Chemicals NA‑class | |||||||
|
Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place to suggest this but I have been thinking it would be useful to put pKa-value to the Chembox. Personally I see it very important when looking for information of medicines, for example itraconazole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.61.230 ( talk) 20:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems that we're soon going to have several different versions of the Excel file: is this manageable and will it scale? Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
From our various discussions last Tuesday, I can see a certain number of problems with simple sugars and amino acids. Let's start with the example of glucose, which is on the list that Martin has volunteered for. The article currently gives CASRNs for D-glucose and L-glucose (don't worry if you can't see them, this is a "known feature", they're there in the chembox code), 50-99-7 and 921-60-8. The CAS file confirms that the former is the 'general' CASRN for D-glucose, and also gives us the numbers for α-D-glucopyranose [492-62-6] and β-D-glucopyranose [492-61-5]: nothing about L-glucose (I know because I have the file in formula order ;). I would suggest that we change the heading of the chembox to
| Name = <small>D</small>-Glucose
However this would mean that we risk losing the information about the L-enantiomer.
For amino acids, CAS have usually given us data on the L-enantiomers, as one might expect. However, there are exceptions: we have numbers in the SDF file for L- leucine [61-90-5], D-leucine [328-38-1] and 'unspecified' leucine [328-39-2]; and for L- arginine [74-79-3] and 'unspecified' arginine [7200-25-1]. How should we treat cases like these? Physchim62 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
For the moment, chiral drugs, steroids, etc are not a problem. They usually have a fairly well-defined stereochemistry–name relation. As for the "small-molecule" problem, where both enantiomers may be available, I've made an "SAA" subset of the entries. It contains (at present) 314 CASRNs which may (or may not) be related to natural amino acids or natural monosaccharides; I will hazard a guess that validation will map the CASRNs onto fewer than 100 articles, and far fewer if my original inclusion criteria are constricted at the same time. I think these will need priority attention once we're out out the first phase, but I can't do them immediately. Physchim62 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The inorganics list has expanded slightly, now that I've found where the carbonates and carbonyls were hiding: currently at 677 CASRNs, of which about 400 have been checked. For reference, "inorganic" is any neutral species without a carbon–hydrogen or carbon–carbon bond, but which is not an element (internal definition). For elements, we could start a verification but we would have to speak with WP:ELEMENTS to make any visible changes: there are also problems with elements such as oxygen and chlorine, where we have CASRNs for both the molecules and the atomic species. For isotopes (we have several cases where CAS have given us the CASRN of specific isotops such as carbon-14), there is no obvious place to put the number in the current scheme of things, and WP:ELEMENTS is probably the best place to ask for advice.
For ions, the SDF file can only be described as a hotchpotch. I have CASRNs for phosphate [14265-44-2] and dihydrogen phosphate [14066-20-7], but not for hydrogen phosphate. The Wikipedia presentation of ions can hardly be described as "our best" either, and maybe it would be best to try to strat a discussion on how this chemistry should be presented. Physchim62 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How about creating a template that can be added to the image description pages of verified structures? Something along the lines of
The accuracy of this structural formula has been verified as part of the English Wikipedia's Validation of Chemical Data project. |
This could even add images to a category. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 15:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we would need more information on the template, such as
The accuracy of
this version of the
structural formula has been verified as part of the English Wikipedia's
Validation of Chemical Data project. CAS registry number: 50-00-0 InChI=1/CH2O/c1-2/h1H2 WSFSSNUMVMOOMR-UHFFFAOYAT |
There is also a Commons WikiProject Chemistry - a bit inactive, but it might be an appropriate place to centralize Commons-related points. Physchim62 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I suggest we go live on structure validation for two smallish groups of structures:
More details can be found at Commons:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure validation. Physchim62 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note to let people know that there is a bug somewhere, either in CAS structure files or in ChemFileBrowser, but the hydrogen is not always placed correctly in the structure you see in CFB for purines and pyrimidines. This can be shown by the fact that the displayed structure does not correspond to the quoted CAS Registry Name. For the two or three cases I've seen so far, the WP structure matches the CAS Registry Name, so I've had no problems in verifying, but I wanted to point this out to others. Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
CAS informed us that they have now added 626 links TO Wikipedia from http://www.commonchemistry.org/. Some of the later entries on our Excel organics list such as naphthalene aren't there yet, and neither are the inorganics from PC's list, but some more of the early entries such as retinol are now included. I've asked about when the others will be added, and also asked when the press announcement on commonchemistry.org will happen. Walkerma ( talk) 15:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(moved from project page)
