![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 |
Molecular graphics is a disaster zone. Huge amounts of the content are unreferenced and likely basedon OR, and much of the content seems to be disorganized and repetitive. I have attempted to remove some of the fluff, including textbook-like image labels that included an in-text description of an image that was deleted in 2019. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be adding content from new issues of Science and similar journals. "Researchers have found ..." "A recent study shows...". Check out recent changes in Monoterpene. The contributions are not awful, but IMHO, misguided in the sense that Wikipedia is a forum for settled knowledge and, ordinarily at least, we dont do news. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 21:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The following articles touch on big complicated themes:
Probably more articles on this theme exist.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Herravondure is removing orphan tags on articles with the edit note "Successfully de-orphaned" but no links are being created, so not so successful.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
What articles are you referring to? I do deorphan articles, and if I did that to one with nothing linking to it that was my bad, but I am not doing this intentionally. Herravondure ( talk) 14:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I originally posted this at the Teahouse, but upon advice of the venerable Mr Turnbull I have posted it here too.
Hi, I just noticed whilst browsing through List of named alloys that none of the alloys have infoboxes, and I'm sure it would be a useful idea. I just came here to ask two things, would it be useful (to create an infobox) and should I also make a navbox for alloys? Thanks. My username is actually based off an alloy too! X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 22:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
composition, and then a {{ ubl}}, as that's the easiest way I believe we can implement them. I haven't examined polymers so much, and I did not intend to use molecular formulas, weights, SMILES or anything of the sorts, just something akin to what's present at {{ Infobox drug}}. For the database tokens, which is the UNS number, is there another internal system within Wikipedia that can categorise these things? I'm not too well-versed in the technical things (I do have experience with modules at Wiktionary if that's helpful at all), so I'd like some pointers as to what I should go about doing there. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 23:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
|type=
can stay (and get label "Material type"). Be as specific as possible, especially if its free!Chemical formula of the alloy (if listed), please hard-code with subscripts.Which means if the formula is listed, it can be added as it's a suggested parameter. And yes, I shall amend that label you have mentioned. I just have a singular question, at the {{ Infobox material/testcases}}, you have put "T2 tool steel" under type, I presume that is a filler as is SAE999. I think we should also rename the subheader to "Alloy properties". Looks like it's coming together. I'll sort the navbox out, I've got experience with music group navboxes, and I'll simply follow the layout of something like {{ Hydrides by group}}, with the groups probably shaping to be "non-ferrous", "ferrous", and under non-ferrous, probably division into nickel-based, aluminium-based, etc, and others. I'll be using Category:Alloys for the navbox too, so if you know any pages that might be missing just mosey on over & add it to the page. Sound good? X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 10:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
chemical_formula_note. Quite obvious innit? X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 10:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
|type=
(live now)|alloy type=
|alloy composition=
|UNS_identifier=
for
Unified numbering system|SAE identifier=
for
SAE steel grades Done Updated {{
Infobox material}} as discussed. Created {{
Infobox alloy}} synonym. -
DePiep (
talk) 11:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—
Chemical oceanography—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 06:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
This isn't my area but I thought this might be something worth flagging. ECHA InfoCard used to be a redirect to a section of European Chemicals Agency but that section no longer exists. However that redirect has incoming links from >10k articles - I assume it's in a template somewhere. I'd suggest this needs a bit of attention - either the template needs tweaking or some information needs to be added about the InfoCard. Le Deluge ( talk) 14:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
A comment on
Talk:Lysine#Wrong_3D_model just noted that he JSmol model for zwitterionic lysine is wrong! The molecule should be protonated on the epsilon amino group!
. Could I get this double-checked by a chemist?
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk 00:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Ben, I'll let you fight this out with the IP editor. This is well beyond my pay grade. At least you both now know how to alter the SMILES in the article to reflect whatever you decide is "the truth" (or "the most useful")! Mike Turnbull ( talk) 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Here the template background for {{
Chembox}} having Jmol (or JSmol). In short: Jmol uses |SMILES=
, but can be overwritten.
Identifiers | |
---|---|
| |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
|
|Jmol=(another SMILES)
is fed an adjusted SMILES string → shows OK in 3D |Jmol=none
→ Jmol does not show for this one Not done: possibly an adjusted SMILES string would show 3D correct in Jmol.
