Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this page or visit the project page for details on the project.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Shortcuts:

Chemicals Discussion[edit]

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[edit]

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).



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

Article alerts
Proposed deletions
Featured article candidates
Good article nominees
Good article reassessments
Peer reviews
Requested moves

Fluorine peer review[edit]

Please review and fix "Fluorine". In particular, I know there are some top notch practicing chemists here. What I want is a check of the science, especially the structural compound review at the end for mistakes in fact or emphasis. Thanks.-TCO

Chemical structure of 102648-38-4[edit]

Has anyone access to the structure with the above CAS number? This seems to be bufagin according to several (commercial) websites. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Chemspider shows the the following there appear to be 9 stereoisomers, several of which have unique names. Project Osprey (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I've already found that entry, but (1) the CAS no. doesn't match, (2) "bufagin" is given only as a non-validated synonym of marinobufagin = marinobufagenin [marCinobufagin seems to be a typo], (3) there are only 32 H's as compared to 34 in http://www.chemicalbook.com/ProdSupplierGNCB71268697_EN.htm. Of course, ChemicalBook could be wrong.
The other stereochemistries are just variants with more or fewer stereocentres, with the exception of 23223509 which has the epoxy in α position. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Data page" subpages[edit]

Is there a reason that this project uses statistics-only subpages in the form subject name (data page)? I noticed this when encountering Trichlorofluoromethane (data page) during new page patrol, and I then saw that there are some 150 similar pages.

Most of these seem to be perfect for inclusion in their main page, neither the main article nor the subpage are too long (e.g. in this case Trichlorofluoromethane wouldn't have a problem with the expansion that this "data page" would produce, the same applies to e.g. Dichlorodifluoromethane (data page) or a revised form of Fucitol (data page)). This would improve the main pages, decrease the number of unnecessary pages (it isn't really user-friendly to spread the info across multiple pages), and better match what other projects do and what the general policies indicate (e.g. WP:NOT opposes pages which consist only of statistics and the like). A page like Fucitol (data page) is really not what a Wikipedia article should look like, and I see no problem that is solved by making these separate page. By the way, Pyrene (data page) has been vandalized (or made more correct, whatever) since March 2009, i.e. 5 years ago: [1]. Fram (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That would mean inclusion in the chembox infobox then? Interestingly, I was thinking to propose to make such data pages for the elements (which don't have the {chembox} at all). -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Moving this info in the mainpage might result in a form of 'table creep' - there is so much info about certain compounds which is informative, verifiable, encyclopedic, but presenting it all on the page itself may flood the page with data (most of it is just that, data) and make it 'unreadable'. Some of the data is 'discussable' (e.g. a melting point, which determines whether it is a liquid or a solid at room temperature (it is an 'observable property'), and that should be in the mainpage), other data is just data (the IR absorption frequencies do not determine a lot of the observable properties (still they do determine some properties - for water it determines why your kitchen microwave does what it does), and hence is put in the data page). The elements have all data moved into a template (making it difficult to edit for new editors, though it does not need to be edited generally either), one could consider here something similar with a collapsed template at the bottom in stead of a separate data page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Collapsible box seems like a good solution. Fram (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The elements have all data moved into a template is irrelevant. The question is the same were the {{infobox element}} present and filled in article page (code). -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The data pages were started years ago by consensus (I can't find the discussion in the archives, but only looked briefly) because some articles had accumulated too much data that was considered trivial. So instead of simply deleting it, and losing the data, it was moved to subpages. Personally, I don't have a preference for subpages vs collapsible boxes. But if the data is going to be moved back to the main articles in collapsible boxes, the {{chembox}} template will have to be modified, I think, because it currently automatically creates links to the data pages through a "Supplementary data page" link. Finally, I deleted Pyrene (data page) because it contained only an empty table. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Pages where the main purpose is to remove trivial info away from another article are generally frowned upon. If the info is trivial, then it shouldn't have its own page, but should be trimmed. You are right that moving this may eventually require a change to the template, although it looks to me as if the link is only shown when a (adatapage) exists, so getting rid of the separate pages doesn't leave redlinks in the template. Fram (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
A foldable footer box seems appropriate. There my be data repetition with the chembox. In the age when the separate data page was decided, I guess page size was more limited. (btw, {chembox} doesn't need change: once the data page is deleted/does not exist, no link is shown e.g., Pyrene). -DePiep (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Know two or three data pages that make a good example to start with? -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
To move back to the main article, in a collapsible box if too long or trivial? The ones I linked to in my opening post perhaps? A page like Caffeine (data page) may be a bit harder, because it seems to duplicate much of the info that is already in the infobox on the main page. Lead(II) nitrate (data page) seems like a quite average, typical "data page". Perhaps the "Material Safety Data Sheet" should not be converted, as it is not our business to make statements like "It is highly recommended that you seek the Material Safety Datasheet (MSDS) for this chemical from a reliable source such as those below, and follow its directions." Fram (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Same footer box should also be available for {{infobox drug}} articles, I think. So that's chembox, elements and drugs. I hope this ambition is no too small. -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
What to include? Well, let's include all data in there. Make it a stand-alone full data sheet. This relieves us from the "how important" discussion per data fact per article. Of course there is a limit, the encyclopedic one, and the low-prose. But not by level of detail. That data sheet can include the whole infobox (chembox, element, drug). Some detailed info then could go out of the infobox. I guess other infoboxed pages (like with {{infobox building}}) have the same issue. -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never worked much with the data pages, though I was aware of their existence. In my view, the chembox in the top-right corner is important, and should carry the pertinent data for the compounds, the important (I know that it is a subjective term) properties - I think we can agree about boiling and melting points, density, refractive index, vapour pressures, commonly used alternative names, links to appropriate similar compounds. Some are 'edgy' - I can see the crystal lattice constants for important crystalline compounds (CaSO4, also found as a mineral, water ('common ice'-variety), but for others that is information that is less generally 'useful' (crystals of ethanol? Anyone outside of specific corner of chemistry would even encounter crystals and have use for the lattice constants?) and then that data should be 'separate'.


