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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 54 |
Colleagues
I've drafted this RFC at WP:EMEN, here.
I'd be pleased to hear your thoughts re NPOV, coverage, and anything else.
"Moderately active nonmetals" was suggested to me by Peter Nelson after I asked him about "light nonmetals". From speaking with other non-WP chemists, and chemistry teachers, some of them have heard of CHONPS, CHNOPS, and SPONCH. One said, "Yes, I have used CHNOPS for years." @ EdChem:, a chemist, is familiar with it too.
The RFC hasn't gone live yet. I intend to run it from the nonmetal talk page.
thank you
---
Sandbh (
talk) 07:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks EdChem.
--- Sandbh ( talk) 23:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
A 90% completed draft is in my sandbox. I plan to upload my changes within the next few days.
-- T2g eg ( talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.
The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process ( WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.
The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.
I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{ u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.
Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this notable? Is this stub WP:OR? Bearian ( talk) 02:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biodegradable athletic footwear. I thought this would be automatically entered onto our 'Article alerts' page when I flagged it - but it turns out that it's not assigned to this project, so I'm doing it manually. Opinions are gratefully sought -- Project Osprey ( talk) 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Periodic table has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --- Sandbh ( talk) 01:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Application in a specific protest was added into the article and I do not believe that inclusion of such into the chemical page is WP:DUE. Discussion at Talk:Hexachloroethane Graywalls ( talk) 02:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Samarium(III) sulfide came to my attention as an unsourced stub that nonetheless meets our notability guidelines. It appears to be a semiconductor that is mostly studied as a thin film. Example sources include:
I'll be too busy to expand this article right now. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
They are all about batteries, it seems, and have no WP article. One of their employees has been given the job to write about them, but everything online is all based on their website, press releases, etc. No history seemingly is documented, for instance. However, I would guess that the Institution has archives on hand.
The unfortunate employee may not manage to get an article approved. If anyone out your way happens to be into batteries and history, they may want to help out on
Draft Talk:The Faraday Institution or at the draft creator's Talk. In fact, anyone near London could even contact the Institution about their archives and try to gain access to them. risk offending the draft's creator.
I'm from the USA and from the insect and plant world, so I'm not that drawn to writing about the Institution; it just amazes me when something big and prominent is so hard to write about on WP.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 22:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The newly published book is "The Periodic Table: Nature's Building Blocks An Introduction to the Naturally Occurring Elements, Their Origins and Their Uses" By J. Theo Kloprogge, Concepcion P. Ponce, Tom Loomis. isbn=9780128215388, 0128215380. Much of the chemistry content is taken directly from Wikipedia without attribution. I wrote to the lead author who responded: "We have used many different resources to write our book including the chemistry as reflected in the extensive References and Futher reading lists at the end of the chapter." Note: Wikipedia is not acknowledged. I also contacted Elsevier, the publisher, but it is a very large organization, so I am not optimistic that they will address the problem. It is inevitable that some losers would eventually repackage and take credit for our content, but it is still unfortunate. What can you do? Not much probably. If anyone has the time to independently inspect on-line versions of the book, you might notify Elsevier of any overlap that you detect. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I was reviewing the list of compounds and I noticed that a lot of super heavy compounds like SgCO6 are not in there and I don't know how to wikicode without doing to much damage. Not to mention some article are very vague about whether its a compound or not like NhOH. Can someone help? UB Blacephalon ( talk) 21:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've looked into this in more detail now and I fear that we are in more of a mess than I thought. Take [[Category:Inorganic molecular formulas]] for example. One might have hoped that all Wikipedia articles on inorganic compounds would be in this category via the re-direct pages for their molecular formula. This is only true for a minority. So while we find Uranium dioxide there as UO2, Uranium hexafluoride as UF6 is not included, although the redirect page exists. I suspect that the same may be true for organic compounds as well: the redirect from the molecular formula may exist but the formula itself may not be in [[Category:Molecular formulas]]. Furthermore it turns out to be impossible to search Pubchem, Chemspider, or eMolecules to find all compounds containing an element like Nh, your original example, Blacephalon. That's because the substructure searches are designed to be run on (part) organic drawings and the first step gets too many hits when the search doesn't contain anything except a rare element. So I'm afraid such list articles, even if warranted in some cases, will be impossible to generate in practice without great effort that is arguably not justified. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 14:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that there is an inconsistency in the structural formulas in Category:Acetylacetonate complexes, namely concerning the dashed bonds:
Is anyone aware of a IUPAC recommendation on how to draw the lines?