My experience has told me that even government website has been flawed-- 222.67.212.209 ( talk) 05:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
While looking over the bixin page for accuracy, I noticed the listed CAS No and SpiderChem are, in fact, correct. While the CAS is not included in CommonChemistry's database, the SpiderChem value is listed on SpiderChem, but are still marked by a red X. Is there a way to fix this? -- Skoot13 ( talk) 20:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently we have this proposal for structure validation. I think this is a great start, but it was written almost two years ago (before CheMoBot validation and StdInChIs), and it also needs "beefing up". Also, things aren't so simple - structure files are separate from the related articles. Here are some thoughts:
The current structure validation scheme, outlined at the above page on Commons, is designed to check that the structure file is correct. This is valuable, but there are shortcomings in the system:
It seems to me that we need to record which version of which image file was validated, and the user should be able to see this, even if the current chembox has a newer revisionID of the image, or even a different structure image. Also, we need to record in some way that the data in the chembox relate to the validated structure. This should be the case for structure identifiers (SMILES, InChI, etc) but also for physical constants - e.g., if the structure shown is enantiopure, but the MP is for a racemic mixture, that's wrong. How can we do this? I'll be on IRC tomorrow at 1600h UTC if anyone wants to discuss this. Walkerma ( talk) 06:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
<item logid="9968101" pageid="9387666" ns="6" title="File:Demeclocycline.png" type="upload" action="upload" user="Edgar181" timestamp="2010-02-03T21:26:36Z" comment="{{
Information
}}
Category:Tetracycline antibiotics" />
I'm working through a list of around 5000 compounds at the moment - so far I've only done about 5% of them. I would describe my work as "verification" rather than "validation" because I'm checking structures, but I'm not "proving" them to be correct against a primary source. The good thing is that I'm checking that the links to WP from ChemSpider are correct, too - some aren't. Everything is working smoothly, except for a couple of things:
Any comments? Should we have an IRC discussion on this, before I get deeper into the work? Walkerma ( talk) 00:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
inchi and inchikey are depending on the tautomeric form of structures and presenting a single inchi or inchikey is not sufficient, unless we are on the 'normalized tautomeric form' of structures and the corresponding process to create it. Either this, or we would need to list all possible inchi(key) for all possible tautomeric forms for ensuring being correctly linked with other database out there. Finally, I am concerned about 'one validated' form of inchi(key)s, strictly speaking is this not correct right now. JKW ( talk) 08:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
As explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid) Wikipedia articles, including infoboxes, should normally not refer to anything Wikipedia-specific (such as this project). It causes the article content to be broken on mirrors/off-line readers/print/etc. Is it really necessary to display the validation info in the infobox? Aren't the hidden categories sufficient for managing things? What about displaying the status in a Talk Page template instead? Kaldari ( talk) 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
As an example of the validation metadata being confusing for a reader, I noticed that Lead(II) chloride has a big red X in the infobox, so I clicked on the verification link and it showed me that someone fixed the case of one of the parameter names. Why this necessitates the infobox getting a red X is a mystery to me. Is this a bug or am I not understanding something? Kaldari ( talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The CAS number for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane also has the big red X for no good reason. [unsigned post]
This chembox validation concept is the coolest thing ever. Big kudos to whoever thought of this. Really, REALLY clever. 75.4.194.121 ( talk) 09:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Plutonium hexafluoride displays a chembox with some values marked with this red cross: . The foot of the infobox displays the same red cross appended with a "what is this?" link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation followed by the text "(verify)".
Please change the "what is this?" to read "needs validating", keeping the link the same. This could save the reader an extra click, and also makes more sense when the infobox is rendered in a PDF or in hardcopy. See the PDF generated by Book:Plutonium as an example.
I think the red cross is a good idea and should appear in printed form too, but I wish to find a way to exclude the "(verify)" text from print. If I knew which template generates this I could add it to Category:Exclude in print, or otherwise request it be modified on its talk page. Could someone do this for me? - 84user ( talk) 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like us to start a process of validating melting point and boiling point data within chemboxes. This means checking numbers against reliable sources, and ideally multiple sources. I know we have talked about this for years, and the size of the task has always appeared daunting. However, I recently had a conversation with an organic chemistry professor friend who is using computer-based tools to evaluate melting point data from the literature, so I think we perhaps have an opportunity to get some useful data quite quickly.
