The Featured Article nomination of Water fluoridation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been restarted. Previous comments have been archived, so we now have a fresh start. Further comments are welcome on the nomination page. Eubulides ( talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing some article assessment at WikiProject Measurement recently and I came across the article Apothecaries' system (not one of mine) which seems pretty good. For the time being, I've rated it as A-class on our project quality scale, but I would welcome further comments so I have opened a peer review here. If there are editors with any knowledge or interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if they could read through the article and tell us if there is anything important which should be in there but which isn't at the moment. Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Could we please have a few more eyes looking at Talk:List of important publications in chemistry#New organic chemistry entry. In particular how do we alter the "Description" and "Importance" sections, if we follow User:Walkerma's advice and keep this entry. Recently we tightened the inclusion criteria and there was a discussion on the talk page about removing some entries, although the discussion was only between User:Dirac66 and myself. It would be good to have more comment on that, particularly on entries on organic chemistry books, although discussion on any entry is welcome. We also of course want many more good entries to this list. -- Bduke (Discussion) 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I started an article about Plumbide and was told to come here for help expanding it. Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've given a few refs and a summary of Greenwood & Earnshaw at Talk:Plumbide. Polyplumbide anions are apparently interesting and important.
Ben ( talk) 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
List of Radioactive Elements has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Chemistry articles can be sorted by importance and by class. What about both? Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on the Commons about the deletion process for tagged wrong or poor structures. Your input would be welcome on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Superseding. Cacycle ( talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:56, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I recently made a new image for glycine which reminded me that the way we depict amino acids and other potentially zwitterionic species probably needs to be discussed and put in the MoS.
Here's my reasoning for glycine: Talk:Glycine#Structure. Is this best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (chemistry)?
A while ago, I started including references in my 3D images, and now I'm at the stage where I am very reluctant to upload a 3D model of a species unless its precise 3D structure has been determined experimentally (or sometimes computationally, but this is not ideal in the absence of experimental verification).
There's still a great deal of value in 3D images that correctly match the 2D structure (right connectivity and stereochemistry), but that are not actually experimentally determined - crystal structures or spectroscopic measurements are sometimes hard to come by, difficult to make a model from, and there's often little disadvantage in having an approximate structure in an article. Things can go wrong when conformation (or other trickery, e.g. zwitterion fun, as in arsanilic acid) is important, but the uploader doesn't know about it (I had this problem a lot in the past, before I had good access to journals).
I think we should really encourage reliably-sourced structures where possible - references on the image description page make it much easier to resolve the frequent complaints of "wrong structure", many of which are unfounded accusations! Even if the reference isn't particularly reliable, the uploader should indicate where they got the information from - even if it's just from them own knowledge.
Ben ( talk) 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Crystal structures of small molecules are valuable for making 3D structure images because they are easy to get hold of and easy to convert to a picture.
Global energy minimum conformations are not always easily available, and are not always accurate - they're not experimental data and can be a poor representation of the true conformation if the computational method used does not model reality accurately enough - how can you know your computed structure is right? Crystal structure data is more often available in an accessible format (pre-made into a CIF) whereas for computed or spectroscopically determined structures, you usually have to fix loads of bond lengths and angles - very time consuming and error prone for anything larger than a few atoms.
For bioactive compounds, it's good to have both the structure of the pure substance (crystal, microwave, IR) or its solution structure (NMR), AND the structure of the molecule interacting with its target (usually a drug fitting into an enzyme). The crystal structures of drugs in pure form are important and do influence their pharmacology - hence the desire for crystal structure prediction: Acta Cryst. (2009). B65, 107-125.
One thing we should not do is avoid the problem by saying "crystal structures don't necessarily correspond to solution structures" and therefore "let's use computations or NMR". This would be fine in an ideal world for some articles, but actually getting hold of a mistake-free computed or NMR structure is really hard and would in practice lead to loads of unillustrated articles. Computational articles should give PDBs, not just lists of cartesian coordinates to type in! For other articles, the crystal structure is the best representation - if the substance is most commonly encountered as a solid or its chemistry depends mostly on the crystal structure.
Uncharged amino acids seem to be found only in the gas phase - and that's what you'd get from a computation. Glycine is most commonly encountered in solution or crystal, where it's a zwitterion. Its crystal structure is important. Its zwitterionic nature makes it a much higher-melting solid than if it were uncharged, and glycine and similar molecules are widely used in crystal engineering. In its most important role as a part of proteins, it's not even an amino acid, it's a residue with amide groups. So maybe a picture of glycine bonded to the rest of a protein should be prominent.
Ben ( talk) 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The crystal structures of a compound are just one arbitrary conformation that is neither the dominant one in the gase phase, in solution, nor in its biological context (e.g. interacting with a protein). Actually, most small organic molecules in solution or the gas phase are so extremely flexible that you cannot even talk about a predominant species. We have the 3D structures here merely as an extension to the 2D structures to show how these translate into the third dimension. There is no didactic or encyclopedic reason to single out crystal structures for this purpose (and crystallographers and computational chemists do not rely on Wikipedia images for crystal structures). In my opinion, we should use energy minimized structures that are close to the global gas phase minimum and are either in a biologically or didactically (i.e. easy to overview) relevant conformation. Oh, I am only talking about small organic molecules, for (partially) inorganic compounds and complexes crystal structures are much more relevant. As for zwitterions and other reversibly charged compounds I agree that in general we should use the uncharged structures for didactic reasons in 2D as well as 3D to keep it simple. Cacycle ( talk) 22:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The chromium pages gives the statement that one application of chromium is As a catalyst. I searched a little bit, and found countless applications of chromium compounds in oxidation reactions, but none mentioned the significance of the described process. If somebody knows a large scale application for chromium or a chromium compound as catalyst, it would help me a lot. The literature and the references are than easy to find. Thanks -- Stone ( talk) 17:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The chemistry section needs a look from a native speaker, but I will also ask at the elements project.-- Stone ( talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a spoken version of folic acid. However, I've run into a problem; the equation in the Biochemistry of DNA base and amino acid production section seems, to me, to be nonsensical. I'm having difficulty determining waht it was actually supposed to be. If someone could take a look at it, I would be much obliged. Thanks! Sophus Bie ( talk) 06:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to look at most of the chemistry Nobel Prize Laureates and found that most of them are not in the scope of the Chemistry project so I added them to our scope. The only problem I had was the importance scale, for my impression they should be Mid or High. Theodore William Richards was rated Top now I am wondering if we should make them all Top or all High? Any suggestions?-- Stone ( talk) 20:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate some ideas on what else should belong to this article. Tried to tidy it up with stuff off the top of my head (references pending!). I'll eventually get some stuff about the comparisions with amides, but I'm not sure what else to talk about. Ideas, please! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to write a GA on matrices. Are there any notable applications of matrices in chemistry? (I guess so...) Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a new taskforce being setted up at WP:GLASS within the WikiProject Physics. It seems to me that it should at the same time also be within the WikiProject Chemistry, based on articles that are already within the WikiProject Chemistry such as Lead glass or Waterglass. Glass related categories of interest for chemists might be Glass types, Glass engineering and science, Common oxide glass components, or Glass in nature (e.g., corrosion behavior). Is there any opposition to adding a link to WP:GLASS on the WikiProject Chemistry page? Do you have other suggestion or ideas? You are very welcome to contribute. Thanks... -- Afluegel ( talk) 07:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse ( talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
People might comment on this: Blue Fuel , which looks like an advert. And then there is this link that showed up in a couple of articles:
Impressive video (at least to my eyes) but possibly spam or precursor to pay-to-view. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please look at Selective chemistry of single-walled nanotubes? It is an utter piece of crap, and should probably be deleted. Just to give an idea, the article begins with "Reactivity of the fullerene molecules with respect to addition chemistries is strongly dependent on the curvature of the carbon framework. Their outer surface (exohedral) reactivity increases with increase in curvature." I cleaned it up a bit, but it still looks like a poorly written school paper, full of gaudy graphs and everything. Someone with more knowledge of the subject might be able to figure out what to do with it—whether that be to delete it or salvage it. I am not watching this project talk page, so the ball is now in your court. Good luck. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anyone here would be able to identify these drawings so they can be properly labeled with descriptions and possibly converted to svg files and/or moved to commons:
Thanks in advanced, Peachey88 ( Talk Page · Contribs) 03:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe this article (or, as it calls itself, "paper") is probably a student essay. It is in need of review from somebody with knowledge in the field. It lists some pretty questionable sources. It was up at the CP board, but I can't find any sign of infringement, neither through a search of selected phrases nor through a plagiarism checker. I also didn't see any duplicated text at those sources. Since this is far out of my field, I'm hoping somebody here will take it on. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I updated this topic in Archive 17 but I also thought I would revive it on the current talk page to bring it to everyone's attention.