In addition, there are different types of ball-and-stick images, i.e. with and without dashed lines, e.g.:
-- Leyo 09:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I was doing some editing and research and came across this situation. /info/en/?search=Maleic_acid_dibutyl_ester /info/en/?search=Dimethyl_maleate Dimethyl maleate /info/en/?search=Diethyl_maleate Diethyl maleate
So Dimethyl maleate article is called that as is diethyl maleate. However, Dibutyl maleate (DBM) article redirects to Maleic acid dibutyl ester. Surely there needs to be some consistency. Probably needs a very experienced chemistry editor to look at. GRALISTAIR ( talk) 17:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
My proposal would be to rename the Maleic acid dibutyl ester to Dibutyl maleate. (I dont think I have the permissions or skill to do that though) Once that is done I can add DBM as a synonym later. GRALISTAIR ( talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the page. Dibutyl maleate does sound more systematic.-- Project Osprey ( talk) 23:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Female programme writer, co-creator of moldyn method. Yo, we all need to come out for this one, especially if you're in the computational community in phy sci, bigly. Already posted on science wp's super-forum as well. Alder, Rahman and Wainwright are dead let's do this one while she still lives. Ema--or ( talk) 00:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC) This one's still tight, people. If you know about Tsingou, the ENIAC Ladies, the Hidden Figures, Hamilton, and others (though not so much Hopper, she didn't really work in sci comp) then you should back Mansigh. She's a card-carrying member of that fellowship. Ema--or ( talk) 03:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for my non-NPOV canvas! Ema--or ( talk) 21:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just an issue to discuss. Just wanted to name an issue, which I asked for consultation on, but was not able to get any thing on before the end of discussion. There is the issue of my inconsistencies on Mansigh btw main space and other-space, particularly afd- and Wp project-space, although it is particularly a matter for subjective interpretation. I’d like to end by once again apologising for any trouble and thanking anyone who offered any opinion or contribution to the chat, as well as for the space and audience in a place such as this. Bye, until the next time. Ema--or ( talk) 18:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The article FKM could use some work. I already did a cleanup pass on it, but it needs attention from an expert. For now, it does not really provide any information about the properties of the substance that make it suitable for the claimed applications, and it relies almost entirely on low-quality primary-source materials from manufacturers/vendors (and may be over-dwelling on them and their brand names in the lead). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
PS: See also Talk:FKM#Merge from Viton (about getting rid of a spammy WP:POVFORK). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of MDPI journals. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § MDPI journals. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently became aware of the "data pages" located in Category:Chemical data pages and Category:Chemical element data pages - containing numerical information relating to various elements and compounds. These were all created long before Wikidata was a thing, and it's been brought up several times before that these types of pages probably aren't suitable for Wikipedia itself. (in 2007, 2015, 2016, and 2019) In the 2015 discussion, a couple of users objected to using Wikidata on the basis that it wasn't quite suitable for there at the time either due to technical limitations. As far as I can tell this is now a moot point, as all of the data included on these pages should fit into the site's current data structure without too much hassle (correct me if I'm wrong). Since it's been about four years since this issue was last brought up on this specific talk page, I wanted to know if there are still any objections to migrating this info to Wikidata. Would it be easiest to accomplish this by parsing the pages with a bot? Ionmars10 ( talk) 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Jabir ibn Hayyan about whether to include the title "father of early chemistry". Members of this WikiProject are kindly invited to express their opinion. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 13:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. We have had a project in mediawiki to allow chemical markup support for Wikimedia (let .mol, .rxn files to be uploaded and shown in Wikipedia). Some links: phab:T18491, mw:Extension:MolHandler, mw:Chemical Markup support for Wikimedia Commons. I would like to revive/finish the project or decline it. First I want to know if this is something that you would find useful. Is svg enough? I don't think we can deploy Jmol support as the extension needs lots of work but MolHandler would be rather straightforward. Is there a way to massively produce and upload these files in Commons if the support is added? Ladsgroup overleg 14:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I am starting to use Wikidata to annotate published chemistry semantically, concentrating on synthesis. A common concept is concentration of solutions as in:
100 mL of 6M HCl
This comprises several concepts:
Has anyone used Wikidata to model this? It's quite complex in RDF and it may be useful to have specific Qitems or Properties which are required by scheme. And, more generally , is Wikidata able to model relationships other than naked triples? Petermr ( talk) 17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
(Also posted in WT:Chemicals) Chemical Abstracts Service just made this official announcement: CAS Common Chemistry has now been expanded from the original 7800 to almost half a million substances, and new content added. This puts far more CAS Registry Numbers into open use, and the site itself is now listed as having a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Previously the pages was mainly names, structure and Wikipedia links; the new version now includes some basic physical properties such as MP, BP, density. Some of you may recall the discussion last year on choosing the "top million substances"] - this was in fact part of this project, but we needed to keep the source of the project under wraps at the time - but it helped us define the substances that matter. I hope Wikipedians appreciate the value of CAS working in the open domain much more than we saw previously.
