Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Article alerts

Did you know 20 Aug 2024 – Liebigs Annalen (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Reconrabbit (t · c); see discussion Articles for deletion 06 Aug 2024 – Homogeneity and heterogeneity (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Fgnievinski (t · c) was closed as keep by Liz (t · c) on 13 Aug 2024; see discussion (6 participants) 01 Aug 2024 – Salt extraction process (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Walsh90210 (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 08 Aug 2024; see discussion (4 participants) Templates for discussion 18 Jul 2024 – Template:Infobox atom (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Voorts (t · c) was closed; see discussion 02 Jun 2024 – Template:List of nuclides (4h~1h) (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion 02 Jun 2024 – Template:List of nuclides (24h~4h) (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion 02 Jun 2024 – Template:List of nuclides (10d~1d) (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion 02 Jun 2024 – Template:List of nuclides (1a~10d) (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion 02 Jun 2024 – Template:List of nuclides (1Ma~1a) (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion 02 Jun 2024 – Template:List of nuclides (primordial) (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion 02 Jun 2024 – Template:List of nuclides (stable) (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion Good article nominees 16 Jun 2024 – Yuri Gabel (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by GnocchiFan (t · c); start discussion 02 Jul 2024 – Liebigs Annalen (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Reconrabbit (t · c) was promoted by Kusma (t · c), see discussion Good article reassessments 26 Jun 2024 – Nature (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion Requests for comments 17 Aug 2024 – Toxicology (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Qutlook (t · c); see discussion 23 Jul 2024 – Nonmetal (talk · edit · hist) RfC by Sandbh (t · c) was closed; see discussion Requested moves 01 Aug 2024 – Syn and anti addition (talk · edit · hist) move request to Syn and anti addition and elimination by Jeaucques Quœure (t · c) was no consensus; see discussion 31 Jul 2024 – Oxo-biodegradation (talk · edit · hist) move request to Oxo-degradation by The RedBurn (t · c) was moved to Oxo-degradation (talk · edit · hist) by Polyamorph (t · c) on 08 Aug 2024; see discussion 22 Jul 2024 – Debye–Hückel equation (talk · edit · hist) move request to Debye–Hückel theory by Scrooge Mcduc (t · c) was closed; see discussion 12 Jun 2024 – Nonmetal (talk · edit · hist) move request to Nonmetal (chemistry) by Ldm1954 (t · c) was not moved; see discussion Articles to be merged 27 Aug 2024 – Carbocation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Carbenium ion by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 09 Aug 2024 – Micromeritics (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Nanoparticle by Ldm1954 (t · c); see discussion 09 Aug 2024 – Static fatigue (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Fatigue (material) by Metamd (t · c); see discussion 04 Aug 2024 – Hydroxy ketone (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Aldol by Jeaucques Quœure (t · c); see discussion 04 Aug 2024 – Aldol (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Hydroxy ketone by Jeaucques Quœure (t · c); see discussion 29 May 2024 – Fatty acyl-CoA esters (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Acyl-CoA by DeemDeem52 (t · c); see discussion 01 Mar 2024 – Bioprocess engineering (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Biochemical engineering by Hanif Al Husaini (t · c); see discussion 01 Feb 2024 – Epoxidation with dioxiranes (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Oxidation with dioxiranes by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 27 Jan 2024 – Phase-boundary catalysis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Phase transfer catalysis by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 16 Aug 2024 – Hazard symbol (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to Safety sign by Gringinu (t · c) was closed; see discussion (1 more...) Articles to be split 05 Aug 2023 – Double bond rule (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by DMacks (t · c); see discussion 18 Aug 2024 – Boranes (talk · edit · hist) proposed for splitting by Smokefoot (t · c) was closed; see discussion Articles for creation 16 Aug 2024 – Draft:Group14 Technologies (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by MC2blanche (t · c) 07 Aug 2024 – Draft:Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Editorialalex (t · c) 05 Aug 2024 – Draft:Advanced Polymers via Macromolecular Engineering (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Polyglotte2023 (t · c) 30 Jul 2024 – Draft:John J. Irwin (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Ianscottknight (t · c) 04 Jul 2024 – Draft:Harry Destecroix (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 87.224.75.37 (t · c) 19 Jun 2024 – Draft:Dev Dass Manandhar (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Sodhancha (t · c) 17 Jun 2024 – Draft:Stefan Pastine (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Seamus Costello (t · c) 05 Jun 2024 – Draft:Leibniz Institute on Aging - Fritz Lipmann Institute (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by KL4nger07 (t · c) 01 Sep 2024 – Draft:Vladimir Dadali (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Pr.nutrition (t · c) was declined by Ldm1954 (t · c) on 03 Sep 2024 15 Aug 2024 – Draft:Berzins-Delahay equation (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by TylerBWilliams (t · c) was accepted to Berzins-Delahay equation (talk · edit · hist) by Pygos (t · c) on 23 Aug 2024 (38 more...)

