![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2005 | ← | Archive 2009 | Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 |
The Template:Chembox SystematicName has been proposed for deletion (TFD) by User:Plasmic Physics on January 2 2011. More discussion here on his invitation: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_1#Template:Chembox_SystematicName. For information. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Quotation from text above:
If the entry Template:Chembox SystematicName is irrelevant, inappropriate, and unsourceable, then I propose that such a useless entry be deleted. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 21:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Before to delete this general template, the main advantages and disadvantages of such an option should be carefully assessed and all the possible outcomes well weighted. It could potentially solve the numerous discussions and the polemic arisen from the very specialized edits made by User:Plasmic Physics in the chemboxes of simple inorganic substances but it could also have a much more severe impact on these of some complex organic substances whose IUPAC names could be lost. I have no ideas on the number of chemboxes that could be negatively affected in case of suppression of this template in use since more than 3.5 years. It seems wize to reach a consensus on the question before administrators take a decision in that matter. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra created this template on 22 March 2007 and is presently away on holiday. As announced on his talk page he may not respond swiftly to queries. It would be fair and well advised to have first his opinion on the question. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI, according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Chembox_SystematicName&limit=500 About at least 300 pages (12 screens of 25 lines, if the counting is good) could be affected by the suppression of this template. So, be prudent! It is not a good idea! Once again, considerable time and work will be lost to correct the situation just to accomodate the desiterata of one single user. It would be beter to use this template simply with discernment and not to follow inflexible rules. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 15:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Nitrofullerenes for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitrofullerenes) and proposed deletion of Octatetrazolylhydrazinecubane, two articles by the same new user. Any assistance in either verifying and saving these articles, or in concurring with the deletion arguments would be appreciated. ChemNerd ( talk) 15:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The top image in the sidebar for Propadiene ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be incorrect (and inconsistent with the 3D rendering below it). The image in question is Image:Allene.png; the possibly-incorrect version was uploaded on 13 October 2010, and replaced a correct-looking previous version according to the file history. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 21:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Main Page#Featured content for a day Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had a quick look at the timeline of chemistry page, and am wondering what the inclusion criteria are, because there are some discoveries that I would have expected to see. Off the top of my head:
This is by no means meant to be an exhausitive list of corrections, and I recognise that there may be disagreement as to whether all of these should be in the timeline. Nevertheless, I suspect that other chemists will be able to produce other lists of potential omissions and am thus concerned about how complete this timeline actually is. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 07:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Further thoughts added. EdChem ( talk) 13:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that most of the subcategories in Category:Heterocyclic compounds (3 rings) have a very small number of articles in them (3 or less). These seem like overspecialized categories to me. If no one objects, I would like to empty many of them by moving the articles to more reasonable categories. Then I would like to tag them for deletion. Any comments? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As an illustration of my previous post, hereafter a list of hidden systematic names silently reinserted by
Plasmic Physics without any explanation for some simple inorganic compounds (no Edit Summary, no discussion on the Talk Page !). These names are not directly visible on the pages, but are present in the code of the page. Why ? This was done after these systematic names were previously cleaned up, most often with motivation on the discussion page or here at WT:Chem and always with a clear statement in the Edit Summary.
List of some | SystematicName = <!-- Name 1 (substitutive) OR Name 2 (additive) -->.
Common name | Systematic name (substitutive) | Systematic name (additive) |
Barium ferrate | Barium dioxoironbis(olate) | Barium tetraoxidoferrate(2-) |
Beryllium carbide | Diberylliomethylidene | Diberylliumcarbon |
Beryllium carbide | (Berylliumylidenemethylidene)beryllium | Beryllium methanide |
Curium oxide | Curium(3+) oxidandiide | — |
Prussian blue | Iron(3+) hexacyanoirontetrauide | Iron(3+) hexacyanidoferrate(4-) |
What is the real intention behind these hidden (zombie ?) names ? What is the aim pursued ? I fear it is only the visible summit of the iceberg.
Shinkolobwe (
talk)
17:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hereafter, a copy of the comment I left yesterday on the talk page of curium oxide after having discovered the last incongruity left there by Plasmic Physics in the chembox of this extremely rare compound.
| IUPACName = Curium(III) oxide<br\> | SystematicName = Curium(3+) oxidandiide
See the difference in editing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Curium_oxide&diff=prev&oldid=407807816
The term oxidandiide cannot be found in the IUPAC Redbook 2005 ( International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005). Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK): RSC– IUPAC. ISBN 0-85404-438-8. Electronic version.).
In Table IX Continued, p. 319 (paper) or p. 331 (PDF) of the Redbook 2005, I can only find the following terms for
oxide:
Oxidanide, a very rarely encountered chemical term, seems to have been attributed to the hydroxide anion (OH–), but is never used in the practice by most of the chemists.
It is very strange that the term oxidandiide — such a crucial potential alternative term for oxide — would not have been explicitly described in the IUPAC Redbook 2005. The tentative deduction of "oxidandiide" from other terms also ending with the suffix "diide" in the IUPAC 2005 Redbook (from P-, S-, and Se-based compounds) without controlling the most common use of the term is a rigid and useless application of a non-validated rule. It seems that the IUPAC Redbook 2005 is itself still severely flawed. This is one of the most striking illustrations I have encountered yet.
I hope Plasmic Physics does not intend to rename all oxides as oxidandiides through the whole Wikipedia. :-(( Shinkolobwe ( talk) 17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
@ Plasmic Physics; please do not remove extra }} like here - this makes chembot break articles, maybe Beetstra can comment on that too). Materialscientist ( talk) 06:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Noticed, indeed a bug. I will try and solve it one ASAP (I did not see now quickly why it breaks, it seems to have to do with the list of 4 closing curly brackets, I will try and reproduce the problem in debug mode.
As it does not do it when the 4 closing curly brackets are not connected (so either '}} }}', or two sets of '}}' on separate lines) I would suggest that if you notice them, please separate them (though it should be handled by CheMoBot properly).
Please leave notes on bugs on my talkpage, then I will react quicker. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I applied a patch/solution for this. Please notify me if the bot still breaks this . -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Seemed to work in a test-edit. I am now simply splitting }}}} into two sets of }} on two lines before parsing. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get a third opinion on Talk:Dibenzodioxin concerning the naming of the article. Thank you. -- Leyo 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled upon these two examples [1] [2] where I was reverted for vandalism. My question is: Plasmic Physics keeps on adding systematic names which have never been used in literature (see his recent edits). What should I do? It is not the first time of edit warring with him, and frankly the last thing I wish is to waste time on this matter. What is the position of the project on this? Materialscientist ( talk) 05:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody wants to delete a template which is transcluded to many articles. The issues are (i) if a chembox field is empty, it does not mean it must be filled up, (ii) as I understand IUPAC, names of simple (say binary) compounds do not follow systematic rules. I am more keen to hear first the opinion of the project, rather than of Plasmic Physics, on this whole issue. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the viewpoint of
Materialscientist: as for his last edits, many of my recent edits dealing with systematic names of simple (say binary) inorganic compounds were silently modified by
Plasmic Physics using a tactic to hide the changes he made: without any explicit mention in the Edit Summary (he always left it empty!), he reinserted in the chembox disputed systematic names using the syntax for hidden comments:
| SystematicName = <!-- Name 1 (substitutive) OR Name 2 (additive) -->.
See for example, what occurred
here! with the very bad looking
| SystematicName = <!-- Diberylliomethylidene (substitutive) OR Diberylliumcarbon (additive) -->.
And there is still many other cases.
I do not understand the exact motivation behind this behaviour. For the moment, I can only imagine four reasons for acting so:
In the case of a hidden agenda, such a tactic could be dubbed: creation of Zombie systematic names. Furtively re-inoculated names never die: they only sleep, awaiting to be reanimated when considered opportune.
If this hypothesis should be confirmed, this is not innocent and such a practice should be considered a highly disruptive behaviour. I do not understand the advantage of hiding systematic names. If they are good and useful, it is fine: simply show them. If they are problematic, the best is also to show them, so that they can be openly discussed with the community and improved. If they are wrong or useless, please simply admit it and desist.
Plasmic Physics, please listen and learn from the reactions of other users. You should realize that silently editing problematic systematic names in the back of many contributors cannot be considered a honest attitude. Indeed, it is not a good idea to wish (or to plan) to implement a particular idea without telling anybody. And please, also correctly fill the Edit Summary with an explicit comment clearly indicating what you are really doing. Your long history of edits considered disruptive and your recent initiative to nominate for deletion the Template:Chembox SystematicName do not argue in your favor.
I think that the present concern now deserves a user conduct RFC. Sorry if I misinterpreted the last edits of Plasmic Physics and if he has really another objective or a valuable reason for acting so: then it would be better that he clearly explains now his intentions to the community and what he really intends to do with these hidden edits.
Sorry if my patience is exhausted and if I have more and more difficult to discern good faith in these recent edits: I have lost enough time and work for controlling the veracity of these highly specialized and low-values contributions which are so misleading for the readers of Wikipedia. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 16:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I know the pillars (I did not become an administrator here just because I asked a bureaucrat to flip my bit, you know) - Blue pillar: I am not experimenting anarchy or democracy, but I do see that many editors disagree with you - solution to that is NOT continuing, but to first discuss and convince them - Green pillar: if you suggest that not giving a systematic name is giving a POV to an article .. well. I do not think there is any dispute about neutrality of the pages, just about that certain additions of systematic names are OR, there are independent refs that call acetone by the systematic name 2-propanone, but applying the rules yourself and creating these systematic names (and especially where different applications of rules give different names, as is often the problem with inorganics) is not the way forward - Yellow pillar: yes, I did not say that you could not edit, but if there is discussion on a point, then it is not a solution to proceed, but to first discuss and finish that discussion (and as noted above, you do also a lot of good work, and I did not ask you to stop with that!). And maybe, if the discussion has many editors who disagree with you, then maybe, maybe it is better to just stop with that specific task. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it is time for you to start assuming some good faith with all the editors that have concerns with the edits you perform, and addressing the concerns and convincing them, in stead of defending yourself with the policies and guidelines. I know that I was just giving good advice in my post of the 19th of Jan, at 21:21 UTC. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I think you miss again the point. This has nothing to do with the main pillars of Wikipedia. It is a pure technical question dealing with ultraspecialised edits about systematic names (SN) of chemical substances that are most often useless and sometimes misleading for the reader.
The main concern arises from the fact that your numerous ultraspecialised and repetitive edits can affect a large number of pages in a systematic way, as you did when starting a very detailed categorisation effort based on names never used (and even non-existing such as, e.g., silanuide). Then the problem becomes systemic and can no longer be ignored. This is why it triggered so many reactions from other users and what could be called a kind of social control. Without such a control Wikipedia would simply not survive, nor have acquired its present level of notability. You should not underestimate the time and work invested by other contributors to cross-checked some of your edits and to communicate you their advices. Our only wish is that you could simply understand that "a claim is a gift" and take it into account. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 01:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read the thread before posting. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 05:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Nirmos and I disagree about the nature of the OH at C-3 of estradiol. The discussion is at User talk:Nirmos#Phenol or alcohol?. Nirmos' last post says (s)he doesn't care and I could do as I pleased, but I'd like some additional input before I undo their changes. I'd also like to know whether Category:Estradiols should be kept. It contains two pages and I could add perhaps one or two, but not more. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 10:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Another one: Category:Phenols is a sub-cat of Category:Alcohols, which seems to be incorrect. Should I change that? -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 15:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Protactinium(IV) oxide requires a systematic name, User:Stone removed both substitutive and additive names:
Which one should be restored? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 10:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant, the entry is empty and needs to be filled. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sodium amide requires a systematic name, User:Shoy removed both substitutive and additive names:
-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Beryllium oxide requires a systematic name, User:Shoy removed both substitutive and additive names:
-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Disiloxane requires a systematic name, User:Shinkolobwe removed both substitutive and additive names:
-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
An impossible request, there are no reliable sources garuanteed to conform to IUPAC nomenclature recommendations (excluding examples from IUPAC actual). This was established in earlier discussions. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Plasmic Physics - Please, listen. What Chris has just said hereabove is very important and well thought. Because of the increasing notoriety of WP, the intricate and inappropriate systematic names you continue to introduce for simple inorganic compounds are potentially very misleading for ungraduate students and inexperienced users. A supplementary example you just edited today are the systematic names for
ammonium bifluoride.
It makes absolutely no sense for a simple inorganic compound:
NH4HF2 is nothing else than NH4F · HF and it certainly does not deserve these systematic names, particularly ammonium difluorohydrogenuide: it is wrong and should it be correct, it is never used.
Listening and taking into account advices and critics from their peers is fundamental for all scientists and is integral part of the scientific approach. Please, adopt a more open attitude and also observe how others work. Judicious observation in chemistry and science is more important than pure deduction, certainly from rigid rules. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 12:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
CID: 14935 links to several synonyms (37 in all) at: http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=14935&loc=ec_rcs.Ammonium difluoride;
Ammonium hydrofluoride;
Acid ammonium fluoride
IUPAC: azanium fluoride hydrofluoride
After better understanding the exact – and more complicated than initially expected – nature of the quite unusual HF2– species present in the ammonium hydrogen difluoride, and after an interesting discussion with Smokefoot on the subject, I started to doubt about the incorrect character of the systematic names proposed by User:Plasmic Physics. To avoid to be unjust or inequitable for him and also to avoid to possibly throw the baby with the water of the bath, I continued to search for these systematic names for ammonium bifluoride in the IUPAC 2005 Redbook. Hereafter, the results of my last searches which are also consistent with my previous searches with Google: an additive systematic name is well possible and confirmed by the IUPAC 2005 Redbook (however, 11 or 37 occurrences only can be found with Google!), but no substitutive name can be derived or confirmed (zero occurrence with Google and in the 2005 Redbook) (cfr, our previous discussion on the question in the next section of this talk page).
According to
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005).
Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK):
RSC–
IUPAC.
ISBN
0-85404-438-8.
Electronic version. (Table III continued, p. 268 in the PDF, p. 256 on paper), the suffix "uide" is defined as follows:
"uide": suffix specifying the addition of hydride to a parent structure, accompanied by locants and multiplicative prefixes if appropriate, e.g. tellanuide, TeH3–.
There is clearly no hydride (H–) present in the bifluoride anion which only contains one central proton sandwiched between two fluoride anions: F– … HF or F–H–F– or HF2–. So, clearly, this unusual anion in which a strong hydrogen bond is gluing together a small fluoride anion and a non-dissociated HF molecule cannot be named difluorohydrogenuide and it also explains why no substitutive systematic name is given by IUPAC for the hydrogen bifluoride anion.
However, the additive systematic name difluoridohydrogenate(1–) is well given as an example in the IUPAC 2005 Redbook: see item 20 (HF2–) in the section IR-7.3 on "Additive Nomenclature", p. 126 in the PDF file, and p. 114 on the paper hardcopy.
However, I would also suggest to omit this additive systematic name from the chembox of ammonium bifluoride because the notion of hydrogenate is very rarely encountered in chemistry, not widely adopted amongst the chemistry community, and most importantly, to avoid to confuse the audience and to be misleading for the inexperienced students.
Sorry to have been so long in these explanations for this very particular case involving the quite uncommon chemical bond F– … HF. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
As concluding remark, the control of such unusual systematic names is very tedious and requires too much time and energy that could be better allocated to other more interesting or productive works. Errors in writing, or controlling, such rare systematic names can be easily done in perfect good faith by anyone of us. I think it is a supplementary valuable reason to omit them when not necessary for describing simple inorganic compounds. I do not speak here about organic substances for which it can help describing the topology of functions and groups present in complex molecular structures. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Many inorganic compounds with simple structure still carry the stigmates of a frenetic renaming activity that occurred during the summer 2010 and many more perhaps still remain to be discovered. Simply, look at what link to the Template:Chembox SystematicName to trace such dubious, as useless, names for simple inorganic compounds. And all problematic edits are systematically pointing to one single contributor , as here.
Did the following simple inorganic compounds really deserved such esoteric systematic names?
:-(( Shinkolobwe ( talk) 00:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, other non-sense systematic names such as azinic acid (HNH2O2 = NH2O(OH)) erroneously introduced by Plasmic Physics as systematic name for nitrous acid (HNO2) have also been corrected ( see talk page). Shinkolobwe ( talk) 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
So, the lifetime of highly specialized but inappropriate contributions can be relatively long because they remain easily undetected, or that the readers are abused by their complexicity and do not dare to correct them. There is a fundamental asymmetry of forces at work. It is, in fact, much easier to make allegation to esoteric or kryptic names than to track down them with sufficient reasonable explanations to verify what they really mean. Wikipedia is very weak and poorly equipped to self-protect with respect to such persistent disrupting behaviour. :-( Shinkolobwe ( talk) 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Ammonium difluoridohydrogenate(1-)"? Gosh!
Folks, please note that Wikipedia is directed to chemists. It is not meant to replace chemical reference works, much less to be a battle ground for nomenclature addicts. Articles must be readable by non-chemists and must be easily edited by chemists. So please let us focus on adding interesting contents, rather than obscure nomenclature that is of no use to anyone.
From that viewpoint, chemboxes were a colossal mistake, and are one of the reasons why the body of active editors is shrinking. I have 2000 articles in my watchlist, but most edits in the past two years have been pointless cosmetic fixes --- including many pointless chembox edits.
Remember,
Wikipedia is not a database! Creating a database of chemical compounds requires much more effort, and much better tools, than we have now.--
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
12:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have created a graph ( File:Saltwater freezing point.jpg) for a property of NaCl. It compares the freezing point temperature and salinity of brine, using existing data in the article, and the dataset ends just before reaching the maximum solubility of salt in water at 273K. Please verify that the original table data is correct, and add a citation to that information if necessary, for I will be adding the graph to article momentarily. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 20:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid the issue, but must ask now: what is the point of the category system? Do readers actually use category pages? What can we get out of categories that cannot be obtained from master articles (like
monosaccharide) or "List of" articles? We will never figure out the "right" category for oxalyl chloride if we don't know the answer to this question.
All the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
11:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you're right (to an extent - let's not just delete all categorisation unilaterally!), but it would be nice to have some way of navigating a list of all our compound articles. A quick road map, with all existing articles listed, rather than the (understandably) selective coverage in individual element articles. I might make such a thing in my userspace and see if it's any use. I'll probably do it by element but we'll see what's possible.
Ben ( talk) 08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
There is one good example for a category we simply do not need: Benzenehexols We should delete it.-- Stone ( talk) 10:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Here a discussion about stubs.-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 17:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Hydrosilicons was previously deleted as per WT:Chem discussions. The category has recently been resurrected by User:Kupirijo under a new name: Category:Silicon hydrides. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 05:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Silanols was previously deleted as per WT:Chem discussions. The category has recently been resurrected by User:Kupirijo under the same name. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 05:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this a mistake? I can find many literature references to hexacyanochromate(III) (CAS#14875-14-0), but not hexacyanochromate(II). Can someone else take a look? ChemNerd ( talk) 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Ipratropium about whether this should be the bromide form or not. 64.229.101.183 ( talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in contributing to the discussion, an anonymous editor has proposed moving acetone and isopropyl alcohol to their IUPAC names. See Talk:Acetone and Talk:Isopropyl alcohol. ChemNerd ( talk) 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There's a question of a generally-relevant nature at Talk:Amino acid#Overemphasis of the neutral form. DMacks ( talk) 19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it metalate or metallate? Just wondering because I started an article on cyanometalate, but maybe it should be cyanometallate.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
An is repeatedly reverted with nonsense arguments. Of course with the help of Plasma Physics.-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Inorganic chemists like to be precise and call it dinitrogen, dioxygen, dihydrogen, to distinguish it from the atom or substituent. I suppose context is key. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
We need to define conditional rules which, determine how to add categories or stub templates for carbon containing compound articles i.e., oxolate salts, mellitic anhydride, etc.