This class project is nearing its end for this semester and most of my students have posted their new/revised sites online. This term there was a lot more oversight and guidance provided to the students by myself and the graduate student instructor. We used group accounts again to simplify the grading but they will be terminated by the end of next week. Hopefully there will be less "wikifying" needed for each site. This was a graduate course in the "Organic Chemistry of Macromolecules" and overall I was impressed with the quality of their additions. I look forward to hearing your comments.
The topics this term were:
Please take a look and let me know if you have any suggestions/concerns/comments. Ajm mich ( talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
All of us chemists should keep an eye on niobium today, since it's on the main page. Walkerma ( talk) 03:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to update the chemical equation article with what it says here( chemical reaction equation - [ [1]])in the gold book regarding the use of "=", "→" and two different double arrows for equilibrium and forward and backward reactions. Can we represent these different double arrows? There is a discussion here regarding the equilibrium symbol [2] but as they say in geordie land I was lost off by it! Was there a conclusion?
On a historical note when and why did the ability to document unbalanced reactions with "→", still taught here as I was taught, get lost? -- Axiosaurus ( talk) 10:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Which can be used in sentences like:
Iron nitride{{chemformula}} may be super awesome, but buckminsterfullerenes{{chemformula}} are clearly even more awesome.
It populates Category:Articles needing chemical formulas. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be annoyed if I kept seeing those tags everywhere. If wikilinked, why the need for tagging at all? You'll end up with nobody (but a few?) tagging, and nobody (but a few?) cleaning up. Net result is an eyesore. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not really understand why we need this template. There is no simple formula for buckminsterfullerene, it has a complex structure that is shown in the article. For iron nitride it would make much more sense to check the existing and already linked article and to add the formula (Fe2-4N) yourself instead of placing that template. Am I missing something? Cacycle ( talk) 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The case of iron nitride is simple enough, but it also relies on the iron nitride page existing (which it didn't until two or three days ago). What about the case of Leucophosphite, a mineral (KFe2[OH|(PO4)2]·2H2O]) ( [3]) or and unlinked phthalic acid (or mispelled phtalic acid) (C6H4(COOH)2)?. At template is not to indicate that something cannot be improved if someone scours Wikipedia for a while, its to indicate that something can be improved. Anyway, it's there, so do what you want with it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Can some nice person please draw better versions of the structures? Thanks, 69.157.194.162 ( talk) 20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I made pics for basketane, too - sorry, I had already done them when I saw you message.
Ben ( talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I declined the {{ db-corp}} deletion on this one, because a quick Google search suggests notability, and in the hope that we can get a little help with the article. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Some new articles will be reported here. Probably the submitting editors would welcome some help, especially on the geeky-formating stuff. Also of course, the science may be flawed. Another need will be to create redirects.
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC), updated May 6
could someone tell me what these meso, erythro and theo mean in organic chemistry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.82.44 ( talk) 17:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at Arrow pushing, once you go past the lead, I can't see how the rest is connect to the subject, it just seems like a general description of a process? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created a template for Organic Chemistry by Clayden et al since it is frequently cited in Wikipedia articles: {{ Clayden}}.
I find myself using {{ Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}} all the time, so this new template should fulfil a similar role in organic articles.
Ben ( talk) 14:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This article ( Alkyl sulfonate) needs a hand, or should be merged with Sulfonic acid.-- Stone ( talk) 11:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
A college professor I know has a group of students working on improving articles. I provided him with some guidelines from User:Smokefoot and User:Proteins, who both have experience in this area, and I also advised him to look at WP:MOSCHEM. I think he's done quite a professional job with this
Perhaps experienced wikichemists could keep an eye on these pages for problems, and be patient, though they look good so far - I see structure diagrams uploaded as Public Domain to the Commons using ACS settings and put in categories, that's a pretty good start in my book! Walkerma ( talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there is something happening at the boron aticle which needs a hand from more experienced admin or a editor, better familiar with the politics. Two groups discovered the new allotroph of boron and now one is accusing the other that he copied from his paper, because he got it previous to publication. This two groups are now plying a little bit with the boron article. Could we use some of the original research things on both groups to calm down the situatiuon? Thanks --- Stone ( talk) 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Members of WP:Chemistry may be interested to hear that ChemSpider has been acquired by the Royal Society of Chemistry, as announced here. I think this will be helpful for our collaboration with ChemSpider. Walkerma ( talk) 15:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This stub article is currently nominated for deletion as it lacks sufficient context or sources. Searching for sources gives confusing results as there appears to be two different substances called Keller's reagent. The article and the AfD require input from an expert on the subject. McWomble ( talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if anybody could take a look at Pittcon Editors' Awards. I've copyedited it, but nothing links to it, so it's pretty hard to find. Any help would be appreciated! HJMitchell You rang? 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that many molecular diagrams are being drawn following the convention that a carbon atom is implied at every unmarked corner, and with all (or most) hydrogens removed. See for example File:Methylcyclopropanesimp.png. While this "graphical slang" may be OK for complicated molecules, it is not at all friendly to a large segment of the readership (e.g. high-school students) who could understand and learn from molecular diagrams but are not used to this advanced convention. Please consider using complete diagrams whenever possibe. All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point, although I think it is useful to have the skeletal formula there for readers who prefer it (they're often quicker to interpret for larger molecules).
Ben ( talk) 12:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to draw a line, but some articles will obviously fall in one camp or the other, e.g. hexane.
For non-skeletal structures, which depiction is preferred?
