![]() | 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 2015 | ← | Archive 2020 | Archive 2021 | Archive 2022 |
It would be nice if Wikipedia could show data on various forms of chiral compounds. For example:
For species with two equivalent chiral centers (like tartaric acid), three sets of data are ideal
but the Chembox parameters do not seem to accommodate multiple m.p.'s, multiple densities, etc. Advice welcome.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Properties | |
---|---|
Density | 1 g/cm3 (R) 2 g/cm3 (S) |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
|MeltingPt2=
for/with |CASNo2=
then).|SectionN=
subtemplates setup. See
doc:Chembox design. At the moment, an RfC
§ RfC on making chembox an infobox is proposing to remove this limit (by using Lua module). When all parameters are at level 1, right in {{Chembox}} like |Name=
is today, the indexing can be (programmed to) be reused throughout. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
|MeltingPt2=
, with and without _notes, with and without _Comments. The </br> fix works fine with
tartaric acid. --
Smokefoot (
talk)
15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Properties | |
---|---|
Density | 1 g/cm3 (R) |
Properties | |
Density | 2 g/cm3 (S) |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
|MeltinghPt=
(or {{
ubl}}). If and when IB Chemboc code changes (think Lua) the Change process will have to dal with it, not you today ;-)|CASNo2=
≘ |MeltingPt2=
(qctually up to the article editor to maintain this numbercheck). Possibly one needs to c/p the indexlabels (index2=R, index3=S) from Identifiers into Props for reuse in output (because Section Props cannot read Section Ident's input).More input to the discussion of several fluorines-related templates would be welcome. -- Leyo 20:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
DePiep ( talk) 14:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
DePiep ( talk) 12:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Following on from Leyo's last I've just now become aware of commons:Category:Low_quality_chemical_diagrams/expired. Current contents 484 images. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone think of a good way of drawing antimony potassium tartrate? The current image (left) has numerous failings in addition to being plain ugly. I did a search on Commons before coming here which revealed the image on the right (in use on no fewer than 8 non-english wikis), I think it's my favourite structural drawing ever - somehow almost cubist. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 21:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This kind of thing is usually easier to show with a 2D snapshot of a 3D model, with an accompanying skeletal formula. -- Ben ( talk) 15:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
How about these? Note these axes aren't the crystallographic a, b and c axes. Instead I defined the line passing through both antimony atoms as the z axis. -- Ben ( talk) 17:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
How to draw hypercubane(see right) in a good way? There are two versions of that file, old one is hard to distinguish it's double bonds, new one is too messy... -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
|SMILES=
string in the infobox, also by going back to the older revision of the articel) works for me right now.
DMacks (
talk)
22:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Identifiers | |
---|---|
| |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
|
|Jmol=(another SMILES)
is fed an adjusted SMILES string → shows OK in 3D |Jmol=none
→ Jmol does not show for this one Not done: possibly an adjusted SMILES string would show 3D coorect in Jmol. - DePiep ( talk) 15:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Identifiers | |
---|---|
| |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
| |
Identifiers | |
| |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
|
I have another question for Jmol. Why it can't show uranium compounds?-- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 10:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Another question: Jmol become flat when too much atoms bond to one(such as IF7). -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 12:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I was moving Mecysteine to cysteine methyl ester (hopefully the conventional name sticks). We can expect eventual creation of numerous articles on amino acid derivatives. Exampless:
So if colleagues have views on naming, now is a good time to discuss.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Has no evidence of existence, just one unreliable source, probably deletion. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 01:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference of nitroso and nitrosyl? Perhaps these 2 categories should be merged. -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 12:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
May the (ugly) chemical structure be replaced by the crystal structure shown in the de.wikipedia article? -- Leyo 21:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There are so many 3D models of cation+anion. How to remake these files? -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 02:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of "covalent" compounds...(Example: File:Cobalt_(II)_fluoride.png), but they are quite frequently used in eowiki(Why they use these 3D models in their reactions, example eo:Sulfura tetrafluorido)... -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 08:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
-- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 13:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The appropriate infobox to use is {{ Chembox}}. It is a modular, expandable infobox. Just use the parameters which you need; empty values will not be displayed. Chemboxes should be used for all chemical compounds, so long as they can exist in that form, even for compounds which are not isolable in pure, solvent-free form (e.g. hypochlorous acid). Chemboxes should not be used for ions, polymers, and proteins and enzymes (except simple peptides).