- DePiep ( talk) 13:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I've created a Tammann and Hüttig Temperature article recently. Would love to see some feedback on it. It's pretty short and mostly serves purpose of a data page. Please checkout. Thanks. -- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Borax#Borax as mineral species -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I will set up a discussion akin the borax one above at Talk:Graphite#Graphite as mineral species. Quick reading of Greenwood and Earnshaw indicates that both mineral and synthetic graphite are widely used commercially. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it's due time to take a look at the content at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Groups_of_compounds to see if the wording and examples need updating, and then work on bringing article titles in line with the conventions we've confirmed. Looking specifically at the first subsection:
As for the second subsection:
Please share comments and I will draft a proposed revision for us to consider and will link below. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I have a rough draft of a proposed revision at User:Mdewman6/Chemical groups naming convention. The only major change is to specify that articles on functional groups include "group" in the title, e.g. phenyl group, not just phenyl. It also makes clear to defer to WP:COMMONNAME rather than going with whatever IUPAC may say. Please comment; if there are no objections I would like to institute these revisions in the near future and bring consistency to the titles of the affected articles. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Any comments? I don't think we need an RfC for this, but I'd prefer not to go with WP:SILENCE for implementing a naming convention change either. But, given the page views the proposed version has received, I will take silence as consensus if there is no further discussion. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I added a paragraph to the draft section ( User:Mdewman6/Chemical groups naming convention) that is an attempt to capture the situations discussed above. If implemented, we'll need to revise Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry#Compound_classes which suggests parenthetical disambiguation. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
If there is no further discussion in next 7 days or so, I will plan on implementing the proposal to replace the current section of the naming conventions with the proposed text. I'm sure it could be further refined and tweaked, which can certainly happen going forward, but there seems to be consensus this is at least an improvement over the status quo. Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors with good working chemistry knowledge might be useful in this discussion at WP:Fringe. It's a question of surprising chemistry claims being sourced to the editor's own papers.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Chemical_energy_and_related_articles
ApLundell ( talk) 04:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
In relation to the ongoing discussion about whether oxygen is a "high-energy molecule", I've started drafting an article on "energy-rich species" or "high-energy species". The term appears to be in fairly wide use in introductory material, but I haven't been able to find a decent well-sourced definition of it. It's not quite a dicdef as usage varies and there are several similar terms; it's not quite equivalent to "unstable"; it doesn't really fit into "chemical energy".
I'm honestly undecided whether this article is a good idea. I thought the definition so obvious that spelling it out would be dictionary work, but of course the whole "high-energy oxygen" idea kind of demonstrates that it isn't.
Anyway, in order of preference, I'm asking for offers to take over the draft (yeah, right); opinions that the draft should be deleted (with or without reasons); or opinions that it should be kept and how to improve it. In particular, if anyone can remember a textbook or article that defines the term rigorously, I'd know where to continue looking.
IpseCustos ( talk) 18:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
only changes in free energy are physically meaningful, so all reactants and products are relevant, with no single one really being the "energy rich" species. Those of us who have made nitrogen triiodide would nevertheless happily call it that! Mike Turnbull ( talk) 14:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The new article Xerosydryle has a sundry of scientific material in it but from what I see only one source even mentions the term and a quick google search came up with nothing on the term. Am I right in deducing that the article represents trying to establish a new term? If so, Wikipedia would not be the place for such an effort. So if an article by that name were not to survive, is there a recognized topic for the material in the article? Thanks. North8000 ( talk) 20:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
accumulated clumps of xerosydryle appear as a white-ish fluffy, dry substance,alone makes clear. Water is probably the most studied substance of all and "dry" water is a contradiction in terms. Let's not waste time on WP:AFD. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 11:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The creator posted the following at the talk page, but did not remove the PROD tag:
Let me address [ North8000's ] concerns. The name has been already used by other authors, apart from the first proponent, I have added references in the article.
- About the recognized topic for the material in the article, it can be "Supramulecular Chemistry", or "Scence of Nanomaterials".