Providing structured information has different considerations from presenting information designed for human narrative. WikiPedia should support both. In addition, finding downloadable, structured, information of even the most basic sort is a challenge. Ironically, information which you could download from a FTP site a few years ago (e.g. a CSV table of compound solubility in H2O at various temperatures) is increasingly 'hidden' behind easy to use web sites and (not always so easy to use) web services. If you need to look up the solubility of potassium permanganate at 5°C w/ pH 4.5, there are a few sites you can use, as well as many software applications. Having a complete library of 3d molecular files similarly isn't something everyone needs, as you can get these readily via PubChem, PDB, etc.
  • Now if you wanted to do some custom analysis or development (e.g. If I want to figure out some combination of organic indicator and/or redox reaction w/ a pretty color endpoint to allow semi-quantitative detection of transition elements--and as colorimetric titration end point--in geological samples prepared under field conditions with a high likelihood of having variable amounts of Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Ti and Al in every sample) you have to do a lot of cut-paste, convert-table-to-text, cut-paste, save-as-csv to get it into a reasonable relational database to start and see if a satisfiable combination exists. This is not as much fun as it sounds.
  • While the Merck & CRC Handbook will always have value beyond just holding the top of my scanner down firmly enough to press out wrinkles, it should be possible this day in age to do for general chemistry needs what has been going on in geographic information systems.
  • I am coming at this from the perspective of a clinical bioinformaticist, where I have a glut of downloadable indexed data (but never close to what I need) from PDB, KEGG, DrugBank, etc. etc. If I wanted to make a quick and dirty clinical decision support system that you could feed a list of a person's prior/chronic diagnosis, a few laboratory tests, allergies and current medications and tell you what medication you could prescribe for a new problem you can download tabular sources you could use as part of the solution. While these don't all get replicated on WikiPedia, they have FTP/HTTP download sites link from their respective WikiPedia article.
  • This makes having data pages a very valuable addition to other representations.
  • Having large amounts of use tabular information (e.g. pH of a MeOH/KOH solution at different [KOH], H2O content and temperature) in the body of an article would be detrimental to readability and load speed.
    • Doesn't every chemical compound deserve having, at least, data pages for their solubility (based on solvent, temp and pH) and similar (e.g. pH based on solvent, temp and concentration), as well as other helpful reference information (e.g. spectral data, participation in chemical reactions, thermodynamic values under non-STP conditions, etc.)?

--DrKC MD (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I think it is the best that a 'second' chembox-like template would be constructed, which goes into the bottom part, is page-wide, and is standard collapsed. It should have most of the parameters from the chembox (except maybe for the parameters which will ALWAYS be mentioned in the chembox if known, like boiling point and the common chemical identifiers), and probably also parameters which will never appear in the chembox (IR-absorption-frequencies, NMR-signal positions, multiplicity, and intensity, maybe even images of spectra?). It could have a modular approach like the chembox, but with multiple columns

My suggestion: everything can go into the bottom box, the data in the chembox should either be that which are either common and are related to readily observable properties (melting point & boiling point -> is it a solid, liquid, gas; density - heavier or lighter than water; colour - how does it look like), or are of interest significantly outside of the field of chemistry for that chemical (the example of crystal structure, if the compound is relating to minerals, it links to mineralogists and to the-man-in-the-street with an interest in minerals (hobby)). It might make some of the massive chemboxes a bit smaller if some data was moved, and some data could be compacted (some chemboxes have data for 4 stereoisomers and the racemate, whereas the-man-in-the-street generally only encounters one specific stereoisomer (in the case of medicine or natural products), or only the racemate - move the data for other 4 to the bottom box). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Some additional points. The discussion to put data "above" or "below" is less tough that "in" or "out". It will occur, but less problematic. If the box is to be treated as a stand alone data sheet (I suggest), all info should be there (repeated from chembox). This stand-alone idea would be more practical if one can print it separately. Technically, there is no need for "modular" treatment any more as {chembox} does, Lua can handle hundreds of parameters easily. The problem will be how to document them useful! Remember that we want to merge the chem, drug, and element data into this from day one. That's some two dozen+ sections to merge. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Two articles needing attention[edit]

The following two articles need attention:

--Leyo 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I warned the two new users at Polychlorinated biphenyl and reverted the recent additions to Benzisothiazolinone because they were copyright violations. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the edit warring at Polychlorinated biphenyl is related to ongoing litigation (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Participants_in_litigation_edit_warring) so a few chemists keeping an eye on that article and/or checking its current content would probably be a good idea. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Template up for deletion[edit]

A template used on articles about chemicals, {{Drug-emerging}}, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_10#Template:Drug-emerging. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC).