Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Chemistry Project‑class | |||||||
|
...to sticking the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat on this page? Even though you guys are still developing it, you've clearly done a lot more work that many other pages that name themselves "Manual of Style" and are in the style guidelines cat. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 02:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I made Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (chemistry)/draft (redlinked) redirect to this page, so we can keep discussion together. Please give your opinions and suggestions on the draft MOS? Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Believe it would make sense to truncate this section's last sentence parenthetical comment to read: "(e.g. discussion of Bhopal disaster)" or rephrased to say "(e.g. discussion in Bhopal disaster, and mentioned in methyl isocyanate)". Thoughts/comments? MornMore ( talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Need someone to write up this section ( Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/Nomenclature) Volunteers please? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This one needs to be address, as it is the only element which can change name depending on the isotope. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Discussion imported from User talk:Headbomb
Hi there
I notice your comments on nuclear chemistry/nuclear reactions. Respectfully, I would like to remove the section from the CHEM MOS draft for the moment. We have a huge number of things to grapple with at the time, and since nuclear chemistry is not a particularly pressing issue, I would like to exclude it from discussion for now.
Does WP:Physics have a style guide for that? We will probably defer to them, and that's that? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Using the form 239Pu in equations is a no brainer for me but can become cumbersome and hard to read in prose. I therefore prefer forms such as plutonium-239 and Pu-239 in prose b/c it is easier to read and type. What does everybody else think? Compare the below two examples:
vs
The second example requires the reader to jump back and forth each time an isotope is mentioned to properly construct the natural-sounding name of the isotope. The first example flows more smoothly and, IMO, is in better compliance with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACCESSIBLE. -- mav ( talk) 16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a chemist, but "Pu-242" is closer to the way I've heard isotopes pronounced in speech; that is, with the number after the element name. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've tidied up Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/Structure_drawing, trying to make the guide less verbose. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/Structure_drawing#Uploading_and_copyright needs some work. Apart from that, this has been one of our oldest guides, and has seen little changes. Are we ready to ratify this section? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed "When writing many chemical reactions one after the other, align the elements of the equation by placing them in a table.
CH3COOH | → | CH3CO+ | + | OH− | ||
NaCl | + | AgNO3 | → | NaNO3 | + | AgCl |
N2 | + | 3H2 | → | 2NH3 |
Non-trivial reactions should be drawn as images."
The current practice has been simply to stack them up, without attempting tables of any sort. The wikicode is tedious to input, confusing to read, and the output is no better than:
-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 06:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
How about a suggestion that you can do this if you want to go the extra mile, but that this is not mandated? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks K for your help. I think a distinction needs to be made. Reactions occur in almost all types of articles, so perhaps they should go to "general" for formatting issues, etc. Whereas we have a class of articles which deal with chemical reactions, named or unnamed.
I'm going to change two aspects of K's contribs: images and reactions should be aligned left, per what has been agreed upon; last three sections should be "see also", "references", "external links" per Wikipedia:Layout#.22See_also.22_section. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, should we include/merge/discuss the advisory styleguide of Chemicals wikiproject here? It has several important and well thought out recommendations for chemicals (and chemistry) articles. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
Hi Wim
In fact, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft#Compounds and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/Chemicals, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/References and external links were derived from the Chemicals style guidelines. The intention was to use the chemicals style guidelines to write something more general and encompassing for chemical and chemistry articles, while reducing duplication and overlap. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've imported our old guidelines on safety, in the full knowledge that they need revising to bring them up to date with current practice and opinion. Any comments are welcome! Physchim62 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Molecular structure diagram now redundant to the structure drawing subpage here? Physchim62 (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a policy for using intermediate versus reactive intermediate in articles? Should such a policy be included in the style guide? My personal preference is reactive intermediate, and I notice that the main article is indeed reactive intermediate. Shanata ( talk) 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Might I be slightly abrasive here, without wishing to offend either point of view. I, personally, am a reaction intermediate between ( glucose + oxygen) and carbon dioxide: but if we take the term at that level it becomes meaningless. The IUPAC term " intermediate" usually implies an intermediate which is short-lived on a human timescale, but has flexibility. It is obviously different from the term " transition state". The former ("intermediate") is defined as a local minimum; the latter ("transition state") is defined as a local maximum. So what, I ask myself, is a so-called "reactive intermediate": how does it differ from a normal intermediate? Physchim62 (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello WPChem,
I've been on an *extended* wikibreak, but Walkerma asked me to write a bit about reactions. So I did. In the great wiki tradition, if you like it, keep it. Otherwise, change it. I'll check back in a week or two.
~K ( talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
While trying to cleanup ammonium, I added a Chembox to it, only to discover that Chemboxes seem to be tailored for actual compounds, not ions, and that most ion articles do not have Chemboxes. Should articles on ions have Chemboxes or not?— Tetracube ( talk) 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find a manual of style on how the 3D-models should be shown. It seems like there must be some style guide as a lot of the models are very similar graphically. If anyone could help me locate the guide or give me a quick rundown of how to make them look like Media:Acetone-3D-balls.png that would be great. I have Accelrys Visualizer and a program to generate the MOL files, so I think all I need now are just settings/lighting/export info. Thanks. Ginogrz ( talk) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Example: D-glucose vs D-glucose. These tend to be small in most printed texts, but I see both forms on Wikipedia. Which is preferred? Pdcook ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with most of the other non systematic names proposed, especially where the alternative name is much shorter and well known than the systematic name, however, such a super simple chemical name such as ethanoic acid being replaced by its alternative name seems to yield no benefit to anyone, and so it seems more useful to use the systematic name, as to enable younger chemists to more comfortably understand the content. Another example is toluene, although I do understand that there is some use in shortening methylbenzene down.
