Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Chemicals Discussion

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 75 Start 107 Stub 18 List 1 NA 3 Assessed 394 Total 394 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,491 Ω = 3.82

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 21 140 325 268 1 755 C 7 70 335 1,110 8 1,530 Start 97 1,017 4,926 49 6,089 Stub 480 10,419 2 48 10,949 List 1 7 1,527 23 111 1,669 Disambig 9 24 33 Template 1 367 368 NA 1 19 141 3,506 3,667 Other 15 15 Assessed 30 323 2,209 18,415 3,937 217 25,131 Unassessed 12 48 360 420 Total 30 323 2,209 18,427 3,985 577 25,551 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 104,620 Ω = 5.40

Featured articles: 7 Featured lists: 1 Good articles: 48

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

Article alerts

Articles for deletion 08 Apr 2024 – Gold phosphide (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Keresluna (t · c) was closed as no consensus by Xymmax (t · c) on 01 May 2024; see discussion (9 participants; relisted) Proposed deletions 08 Apr 2024 – Ruthenium(III) nitrate (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Keresluna (t · c) was deleted 07 Apr 2024 – Gold phosphide (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Keresluna (t · c) was deproded by Lamro (t · c) (author) on 08 Apr 2024 Featured article candidates 09 Feb 2024 – Vitamin C (talk · edit · hist) FA nominated by David notMD (t · c) was not promoted; see discussion Good article nominees 09 May 2024 – Zinc chloride (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Keresluna (t · c); start discussion 07 Jan 2024 – Neodymium (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion 02 Jan 2024 – Rhenium compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion 02 Mar 2024 – Confluentic acid (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Esculenta (t · c) was promoted by Reconrabbit (t · c), see discussion Requested moves 15 Apr 2024 – 1,2-Dichloroethene (talk · edit · hist) move request to 1,2-Dichloroethylene by ⲔⲖⲞⲢⲠⲒⲔⲢⲒⲚ (t · c) was moved to 1,2-Dichloroethylene (talk · edit · hist) by BilledMammal (t · c) on 13 May 2024; see discussion 13 Feb 2024 – Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (talk · edit · hist) move request to Asymmetric dimethylhydrazine by Jeaucques Quœure (t · c) was not moved; see discussion Articles to be merged 25 Mar 2024 – Zirconocene bis(trimethylsilyl)acetylene pyridine (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Rosenthal's reagent by DMacks (t · c); see discussion 21 Mar 2024 – Titanocene bis(trimethylsilyl)acetylene (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Rosenthal's reagent by Marbletan (t · c); see discussion 01 Feb 2024 – Bromous acid (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Sodium bromite by 98.206.31.187 (t · c); see discussion 31 Jan 2024 – Macrocyclic stereocontrol (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Macrocycle by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2023 – Salen ligand (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Metal salen complex by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion Articles to be split 09 May 2022 – Lithium titanate (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Nick B. (t · c); see discussion Articles for creation 08 May 2024 – Draft:Cetyl Tranexamate Mesylate (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Kcpyatt99 (t · c) 03 May 2024 – Draft:Tetrapropylammonium (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Fishsicles (t · c) was accepted to Tetrapropylammonium (talk · edit · hist) by Graeme Bartlett (t · c) on 09 May 2024 25 Apr 2024 – Draft:Antiscalant (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by 202.156.51.116 (t · c) was moved to Antiscalant (talk · edit · hist) by Buidhe (t · c) on 28 Apr 2024 20 Mar 2024 – Draft:Star San (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Driftybiscuit (t · c) was declined by Xkalponik (t · c) on 19 Apr 2024 10 Mar 2024 – Draft:Tusi (drug) (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by ElectronCompound (t · c) was accepted to Tusi (drug) (talk · edit · hist) by Guessitsavis (t · c) on 11 Mar 2024 06 Mar 2024 – Draft:Nouryon (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by 89.197.181.42 (t · c) was declined by BuySomeApples (t · c) on 29 Mar 2024 13 Feb 2024 – Draft:Ro65-6570 (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Themonkey942 (t · c) was accepted to Ro65-6570 (talk · edit · hist) by Graeme Bartlett (t · c) on 17 Feb 2024 24 Jan 2024 – Draft:Rinchem (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Mldevonshire (t · c) was declined by ToadetteEdit (t · c) on 16 Apr 2024 undated – Draft:5α-Pregnane-3α,11β-diol-20-one (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC was moved to Draft:5α-pregnane-3α,11β-diol-20-one (talk · edit · hist) by Jimfbleak (t · c) on 20 Feb 2024