There are are lot of drug articles out there that will primarily be of interest to non-scientists, but have skeletal formulae - this is a bit difficult, because the structures are often large and complicated, so explicit C and especially H is a problem (classic example is Atorvastatin).
My focus on 3D structures is partly for this reason - they're neater than structural formulas with all atoms explicit. The drawback is you have to know the colour scheme (although this can be guessed in conjunction with the skeletal formula) and some atoms get hidden behind others.
Ben ( talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I add that the data on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Structure_drawing#Drawing_in_IsisDraw, specifically states to use the JACS drawing template and change the hydrogen settings to "On hetero". If you do that then you just get the "normal" standard structure, with no "C"s and no "H"s - except those on nitrogen, etc. I prefer to see terminal methyls as CH3, but applying the settings stated, prevents that. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not up to us to invent or to promote obscure and non-standard molecule drawing styles. 1 and 3 are nightmares without being easier to read for beginners as they would have to know the meaning of those wedged bonds to understand the structure. I would strongly prefer the commonly used style 5 to show connectivity in combination with a skeletal formula and a 3D image to show spatial arrangement and conformation. In the long run I would like to see a molecule applet that allows 3D rotation. Cacycle ( talk) 12:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My preference is to have at minimum a
skeletal formula in every nearly every organic chemical article. These images provide simple connectivity information and are easily understood by anyone with basic training in organic chemistry. A second ball-and-stick or space-filling image, in "3D", is often very helpful for the depiction of conformational information. Ben's images are fantastic in this respect. Adding images that show each atom explicitly are beneficial, too, but only for the simplest molecules. I wouldn't include them for anything with more than about six carbons. The chembox can easily accommodate multiple images - there's no reason we shouldn't use this capability to illustrate chemical articles with images in more than one style. --
Ed (
Edgar181) 13:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Over recent weeks discussion on the Jmol list about getting Jmol installed on wikipedia has intensified, with some particularly good discussion recently. I think this is the time to make a final push to convince the WMF tech people to install the jmol mediawiki extension and allow it use. Further discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Using Jmol to display molecular models or its talk page. Recent discussion has suggested that use be enabled within the chemical infobox. A really good example of the use of the Jmol extension on a wiki is on Proeopedia here. Details of the jmol email list are here. You will also find examples of the use of the extension on the Jmol Wiki itself. We need to show that we want this.-- Bduke (Discussion) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I created Category:Octahedral compounds a little bit ago, because I was looking for some kind of list of such compounds and didn't really find anything. I added a few compounds to this category, but then received a message on my talk page from Smokefoot informing me that octahedral compounds are extremely common and perhaps my effort was misguided, so I stopped.
Is it worthwhile to categorize compounds by molecular shape like this? If a system is ever developed to find intersections of categories, as I have heard rumors of from time to time, it seems that such a categorization might be useful.
I should point out that my chemistry knowledge is not very deep. — Bkell ( talk) 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone check the chemistry and health statements in DuPont and C-8, please. Even comments on the talk page would help. (I don't know if there is a better wikiproject to consult on this). Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Quality!
Ben ( talk) 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm currently a member of WikiProject Pharmacology. I've been assessing articles for a little bit and I have a question. Will you cover Pharmaceutical compounds or will you not even deal with medical drugs at all? A lot of the new articles are about compounds and stuff, and I'm wondering what would be within your project's scope. Thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I m confused , if benzoic acid is a strong acid or not. If not then, which is the commonly known strong organic acid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.127.15.19 ( talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Oxygen-24 , Oxygen-15 , Oxygen-13 - have been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 07:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at the Synthesis section I've just added to Linezolid and improve/correct as necessary? I'll try to add some images later. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We have a submission at WP:AFC on the above subject. There are a few problems with it, but I'm wondering if it might have some potential. It can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Induction plasma technology and any comments at the discussion would be appreciated. Thanks. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The area of conductive polymers continues to be of contemporary interest, unfortunately this and some related article have become the domain of User:Pproctor who has strong views on the history and is embittered by the Nobel in the area (to Shirakawa et al.). PProctor's signature is the figure of the "melanin-based voltage controlled device" published by John McGinness, (possibly Pproctor's thesis advisor, candidate for AfD, and "who pioneered much of the modern field of organic electronics."). See: Organic electronics, melanin (which has been partially redefined), molecular electronics, organic semiconductor, and of course John McGinness. I have periodically but unsuccessfully tried to edit in this space. This curious situation that has persisted for years.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Chemistry should be the featured WikiProject in next week's Wikipedia Signpost, assuming there are no last minute hitches! I'm looking for images to illustrate the piece, so I thought I'd ask here to see what are your favorities from our articles! The only criterion is that the image must be used in at least one WP:CHEMISTRY article, although I'll give priority to images produced by project members if there are enough suggestions to choose between. Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As Physchim62 wrote in his interview for that ^ Signpost article, it looked a poor FA, so I've nominated it for review. I have nominated Diamond 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 18:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
After the last IRC discussion, I tried to have a go at creating an infobox for chemical reactions. I have set up a base in my userspace in User:Beetstra/ReactionBox/Reactionbox, based on the {{ chembox}}. An example page having the box is in User:Beetstra/ReactionBox. I have not implemented a lot of parameters yet, just to keep the system pretty small. Of course more parameters can be added, and we can also think of introducing sub-boxes like the chembox has (it actually already has one). Using the modular approach like the chembox can be expanded easily where needed.
I'd like you all to have a look at it (feel free to edit whatever you'd like to), and see if we can figure out if and where it breaks, and what we have to adapt to make it work for as many as possible pages (or if we have to abandon the idea at all). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad Beetstra has taken up this project. I did a mock-up last year at User:Rifleman_82/Infobox_reaction, perhaps it might give some ideas? I'm not keen on listing the reagents/starting materials to such detail. Perhaps a list, instead? After all, we typically have a general reaction scheme as well. I think that a mention of the history is nice as well, especially for named reactions. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
On a closely related topic, I have added a suggestion for naming conventions for name reactions at WT:NCCHEM: please take a look at it and lets see what needs modifying. Physchim62 (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we need the page Mixed oxide, it reads strange and from my point of view it misses the most wanted examples.-- Stone ( talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
beta-Carotene is currently named, well, beta-Carotene. I'm not sure about the hyphening and capitalization and am unfamiliar with either chemistry or the naming guidelines for chemicals. Could an informed participant comment on talk:beta-Carotene?
