![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
We have a number pages on very similar surfactants which I'm thinking about merging together
Nonoxynol-9 should probably remain separate as it has a distinct medical use but the others could easily be rolled into alkyl phenoxy polyethoxy ethers (or similar). The pages are generally of a poor quality being either unreferenced or primarily web-referenced. Much of the information on synthesis and uses can be combined. As for specific properties, I was thinking of a table where 'alkyl tail' and 'PEG length' were compared again the CMC and HLB. Anyone have any issues with this before I begin? -- Project Osprey ( talk) 12:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi... Would someone please check and if necessary correct the File:DDQ-aromatization.png? It appears below. The relevant reference abstract ( doi: 10.1021/ja060050p) describes the reaction as involving a double methyl migration but as far as I can see one methyl has simply vanished. EdChem ( talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The article on bis(pinacolato)diboron claims that the "B-B bond adds across alkenes and alkynes to give the 1,2-diborylated alkane and alkenes. In the presence of organorhodium complexes, it can be installed onto saturated hydrocarbons. Citing doi: 10.1055/s-2003-43344, it offers the following remarkable equation:
Would someone please figure out what this should be? It loses a B atom (maybe a coefficient error, though the text suggests a diborylated alkane) and the H36 appears as H<sub>3</sub><sub>6</sub> suggesting something might be missing. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 14:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so it is:
Makes sense. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 16:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Help! I wanted to disambiguate a link to Urethane in the article Oxibendazole, but I am totally at sea with what is presented. Chemistry is not my strong suit! The whole "Synthesis" section seems to be missing steps 1 and 5, and I wouldn't even know where to start to make it work. Could some kind soul check it out and at least fix the dab link? TIA! (Please {{ ping}} me.) — Gorthian ( talk) 04:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been working on the cubane article, which has material about chemicals having this same cubic molecular form but no other chemical relationship. I've been adding material about other chemical analogs that have this shape but aren't necessarily strictly "derivatives" in a synthetic sense (I'll probably fork all of that off into their own page if I get enough to content). Is "cubic molecular geometry" a good term for this general structural class, a place to offload the general idea away from the specific chemical? DMacks ( talk) 19:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at American Chemical Society#Litigation and controversies? There's been some discussion on the talk page of whether there's undue weight on very old cases, but all of us seem to feel we're too connected to make substantive changes ourselves. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 01:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This strange thing appeared: Chapter 2.2: NH3 MOs with the implication that future "chapters" will be contributed. Possibly something more appropriate for Wikitextbooks or such. These are the outcome from an unsupervised graduate class out of UCLA.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Concerning this edit, I doubt that “ Mineral oil-based polymers” is grammatically correct. I would guess that one of the following options is correct:
Which one is it? It might be a British vs. American English thing though. -- Leyo 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the point of this template? It appears to be a random selection of some articles about chemical compounds containing a nitrogen atom, along with really weird red links. ( Pentafluoropropionitrile? WTF?) There is no organization, there is no attempt at listing significant classes or examples within that class, there is no apparent purpose, etc. It was created by a user that has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and seems to have little to no chemistry knowledge. Unless someone wants to completely redo this template, I suggest removing it from all articles where it is used. ChemNerd ( talk) 17:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
Uranium compounds}}
(for example), but for an element like N it is ridiculous. It desperately needs splitting (although I suppose it would make sense to keep the current page with links to subtemplates, or else it is inevitably going to get recreated).
Double sharp (
talk)
03:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)While we're on the subject of these element templates, I would also like to point out that the same disruptive editor involved in the problematic templates is also making a mess of categorization by trying to use the templates to categorize articles (see the history of Template:Fluorine compounds, for example). An explanation of the problems caused by this are outlined at WP:TEMPLATECAT. Can we agree that the element templates shouldn't be used to force categories upon the articles the templates are used on? ChemNerd ( talk) 12:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I have added a laboratory synthesis section to asparagusic acid. It's a fairly straight-forward synthesis from a diethyl malonate derivative. I would appreciate an image for this synthesis. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, short questions: The introduction was changed, could anyone check it? Checking it might be worth anyway as English is not my first language. Regards -- Minihaa ( talk) 13:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Which chemist wants the honor of being the first in the history of chemistry to explain the following exciting new discovery concerning one of the most important chemical reactions in more detail so that normal readers can understand? To most people it's completely counterintuitive that conversion of weak bonds into strong bonds releases energy instead of requiring more:
Fire is hot because conversion of the weak double bond in molecular oxygen, O2, to the stronger bonds in the combustion products carbon dioxide and water releases energy (418 kJ per 32 g of O2); the bond energies of the fuel play only a minor role here.