My proposal is that we would start initially by verifying data for important substances, perhaps just 100 or so initially. I propose we record the data and references on the supplementary data page - that way we would have a virtual paper trail for every data point, an important component of any validation effort. I would also propose that the fields be patrolled by CheMoBot, just as are the other validated fields, assuming that User:Beetstra can adapt the bot in this way. I would be willing to devote much of my wiki-time to this validation work for the next year or so, if people are supportive of the effort. What do you think?
I'm proposing an IRC meeting on #wikichem on Thursday at 1500h UTC (11am US Eastern Time), which is a time when my chemistry colleague is able to join us. Please join us! Walkerma ( talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently working on the article psilocybin, which is currently up for GA review. The reviewer has asked if I can get rid of the red x in the chembox (next to the ChEBI identifier). I read through the instructions, but am still unclear what I have to do to "validate" this. While I'm here, I would highly appreciate it if someone knowledgeable could look at the chembox in this article and see if there's anything missing; I'm aiming for FAC status eventually and would like to get all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The project page mentions an index to edit to correct verified values. Where is the index and how do I go about corrections? Thanks. – Temporal User ( Talk) 13:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the CAS number on the beryllium sulfate article is marked as incorrect. I checked the information through the online version of SciFinder, which lets one check CAS numbers, and the provided CAS number for the anhydrous form of BeSO4 is indeed correct. However, I am not sure how to update the validation files so that the cross is removed from the infobox, and the "What's this?" page does not provide me with that information. Can somebody tell me what to do here? I would like to be of use for this on other pages as well, so a step-by-step would be very much appreciated. Kumorifox ( talk) 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Same issue, different contributor: I believe the CAS Number for Janus Green B, 2869-83-2, is correct. It's pretty fuzzy to those of us on the "outside" how we go about helping with these, or if you even want us to do so. Robert Rossi ( talk) 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but the ChemSpider number listed for methamphetamine, 1169, is marked with a red X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 ( talk) 11:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
{{เมทแอมเฟตามีน_ของเขาดีจริง}}
Myappsmine.blogspot (
talk) 00:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
miné Myappsmine.blogspot ( talk) 00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, @ Beetstra:, for your hard work on this aspect of chemistry articles. Cheers. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 16:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello all. I am constantly browsing chemical pages on Wikipedia and I often see the validation marks. It seems like there are a lot of red X's still. Seems like the last project related update on this page was 7 years ago. I'd love to validate whatever I can, in the right way. Can anyone start me off in the right way to go about this? Kjpmi ( talk) 13:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is correct but I was hoping to know who to trust here.
Currently the phosphoric acid article lists the boiling point as 212C citing Chemspider. However I've found other locations listing the BP as 158C, 414C (I suspect a typo as 212C is 414F), and I personally have a 40% phosphoric acid solution boiling right at this moment at 95C (which is why I discovered this discrepancy). I assume my solution is some azeotrope, but otherwise I personally believe the 158C is correct as the source Chemspider gives (NOISH) seems weak in comparison.
158C sources:
https://www.nutrien.com/sites/default/files/2018-01/SDS%20223%20Phosphoric%20Acid%2080-85%20percent%20DAB%20NA%20Final%2004302015%20%5BNutrien%5D.pdf https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/phosphoric_acid https://www.americanelements.com/phosphoric-acid-7664-38-2 https://www.labchem.com/tools/msds/msds/LC18640.pdf
414C source: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/chemistry/compounds-and-elements/phosphoric-acid
Chemspider and their source: http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.979.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0506.html
I'm hesitant to edit it though as I understand this will invalidate the chembox?
Advice appreciated Kylesenior ( talk) 10:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently doing a WP:GA review of Gold(III) chloride. The infobox says it needs to be verified. It's not clear to me if I should hold up the GA pending the verification being completed. What's the usual process here? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Tocilizumab failed verification@ https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?cas_rn=375823-41-9 but NIH lists the CAS number: https://chem.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/rn/375823-41-9
The thing is, the CAS website says it doesn't have ALL of the substances, only a subset, publicly available. To me this means the number is probably correct, it's just only available from their paid api... at least, if I search for the name it doesn't come up either, so I suspect that's what's going on.