Page is also a bit of a stub. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutralization (chemistry) and Acid-alkali reaction. Should we merge it?-- Stone ( talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Pikiwyn ( talk · contribs) makes many redirects of chemical formulas. Impo this is nonsense: (1) one hardly matches all chemicals with a specific formula, (2) this is a never ending story (wikipedia doesn't list all chmicals), (3) who is looking for e.g. “C6O8H6” instead of ascorbic acid??? Opinions? -- Yikrazuul ( talk) 10:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that lemmata of smaller and more popular molecules like CH4 or C6H6O6 are beneficial. I thought that the search of something like C43H58N4O12 instead of Rifampicin is senseless. Cheers, -- Yikrazuul ( talk) 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
In general, I suggest that formulas in the lede should be structural in nature, not empirical formulas. Two reasons: the ChemBox already has the empirical formula (and we aim not to repeat ourselves) and (2) structural formulas convey additional information. Thus, for butanol, we'd have C4H10O in ChemBox, but in the lede we'd have CH3CH2CH2CH2OH, CH3(CH2)3OH, or C4H9OH (I prefer the middle one). For large molecules like lysergic acid, there is not much that can be done, so we'd not even mention formulas in the lede.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a slow but pernicious editing dispute going on over the first sentence of the Avogadro constant article, which has wider implications as well. I am involved, so I shall refrain from comment here except to point to the talk page discussion. Outside opinions are welcome. Physchim62 (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to this bulletin and this articel. If yes, it would be fine to get a copy. Many thanks for your help and greetings -- benutzer:Roland1952 ( talk) 15:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
who knows normal operating pressures for r410a a/c system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.128.169 ( talk) 18:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Steel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_ Zero 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Biochemie und Pathobiochemie (biochemistry and pathobiochemistry), zh:胆固醇生物合成 (biosynthesis of cholesterol). Just thought it might be a better way to illustrate biochemical pathways than just images. -- Choij ( talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
So, C22H25NO6 is recently created as a redirct to colchicine. There must be many species with the formula C22H25NO6. It is conceivable that non-technical readers would conclude that C22H25NO6 uniquely identifies one compound. The creation of articles that summarize the structural isomers of simple formulas might be useful, but for the larger formulas ...? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are some more C22H25NO6 compounds:
Ben ( talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
C6H12H6 or C6H12O6? Does that explain it?
Ben ( talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia search on 'C6H12O6' finds the formula redirects/disambigs. Which does lead to the correct compounds, so that part is good. It is even the main result.
It does however not find any of the sugars in the main results. The second result is Acid-citrate-dextrose, which has in the text |[[Dextrose]] (C6H12O6*H2O) ||23.28g to 25.73g, an unformatted formula. The third result is Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate, which has 2 G3P = 1 C6H12O6 (glucose) All a matter of 'bad formatting'...
Glucose (e.g.) does not have that, there it is (in the chembox): | Formula = C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>12</sub>O<sub>6</sub> In other Chemboxes it might be | C = 6 | H = 12 | O = 6, so they will not show up here.
The google engine removes the tagging, so that one does find Glucose, and the others off course. The Wiki engine is apparently a bit more picky. In either way, this is why these redirects are quite handy. They are the top result, both in Google and in the Wiki search. I therefore think, at least for now, that these redirects/disambigs might even be handy, even for the strange ones. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
<!-- C6H12O6 -->
for glucose et al?Sounds good.
Ben ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My 2 cents: seems like a lot of unnecessary work to explicitly add the unformatted formulae in whatever form. I find it totally unjustifiable for any but the simplest compounds most frequently accessed by the non-scientist public. Is there a way we can harvest the data in the formula code (e.g. C=6 | H = 12 | O = 6 ) such that we can search for compounds using a dedicated search page? Something like the way SDBS does it? ( http://riodb01.ibase.aist.go.jp/sdbs/cgi-bin/cre_index.cgi?lang=eng) -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 10:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
To find formulas using mediawiki search you need to add spaces: search for "C 6 H 12 O 6" (with the quotes). -- Itub ( talk) 12:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The last section of the article on soap states that metals added to soap have a certain function Nanoscopic metals are commonly added to certain soaps specifically for both coloration and anti-bacterial properties. Titanium powder is commonly used in extreme "white" soaps for these purposes; nickel, aluminum and silver are less commonly used. These metals provide electron-robbing behavior when in contact with bacteria, stripping electrons from the organism's surface and thereby disrupting their functioning (typically killing the bacteria when it has lost too many electrons). For me this sounds a little bit strange, but somebody has a clue if this is right. The pure white is most of the time titanium oxide and to ad nanopwdered nickle to soap sounds like a big funny surprise for most of the people who are alergic to nickel. Thanks.-- Stone ( talk) 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a test out that will tell you how many ppm of Quat you have in your lagoon system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.128.43 ( talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Chemistry to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Fiberglass for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 23:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
On the commons, I have a gallery with skeletal formulae created. It contains formulae with terminal methyl groups. Now User:Leyo in the German WikiProject Chemistry pointed out that in English skeletal formulae may not contain methyl groups. Do I need to replace every formulae or will also be accepted? -- Hystrix ( talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I found a tool for generating SVG diagrams based on the SMILES code, and this is the first structure I made with it: File:Hydroxypethidine.svg. Is this acceptable? — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 08:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Playing around with PyMOL I made some first movies. Is there any advantage to have some? The problem is: they are relativly big in size (depending how many frames are used, colors in the gif-files, size).-- Yikrazuul ( talk) 16:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with Chemistry... I came upon the cell casting article while wikifying it -- and I suspect it may be inaccurate. In the original article it says cell casting is an inferior method of producing PMMA sheets, when the main article ( PMMA) says otherwise! I also wonder if there may be a need to merge both articles... -- Kryssolis ( talk) 03:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed with some articles like Malachite green at the beginning the name of the chemical and its other names are bolded, but with other articles like Maleic anhydride they aren't or aren't completely and i was wondering which is right. Is the bolded wrong or is the unbolded just still needing to be bolded? Pikiwyn ( talk) 20:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Before I go changing them all, can we have a consensus on the position of charges. I'm thinking in particular of
tetrafluoroammonium, where (to my mind) all the charges are in the wrong position. Furthermore, in salts like [NF+
4
2TiF2−
6, you don't need charges at all (unless especially trying to emphasise them for some reason), but the anion should have square brackets; I would write it as [NF42[TiF6]. Thoughts?
Chris (
talk) 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it common for the superscripted text to be directly above the subscripted text? Or "after", horizontally? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 01:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at the Red Book, if there is a charge it goes outside the brackets. There are no examples that I could see of charges and subscripts both being outside the brackets, because it's redundant; you only need the subscript if the ion is part of a compound, and in that case it's not usual to show the charge. So, it should be [NF4+, for example. I'll feel free to make changes :) Chris ( talk) 08:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: I've found an example that had both subscript and charge (top of p58). The subscript comes first, and the charge after it (not directly above it).