Oliholmes ( talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Should
Template:Chem be the suggested way of writing formulae?
eg {{chem|SO|4|2-}} → SO2−
4
{{chem|4|2|He}} → 4
2He
RDBrown (
talk) 06:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
In response to editing events, well intentioned ones, I have added to our MOS on general policy
Of course other editors are welcome to suggest changes.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
For the section, "Attributions to people and places", perhaps we can tweak the statement to include a line to the effect: "since the primary or secondary literature is (or should be) cited, who did what, when, is available for the interested reader. I agree with the statement in principle, but many stories are popularly tied with the workers involved. For example, you have ferrocene and Fischer and Wilkinson; benzene and Kekule's snake; NHCs and Wanzlick, Arduengo, Bertrand, etc. Perhaps such stories explicitly linking the discoverer with the discovery are of better taste when there is some distance and perspective... -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Great work, Smoke. I'd like to see an even stronger statement against following IUPAC. We actively ignore IUPAC recommendations if we think they're nonsense. We don't particularly strive to follow IUPAC, except where chemists in general follow IUPAC. Can we also have a statement warning people obsessed with rules not to use Wikipedia chemistry articles to satisfy their obsession? The one thing that might stop rule fanatics is a rule against them!
Ben ( talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Maybe being scrupulously neutral towards IUPAC is the way to go. I just find IUPAC nomenclature bureaucratic and rarely relevant. Simple things have their own common names, complicated things are referred to as "the enolate" or "enolate 7". Only intermediately complex molecules benefit from IUPAC names, e.g. cis-3-hexenal. Smokefoot's text has my support. I'll continue to hunt down disruptive rule fanatics, though.
Ben ( talk) 11:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica Tea? 00:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am quickly discovering the challenges of collaboratively creating NPOV content with regard to pesticide chemicals. Perhaps I'm blind, but I see no overt evidence of corporations influencing Wikipedia content to pitch or defend their products. I do, however, see an awful lot of content driven by what appears to be anti-chemical advocacy. The most typical content in that regard falls under the Current Events category in WP:CHEMMOS, which, if everyone demonstrates good faith (specifically, "compromise" and "adherence to policies and guidelines") should never dominate any chemical page. The WP:CHEMMOS appears to allow for NPOV references to incidents of enduring notability. The rub, near as I can tell, is that for some advocates every chemical controversy from the blogospere or in the mass media qualifies as encyclopedic content with enduring notability that MUST be included on the Wikipedia page of the chemical involved. Mind you, these aren't just single sentences or clauses of sentences that mention the incident etc. They're full-on write ups, full paragraphs and even multiple paragraphs that completely dominate the page ( clothianidin being a terrific case in point). One Wikipedian, user:ArtifexMayhem, has declared on User_talk:Gandydancer's talk page that "Clothianidin should/must/shall include a section on the controversies."
So, what should be done about controversies? Would it better serve Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view for the Chemistry Manual of Style to allow extensive write ups on chemical pages of political issues/incidents/controversies/scandals? -- USEPA James ( talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This odd section with the struck-out heading ( Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)#Current_events) was inserted by Rifleman 82 here, back in 2009, and moved from the /Chemical subpage into the current page a few days later, all with absolutely no mention, discussion, or notice. It's currently being cited by a User:USEPA_James as a reason not to mention a pesticide incident in Germany. It would be worth reviewing, and see what it makes sense to say here; the present version seems rather lopsided, saying only "that such an accident has occurred is not sufficient justification for inclusion in the context of an article about chemicals"; nothing wrong with that, but it would be good to balance with something about what a sufficient justification might be. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The section being argued about is Clothianidin#Criticism. Can one really make an NPOV article about a pesticide without mentioning such an incident? I'm not saying it's NPOV now, but omitting it would go hard over the other way. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps tangential, but since I have been named: That edit (and many many others) was part of an effort to write the MOS in a systematic fashion from the various guidelines we had accrued over the years. They were written in a /draft subpage, and later moved into where they were now are, after discussion or lack of dissent here and on the official IRC channel. Very transparent, if you ask me (although the links to the transcripts have somehow broken). If anyone had objections, the time to raise them should have been two years ago. Of course, consensus can change and you are welcome to find a new one if you wish. The header is struck out because we are do not intend to have such a header; striking it out seemed a convenient way to highlight this point. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that the this 2008 incident is not the focus of this article. If it does merit a mention, I don't think it needs more than a paragraph, perhaps under a section on regulation (when it was approved by whom, etc.). I think the incident can be boiled down to a few sentences. Maybe along the lines of "Honeybees were killed by this compound, because it was not correctly applied. As a result it was banned in Germany in 2008.". A more thorough discussion should be at 2008 honeybee incident or something more appropriate. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I am seeing em dashes in the "Fluorine" article. Looking at our MOS guide (at MOS itself), it seems that an en dash makes sense. Maybe if one actually uses the letters to write out some formula in text (ala C-H bond), than the em dash makes sense because you're really writing a structural formula at that point. But I would assume when we are using words, it is just normal usage of an en dash to substitute for the word "to". I admit not knowing how this is handled in the real world...and if our Wiki guidance is unclear, than let's just do what most people using English do. But if we have a Wiki rule, just let me know and I will follow. And I looked at MOS-chem and it did not have guidance either. TCO ( reviews needed) 07:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Single bond: C−C (C−C) Double bond: C=C Triple bond: C≡C (C≡C)
but carbon–carbon bond (–)
Perhaps it's a rare unit but an editor has requested that conversions for this be added to {{ convert}}. So I was wondering what we should do about abbreviating the pound-mole: "lbmol", "lb-mol" or either depending on editorial preference. I think I'm leaning towards "lb-mol". JIMp talk· cont 02:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I have added a note in the "Nomenclature" section, explaining that it applies to chemistry articles. I think the page itself used to be part of WikiProject Chemistry, so it was kind of understood that it was talking about chemistry articles. The IUPAC rulings on sulfur and aluminium should not be used as an excuse to override ENGVAR in non-chemistry articles. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose renaming the CHEMMOS Current Events section to Accidents and Incidents. The current section title makes perfect sense to me but leaves opportunity for health and safety advocates to focus chemical articles or sections of articles on accidents and incidents so long as they're not "current." Accidents and Incidents also more accurately describes the sort of content this section attempts to limit the focus on in chemical articles.