One possible condition:
Thus, oxalic acid is organic, oxalate salts are inorganic; or carbonate is inorganic, bicarbonate is organic. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It is just a preliminary suggestion. By your reasoning carbon dioxide would be organic, because it is the last step of glucose metabolism? Who is to say that carbon tetrachloride is organic? It doesn't even follow organic nomenclature.
Smokefoot:The problem can't be wished away, because there will always be a need for stub templates.
Shinkolobwe: It makes very good sense to set an arbitrary frontier, to solve this very problem. Look at nanoscience, there is an agreement that dimensions smaller than 100 nm falls within the domain of nanoscience, only one nanometer makes the difference.
Banjah-bmm27:That just renames the same problem, then we have to find a way to sort the article into the right category, what would qualify an article for your proposed stub template? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the introductory paragraph? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Assorted categories and stub templates to contain carbon containing compounds where no C-H moeities are present? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 10:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Second possible condition:
Create, categories and stub templates for ambiguous compounds as appropriate. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 11:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I have already shown to be open to the idea of a grey area, we need to find a way to decide if an article is in the grey area or not. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 21:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
When is a too wide grey area better than a specific grey area? When is a box overspecific? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Once again, you give an answer without an answer, as is your habit. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 04:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yet, we make provision for said categorization? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Beestra: I was being WP:Bold, besides there is no way to have known that you see it as over-categorization. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Stone: You're welcome to act five years old, but do not assume that I would responde with equal zeal or maturity. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Plasmic Physics. First, the name is Beetstra, please get it correct. Secondly, here I mention "There is no need for overspecific categorisation of these things, there is no need to put everything exactly in the one single box where it fits perfectly (I would in some cases even find such too specific categorisation of stubs hampering progress of editing Wikipedia)" and here "please stop trying to put things into overspecific boxes" - Nonetheless, you do that type of edits. And seen that the large majority of the editors here agrees that things should not be overcategorised, those edits are disruptive. Hence, it is not that only I see it as overcategorisation, all voices are that way (do others here have to say here explicitly that you are overcategorising as well, that you are putting everything into specific shades of grey, or that it is clear that you are trying to define every specific shade of grey. And it is fine that you are bold, but do not forget that WP:BRD exists (and while things are under discussion they should not be changed - which also goes for the case where the discussion does not get to a single solution - no consensus is also a form of consensus, in which case things simply don't change. Applying those (bold) changes while there is no consensus is however disruptive and likely a WP:POINT-violation. Especially since you were (09:41, 31 January 2011) asked to just leave it for the moment (still, shortly after that, diff - what, you are even edit warring over it [3] - [4] - [5] - [6]). WP:BOLD does not apply, the edits are just plainly disruptive (and I am sorry, the most of the examples I gave are also simply incorrectly categorised, I disagree with the stub-marking there). Actually, an admin should have plainly blocked you for ' Unexplained removal of stub templates after Jorgi Stolfi says ' no use caling it a stub (sic; emphasis added by me).
Maybe we all have to act here as five years old with you now, Plasmic Physics. Maybe that is the language that makes you understand. At the moment, I am categorising you in both a category of useful users ánd in a category of vandals. I could make that more specific categories, but I'd prefer that you see to it that you are removed from the latter category altogether. Hence, stop it. NOW. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
And since you responded to my thread - here you knew for sure that maybe you should be careful with overspecification - and marking Muldamine as an ester-stub .. oh my .. what happened to amine, alcohol, &c. &c. Steroid-stub makes sense, but removing {{ organic-chemistry-stub}} in favour of {{ ester-stub}} - {{ organic-compound-stub}} is really specific enough. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The previous stub template examples you listed were nonexistant, your explanaition didn't make sense. I initiated the thread to find out how to decide between organic and inorganic or another stub template for chemical articles, not to decide between sub-stub templates. I am not pushing for anything, I am using sub templates that are availiable for use. I am not the proponent of specifics, I am the proponent of the most appropriate template. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If they did exist then, rather than add a 101 stub templates, I would add organic-compound-stub, but since they don't, I wouldn't. I want rules because, you keep complaining. If there were rules, I would not have to be on the knife's edge constantly, concerned about your or other's possible complaints. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. We can define an organic compound as one that can participate as a reactant in organic reactions. This means that ammonium cyanate, even though it was rearranged to urea in the synthesis that started organic chemistry, is not an organic compound because that one involved a physical process, not a chemical one. However, things like chloroform are organic because this one can participate in free-radical halogenation, an organic reaction. Are you happy with this? FRE YWA 04:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
To all those who are in this WikiProject: I have some urgent news for you.
The worklist is very out-of-date. Here are some reasons for you to get back into it:
So, I hope you understand and make up your minds now. FRE YWA 07:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I know the German word Pottasche and it is only used for potassium carbonate. The mining products containing potassium like the chloride and sulfate of potassium are called Kalisalz. The Mineral Handbook USGS describes the change of the meaning from potash being only potassium carbonate to all potassium minerals in the 1950s. Now the page of potash links to the German article Kaliumcarbonate which is wrong. I will change that. One thing I wanted to know is if in chemistry this change of meaning also happened. Another point is: If I get a truckload of potash for fertilizer production could this also be potassium carbonate or is it only the sulfate and the chloride. If this is the case Pottasche and potash would have a minimal overlap.-- Stone ( talk) 20:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC) -- Stone ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that most of the subcategories in Category:Heterocyclic compounds (3 rings) have a very small number of articles in them (3 or less). These seem like overspecialized categories to me. If no one objects, I would like to empty many of them by moving the articles to more reasonable categories. Then I would like to tag them for deletion. Any comments? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Reviving this discussion....
Based on the discussion above, I have been trying to reduce the number of categories which contain very few (very often just one!) article. About 150 such subcategories of Category:Heterocyclic compounds have been emptied and deleted. There are still many dozens, perhaps hundreds, more. Most were created by User:حسن علي البط. I have asked this user on his talk page not to create any more of these categories without first getting input from this Wikiproject, but he has not replied. In fact, he has recreated some of the deleted categories, re-added some these useless categories to articles, and even started creating all new categories for single articles. Personally I find this behavior disruptive and contrary to consensus. Could I please have a little assistance dealing with this situation? I have invited حسن علي البط to contribute to this discussion here. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 01:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
حسن علي البط continues to create new categories which apply to only small numbers of chemical compounds ( Category:Pyranoindoles, for example). This is clearly against the consensus of other wikichemists expressed here and on his talk page. ChemNerd ( talk) 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Peace on who follows the right. Dear editrors, I noticed the creation of a new category Category:Nitrotoluenes created by a professional user User:Ronhjones. Tis category is considered a subcategory of my deleted one Category:Toluenes, so I request to reset this category to enable the right categorization. I donot agree with the editor who think that the category which apply to only small number of chemical compounds is against the policy of categorization, because even this category will be subcategorized later and will be needed. With my all respect,--حسن علي البط 06:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Bringing this here again .. Today I noticed Plasmic Physics to change some Category:aldehydes to [[Category::carbaldehydes]] (where was this discussed anyway, why do we need to specify aldehydes further?). I noticed that as well on N-Formylpiperidine - which raised my eyebrows. That is NOT an aldehyde, a formamide at best ... Notably .. here is the edit that changed this compound from Category:Amides to Category:Aldehydes - totally wrong in my opinion, and today it was changed to the Carbaldehydes category.
Now, We've had numerous discussions about specialised categories, and there are many votes against it. Clearly, in my opinion, the editors that are pushing those categories show very little chemical sense, just applying their categories without even checking what it is about, and, really, calling N-Formylpiperidine an amide is more than specific enough.
I propose here, that we apply some community santion to these editors, disallowing them to do any form of category change without discussion per page. Any violation of these sanctions will result in an immediate block with increasing length. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have undone the whole set of category changes that Plasmic Physics applied today, and deleted the categories. Plasmic Physics has been asked to first discuss the changes before applying them (with the note that if there is no consensus, or if no-one applies, that he should assume that there is no consensus, and hence, that the changes should not be applied). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Plasmic Physics says it is a POV that I find their (and others) work overcategorisation, still, we have different POVs here, in other words, we do NOT have a consensus on what schemes to follow. I am sorry, that has been clear now for months, people are complaining about the mistakes and the sometimes absurdly small categories that we end up with, which means, that maybe that is not the way forward. I and others have asked others to stop and to come up with a scheme first and discuss it, but no, no-one sets up a sub-page for it somewhere, they just continue with their own work, their own undisclosed schemes, and it is just a matter of time and we are going to be back here. Asking to stop did not help, so how do we go on? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose to get rid of the old and ambiguous units ppm, ppb, and ppt. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says: "Only in the rarest of instances should ambiguous units be used, such as in direct quotations". I can see at least 3 ambiguities with these old units:
Consistent with IUPAC recommendations (see IUPAC Green Book http://old.iupac.org/publications/books/gbook/green_book_2ed.pdf and also page 1387-1388 of http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/67/8/1377/pdf), I suggest to make the following replacements:
old unit | ppt | ppm | ppb | ppt |
definition | 1E-3 | 1E-6 | 1E-9 | 1E-12 |
new unit (if mass fraction) | g/kg | mg/kg | μg/kg | ng/kg |
new unit (if mole fraction) | mmol/mol | μmol/mol | nmol/mol | pmol/mol |
A counter-argument that has been brought up is that the old, ambiguous units are still often used. In my research area (atmospheric chemistry), publications currently have a mix of the old and the new units. Although the old units still occur more often, there is a trend to the new notation. Thus, I think both would be consistent with WP:MOS which says: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always". RolfSander ( talk) 18:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
@Smokefoot:
"minor issues with ambiguity"
I would not call this "minor". For example, the conversion factor between a mass fraction of 1 ppb and a mole fraction of 1 ppb is 4.7 for the greenhouse gas CFC-11.
"The links provide definitions."
They don't. If they would, I wouldn't complain. Links usually go to the parts per notation page which still doesn't tell you if ppb refers to mass fraction or mole fraction.
@Materialscientist:
"I don't think we should hit non-chemists editing those articles"
I think especially the non-chemists need unambigous units. Inside a small research community, colleagues will probably know what you mean by ppb. Outsiders like non-chemists deserve an unambigous notation that does not require insider knowledge. RolfSander ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a remark: the hereabove mentioned table might even contain a more important lacune: % (per cent). In fact when one provides a fraction, it is always a good practice to define the terms above and below the fraction bar. For mass fraction, wt. % is often used while for mole fraction mol % is used. Another lacune also deals with the volume fraction often used for gases: e.g., ppm Vol. However, if the context of the measurements is clearly given by the authors, the experienced reader should not be confused. In fact, if a reader hesitates, he/she is already on the good way to solve the problem by him/herself. And by the way, it is the first time I see someone using ppt for part-per-thousand in place of part-per-trillion. So, many depends on your previous experiences and maybe also on your mother language if you are not a native English speaker (sometimes an advantage in such matters). Shinkolobwe ( talk) 23:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
At RolfSander's request, I am copying this from Talk:Greenhouse_gas#Terminology
There is a current disagreement on terminology.
In SI units, μmol/mol and mole fraction are the "correct" terminology. However, ppm is used in the IPCC documents and almost all the references.
The IPCC uses many phrases like
At first glance, the phrase "concentration of xx ppm" is technically wrong since "concentration" represents moles per liter. However, since the number of moles in a volume is known, "concentration" can also be interpreted as "fractions of a mole per mole" (depending on the units) which is what 540 ppm means. The titles of many of the references also use the term "concentration" with this meaning. In some references, the proper phrase is "a mixing ratio of xx ppm", though "mole fraction" is also correct. Many times, AR3 uses the term "abundance", as in phrases like "with abundances reaching 2,970 to 3,730 ppb".
From the IPCC TAR Glossary
In AR3, the phrase "mole fraction" is not used very often. The following is from the caption of figure 11, page 44.
The uses of multiple phrases for the same concept indicates to me that the information is pulled from many sources and/or written by different people who use different nomenclature. At any rate, it is my opinion that changing this document to use non-standard nomenclature, even if it is "more correct", is a disservice to the readers. Q Science ( talk) 07:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: In the tables above, the "old unit" was NEVER the ambiguous term "ppm", it was "a mixing ratio of xx ppm" which is a well defined phrase. Q Science ( talk) 07:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose the following cattree, primary categories on the left:
- Acetaldehydes (7 candidates) | - Alkanals (21 candidates) | - Alkenals (7 candidates) - Alkylalkenals (5 candidates) | - Phenylalkenals (5 candidates) | - Phenolic aldehydes (remove) | - Benzaldehydes (7 candidates) - Alkoxybenzaldehydes (9 candidates) | - Hydroxybenzaldehydes (10 candidates) | - Carbaldehydes (13 candidates) - Cycloalkene carbaldehydes (5 candidates)
Plasmic Physics ( talk) 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
They are the main contributors to the primary cats. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you asking about the primary cats or the secondary cats? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I would categorise it under carbaldehydes, alternatively, instead of creating a primary carbaldehyde cat, make cycloalkene carbaldehydes a secondary cat under benzaldehydes.
Plasmic Physics (
talk)
00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Benzaldehydes is a special case, that's why it is a stand alone category, smiliar to acetaldehydes and alkanals. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Semantics? Really? Phenylalkenals are generally more reactive than alkylalkenals, they may participate in certain chemical reactions that alkylalkenals are excluded from. The aldehyde group is usually more acidic than alkylalkenals, phenylalkenals are more often carcinogenic. The aldehyde category as it currently stands, does not aid in locating articles that are reasonably well associated through their chemical properties, and only serves as a global list. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 02:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:Aldehydes | - Category:Benzaldehydes (where the aldehyde group is on an aromatic group) | - Category:Aliphatic aldehydes (where the aldehyde group is connected to an sp3-type carbon | - Category:Aldoses (for the 'aldehyde-sugars')
Note, I agree, the recently created Category:Phenolic aldehydes should be depopulated, maybe into a Category:Benzaldehydes category - that is just the thing I mean with overcategorisation - what is next, Category:Phenolic toluene aldehydes, Category:Brominated phenolic toluene aldehydes. That is just the thing that pushes it too far. If there are not too many functional groups, they go into both Category:Phenols ánd Category:Benzaldehydes, if there are too many functional groups, they should go into e.g. Category:Aromatic compounds (although I would not have a huge problem with putting them in a large set of categories for all general functional groups they have).
Splitting up the category tree too far is NOT helping the reader. Readers will look at a compound, think 'that is an alcohol' - so Category:Alcohol, they don't see it in the main category, but notice ' Category:Phenols' - that is closer so they go there .. and the compound should be there. They do not go to Category:Phenols to go to Category:Phenolic toluenes/ Category:Phenolic aldehydes to go to Category:Phenolic toluene aldehydes/ Category:Brominated phenolic aldehydes/ Category:Brominated toluene aldehydes/ Category:Brominated phenolic toluenes/... to get finally to their compound in Category:Brominated phenolic toluene aldehydes (hey, and now I only have 4 functional groups, there are some pretty exotic molecules out here on Wikipedia which also contain amide, ether and other halogens). Do apply KISS to this, please. And note, most readers will not even go through a category tree already, as it is too complex.
And based on that,
Category:Aldehydes is significant, but it does not, yet, warrant a full splitting into too much (it is still just one page in the category). Categorisation is not a means to have everything correct, it is, still (though a lot of people hardly use it), just a way to be able to find articles relatively quickly. Note that we also don't have
Category:Nobel prize winners that were born a Russian, from German descendance, now carrying a Dutch passport and working in the United Kingdom. Such are categorised as
Category:Nobel prize winners
Category:Nobel laureates in Physics,
Category:Dutch people of Russian descent, .. the cross-categorisation does the trick, and when you do need to find your compound which is an
aldehyde and a
phenol, you go
here. --
Dirk Beetstra
T
C
08:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, what if we focus on the most important primary cats first and ignore my secondaries.
- Category:Acetaldehydes | - Category:Alkanals | - Category:Alkenals | - Category:Benzaldehydes
Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
When I first suggested the cattree, I designed it according to structural, not chemical similiarity. It only appeared that way for I had to explain the chemical difference after the IP enquired.
I can combine the suggested categories, but I need to mention that the reason for the Acetaldehydes cat, is that it is a special case as acetaldehyde derivatives are important and well known within the class of aldehydes.
Does that mean, the last three cats are supported? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll construct a hypothetical model of primary subcats for amines. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 11:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see that there even a minimal subdivision of the aldehydes, as I suggested (with already there 'if any, the tree could be'), nor as others have suggested, does not seem to gain any traction, the editors generally think it is just not necessary. I think we should just not split up the aldehydes. I will also de-populate the 'phenolic aldehydes' (which I think is way too specific). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I had a go at "categorising" our aldehyde articles: User:Benjah-bmm27/aldehydes. I do not suggest we actually apply this scheme. It might be useful for making a template for the n-alkyl aldehydes, or something similar. But it was really just for me to get my head round the similarities and differences between the aldehydes we have articles on. A tribute to procrastination and the Victorian obsession with classification
Ben ( talk) 18:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a similiar article: User:Plasmic Physics/Aldehydes. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Notice: I nominated a few ball-and-stick models without hydrogens for deletion: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 14 -- Leyo 00:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I won't disagree with deleting those you nominated, but excluding hydrogens is quite acceptable in some contexts. Even excluding entire fragments. Of course, this is usually stated explicitly. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The tragedy of Fukushima and the explosion of hydrogen gas above the containment buildings of nuclear reactors pose the delicate question of the reactivity of zirconium and zirconium alloys with water steam at high temperature in a damaged nuclear reactor core. The page about zircaloy should deserve a special attention and the contribution of critical reviewers. See also the talk page for questions and useful references: Talk:Zirconium alloy. Any help would be appreciated. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 14:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently saw this comment at Talk:Pentaerythritol tetranitrate.
Do we generally aim to include explicit (non-skeletal) formulas in articles that many non-chemists are likely to read?
I think it's probably a good aim unless the explicit formula would be so crowded it's illegible/confusing.
Ben ( talk) 10:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
See, I think this is actually something of a failure of WP:CHEM. It's condescending to assume all readers who don't understand skeletal formulas don't understand structural formulas. Anyone who's studied chemistry to GCSE level in the UK should understand structural formulas, but unless they've done A-level chemistry, they won't understand skeletal formulas.
I propose adding one of the following images to the article Pentaerythritol tetranitrate:
Ben ( talk) 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Dirk: I have the same opinion as you. I'm not advocating such images for every molecule we have an article on, just for ones that (i) are of significant interest to non-chemists and (ii) are perfectly possible to draw neatly with explicit hydrogens.