-- Espoo ( talk) 18:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Under the [2,3] shift and the 2,3 Wittig rearrangement an extra carbon atom is erroneously added in the products molecular structures of the rearrangement. The attention of the writer or the editor should be called to this to confirm. I may be wrong.
Thanks
Kayode Koleoso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayodekoleoso ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hai-Lung Dai. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
So I submitted a draft article for the dark hydrogen discovery. It has been rejected. Feel free to do whatever you'd like to it, if you want to. I'm not going to improve it any longer. -- 70.51.200.20 ( talk) 05:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if someone could check (and improve on, if desired) my recent edit to Bromocresol purple. I created the article a decade ago, but I am neither a chemist nor a microbiologist so I'm not confident in how accurately I'm reading these journal articles. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In articles like space-filling model, there are electrostatic potential surfaces included (in this case, for sulfur dioxide). The term "electrostatic potential surface" wikilinks to electrostatic potential which in turn redirects to electric potential. The electric potential article contains no example of electrostatic potential surfaces nor any but a mathematical discussion. I wonder if there is a better article for our readers to understand what an electrostatic potential surface of a molecule illustrates and how to interpret it? If not, should one be written? EdChem ( talk) 14:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm introducing <
ce>
tag in the new features of Mediawiki. It uses the TeX's mhchem package that formats chemical equations automatically. See
Help:Math#Chemistry. It's superior, easier and more maintainable than HTML tags. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
16:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
\mathsf
. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
01:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
<ce>\mathsf{BaSO4}</ce> |
|
<
ce>
(<
math chem>
) supports only mhchem's subset. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
01:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
<ce>MgSO4.7H2O</ce> |
|
\eta
etc. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
09:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
<ce>[Fe(\eta^5-C5H5)2]</ce> |
|
- On the contrary, many ions with high oxidation numbers, such as H2O2, MnO4−, CrO3, Cr2O72−, and OsO4 can gain one or two extra electrons and are strong oxidizing agents.
- On the contrary, many ions with high oxidation numbers, such as , , , , and can gain one or two extra electrons and are strong oxidizing agents.
Just an outside observer, but I can't quite follow what problem this is supposed to solve. It isn't obvious to me how it's "easier and more maintainable". It might be helpful to explain how this works, Cedar101 (especially to people who know nothing about TeX). Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
<ce>...</ce>
and equivalent HTML codes in
Help:Math#Chemistry. You can compare them. In my opinion, HTML codes are too verbose to write and read. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
05:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)<ce>...</ce>
and HTML. In fact, HTML should not even be there. We have {{
chem}} for inline chemical formula, so I don't really see any point to this. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
06:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
08:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC){{
chem}}
, too. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
09:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Given what appears to be pretty negative views or skepticism above, is it agreed that the TeX formatting not be implemented? or implemented for the following situations, or awaiting repair of the following glitches. But somehow, it seems, we need a proposition to seek consensus about.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I think one of the problem with ce versus chem is that you cant copy/paste the line (without getting a lot of TeX stuff too). E.g. copy/paste this H
2O gives "H2O", while gives "H 2 O {\displaystyle {\ce {H2O}}}". One example from the top of this thread: "On the contrary, many ions with high oxidation numbers, such as H 2 O 2 {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {H2O2}}}} , MnO 4 − {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {MnO4^{-}}}}} , CrO 3 {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {CrO3}}}} , Cr 2 O 7 2 − {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {Cr2O7^{2-}}}}} , and OsO 4 {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {OsO4}}}} can gain one or two extra electrons and are strong oxidizing agents."
