Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Article alerts
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
(1 more...)
Templates for discussion
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Requested moves

Discussion of the WikiProject Chemistry - Please add your comment and discussion here. Older discussions are archived.


This discussion page is about the Chemistry project itself, for detailed, in-depth discussions about specific topics, you'd be best served at the talk page of the specific subject, e.g., Chemicals, Chemical infoboxes, etc. There is also an image request page which might be of interest to you.


A collection of papers in memory of Professor Michael Lappert[edit]

A collection of organometallic chemistry papers by Professor Michael Lappert have been published online in his memory by the The Royal Society of Chemistry (where I am Wikimedian in Residence). They will be free to access until October 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Free? All I get is a paywall. Axiosaurus (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion on the value 3D models[edit]


What purpose does a 3D model serve if it is not space filling? To my mind it is just a duplication of the 2D model in this case, but may obscure some of the bonds if it is not rotating. With a space=filling model at least there use in seeing a clear 3D structure and being able to make a comparison of, for example, possible binding positions. If I am entirely honest I see little use for 3D models at all without the ability to manipulate them, apart from for the aesthetic appeasement of laymen. I am specifically asking because of some of the edits made by Lazord00d (talk) who "justifies" all of his edits with arguments I find difficult to understand as a chemist but apparently make sense to him as someone without "Chemical training". Testem (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thianthrene is a good example where a ball-and-stick model provides additional information compared to the skeletal formula. --Leyo 20:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Good example. Is that only because it is rigid? Could the same job be done with more functionality by a space filling model? Testem (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
In this case a ball-and-stick model is more useful than a space-filling model, especially since the non-planarity can be recognized more easily. --Leyo 17:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Jynto, As a chemist, I'm extremely surprised by your position on this. I've justified mine with solid logic. If you feel I haven't please feel free to point out where and I'll gladly explain further. To quote myself from a recent post on Testem's talk page: "The blended type of 3d model translates directly from the formulaic model with minimal differences, except that they show atoms that are omitted in the 2d models, therefore they help the broadest range of minds grasp the concept." I do not feel that this logic is flawed.
Laterz Lazord00d (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Lazord00d: Which omitted atoms do they include? Why is this helpful to a non-chemist? Testem (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Testem:: 2d diagrams omit most Hydrogens and their bonds to Carbons. I know it is assumed by people in the know, but not by people who are new to this. Lazord00d (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents, I think that the new images are often not very useful and should be employed selectively. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Selectively by what criteria? Point out a standard that makes sense and I'd be willing to adhere to it. Right now in terms of molecular visualization on Wikipedia it's a mish-mash of styles, there is no standard other than butthurt when someone changes something. I've had changes made to my edits before with very reasonable and logical explanations and had no problem with it. The inability of the other players here to provide a point at which I have deviated from what I consider to be sound logic indicates (at least to me) that the drive behind all this has nothing to do with fact or science.. I have explained my position numerous times and asked for explanations of theirs but all I've seen has been almost entirely opinion-based. I've asked for someone, anyone, to explain why or how editing in a manner that, due to the simplicity of the comparison, will allow for anyone to understand is a problem or flawed logic. Thus far I haven't seen any solid response to that. Lazord00d (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
IMO selectively in this case would mean a 3D model would only be used where it makes a clear improvement to the understandability of the article, such as with Thianthrene. Testem (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that 3D images are of limited value, especially of arbitrarily chosen conformations of flexible molecules. The advantage of stick diagrams over space filling is that it is easier to see the underlying connectivity. Space filling may be useful, especially if the surface is color coded by some property like electrostatic potential. Which depiction is better depends on what you are trying to illustrate. Boghog (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lazord00d: Are you sure of who you're talking to? Because you seem to think Testem's comment was written by me. @Testem: To answer your question, I think there is a value in ball-and-stick models. They show geometry, and a possible conformation, whereas the skeletal formulas don't. They are also show the scale of the molecule, if not quite as well as their space-filling counterparts. Most importantly the colour-coded spheres are much more intuitive to the non-chemist than zigzag lines will ever be, which I think is the point Lazord00d was trying to get across.

I do think there should be a place for space-filling models too. But it's difficult to draw a line in the sand about when and when not to use them. It's hard to justify a space-filling model when they don't show the bonding, and parts of the molecule are hidden behind other atoms. Making them spin is not the answer, as hard-line academic types like Leprof 2727 are dead set against them, and I must agree. Spinning models are distracting.

So I must turn the question round and ask you, Testem, what advantages do you think space-filling models serve over 'blended' ball-and-stick ones? When should one be used over the other? I'm thinking space-filling for articles with the drugbox template, and ball-and-stick for the regular chemboxes, but I can already see some places where that would not work. And when is it a good idea to use both? Jynto (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I question the utility of any 3D models in a majority of articles. An arbitrary display of a single conformation of many is not useful IMO, which is why skeletal formulae are the standard.
Colour coding may appear intuitive at first but unless there is a legend it is not useful to a non-chemist and chemists do not need the additional intuitiveness.
If 3D models must be used then I feel space-filling varieties are of more use as they have some value in at-a-glance comparisons of molecules for receptor binding, but as I say I do not think 3D models are valuable for conformationally restricted compounds.Testem (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Apologies I had some trouble figuring out who was saying what. I'm not always good at stating things in the simplest manner, so sorry if I didn't word things right but Jynto is correct the features he mentioned are why I feel that the blended or stick and ball type models are best for helping even people with no chemistry experience whatsoever understand what they're looking at/reading about. Lazord00d (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Lazord00d: Why do they help non-chemists understand what they are looking at? Genuine question as it has been a long time since I looked at something from this viewpoint and there may well be a use I am not seeing.Testem (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
If I was to answer by a (perhaps quite flawed) analogy, I'd say it's that the difference between skeletal formulas and 3D models is like looking at the blueprints of a car versus seeing a photo of the actual car. Jynto (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hoping I've interpreted your analogy as you intended: is that beneficial if the person puts no value in the aesthetic qualities of the car and the photo does not visualise anything better than the blueprint? Forgive my constant questions, I am trying to understand my own viewpoint better too. Testem (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't think of a better way to say it, but simply put images should look like the thing they're about. Quoted from the Manual of Style:
"Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." --Jynto (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
So then surely we should be using real-colour SEM images? Ball and stick models look nothing like the molecules they represent. You didn't answer my question by linking that :( Testem (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective the biggest benefits over 2d are the visible presence of all atoms normally omitted in 2d formulaic models, and visualization of angles which, while there is a system of markings in the 2d system to describe them, are much more easily understood visually whenever possible. The more complex the 3d model, the more angles involved, the harder it gets to render in a static 3d image without masking atoms and sometimes whole structures. This applies to both space-filling and ball-and stick models but it's much worse with the former. I've seen rotating .gif models here of both types and dislike them quite a lot, they're distracting and often the axes positions and visual perspective are not optimal. Also, given that Wikipedia is a publicly edited encyclopedia viewed by millions (billions even?), the people who will ultimately view these images in the context of their articles will span an enormous range in every conceivable way. For the majority of them, the most direct comparison between 2d and 3d is what is most helpful for understanding what they are seeing just like the vast majority of people would rather look at the car than it's blueprint. Because this is Chemistry and not cars, the best solution is a blended concept, the stick and ball model. I make mine the way I do because they're most similar to the 2d models and the double-bonds etc correspond directly to the 2d images.

Lazord00d (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I completely disagree with the idea that ball-and-stick and space-filling models are not useful. The three dimensional structures of molecules are one of their most important characteristics, responsible for many of their physical, chemical and biological properties. Our readers are not simply either chemists or non-chemists, they range from the general public, through school and university students to professional scientists. In general, I find ball-and-stick models more useful as it is clearer which atoms are where - the structure is more open. Their main use is to help readers to visualise the molecules and highlight key structural features such as bond lengths and angles that are not indicated in any great detail in the 2D formulae. Space-filling models give a useful indication of the relative volumes of different atoms, and how closely two or more molecules can pack together.

In a typical Wikipedia article on a molecular organic compound, the skeletal formula is how the molecule is typically depicted in textbooks and journal articles. The drawing conventions can be obscure to the untrained eye, so I began adding 3D models for a wide range of important compounds around 2006. There were a few such images before I began, and now thanks to the efforts of a dozen or so editors there are thousands.

Regarding flexible molecules, yes there are plenty of them, but many important molecules are actually quite rigid - most drugs have a rather inflexible core at least. There is some harm done in conveying the impression that all molecules are static, which they are not, but having the image is probably better on balance than not having one, especially if the flexibility is described in the text.

If you want an idea of how useful and important molecular models are, open a standard undergraduate organic or inorganic chemistry textbook, such as Housecroft's Inorganic Chemistry, and you will see that half the ink is used on them! --Ben (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. In my images, the colour scheme is generally given if you click on the image and go to its description page. You can also work out which element is which colour by comparing the structural formula and the 3D model. --Ben (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

For a layman a ball-and-stick model also seems very rigid. Imho 3d models also distort the reality, because atoms are not colorful. When a layman wants to reach higher, he must be able to derive knowledge from the plain old structural formula. Who does really need to know the 3-dimensional structure if he's not a researcher?--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer to that would be 'almost everyone who learns visually'. Some people, possibly including yourself, might just find it very easy to memorise the structures of lots of different compounds, but to almost everyone else, a skeletal formula is a collection of black lines on a white background, and they all look the same. Molecular models are visually distinctive in a way that skeletal formulas are not, which is why readers with visual learning skills can learn the structure of a compound by remembering what it looks like. This also it makes it a lot easier to appreciate the (otherwise quite subtle) differences between compounds, because again molecular models tend to be visualy distinctive from each other. Flat geometry looks very different from aliphatic geometry in a molecular model. An amide group looks very different from a sulfonamide group, and so on. And many readers will associate what they learn about a particular compound with their visual memory of the molecular model they saw on that page.

I'm hoping this doesn't seem entirely foreign to you, because a lot of us are visual learners. Even if you don't learn anything from the model, it is still a tool to assist your learning. It almost doesn't matter whether you're a layman or an expert. The same learning techniques apply. --Jynto (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pyrrole (left) and 1-pyrroline (right)
Urea (left) and sulfamide (right)
Pyrrole and 1-pyrroline again
And again, urea and sulfamide

I just thought I'd use some images to illustrate my point. Based on what you can see above, you'd never get sulfamide confused with urea if you just remember that it contains the yellow sulfur atom, and urea doesn't. Similarly you wouldn't get 1-pyrroline mixed up with pyrrole if you can remember from the molecular models that it isn't fully planar, whereas pyrrole is. --Jynto (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jynto: I do completely understand where you are coming from, and I completely agree that the use of 3D models of any variety is very useful, possibly even essential, in the examples you give. Do you agree though that where the structure is not constrained, the 3D models are much less useful, especially where the conformation conceals one or more parts of the molecule? Testem (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jynto: A chemist should think sulf-ur when he hears sulf-amide.
Maybe I'm contaminated by german conservativism. In school we were allowed to play with molecular model sets. In university books you will find some, but not many 3d models.--Kopiersperre (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anything relevant to this discussion has to do with your country or which way you lean in life ;-). The atoms are all the same.. even German ones. A well-rounded encyclopedia should appeal to users from "school" to the university and beyond. That's why, when I upload a model, it's of the 3d stick-and-ball type that I position as closely to the existing 2d model as possible.

Lazord00d (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you folks know: I nominated a bunch of inappropriate ball-and-stick models for deletion. --Leyo 01:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Even though I'm probably talking to a wall here, I'm curious how it was determined beyond all doubt that my images are "inappropriate"? The deletion thread Leyo links to was closed mid-discussion, ending with the deletion of donated time and effort without anything to back such an extreme change (the images were found simply by searching for everything donated by "Lazord00d").

Despite the presence of a handful of opinions and one admin called Leyo with an itchy trigger finger and a personal agenda, I haven't seen anything scientifically solid to back the act of declaring everything I've worked on and donated as "inappropriate" and deleting it.