- Moreover, about the article being "based on mirrors of a single source by Roberto Geremano et al. (2013)". The origin of the research on this new material can be dated at least back to the article by Pollak's group, published in 2006 on "Advances in Colloid and Interface Science", because the Exclusion Zone mentioned by Pollak is the same material (supramulecular structure) as the Xerosydryle mentioned by Germano. Even earlier research dates back to 1960, although less explicitly linked to the material.
- Finally, the scientific papers referenced in the article are published not only on (bogus?) Water journal, but also on "Advances in Colloid and Interface Science", which has h-index 194 and is solidly in the first quartile for its field ( https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=26533&tip=sid&clean=0), "Journal of Molecular Liquids", which has h-index 132 and is also in the first quartile, "Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry", h-index 101, second quartile, "Journal of Porous Media" (h-39, Q3).
- So, I believe that it is really inappropriate to describe the content of the article as highly dubious, as said by @ LaundryPizza03, the proponent of the deletion.
— User:Oakwood 19:07, 16 June 2022
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The research by Germano and colleagues is in continuity with the research by Pollak, which has been published on a Q1 journal. The statement that the material in the article (e.g. the Exclusion Zone reported by Pollak) is an hoax, is in disagreements with the reviewers and the editors of several prestigious journals. I have removed the PROD tag, based on the arguments written here and in the Talk page of the article, and on the extra references added. Oakwood ( talk) 19:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Regardless, I think that right here is the best place to pick a general direction on this. Flow wise, here are possibilities:
Sincerely,North8000 ( talk) 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about the right place where to discuss the deletion: here? in the page 'talk' section? in the deletion talk page? could you please clarify? thanks! Oakwood ( talk) 05:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
articles are in the review process, and should be published in the near futurefrom your earlier comment. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 10:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Bisphenol A is currently being assessed for Good Article status. I'm aware that we don't usually go in for such baubles, but it seemed a fairly rare example of a non-drug small-molecule which is of public interest. I would welcome input at Talk:Bisphenol A/GA1. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Ll0103 has made several edits over the recent past, always and only citing his primary journal articles. I tried to revert these things, but it would be helpful if some administrator would intercede. I am sure that this person is convinced of the brilliance and notability of their publications, but he's abusing our system. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Today's XKCD. DMacks ( talk) 14:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Lll
all. -
DePiep (
talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Sand battery and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Sand battery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
64.229.88.43 (
talk) 22:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
List of crystals ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently redirects to List of gemstones by species. I find this situation odd, since there are many crystals that are not gems and several gems that are not crystalline. -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 23:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances § RfC about PFAS vs PFASs - DePiep ( talk) 20:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a possibly interesting RFC on the Terpene article talk page: Talk:Terpene#RFC_on_Cannabis_and_Terpenes. The issue is whether it is useful to include WP:MEDRS resources to document the (current) fact that a very widespread theory about terpenes currently has no scientific backup. If this is of any interest to you, feel free to express your opinion there. Finney1234 ( talk) 21:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that some time ago names like 'Sulfuric(IV) acid' and 'Sulphuric(IV) acid' were added to this article [1]. Also in Sulfite there is "(or the sulfate(IV) ion, from its correct systematic name)" [2]. I would like to know what is the source of these names, and more importantly, which source stated that these names are systematic? AFAIK since 1940 IUPAC never published any publication with such names as systematic.
Why I'm interested: such names are very popular in Polish education system. The reason why such names are used there is not entirely clear, even despite the fact that these were never recommended systematic names (both by IUPAC and Polish Chemical Society) and nowadays it is very hard to fight this misinformation.