Christian75 (
talk)
08:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Side-notes about pre-consensus editing -- cancelled in GF understanding |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Aside from whether this is a useful tool or not, User:Cedar101 is going around implementing it before we've even made a decision (for example, 1, 2, 3). This is really annoying. I think User:Cedar101 is on a mission to make this happen come what may. That's not how we roll here. -- Ben ( talk) 19:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
|
This is the author of mhchem. While I am happy to see mhchem begin integrated into MediaWiki and Wikipedia, I also see the need for improvements. Most importantly, the current implementation modifies what a user inputs. In some cases, this leads to wrong output. I also think, the alternative representation (see copy&paste) could be improved. Maybe we even find a solution for the 'inline' problem. Many of the parsing issues (unicode minus, etc.) are already implemented on my side, but they need to be packed for shipping and go through the various update lines. Mhchem ( talk) 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The pages Iothalmate and Iotalamic acid are both spelt wrongly (should be Iothalamate and Iothalamic acid respectively) and I think they should be merged, probably as Iothalamic acid. As far as I know merging two pages into a new third page requires admin rights. I'd be grateful if someone could sort that out. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 21:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a thread starting on quora as to why our article on Sodium bisulfate has an infobox that says it decomposes in alcohol. Would someone who understands chemistry care to run an eye over the article? Thanks Ϣere SpielChequers 14:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone! We have put substantial effort into improving data quality and compound representation in Wikidata (data coming directly from Drugbank, Pubchem), especially for FDA approved drugs, but more to come. As Wikidata is currently evolving into a generalized, structured data store for all Wikipedias, my suggestions would be to modify the chemical compound and drug infoboxes so they can pull as much data as possible from Wikidata. A good start would certainly be to get the chemical identifiers like CAS, UNII, Drugbank ID, Inchi key, Inchi, Smiles, etc from Wikidata. As we have shown for the Gene Wiki infobox, infoboxes can pull their complete content from Wikidata. In order to be able to do that for chemical compounds, some data in Wikidata is still missing (e.g. legal status, pregnancy category), but adding those should be fairly easy.
Main motivation:
What would be your view of this proposal? I will create a sandbox demo and post it here as soon as I have it. Sebotic ( talk) 09:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It should be relatively trivial to rewrite one of our subboxes to compare local data to WikiData data (I would suggest that the first subbox to apply this to would be the identifiers box), and then categorise those into hidden maintenance categories (WD = Local; WD yes, Local no; WD No, Local yes; WD != Local, WD referenced; WD != Local, unreferenced - and that for each identifier). We wait a couple of days for the categories to populate properly, and then see what the contents is in each of them (total numbers of . That should give us a feel for the situation without 'disturbing' anything we have here. For now we are just blind in saying anything. For all we know the data on WikiData is all the same as what we have here, or just better than what we have here. When we know some numbers (maybe doing some maintenance where needed), we can then decide on the first subbox to move to WikiData and 'wipe' the data locally where appropriate (I like the idea of being able to overwrite where e.g. stereoisomers between local and WD don't match, but there then still should be the aim to solve those situations - that however has a lower priority than improving locally incorrect data). At the time of move, I would then suggest to use a /
/
system (like CheMoBot) to mark differences (but at that time we abandon CheMoBot, for now it may be a way of getting some data updated on WD which is there incorrect).
When we are happy with one subbox, we move on to the next .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone here is interested, these two articles cover the same topic (essentially) and should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.195.202 ( talk) 21:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't decide is this is a COI page or not. Its essentially been made a single editor and cites 10 papers, all by the same author... which is often a bad sign. I also find it had to believe, that in the 100 or so years we've had the Fischer esterification, that no one else has done this - it feels like someone has slapped their name on something that's been around for a while. On the flip side; the chemistry seems legitimate and I have found a few papers (not by Shiina) that refer to a Shiina esterification. See also the Shiina macrolactonization reaction; the page has been made by the same editor but the reaction is more prominently mentioned in the literature. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 16:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Although only a few have commented, it seems likely that editors would agree that the obscurely titled Dipolar bond should be renamed Coordinate covalent bond, which is currently a redirect. The practical problem is that a lot of housekeeping would be required to fix several dozen links and minimize double redirects. So my question is, iif there is agreement to do the move, would others help with this housekeeping? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
We are proposing a Wikimedia Project Grant (WikiFactMine) which will automatically scan the daily peer-reviewed scientific literature (up to 10000 articles /day) and extract scientific entities (definable in Wikidata). These, with their citations, are then offered to Wikidata editors for potential inclusion/update. These can also alert Wikipedia editors to new citations. The project includes a Wikimedian in residence in the University of Cambridge. The initial emphasis will be on articles which contain chemistry in a biological or medical context (natural products, drugs, etc.) We'd be grateful for comments, endorsement and offers of help. Petermr ( talk) 10:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Worrying components in the above message: Who is the royal "we"? Why is it relevant to link University_of_Cambridge - seeking validation, are we?
