Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drnathanfurious (talk | contribs) at 12:27, 31 July 2012 (→‎Aqua regia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChemicals NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Shortcuts

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
FA 2
GA 16
B 172
C 76
Start 110
Stub 14
List 1
NA 4
Assessed 395
Total 395
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,486 Ω = 3.81

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
Template:Chem A-Class 29 26 32 32 33 25 25 23 18 18
Template:Chem B-Class 71 84 101 130 148 156 158 180 185 188
Template:Chem Start 112 131 199 190 174 174 180 153 160 161
Template:Chem 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
FA 1 2 2 2 7
FL 1 1
GA 1 12 23 12 48
B 21 140 324 273 5 763
C 7 73 357 1,153 15 1,605
Start 94 1,123 5,145 67 6,429
Stub 355 10,360 2 63 10,780
List 1 7 1,539 28 112 1,687
Disambig 8 26 34
Template 1 376 377
NA 18 156 3,520 3,694
Other 1 18 19
Assessed 30 322 2,210 18,650 3,970 262 25,444
Unassessed 2 40 393 435
Total 30 322 2,210 18,652 4,010 655 25,879
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 105,630 Ω = 5.38


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

Article alerts

Proposed deletions

  • 15 Aug 2024 – Hexamethylenediimine (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by DMacks (t · c) was deleted

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(20 more...)

8-Anilinonaphthalene-1-sulfonate

Does it make sense to describe the deprotonated form? --Leyo 16:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is sold in the acid form or as a magnesium or ammonium salt (see Aldrich) http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search?interface=All&term=8-Anilino-1-naphthalenesulfonic+acid&lang=en&region=US&focus=product&N=0+220003048+219853269+219853286&mode=mode%20matchpartialmax). If we are describing the acid form we ought to show it that way.JSR (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly I'd argue we need to be consistent (hence my recent edit which appears to have started this discussion, surely the article title should be the same as the chemical described in the box). In addition to that, the article describes it as being used as a fluorescent molecular probe, specifically in biology. Though I can't quickly find a pKa online, and my knowledge of chemistry is limited, it looks very low and I would be very surprised if the article was incorrect in saying that it is the sulfonate that is the molecular probe. So we're (probably) describing the base and ought to show it that way.
Also, the magnesium and ammonium salts are the sulfonates, so I don't quite get what JSR is saying... PhiJ (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For cases like this one, it is probably best if the article title is a chemical compound, not an ion. You need to figure out which salt is most common in the real world or if the free acid is the more common form. Then move to that new name and adjust the items in the table. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Smokefoot that the article should be titled as a compound, not an ion. However, I would very much prefer to have the article named and described in the chembox as the parent acid. The text can then describe uses of various salts or ionic forms. If desired, the chembox can also include identifiers such as CAS#s, etc. for notable salts. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it seems that there is an agreement on moving the article to 8-Anilino-1-naphthalenesulfonic acid. --Leyo 14:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or would 8-(phenylamino)-1-naphthalenesulfonic acid be the better target for moving the article? --Leyo 11:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bath salts (drug)

Hello, would someone with a degree in pharmacology/chemistry, please review the following article for accuracy: Bath salts (drug) any corrections with citations would be appreciated. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on in the chemboxes?

We once had a list of altenative names in PMDTA, why were these removed? Do we really need to verify various names for EDTA with citations? IMHO, many edits made on the ChemBoxes are unhelpful. Cant we discuss these edits, which often strike me as obsessive and even wacky? --Smokefoot (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why User:Plasmic Physics is making so many "citation needed" requests for synonyms that are very easily verified at the links that are in the chembox (CAS, ChemSpider, PubChem, etc.) or which can very easily be verified by a web search. For the extent of the silliness involved in these "citation needed" requests, just look at Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid where there is a request for citation for the abbreviation "EDTA" which is used in the title of about a dozen of the cited references already used in the article. There is clearly no thought whatsoever put into these "citation needed" requests. They should all be summarily removed. ChemNerd (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with both of you. I don't think there's a need to cite each individual alternative name. As a matter of fact, I think it would look busy if every name was cited. Most MSDS sheets contain a section entitled "Synonyms" or "Other Names" that lists common alternative names for a chemical. I'm under the impression that most of the information that goes into Chemboxes comes from MSDS sheets anyway, so the extra citations seem like overkill. Ckalnmals (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think MSDS sheets should be used as references, or to take data from (just like PubChem, ChemSpider) - although it could mostly be referenced to that, most MSDS sheets contain manufacturer-compiled data using their data, it are 'safe limits' (which may be on 'the safe side'), not peer-reviewed information (which may still be dubious). A lot of the more physical data in the chemboxes is dubious for many reasons (mostly suitable as an indication, even if often correct). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my extended take on this regarding data in the chemboxes (specifically names of compounds):

  1. First, when names are generally used, they do not require a reference - those are names that are used in the outside world by respected organisations (not by your favourite health blog!), those used in chemical textbooks, or throughout chemical literature (where the chemical gets used, e.g. 'THF', 'DCM', 'petroleum ether' as a general solvent, 'LDA', 'Binap', 'Wilkinson's catalyst'). I find the reference for the name pentane absolutely rubbish, that is common textbook knowledge, it is likely to be taught in high-school, maybe even in secondary school - the editor who added that should be trouted around WP:V (and since it is pubchem that is used as a reference, also WP:RS). I would almost say, we are all pretty familiar with chemical textbook level names, synonyms and abbreviations for chemicals, and otherwise a Google-scholar search (i.e., a publicly available search) will show you how common it is. Third resort is maybe something like SciFinder or Reaxys, though if the former two did not show you the notability of a name or synonym you may want to start thinking it is not notable enough to be put into Wikipedia as a synonym (or it does need a proper reference).
  2. Which one is the preferred name is a matter of debate, and can generally not be suitably referenced. There are ongoing debates still on quite some of them (MDMA, ecstacy, 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine). The chemical world is not up to it, don't try to prove that by referencing one is thé name. Follow our standards, or establish consensus, or use all 'common names' without prejudice.
  3. Which one is the PIN is for by far most of the compounds still original research - the box has been prepared for it, but that one is still under development by the 'issuing organisation' (IUPAC). Some of your dear WT:CHEM members are following those discussions (actually, they seem pretty dead ..) or even participating in it.
  4. Synonyms/abbreviations: those which are again used in the outside world, or those in chemical textbooks, do not need a reference - THF, EDTA, DMF, etc. Others may, depending on obscurity, need a reference. If you add one because you think that it is fine (per WP:BOLD), leave it like that, if someone else comes by and wants a reference or whatever, they will tag (or delete, after which you may consider to re-insert and tag).
  5. Trade names - Primary reference them to the company, those almost by definition need a reference, even if a primary one, otherwise there is no way to check it (some exceptions exist, 'aspirin'). Any obscure Sildenafil spammer can think of its own name, and put it in the list. If the company is not notable (by Wikipedia standards), then the synonym they chose for one of their products is likely not either.

Some names get special attention in an article (I am thinking of names like 'maleic acid', 'quinone') - which have a distinct reason for being named that way, and there are often suitable references for that - the chembox does not need to duplicate those references (though it does not hurt either).

Regarding MSDS, ChemSpider, CommonChemistry, whatever - those are not suitable references for the existence of a name - many of these databases contain typo's, local names that are totally not common and notable by themselves, etc. etc. The only thing that these databases are suitable proper references for is their own identifier. They however link you to a wealth of information, often each database contains rather unique information (especially on the not-too-common chemicals), and a lot of data which is way out of scope of Wikipedia (some link to collections of reported boiling points of a chemical, which is way out of our scope). Which is exactly why we link to them. If all of them use 'THF' as an abbreviation for 'tetrahydrofuran', then yes, that is likely a real abbreviation of it, but please go by my first point up, not by them. These database have a great risk of massive creep - I see sometimes articles with large (huge) numbers of synonyms, abbreviations, or trade names - way excessive and most of them obscure (and the obscure ones unreferenced). Yes, your shampoo bottle contains 'aqua', and that is probably reflected in ChemSpider, but that is not a suitable place to reference that to.

I hope I have covered my thoughts about this for the moment. I think that my first point up here pretty much makes the reference-request on EDTA useless, for PMDTA it becomes a bit more obscure, but removing the full name from the chembox (un-edit-summarized, but likely because it contained a citation-needed tag for months) is certainly not helpful - I am sure that a reference CAN be found for that (actually, it is following my first point - google scholar search: if a reference says "The tridentate ligand N,N,N',"',N-pentamethyldi- ethylenetriamine (PMDTA) is uniquely suited for the purpose" then it pretty much is a commonly used name/abbreviation, and does not need a reference, especially since more references use similar words), so removing it because it was tagged and no-one bothered to put it there is not the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, chemspider/pubmed do list lots of dubious names and rubbish data, either calculated (like refractive index, melting point .. great ..) or taken from I don't know where. So I guess the message is do not copy anything from chemspider/pubmed to our chemboxes :-). Materialscientist (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to give my view as well. I can stop removing uncited names. I am not familiar with abbreviations or synonyms, they are not commn knowledge to me. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plasma Physics, if you think that you detect what you suspect is a pervasive problem is requires a lot of editing, you are encouraged to ask the community of editors before acting. Just post your suggestion here, like the rest of us do. Many of your edits have done damage to articles. People here would be glad to contribute advice to help achieve some consensus. Such consultation would be good for you, our community, and