O22− (p 73 of red book). You don't need square brackets because it's not a complex ion. Chris ( talk) 10:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a new article - it looks to be well-written and researched, though perhaps it needs to be done in a more encylopedic style (though that is hard for a "future event"). I've added cats and a few links, but if those familiar with the topic could edit it a bit, I'd appreciate it. I think this would be a great candidate for WP:DYK, but I think WP:Chemistry people should pick it over before I nominate it. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
An article covered by this WikiProject, Dry ice, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC) |
I have opened a discussion about a certain bot on commons, look here. Please feel free to join the discussion! Cheers, -- Yikrazuul ( talk) 13:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
ÀItalic text thumbnail
The Featured Article nomination of Water fluoridation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been restarted. Previous comments have been archived, so we now have a fresh start. Further comments are welcome on the nomination page. Eubulides ( talk) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing some article assessment at WikiProject Measurement recently and I came across the article Apothecaries' system (not one of mine) which seems pretty good. For the time being, I've rated it as A-class on our project quality scale, but I would welcome further comments so I have opened a peer review here. If there are editors with any knowledge or interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if they could read through the article and tell us if there is anything important which should be in there but which isn't at the moment. Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Could we please have a few more eyes looking at Talk:List of important publications in chemistry#New organic chemistry entry. In particular how do we alter the "Description" and "Importance" sections, if we follow User:Walkerma's advice and keep this entry. Recently we tightened the inclusion criteria and there was a discussion on the talk page about removing some entries, although the discussion was only between User:Dirac66 and myself. It would be good to have more comment on that, particularly on entries on organic chemistry books, although discussion on any entry is welcome. We also of course want many more good entries to this list. -- Bduke (Discussion) 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I started an article about Plumbide and was told to come here for help expanding it. Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've given a few refs and a summary of Greenwood & Earnshaw at Talk:Plumbide. Polyplumbide anions are apparently interesting and important.
Ben ( talk) 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
List of Radioactive Elements has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Chemistry articles can be sorted by importance and by class. What about both? Chlorine Trifluoride ( talk) 15:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion on the Commons about the deletion process for tagged wrong or poor structures. Your input would be welcome on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Superseding. Cacycle ( talk) 14:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:56, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I recently made a new image for glycine which reminded me that the way we depict amino acids and other potentially zwitterionic species probably needs to be discussed and put in the MoS.
Here's my reasoning for glycine: Talk:Glycine#Structure. Is this best discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (chemistry)?
A while ago, I started including references in my 3D images, and now I'm at the stage where I am very reluctant to upload a 3D model of a species unless its precise 3D structure has been determined experimentally (or sometimes computationally, but this is not ideal in the absence of experimental verification).
There's still a great deal of value in 3D images that correctly match the 2D structure (right connectivity and stereochemistry), but that are not actually experimentally determined - crystal structures or spectroscopic measurements are sometimes hard to come by, difficult to make a model from, and there's often little disadvantage in having an approximate structure in an article. Things can go wrong when conformation (or other trickery, e.g. zwitterion fun, as in arsanilic acid) is important, but the uploader doesn't know about it (I had this problem a lot in the past, before I had good access to journals).
I think we should really encourage reliably-sourced structures where possible - references on the image description page make it much easier to resolve the frequent complaints of "wrong structure", many of which are unfounded accusations! Even if the reference isn't particularly reliable, the uploader should indicate where they got the information from - even if it's just from them own knowledge.
Ben ( talk) 13:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Crystal structures of small molecules are valuable for making 3D structure images because they are easy to get hold of and easy to convert to a picture.
Global energy minimum conformations are not always easily available, and are not always accurate - they're not experimental data and can be a poor representation of the true conformation if the computational method used does not model reality accurately enough - how can you know your computed structure is right? Crystal structure data is more often available in an accessible format (pre-made into a CIF) whereas for computed or spectroscopically determined structures, you usually have to fix loads of bond lengths and angles - very time consuming and error prone for anything larger than a few atoms.
For bioactive compounds, it's good to have both the structure of the pure substance (crystal, microwave, IR) or its solution structure (NMR), AND the structure of the molecule interacting with its target (usually a drug fitting into an enzyme). The crystal structures of drugs in pure form are important and do influence their pharmacology - hence the desire for crystal structure prediction: Acta Cryst. (2009). B65, 107-125.
One thing we should not do is avoid the problem by saying "crystal structures don't necessarily correspond to solution structures" and therefore "let's use computations or NMR". This would be fine in an ideal world for some articles, but actually getting hold of a mistake-free computed or NMR structure is really hard and would in practice lead to loads of unillustrated articles. Computational articles should give PDBs, not just lists of cartesian coordinates to type in! For other articles, the crystal structure is the best representation - if the substance is most commonly encountered as a solid or its chemistry depends mostly on the crystal structure.
Uncharged amino acids seem to be found only in the gas phase - and that's what you'd get from a computation. Glycine is most commonly encountered in solution or crystal, where it's a zwitterion. Its crystal structure is important. Its zwitterionic nature makes it a much higher-melting solid than if it were uncharged, and glycine and similar molecules are widely used in crystal engineering. In its most important role as a part of proteins, it's not even an amino acid, it's a residue with amide groups. So maybe a picture of glycine bonded to the rest of a protein should be prominent.
Ben ( talk) 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The crystal structures of a compound are just one arbitrary conformation that is neither the dominant one in the gase phase, in solution, nor in its biological context (e.g. interacting with a protein). Actually, most small organic molecules in solution or the gas phase are so extremely flexible that you cannot even talk about a predominant species. We have the 3D structures here merely as an extension to the 2D structures to show how these translate into the third dimension. There is no didactic or encyclopedic reason to single out crystal structures for this purpose (and crystallographers and computational chemists do not rely on Wikipedia images for crystal structures). In my opinion, we should use energy minimized structures that are close to the global gas phase minimum and are either in a biologically or didactically (i.e. easy to overview) relevant conformation. Oh, I am only talking about small organic molecules, for (partially) inorganic compounds and complexes crystal structures are much more relevant. As for zwitterions and other reversibly charged compounds I agree that in general we should use the uncharged structures for didactic reasons in 2D as well as 3D to keep it simple. Cacycle ( talk) 22:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The chromium pages gives the statement that one application of chromium is As a catalyst. I searched a little bit, and found countless applications of chromium compounds in oxidation reactions, but none mentioned the significance of the described process. If somebody knows a large scale application for chromium or a chromium compound as catalyst, it would help me a lot. The literature and the references are than easy to find. Thanks -- Stone ( talk) 17:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The chemistry section needs a look from a native speaker, but I will also ask at the elements project.-- Stone ( talk) 20:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a spoken version of folic acid. However, I've run into a problem; the equation in the Biochemistry of DNA base and amino acid production section seems, to me, to be nonsensical. I'm having difficulty determining waht it was actually supposed to be. If someone could take a look at it, I would be much obliged. Thanks! Sophus Bie ( talk) 06:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to look at most of the chemistry Nobel Prize Laureates and found that most of them are not in the scope of the Chemistry project so I added them to our scope. The only problem I had was the importance scale, for my impression they should be Mid or High. Theodore William Richards was rated Top now I am wondering if we should make them all Top or all High? Any suggestions?-- Stone ( talk) 20:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate some ideas on what else should belong to this article. Tried to tidy it up with stuff off the top of my head (references pending!). I'll eventually get some stuff about the comparisions with amides, but I'm not sure what else to talk about. Ideas, please! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to write a GA on matrices. Are there any notable applications of matrices in chemistry? (I guess so...) Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a new taskforce being setted up at WP:GLASS within the WikiProject Physics. It seems to me that it should at the same time also be within the WikiProject Chemistry, based on articles that are already within the WikiProject Chemistry such as Lead glass or Waterglass. Glass related categories of interest for chemists might be Glass types, Glass engineering and science, Common oxide glass components, or Glass in nature (e.g., corrosion behavior). Is there any opposition to adding a link to WP:GLASS on the WikiProject Chemistry page? Do you have other suggestion or ideas? You are very welcome to contribute. Thanks... -- Afluegel ( talk) 07:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
People may be interested to know that the Poll on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse ( talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
People might comment on this: Blue Fuel , which looks like an advert. And then there is this link that showed up in a couple of articles:
Impressive video (at least to my eyes) but possibly spam or precursor to pay-to-view. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 12:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please look at Selective chemistry of single-walled nanotubes? It is an utter piece of crap, and should probably be deleted. Just to give an idea, the article begins with "Reactivity of the fullerene molecules with respect to addition chemistries is strongly dependent on the curvature of the carbon framework. Their outer surface (exohedral) reactivity increases with increase in curvature." I cleaned it up a bit, but it still looks like a poorly written school paper, full of gaudy graphs and everything. Someone with more knowledge of the subject might be able to figure out what to do with it—whether that be to delete it or salvage it. I am not watching this project talk page, so the ball is now in your court. Good luck. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if anyone here would be able to identify these drawings so they can be properly labeled with descriptions and possibly converted to svg files and/or moved to commons:
Thanks in advanced, Peachey88 ( Talk Page · Contribs) 03:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe this article (or, as it calls itself, "paper") is probably a student essay. It is in need of review from somebody with knowledge in the field. It lists some pretty questionable sources. It was up at the CP board, but I can't find any sign of infringement, neither through a search of selected phrases nor through a plagiarism checker. I also didn't see any duplicated text at those sources. Since this is far out of my field, I'm hoping somebody here will take it on. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I updated this topic in Archive 17 but I also thought I would revive it on the current talk page to bring it to everyone's attention.