I would be very grateful for any authoritative source of such names in English. Wostr ( talk) 12:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I've added a {{
connected contributor}} tag for myself to a chemistry biography article that I wrote back when I was a less experienced editor; see
Talk:David S. Breslow § Connection note. I would like to invite anyone here to review the article to check its neutrality. After you have done so, feel free to update the tag by adding |checked=
to it. Best, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 18:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
{{subst:today}} by {{u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lithium battery#Requested move 23 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 ( talk) 18:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of changes in the formatting of chemical formulae in articles recently, for example this diff. The {{ chem2}} template seems very good but I'm less convinced by the <chem> tag because it renders the formula as an image and makes it impossible to find with text search. Do we have a policy on this? Ben ( talk) 17:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
G'day, I've got our lovely Gordon Aylward's 4th edition of SI Chemical Data on my hands. Since it's the 4th edition (which was published 1998), it obviously does not contain any of the new superheavy elements. Now, I just wanted to know, can the data for all the other elements still be considered to be accurate? Regards X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 04:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't have ChemDraw, otherwise I'd tackle this myself. Commons contains several mechanisms for the Dakin reaction, almost all of them contain errors in the use of curly arrows, or just look unprofessional commons:Category:Dakin_reaction. There is also disagreement on the mechanism (epoxide or no expoxide). Project Osprey ( talk) 14:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hallo, if somebody finds time to save the article from delisting, please help! -- Stone ( talk) 08:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@ OlliverWithDoubleL: I noticed this equation in ketonic decarboxylation:
Maybe we can discuss this equation because the editor OlliverWithDoubleL has been very active:
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey all,
With regards to this particular chemical equation, the coloring I added was meant only to highlight the interconversion between the carboxylic acid and ketone groups in the equation, as emphasis. The ketone should be a different color, you're right.
With regards to my preference of <chem> for equations that aren't inline, I should probably have discussed with you all first. I think the {{ chem}} and {{ chem2}} formatting looks great when it's inline with the text; there, the MOS is right that the font change with <chem> would be jarring. But when the reaction equation is in its own line, like the ketonic decarboxylation one above, I think it looks better when the font is different; just like with math formulae elsewhere on Wikipedia, the change in font makes the equation stand out from the rest of the text, and it also blends in nicely with articles that also contain math formulas of the same font. Also, the choice of font is nicer too; in the usual Wikipedia font, it's near impossible to tell a capital I from a lowercase L (I or l), but the <math> and <chem> fonts make it easy. This is important when considering, for instance, the oxidation state of a substance (e.g. I) versus its physical state (e.g. liquid, l). I know that some users have placed links within their formulas, which isn’t possible with <chem>; I’ve tried to move the names of the substances to the surrounding text, or instead named the substance using \overset. Is this acceptable?
Also, and this is just an issue that I have as a primarily mobile user, but I try to turn the formatting of equations like this: {{ chem2}} + {{ chem2}} -> {{ chem2}} + {{ chem2}} + …
Into this: {{chem2| … -> … }} or <chem> … -> … /chem>
Because, although the former may look nice on a desktop browsing window, it is often text-wrapped for mobile users, which creates a lot of confusion particularly when a series of equations is present or when the formulas are particularly long. In that case, a single {{ chem2}} or <chem> formula is nice because it ensures the text isn’t wrapped, so I've been collecting both inline and indented formulas into one unbroken {{ chem2}} or <chem> line. OlliverWithDoubleL ( talk) 18:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
It would be good to also have all
historic benzene structures as they appeared in the original publication. If not in the article itself, then at least on Commons.
Currently, it seems that we only have two of them:
The relevant original publications of the others need to be identified. Any help is much appreciated. -- Leyo 13:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Dewar benzene and
prismane are distinct molecules that have Dewar's and Ladenburg's structures. Thiele and Kekulé's structures are used today.
de:wp is currently discussing the deletion of de:Hantz-Reaktionen, because the name is OR. Earlier a renaming was discussed with no result. Can anyone contribute to this topic? Gimli21 ( talk) 12:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Would I be correct in thinking that Category:Flavanones and Category:Flavones (and their associated wikimedia pages) should just be merged? Project Osprey ( talk) 15:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that their contributions are usually poor and their supervisors do not supervise. https://twitter.com/RetractionWatch/status/1592321603689484288/photo/1 -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—
Alpha and beta carbon—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Could a (general) structural formula be added? And what about adding the chembox? Leyo 08:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the structural formula in this article have terminal hydroxyl groups? The first sentence reads as follows:
If yes, is anyone able to amend that structural formula? Leyo 22:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Never heard of "mass attenuation coefficient"? Me either. But that is the term imposed by the speech police at Wikipedia for what mortals call "extinction coefficient". I recommend that we move Mass attenuation coefficient to extinction coefficient. Comments? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 21:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Dorothy Hodgkin#Wiki Education assignment: General Chemistry I. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
An article that been involved with ( Zinc oxide ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ( Zinc white). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 |
Molecular graphics is a disaster zone. Huge amounts of the content are unreferenced and likely basedon OR, and much of the content seems to be disorganized and repetitive. I have attempted to remove some of the fluff, including textbook-like image labels that included an in-text description of an image that was deleted in 2019. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Seems to be adding content from new issues of Science and similar journals. "Researchers have found ..." "A recent study shows...". Check out recent changes in Monoterpene. The contributions are not awful, but IMHO, misguided in the sense that Wikipedia is a forum for settled knowledge and, ordinarily at least, we dont do news. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 21:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The following articles touch on big complicated themes:
Probably more articles on this theme exist.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
User:Herravondure is removing orphan tags on articles with the edit note "Successfully de-orphaned" but no links are being created, so not so successful.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 14:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
What articles are you referring to? I do deorphan articles, and if I did that to one with nothing linking to it that was my bad, but I am not doing this intentionally. Herravondure ( talk) 14:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I originally posted this at the Teahouse, but upon advice of the venerable Mr Turnbull I have posted it here too.
