![]() | 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 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 | Archive 2013 |
How would a category for substances included in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants best be named? “Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention”? -- Leyo 23:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The uploads of this user are mostly of insufficient quality and need to be replaced. -- Leyo 21:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The structural formula shown in this article makes us believe that sodium is present in the elementary form. Or am I too nit-picking? -- Leyo 16:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
There should be at least somewhere on the page links to the parts of a chemical if applicable (ex. Calcium Sulfate would have a link to calcium and a link to sulfate.). P.S. I think this is where you would put this guide me to the right place if I am incorrect. NanoTechAdvancement ( talk) 19:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody clarify the formula? The drugbox says it's "variable" and then gives SMILES and InChI. Not sure whether the PubChem structure makes sense. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Bicarbonate has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Bicarbonate -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we've had some difficulty with this Dy11111's edits some time back, and with his IP's edits recently.
This user has requested that he be unblocked. I'm asking that interested editors comment at the link above. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I need a mediator to lift the ban from editting chemboxes. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
When did we arrive at a consensus to include simplistic diagrams like File:Electron shell 092 Uranium - no label.svg in infoboxes? Especially for the heavier elements these seem so highly misleading as to be counter-productive. I would accept these for lighter elements (e.g. sodium) in the body of the article with a warning. Not for anything beyond about argon though. What do others think? -- John ( talk) 11:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Plasmic physics has been busy revising and creating articles on transition metal (TM) and related hydrides. I recommend that we discuss those plans. My ideas:
There are probably other ideas on these articles, I am unsure how to solve this puzzle. But we should discuss the theme.
It is disheartening and dismaying to me to see extensive editing being conducted by the single most controversial editor in WikiProject on Chemistry. I accepts that Plasmic desperately seeks to do good and that this activity is probably therapeutic for him, but its seems that we should always discuss big projects. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Copper(I) hydride has grown significantly over the last day. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 21:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
A productive discussion might be to explore consensus on separate articles on gaseous vs solid inorganics. My recommendation would be, ordinarily, not to have separate articles on say, gaseous sodium chloride vs solid sodium chloride (or solutions, aqueous sodium chloride does not contain sodium chloride per se). Some of these things exist in the interstellar medium or in various chemical vapor transport or {[MOCVD]] reactors and still other situations. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that this comes back again to my earlier recommendation regarding these things: take WP:N into account. We are not, and should not want to be, a repository of all possible chemicals. Hydrogen chloride and hydrochloric acid are both separately notable enough, so a good chance for separate articles with all their own properties. Do we need articles for all possible hydrides of iron. No. Some may pass a threshold of notability of their own, the rest can be grouped together in one article. Do the separate allotropes of Sulfur (S8 vs. the polymer) allow for separate articles. That may be quite likely. Other allotropes of sulfur (if they exist) .. probably not. There I would suggest the element page as the conglomerate, and in the section 'allotropes' subsections for ALL reasonably noteworthy (noteworthy is not the same as notable!!!!!) allotropes, and for 'S8' and '(S)n' subsections a one-liner paragraph and a 'main article' link, the others get more in those sections.
But we've been here before ( just 4 months ago, and I do not see where this consensus has changed. For that matter, I don't see enough in the Copper(I) hydride that it should not simply be de-split to Copper hydride (the article originally was at Copper hydride (about the solid), Plasmic Physics moved it to Copper monohydride, Plasmic Physics expanded the article to incorporate the CuH-molecule, and Plasmic Physics moved it on to Copper(I) hydride and finally Plasmic Physics split out the original information about the solid Copper hydride back out of it. In my opinion, that split was not discussed, and I think that that split was not in line with that October discussion on Scandium trihydride (in fact: "Scandium hydrides probably deserves a single (thin) article, just like copper hydrides."). The conglomerate of Copper hydrides barely passes notability (but for completeness sake having all 'hydrides', sure), but the two split articles here is plain overkill. That same argument will go for many other stoichiometric/non-stoichiometric compounds (where both exist) or for solid/gaseous compounds with the same stoichiometry (where both exist): One of them has to be distinctively notable before considering to split them out, otherwise make the distinction clear within the article. Splitting them is often the exception.
Plasmic Physics, may I ask you from now on to discuss a split and get independent consensus that a split is necessary before performing such splits. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... seems like the overarching policy discussion is contaminated by specific discussions on copper hydrides. Let's agree on the overarching policy, so that we can write it into the MOS first. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Let the statement be to the effect: We favor broader articles that aggregate several closely related compounds. This statement is especially refers to groups of compounds that are not especially notable, and to compounds that and/or of compounds that are poorly defined. As a direct consequence of this statement, we do not make unnecessary distinctions between compounds in gaseous phase and solid and solution phase.
Support While strict categorization may be intellectually satisfying, we don't want to make information hard to find. An encompassing article is more helpful in this regard. - Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose/Support Reserved, as "closely related" is a poorly defined qualifier, and it is not clear which articles would be considered as merger candidates. There are only a few TMHs which should qualify under the broadest of interpretations, seeing as how the TM-H alloys are exempt from the above criteria since - they are not compounds: ( CrH, CrH2); ( FeH, FeH2), ( HgH, HgH2). Plasmic Physics ( talk) 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Both There is nothing wrong in having both an article on a family of closely related compounds and also separate articles on some (or all) of those individual compounds. There are plenty of good examples already among the chemistry pages. In some cases (such as liquid nitrogen or charcoal) even individual phases of a compound may deserve articles. The route proposed by Smokefoot is sensible (start with the joint article, and then perhaps split off sections if and when they become substantial enough. But we should not be upset if someone does it the other way. Actually I think it is important to not have any rules on this regard. Each additional rule costs a lot of energy and attriction as people try to enforce it; and ultimately a lot of frustration too, when one realizes that the Rule will never be enforced. I vote for just using common sense on a case by case basis. (And, although I am a sinner myself, I agree with Smokefoot that one should use restraint: Wikipedia is not meant to include every number from every paper, nor to replace professional reference works and databases.)
Folks, we have received an e-mail asking for the hydrogen bromide article to be corrected as follows:
Please amend the density from 3.307 g/dm3 to 3.307 Kg/dm3 (Kg instead of g).