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.

Bromantan vs. Bromantane

Houston, we've got a problem! --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge into one article, namely the one with the International Nonproprietary Name. Bromantane seems to be the better candidate for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge per Beetstra. Bromantane is a long-existing article vs the quick'n'dirty new Bromantan. DMacks (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Functional groups

I suggest that we try for some consensus on the structure and style of articles on functional groups. July statistics show that these articles are highly consulted (within Chemistry): ether at #23, ester at #28, amine at #39, ketone at #78, carboxylic acid at #121, amide at #141. So to get the conversation going, I (or others if they have inclination) will draft a manual of style within Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry) and then invite other editors to comment. I had started to heavily edit amine and ketone articles, but I will desist until we have some sort of agreement on what these articles should look like. Apologies for not checking earlier.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be great! Alkane was largely translated from the German version, which is a featured article on dewiki, but it failed good article nomination: that might give you some some ideas if you're short of any (which I doubt!). Physchim62 (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Smokefoot, are you thinking of expanding Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Compound_classes? Or a separate section altogether? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rifleman. I completely overlooked that category, which should cover functional groups. The details of this particular MOS might be further edited bearing in mind the model of alkane, as pointed out by Physchim. Some debate may arise about the extent that we want bulleted or tabulated lists of reactions (these things all undergo many reactions and are formed by many reactions) vs the same information presented in paragraph form. Bulleted lists are easier for named reactions, but my sense is that paragraphs are more explanatory.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for raising this! I've long felt that these articles were important but neglected, but I hadn't really appreciated that they were so popular with our users. I'll try to contribute. Walkerma (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea to overhaul these articles. The things I always wanted to know when learning functional groups were:

• what is the general connectivity of the FG (with R groups)?
• can any of those R groups be hydrogen, or would that make it a different FG?
• one or more simple examples (usually R = ethyl, methyl or phenyl)
• basic nomenclature with simple examples (e.g. [alkyl] + [carboxylate] for esters, example: ethyl acetate)
• 3D structure with reasons (usually v. relevant to reactivity as well), e.g.:
  • amines are pyramidal due to lone pair on N
  • amides are planar since lone pair is delocalised into electron-withdrawing carbonyl group
  • N in anilines can range from pyramidal to planar as ring becomes more electron withdrawing

Ben (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• it is so rewarding to read that the functional group pages appear neglected and need to be overhauled. Please bear in mind that the synthesis / reaction sections are linked from the Organic_reaction#Organic_reactions_by_functional_groups. The relationship between the functional group pages and the organic reaction page should be preserved. For some reason bullets are not popular within Wiki (why!). Tables are better than prose (it is still a list and trying to get to connect the dots will soon run into original research). I have constructed a table in the amine page so you can see for yourself what it would look like. V8rik (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well tables of reactions might work, although I was dead set on the prose approach. If we go with tables, here are two challenges: (i) risk of undue weight to minor methods and (ii) risk of undue emphasis on "named reactions" that might scare off novice readers. One imperfect solution is to preface the Table (as is currently in amines) with a paragraph of prose overview. Another problem of course is that the artwork within the tables will eventually need to be more standardized to minimize the need for scrolling. It would be nice if we had pop-up art (e.g. that expanded with a mouse-over) and if we could upload editable chemdraw files (or can we?).--Smokefoot (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure I agree with V8rik. Lists tend to attract a lot of trivia, and become redundant, repetitive, or untidy after a while. Sodium bicarbonate is one such example.[1] I personally feel that thematically similar reactions should be grouped together in prose, with examples as reaction schemes. This is more compact, and helps ensure that at least a little is said about each example. For the example of amine, perhaps the Delepine reaction, Gabriel synthesis, and maybe the benzylamine route be grouped together, because they all similarly involve the introduction of the amine group by alkylating a reagent, with the primary amine obtained by hydrolysis. For benzylamine, hydrogenation. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree collections of reactions (alkylations, reductions, isocyanate chem) could be aggregated into paragraphs that draw parallels and contrasts, and by definition, prose is the way to explain things. Wikipedia-chem, however, has a tradition of lists and tables. Not my cup of tea, but it's an evolutionary phase and democratic because amassing factoids invites participation, which is good. Eventually the information will be integrated and explained with increased use of prose.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• agree with Smokefoot, why not start with proze and round up with an infobox (table listing all reactions). I rarely make claims in my edits about what is important and what is not (on whose authority?). If you see 5 items listed in a table , why would you infer these items are of equal importance? No need for artwork in the tables: keep that confined to chemical reaction page. Lists perhaps attract trivia but prose certainly makes content vulnerable to deletion (we need to break out introductory chemistry and advance into contemporary chemistry). I have changed the amine synthesis section a bit to get an idea what it would look like V8rik (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dry ice

I think this is close to GA status once the intro is expanded. Anyone want to help in make it a GA nominee? Burningview (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Names

I recently created the article Dihydrocortisone and when I added its other names to the chembox, I saw its really hard to see where the first name ends and the second name starts (exept for a small space between them). I couldnt use a comma because the names already have commas in them so I used a semi colon but its still confusing and hard to see the different names, any suggestions? Pikiwyn ^talk 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For this particular case, I would suggest deleting the latter of the two "other names" that you added. The two names are equivalent: the second has an additional stereochemical descriptor - "17α" instead of just "17" - but this is unnecessary as the substituant at carbon-17 in a substituted pregnane must always go alpha. Incidentally, it is the name as a substituted pregnane which is the IUPAC name, not the name as a substituted phenanthrene.

In general, there are no fixed guidelines for separating names on a list like this one in the infobox. Personally, I like to separate them with <br/> tags, but sometimes this makes the list too long. The semi-colon solution you chose would be fine, except I think there's an even better solution. Physchim62 (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I just thought of using a * infront of each name instead is that fine? Pikiwyn ^talk 15:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

Hello Pikiwyn. I have observed that you have created a lot of hard-core stubs (e.g. Chlorostyrene; Chloroxuron; Chlorthiamide and so on...) Though it is nice to gain more articles here on Wiki, those stubs are impo not informative. Even the CAS is not listed, what are the substances used for, how can one make them. Many gaps are not close. Just writing e. g. "Chlorthiamide is an organic compound with the chemical formula C7H5Cl2NS." is not sufficiant. On de-Wiki, we would delete them cos they are not anything close to an "article".

First I thought you were a BOT, just pasting some ChemSpider Infos here on Wiki. This is - btw - not good, since on ChemSpider they calculate some physical data. If this is true or not, well, nobody knows. It would be very, very beneficial if you wrote something more about those "organic compounds". Thanks, --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to help by creating pages for the "well known" chemicals on the list of organic compounds that didn't have one yet. I was hoping that other people would edit my articles later and that they'd become more informative, but I'll try find more information and add it to the articles. (by the way I'm not a bot) Pikiwyn ^talk 15:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

something to work on

I am not in this WikiProject, but I realized the page Iodotrifluoroethylene is extremly small.--JordanITP (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Frost diagrams

FROST DIAGRAMS: This text from the first sentence is wrong and actually refers to "Pourbaix-diagrams": "A Frost diagram is an Oxidation State Free Energy Diagram (O.S.F.E), also known as an Eh-pH diagram". Instead a Frost-diagram is a plot of oxidation-numbers against oxidation-numbersXstandard potential? I amn not a specialist however... Mats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.7.35 (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "Frost diagram" seems more used in German than in English, although the diagrams themselves are used in English-language textbooks such as Greenwood & Earnshaw. I once had a Swiss-German boss who couldn't believe that I didn't know the name for the type of diagram I'd just shown on the screen! They are different from Pourbaix diagrams, and are very useful for showing the variation in oxidizing power as you descend a group. Physchim62 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I also didn't know these diagrams had a name. For a moment I thought you were talking about the Frost mnemonic... --Itub (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Molecular-weight redirect pages

First time I've seen this type of thing:

• 448.38 g/mol
• 284.068473

Strikes me as highly unlikely search-terms. DMacks (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In Chemistry laboratories, researchers could seek those informations. Nono64 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of redirects and follower of the "redirects are cheap" philosophy, but these are pushing it... Even if we assume for a moment that they are useful, there's the issue of significant figures, which means that instead of one redirect per molecular weight you need several. In short, redirects are not the best tool for doing "molecular weight searches". --Itub (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Itub. If there is an interest for this type of information, we could try to create a "molecular weight index" to Wikipedia but, for the time being, I'm not sure that that's useful. Exact molecular weights can be calculated routinely and simply using free software, so I am not convinced there is a real need. Physchim62 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree also. I am against those kind of redirs. One could then also start redirecting melting points. And I doubt that any lab will use wikipedia in order to search for a mass in that way. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As the number is available in the chemboxes, I would expect that a google or Wikipedia search might come up with the answer as well. Does not seem too useful (next step: disambig pages for the molecular weight of Ethanol and Dimethyl ether?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Image of single pentacene molecule

A team at IBM has imaged a single pentacene molecule creating some nice pretty pictures.[2][3] Do you guys think we should ask them nicely if we can use the image on the pentacene page? They have released it to the media after all, but I'm not sure what the procedure is for asking the copyright holders permission to use it here. Meodipt (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

chemical bonds? c=c c-c c-h

it's great to have chemistry (organic and inorganic), but some of us out here also just want more of an introduction. i'm having a hard time finding how chem bonds form. i took chemistry and remember how bonds work to begin with. i know a covalent bond shares 2 electrons, but not how it happens?

will still look, but can someone help on wikipedia? or do you have it already and i can't find it?

thanks much, alexa NYC 98.14.164.155 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nanotechnology

I read a while ago in the Signpost that you guys were looking for more expertise in nanotechnology. How much response have you had yet? I've been editing the nanotech articles myself over the past three years or so; I've had some thoughts about starting a nanotech task force but haven't quite gotten to doing the necessary footwork yet. How many others here have an interest in nanotechnology? Has any planning been discussed for how best to improve the nano articles? Antony-22 (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Attention needed

For the reasons given at User talk:Materialscientist#Another one that might interest you, attention is needed to Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS). Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sugar and sucrose

We ought to revisit the merger of sugar and sucrose. Almost all of sugar is about sucrose, as indicated by the opening paragraph and to the final bit. Parts that are not about sucrose duplicate the content in carbohydrates (saccharide redirects there). So readers are not getting the best presentation, and editors are duplicating effort. I worry also that we are confusing readers. I understand that many editors are wary of merges, but this sugar-carbohydrate-sucrose overlap appears to be a serious disservice. We'd leave carbohydrate alone. Based on the current sizes of the articles, I would propose to shift sucrose content to sugar.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Digit grouping style (notice of discussion)

In case anyone is interested, a discussion about digit grouping styles is taking place at Village Pump (policy), related to this question:

On Wikipedia, should the selection of digit grouping styles depend upon regional and topical conventions used in the English language?