I also propose editing the CHEMMOS section on Resources and its associated sub page. Currently, the text in this section seems to encourage the use of primary sources, which creates opportunities for non-technical editors to highlight sensational snippets from otherwise humdrum research that somehow ends up in the popular media headlines. The sub-page tightens things up a bit, but the two should be consistent. I understand there are legitimate, NPOV uses of primary sources (e.g historical issues where secondary sources don't exist), but most often I see primary sources used to push a safety POV, frequently in the unacceptable ways highlighted at Wikipedia:ORIGINALSYN. Sharply limiting the use of primary research in chemical articles would give serious, technically savvy editors a defensive tool against advocate messaging that can overwhelm otherwise credible chemical articles.
The WP:MEDMOS has a nice section on sources that is summed up in the Nutshell as: "Use the highest-quality medical sources available." Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines even have a special section for medical sources that stipulates "reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies" as ideal sources. I believe this same sort of specificity would help keep the focus of chemical pages on the chemical facts instead of the hype-of-the-day.
Finally, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) has a good section on sources that practically disallows the use of media and news articles as secondary sources. I assume most of us on the technical side cringe when news stories shouting about the LATEST RESEARCH!! become "secondary sources" cited in health and safety messaging on chemical pages here. I think the WikiProject Medicine approach of disallowing media and news articles is a good approach and that the CHEMMOS would benefit from a similar approach.
Even with explicit prohibitions of the sort I'm suggesting, I would expect that a logically presented argument on a talk page for breaking the rules when warranted might be perfectly reasonable and respected by other contributors. I think Wikipedia's credibility would be improved if these sorts of things were the exception rather than the rule.
Thoughts? USEPA James ( talk) 23:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It is difficult for me to understand your position because you have already refused and deleted a two-year, peer reviewed, USDA funded study from the clothianidin article using the existing guidelines as your rationale. According to the acceptable source noticeboard, science articles may use primary sources (particularly high-quality primary sources). Even MEDRS agrees that primary sources are (at least occasionally) useful and appropriate, particularly for recent information and for subjects for which proper reviews are rare. "Primary" is not an alternative spelling for "unreliable". What you particularly want to avoid is using a primary source to de-bunk a secondary. "According to this newly reported experiment, ___" is okay; "All the reviews say X, but this little primary source proves them wrong" is not.
Looking at another group of insecticides, the organophosphates, [3] and note that several recent primary studies such as this one, [4], that suggest a relationship to ADHD and lower IQ in children that were exposed during pregnancy. To suggest that these studies were added by "AEGKNs" is insulting to Wikipedia editors. It is also insulting to suggest that our readers will be sucked in by this sort of "hype-of-the-day" information. At this time the EPA may remain unconvinced that recent findings suggest a relationship between this chemical and untoward effects in children, but our readers do expect and have a right to know about studies that do suggest a link.
James said: Gandydancer wrote "I believe that our readers should be able to be aware of recent studies that are of good quality." Two things: 1) the media already do a fine job of hyping recent studies, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS; and 2) Who are you (or any Wikipedia editor) to decide when a study is "of good quality?" What training or experience do you have in the matter? What globally recognized standards do you apply to determine study quality? Your comment almost perfectly exemplifies why the WP:CHEMMOS should generally advise against citing primary research. When brand-new primary research is cited on Wikipedia chemical pages, it gives the appearance of a stamp of approval--which treads uncomfortably close to original publication: the Wikipedia editor has validated the study in the public eye.
When the above studies I mention re the organophosphate chemicals were released they did receive media attention. If it was hyped (I don't believe that it was), I would think that our readers should be able to come to our encyclopedia and read the studies for themselves. As for the decision as to whether they are of good quality, I don't need any special training or experience to make a decision regarding their quality - Wikipedia quidelines make that decision. Furthermore, such studies do not suggest a "Wikipedia stamp of approval" and I really don't know how to address your concerns because that seems to be a misconception on your part.
Finally, even medical articles do have news stories when a medical topic is in the news. One of many examples: [5]
Incidentally, you mention POV/NPOV editors. James, we are all POV editors. If we didn't all believe that our position is the correct one, one would not find those frustrating disagreements that go on for thousands and thousands of words. For POV editors to eventually agree on a NPOV article can be a long and frustrating process! Gandydancer ( talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like neither this page, nor the general Wikipedia:Manual of Style page, includes any general guidance to speak of on how to write about science in such a way as to be useful. Far too many Wikipedia entries on scientific topics - including topics of great general interest to the layperson - start with a mass of technical detail. This would be acceptable in a textbook for advanced students or specialists, but in something like Wikipedia (or any encyclopaedia, or general news items, etc.) which has potential to reach a wide audience, it is much, much more helpful to start with a quick, accessible overview - covering the main points, and a bit about why the topic might be thought to be important.
