of hyphens with dashes and hyphenation of "widely-accepted" also look strange in this discussion.

In any case, a question about something like "Fourier transformation infrared spectroscopy" or "Fourier infrared spectroscopy" could be discussed in terms of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, but I don't think that WP:TITLE applies to punctuation details. For example, although many reliably sources actually write "Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy" or even "Fourier Transform InfraRed Spectroscopy", we would not name the page like that because it contradicts WP:MOS. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Without reading all the discussion: you put the hyphen if you think that everyone should write in English like, for example, the New York Times editors do. It's not "Fourier spectroscopy". It's "Fourier transformation". As such, there should be a hyphen between the first two words.

But if you read journal articles and chemistry books, it's very, very common to leave the hyphen out. It's up to you. You just have to make sure that Wikipedia visitors understand what the article is about. (I don't know if there are Wikipedia guidelines for this stuff.)

Georginho (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not that I place all that much trust in the New York Times editors for mandating the correct use of English, but they also spell it without the hyphen. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: That is, again, because it's also almost always left out in scientific publications. Not everyone who studies chemistry has Strunk & White and such books at home.

Georginho (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Move it back. As far as I can tell, nothing in MOS:HYPHEN mandates the use of a hyphen for this purpose. Without a hyphen is the more common usage by far, and there is zero chance anyone will read this as "Fourier transform-infrared spectroscopy" which does not even make grammatical sense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  "Does not even make grammatical sense" is the point – the fact that some people write something in a particular strange way does not make that correct. For example, it is "more common" (at least, in the US) to say (and even write!) "100 cm⁻¹" as "hundred wavenumbers" and "100 K" as "hundred Kelvin", both of which are quite wrong. The current title is grammatically correct, and I do not see how it can confuse anybody. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Is a hyphen actually mandated by English style guides? I am aware only only of recommendations when the is a risk of incorrectly parsing the compound modifier. That is not the case here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The level of risk is a matter of opinion. From an uninitiated perspective, 'transform-infrared' may seem like a completely cromulent modified adjective. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess, the actual example of "Fourier transform-infrared spectroscopy" was a brainless backronym of "FT-IR". But a more relevant problem is that parsing of phrases like "can Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy..." might require significant backtracking. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose You need a need a better reason than a WP:Title trump, because grammar does not affect what it is called - 'Apple' is the same as 'apple', regardless of whether it starts in upper case. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Proposer changes his mind and likes the hyphen now. I usually feel strongly that wikipedia should follow common scientific conventions / terminology / etc., rather than "improve" on them. The reason I usually feel that way is (1) various wikipedia rules, and (2) people read other resources besides wikipedia and get confused if they're inconsistent (3) people trying to "improve" over common practice on wikipedia often actually make it worse because the common practice often has advantages that aren't immediately obvious. But here I don't think (2) is a huge deal--I mean, I don't expect anyone to be super confused by seeing it hyphenated on wikipedia and unhyphenated in a textbook or course-notes, the way they would be confused by substantive changes in notation or terminology. And for (3), I think the hyphen really is an improvement in helping novices parse the phrase, as Plasmic & Mikhail say ("cromulent" comment above). And for (1), this is at least arguably consistent with wikipedia rules. So I'll make an exception to my general inclinations here and support the hyphen. Hopefully it will start a trend. :-D --Steve (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. 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/20101114040356/http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/content/web-links/58-irwindows to http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/content/web-links/58-irwindows

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) 23:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Summit+Everest.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed tag: resolved?

I think the "clarification needed" tag in the "Measuring and processing the interferogram" section is adequately addressed through the Aliasing article wikilink; unless there are objections, I'll remove it next week. --Ironphoenix (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC) (Done!) --Ironphoenix (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)