Please refer to that page for details and discussion. TheFeds 04:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Combinatorial Chemistry

The Combinatorial Chemistry page is both very brief and limited almost exclusively to pharmaceutical chemistry. The part on Materials Science is only a two-sentence paragraph. I'm a newly registered Wiki user and I could certainly add extensively to that section. There are significant books out like Combinatorial Materials Science (Narasimhan et al, Wiley-Interscience, 2007. Jncawse (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That page is so important, yet it's in pretty poor shape. Your contributions would be very welcome - just be sure to cite your sources. Leave a message here or on my talk page if you need any help - though it's not an area I'm really knowledgable on. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I've proposed a merge of A type proanthocyanidin into proanthocyanidin, please see my reasoning here. Thanks Smartse (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange editors and strange content

We have a group of closely inter-related editors (possibly the same person) who are writing strange or ultra-specialized articles.

• strange editors with similar interests: User:Whitenob, User:Jimjarvis, User:Tonyrail.
• strangeness created: Symbiosis (chemical), Nyholm-Rail reaction, Anthony Nicholl Rail.

My guess is that these people are Anthony Rail or are connected to him. Rail made an interesting (now unimportant) discovery during his PhD work in the early 60's working for R.S. Nyholm, the biography of whom two of these users have contribute glowing and detailed material. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Nicholl Rail seems like a strong candidate for AfD. In fact, so do Symbiosis (chemical), Nyholm-Rail reaction. None of these topics get many google hits; none of the references in Rail's bio are actually about him; the term "chemical symbiosis" is not really is use as far as I'm aware (but I could be wrong); the named reaction is not listed in my Merck Manual, nor does get any google scholar or google books hits. If someone AfD's these, please post a note here. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Symbiosis" could probably be merged into HSAB theory; "antisymbiosis" is simply the trans effect. I've never heard either term used. Nyholm–Rail reaction is another term that seems to have passed me by, dispite many years of RL research in similar fields. You'd be lucky to get a publication out of it these days, unless you could show some special significance: metal-mediated carbon-pnictogen bond cleavage in complexes of alkylphosphines and -arsines is well known, and a review on its significance in the deactivation of homogeneous catalysts appeared in 1985 (Chem. Rev. 85:171). Physchim62 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• One might add Urban thermal plume. Somebody needs to have a friendly word, because many of his contributions are useful (especially the historical ones) but the scientific and glodal warming ones veer towards self-promotion. Chris (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the case with Template reaction. I now it in a different meaning, like in the article doi:10.1016/S0957-4166(99)00174-3--Stone (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well User:Whitenob is responding, so we are making progress. As Itub suggested somewhere chemical symbiosis is connected to HSAB theory. The Template reaction is well known in coordination chemistry, e.g. metal-promoted macrocyclizations, so that article can be morphed and modernized. And thanks for Physchim62 for locating the review on P-C bond degradation, pertinent to the organoAs gymnastics. The contributions above were all well intentioned, although still strange. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Since Yilloslime asked: chemical symbiosis was nominated for deletion; I posted my comments there. --Itub (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Silicon hypochlorite

Real? Accurate? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like BS to me, but I don't have SciFinder access and my inorganic textbooks are elsewhere so I can't check for sure. Wouldn't Si + HOCl give sand and HCl is they reacted at all? Yilloslime ^T_C 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And seems unusual at best for an active metal to reduce Si⁴⁺ to Si rather than redoxing with the hypochlorite! SciFinder doesn't find it by name or by chemical formula. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was able to look at the cited textbook on Amazon.com. "Silicon hypochlorite" only appears in the index where it refers to a page that discusses sodium hypochlorite - seems to just be a typo. Silicon hypochlorite does not appear in Chemical Abstracts, so it is not likely to have ever appeared in the chemical literature. Hoax or mistake, it should be deleted, so I have proposed deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)