I haven't even seen evidence you understand the objections, let alone a source for your additions. You have ignored my questions above. Testem (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
{ping|Testem} I believe I have addressed all of your concerns with responses here in this section. I understand the criticism, but I don't think any of it outweighs the value of ease of comprehension in a public resource. Lazord00d (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact that's what continues to bring me back here even though I'm past soured on this place, I'm hoping that as many people as possible see how it works here on Wikipedia. They need to understand that truly unbiased science is not and will not be fostered, encouraged or even considered worthy of a cited rebuttal as long as there are "Leyos" and their followers running the game. People who are holding anyone who has some color to their character and a sense of humor responsible for that reprehensible crime by stalking them and holding everything they do up to "Leyo" standard, and if not (regardless of science or citation) you get the "treatment". Example here (at end of section): Granted my tone isn't always friendly, but the act of forcing a person to comply with a concept that isn't a rule or part of the official style outline amounts to strongarming. I quote Leyo and myself here:

[Quote] "Try to follow User:Benjah-bmm27/MakingMolecules and you will be surprised on how quickly the “noise” will decline. ;-) --Leyo 08:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'll bet. How does that not amount to hounding me to comply with rules that aren't necessarily the only correct way to create models? How about this: I kinda like the idea of not ever contributing any useful content to Wikipedia again. That option works best for me thanks.. sad too. I started a business years ago related to my username, and now we are one of the largest in our field which is very small and exclusive to begin with. I definitely have knowledge to share across a broad range of topics but Wikipedia truly seems more about who likes which person's personal characteristics than whether factual data is present. I have zero interest in complying with people just to make them feel "in control". If I was easily pushed around do you think the company as a whole would have been successful? lol.. I appreciate your reply Leyo but still it falls short. :-/ Lazord00d (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)" [/quote]

Basing admin actions on personal opinion without a thing backing them up guarantees that bias will always remain and will be enforced as a rule. The fewer people waste their valuable time trying to help like I did the better. It's a PSA! And the bold is because this is a long section and it's easy to get lost.. it would be good to use a separator of some sort between comments imo. See? That's an opinion that isn't masquerading as scientific fact! In-conceivable!!!! :-)Lazord00d (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well darn it. I'd be deeply sorry to hear that Wikipedia has lost a contributor because of this. Especially since it was me who started this whole war in the first place with my edit to MDMA. While we're being truly honest here, here's another opinion that isn't disguised as scientific fact. Your molecular models were, for lack of a better word... ugly. They were low res and anti-aliased. They looked kinda like the automated molecular diagrams you'd see PubChem or somesuch. And yes, the alternating double bond thing is ugly. I won't say it's any better or worse than the dotted line for showing the molecule's bonding, but you didn't make yourself very popular when you wrote edit summaries to the effect that yours were the 'improved' versions.

To add to that, like 99% of the images here already used the dotted line representation. I know you do appreciate consistency, being an advocate for it yourself, so perhaps you can understand why some Wikipedians would like your images to be consistent with what's already here. Again, I can't speak for everyone, but we get quite attached to everything that's here - this wonderful encyclopaedia of everything we've built for ourself. I know you yourself have felt something similar, because you used emotionally charged words like "donated" when you describe your time spent here. There's nothing wrong with feeling that way.

And yes, we like Ben Mills' images, guilty as charged. They are both scientifically informative and beautiful, and of course consistent. When I first saw that only some chemistry articles had them, I wanted to see more of them. I actually got my start in molecule-making by trying to copy Ben, hence some of my embarrassing early attempts to photoshop his images into something else. I did eventually develop my own way of doing them, but I never strayed too far from the style that first inspired me.

I suppose we feared you might replace every molecular image with a contribution of your own, and throw all that good stuff out with the bathwater. That would be the logical way to make things consistent with what you desired. And since you made a lot of edits in quick succession, you'll have to forgive us for overreacting.

I can't claim to speak for Leyo, or why he let these minor disagreements escalate into all this... vitriol, but I daresay you too had a part to play in this. I think you'd be happier on Wikipedia if you tried harder to make your contributions blend in with the existing content. If the double-bond thing still makes you mad, just try to think of it as something that must be done to improve Wikipedia's consistency. Maybe give Ben's guides another try. I know they don't go massively into depth, but if you have any questions and issues with DS Visualizer, you're welcome to ask me.

Please don't get banned again. I wouldn't want you to miss POTY 2014 because of this. :-)


- Jynto (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's nice thanks for your thoughts on my work, good thing I care not or I might get offended lol. I haven't been banned yet. I would have to assume that's (hopefully) because personal attacks aren't the crux of my argument and I've provided citation of that fact several times. That's what was required of me by my educators throughout life, but somehow that's not enough for this place? It's more than the opposition has done. I apologize if I upset anyone while defending my position but there is definitely something off and very unscientific about all of this and I will defend my position until the job is done. You can apply that anywhere in my life. The fact that someone thinks another editors contributions are "ugly" is of no consequence scientifically. All of my images were deleted without scientific merit. I was "ordered" to comply with an opinion as if it were fact or face continued opposition which is not scientific. I definitely played a part I won't deny that.. but I would have been a whole different person if the opposition would have supported their case or offered constructive criticism on things like anti-ailiasing etc instead of deleting without reference. Jus' sayin'.

Lazord00d (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you're this determined to play the villain, I shan't stop you. Just remember I gave you a chance. Either way, I'll be taking my seat. The next act of this pantomime looks set to be an entertaining one.

Jynto (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How was that playing villian? Asking for some proof to back opposing actions is being a villain? Expecting an encyclopedia to respect the need for citations and unbiased science is being a villain? Now you're not making sense.. To quote directly from WP:Consensus:

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

Lazord00d (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't have any citations or unbiased science - in fact your arguments seem to be primarily based around you "just liking" the images you have created. Testem (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Testem:: Citations supporting the configuration I use for my 3d models are found embedded in each image and are as follows:

Own work via jmol and 2d diagram. Citations supporting the specific format I use for my images are:

Lazord00d (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Just two observations, totally biased: (1) editors who have a single focus - drawing for example - often have modest grasp of chemistry, which detracts from their sense of when a drawing is helpful and other aspects. (2) ugly/bad chemical drawing is something that professional chemists know when they see it, but can be difficult to specify. Determined drawers would be frustrated by this observation, understandably because they are determined draw even if their services are not sought or even helpful. Advice: don't be single themed author, do various jobs related to content and non-chemical areas to gain perspective. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


3D images should only be used when there is a clear and easily demonstrated benefit to understanding conferred by them.

For example, in structures where the shape is planar or conformationally constrained, or where the structure represents the most active conformational isomer.

  • Agree - This would ensure that 3D models are permitted where useful but otherwise edit wars with Lazord00d can be avoided. Testem (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree - We should not have to enact a blanket ban on a certain kind of image just to stop the disruptive actions of one editor. - Jynto (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. The four examples above show why: the 2D versions are much easier to understand, at least for the undersigned non-specialist. Maproom (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Maproom: I do not think anyone is proposing doing away with the 2D structures. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Different individuals learn in different ways. Understanding 3D conformations is critical to understanding chemistry, and understanding 3D bond angles from a 2D skeleton is going to vary from person to person. As Jynto above, we should not be throwing out most or all 3D models just because one editor is disruptively inserting incorrect ones - baby, bathwater, etc. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. Seems like a no-brainer: we only want drawings when they enhance vs clutter or even possibly mislead. Determined drawers often seem to be contributing to satisfy some internal urge to deposit images in Wikipedia. Ben Mills's work is a good counter example of a chemist who knows when to use good graphics and when not to.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Ease of comprehension is essential in an encyclopedia which is intended for all audiences regardless of foreknowledge. Including verifiable 3d models for every molecule would be ideal from my view, regardless of who makes the images. In the physical real world the configurations of these molecules will not necessarily look exactly like either the 2d OR 3d model. Many times things are much messier in reality. These images are intended only to help with comprehension and translation between the 2d and 3d configuration. As has already been stated, ball-and-stick models show the greatest amount of detail compared to 2d and most other 3d configurations.

Lazord00d (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Ambivalent. I support the principle of using 3D images intelligently, to create the best possible articles for our readers. However, deciding what is best is fraught with difficulty. Obviously, grossly incorrect, misleading or confusing images should be removed. In many cases, though, the images are at least reasonably good and the decision turns to elegance and clarity. I am concerned that having strict rules about when to include a 3D model will lead to a lot of bureaucratic procedures and edit wars. I think the best approach is for the well-established, experienced and chemically educated members of this Wikiproject to make the final decision on whether to include a 3D image in any particular article. There needs to be a case-by-case approach to this complicated question. The issue of static 3D models misrepresenting molecules as rigid when they are in fact mostly flexible is not very important, in my opinion. To understand that level of chemical sophistication, a reader needs to be familiar with the rather simpler idea of what a molecule is, i.e. a collection of atoms that are bonded together and move as a discrete entity. If the flexibility of a molecule is very important to its properties, this can be discussed in the text and even illustrated with a series models of different conformations. The main reason I started adding 3D structures to Wikipedia articles on molecules and other substances was to give each article an easily understood and yet scientifically accurate picture of the chemical structure for those who could not quickly or easily interpret the skeletal formula. There are other benefits, especially for crystal structures which cannot normally be deduced from the formula, and for molecules such as drugs, where subtle structural details determine their important properties. Ultimately, we need expertise, skill, and good judgement more than we need new regulations. --Ben (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree – (EC: Ping pong, ping pong, ... ;-) A 3D depiction without a corresponding explanation of the significance of the depiction causes more confusion than clarity. We don't need to explain in each and very chem/drug infobox that chemical structures live in three dimensions, not two. We have other articles like conformational isomerism to explain that. I would go even farther than the proposal. Not only should the 3D structure have a clear benefit, it should also be accompanied by prose in the article that demonstrates that benefit. And per WP:V this benefit must also be supported up by reliable sources. Boghog (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal[edit]

To maintain ease of reading proposal votes. Testem (talk)

@VQuakr: Is the best way to teach about 3D structures by including them in every article where they will have no other explanation or would it be better to point users towards a dedicated article where the 3D structure is important but variable? Testem (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds obvious, but when a reader comes to an article about a chemical, they are expecting to find there a concise summary of everything Wikipedia has to offer about that particular chemical, including its 3D structure. Linking to a separate article is not concise. You cannot expect people to click through to that. And putting that information in a separate article would only be punishing those who want to see a molecule's structure and don't particularly care about the flexibility of it. Whereas 'experts' in the topic will probably already know a flexible molecule when they see one, and will not be greatly helped by this.

I understand what you're getting at though. Diagrams in textbooks have always appeared to falsely imply that molecules never move from the positions they are depicted in. While in fact, there is a diverse range of vibrations and conformational freedom in almost any molecule. Avoiding this implication is a laudable goal, and not an easy one at that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the reason why you suggested such a policy in the first place? In that case it has nothing to do with disruptive editors, so please don't drag lazord00d into this.

Anyway, there comes a time in anyone's chemical education when they have to realise that molecules are chaotic. Now I don't know about you, but I think that removing the static molecules from Wikipedia would not aid anyone in reaching this stage faster. If anything, the idea of 'static' molecules, misleading as it may be, is a useful foundation to learn the other stuff from. It's like how you can't learn about molecular orbitals until you first learn about 'electron shells'. Reaction mechanisms are similarly chaotic. And it seems you can't learn anything in chemistry without it being, to some extent, a simplification of the truth.

That is not to say we should avoid the topic of conformational freedom (sadly a redlink at the time of writing) entirely. Articles like staggered conformation should be expanded significantly. And if the flexibility of a molecule is mentioned in the text, then that is where there should be a link to one of these articles. I have no problem with using static images at the same time to depict flexible molecules. It's the best simplification that we have.

- Jynto (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a fair point, and well thought out. I understand that users need a one stop resource, but what I'm saying is that nobody is looking for a 3D image of the molecule in 99% of cases because they are not useful. Therefore retaining the images takes away from it being a concise summary. What do you think?
Testem (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair point, but couldn't the same be said about most lead images? By the same token, we have thousands of articles about towns where the lead image is some touristy photo of a local landmark, or even just the town's high street. You may wonder why we have those images, since they probably don't contribute directly to the reader's knowledge of the place. What about satellite photos on articles about hurricanes? Can the reader truly gain an understanding of the storm's destructive power just by looking at some swirly clouds without a size reference (unless Florida is nearby)? Nonetheless, I think that every one of these images is important, for reasons I have already tried to articulate, but here goes again: eye-catching images are memorable, and they make the rest of the article more memorable by association.
When you learn facts, it helps to have an eye-catching image because it creates a convenient visual memory to attach those facts onto. Structural formulas are rarely eye-catching. That's what I was trying to say with the examples above, but I think I got carried away in my own explanation. My point still stands, in that we are very visually oriented creatures. Just look at some of the images around you, and think about how they might aid your memory of a particular item or concept, besides just being a pretty picture.
If you need any further proof, see how my images have been used outside of Wikipedia as the primary illustration of certain compounds.
Ars Technica article on a potential use of gamma valerolactone
DNews video that describes the effects of progesterone
I should mention that I had no hand in putting those images there, besides releasing them with a CC-Zero license. The gamma valerolactone image wasn't even used in the WP article, so they could only have found it by looking on Commons. These aren't the only examples either; they are just the only examples that I happened to find in my daily web browsing.
- Jynto (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
We do have an article on conformational isomerism which includes the concept of conformational freedom. I have taken the liberty of creating a redirect from the later to the former. Boghog (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem I have with a 3D image of an arbitrary conformation of a flexible molecule is that at best, it does not tell you much and at worst, it is misleading (i.e., leaving the impression that this is the one and only "true" 3D representation of the molecule). Boghog (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
See above. To summarise my arguments, it is vastly preferable to learn the configuration of a molecule, and later to learn that this is arbitrary, one of many possible configurations, than not to learn it at all. Simplification of the truth, etc, etc. - Jynto (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi All! :-)

This is indeed healthy discussion. In what I'm sure is an unexpected occurrence, I agree with Jynto his argument is essentially the same as mine was to begin with. Simplicity and ease of comprehension are both beneficial in an encyclopedia which is expected to be a reference for anyone regardless of foreknowledge. Lazord00d (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: That would be a valid point, except that 'real' chemists like Ben Mills have used 3D models to depict flexible molecules. To name a few: octadecyltrichlorosilane, isobutylamine, paullinic acid. I can't claim to speak for Ben, but he has said recently that "No image is better than a bad image." So logically, he couldn't possibly regard these as bad images.