It said no chembox for ions, but many ion articles( tetramethylammonium, chloride) have their chembox. Also, there is a parameter(|FormulaCharge= ) in Chembox Properties that only useful for ions. -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 01:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
| Hazards_ref =
is just a placeholder, I need new parameters). --
Nucleus hydro elemon (
talk)
16:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Hazards(sodium salt) | |
---|---|
GHS labelling: | |
![]() ![]() | |
NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | |
Flash point | Non-flammable |
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC): | |
LD50 (
median dose)
|
6.44 mg/kg (rat, oral) 4 mg/kg (sheep, oral) 15 mg/kg (mammal, oral) 8 mg/kg (rat, oral) [2] |
NIOSH (US health exposure limits): | |
PEL (Permissible)
|
TWA 5 mg/m3 [1] |
REL (Recommended)
|
C 5 mg/m3 (4.7 ppm) [10-minute] [1] |
IDLH (Immediate danger)
|
25 mg/m3 (as CN) [1] |
Safety data sheet (SDS) | ICSC 1118 |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
| Appearance =
for the colour of it's solution. --
Nucleus hydro elemon (
talk)
05:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
We had a similar discussion to this at WT:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2020#Carboxylic_acids_vs_carboxylate_anion/esters. Our consensus was that very few carboxylic acids merited a separate article and we merged a number of them into their parent acid. I think that cyanide is a case where the separate article is justified but it should only discuss the ion. We have an article on sodium cyanide and, indeed, lithium cyanide, potassium cyanide and others some of which can be linked in the Chembox as related compounds. I do not support repeating, for example, the toxicity data for sodium cyanide in an article that's supposed to be limited to cyanide. The same objection is valid for any other property that can only be measured for a real sample of a specific compound. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
References
The disambiguation page for Silene used to list three different classes of silicon compounds with that name. Now it lists only one. Should any of the other two be brought back? – Uanfala (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
All, I think it is long past due to revisit Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#IUPAC_preferred_name_vs._systematic_name, as it is misleading. First and most important, by referring to an IUPAC recommendation, this has been interpreted by some (see recent discussion with Pabsoluterince) to mean that articles should be at the preferred IUPAC name, which is not what is intended, resulting in this case in a set of messy page moves, where some redirect history was lost. The examples given are rare cases where IUPAC has acquiesced to the use of trivial (common) names, but most PIN's are systematic names, and we do not use these as article titles if there is a common name. Examples include Caproic acid rather than Hexanoic acid (see past consensus for carboxylic acids specifically), 1-Pentanol rather than Pentan-1-ol, Benzaldehyde rather than Benzenecarbaldehyde, Diethyl ether rather than Ethoxyethane, Benzophenone rather than Diphenylmethanone, etc. So, while stating "IUPAC recommends the use of non-systematic names for some [emphasis added] organic compounds" is correct, this technically only addresses a small minority of organic compounds, providing no guidance on cases where IUPAC recommends use of a systematic name, or even implying that systematic names should be used unless IUPAC recommends otherwise. Hence, the operative aspect here is not what IUPAC recommends, but the use of non-systematic names.
The section title should be revised to state "Trivial (common) name vs. systematic name" and in the text we should leave IUPAC completely out of it. Instead, we should state that trivial or common names should be used if they exist, following the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, using systematic names when there is no trivial name that unambiguously refers to the compound. A more robust list of examples, such as those above, should then be included to more thoroughly depict the convention and provide better guidance to those writing articles or considering page moves. If there is consensus for this, I can try to come up with something, that others are then free to improve. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I have drafted a revised section at User:Mdewman6/sandbox2, which would completely replace the existing "IUPAC preferred name vs. systematic name" section. Please take a look and feel free to comment, offer revisions, or add to the list of examples. If there are no objections or suggestions over the next week or so, I will implement the revision at the naming conventions page. Mdewman6 ( talk) 03:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
== Organic compound names ==
This text proposal box:Trivial names (non-systematic, or "common" names) are favored for use in titles of articles for organic compounds instead of systematic names. Trivial names are usually different from the preferred name following IUPAC nomenclature. For compounds lacking trivial names, as is often the case for complex structures, substitutive nomenclature or other systematic names may be used. The general rule is to use the name most commonly used to refer to the compound, as evidenced by use in reliable sources (in line with WP:COMMONNAME).
Classes of compounds may have more specific guidance on naming, such as the use of international nonproprietary names for pharmaceutical compounds (see below).