This class project is nearing its end for this semester and most of my students have posted their new/revised sites online. This term there was a lot more oversight and guidance provided to the students by myself and the graduate student instructor. We used group accounts again to simplify the grading but they will be terminated by the end of next week. Hopefully there will be less "wikifying" needed for each site. This was a graduate course in the "Organic Chemistry of Macromolecules" and overall I was impressed with the quality of their additions. I look forward to hearing your comments.
The topics this term were:
Please take a look and let me know if you have any suggestions/concerns/comments. Ajm mich ( talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
All of us chemists should keep an eye on niobium today, since it's on the main page. Walkerma ( talk) 03:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to update the chemical equation article with what it says here( chemical reaction equation - [ [1]])in the gold book regarding the use of "=", "→" and two different double arrows for equilibrium and forward and backward reactions. Can we represent these different double arrows? There is a discussion here regarding the equilibrium symbol [2] but as they say in geordie land I was lost off by it! Was there a conclusion?
On a historical note when and why did the ability to document unbalanced reactions with "→", still taught here as I was taught, get lost? -- Axiosaurus ( talk) 10:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Which can be used in sentences like:
Iron nitride{{chemformula}} may be super awesome, but buckminsterfullerenes{{chemformula}} are clearly even more awesome.
It populates Category:Articles needing chemical formulas. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be annoyed if I kept seeing those tags everywhere. If wikilinked, why the need for tagging at all? You'll end up with nobody (but a few?) tagging, and nobody (but a few?) cleaning up. Net result is an eyesore. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not really understand why we need this template. There is no simple formula for buckminsterfullerene, it has a complex structure that is shown in the article. For iron nitride it would make much more sense to check the existing and already linked article and to add the formula (Fe2-4N) yourself instead of placing that template. Am I missing something? Cacycle ( talk) 14:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The case of iron nitride is simple enough, but it also relies on the iron nitride page existing (which it didn't until two or three days ago). What about the case of Leucophosphite, a mineral (KFe2[OH|(PO4)2]·2H2O]) ( [3]) or and unlinked phthalic acid (or mispelled phtalic acid) (C6H4(COOH)2)?. At template is not to indicate that something cannot be improved if someone scours Wikipedia for a while, its to indicate that something can be improved. Anyway, it's there, so do what you want with it. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Can some nice person please draw better versions of the structures? Thanks, 69.157.194.162 ( talk) 20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I made pics for basketane, too - sorry, I had already done them when I saw you message.
Ben ( talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I declined the {{ db-corp}} deletion on this one, because a quick Google search suggests notability, and in the hope that we can get a little help with the article. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Some new articles will be reported here. Probably the submitting editors would welcome some help, especially on the geeky-formating stuff. Also of course, the science may be flawed. Another need will be to create redirects.
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC), updated May 6
could someone tell me what these meso, erythro and theo mean in organic chemistry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.82.44 ( talk) 17:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at Arrow pushing, once you go past the lead, I can't see how the rest is connect to the subject, it just seems like a general description of a process? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created a template for Organic Chemistry by Clayden et al since it is frequently cited in Wikipedia articles: {{ Clayden}}.
I find myself using {{ Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}} all the time, so this new template should fulfil a similar role in organic articles.
Ben ( talk) 14:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This article ( Alkyl sulfonate) needs a hand, or should be merged with Sulfonic acid.-- Stone ( talk) 11:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
A college professor I know has a group of students working on improving articles. I provided him with some guidelines from User:Smokefoot and User:Proteins, who both have experience in this area, and I also advised him to look at WP:MOSCHEM. I think he's done quite a professional job with this
Perhaps experienced wikichemists could keep an eye on these pages for problems, and be patient, though they look good so far - I see structure diagrams uploaded as Public Domain to the Commons using ACS settings and put in categories, that's a pretty good start in my book! Walkerma ( talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there is something happening at the boron aticle which needs a hand from more experienced admin or a editor, better familiar with the politics. Two groups discovered the new allotroph of boron and now one is accusing the other that he copied from his paper, because he got it previous to publication. This two groups are now plying a little bit with the boron article. Could we use some of the original research things on both groups to calm down the situatiuon? Thanks --- Stone ( talk) 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Members of WP:Chemistry may be interested to hear that ChemSpider has been acquired by the Royal Society of Chemistry, as announced here. I think this will be helpful for our collaboration with ChemSpider. Walkerma ( talk) 15:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This stub article is currently nominated for deletion as it lacks sufficient context or sources. Searching for sources gives confusing results as there appears to be two different substances called Keller's reagent. The article and the AfD require input from an expert on the subject. McWomble ( talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if anybody could take a look at Pittcon Editors' Awards. I've copyedited it, but nothing links to it, so it's pretty hard to find. Any help would be appreciated! HJMitchell You rang? 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that many molecular diagrams are being drawn following the convention that a carbon atom is implied at every unmarked corner, and with all (or most) hydrogens removed. See for example File:Methylcyclopropanesimp.png. While this "graphical slang" may be OK for complicated molecules, it is not at all friendly to a large segment of the readership (e.g. high-school students) who could understand and learn from molecular diagrams but are not used to this advanced convention. Please consider using complete diagrams whenever possibe. All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point, although I think it is useful to have the skeletal formula there for readers who prefer it (they're often quicker to interpret for larger molecules).
Ben ( talk) 12:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to draw a line, but some articles will obviously fall in one camp or the other, e.g. hexane.
For non-skeletal structures, which depiction is preferred?