Ed: The above structures are based on the crystal structure of PETN, looking down the S4 axis. From this angle, it pretty much IS swastika shaped! It's the highest symmetry view of the molecule. I'm about to upload a 3D picture, I just had to wait to get home to my PC to make it. This is one of the main reasons I make so many 3D models - I think they're accessible to almost anyone who knows what a molecule is. The same cannot be said for skeletal formulae.
Leyo: I think misleading a reader as to the exact C-C-O angle is much less likely and much less of a concern than excluding them by refusing to describe the connectivity of the molecule in a language they can understand. Bond angles are a subtlety, connectivity is generally the most important aspect of molecular structure. Your comment that some of our readers are "dummies" alarms me – do you really think we should make Wikipedia an elitist place where the articles are impenetrable unless you're already trained in the field? We can make pentaerythritol tetranitrate easier to understand, without damaging it, so we should.
New images: a less swastika-y semistructural formula and a ball-and-stick model:
Jmol models of the PETN molecule and crystal packing for you to examine yourself. See if you can find a good orientation without atoms clashing - not easy! http://www.benjamin-mills.com/chemistry/structures/PETN/
Ben ( talk) 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
My view is very similar to yours, Walkerma. I'm going to update my image description pages so they have a link to the Wikipedia article explaining how to interpret them. See, for example, File:Serotonin-2D-skeletal.png. What about a question mark in each chembox that links to information on structural images, similar to the one at Japanese language? Where feasible, we should have skeletal and explicit structural formulas side by side. The skeletal formula satisfies trained chemists, the explicit formula satisfies those who've never seen a skeletal formula, and having both together satisfies those who are learning (or still mastering their understanding of) skeletal formulas.
Leyo: sorry for the outburst. Your English is so good, I forget it's not your first language. I do, however, wish to fight the corner of the GCSE or A-level student. It's easy to fail to meet their needs when we follow our intuition about what looks neatest.
Ben ( talk) 11:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
ImageName*
fields are displayed (pointing but not clicking on the triangle form of
cyclopropane pops up a "Cyclopropane - skeletal formula" box). However, with popups enabled, instead the pop-up box includes actions for the image description-page. If that page includes a statement about the image form and link to info about it (like Ben's), then that's visible and clickable to learn more (unlike the ImageName* boxes). However however,
that only works for local images--images transcluded from commons do not have their file-desc page contents displayed in en.wp popups (compare the behavior of top-left(commons) vs bottom-left (local) at
[7]). That's...not useful.
DMacks (
talk)
10:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)I just stumbled across 2-Bromo-1-chloropropane, which is a bad example. Apart of the SVG bug, IMHO the image should be mirrored in order to have the 1 position on the left hand side and a skeletal formula is not the right choice here. Would a wedged bond to option of choice here to show that there is a chiral center? -- Leyo 20:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
For articles on racemates, only one enantiomer should be depicted ordinarily. In cases where no atom is stereogenic, it may be helpful to depict both enantiomers, e.g. [Co(ethylenediamine)3]3+.
I know the IUPAC says not to use "+ enantiomer", and I know that some other wikis (perhaps de?) prefer for both enantiomers to be included, but OUR MOS which we all agreed on, says to show only one enantiomer. As a side note, Jü ( talk · contribs) has been going around "fixing" these images contrary to our MOS. Personally, if the bonds are not dashed or wedged at a chiral center, the article simply refers to a racemic mixture. You can emphasize it with a wiggly line if needed, but it seems unnecessary to me. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 20:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Where can I find a list of WikiProject Chemistry or Chemicals articles, sorted by number of hits or popularity?
Ben ( talk) 12:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin, really helpful.
Ben ( talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
category:organosilicon chalcogenides
category:organosilicon oxides
category:silyls
category:silicon hydrides
category:silicate esters
There are a bunch of chemical structure images listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 23 if anyone would like to contribute to the discussions. ChemNerd ( talk) 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
To anyone interested in a possible merger of chembox and drugbox, or in the layout of drug articles: Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes might be of interest. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 14:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I tagged the ball-and-stick models uploaded by this new user as disputed. Does anyone experienced with such images willing to support him/her to create correct and high quality models? -- Leyo 21:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard this term used in the sense described in the article. Should this be rewritten, or redirected to Quaternary ammonium cation, or am I just uninformed? See also Ternary compound, Binary compound. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I work a bit in WikiProject Spaceflight and, in the process of adding and linking information about a new rocket engine today, I ran into a relatively new—and seemingly interesting—polymer material called nonburnite. I found only the one Wikipedia article that briefly mentioned it, so I added a redir page for Nonburnite that would take the reader to that page. I also did a bit of googling and found an abstract summarizing the material thusly: "a nonflammable, high-strength, lightweight thermoplastic fluoropolymer composite material, trademarked NonburniteTM, which is suitable for making reusable, reliable, low cost cryogenic tanks and structures for space flight service." I have added that particular quote, plus the rest of the abstract, to the nonburnite redir Talk page. It appears that NASA is funding some of this research, so have added the redir page to the spaceflight wikiproject. Perhaps it is of interest to your wikiproject as well.
So why did I write this? I have no idea what makes a new material become of interest to the materials science folks, or when it would be sufficiently notable for its own article, but did think I should draw this to someone's attention. I could not find a WikiProject Materials Science project, so thought I would just mention it here. It seems a bit of an interesting and capable chemical polymer compound to me. Cheers. — N2e ( talk) 16:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Advice is welcome on nonylated phenols. Seems esoteric, I know, but many commercial products (contraceptives, cosmetics) that are probably checked on Wikipedia contain "nonyl" groups, so we want to get it right. I am guessing that most nonylated compounds, such as nonoxynols are derived from branched C9's, as shown in nonylphenol (although that particular branching might be wrong) obtained from propene oligomers. I just dont think that industry has straight-chain nonene available cheaply, and if they did, the alkylation of phenol would produce the 2-nonyl derivatives. There are probably other articles in this area. But my main request is for input on how to represent such molecules, which are used as ingredients so often.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The guys on the chemistry project of de:WP recently dismantled [8] this articles german translation [9], after finding that most books list Cu(I)-F as only existant in melt and disproportionating upon cooling. Put together, there seemingly is no phase with sphalaerite structure of this substance. Regards, -- Maxus96 ( talk) 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, well maybe one of our friendly admins should delete it then. Chris ( talk) 09:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I did a SciFinder search for CuF. There are about 300 papers mentioning it, most of them theoretical or discussing the gas-phase CuF monomer or its complexes. A good, recent paper ( Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. (2010) 12, 8438-8445) has this to say:
Might be worth keeping the article, if only to note that CuF is of dubious existence – better to say so explicitly than ignoring the matter. Could be converted to a subsection of copper(II) fluoride. Or perhaps we could create an article on nonexistent compounds. There's a book on the topic, based on W. E. Dasent, "Non-existent compounds", J. Chem. Educ. (1963) 40, 130–134. Aluminium carbonate is another simple compound that doesn't normally form.
Ben ( talk) 20:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently, a major reduction in content of the hydrochloric acid chembox occured. The predominant reason given was a widespread overlap with the hydrogen chloride chembox.
Key questions:
Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Beetstra: Your example of nitric acid doesn't really work. The chembox data pertains mainly to hydrogen nitrate, not a solution of it. This is of the same style as hydrogen chloride, not hydrochloric acid. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 11:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the creation of Category:Cyclopentanes and Category:Cyclohexanes which already have articles categorized in them, and are analogous to the existing category Category:Cyclopropanes? Also, should the categories be renamed like "Cylcopropane derivatives", etc.? ChemNerd ( talk) 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Depopulate these categories. There will be such an amount of compounds in there, that it is unhandleable. Are we now going to call steroids a cyclohexane? This is not a functional group, unhelpful. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I've emptied these categories, but there is still a lot of cleaning up to do. User:حسن علي البط is now made very aware of the result of his actions, and has acknowledged that he knows that. Another warning was left by DMacks about this as well. I found that there was an unanswered thread on User talk:حسن علي البط regarding this with pretty much the same message. It is now a final warning. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The views of folks interested in articles about chemicals are particularly wanted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#RfC:_Are_the_medication_articles_too_technical_and_if_so_what_should_we_do_about_it.3F. Please have a look and share your thoughts on how to best structure articles about medications. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to talk with everyone intersted in categorization of chemical compounds. First I admit and confess that I was to some sort selfish and that I ignored discussing my opinion with editors and that was because I was ambitious and energyful. Now I need your help. That is right my work was haphazard but I promise I will change that.
My point of view is summarized in the following:
First, on the large scale:
For that I created many categories to enable simplicity in handling chemical compounds even for beginers and amateurs, since each category with its main article would explain itself effectively.
Second, on the tiny scale: I think that categorizing compounds may be related to anatomy in medicine which describing each organ (here chemical group or moiety) with the most possible details. Sucategorization enable us to differnaite between compounds even the category contain only one member. This point is what gives power to Wikipediak as we can look for a certain compound by only knowing that it contain a certain group enen like Cyclohexane moiety. What do u think? User:حسن علي البط --حسن علي البط 06:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see Special:Contributions/حسن_علي_البط, this user has started a massive categorization campaign with many (if not all) new categories being nonsensical or useless (e.g. any complex drug molecule that has an OH group anywhere, even as hemiacetal, was added to Category:Alcohols). Please could somebodyvrevert this and stop that guy? Thanks, Cacycle ( talk) 06:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I met with Robert Hanson (chem professor and Jmol developer) at ACS Anaheim, and he has said that there is now a reliable, public website (run by NIH), providing Jmol renditions of molecules in 3D. These are apparently given a basic energy minimisation (though I'm not sure of the method), so they should (other than in a few unusual cases) represent the "normal" shape of the molecule in 3D. As I understand it, this would allow us to provide our readers access to minimised 3D structures that can be manipulated, but without needing to download Jmol.
Dr. Hanson has proposed three possible options:
I have proposed that we discuss this on IRC at #wikichem, Tuesday April 12 at 1500h UTC (11am US Eastern Daylight Time, 1600h British Summer Time). You can also comment below. Walkerma ( talk) 16:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Walkerma for alerting me to this discussion. The IRC meeting is midnight in Melbourne and I am not a late bird. My brain would probably be switched off by then if I stayed up for it. I have added a link to this discussion at Wikipedia:Using Jmol to display molecular models, which is where the using jmol on WP idea was first discussed. It would be great to have jmol images in WP articles and keeping the files on Commons is a good idea, if the files can be released under an open license. I want the jmol image to be in the article itself so the reader can look at the image while reading the article, not going to a separate page as the examples above. Over the years I have dispaired of this ever happening. I am not entirely clear of what is being proposed above, but I have one question - can this idea be trialled on WP without getting new technical stuff added to mediawiki by the WMF developers? I talked to Tim Starling, a WMF developer, about this years ago and I know he had many concerns. I have not talked to him about it recently as he now lives in New South Wales, not Melbourne. If we could have something to show him, he might be convinced. I will try to add more before the IRC meet. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Which categories should 2,5-Xylidine be in? take a look at the history... (it is not the only xylidine which have lost its categories) -- Christian75 ( talk) 18:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear WP Chemicals members - over at WikiProject Stub sorting we have a problem! There used to be a stub category Category:Natural phenols and polyphenolic compound stubs, but, seeing as there was no related permanent (non-stub) category it was split into its two separate parts, Category:Natural phenol stubs and Category:Polyphenol stubs. Un fortunately, there are no stub sorters who can easily tell from the article which of the stubs should be in which category - most of the articles don't directly say, but instead refer only to the specific type of chemical (I wouldn't know the difference between a furalflavonol and a glycoside if they came up and introduced themselves, let alone know which was a polyphenol, if either). Could any of you who specialise in organic chemicals have a look through Category:Natural phenol stubs and see which ones should be marked with {{ polyphenol-stub}} rather than (or as well as) {{ natural-phenol-stub}}? Cheers! Grutness... wha? 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Template:Protactinium has been nominated for deletion; see WP:TFD#Template:Protactinium. We (or at least I) would like to know more about the templates in this category, and the pros and cons of wikilinks in chemical formulas. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin close the discussion at Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes? I think the outcome is pretty clear, but I'd prefer it the formal way – this question (or similar ones) has been brought up quite often, and never led to anything. We really should start doing things this time. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 14:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Chemical substances has been proposed to be merged into Category:Chemical compounds. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Ebe123 ( talk · contribs) has run through quite a few of our articles. I worry that too many useful links have been removed. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at the edit history for Trimethylsilyldiazomethane. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 13:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
These new articles about chemical fragments seem non-notable and quite useless to me. I'm inclined to propose them for deletion. Any thoughts? ChemNerd ( talk) 13:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
Chembox}}
allows to autogenerate chemical formula by specifying elements (C = 1, H = 2, etc.). This is convenient (mass is auto-calculated and the input is simple) and therefore is used in many articles, but results in weird formulas like Cl3W, etc., because the ordering is alphabetic. This ordering is accepted by suppliers but not scientists. Proposal: change it to the IUPAC system, where the elements are listed in order of their position in the periodic table, read from bottom to top, left to right, and hydrogen between groups 15 and 16. Beetstra suggested to bring this here. Please comment/vote.
Materialscientist (
talk)
07:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of templates with a name structure Template:(Element) compounds? Example: Template:Mercury compounds. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 10:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not just go to the corresponding category? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to discuss this thoroughly here. There seems to be some overlap with chembox other, and unless some editorial discretion is exercised, the lists are meaningless and unmaintainable. For example, are we looking at the principle compounds? Or all the binary compounds? Surely not everything! I'll ask the editor to come by. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, but beware, there is more than one editor. Example {{ Silicon compounds}}. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 06:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Now that we've decided, who will enforce? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It sounds good. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What about creating Category:Hypothetical chemical compounds for such articles? -- Leyo 12:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, nice idea. Go for it. -- Ben ( talk) 15:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Check template:Ionbox created by Graeme Bartlett. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 06:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
(If this is the wrong forum for this, feel free to move it to the correct forum ! )
I just made a cosmetic change on the drug box for
Bleomycin , as I've never worked with a drug box before I've left a note over there
On the talk page. Feel free to take a look, and if I've botched it up, feel free to change it and let me know where I erred. Thanks
KoshVorlon
' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris
18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just uploaded, with the author's permission, over 200 files from here. Some of you may find them helpful in certain articles. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 13:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
@Chemicalinterest: Could you please link a gallery or upload log with those images? -- Leyo 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The images look very nice - a really good contribution. In the case of chromyl chloride one can see that it is volatile from the reddish head-space. It is probably worthwhile weeding out some questionable images, or at least explain to readers what they are viewing. The new image of nickel(II) sulfate does not jive with the existing image, which is a nice sample of the hydrate. In that case, I would remove the newer image since we are unsure about the state of hydration. In the case of niobium pentachloride, the new image shows a liquid, but the material is yellow solid, so that one also is difficult to reconcile. I think that really good phosphorus pentasulfide (rarely seen) is actually yellow vs the cruddy brown shown, but that image is still the best that is out there. I hope that other chemists will look over the assortment uploaded by ChemInterest to check for potential issues.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ OrganicBox hbond donor}} and {{ Style OrganicBoxTD 2}} have been nominated for deletion. 65.95.15.60 ( talk) 06:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
May I direct your attention to this important discussion on the categorization on Commons? -- Leyo 16:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that someone added a ChEMBL number to the infobox in the Bismuth subsalicylate article that looks legitimate. However, a red X now appears next to it. Could someone please verify this addition and update the bot responsible for adding checkmarks and red X's to these infoboxes if the addition is legitimate? Thank you. I am a computer engineer, not a chemist. Therefore, I do not want to falsely verify this stuff because I am not qualified to do so. Jesse Viviano ( talk) 22:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking of proposing this list for deletion. It's full of errors, either because the original list [12] is poorly defined to begin with (what's "organorhodium complex PMN-82-147", with no cas number?), or because of editors adding their favorite compounds with no basis. For example, ricin's not in the real list, as are others I've removed today. This list "article" requires a rather dedicated effort to keep it in line with the official list which does vary over time. I would opine it's not really maintainable, and we are better off without this "article". Comments? Is there any value in having this "article" in WP? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 22:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The list is really long, and the official form of the list does not lend itself to wikilinking. I first tried to validate the list one-by-one according to the reference, but I got confused after a while. I tried to prepare the list again according to the reference from scratch, but gave up after half an hour. If it were easily maintainable, I'd be in favor of keeping the wikilinked list. It's not really encyclopedic in itself but it is a convenient directory (WP:NOT#DIRECTORY notwithstanding). I would rather delete the "article" than keep it in its present unreliable form. If we do keep it, can we divide the task of maintenance and verification so that the problem is a little more manageable? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. As indicated by my user name, I work for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Given the popularity of Wikipedia and the sometimes contentious nature of things we regulate (e.g. pesticides), I proposed to my management that EPA somehow get involved in Wikipedia content when facts related to the agency's purview are substantively misstated here. I finally got the necessary approvals and am now trying to recruit Wikipedians who can help incorporate our comments into the content. The first topic we hope to clean up is Clothianidin. Since this is USEPA's first official foray into editing Wikipedia, we're taking a conservative approach to editing content. I've posted the recommendations from EPA's subject matter experts on my talk page, and I'm hoping I can get input from this group about our approach and suggested edits. Please drop by and comment if you're interested. USEPA James ( talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I chatted with Alex Allerdyce from ChemAxon, a chemical software company, while I was at the ACS meeting in Anaheim. They are a commercial operation, but they are very supportive of education and also of volunteer communities like Wikipedia, and they give much of their software away for free to people like us. Some of it is really only suitable for big pharma, but they have a lovely toy called "Chemicalize" that marks up an article with structures. For example, you can hover over a name like capsaicin, and it shows the structure for you. If you click on a wikilink, the new page is "chemicalized" as well. You can see the effect on these pages:
As a result of our discussion, they are putting together a MediaWiki extension for Firefox, which (as I understand it) would operate much faster than going via chemicalize.org. Any chemist who wanted to "chemicalize" their Wikipedia browsing could download it, if they wanted it. This is the description Alex gave: "To recap we would be producing a mediawiki plugin for version x (and above preferably) which, for your test pages, would automatically extract chemical names (and other chemical file types) from text and annotate the text with dotted red underline and add an image (via tooltip) of the extracted structure. Unlike here, there would be no chemical table of contents across the top and the URL would not have "...chemicalize.org..." in it and would be the same as before."
They have been working on the design, and they are now at the point where they need our input. Their specific questions are:
Please could you give your feedback below. Also, I will set up an IRC meeting with Alex Allerdyce for (hopefully) next week for people to ask more about it. I think that if we provide input, they could provide us with a really useful tool (for example, chemical searches?), but if we don't explain what we want, it will be of limited value. So, please advise! Walkerma ( talk) 15:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chemists!