The long-term plan is to refine the site as time/code allows, and both Wikipedia and Wikidata links will be added once we've figured out all the matches. Links from Wikipedia to CAS do seem to work, and I think that's true even for substances not previously in Common Chemistry. Egon Willighagen is coordinating this project and the cross linking in Wikidata. Walkerma ( talk) 19:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
regulatory lists. I assume that this expanded list would then at a minimum include all FDA approved drugs. Even better would be for make public CAS ids for the approximately 8000 Wikipedia. drug articles. Has this been done? If so, it might then make sense to use CAS numbers as authority control for drugs. Boghog ( talk) 20:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
For oxy salts, the CAS Common Chemistry entries have errors in structure. eg https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?ref=7778-80-5 for potassium sulfate indicates the material is a mixture of potassium metal and sulfuric acid, with a SMILES and inchi that support that idea. This means that the structure / SMILES / INCHI will not match what we have in our articles. What is CAS up to? For halides like NaCl https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?ref=7647-14-5 they are matching. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally post this sort of thing here, but for those in the UK there's an internship going as a science writer at RSC's chemistry world. I would think that the overlap in skills with a chemistry wikipedian would be significant. Closing date is Monday. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 07:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
So, everyone who started looking at the missing CAS RNs will immediately recognize some patterns. One pattern is that sitelinks between Wikipedia and Wikidata are not always correct. Wikipedia may be more stereo-specific, or less. There are multiple solutions to solve this: 1. make the least stereospecific page more specific, 2. make a new Wikidata page to match the English Wikipedia (and make the appropriate links), 3. accept as is. And probably a few more. The Wikipathways teams has solved a number of these kind of issues over the years. What do the two WikiProject Chemistry teams think the best course of action is? Cross-post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Wikipedia_-_Wikidata_mismatches? -- Egon Willighagen ( talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, been perusing a number of pages related to solid state chemistry/condensed matter physics and finding a number of issues. Curious if there's a taskforce or anything specifically dedicated to these pages. Thanks! -- 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 16:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am new on Wikipedia, so please forgive me if don't do things right. I notice that there was no page about the quasi-steady-state approximation and the partial-equilibrium approximation, which are among the basics of chemical kinetics. I wrote an article about them which is waiting review: /info/en/?search=Draft:Quasi-steady-state_approximation_and_partial-equilibrium_approximation_(Chemistry) Maybe someone on the chemistry community could review this article ? Agnespt ( talk) 15:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
This page has that student-project look about it:
It seems to be about topics that one would find in a course (alkanes, alkenes, ...) rather than about the course itself (when schools started offering it, what the standard books are, etc.). XOR'easter ( talk) 20:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Even though I got A's on all 4 chem courses I took back in college, definitely not my forte. The second article, Oxygen Reduction Reaction (ORR) was recently created. When I went to move it to Oxygen reduction reaction as per naming conventions, was informed a redirect already existed, pointing to Redox. Are these two similar, but different processes? Or is the new article simply about the existing article? Thanks for any help. Onel5969 TT me 14:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Folks, thank you very much for the detailed input. I've moved the article to the draftspace, with a note for the student to reference this discussion to see what the issues are. Again, thanks. Onel5969 TT me 00:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Smokefoot: sounds like the course will have multiple pages of interest (or headache, depending on how it goes) for you: and their other currently-listed ones are all existing articles: Zintl phase, Borate, Metal-metal bond, Terphenyl. DMacks ( talk) 02:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There are several scientific findings listed in timeline of physical chemistry that have next-to-nil relevance to physical chemistry, or even chemistry as a whole. Einstein's theory of relativity? Newton's classical mechanics? Particle physics? What do these stuff have to do with chemistry? Why are you chemists so obsessed with claiming milestones from other sciences to chemistry? Why are you pretending that stuff pertaining to physics belong to chemistry now? -- 190.124.30.42 ( talk) 08:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm still quite new here, and I'm not so sure this is supposed to go here, but I would just like to bring up that the category: chemical suffixes seems to be missing a few suffixes. Maybe this is because of not having a few pages published? I'm not so sure if -ate and -ide are supposed to be there, but just bringing this up for further discussion. Lelojello ( talk) 02:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Over at Group (mathematics), we're doing a Featured Article Review, most of which has come down to clarifying phrasings here and there and supplying references where necessary to bring it up to modern standards. Some of the examples in the "Symmetry groups" section are about molecular symmetry, so they might be of relevance to the community here. Given the nature of the article, most things in it can be found in many references; the challenge is picking among them for particularly clear, insightful or classic ones. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a conflict at List of quantum chemistry and solid-state physics software about what to include in this list. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists suggests that a selection criterion of "being notable/having its own article" is valid. Unfortunately someone else disagrees and keeps restoring the full list including many red links. The discussion is going nowhere so more eyes are needed at Talk:List_of_quantum_chemistry_and_solid-state_physics_software#Notable. Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 14:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
According to
this PetScan search, there are currently 144 articles without a CAS RN in the chembox or drugbox, but with one in the CAS Common Chemistry database (as referenced on Wikidata). I would appreciate to get some help for checking the CAS RNs and to add them locally. Using {{subst:#invoke:Wikidata|claim|P231}}