Examples of use of trivial names and not systematic names include:
acetic acid not ethanoic acid toluene not methylbenzene lysine not 2,6-diaminohexanoic acid 1-pentanol not pentan-1-ol benzaldehyde not benzenecarbaldehyde diethyl ether not ethoxyethane benzophenone not diphenylmethanone Systematic and other accepted names for the compound not used as the article title should instead be redirects tagged with the {{ R from alternative name}} template and listed in the chembox as other names, with especially significant alternative names mentioned in the lede in bold font.
DePiep, there has been no further discussion. If your only objection to the change was procedural and not to the change itself, then I am inclined to proceed. I don't think an RfC is necessary here. The discussion has been advertised in the appropriate places. Consensus can be assumed until there is evidence of disagreement. Mdewman6 ( talk) 16:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The article lead(IV) sulfide said the oxidation state of Pb in PbS2 is +4. A newer ref ( doi: 10.1016/j.jssc.2018.10.023) states that PbS2 crystallizes in the CuAl2 structure. It should be Pb2+(S2)2−. -- Leiem ( talk) 05:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
We have recently (thanks User:GRALISTAIR!) gotten a bunch of articles about glycidyl ethers, which are used as reactive diluents (I created both Category:Glycidyl ethers and Category:Reactive diluents). Each of them has a list of the others in their respective SEEALSO. It seems excessive to link all structurally–application-related chemicals to each other in this manner (and having to keep each one updated when new are created). Instead, WP seems like it would favor a navbox. I started Template:Glycidyl ethers. But now I wonder whether instead of this one, based on a structural motif, we should instead have one based on the reactive-diluent application case? Non-ether epoxies are possible, as are structures for non-epoxide polymer types. Would a Template:Reactive diluents (that would have the glycidyl-ethers blocks but also the vinyl compounds from that application's category) be better? DMacks ( talk) 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
However it does beg the question "Should I write an article that is entitled Glycidyl ethers?" It would be a general article possibly a stub that would give general background and reference the above GRALISTAIR ( talk) 17:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I filed a request to create an image at c:COM:GL, but was directed here by Leyo ( talk · contribs).
I intend to create 3D ball-and-stick and spacefilling models of the crystal structure of
phosphonium iodide (PH
4I) as described in the listed references, to replace the current crude cation+anion combination. It is a distorted version of the
NH
4Cl structure, with
tetragonal symmetry.
[1]
[2] The file names would be
File:Phosphonium iodide 3D balls.png and
File:Phosphonium iodide 3D vdW.png, like most other 3D molecular and crystal models. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
02:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Do we have such manually drawn structural formulas in other chemboxes, too? Are we fine with it? -- Leyo 09:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Template:Sigma-Aldrich, is commonly used as a reference for Chembox hazard data. Following a merger with Merk, Sigma-Aldrich appears to have reorganised its website, breaking links in some instances. The template uses the Sigma ID number to make links, e.g. 294993 for ammonia (which still works):
However in some cases the links, while showing as blue, do not connect properly.
The template assumes that the URL should always be www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/aldrich/<id number>
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/aldrich/294993
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/sial/36735
-- Project Osprey ( talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
|1=sial
to the documentation. There also seems to exist an option |1=CATALOG
(not explored).BTW: de:Vorlage:Sigma-Aldrich#Vorlagenparameter has a few more options for this parameter. The template is transcluded in ~4500 de.wikipedia articles. -- Leyo 20:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
1,2-Dichloroethylene (aka 1,2-Dichloroethene) seems to be pretty fundamental, so I think that we should split it into cis and trans isomers. A draft of the trans isomer is here. A potentially controversial aspect of my draft is the name dichloroethylene vs dichloroethene. Feel free to comment etc.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Praseodymium(II) iodide is identified as having the formula Pr3+(I−)2e− and a synonym "praseodymium diiodide". Why aren't those names the formula Pr2+(I−)2 and why is a +3 metal named as having oxidation state (III)?
DMacks (
talk)
23:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The isomorphous diiodides of Ce, Pr and Gd stand apart from all the other, salt-like, dihalides. These three, like LaI2, are notable for their metallic lustre and very high conductivities and are best formulated as {LnIII,2I−,e−}, the electron being in a delocalized conduction band.