I corresponded with the DOT and verified that all of their hazard symbols are public domain. There are about 40 of them. Wonder if there is someone interested in uploading them? See [13]. TCO ( talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
P.s. I used the 4 signs for F transport in the F article and it came out very nice as a graphic to illustrate precautions. There is some other document that says what is required when. (Note, not advocating "how to" on transport. Just describing some aspects of usage, one of which is here.) TCO ( talk) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place here. [14] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ Chemformula}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 04:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency with o-Toluic acid and m-Toluic acid, and per WP:COMMONNAME, can someone move 4-Methylbenzoic acid to p-Toluic acid? It seems to require an administrator to do this, because the title exists as a rediect. Thanks. ChemNerd ( talk) 20:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Banned Aoganov ( talk · contribs) is back on Mohs hardness and titanium dioxide, where he is launching a new controversy between himself and his old nemesis Dubrovinskaia. I don't see any secondary sources or notability of said controversy, and thus reverting his edits, and get reverted back, thus someone please have a look (at titanium dioxide foremost) to resolve edit warring. Materialscientist ( talk) 14:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Should the student-generated data found at an open source notebook be used as a source of data in the infoboxes for our chemical articles? ( example for benzoic acid used as a source for non-aqueous solubility at benzoic acid) My conclusion is that it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria outlined at WP:RS. I brought this up before, a couple of years ago ( archived here) and data from this source was removed. But it seems that student supporters of that project have reintroduced the data. I think it would be good to establish a firm consensus about whether to use this data or not, so I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Student-generated_open_notebook_data - please contribute to the discussion there. ChemNerd ( talk) 18:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
2,5-Furandicarboxylic acid's not been reassesed in over two years, but has grown more than 11k bytes since. It seems to me it should rank as B-/High. -- Belg4mit ( talk) 04:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Some other opinions on how to categorize on Commons would be good. -- Leyo 21:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have it expanded. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Olaflur2.png and File:Dectaflur.png show alkylated ammonium fluorides, while PubChem ( [15], [16]) says they are amine hydrofluorides, i.e. the N is not protonated. While I generally don't trust PubChem too much, they may be right here, seeing that the alkylated amines should be pretty weak bases. Any ideas what the preferred form should be? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 08:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
A lot (quick search suggests 191) of MSDS appear to come from jtbaker.com - since this company appears to have changed, the links to the MSDS no longer work (eg triphenylphosphine. I suggest removing all the links from infoboxes' MSDS sections to jtbaker.com. It may be sensible to replace them with a link to the appropriate hazard.com search, eg PPh3, rather than a specific MSDS. I'm unsure of the details, but presumably a check of these searches and selection of a more appropriate link if necessary may be incorporated into the infobox validation? Any thoughts? I imagine this would be trivially achievable via AWB and am happy to give it a go. Mart inp23 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we finally have a go at this, because we have an opportunity to work with a group who are looking at melting point validation in general. I've written up my thoughts here, and invited the group to join us on IRC on Thursday, July 28th at 1500h UTC (11am US EDT) on #wikichem. Please join us for the IRC, even if you don't plan to work on the validation effort, because we need to get the input of the Wikipedia chemistry community. Thanks! Walkerma ( talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Would any administrator out there be so kind as to move octathiocane to cyclooctasulfur? -- Ben ( talk) 15:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
How about octasulfur? That's how NIST lists it, and it sounds simpler. GHits for octasulfur and cyclooctasulfur are ~ 3k, octathiocane ~ 1.4k.-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the move. Would you mind doing the same for S6: Hexathiane → Hexasulfur? -- Ben ( talk) 17:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
A user is repeatingly removing referenced systematic names, without a willingness to discuss, or an apparent understanding of systematic naming. Requesting mediation? Note, this user has a recent history of disrutive edits. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 23:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone put a warning up at the top of this page that some information is incorrect. I don't have the time to sort it out, so if anyone wishes to look into it, that would be great. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit war at Hydrogen astatide has gone on long enough. Both User:Plasmic Physics and User:Fivexthethird should stop reverting each other. I count at least twelve reversions, a ridiculous number considering the three revert rule. Plasmic Physics has initiated a discussion at Talk:Hydrogen astatide.
On the matter in question, the IUPAC Red Book 2005 specifically mentions HAt in Table IX on page 298. It says:
According to the explanatory text preceding the table, the latter name is used to refer specifically to molecular HAt (is there any other kind of HAt?).
In my opinion, acrimonious disputes over nomenclature reflect badly on Wikipedia. I get the feeling this dispute is less about finding the correct IUPAC name for an obscure compound and more about editors throwing their weight around, seeking some sort of dominance or ownership of a little piece of the internet. -- Ben ( talk) 12:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Really? Couldn't you have just discussed it with Fivexthethird earlier? Why is it always someone else's fault? -- Ben ( talk) 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble verifying the new article dihydrophenylisatin. The chemical name does not appear in SciFinder, ChemSpider, Reaxys, PubMed, or PubChem. Web searches only turn up non-authoritative sites mentioning it as a constituent of prunes. Is this something that someone just made up and then it got spread around the internet? Or is it a misspelling (or uncommon synonym) of a real chemical compound? Any ideas, chemists? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, here is more that I have turned up. The terms "dihydroxyphenylisatin" and "dihydroxyphenyl isatin" also show up in the popular literature in connection with prunes. But I can't find these terms in the scientific literature except in a couple of really old (>50 years) articles and they seem to be referring to dihydroxydiphenylisatin, a synthetic laxative more commonly known as oxyphenisatine. I don't think this compound is found in prunes though. This review article, PMID 11401245, on the chemical composition of prunes does not mention dihydrophenylisatin, dihydroxyphenylisatin, or dihydroxydiphenylisatin. This all makes me think that the synthetic laxative drug somehow got mistakenly connected with prunes (and mistakenly spelled) in the popular press. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(sorry, is going to be tl;dr; but the issue continues and continues)
Yesterday I noticed a couple of edits by Plasmic Physics on Hydrochloric acid ( double diff), Hydrofluoric acid ( diff) and Hydrobromic acid ( diff). In all three the edit summary mentions that the data removed by Plasmic Physics is pertaining to resp. Hydrogen chloride, Hydrogen fluoride and Hydrogen bromide.
Looking at the diffs, e.g. for Hydrobromic acid, Plasmic Physics removed:
ChemSpiderID = 255
- following the link to the ChemSpider site leads to HBr, it seems to be a mixed record between
Hydrogen bromide and
Hydrobromic acid - record is named 'hydrogen bromide', but the 'Wikipedia articles' section shows both, searching for 'hydrobromic acid' only finds hydrogen bromide. ChemSpider does not make a difference between the free molecule and hydrobromic acid (note: they should have different identifiers for both, but that is not the issue)CASNo = 10035-10-6
- the record obtained is for a mixed record for hydrogen bromide and hydrobromic acid - the name commonchemistry gives to the record is 'hydrobromic acid' (note: they should have different identifiers for both, but that is not the issue)Appearance = colorless liquid
- well, it is a colorless liquidMeltingPt = -11 °C (47-49% w/w aq.)
- yep, if you cool it down, the 47-49% solution will solidify at approx. -11 °CBoilingPt = 122 °C at 700 mmHg (47-49% w/w aq.)
- yes, you can distill this stuff, the 47-49% solution will distill at 122°C/700 mmHg. You don't separate it into HBr and H2O at that point.Density = 1.49 g/cm3 (48% w/w aq.)
- yes, the 48% solution has a density of 1.49 kg/L.ExternalMSDS =
ICSC 0282
- this is the MSDS of hydrobromic acid, the liquid, albeit maybe of one specific concentration, but it is of hydrobromic acid, not hydrogen bromide.For all three diffs the changes are similar. The reasoning Plasmic Physics is giving here, is that this is not a 'pure' compound - properties are (generally) pertaining to one specific concentration (but for most fields, that is given - the appearance does not notably change with changing concentration, the MSDS may be more specific, vide infra).
Most of these fields are not incorrect (I am willing to entertain the idea that hydrobromic acid has a different InChI than hydrogen bromide, though I am not that familiar with that part of the concept of it - what would be the InChI of 48% w/w hydrogen bromide in water?).
To me, a lot of this information should be in the article, there is importance in the effect of concentration on some of the properties, for some enough to discuss them in the text. For Plasmic Physics that seems to be a reason to consider the removal of most of the chembox (even advocating the whole removal, it is not a 'pure chemical' so it should not have a chembox). I argue, that the chembox here should contain some key data, I believe that it is important for example that an interested reader opens Hydrobromic acid, and sees from the chembox that the liquid has a distinct boiling point at 48% w/w. That triggers the 'oh, you can distill this'. Of course, the user of the data may want to distill a 40% solution, and that is not in the page, but seeing that you can distill a 48% solution gives already the information that it may be possible to distill a 40% solution as well (and the article should later on then elaborate on that, what happens when you distill the different concentrations). Also the identifiers, of course, it would be great if they lead perfectly to the right compound and the right data (but of course, it may link to 48% while you are looking for the 40% solution - but the point is, that it leads to information on hydrobromic acid, maybe not the perfect concentration that you are looking for, but the identifier will bring you closer to it. If Wikipedia does not help you there, and the commonchemistry.com site does not help you there, then at least the CAS-number will snowball you to information on HBr, it will take you more work to find the correct article, but it is more than that you first will also have to find the CAS before you can do the CAS search - and we all know that searching SciFinder on 'HBr' will leave you to such an excessive amount of data, that filtering that is going to be even more difficult). Having the perfect identifier there for your compound is great and the best utility, but sometimes the second best is a good editorial choice (and there are more reasons why having those identifiers there is a good thing, not just as a link out for us chemistry-nerds needing information on hydrobromic acid), something that helps you on the way, more than a complete dismissal of all that info.
After reverting these edits, I contacted Plasmic Physics on his talkpage ( User_talk:Plasmic_Physics#Hydrofluoric acid / Hydrobromic acid), where I found out that a) Plasmic Physics removed this before (see e.g. diff), and b) it was discussed before (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Hydrogen chloride vs. Hydrochloric acid). (note, I have reincorporated the safety section as well, which was removed in said edit, the MSDS referred to is the MSDS of hydrochloric acid, albeit of unknown concentration there).
I can't but help thinking of all the other cases, just above here is Hydrogen astatide, where Plasmic Physics was edit warring with someone else about the systematic naming, and earlier there was a case with hydrates of salts (where all the hydrates were incorporated in the chembox with all their identifiers - now thinking of it, that is excessive, vide infra).
Suggested use of chembox:
Plasmic Physics, please remember who you are writing for. Seen that so many parts of the chembox where you are editing result in extensive discussions here, maybe you should consider to step away from the chembox completely (and maybe also from the drugbox) for some time (except for uncontroversial typo-fixing and vandalism reverts), and use your skills on the content of the pages (of course, you can post perceived significant problems on talkpages or here). I know you have the best intentions, but you run over and over into disagreements with other editors over these things, and I am sorry, but even if you are right, these changes are not uncontroversial, and they do need significant discussion before being applied (and when such discussions don't come to a conclusion, then leave the status quo, and maybe revisit it again in due time). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember the debate we had earlier this year? Well, it's time for action. Please join discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 26. There exists a link to our earlier debate, for reference. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to ask why many elements that have a predominant oxidation state (for example, +3 for yttrium), but their compounds articles are named like yttrium(III) chloride instead of yttrium chloride? There's some rule on Wikipedia to use this nomenclature only when it's confusing (for example, iron(II) and iron(III) are OK). Thanks-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 11:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There is Yb in the list (what's more, both YbCl3 and YbCl2). Also, why not promethium(III) oxide?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Our intermittent but determined colleague User:MotherAmy is keen to highlight the occurrence of dioxane in cosmetics and related soapy items containing products of ethoxylation (reaction with ethylene oxide), two big ingredients being sodium myreth sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate. Whether the dioxane is in the commerical products as a consequence of product degradation or imperfect ethoxylation, I dont know. But apparently several reports point to the potential health risks with the traces of dioxane. In my opinion, the health concerns merit noting, but not worth highlighting or even dominating these articles (the gist of WP:UNDUE). But I am sure that upon her return, User:MotherAmy will see things quite differently. So by this message, I am giving notice of a likely struggle where the intervention of administrators will likely be required. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Would be great if each compound page could contain instructions or pointers on how to make that compound safe for disposition, or a note why it cannot be made safe. Instructions should be oriented to laymen so that it is accessible to everyone that wants to be a good citizen and not just toss it in the bin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.212.126 ( talk) 15:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Suberic acid told me that he's sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.170.229 ( talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Palau’amine contains a character which is not on my keyboard. Is this a common ’ - or should we move the article to the Palau'amine, which uses the more common ' ?? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have some discomfort with this new article about an insecticide, which popped up on my radar screen for reasons that are not important. Chemicals are way outside my domain of knowledge, so I'm just going to raise a flag here and feel that I have done my duty. Looie496 ( talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Our pages for dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine currently list the same IUPAC name, (2S)-1-phenylpropan-2-amine, which should be corrected. I don't know which the correct one is. I'm also not sure if the structure pictures shown on the two articles are correct. AxelBoldt ( talk) 18:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Strongly recommend a non-academic template or project for topics like the following regarding chemicals, chemistry, pesticides, insecticides, fungicide, adhesives, lubricants, petroleum, minerals, mining, pharmaceuticals, ....
There appears to be an intellectual vacuum and an overall lack of structure for non-academic topics that would concern the average reader. Just about every chemical substance article needs to provide access to non-academic information needed by people that lack a college or university degree covering related topics. I hope this finds everyone well. Best regards, Nanoatzin ( talk) 07:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The existing template was written with a logical thought process in mind: What is it? How do you make it? What can you do with it? These are the most important topics to discuss in any article on a chemical - do you disagree?
Wikipedia is not a safety manual, and Wikipedia is unable to serve as an authoritative source, nor should it try. It is a general reference and a starting point to further reading. Our existing approach has been to give a brief mention of safety in the infobox. Here, the reader can get an idea of the compound at a glance using some recognized standards (R/S phrases or the new GHS, NFPA, etc.) An MSDS is usually linked; this gives much more comprehensive information which manufacturers are required to provide (and which vary by country). Unless a hazard is particularly notable, there should be no mention in the text because repetitive statements to the effect "use PPE" say nothing, really, and is clutter more than useful information.
Your proposed skeleton for articles seems to encourage advocacy, something which seems to conflict with WP:NPOV. I strongly disagree with this move. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that creating an additional "non-academic template" for articles on chemicals is unnecessary. The {{ chembox}} template is already quite thorough and content that is suitable for the article, but does not fit in the current version of the infobox can be added to the article text. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 03:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit confused here: According to ChemIDplus (search for “Scarlet GN”) the structure (position of one SO3 group) and the CAS RN are different. Could someone check this? -- Leyo 21:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Copper(II) sulfate on my proposal to merge copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate into copper(II) sulfate, where the various hydrated and anhydrous forms would be summarized. This deliberation would have implications for hundreds of articles since many transition metal salts exist in diverse solvates (not just hydrates) as well as unsolvated forms, not to mention various polymorphs of each. We welcome input, as usual.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Would someone please create the article mercapto radical (HS)? I saw it in this news story. [19] Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 19:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It's currently at Eufod, and the article originally used the term (but not the article-title) "EuFOD". Now the article says the standard names are "Eufod", "Eu(fod)", and "Eu(fod)3". I've usually seen it EuFOD (is what Aldrich calls it) or Eu(fod)3 and never with just the first letter capitalized. I'm thinking it should be renamed, wondering what others think is the correct place. DMacks ( talk) 04:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Please check, either the image, or the identifiers are incorrect. The PubChem link is for Androst-16-en-3-ol, is it the same thing? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 07:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The infobox for Uric acid is showing a red cross next to the KEGG reference, but this value is correct. What should I do, if anything, to correct this? Many thanks, Niall Jackson ( talk) 23:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Would someone who knows what they're doing please have a look at lesquerolic acid, which I've just created? I'm sure that it needs a chembox, but I haven't a clue how to make one. Thanks. Waitak ( talk) 22:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Like the nested table of the ones for morphine on its page, does anybody have a list of salts as such for cocaine with conversation ratios? I notice the crack cocaine article immediate cites a rather wide spread but dubious assertion that it is "the most addictive form" of cocaine (it has any number of easily found citations for such, we need to find one against, that in effect this is more due to the RoA, and is not even the most addictive RoA: IV is moreso, which *requires* it to be a salt). Seeing as the article is essentially the freebase article for the substance, such a list might clarify the lack of innate difference to the substance. 66.243.226.11 ( talk) 11:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Morphine-N-oxide could someone help out with an info box & information? At least so its similar to the M3G/M6G articles linked therein? Thanks 216.227.116.61 ( talk) 06:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've added this group's WikiProject tag to the above article. I'm planning to take the article to FAC soon, and would highly appreciate it if anybody could have a look at the Chemistry section to see if it meets your expectations of what an FA article should contain. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 17:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I had a few questions, could anybody give me a synopsis of how these chemicals come about, and if they're natural tropane alkaloids?:
&
[(1R,2R,5S)-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1]oct-2-yl] 3,4,5-trimethoxybenzoate CAS: 87421-59-8
Are they anything like Truxillines? (e.g. alkaloids that are UV-driven dimerization products of cinnamoylcocaines in Erythroxylum species)?