Now, ideally these would be based on crystal structures (as I have recently started to do) but in reality that is not always possible. So the next best option is to take an educated guess - either through energy minimisation in DS Visualizer, or by inferring from the structure of a similar compound. This may seem to be bordering on WP:OR, but given the points discussed above (flexible molecules have more than one configuration, and all molecules are vibrating all the time), I think it is more than acceptable. For future reference though, should I add a post script to the description of my images to say that's where I got the structure from?

Jynto (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not only have I taken an educated guess when creating the models I submitted, but I provide citation in the form of external links to other sites which use the same configuration on each image as proof of it's acceptability as a reference NOT to disprove other configurations. I think this should be standard procedure.

@Testem: The statements that 3d images are not used 99% of the time, and that all content provided by Lazord00d is "incorrect" are only conjecture unless proven. Lazord00d (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Boghog: I'm having trouble understanding the grounds for your post in agreement above. It's not simply that you agree that I'm having issues with, it's the fact that your explanation suggests a more complicated process for the reader from my view. Would that not be counter-productive in a public resource? Lazord00d (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lazord00d: Quite to the contrary. What I am suggesting is a more complicated procedure for the editor to make it easier for the reader. Your Testem's proposal quite reasonably suggests that a 3D depiction should only be included if it aids understanding. My extension of your Testem's proposal adds the requirement that the additional understanding be made crystal clear to the reader by supporting prose backed up by reliable sources. Boghog (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Boghog: Ahh I see what you're saying. I misunderstood you, but I think you have my position confused with another editor. I'm of the belief that every molecule on WP should have 2d and 3d representation in their articles, preferably right next to each other and oriented as similarly as possible, which *should* (hopefully) allow understanding of the relationship between the two at a glance even by novices. I don't have citation for that position so it is an opinion of mine to be sure, but it's one that has proven itself repeatedly. Many if not most humans are very visual learners, which Jynto has already mentioned. That alone means that imagery is almost always helpful unless redundant or blatantly and provably incorrect.
@Lazord00d: Corrected above. This entire thread is becoming quite confusing. Boghog (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Boghog: Indeed :-).. It would be pretty sweet if WP talk pages had more of a forum appearance, ie each comment clearly separated.. Here unless people indent their posts you have to pretty much read as carefully as you can just to find the username at the end of the post so you know where to respond lol. Lazord00d (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Benjah-bmm27: I think your post in the poll is pretty much spot on, except that if there is to be a panel of editors to approve the placement of all 3d models based on those people's personal credentials, wouldn't it be good to include verifiable credentials in the user's data somewhere? Anyone can claim to be formally educated in a topic without that actually being the case.. Lazord00d (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

3D depiction of aromatic rings[edit]

A number of 3D molecular models have recently been added that depict aromatic rings with alternating single and double bonds (example here). Per Talk:MDMA#Image in header, there appears to be a local consensus that in 3D projections at least, alternating single and double bonds is not a sufficiently accurate model of the resonant bonds in the ring. Is there enough support for a "bond and a half" motif such as File:S-MDMA-3D-balls.png to agree that this should be the standard for ball-and-stick models containing benzene rings? Pings follow. Leyo Odysseus1479 Graeme Bartlett Benjah-bmm27 Lazord00d DMacks Sizeofint VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • That looks OK, but do we have a choice to pick from? Another idea is to have template that is some sort of key to explain to the first time viewer what colour is what atom, and what that dashed line means. This would not be part of the image, but part of the image data page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that we ought to have a think about the merits of 3D models and where they are appropriate. The discussion above suggests some agreement that 3D models may be unnecessary and even inappropriate for molecules which are not conformationally constricted. L4zerd00d is obviously keen to contribute but I think that in this case the lack of technical understanding has hindered the utility of these contributions. Testem (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that 3D models are not always appropriate to include in infoboxes. When appropriate, I think the 3D representation should be meaningful (e.g., bioactive conformation), clear (easy to see the correspondence between the 2D and 3D structures), and finally aesthetic (eye-candy to draw the attention of readers to the article). Personally I think including dashed lines or valances in a stick figure make it less appealing and I would prefer to see a cleaner look (see for example File:Etizolam pymol 3d.png). If the 2D and 3D structures are drawn in the same orientation and the figure caption includes the color scheme (carbon = grey, hydrogen = white, nitrogen = blue, chlorine = green), I think the correspondence will be clear enough for most people. Boghog (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Failing to indicate bond order (for example in File:Etizolam pymol 3d.png) can be very confusing, even for experienced chemists. There are cases where the bonding situation is ambiguous or complicated, especially in organometallics and complexes, where relaxing the rules is helpful. Benzene rings pretty robust chemical units and it makes sense to depict them with dashed lines - they indicate the bonding, but more importantly, they make the structure simpler to understand at a glance. Alternating single and double bonds are more intricate. Most 3D modelling software automatically introduces dashed lines, so forcing alternating singles and doubles is a faff. The proposed changes would also require a huge amount of redrawing, for no great benefit. I strongly recommend not changing the guidelines. --Ben (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not confusing if the 3D depiction is displayed along side the 2D structure. Boghog (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It is also important to point out that MOS are guidelines, not policies where WP:IAR applies. Changing the guideline doesn't require that we redraw all previous structures, just encourages that all future structures are drawn this way for consistency. If someone has the energy to go back and update structures to conform to the present guidelines, that would certainly be OK too if there is consensus. Boghog (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Alternating singles and doubles are also very rare in 3D models in textbooks and articles. Any "updating" by a non-expert risks introducing new errors. 2D structures show alternating bonds because they are easier to draw mechanisms with. No-one draws mechanisms with 3D models, hence the discrepancy. --Ben (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that I quite follow your last comment. Consensus would require that any changes made are accurate. In addition, removing valances from 3D depictions would tend to decrease, not increase the number of errors. Designating unsaturated bonds in 2D depictions are essential in defining the structure (e.g., cyclohexane vs benzene). Once the structure is accurately defined, then one can understand reaction mechanisms by electron pushing. The depiction of unsaturated bonds in 3D structures may be useful in understanding stereoelectronic effects in reactions. (Again, the most appropriate depiction depends on what you are trying to illustrate.) Boghog (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have started with this, but regardless here it is: I'd like to begin a discussion on acceptable 3d model construction characteristics. I feel that space-filling 3d models obscure too much detail, and ball-and-stick models that show aromatic rings as a dotted circle inside a ring of atoms, while accurate, do not help readers with zero to little chemistry knowledge relate the images to the 2d skeletal formulae. The 2d fomulae do not depict aromatic rings as a dotted circle, rather they show them as alternating single- and double-bonds. Also, rotating 3d models have been labeled a distraction by others here, and I agree with them: 3d images in the drugbox should be static. I propose that the 3d models be of a construction method that mimics the 2d model wherever possible (except they would include details intentionally omitted in 2d such as Hydrogens), including depicting aromatic rings in the same manner as the 2d structures. The object of this proposal being greater usefulness across the widest range of minds. Also, there is no question in my mind about the utility of having 3d models for every molecule possible. They show detail that the 2d models do not. Lazord00d (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually an interior circle in a hexagon is a very common way to draw benzene, ie File:Benzol2 lb 2d.png. I was taught in orgo to only use alternating single and double bonds if I was illustrating a reaction that eliminated the resonance structure. I know others learned it differently, though. I disagree with your suggestion that it is more important to "help readers with zero to little chemistry knowledge relate the images to the 2d skeletal formulae" than it is to be accurate; depiction similar to File:S-MDMA-3D-balls.png seems plenty easy to understand. Why show it wrong when it is so trivial to show it correctly?
As for space filling models, it simply depends what we are trying to show. In File:DNA Furchen.png, we can see the degree of exposure of the major and minor groove - a detail that would be difficult to illustrate with a non-spacefilling model. I agree though the for most molecules, spacefilling is not ideal because of the structural detail that is lost. VQuakr (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's wrong so much as simply another way of showing the same thing. For example:

All three of which are from educational or professional resources. Also I am not suggesting changing whats already out there, just setting a standard going forward.

Lazord00d (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The 2D structure already defines the bond orders in which case displaying bond orders in the 3D depiction becomes redundant. Boghog (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I also think this whole discussion of Kekulé vs. delocalized bonding is overly pedantic. Both are generally recognized as valid ways of drawing an aromatic structure. We don't need to worry about this subtle distinction in each and every chem infobox. And since bond orders in 3D depictions are redundant, IMHO these can be dispensed with entirely. Boghog (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, actually that's one of the favorable points, is that showing them in the same way helps novices directly translate between the two. Most of the people here in this thread would likely see things similarly to you. My position is that even though it seems redundant to those who have some chemistry knowledge, that redundancy is useful in this case in expanding the appeal and usefulness to even total noobs. You going to have many of them reading these articles whether you recognize it or not. When you're in a certain field and your understanding is deep, it's easy to forget what it was like not to know any of this.

Lazord00d (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Substrates and products merge[edit]

Just a quick post to both WP:MCB and WP:Chem. There are duplicate stub pages for substrate and product. Since in each case one copy just repeats the other I propose that they're merged into substrate_(chemistry) and product_(chemistry) with the biochem-specific parts just as a section.

Discussion on WP:MCB page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For reference, I've performed the merge and expanded the articles a bit. The input of any chemists would be very welcome! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

It would be a good idea to create a separate importance category for talk pages. (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea. If that talk page is more important than the page is associated with then just boost the importance rating. This would be a change across all project not just Chemistry. And I suspect the only talk pages like this would be the ones like this one! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Occupational safety & health[edit]