I'm wondering if we really should be linking to the website for all infoboxes, when it is a limited subset? Or maybe this is a weird edgecase :(. Mvolz ( talk) 12:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this drug and narcotic 2603:8000:CD01:5143:C9E1:5522:B1F2:4FBE ( talk) 19:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Chemicals NA‑class | |||||||
|
Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place to suggest this but I have been thinking it would be useful to put pKa-value to the Chembox. Personally I see it very important when looking for information of medicines, for example itraconazole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.61.230 ( talk) 20:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems that we're soon going to have several different versions of the Excel file: is this manageable and will it scale? Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
From our various discussions last Tuesday, I can see a certain number of problems with simple sugars and amino acids. Let's start with the example of glucose, which is on the list that Martin has volunteered for. The article currently gives CASRNs for D-glucose and L-glucose (don't worry if you can't see them, this is a "known feature", they're there in the chembox code), 50-99-7 and 921-60-8. The CAS file confirms that the former is the 'general' CASRN for D-glucose, and also gives us the numbers for α-D-glucopyranose [492-62-6] and β-D-glucopyranose [492-61-5]: nothing about L-glucose (I know because I have the file in formula order ;). I would suggest that we change the heading of the chembox to
| Name = <small>D</small>-Glucose
However this would mean that we risk losing the information about the L-enantiomer.
For amino acids, CAS have usually given us data on the L-enantiomers, as one might expect. However, there are exceptions: we have numbers in the SDF file for L- leucine [61-90-5], D-leucine [328-38-1] and 'unspecified' leucine [328-39-2]; and for L- arginine [74-79-3] and 'unspecified' arginine [7200-25-1]. How should we treat cases like these? Physchim62 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
For the moment, chiral drugs, steroids, etc are not a problem. They usually have a fairly well-defined stereochemistry–name relation. As for the "small-molecule" problem, where both enantiomers may be available, I've made an "SAA" subset of the entries. It contains (at present) 314 CASRNs which may (or may not) be related to natural amino acids or natural monosaccharides; I will hazard a guess that validation will map the CASRNs onto fewer than 100 articles, and far fewer if my original inclusion criteria are constricted at the same time. I think these will need priority attention once we're out out the first phase, but I can't do them immediately. Physchim62 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The inorganics list has expanded slightly, now that I've found where the carbonates and carbonyls were hiding: currently at 677 CASRNs, of which about 400 have been checked. For reference, "inorganic" is any neutral species without a carbon–hydrogen or carbon–carbon bond, but which is not an element (internal definition). For elements, we could start a verification but we would have to speak with WP:ELEMENTS to make any visible changes: there are also problems with elements such as oxygen and chlorine, where we have CASRNs for both the molecules and the atomic species. For isotopes (we have several cases where CAS have given us the CASRN of specific isotops such as carbon-14), there is no obvious place to put the number in the current scheme of things, and WP:ELEMENTS is probably the best place to ask for advice.
For ions, the SDF file can only be described as a hotchpotch. I have CASRNs for phosphate [14265-44-2] and dihydrogen phosphate [14066-20-7], but not for hydrogen phosphate. The Wikipedia presentation of ions can hardly be described as "our best" either, and maybe it would be best to try to strat a discussion on how this chemistry should be presented. Physchim62 (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
How about creating a template that can be added to the image description pages of verified structures? Something along the lines of
The accuracy of this structural formula has been verified as part of the English Wikipedia's Validation of Chemical Data project. |
This could even add images to a category. Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 15:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we would need more information on the template, such as
The accuracy of
this version of the
structural formula has been verified as part of the English Wikipedia's
Validation of Chemical Data project. CAS registry number: 50-00-0 InChI=1/CH2O/c1-2/h1H2 WSFSSNUMVMOOMR-UHFFFAOYAT |
There is also a Commons WikiProject Chemistry - a bit inactive, but it might be an appropriate place to centralize Commons-related points. Physchim62 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I suggest we go live on structure validation for two smallish groups of structures:
More details can be found at Commons:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure validation. Physchim62 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note to let people know that there is a bug somewhere, either in CAS structure files or in ChemFileBrowser, but the hydrogen is not always placed correctly in the structure you see in CFB for purines and pyrimidines. This can be shown by the fact that the displayed structure does not correspond to the quoted CAS Registry Name. For the two or three cases I've seen so far, the WP structure matches the CAS Registry Name, so I've had no problems in verifying, but I wanted to point this out to others. Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
CAS informed us that they have now added 626 links TO Wikipedia from http://www.commonchemistry.org/. Some of the later entries on our Excel organics list such as naphthalene aren't there yet, and neither are the inorganics from PC's list, but some more of the early entries such as retinol are now included. I've asked about when the others will be added, and also asked when the press announcement on commonchemistry.org will happen. Walkerma ( talk) 15:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