Hi, I just noticed whilst browsing through List of named alloys that none of the alloys have infoboxes, and I'm sure it would be a useful idea. I just came here to ask two things, would it be useful (to create an infobox) and should I also make a navbox for alloys? Thanks. My username is actually based off an alloy too! X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 22:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
composition, and then a {{ ubl}}, as that's the easiest way I believe we can implement them. I haven't examined polymers so much, and I did not intend to use molecular formulas, weights, SMILES or anything of the sorts, just something akin to what's present at {{ Infobox drug}}. For the database tokens, which is the UNS number, is there another internal system within Wikipedia that can categorise these things? I'm not too well-versed in the technical things (I do have experience with modules at Wiktionary if that's helpful at all), so I'd like some pointers as to what I should go about doing there. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 23:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
|type=
can stay (and get label "Material type"). Be as specific as possible, especially if its free!Chemical formula of the alloy (if listed), please hard-code with subscripts.Which means if the formula is listed, it can be added as it's a suggested parameter. And yes, I shall amend that label you have mentioned. I just have a singular question, at the {{ Infobox material/testcases}}, you have put "T2 tool steel" under type, I presume that is a filler as is SAE999. I think we should also rename the subheader to "Alloy properties". Looks like it's coming together. I'll sort the navbox out, I've got experience with music group navboxes, and I'll simply follow the layout of something like {{ Hydrides by group}}, with the groups probably shaping to be "non-ferrous", "ferrous", and under non-ferrous, probably division into nickel-based, aluminium-based, etc, and others. I'll be using Category:Alloys for the navbox too, so if you know any pages that might be missing just mosey on over & add it to the page. Sound good? X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 10:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
chemical_formula_note. Quite obvious innit? X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 10:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
|type=
(live now)|alloy type=
|alloy composition=
|UNS_identifier=
for
Unified numbering system|SAE identifier=
for
SAE steel grades Done Updated {{
Infobox material}} as discussed. Created {{
Infobox alloy}} synonym. -
DePiep (
talk) 11:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—
Chemical oceanography—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Chidgk1 (
talk) 06:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
This isn't my area but I thought this might be something worth flagging. ECHA InfoCard used to be a redirect to a section of European Chemicals Agency but that section no longer exists. However that redirect has incoming links from >10k articles - I assume it's in a template somewhere. I'd suggest this needs a bit of attention - either the template needs tweaking or some information needs to be added about the InfoCard. Le Deluge ( talk) 14:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
A comment on
Talk:Lysine#Wrong_3D_model just noted that he JSmol model for zwitterionic lysine is wrong! The molecule should be protonated on the epsilon amino group!
. Could I get this double-checked by a chemist?
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk 00:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Ben, I'll let you fight this out with the IP editor. This is well beyond my pay grade. At least you both now know how to alter the SMILES in the article to reflect whatever you decide is "the truth" (or "the most useful")! Mike Turnbull ( talk) 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Here the template background for {{
Chembox}} having Jmol (or JSmol). In short: Jmol uses |SMILES=
, but can be overwritten.
Identifiers | |
---|---|
| |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
|
|Jmol=(another SMILES)
is fed an adjusted SMILES string → shows OK in 3D |Jmol=none
→ Jmol does not show for this one Not done: possibly an adjusted SMILES string would show 3D correct in Jmol.