Hi lovely chemists! User:Smokefoot suggested that I wander by here and let you all know what I've been up to. I'm User:Keilana, the current Wikipedian-in-Residence at NIOSH, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which is a US federal research agency. I hadn't realized when I went around telling WikiProjects about this collaboration that I'd be writing about chemistry as much as I seem to be - so here I am! I'll probably be mostly working on safety information on various chemicals, especially since NIOSH puts out the Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. If there's anything I can do to help you get information about a specific compound, or connect you with researchers and resources, please let me know. And of course, if you have any questions or concerns about my work, my talk page is always open. Cheers! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Emily, welcome and keep asking, although responsiveness at this talk page can be variable. Here is one over-arching comment or even caution, and these comments only reflect my views, not necessarily consensus. The articles on chemicals are intended to be useful to chemists and those interested in learning or using chemistry. All editors know that we could completely overwhelm each of these articles with safety information regarding proper handling and a laundry list of all the consequences of contact with chemical substances (invariably involving some dizziness, nausea, skin irritations, etc). We choose not to summarize all of the safety-tox-consequences. Instead we defer to the MSDS, which we carefully (hopefully) link in every chemical article. This approach is summarized in our style guide Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry#Safety, which states "The [safety] information in the Chembox is sufficient for most compounds." The exceptions to this approach are chemical species that are acutely toxic (cyanide, etc). Articles on compounds that are in heavy use but are not always acutely toxic, typically also have sections on safety, but usually not long ones. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! I'm obviously coming from a different perspective, but I'm sure we can find a balance. I think that chemicals in heavy industrial use could do with some explanation of their dangers in the workplace, whereas chemicals that you're only going to find in a specialized chem lab are less important. This is definitely a conversation that we can continue to have! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Emily (and would extend her comment to cover household chemicals). I also think articles on chemicals - and other chemistry topics - are also supposed to be of interest - and useful - to the general readership. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Smokefoot. I read WP articles about chemicals because I want to learn about the chemicals. I don't want the articles cluttered up with a lot of safety information. But I believe that every chemical article should have an easily-found link to safety sheet, preferably in the info box so that potential users of the chemical will know where to look. Maproom (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Emily, it’s nice to see someone specifically addressing safety issues, I'm sure that it's something that people are looking for. As Smokefoot points out MSDS's are a good source of information regarding the safety of compounds, however there is a slight issue in that different countries have different regulations, so depending on where on the internet you get your MSDS the hazards may be described differently. For example, as you're U.S. based I assume that NFPA 704 features in your way of looking at things, whereas here in the E.U. we're using the GHS system (which is replacing the ‘R phrases’ and ‘S phrases’ you may be familiar with). The current Chembox is able to support all of these different systems and provides a nice way of listing everything where it won’t get in the way of the main text. If you're going to take that route I would suggest that GHS hazard statements feature in some way as that system was put out by the U.N. and is supposed to be universal. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
A useful conversation. The following recent edit at dichloromethane seems too (to me at least) generic and completely covered by the MSDS "Symptoms of acute overexposure to dichloromethane via inhalation include: difficulty concentrating, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, headaches, numbness, weakness, and irritation of the upper respiratory tract and eyes. More severe consequences can include suffocation, loss of consciousness, coma, and death." I do not think that Wikipedia needs to tell people that breathing volatile chemicals (aside from noble gases, SF6 and a rare few others ) makes one sick or to detail the nature of the sicknes. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Smokefoot makes a good point here. Wikipedia does not need to point out the typical hazards associated with exposure to nearly any chemical. This really falls outside the scope of an encyclopedia article. The safety section should focus on potential hazards that are significant, notable, uncommon, unexpected, etc. For the routine safety information we can (and should) provide external links to authoritative resources such as MSDS sheets, occupational health and safety websites, etc. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not clear on that. Breathing in inert gasses like Helium or Nitrogen won't keep you alive, but as long as you also get enough oxygen it won't hurt you either. The symptoms Smokefoot describes seem like they are caused by actual exposure to the chemical, not by just "breathing stuff other than air". It seems similar to the difference between non-toxic, non-caloric substances like aspartame and sucralose (which are not nourishing but also not damaging) and toxic non-caloric foods (which are not nourishing and will hurt you if you eat them). 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 13:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC) 0x0077BE: I rephrased my remark, thanks for pointing out the noble gas situation.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
A little information on the pharmacology might not be a bad idea for common (or interesting) compounds, just so long as it follows WP:MEDRS. Regarding DCM I've moved the information of the PEL to the chembox, as there's an option for it. Very few chemboxes contain information of exposure limits - part of this might be because we don't really have the right fields. Currently we only have the options to enter PEL (U.S. centric) and TLV (again U.S. centric and its a safety rather than regulatory value). As we now have a direct line to NIOSH perhaps we could review those options and see if we need to add any new fields? --Project Osprey (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Excessively detailed health and safety information could potentially violate the medical advice prohibition, so handle with care. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the input! I really appreciate it. My one concern with linking to the MSDS is that the lay reader may not understand the MSDS. I remember being a beginning chemistry student and having no idea how to read through an MSDS to get what was useful, so I think including basic information could be a good addition in cases where a chemical is widely used industrially. I know that when I'm writing medical articles, I have a lot of trouble remembering that I am writing for the proverbial "smart 15-year-old" and not just doctors and nurses, so things that may seem obvious to me (epinephrine raises your heart rate!) may not be obvious to the lay reader. [[User:Project Osprey}Project Osprey]], I'm happy to go through and add PELs and TLVs to infoboxes as a start. We can also talk to researchers and see what they think we could add - NIOSH also has contacts at other regulatory agencies and we could use those to sort out what other fields could be useful. Again, my hands are tied a bit on the US-centric issue since NIOSH is a US agency and I'm a US-based person, but I think we can sort some of that out. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to add - I can add PELs but NIOSH doesn't do TLVs, just Recommended Exposure Limits (which would be a very useful thing to add to the chembox) and the short-term exposure limit, which is another useful thing to add. What do you all think about those as parameters? Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, to start with any data is better than no data. I think the idea with MSDS's was to cite them as references and then transcribe the hazard codes into the relevant Chembox section. I'm aware that those codes are a rather 'dry' description of the hazards but they are all defined against the same standards, so when is says 'toxic' rather than 'harmful' that really means something. Regarding the regulatory stuff, I'm not familiar with the current U.S. standard - so it would be good to check that TLV's and PEL's are still the standard values used before starting on that. TLV's are the limit at which things get dangerous, so they're a medical estimate and not a regulatory limit, as such they should be fairly universal (and a lot more useful than LD50) nevermind! If you want to have new fields added to the chembox then you'd be best to raise it at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox. The other question of course is where do you being? The popular pages list might show you some low hanging fruit. Do you have any particular areas of interest (or assigned goals?) and is there any particular support that you'd like from us? --Project Osprey (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Project Osprey: Well, I have quite a lot of data! :) TLVs are the toxicology society and RELs/PELs are from NIOSH and OSHA, respectively. So we're good on that! I'll go put something on the chembox talk page to see if people would find the short-term exposure limits helpful as well. I just spoke to some of my NIOSH colleagues and they did say that they will be reaching out to their contacts and collaborators at other OSH agencies around the world to get their guidelines and have them share what would be useful. So watch this space - more international regulatory data (and other data!) will be coming your way! My personal area of interest is carcinogens, but I have pretty free rein on what to work on. So if there's anything that the project is specifically focusing on, or if any editor needs resources, I'm happy to help out. I of course want feedback from everyone and if I contravene guidelines or screw up in some other way, please do let me know. The most helpful thing in the world would be you letting me know what you need! And, thank you so much for your dialogue and comments, it's good to get to know you all. All the best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Best wishes to you and your colleagues but please dont become too evangelical in your campaign. If you and your colleagues develop a huge amount of content, we can create a new article on Toxicology of DCM or Toxicology of Chlorinated Solvents. We have that pattern of establishing stand-alone safety articles for a variety of important materials - Cyanide poisoning, fluoride toxicity, CO poisoning. But we need to do better than "Symptoms ... via inhalation include: difficulty concentrating, dizziness, ... coma, and death." --Smokefoot (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Smokefoot and others on this - chemical articles don't need bogging down with a great list of health risks. I do not think that extracting useful information from an MSDS is particularly difficult at all - isn't that the point? With that said, I really respect that a gov organisation is funding adding information to wikipedia and I appreciate that Emily is not the one setting her own job spec. I hope that we can find a pragmatic compromise on our views. Testem (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I am opposing such unreferenced additions. --Leyo 11:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Easily fixed, providing we agree to accept web-citation from NIOSH. --Project Osprey (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Leyo: @Project Osprey: My apologies, I didn't know you had to cite stuff in the chembox. Everything I'm adding there comes from the NIOSH Pocket Guide, which seems to be linked in most chem articles. I read through the chembox documentation and the MOSCHEM and it wasn't mentioned, so perhaps that would be something helpful for chem newbies. :) How would you like me to cite the PEL in the chembox? With a normal inline citation or is there some other way you prefer? Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no PEL_Ref parameter. Should we add this to the Template:Chembox Hazards? If not then inline reference is the way to go. Perhaps we need a template to assist with NIOSH references if there are going to be a lot of links to the same data source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
+1 --Leyo 00:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I now see there is a Template:PGCH already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dicarboxylic acids[edit]

I have been tidying up dicarboxylic acid and have come across this issue: The sections

Fatty acid carbonates
Phenyl and benzoic alkanoic acids
Fatty acyl-CoA esters
Divinylether fatty acids

do not appear to be about dicarboxylic acids at all. Should this material be transferred to carboxylic acid? I'm not an organic chemist, so I hesitate to do it.

Can anyone help? reply at talk:dicarboxylic acid, please Petergans (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


what (hydroxyethyl)methacrylate? (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you trying to ask about (Hydroxyethyl)methacrylate? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
it is an anion, what's the cation for the data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No it is a neutral molecule. pKa/pKb is 13.82, so in very alkaline conditions it could lose a proton, or gain a hydroxyl group to make a negative ion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The "cation" you're referring to is hydroxyethyl. And the "anion" is methacrylate. That is to say, it is the hydroxyethyl ester of methacrylic acid. But like Bartlett says, it is still a neutral molecule. Hope that clears things up. Jynto (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


The usage of Buckyball is under discussion, see talk:buckyball -- (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Toxin templates[edit]

Please could somebody look at the ad-hoc templates on Androctonus australis hector insect toxin and Birtoxin? Should these be replaced with {{Chembox}}, or something else? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

These toxins are proteins, not small molecules and hence more within the scope of WP:MCB than WP:CHEM. There is already a {{infobox nonhuman protein}} in the article that would be more appropriate. Boghog (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


Pls see Talk:Volume fraction#%vol. Thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Carl Djerassi[edit]

Carl Djerassi died over the weekend. He was a big contributor to early steroid chemistry but is probably best known for helping to develop the oral contraceptive pill. His article is in pretty good shape but if anyone can think of anything that's missing now would be a good time to add it as the page is currently getting several thousand hits per day. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomenclature Problem[edit]

Hello, I am aGastya. I am confused that American spellings for chemical compounds to be used or IUPAC ones? Like Sulfate vs Sulphate? aGastya 04:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talkcontribs)

See WP:SULF. DMacks (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly notable chemist who died in last week's train wreck[edit]

One of the victims of last week's Valhalla train crash was Robert M. Dirks, a computational chemist with a doctorate from Caltech, where he also did a postdoc, who worked at D.E. Shaw Research in Manhattan. Since another victim, Walter Liedtke, has turned out to be notable, I decided to look into Dirks ... who seems to have coauthored quite a few papers, and his employer describes him as having made "tremendous contributions" to "the development of novel computational chemistry methods."

I've compiled what I've found on the article's talk page. I'd like some input from editors at this project who could say what's significant about his research, if it is significant, within the context of the notability criteria for academics and scientists than I am, and perhaps better qualified to judge if Dirks' research makes him notable. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably not. If he were notable, his name would/will come up without prompting. PhD's are virtually required to publish papers in chemistry, so that is a low bar. CalTech cranks out about 25 PhDs each year in chemistry. He went from his PhD to an investment bank, a career path that would indicate that he was going to develop is quantitative skills, not scholarship. Tragic nonetheless.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed this, belatedly. Note that D. E. Shaw Research and D. E. Shaw & Co. are not the same thing; Dirks was an employee of the research group, not the hedge fund, and is an author on several of the company's papers. Nevertheless, I don't think he's notable in the Wikipedia sense. We don't have articles on any of the other company scientists as far as I can tell. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I work in the same field as him (DNA nanotechnology) and I can say that his publications are immensely impactful within this field. He developed the thermodynamic analysis algorithms that underlie NUPACK, a nucleic acid design suite that is the primary tool of this kind used in the field. I was thinking of making an article about him myself, I just need to dig up some third-party sources that aren't obituaries. I'm happy to work on it with you, Daniel Case, if you're still interested. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 01:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was looking at the simulation side of things. Biographies of the marginally notable and recently deceased worry me a little - they're unlikely to be actively watched in the long term - but no objections. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


I draw attention to the deplorable state of many articles on carbohydrates. Just 3 examples from many

  • pentose does not have either Fischer projections or cyclic structures
  • hexose does have Fischer projections, but shows cyclic structure only for glucose and mannose
  • Ribose has all the structures but none for deoxy ribose.

It's not just the content of these and other articles. The subject carbohydrate is not a good overview as it is limited to monosaccharides and disaccharides. Might I suggest that this subject area needs to be re-organized and that a lot of re-writing is also needed. Petergans (talk) 06:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:InChI[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:InChI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia session at ACS Boston meeting in August[edit]

The ACS Chemical Information division (CINF) is holding a technical session at the Fall ACS meeting in Boston, titled "Wikipedia and Chemistry: Collaborations in Science and Education". We're trying to highlight the contribution of Wikipedia to chemistry and to chemical education. If you have a suitable topic you'd like to present on, and you'd like to submit an abstract, submission is open until March 29th. If you have questions, by all means contact me on my talk page. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is just a quick followup to remind people - abstracts are due by this coming Sunday. I see I didn't post the full description before, which is:

Chemistry information on Wikipedia has an enormous reach and impact. In this symposium, the connections between Wikipedia editors and the wider chemistry community will be explored. In particular, collaborations between educators, students and regular editors (Wikipedians) will be examined to understand how Wikipedia editing can be set up as a successful class project. Educators will demonstrate how Wikipedia projects can help students with understanding subject matters and improving information literacy skills. Meanwhile, we will explore how educators and the Wikipedia community can work together through the Wikipedia Education Program to ensure students' contributions to Wikipedia are valid and effective. Finally, we will exchange ideas on how to involve more chemists in contributing to Wikipedia, and how to use the site wisely.

We are also organising an Edit-a-thon, so even if you're not presenting, we'd love for you to help with that. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox#Ordering Identifiers[edit]

More opinions on the order of the identifiers in the chembox would be appreciated. --Leyo 22:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

IUPAC again[edit]

I've repeatedly heard from members of this WikiProject that articles should not be forced to blindly adopt IUPAC definitions or terminology in instances where they directly contradict common use by actual scholars, researchers, etc in a particular field. And yet, it appears that we have an entire policy page mandating strict adherence to IUPAC guidelines in articles: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry). How does that work? (+)H3N-Protein\Chemist-CO2(-) 14:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

See the 'exceptions' section. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The IUPAC guideline is specific that it applies to chemistry articles. Now within that narrowed field, do we really have articles where this is contentious? Chemists in the UK aren't going to stop spelling it "sulphur" until the current generation dies off. However they're not likely to oppose IUPAC for sake of "common use" either. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

LD50 vs LC50[edit]

Hi everyone, I had a question about LC50 values for several different gases. Is it okay to put an LC50 in the LD50 parameter, or is this something that should be put in the body of an article? As an example, I have a data sheet for chlorine trifluoride here that lists LC50 values in various organisms with exposure times, so I wanted to ask here about what to do since it's interesting/useful information. Thanks! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Are they measurements of subtly different things, or different terminology for essentially the same thing? (The discussion in the article LD50 isn't entirely clear to me.) If there's a subtle difference, perhaps there can be separate fields in the infobox for LD50 and LC50. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 03:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Antony-22: LC50 is the lethal concentration (of a gas) while LD50 is the lethal dose, usually given IV or orally. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
They are clearly different things. LC50 is a concentration and LD50 is a quantity, usually expressed as a mass. The difference lies in the fact that LD50 refers to a quantity ingested whereas LC50 refers to a concentration external to the organism. That's why exposure times are important in relation to LC50. Petergans (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. So my next question is, it is possible for a single substance to have both an LD50 and an LC50, or is only one or the other meaningful for each substance? In any case, they both sound equally important, so my instinct is that either or both should be listed in Template:Chembox. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 18:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(added after the comments below) Consider, for instance, chlorine gas. LC50 (LC=Lethal Concentration) gives the concentration at which exposure to the gas will be, eventually, lethal in 50% of cases. LD50 (LD=Lethal Dose) gives the amount of gas that, when inhaled, will be lethal in 50% of cases. For gases there is no ambiguity. For liquids LD50 refers to ingestion, but LC50 is not so well defined; it could apply to topical exposure, or, in the case of a volatile liquid, exposure to the evaporate. For solids LC50 has no real meaning. Petergans (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I would guess that in principle you could have both. But it's difficult to administer a weighed amount of a gas. So it makes most sense to use LC50 for gasses and LD50 for solids and liquids. Maproom (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
LC50 can be used for liquids or solids dissolved in a medium, particularly in in vitro testing such as the concentration of an antibiotic that will kill a bacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, returning to this - should we have a separate parameter in the chembox for LC50 or just add it to LD50 and note that it's an LC50? Thoughts? I don't particularly have a preference. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There was the same issue in de.wikipedia, too. The consensus then was, to replace the LD50 parameter in the chembox by a more general one and to use de:Template:ToxDaten. Like this, the input is more flexible (see de:Benzaldehyd for an example [bottom of the box] with both LD50 and LC50 values). I don't say that a similar solution would suit best also on en.wikipedia. --Leyo 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Leyo: That looks useful, though I don't speak enough German to follow well. DePiep, as the Chembox guru, would this be an easy thing to fix/do if we get a consensus for it? Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course we'll implement the outcome of a good talk. -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
My notes. About the German wiki, Leyo points to. It knows these types of toxy measurements: LD50, LC50, LDLo, LCLo, LCt50, TDLo, TCLo, EC50, IC50, LD, LC. This name is mentioned, but in the rh side with the data. It also can add the organisme, intake etc (required parameter!). Then they produce a righthand text like (See de:LSD):
  • Toxikologische Daten: 11,7 mg·kg−1 (LD50, Ratte, oral, Hydrochlorid)[1].
We too could add this, under one label. I don't know if we must make all those fields required input. Also, it is a laboratoy-result, ie more meaningless for The Reader (?, I ask). However, this is a bigger excercise to develop (all this input is done through a single template). And this solution can be used in many more Chembox inputs (The dewiki has all input this way).
For now: Since LC50 is well defined, we could start with adding it old style, enwiki style: in a separate datarow. Our article on LD50/LC50 could be improved anyway. Also I'd like to hear from medicine editors on how & what to present. Later I'll have time to make proposals here. -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I add, replying to earlier posts here (the top half, eg Petergans): we can simply add a data row LC50, and leave it to the article editor to make a useful entry. Thew template does not chekc the sens of its data. As wiki works, the nonsense-input (like: an LC50 value for a solid) will probably be edited out in the end. -DePiep (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I add #2: can someone explain why this LD50 is not in sister template {{Drugbox}}? (in the long term, these two can merge IMO). -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: Yay, thank you so much! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone heard of "Groove's process"?[edit]

Yesterday I started this AfD for the articles groove synthesis and groove halogenization, which are clunky descriptions of the synthesis of haloalkanes from alcohols. I couldn't come up with any connection between these names and the reaction, but I did find a handful of references to "Groove's process" as a term for it. It does seem to be something students are searching for, but I can't find anything to substantiate the name. Anyone heard of this? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In general a very simple transformation which is also a named reaction tends to be a very old named reaction - and some of those names just fall out of use. The Menshutkin reaction is now generally just called quaterisation, no one really calls the Darzens halogenation anything anymore. In this case I would have thought that Lucas' reagent would have covered everything we need. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - yeah, I know these are often just obsolete names, but Darzens halogenation et al. are names that can be found in typical English-language organic chemistry references even if they're not really used anymore. "Groove's process" doesn't appear in equivalent places, but does seem to be search term (used mostly by Indian students, it looks like). I wondered if anyone outside of homework-help sites had actually run across that usage that would warrant a redirect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I'm in work tomorrow and my access to literature will be much better, so I'll do a little digging and post again if I find anything. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing in the normal scientific literature. The best I could find were two references to it in text books "The Pearson Guide To Organic Chemistry For The Iit Jee" and "Together With Iit-Jee Chemistry", LIT JEE being a university entrance exam in India. I can only look at one of those via Google Books (The Pearson Guide) and it's a bit weird. There are spelling errors ("MarkownoKoff's rule" instead of Markovnikov's rule) and strange re-inventing's of chemistry (The obscure Rydon Reagents are now the Rydone process: first equation below is what the book said happens, the second is what should actually be shown)
R-CH2OH + Br2 + (C6H5O)3PO → R-CH2Br + C6H5OH + (C6H5O)2POBr
(C6H5O)3P + MeI → (C6H5O)3P+Me I-
(C6H5O)3P+Me I- + ROH → (C6H5O)2P+(Me)OR I- + C6H5OH → (C6H5O)2P(O)Me + RI
Most of the information in the book looks accurate but there's enough strange content to stop me from trusting it. By extension I don't think that the "Groove's process" really exists (at least in terms of it being named after a Dr Groove), I think we can safely delete those pages or at least tern them into redirects. --Project Osprey (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is strange! I think the only title with any basis for a redirect would be Groove's process, since the other variants turn up basically nothing. But the existence of a redirect sort of implicitly acknowledges the existence of the name - it's harmless enough but in general neologisms like this whose only source is clearly unreliable don't survive here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Binary liquid" notability[edit]

Is "binary liquid" an actual notable term, that doesn't just mean "two liquids mixed together"? The only source I can find that refers to it as something distinct is the Wikipedia page. Jay Vogler (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that the first and third external links of binary liquid lead to the same article, which does not contain the word "binary" and is about foam; while the second gives a "not found" error. It looks to me like a poorly constructed hoax article. Maproom (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
In Google Scholar searching for "binary liquid" nets 38,100 hits; the general concept seems notable enough. Binary liquid as "two inert liquids, that when mixed together, do something interesting" seems much less so, but binary liquid explosives have been discussed as possible/improbable terrorist devices, e.g., flying toilet terror labs. --Mark viking (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
All those mentions seem to be "binary" modifying some type of liquid composition, to note that it's two parts; nowhere do I see "binary liquid" on its own as a notable thing. In the case of a binary liquid explosive it's not the term binary liquid which is of interest, but a liquid explosive which happens to be binary, and I'd argue information on that fits much better into binary explosive, maybe binary liquid explosive. This looks a lot like someone made up their own specialized definition and tossed it into Wikipedia for kicks. Jay Vogler (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I take part of it back, study of the properties of binary liquid mixtures seems to be a thing. It still has nothing to do with the definition as currently written, though, and I'm not sure whether it deserves its own page any more than binary amalgam or binary gas, etcetera, do. What could be said about the idea beyond a dictionary definition? Jay Vogler (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


I could use some input about the relatively new article N-Acylamides. The article is basically about fatty acid amides and I think it should be merged into that article. But the article content has some problems I would like to address before I merge it. First of all, the writer seems to be unclear about the difference between an amine and an amide (which leads to the bad nomenclature in the title, to begin with). I'm not sure I trust content written by someone without enough knowledge of the topic to understand the distinction between those two functional groups. Setting aside the nomenclature problems, does the rest of the content hold up to scrutiny? ChemNerd (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks very suspect. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a confused student effort? The description is bad and the glycerols don't belong, but the term "N-acyl amide" does get used in the literature sometimes to refer to a fatty acid attached to an amino acid or ethanolamine. I think it's part of the general terminological muddle on what to call N-acylethanolamines. Most of these are endogenous cannabinoids involved in lipid signaling. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of the entries in the article's table are n-acylamino acids (e.g., N-acyl glycine) which are structurally distinct from fatty acid amides. They should be split out into a new article or deleted. Boghog (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Merck Index: updating citations[edit]

My Royal Society of Chemistry colleagues and I propose to update citations to The Merck Index. As there may be CoI concerns, please review the proposal, and comment, at Wikipedia:GLAM/Royal Society of Chemistry/Merck. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


I have nominated Aldol reaction for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I would ask general attention[edit]

…from members of Wikiproject Chemistry at the Oxygen article, which was listed as FA, but has had some issues arise.

I am a newcomer there, arriving to edit because I wanted to reference the information on the structure of this homonuclear diatomic, and found the article in need of attention for its molecular orbital description, and successfully edited that.

I have, however, run afoul of two European, non-native English speaking editors for proposed changes that challenge their view of info box image content. There is no need to repeat those arguments here, for they are not the main issue any more.

The main issues are now three:

  • My edits are now being reverted just because they are mine. Because there are two editors involved, they view themselves as a consensus, and feel justified in their ability to do this.
  • Their reversions are comprehensive, throwing out baby with bath water. In the last reversion, I had (1) combined physical properties prose in two locations into one, separating it from molecular structure (MO) prose, and moving the phys prop text up in the article, (2) corrected gross errors in prose regarding an introduced image of a discharge tube, and (3) touched up the prose in the MO diagram section I had added earlier. All of these were reverted en masse with a personally directed edit summary.
  • Their reversions protect the very bad edits of one of the editors, which lack chemical expertise and do not pass as acceptable English.

On this last matter, I will give an example, and leave it for parties interested in high quality article evolution and protection to have a look.

Here is a recent edit made by one of the editors:

In an oxygen gas discharge spectrum tube, the molecular orbitals of oxygen are stimulated to emit light. The operating conditions for the oxygen image discharge tue: are a pressure of 5-10 mbar, a high voltage of 1.8 kV, a current of 18 mA and a frequency of 35 kHz. During the recombination of the ionized gas molecules, the characteristic color spectrum is emitted. In this case, a small part, caused reversibly formed by the supply of energy ozone. This kind of spectrum tubes are also important to study the spectral lines with a spectrometer.

Note that the text is rife with misspellings/English errors, and added very technical prose without any sources. I am a professional chemist, and could simply not begin to make sense of its meaning. Here is the correction I made that was reverted:

In an oxygen gas discharge spectrum tube,[clarification needed] the oxygen is stimulated to emit light.[citation needed] The operating conditions are a pressure of 5-10 mbar, a high voltage of 1.8 kV, a current of 18 mA and a frequency of 35 kHz.[original research?][citation needed] During the recombination of the ionized gas molecules,[clarification needed] a characteristic color spectrum is emitted.[citation needed] This kind of excitation is also important in general to the study of spectral lines with aid of a spectrometer.[clarification needed][citation needed]

In addition, this note was added, hidden in the article text, with the bracket-bang markup language:

  • Content referring to molecular orbitals emitting light removed as fundamental error. THIS SENTENCE REMOVED AS GIBBERISH: "In this case, a small part, caused reversibly formed by the supply of energy ozone."

My correcting and tagging edit was made, not in any sense as text to remain in the article "as is", but as a starting point to move the original poor edit in a direction to make it acceptable. (Only the grossest of error, that MOs emit light, and the completely incomprehensible prose were removed.) My edit was reverted, so the original, error-filled prose again appears. [The error-filled edit was by the first of the editors, and is what I referred to in (2) above. My edit was reverted carte blanche with the further edits (1) and (3), by the second editor, who returned the error-filled prose to the article.]

Note, the two editors in question insisted that the discharge tube image was needed in this FA article, and I insisted that if it appeared, prose needed to appear to explain the image, and how it fit into the article. I have no issue with the appearance of the image, just with the editorial control and poor quality that derives from the work of these two editors.

Finally, note, that the personal reversion by the second editor recombines the physical properties and molecular structure sections, which I believe are better discussed separately, and returns the problematic discharge tube prose to a section largely about physical (ground state) properties.