allows to do this task quicker, but the CAS RNs still need to be checked before adding. --
Leyo 00:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
For the article on groups, I am looking for a citation backing up "Hexaaquacopper(II) complex ion, [Cu(OH2)6]2+. Compared to a perfectly symmetrical shape, the molecule is vertically dilated by about 22% (Jahn–Teller effect). ". Looking at Jahn-Teller effect, this is pretty much what is stated there, but I'm not sure whether the references given there support this precisely (I'm a mathematician and have only little background in chemistry). Can someone knowledgeable about this help out in pointing me towards a precise reference that matches this claim? Thanks! Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help), four Cu-O distances at 202.5 pm and two (mutually trans) are at 218.3 pm.{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) for [Cu(NH3)62+ (with complicated anion), the effects are reversed: four Cu-N bonds = 215 and two (mutually trans) are at 205. The Jahn-Teller distortion can go either way.--
Smokefoot (
talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)This ScienceDirect summary has lots of useful content. Every textbook or review I've read on the Jahn-Teller effect uses [Cu(OH2)62+ as the main example. -- Ben ( talk) 18:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention about the following articles:
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
"Key intermediate" sounds good, and I confess to using that cliche. But aren't intermediates automatically "key"? I was going to remove the adjective key" in many articles, but I just wanted to hear possible alternative views. Similarly for "key enzymes". In essence, when we say that something is key, what we are usually saying is that its one of my pets.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 20:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Material 11,298 376 Stub-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Two other stubs:
And a few starts:
-- Coin945 ( talk) 22:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I have accepted this article from draft after giving it some formatting improvement, and without any detailed research of the accuracy of the chemistry. I think that any improvement should be done in article space rather than draft space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday, I deleted a lot of "safety" material about pyridine. I figured that most of my edit would be reverted. But the exchange between me and Leyo illuminates some useful issues. There is a lot of generic info available on popular chemicals, so merely having a citation does not qualify a factoid for inclusion. In the case of pyridine, about 30 publications appear daily, according to Chem Abs. At risk of flooding this talk page, here are some edits that I think could be deleted AND improve the article by making it more concise and less biased.
(1) "Pyridine has a flash point of 17 °C and is, therefore, highly flammable. Its ignition temperature is 550 °C, and mixtures of 1.7–10.6 vol% of pyridine with air are explosive. The thermal modification of pyridine starts above 490 °C, resulting in bipyridine (mainly 2,2'-bipyridine and to a lesser extent 2,3'-bipyridine and 2,4'-bipyridine), nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. [1] Pyridine easily dissolves in water and harms both animals and plants in aquatic systems. [2] The permitted maximum allowable concentration of pyridine was 15–30 parts per million (ppm, or 15–30 mg·m−3 in air) in most countries in the 1990s, [3] but was reduced to 5 ppm in the 2000s. [4] For comparison, indoor air contaminated with tobacco smoke may contain up to 16 µg·m−3 of pyridine, and one cigarette contains 21–32 µg. [3]"
(2) "Pyridine is harmful if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin. [5] "
(3) "Effects of acute pyridine intoxication include dizziness, headache, lack of coordination, nausea, salivation, and loss of appetite. They may progress into abdominal pain, pulmonary congestion and unconsciousness. [6]"
(4) "The lowest known lethal dose (LDLo) for the ingestion of pyridine in humans is 500 mg·kg−1. In high doses, pyridine has a narcotic effect and its vapor concentrations of above 3600 ppm pose a health risk. [7] The oral LD50 in rats is 891 mg·kg−1."
(5) "Pyridine is flammable."
(6) "Evaluations as a possible carcinogenic agent showed that there is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of pyridine, although there is limited evidence of carcinogenic effects on animals. [6] Available data indicate that "exposure to pyridine in drinking-water led to reduction of sperm motility at all dose levels in mice and increased estrous cycle length at the highest dose level in rats". [6]"
(7) "Pyridine might also have minor neurotoxic, genotoxic, and clastogenic effects. [1] [3] [8]"
(8) "Minor amounts of pyridine are released into environment from some industrial processes such as steel manufacture, [9] processing of oil shale, coal gasification, coking plants and incinerators. [3] The atmosphere at oil shale processing plants can contain pyridine concentrations of up to 13 µg·m−3, [10] and 53 µg·m−3 levels were measured in the groundwater in the vicinity of a coal gasification plant. [11] According to a study by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, about 43,000 Americans work in contact with pyridine. [12]"
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
Chiral Lewis acid: according to talk is missing various information. The article has not substantially improved since this issue was raised in November 2013, except for some proofreading. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I encountered this from its expert needed tag, and I believe that its tag is well-justified. Firstly, the list seems to be incomplete (which specifically applies to the expert tag). Secondly, the article cites no compiled lists of unsolved problems in this discipline, failing WP:SYNTH. (I think this topic is notable, however.) Finally, items may be out of date — I removed an item about photochemistry that isn't a problem in the discipline and has been actively researched since the question was posed in 2006. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I have never heard a chemist use the term " chiral resolution". I have resolved enantiomers and heard a lot discussion of the topic, but chiral resolution? It doesnt make sense. Is chiral an adjective to describe a type of resolution. I searched Organic Syntheses, which has about 70 resolutions. In the few articles that I searched, they resolve but they report no chiral resolution. Just sayin'.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I have proposed that Monatomic be retargetted from Monatomic gas to Atomicity (chemistry) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 11#Monatomic. The discussion would benefit from the input of those who understand the subjected better than me. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:15, 11 June 2021 (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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 54 |
Colleagues
I've drafted this RFC at WP:EMEN, here.
