Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 190.124.30.42 (talk) at 17:07, 29 April 2021 (→‎I don't mean to sound rude, but...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    See also: Chemicals talk page, image request page, {{Chembox}} (talk).
    Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
    WikiProject iconChemistry Project‑class
    WikiProject iconThis 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
    ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
    Article alerts

    Did you know

    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)

    Categories for discussion

    Templates for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    Good article reassessments

    Requests for comments

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    (2 more...)

    Articles to be split

    Articles for creation

    (45 more...)

    Structural inconsistency among acetylacetonate complexes

    I noticed that there is an inconsistency in the structural formulas in Category:Acetylacetonate complexes, namely concerning the dashed bonds:

    Is anyone aware of a IUPAC recommendation on how to draw the lines?

    In addition, there are different types of ball-and-stick images, i.e. with and without dashed lines, e.g.:

    --Leyo 09:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    the real problem is that at least two structures are incorrect. No way Ba is 4-coordinate and the Dy complex would typically has additional Lewis bases.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the Dy-complex diagram solely based on its given chemical formula ("Dy(acac)3 itself"). I agree it's likely to have additional ligands (looks like the commercial product is the hydrate but I don't know the hydration number). I can't find a gas-phase or matrix-isolation structure of the specific substance itself. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the issue probably lies with the most common CAS numbers. 14637-88-8 (Dy) and 12084-29-6 (Ba) resolve the structures above and appear prominently in goggle if you search for the compounds by name. There are CAS numbers for Dy-acac as a trihydrate (18716-76-2) and Ba-acac as a general hydrate (206752-34-3) but they're obscure by comparison. Chembox supports multiple CAS numbers so we could include both sets with an explanation in the body text. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there's no fault for anyone, and admittedly I am picky about hydrates. Part of the problem is that these compounds are used as precursors by materials scientists, and all they really care about is that the precursor degrade to the oxides. I do think that Ba(acac)2 should be AfD'd. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that. Many of the more esoteric examples seems to have come from one enthusiastic editor. Our usual requirements for notability should apply, otherwise it's just stamp collecting. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support deleting the less notable ones (do we have consistent criteria for chemicals?). The OP asks about "how to draw the lines". I don't think that IUPAC gets in to that issue, since it usually sticks to nomenclature. For articles in Wikipedia, I think that the pseudo-3D representation is fine (assuming that the structure illustrated is in line with for example X-ray structures in sources). Note that representations in Chemspider and elsewhere often show these organometallic structures as salts with disconnected fragments. Chemical databases don't, AFAIK, allow partial bonds of the type implied by a dotted bond: they have to represent structures in conventional connection tables, and hence InChI strings. This leads to some difficult problems of representation, since the tendency is to draw one ketone in its enol(ate) form and the other as a ketone, which can lead to problems, since in practise the system is a resonance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we delete the errant pictures? If they remain on commons then some well-meaning editor will eventually reconnect them to the articles.--Project Osprey (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely a good idea. But make sure there is a comparable correct image as replacement. Commons has a weaker standard than enwiki's WP:V/WP:NOR: "delete A because it's wrong" might be rejected by "but it's the best/only we have", whereas "delete A because B is a more correct version" is generally trivial. DMacks (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The errant images (could you list them?) should at least be removed from all articles before requesting deletion. Incorrect and orphaned files have a good chance of being deleted. --Leyo 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated the Ce and Dy images above for deletion. Not sure what to do about the Ba one as it's used in de:wiki and I don't know how to explain myself over there. I assume the other images are fine (@Smokefoot:)? --Project Osprey (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I updated several of the imperfect images. The Ln(III) complexes apparently are always 8-coordinate with two aquo ligands, although many L's are possible. The Ce case is curious because a Ce(IV)(acac)4 is also known (like Zr and Hf cmpds). I left a note on German article about the 4-coordinate Ba(acac)2 being bad. The English article on Ba(acac)2 is so heavily tagged that readers will know to be wary.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chemical data pages - move to Wikidata?