Changing the culture around this could make a tremendous difference to the usefulness of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to get the ball rolling. Should I start a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Science page? I'm not a sufficiently frequent editor to be confident with how to go about this, though I am entirely convinced it ought to be done. Any ideas? Questions? Motivation? -- Oolong ( talk) 09:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Recently I found a chemical equation that ended with a period. I erased the period – see diff. Where a chemical equation is given prominence by being displayed on its own line, the distraction of a comma or period is not warranted.
In the article Chemical equation there are many examples of equations displayed on their own lines and none ends with punctuation. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry there is a section devoted to line equations. This section contains two examples of chemical equations displayed on their own lines and neither ends in a comma or period. However, the section doesn’t explicitly state that punctuation is unnecessary at the end of a chemical equation.
The reverse is true of mathematics articles. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Punctuation after formulae it states:
Considering the mandatory nature of punctuation at the end of formulae and equations in mathematics articles, I think it is important that Manual of Style/Chemistry makes it clear that punctuation is not warranted at the end of a chemical equation where the equation is placed on its own line. I propose adding the following statement to the section “Line equations”:
Dolphin ( t) 04:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
People interested in this page may want to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Ordering on writing about drugs (which are all chemicals at some level, of course). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Should WP:MOSCHEM consider/prefer/allow/ban replacing the apostrophe character with a prime character in terms such as 3,3'-Diaminobenzidine or 2,2'-Bipyridine? Similarly, double quote → double prime and string of 3 apos → triple prime? I'm not saying there would be any expectation that content contributors would write it that way (people will always type apostrophes or quote marks because it is easier); all I'm asking is whether it might be applied by way of cleanup edits / copy edits. Has this ever been discussed before? If articles at page names using apostrophe were moved to page names using prime, would someone throw a fit and revert them? Or would such edits be considered wikignoming and no one would care much either way? The reason I ask is not because I care about mere pedantry (i.e., I agree that "everyone can read the content regardless of apos/prime, so who cares"); the reason I ask is because so many people use Wikipedia both to learn and as a clipboard (they paste a name such as "3,3'-Diaminobenzidine" from their browser rather than type it), so if we used the prime characters, we would be encouraging preferred/"correct" use well beyond our own borders. Thoughts? Quercus solaris ( talk) 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't check the IUPAC standards yet, however a lot of books use to write as subsript the indications of the phase where a substance is (for example: (g), (l), (s), (aq), etc.), instead in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry I see some example without subscript. I suggest to make the subscript mandatory, e.g.:
instead of:
What do you think? -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 10:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm introducing <
ce>
tag in the new features of Mediawiki. It uses the TeX's mhchem package that formats chemical equations automatically. See
Help:Math#Chemistry. It's superior, easier and more maintainable than HTML tags. --
Cedar101 (
talk) 16:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
We need a page in wikipedia for scientific standards. I'm currently working on publishing magnetic susceptibility measurements. I'm not sure what units I should publish all my data with. It would be a lot easier to use wikipedia for scientific data if it was all in the same notation. We should start a page describing our preferred standards as part of Chemwiki. So, the options I have for publishing magnetic susceptibility is in Xmol or Xmass if we want to stick to the scientific standard issued units. Does wikipedia already have a standard that I'm missing? Is the cm^3/g (Xmass) units that the physical property box provides the preferred standard? TerpeneOtto Dec. 5th 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerpeneOtto ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I have found that some manufacturers and suppliers provide information that may not be in a chem article. What is the guideline or policy on using these sources? Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 11:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Per Help:HTML in wikitext, we should use {{ sub}} and {{ sup}} for MediaWiki text. Why does this page use the HTML tags instead? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@ DMacks: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts uses examples for chemistry with {{ sub}}. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we use the interpunct (·) or the bullet (•) for hydrates/addition compounds? I'm seeing both in various articles.
For reference, the IUPAC Red Book 2005 says: "Centre dots in formulae of (formal) addition compounds, including hydrates, adducts, clathrates, double salts and double oxides, separate the individual constituents. The dot is written in the centre of the line to distinguish it from a full stop (period)." (page 28)
Cheers– Jérôme ( talk) 09:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, currently this MoS recommends that "reactions should be indented using a colon (:)". However, the colon in wikitext actually creates a definition list and this presents an accessibility issue, creating confusion for those using screen readers. I propose recommending using the {{ in5}} template instead, which achieves the same look and won't create improper markup.