our readers. Please help us help you--Smokefoot (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I also want to say a big THANK YOU to Beetstra for stepping in to address this issue. He has been dragged in to deal with this kind of messy problem for many years. The success of our project is highly reliant on his knowledge of chemistry, his Dutch directness, and his diplomacy. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:No original research#IUPAC names for chemicals, especially for drugs --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still continues. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrogen_cyanide&curid=42078&diff=502593067&oldid=502592557.JSR (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, literally hundreds of ChemBoxes have been tampered with. If someone has time, you might contact the administrator's notice board and ask for mediation. There is a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Chemical knowledge is secondary since the problem is so obvious. Also we would like to be able to unwind some of the damage.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done: WP:ANI#Chembox edits by User:Plasmic Physics. Comments welcome. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Also, be aware that the odor field in the chembox may also be wrong. I found a series of higher normal alkanes labelled with the name of various essential oils. I corrected most of those, I think, but there may be others.JSR (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The recent "citation needed" tagging for HCN is excessive, and it looks very amateurish. The majority of those tags have been removed, but I don't think most of them should have been there in the first place. It seems like this is starting to get out of hand. Ckalnmals (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:ANI#Chembox_edits_by_User:Plasmic_Physics. Materialscientist (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the problem edits been removed? The ANI report was archived with no action taken (archive is here). However, DGG made it very clear that he would take whatever action was required to resolve the matter, and he requested to be informed of anything that might need his attention. Johnuniq (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the recent edits at carbene analog. Most of those names are made up.... Chris (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is way out of my area so whereas I can see that this edit looks dubious, I cannot judge it. If a couple of other editors from this project would assess the history of Carbene analog and clearly state here that there is a problem (and briefly why), I would inform DGG. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not made up. Google (Scholar) them: "borylene", "alumylene", "gallylene", "indigylene", "thallylene". I suggest that you act like a scientist, and test your hypothesis before asserting your conclusion so rashly. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'they are not made up' .. I am sorry, 2 Google scholar references for alumylene (11 for alumilene, which includes the 2 found for 'alumylene', and I have not argued about what the references are about or their credibility as sourcing for names) hardly gives significance on a Wikipedia-scale. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CAS number of 1,2-Epoxypropene or 2-methyloxirene

Hi,
Everything is in the title! Before, the diagram in the article C3H4O gave CAS number 75-56-9 for this compound but in fact, it corresponds to propylene oxide. I found on the Japan chemical substance dictionary web service another one, 2835-41-8 but I have a big doubt when I see what PubChem returns with this CAS number. Could someone help me confirm this CAS or find the true CAS number of 2-methyloxirene? --Titou (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm through access to Chemical Abstracts that 75-56-9 is the CAS number for (±)−propylene oxide and 2835-41-8 is the CAS number for 2-methyloxirene. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot --Titou (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request graphic artist report

Hi:

Wondered if I could get help from someone to make a couple illos, both for the Fluorine article.

1. structure of MnF4

2. sketch of fluorine piping diagram

Please, I will be your Wikifriend, if you help!  :)

TCO (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAR of Raney nickel

This article has been proposed for Featured article reassessment. Anyone is welcome to improve the article. JZCL 21:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua regia

A user is insisting on inserting a chembox for aqua regia, when we've decided not to do that for mixtures. The suggested chembox also contains misinformation, such as a SMILES, molecular formula, molar mass, solubility, etc. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, while hydrogen chloride and hydrogen nitrate are essential ingredients, aqua regia is a complex system of various components produced by their reaction. The suggested chembox is an oversimplification of this dynamic system. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to the discussion where was decided that mixtures don't get a chembox? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a perfect memory; I cannot. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, I can not remember that we decided not to do that for mixtures (I may be wrong), but you seem to be convinced otherwise, so I'd like you to show me where that decision was made. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who added the chembox. It seems like a perfectly legitimate use of the template. Both the German and French pages have one of these, too.User:Plasmic Physics keeps telling me the information in the box is incorrect, but refuses to tell me why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnathanfurious (talk • contribs) 12:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have named the errors in the introductory paragraph of this discussion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! If you know, for example, that the molar mass is incorrect, you must also know what the correct value is. So instead of deleting the entire box and wasting time telling others that it's wrong, just edit the box and put in the correct value! Or post a link here and I'll add the correct values. In either case if the data is wrong we need to update both the French and German pages which contain the same values. This is important information, please share!

Chembox Rules

So, lets take care of the problems one at a time.

  • When should a PIN/other name be cited?
  • If it should be cited, how should that concern be recorded?

Feel free to create subheaders for other problems, these are the only ones that most people have a problem with. I need users to not just propose solutions, but also agree on them. Please stay on topic, I do not add names/abbreviations, except for systematic names of course.

Here is a deal: work with me to answer these problems, and I will repair the "damage" by restoring the deleted names.

Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No deal, either you stay away from chem/drugboxes completely or you repair the damage. You leave the consideration about all that information to others, and I ask you to be very, very careful at the moment with any data in the chem/drugboxes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't offering the deal to you alone; I am careful in anycase; for the moment I'm avoiding editting chemboxes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plasmic, I recommend that you cease editing Wikipedia-Chemistry. Your edits have attracted much negative attention. Your competence has been called into question. You have inflicted substantial damage. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I don't accept the deal, I'll hear what others say. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals&oldid=505088865"