    I recently became aware of the "data pages" located in Category:Chemical data pages and Category:Chemical element data pages - containing numerical information relating to various elements and compounds. These were all created long before Wikidata was a thing, and it's been brought up several times before that these types of pages probably aren't suitable for Wikipedia itself. (in 2007, 2015, 2016, and 2019) In the 2015 discussion, a couple of users objected to using Wikidata on the basis that it wasn't quite suitable for there at the time either due to technical limitations. As far as I can tell this is now a moot point, as all of the data included on these pages should fit into the site's current data structure without too much hassle (correct me if I'm wrong). Since it's been about four years since this issue was last brought up on this specific talk page, I wanted to know if there are still any objections to migrating this info to Wikidata. Would it be easiest to accomplish this by parsing the pages with a bot? Ionmars10 (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The information is probably too diverse for a bot. Wikidata may need more things created on a case by case basis to absorb this info. I see quite a bit that should be added to the chembox of the main article (eg Aluminium chloride (data page) could be fully merged), or could be in the main article, eg bond-lengths. Some might be moveable to a more specific page, eg solubility of xyz, or spectrum of acetaldehyde. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that some of the Category:Chemical data pages could be removed - namely those consisting of blank (or almost blank) tables which haven't been populated in 15-16 years (e.g. Valine (data page), Hydrogen iodide (data page)). I don't expect they'll ever be filled in, so we may as well merge them in to the main articles. Other pages, like Water (data page) I think should be left, merging to main-page is impossible but it's also probably a challenge for wikidata. Category:Chemical element data pages are different, I think they should be left as they are. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Chembox checks if a page is named "pagename (data page)" and then links to it with the link "Supplementary data page". I guess nobody sees it... See Aluminium chloride for the link Christian75 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

    Sandbox Organiser

    A place to help you organise your work

    Hi all

    I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

    Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

    Hope its helpful

    John Cummings (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Noticeboard discussion on reliability of MDPI journals

    There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of MDPI journals. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § MDPI journals. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is nothing about MDPI on the page pointed to, although there is discussion in the (non-editable) archives. How and where do I add a comment? Do I re-open the discussion with a new title on the current page - although this would seem to break the thread. Petermr (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion seems to have been archived although no consensus was reached, as far as I can see. The archive is WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#MDPI_journals and I guess you could re-activate it if you have opinions, Petermr. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Ann Mansigh

    deletion discussion

    Female programme writer, co-creator of moldyn method. Yo, we all need to come out for this one, especially if you're in the computational community in phy sci, bigly. Already posted on science wp's super-forum as well. Alder, Rahman and Wainwright are dead let's do this one while she still lives. Ema--or (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC) This one's still tight, people. If you know about Tsingou, the ENIAC Ladies, the Hidden Figures, Hamilton, and others (though not so much Hopper, she didn't really work in sci comp) then you should back Mansigh. She's a card-carrying member of that fellowship. Ema--or (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for my non-NPOV canvas! Ema--or (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, just an issue to discuss. Just wanted to name an issue, which I asked for consultation on, but was not able to get any thing on before the end of discussion. There is the issue of my inconsistencies on Mansigh btw main space and other-space, particularly afd- and Wp project-space, although it is particularly a matter for subjective interpretation. I’d like to end by once again apologising for any trouble and thanking anyone who offered any opinion or contribution to the chat, as well as for the space and audience in a place such as this. Bye, until the next time. Ema--or (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Inconsistency in some Chemistry articles

    I was doing some editing and research and came across this situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maleic_acid_dibutyl_ester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_maleate Dimethyl maleate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethyl_maleate Diethyl maleate