(moved from project page)
My experience has told me that even government website has been flawed-- 222.67.212.209 ( talk) 05:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
While looking over the bixin page for accuracy, I noticed the listed CAS No and SpiderChem are, in fact, correct. While the CAS is not included in CommonChemistry's database, the SpiderChem value is listed on SpiderChem, but are still marked by a red X. Is there a way to fix this? -- Skoot13 ( talk) 20:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Currently we have this proposal for structure validation. I think this is a great start, but it was written almost two years ago (before CheMoBot validation and StdInChIs), and it also needs "beefing up". Also, things aren't so simple - structure files are separate from the related articles. Here are some thoughts:
The current structure validation scheme, outlined at the above page on Commons, is designed to check that the structure file is correct. This is valuable, but there are shortcomings in the system:
It seems to me that we need to record which version of which image file was validated, and the user should be able to see this, even if the current chembox has a newer revisionID of the image, or even a different structure image. Also, we need to record in some way that the data in the chembox relate to the validated structure. This should be the case for structure identifiers (SMILES, InChI, etc) but also for physical constants - e.g., if the structure shown is enantiopure, but the MP is for a racemic mixture, that's wrong. How can we do this? I'll be on IRC tomorrow at 1600h UTC if anyone wants to discuss this. Walkerma ( talk) 06:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
<item logid="9968101" pageid="9387666" ns="6" title="File:Demeclocycline.png" type="upload" action="upload" user="Edgar181" timestamp="2010-02-03T21:26:36Z" comment="{{
Information
}}
Category:Tetracycline antibiotics" />
I'm working through a list of around 5000 compounds at the moment - so far I've only done about 5% of them. I would describe my work as "verification" rather than "validation" because I'm checking structures, but I'm not "proving" them to be correct against a primary source. The good thing is that I'm checking that the links to WP from ChemSpider are correct, too - some aren't. Everything is working smoothly, except for a couple of things:
Any comments? Should we have an IRC discussion on this, before I get deeper into the work? Walkerma ( talk) 00:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
inchi and inchikey are depending on the tautomeric form of structures and presenting a single inchi or inchikey is not sufficient, unless we are on the 'normalized tautomeric form' of structures and the corresponding process to create it. Either this, or we would need to list all possible inchi(key) for all possible tautomeric forms for ensuring being correctly linked with other database out there. Finally, I am concerned about 'one validated' form of inchi(key)s, strictly speaking is this not correct right now. JKW ( talk) 08:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
As explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (self-references to avoid) Wikipedia articles, including infoboxes, should normally not refer to anything Wikipedia-specific (such as this project). It causes the article content to be broken on mirrors/off-line readers/print/etc. Is it really necessary to display the validation info in the infobox? Aren't the hidden categories sufficient for managing things? What about displaying the status in a Talk Page template instead? Kaldari ( talk) 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
As an example of the validation metadata being confusing for a reader, I noticed that Lead(II) chloride has a big red X in the infobox, so I clicked on the verification link and it showed me that someone fixed the case of one of the parameter names. Why this necessitates the infobox getting a red X is a mystery to me. Is this a bug or am I not understanding something? Kaldari ( talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The CAS number for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane also has the big red X for no good reason. [unsigned post]
This chembox validation concept is the coolest thing ever. Big kudos to whoever thought of this. Really, REALLY clever. 75.4.194.121 ( talk) 09:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Plutonium hexafluoride displays a chembox with some values marked with this red cross: . The foot of the infobox displays the same red cross appended with a "what is this?" link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation followed by the text "(verify)".
Please change the "what is this?" to read "needs validating", keeping the link the same. This could save the reader an extra click, and also makes more sense when the infobox is rendered in a PDF or in hardcopy. See the PDF generated by Book:Plutonium as an example.
I think the red cross is a good idea and should appear in printed form too, but I wish to find a way to exclude the "(verify)" text from print. If I knew which template generates this I could add it to Category:Exclude in print, or otherwise request it be modified on its talk page. Could someone do this for me? - 84user ( talk) 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like us to start a process of validating melting point and boiling point data within chemboxes. This means checking numbers against reliable sources, and ideally multiple sources. I know we have talked about this for years, and the size of the task has always appeared daunting. However, I recently had a conversation with an organic chemistry professor friend who is using computer-based tools to evaluate melting point data from the literature, so I think we perhaps have an opportunity to get some useful data quite quickly.
My proposal is that we would start initially by verifying data for important substances, perhaps just 100 or so initially. I propose we record the data and references on the supplementary data page - that way we would have a virtual paper trail for every data point, an important component of any validation effort. I would also propose that the fields be patrolled by CheMoBot, just as are the other validated fields, assuming that User:Beetstra can adapt the bot in this way. I would be willing to devote much of my wiki-time to this validation work for the next year or so, if people are supportive of the effort. What do you think?
I'm proposing an IRC meeting on #wikichem on Thursday at 1500h UTC (11am US Eastern Time), which is a time when my chemistry colleague is able to join us. Please join us! Walkerma ( talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently working on the article psilocybin, which is currently up for GA review. The reviewer has asked if I can get rid of the red x in the chembox (next to the ChEBI identifier). I read through the instructions, but am still unclear what I have to do to "validate" this. While I'm here, I would highly appreciate it if someone knowledgeable could look at the chembox in this article and see if there's anything missing; I'm aiming for FAC status eventually and would like to get all the i's dotted and the t's crossed. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The project page mentions an index to edit to correct verified values. Where is the index and how do I go about corrections? Thanks. – Temporal User ( Talk) 13:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the CAS number on the beryllium sulfate article is marked as incorrect. I checked the information through the online version of SciFinder, which lets one check CAS numbers, and the provided CAS number for the anhydrous form of BeSO4 is indeed correct. However, I am not sure how to update the validation files so that the cross is removed from the infobox, and the "What's this?" page does not provide me with that information. Can somebody tell me what to do here? I would like to be of use for this on other pages as well, so a step-by-step would be very much appreciated. Kumorifox ( talk) 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Same issue, different contributor: I believe the CAS Number for Janus Green B, 2869-83-2, is correct. It's pretty fuzzy to those of us on the "outside" how we go about helping with these, or if you even want us to do so. Robert Rossi ( talk) 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but the ChemSpider number listed for methamphetamine, 1169, is marked with a red X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 ( talk) 11:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
{{เมทแอมเฟตามีน_ของเขาดีจริง}}
Myappsmine.blogspot (
talk) 00:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
miné Myappsmine.blogspot ( talk) 00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, @ Beetstra:, for your hard work on this aspect of chemistry articles. Cheers. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 16:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello all. I am constantly browsing chemical pages on Wikipedia and I often see the validation marks. It seems like there are a lot of red X's still. Seems like the last project related update on this page was 7 years ago. I'd love to validate whatever I can, in the right way. Can anyone start me off in the right way to go about this? Kjpmi ( talk) 13:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is correct but I was hoping to know who to trust here.
Currently the phosphoric acid article lists the boiling point as 212C citing Chemspider. However I've found other locations listing the BP as 158C, 414C (I suspect a typo as 212C is 414F), and I personally have a 40% phosphoric acid solution boiling right at this moment at 95C (which is why I discovered this discrepancy). I assume my solution is some azeotrope, but otherwise I personally believe the 158C is correct as the source Chemspider gives (NOISH) seems weak in comparison.
158C sources:
https://www.nutrien.com/sites/default/files/2018-01/SDS%20223%20Phosphoric%20Acid%2080-85%20percent%20DAB%20NA%20Final%2004302015%20%5BNutrien%5D.pdf https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/phosphoric_acid https://www.americanelements.com/phosphoric-acid-7664-38-2 https://www.labchem.com/tools/msds/msds/LC18640.pdf
414C source: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/chemistry/compounds-and-elements/phosphoric-acid
Chemspider and their source: http://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.979.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0506.html
I'm hesitant to edit it though as I understand this will invalidate the chembox?
Advice appreciated Kylesenior ( talk) 10:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently doing a WP:GA review of Gold(III) chloride. The infobox says it needs to be verified. It's not clear to me if I should hold up the GA pending the verification being completed. What's the usual process here? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Tocilizumab failed verification@ https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?cas_rn=375823-41-9 but NIH lists the CAS number: https://chem.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/rn/375823-41-9
The thing is, the CAS website says it doesn't have ALL of the substances, only a subset, publicly available. To me this means the number is probably correct, it's just only available from their paid api... at least, if I search for the name it doesn't come up either, so I suspect that's what's going on.
I'm wondering if we really should be linking to the website for all infoboxes, when it is a limited subset? Or maybe this is a weird edgecase :(. Mvolz ( talk) 12:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this drug and narcotic 2603:8000:CD01:5143:C9E1:5522:B1F2:4FBE ( talk) 19:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)