I'd be pleased to hear your thoughts re NPOV, coverage, and anything else.
"Moderately active nonmetals" was suggested to me by Peter Nelson after I asked him about "light nonmetals". From speaking with other non-WP chemists, and chemistry teachers, some of them have heard of CHONPS, CHNOPS, and SPONCH. One said, "Yes, I have used CHNOPS for years." @ EdChem:, a chemist, is familiar with it too.
The RFC hasn't gone live yet. I intend to run it from the nonmetal talk page.
thank you
---
Sandbh (
talk) 07:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks EdChem.
--- Sandbh ( talk) 23:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
A 90% completed draft is in my sandbox. I plan to upload my changes within the next few days.
-- T2g eg ( talk) 19:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.
The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process ( WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.
The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.
I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{ u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.
Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this notable? Is this stub WP:OR? Bearian ( talk) 02:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biodegradable athletic footwear. I thought this would be automatically entered onto our 'Article alerts' page when I flagged it - but it turns out that it's not assigned to this project, so I'm doing it manually. Opinions are gratefully sought -- Project Osprey ( talk) 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Periodic table has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --- Sandbh ( talk) 01:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Application in a specific protest was added into the article and I do not believe that inclusion of such into the chemical page is WP:DUE. Discussion at Talk:Hexachloroethane Graywalls ( talk) 02:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Samarium(III) sulfide came to my attention as an unsourced stub that nonetheless meets our notability guidelines. It appears to be a semiconductor that is mostly studied as a thin film. Example sources include:
I'll be too busy to expand this article right now. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 10:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
They are all about batteries, it seems, and have no WP article. One of their employees has been given the job to write about them, but everything online is all based on their website, press releases, etc. No history seemingly is documented, for instance. However, I would guess that the Institution has archives on hand.
The unfortunate employee may not manage to get an article approved. If anyone out your way happens to be into batteries and history, they may want to help out on
Draft Talk:The Faraday Institution or at the draft creator's Talk. In fact, anyone near London could even contact the Institution about their archives and try to gain access to them. risk offending the draft's creator.
I'm from the USA and from the insect and plant world, so I'm not that drawn to writing about the Institution; it just amazes me when something big and prominent is so hard to write about on WP.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 22:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The newly published book is "The Periodic Table: Nature's Building Blocks An Introduction to the Naturally Occurring Elements, Their Origins and Their Uses" By J. Theo Kloprogge, Concepcion P. Ponce, Tom Loomis. isbn=9780128215388, 0128215380. Much of the chemistry content is taken directly from Wikipedia without attribution. I wrote to the lead author who responded: "We have used many different resources to write our book including the chemistry as reflected in the extensive References and Futher reading lists at the end of the chapter." Note: Wikipedia is not acknowledged. I also contacted Elsevier, the publisher, but it is a very large organization, so I am not optimistic that they will address the problem. It is inevitable that some losers would eventually repackage and take credit for our content, but it is still unfortunate. What can you do? Not much probably. If anyone has the time to independently inspect on-line versions of the book, you might notify Elsevier of any overlap that you detect. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I was reviewing the list of compounds and I noticed that a lot of super heavy compounds like SgCO6 are not in there and I don't know how to wikicode without doing to much damage. Not to mention some article are very vague about whether its a compound or not like NhOH. Can someone help? UB Blacephalon ( talk) 21:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I've looked into this in more detail now and I fear that we are in more of a mess than I thought. Take [[Category:Inorganic molecular formulas]] for example. One might have hoped that all Wikipedia articles on inorganic compounds would be in this category via the re-direct pages for their molecular formula. This is only true for a minority. So while we find Uranium dioxide there as UO2, Uranium hexafluoride as UF6 is not included, although the redirect page exists. I suspect that the same may be true for organic compounds as well: the redirect from the molecular formula may exist but the formula itself may not be in [[Category:Molecular formulas]]. Furthermore it turns out to be impossible to search Pubchem, Chemspider, or eMolecules to find all compounds containing an element like Nh, your original example, Blacephalon. That's because the substructure searches are designed to be run on (part) organic drawings and the first step gets too many hits when the search doesn't contain anything except a rare element. So I'm afraid such list articles, even if warranted in some cases, will be impossible to generate in practice without great effort that is arguably not justified. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 14:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that there is an inconsistency in the structural formulas in Category:Acetylacetonate complexes, namely concerning the dashed bonds:
Is anyone aware of a IUPAC recommendation on how to draw the lines?