    So Dimethyl maleate article is called that as is diethyl maleate. However, Dibutyl maleate (DBM) article redirects to Maleic acid dibutyl ester. Surely there needs to be some consistency. Probably needs a very experienced chemistry editor to look at. GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is probably no reliable way to fix all these issues. In principle we have the general Wikipedia guidance to use MOS:COMMON, and hence give article titles the name most commonly used. Personally I think that Dibutyl maleate would be the one to choose and hence justify a move to be consistent with the others. However, as the Chemspider entry for that compound shows, it has been referred to by over 30 synonyms! We can use redirects to help with that (although I note that DBM as a synonym is not listed as one of the disambiguation terms for dibutyl maleate). Do you have a proposal to fix this and related issues, GRALISTAIR? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My proposal would be to rename the Maleic acid dibutyl ester to Dibutyl maleate. (I dont think I have the permissions or skill to do that though) Once that is done I can add DBM as a synonym later. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Our article titles are indeed a little messy, but hey, we have redirects, which solve lots of problems. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have moved the page. Dibutyl maleate does sound more systematic.--Project Osprey (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    FKM

    The article FKM could use some work. I already did a cleanup pass on it, but it needs attention from an expert. For now, it does not really provide any information about the properties of the substance that make it suitable for the claimed applications, and it relies almost entirely on low-quality primary-source materials from manufacturers/vendors (and may be over-dwelling on them and their brand names in the lead).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: See also Talk:FKM#Merge from Viton (about getting rid of a spammy WP:POVFORK).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CAS Common Chemistry greatly expanded

    (Also posted in WT:Chemicals) Chemical Abstracts Service just made this official announcement: CAS Common Chemistry has now been expanded from the original 7800 to almost half a million substances, and new content added. This puts far more CAS Registry Numbers into open use, and the site itself is now listed as having a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Previously the pages was mainly names, structure and Wikipedia links; the new version now includes some basic physical properties such as MP, BP, density. Some of you may recall the discussion last year on choosing the "top million substances"] - this was in fact part of this project, but we needed to keep the source of the project under wraps at the time - but it helped us define the substances that matter. I hope Wikipedians appreciate the value of CAS working in the open domain much more than we saw previously.

    The long-term plan is to refine the site as time/code allows, and both Wikipedia and Wikidata links will be added once we've figured out all the matches. Links from Wikipedia to CAS do seem to work, and I think that's true even for substances not previously in Common Chemistry. Egon Willighagen is coordinating this project and the cross linking in Wikidata. Walkerma (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is fantastic news. Thanks Walkerma and Egon Willighagen for making this possible. In this discussion, it was proposed to use CAS numbers for authority control for drug substances. Before this latest announcement, this proposal was a complete non starter, since CAS had not made public CAS numbers for many drugs. In their official announcement, CAS states that CAS numbers will be made public for compounds on regulatory lists. I assume that this expanded list would then at a minimum include all FDA approved drugs. Even better would be for make public CAS ids for the approximately 8000 Wikipedia. drug articles. Has this been done? If so, it might then make sense to use CAS numbers as authority control for drugs. Boghog (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Boghog, if you have a list of the 8000 CAS numbers, I can check them tomorrow. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Great news, and thanks to everyone who has and is working on it! This limits Boghog's search to those that don't already have CASNo listed in the article. DMacks (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks DMacks for the link. Many CAS numbers were added to drug articles without consulting CAS Common Chemistry. The critical question is how many of these Wikipedia drug CAS numbers have working links to CAS Common Chemistry which would be a prerequisite for using CAS numbers as authority control identifiers. Boghog (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Two excellent and separate issues here. Would be trivial to pull a [wikipage]:[infobox-casno] table from a set of articles that can be described in terms of a certain infobox detail or category or link to/from another article or... DMacks (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We should be doing a cross check at some point, to see the variants. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the drug articles missing CASNos, I cannot find any on the new list so far. Most of these articles are new and are for experimental or recreational drug variants. Some are complex mixtures, eg vaccines. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK after 20 I found one for 4-Methylthioamphetamine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Egon is planning to run a validation script in Wikidata to match substances there with CAS numbers. Would that be helpful in finding the right matches? If their site is missing significant registry numbers, CAS may be open to adding more substances if we can demonstrate they are important medical drugs and not just experimental or obscure recreational drugs. Walkerma (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reported on the first results on this page. The list of CAS numbers validated in Wikidata is found at https://w.wiki/39oN This query uses the reference info added by the validation script. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think it would narrow down the list enough. We would also need some indication that the drug is approved for use in at least one country. As far as I can tell, this information is not stored in Wikidata. I don't have time for this at the moment, but I plan to write a script that would look for articles containing {{Infobox drug}} templates with with non-blank legal status fields that would also return the CAS number and then query Common Chemistry with those CAS numbers. I think in addition to approved drugs, illicit drugs that are on government regulatory lists are also fair game. Boghog (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One highly relevant drug list to check would be Category:World Health Organization essential medicines which currently has 474 members. Boghog (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is indeed good news. As well as providing links could this be used to validate our CAS No's? While there has been some work with databases in the past I expect most of our CAS No's have been added manually over many thousands of edits by dozens of editors using a variety of sources. It would be interesting to see if there are any disagreements (are we using any old deprecated numbers?). I expect we'd need access to the backend list to do that though? --Project Osprey (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update - Pubchem has now added links to all the CAS Common Chemistry pages, as well as a nice "Related CAS" section that includes links, as in this example. That may help us in getting matches aligned properly. Walkerma (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done, Walkerma and Egonw. The CAS site is broken today so I can't investigate some of the thoughts I had about it when I looked yesterday. It seems to provide a sort of "infocard" for the compounds, with InChI key etc that would be the obvious way to confirm that the relationships to Wikidata and hence Chemboxes are correct. I wondered if CAS were going to provide a API to scrape their data like other databases do. I was a little disappointed that they don't seem to offer more information than can be obtained elsewhere (e.g. Chemspider, which as CAS now does, offers the chance to download a .mol file for a chemical). I hoped they might provide, for example, a citation to the first (i.e. earliest) reference known for a given CAS number, which would help immensely in writing Wikipedia articles. More thoughts later! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After checking many more articles missing CAS numbers I found many more RNs, even for calamine lotion, but rather than drugs, the best results from this collection are for the other molecular compounds and ions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One useful feature of the new release is that it gives "deleted or replaced" CAS numbers for a given hit. When used as queries, these outdated CAS numbers redirect to the correct current CAS number. This means that any Wikipedia article using a now-defunct identifier will still link correctly if it is in the 500,000. I also discovered that anyone can ask for API access "using this form".. I don't know what criteria they use for granting access. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It might anyway be good to identify deleted or even invalid CAS numbers. --Leyo 20:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CAS Common Chemistry hydrogen problem

    For oxy salts, the CAS Common Chemistry entries have errors in structure. eg https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?ref=7778-80-5 for potassium sulfate indicates the material is a mixture of potassium metal and sulfuric acid, with a SMILES and inchi that support that idea. This means that the structure / SMILES / INCHI will not match what we have in our articles. What is CAS up to? For halides like NaCl https://commonchemistry.cas.org/detail?ref=7647-14-5 they are matching. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem will be in their data model. Note that NaCl is only "correct" because they show it as a covalently bound Na-Cl. Likewise they could have used K-O(SO)2O-K for potassium sulfate and hence achieved a better result (indeed, that version may well have a different CAS number). Neither of these examples are fully "correct", given that most chemists want to see both materials as ionic, not covalent. I am aware from literally hours and hours of discussion with colleagues and IT specialists that representing organic or inorganic salts in a chemical substance database means making certain compromises, according to the purposes and priorities you want to achieve. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chiral resolution