With colon:
With {{ in5}}:
2 Na + 2 H2O → 2 NaOH + H2
While we probably can't fix old misuses or break habits of editors accustomed to the colon, at least going forward our articles would be more accessible. Thank you. Opencooper ( talk) 22:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
the only example of using this "(compound class)" suffix/disambiguator is Fulvalene (compound class) (cf Fulvalene). When I have made up titles for classes, I might put an "s" on the end eg langbeinites. We have got away with using alcohol as the compound class, but that is not the common use! Phthalate is used for the class but is also the name of the ion and salts of phthalic acid too. " Salt" is used for the common meaning, and the class is " Salt (chemistry)". So I think that we have no consistent way to indicate compound class. Should we have a systematic way? Or just use the most common name and have a hat note to clarify the exceptions? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Updating_naming_conventions_for_groups regarding possible revisions to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Groups_of_compounds. Mdewman6 ( talk) 21:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
Chemistry Project‑class | |||||||
|
...to sticking the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat on this page? Even though you guys are still developing it, you've clearly done a lot more work that many other pages that name themselves "Manual of Style" and are in the style guidelines cat. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 02:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I made Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (chemistry)/draft (redlinked) redirect to this page, so we can keep discussion together. Please give your opinions and suggestions on the draft MOS? Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Believe it would make sense to truncate this section's last sentence parenthetical comment to read: "(e.g. discussion of Bhopal disaster)" or rephrased to say "(e.g. discussion in Bhopal disaster, and mentioned in methyl isocyanate)". Thoughts/comments? MornMore ( talk) 16:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Need someone to write up this section ( Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/Nomenclature) Volunteers please? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This one needs to be address, as it is the only element which can change name depending on the isotope. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Discussion imported from User talk:Headbomb
Hi there
I notice your comments on nuclear chemistry/nuclear reactions. Respectfully, I would like to remove the section from the CHEM MOS draft for the moment. We have a huge number of things to grapple with at the time, and since nuclear chemistry is not a particularly pressing issue, I would like to exclude it from discussion for now.
Does WP:Physics have a style guide for that? We will probably defer to them, and that's that? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Using the form 239Pu in equations is a no brainer for me but can become cumbersome and hard to read in prose. I therefore prefer forms such as plutonium-239 and Pu-239 in prose b/c it is easier to read and type. What does everybody else think? Compare the below two examples:
vs
The second example requires the reader to jump back and forth each time an isotope is mentioned to properly construct the natural-sounding name of the isotope. The first example flows more smoothly and, IMO, is in better compliance with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACCESSIBLE. -- mav ( talk) 16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a chemist, but "Pu-242" is closer to the way I've heard isotopes pronounced in speech; that is, with the number after the element name. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've tidied up Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/Structure_drawing, trying to make the guide less verbose. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/Structure_drawing#Uploading_and_copyright needs some work. Apart from that, this has been one of our oldest guides, and has seen little changes. Are we ready to ratify this section? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed "When writing many chemical reactions one after the other, align the elements of the equation by placing them in a table.
CH3COOH | → | CH3CO+ | + | OH− | ||
NaCl | + | AgNO3 | → | NaNO3 | + | AgCl |
N2 | + | 3H2 | → | 2NH3 |
Non-trivial reactions should be drawn as images."
The current practice has been simply to stack them up, without attempting tables of any sort. The wikicode is tedious to input, confusing to read, and the output is no better than:
-- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 06:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
How about a suggestion that you can do this if you want to go the extra mile, but that this is not mandated? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks K for your help. I think a distinction needs to be made. Reactions occur in almost all types of articles, so perhaps they should go to "general" for formatting issues, etc. Whereas we have a class of articles which deal with chemical reactions, named or unnamed.
I'm going to change two aspects of K's contribs: images and reactions should be aligned left, per what has been agreed upon; last three sections should be "see also", "references", "external links" per Wikipedia:Layout#.22See_also.22_section. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, should we include/merge/discuss the advisory styleguide of Chemicals wikiproject here? It has several important and well thought out recommendations for chemicals (and chemistry) articles. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
Hi Wim
In fact, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft#Compounds and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/Chemicals, and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/draft/References and external links were derived from the Chemicals style guidelines. The intention was to use the chemicals style guidelines to write something more general and encompassing for chemical and chemistry articles, while reducing duplication and overlap. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I've imported our old guidelines on safety, in the full knowledge that they need revising to bring them up to date with current practice and opinion. Any comments are welcome! Physchim62 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:Molecular structure diagram now redundant to the structure drawing subpage here? Physchim62 (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a policy for using intermediate versus reactive intermediate in articles? Should such a policy be included in the style guide? My personal preference is reactive intermediate, and I notice that the main article is indeed reactive intermediate. Shanata ( talk) 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Might I be slightly abrasive here, without wishing to offend either point of view. I, personally, am a reaction intermediate between ( glucose + oxygen) and carbon dioxide: but if we take the term at that level it becomes meaningless. The IUPAC term " intermediate" usually implies an intermediate which is short-lived on a human timescale, but has flexibility. It is obviously different from the term " transition state". The former ("intermediate") is defined as a local minimum; the latter ("transition state") is defined as a local maximum. So what, I ask myself, is a so-called "reactive intermediate": how does it differ from a normal intermediate? Physchim62 (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello WPChem,
I've been on an *extended* wikibreak, but Walkerma asked me to write a bit about reactions. So I did. In the great wiki tradition, if you like it, keep it. Otherwise, change it. I'll check back in a week or two.
~K ( talk) 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
While trying to cleanup ammonium, I added a Chembox to it, only to discover that Chemboxes seem to be tailored for actual compounds, not ions, and that most ion articles do not have Chemboxes. Should articles on ions have Chemboxes or not?— Tetracube ( talk) 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find a manual of style on how the 3D-models should be shown. It seems like there must be some style guide as a lot of the models are very similar graphically. If anyone could help me locate the guide or give me a quick rundown of how to make them look like Media:Acetone-3D-balls.png that would be great. I have Accelrys Visualizer and a program to generate the MOL files, so I think all I need now are just settings/lighting/export info. Thanks. Ginogrz ( talk) 09:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Example: D-glucose vs D-glucose. These tend to be small in most printed texts, but I see both forms on Wikipedia. Which is preferred? Pdcook ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with most of the other non systematic names proposed, especially where the alternative name is much shorter and well known than the systematic name, however, such a super simple chemical name such as ethanoic acid being replaced by its alternative name seems to yield no benefit to anyone, and so it seems more useful to use the systematic name, as to enable younger chemists to more comfortably understand the content. Another example is toluene, although I do understand that there is some use in shortening methylbenzene down.