I have no idea whether this is correct, so would someone please look into it and reply here? I will inform the sender of the e-mail that we are reviewing it and send them a link to this page. Thanks very much.-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
gives a value for density at 0 °C of 3.6452 kg/m³ which is the same as g/dm³ or g/L. This is approximately the same as the value that is currently in the article (the difference may be a result of measurements at slightly different temperature/pressure). So I don't think the OTRS suggestion is correct. Since the information in the article is not referenced, I will update it with the 3.6452 kg/m³ value. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This compound has a red X next to its ChEBI link. But as far as I can tell, the ChEBI entry 7307 it links to is for the same compound - the CAS numbers match. Why then the red X? SJK ( talk) 12:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This template is used on several articles. Presumably, one of the templates in Category:GHS templates is the intended one. If anyone can figure out which one it should be, can you create a redirect to it? Thank you. ChemNerd ( talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for deletion. If anyone would like to contribute, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14-cinnamyl 3-acetyl oxymorphone. Other newly created articles from the same new editor could probably use some review by chemists. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. I'm concerned that you are over-categorizing chemical compounds. Could you please discuss your categorization plans first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals? I think it would be best to get consensus before continuing. Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Can I describe alcohols in their article text this way? Example: "1-Propanol is a short-chain-, simple-, primary alcohol" -- David Hedlund ( talk) 04:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Edgar181 that simple structure-based analysis (1°/2°/3°) is fine, but more than that is too much judgement and/or not useful to readers. The short/medium/long is based on an ontology at a site that does not appear to have any verifiability. "Simple" appears to be a completely undefined term. I'm more concerned that even some of the structure-based analysis so far is incorrect. Multiple of the Category:Tertiary alcohols are not tertiary (including neither of your requests in the next section). Before doing any cats, it's critical to know what the cats mean. DMacks ( talk) 05:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I just started this page on a fungal sterol. Could someone knowledgeable please check the chem box; in particular, I'm not sure if my usage of the "Other names" and "IUPAC name" parameters is correct (not sure what the "official IUPAC name is). Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If I post a request for pictures in the talk page, it will most likely get no attention. So, can someone please find a good picture to upload of bulk titanium hydride, preferably of the δ-phase. Here is an example: [1], or [2]. They are from a journal article: [3]. I just need it uploaded, I'll insert it myself. Thanks in advance.
PS We can also use a better image of powdered δ-titanium hydride, the current one is too dark, when compared to other googled images. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that we rename Sulfanyl. IUPAC has highlighted some problems with systematic naming: take germanyl as an example, according to systematic naming, the molecules [GeH3][SiH2][GeH3] and [SiH3][GeH2][GeH3] produce the exact same name (digermanylsilane). Thus they propose naming the first member of the linear chain germyl instead of germanyl, the following members would not be affected by the change. As a result the two molecules would thus be named digermylsilane and digermanylsilane respectively. Of course they generalised, but here I used germanium as an example. The equivalent for sulfur would be
Sulfyl, then
Sulfanyl could redirect to a page generalised page on
Sulfanes
Polysulfanes in the same style as
Alkyl redirects to
alkane. I'm not suggesting that we rename Sulfanyl to Sulfyl, but some other name seems necessary, perhaps Thiyl?
Plasmic Physics (
talk)
10:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hydrosulfuryl? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 10:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | |
![]() | |
Names | |
---|---|
IUPAC name
example
| |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
I've been putting a lot of images into chemboxes, and I can never be sure what to put into the ImageName parameter (AKA the title attribute), which displays when the user mouse-overs an image. Some people have just put the name of the compound, but that is redundant. A title attribute should elaborate on what's already there, which means it should say what the alt text doesn't.
Recently it occurred to me that I could use it to explain the color scheme for molecular models, since they are there in part to explain the structure to the non-chemist.
I should keep it concise, because many browsers only display the mouseover text for a few seconds. It should just be the symbol of each element, and the name of a color, with an equals sign in between them, separated by commas. For example: N=blue, or mouseover the example to the right. I'd start with the four elements C, H, O, and N in order of importance, followed by the rest in order of atomic number.
Does all this sound alright? If it does, please consider doing this as well.
As a side note for the alt text, I usually just write 'Skeletal formula' or 'Space-filling model'. If I went to the same length to describe the structure as this example (which I grabbed off the template documentation), my job would take about 5 times longer. But if someone wants to edit in alt texts that actually describe the chemical structure, be my guest. Jynto ( talk) 10:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
All three of the articles at Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from June 2006 relate to chemicals. It would be nice if somebody could provide a rationale for not deleting them, or simply remove the tags. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I have some major concerns that the manual of style used for chemical articles is encouraging boring articles that do not appeal to the lay audience. It, in fact, seems to blatantly contradict the normal standard to have accessible information first, and technical information last. The recommended content for the lead article is almost exclusively technical details that do not interest lay readers (who do not know what an organoarsenic compound is). The sections that laypeople would understand best (uses and history) are recommended for the end. Having "safety" as a standard section would also help make these articles more accessible.
To see what results from this, here is Dioxygen difluoride as I found it several days ago: [4] - while short, it generally complied with the MOS. It had no mention of its extreme explosiveness, it didn't clearly state that it's not found at room temperature. I gave it some much needed repair after learning about this chemical from xkcd. Note that I am not a scientist and have no chemistry training - but sometimes things need a layman's touch. Ego White Tray ( talk) 01:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The following new articles appear to be the product of a class project. I've done a bit of minor cleanup, but I will take a closer look shortly. Review by this WikiProject's chemists would probably be helpful considering the quality and accuracy issues that we have had with related articles in the past. Thanks. ChemNerd ( talk) 12:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone assess these articles for me:
Thanks. King Jakob C2 11:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Smokefoot is not reknowned for his tact and diplomacy, but he is renowned for his accuracy. It is complete garbage - somebody seems to have performed some kind of internet search and then collated the results as an article. It is self-contradictory and largely incorrect. Chris ( talk) 21:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
file:Pethidine3Dan.gif has been nominated for deletion. Does this qualify as {{ PD-chem}} ? -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I have created the C class category, it has appeared now in the autogenerated lists of article quality. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Qualityscale describes the quality, and if you have any Chemical specific text to add there that is welcome. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about magnesium compounds and their uses at chalk (disambiguation), chalk (drying agent), talc and maybe magnesia. Any takers? Globbet ( talk) 01:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Carbon tetroxide is stated to be a twofold dioxirane in both these articles. Since CO4 has a four-membered ring, it is not a dioxiran per se, and I have some doubts if this term is meaningful at all. Can someone please explain me what it means? Thanks, Szaszicska ( talk) 06:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Organic_semiconductor#Organic_semiconductor.23Merger_proposal over merging organic electronics into organic semiconductor. I thought that it may be of interest to your WikiProject. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated Acetic acid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 19:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to have an article on Oxidanium tetrahydroxyborate. It is the active component in solutions of Boric acid, yet it is only touched on in the Boric acid article. I'm unsure whether this chemical compound is isolable, but that is hardly a factor; I have seen many articles on such compounds that have only been encountered in solution. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please check the validity of the statement "Bradykinin is a potent endothelium-dependent vasodilator, causes dilation of non-vascular smooth muscle" I'm dealing with an OTRS query that it causes contraction not dilation of non-vascular smooth muscle. Thanks. NtheP ( talk) 17:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Could I please get a diagram made of cubic fluorine? The reference from ~1970 (I think by Pauling) has a nice one, but I presumably can't just cut and paste. Not sure what perspective to use and if you want to show the molecules "wiggle" like he did. But in any case...please draw me something. Will go in the subarticle, "Phases of fluorine", and perhaps in the fluorine article itself (less likely though). TCO ( talk) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The latest XKCD: what if strip has highlighted the fascinating yet obscure chemistry of furanocoumarins. There's been a predictable surge in visitors to that page and baring in mind that there were a lot of edits to dioxygen difluoride was that was mentioned it may be an idea to keep an eye of that page for the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Osprey ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Would somebody please check this out? It was speedy-tagged as {{ db-talk}} because it was submitted on the talk page by IP 137.205.171.220 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), but I have moved it to be an article as it looks OK. The IP is registered to Warwick University. I will suggest that they register an account. JohnCD ( talk) 14:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Published to main namespace from AfC. Feel free to improve it; it could use the addition of more refined categories, if available. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
From AfC. Feel free to improve it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be good if also members of this project would contribute in this discussion/poll on Wikidata since it indirectly also affects the articles here. -- Leyo 12:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The new article Hongdoushans has been nominated for deletion. Please consider contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hongdoushans. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Someone may wish to start a Wikipedia article " Unacceptable Levels" about the documentary film of the same name.
— Wavelength ( talk) 04:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Cluster.jpg has been nominated for deletion. The 2007 version of the file is a selenite crystal. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
should be splitted into Residue (chemistry) and residue (molecular biology) since everything after "In biochemistry and molecular biology, a residue ..." is definitely totally different from the rest!.-- 141.58.45.38 ( talk) 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There are some questions at Talk:Theaflavin digallate about the chemical structure and ChemBox data in Theaflavin digallate. Input from other chemists would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 15:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Do we really sanction the creation of so many new highly specialized categories. Example: "removed Category:Acridines; added Category:Quinoacridines" -- Smokefoot ( talk) 12:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please consider commenting over there. -- Scray ( talk) 06:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone might want to keep an eye on Special:Contributions/Jatlas who seems to be creating new pages by the boat-load. I'm not sure if they're wrong or against the rules per se but they are all stub-class (if that) with minimal to non-existant referencing. Project Osprey ( talk) 12:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Stefanobiondi notified me of incorrect formulae in the article Novobiocin. In figures 1 and 4, the allyl chain is missing one CH2 unit. The error has been in the article for 5 years. Could someone who is skilled in reaction mechanisms check these figures for additional errors and correct them? -- Leyo 20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?
Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 23:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
have been nominated for deletion (these will not appear on article alerts, since they are not FFD nominations) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 08:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I moved all chemical structures in this category to Commons except of the four orphaned ones. What shall be done with those? Is there a use for them? Or may they be nominated for deletion? -- Leyo 17:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I have now moved the remaining images to Commons. IMO the category can get deleted. There is only one subcategory and one article in it. -- Leyo 12:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
As in the past, I will be working with young chemists to create new articles in Wikipedia, and hopefully allow them to learn some basic chem. The focus is on content, not on formatting for Wikipedia. So my proposal is to spare them the hassle of registering and the vetting that comes with a new editor's first article. Instead, I propose to create short articles (almost empty chembox, ref section, some categories). The students would then edit/expand these articles, soon after their creation. The articles we will create will be thinner than we have done in the past. But later in the year we hope to tackle more complex projects including article improvement. Please let me know if you see problems. Thanks, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Here we go:
Is the chemical structure correct? I would guess that N–Hg–N is linear. -- Leyo 20:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Request stub started for the class of silicon fluorides. 71.127.137.171 ( talk) 00:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely familiar with the identifier verification system, so I was wondering if anyone from this wikiproject would be able to validate the links in this article, as they seem to go to the correct place. I intend to nominate the article for FA status very soon, and I have a feeling a bunch of marks in the drugbox won't help my cause in the review process.
Thanks in advance,
Seppi333 (
talk)
02:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi chemists, please stop by this RFC on modifying the icon images in the Elements Infobox: [5]
208.44.87.91 ( talk) 01:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI: I nominated this new category that is not well defined for deletion. -- Leyo 10:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm concidering doing some work on the periodate pages but before I start I'd like to get some opinions on the page layout. Periodates exist in two forms: metaperiodate IO4− and orthoperiodate IO65−. Currently these two forms are grouped together on each page, which creates something of a confict in terms of Chemboxes (currently they just consider the meta form) and makes the content a little tricky to organise. The simplest solution is just to leave the layout as it is; the other option would be to page-slip to give meta and ortho pages for each common name. Splitting would make sence if we ever have pages on compounds that only exist in the one form (e.g. sodium hydrogen periodate, Na3H2IO6) but will obviously lead to a lot of disambiguation pages. Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions about all this? Project Osprey ( talk) 12:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a few periodic table-related discussion being held at WT:ELEMENTS. You might find them interesting.
one -- how to color elements that can be considered a part of more than one categories: should those cases be shown on a table, should we change nonmetal categories, etc.
two -- what table use in an infobox of a chemical element: 32-column one (we have now) or 18-column one (we might switch to).
three -- should we switch to rare earth metals category instead of lanthanides we have today?
Please take part-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a few periodic table-related discussion being held at WT:ELEMENTS. You might find them interesting.
one -- how to color elements that can be considered a part of more than one categories: should those cases be shown on a table, should we change nonmetal categories, etc.
two -- what table use in an infobox of a chemical element: 32-column one (we have now) or 18-column one (we might switch to).
three -- should we switch to rare earth metals category instead of lanthanides we have today?
Please take part-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Someone might care to take a look at methylene (compound)- it has been heavily edited since March 2013. It contains an amphotericity statement that is very similar to sections in gallane, mercury(II) hydride and iron(II) hydride Axiosaurus ( talk) 08:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Sorry I hit a disambig. link with methylene, I have corrected this post to methylene (compound), it refers to CH2. Axiosaurus ( talk) 09:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I know that your project is working on chemicals data since a long time now, but I just want to say that Wikidata is starting to import data at large scale in order to offer chemical data to all wikipedias. If you have comment, ideas or want to take part at this action please visit d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Chemistry and d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Chemistry/ChemID. Snipre ( talk) 09:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS was a website collection of MSDS pages. It no longer exists (just a notice that the whole site was taken down in December 2011). We have lots of links to it that need to be replaced or scrapped. I'll hopefully have time in the next few days to scrap them (we have "External MSDS" or similar infobox items), so this is sort of a reminder to myself here. But also a central notice about what the situation is. DMacks ( talk) 02:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm from WP:AfC with a quickie couple of questions. The first is, should this article be listed under the title it's at now or at Ditetrazinetetroxide? Appropriate redirects would be created. The second is, is this a fringe thing? Googling it turns up discussion on forums and a freemade site that is heavily referenced in the article, but the papers I found seem to be lacking - only one seems substantial. I'm unfamiliar with chemicals and chemistry a la Wikipedia in general so I figured I'd ask before I made an ass of myself. -- TKK! bark with me! 23:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Perchloromethyl mercaptan is showing "Boiling point [Convert: Invalid number]" in the infobox because the infobox contains "BoilingPtC = 147-148", which pases "147-148" as the input number for the conversion. Is there some way to fix this? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
| BoilingPtC = 147 | BoilingPtCH = 148
|BoilingPtCH=
, to show a range of temps is not new in the chembox.From curiosity, I looked at a Google cache of Perchloromethyl mercaptan and it apparently used to say:
It now says:
I wonder if the infobox really did have the first line above. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
|BoilingPtC= 147-148
(That is _C where single number expected). First, basic trigger |BoilingPt=
was empty, so no Boiling value (-tablerow) was shown at all as Juniq noted. Were it triggered, the text shown would be as Juniq says: "Boiling point 147-148 °C, 272 K, -87 °F". That is, C passes the plaintext, F and K calculated from "-1 °C").
It's live now. Testcases and demos are not current any more. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Melting point
|
|-
Identifiers | |
---|---|
Properties | |
Melting point | −114 °C (−173 °F; 159 K) |
Boiling point | 78.37 °C (173.07 °F; 351.52 K) |
Acidity (pKa) | 15.9 |
Hazards | |
Flash point | 9 °C |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
Identifiers | |
---|---|
Properties | |
Melting point | −114 °C (−173 °F; 159 K) |
Boiling point | 78.37 °C (173.07 °F; 351.52 K) |
Acidity (pKa) | 15.9 |
Hazards | |
Flash point | 9 °C 9 °C (48 °F; 282 K) |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
{{ Chembox}} uses temperature calculations in Melting point and Boiling point. I have prepared a proposal (demo) to improve their presentation. Changes:
−
) not the keyboard hyphen for output (is still OK for input).–
) to prevent visual confusion.;
" not ",
".Background. Old style presentation flaws are addressed.
;
". Semicolon is the default for {convert}, so this is used wiki-wide (enwiki). And a comma is used too as a thousands-indicator like in 10,070.45. (Also, changing it to comma would require much more complicated calculations; if possible at all)./sandbox
and do preview not save:{{Chembox
...
| Section2 = {{Chembox Properties/sandbox <!-- use /sandbox to test -->
| MeltingPtC = −114}}
...
}}
|BoilingPtSigfig=3
set on an article page). Convert inconsistencies, as your example shows, may need a different approach (or acceptance). I understand both are not present in the temperatures here.|Melting_notes=
. But that one adds brackets and adds a space after the "K", so it shows "K ([1])". Mostly used to add like "...K (closed cup)", ok. I did not alter that behaviour. When I have a |Melting_ref=
added, we can build a sequence "... K[1] (closed cup)" correctly. We could also move the brackets to the input, giving editor control. Will have to look at current usage for that. Typing all in one parameter requires some switch to manage the space for ref/noref, like: editor must add "_"-trick. I don't think that would work well.|Boiling_notes=
, and I will make parallels with FlashPt and Autoignition (they need the range option too, I saw). -
DePiep (
talk)
17:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Related question - how does the data we have here now in these fields relate to what is stored on WikiData? The data there can have references, and I was considering at some point, when I have time (which I do not have; I haven't even considered yet how to do it) to have CheMoBot compare infobox-data with WikiData-data, and 'tag' accordingly (if it is the same (and referenced there), we consider it 'correct'; when they are dissimilar (and referenced there) we consider it 'changed' and then either we or they are wrong, or it has been vandalised (on either side); otherwise we mark it as 'questionable'). That would take away the need to have our indices, and CheMoBot could then easier be used on other infoboxes containing that type of data as well. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
|MeltingPt=
) is semantically less clear than a |MeltingPtC=
value. But that's as far as I can think. -
DePiep (
talk)
14:02, 24 December 2013 (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 2010 | Archive 2011 | Archive 2012 | Archive 2013 |
How would a category for substances included in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants best be named? “Persistent Organic Pollutant under the Stockholm Convention”? -- Leyo 23:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The uploads of this user are mostly of insufficient quality and need to be replaced. -- Leyo 21:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The structural formula shown in this article makes us believe that sodium is present in the elementary form. Or am I too nit-picking? -- Leyo 16:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
There should be at least somewhere on the page links to the parts of a chemical if applicable (ex. Calcium Sulfate would have a link to calcium and a link to sulfate.). P.S. I think this is where you would put this guide me to the right place if I am incorrect. NanoTechAdvancement ( talk) 19:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody clarify the formula? The drugbox says it's "variable" and then gives SMILES and InChI. Not sure whether the PubChem structure makes sense. -- ἀνυπόδητος ( talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Bicarbonate has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Bicarbonate -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 05:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we've had some difficulty with this Dy11111's edits some time back, and with his IP's edits recently.
This user has requested that he be unblocked. I'm asking that interested editors comment at the link above. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I need a mediator to lift the ban from editting chemboxes. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
When did we arrive at a consensus to include simplistic diagrams like File:Electron shell 092 Uranium - no label.svg in infoboxes? Especially for the heavier elements these seem so highly misleading as to be counter-productive. I would accept these for lighter elements (e.g. sodium) in the body of the article with a warning. Not for anything beyond about argon though. What do others think? -- John ( talk) 11:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Plasmic physics has been busy revising and creating articles on transition metal (TM) and related hydrides. I recommend that we discuss those plans. My ideas:
There are probably other ideas on these articles, I am unsure how to solve this puzzle. But we should discuss the theme.
It is disheartening and dismaying to me to see extensive editing being conducted by the single most controversial editor in WikiProject on Chemistry. I accepts that Plasmic desperately seeks to do good and that this activity is probably therapeutic for him, but its seems that we should always discuss big projects. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Copper(I) hydride has grown significantly over the last day. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 21:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
A productive discussion might be to explore consensus on separate articles on gaseous vs solid inorganics. My recommendation would be, ordinarily, not to have separate articles on say, gaseous sodium chloride vs solid sodium chloride (or solutions, aqueous sodium chloride does not contain sodium chloride per se). Some of these things exist in the interstellar medium or in various chemical vapor transport or {[MOCVD]] reactors and still other situations. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 21:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that this comes back again to my earlier recommendation regarding these things: take WP:N into account. We are not, and should not want to be, a repository of all possible chemicals. Hydrogen chloride and hydrochloric acid are both separately notable enough, so a good chance for separate articles with all their own properties. Do we need articles for all possible hydrides of iron. No. Some may pass a threshold of notability of their own, the rest can be grouped together in one article. Do the separate allotropes of Sulfur (S8 vs. the polymer) allow for separate articles. That may be quite likely. Other allotropes of sulfur (if they exist) .. probably not. There I would suggest the element page as the conglomerate, and in the section 'allotropes' subsections for ALL reasonably noteworthy (noteworthy is not the same as notable!!!!!) allotropes, and for 'S8' and '(S)n' subsections a one-liner paragraph and a 'main article' link, the others get more in those sections.
But we've been here before ( just 4 months ago, and I do not see where this consensus has changed. For that matter, I don't see enough in the Copper(I) hydride that it should not simply be de-split to Copper hydride (the article originally was at Copper hydride (about the solid), Plasmic Physics moved it to Copper monohydride, Plasmic Physics expanded the article to incorporate the CuH-molecule, and Plasmic Physics moved it on to Copper(I) hydride and finally Plasmic Physics split out the original information about the solid Copper hydride back out of it. In my opinion, that split was not discussed, and I think that that split was not in line with that October discussion on Scandium trihydride (in fact: "Scandium hydrides probably deserves a single (thin) article, just like copper hydrides."). The conglomerate of Copper hydrides barely passes notability (but for completeness sake having all 'hydrides', sure), but the two split articles here is plain overkill. That same argument will go for many other stoichiometric/non-stoichiometric compounds (where both exist) or for solid/gaseous compounds with the same stoichiometry (where both exist): One of them has to be distinctively notable before considering to split them out, otherwise make the distinction clear within the article. Splitting them is often the exception.
Plasmic Physics, may I ask you from now on to discuss a split and get independent consensus that a split is necessary before performing such splits. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... seems like the overarching policy discussion is contaminated by specific discussions on copper hydrides. Let's agree on the overarching policy, so that we can write it into the MOS first. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Let the statement be to the effect: We favor broader articles that aggregate several closely related compounds. This statement is especially refers to groups of compounds that are not especially notable, and to compounds that and/or of compounds that are poorly defined. As a direct consequence of this statement, we do not make unnecessary distinctions between compounds in gaseous phase and solid and solution phase.
Support While strict categorization may be intellectually satisfying, we don't want to make information hard to find. An encompassing article is more helpful in this regard. - Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose/Support Reserved, as "closely related" is a poorly defined qualifier, and it is not clear which articles would be considered as merger candidates. There are only a few TMHs which should qualify under the broadest of interpretations, seeing as how the TM-H alloys are exempt from the above criteria since - they are not compounds: ( CrH, CrH2); ( FeH, FeH2), ( HgH, HgH2). Plasmic Physics ( talk) 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Both There is nothing wrong in having both an article on a family of closely related compounds and also separate articles on some (or all) of those individual compounds. There are plenty of good examples already among the chemistry pages. In some cases (such as liquid nitrogen or charcoal) even individual phases of a compound may deserve articles. The route proposed by Smokefoot is sensible (start with the joint article, and then perhaps split off sections if and when they become substantial enough. But we should not be upset if someone does it the other way. Actually I think it is important to not have any rules on this regard. Each additional rule costs a lot of energy and attriction as people try to enforce it; and ultimately a lot of frustration too, when one realizes that the Rule will never be enforced. I vote for just using common sense on a case by case basis. (And, although I am a sinner myself, I agree with Smokefoot that one should use restraint: Wikipedia is not meant to include every number from every paper, nor to replace professional reference works and databases.)
Folks, we have received an e-mail asking for the hydrogen bromide article to be corrected as follows:
Please amend the density from 3.307 g/dm3 to 3.307 Kg/dm3 (Kg instead of g).
I have no idea whether this is correct, so would someone please look into it and reply here? I will inform the sender of the e-mail that we are reviewing it and send them a link to this page. Thanks very much.-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
gives a value for density at 0 °C of 3.6452 kg/m³ which is the same as g/dm³ or g/L. This is approximately the same as the value that is currently in the article (the difference may be a result of measurements at slightly different temperature/pressure). So I don't think the OTRS suggestion is correct. Since the information in the article is not referenced, I will update it with the 3.6452 kg/m³ value. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
This compound has a red X next to its ChEBI link. But as far as I can tell, the ChEBI entry 7307 it links to is for the same compound - the CAS numbers match. Why then the red X? SJK ( talk) 12:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This template is used on several articles. Presumably, one of the templates in Category:GHS templates is the intended one. If anyone can figure out which one it should be, can you create a redirect to it? Thank you. ChemNerd ( talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for deletion. If anyone would like to contribute, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14-cinnamyl 3-acetyl oxymorphone. Other newly created articles from the same new editor could probably use some review by chemists. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. I'm concerned that you are over-categorizing chemical compounds. Could you please discuss your categorization plans first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals? I think it would be best to get consensus before continuing. Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Can I describe alcohols in their article text this way? Example: "1-Propanol is a short-chain-, simple-, primary alcohol" -- David Hedlund ( talk) 04:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Edgar181 that simple structure-based analysis (1°/2°/3°) is fine, but more than that is too much judgement and/or not useful to readers. The short/medium/long is based on an ontology at a site that does not appear to have any verifiability. "Simple" appears to be a completely undefined term. I'm more concerned that even some of the structure-based analysis so far is incorrect. Multiple of the Category:Tertiary alcohols are not tertiary (including neither of your requests in the next section). Before doing any cats, it's critical to know what the cats mean. DMacks ( talk) 05:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I just started this page on a fungal sterol. Could someone knowledgeable please check the chem box; in particular, I'm not sure if my usage of the "Other names" and "IUPAC name" parameters is correct (not sure what the "official IUPAC name is). Thanks, Sasata ( talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If I post a request for pictures in the talk page, it will most likely get no attention. So, can someone please find a good picture to upload of bulk titanium hydride, preferably of the δ-phase. Here is an example: [1], or [2]. They are from a journal article: [3]. I just need it uploaded, I'll insert it myself. Thanks in advance.
PS We can also use a better image of powdered δ-titanium hydride, the current one is too dark, when compared to other googled images. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 12:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that we rename Sulfanyl. IUPAC has highlighted some problems with systematic naming: take germanyl as an example, according to systematic naming, the molecules [GeH3][SiH2][GeH3] and [SiH3][GeH2][GeH3] produce the exact same name (digermanylsilane). Thus they propose naming the first member of the linear chain germyl instead of germanyl, the following members would not be affected by the change. As a result the two molecules would thus be named digermylsilane and digermanylsilane respectively. Of course they generalised, but here I used germanium as an example. The equivalent for sulfur would be
Sulfyl, then
Sulfanyl could redirect to a page generalised page on
Sulfanes
Polysulfanes in the same style as
Alkyl redirects to
alkane. I'm not suggesting that we rename Sulfanyl to Sulfyl, but some other name seems necessary, perhaps Thiyl?
Plasmic Physics (
talk)
10:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hydrosulfuryl? Plasmic Physics ( talk) 10:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | |
![]() | |
Names | |
---|---|
IUPAC name
example
| |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
I've been putting a lot of images into chemboxes, and I can never be sure what to put into the ImageName parameter (AKA the title attribute), which displays when the user mouse-overs an image. Some people have just put the name of the compound, but that is redundant. A title attribute should elaborate on what's already there, which means it should say what the alt text doesn't.
Recently it occurred to me that I could use it to explain the color scheme for molecular models, since they are there in part to explain the structure to the non-chemist.
I should keep it concise, because many browsers only display the mouseover text for a few seconds. It should just be the symbol of each element, and the name of a color, with an equals sign in between them, separated by commas. For example: N=blue, or mouseover the example to the right. I'd start with the four elements C, H, O, and N in order of importance, followed by the rest in order of atomic number.
Does all this sound alright? If it does, please consider doing this as well.
As a side note for the alt text, I usually just write 'Skeletal formula' or 'Space-filling model'. If I went to the same length to describe the structure as this example (which I grabbed off the template documentation), my job would take about 5 times longer. But if someone wants to edit in alt texts that actually describe the chemical structure, be my guest. Jynto ( talk) 10:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
All three of the articles at Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from June 2006 relate to chemicals. It would be nice if somebody could provide a rationale for not deleting them, or simply remove the tags. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I have some major concerns that the manual of style used for chemical articles is encouraging boring articles that do not appeal to the lay audience. It, in fact, seems to blatantly contradict the normal standard to have accessible information first, and technical information last. The recommended content for the lead article is almost exclusively technical details that do not interest lay readers (who do not know what an organoarsenic compound is). The sections that laypeople would understand best (uses and history) are recommended for the end. Having "safety" as a standard section would also help make these articles more accessible.
To see what results from this, here is Dioxygen difluoride as I found it several days ago: [4] - while short, it generally complied with the MOS. It had no mention of its extreme explosiveness, it didn't clearly state that it's not found at room temperature. I gave it some much needed repair after learning about this chemical from xkcd. Note that I am not a scientist and have no chemistry training - but sometimes things need a layman's touch. Ego White Tray ( talk) 01:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The following new articles appear to be the product of a class project. I've done a bit of minor cleanup, but I will take a closer look shortly. Review by this WikiProject's chemists would probably be helpful considering the quality and accuracy issues that we have had with related articles in the past. Thanks. ChemNerd ( talk) 12:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Can someone assess these articles for me:
Thanks. King Jakob C2 11:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Smokefoot is not reknowned for his tact and diplomacy, but he is renowned for his accuracy. It is complete garbage - somebody seems to have performed some kind of internet search and then collated the results as an article. It is self-contradictory and largely incorrect. Chris ( talk) 21:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
file:Pethidine3Dan.gif has been nominated for deletion. Does this qualify as {{ PD-chem}} ? -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I have created the C class category, it has appeared now in the autogenerated lists of article quality. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Qualityscale describes the quality, and if you have any Chemical specific text to add there that is welcome. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about magnesium compounds and their uses at chalk (disambiguation), chalk (drying agent), talc and maybe magnesia. Any takers? Globbet ( talk) 01:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Carbon tetroxide is stated to be a twofold dioxirane in both these articles. Since CO4 has a four-membered ring, it is not a dioxiran per se, and I have some doubts if this term is meaningful at all. Can someone please explain me what it means? Thanks, Szaszicska ( talk) 06:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Organic_semiconductor#Organic_semiconductor.23Merger_proposal over merging organic electronics into organic semiconductor. I thought that it may be of interest to your WikiProject. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have nominated Acetic acid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 19:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to have an article on Oxidanium tetrahydroxyborate. It is the active component in solutions of Boric acid, yet it is only touched on in the Boric acid article. I'm unsure whether this chemical compound is isolable, but that is hardly a factor; I have seen many articles on such compounds that have only been encountered in solution. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 00:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone please check the validity of the statement "Bradykinin is a potent endothelium-dependent vasodilator, causes dilation of non-vascular smooth muscle" I'm dealing with an OTRS query that it causes contraction not dilation of non-vascular smooth muscle. Thanks. NtheP ( talk) 17:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Could I please get a diagram made of cubic fluorine? The reference from ~1970 (I think by Pauling) has a nice one, but I presumably can't just cut and paste. Not sure what perspective to use and if you want to show the molecules "wiggle" like he did. But in any case...please draw me something. Will go in the subarticle, "Phases of fluorine", and perhaps in the fluorine article itself (less likely though). TCO ( talk) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The latest XKCD: what if strip has highlighted the fascinating yet obscure chemistry of furanocoumarins. There's been a predictable surge in visitors to that page and baring in mind that there were a lot of edits to dioxygen difluoride was that was mentioned it may be an idea to keep an eye of that page for the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Osprey ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Would somebody please check this out? It was speedy-tagged as {{ db-talk}} because it was submitted on the talk page by IP 137.205.171.220 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), but I have moved it to be an article as it looks OK. The IP is registered to Warwick University. I will suggest that they register an account. JohnCD ( talk) 14:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Published to main namespace from AfC. Feel free to improve it; it could use the addition of more refined categories, if available. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
From AfC. Feel free to improve it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be good if also members of this project would contribute in this discussion/poll on Wikidata since it indirectly also affects the articles here. -- Leyo 12:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The new article Hongdoushans has been nominated for deletion. Please consider contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hongdoushans. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 14:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Someone may wish to start a Wikipedia article " Unacceptable Levels" about the documentary film of the same name.
— Wavelength ( talk) 04:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Cluster.jpg has been nominated for deletion. The 2007 version of the file is a selenite crystal. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
should be splitted into Residue (chemistry) and residue (molecular biology) since everything after "In biochemistry and molecular biology, a residue ..." is definitely totally different from the rest!.-- 141.58.45.38 ( talk) 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There are some questions at Talk:Theaflavin digallate about the chemical structure and ChemBox data in Theaflavin digallate. Input from other chemists would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 15:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Do we really sanction the creation of so many new highly specialized categories. Example: "removed Category:Acridines; added Category:Quinoacridines" -- Smokefoot ( talk) 12:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Please consider commenting over there. -- Scray ( talk) 06:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Someone might want to keep an eye on Special:Contributions/Jatlas who seems to be creating new pages by the boat-load. I'm not sure if they're wrong or against the rules per se but they are all stub-class (if that) with minimal to non-existant referencing. Project Osprey ( talk) 12:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Stefanobiondi notified me of incorrect formulae in the article Novobiocin. In figures 1 and 4, the allyl chain is missing one CH2 unit. The error has been in the article for 5 years. Could someone who is skilled in reaction mechanisms check these figures for additional errors and correct them? -- Leyo 20:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?
Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 23:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
have been nominated for deletion (these will not appear on article alerts, since they are not FFD nominations) -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 08:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I moved all chemical structures in this category to Commons except of the four orphaned ones. What shall be done with those? Is there a use for them? Or may they be nominated for deletion? -- Leyo 17:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I have now moved the remaining images to Commons. IMO the category can get deleted. There is only one subcategory and one article in it. -- Leyo 12:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
As in the past, I will be working with young chemists to create new articles in Wikipedia, and hopefully allow them to learn some basic chem. The focus is on content, not on formatting for Wikipedia. So my proposal is to spare them the hassle of registering and the vetting that comes with a new editor's first article. Instead, I propose to create short articles (almost empty chembox, ref section, some categories). The students would then edit/expand these articles, soon after their creation. The articles we will create will be thinner than we have done in the past. But later in the year we hope to tackle more complex projects including article improvement. Please let me know if you see problems. Thanks, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Here we go:
Is the chemical structure correct? I would guess that N–Hg–N is linear. -- Leyo 20:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Request stub started for the class of silicon fluorides. 71.127.137.171 ( talk) 00:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely familiar with the identifier verification system, so I was wondering if anyone from this wikiproject would be able to validate the links in this article, as they seem to go to the correct place. I intend to nominate the article for FA status very soon, and I have a feeling a bunch of marks in the drugbox won't help my cause in the review process.
Thanks in advance,
Seppi333 (
talk)
02:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi chemists, please stop by this RFC on modifying the icon images in the Elements Infobox: [5]
208.44.87.91 ( talk) 01:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI: I nominated this new category that is not well defined for deletion. -- Leyo 10:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm concidering doing some work on the periodate pages but before I start I'd like to get some opinions on the page layout. Periodates exist in two forms: metaperiodate IO4− and orthoperiodate IO65−. Currently these two forms are grouped together on each page, which creates something of a confict in terms of Chemboxes (currently they just consider the meta form) and makes the content a little tricky to organise. The simplest solution is just to leave the layout as it is; the other option would be to page-slip to give meta and ortho pages for each common name. Splitting would make sence if we ever have pages on compounds that only exist in the one form (e.g. sodium hydrogen periodate, Na3H2IO6) but will obviously lead to a lot of disambiguation pages. Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions about all this? Project Osprey ( talk) 12:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a few periodic table-related discussion being held at WT:ELEMENTS. You might find them interesting.
one -- how to color elements that can be considered a part of more than one categories: should those cases be shown on a table, should we change nonmetal categories, etc.
two -- what table use in an infobox of a chemical element: 32-column one (we have now) or 18-column one (we might switch to).
three -- should we switch to rare earth metals category instead of lanthanides we have today?