In addition, there are different types of ball-and-stick images, i.e. with and without dashed lines, e.g.:
-- Leyo 09:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I was doing some editing and research and came across this situation. /info/en/?search=Maleic_acid_dibutyl_ester /info/en/?search=Dimethyl_maleate Dimethyl maleate /info/en/?search=Diethyl_maleate Diethyl maleate
So Dimethyl maleate article is called that as is diethyl maleate. However, Dibutyl maleate (DBM) article redirects to Maleic acid dibutyl ester. Surely there needs to be some consistency. Probably needs a very experienced chemistry editor to look at. GRALISTAIR ( talk) 17:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
My proposal would be to rename the Maleic acid dibutyl ester to Dibutyl maleate. (I dont think I have the permissions or skill to do that though) Once that is done I can add DBM as a synonym later. GRALISTAIR ( talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the page. Dibutyl maleate does sound more systematic.-- Project Osprey ( talk) 23:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Female programme writer, co-creator of moldyn method. Yo, we all need to come out for this one, especially if you're in the computational community in phy sci, bigly. Already posted on science wp's super-forum as well. Alder, Rahman and Wainwright are dead let's do this one while she still lives. Ema--or ( talk) 00:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC) This one's still tight, people. If you know about Tsingou, the ENIAC Ladies, the Hidden Figures, Hamilton, and others (though not so much Hopper, she didn't really work in sci comp) then you should back Mansigh. She's a card-carrying member of that fellowship. Ema--or ( talk) 03:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for my non-NPOV canvas! Ema--or ( talk) 21:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just an issue to discuss. Just wanted to name an issue, which I asked for consultation on, but was not able to get any thing on before the end of discussion. There is the issue of my inconsistencies on Mansigh btw main space and other-space, particularly afd- and Wp project-space, although it is particularly a matter for subjective interpretation. I’d like to end by once again apologising for any trouble and thanking anyone who offered any opinion or contribution to the chat, as well as for the space and audience in a place such as this. Bye, until the next time. Ema--or ( talk) 18:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
The article FKM could use some work. I already did a cleanup pass on it, but it needs attention from an expert. For now, it does not really provide any information about the properties of the substance that make it suitable for the claimed applications, and it relies almost entirely on low-quality primary-source materials from manufacturers/vendors (and may be over-dwelling on them and their brand names in the lead). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
PS: See also Talk:FKM#Merge from Viton (about getting rid of a spammy WP:POVFORK). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of MDPI journals. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § MDPI journals. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently became aware of the "data pages" located in Category:Chemical data pages and Category:Chemical element data pages - containing numerical information relating to various elements and compounds. These were all created long before Wikidata was a thing, and it's been brought up several times before that these types of pages probably aren't suitable for Wikipedia itself. (in 2007, 2015, 2016, and 2019) In the 2015 discussion, a couple of users objected to using Wikidata on the basis that it wasn't quite suitable for there at the time either due to technical limitations. As far as I can tell this is now a moot point, as all of the data included on these pages should fit into the site's current data structure without too much hassle (correct me if I'm wrong). Since it's been about four years since this issue was last brought up on this specific talk page, I wanted to know if there are still any objections to migrating this info to Wikidata. Would it be easiest to accomplish this by parsing the pages with a bot? Ionmars10 ( talk) 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Jabir ibn Hayyan about whether to include the title "father of early chemistry". Members of this WikiProject are kindly invited to express their opinion. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 13:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. We have had a project in mediawiki to allow chemical markup support for Wikimedia (let .mol, .rxn files to be uploaded and shown in Wikipedia). Some links: phab:T18491, mw:Extension:MolHandler, mw:Chemical Markup support for Wikimedia Commons. I would like to revive/finish the project or decline it. First I want to know if this is something that you would find useful. Is svg enough? I don't think we can deploy Jmol support as the extension needs lots of work but MolHandler would be rather straightforward. Is there a way to massively produce and upload these files in Commons if the support is added? Ladsgroup overleg 14:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I am starting to use Wikidata to annotate published chemistry semantically, concentrating on synthesis. A common concept is concentration of solutions as in:
100 mL of 6M HCl
This comprises several concepts:
Has anyone used Wikidata to model this? It's quite complex in RDF and it may be useful to have specific Qitems or Properties which are required by scheme. And, more generally , is Wikidata able to model relationships other than naked triples? Petermr ( talk) 17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
(Also posted in WT:Chemicals) Chemical Abstracts Service just made this official announcement: CAS Common Chemistry has now been expanded from the original 7800 to almost half a million substances, and new content added. This puts far more CAS Registry Numbers into open use, and the site itself is now listed as having a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Previously the pages was mainly names, structure and Wikipedia links; the new version now includes some basic physical properties such as MP, BP, density. Some of you may recall the discussion last year on choosing the "top million substances"] - this was in fact part of this project, but we needed to keep the source of the project under wraps at the time - but it helped us define the substances that matter. I hope Wikipedians appreciate the value of CAS working in the open domain much more than we saw previously.