There are are lot of drug articles out there that will primarily be of interest to non-scientists, but have skeletal formulae - this is a bit difficult, because the structures are often large and complicated, so explicit C and especially H is a problem (classic example is Atorvastatin).
My focus on 3D structures is partly for this reason - they're neater than structural formulas with all atoms explicit. The drawback is you have to know the colour scheme (although this can be guessed in conjunction with the skeletal formula) and some atoms get hidden behind others.
Ben ( talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I add that the data on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Structure_drawing#Drawing_in_IsisDraw, specifically states to use the JACS drawing template and change the hydrogen settings to "On hetero". If you do that then you just get the "normal" standard structure, with no "C"s and no "H"s - except those on nitrogen, etc. I prefer to see terminal methyls as CH3, but applying the settings stated, prevents that. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not up to us to invent or to promote obscure and non-standard molecule drawing styles. 1 and 3 are nightmares without being easier to read for beginners as they would have to know the meaning of those wedged bonds to understand the structure. I would strongly prefer the commonly used style 5 to show connectivity in combination with a skeletal formula and a 3D image to show spatial arrangement and conformation. In the long run I would like to see a molecule applet that allows 3D rotation. Cacycle ( talk) 12:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My preference is to have at minimum a
skeletal formula in every nearly every organic chemical article. These images provide simple connectivity information and are easily understood by anyone with basic training in organic chemistry. A second ball-and-stick or space-filling image, in "3D", is often very helpful for the depiction of conformational information. Ben's images are fantastic in this respect. Adding images that show each atom explicitly are beneficial, too, but only for the simplest molecules. I wouldn't include them for anything with more than about six carbons. The chembox can easily accommodate multiple images - there's no reason we shouldn't use this capability to illustrate chemical articles with images in more than one style. --
Ed (
Edgar181) 13:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Over recent weeks discussion on the Jmol list about getting Jmol installed on wikipedia has intensified, with some particularly good discussion recently. I think this is the time to make a final push to convince the WMF tech people to install the jmol mediawiki extension and allow it use. Further discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Using Jmol to display molecular models or its talk page. Recent discussion has suggested that use be enabled within the chemical infobox. A really good example of the use of the Jmol extension on a wiki is on Proeopedia here. Details of the jmol email list are here. You will also find examples of the use of the extension on the Jmol Wiki itself. We need to show that we want this.-- Bduke (Discussion) 22:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I created Category:Octahedral compounds a little bit ago, because I was looking for some kind of list of such compounds and didn't really find anything. I added a few compounds to this category, but then received a message on my talk page from Smokefoot informing me that octahedral compounds are extremely common and perhaps my effort was misguided, so I stopped.
Is it worthwhile to categorize compounds by molecular shape like this? If a system is ever developed to find intersections of categories, as I have heard rumors of from time to time, it seems that such a categorization might be useful.
I should point out that my chemistry knowledge is not very deep. — Bkell ( talk) 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone check the chemistry and health statements in DuPont and C-8, please. Even comments on the talk page would help. (I don't know if there is a better wikiproject to consult on this). Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Quality!
Ben ( talk) 20:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'm currently a member of WikiProject Pharmacology. I've been assessing articles for a little bit and I have a question. Will you cover Pharmaceutical compounds or will you not even deal with medical drugs at all? A lot of the new articles are about compounds and stuff, and I'm wondering what would be within your project's scope. Thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I m confused , if benzoic acid is a strong acid or not. If not then, which is the commonly known strong organic acid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.127.15.19 ( talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Oxygen-24 , Oxygen-15 , Oxygen-13 - have been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 07:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at the Synthesis section I've just added to Linezolid and improve/correct as necessary? I'll try to add some images later. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We have a submission at WP:AFC on the above subject. There are a few problems with it, but I'm wondering if it might have some potential. It can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Induction plasma technology and any comments at the discussion would be appreciated. Thanks. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The area of conductive polymers continues to be of contemporary interest, unfortunately this and some related article have become the domain of User:Pproctor who has strong views on the history and is embittered by the Nobel in the area (to Shirakawa et al.). PProctor's signature is the figure of the "melanin-based voltage controlled device" published by John McGinness, (possibly Pproctor's thesis advisor, candidate for AfD, and "who pioneered much of the modern field of organic electronics."). See: Organic electronics, melanin (which has been partially redefined), molecular electronics, organic semiconductor, and of course John McGinness. I have periodically but unsuccessfully tried to edit in this space. This curious situation that has persisted for years.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Chemistry should be the featured WikiProject in next week's Wikipedia Signpost, assuming there are no last minute hitches! I'm looking for images to illustrate the piece, so I thought I'd ask here to see what are your favorities from our articles! The only criterion is that the image must be used in at least one WP:CHEMISTRY article, although I'll give priority to images produced by project members if there are enough suggestions to choose between. Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As Physchim62 wrote in his interview for that ^ Signpost article, it looked a poor FA, so I've nominated it for review. I have nominated Diamond 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 18:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
After the last IRC discussion, I tried to have a go at creating an infobox for chemical reactions. I have set up a base in my userspace in User:Beetstra/ReactionBox/Reactionbox, based on the {{ chembox}}. An example page having the box is in User:Beetstra/ReactionBox. I have not implemented a lot of parameters yet, just to keep the system pretty small. Of course more parameters can be added, and we can also think of introducing sub-boxes like the chembox has (it actually already has one). Using the modular approach like the chembox can be expanded easily where needed.
I'd like you all to have a look at it (feel free to edit whatever you'd like to), and see if we can figure out if and where it breaks, and what we have to adapt to make it work for as many as possible pages (or if we have to abandon the idea at all). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad Beetstra has taken up this project. I did a mock-up last year at User:Rifleman_82/Infobox_reaction, perhaps it might give some ideas? I'm not keen on listing the reagents/starting materials to such detail. Perhaps a list, instead? After all, we typically have a general reaction scheme as well. I think that a mention of the history is nice as well, especially for named reactions. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
On a closely related topic, I have added a suggestion for naming conventions for name reactions at WT:NCCHEM: please take a look at it and lets see what needs modifying. Physchim62 (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Do we need the page Mixed oxide, it reads strange and from my point of view it misses the most wanted examples.-- Stone ( talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
beta-Carotene is currently named, well, beta-Carotene. I'm not sure about the hyphening and capitalization and am unfamiliar with either chemistry or the naming guidelines for chemicals. Could an informed participant comment on talk:beta-Carotene?