- DePiep ( talk) 13:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I've created a Tammann and Hüttig Temperature article recently. Would love to see some feedback on it. It's pretty short and mostly serves purpose of a data page. Please checkout. Thanks. -- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Borax#Borax as mineral species -- Kent G. Budge ( talk) 16:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I will set up a discussion akin the borax one above at Talk:Graphite#Graphite as mineral species. Quick reading of Greenwood and Earnshaw indicates that both mineral and synthetic graphite are widely used commercially. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it's due time to take a look at the content at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Groups_of_compounds to see if the wording and examples need updating, and then work on bringing article titles in line with the conventions we've confirmed. Looking specifically at the first subsection:
As for the second subsection:
Please share comments and I will draft a proposed revision for us to consider and will link below. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I have a rough draft of a proposed revision at User:Mdewman6/Chemical groups naming convention. The only major change is to specify that articles on functional groups include "group" in the title, e.g. phenyl group, not just phenyl. It also makes clear to defer to WP:COMMONNAME rather than going with whatever IUPAC may say. Please comment; if there are no objections I would like to institute these revisions in the near future and bring consistency to the titles of the affected articles. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Any comments? I don't think we need an RfC for this, but I'd prefer not to go with WP:SILENCE for implementing a naming convention change either. But, given the page views the proposed version has received, I will take silence as consensus if there is no further discussion. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I added a paragraph to the draft section ( User:Mdewman6/Chemical groups naming convention) that is an attempt to capture the situations discussed above. If implemented, we'll need to revise Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Chemistry#Compound_classes which suggests parenthetical disambiguation. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
If there is no further discussion in next 7 days or so, I will plan on implementing the proposal to replace the current section of the naming conventions with the proposed text. I'm sure it could be further refined and tweaked, which can certainly happen going forward, but there seems to be consensus this is at least an improvement over the status quo. Cheers, Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors with good working chemistry knowledge might be useful in this discussion at WP:Fringe. It's a question of surprising chemistry claims being sourced to the editor's own papers.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Chemical_energy_and_related_articles
ApLundell ( talk) 04:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
In relation to the ongoing discussion about whether oxygen is a "high-energy molecule", I've started drafting an article on "energy-rich species" or "high-energy species". The term appears to be in fairly wide use in introductory material, but I haven't been able to find a decent well-sourced definition of it. It's not quite a dicdef as usage varies and there are several similar terms; it's not quite equivalent to "unstable"; it doesn't really fit into "chemical energy".
I'm honestly undecided whether this article is a good idea. I thought the definition so obvious that spelling it out would be dictionary work, but of course the whole "high-energy oxygen" idea kind of demonstrates that it isn't.
Anyway, in order of preference, I'm asking for offers to take over the draft (yeah, right); opinions that the draft should be deleted (with or without reasons); or opinions that it should be kept and how to improve it. In particular, if anyone can remember a textbook or article that defines the term rigorously, I'd know where to continue looking.
IpseCustos ( talk) 18:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
only changes in free energy are physically meaningful, so all reactants and products are relevant, with no single one really being the "energy rich" species. Those of us who have made nitrogen triiodide would nevertheless happily call it that! Mike Turnbull ( talk) 14:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The new article Xerosydryle has a sundry of scientific material in it but from what I see only one source even mentions the term and a quick google search came up with nothing on the term. Am I right in deducing that the article represents trying to establish a new term? If so, Wikipedia would not be the place for such an effort. So if an article by that name were not to survive, is there a recognized topic for the material in the article? Thanks. North8000 ( talk) 20:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
accumulated clumps of xerosydryle appear as a white-ish fluffy, dry substance,alone makes clear. Water is probably the most studied substance of all and "dry" water is a contradiction in terms. Let's not waste time on WP:AFD. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 11:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The creator posted the following at the talk page, but did not remove the PROD tag:
Let me address [ North8000's ] concerns. The name has been already used by other authors, apart from the first proponent, I have added references in the article.
- About the recognized topic for the material in the article, it can be "Supramulecular Chemistry", or "Scence of Nanomaterials".
- Moreover, about the article being "based on mirrors of a single source by Roberto Geremano et al. (2013)". The origin of the research on this new material can be dated at least back to the article by Pollak's group, published in 2006 on "Advances in Colloid and Interface Science", because the Exclusion Zone mentioned by Pollak is the same material (supramulecular structure) as the Xerosydryle mentioned by Germano. Even earlier research dates back to 1960, although less explicitly linked to the material.