I have been trying to improve spelling and Wiktionary entries particularly for chemicals, and I have come across "lithio" [3] and "dilithio". [4] This is being used as if it is a replacement nomenclature for lithium in an organic compound. The current IUPAC Blue Book has "litha" for this, and I cannot find "lithio" in old versions back to 1979. But is "lithio" correct at all, perhaps sometime back in the past? (If so there should be a dictionary entry) Should we correct this "lithio" use in articles to have more valid systematic names? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Currently, there are discussion on adding properties in Wikidata:
DePiep ( talk) 16:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Dear members of the Chemicals WikiProject,
I am editing a lot Wikidata, particularly for chemistry and natural products (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Chemistry/Natural_products). We now have a lot of curated data about chemicals found in organisms (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2079986 for an example). Adding this information to the infobox would be very interesting. I have no idea how this can be done and do not know the procedure that has to be followed to modify an infobox template. Could anyone help me achieve this? The most crucial limitation would probably be to limit pages with many statements, such as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q121802. This is elegantly done on Pubchem, as per: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/222284 ("beta-Sitosterol is a natural product found in Elodea canadensis, Ophiopogon intermedius, and other organisms with data available.")
Happy to exchange more about this! AdrianoRutz ( talk) 11:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
|DTXSID=
DSSTox substance ID (P3117) is read by default (the local parameter can overwrite). I advise for any new data point we want to add, to follow this route (read from Wikidata, maintain at Wikidata, local overwrite option).It does not use the 'found in taxon (P703)' property, but 'has part(s) (P527)'"? For aspirin (Q18216), I see found in taxon (P703) with three entries, so that looks OK. OTOH, a has part(s) (P527) list cannot be sure to be taxons (because any editor can, rightfully within its definition, add anything in there), so one cannot use it as proposed here. That is: P703 being used is Good! DePiep ( talk) 16:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
{{#Property:P703}}
for inline text.{{#Property:P703|from=Q18216}}
→ liquorice, Ixora coccinea|from=Q18216
because we are not on page "
Aspirin". On page Aspirin, {{#Property:P703}}
will do as expected.{{#Property:P703}}
in Wikipedia. Hands up here to have this template.
GrndStt (
talk)
07:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC){{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|qid=Q121802|P703|maxvals=3|fwd=ALL}}
, which gives:
Cyrtocarpa procera, Iryanthera polyneura,
Morinda citrifolia
|maxvals=3
works well. Unfortunately, it does not hand over references AFAIK.Just to note I am following this conversation after a note on my talk page. First step is obviously to get consensus for this new field in the infobox. To get round the problem of too many values, could we query Wikidata to find out how many truthy statements there are. If it is more than 2, we can suppress the output, which would allow an editor to use a local override? I also think adding a maxvals option would not be too difficult — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
{{#invoke:Wikidata|frameFun|formatStatements|entity=Q121802|property=P703|showsource=true|numval=10}}
(on .fr) and it looks nice!
AdrianoRutz (
talk)
11:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)References
See Talk:Strontium ruthenate: Would it be a good idea to move this article to a more specific name? -- Leyo 12:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
"distrontium ruthenate"
yields very few (non-Wikipedia) Google hits. --
Leyo
22:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
We need a better way to name them or as above problems will arise again Ziconium ( talk) 17:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This molecule tetranitratoxycarbon, which was apparently conceived of by a grade schooler, is ridiculous and misleading. My guess is that to a nonchemist, the idea that a grade schooler could suggest a "reasonable" structure is striking, and the notability is increased because someone did some calculations on it. But chemists know that this structure is silly and even misleading So I propose to replace the article with a redirect to methyl nitrate and bury a trace of the content there.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion is here. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 03:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is a list
Gallium arsenide, Gallium nitride, Aluminum arsenide, Aluminum gallium indium phosphide, Aluminium gallium nitride, Aluminum gallium arsenide, Aluminum gallium phosphide, Cadmium telluride, Gallium antimonide,
and too many to list here
there could also be a page just listing the properties of each
Ziconium ( talk) 06:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the settings to be used with BIOVIA Draw taking place at WT:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing workgroup#Default BIOVIA Draw ACS template which may be of interest to those who use this software for their chemical drawings. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 16:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion about talk:fluoroaspirin, trying to find out whether that is the common name of the chemical and whether the article ought to be moved. -- Trovatore ( talk) 18:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fellow editors are encouraged to review the recent burst of contributions by unregistered editor User:88.105.135.216. The edits are highly specific (I think too specific), but do not suggest self-promotion. Artwork does not render well. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
While deep in a rabbit-hole from WP:RD/S, I came across a statement in proceedings from a 1906 meeting:
Fehling's solution is (now:) well-established. From context, Violett's must be some other analytical reagent to test for reducing sugars. But I cannot find any other reference to it. Help please? DMacks ( talk) 05:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
An article that been involved with ( Zinc oxide ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ( Zinc white). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 17:32, 30 December 2022 (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 2015 | ← | Archive 2020 | Archive 2021 | Archive 2022 |
It would be nice if Wikipedia could show data on various forms of chiral compounds. For example:
For species with two equivalent chiral centers (like tartaric acid), three sets of data are ideal
but the Chembox parameters do not seem to accommodate multiple m.p.'s, multiple densities, etc. Advice welcome.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Properties | |
---|---|
Density | 1 g/cm3 (R) 2 g/cm3 (S) |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
|MeltingPt2=
for/with |CASNo2=
then).|SectionN=
subtemplates setup. See
doc:Chembox design. At the moment, an RfC
§ RfC on making chembox an infobox is proposing to remove this limit (by using Lua module). When all parameters are at level 1, right in {{Chembox}} like |Name=
is today, the indexing can be (programmed to) be reused throughout. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
|MeltingPt2=
, with and without _notes, with and without _Comments. The </br> fix works fine with
tartaric acid. --
Smokefoot (
talk)
15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Properties | |
---|---|
Density | 1 g/cm3 (R) |
Properties | |
Density | 2 g/cm3 (S) |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
|MeltinghPt=
(or {{
ubl}}). If and when IB Chemboc code changes (think Lua) the Change process will have to dal with it, not you today ;-)|CASNo2=
≘ |MeltingPt2=
(qctually up to the article editor to maintain this numbercheck). Possibly one needs to c/p the indexlabels (index2=R, index3=S) from Identifiers into Props for reuse in output (because Section Props cannot read Section Ident's input).More input to the discussion of several fluorines-related templates would be welcome. -- Leyo 20:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
DePiep ( talk) 14:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
DePiep ( talk) 12:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Following on from Leyo's last I've just now become aware of commons:Category:Low_quality_chemical_diagrams/expired. Current contents 484 images. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone think of a good way of drawing antimony potassium tartrate? The current image (left) has numerous failings in addition to being plain ugly. I did a search on Commons before coming here which revealed the image on the right (in use on no fewer than 8 non-english wikis), I think it's my favourite structural drawing ever - somehow almost cubist. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 21:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This kind of thing is usually easier to show with a 2D snapshot of a 3D model, with an accompanying skeletal formula. -- Ben ( talk) 15:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
How about these? Note these axes aren't the crystallographic a, b and c axes. Instead I defined the line passing through both antimony atoms as the z axis. -- Ben ( talk) 17:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
How to draw hypercubane(see right) in a good way? There are two versions of that file, old one is hard to distinguish it's double bonds, new one is too messy... -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
|SMILES=
string in the infobox, also by going back to the older revision of the articel) works for me right now.
DMacks (
talk)
22:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Identifiers | |
---|---|
| |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
|
|Jmol=(another SMILES)
is fed an adjusted SMILES string → shows OK in 3D |Jmol=none
→ Jmol does not show for this one Not done: possibly an adjusted SMILES string would show 3D coorect in Jmol. - DePiep ( talk) 15:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Identifiers | |
---|---|
| |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
| |
Identifiers | |
| |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
|
I have another question for Jmol. Why it can't show uranium compounds?-- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 10:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Another question: Jmol become flat when too much atoms bond to one(such as IF7). -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 12:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I was moving Mecysteine to cysteine methyl ester (hopefully the conventional name sticks). We can expect eventual creation of numerous articles on amino acid derivatives. Exampless:
So if colleagues have views on naming, now is a good time to discuss.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Has no evidence of existence, just one unreliable source, probably deletion. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 01:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
What is the difference of nitroso and nitrosyl? Perhaps these 2 categories should be merged. -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 12:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
May the (ugly) chemical structure be replaced by the crystal structure shown in the de.wikipedia article? -- Leyo 21:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There are so many 3D models of cation+anion. How to remake these files? -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 02:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of "covalent" compounds...(Example: File:Cobalt_(II)_fluoride.png), but they are quite frequently used in eowiki(Why they use these 3D models in their reactions, example eo:Sulfura tetrafluorido)... -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 08:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
-- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 13:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The appropriate infobox to use is {{ Chembox}}. It is a modular, expandable infobox. Just use the parameters which you need; empty values will not be displayed. Chemboxes should be used for all chemical compounds, so long as they can exist in that form, even for compounds which are not isolable in pure, solvent-free form (e.g. hypochlorous acid). Chemboxes should not be used for ions, polymers, and proteins and enzymes (except simple peptides).