The long-term plan is to refine the site as time/code allows, and both Wikipedia and Wikidata links will be added once we've figured out all the matches. Links from Wikipedia to CAS do seem to work, and I think that's true even for substances not previously in Common Chemistry. Egon Willighagen is coordinating this project and the cross linking in Wikidata. Walkerma ( talk) 19:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
regulatory lists. I assume that this expanded list would then at a minimum include all FDA approved drugs. Even better would be for make public CAS ids for the approximately 8000 Wikipedia. drug articles. Has this been done? If so, it might then make sense to use CAS numbers as authority control for drugs. Boghog ( talk) 20:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
For oxy salts, the CAS Common Chemistry entries have errors in structure. eg https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?ref=7778-80-5 for potassium sulfate indicates the material is a mixture of potassium metal and sulfuric acid, with a SMILES and inchi that support that idea. This means that the structure / SMILES / INCHI will not match what we have in our articles. What is CAS up to? For halides like NaCl https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?ref=7647-14-5 they are matching. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally post this sort of thing here, but for those in the UK there's an internship going as a science writer at RSC's chemistry world. I would think that the overlap in skills with a chemistry wikipedian would be significant. Closing date is Monday. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 07:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
So, everyone who started looking at the missing CAS RNs will immediately recognize some patterns. One pattern is that sitelinks between Wikipedia and Wikidata are not always correct. Wikipedia may be more stereo-specific, or less. There are multiple solutions to solve this: 1. make the least stereospecific page more specific, 2. make a new Wikidata page to match the English Wikipedia (and make the appropriate links), 3. accept as is. And probably a few more. The Wikipathways teams has solved a number of these kind of issues over the years. What do the two WikiProject Chemistry teams think the best course of action is? Cross-post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Wikipedia_-_Wikidata_mismatches? -- Egon Willighagen ( talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, been perusing a number of pages related to solid state chemistry/condensed matter physics and finding a number of issues. Curious if there's a taskforce or anything specifically dedicated to these pages. Thanks! -- 2ReinreB2 ( talk) 16:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am new on Wikipedia, so please forgive me if don't do things right. I notice that there was no page about the quasi-steady-state approximation and the partial-equilibrium approximation, which are among the basics of chemical kinetics. I wrote an article about them which is waiting review: /info/en/?search=Draft:Quasi-steady-state_approximation_and_partial-equilibrium_approximation_(Chemistry) Maybe someone on the chemistry community could review this article ? Agnespt ( talk) 15:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
This page has that student-project look about it:
It seems to be about topics that one would find in a course (alkanes, alkenes, ...) rather than about the course itself (when schools started offering it, what the standard books are, etc.). XOR'easter ( talk) 20:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Even though I got A's on all 4 chem courses I took back in college, definitely not my forte. The second article, Oxygen Reduction Reaction (ORR) was recently created. When I went to move it to Oxygen reduction reaction as per naming conventions, was informed a redirect already existed, pointing to Redox. Are these two similar, but different processes? Or is the new article simply about the existing article? Thanks for any help. Onel5969 TT me 14:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Folks, thank you very much for the detailed input. I've moved the article to the draftspace, with a note for the student to reference this discussion to see what the issues are. Again, thanks. Onel5969 TT me 00:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Smokefoot: sounds like the course will have multiple pages of interest (or headache, depending on how it goes) for you: and their other currently-listed ones are all existing articles: Zintl phase, Borate, Metal-metal bond, Terphenyl. DMacks ( talk) 02:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There are several scientific findings listed in timeline of physical chemistry that have next-to-nil relevance to physical chemistry, or even chemistry as a whole. Einstein's theory of relativity? Newton's classical mechanics? Particle physics? What do these stuff have to do with chemistry? Why are you chemists so obsessed with claiming milestones from other sciences to chemistry? Why are you pretending that stuff pertaining to physics belong to chemistry now? -- 190.124.30.42 ( talk) 08:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm still quite new here, and I'm not so sure this is supposed to go here, but I would just like to bring up that the category: chemical suffixes seems to be missing a few suffixes. Maybe this is because of not having a few pages published? I'm not so sure if -ate and -ide are supposed to be there, but just bringing this up for further discussion. Lelojello ( talk) 02:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Over at Group (mathematics), we're doing a Featured Article Review, most of which has come down to clarifying phrasings here and there and supplying references where necessary to bring it up to modern standards. Some of the examples in the "Symmetry groups" section are about molecular symmetry, so they might be of relevance to the community here. Given the nature of the article, most things in it can be found in many references; the challenge is picking among them for particularly clear, insightful or classic ones. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a conflict at List of quantum chemistry and solid-state physics software about what to include in this list. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists suggests that a selection criterion of "being notable/having its own article" is valid. Unfortunately someone else disagrees and keeps restoring the full list including many red links. The discussion is going nowhere so more eyes are needed at Talk:List_of_quantum_chemistry_and_solid-state_physics_software#Notable. Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 14:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
According to
this PetScan search, there are currently 144 articles without a CAS RN in the chembox or drugbox, but with one in the CAS Common Chemistry database (as referenced on Wikidata). I would appreciate to get some help for checking the CAS RNs and to add them locally. Using {{subst:#invoke:Wikidata|claim|P231}}