I am trying to add as many metabolite & analogue structures of cocaine (and related tropanes) to Wikipedia as I can. Nagelfar ( talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
7-Hydroxymitragynine has "7-Hydroxymitragynine" in its info box as it's IUPAC name. This is clearly wrong, but a google search just yields a whole lot of sites referencing that as its IUPAC as well. Perhaps the Mitragynine article could help (being related). Could someone please find the true IUPAC of 7HO-M? 216.227.117.69 ( talk) 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
A few months ago, I uploaded a lot of molecule pictures to Commons, and I haven't yet started the task of inserting them into articles here at en.Wikipedia. In most cases I uploaded both a ball-and-stick model and a space-filling model. In some cases the ball-and-stick model might be better, and in other cases the space-filling model might be more appropriate. In some cases it might be a good idea to show both. So it would be nice to have a semi-official guideline on which one to use, in the interest of consistency. Please leave your suggestions. Ephemeronium ( talk) 13:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Well those are one editor's views. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, guys. I myself admit I am a sucker for ball-and-stick models, and use them whenever possible. This, partly because I feel they are more intuitive to the non-chemist. One niche that space-filling models might have better is for planar molecules, such as CS gas, but more often I'd prefer a ball-and-stick model. But this is also partly for aesthetic reasons. I ask of you, when should aesthetics be considered? Aesthetics and information don't have to be mutually exclusive. An easy to understand depiction of a molecule is a thing of beauty in itself, and often the best images are the ones that look good. Ephemeronium ( talk) 18:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_November_27#All_files_in_category_Unclassified_Chemical_Structures might interest some of you. I haven't really made sense of it myself. On the one hand, some people seem to be saying that these are all low-quality images for which better ones exist, and on the other hand, someone is talking about how he'll eventually create high-quality versions of them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Chembox subst explosive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
76.65.128.198 (
talk)
07:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2005 | ← | Archive 2009 | Archive 2010 | Archive 2011 |
The Template:Chembox SystematicName has been proposed for deletion (TFD) by User:Plasmic Physics on January 2 2011. More discussion here on his invitation: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_1#Template:Chembox_SystematicName. For information. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Quotation from text above:
If the entry Template:Chembox SystematicName is irrelevant, inappropriate, and unsourceable, then I propose that such a useless entry be deleted. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 21:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Before to delete this general template, the main advantages and disadvantages of such an option should be carefully assessed and all the possible outcomes well weighted. It could potentially solve the numerous discussions and the polemic arisen from the very specialized edits made by User:Plasmic Physics in the chemboxes of simple inorganic substances but it could also have a much more severe impact on these of some complex organic substances whose IUPAC names could be lost. I have no ideas on the number of chemboxes that could be negatively affected in case of suppression of this template in use since more than 3.5 years. It seems wize to reach a consensus on the question before administrators take a decision in that matter. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra created this template on 22 March 2007 and is presently away on holiday. As announced on his talk page he may not respond swiftly to queries. It would be fair and well advised to have first his opinion on the question. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 13:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI, according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Chembox_SystematicName&limit=500 About at least 300 pages (12 screens of 25 lines, if the counting is good) could be affected by the suppression of this template. So, be prudent! It is not a good idea! Once again, considerable time and work will be lost to correct the situation just to accomodate the desiterata of one single user. It would be beter to use this template simply with discernment and not to follow inflexible rules. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 15:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Nitrofullerenes for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitrofullerenes) and proposed deletion of Octatetrazolylhydrazinecubane, two articles by the same new user. Any assistance in either verifying and saving these articles, or in concurring with the deletion arguments would be appreciated. ChemNerd ( talk) 15:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The top image in the sidebar for Propadiene ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be incorrect (and inconsistent with the 3D rendering below it). The image in question is Image:Allene.png; the possibly-incorrect version was uploaded on 13 October 2010, and replaced a correct-looking previous version according to the file history. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 21:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Main Page#Featured content for a day Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had a quick look at the timeline of chemistry page, and am wondering what the inclusion criteria are, because there are some discoveries that I would have expected to see. Off the top of my head:
This is by no means meant to be an exhausitive list of corrections, and I recognise that there may be disagreement as to whether all of these should be in the timeline. Nevertheless, I suspect that other chemists will be able to produce other lists of potential omissions and am thus concerned about how complete this timeline actually is. Thoughts? EdChem ( talk) 07:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC) PS: Further thoughts added. EdChem ( talk) 13:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that most of the subcategories in Category:Heterocyclic compounds (3 rings) have a very small number of articles in them (3 or less). These seem like overspecialized categories to me. If no one objects, I would like to empty many of them by moving the articles to more reasonable categories. Then I would like to tag them for deletion. Any comments? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As an illustration of my previous post, hereafter a list of hidden systematic names silently reinserted by
Plasmic Physics without any explanation for some simple inorganic compounds (no Edit Summary, no discussion on the Talk Page !). These names are not directly visible on the pages, but are present in the code of the page. Why ? This was done after these systematic names were previously cleaned up, most often with motivation on the discussion page or here at WT:Chem and always with a clear statement in the Edit Summary.
List of some | SystematicName = <!-- Name 1 (substitutive) OR Name 2 (additive) -->.
Common name | Systematic name (substitutive) | Systematic name (additive) |
Barium ferrate | Barium dioxoironbis(olate) | Barium tetraoxidoferrate(2-) |
Beryllium carbide | Diberylliomethylidene | Diberylliumcarbon |
Beryllium carbide | (Berylliumylidenemethylidene)beryllium | Beryllium methanide |
Curium oxide | Curium(3+) oxidandiide | — |
Prussian blue | Iron(3+) hexacyanoirontetrauide | Iron(3+) hexacyanidoferrate(4-) |
What is the real intention behind these hidden (zombie ?) names ? What is the aim pursued ? I fear it is only the visible summit of the iceberg.
Shinkolobwe (
talk)
17:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hereafter, a copy of the comment I left yesterday on the talk page of curium oxide after having discovered the last incongruity left there by Plasmic Physics in the chembox of this extremely rare compound.
| IUPACName = Curium(III) oxide<br\> | SystematicName = Curium(3+) oxidandiide
See the difference in editing here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Curium_oxide&diff=prev&oldid=407807816
The term oxidandiide cannot be found in the IUPAC Redbook 2005 ( International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005). Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK): RSC– IUPAC. ISBN 0-85404-438-8. Electronic version.).
In Table IX Continued, p. 319 (paper) or p. 331 (PDF) of the Redbook 2005, I can only find the following terms for
oxide:
Oxidanide, a very rarely encountered chemical term, seems to have been attributed to the hydroxide anion (OH–), but is never used in the practice by most of the chemists.
It is very strange that the term oxidandiide — such a crucial potential alternative term for oxide — would not have been explicitly described in the IUPAC Redbook 2005. The tentative deduction of "oxidandiide" from other terms also ending with the suffix "diide" in the IUPAC 2005 Redbook (from P-, S-, and Se-based compounds) without controlling the most common use of the term is a rigid and useless application of a non-validated rule. It seems that the IUPAC Redbook 2005 is itself still severely flawed. This is one of the most striking illustrations I have encountered yet.
I hope Plasmic Physics does not intend to rename all oxides as oxidandiides through the whole Wikipedia. :-(( Shinkolobwe ( talk) 17:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
@ Plasmic Physics; please do not remove extra }} like here - this makes chembot break articles, maybe Beetstra can comment on that too). Materialscientist ( talk) 06:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Noticed, indeed a bug. I will try and solve it one ASAP (I did not see now quickly why it breaks, it seems to have to do with the list of 4 closing curly brackets, I will try and reproduce the problem in debug mode.
As it does not do it when the 4 closing curly brackets are not connected (so either '}} }}', or two sets of '}}' on separate lines) I would suggest that if you notice them, please separate them (though it should be handled by CheMoBot properly).
Please leave notes on bugs on my talkpage, then I will react quicker. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I applied a patch/solution for this. Please notify me if the bot still breaks this . -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Seemed to work in a test-edit. I am now simply splitting }}}} into two sets of }} on two lines before parsing. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to get a third opinion on Talk:Dibenzodioxin concerning the naming of the article. Thank you. -- Leyo 17:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled upon these two examples [1] [2] where I was reverted for vandalism. My question is: Plasmic Physics keeps on adding systematic names which have never been used in literature (see his recent edits). What should I do? It is not the first time of edit warring with him, and frankly the last thing I wish is to waste time on this matter. What is the position of the project on this? Materialscientist ( talk) 05:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Nobody wants to delete a template which is transcluded to many articles. The issues are (i) if a chembox field is empty, it does not mean it must be filled up, (ii) as I understand IUPAC, names of simple (say binary) compounds do not follow systematic rules. I am more keen to hear first the opinion of the project, rather than of Plasmic Physics, on this whole issue. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the viewpoint of
Materialscientist: as for his last edits, many of my recent edits dealing with systematic names of simple (say binary) inorganic compounds were silently modified by
Plasmic Physics using a tactic to hide the changes he made: without any explicit mention in the Edit Summary (he always left it empty!), he reinserted in the chembox disputed systematic names using the syntax for hidden comments:
| SystematicName = <!-- Name 1 (substitutive) OR Name 2 (additive) -->.
See for example, what occurred
here! with the very bad looking
| SystematicName = <!-- Diberylliomethylidene (substitutive) OR Diberylliumcarbon (additive) -->.
And there is still many other cases.
I do not understand the exact motivation behind this behaviour. For the moment, I can only imagine four reasons for acting so:
In the case of a hidden agenda, such a tactic could be dubbed: creation of Zombie systematic names. Furtively re-inoculated names never die: they only sleep, awaiting to be reanimated when considered opportune.
If this hypothesis should be confirmed, this is not innocent and such a practice should be considered a highly disruptive behaviour. I do not understand the advantage of hiding systematic names. If they are good and useful, it is fine: simply show them. If they are problematic, the best is also to show them, so that they can be openly discussed with the community and improved. If they are wrong or useless, please simply admit it and desist.
Plasmic Physics, please listen and learn from the reactions of other users. You should realize that silently editing problematic systematic names in the back of many contributors cannot be considered a honest attitude. Indeed, it is not a good idea to wish (or to plan) to implement a particular idea without telling anybody. And please, also correctly fill the Edit Summary with an explicit comment clearly indicating what you are really doing. Your long history of edits considered disruptive and your recent initiative to nominate for deletion the Template:Chembox SystematicName do not argue in your favor.
I think that the present concern now deserves a user conduct RFC. Sorry if I misinterpreted the last edits of Plasmic Physics and if he has really another objective or a valuable reason for acting so: then it would be better that he clearly explains now his intentions to the community and what he really intends to do with these hidden edits.
Sorry if my patience is exhausted and if I have more and more difficult to discern good faith in these recent edits: I have lost enough time and work for controlling the veracity of these highly specialized and low-values contributions which are so misleading for the readers of Wikipedia. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 16:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I know the pillars (I did not become an administrator here just because I asked a bureaucrat to flip my bit, you know) - Blue pillar: I am not experimenting anarchy or democracy, but I do see that many editors disagree with you - solution to that is NOT continuing, but to first discuss and convince them - Green pillar: if you suggest that not giving a systematic name is giving a POV to an article .. well. I do not think there is any dispute about neutrality of the pages, just about that certain additions of systematic names are OR, there are independent refs that call acetone by the systematic name 2-propanone, but applying the rules yourself and creating these systematic names (and especially where different applications of rules give different names, as is often the problem with inorganics) is not the way forward - Yellow pillar: yes, I did not say that you could not edit, but if there is discussion on a point, then it is not a solution to proceed, but to first discuss and finish that discussion (and as noted above, you do also a lot of good work, and I did not ask you to stop with that!). And maybe, if the discussion has many editors who disagree with you, then maybe, maybe it is better to just stop with that specific task. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it is time for you to start assuming some good faith with all the editors that have concerns with the edits you perform, and addressing the concerns and convincing them, in stead of defending yourself with the policies and guidelines. I know that I was just giving good advice in my post of the 19th of Jan, at 21:21 UTC. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I think you miss again the point. This has nothing to do with the main pillars of Wikipedia. It is a pure technical question dealing with ultraspecialised edits about systematic names (SN) of chemical substances that are most often useless and sometimes misleading for the reader.
The main concern arises from the fact that your numerous ultraspecialised and repetitive edits can affect a large number of pages in a systematic way, as you did when starting a very detailed categorisation effort based on names never used (and even non-existing such as, e.g., silanuide). Then the problem becomes systemic and can no longer be ignored. This is why it triggered so many reactions from other users and what could be called a kind of social control. Without such a control Wikipedia would simply not survive, nor have acquired its present level of notability. You should not underestimate the time and work invested by other contributors to cross-checked some of your edits and to communicate you their advices. Our only wish is that you could simply understand that "a claim is a gift" and take it into account. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 01:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read the thread before posting. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 05:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Nirmos and I disagree about the nature of the OH at C-3 of estradiol. The discussion is at User talk:Nirmos#Phenol or alcohol?. Nirmos' last post says (s)he doesn't care and I could do as I pleased, but I'd like some additional input before I undo their changes. I'd also like to know whether Category:Estradiols should be kept. It contains two pages and I could add perhaps one or two, but not more. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 10:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Another one: Category:Phenols is a sub-cat of Category:Alcohols, which seems to be incorrect. Should I change that? -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 15:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Protactinium(IV) oxide requires a systematic name, User:Stone removed both substitutive and additive names:
Which one should be restored? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 10:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Irrelevant, the entry is empty and needs to be filled. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Sodium amide requires a systematic name, User:Shoy removed both substitutive and additive names:
-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Beryllium oxide requires a systematic name, User:Shoy removed both substitutive and additive names:
-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Disiloxane requires a systematic name, User:Shinkolobwe removed both substitutive and additive names:
-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
An impossible request, there are no reliable sources garuanteed to conform to IUPAC nomenclature recommendations (excluding examples from IUPAC actual). This was established in earlier discussions. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Plasmic Physics - Please, listen. What Chris has just said hereabove is very important and well thought. Because of the increasing notoriety of WP, the intricate and inappropriate systematic names you continue to introduce for simple inorganic compounds are potentially very misleading for ungraduate students and inexperienced users. A supplementary example you just edited today are the systematic names for
ammonium bifluoride.
It makes absolutely no sense for a simple inorganic compound:
NH4HF2 is nothing else than NH4F · HF and it certainly does not deserve these systematic names, particularly ammonium difluorohydrogenuide: it is wrong and should it be correct, it is never used.
Listening and taking into account advices and critics from their peers is fundamental for all scientists and is integral part of the scientific approach. Please, adopt a more open attitude and also observe how others work. Judicious observation in chemistry and science is more important than pure deduction, certainly from rigid rules. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 12:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
CID: 14935 links to several synonyms (37 in all) at: http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=14935&loc=ec_rcs.Ammonium difluoride;
Ammonium hydrofluoride;
Acid ammonium fluoride
IUPAC: azanium fluoride hydrofluoride
After better understanding the exact – and more complicated than initially expected – nature of the quite unusual HF2– species present in the ammonium hydrogen difluoride, and after an interesting discussion with Smokefoot on the subject, I started to doubt about the incorrect character of the systematic names proposed by User:Plasmic Physics. To avoid to be unjust or inequitable for him and also to avoid to possibly throw the baby with the water of the bath, I continued to search for these systematic names for ammonium bifluoride in the IUPAC 2005 Redbook. Hereafter, the results of my last searches which are also consistent with my previous searches with Google: an additive systematic name is well possible and confirmed by the IUPAC 2005 Redbook (however, 11 or 37 occurrences only can be found with Google!), but no substitutive name can be derived or confirmed (zero occurrence with Google and in the 2005 Redbook) (cfr, our previous discussion on the question in the next section of this talk page).
According to
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (2005).
Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 2005). Cambridge (UK):
RSC–
IUPAC.
ISBN
0-85404-438-8.
Electronic version. (Table III continued, p. 268 in the PDF, p. 256 on paper), the suffix "uide" is defined as follows:
"uide": suffix specifying the addition of hydride to a parent structure, accompanied by locants and multiplicative prefixes if appropriate, e.g. tellanuide, TeH3–.
There is clearly no hydride (H–) present in the bifluoride anion which only contains one central proton sandwiched between two fluoride anions: F– … HF or F–H–F– or HF2–. So, clearly, this unusual anion in which a strong hydrogen bond is gluing together a small fluoride anion and a non-dissociated HF molecule cannot be named difluorohydrogenuide and it also explains why no substitutive systematic name is given by IUPAC for the hydrogen bifluoride anion.
However, the additive systematic name difluoridohydrogenate(1–) is well given as an example in the IUPAC 2005 Redbook: see item 20 (HF2–) in the section IR-7.3 on "Additive Nomenclature", p. 126 in the PDF file, and p. 114 on the paper hardcopy.
However, I would also suggest to omit this additive systematic name from the chembox of ammonium bifluoride because the notion of hydrogenate is very rarely encountered in chemistry, not widely adopted amongst the chemistry community, and most importantly, to avoid to confuse the audience and to be misleading for the inexperienced students.
Sorry to have been so long in these explanations for this very particular case involving the quite uncommon chemical bond F– … HF. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
As concluding remark, the control of such unusual systematic names is very tedious and requires too much time and energy that could be better allocated to other more interesting or productive works. Errors in writing, or controlling, such rare systematic names can be easily done in perfect good faith by anyone of us. I think it is a supplementary valuable reason to omit them when not necessary for describing simple inorganic compounds. I do not speak here about organic substances for which it can help describing the topology of functions and groups present in complex molecular structures. Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Many inorganic compounds with simple structure still carry the stigmates of a frenetic renaming activity that occurred during the summer 2010 and many more perhaps still remain to be discovered. Simply, look at what link to the Template:Chembox SystematicName to trace such dubious, as useless, names for simple inorganic compounds. And all problematic edits are systematically pointing to one single contributor , as here.
Did the following simple inorganic compounds really deserved such esoteric systematic names?
:-(( Shinkolobwe ( talk) 00:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, other non-sense systematic names such as azinic acid (HNH2O2 = NH2O(OH)) erroneously introduced by Plasmic Physics as systematic name for nitrous acid (HNO2) have also been corrected ( see talk page). Shinkolobwe ( talk) 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
So, the lifetime of highly specialized but inappropriate contributions can be relatively long because they remain easily undetected, or that the readers are abused by their complexicity and do not dare to correct them. There is a fundamental asymmetry of forces at work. It is, in fact, much easier to make allegation to esoteric or kryptic names than to track down them with sufficient reasonable explanations to verify what they really mean. Wikipedia is very weak and poorly equipped to self-protect with respect to such persistent disrupting behaviour. :-( Shinkolobwe ( talk) 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
"Ammonium difluoridohydrogenate(1-)"? Gosh!
Folks, please note that Wikipedia is directed to chemists. It is not meant to replace chemical reference works, much less to be a battle ground for nomenclature addicts. Articles must be readable by non-chemists and must be easily edited by chemists. So please let us focus on adding interesting contents, rather than obscure nomenclature that is of no use to anyone.
From that viewpoint, chemboxes were a colossal mistake, and are one of the reasons why the body of active editors is shrinking. I have 2000 articles in my watchlist, but most edits in the past two years have been pointless cosmetic fixes --- including many pointless chembox edits.
Remember,
Wikipedia is not a database! Creating a database of chemical compounds requires much more effort, and much better tools, than we have now.--
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
12:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I have created a graph ( File:Saltwater freezing point.jpg) for a property of NaCl. It compares the freezing point temperature and salinity of brine, using existing data in the article, and the dataset ends just before reaching the maximum solubility of salt in water at 273K. Please verify that the original table data is correct, and add a citation to that information if necessary, for I will be adding the graph to article momentarily. Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 20:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid the issue, but must ask now: what is the point of the category system? Do readers actually use category pages? What can we get out of categories that cannot be obtained from master articles (like
monosaccharide) or "List of" articles? We will never figure out the "right" category for oxalyl chloride if we don't know the answer to this question.
All the best, --
Jorge Stolfi (
talk)
11:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you're right (to an extent - let's not just delete all categorisation unilaterally!), but it would be nice to have some way of navigating a list of all our compound articles. A quick road map, with all existing articles listed, rather than the (understandably) selective coverage in individual element articles. I might make such a thing in my userspace and see if it's any use. I'll probably do it by element but we'll see what's possible.
Ben ( talk) 08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
There is one good example for a category we simply do not need: Benzenehexols We should delete it.-- Stone ( talk) 10:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Here a discussion about stubs.-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 17:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Hydrosilicons was previously deleted as per WT:Chem discussions. The category has recently been resurrected by User:Kupirijo under a new name: Category:Silicon hydrides. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 05:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:Silanols was previously deleted as per WT:Chem discussions. The category has recently been resurrected by User:Kupirijo under the same name. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 05:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this a mistake? I can find many literature references to hexacyanochromate(III) (CAS#14875-14-0), but not hexacyanochromate(II). Can someone else take a look? ChemNerd ( talk) 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Ipratropium about whether this should be the bromide form or not. 64.229.101.183 ( talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in contributing to the discussion, an anonymous editor has proposed moving acetone and isopropyl alcohol to their IUPAC names. See Talk:Acetone and Talk:Isopropyl alcohol. ChemNerd ( talk) 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There's a question of a generally-relevant nature at Talk:Amino acid#Overemphasis of the neutral form. DMacks ( talk) 19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it metalate or metallate? Just wondering because I started an article on cyanometalate, but maybe it should be cyanometallate.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
An is repeatedly reverted with nonsense arguments. Of course with the help of Plasma Physics.-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Inorganic chemists like to be precise and call it dinitrogen, dioxygen, dihydrogen, to distinguish it from the atom or substituent. I suppose context is key. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
We need to define conditional rules which, determine how to add categories or stub templates for carbon containing compound articles i.e., oxolate salts, mellitic anhydride, etc.
One possible condition:
Thus, oxalic acid is organic, oxalate salts are inorganic; or carbonate is inorganic, bicarbonate is organic. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It is just a preliminary suggestion. By your reasoning carbon dioxide would be organic, because it is the last step of glucose metabolism? Who is to say that carbon tetrachloride is organic? It doesn't even follow organic nomenclature.
Smokefoot:The problem can't be wished away, because there will always be a need for stub templates.
Shinkolobwe: It makes very good sense to set an arbitrary frontier, to solve this very problem. Look at nanoscience, there is an agreement that dimensions smaller than 100 nm falls within the domain of nanoscience, only one nanometer makes the difference.
Banjah-bmm27:That just renames the same problem, then we have to find a way to sort the article into the right category, what would qualify an article for your proposed stub template? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 03:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the introductory paragraph? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Assorted categories and stub templates to contain carbon containing compounds where no C-H moeities are present? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 10:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Second possible condition:
Create, categories and stub templates for ambiguous compounds as appropriate. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 11:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I have already shown to be open to the idea of a grey area, we need to find a way to decide if an article is in the grey area or not. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 21:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
When is a too wide grey area better than a specific grey area? When is a box overspecific? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Once again, you give an answer without an answer, as is your habit. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 04:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yet, we make provision for said categorization? -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Beestra: I was being WP:Bold, besides there is no way to have known that you see it as over-categorization. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Stone: You're welcome to act five years old, but do not assume that I would responde with equal zeal or maturity. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 04:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Plasmic Physics. First, the name is Beetstra, please get it correct. Secondly, here I mention "There is no need for overspecific categorisation of these things, there is no need to put everything exactly in the one single box where it fits perfectly (I would in some cases even find such too specific categorisation of stubs hampering progress of editing Wikipedia)" and here "please stop trying to put things into overspecific boxes" - Nonetheless, you do that type of edits. And seen that the large majority of the editors here agrees that things should not be overcategorised, those edits are disruptive. Hence, it is not that only I see it as overcategorisation, all voices are that way (do others here have to say here explicitly that you are overcategorising as well, that you are putting everything into specific shades of grey, or that it is clear that you are trying to define every specific shade of grey. And it is fine that you are bold, but do not forget that WP:BRD exists (and while things are under discussion they should not be changed - which also goes for the case where the discussion does not get to a single solution - no consensus is also a form of consensus, in which case things simply don't change. Applying those (bold) changes while there is no consensus is however disruptive and likely a WP:POINT-violation. Especially since you were (09:41, 31 January 2011) asked to just leave it for the moment (still, shortly after that, diff - what, you are even edit warring over it [3] - [4] - [5] - [6]). WP:BOLD does not apply, the edits are just plainly disruptive (and I am sorry, the most of the examples I gave are also simply incorrectly categorised, I disagree with the stub-marking there). Actually, an admin should have plainly blocked you for ' Unexplained removal of stub templates after Jorgi Stolfi says ' no use caling it a stub (sic; emphasis added by me).
Maybe we all have to act here as five years old with you now, Plasmic Physics. Maybe that is the language that makes you understand. At the moment, I am categorising you in both a category of useful users ánd in a category of vandals. I could make that more specific categories, but I'd prefer that you see to it that you are removed from the latter category altogether. Hence, stop it. NOW. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
And since you responded to my thread - here you knew for sure that maybe you should be careful with overspecification - and marking Muldamine as an ester-stub .. oh my .. what happened to amine, alcohol, &c. &c. Steroid-stub makes sense, but removing {{ organic-chemistry-stub}} in favour of {{ ester-stub}} - {{ organic-compound-stub}} is really specific enough. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The previous stub template examples you listed were nonexistant, your explanaition didn't make sense. I initiated the thread to find out how to decide between organic and inorganic or another stub template for chemical articles, not to decide between sub-stub templates. I am not pushing for anything, I am using sub templates that are availiable for use. I am not the proponent of specifics, I am the proponent of the most appropriate template. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 04:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If they did exist then, rather than add a 101 stub templates, I would add organic-compound-stub, but since they don't, I wouldn't. I want rules because, you keep complaining. If there were rules, I would not have to be on the knife's edge constantly, concerned about your or other's possible complaints. -- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. We can define an organic compound as one that can participate as a reactant in organic reactions. This means that ammonium cyanate, even though it was rearranged to urea in the synthesis that started organic chemistry, is not an organic compound because that one involved a physical process, not a chemical one. However, things like chloroform are organic because this one can participate in free-radical halogenation, an organic reaction. Are you happy with this? FRE YWA 04:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
To all those who are in this WikiProject: I have some urgent news for you.
The worklist is very out-of-date. Here are some reasons for you to get back into it:
So, I hope you understand and make up your minds now. FRE YWA 07:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I know the German word Pottasche and it is only used for potassium carbonate. The mining products containing potassium like the chloride and sulfate of potassium are called Kalisalz. The Mineral Handbook USGS describes the change of the meaning from potash being only potassium carbonate to all potassium minerals in the 1950s. Now the page of potash links to the German article Kaliumcarbonate which is wrong. I will change that. One thing I wanted to know is if in chemistry this change of meaning also happened. Another point is: If I get a truckload of potash for fertilizer production could this also be potassium carbonate or is it only the sulfate and the chloride. If this is the case Pottasche and potash would have a minimal overlap.-- Stone ( talk) 20:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC) -- Stone ( talk) 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that most of the subcategories in Category:Heterocyclic compounds (3 rings) have a very small number of articles in them (3 or less). These seem like overspecialized categories to me. If no one objects, I would like to empty many of them by moving the articles to more reasonable categories. Then I would like to tag them for deletion. Any comments? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Reviving this discussion....
Based on the discussion above, I have been trying to reduce the number of categories which contain very few (very often just one!) article. About 150 such subcategories of Category:Heterocyclic compounds have been emptied and deleted. There are still many dozens, perhaps hundreds, more. Most were created by User:حسن علي البط. I have asked this user on his talk page not to create any more of these categories without first getting input from this Wikiproject, but he has not replied. In fact, he has recreated some of the deleted categories, re-added some these useless categories to articles, and even started creating all new categories for single articles. Personally I find this behavior disruptive and contrary to consensus. Could I please have a little assistance dealing with this situation? I have invited حسن علي البط to contribute to this discussion here. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 01:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
حسن علي البط continues to create new categories which apply to only small numbers of chemical compounds ( Category:Pyranoindoles, for example). This is clearly against the consensus of other wikichemists expressed here and on his talk page. ChemNerd ( talk) 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Peace on who follows the right. Dear editrors, I noticed the creation of a new category Category:Nitrotoluenes created by a professional user User:Ronhjones. Tis category is considered a subcategory of my deleted one Category:Toluenes, so I request to reset this category to enable the right categorization. I donot agree with the editor who think that the category which apply to only small number of chemical compounds is against the policy of categorization, because even this category will be subcategorized later and will be needed. With my all respect,--حسن علي البط 06:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Bringing this here again .. Today I noticed Plasmic Physics to change some Category:aldehydes to [[Category::carbaldehydes]] (where was this discussed anyway, why do we need to specify aldehydes further?). I noticed that as well on N-Formylpiperidine - which raised my eyebrows. That is NOT an aldehyde, a formamide at best ... Notably .. here is the edit that changed this compound from Category:Amides to Category:Aldehydes - totally wrong in my opinion, and today it was changed to the Carbaldehydes category.
Now, We've had numerous discussions about specialised categories, and there are many votes against it. Clearly, in my opinion, the editors that are pushing those categories show very little chemical sense, just applying their categories without even checking what it is about, and, really, calling N-Formylpiperidine an amide is more than specific enough.
I propose here, that we apply some community santion to these editors, disallowing them to do any form of category change without discussion per page. Any violation of these sanctions will result in an immediate block with increasing length. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have undone the whole set of category changes that Plasmic Physics applied today, and deleted the categories. Plasmic Physics has been asked to first discuss the changes before applying them (with the note that if there is no consensus, or if no-one applies, that he should assume that there is no consensus, and hence, that the changes should not be applied). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Plasmic Physics says it is a POV that I find their (and others) work overcategorisation, still, we have different POVs here, in other words, we do NOT have a consensus on what schemes to follow. I am sorry, that has been clear now for months, people are complaining about the mistakes and the sometimes absurdly small categories that we end up with, which means, that maybe that is not the way forward. I and others have asked others to stop and to come up with a scheme first and discuss it, but no, no-one sets up a sub-page for it somewhere, they just continue with their own work, their own undisclosed schemes, and it is just a matter of time and we are going to be back here. Asking to stop did not help, so how do we go on? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose to get rid of the old and ambiguous units ppm, ppb, and ppt. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says: "Only in the rarest of instances should ambiguous units be used, such as in direct quotations". I can see at least 3 ambiguities with these old units:
Consistent with IUPAC recommendations (see IUPAC Green Book http://old.iupac.org/publications/books/gbook/green_book_2ed.pdf and also page 1387-1388 of http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/67/8/1377/pdf), I suggest to make the following replacements:
old unit | ppt | ppm | ppb | ppt |
definition | 1E-3 | 1E-6 | 1E-9 | 1E-12 |
new unit (if mass fraction) | g/kg | mg/kg | μg/kg | ng/kg |
new unit (if mole fraction) | mmol/mol | μmol/mol | nmol/mol | pmol/mol |
A counter-argument that has been brought up is that the old, ambiguous units are still often used. In my research area (atmospheric chemistry), publications currently have a mix of the old and the new units. Although the old units still occur more often, there is a trend to the new notation. Thus, I think both would be consistent with WP:MOS which says: "In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always". RolfSander ( talk) 18:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
@Smokefoot:
"minor issues with ambiguity"
I would not call this "minor". For example, the conversion factor between a mass fraction of 1 ppb and a mole fraction of 1 ppb is 4.7 for the greenhouse gas CFC-11.
"The links provide definitions."
They don't. If they would, I wouldn't complain. Links usually go to the parts per notation page which still doesn't tell you if ppb refers to mass fraction or mole fraction.
@Materialscientist:
"I don't think we should hit non-chemists editing those articles"
I think especially the non-chemists need unambigous units. Inside a small research community, colleagues will probably know what you mean by ppb. Outsiders like non-chemists deserve an unambigous notation that does not require insider knowledge. RolfSander ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a remark: the hereabove mentioned table might even contain a more important lacune: % (per cent). In fact when one provides a fraction, it is always a good practice to define the terms above and below the fraction bar. For mass fraction, wt. % is often used while for mole fraction mol % is used. Another lacune also deals with the volume fraction often used for gases: e.g., ppm Vol. However, if the context of the measurements is clearly given by the authors, the experienced reader should not be confused. In fact, if a reader hesitates, he/she is already on the good way to solve the problem by him/herself. And by the way, it is the first time I see someone using ppt for part-per-thousand in place of part-per-trillion. So, many depends on your previous experiences and maybe also on your mother language if you are not a native English speaker (sometimes an advantage in such matters). Shinkolobwe ( talk) 23:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
At RolfSander's request, I am copying this from Talk:Greenhouse_gas#Terminology
There is a current disagreement on terminology.
In SI units, μmol/mol and mole fraction are the "correct" terminology. However, ppm is used in the IPCC documents and almost all the references.
The IPCC uses many phrases like
At first glance, the phrase "concentration of xx ppm" is technically wrong since "concentration" represents moles per liter. However, since the number of moles in a volume is known, "concentration" can also be interpreted as "fractions of a mole per mole" (depending on the units) which is what 540 ppm means. The titles of many of the references also use the term "concentration" with this meaning. In some references, the proper phrase is "a mixing ratio of xx ppm", though "mole fraction" is also correct. Many times, AR3 uses the term "abundance", as in phrases like "with abundances reaching 2,970 to 3,730 ppb".
From the IPCC TAR Glossary
In AR3, the phrase "mole fraction" is not used very often. The following is from the caption of figure 11, page 44.
The uses of multiple phrases for the same concept indicates to me that the information is pulled from many sources and/or written by different people who use different nomenclature. At any rate, it is my opinion that changing this document to use non-standard nomenclature, even if it is "more correct", is a disservice to the readers. Q Science ( talk) 07:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: In the tables above, the "old unit" was NEVER the ambiguous term "ppm", it was "a mixing ratio of xx ppm" which is a well defined phrase. Q Science ( talk) 07:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I propose the following cattree, primary categories on the left:
- Acetaldehydes (7 candidates) | - Alkanals (21 candidates) | - Alkenals (7 candidates) - Alkylalkenals (5 candidates) | - Phenylalkenals (5 candidates) | - Phenolic aldehydes (remove) | - Benzaldehydes (7 candidates) - Alkoxybenzaldehydes (9 candidates) | - Hydroxybenzaldehydes (10 candidates) | - Carbaldehydes (13 candidates) - Cycloalkene carbaldehydes (5 candidates)
Plasmic Physics ( talk) 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
They are the main contributors to the primary cats. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you asking about the primary cats or the secondary cats? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I would categorise it under carbaldehydes, alternatively, instead of creating a primary carbaldehyde cat, make cycloalkene carbaldehydes a secondary cat under benzaldehydes.
Plasmic Physics (
talk)
00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Benzaldehydes is a special case, that's why it is a stand alone category, smiliar to acetaldehydes and alkanals. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 01:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Semantics? Really? Phenylalkenals are generally more reactive than alkylalkenals, they may participate in certain chemical reactions that alkylalkenals are excluded from. The aldehyde group is usually more acidic than alkylalkenals, phenylalkenals are more often carcinogenic. The aldehyde category as it currently stands, does not aid in locating articles that are reasonably well associated through their chemical properties, and only serves as a global list. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 02:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Category:Aldehydes | - Category:Benzaldehydes (where the aldehyde group is on an aromatic group) | - Category:Aliphatic aldehydes (where the aldehyde group is connected to an sp3-type carbon | - Category:Aldoses (for the 'aldehyde-sugars')
Note, I agree, the recently created Category:Phenolic aldehydes should be depopulated, maybe into a Category:Benzaldehydes category - that is just the thing I mean with overcategorisation - what is next, Category:Phenolic toluene aldehydes, Category:Brominated phenolic toluene aldehydes. That is just the thing that pushes it too far. If there are not too many functional groups, they go into both Category:Phenols ánd Category:Benzaldehydes, if there are too many functional groups, they should go into e.g. Category:Aromatic compounds (although I would not have a huge problem with putting them in a large set of categories for all general functional groups they have).
Splitting up the category tree too far is NOT helping the reader. Readers will look at a compound, think 'that is an alcohol' - so Category:Alcohol, they don't see it in the main category, but notice ' Category:Phenols' - that is closer so they go there .. and the compound should be there. They do not go to Category:Phenols to go to Category:Phenolic toluenes/ Category:Phenolic aldehydes to go to Category:Phenolic toluene aldehydes/ Category:Brominated phenolic aldehydes/ Category:Brominated toluene aldehydes/ Category:Brominated phenolic toluenes/... to get finally to their compound in Category:Brominated phenolic toluene aldehydes (hey, and now I only have 4 functional groups, there are some pretty exotic molecules out here on Wikipedia which also contain amide, ether and other halogens). Do apply KISS to this, please. And note, most readers will not even go through a category tree already, as it is too complex.
And based on that,
Category:Aldehydes is significant, but it does not, yet, warrant a full splitting into too much (it is still just one page in the category). Categorisation is not a means to have everything correct, it is, still (though a lot of people hardly use it), just a way to be able to find articles relatively quickly. Note that we also don't have
Category:Nobel prize winners that were born a Russian, from German descendance, now carrying a Dutch passport and working in the United Kingdom. Such are categorised as
Category:Nobel prize winners
Category:Nobel laureates in Physics,
Category:Dutch people of Russian descent, .. the cross-categorisation does the trick, and when you do need to find your compound which is an
aldehyde and a
phenol, you go
here. --
Dirk Beetstra
T
C
08:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, what if we focus on the most important primary cats first and ignore my secondaries.
- Category:Acetaldehydes | - Category:Alkanals | - Category:Alkenals | - Category:Benzaldehydes
Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
When I first suggested the cattree, I designed it according to structural, not chemical similiarity. It only appeared that way for I had to explain the chemical difference after the IP enquired.
I can combine the suggested categories, but I need to mention that the reason for the Acetaldehydes cat, is that it is a special case as acetaldehyde derivatives are important and well known within the class of aldehydes.
Does that mean, the last three cats are supported? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll construct a hypothetical model of primary subcats for amines. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 11:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see that there even a minimal subdivision of the aldehydes, as I suggested (with already there 'if any, the tree could be'), nor as others have suggested, does not seem to gain any traction, the editors generally think it is just not necessary. I think we should just not split up the aldehydes. I will also de-populate the 'phenolic aldehydes' (which I think is way too specific). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I had a go at "categorising" our aldehyde articles: User:Benjah-bmm27/aldehydes. I do not suggest we actually apply this scheme. It might be useful for making a template for the n-alkyl aldehydes, or something similar. But it was really just for me to get my head round the similarities and differences between the aldehydes we have articles on. A tribute to procrastination and the Victorian obsession with classification
Ben ( talk) 18:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a similiar article: User:Plasmic Physics/Aldehydes. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Notice: I nominated a few ball-and-stick models without hydrogens for deletion: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 14 -- Leyo 00:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I won't disagree with deleting those you nominated, but excluding hydrogens is quite acceptable in some contexts. Even excluding entire fragments. Of course, this is usually stated explicitly. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The tragedy of Fukushima and the explosion of hydrogen gas above the containment buildings of nuclear reactors pose the delicate question of the reactivity of zirconium and zirconium alloys with water steam at high temperature in a damaged nuclear reactor core. The page about zircaloy should deserve a special attention and the contribution of critical reviewers. See also the talk page for questions and useful references: Talk:Zirconium alloy. Any help would be appreciated. Shinkolobwe ( talk) 14:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently saw this comment at Talk:Pentaerythritol tetranitrate.
Do we generally aim to include explicit (non-skeletal) formulas in articles that many non-chemists are likely to read?
I think it's probably a good aim unless the explicit formula would be so crowded it's illegible/confusing.
Ben ( talk) 10:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
See, I think this is actually something of a failure of WP:CHEM. It's condescending to assume all readers who don't understand skeletal formulas don't understand structural formulas. Anyone who's studied chemistry to GCSE level in the UK should understand structural formulas, but unless they've done A-level chemistry, they won't understand skeletal formulas.
I propose adding one of the following images to the article Pentaerythritol tetranitrate:
Ben ( talk) 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Dirk: I have the same opinion as you. I'm not advocating such images for every molecule we have an article on, just for ones that (i) are of significant interest to non-chemists and (ii) are perfectly possible to draw neatly with explicit hydrogens.