I leave this entirely in the hands of the Project. I haven't time or desire to fight with self-interested editors controlling an article as if it is their own. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My comments on the situation above, not that I am a mind reader or analyst: An edit like "In an oxygen gas discharge spectrum tube,{{what?}} the oxygen is stimulated to emit light.{{cn}} The operating conditions are a pressure of 5-10 mbar, a high voltage of 1.8 kV, a current of 18 mA and a frequency of 35 kHz.{{OR}}{{cn}} During the recombination of the ionized gas molecules,{{what?}} a characteristic color spectrum is emitted.{{cn}} This kind of excitation is also important in general to the study of spectral lines with aid of a [[spectrometer]].{{what?}}{{cn}}}}" could be seen as antagonistic. Coming from an editor with what could be seen as a pretentious user name "LeProf" probably makes such corrections seem stinging. If you find the prose so lacking, then I would recommend fixing it vs complaining about it. If an article is being over-protected by editors, then incremental (constructive) edits are required. If even incremental edits (not tagging) doesnt work, leave the alternative phrasing on the Talk page for some future edit-arguing/consensus forming process and move on to a more malleable article. Wikipedia has a ton or bio-organic articles that would really benefit from someone with your background. Those are my 2 cents. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The conflict between established contributors without the real world "qulification" and the real world academic with no reputaion at Wikipedia is always ending in suffering. The article Oxygen became a featured article and this needed a lot of work of alot of people. I was part of two very bad experiences and one ended with a chemist leave wikipedia, a chemist with a name reaction associated to his name. Is there a need to rush this? Is the problem in the article making it necessary to do tha mass tagging. Start a discussion on the talk page and stay on the path with the necessary patience. I am willing to help. Here are enough good chemists and wikipedia editors with reputation which will help with the problem. Wikipedia is a slow system with its own rules which are very much different what I learned in the university life. --Stone (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Indium tin oxide[edit]

Please could someone replace the bespoke infobox on Indium tin oxide with {{Chembox}}? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

ITO is a solid solution of roughly 90% In2O3 and 10% SnO2 -composition is variable- and therefore physical poperties too. Mixtures like this and other "doped" inorganics don't fit with the chem box which is designed for chemical compounds. What do others think? Axiosaurus (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. This sort of things has come up before. Thus far, the only exceptions which I'm aware of are the mineral acids, and kinetically unstable chemicals such as nitrogen dioxide which is in equilibrium with dinitrogen tetraoxide. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Would there be any profit in a dedicated infobox, or adding parameters to {chembox} for these? At least we'd have a what-links-here list. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking. If it is whether I agree with the use of chemboxes for the mineral acids, then no, I see no way in which theses chemboxes enrich the articles or benefit the reader. To be sure, I'm not talking about the anhydrous, pure acids, but their solutions, c.f. Hydrogen chloride and Hydrochloric acid. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
So, {Chembox} can not be used for these. OK.
My other question is, whether it would be useful to create a tempalte, say {Infobox chemical mixture}, that could cover these articles (substances). As it is now, Indium tin oxide has an in-the-article crafted infobox, like:
| label1 = ...
| data1 = ...
So there are no dedicated or specific parameters available. If the answer is no, I'm :-) with that too. Must say, I have no clue for the answer because I'm not into chemistry, I'm more into templates. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
What would need to be created is an infobox that somehow demonstrates how the chemical properties of the mixture varies with composition, not just that it varies, which is necessarily true. I suspect that such an infobox which coveres a similar number of properties as the chemboxes would simply be too unwieldy to be practical, which is why I suggest that it should suffice to discuss in detail the variation of properties in the main article space, with only a few tables. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That would mostly merit parameters like |compound1 =, |formula1= (+ indexes 2, 3, ..). Then maybe a list of mixtures: |mix12=40%, 60% with meaningful properties |mix12_mp=, |mix12_application=. Just popping ideas. -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I add, a table and especially a graph would be more telling (horizontal axis having the mixture %). -DePiep (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
For alloys like solder. -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't even consider mixtures with more than three components such as thermite (It often does). Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I am asking like: is this worth a sandbox demo? Would you make development suggestions? I surely won't push it up your watchlist ;-) ! -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I could. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

MOS question[edit]

The chemistry MOS says the following about line equations:

Avoid the use of <math> notation: the existing character set is adequate to enter reaction data

I found an article using \rightleftharpoons (i.e., <math>\rightleftharpoons</math>) and I tried to find a replacement among the character sets offered (above and below the edit box). Am I just looking in the wrong place for this? Or is that type of reaction diagram deprecated? Thank. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Try {{eqm}}. It works by inserting an image that is matched to the normal fontsize, so it's not truely "the existing character set", but it sure acts as if it were in many standard uses. DMacks (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Any reason not to use the unicode ⇌ ? Christian75 (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That's U+21CC rightwards harpoon over leftwards harpoon (HTML &#8652; · Arrows (Unicode block)). "eqm" is from "is in equilibrium with". -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
and equlibrium is symbolized by two harpoons - so any reason not to use the unicode? Christian75 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I am supporting your point, Christian75. I was just adding a U+ reference. -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
is in a favored equilibrium with, is in a disfavored equilibrium with. What about these then? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice! I think we avoid the use of math because you can't copy and paste it (in MS Word is renders as images) so to answer Christian, I think any Unicode character is acceptable. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
re Plasmic Physics: is in a favored equilibrium with, is in a disfavored equilibrium with are not available in Unicode. The mirrored one (wrt arrow direction) is: U+21CB leftwards harpoon over rightwards harpoon (HTML &#8651;).
Clearly, Unicode decided not to use its chemical meaning in the names ("equilibrum"), but a descriptive name instead. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We are left with the option to replace, in {{eqm}}, current image with the Unicode character. The only objection I can think of is: when used in combination with is in a favored equilibrium with, is in a disfavored equilibrium with (images) in that same article, there might be a style break within a page? I don't know. -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

AfC candidates[edit]

Would anybody care to improve and publish:

? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the draft-to-article process, but these need some 'peer' checks & edits I understand, then? (Sometimes I just start a bold stub and that stays silently ...) -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The second is not released for assessment. But are bot topics suitable for Wikipedia? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The first strikes me as overly specialized and perhaps should be renamed as Carbonyl allylation. The second should be merged into Phenylglyoxal. Boghog (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
When I search for the second one, there are very few hits. But the first one has some scholarly work on it. So the addition article could stand alone, but not the second. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the example in first page not simply a tin catalysed Ene reaction? --Project Osprey (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"carbon fiber"[edit]

The usage of Carbon fiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:carbon (fiber) -- (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Acronym NMR or nuclear magnetic resonance in article titles[edit]

Article titles in Category:Nuclear magnetic resonance are a mix of spelled out (e.g. nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy) and acronym (e.g. gradient enhanced NMR spectroscopy). The Manual of Style WP:ACRONYMTITLE says that "acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject" and "if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognize the name by its acronym". Should NMR articles always use "NMR", always use "nuclear magnetic resonance", or should use be determined on a case-by-case basis? If case-by-case, what criteria should be used? --Kkmurray (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Whilst I don't have a strong opinion either way right now, I feel that anyone "somewhat familiar with the subject" would recognize NMR as being nuclear magnetic resonance. It is also worth noting that NMR redirects to nuclear magnetic resonance as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing that the idea behind this is that people are searching for these pages but that few users are going to bother typing 'nuclear magnetic resonance' each time. So yes, seen through that lens page titles should be contracted to NMR where possible. I'm not sure how much that's going help people though; by necessity many of these pages have long and technical titles which could be phrased in a number of different ways, so people might still have difficulty finding what they want. I would suggest that a navigation sidebar might be more helpful, I've attached a draft of what one might look like. Anyone got any thoughts? --Project Osprey (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • NMR. I favor the acronym for simplicity of typing and because it is routinely used and one rarely spells out the acronym. We probably want to have uniformity for the titles of these articles. At least in my circle, we dont say MS for mass spectrum but for NMR, we avoid enunciating those 9 syllables.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I’ll give my own comment here: In general I prefer non-acronym titles - NMR should be spelled out in titles but doesn't need to be spelled out on first use, similar to FM and PC (but note acronyms in FM broadcasting and IBM PC keyboard!). The bar for acronym titles should be high (e.g. DNA, laser, sonar). The current set of redirects takes care of searches and acronym use in articles. That said, there may be a limited number of cases where the acronym makes more sense, for example NMR tube which is not recognizable as nuclear magnetic resonance tube. Another case might be the DAB, as in relaxation (NMR). --Kkmurray (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • NMR for sure. Shorter and easier to type; no other similar acronyms in the field to cause confusion; readers of most of these articles almost surely know what NMR is and don't need it spelled out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • write out - Reasoning: I tried to see what news sources on internet tend to use, but Google does not really give me a good count on that. I do notice that many news articles do a 'nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)' in the title or early text, and from then on use NMR. This discussion gets in the direction of 'EEG', 'CPR', 'MRI' and 'ECG' - where the man in the street probably hardly know what these medical abbreviations stand for (and personally I would probably make typos trying to write it out ..), though they know what these techniques do. I see that the medical articles tend to write out the whole all the time, so I guess that I would go for the written out term 'nuclear magnetic resonance' in the article titles and introduction (and immediately introducing the abbreviation NMR as well as after the first wikilink to nuclear magnetic resonance ('Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)'), followed by NMR in the remainder of the text. That would then also go in line with MS, E.A. and IR (both for consistency throughout our articles on experimental techniques which are not as strictly pronounced as for NMR) .. For all article titles, the appropriate abbreviated articles need to exist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • NMR first I think a lot of students (High school) wouldnt recognize nuclear magnetic resonance, second in science articles (also titles) its normally just NMR, and third, Im not sure I would recognize that the article paramagnetic nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy was about NMR (all the references in the article use NMR - the article has been moved recently). Christian75 (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • NMR but identify the acronym sometime, somewhere in the article. When I graduated with an undergraduate degree in in Chemistry in 1980, we did not use the acronym...but time changes things. Pretty soon no one will even know what the acronym stands for. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  22:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • NRMIt agrees with the manual of style, and is a lot simpler than having to type it out all the time. It should probably say what NRM means somewhere in the article. Rider ranger47 Talk 00:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am humble to suggest that full version "Nuclear magnetic resonance" is the one that should be used anywhere and everywhere. My argument is that WP is not to make the things simple for the convenience of people, WP is just an encyclopedia to present the things as they are for all sort of people (expert/non expert) who search the encyclopedia. I agree that most of us, discussing here know well in advance what NMR means in science, but a non-expert would have difficulty to guess. In my view, He should be presented with an info that is precise, full and authentic. I just give an example, have you ever see the prescription slips of the doctors? They dont write the name of medicines in full, and sometime used just some symbols that only a chemist can understand. In due course, their entire community became familiar with those codes, symbols and acronyms etc. For them, it is a routine and probably "Easy" to write the things that way. Just imagine if there is an article on wiki titled "MS Adv++" what one will guess from this? But doctors know that it may either be Multiple Sclerosis in ++ stage, or Marphans Syndrome with ++ abnormalities and so on. A doctor is much happier with this acronym but the same doctor may not even know the meaning of NMR, which is a common term for a researcher/scientist. Thus, I suggest that let it be authentic name and not the one that has become popular in due course or has become known to the researchers in dues course; we have to be friendly with all sort of readers. yes, a seperate explaination page can be created where all possible meaning of NMR (in use at present in various areas) could be placed and let the user (who is only aware of some NMR and not its full version) distribute from there to appropriate article as per his need. And yes, after the first use of full version in title, and in lead, the short version can be introduced, when it appears first in text - that may continue for rest of the article. Educationtemple (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Spell it out - acronyms are best reserved for things known primarily by the acronym. The bar for this is set quite high, as is the case for DNA, Nato, Laser etc etc. As for related article titles, there should be a case by case discussion to weight out consistency with other considerations in regards to article title. Mbcap (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Chemical classes and functional groups[edit]

Do we have to split articles to avoid confusion between chemical class and functional group ? For example peroxy acid is about the group -OOH or about the family of all peroxy acids ? Sometimes we are doing the difference like in Alcohol and Hydroxyl, sometimes not. Please look at the page Functional_group (see tables) to see that there is a difference but this difference is not applied in the article structure. Can we define a general trend in order to clear this confusion ?Snipre (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a similar issue to sulfate the ion or the compound sulfates. Here there is one article with poor coverage of sulfates. There is a great deal of overlap between functional group and class of coupounds with that functional group. Though if there were two separate articles, the emphasis could differ one on the properties, and one on the diversity of compounds.
If the article is small eg peroxy acid then there is no reason to split. But peroxy acids could talk about the compound class and peroxy acid the group. I have only been making combined articles so far: eg Pentanitratoaluminate, Monofluorophosphate, Tetrafluoroberyllate and Borinic acid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for the comment. Just one question more: how do you think can we name each kind of article. Something like "peroxy acid" for article about the class and "peroxy acid group" for the functional group ?
I was suggesting adding an "s" for the class and no s for the group or ion. It could be confusing though, but so could my suggestion. The word group could mean the functional group, or it could means class of substances. We certainly need to have the main article at the basic name, such as peroxy acid. But what should be the main topic be? Other ideas are peroxy acid functional group or peroxy acid moiety. For some we may need to include the terms "ion" or "radical". For the groups there could be variations though. Could you imagine ether being called ether group? For classes of compounds they may also be called a derivative. Examples where they already differ are seen in the functional group article such as Amide versus Carboxamide, or Thione versus Carbonothioyl — but there seem to be very few. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[edit]

A number of IPs have been adding links to to chemistry articles:

...and maybe others. Is there consensus that this is a useful link? The fact that the editor adds two links and then switches IPs suggests they believe they are doing something wrong and want to avoid detection. ChemNerd (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that Materialscientist has now reverted all these additions, so perhaps the question is moot now unless the user returns. ChemNerd (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The linked pages seem to be come kind of information aggregation, surprisingly free from advertisements like other similar pages around. But not adding any more than we would expect from our infobox content. Perhaps the person doing this is Loïc d'Anterroches the software writing consultant behind Céondo. If he does not have enough to do perhaps we ask him to do something useful on Wikipedia in this project. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and Edgar181 too. I see no reason why linking to instead of the few databases they copy (like NIST Webbook). Besides, we can not guarantee that will remain accurate, stable and spam free - they come from, which states on their front page: "Céondo, custom scientific software development and services for the oil & gas, chemical, pharmaceutical and crop science industries. Since 2007, we are really good at converting your models into easy to use software." Materialscientist (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@ChemNerd: The fact that the editor switches IPs suggests to me nothing more than that they are on a connection with a Dynamic IP address. Please assume good fiath. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I was the author of the links and I am author of Cheméo. I added something like 10 links in total, nothing more, always trying to add a link when it brings something. With respect to the difference with the infobox content, as a chemical engineer, you really need all the values with uncertainties when doing regressions, this is why it brings something to the users (also the data are available as Excel file, which is quite nice). My question, and this is a genuine question, can Wikipedia become a place where the kind of data we need as chemical engineer is available (and I would be glad to setup export options from Cheméo to a Wikipedia compatible format) or should we say, no, this is not the place and we even consider a link from Wikipedia to a website like Cheméo equivalent to spamming? If you consider it as spam, I can take the referrer logs of Cheméo to find all the links and remove them. I have no problems with it, I enjoy the quality of Wikipedia every single day, so I will never do something considered unwelcome by the community, but again, I would be glad to contribute! (Note, I created the ChemMeyer account right now, the change of IP addresses in the edit were just because I have a simple DSL connection, I did not try to avoid dectection) ChemMeyer (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia (as I just welcomed you on your talkpage as well). I should first point you to m:Terms of use and the local conflict of interest guideline. It is not always necessary about what is linked to, it may be more about how the links are added (technically you were in violation of Wikimedia's Terms of use) - that is the behaviour that is frowned upon within Wikipedia (and often leads to reversion of edits until discussed). That being said, I am glad that you are here and discussing - lets find out whether there is merit to Wikipedia to have these links. If we agree that these links sufficiently add something to Wikipedia's content and are a good database to link to, then these links could be added (or even through an identifier linked from the ChemBox template). Also, if certain data is really of encyclopedic interest, maybe the data itself could/should be added, and not just a link to the data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps ChemMeyer you can look at the chembox parameters that we have on each article and fill in the missing data, with referencing to reliable sources for that data. If there are fields in the chembox missing for certain classes of data then let us discuss it here or at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox. You could propose some extra quality standards in addition to the little green ticks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
First, thank you for the very positive tone, even after my by break of the Terms of use. My "problem" so to speak with the chembox is that it is missing the uncertainty on the values. For example, just take the if you look at the critical pressure, you cannot really "put" a value on it, as we have a lot of different measurements, each with a given uncertainty, here from 24.7 to 24.9712 kPa for the measurements. So, you can put a range (this is the case for the standard enthalphy of combustion on Octane) but you lose a lot of information. Is the range the upper/lower bounds of an average with +/- 1 or 2 std deviation? Is the range the "raw" range of the measurements? Is the upper value the upper measurement + the uncertainty or just the upper measurement? So, maybe I should write a document on "how to select/calculate" the "best value" for a compound property based on measurements and discuss it with you at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox. But as every single scientist has a different idea on the subject, chemeo is there to just provide the raw data in an easy to ingest way. The "traditional" use of the data is to use all the data in the regressions with a weighted regression using the uncertainty of each data point to weight the value. I hope this comment helps you understanding my background and why the work on Cheméo (I suffered not having this kind of data during my PhD) ChemMeyer (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I like the option to list all C
: [1]. A category in wiki? ChemMeyer, since your data sheets are more elaborate and complete in their topic, what do you mean by "I enjoy the quality of Wikipedia every single day"? -DePiep (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I enjoy the quality of Wikipedia on many subjects (I often put "wikipedia" in my Google search when looking for something), this is why I do not want to do something which could affect badly the community behind it and if I can contribute positively, I will do it. ChemMeyer (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I intended to ask an open question, not checking your faith ;-). IMO the quality of the chemeo data sheet is higher than {{Chembox}} (especially in certain aspects), so I was looking what you learned from wiki. Consider answered. -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The chembox is also providing a lot of contextual information not available on cheméo. If you want the odor of substance, etc. Wikipedia has it. So, for some domains, the chembox is definitely better. I am a process/chemical engineer too, so it means that all the medical properties are a bit excluded from the data I collect as I cannot assess their quality. ChemMeyer (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Try enter C6H6O2 into the search box (or press here: C6H6O2) Christian75 (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice Category:Molecular formula set index pages. Sets are up to date? Link from chembox? -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories for molecules[edit]

The above discussion raises an interesting point. If we use categories like Category:C10 molecules, Category:H14 molecules, etc., then it should be possible to query category intersections to find all C10H14... molecule articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Query category intersections" is a years-old feature request. There are third-party or wmlabs tools that do it (WP:CATSCAN for example). DMacks (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
While category crossing is core of the wikipedia cat principle, such querying is slow, cumbersome programming and not available for readers (compare: search box). Is why we are still using categfories like "American scientist" (which, in this, should be split).
wrt this specific idea, to name category like :Category:H14 molecules, the naming in itself is not meaningful. So it would be a more theoretical tree (while logically sound). Using existing set lists such as article page C6H6O2 is one other route (takes more manual maintenance); and before knowing about these setlists I had thought of :Category:C6H6O2. -DePiep (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Paper: Wikipedia Chemical Structure Explorer[edit]

I've just been made aware of:

Wikipedia Chemical Structure Explorer: substructure and similarity searching of molecules from Wikipedia
Peter Ertl, Luc Patiny, Thomas Sander, Christian Rufener and Michaël Zasso
Journal of Cheminformatics 2015, 7:10

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

[2]. Wow. -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The website is here. User:Mzasso was apparently involved in the development of this tool. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I am 'visiting' WP:CHEM ~one year by now, mostly editing templates. I am not a chemicalitycist. I am surprised that: 1. chemistry is so well organised and well working on the web, 2. that there is little development in our {{Chembox}} & {{Drugbox}} data setups. For example, only recently we can split CAS RN's over multiples in one {{Chembox}}. I am working these templates, but rarely I see suggestions for improvements (by flaming requests!). Shouldn't/couldn't enwiki be the #1 spot for 15000 chemicals? Didn't this have one suggestion for improvement? -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I suppose this should motivate us to try to fix errors, merge synomym or alternate spelling pages. Also if people are building tools to use the infoboxes, it means we will cause chaos if we change the structure! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This is great! Nice work, Mzasso et al!
I imagine the pyrrole errors must have originated in some upstream tool used to generate the SMILES strings. Those should be easy to fix.
DePiep, I'm not sure what suggestions you're looking for, but one thing this data suggests is that SMILES strings in wikitext are fragile. The largest source of errors is likely to be just drawing mistakes, but since SMILES strings are text, they're editable just like everything else on the page and therefore subject to copy/paste errors, typos, undetected vandalism, etc. I am new to the whole wikidata thing but that seems like the obvious place to store this kind of data, no?
Any why stop at 15,000? Import everything with a literature annotation from ZINC? ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis, I'm looking for major directions & inspirations for {Chembox}: merge with {Drugbox}?, rebuild in Lua asap?, verify the fields?, re-organise extra links?, connect with wikidata?, etcetera. Last years, development has stalled imo. -DePiep (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
SMILES seems to fail pretty badly for non-classical bonding such as transition-metal complexes. Ferrocene is one of the simplest of these pathological cases. A long-term gripe of mine is using them to generate the JSMol 3D images that are really high quality images of sometimes complete chemical nonsense. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Fails it on Wikipedia or in general? (I have no experience with SMILES). Christian75 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem with Wikidata is that "nobody" sees your edit (I think they are planing to add edits to your watchlist, but not articles), and its very diffucult to figure out where to edit the field in the infobox (no view/edit button). Christian75 (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
AIUI, a fix for the latter issue is in hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Christian75: WRONG. You can see the edits of WD in your watchlist in en:WP. You have to activate the function in your preference under Watchlist (Advanced options "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist"). You can with one clic access to the details of the edit. The only thing missing is the possibility to add comment to wikidata edit. And there is lua code to access to the WD item from infobox: this has just to be added in the code of the chembox. Again this is just a problem of using and appling the existing tools. Some improvements have to be done but the basics are there. Snipre (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The majority of the data that wikidata collects seems to be ID numbers for other databases (i.e. CAS, Chemspider, Pubchem, ENICS etc), the entries for chemicals contain very little of what we as chemists would consider to be the key data (bpt, mpt, solubility etc). --Project Osprey (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that WD is under development and we miss the quantity datatype with unit: you can add numbers but you can't add unit. So all data about physical or biological properties are not yet implemented but they are already planned (see d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Chemistry/Properties). The quantity datatype with unit should be available this year around June-July according to development progress for WD. Snipre (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not use my watchlist to review edits for chemistry/chemical articles but the history of the article and Special:Contributions. I do not think you have to activate it [wikidata in your watchlist] (mine was activated). I tried to change a wikidata image, and added a article which used it (via WikiData) on my watchlist, but it didnt seem to work (but it look like they are working at it phab:T90435). Nice if the infoboxes gets a button to edit the "properties" on wikidata (Do you have a link to the module? I havent seen it used anywere). Christian75 (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I had to check the option to have my watchlist able to follow WD edits. Better to do it. For the direct link in the infobox to the WD item, I can just give you an example: go to the hungary WP, for example hu:Lyon and look at the population data (Teljes népesség in the infobox). You can see a ± symbol after the reference anchor, this is the link to the population property in the WD item for Lyon. Snipre (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, its done with hu:Modul:Wikidata (search for "+/-") Christian75 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC) btw: its only for population it has a +/-. a lot of data in that infobox are from wikidata (the all the images, Ország, INSEE-kód, Irányítószám, Testvérvárosok, time zone (Időzóna), the map and the coordinates. (but it could be fixed by templates) Christian75 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just a lay editor, I don't know how to change templates or add things to wikidata, even chembox validation confuses me (am I supposed to be turning those crosses to ticks somehow?) but even I can see advantages to this. The fact that it shows structures related to what you're searching for should allow us to tighten-up our categories and find orphan compounds, plus mass error checking for SMILES and other parameters. It's got me thinking though; we've got 15,000 compounds and we're trying to organize them via the use of categories or 'see also' sections, chembox data is still largely checked manually, it just seems woefully insufficient. Perhaps we could try and recruit Mzasso? DePiep is probably right, Mzasso is likely to have ideas on how we could better curate our database and I would be interested to hear what they are. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am contributor on WD so I can't be fair but the first step to create a secured database is to have ... a database. Right now data in articles are not correctly monitored because the access to this data is difficult: you have to extract the data from the wikitext and this a mess because data are mixed with formatting code. So by creating a real database you can run automatic tools to check modifications and to compare periodically the content with other databases in order to ensure a correct data set. Snipre (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't fair of me, I know people are trying to fix this. Is the data in the chembox more machine readable as the values are better defined? --Project Osprey (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem of parsing: in chembox you mix number and string for one data. The value and the unit. Each time you have to extract this kind of information from the wikitext and that is dependent on the way people write the data in the infobox. If you have a structured database, you avoid this extraction step and you eliminate the problem of bad formatted data. If you can format all values in chembox according to the same pattern, yes you will have a better machine readable infobox, but this is not possible because not all contributors are familiar with editing rules. Snipre (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Snipre, this I do not get. For two years already. What on earth can enwiki editors (including template& Lua editors like me) do to improve this WD-support for chemicals? One never reads such a task/request. (is there a bot that already scraped CAS RN and PubChem id's from our 15k templated chem articles?) -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
DePiep If you want to know how you can help look at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Chemistry/ChemID. Right now we use Q number (WD identifiers) to connect articles between different WP but who checks that the links were build with the good articles ? Snipre (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
re Snipre Shouldn't that 'who checks'-question be answered five years ago when wikidata was designed?
You write about "The value and the unit". I note that, by SI definition, the wording is: "value = number × unit", eg "length = 5 m". It is algebraic (it's SI-legal to write: "value / unit = number"). I hope WD wants to use this right from the start. (To solve: "value" in database is not "value" in SI; it's more like data vs datatype I guess). mistake -DePiep (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
DePiep That is the choice of each WP to use WD or not for linking articles and as each WP is free to decide how to split articles according to subjects, this is their task to select the corresponding articles in others languages. WD is a tool and can't decide if an article about a stereoisomer can be linked to another article about the racemic. Each WP can have its own rules, the question is just to know if they are inside each WP rules or recommendations to treat that question.
For the question of value I think you find yourself the answer. But please consider that a value can be something different than a number and a unit. WD manages strings, numbers, URL,... So SI definitions can't be applied straightforward. Snipre (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that the Database Universum should change the word "value" (meaning something like: a single field input). I do state that you should not change the SI-wording that is "value = number × unit" when discussing that datatype (then again, writing: "the datatype for measurement is structured value × unit" does not solve it does it). It's up to WD people to find a solution. mistake. -DePiep (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. SI base unit uses this wording: quantity = number × unit (as in: length = 5 m). No ambiguous meaning in here. The wikidata datatype could be quantity then? Note 1: outside of SI anything can happen, eg pounds and long tons. Note 2: in SI parlance, the word "value" is used this way: "The value of a quantity is generally expressed as the product of a number and a unit".Brochure, Chapter 1. That nicely would be the content of that data field, right? I apologise for this misleading mistake. @Snipre:. -DePiep (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A short discussion with Andy Mabbett invited me to add the wikidata reference to the compounds on Once the link wikidata <-> chemeo id is there, I can easily provide a way to generate a read to "paste" data page with the data I have collected. I could also create a small crawler doing a check between the information I have and the info in the chembox to help spot the errors. ChemMeyer (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@ChemMeyer: Or you can export your data in WD. Please have a look at d:Help:Sources to have an idea about the structure of source data. This will ensure a future automatic way to generate references in the WP articles. Currently data with units can't be added. The quantity datatype with unit will be implemented in the next months but not definitive date is given (see this). Snipre (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ideally Wikipedia should have a chemical registration system based on a unique identifier that would prevent unintentional content forks. Canonical SMILES works pretty well for organics but apparently not so well for transition-metal complexes. InChI may be an alternative. All other chemical identifiers (e.g., CAS Registry Number, PubChem ID, chemeo id. etc.) should be linked to the structure as defined by the Canonical SMILES or InChI. Sanity checks between the SMILES/InChI and external IDs could be run by bots. (User:BogBot did a limited amount of this type of checking on {{Infobox drug}} here). Boghog (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@DMacks: Is the SMILES problem with transition-metal complexes inherent to SMILES or the software that was used to generate the SMILES? Obviously the later can be fixed whereas the former cannot. Boghog (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I tried feeding ferrocene to molconvert and didn't get anything usable, so it's not just JSMol. I imagine the problem is these tools are failing at figuring out the coordination geometry, which the SMILES string alone doesn't say much about. I agree there should be one canonical unique identifier used to key the rest of the data, but is the best way to sanity-check data here, or to (eventually) move it to wikidata and use that to populate the local infoboxes? Seems like the data is that way less susceptible to text degradation, and would need less frequent bot-validation. Either way, DePiep - seems like verification is first priority, wikidata migration when possible (I mentioned I was new to the whole idea, I would never have thought units would be a limitation!). Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The SMILES is limited, it was developed for organic chemistry considering only the connectivity between atoms and with the time "patched" to express better the complexity of the molecules. It is very good to find all the nearly identical molecules and in nearly all the cases you have a unique "canonical" SMILES for the molecule. But you have too many conflicts to use it as unique identifier. The InChI key in format: TVMXDCGIABBOFY-UHFFFAOYSA-N is a special hash and can conflict too. The full InChI is what is at the moment considered the best unique identifier derived from the molecular structure. Usually as a database curator, you try to use all the identifiers you have about a molecule and use heuristics to merge the records in your database. This is of course error prone. (Side note, yes I will try to push data into Wikidata once the units etc. are there) ChemMeyer (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