allows to do this task quicker, but the CAS RNs still need to be checked before adding. --
Leyo 00:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
For the article on groups, I am looking for a citation backing up "Hexaaquacopper(II) complex ion, [Cu(OH2)6]2+. Compared to a perfectly symmetrical shape, the molecule is vertically dilated by about 22% (Jahn–Teller effect). ". Looking at Jahn-Teller effect, this is pretty much what is stated there, but I'm not sure whether the references given there support this precisely (I'm a mathematician and have only little background in chemistry). Can someone knowledgeable about this help out in pointing me towards a precise reference that matches this claim? Thanks! Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help), four Cu-O distances at 202.5 pm and two (mutually trans) are at 218.3 pm.{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help) for [Cu(NH3)62+ (with complicated anion), the effects are reversed: four Cu-N bonds = 215 and two (mutually trans) are at 205. The Jahn-Teller distortion can go either way.--
Smokefoot (
talk) 19:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)This ScienceDirect summary has lots of useful content. Every textbook or review I've read on the Jahn-Teller effect uses [Cu(OH2)62+ as the main example. -- Ben ( talk) 18:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention about the following articles:
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
"Key intermediate" sounds good, and I confess to using that cliche. But aren't intermediates automatically "key"? I was going to remove the adjective key" in many articles, but I just wanted to hear possible alternative views. Similarly for "key enzymes". In essence, when we say that something is key, what we are usually saying is that its one of my pets.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 20:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Material 11,298 376 Stub-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Two other stubs:
And a few starts:
-- Coin945 ( talk) 22:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I have accepted this article from draft after giving it some formatting improvement, and without any detailed research of the accuracy of the chemistry. I think that any improvement should be done in article space rather than draft space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday, I deleted a lot of "safety" material about pyridine. I figured that most of my edit would be reverted. But the exchange between me and Leyo illuminates some useful issues. There is a lot of generic info available on popular chemicals, so merely having a citation does not qualify a factoid for inclusion. In the case of pyridine, about 30 publications appear daily, according to Chem Abs. At risk of flooding this talk page, here are some edits that I think could be deleted AND improve the article by making it more concise and less biased.
(1) "Pyridine has a flash point of 17 °C and is, therefore, highly flammable. Its ignition temperature is 550 °C, and mixtures of 1.7–10.6 vol% of pyridine with air are explosive. The thermal modification of pyridine starts above 490 °C, resulting in bipyridine (mainly 2,2'-bipyridine and to a lesser extent 2,3'-bipyridine and 2,4'-bipyridine), nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. [1] Pyridine easily dissolves in water and harms both animals and plants in aquatic systems. [2] The permitted maximum allowable concentration of pyridine was 15–30 parts per million (ppm, or 15–30 mg·m−3 in air) in most countries in the 1990s, [3] but was reduced to 5 ppm in the 2000s. [4] For comparison, indoor air contaminated with tobacco smoke may contain up to 16 µg·m−3 of pyridine, and one cigarette contains 21–32 µg. [3]"
(2) "Pyridine is harmful if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin. [5] "
(3) "Effects of acute pyridine intoxication include dizziness, headache, lack of coordination, nausea, salivation, and loss of appetite. They may progress into abdominal pain, pulmonary congestion and unconsciousness. [6]"
(4) "The lowest known lethal dose (LDLo) for the ingestion of pyridine in humans is 500 mg·kg−1. In high doses, pyridine has a narcotic effect and its vapor concentrations of above 3600 ppm pose a health risk. [7] The oral LD50 in rats is 891 mg·kg−1."
(5) "Pyridine is flammable."
(6) "Evaluations as a possible carcinogenic agent showed that there is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of pyridine, although there is limited evidence of carcinogenic effects on animals. [6] Available data indicate that "exposure to pyridine in drinking-water led to reduction of sperm motility at all dose levels in mice and increased estrous cycle length at the highest dose level in rats". [6]"
(7) "Pyridine might also have minor neurotoxic, genotoxic, and clastogenic effects. [1] [3] [8]"
(8) "Minor amounts of pyridine are released into environment from some industrial processes such as steel manufacture, [9] processing of oil shale, coal gasification, coking plants and incinerators. [3] The atmosphere at oil shale processing plants can contain pyridine concentrations of up to 13 µg·m−3, [10] and 53 µg·m−3 levels were measured in the groundwater in the vicinity of a coal gasification plant. [11] According to a study by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, about 43,000 Americans work in contact with pyridine. [12]"
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)
Chiral Lewis acid: according to talk is missing various information. The article has not substantially improved since this issue was raised in November 2013, except for some proofreading. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 01:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I encountered this from its expert needed tag, and I believe that its tag is well-justified. Firstly, the list seems to be incomplete (which specifically applies to the expert tag). Secondly, the article cites no compiled lists of unsolved problems in this discipline, failing WP:SYNTH. (I think this topic is notable, however.) Finally, items may be out of date — I removed an item about photochemistry that isn't a problem in the discipline and has been actively researched since the question was posed in 2006. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I have never heard a chemist use the term " chiral resolution". I have resolved enantiomers and heard a lot discussion of the topic, but chiral resolution? It doesnt make sense. Is chiral an adjective to describe a type of resolution. I searched Organic Syntheses, which has about 70 resolutions. In the few articles that I searched, they resolve but they report no chiral resolution. Just sayin'.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I have proposed that Monatomic be retargetted from Monatomic gas to Atomicity (chemistry) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 11#Monatomic. The discussion would benefit from the input of those who understand the subjected better than me. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)