- Finally, the scientific papers referenced in the article are published not only on (bogus?) Water journal, but also on "Advances in Colloid and Interface Science", which has h-index 194 and is solidly in the first quartile for its field ( https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=26533&tip=sid&clean=0), "Journal of Molecular Liquids", which has h-index 132 and is also in the first quartile, "Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry", h-index 101, second quartile, "Journal of Porous Media" (h-39, Q3).
- So, I believe that it is really inappropriate to describe the content of the article as highly dubious, as said by @ LaundryPizza03, the proponent of the deletion.
— User:Oakwood 19:07, 16 June 2022
– LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The research by Germano and colleagues is in continuity with the research by Pollak, which has been published on a Q1 journal. The statement that the material in the article (e.g. the Exclusion Zone reported by Pollak) is an hoax, is in disagreements with the reviewers and the editors of several prestigious journals. I have removed the PROD tag, based on the arguments written here and in the Talk page of the article, and on the extra references added. Oakwood ( talk) 19:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Regardless, I think that right here is the best place to pick a general direction on this. Flow wise, here are possibilities:
Sincerely,North8000 ( talk) 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about the right place where to discuss the deletion: here? in the page 'talk' section? in the deletion talk page? could you please clarify? thanks! Oakwood ( talk) 05:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
articles are in the review process, and should be published in the near futurefrom your earlier comment. Mike Turnbull ( talk) 10:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Bisphenol A is currently being assessed for Good Article status. I'm aware that we don't usually go in for such baubles, but it seemed a fairly rare example of a non-drug small-molecule which is of public interest. I would welcome input at Talk:Bisphenol A/GA1. -- Project Osprey ( talk) 12:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Ll0103 has made several edits over the recent past, always and only citing his primary journal articles. I tried to revert these things, but it would be helpful if some administrator would intercede. I am sure that this person is convinced of the brilliance and notability of their publications, but he's abusing our system. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Today's XKCD. DMacks ( talk) 14:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Lll
all. -
DePiep (
talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Sand battery and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Sand battery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
64.229.88.43 (
talk) 22:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
List of crystals ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently redirects to List of gemstones by species. I find this situation odd, since there are many crystals that are not gems and several gems that are not crystalline. -- 64.229.88.43 ( talk) 23:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances § RfC about PFAS vs PFASs - DePiep ( talk) 20:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a possibly interesting RFC on the Terpene article talk page: Talk:Terpene#RFC_on_Cannabis_and_Terpenes. The issue is whether it is useful to include WP:MEDRS resources to document the (current) fact that a very widespread theory about terpenes currently has no scientific backup. If this is of any interest to you, feel free to express your opinion there. Finney1234 ( talk) 21:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that some time ago names like 'Sulfuric(IV) acid' and 'Sulphuric(IV) acid' were added to this article [1]. Also in Sulfite there is "(or the sulfate(IV) ion, from its correct systematic name)" [2]. I would like to know what is the source of these names, and more importantly, which source stated that these names are systematic? AFAIK since 1940 IUPAC never published any publication with such names as systematic.
Why I'm interested: such names are very popular in Polish education system. The reason why such names are used there is not entirely clear, even despite the fact that these were never recommended systematic names (both by IUPAC and Polish Chemical Society) and nowadays it is very hard to fight this misinformation.