    I have never heard a chemist use the term "chiral resolution". I have resolved enantiomers and heard a lot discussion of the topic, but chiral resolution? It doesnt make sense. Is chiral an adjective to describe a type of resolution. I searched Organic Syntheses, which has about 70 resolutions. In the few articles that I searched, they resolve but they report no chiral resolution. Just sayin'.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. I suspect it came about as an article title because Resolution (disambiguation page) has so many entries. The short section at Racemic_mixture#Resolution would suggest we could just call the page Resolution (chemistry) and if others commenting here can't think of a better title, I suggest you do that move. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Google scholar has a lot of articles where "chiral resolution" is part of the title[1]. Christian75 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. The (anecdotal) fact that no chemist that I know uses the term conflicts with the Google hitlist. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I more commonly hear it called "enantiomeric resolution". That seems also a clearer description, since although there are diastereomeric intermediates in some cases, the context is of enantiomers not other chiral aspects. DMacks (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Jabir ibn Hayyan

    There is a discussion at Jabir ibn Hayyan about whether to include the title "father of early chemistry". Members of this WikiProject are kindly invited to express their opinion. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chemical Markup support for files

    Hi. We have had a project in mediawiki to allow chemical markup support for Wikimedia (let .mol, .rxn files to be uploaded and shown in Wikipedia). Some links: phab:T18491, mw:Extension:MolHandler, mw:Chemical Markup support for Wikimedia Commons. I would like to revive/finish the project or decline it. First I want to know if this is something that you would find useful. Is svg enough? I don't think we can deploy Jmol support as the extension needs lots of work but MolHandler would be rather straightforward. Is there a way to massively produce and upload these files in Commons if the support is added? Ladsgroupoverleg 14:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The huge advantage of .mol files is that chemical drawing software can take them as input so that they can be used as starting points for new drawings. svg files are hopeless in this regard, limiting their re-use to simple things such as altering some text. However, I appreciate that for general use as browser-supported zoomable images, svg will always have the Edge (pun intended). Molfiles were originally developed by MDL Information Systems back in the 1980s but are now public domain. Any record in Chemspider which can be represented by a connection table can be downloaded from that website as a .mol file. Dassault Systèmes who are the descendants of MDL still keep their .skc file format (for chemical reactions, sketches and more in what I suppose to be a vector graphic-type format) proprietary and .rxn files are a sort of half-way-house between .mol and .skc since they are specifically designed to encode reactions of the type A -> B. So, I would strongly support having Wikimedia focus on .mol files and ignore .rxn ones. If you could persuade Dassault Systèmes to give you a viewer for .skc files, so much the better but I doubt you'll get a licence for that. Whether Commons should attempt a bulk upload of .molfiles from Chemspider's API or elsewhere is another matter. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Disclaimer, as author). Molfiles and InChI work when there is a clear covalent connection table and are very widely used in pharma and related industries. However they are not easily extensible and start to fail for inorganics, nanomaterials, polymers, composites, mixtures, etc. Many years ago Henry_Rzepa and I created Chemical_Markup_Language which, being XML, is extensible and semantic and which can manage 2D and 3D coordinates simultaneously as well as SVG. It's therefore an adaptable container for well-defined chemical objects. With the development of chemistry in Wikidata, many more complex concepts can be developed through annotation of XML elements. Being XML it can be transformed into other molecular formats. (See also next topic). Petermr (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidata support for solutions

    I am starting to use Wikidata to annotate published chemistry semantically, concentrating on synthesis. A common concept is concentration of solutions as in: 

    100 mL of 6M HCl


    This comprises several concepts:

    • quantity
    • volume
    • concentration (molarity) + number
    • mixture (in this case HCl and water)

    Has anyone used Wikidata to model this? It's quite complex in RDF and it may be useful to have specific Qitems or Properties which are required by scheme. And, more generally , is Wikidata able to model relationships other than naked triples? Petermr (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chemistry World role

    I wouldn't normally post this sort of thing here, but for those in the UK there's an internship going as a science writer at RSC's chemistry world. I would think that the overlap in skills with a chemistry wikipedian would be significant. Closing date is Monday. --Project Osprey (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia - Wikidata mismatches?