Page is also a bit of a stub. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutralization (chemistry) and Acid-alkali reaction. Should we merge it?-- Stone ( talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Pikiwyn ( talk · contribs) makes many redirects of chemical formulas. Impo this is nonsense: (1) one hardly matches all chemicals with a specific formula, (2) this is a never ending story (wikipedia doesn't list all chmicals), (3) who is looking for e.g. “C6O8H6” instead of ascorbic acid??? Opinions? -- Yikrazuul ( talk) 10:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that lemmata of smaller and more popular molecules like CH4 or C6H6O6 are beneficial. I thought that the search of something like C43H58N4O12 instead of Rifampicin is senseless. Cheers, -- Yikrazuul ( talk) 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
In general, I suggest that formulas in the lede should be structural in nature, not empirical formulas. Two reasons: the ChemBox already has the empirical formula (and we aim not to repeat ourselves) and (2) structural formulas convey additional information. Thus, for butanol, we'd have C4H10O in ChemBox, but in the lede we'd have CH3CH2CH2CH2OH, CH3(CH2)3OH, or C4H9OH (I prefer the middle one). For large molecules like lysergic acid, there is not much that can be done, so we'd not even mention formulas in the lede.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a slow but pernicious editing dispute going on over the first sentence of the Avogadro constant article, which has wider implications as well. I am involved, so I shall refrain from comment here except to point to the talk page discussion. Outside opinions are welcome. Physchim62 (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to this bulletin and this articel. If yes, it would be fine to get a copy. Many thanks for your help and greetings -- benutzer:Roland1952 ( talk) 15:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
who knows normal operating pressures for r410a a/c system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.128.169 ( talk) 18:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Steel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_ Zero 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Biochemie und Pathobiochemie (biochemistry and pathobiochemistry), zh:胆固醇生物合成 (biosynthesis of cholesterol). Just thought it might be a better way to illustrate biochemical pathways than just images. -- Choij ( talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
So, C22H25NO6 is recently created as a redirct to colchicine. There must be many species with the formula C22H25NO6. It is conceivable that non-technical readers would conclude that C22H25NO6 uniquely identifies one compound. The creation of articles that summarize the structural isomers of simple formulas might be useful, but for the larger formulas ...? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 18:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are some more C22H25NO6 compounds:
Ben ( talk) 19:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
C6H12H6 or C6H12O6? Does that explain it?
Ben ( talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia search on 'C6H12O6' finds the formula redirects/disambigs. Which does lead to the correct compounds, so that part is good. It is even the main result.
It does however not find any of the sugars in the main results. The second result is Acid-citrate-dextrose, which has in the text |[[Dextrose]] (C6H12O6*H2O) ||23.28g to 25.73g, an unformatted formula. The third result is Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate, which has 2 G3P = 1 C6H12O6 (glucose) All a matter of 'bad formatting'...
Glucose (e.g.) does not have that, there it is (in the chembox): | Formula = C<sub>6</sub>H<sub>12</sub>O<sub>6</sub> In other Chemboxes it might be | C = 6 | H = 12 | O = 6, so they will not show up here.
The google engine removes the tagging, so that one does find Glucose, and the others off course. The Wiki engine is apparently a bit more picky. In either way, this is why these redirects are quite handy. They are the top result, both in Google and in the Wiki search. I therefore think, at least for now, that these redirects/disambigs might even be handy, even for the strange ones. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
<!-- C6H12O6 -->
for glucose et al?Sounds good.
Ben ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
My 2 cents: seems like a lot of unnecessary work to explicitly add the unformatted formulae in whatever form. I find it totally unjustifiable for any but the simplest compounds most frequently accessed by the non-scientist public. Is there a way we can harvest the data in the formula code (e.g. C=6 | H = 12 | O = 6 ) such that we can search for compounds using a dedicated search page? Something like the way SDBS does it? ( http://riodb01.ibase.aist.go.jp/sdbs/cgi-bin/cre_index.cgi?lang=eng) -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 10:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
To find formulas using mediawiki search you need to add spaces: search for "C 6 H 12 O 6" (with the quotes). -- Itub ( talk) 12:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The last section of the article on soap states that metals added to soap have a certain function Nanoscopic metals are commonly added to certain soaps specifically for both coloration and anti-bacterial properties. Titanium powder is commonly used in extreme "white" soaps for these purposes; nickel, aluminum and silver are less commonly used. These metals provide electron-robbing behavior when in contact with bacteria, stripping electrons from the organism's surface and thereby disrupting their functioning (typically killing the bacteria when it has lost too many electrons). For me this sounds a little bit strange, but somebody has a clue if this is right. The pure white is most of the time titanium oxide and to ad nanopwdered nickle to soap sounds like a big funny surprise for most of the people who are alergic to nickel. Thanks.-- Stone ( talk) 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a test out that will tell you how many ppm of Quat you have in your lagoon system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.128.43 ( talk) 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Chemistry to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed Fiberglass for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:
-- Mr. Z-man 23:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
On the commons, I have a gallery with skeletal formulae created. It contains formulae with terminal methyl groups. Now User:Leyo in the German WikiProject Chemistry pointed out that in English skeletal formulae may not contain methyl groups. Do I need to replace every formulae or will also be accepted? -- Hystrix ( talk) 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I found a tool for generating SVG diagrams based on the SMILES code, and this is the first structure I made with it: File:Hydroxypethidine.svg. Is this acceptable? — harej ( talk) ( cool!) 08:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Playing around with PyMOL I made some first movies. Is there any advantage to have some? The problem is: they are relativly big in size (depending how many frames are used, colors in the gif-files, size).-- Yikrazuul ( talk) 16:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with Chemistry... I came upon the cell casting article while wikifying it -- and I suspect it may be inaccurate. In the original article it says cell casting is an inferior method of producing PMMA sheets, when the main article ( PMMA) says otherwise! I also wonder if there may be a need to merge both articles... -- Kryssolis ( talk) 03:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed with some articles like Malachite green at the beginning the name of the chemical and its other names are bolded, but with other articles like Maleic anhydride they aren't or aren't completely and i was wondering which is right. Is the bolded wrong or is the unbolded just still needing to be bolded? Pikiwyn ( talk) 20:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Before I go changing them all, can we have a consensus on the position of charges. I'm thinking in particular of
tetrafluoroammonium, where (to my mind) all the charges are in the wrong position. Furthermore, in salts like [NF+
4
2TiF2−
6, you don't need charges at all (unless especially trying to emphasise them for some reason), but the anion should have square brackets; I would write it as [NF42[TiF6]. Thoughts?
Chris (
talk) 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it common for the superscripted text to be directly above the subscripted text? Or "after", horizontally? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 01:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at the Red Book, if there is a charge it goes outside the brackets. There are no examples that I could see of charges and subscripts both being outside the brackets, because it's redundant; you only need the subscript if the ion is part of a compound, and in that case it's not usual to show the charge. So, it should be [NF4+, for example. I'll feel free to make changes :) Chris ( talk) 08:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: I've found an example that had both subscript and charge (top of p58). The subscript comes first, and the charge after it (not directly above it).
O22− (p 73 of red book). You don't need square brackets because it's not a complex ion. Chris ( talk) 10:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a new article - it looks to be well-written and researched, though perhaps it needs to be done in a more encylopedic style (though that is hard for a "future event"). I've added cats and a few links, but if those familiar with the topic could edit it a bit, I'd appreciate it. I think this would be a great candidate for WP:DYK, but I think WP:Chemistry people should pick it over before I nominate it. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
An article covered by this WikiProject, Dry ice, is currently under the Spotlight. If you wish to help, please join the editors in #wikipedia-spotlight on the freenode IRC network where the project is coordinated. (See the IRC tutorial for help with IRC) |
I have opened a discussion about a certain bot on commons, look here. Please feel free to join the discussion! Cheers, -- Yikrazuul ( talk) 13:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
ÀItalic text thumbnail