It said no chembox for ions, but many ion articles( tetramethylammonium, chloride) have their chembox. Also, there is a parameter(|FormulaCharge= ) in Chembox Properties that only useful for ions. -- Nucleus hydro elemon ( talk) 01:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
| Hazards_ref =
is just a placeholder, I need new parameters). --
Nucleus hydro elemon (
talk)
16:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Hazards(sodium salt) | |
---|---|
GHS labelling: | |
![]() ![]() | |
NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | |
Flash point | Non-flammable |
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC): | |
LD50 (
median dose)
|
6.44 mg/kg (rat, oral) 4 mg/kg (sheep, oral) 15 mg/kg (mammal, oral) 8 mg/kg (rat, oral) [2] |
NIOSH (US health exposure limits): | |
PEL (Permissible)
|
TWA 5 mg/m3 [1] |
REL (Recommended)
|
C 5 mg/m3 (4.7 ppm) [10-minute] [1] |
IDLH (Immediate danger)
|
25 mg/m3 (as CN) [1] |
Safety data sheet (SDS) | ICSC 1118 |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
| Appearance =
for the colour of it's solution. --
Nucleus hydro elemon (
talk)
05:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
We had a similar discussion to this at WT:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2020#Carboxylic_acids_vs_carboxylate_anion/esters. Our consensus was that very few carboxylic acids merited a separate article and we merged a number of them into their parent acid. I think that cyanide is a case where the separate article is justified but it should only discuss the ion. We have an article on sodium cyanide and, indeed, lithium cyanide, potassium cyanide and others some of which can be linked in the Chembox as related compounds. I do not support repeating, for example, the toxicity data for sodium cyanide in an article that's supposed to be limited to cyanide. The same objection is valid for any other property that can only be measured for a real sample of a specific compound. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
References
The disambiguation page for Silene used to list three different classes of silicon compounds with that name. Now it lists only one. Should any of the other two be brought back? – Uanfala (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
All, I think it is long past due to revisit Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#IUPAC_preferred_name_vs._systematic_name, as it is misleading. First and most important, by referring to an IUPAC recommendation, this has been interpreted by some (see recent discussion with Pabsoluterince) to mean that articles should be at the preferred IUPAC name, which is not what is intended, resulting in this case in a set of messy page moves, where some redirect history was lost. The examples given are rare cases where IUPAC has acquiesced to the use of trivial (common) names, but most PIN's are systematic names, and we do not use these as article titles if there is a common name. Examples include Caproic acid rather than Hexanoic acid (see past consensus for carboxylic acids specifically), 1-Pentanol rather than Pentan-1-ol, Benzaldehyde rather than Benzenecarbaldehyde, Diethyl ether rather than Ethoxyethane, Benzophenone rather than Diphenylmethanone, etc. So, while stating "IUPAC recommends the use of non-systematic names for some [emphasis added] organic compounds" is correct, this technically only addresses a small minority of organic compounds, providing no guidance on cases where IUPAC recommends use of a systematic name, or even implying that systematic names should be used unless IUPAC recommends otherwise. Hence, the operative aspect here is not what IUPAC recommends, but the use of non-systematic names.
The section title should be revised to state "Trivial (common) name vs. systematic name" and in the text we should leave IUPAC completely out of it. Instead, we should state that trivial or common names should be used if they exist, following the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, using systematic names when there is no trivial name that unambiguously refers to the compound. A more robust list of examples, such as those above, should then be included to more thoroughly depict the convention and provide better guidance to those writing articles or considering page moves. If there is consensus for this, I can try to come up with something, that others are then free to improve. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I have drafted a revised section at User:Mdewman6/sandbox2, which would completely replace the existing "IUPAC preferred name vs. systematic name" section. Please take a look and feel free to comment, offer revisions, or add to the list of examples. If there are no objections or suggestions over the next week or so, I will implement the revision at the naming conventions page. Mdewman6 ( talk) 03:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
== Organic compound names ==
This text proposal box:Trivial names (non-systematic, or "common" names) are favored for use in titles of articles for organic compounds instead of systematic names. Trivial names are usually different from the preferred name following IUPAC nomenclature. For compounds lacking trivial names, as is often the case for complex structures, substitutive nomenclature or other systematic names may be used. The general rule is to use the name most commonly used to refer to the compound, as evidenced by use in reliable sources (in line with WP:COMMONNAME).
Classes of compounds may have more specific guidance on naming, such as the use of international nonproprietary names for pharmaceutical compounds (see below).
Examples of use of trivial names and not systematic names include:
acetic acid not ethanoic acid toluene not methylbenzene lysine not 2,6-diaminohexanoic acid 1-pentanol not pentan-1-ol benzaldehyde not benzenecarbaldehyde diethyl ether not ethoxyethane benzophenone not diphenylmethanone Systematic and other accepted names for the compound not used as the article title should instead be redirects tagged with the {{ R from alternative name}} template and listed in the chembox as other names, with especially significant alternative names mentioned in the lede in bold font.
DePiep, there has been no further discussion. If your only objection to the change was procedural and not to the change itself, then I am inclined to proceed. I don't think an RfC is necessary here. The discussion has been advertised in the appropriate places. Consensus can be assumed until there is evidence of disagreement. Mdewman6 ( talk) 16:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The article lead(IV) sulfide said the oxidation state of Pb in PbS2 is +4. A newer ref ( doi: 10.1016/j.jssc.2018.10.023) states that PbS2 crystallizes in the CuAl2 structure. It should be Pb2+(S2)2−. -- Leiem ( talk) 05:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
We have recently (thanks User:GRALISTAIR!) gotten a bunch of articles about glycidyl ethers, which are used as reactive diluents (I created both Category:Glycidyl ethers and Category:Reactive diluents). Each of them has a list of the others in their respective SEEALSO. It seems excessive to link all structurally–application-related chemicals to each other in this manner (and having to keep each one updated when new are created). Instead, WP seems like it would favor a navbox. I started Template:Glycidyl ethers. But now I wonder whether instead of this one, based on a structural motif, we should instead have one based on the reactive-diluent application case? Non-ether epoxies are possible, as are structures for non-epoxide polymer types. Would a Template:Reactive diluents (that would have the glycidyl-ethers blocks but also the vinyl compounds from that application's category) be better? DMacks ( talk) 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
However it does beg the question "Should I write an article that is entitled Glycidyl ethers?" It would be a general article possibly a stub that would give general background and reference the above GRALISTAIR ( talk) 17:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I filed a request to create an image at c:COM:GL, but was directed here by Leyo ( talk · contribs).
I intend to create 3D ball-and-stick and spacefilling models of the crystal structure of
phosphonium iodide (PH
4I) as described in the listed references, to replace the current crude cation+anion combination. It is a distorted version of the
NH
4Cl structure, with
tetragonal symmetry.
[1]
[2] The file names would be
File:Phosphonium iodide 3D balls.png and
File:Phosphonium iodide 3D vdW.png, like most other 3D molecular and crystal models. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
02:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
References
Do we have such manually drawn structural formulas in other chemboxes, too? Are we fine with it? -- Leyo 09:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Template:Sigma-Aldrich, is commonly used as a reference for Chembox hazard data. Following a merger with Merk, Sigma-Aldrich appears to have reorganised its website, breaking links in some instances. The template uses the Sigma ID number to make links, e.g. 294993 for ammonia (which still works):
However in some cases the links, while showing as blue, do not connect properly.
The template assumes that the URL should always be www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/aldrich/<id number>
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/aldrich/294993
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/sial/36735
-- Project Osprey ( talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
|1=sial
to the documentation. There also seems to exist an option |1=CATALOG
(not explored).BTW: de:Vorlage:Sigma-Aldrich#Vorlagenparameter has a few more options for this parameter. The template is transcluded in ~4500 de.wikipedia articles. -- Leyo 20:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
1,2-Dichloroethylene (aka 1,2-Dichloroethene) seems to be pretty fundamental, so I think that we should split it into cis and trans isomers. A draft of the trans isomer is here. A potentially controversial aspect of my draft is the name dichloroethylene vs dichloroethene. Feel free to comment etc.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Praseodymium(II) iodide is identified as having the formula Pr3+(I−)2e− and a synonym "praseodymium diiodide". Why aren't those names the formula Pr2+(I−)2 and why is a +3 metal named as having oxidation state (III)?
DMacks (
talk)
23:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The isomorphous diiodides of Ce, Pr and Gd stand apart from all the other, salt-like, dihalides. These three, like LaI2, are notable for their metallic lustre and very high conductivities and are best formulated as {LnIII,2I−,e−}, the electron being in a delocalized conduction band.
I have been trying to improve spelling and Wiktionary entries particularly for chemicals, and I have come across "lithio" [3] and "dilithio". [4] This is being used as if it is a replacement nomenclature for lithium in an organic compound. The current IUPAC Blue Book has "litha" for this, and I cannot find "lithio" in old versions back to 1979. But is "lithio" correct at all, perhaps sometime back in the past? (If so there should be a dictionary entry) Should we correct this "lithio" use in articles to have more valid systematic names? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Currently, there are discussion on adding properties in Wikidata:
DePiep ( talk) 16:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Dear members of the Chemicals WikiProject,
I am editing a lot Wikidata, particularly for chemistry and natural products (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Chemistry/Natural_products). We now have a lot of curated data about chemicals found in organisms (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2079986 for an example). Adding this information to the infobox would be very interesting. I have no idea how this can be done and do not know the procedure that has to be followed to modify an infobox template. Could anyone help me achieve this? The most crucial limitation would probably be to limit pages with many statements, such as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q121802. This is elegantly done on Pubchem, as per: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/222284 ("beta-Sitosterol is a natural product found in Elodea canadensis, Ophiopogon intermedius, and other organisms with data available.")
Happy to exchange more about this! AdrianoRutz ( talk) 11:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
|DTXSID=
DSSTox substance ID (P3117) is read by default (the local parameter can overwrite). I advise for any new data point we want to add, to follow this route (read from Wikidata, maintain at Wikidata, local overwrite option).It does not use the 'found in taxon (P703)' property, but 'has part(s) (P527)'"? For aspirin (Q18216), I see found in taxon (P703) with three entries, so that looks OK. OTOH, a has part(s) (P527) list cannot be sure to be taxons (because any editor can, rightfully within its definition, add anything in there), so one cannot use it as proposed here. That is: P703 being used is Good! DePiep ( talk) 16:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
{{#Property:P703}}
for inline text.{{#Property:P703|from=Q18216}}
→ liquorice, Ixora coccinea|from=Q18216
because we are not on page "
Aspirin". On page Aspirin, {{#Property:P703}}
will do as expected.{{#Property:P703}}
in Wikipedia. Hands up here to have this template.
GrndStt (
talk)
07:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC){{#invoke:WikidataIB|getValue|qid=Q121802|P703|maxvals=3|fwd=ALL}}
, which gives:
Cyrtocarpa procera, Iryanthera polyneura,
Morinda citrifolia
|maxvals=3
works well. Unfortunately, it does not hand over references AFAIK.Just to note I am following this conversation after a note on my talk page. First step is obviously to get consensus for this new field in the infobox. To get round the problem of too many values, could we query Wikidata to find out how many truthy statements there are. If it is more than 2, we can suppress the output, which would allow an editor to use a local override? I also think adding a maxvals option would not be too difficult — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
{{#invoke:Wikidata|frameFun|formatStatements|entity=Q121802|property=P703|showsource=true|numval=10}}
(on .fr) and it looks nice!
AdrianoRutz (
talk)
11:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)References
See Talk:Strontium ruthenate: Would it be a good idea to move this article to a more specific name? -- Leyo 12:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
"distrontium ruthenate"
yields very few (non-Wikipedia) Google hits. --
Leyo
22:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
We need a better way to name them or as above problems will arise again Ziconium ( talk) 17:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This molecule tetranitratoxycarbon, which was apparently conceived of by a grade schooler, is ridiculous and misleading. My guess is that to a nonchemist, the idea that a grade schooler could suggest a "reasonable" structure is striking, and the notability is increased because someone did some calculations on it. But chemists know that this structure is silly and even misleading So I propose to replace the article with a redirect to methyl nitrate and bury a trace of the content there.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion is here. Keres🌕 Luna edits! 03:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is a list
Gallium arsenide, Gallium nitride, Aluminum arsenide, Aluminum gallium indium phosphide, Aluminium gallium nitride, Aluminum gallium arsenide, Aluminum gallium phosphide, Cadmium telluride, Gallium antimonide,
and too many to list here
there could also be a page just listing the properties of each
Ziconium ( talk) 06:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the settings to be used with BIOVIA Draw taking place at WT:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing workgroup#Default BIOVIA Draw ACS template which may be of interest to those who use this software for their chemical drawings. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 16:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion about talk:fluoroaspirin, trying to find out whether that is the common name of the chemical and whether the article ought to be moved. -- Trovatore ( talk) 18:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Fellow editors are encouraged to review the recent burst of contributions by unregistered editor User:88.105.135.216. The edits are highly specific (I think too specific), but do not suggest self-promotion. Artwork does not render well. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
While deep in a rabbit-hole from WP:RD/S, I came across a statement in proceedings from a 1906 meeting:
Fehling's solution is (now:) well-established. From context, Violett's must be some other analytical reagent to test for reducing sugars. But I cannot find any other reference to it. Help please? DMacks ( talk) 05:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
An article that been involved with ( Zinc oxide ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ( Zinc white). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 17:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)