    So, everyone who started looking at the missing CAS RNs will immediately recognize some patterns. One pattern is that sitelinks between Wikipedia and Wikidata are not always correct. Wikipedia may be more stereo-specific, or less. There are multiple solutions to solve this: 1. make the least stereospecific page more specific, 2. make a new Wikidata page to match the English Wikipedia (and make the appropriate links), 3. accept as is. And probably a few more. The Wikipathways teams has solved a number of these kind of issues over the years. What do the two WikiProject Chemistry teams think the best course of action is? Cross-post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Wikipedia_-_Wikidata_mismatches? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Coverage of solid-state chemistry

    Hey all, been perusing a number of pages related to solid state chemistry/condensed matter physics and finding a number of issues. Curious if there's a taskforce or anything specifically dedicated to these pages. Thanks! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really - but you can raise issues here. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @2ReinreB2: If you have identified major topics that are under-developed - and there are many - then dedicate your editing energies to very general themes with an emphasis on textbook-based content (e.g. Kittel's book on SS Physics). Too often, it seems, when an editor claims to rectify an under-reported area, what they really aim to do is write about something specialized and/or promote work by themselves or their pals. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Steady-state approximation

    Hi, I am new on Wikipedia, so please forgive me if don't do things right. I notice that there was no page about the quasi-steady-state approximation and the partial-equilibrium approximation, which are among the basics of chemical kinetics. I wrote an article about them which is waiting review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Quasi-steady-state_approximation_and_partial-equilibrium_approximation_(Chemistry) Maybe someone on the chemistry community could review this article ? Agnespt (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Agnespt: Looks pretty hairy to me! Many of us editors occassionally write hyper-specialized articles because we are nerdy and have pet topics, but we mainly aim for general, digestable themes. A hallmark of general themes is that almost all refs are to textbooks or major reviews. Another guideline about which we editors are cognizant: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. We editors are presenting facts, not explaining them. Finally, under what Wikipedia is not is this quote "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Introductory Organic Chemistry

    This page has that student-project look about it:

    It seems to be about topics that one would find in a course (alkanes, alkenes, ...) rather than about the course itself (when schools started offering it, what the standard books are, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I draftified it while you were posting this message, then my edit here edit-conflicted:) That article was definitely not ready for mainspace. I'm pretty sure it's a course at MIT and that it is not registered with wiki-edu. 21:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMacks (talk • contribs)
    Ah, there it is. Thanks! XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Redox vs. Oxygen Reduction Reaction (ORR)

    Even though I got A's on all 4 chem courses I took back in college, definitely not my forte. The second article, Oxygen Reduction Reaction (ORR) was recently created. When I went to move it to Oxygen reduction reaction as per naming conventions, was informed a redirect already existed, pointing to Redox. Are these two similar, but different processes? Or is the new article simply about the existing article? Thanks for any help. Onel5969 TT me 14:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, Oxygen Reduction Reaction (ORR) should have been created in draft space, and in the current shape it is in, I would think that it should be moved there first. As I understand it, an oxygen reduction reaction is a redox reaction in which the oxidizing agent is O
    2    , i.e., these are a specific subset of redox reactions. As such, it could either belong as a section of the Redox article or could be a separate article referenced by a section in that article, once its shape is coherent enough (e.g. as a start class article). At the moment it looks too much like notes from a class project on a particular application. —Quondum 15:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the current Oxygen Reduction Reaction (ORR) is not ready for mainspace. It appears to be styled as a school essay on some fuel-cell aspect but written as if it's a broader-scope on a parent topic. The intro to the new page does correctly note that an oxygen reduction reaction is just a redox reaction where oxygen is the chemical getting reduced. I don't see notability for this specific variant as a general topic. The new aricle only seems to be about a the fuel-cells application of that variant, which could potentially be a notable intersection of parent topics. DMacks (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Catbathat: DMacks hit the nail on the head: "not ready for mainspace". Its an important topic, because it is the half reaction of many fuel cells. The original author, a student who was forced to write this thing, has distorted the article with a focus on "M-N4 and its derivatives ORR electrocatalyst", which is verging on ridiculous (no one is using coordination complexes! it all about alloys). The article is yet another example of the fluff that sometimes comes from courses where teachers assign essays but are not smart or energetic enough to edit their students' work. So we get handed a bag of crap to clean up. Its a very big area of research/technology. Cytochrome c is the bio-part of the ORR, our respiratory existence depends on it, I think.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The oxygen half-cell reaction is important, but is it an article-worthy topic? We don't (to my knowledge) have articles on any other half-cell reactions. Realistically, how much could be said without becoming very esoteric? (I don't meant that rhetorically) - it feels like a content-fork for a fuel cell article. Electro-chemistry baffles me though, so maybe don't pay me any heed. --Project Osprey (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Folks, thank you very much for the detailed input. I've moved the article to the draftspace, with a note for the student to reference this discussion to see what the issues are. Again, thanks. Onel5969 TT me 00:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smokefoot: sounds like the course will have multiple pages of interest (or headache, depending on how it goes) for you: and their other currently-listed ones are all existing articles: Zintl phase, Borate, Metal-metal bond, Terphenyl. DMacks (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't mean to sound rude, but...