Wikipedians in Residence have not proven particularly useful here, IMHO. The chemistry project is just too techy, and the quality of our article portfolio is strong already. If there are particular problems/opportunities that "we" have identified, please speak up specifically. The current community of editors can try to address such gaps without fanfare. We kinda do that already, but informally.--
Smokefoot (
talk)
12:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Good luck, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
What you're suggesting is ambitious to say the least. If I'm reading it correctly, this would almost automate the writing of Wikipedia - the program will collate facts on a concept or compound and all we'd need to do is copyedit them into a new page. It goes without saying that there is lots to go wrong there (I've worked with ontology-data-mining in the past, I could write you a long list). Personally I'd like to see a proof of concept on a much more limited scale. Many of our articles list melting and boiling points but fail to provide a reference. I think this might be a nice place to start; the ontology should be simple (it's pretty much always flagged mpt, bpt) and there is a way of weighting the data (normally the higher the mpt the purer the sample). -- Project Osprey ( talk) 00:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal being discussed for moving (or renaming) Category:Science organizations by topic to Category:Organizations by academic discipline. The discussion is here [5] (at CfD). ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There's going to be an edit-a-thon on Wednesday, August 24, covering a wide range of topics under the theme "Notable Chemists and Chemistry." Participants can join in person if attending the American Chemical Society national meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or participate remotely at their leisure. Organizers welcome the thoughts, suggestions and participation of members of WP:Chemistry. Event details at Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia/American_Chemical_Society_Notable_Chemists_and_Chemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLindblom ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Cedar101: has been slowly rolling these changes out. In some cases the results are baffling. I don't know what's happening with at Wurtz–Fittig reaction or Bicyclobutane - I think perhaps they're trying to display reaction schemes as text but I think perhaps its not rendering properly for me because I just see lots of seemingly random characters.-- Project Osprey ( talk) 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone has run a script for us to generate a list of name reactions where the ReactionBox is missing one or more of the chemists. It was created for today's Edit-a-thon at ACS since we're working on chemist articles. I thought it would be useful here as a list of chemist articles we (probably) need to create. Walkerma ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:10, 25 August 2016 (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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
We have a number pages on very similar surfactants which I'm thinking about merging together
Nonoxynol-9 should probably remain separate as it has a distinct medical use but the others could easily be rolled into alkyl phenoxy polyethoxy ethers (or similar). The pages are generally of a poor quality being either unreferenced or primarily web-referenced. Much of the information on synthesis and uses can be combined. As for specific properties, I was thinking of a table where 'alkyl tail' and 'PEG length' were compared again the CMC and HLB. Anyone have any issues with this before I begin? -- Project Osprey ( talk) 12:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi... Would someone please check and if necessary correct the File:DDQ-aromatization.png? It appears below. The relevant reference abstract ( doi: 10.1021/ja060050p) describes the reaction as involving a double methyl migration but as far as I can see one methyl has simply vanished. EdChem ( talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The article on bis(pinacolato)diboron claims that the "B-B bond adds across alkenes and alkynes to give the 1,2-diborylated alkane and alkenes. In the presence of organorhodium complexes, it can be installed onto saturated hydrocarbons. Citing doi: 10.1055/s-2003-43344, it offers the following remarkable equation:
Would someone please figure out what this should be? It loses a B atom (maybe a coefficient error, though the text suggests a diborylated alkane) and the H36 appears as H<sub>3</sub><sub>6</sub> suggesting something might be missing. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 14:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so it is:
Makes sense. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 16:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Help! I wanted to disambiguate a link to Urethane in the article Oxibendazole, but I am totally at sea with what is presented. Chemistry is not my strong suit! The whole "Synthesis" section seems to be missing steps 1 and 5, and I wouldn't even know where to start to make it work. Could some kind soul check it out and at least fix the dab link? TIA! (Please {{ ping}} me.) — Gorthian ( talk) 04:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been working on the cubane article, which has material about chemicals having this same cubic molecular form but no other chemical relationship. I've been adding material about other chemical analogs that have this shape but aren't necessarily strictly "derivatives" in a synthetic sense (I'll probably fork all of that off into their own page if I get enough to content). Is "cubic molecular geometry" a good term for this general structural class, a place to offload the general idea away from the specific chemical? DMacks ( talk) 19:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at American Chemical Society#Litigation and controversies? There's been some discussion on the talk page of whether there's undue weight on very old cases, but all of us seem to feel we're too connected to make substantive changes ourselves. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 01:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This strange thing appeared: Chapter 2.2: NH3 MOs with the implication that future "chapters" will be contributed. Possibly something more appropriate for Wikitextbooks or such. These are the outcome from an unsupervised graduate class out of UCLA.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Concerning this edit, I doubt that “ Mineral oil-based polymers” is grammatically correct. I would guess that one of the following options is correct:
Which one is it? It might be a British vs. American English thing though. -- Leyo 23:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the point of this template? It appears to be a random selection of some articles about chemical compounds containing a nitrogen atom, along with really weird red links. ( Pentafluoropropionitrile? WTF?) There is no organization, there is no attempt at listing significant classes or examples within that class, there is no apparent purpose, etc. It was created by a user that has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and seems to have little to no chemistry knowledge. Unless someone wants to completely redo this template, I suggest removing it from all articles where it is used. ChemNerd ( talk) 17:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
Uranium compounds}}
(for example), but for an element like N it is ridiculous. It desperately needs splitting (although I suppose it would make sense to keep the current page with links to subtemplates, or else it is inevitably going to get recreated).
Double sharp (
talk)
03:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)While we're on the subject of these element templates, I would also like to point out that the same disruptive editor involved in the problematic templates is also making a mess of categorization by trying to use the templates to categorize articles (see the history of Template:Fluorine compounds, for example). An explanation of the problems caused by this are outlined at WP:TEMPLATECAT. Can we agree that the element templates shouldn't be used to force categories upon the articles the templates are used on? ChemNerd ( talk) 12:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I have added a laboratory synthesis section to asparagusic acid. It's a fairly straight-forward synthesis from a diethyl malonate derivative. I would appreciate an image for this synthesis. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, short questions: The introduction was changed, could anyone check it? Checking it might be worth anyway as English is not my first language. Regards -- Minihaa ( talk) 13:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Which chemist wants the honor of being the first in the history of chemistry to explain the following exciting new discovery concerning one of the most important chemical reactions in more detail so that normal readers can understand? To most people it's completely counterintuitive that conversion of weak bonds into strong bonds releases energy instead of requiring more:
Fire is hot because conversion of the weak double bond in molecular oxygen, O2, to the stronger bonds in the combustion products carbon dioxide and water releases energy (418 kJ per 32 g of O2); the bond energies of the fuel play only a minor role here.
-- Espoo ( talk) 18:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Under the [2,3] shift and the 2,3 Wittig rearrangement an extra carbon atom is erroneously added in the products molecular structures of the rearrangement. The attention of the writer or the editor should be called to this to confirm. I may be wrong.
Thanks
Kayode Koleoso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayodekoleoso ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hai-Lung Dai. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
So I submitted a draft article for the dark hydrogen discovery. It has been rejected. Feel free to do whatever you'd like to it, if you want to. I'm not going to improve it any longer. -- 70.51.200.20 ( talk) 05:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if someone could check (and improve on, if desired) my recent edit to Bromocresol purple. I created the article a decade ago, but I am neither a chemist nor a microbiologist so I'm not confident in how accurately I'm reading these journal articles. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In articles like space-filling model, there are electrostatic potential surfaces included (in this case, for sulfur dioxide). The term "electrostatic potential surface" wikilinks to electrostatic potential which in turn redirects to electric potential. The electric potential article contains no example of electrostatic potential surfaces nor any but a mathematical discussion. I wonder if there is a better article for our readers to understand what an electrostatic potential surface of a molecule illustrates and how to interpret it? If not, should one be written? EdChem ( talk) 14:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm introducing <
ce>
tag in the new features of Mediawiki. It uses the TeX's mhchem package that formats chemical equations automatically. See
Help:Math#Chemistry. It's superior, easier and more maintainable than HTML tags. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
16:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
\mathsf
. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
01:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
<ce>\mathsf{BaSO4}</ce> |
|
<
ce>
(<
math chem>
) supports only mhchem's subset. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
01:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
<ce>MgSO4.7H2O</ce> |
|
\eta
etc. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
09:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Markup | Renders as |
---|---|
<ce>[Fe(\eta^5-C5H5)2]</ce> |
|
- On the contrary, many ions with high oxidation numbers, such as H2O2, MnO4−, CrO3, Cr2O72−, and OsO4 can gain one or two extra electrons and are strong oxidizing agents.