Please take part-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
There are a few periodic table-related discussion being held at WT:ELEMENTS. You might find them interesting.
one -- how to color elements that can be considered a part of more than one categories: should those cases be shown on a table, should we change nonmetal categories, etc.
two -- what table use in an infobox of a chemical element: 32-column one (we have now) or 18-column one (we might switch to).
three -- should we switch to rare earth metals category instead of lanthanides we have today?
Please take part-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Someone might care to take a look at methylene (compound)- it has been heavily edited since March 2013. It contains an amphotericity statement that is very similar to sections in gallane, mercury(II) hydride and iron(II) hydride Axiosaurus ( talk) 08:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Sorry I hit a disambig. link with methylene, I have corrected this post to methylene (compound), it refers to CH2. Axiosaurus ( talk) 09:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I know that your project is working on chemicals data since a long time now, but I just want to say that Wikidata is starting to import data at large scale in order to offer chemical data to all wikipedias. If you have comment, ideas or want to take part at this action please visit d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Chemistry and d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Chemistry/ChemID. Snipre ( talk) 09:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS was a website collection of MSDS pages. It no longer exists (just a notice that the whole site was taken down in December 2011). We have lots of links to it that need to be replaced or scrapped. I'll hopefully have time in the next few days to scrap them (we have "External MSDS" or similar infobox items), so this is sort of a reminder to myself here. But also a central notice about what the situation is. DMacks ( talk) 02:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm from WP:AfC with a quickie couple of questions. The first is, should this article be listed under the title it's at now or at Ditetrazinetetroxide? Appropriate redirects would be created. The second is, is this a fringe thing? Googling it turns up discussion on forums and a freemade site that is heavily referenced in the article, but the papers I found seem to be lacking - only one seems substantial. I'm unfamiliar with chemicals and chemistry a la Wikipedia in general so I figured I'd ask before I made an ass of myself. -- TKK! bark with me! 23:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Perchloromethyl mercaptan is showing "Boiling point [Convert: Invalid number]" in the infobox because the infobox contains "BoilingPtC = 147-148", which pases "147-148" as the input number for the conversion. Is there some way to fix this? Johnuniq ( talk) 09:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
| BoilingPtC = 147 | BoilingPtCH = 148
|BoilingPtCH=
, to show a range of temps is not new in the chembox.From curiosity, I looked at a Google cache of Perchloromethyl mercaptan and it apparently used to say:
It now says:
I wonder if the infobox really did have the first line above. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
|BoilingPtC= 147-148
(That is _C where single number expected). First, basic trigger |BoilingPt=
was empty, so no Boiling value (-tablerow) was shown at all as Juniq noted. Were it triggered, the text shown would be as Juniq says: "Boiling point 147-148 °C, 272 K, -87 °F". That is, C passes the plaintext, F and K calculated from "-1 °C").
It's live now. Testcases and demos are not current any more. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Melting point
|
|-
Identifiers | |
---|---|
Properties | |
Melting point | −114 °C (−173 °F; 159 K) |
Boiling point | 78.37 °C (173.07 °F; 351.52 K) |
Acidity (pKa) | 15.9 |
Hazards | |
Flash point | 9 °C |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
Identifiers | |
---|---|
Properties | |
Melting point | −114 °C (−173 °F; 159 K) |
Boiling point | 78.37 °C (173.07 °F; 351.52 K) |
Acidity (pKa) | 15.9 |
Hazards | |
Flash point | 9 °C 9 °C (48 °F; 282 K) |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
{{ Chembox}} uses temperature calculations in Melting point and Boiling point. I have prepared a proposal (demo) to improve their presentation. Changes:
&minus;
) not the keyboard hyphen for output (is still OK for input).&ndash;
) to prevent visual confusion.;
" not ",
".Background. Old style presentation flaws are addressed.
;
". Semicolon is the default for {convert}, so this is used wiki-wide (enwiki). And a comma is used too as a thousands-indicator like in 10,070.45. (Also, changing it to comma would require much more complicated calculations; if possible at all)./sandbox
and do preview not save:{{Chembox
...
| Section2 = {{Chembox Properties/sandbox <!-- use /sandbox to test -->
| MeltingPtC = −114}}
...
}}
|BoilingPtSigfig=3
set on an article page). Convert inconsistencies, as your example shows, may need a different approach (or acceptance). I understand both are not present in the temperatures here.|Melting_notes=
. But that one adds brackets and adds a space after the "K", so it shows "K ([1])". Mostly used to add like "...K (closed cup)", ok. I did not alter that behaviour. When I have a |Melting_ref=
added, we can build a sequence "... K[1] (closed cup)" correctly. We could also move the brackets to the input, giving editor control. Will have to look at current usage for that. Typing all in one parameter requires some switch to manage the space for ref/noref, like: editor must add "_"-trick. I don't think that would work well.|Boiling_notes=
, and I will make parallels with FlashPt and Autoignition (they need the range option too, I saw). -
DePiep (
talk)
17:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Related question - how does the data we have here now in these fields relate to what is stored on WikiData? The data there can have references, and I was considering at some point, when I have time (which I do not have; I haven't even considered yet how to do it) to have CheMoBot compare infobox-data with WikiData-data, and 'tag' accordingly (if it is the same (and referenced there), we consider it 'correct'; when they are dissimilar (and referenced there) we consider it 'changed' and then either we or they are wrong, or it has been vandalised (on either side); otherwise we mark it as 'questionable'). That would take away the need to have our indices, and CheMoBot could then easier be used on other infoboxes containing that type of data as well. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
|MeltingPt=
) is semantically less clear than a |MeltingPtC=
value. But that's as far as I can think. -
DePiep (
talk)
14:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)