Oliholmes ( talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been proposed this MOS be moved to Wikipedia:Subject style guide . Please comment at the RFC GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Should
Template:Chem be the suggested way of writing formulae?
eg {{chem|SO|4|2-}} → SO2−
4
{{chem|4|2|He}} → 4
2He
RDBrown (
talk) 06:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
In response to editing events, well intentioned ones, I have added to our MOS on general policy
Of course other editors are welcome to suggest changes.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
For the section, "Attributions to people and places", perhaps we can tweak the statement to include a line to the effect: "since the primary or secondary literature is (or should be) cited, who did what, when, is available for the interested reader. I agree with the statement in principle, but many stories are popularly tied with the workers involved. For example, you have ferrocene and Fischer and Wilkinson; benzene and Kekule's snake; NHCs and Wanzlick, Arduengo, Bertrand, etc. Perhaps such stories explicitly linking the discoverer with the discovery are of better taste when there is some distance and perspective... -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 19:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Great work, Smoke. I'd like to see an even stronger statement against following IUPAC. We actively ignore IUPAC recommendations if we think they're nonsense. We don't particularly strive to follow IUPAC, except where chemists in general follow IUPAC. Can we also have a statement warning people obsessed with rules not to use Wikipedia chemistry articles to satisfy their obsession? The one thing that might stop rule fanatics is a rule against them!
Ben ( talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Maybe being scrupulously neutral towards IUPAC is the way to go. I just find IUPAC nomenclature bureaucratic and rarely relevant. Simple things have their own common names, complicated things are referred to as "the enolate" or "enolate 7". Only intermediately complex molecules benefit from IUPAC names, e.g. cis-3-hexenal. Smokefoot's text has my support. I'll continue to hunt down disruptive rule fanatics, though.
Ben ( talk) 11:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica Tea? 00:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am quickly discovering the challenges of collaboratively creating NPOV content with regard to pesticide chemicals. Perhaps I'm blind, but I see no overt evidence of corporations influencing Wikipedia content to pitch or defend their products. I do, however, see an awful lot of content driven by what appears to be anti-chemical advocacy. The most typical content in that regard falls under the Current Events category in WP:CHEMMOS, which, if everyone demonstrates good faith (specifically, "compromise" and "adherence to policies and guidelines") should never dominate any chemical page. The WP:CHEMMOS appears to allow for NPOV references to incidents of enduring notability. The rub, near as I can tell, is that for some advocates every chemical controversy from the blogospere or in the mass media qualifies as encyclopedic content with enduring notability that MUST be included on the Wikipedia page of the chemical involved. Mind you, these aren't just single sentences or clauses of sentences that mention the incident etc. They're full-on write ups, full paragraphs and even multiple paragraphs that completely dominate the page ( clothianidin being a terrific case in point). One Wikipedian, user:ArtifexMayhem, has declared on User_talk:Gandydancer's talk page that "Clothianidin should/must/shall include a section on the controversies."
So, what should be done about controversies? Would it better serve Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view for the Chemistry Manual of Style to allow extensive write ups on chemical pages of political issues/incidents/controversies/scandals? -- USEPA James ( talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
This odd section with the struck-out heading ( Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)#Current_events) was inserted by Rifleman 82 here, back in 2009, and moved from the /Chemical subpage into the current page a few days later, all with absolutely no mention, discussion, or notice. It's currently being cited by a User:USEPA_James as a reason not to mention a pesticide incident in Germany. It would be worth reviewing, and see what it makes sense to say here; the present version seems rather lopsided, saying only "that such an accident has occurred is not sufficient justification for inclusion in the context of an article about chemicals"; nothing wrong with that, but it would be good to balance with something about what a sufficient justification might be. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The section being argued about is Clothianidin#Criticism. Can one really make an NPOV article about a pesticide without mentioning such an incident? I'm not saying it's NPOV now, but omitting it would go hard over the other way. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps tangential, but since I have been named: That edit (and many many others) was part of an effort to write the MOS in a systematic fashion from the various guidelines we had accrued over the years. They were written in a /draft subpage, and later moved into where they were now are, after discussion or lack of dissent here and on the official IRC channel. Very transparent, if you ask me (although the links to the transcripts have somehow broken). If anyone had objections, the time to raise them should have been two years ago. Of course, consensus can change and you are welcome to find a new one if you wish. The header is struck out because we are do not intend to have such a header; striking it out seemed a convenient way to highlight this point. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 04:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that the this 2008 incident is not the focus of this article. If it does merit a mention, I don't think it needs more than a paragraph, perhaps under a section on regulation (when it was approved by whom, etc.). I think the incident can be boiled down to a few sentences. Maybe along the lines of "Honeybees were killed by this compound, because it was not correctly applied. As a result it was banned in Germany in 2008.". A more thorough discussion should be at 2008 honeybee incident or something more appropriate. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 00:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I am seeing em dashes in the "Fluorine" article. Looking at our MOS guide (at MOS itself), it seems that an en dash makes sense. Maybe if one actually uses the letters to write out some formula in text (ala C-H bond), than the em dash makes sense because you're really writing a structural formula at that point. But I would assume when we are using words, it is just normal usage of an en dash to substitute for the word "to". I admit not knowing how this is handled in the real world...and if our Wiki guidance is unclear, than let's just do what most people using English do. But if we have a Wiki rule, just let me know and I will follow. And I looked at MOS-chem and it did not have guidance either. TCO ( reviews needed) 07:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Single bond: C−C (C−C) Double bond: C=C Triple bond: C≡C (C≡C)
but carbon–carbon bond (–)
Perhaps it's a rare unit but an editor has requested that conversions for this be added to {{ convert}}. So I was wondering what we should do about abbreviating the pound-mole: "lbmol", "lb-mol" or either depending on editorial preference. I think I'm leaning towards "lb-mol". JIMp talk· cont 02:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I have added a note in the "Nomenclature" section, explaining that it applies to chemistry articles. I think the page itself used to be part of WikiProject Chemistry, so it was kind of understood that it was talking about chemistry articles. The IUPAC rulings on sulfur and aluminium should not be used as an excuse to override ENGVAR in non-chemistry articles. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose renaming the CHEMMOS Current Events section to Accidents and Incidents. The current section title makes perfect sense to me but leaves opportunity for health and safety advocates to focus chemical articles or sections of articles on accidents and incidents so long as they're not "current." Accidents and Incidents also more accurately describes the sort of content this section attempts to limit the focus on in chemical articles.
I also propose editing the CHEMMOS section on Resources and its associated sub page. Currently, the text in this section seems to encourage the use of primary sources, which creates opportunities for non-technical editors to highlight sensational snippets from otherwise humdrum research that somehow ends up in the popular media headlines. The sub-page tightens things up a bit, but the two should be consistent. I understand there are legitimate, NPOV uses of primary sources (e.g historical issues where secondary sources don't exist), but most often I see primary sources used to push a safety POV, frequently in the unacceptable ways highlighted at Wikipedia:ORIGINALSYN. Sharply limiting the use of primary research in chemical articles would give serious, technically savvy editors a defensive tool against advocate messaging that can overwhelm otherwise credible chemical articles.
The WP:MEDMOS has a nice section on sources that is summed up in the Nutshell as: "Use the highest-quality medical sources available." Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines even have a special section for medical sources that stipulates "reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies" as ideal sources. I believe this same sort of specificity would help keep the focus of chemical pages on the chemical facts instead of the hype-of-the-day.
Finally, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) has a good section on sources that practically disallows the use of media and news articles as secondary sources. I assume most of us on the technical side cringe when news stories shouting about the LATEST RESEARCH!! become "secondary sources" cited in health and safety messaging on chemical pages here. I think the WikiProject Medicine approach of disallowing media and news articles is a good approach and that the CHEMMOS would benefit from a similar approach.
Even with explicit prohibitions of the sort I'm suggesting, I would expect that a logically presented argument on a talk page for breaking the rules when warranted might be perfectly reasonable and respected by other contributors. I think Wikipedia's credibility would be improved if these sorts of things were the exception rather than the rule.
Thoughts? USEPA James ( talk) 23:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It is difficult for me to understand your position because you have already refused and deleted a two-year, peer reviewed, USDA funded study from the clothianidin article using the existing guidelines as your rationale. According to the acceptable source noticeboard, science articles may use primary sources (particularly high-quality primary sources). Even MEDRS agrees that primary sources are (at least occasionally) useful and appropriate, particularly for recent information and for subjects for which proper reviews are rare. "Primary" is not an alternative spelling for "unreliable". What you particularly want to avoid is using a primary source to de-bunk a secondary. "According to this newly reported experiment, ___" is okay; "All the reviews say X, but this little primary source proves them wrong" is not.
Looking at another group of insecticides, the organophosphates, [3] and note that several recent primary studies such as this one, [4], that suggest a relationship to ADHD and lower IQ in children that were exposed during pregnancy. To suggest that these studies were added by "AEGKNs" is insulting to Wikipedia editors. It is also insulting to suggest that our readers will be sucked in by this sort of "hype-of-the-day" information. At this time the EPA may remain unconvinced that recent findings suggest a relationship between this chemical and untoward effects in children, but our readers do expect and have a right to know about studies that do suggest a link.
James said: Gandydancer wrote "I believe that our readers should be able to be aware of recent studies that are of good quality." Two things: 1) the media already do a fine job of hyping recent studies, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS; and 2) Who are you (or any Wikipedia editor) to decide when a study is "of good quality?" What training or experience do you have in the matter? What globally recognized standards do you apply to determine study quality? Your comment almost perfectly exemplifies why the WP:CHEMMOS should generally advise against citing primary research. When brand-new primary research is cited on Wikipedia chemical pages, it gives the appearance of a stamp of approval--which treads uncomfortably close to original publication: the Wikipedia editor has validated the study in the public eye.
When the above studies I mention re the organophosphate chemicals were released they did receive media attention. If it was hyped (I don't believe that it was), I would think that our readers should be able to come to our encyclopedia and read the studies for themselves. As for the decision as to whether they are of good quality, I don't need any special training or experience to make a decision regarding their quality - Wikipedia quidelines make that decision. Furthermore, such studies do not suggest a "Wikipedia stamp of approval" and I really don't know how to address your concerns because that seems to be a misconception on your part.
Finally, even medical articles do have news stories when a medical topic is in the news. One of many examples: [5]
Incidentally, you mention POV/NPOV editors. James, we are all POV editors. If we didn't all believe that our position is the correct one, one would not find those frustrating disagreements that go on for thousands and thousands of words. For POV editors to eventually agree on a NPOV article can be a long and frustrating process! Gandydancer ( talk) 14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks like neither this page, nor the general Wikipedia:Manual of Style page, includes any general guidance to speak of on how to write about science in such a way as to be useful. Far too many Wikipedia entries on scientific topics - including topics of great general interest to the layperson - start with a mass of technical detail. This would be acceptable in a textbook for advanced students or specialists, but in something like Wikipedia (or any encyclopaedia, or general news items, etc.) which has potential to reach a wide audience, it is much, much more helpful to start with a quick, accessible overview - covering the main points, and a bit about why the topic might be thought to be important.
Changing the culture around this could make a tremendous difference to the usefulness of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how to get the ball rolling. Should I start a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Science page? I'm not a sufficiently frequent editor to be confident with how to go about this, though I am entirely convinced it ought to be done. Any ideas? Questions? Motivation? -- Oolong ( talk) 09:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Recently I found a chemical equation that ended with a period. I erased the period – see diff. Where a chemical equation is given prominence by being displayed on its own line, the distraction of a comma or period is not warranted.
In the article Chemical equation there are many examples of equations displayed on their own lines and none ends with punctuation. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry there is a section devoted to line equations. This section contains two examples of chemical equations displayed on their own lines and neither ends in a comma or period. However, the section doesn’t explicitly state that punctuation is unnecessary at the end of a chemical equation.
The reverse is true of mathematics articles. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Punctuation after formulae it states:
Considering the mandatory nature of punctuation at the end of formulae and equations in mathematics articles, I think it is important that Manual of Style/Chemistry makes it clear that punctuation is not warranted at the end of a chemical equation where the equation is placed on its own line. I propose adding the following statement to the section “Line equations”:
Dolphin ( t) 04:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
People interested in this page may want to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Ordering on writing about drugs (which are all chemicals at some level, of course). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Should WP:MOSCHEM consider/prefer/allow/ban replacing the apostrophe character with a prime character in terms such as 3,3'-Diaminobenzidine or 2,2'-Bipyridine? Similarly, double quote → double prime and string of 3 apos → triple prime? I'm not saying there would be any expectation that content contributors would write it that way (people will always type apostrophes or quote marks because it is easier); all I'm asking is whether it might be applied by way of cleanup edits / copy edits. Has this ever been discussed before? If articles at page names using apostrophe were moved to page names using prime, would someone throw a fit and revert them? Or would such edits be considered wikignoming and no one would care much either way? The reason I ask is not because I care about mere pedantry (i.e., I agree that "everyone can read the content regardless of apos/prime, so who cares"); the reason I ask is because so many people use Wikipedia both to learn and as a clipboard (they paste a name such as "3,3'-Diaminobenzidine" from their browser rather than type it), so if we used the prime characters, we would be encouraging preferred/"correct" use well beyond our own borders. Thoughts? Quercus solaris ( talk) 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't check the IUPAC standards yet, however a lot of books use to write as subsript the indications of the phase where a substance is (for example: (g), (l), (s), (aq), etc.), instead in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry I see some example without subscript. I suggest to make the subscript mandatory, e.g.:
instead of:
What do you think? -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 10:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm introducing <
ce>
tag in the new features of Mediawiki. It uses the TeX's mhchem package that formats chemical equations automatically. See
Help:Math#Chemistry. It's superior, easier and more maintainable than HTML tags. --
Cedar101 (
talk) 16:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
We need a page in wikipedia for scientific standards. I'm currently working on publishing magnetic susceptibility measurements. I'm not sure what units I should publish all my data with. It would be a lot easier to use wikipedia for scientific data if it was all in the same notation. We should start a page describing our preferred standards as part of Chemwiki. So, the options I have for publishing magnetic susceptibility is in Xmol or Xmass if we want to stick to the scientific standard issued units. Does wikipedia already have a standard that I'm missing? Is the cm^3/g (Xmass) units that the physical property box provides the preferred standard? TerpeneOtto Dec. 5th 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerpeneOtto ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I have found that some manufacturers and suppliers provide information that may not be in a chem article. What is the guideline or policy on using these sources? Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 11:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Per Help:HTML in wikitext, we should use {{ sub}} and {{ sup}} for MediaWiki text. Why does this page use the HTML tags instead? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@ DMacks: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts uses examples for chemistry with {{ sub}}. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we use the interpunct (·) or the bullet (•) for hydrates/addition compounds? I'm seeing both in various articles.
For reference, the IUPAC Red Book 2005 says: "Centre dots in formulae of (formal) addition compounds, including hydrates, adducts, clathrates, double salts and double oxides, separate the individual constituents. The dot is written in the centre of the line to distinguish it from a full stop (period)." (page 28)
Cheers– Jérôme ( talk) 09:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, currently this MoS recommends that "reactions should be indented using a colon (:)". However, the colon in wikitext actually creates a definition list and this presents an accessibility issue, creating confusion for those using screen readers. I propose recommending using the {{ in5}} template instead, which achieves the same look and won't create improper markup.
With colon:
With {{ in5}}:
2 Na + 2 H2O → 2 NaOH + H2
While we probably can't fix old misuses or break habits of editors accustomed to the colon, at least going forward our articles would be more accessible. Thank you. Opencooper ( talk) 22:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
the only example of using this "(compound class)" suffix/disambiguator is Fulvalene (compound class) (cf Fulvalene). When I have made up titles for classes, I might put an "s" on the end eg langbeinites. We have got away with using alcohol as the compound class, but that is not the common use! Phthalate is used for the class but is also the name of the ion and salts of phthalic acid too. " Salt" is used for the common meaning, and the class is " Salt (chemistry)". So I think that we have no consistent way to indicate compound class. Should we have a systematic way? Or just use the most common name and have a hat note to clarify the exceptions? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Updating_naming_conventions_for_groups regarding possible revisions to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Groups_of_compounds. Mdewman6 ( talk) 21:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)