Fluorine peer review

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

Categories for image cleanup

Stumbled across these three cats, whose contents could use some human decision for transferring to commons, outright deletion, or keeping as-is:

• Category:PD chem
• Category:Classified Chemical Structures
• Category:Chemical structures

Most entries are things that are conceptually ripe for moving to commons. But some are of chemicals that already have superior diagrams hosted there (no sense moving a small gif if have svg or good png). And some are pretty bad but don't have a replacement on commons (worth a few minutes to ChemDraw a good one and put it on commons). A few really are best retained locally for various reasons. We've been pretty good at keeping the manually-tagged categories clean:

• Category:Disputed chemical diagrams
• Category:Chemical structure quality issues

For those inclined to do more from-scratch work, we have:

• Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request

Is there a central place to put this TODO-ish list so I, I mean "we", don't lose it? DMacks (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How about you put it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals#Activities in progress, possibly under its own subheading? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the three categories above may be emptied quite quickly. Having a look at the orphaned ones may help. --Leyo 22:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How does one join this group

I'm a pretty new editor and I would like to join this group, how do I do that?Lukejodonnell (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! There is no procedure for joining. This is an informal group. Anyone that wishes to participate in activity or any discussion here is free to do so. You can add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals#Participants if you wish to let others know of your participation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured articles labeled A-class

Is there a reason why FA-class articles in this project are not marked as such on the talk pages? The highest rating for this project seems to be A-class instead. For example, Talk:Amphetamine shows the article as A-class CHEM article rather than FA-class even though the parameter in the template is FA. Was FA simply never implemented? Sizeofint (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, FA was not implemented. I updated the class mask to correct it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

At the time, it was a deliberate choice NOT to implement FA-class. We had the assessment system (with A-class but no FA-class) here on WP:Chem before it was adopted more widely. Likewise, this project never adopted C-class in 2008 or so. At this point, though, I don't see any strong reason not to go along with the standard system - unless someone wants to make the case?! Walkerma (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Opabinia, I don't see a reason not to use the standard system. Sizeofint (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

New solvents

Of the six new solvents mentioned in the C&EN article Cleaning up a Solvent Problem, only 1,3-propanediol seem to have an article in Wikipedia. The other five, butyl 3-hydroxybutyrate (wd), N,N-dimethyl-9-decenamide, dipropylene glycol phenyl ether (wd), ethyl levulinate glycerol ketal and methyl-9-dodecenoate do all appear as red links. Or are some of them present under different names? --Leyo 21:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

searching by structure, only 1,3-propanediol currently exists. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How did you do that? On-site or with an external tool? --Leyo 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External tool, but one I would strongly recommend (http://www.cheminfo.org/wikipedia/) it uses the SMILES string in the chembox or drugbox to match the structure entered. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Swiss quality. ;-) Too bad, it's not available for other language versions of Wikipedia. --Leyo 10:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed ^_^ I believe the code is open source --Project Osprey (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Water (data page)

I have nominated Water (data page) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water (data page). Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

4'-Methoxy-α-pyrrolidinopropiophenone#Chemistry

The chemical structures seem to be cropped at the bottom. What's the problem there? --Leyo 13:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The table was enforcing a specific image height. I removed that particular formatting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Compromise on "remove content added by sock of blocked user Nuklear"?

I keep seeing very promising edits wiped with the edit summary "remove content added by sock of blocked user Nuklear". One of many examples: [[1]]. These removed edits are better than virtually anything anyone else is contributing. It almost seems that rules are trumping goals (improve content). One suggestion: non-blocked users be allowed to retrieve some of these contributions. There is some good stuff there, and readers would appreciate the effort. As far as I am concerned if a blocked user can help the project in such an indirect manner, its a win-win: we dont need to deal with their quirky behavior and we get to take their quality content.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, I had the same experience on the tropinone page. V8rik (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• i remove these edits per WP:REVERTBAN. The person behind the Nuklear account is mentally ill (literally) and compulsively comes to WP to add content about synthesis. There are often COPYVIO issues, issues with sourcing, and errors in the content. If you have not read the SPI you should do so.

Bigger picture, anyone is free at any time to restore any edits removed per REVERTBAN, but please carefully vet them for accuracy, sourcing and COPYVIO issues. If you restore it, you own it, and if you restore a bunch of COPYVIO, unsourced, or incorrect content, that will fall on your head.

I will also add, that I don't think it does the project or Nuklear much good to encourage them to continue by restoring a lot of their content. I find your last comment, Smokefoot to be stunningly ignorant (of course you can restore content) and worse, exploitative and cynical. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)