- On the contrary, many ions with high oxidation numbers, such as , , , , and can gain one or two extra electrons and are strong oxidizing agents.
Just an outside observer, but I can't quite follow what problem this is supposed to solve. It isn't obvious to me how it's "easier and more maintainable". It might be helpful to explain how this works, Cedar101 (especially to people who know nothing about TeX). Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
<ce>...</ce>
and equivalent HTML codes in
Help:Math#Chemistry. You can compare them. In my opinion, HTML codes are too verbose to write and read. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
05:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)<ce>...</ce>
and HTML. In fact, HTML should not even be there. We have {{
chem}} for inline chemical formula, so I don't really see any point to this. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
06:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
08:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC){{
chem}}
, too. --
Cedar101 (
talk)
09:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
11:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Given what appears to be pretty negative views or skepticism above, is it agreed that the TeX formatting not be implemented? or implemented for the following situations, or awaiting repair of the following glitches. But somehow, it seems, we need a proposition to seek consensus about.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I think one of the problem with ce versus chem is that you cant copy/paste the line (without getting a lot of TeX stuff too). E.g. copy/paste this H
2O gives "H2O", while gives "H 2 O {\displaystyle {\ce {H2O}}}". One example from the top of this thread: "On the contrary, many ions with high oxidation numbers, such as H 2 O 2 {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {H2O2}}}} , MnO 4 − {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {MnO4^{-}}}}} , CrO 3 {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {CrO3}}}} , Cr 2 O 7 2 − {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {Cr2O7^{2-}}}}} , and OsO 4 {\displaystyle {\ce {\mathsf {OsO4}}}} can gain one or two extra electrons and are strong oxidizing agents."
Christian75 (
talk)
08:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Side-notes about pre-consensus editing -- cancelled in GF understanding |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Aside from whether this is a useful tool or not, User:Cedar101 is going around implementing it before we've even made a decision (for example, 1, 2, 3). This is really annoying. I think User:Cedar101 is on a mission to make this happen come what may. That's not how we roll here. -- Ben ( talk) 19:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
|
This is the author of mhchem. While I am happy to see mhchem begin integrated into MediaWiki and Wikipedia, I also see the need for improvements. Most importantly, the current implementation modifies what a user inputs. In some cases, this leads to wrong output. I also think, the alternative representation (see copy&paste) could be improved. Maybe we even find a solution for the 'inline' problem. Many of the parsing issues (unicode minus, etc.) are already implemented on my side, but they need to be packed for shipping and go through the various update lines. Mhchem ( talk) 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The pages Iothalmate and Iotalamic acid are both spelt wrongly (should be Iothalamate and Iothalamic acid respectively) and I think they should be merged, probably as Iothalamic acid. As far as I know merging two pages into a new third page requires admin rights. I'd be grateful if someone could sort that out. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 21:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a thread starting on quora as to why our article on Sodium bisulfate has an infobox that says it decomposes in alcohol. Would someone who understands chemistry care to run an eye over the article? Thanks Ϣere SpielChequers 14:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone! We have put substantial effort into improving data quality and compound representation in Wikidata (data coming directly from Drugbank, Pubchem), especially for FDA approved drugs, but more to come. As Wikidata is currently evolving into a generalized, structured data store for all Wikipedias, my suggestions would be to modify the chemical compound and drug infoboxes so they can pull as much data as possible from Wikidata. A good start would certainly be to get the chemical identifiers like CAS, UNII, Drugbank ID, Inchi key, Inchi, Smiles, etc from Wikidata. As we have shown for the Gene Wiki infobox, infoboxes can pull their complete content from Wikidata. In order to be able to do that for chemical compounds, some data in Wikidata is still missing (e.g. legal status, pregnancy category), but adding those should be fairly easy.
Main motivation:
What would be your view of this proposal? I will create a sandbox demo and post it here as soon as I have it. Sebotic ( talk) 09:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It should be relatively trivial to rewrite one of our subboxes to compare local data to WikiData data (I would suggest that the first subbox to apply this to would be the identifiers box), and then categorise those into hidden maintenance categories (WD = Local; WD yes, Local no; WD No, Local yes; WD != Local, WD referenced; WD != Local, unreferenced - and that for each identifier). We wait a couple of days for the categories to populate properly, and then see what the contents is in each of them (total numbers of . That should give us a feel for the situation without 'disturbing' anything we have here. For now we are just blind in saying anything. For all we know the data on WikiData is all the same as what we have here, or just better than what we have here. When we know some numbers (maybe doing some maintenance where needed), we can then decide on the first subbox to move to WikiData and 'wipe' the data locally where appropriate (I like the idea of being able to overwrite where e.g. stereoisomers between local and WD don't match, but there then still should be the aim to solve those situations - that however has a lower priority than improving locally incorrect data). At the time of move, I would then suggest to use a /
/
system (like CheMoBot) to mark differences (but at that time we abandon CheMoBot, for now it may be a way of getting some data updated on WD which is there incorrect).