I would be very grateful for any authoritative source of such names in English. Wostr ( talk) 12:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I've added a {{
connected contributor}} tag for myself to a chemistry biography article that I wrote back when I was a less experienced editor; see
Talk:David S. Breslow § Connection note. I would like to invite anyone here to review the article to check its neutrality. After you have done so, feel free to update the tag by adding |checked=
to it. Best, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk 18:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
{{subst:today}} by {{u|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lithium battery#Requested move 23 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 ( talk) 18:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of changes in the formatting of chemical formulae in articles recently, for example this diff. The {{ chem2}} template seems very good but I'm less convinced by the <chem> tag because it renders the formula as an image and makes it impossible to find with text search. Do we have a policy on this? Ben ( talk) 17:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
G'day, I've got our lovely Gordon Aylward's 4th edition of SI Chemical Data on my hands. Since it's the 4th edition (which was published 1998), it obviously does not contain any of the new superheavy elements. Now, I just wanted to know, can the data for all the other elements still be considered to be accurate? Regards X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 04:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't have ChemDraw, otherwise I'd tackle this myself. Commons contains several mechanisms for the Dakin reaction, almost all of them contain errors in the use of curly arrows, or just look unprofessional commons:Category:Dakin_reaction. There is also disagreement on the mechanism (epoxide or no expoxide). Project Osprey ( talk) 14:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hallo, if somebody finds time to save the article from delisting, please help! -- Stone ( talk) 08:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@ OlliverWithDoubleL: I noticed this equation in ketonic decarboxylation:
Maybe we can discuss this equation because the editor OlliverWithDoubleL has been very active:
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey all,
With regards to this particular chemical equation, the coloring I added was meant only to highlight the interconversion between the carboxylic acid and ketone groups in the equation, as emphasis. The ketone should be a different color, you're right.
With regards to my preference of <chem> for equations that aren't inline, I should probably have discussed with you all first. I think the {{ chem}} and {{ chem2}} formatting looks great when it's inline with the text; there, the MOS is right that the font change with <chem> would be jarring. But when the reaction equation is in its own line, like the ketonic decarboxylation one above, I think it looks better when the font is different; just like with math formulae elsewhere on Wikipedia, the change in font makes the equation stand out from the rest of the text, and it also blends in nicely with articles that also contain math formulas of the same font. Also, the choice of font is nicer too; in the usual Wikipedia font, it's near impossible to tell a capital I from a lowercase L (I or l), but the <math> and <chem> fonts make it easy. This is important when considering, for instance, the oxidation state of a substance (e.g. I) versus its physical state (e.g. liquid, l). I know that some users have placed links within their formulas, which isn’t possible with <chem>; I’ve tried to move the names of the substances to the surrounding text, or instead named the substance using \overset. Is this acceptable?
Also, and this is just an issue that I have as a primarily mobile user, but I try to turn the formatting of equations like this: {{ chem2}} + {{ chem2}} -> {{ chem2}} + {{ chem2}} + …
Into this: {{chem2| … -> … }} or <chem> … -> … /chem>
Because, although the former may look nice on a desktop browsing window, it is often text-wrapped for mobile users, which creates a lot of confusion particularly when a series of equations is present or when the formulas are particularly long. In that case, a single {{ chem2}} or <chem> formula is nice because it ensures the text isn’t wrapped, so I've been collecting both inline and indented formulas into one unbroken {{ chem2}} or <chem> line. OlliverWithDoubleL ( talk) 18:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
It would be good to also have all
historic benzene structures as they appeared in the original publication. If not in the article itself, then at least on Commons.
Currently, it seems that we only have two of them:
The relevant original publications of the others need to be identified. Any help is much appreciated. -- Leyo 13:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Dewar benzene and
prismane are distinct molecules that have Dewar's and Ladenburg's structures. Thiele and Kekulé's structures are used today.
de:wp is currently discussing the deletion of de:Hantz-Reaktionen, because the name is OR. Earlier a renaming was discussed with no result. Can anyone contribute to this topic? Gimli21 ( talk) 12:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Would I be correct in thinking that Category:Flavanones and Category:Flavones (and their associated wikimedia pages) should just be merged? Project Osprey ( talk) 15:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that their contributions are usually poor and their supervisors do not supervise. https://twitter.com/RetractionWatch/status/1592321603689484288/photo/1 -- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—
Alpha and beta carbon—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Could a (general) structural formula be added? And what about adding the chembox? Leyo 08:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't the structural formula in this article have terminal hydroxyl groups? The first sentence reads as follows:
If yes, is anyone able to amend that structural formula? Leyo 22:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Never heard of "mass attenuation coefficient"? Me either. But that is the term imposed by the speech police at Wikipedia for what mortals call "extinction coefficient". I recommend that we move Mass attenuation coefficient to extinction coefficient. Comments? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 21:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Dorothy Hodgkin#Wiki Education assignment: General Chemistry I. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 21:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
An article that been involved with ( Zinc oxide ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article ( Zinc white). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)