Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

The discussion here concerns all parts of the Chemicals WikiProject, including the infoboxes, lists, standards, includes/excludes, tools, contributors, etc etc etc. Feel free to add your comments to any section here, or start a new topic. Topics not specifically related to the Chemicals WikiProject would be better served at other wikipages.

Actual wikiproject info: statistics and alerts

WPChem worklist pages by quality Quality Total pages A 14 B 194 Start 164 Stub 13 Assessed 385 Unassessed 4 Total 389

The worklist shows the actual work to be done to achieve the goals of the Chemicals wikiproject. The choice of important compounds articles to work on has been finalized in an earlier stage of the wikiproject (around mid 2005), and no further articles are added, although we remain open for strong suggestions on this talkpage. The work these days focuses on improving the articles, from Chem Stub all the way to Chem A-Class articles. The table below shows that progress.

Worklist historical status
	2005		2006		2007		2008		2009
Grade	Jun	Oct	May	Oct	Mar	Oct	Feb	Aug	Apr	Dec
A-Class	29	26	32	32	33	25	25	23	18	18
B-Class	71	84	101	130	148	156	158	180	185	188
Start	112	131	199	190	174	174	180	153	160	161
Stub	97	130	46	29	27	27	19	26	19	18
unclassified	76	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total	385	371	378	381	382	382	382	382	382	382
percentage ≥Chem Start	55.1	65.0	87.8	92.3	92.9	92.9	95.0	94.0	95.0	95.3
weighted progress, %	42.2	50.4	57.8	60.8	62.2	61.7	62.4	63.1	63.2	63.9

The percentage ≥ Chem Start was indicative of the initial effort. Now that we are progressing to more advanced progress, the weighted progress indicator is used, calculated as (Unclass*0 + Stub*1 + Start*2 + B-Class*3 + A-Class*4) / (Articles*4).

Chemicals articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total A 3 5 7 1 16 B 27 134 224 65 450 Start 3 139 844 749 33 1,768 Stub 35 617 3,186 118 3,956 NA 264 264 Assessed 33 313 1,692 4,001 264 151 6,454 Unassessed 1 4 10 20 2,772 2,807 Total 33 314 1,696 4,011 284 2,923 9,261

Featured articles: 9 Featured lists: 0 Good articles: 11

For the statistics for all chemicals, as registered by the bot, also see complete list

List of vegetable fats

→ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#List of vegetable fats.

Chembox field

I propose that the MeltingPt and BoilingPt fields be altered — that the "−" exchanged for the "–" in cases where a range is displayed. An example: "− # –−%" instead of "− # −−%". Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please give an example article. --Leyo 09:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethane. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

MOS:ENDASH instructs us not to do "− # –−%". Their proposed solution is not good for infoboxes IMO, so we're left with "− # −−%" being not ideal but also not contrary to current site consensus. We'd need a strong chemistry-specific reason (as distinct from other fields) to do that. Otherwise, I think we should follow the formatting used by {{convert}}, since that's standardized across many subjects' articles, for example, -40 – -50 K (-313–-323 °C). DMacks (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur with DMacks. Not an ideal solution, but the best for the moment to comport with the standards of the broader Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oxford University MSDS

are no more available, see http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/index2.html. Looks like a lot of work to do... Nice weekend, --FK1954 (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Neon compounds

Template:Neon compounds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

NPP Article Alcohol and cortisol

• I was patrolling the new pages section and found the article, Alcohol and cortisol. I believe it would be better if it was merged either with Ethanol or Cortisol. Please provide your input. Gsingh (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

articles with "and" in the name are almost always wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.24.148 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

DAT allosteric modulator chemical images request

I've added a section to the "dopaminergic" template; a new section, but I require someone to help me by making the individual articles linked. A good start would be the re-drawing of free-license versions of these compounds/molecules and uploading them: “Agonist” and “Antagonist” Allosteric Modulators of Amphetamine-Induced Dopamine Release. I have recently re-located and do not have access to my chem-draw software, but this would be an important addition to the dopaminergic articles here in Wikipedia's contribution to molecular biology Nagelfar (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

How are these? -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• 

  SoRI-2827

• 

  SoRI-9804

• 

  SoRI-20040

• 

  SoRI-20041

Many thanks, user Meodipt seems to have helped by getting on the issue for me as well. Nagelfar (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox for psilocybin

Psilocybin was recently promoted to a FA. Right now it has a red X by the CAS number. Could someone make it a green check mark instead? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Organic table information" & "Inorganic table information" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Organic table information & Inorganic table information. Since you had some involvement with the Organic table information Inorganic table information redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Element compounds templates

This might be useful:

Index to the <element compounds> templates

1 H

2 He

3 Li

4 Be

5 B

6 C

7 N

8 O

9 F

10 Ne

11 Na

12 Mg

13 Al

14 Si

15 P

16 S

17 Cl

18 Ar

19 K

20 Ca

21 Sc

22 Ti

23 V

24 Cr

25 Mn

26 Fe

27 Co

28 Ni

29 Cu

30 Zn

31 Ga

32 Ge

33 As

34 Se

35 Br

36 Kr

37 Rb

38 Sr

39 Y

40 Zr

41 Nb

42 Mo

43 Tc

44 Ru

45 Rh

46 Pd

47 Ag

48 Cd

49 In

50 Sn

51 Sb

52 Te

53 I

54 Xe

55 Cs

56 Ba

*

72 Hf

73 Ta

74 W

75 Re

76 Os

77 Ir

78 Pt

79 Au

80 Hg

81 Tl

82 Pb

83 Bi

84 Po

85 At

86 Rn

87 Fr

88 Ra

**

104 Rf

105 Db

106 Sg

107 Bh

108 Hs

109 Mt

110 Ds

111 Rg

112 Cn

113 Uut

114 Uuq

115 Uup

116 Uuh

117 Uus

118 Uuo

*

57 La

58 Ce

59 Pr

60 Nd

61 Pm

62 Sm

63 Eu

64 Gd

65 Tb

66 Dy

67 Ho

68 Er

69 Tm

70 Yb

71 Lu

**

89 Ac

90 Th

91 Pa

92 U

93 Np

94 Pu

95 Am

96 Cm

97 Bk

98 Cf

99 Es

100 Fm

101 Md

102 No

103 Lr

Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Chemical data pages

Looking around for info about drugs for an article I'm writing, I've noticed that we have a lot of articles along the lines of Chemical X (data page). There are 171 pages in Category:Chemical data pages, most of which are separate articles. Personally, I think these don't belong as separate articles. Would anyone object if these were moved to a subpage of the chemical's article's talk page, so Morphine (data page) would be moved to Talk:Morphine/Data page? Given that this involves ~170 pages, I thought I'd bring it here for a discussion about this instead of being bold. Quasihuman | Talk 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

these are linked from the info boxes of the parent articles, and are article quality information, so should not be in talk space. So I am objecting. Presumably they would make the parent article too big and boring. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see how these pages meet our notability guidelines (and I don't see why they should be excused from meeting them, being in article space and all). Is it in an encyclopedia's remit to publish data sheets separate from the article on the chemical? My main rationale for arguing that they should moved to a talk subpage was that they might be useful for further development of the parent articles, but useful is not a good rationale for keeping something as a separate article. As a compromise, how about merging the data into a collapsible box somewhere in the parent article, this would reduce the "big and boring" impact on the readability of the article. On the other hand, it might make some articles too big in terms of kb to be loaded comfortably on some devices. Any thoughts on that? Quasihuman | Talk 13:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts - yes, better spend this time on improving main articles :-). This "problem" has dozens of solutions and arguments, pro et contra. Materialscientist (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

looking for info on writing up new chem articles

I am finding myself starting a lot of stubs on new chemicals or classes of chemicals (well notable, too). They will always be low view, but are binary compounds and additive to the pedia. I guess maybe DYKing them could be a good objective. That or just stubbing, not sure. DYK has gotten so hard and scary. That said, it pushes me to do more than a cat, a ref, and a sentence.

I guess just looking to get any insights on how to be more efficient.

• templates and stuff
• approved sources, frowned on sources
• how to search other languages (is there a language that tends to have strong chemicals stuff)?
• anything else

Will skim the info here. I guess for now, just plan to do cut and paste ffrom existing article (into sandbox), modify to make new one, method of article generation. Just looking for insights to make this easier, less work.

TCO (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

For other languages Germany was very strong in chemistry before world war II. But you would also find plenty of material in Russian and French for the older work. I am thinking for a DYK, work it up in a sandbox first, and then you can get it into a good state before going live. The important thing in DYK is to reference your material, and if you are writing it you should know where your facts come from. Chemspider seems to be an approved source. I grab whatever sources I can get hold of, but the academic journals are counted as reliable, and business sites trying to sell chemicals that are not manufactured must be getting their information from somewhere else. One template you should learn about is the Template:Chemicals for the talk pages. You may also want to make up templates for binary fluorides or other groups you are working on. My opinion is once it is in article space edit it there as working in a sandbox risks parallel updates, which should then be merged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Try searching the German Wikipedia. They might have the equivalent article, and you can translate it as a starting point. You can let us here know of the new articles, and usually those who can will help expand them. Chemspider is good, but do be careful about their "names" list. Journal references are always nice, but if they are in textbooks that's even better since textbooks put them into context whereas journal articles may not do so. Since you are talking about binary compounds, Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 0080379419.  is a nice place to start. Inorg. Synth. may tell you how to make them, which is always desirable for a compound. If economically significant, Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2005  might discuss the industrial route. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to identify:

• key compounds we are missing.
• articles lacking a textbook-reference book like reference or two.

The austerity of many so-called stubs makes them approachable and appealing to professionals and students, so I don't buy the negative connotation of "stub". IMHO, many longer articles lack perspective and some become blog-like. Areas of greater need, again in my opinion, are not compounds, but chemistry themes, like classes of compounds, reactions, and descriptions of many everyday materials that people are keen to learn more about (plastics, food additives, cosmetics). In the latter area are some tough ones where the safety/environmental content has grown disproportionately, e.g., bisphenol A. Good luck,--Smokefoot (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that chem stubs are nice, much nicer than normal stubs, and quite accessible. I figured it was the template and sourcing and all. I just want to be able to create slick stuff like Materialscientist does. Find myself in an article like "Fluorine" generating lots of redlinks for binary compounds that end up becoming stubs. Alternatively, I can just bag it and plop a one liner down as the peeps here seem pretty good about coming in and actually getting it to a decent state (of a stub). ;-) Hmmm.TCO (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

worklist?

I just looked at the worklist and it says it is historical only. Think some of the discussion on this page linking to it should change. Feel free to revert of course.TCO (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)