Ed: The above structures are based on the crystal structure of PETN, looking down the S4 axis. From this angle, it pretty much IS swastika shaped! It's the highest symmetry view of the molecule. I'm about to upload a 3D picture, I just had to wait to get home to my PC to make it. This is one of the main reasons I make so many 3D models - I think they're accessible to almost anyone who knows what a molecule is. The same cannot be said for skeletal formulae.
Leyo: I think misleading a reader as to the exact C-C-O angle is much less likely and much less of a concern than excluding them by refusing to describe the connectivity of the molecule in a language they can understand. Bond angles are a subtlety, connectivity is generally the most important aspect of molecular structure. Your comment that some of our readers are "dummies" alarms me – do you really think we should make Wikipedia an elitist place where the articles are impenetrable unless you're already trained in the field? We can make pentaerythritol tetranitrate easier to understand, without damaging it, so we should.
New images: a less swastika-y semistructural formula and a ball-and-stick model:
Jmol models of the PETN molecule and crystal packing for you to examine yourself. See if you can find a good orientation without atoms clashing - not easy! http://www.benjamin-mills.com/chemistry/structures/PETN/
Ben ( talk) 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
My view is very similar to yours, Walkerma. I'm going to update my image description pages so they have a link to the Wikipedia article explaining how to interpret them. See, for example, File:Serotonin-2D-skeletal.png. What about a question mark in each chembox that links to information on structural images, similar to the one at Japanese language? Where feasible, we should have skeletal and explicit structural formulas side by side. The skeletal formula satisfies trained chemists, the explicit formula satisfies those who've never seen a skeletal formula, and having both together satisfies those who are learning (or still mastering their understanding of) skeletal formulas.
Leyo: sorry for the outburst. Your English is so good, I forget it's not your first language. I do, however, wish to fight the corner of the GCSE or A-level student. It's easy to fail to meet their needs when we follow our intuition about what looks neatest.
Ben ( talk) 11:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
ImageName*
fields are displayed (pointing but not clicking on the triangle form of
cyclopropane pops up a "Cyclopropane - skeletal formula" box). However, with popups enabled, instead the pop-up box includes actions for the image description-page. If that page includes a statement about the image form and link to info about it (like Ben's), then that's visible and clickable to learn more (unlike the ImageName* boxes). However however,
that only works for local images--images transcluded from commons do not have their file-desc page contents displayed in en.wp popups (compare the behavior of top-left(commons) vs bottom-left (local) at
[7]). That's...not useful.
DMacks (
talk)
10:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)I just stumbled across 2-Bromo-1-chloropropane, which is a bad example. Apart of the SVG bug, IMHO the image should be mirrored in order to have the 1 position on the left hand side and a skeletal formula is not the right choice here. Would a wedged bond to option of choice here to show that there is a chiral center? -- Leyo 20:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
For articles on racemates, only one enantiomer should be depicted ordinarily. In cases where no atom is stereogenic, it may be helpful to depict both enantiomers, e.g. [Co(ethylenediamine)3]3+.
I know the IUPAC says not to use "+ enantiomer", and I know that some other wikis (perhaps de?) prefer for both enantiomers to be included, but OUR MOS which we all agreed on, says to show only one enantiomer. As a side note, Jü ( talk · contribs) has been going around "fixing" these images contrary to our MOS. Personally, if the bonds are not dashed or wedged at a chiral center, the article simply refers to a racemic mixture. You can emphasize it with a wiggly line if needed, but it seems unnecessary to me. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 20:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Where can I find a list of WikiProject Chemistry or Chemicals articles, sorted by number of hits or popularity?
Ben ( talk) 12:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin, really helpful.
Ben ( talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
category:organosilicon chalcogenides
category:organosilicon oxides
category:silyls
category:silicon hydrides
category:silicate esters
There are a bunch of chemical structure images listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 23 if anyone would like to contribute to the discussions. ChemNerd ( talk) 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
To anyone interested in a possible merger of chembox and drugbox, or in the layout of drug articles: Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes might be of interest. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 14:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I tagged the ball-and-stick models uploaded by this new user as disputed. Does anyone experienced with such images willing to support him/her to create correct and high quality models? -- Leyo 21:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard this term used in the sense described in the article. Should this be rewritten, or redirected to Quaternary ammonium cation, or am I just uninformed? See also Ternary compound, Binary compound. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 16:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I work a bit in WikiProject Spaceflight and, in the process of adding and linking information about a new rocket engine today, I ran into a relatively new—and seemingly interesting—polymer material called nonburnite. I found only the one Wikipedia article that briefly mentioned it, so I added a redir page for Nonburnite that would take the reader to that page. I also did a bit of googling and found an abstract summarizing the material thusly: "a nonflammable, high-strength, lightweight thermoplastic fluoropolymer composite material, trademarked NonburniteTM, which is suitable for making reusable, reliable, low cost cryogenic tanks and structures for space flight service." I have added that particular quote, plus the rest of the abstract, to the nonburnite redir Talk page. It appears that NASA is funding some of this research, so have added the redir page to the spaceflight wikiproject. Perhaps it is of interest to your wikiproject as well.
So why did I write this? I have no idea what makes a new material become of interest to the materials science folks, or when it would be sufficiently notable for its own article, but did think I should draw this to someone's attention. I could not find a WikiProject Materials Science project, so thought I would just mention it here. It seems a bit of an interesting and capable chemical polymer compound to me. Cheers. — N2e ( talk) 16:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Advice is welcome on nonylated phenols. Seems esoteric, I know, but many commercial products (contraceptives, cosmetics) that are probably checked on Wikipedia contain "nonyl" groups, so we want to get it right. I am guessing that most nonylated compounds, such as nonoxynols are derived from branched C9's, as shown in nonylphenol (although that particular branching might be wrong) obtained from propene oligomers. I just dont think that industry has straight-chain nonene available cheaply, and if they did, the alkylation of phenol would produce the 2-nonyl derivatives. There are probably other articles in this area. But my main request is for input on how to represent such molecules, which are used as ingredients so often.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 12:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The guys on the chemistry project of de:WP recently dismantled [8] this articles german translation [9], after finding that most books list Cu(I)-F as only existant in melt and disproportionating upon cooling. Put together, there seemingly is no phase with sphalaerite structure of this substance. Regards, -- Maxus96 ( talk) 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, well maybe one of our friendly admins should delete it then. Chris ( talk) 09:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I did a SciFinder search for CuF. There are about 300 papers mentioning it, most of them theoretical or discussing the gas-phase CuF monomer or its complexes. A good, recent paper ( Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. (2010) 12, 8438-8445) has this to say:
Might be worth keeping the article, if only to note that CuF is of dubious existence – better to say so explicitly than ignoring the matter. Could be converted to a subsection of copper(II) fluoride. Or perhaps we could create an article on nonexistent compounds. There's a book on the topic, based on W. E. Dasent, "Non-existent compounds", J. Chem. Educ. (1963) 40, 130–134. Aluminium carbonate is another simple compound that doesn't normally form.
Ben ( talk) 20:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently, a major reduction in content of the hydrochloric acid chembox occured. The predominant reason given was a widespread overlap with the hydrogen chloride chembox.
Key questions:
Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Beetstra: Your example of nitric acid doesn't really work. The chembox data pertains mainly to hydrogen nitrate, not a solution of it. This is of the same style as hydrogen chloride, not hydrochloric acid. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 11:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the creation of Category:Cyclopentanes and Category:Cyclohexanes which already have articles categorized in them, and are analogous to the existing category Category:Cyclopropanes? Also, should the categories be renamed like "Cylcopropane derivatives", etc.? ChemNerd ( talk) 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Depopulate these categories. There will be such an amount of compounds in there, that it is unhandleable. Are we now going to call steroids a cyclohexane? This is not a functional group, unhelpful. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I've emptied these categories, but there is still a lot of cleaning up to do. User:حسن علي البط is now made very aware of the result of his actions, and has acknowledged that he knows that. Another warning was left by DMacks about this as well. I found that there was an unanswered thread on User talk:حسن علي البط regarding this with pretty much the same message. It is now a final warning. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The views of folks interested in articles about chemicals are particularly wanted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#RfC:_Are_the_medication_articles_too_technical_and_if_so_what_should_we_do_about_it.3F. Please have a look and share your thoughts on how to best structure articles about medications. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to talk with everyone intersted in categorization of chemical compounds. First I admit and confess that I was to some sort selfish and that I ignored discussing my opinion with editors and that was because I was ambitious and energyful. Now I need your help. That is right my work was haphazard but I promise I will change that.
My point of view is summarized in the following:
First, on the large scale:
For that I created many categories to enable simplicity in handling chemical compounds even for beginers and amateurs, since each category with its main article would explain itself effectively.
Second, on the tiny scale: I think that categorizing compounds may be related to anatomy in medicine which describing each organ (here chemical group or moiety) with the most possible details. Sucategorization enable us to differnaite between compounds even the category contain only one member. This point is what gives power to Wikipediak as we can look for a certain compound by only knowing that it contain a certain group enen like Cyclohexane moiety. What do u think? User:حسن علي البط --حسن علي البط 06:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see Special:Contributions/حسن_علي_البط, this user has started a massive categorization campaign with many (if not all) new categories being nonsensical or useless (e.g. any complex drug molecule that has an OH group anywhere, even as hemiacetal, was added to Category:Alcohols). Please could somebodyvrevert this and stop that guy? Thanks, Cacycle ( talk) 06:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I met with Robert Hanson (chem professor and Jmol developer) at ACS Anaheim, and he has said that there is now a reliable, public website (run by NIH), providing Jmol renditions of molecules in 3D. These are apparently given a basic energy minimisation (though I'm not sure of the method), so they should (other than in a few unusual cases) represent the "normal" shape of the molecule in 3D. As I understand it, this would allow us to provide our readers access to minimised 3D structures that can be manipulated, but without needing to download Jmol.
Dr. Hanson has proposed three possible options:
I have proposed that we discuss this on IRC at #wikichem, Tuesday April 12 at 1500h UTC (11am US Eastern Daylight Time, 1600h British Summer Time). You can also comment below. Walkerma ( talk) 16:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Walkerma for alerting me to this discussion. The IRC meeting is midnight in Melbourne and I am not a late bird. My brain would probably be switched off by then if I stayed up for it. I have added a link to this discussion at Wikipedia:Using Jmol to display molecular models, which is where the using jmol on WP idea was first discussed. It would be great to have jmol images in WP articles and keeping the files on Commons is a good idea, if the files can be released under an open license. I want the jmol image to be in the article itself so the reader can look at the image while reading the article, not going to a separate page as the examples above. Over the years I have dispaired of this ever happening. I am not entirely clear of what is being proposed above, but I have one question - can this idea be trialled on WP without getting new technical stuff added to mediawiki by the WMF developers? I talked to Tim Starling, a WMF developer, about this years ago and I know he had many concerns. I have not talked to him about it recently as he now lives in New South Wales, not Melbourne. If we could have something to show him, he might be convinced. I will try to add more before the IRC meet. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Which categories should 2,5-Xylidine be in? take a look at the history... (it is not the only xylidine which have lost its categories) -- Christian75 ( talk) 18:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear WP Chemicals members - over at WikiProject Stub sorting we have a problem! There used to be a stub category Category:Natural phenols and polyphenolic compound stubs, but, seeing as there was no related permanent (non-stub) category it was split into its two separate parts, Category:Natural phenol stubs and Category:Polyphenol stubs. Un fortunately, there are no stub sorters who can easily tell from the article which of the stubs should be in which category - most of the articles don't directly say, but instead refer only to the specific type of chemical (I wouldn't know the difference between a furalflavonol and a glycoside if they came up and introduced themselves, let alone know which was a polyphenol, if either). Could any of you who specialise in organic chemicals have a look through Category:Natural phenol stubs and see which ones should be marked with {{ polyphenol-stub}} rather than (or as well as) {{ natural-phenol-stub}}? Cheers! Grutness... wha? 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Template:Protactinium has been nominated for deletion; see WP:TFD#Template:Protactinium. We (or at least I) would like to know more about the templates in this category, and the pros and cons of wikilinks in chemical formulas. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved admin close the discussion at Template talk:Drugbox#Drugbox/Chembox merger vs. two infoboxes? I think the outcome is pretty clear, but I'd prefer it the formal way – this question (or similar ones) has been brought up quite often, and never led to anything. We really should start doing things this time. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 14:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Chemical substances has been proposed to be merged into Category:Chemical compounds. 65.94.45.160 ( talk) 06:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Ebe123 ( talk · contribs) has run through quite a few of our articles. I worry that too many useful links have been removed. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 17:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at the edit history for Trimethylsilyldiazomethane. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 13:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
These new articles about chemical fragments seem non-notable and quite useless to me. I'm inclined to propose them for deletion. Any thoughts? ChemNerd ( talk) 13:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
Chembox}}
allows to autogenerate chemical formula by specifying elements (C = 1, H = 2, etc.). This is convenient (mass is auto-calculated and the input is simple) and therefore is used in many articles, but results in weird formulas like Cl3W, etc., because the ordering is alphabetic. This ordering is accepted by suppliers but not scientists. Proposal: change it to the IUPAC system, where the elements are listed in order of their position in the periodic table, read from bottom to top, left to right, and hydrogen between groups 15 and 16. Beetstra suggested to bring this here. Please comment/vote.
Materialscientist (
talk)
07:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of templates with a name structure Template:(Element) compounds? Example: Template:Mercury compounds. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 10:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not just go to the corresponding category? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to discuss this thoroughly here. There seems to be some overlap with chembox other, and unless some editorial discretion is exercised, the lists are meaningless and unmaintainable. For example, are we looking at the principle compounds? Or all the binary compounds? Surely not everything! I'll ask the editor to come by. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, but beware, there is more than one editor. Example {{ Silicon compounds}}. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 06:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Now that we've decided, who will enforce? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It sounds good. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What about creating Category:Hypothetical chemical compounds for such articles? -- Leyo 12:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, nice idea. Go for it. -- Ben ( talk) 15:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Check template:Ionbox created by Graeme Bartlett. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 06:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
(If this is the wrong forum for this, feel free to move it to the correct forum ! )
I just made a cosmetic change on the drug box for
Bleomycin , as I've never worked with a drug box before I've left a note over there
On the talk page. Feel free to take a look, and if I've botched it up, feel free to change it and let me know where I erred. Thanks
KoshVorlon
' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris
18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just uploaded, with the author's permission, over 200 files from here. Some of you may find them helpful in certain articles. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 13:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
@Chemicalinterest: Could you please link a gallery or upload log with those images? -- Leyo 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The images look very nice - a really good contribution. In the case of chromyl chloride one can see that it is volatile from the reddish head-space. It is probably worthwhile weeding out some questionable images, or at least explain to readers what they are viewing. The new image of nickel(II) sulfate does not jive with the existing image, which is a nice sample of the hydrate. In that case, I would remove the newer image since we are unsure about the state of hydration. In the case of niobium pentachloride, the new image shows a liquid, but the material is yellow solid, so that one also is difficult to reconcile. I think that really good phosphorus pentasulfide (rarely seen) is actually yellow vs the cruddy brown shown, but that image is still the best that is out there. I hope that other chemists will look over the assortment uploaded by ChemInterest to check for potential issues.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ OrganicBox hbond donor}} and {{ Style OrganicBoxTD 2}} have been nominated for deletion. 65.95.15.60 ( talk) 06:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
May I direct your attention to this important discussion on the categorization on Commons? -- Leyo 16:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that someone added a ChEMBL number to the infobox in the Bismuth subsalicylate article that looks legitimate. However, a red X now appears next to it. Could someone please verify this addition and update the bot responsible for adding checkmarks and red X's to these infoboxes if the addition is legitimate? Thank you. I am a computer engineer, not a chemist. Therefore, I do not want to falsely verify this stuff because I am not qualified to do so. Jesse Viviano ( talk) 22:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking of proposing this list for deletion. It's full of errors, either because the original list [12] is poorly defined to begin with (what's "organorhodium complex PMN-82-147", with no cas number?), or because of editors adding their favorite compounds with no basis. For example, ricin's not in the real list, as are others I've removed today. This list "article" requires a rather dedicated effort to keep it in line with the official list which does vary over time. I would opine it's not really maintainable, and we are better off without this "article". Comments? Is there any value in having this "article" in WP? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 22:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The list is really long, and the official form of the list does not lend itself to wikilinking. I first tried to validate the list one-by-one according to the reference, but I got confused after a while. I tried to prepare the list again according to the reference from scratch, but gave up after half an hour. If it were easily maintainable, I'd be in favor of keeping the wikilinked list. It's not really encyclopedic in itself but it is a convenient directory (WP:NOT#DIRECTORY notwithstanding). I would rather delete the "article" than keep it in its present unreliable form. If we do keep it, can we divide the task of maintenance and verification so that the problem is a little more manageable? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. As indicated by my user name, I work for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Given the popularity of Wikipedia and the sometimes contentious nature of things we regulate (e.g. pesticides), I proposed to my management that EPA somehow get involved in Wikipedia content when facts related to the agency's purview are substantively misstated here. I finally got the necessary approvals and am now trying to recruit Wikipedians who can help incorporate our comments into the content. The first topic we hope to clean up is Clothianidin. Since this is USEPA's first official foray into editing Wikipedia, we're taking a conservative approach to editing content. I've posted the recommendations from EPA's subject matter experts on my talk page, and I'm hoping I can get input from this group about our approach and suggested edits. Please drop by and comment if you're interested. USEPA James ( talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I chatted with Alex Allerdyce from ChemAxon, a chemical software company, while I was at the ACS meeting in Anaheim. They are a commercial operation, but they are very supportive of education and also of volunteer communities like Wikipedia, and they give much of their software away for free to people like us. Some of it is really only suitable for big pharma, but they have a lovely toy called "Chemicalize" that marks up an article with structures. For example, you can hover over a name like capsaicin, and it shows the structure for you. If you click on a wikilink, the new page is "chemicalized" as well. You can see the effect on these pages:
As a result of our discussion, they are putting together a MediaWiki extension for Firefox, which (as I understand it) would operate much faster than going via chemicalize.org. Any chemist who wanted to "chemicalize" their Wikipedia browsing could download it, if they wanted it. This is the description Alex gave: "To recap we would be producing a mediawiki plugin for version x (and above preferably) which, for your test pages, would automatically extract chemical names (and other chemical file types) from text and annotate the text with dotted red underline and add an image (via tooltip) of the extracted structure. Unlike here, there would be no chemical table of contents across the top and the URL would not have "...chemicalize.org..." in it and would be the same as before."
They have been working on the design, and they are now at the point where they need our input. Their specific questions are:
Please could you give your feedback below. Also, I will set up an IRC meeting with Alex Allerdyce for (hopefully) next week for people to ask more about it. I think that if we provide input, they could provide us with a really useful tool (for example, chemical searches?), but if we don't explain what we want, it will be of limited value. So, please advise! Walkerma ( talk) 15:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Chemists!