When we are happy with one subbox, we move on to the next .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone here is interested, these two articles cover the same topic (essentially) and should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.195.202 ( talk) 21:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't decide is this is a COI page or not. Its essentially been made a single editor and cites 10 papers, all by the same author... which is often a bad sign. I also find it had to believe, that in the 100 or so years we've had the Fischer esterification, that no one else has done this - it feels like someone has slapped their name on something that's been around for a while. On the flip side; the chemistry seems legitimate and I have found a few papers (not by Shiina) that refer to a Shiina esterification. See also the Shiina macrolactonization reaction; the page has been made by the same editor but the reaction is more prominently mentioned in the literature. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 16:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Although only a few have commented, it seems likely that editors would agree that the obscurely titled Dipolar bond should be renamed Coordinate covalent bond, which is currently a redirect. The practical problem is that a lot of housekeeping would be required to fix several dozen links and minimize double redirects. So my question is, iif there is agreement to do the move, would others help with this housekeeping? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
We are proposing a Wikimedia Project Grant (WikiFactMine) which will automatically scan the daily peer-reviewed scientific literature (up to 10000 articles /day) and extract scientific entities (definable in Wikidata). These, with their citations, are then offered to Wikidata editors for potential inclusion/update. These can also alert Wikipedia editors to new citations. The project includes a Wikimedian in residence in the University of Cambridge. The initial emphasis will be on articles which contain chemistry in a biological or medical context (natural products, drugs, etc.) We'd be grateful for comments, endorsement and offers of help. Petermr ( talk) 10:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Worrying components in the above message: Who is the royal "we"? Why is it relevant to link University_of_Cambridge - seeking validation, are we?
Wikipedians in Residence have not proven particularly useful here, IMHO. The chemistry project is just too techy, and the quality of our article portfolio is strong already. If there are particular problems/opportunities that "we" have identified, please speak up specifically. The current community of editors can try to address such gaps without fanfare. We kinda do that already, but informally.--
Smokefoot (
talk)
12:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Good luck, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
What you're suggesting is ambitious to say the least. If I'm reading it correctly, this would almost automate the writing of Wikipedia - the program will collate facts on a concept or compound and all we'd need to do is copyedit them into a new page. It goes without saying that there is lots to go wrong there (I've worked with ontology-data-mining in the past, I could write you a long list). Personally I'd like to see a proof of concept on a much more limited scale. Many of our articles list melting and boiling points but fail to provide a reference. I think this might be a nice place to start; the ontology should be simple (it's pretty much always flagged mpt, bpt) and there is a way of weighting the data (normally the higher the mpt the purer the sample). -- Project Osprey ( talk) 00:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal being discussed for moving (or renaming) Category:Science organizations by topic to Category:Organizations by academic discipline. The discussion is here [5] (at CfD). ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There's going to be an edit-a-thon on Wednesday, August 24, covering a wide range of topics under the theme "Notable Chemists and Chemistry." Participants can join in person if attending the American Chemical Society national meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or participate remotely at their leisure. Organizers welcome the thoughts, suggestions and participation of members of WP:Chemistry. Event details at Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia/American_Chemical_Society_Notable_Chemists_and_Chemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLindblom ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Cedar101: has been slowly rolling these changes out. In some cases the results are baffling. I don't know what's happening with at Wurtz–Fittig reaction or Bicyclobutane - I think perhaps they're trying to display reaction schemes as text but I think perhaps its not rendering properly for me because I just see lots of seemingly random characters.-- Project Osprey ( talk) 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone has run a script for us to generate a list of name reactions where the ReactionBox is missing one or more of the chemists. It was created for today's Edit-a-thon at ACS since we're working on chemist articles. I thought it would be useful here as a list of chemist articles we (probably) need to create. Walkerma ( talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)