As coauthors of this paper Michael Zasso and me (Lpatiny) have thanks to this tool corrected many mistakes in SMILES that were present in wikipedia. Our idea behind this tool is to increase the search possibilities of wikipedia and we have therefore make everything open source under a BSD license and a system allowing a nightly automatic updates (with update of the github repository). Up to know wikipedia queries capabilities are relatively limited and here we can provide a new way to search for chemicals. One of the original idea is that the substructure search engine is in the client browser and not on the server ! This means that you don't actually need any intelligence on the server and it allows to make interactive substructure search that was not available on the internet up to know (even offline !). We invested a lot of effort to create this tool and we are wondering if you could consider changing the chembox / drugbox to add a search capability directly in the box (small magnifier) that would point to our website or any other website that could fork our project. Lpatiny (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lpatiny: A small question: why do you use WP and not PubChem which offers you the possibility to perform research on a more larger dataset ? Then why do you restrict to only one WP like en:WP and not working with de:WP or with a merged set of these two WPs ? Snipre (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
1) I think a link to this tool allowing search by structure would be really useful for readers (who are, by hypothesis, already on WP and not on PubChem).
2) Have you considered doing something like clustering the WP entries, comparing to pubchem, and reporting back which areas of chemical space are underrepresented on WP? Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis I am working on something similar using data from en, de and fr:WP. I create an unique list using WD ID in order to compare data from the 3 WPs. Results are there and first analysis there. Snipre (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, will take a look! Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: We are thinking that wikipedia could somehow replace the merck index. Just some important molecules that are well described. This is the kind of "small" set of interesting molecules for which we can provide on the fly structure browsing. This would not be possible with PubChem (we would not be able to load all the structures in the browser !). Lpatiny (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: If would indeed be a good idea to give a list of products that are described in wikipedia but either don't have a chembox / drugbox. This could be done by searching the huge list of names present in PubChem to check if there is missing information. We never tried to do this. However for all the products that have a drugbox / chembox but no SMILES we have a report on the error page that is called "not found". Just go on and click on "Browse errors" to get the list. Lpatiny (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lpatiny: Have you considered including other language versions of Wikipedia, e.g. de.wikipedia or fr.wikipedia? The former does not have the SMILES code in the chembox, but assigning would be possible via Wikidata or the PubChem ID. --Leyo 19:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Leyo: We didn't think about it before but received a lot of requests for it (fr and de). We are considering hiring an internship here in Lausanne (Switzerland) to reconsider the system, use Wikidata and have it is all available languages as well as providing more searching possibilities. If anybody is interested in this project please contact me. We have some interesting demonstration of our system on and there are a lot of functionalities we would like to add using the wikipedia data Lpatiny (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

New article at AfC[edit]

Greetings. We have an article over at AfC, which appears to be copacetic, but I am definitely not a chemistry person. Could someone from this project take a look at either ping me, or respond here? Here's the link to the article. Much appreciated. Onel5969 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: This looks like homework. There's been a rash of that lately in bio/chem articles and the username is consistent with the other ones I've seen. The structure and reactions sections look okay on a quick skim; the applications section presents a lot of proposed/prototyped applications, but the TOC heading and text tend to give the impression that they're in active use. These are statements about research, not in the core of the WP:MEDRS scope, but some of the medical-flavored claims still need a lot of toning down, especially the adenosine section. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a legitimate compound already mentioned at Boranes and Caesium dodecaborate. That said the article could do with a lot of thinning-out; the compound is more-or-less just of theoretical interest and doesn't have any real world applications yet. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Opabinia regalis and Project Osprey - Based on your comments, I'm going to decline the article, stating that it's not written in an encyclopedic tone. Then, unless you object, I am going to share some of the things you've said (without naming you), to give the editor some direction. Onel5969 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I think that you are too late, despite the pre-existing solid articles cited by Osprey. This kind mediocrity makes Wikipedia look silly and means more work for others. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems you are right, Smokefoot - Different editors have different ways of seeing things. I had hoped to be a little more pro-active about this article (like I try to be regarding math articles), and ask for help from the project, but Graeme Bartlett, who is a very good editor, saw it otherwise. Anyway, thank you all for taking the time to respond. Onel5969 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about causing chaos here. I moved it to dodecaborate. It was just about the oldest unreviewed AFC page. My findings are that the article is a bit of a blend of information different substances, including a borane that does not seem to have been made, two kinds of ion, one exotic, and one quite real, and a carborane. The carborane writings might be able to go in a different article. We did have a need for an article on dodecaborate rather than just a redirect. We can continue with the idea to merge with Caesium dodecaborate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing Molecular formula to Chemical formula in chembox[edit]

I suggest changing "Molecular formula" to "Chemical formula" in {{Chembox Formula}} (the chembox), it is used for salts too - like Sodium chloride. Right now, its a piped redirect to chemical formula e.g. [[Chemical formula|Molecular formula]] which I propose should be changed to [[Chemical formula]]. There is one objection aginst this change, please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox#Changing_Molecular_formula_to_Chemical_formula Christian75 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hybrid vapour phase epitaxy[edit]

If anyone could help with this article, I'd be grateful. It's been tagged for notability, and many other issues, for 7 years. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Oxygen compounds, Template:Nitrogen compounds and others[edit]

Due to the arbitrary selection (and necessary incomplete listing) such navigation templates are completely useless IMO. Or is there a project guideline that supports them? --Leyo 08:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt their usefulness in articles. First of all, Category:Nitrogen compounds should cover this. OTOH, why not add this template to that category (and rm from articles)? It shows alternative identifiers (by formula), and has redlinks for those who are searching. Complementary to the category list, I'd say.-DePiep (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Because of incompleteness it would be better to just link to families, eg there is already a template:nitrates, perhaps we could have templates for nitrides, and amines and amides. And then there are all the biomolecules with oxygen and nitrogen we can't expect to navigate. There is already a Template:Oxides, and some like Template:Oxides of carbon, but really you can't expect to link to all the oxygen compounds in a navigation box. The closest we could do would be just to link to the family members in a nav template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It has been TfD in 2011 Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_16#Template:Rubidium_compounds (no consensus) - personally I found them usefull because its easy to navigate between related simple compounds of an element (which isnt possible with categories) - but some of these templates need some cleanup. An inclusion criteria could be that they are described in elementary chemistry books. Some of the templates are more organized, like Template:Molybdenum_compounds, and Template:Ruthenium_compounds. Christian75 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Your examples are actually useful because Wikipedia does not have so many articles on these element compounds, but the oxygena dn itrogen templates are still quite new, and have too many candidates to cover properly. So where there is a reasonable representation of what you might want to navigate to, then this is useful. But I don't think reproducing oxides in an oxygen compound template adds anything useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Astatine FAC[edit]

Hi! The article astatine has been at FAC for quite some time now, and the process could really use some more input. If you could take some time to come in, please give it a look. Unfortunately, the daughter WP:ELEMENTS is very small and can't really organize a high number of editors who could come in. Any effort, positive or negative, would be much appreciated, and, if you wish, a favor in return is on me.--R8R (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Haber Process[edit]

An editor with strong views on political and technical history has overhauled large portions of Haber Process. IMHO, these edits are soap-boxy, so it would be good if others helped out. I tried to slow down the process but was quickly dismissed, indicating at an article ownership issue. Ideally, we would revert all and then the proposed changes would be discussed on the Talk page so that we can achieve consensus. The article is heavily consulted, being viewed 22,000 times last month alone.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The additions are more than a little preachy (and wordy). There is some interesting history that could be added though, the Treaty of Versailles compelled BASF to license the Haber process to the French and the British managed to get them to sub-license it to ICI, so it was something of big deal politically. A lot of the other information could be cleaned up and moved over to Haber's page --Project Osprey (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


Do the text and structures in pyrazolone actually describe dihydropyrazolones (or pyrazolinones)? See PubChem 11513733 for pyrazol-3-one. ChemNerd (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you need to get a card-carrying organic chemist for that info, i.e. Edgar. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm no Edgar, but I do have access to chemical databases. Scifinder resolves 3-pyrazolone and 1,2-dihydro-pyrazol-3-one to the same structure. It would seem that pyrazolone is used as a common name and 1,2-dihydropyrazolone is the IUPAC name; the Hantzsch–Widman nomenclature can become really confusing once you start substituting things so this might just be an historic cock-up. In any event searches using the IUPAC name get better results, which does make sense. Scifinder resolves pyrazolinone as the ring saturated compound (so the ketone of pyrazolidine, CASNo 27274-34-6), it's very rare in the literature and if you drop that CASNo into pubchem you get a different structure PubChem 351317 so there may be some confusion regarding that. Best I can do I'm afraid --Project Osprey (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Project Osprey. "Pyrazolone" is a chemical name that is used ambiguously. The structures described in pyrazolone are technically better named as dihydropyrazolones, but the term "pyrazolone" is commonly used for the related compounds with any degree of saturation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Heterogeneous Catalytic Reactors[edit]

Dear chemistry experts: One more old AfC draft to consider before it is deleted. Is this a notable topic? Should it be improved, or let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say let it go. It's a subset of reactor design...viable topics would be the parent idea of reactor design and the child ideas of each individual reactor design. The sole claim of notability for this specific subset ("one of the most commonly utilized reactors in the chemical engineering industry") seems pretty weak: yhe only other possible types seem like they would be "homogeneous" or "non-catalytic", and those are also very popular. We do have articles about at least some of the specific types and some of the specific reactions mentioned (with cites), and they do not completely agree with the article here (what type of reactor is used in a certain context, what the flow characteristics are). DMacks (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, DMacks. I have deleted it under db-g13. It can always be refunded if someone in the future decides that the topic has become notable, or wants to make a redirect out of it.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Which editor posted that serious question I'd like to reply to? Was it at Chemistry, Chemicals, Chembox, Drugbox, Chem infobox, xxx? -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[edit]

We currently have a bunch of links to (see [3]). I think this website is just hosting content stolen from elsewhere such as Merck Index. Can anyone who has access to Merck Index please check? If the website is hosting copyrighted material, since Wikipedia:Copyrights says, "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work", we should either retarget the links to the original source or remove the links. ChemNerd (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Flame retardant#California's fire safety laws[edit]

Sandcherry moved parts of the Chemtura article to Flame retardant#California's fire safety laws. The text does not seem to always be neutral. I am thinking of phrases such as Blum appears to be unable to accommodate the views of other scientists and fire-safety experts. I would appreciate if a native English speaker could go through the text. --Leyo 00:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That section is pretty awful. Just deleting the whole section would be my recommendation. The style furthers the tradition of Wikipedia being a forum for a lot "hippie science." --Smokefoot (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree on deleting the whole section. The topic is of high importance. --Leyo 14:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Drafts about chemistry[edit]

Hello, chemists. While browsing in Draft space I came across these, in case anyone is interested:

Anne Delong (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
Draft:Division of Organic Chemistry of the American Chemical Society - I don't think it is notable on its own, but content could be merged into American Chemical Society.
Draft:Total synthesis of Mesembrine has already been merged into Mesembrine.
Draft:1P-LSD is a copy of the article that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1-propionyl-lysergic acid. It would qualify for WP:CSD#G4 if moved to article space in its current state.
Draft:1,2-addition of allylmetal compounds to carbonyl groups could be merged into Allyl#Allylation, or split out into a separate article at Allylation (currently a redirect).
-- Ed (Edgar181) 20:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

suggested COI edits at Dow Corning[edit]

Hi, I've proposed some additions to Dow Corning on the article's Talk page, here. I'm not editing directly because I have a COI (I work for a communications firm that represents Dow Corning), but if anyone here is interested in taking a look and providing feedback, I'd be really grateful. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)