I corresponded with the DOT and verified that all of their hazard symbols are public domain. There are about 40 of them. Wonder if there is someone interested in uploading them? See [13]. TCO ( talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
P.s. I used the 4 signs for F transport in the F article and it came out very nice as a graphic to illustrate precautions. There is some other document that says what is required when. (Note, not advocating "how to" on transport. Just describing some aspects of usage, one of which is here.) TCO ( talk) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place here. [14] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
{{ Chemformula}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 04:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency with o-Toluic acid and m-Toluic acid, and per WP:COMMONNAME, can someone move 4-Methylbenzoic acid to p-Toluic acid? It seems to require an administrator to do this, because the title exists as a rediect. Thanks. ChemNerd ( talk) 20:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Banned Aoganov ( talk · contribs) is back on Mohs hardness and titanium dioxide, where he is launching a new controversy between himself and his old nemesis Dubrovinskaia. I don't see any secondary sources or notability of said controversy, and thus reverting his edits, and get reverted back, thus someone please have a look (at titanium dioxide foremost) to resolve edit warring. Materialscientist ( talk) 14:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Should the student-generated data found at an open source notebook be used as a source of data in the infoboxes for our chemical articles? ( example for benzoic acid used as a source for non-aqueous solubility at benzoic acid) My conclusion is that it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria outlined at WP:RS. I brought this up before, a couple of years ago ( archived here) and data from this source was removed. But it seems that student supporters of that project have reintroduced the data. I think it would be good to establish a firm consensus about whether to use this data or not, so I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Student-generated_open_notebook_data - please contribute to the discussion there. ChemNerd ( talk) 18:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
2,5-Furandicarboxylic acid's not been reassesed in over two years, but has grown more than 11k bytes since. It seems to me it should rank as B-/High. -- Belg4mit ( talk) 04:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Some other opinions on how to categorize on Commons would be good. -- Leyo 21:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to have it expanded. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Olaflur2.png and File:Dectaflur.png show alkylated ammonium fluorides, while PubChem ( [15], [16]) says they are amine hydrofluorides, i.e. the N is not protonated. While I generally don't trust PubChem too much, they may be right here, seeing that the alkylated amines should be pretty weak bases. Any ideas what the preferred form should be? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 08:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
A lot (quick search suggests 191) of MSDS appear to come from jtbaker.com - since this company appears to have changed, the links to the MSDS no longer work (eg triphenylphosphine. I suggest removing all the links from infoboxes' MSDS sections to jtbaker.com. It may be sensible to replace them with a link to the appropriate hazard.com search, eg PPh3, rather than a specific MSDS. I'm unsure of the details, but presumably a check of these searches and selection of a more appropriate link if necessary may be incorporated into the infobox validation? Any thoughts? I imagine this would be trivially achievable via AWB and am happy to give it a go. Mart inp23 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing that we finally have a go at this, because we have an opportunity to work with a group who are looking at melting point validation in general. I've written up my thoughts here, and invited the group to join us on IRC on Thursday, July 28th at 1500h UTC (11am US EDT) on #wikichem. Please join us for the IRC, even if you don't plan to work on the validation effort, because we need to get the input of the Wikipedia chemistry community. Thanks! Walkerma ( talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Would any administrator out there be so kind as to move octathiocane to cyclooctasulfur? -- Ben ( talk) 15:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
How about octasulfur? That's how NIST lists it, and it sounds simpler. GHits for octasulfur and cyclooctasulfur are ~ 3k, octathiocane ~ 1.4k.-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 16:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the move. Would you mind doing the same for S6: Hexathiane → Hexasulfur? -- Ben ( talk) 17:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
A user is repeatingly removing referenced systematic names, without a willingness to discuss, or an apparent understanding of systematic naming. Requesting mediation? Note, this user has a recent history of disrutive edits. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 23:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone put a warning up at the top of this page that some information is incorrect. I don't have the time to sort it out, so if anyone wishes to look into it, that would be great. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit war at Hydrogen astatide has gone on long enough. Both User:Plasmic Physics and User:Fivexthethird should stop reverting each other. I count at least twelve reversions, a ridiculous number considering the three revert rule. Plasmic Physics has initiated a discussion at Talk:Hydrogen astatide.
On the matter in question, the IUPAC Red Book 2005 specifically mentions HAt in Table IX on page 298. It says:
According to the explanatory text preceding the table, the latter name is used to refer specifically to molecular HAt (is there any other kind of HAt?).
In my opinion, acrimonious disputes over nomenclature reflect badly on Wikipedia. I get the feeling this dispute is less about finding the correct IUPAC name for an obscure compound and more about editors throwing their weight around, seeking some sort of dominance or ownership of a little piece of the internet. -- Ben ( talk) 12:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Really? Couldn't you have just discussed it with Fivexthethird earlier? Why is it always someone else's fault? -- Ben ( talk) 15:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble verifying the new article dihydrophenylisatin. The chemical name does not appear in SciFinder, ChemSpider, Reaxys, PubMed, or PubChem. Web searches only turn up non-authoritative sites mentioning it as a constituent of prunes. Is this something that someone just made up and then it got spread around the internet? Or is it a misspelling (or uncommon synonym) of a real chemical compound? Any ideas, chemists? -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, here is more that I have turned up. The terms "dihydroxyphenylisatin" and "dihydroxyphenyl isatin" also show up in the popular literature in connection with prunes. But I can't find these terms in the scientific literature except in a couple of really old (>50 years) articles and they seem to be referring to dihydroxydiphenylisatin, a synthetic laxative more commonly known as oxyphenisatine. I don't think this compound is found in prunes though. This review article, PMID 11401245, on the chemical composition of prunes does not mention dihydrophenylisatin, dihydroxyphenylisatin, or dihydroxydiphenylisatin. This all makes me think that the synthetic laxative drug somehow got mistakenly connected with prunes (and mistakenly spelled) in the popular press. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(sorry, is going to be tl;dr; but the issue continues and continues)
Yesterday I noticed a couple of edits by Plasmic Physics on Hydrochloric acid ( double diff), Hydrofluoric acid ( diff) and Hydrobromic acid ( diff). In all three the edit summary mentions that the data removed by Plasmic Physics is pertaining to resp. Hydrogen chloride, Hydrogen fluoride and Hydrogen bromide.
Looking at the diffs, e.g. for Hydrobromic acid, Plasmic Physics removed:
ChemSpiderID = 255
- following the link to the ChemSpider site leads to HBr, it seems to be a mixed record between
Hydrogen bromide and
Hydrobromic acid - record is named 'hydrogen bromide', but the 'Wikipedia articles' section shows both, searching for 'hydrobromic acid' only finds hydrogen bromide. ChemSpider does not make a difference between the free molecule and hydrobromic acid (note: they should have different identifiers for both, but that is not the issue)CASNo = 10035-10-6
- the record obtained is for a mixed record for hydrogen bromide and hydrobromic acid - the name commonchemistry gives to the record is 'hydrobromic acid' (note: they should have different identifiers for both, but that is not the issue)Appearance = colorless liquid
- well, it is a colorless liquidMeltingPt = -11 °C (47-49% w/w aq.)
- yep, if you cool it down, the 47-49% solution will solidify at approx. -11 °CBoilingPt = 122 °C at 700 mmHg (47-49% w/w aq.)
- yes, you can distill this stuff, the 47-49% solution will distill at 122°C/700 mmHg. You don't separate it into HBr and H2O at that point.Density = 1.49 g/cm3 (48% w/w aq.)
- yes, the 48% solution has a density of 1.49 kg/L.ExternalMSDS =
ICSC 0282
- this is the MSDS of hydrobromic acid, the liquid, albeit maybe of one specific concentration, but it is of hydrobromic acid, not hydrogen bromide.For all three diffs the changes are similar. The reasoning Plasmic Physics is giving here, is that this is not a 'pure' compound - properties are (generally) pertaining to one specific concentration (but for most fields, that is given - the appearance does not notably change with changing concentration, the MSDS may be more specific, vide infra).
Most of these fields are not incorrect (I am willing to entertain the idea that hydrobromic acid has a different InChI than hydrogen bromide, though I am not that familiar with that part of the concept of it - what would be the InChI of 48% w/w hydrogen bromide in water?).
To me, a lot of this information should be in the article, there is importance in the effect of concentration on some of the properties, for some enough to discuss them in the text. For Plasmic Physics that seems to be a reason to consider the removal of most of the chembox (even advocating the whole removal, it is not a 'pure chemical' so it should not have a chembox). I argue, that the chembox here should contain some key data, I believe that it is important for example that an interested reader opens Hydrobromic acid, and sees from the chembox that the liquid has a distinct boiling point at 48% w/w. That triggers the 'oh, you can distill this'. Of course, the user of the data may want to distill a 40% solution, and that is not in the page, but seeing that you can distill a 48% solution gives already the information that it may be possible to distill a 40% solution as well (and the article should later on then elaborate on that, what happens when you distill the different concentrations). Also the identifiers, of course, it would be great if they lead perfectly to the right compound and the right data (but of course, it may link to 48% while you are looking for the 40% solution - but the point is, that it leads to information on hydrobromic acid, maybe not the perfect concentration that you are looking for, but the identifier will bring you closer to it. If Wikipedia does not help you there, and the commonchemistry.com site does not help you there, then at least the CAS-number will snowball you to information on HBr, it will take you more work to find the correct article, but it is more than that you first will also have to find the CAS before you can do the CAS search - and we all know that searching SciFinder on 'HBr' will leave you to such an excessive amount of data, that filtering that is going to be even more difficult). Having the perfect identifier there for your compound is great and the best utility, but sometimes the second best is a good editorial choice (and there are more reasons why having those identifiers there is a good thing, not just as a link out for us chemistry-nerds needing information on hydrobromic acid), something that helps you on the way, more than a complete dismissal of all that info.
After reverting these edits, I contacted Plasmic Physics on his talkpage ( User_talk:Plasmic_Physics#Hydrofluoric acid / Hydrobromic acid), where I found out that a) Plasmic Physics removed this before (see e.g. diff), and b) it was discussed before (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2011#Hydrogen chloride vs. Hydrochloric acid). (note, I have reincorporated the safety section as well, which was removed in said edit, the MSDS referred to is the MSDS of hydrochloric acid, albeit of unknown concentration there).
I can't but help thinking of all the other cases, just above here is Hydrogen astatide, where Plasmic Physics was edit warring with someone else about the systematic naming, and earlier there was a case with hydrates of salts (where all the hydrates were incorporated in the chembox with all their identifiers - now thinking of it, that is excessive, vide infra).
Suggested use of chembox:
Plasmic Physics, please remember who you are writing for. Seen that so many parts of the chembox where you are editing result in extensive discussions here, maybe you should consider to step away from the chembox completely (and maybe also from the drugbox) for some time (except for uncontroversial typo-fixing and vandalism reverts), and use your skills on the content of the pages (of course, you can post perceived significant problems on talkpages or here). I know you have the best intentions, but you run over and over into disagreements with other editors over these things, and I am sorry, but even if you are right, these changes are not uncontroversial, and they do need significant discussion before being applied (and when such discussions don't come to a conclusion, then leave the status quo, and maybe revisit it again in due time). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember the debate we had earlier this year? Well, it's time for action. Please join discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 26. There exists a link to our earlier debate, for reference. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to ask why many elements that have a predominant oxidation state (for example, +3 for yttrium), but their compounds articles are named like yttrium(III) chloride instead of yttrium chloride? There's some rule on Wikipedia to use this nomenclature only when it's confusing (for example, iron(II) and iron(III) are OK). Thanks-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 11:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There is Yb in the list (what's more, both YbCl3 and YbCl2). Also, why not promethium(III) oxide?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Our intermittent but determined colleague User:MotherAmy is keen to highlight the occurrence of dioxane in cosmetics and related soapy items containing products of ethoxylation (reaction with ethylene oxide), two big ingredients being sodium myreth sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate. Whether the dioxane is in the commerical products as a consequence of product degradation or imperfect ethoxylation, I dont know. But apparently several reports point to the potential health risks with the traces of dioxane. In my opinion, the health concerns merit noting, but not worth highlighting or even dominating these articles (the gist of WP:UNDUE). But I am sure that upon her return, User:MotherAmy will see things quite differently. So by this message, I am giving notice of a likely struggle where the intervention of administrators will likely be required. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Would be great if each compound page could contain instructions or pointers on how to make that compound safe for disposition, or a note why it cannot be made safe. Instructions should be oriented to laymen so that it is accessible to everyone that wants to be a good citizen and not just toss it in the bin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.212.126 ( talk) 15:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Suberic acid told me that he's sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.170.229 ( talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Palau’amine contains a character which is not on my keyboard. Is this a common ’ - or should we move the article to the Palau'amine, which uses the more common ' ?? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have some discomfort with this new article about an insecticide, which popped up on my radar screen for reasons that are not important. Chemicals are way outside my domain of knowledge, so I'm just going to raise a flag here and feel that I have done my duty. Looie496 ( talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Our pages for dextroamphetamine and levoamphetamine currently list the same IUPAC name, (2S)-1-phenylpropan-2-amine, which should be corrected. I don't know which the correct one is. I'm also not sure if the structure pictures shown on the two articles are correct. AxelBoldt ( talk) 18:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Strongly recommend a non-academic template or project for topics like the following regarding chemicals, chemistry, pesticides, insecticides, fungicide, adhesives, lubricants, petroleum, minerals, mining, pharmaceuticals, ....
There appears to be an intellectual vacuum and an overall lack of structure for non-academic topics that would concern the average reader. Just about every chemical substance article needs to provide access to non-academic information needed by people that lack a college or university degree covering related topics. I hope this finds everyone well. Best regards, Nanoatzin ( talk) 07:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The existing template was written with a logical thought process in mind: What is it? How do you make it? What can you do with it? These are the most important topics to discuss in any article on a chemical - do you disagree?
Wikipedia is not a safety manual, and Wikipedia is unable to serve as an authoritative source, nor should it try. It is a general reference and a starting point to further reading. Our existing approach has been to give a brief mention of safety in the infobox. Here, the reader can get an idea of the compound at a glance using some recognized standards (R/S phrases or the new GHS, NFPA, etc.) An MSDS is usually linked; this gives much more comprehensive information which manufacturers are required to provide (and which vary by country). Unless a hazard is particularly notable, there should be no mention in the text because repetitive statements to the effect "use PPE" say nothing, really, and is clutter more than useful information.
Your proposed skeleton for articles seems to encourage advocacy, something which seems to conflict with WP:NPOV. I strongly disagree with this move. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that creating an additional "non-academic template" for articles on chemicals is unnecessary. The {{ chembox}} template is already quite thorough and content that is suitable for the article, but does not fit in the current version of the infobox can be added to the article text. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 03:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I am a bit confused here: According to ChemIDplus (search for “Scarlet GN”) the structure (position of one SO3 group) and the CAS RN are different. Could someone check this? -- Leyo 21:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Copper(II) sulfate on my proposal to merge copper(II) sulfate pentahydrate into copper(II) sulfate, where the various hydrated and anhydrous forms would be summarized. This deliberation would have implications for hundreds of articles since many transition metal salts exist in diverse solvates (not just hydrates) as well as unsolvated forms, not to mention various polymorphs of each. We welcome input, as usual.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Would someone please create the article mercapto radical (HS)? I saw it in this news story. [19] Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 19:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
It's currently at Eufod, and the article originally used the term (but not the article-title) "EuFOD". Now the article says the standard names are "Eufod", "Eu(fod)", and "Eu(fod)3". I've usually seen it EuFOD (is what Aldrich calls it) or Eu(fod)3 and never with just the first letter capitalized. I'm thinking it should be renamed, wondering what others think is the correct place. DMacks ( talk) 04:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Please check, either the image, or the identifiers are incorrect. The PubChem link is for Androst-16-en-3-ol, is it the same thing? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 07:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The infobox for Uric acid is showing a red cross next to the KEGG reference, but this value is correct. What should I do, if anything, to correct this? Many thanks, Niall Jackson ( talk) 23:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Would someone who knows what they're doing please have a look at lesquerolic acid, which I've just created? I'm sure that it needs a chembox, but I haven't a clue how to make one. Thanks. Waitak ( talk) 22:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Like the nested table of the ones for morphine on its page, does anybody have a list of salts as such for cocaine with conversation ratios? I notice the crack cocaine article immediate cites a rather wide spread but dubious assertion that it is "the most addictive form" of cocaine (it has any number of easily found citations for such, we need to find one against, that in effect this is more due to the RoA, and is not even the most addictive RoA: IV is moreso, which *requires* it to be a salt). Seeing as the article is essentially the freebase article for the substance, such a list might clarify the lack of innate difference to the substance. 66.243.226.11 ( talk) 11:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Morphine-N-oxide could someone help out with an info box & information? At least so its similar to the M3G/M6G articles linked therein? Thanks 216.227.116.61 ( talk) 06:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've added this group's WikiProject tag to the above article. I'm planning to take the article to FAC soon, and would highly appreciate it if anybody could have a look at the Chemistry section to see if it meets your expectations of what an FA article should contain. Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 17:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I had a few questions, could anybody give me a synopsis of how these chemicals come about, and if they're natural tropane alkaloids?:
&
[(1R,2R,5S)-8-methyl-8-azabicyclo[3.2.1]oct-2-yl] 3,4,5-trimethoxybenzoate CAS: 87421-59-8
Are they anything like Truxillines? (e.g. alkaloids that are UV-driven dimerization products of cinnamoylcocaines in Erythroxylum species)?
I am trying to add as many metabolite & analogue structures of cocaine (and related tropanes) to Wikipedia as I can. Nagelfar ( talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
7-Hydroxymitragynine has "7-Hydroxymitragynine" in its info box as it's IUPAC name. This is clearly wrong, but a google search just yields a whole lot of sites referencing that as its IUPAC as well. Perhaps the Mitragynine article could help (being related). Could someone please find the true IUPAC of 7HO-M? 216.227.117.69 ( talk) 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
A few months ago, I uploaded a lot of molecule pictures to Commons, and I haven't yet started the task of inserting them into articles here at en.Wikipedia. In most cases I uploaded both a ball-and-stick model and a space-filling model. In some cases the ball-and-stick model might be better, and in other cases the space-filling model might be more appropriate. In some cases it might be a good idea to show both. So it would be nice to have a semi-official guideline on which one to use, in the interest of consistency. Please leave your suggestions. Ephemeronium ( talk) 13:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Well those are one editor's views. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, guys. I myself admit I am a sucker for ball-and-stick models, and use them whenever possible. This, partly because I feel they are more intuitive to the non-chemist. One niche that space-filling models might have better is for planar molecules, such as CS gas, but more often I'd prefer a ball-and-stick model. But this is also partly for aesthetic reasons. I ask of you, when should aesthetics be considered? Aesthetics and information don't have to be mutually exclusive. An easy to understand depiction of a molecule is a thing of beauty in itself, and often the best images are the ones that look good. Ephemeronium ( talk) 18:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_November_27#All_files_in_category_Unclassified_Chemical_Structures might interest some of you. I haven't really made sense of it myself. On the one hand, some people seem to be saying that these are all low-quality images for which better ones exist, and on the other hand, someone is talking about how he'll eventually create high-quality versions of them. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Template:Chembox subst explosive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
76.65.128.198 (
talk)
07:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)