    There are several scientific findings listed in timeline of physical chemistry that have next-to-nil relevance to physical chemistry, or even chemistry as a whole. Einstein's theory of relativity? Newton's classical mechanics? Particle physics? What do these stuff have to do with chemistry? Why are you chemists so obsessed with claiming milestones from other sciences to chemistry? Why are you pretending that stuff pertaining to physics belong to chemistry now? --190.124.30.42 (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For a start in an important area of chemistry, which is likely to expand, Einstein's theory of relativity seriously affects the properties of heavy elements and their compounds. Physical chemists also have to understand classical mechanics. Particle physics might be less important, but I guess some chemists have to know at least something about it. --Bduke (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I know there are branches of physics that are closely interwined with chemistry, namely thermodynamics, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. But the only thing from classical mechanics that carries over to chemistry is the conservation of energy and the concept of speed or rate (chemical kinetics). By themselves, the laws of Newton are extremely distanced from what you study in chemiatry. Do Newton's second law play any sort of role in explaining chemical reactions? Because I'm pretty sure that only quantum mechanics can be applied in them. As for relativity, that feels like an overly specific application that doesn't compare to the case of the aforementioned areas of physics; if it's nonetheless relevant, then the timeline article should at least make a brief mention of importance in studying chemical elements, because by itself the phenomenology of relativity is strictly physical instead of chemical. And I still don't understand what part of particle physics is necessary, because the majority of chemical processes occur at an atomic-to-molecular scale. Once again, I don't mean to sound confrontational, and I apologize in advance if thse posts read like I come off as such, but it's pretty odd to see the physical chemistry template as it is now -- it looks almost like a copy-and-paste draft from timeline of physics, only mixed with struff from actual physical chemistry. I feel like the timeline article should only include events that are closely relevant to the subject of physicial chemistry. I don't recall timeline of physics borrowing anything from chemistry-related milestones (and for the record, it doesn't obsess with citing almost every single discovery from mathematics either, despite the extensive application of math to physics), so why is the other way around OK? To cite another example, timeline of biology and organic chemistry limits itself to discoveries and findings in those mentioned areas, as there is very litle from inorganic chemistry or radiochemistry that is of use there and thus isn't mentioned.
    I admit I'm in the minority here, because the current state of the physical chemistry timeline page has been around for, likely, forever. But I don't think it's fair to cite stuff from physics that only have an extremely perfunctory connection to chemistry. Nevertheless, I don't plan to argue about this forever, because I have the somber feeling that I'm just supporting a lost cause (especially here which is the heart of chemistry-based articles). --190.124.30.42 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry&oldid=1020541460"