Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Chem-stub)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Article alerts
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Templates for discussion
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Requested moves

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.


Royal Society of Chemistry editathon, 8 August 2015[edit]

Further to the above, you are also invited to another Royal Society of Chemistry editathon, in Widnes, Cheshire, on Saturday 8 August. The event will be held at Catalyst, a museum of the chemistry industry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Data pages[edit]

Hi, folks. I was just recently reminded of the roughly 170 chemical data pages held within Category:Chemical data pages and Category:Chemical element data pages. There has been sporadic discussion in this project over the years, some that call into question their worth, but no conclusions on what, exactly, to do with them. They appear to be an old concept; the oldest I can find were first introduced in about 2005. I have some major concerns about these kinds of pages and I was hoping that you kind folks could either educate me as to their use, purpose, and utility for readers of this encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, at the moment these data pages are mostly a dumping ground for information deemed important but that doesn't fit into the main article space. I think this runs afoul of WP:RAWDATA and is a misuse of article mainspace -- the disambiguation term in parentheses identifies the purpose of the article, not its topic. The articles rarely have any prose, leaving an indiscriminate collection of data. We are no more allowed to create a "PAGENAME (data page)" when the amount of data overwhelms the main article's text that we are to create a "PAGENAME (gallery)" article if there are too many images. Even water (data page) is just a collection of data tables with little prose.

So, I was hoping that either you can help me understand these pages and help me see how they fit with Wikipedia guidelines or perhaps we can reach some sort of consensus on what to do with them. I would propose shifting all the info currently in them into a talk page subpage with a note left on the talk page of each article so that future editors can extract info in order to develop future articles. The link generated by {{chembox}} would be eliminated, as there should be no cross-namespace links. I'm not sure any of these are maintained much or at all, so any input you may have would be helpful. If there isn't much discussion here, I will likely take all of them to AfD for a wider discussion. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In my original note above, I should have mentioned that at least three of these data pages have been taken to AfD, with outcomes ranging from merge to delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bentiromide (data page), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yttrium(III) oxide (data page), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulfuric acid (data page). Rkitko (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The reason these supplementary data pages were created was to prevent the {{chembox}} from becoming too long and overwhelming chemical articles. The parent article provides context, hence the data is not indiscriminate and therefore does not violate WP:RAWDATA. The only potential problem is where the these pages are placed (in main space). Wikipedia does not seem to provide a mechanism to store supplementary data. One solution is to move these data pages to subpages of the main chemical article (e.g., water (data page)water/data ), but this is merely a semantic difference since articles with "/" in them are essentially new articles. Another potential solution is to move the data to WP:WIKIDATA. Finally there should be no cross-namespace links – These are not cross namespace links. These are wikilinks. Furthermore, interwiki links such as wiktionary:Wiktionary are frequently included in Wikipedia articles. Boghog (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand the rationale, but I don't think the information present in the data pages was or should have been included in the infobox. Infoboxes are meant to be summaries of the article content. If this info is merged back into the main articles, I imagine it would be in the context of a section on certain properties of that chemical. Your comment misses the point that articles are meant to provide their own context. As it stands, the data pages are indiscriminate collections of data, no different from a stand-alone article that would be an indiscriminate collection of images.
Allow me to clarify my earlier comment; I was suggesting moving water (data page) to Talk:Water/data page, then removing any links to the subpage from article namespace. The talk space subpage would be a place for editors to find the supplementary data for further article development. Subpages should never be in the article namespace, but the stand-alone article water (data page) is essentially filling the role of a subpage. I'm not certain I understand your point regarding interwiki links; those are links to sister projects and always found in the external links section, not in infoboxes. (An unrelated concern of mine is the number of external links to chemical identifiers in the chembox; shouldn't these be moved to the external links section via some sort of template similar to {{authority control}}?)
I'm not familiar enough with Wikidata to determine whether it is a solution to this problem. At the very least, I would like this discussion to recognize that these data page articles are 1) improperly named and 2) not appropriate for article namespace as currently used. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Concerning external links in infoboxes, the WP:ELPOINTS guideline allows them. Boghog (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed you're right about that, but I think having nearly a dozen identifiers is pushing it. I think that guideline is meant for infoboxes that have a single external link, such as the link to an official website of a person or organization. I'm familiar with some of the websites linked to in the identifiers section of the infobox, but it's a bit out of control. The {{taxobox}} for tree of life project groups could go wild with similar ELs to taxonomic databases, but we've resisted that temptation for the sake of a smaller infobox that summarizes the text. Rkitko (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not really up to date with WP:WIKIDATA, but that is probably where these pages should be moved, now it exists. This would also felicitate their use on other language wikipedias. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Some chemical wikidata already exists and below are a few examples:
Right now, it appears that one can only retrieve the data as a crude data dump that is not organized in any particular way. Wikidata phase 3 lists have not been implemented yet. I am not sure how these lists will work, but once implemented, these may make possible a display all the data on a particular chemical in a more organized and readable format. Boghog (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I also just noticed Wikidata WikiProject Chemistry which would be the logical place to follow-up on this proposal. Additional data fields would need to be defined before all the data in the data pages could be moved. All in all, this seems like a lot of work for limited benefit. How are the existing data pages harming our readers? Boghog (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info regarding Wikidata. Such data does seem more at home on a sister project, similar to how we display extra images at Commons or full text of public domain books or other works at Wikisource. How are the existing data pages harming our readers? -- that's the wrong question. A data page has no other purpose than to be a dumping ground of various other bits of data on that chemical; information deemed not important enough to fit in the main article. No explanatory prose is given with the tables, so a reader finding themselves on such a page would not know what to make of it. Does the topic covered by a (data page) article even meet WP:GNG? If you had to define what the topic of a data page is, could you? In contrast, articles like properties of water and vapor pressure of water have a reasonable title, scope, and clear explanatory prose complemented by tables and figures. It appears to me that the (data page) articles are holding grounds for extra information that editors didn't want to lose but it still doesn't have a home in a main article yet. If we didn't have vapor pressure of water, I suspect the data tables and figures found there would have ended up at water (data page). If the data pages are just meant to be dumping grounds for future article development, they should be subpages of the main article's talk namespace instead. That's where we develop articles. Rkitko (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The existing chemical data pages contain properties of individual chemicals. Hence one solution is simply to rename "compound X (data page)" to "properties of compound X". The parent chemical articles are notable and if supported by reliable sources, the properties of a notable chemical are also notable. Boghog (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to such an idea, but I still think the existing data pages would need a lot of work in order to become stand-alone "properties of compound X" articles. That might just shift the problem to one of maintenance and article building, but being an eventualist I see no problem with that, if tagged appropriately. Properties of different compounds are certainly notable, but it strains the boundary of that if there's never going to be any explanatory text linking the different properties. Rkitko (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Data pages are a problem for WD because people don't know which info to store in the item of the main article and what in the item of the data page. I agree with Rkitko about its conclusion that data pages are full of data that people don't know how to use but don't want to delete.
WD is not currently able to store numeric data with units but this will be available on a few months. But even with that feature WD is not the good place to store sets of data like the ones presented in tables (we can store but as individual data values and we have to find a way to link the individual pieces of data in a group). Snipre (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: Thanks for that additional info on Wikidata. I have always been skeptical of its current utility. I hope to see it improved to where it can be used more extensively, but it's clear that it would not be an appropriate solution for these data pages at this time. I don't want to see this info deleted, but it's current form is unacceptable. There are a couple of outcomes I can see happening: 1) No action, data pages remain where they are and in their current form, 2) The data pages are renamed with a more appropriate dab term and some editors step forward to spruce them up, 3) data pages are moved to a subpage of the main article's talk namespace for editors who want to slowly develop companion articles similar to those we have on the properties of water or water vapor, 4) the data pages are deleted. I prefer #3, but am I missing any other options? What are the arguments for each? Is there any hidden value in these pages that isn't immediately obvious? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Your solution doesn't help because this doesn't give an answer to the question what should be presented in the main article and what in the subpage. The problem is not the storage but the spliting of the data. Snipre (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a question best answered by those who edit chemistry articles, which is why I came here. The subpage would not be for display, but for article development. In all ~170 cases where data pages exist, I alone cannot tell you what should and should not be included in the main article. All I can do is say the current situation is unacceptable. My proposal preserves the information for other editors knowledgeable enough to work with it while also removing it from article namespace, which fixes the WP:RAWDATA issue. Rkitko (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The hidden value in this data is that it may of interest technically inclined readers that may later become content contributors. These readers may look at the supplementary data and then say, why isn't this mentioned in the main article and then go ahead and include that data with accompanying explanation into the article. My problem with solution #3 is that if the data page is buried as subpage of talk and if the link from the infobox to the data is removed, the data will likely be forgotten and will be no use to anyone. Removing the link between the infobox and the supplementary data is a non-starter. Boghog (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to the desire to have all this technical information, especially for expert editors who have certain specialties. Do note that I was also suggesting if the data table were to be moved to a subpage of the talk namespace, that a prominent link would be placed on the talk page to alert editors to its presence for the purpose of future article creation or editing. I'm warming to your idea above of moving these to Properties of X articles; in that case, the (data page) link could be updated to a "properties" link. I know very little about your project here; are there a fair number of interested and active editors that could help sweep through this relatively small number of articles to spiff them up just enough to make them readable? If you can convince me of that and no one disagrees, I see a better solution here. It may need a case-by-case basis, however, as many could be merged into their main articles (e.g. there's not much data in Mesembrine (data page) and this one could effectively be merged into Mesembrine). Rkitko (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Some notes.
Simple and short, when a data page exists it will be linked to from {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}}, as it is related content. That is not a route to propose deletion of the data page.
The elements data pages (Category:Chemical element data pages) have different content, as the name says: Boiling points of the elements (data page). Most remarks made here about pages like Ammonia (data page) will apply to these pages too, especially when about wiki content handling. However, a structure change or move for these pages in general is no0t similar. -DePiep (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Chemical element : french and english definition[edit]

Hi folks, an important question on the interwiki front : It seems that the french and english definitions for chemical elements are different:

  • type of atoms characterized by a constant atomic number in France
  • pure chemical substance with only atoms with the same atomic number in English

Anyone can confirm ?

It's a problem for the interwikis, in Wikidata such definitions needs two different item, and the french article will be linked to another items. This can be solved by adding some redirects though ... any comments ? (also @Emw:). sign: TomT0m 13:18, 7 June 2015 [1]

I think this quite simple to solve if we take the definition of chemical substance: "A chemical substance is a form of matter that has constant chemical composition and characteristic properties. It cannot be separated into components by physical separation methods, i.e., without breaking chemical bonds." How an element can have some chemical bonds ? An element article should focus on the atom structure of element and not on the chemcial subtances based on elements.
If we take the definition of IUPAC for chemical substance: "Matter of constant composition best characterized by the entities (molecules, formula units, atoms) it is composed of. Physical properties such as density, refractive index, electric conductivity, melting point etc. characterize the chemical substance.", we see that element is not included in the chemical substance.
We need better definitions for element, chemical substance and chemical compound because right now this is difficult to manage items in WD due to these different definition from WPs. I think we need to find one ontology or at least one chemical terms classification and based our articles or the WD items according to one unique definitions system. IUPAC seems a good start but IUPAC never provides a complete system. Snipre (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
What's about chemical ontology ? Snipre (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: ChEBI (online browsable) is also a candidate, but for the record, they don't use metaclasses, because I think they did their model with OWL 1 DL (in its DL version 1 flavor) in mind, which does not have it. With metaclasses, we can have Hydrogen (french) instance of chemical element (french) and the atom(s) in my glass of water instance(s) of Hydrogen. Without it it's impossible. ChEBI has a hydrogen atom class which could be the (english) equivalent of the hydrogen (french) concept ... then we could split the items properly, but this means we would have to split for all chemical elements ... This is doable though. TomT0m (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Good luck to find the definition of chemical element in ChEBI. I am not a fan of ChEBI because they have not a common sense of classification. I totally agree with their system but I think this is something which don't integrate the usual concept of chemistry. Snipre (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I looked at and this does not work. Nuclide can't be a synonym of atom. And if a chemical element has atom as component, plus they have a warning at the beginning, the information is derived from Wikipedia articles ... which put us in a loop. I think it's inconsistent and sometimes an element is a type of atoms and some other an element is a chemical substance. And that this inconsistency come from the english Wikipedia ... TomT0m (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: What is your definition of nucleide and of atom ? Instead of saying things like that start once by giving DEFINITION for each term you use. I can't discuss with you because I don't know which definition you use. So just once do a list of definitions for all main terms like chemical element, chemical substance, chemical compound, molecule, atom, ... and after we can can create the relation between the terms. Nucleide can be atom if we define the term to allow it. So definition first. Snipre (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: Looking at the periodic table by element: in Chebi, when you click on an element you get to the <element atom> entity. So overall it's quite in line with the french definition ... But overall, I think the scheme I proposed in Wikidata with chemical element as a class of class of atoms works pretty well and is exactly the definition given in french definition. TomT0m (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
My definitions : an atom is the fudamental structure in chemistry. My arm is made of a lot of atoms. Atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Hydrogen is a class of atom : the atoms in my glass of water who are not oxygen atoms or else are instances of hydrogen. The class of all classes of atoms, characterized by the same atomic number for all instances of atoms in each, is the element metaclass. There is other ways to class atoms than by element, by isotope for example. the nuclide definition is the one of Wikipedia, if I remmeber well, and provides yet another way to class atoms. Let's call nuclide the set of all classes given by the different ways to classify atoms. Then the set of all isotope classes is a subset of it. This establishes isotope subclass of nuclide. TomT0m (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but this is not definition. A definition should give parameters or characterists which allows to include or exclude different entities. Typically an atom is a group of electron, proton and neutrons, element is the group of all atoms with the same number of protons, ... We don't need class or class of class for that. Snipre (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I think we're on the same page, except what I call class you call group. Each class in math and in ontology as a definition, which is the definition you give : Let's say atom is a class defined, and say group of electron, proton and neutrons is it's characteristic property. Let's call instances of a class the set of all real world entities that satisfies the property. In Wikidata and in other ontologies, the fact than an object satistifies the characteristic property of a class is expressed by P31. To go a little further, the group in group of electron, proton and neutrons is given by the has part property, which is not instance of. Now we can also give classes of classes with metaclass (Semantic Web) Metaclasses also have characteristic properties, that refers to similarities of the characteristic properties. In the Hydrogen instance of Element and Oxygen instance of Element, for example, the characteristic property of Hydrogen would be "an atom with 1 as an atomic number" and for Oxygen "an atom with 8 as an atomic number". The similarities become obvious, element is "[the metaclass of all classes with a characteristic property an atom with X as an atomic number with X a number]". So your group word become two in my model :) TomT0m (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(also started a thread in the french chemistry project) TomT0m (talk) Forgot to mention that I took on myself to create an element for the type of atoms with same atomic number concept. TomT0m (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Stupid reaction: why do you create items by your own if you come here to ask how we should consider the topic ? You just add confusion by creating items without having a general overview of the classification. Snipre (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank for the stupid :) I created the item before I started the discussion. Anyway, I knew the elementically pure substance still could have an item. If it turns out we'll have to swap the definitions, I just will merge it and create another one. No big deal. TomT0m (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Just my perspective as an English person: the French definition makes more sense. We were always told, in school and in books, that an 'element' is a pure substance composed of only one type of atom. However the term, in its common usage, is almost synonymous with 'type of atom'. For example, when a new element is discovered, the discovery is notable because it is a new type of atom, not because the uncombined forms of Flerovium or Livermorium have any interesting or useful properties. Some elements also exhibit allotropism, meaning two very different substances can still be the same element. I believe the English definition persists largely due to historical inertia. Isolation of elements preceded atomic theory by a long way. - Jynto (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

IUPAC definitions[edit]

In the Goldbook, two definitions to "chemical element" :

  • A species of atoms; all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus.
  • A pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus. Also calles « elementary substance ». [2]

Puce Survitaminée (discuter) 7 juin 2015 à 22:08 (CEST)

So we would need a disambig page (optionally) and two items, maybe two short articles. What do you think ? TomT0m (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No chemical substance can't be used. If I take the IUPAC definition of chemical substance, this specifies that [a chemical substance] cannot be separated into components by physical separation methods, i.e., without breaking chemical bonds. Or we can separate Uranium 235 and uranium 238 using only physical means like centrifugation. So I prefer to have only the first definition and find a good description of what is a species. Snipre (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
There is clarification about this in a cite note : [3] which seems to make sense. But obviously it refers to this definition, so only one of the two WD items. I guess the question left is if we link the english Wikipedia article to the new item or to the old one ... the french article is clear, that one is ambiguous. TomT0m (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: species here is just one of the many ways to say types, or class, or kind ... If there was only me and if the article was better, I would just redirect to class (knowledge representation).
My change was reverted. Do I have any support here ? :) TomT0m (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


A proposition of introduction, to advance a little bit : A chemical element (often just element when the chemical context is implicit) is a species of chemical objects, chararacterized by a number of protons in atoms nucleus. Two alternative definition are encoutered: either it is a type of atom with a constant number of proton, 1 in the case of hydrogen, or in a second definition a pure chemical substance consisting of a single type of atom distinguished by its atomic number<ref name="goldbookdef">IUPAC (ed.). "chemical element". doi:10.1351/goldbook.C01022. </ref>. Those two definitions are closely related, as the second one has the first one is a part of it. In the first one, we will say that an atom with one proton is hydrogen, or with 2 protons helium, and in the second one we will say that the content of an Hydrogen gaz bottle is hydrogen.

OK, if nobody objects I guess I'll put it on the article in a few days. TomT0m (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
For me we can simplify with one definition saying "a group of atoms (undetermined number of atoms in the group from 1 to all atoms in the universe). Snipre (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: that would not really be precise and even be confusing : that's like saying humanity is a group of human. That way a music band could be humanity by himself, or human ... It's clear in that case that there is a big difference beetween a kind and a group of objects of that kind. And this left us into the dilemna that lead me here, so it's not much of an improvement.
PS: forgot to mention it but I made the change already. TomT0m (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I cannot articulate it that much, but something smells wrong. I read "a species of chemical objects, chararacterized by a number of protons in atoms nucleus". A species? Not a definition? A character? And what is left of the "undividable" and "chemical properties" I learned at school? I'll have to spend a time into this. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: I don't know, do you have an idea of the sources your professors used ? Species is a synonym of kind, or type, see wiktionary for example : TomT0m (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Species is a normal word in chemistry, see chemical species. Christian75 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: I want to keep this hot :) did you find a minute to think about it ? TomT0m (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
If "specimen" is the word to use, then go ahead. To me it reads like WP:JARGON and I only want to suggest to resolve that. Next, I note that the proposal says "characterized", i.e. not as strong as "defined" or "identified" then. (And, a number of... shouldn't that be " the number of.."?). -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: You're right, it would be great if we could make this a little less technical. For example the relationship element/compound should appear in the introduction.
What about something like

In chemistry, chemicals elements are the basic types of components matter made of atoms, ordinary matter like molecules and other chemical compounds are made of. Elements can be defined of two different ways, but in either way the number of protons in atoms nuclei is used to define elements, called the atomic number, because two atoms with the same atomic number have the same chemical properties. Either it is
* a type of atom with a constant number of proton, 1 in the case of hydrogen,
* a pure chemical substance consisting of a single type of atom distinguished by its atomic number<ref>IUPAC (ed.). "chemical element". doi:10.1351/goldbook.C01022. </ref>
In the first one, we will say that an atom with one proton is hydrogen, or with 2 protons helium, and in the second one we will say that the content of an Hydrogen gaz bottle is hydrogen.

It's less jargonish and explains a little bit how elements are important and how they are classified, and why. @DePiep and Sniper: What do you think ? (sign:) TomTom
minor: ping @Snipre: fix. -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds better indeed. I must leave it to you, because I can not contribute here to improvements in a lede (command of English, command of chemistry :-) ). OK for picking up the jargon thing. -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: sounds like the definition has a history here ... I'm beginning to understand I might have fallen into an obscurancy nest ... TomT0m (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I should stop writing here, because the Snipre discussion above (ontology, definitions, classification, connecting that to WD) is much more important. -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's related : I'd like to keep enwiki and frwiki (and many others) directly connected the same article, this seems important for a topic like this. This is impossible if the definition of the article is the substance one. TomT0m (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunate indeed. But doesn't this say the the RL situation is unclear too? Even with the institutions & scientists involved? It would be very ambiitous of wiki to have same-definitions between sisters (WD, fr, en wikis). I've seen this in the topics of "periodic table category" (a word used in enwiki, not by IUPAC: used locally for an existing concept) and "Elements in group 3 (of the periodic table)" (depends on criteria chosen). In these, we at enwiki have reached a sort of stable situation by converging to a mainstream 'definition' (or agreement; both in science and enwiki), and noting the side options separately in the relevant articles. IMO it makes readible articles, diving from general lede into sections as detailed as possible (see metalloid). And also gave me a rest of mind. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@SePiep: And also gave me a rest of mind Sorry I'm not good enough to understand that ;) , what does that mean ? It would be a lie to the reader to present only one facet of the coin and a clear situation when actually the definition is vastly disputed ... and it seem to bury really important property : it seems that the introduction right now does not really mentions that the elements a compound is made of gives him his properties ... And I think it just can't because of the - chosen - definition. It's indeed clear, but to me somewhat empty. And it is burying a controversy so it's POV, which on wikipedia does mean something and is the real problem. TomT0m (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


a rest of mind I meant: I think we solved (we are presenting) these two examples nicely and correctly at enwiki.
The opening post here ("Hi folks") two definitions are mentioned (fr, en). I assume both are valid (well-sourced). After that, you aim to somehow turn the two definitions into one major, also to serve a single wikidata definition. To me this looks a bit strange: wd requires such a solution, while in RL (in science that is), two definitions exist. It is not for wikipedia to prefer one, especially not for that iw reason. I mentioned the examples to illustrate: well, these are situations with multiple claims in RL (science), so we can not leave one out. However, we do present them with gradual importance (for example, writing the fringe scientific opinions in a section only). I note that different opinions in sources do not count as a WP:POV, only wiki-editors choices may. Right?
For example. In metalloid, there is a list of 194 sources that each build an argument for a list of elements. The article adds a occurrance (% of the sources) per element: "rarely considered a metalloid" etc.
For example. About group 3 in the periodic table. The list of elements is not fixed in literature. Using different criteria, sources end up with a different set. That is reflected in the article. Wiki does not take a preferred opinion (though sources with a more fringe statement me be moved to a section not in the lede).
So, an article reflecting the RL diverse opinions (in sources) is OK with me. If the article describes bot french and english definition, that's fine. And wikidata should be able to handle that. -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, OK, of course, we're working on considering different definitions in Wikidata (you might be interested into joining d:Talk:Q18225 for example which is a good and hot example. It's not easy, as collaborative work can be, but I'm confident we'll end up with something solid. My problem here is that the current version does only account for one definition of element, that my attempt to add the second one, who is not fringed at all as it is present in the UIPAC goldbook, has been reverted and that I fear this will happen again without a clear concensus on talk page because at least one user is opposed to this there :) TomT0m (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

New tool?[edit]

Forgive my presumptuousness, but I'm not sure where else to put this. In my work, I am producing a wiki documenting a lot of historic materials science and therefore one using a lot of chemical notation, and the layout performed by Chem wasn't quite what I was looking for. I started to improve upon the {{Chem}} template, but after conferring with some wikipedia higher-ups, I switched to a parser keyword instead so that it would interact more nicely with stacked templates and infoboxes.

I'm wondering if you would be kind enough to review and kibbitz on the layout and rendering (as well as any features you can think to add)

Here's a page talking about the update:


Perhaps the next feature would be one that adds a comment when the equation isn't balanced?

You can contact me directly via wikipedia's email here

Thanks for your time! Riventree (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify how this tool differs from {{chem}}? Is it intended as an update of the existing template or as a separate, alternative tool? ChemNerd (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an alternative, not a new version of the chem template. There were three main issues I wanted to address:

  1. Ease of use / error blocking (cut and paste input text: {{Chem|H|2|S||O|4}} is awkward and error prone {{#Chem: H2SO4}} produces the same (actually, slightly better) layout.
  2. Better visual layout (subscripting and sub-subscripting, better css control, line height, etc)
  3. Annotated-arrow support (where you have the reaction catalysts and conditions listed)

There's a bunch of other stuff too. Crystal notation, ΔH notation, etc. Have a look at the link above, it has a fairly good description of the features. Riventree (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't follow all of this. 1. {{Chem}} has the issue that it hightens a line (more whitespace above). 2. We need a general template to produce the formula for HTML (how difficult can it be). In {{Infobox drug}}, a 'bolded font coloring' is used, see aspirin (ouch).
Anyway, I'm not here to support an non-wiki template building. What's the plan? -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No, {{chem}} is terrible, but a good solution before we got Lua. Riventrees version is very nice, instead of adding a lot of | to the formula, you just parse the chemical formula and it converts a lot of stuff. It could be very nice if the version was published on enwiki somewhere in the module namespace. In matter of fact I have been working on a similar version, which I will upload at module:Chem2/template:Chem2 to inspiration. (I do not think I will finish it, after seeing the other version). Christian75 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
See you all at Template:Chem/sandbox, andn Template:Chem/testcases. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Its not a replacement for chem, its a new version. I uploaded my beta version to {{chem2}}. It shouldnt be used yet, but you can write things like {{chem2|CH3\i{13}CH2CH3}}, {{chem2|SO4(2-)}} and {{chem2|\h{5}[HC\tC\qMn](2+)}} which gives CH
, SO2–
and η5––[HC≡C≣Mn]2+. Christian75 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks nice. Anything other than the font when formulas are written with the "math" format. BTW, whats the deal with a "deep subscript"? Doesn't seem to be standard practice, but maybe the consensus is for it. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, its not finished. About: "deep subscript" - its just a beta version, and can be changed to follow enwikis MOS. I am working on it (locally), and made it recognize equations too. (It was published on enwiki because I thought "the new tool" was a Lua module (and was finished). I will write a note when its "finished", so the mark up can be changed, maybe someone have better ideas than using \s, \d, \t, \q (for bonds), * for crystal water, etc... Christian75 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sooo.... I'm new to contributing to MediaWiki/Wikipedia on the infrastructure side. How do I do what Christian75 was talking about? "Publish somewhere on enwiki in the module namespace"? I have the php, css, test page, and doc page ready to go... I just don't know where to put it where people can check it out.

Help, help! Send instructions or a link (I promise I read everywhere I could think of, but apparently not the right places yet)

Riventree (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't help you, {{Chem2}} does not have a testpage. BTW, what is wrong with {{Chem}} anyway? DePiep (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Chem: You cant copy paste a formula, but have to add a lot of pipes (|), its hard to read the markup, you can only have one charge, and so on Christian75 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Riventree: Ok, I thought it was a Lua module, but its an extension? If so, its hard to get it deployed on Wikipedia (security, efficiency and usability). But take a look at mediawikiwiki:Writing an extension for deployment. Christian75 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Riventree stop crying unless yo are a baby. Now what is your question? -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Christian75: Thank you for your help. I've applied for access and I'm setting up the appropriate pages
  2. DePiep: Thank you for your kind words and keen insight.

Riventree (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Current options[edit]

  1. {{Chem|H|2|O}}H
  2. {{Infobox drug/chem styled|O=1|H=2}}H2O (used by {{Infobox drug}}
  3. {{Chembox Elements/molecular formula|O=1|H=2}} → H2O (used by {{Chembox}})
  4. {{Chem2|H2O}} → H
    O (Christian75 21:48 below)
I still do not get why we need an external development site (though all these wiki-options, live today, are bad somehow I agree). -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Its not an external site he want us to use. The external link was to his own wiki where he used the extension to MediaWiki he had programmed in PHP etc - he wants us (Wikipedia) to use it too. He asked how to get it deployed on Wikipedia. That said, {{chem}} are used in the articles too (alot). My Lua (alpha) version can do things like: {{chem2|3H2 + N2 -> 2NH3}} which gives: 3H
+ N
→ 2NH
. It could be very nice if the infobox just got the formula (eg. |formula = CaCO3, and then showed the formula correct and calculated the molar mass too (with no need of Ca=|C=|O=3). A lot of inorganic compounds need both a formula and the Ca=stuff because the empirical formula doesnt looks good for inorganic compounds (e.g. CCaO
for CaCO
. Christian75 (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Added, great. I'm not into weirder numbers like O2n+1 or charges, but I do know we need a single consolidated template for this. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Chem2|X2+}} → X+
seems to be ambiguous: It may stand for X2+ and X2+. How do we deal with that issue? --Leyo 09:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

{{Chem2|X2+}} → X+
{{Chem2|X+2}} → X+

Looks like this needs documentation (cannot disambiguate this by some 'natural' typing order). In other templates we have |charge=, but that would not work in the full reaction option Chris75 has build. -DePiep (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This wasnt Leyos point. X+2 doesnt have any chemical meaning, but X2+ could be either X+
or X2+. Christian75 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It has some kind of documentation (see module:Chem2/doc), but I havent finish the module yet. However, by design "index" has higher priority than charge, so {{chem2|I3-}} gives I
    but can be written as {{chem2|I3(-)}} too. My plan was (is) to finish it "soon", and then "publish" it in selected wikiprojects (and ask for further sugestions). I am stilling missing the feature to auto link to elements probably with the option |auto=yes. I do not know how rich of features it should be (eg. it could automatic format things like (s), (g) and (l). I really like the module :-) because you can take an equation like: 2 Fe + 6 HCl = 2 FeCl3 + 3 H2 from the big internet, and do: {{chem2|2 Fe + 6 HCl -> 2 FeCl3 + 3 H2}} which gives: 2 Fe + 6 HCl → 2 FeCl
    + 3 H
    . Christian75 (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I should have used X2+ as an example:
  • {{Chem2|X2+}} → X+
  • {{Chem2|X(2+)}} → X2+ Christian75 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I was just playing with options. When saying "needs documentation" that means one cannot remember it from natural typing (H2O does not need, X2+ does). -DePiep (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Just remember it as charges needs parenthesis ... Christian75 (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
@Christian75 and DePiep: Is the module ready to be used (soon)? BTW: Why isn't it moved to Module:Chem? --Leyo 18:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I have more time next week, and can look at it again. Its called module:chem2 so it has same name as the template template:Chem2 Christian75 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Leyo: Its nearly "finished" (but really need some cleanup). I added the possibility to auto link to elements, {{chem2|auto=yes|Na2HgOHC6HOBrC6H2OBrOCHC6H4CO2}} gives Na
. The typograhy should be discussed somewhere. I am in doubt if I should add a ^ so its possible to write R^1R^2 instead of using ' like R'R''. Christian75 (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide a few examples? --Leyo 23:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry fot the long delay. I think I finished it more or less yesterday (found one bug). My intention is to write a note on different WikiProjects (tomorrow). There is a lot of examples at module:chem2/doc Christian75 (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 25, 2015[edit]

This is just a language question: is there any difference in tone or meaning between "behave as a metal, with a cationic chemistry ..." and "behave as a cationic metal ..."? - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be difficult to identify a more inconsequential (or is it, less consequential?) topic in chemistry than astatine. So if you screw up this article ("cationic metal - huh"?), no one who works in the real world gives a hoot. Grumpily, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, astatine is thought to offer promise as a real world cancer radiotherapy agent. To the extent that our article provides a one stop consolidation of its properties it would be worth getting this right, would it not? One would be hard pressed to find a better single source on astatine anywhere, the majority of which are no more than "here be dragons" equivalents, in comparison. Poking the bear with a sore head, -- Sandbh (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
How about Flerovium? Anyways, @Dank: they look interchangeable to me but the latter is more concise. VQuakr (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Sentence has been changed, it can form cations that's not really the same as being a metal. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks ... and the word "metal" is used in a different sense earlier in the TFA column, so I like that change a lot. One more question ... would it go too far to say this? "less is known about astatine than almost any other element". - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually ... striking, there's no need to say anything about that. The rest of the text gives the right impression, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Mercury toxicity[edit]

We could use some real chemical judgement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dqeswn reported by User:Andy Dingley .28Result: Indef block.29, List of unusual deaths#20th century and Karen Wetterhahn on the mechanisms of mercury poisoning when absorbed as dimethylmercury, and how to communicate this to a lay audience. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

William Lofland Dudley[edit]

Would any of you guys be willing to add your insight to the article of William Lofland Dudley? A very interesting fellow in my opinion but the article is crippled if one is asking me to do a proper treatment of chemistry. Cake (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Polymers[edit]

As far as I tell Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers is dead and has been dead for sometime. The project is quite small, with only 872 listed pages but with no active participants issues may being to pile up. What is the procedure in these situations? Is the project left in the hopes that new editors may revive it, or do we fold the project into this one? --Project Osprey (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

A serious proposal to merge should be honored. But take care: kill that dead WP. Otherwise, we're left with a web of sort-of alternate names for Chem. (My bad experience: WP:Chemicals and WP:Chemistry -- just seeing these names reopens that headache). No Venn. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Merge it with WP:Chemicals. (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Benzene halides list[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm looking for a complete list containing all the possible benzene halides structures. I want to compile a Navbox for the italian wikipedia, here's my sandbox on, to give you an idea of what I mean to do (mono, di,tri, penta and esa-sostituiti means mono, di,tri, penta and hexa-substituted). Thanks for the help--Samuele Madini (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

C10-18 Triglycerides Polyglyceryl-3 Esters Phosphates[edit]

Would anyone be keen to create a stub for C10-18 Triglycerides Polyglyceryl-3 Esters Phosphates? Jared Preston (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

A chemists perspective on catalytic triads[edit]

Hi, I'm hoping to nominate Catalytic triad to be reviewed for GA status soon. It would be good if a few chemists could cast their eye over it to check if the chemistry aspects are sound. Thanks in advance for any help. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks promising.


  • Anchor the lead sections with textbook references. Lots of general sources on proteases and related topics.
  • Removed English from figures. Put it in captions. Having English in your figures hurts their transferrability to other languange Wiki's and can make the article appear parochial
  • Minimize reliance on primary journal references (FEBS Lett?) and replace with books and reviews. See WP:SECONDARY. Tens of thousands of primary journal articles appear annually, Wikipedia has no aspiration to keep up with that gusher, and we have no need to be absolutely cutting edge - we are looking for settled knowledge.
  • Final comment, the usual problem with large articles developed by single editors is conflict of interest (WP:COI), often inadvertent. If you have a conflict of interest - are citing yourself or colleagues, declare it or remove it.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Smokefoot: Thanks for the advice. The article was one of the first I majorly contributed to so it's sometimes hard to dispassionately see the flaws. Good plan with more secondary and textbook refs. Stryer's Biochemsitry should help. I've avoided any self-citation, although I may suggest one in the talk page for someone else to review. I'll have a look at removing wording from images. Some of it I think is preferable to keep, but at the very least I'll make some text-less versions to put up on wikimedia commons (a habit it'd generally be good to get into). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge mepirodipine with Barnidipine[edit]

Please merge mepirodipine with Barnidipine. Snipre (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to merge (nearly same content (same structure, same CAS, etc.), so I redirected mepirodipine to barnidipine, and added {{cn}} for IUPAC name (different for the two articles). Christian75 (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

ACS Annual Meeting 2015 Boston[edit]

I would like to inform our colleagues from the enwp about a lecture at the ACS Annual Meeting in august 2015 in Boston about a successful collabaration between the Georg-Thieme Verlag as holder of the Römpp Lexikon Chemie (a german online encyclopedia with focus on chemistry) and the german wikipedia chemistry project. Maybe here are some vistors of the meeting and are interested in this collabaration: Wikipedia and Chemistry: Collaborations in Science and Education. --Codc (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A 'Notable Chemists and Chemistry' themed edit-a-thon is planned for the ACS National Meeting in Boston. Participants in WikiProject Chemistry are invited to join us on August 19, 2015, from 1:30 to 5:30, in person or remotely (registration required; see details on event page). If anyone plans to attend and is willing to volunteer as a trainer, please contact me on my talk page. This event is sponsored by the American Chemical Society (ACS) Office of Public Affairs, ACS Division of Chemical Information, and ACS Committee on Public Relations and Communications. KLindblom (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Codc, User:KLindblom! Also, I'd like to remind folks that there is a technical session on Wikipedia & Chemistry at the Boston ACS meeting, Room 104a on the afternoon of Sunday, August 16th. Walkerma (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise that Codc's link was for a talk in the same session; however, my alternate link may be useful for some. Walkerma (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Reminder: A 'Notable Chemists and Chemistry' themed edit-a-thon is planned for Wednesday, August 19, 2015, from 1:30 to 5:30 p.m. EDT. Participants in WikiProject Chemistry are invited to join us, in person in Boston or remotely. (Registration required; see details on event page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLindblom (talkcontribs) 21:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This Edit-a-thon is now starting. If you want to join us, please come to irc:// Walkerma (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Phosphorus pentoxide[edit]

Would someone please check this edit at Phosphorus pentoxide. I'm guessing it's reasonable, and the error in the infobox for "Melting point" would be fixed by moving the new "sublimes" from MeltingPtC to MeltingPt. However, someone with more of a clue should do that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, J. Done. I assumed that "sublimes" fact is chemically correct. |MeltingPtC= takes a number (Celcius), |MeltingPt= and |MeltingPt_notes= take any text (shown as prefix, suffix). -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes in WP:chemistry[edit]

Nuvola apps edu science.svg
Recent changes in
WP:Chemistry and WP:Chemicals
List overview · Updated: 2015-06-28 · This box: v · t

FWIW: I've made and updated {{Recent changes in Chemistry}}

-DePiep (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Can any editors following this page help out with a possible issue I spotted with acetol? This is a redirect that was created by a bot (User:PotatoBot) back on 6 April 2011. The redirect history can be seen here. It was created as a 'redirect from trade name' to aspirin because at one point 'Acetol' was a trade name for this drug (in Canada, I think). At least twice (in December 2013 on the talk page, and in September 2014 on the redirect page), IP editors have tried to point out that acetol is also the name for a chemical that has the molecular formula C3H6O2. The linear formula is CH3COCH2OH and it has various other names as well, including 1-Hydroxy-2-propanone and 1-hydroxyacetone (it is listed under the latter name at C3H6O2). I tried and failed to find it with its own article under any name on Wikipedia, but may have missed something somewhere. The Sigma Aldrich page for it is here. I also found an entry in a 1990s book that gives three meanings for 'acetol' (see here). It might also have been the name for an airline fuel as well (though the references there are confusing). Some people also confuse it with acetal and acetyl. So my question is whether the primary 'acetol' page should be about the CH3COCH2OH chemical (instead of the current redirect) and what to do about the other meanings for this name? Am pinging User:Magioladitis in case they want to comment (they reverted the 2014 attempt to point out the problem with the redirect). Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

acetol hydroxyacetone 1-hydroxy-2-propanone. A Google search suggests that hydroxyacetone is the primary topic although not overwhelmingly. The problem of course is that we currently do not have a hydroxyacetone article. The best solution is probably to create a hydroxyacetone stub and convert acetol into a disambiguation page. Boghog (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Carcharoth I reverted the edit for two reasons: The redirect was altered from targeting a blue link to a red link and references are not allowed in redirects. So mainly was a technical revert and not an opinion about page naming. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I created hydroxyacetone for this chemical (name chosen because the numbers are superfluous and not always used in literature and likewise acetone is more common than propanone), converted acetol to a disambiguation page, and updated the inbound links to it (all of which wanted the hydroxyacetone meaning!). Feel free to create additional redirects as appropriate. DMacks (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. Much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


The specificity constant stub page (k_{cat}/K_{M}, kinetic efficiency) really needs someone to have a look through it to check the maths and add references. It could definitely benefit from a chemist's eye. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 02:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really into enzymes, but I've fixed a problem with the steady state expression. --99of9 (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The text also needs a lot of work. Since there is already Michaelis–Menten kinetics article, I think a lot of the material in specificity constant article is redundant and should be removed. I have gone ahead and simplified and rewrote much of the article. Hopefully the revised version is clearer and more accurate. Boghog (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem with two articles[edit]

I have a problem to distinguish 2 articles:

As I understand the case, one is an isomer mixture and the other one is a pure isomer. But I can' define who's who. According to PubChem, Dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine is the pure isomer (see here) and Colfosceril palmitate is the mixture (see here). But according to ChemIDPlus this is the inverse: see here and there. Can someone provide some other sources to define who is right ? Thanks Snipre (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Merging process to finish[edit]

A Merging process was initiated since 18 months for Chemotactic peptide and N-Formylmethionine-leucyl-phenylalanine. How can I finish the merge process ? Thanks Snipre (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I merged what little unique material that was in Chemotactic peptide into N-Formylmethionine-leucyl-phenylalanine and turned the former into a redirect page. Boghog (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission - 06/07/15[edit]

Draft:Forces between polymer-coated surfaces. Thank you for your input beforehand. Best, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Same articles ?[edit]

Do you think these two articles Norlevorphanol and 3-Hydroxymorphinan are about the same topic and can be merged ? Snipre (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

They are not literally "the same", but I agree they should be merged. Norlevorphanol is one of the two enantiomers of which 3-Hydroxymorphinan is the racemic mixture. There is apparently little (at this time) to say about the (–) isomer...actually the two sentences in the racemic-mixture article say more than the article specifically about this one! DMacks (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the small difference I didn't see. So if there is a difference we can keep them in my opinion. Snipre (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Boiling point of Caryophyllene[edit]

This edit at Caryophyllene changed BoilingPtF from "262 to 264" to "514?" with an edit summary that makes me think the "262 to 264" should have been BoilingPtC. Can someone please check this and fix it because the question mark breaks the template. Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquote competition[edit]

As Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, I'm working with our Wikiquote colleagues to raise awareness of that project, though a competition to source quotes about chemistry. Your participation would be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

cast iron black oxiding[edit]

Hi please let me know cast iron blackening process,and how efficient this process — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes in Wikiproject Chemistry[edit]

Template:Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry I made the template {{Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry}} - which covers all article tagged with WikiProject Chemistry. Originally I moved {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} to ... in Chemicals; because its covers articles with the chembox (which belongs to the chemical project), but somebody didnt like that. Thats the reason for the name. Christian75 (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The template is named {{Recent changes in Chemistry}}. This one is a fork and is misleading. -DePiep (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Please explain. {{Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry}} has all articles included in WikiProject Chemistry. {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} has close to zero of the articles in WikiProject Chrmistry. I suggest we rename {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} to {{Recent changes in Chemicals}}. Any comments? (it should be discussed on this page because the talk page of the matter is a redirect to this page). Christian75 (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu science.svg
Recent changes in
WP:Chemistry and WP:Chemicals
List overview · Updated: 2015-06-28 · This box: v · t
-DePiep (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at Oxazolone[edit]

I'd be grateful if someone could cast an eye over at oxazolone as I've become a bit confused by it. The ring has several structural isomers, so it can be either a lactam or a lactone (apparently). There's also an overlap with the azlactone functional group. I don't have much to work with here and I'm worried about unintentionally straying into WP:Synth. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Recent changes in WikiProject Chemistry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. In favor of original {{Recent changes in Chemistry}} -DePiep (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Recent changes in Chemistry[edit]

Nuvola apps edu science.svg
Recent changes in
WP:Chemistry and WP:Chemicals
List overview · Updated: 2015-06-28 · This box: v · t

{{Recent changes in Chemistry}}'s talk page redirect here... I suggest we add WP:Chemicals to the title too, so it looks like: [4] because it covers both projects. DePiep reverted the idea (without any Edit summary) Christian75 (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • As it is now: looks good to me. Very good. -DePiep (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Woulfe bottle[edit]

Woulfesche Flasche.jpg

May I ask for the help of some native speakers: The adjacent picture is denoted as "Woulfe bottle" (named after Peter Woulfe and shown in his article). From my personal experience I would say it just shows a washing flask. This picture shows some flasks that I would call Woulfe bottles, but I can not judge, if the file name of this picture shown here is correct (if "Woulfe bottle" is also used for the shown flask) or if it should be corrected.--Mabschaaf (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've seen different glassware companies list it under either name. I'd never heard of "Woulfe bottle", but I have used 2- and 3-neck wash bottles, so maybe use of this specific name is limited to certain fields? DMacks (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
When I looked at it I just thought it was a variant of a Drechsel bottlem where a screw cap replaced the ground glass joint, the following Chemistry World article ([5]) contains a reference to the Woulfe bottle with a written description. In some respects the image to me seems to be a modern hybrid of the 2. --The chemistds (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As an addition comment - I wouldn't associate the term Wash Bottle with this glassware. I think that the common usage of wash bottle would be a plastic squeezable bottle that dispenses a solvent/solution. Depending on the situation that it is used I would generally expect this glassware to be considered as a bubbler or scrubber (when gas is passed through a liquid), or as a trap when used to remove solid/liquid material from a flow of gas. --The chemistds (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
That squeeze bottle is also called a wash bottle, but so the bubbler/scrubber type. Often specifically a "gas-washing bottle" (it washes the gas) in many supply catalogs. Our wash bottle article needs some work. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The Woulfe bottle as i know it is a safety flask to prevent an evacuated experiment from sucking in water from an aspirator in case of water failure. It has three plugs, one of which has a valve that can be opened to the surrounding air, and the other two connect to the apparatus and the aspirator. The valve is opened before turning off the water, to prevent backwash into the bottle. The thing in the picture is totally unsuitable. The article Peter Woulfe is also not clear as to what Woulfes bottle actually is.--Maxus96 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

[4+3] or (4+3) - which one[edit]

A lot of articles (text and titles) has been changed from eg. [4+3] cycloaddition to (4+3) cycloaddition (see 4+3 cycloaddition) (btw. MediaWiki has no problems with titles staring with "("), and Pauson–Khand reaction. Personally I think it look strange. And I cant remember I have seen it in either Clayden's, March's or Carey & Sundberg's books. Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian75 (talkcontribs)

I've never seen it with parentheses. I've gone ahead and reverted the edits and directed the editor to come here to discuss. shoy (reactions) 17:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Modify identifiers section of drugbox[edit]

A proposal to move the identifiers section of {{infobox drug}} (that contains CAS numbers and links to chemical/drug databases, etc.) from the infobox to the bottom of the article has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


The naming of Radical (chemistry) is under discussion, see Talk:Radical (chemistry) -- (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Help for identification[edit]

Is the Ormeloxifene a mixture of stereoisomers or the stereoisomer of the Levormeloxifene i.e. the dextrormeloxifene ? Snipre (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont know. The images and/or IUPAC names are not correct. From the images it looks like it enantiomers but the names suggest they are are not (3R,4R and 3S,4R) Christian75 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
PubChem link in Ormeloxifene's chembox agrees with the diagram we have and identifies its stereochemistry as 3S,4S. The PubChem link in Levormeloxifene agrees with the structure and 3R,4R we have there. DMacks (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
And right there is a reason to keep external-database links easily available:) DMacks (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@DMacks: External DB like Pubchem are not really the best reference when considering isomerism. We miss a good database to distinguish stereoisomers from their racemate. Snipre (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I would modify what you say here - databases can distinguish racemates from enantiomers. However, once you start to look at relative stereochemistry for compounds that have more than one stereocentre there are often problems that arise from limitations in chemical structure file formats in combination with the standard conventions used by most of the chemistry community when drawing such species. The key thing is to be aware of the potential problems and be critical in the use of data from databases understanding their datamodels, dataquality and limitations. --The chemistds (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes I agree about the fact that DB can handle and often distinguish between isomers and racemate. But we don't have some systematic process with creation of elements in the DB for all cases (ex. for a simple stereisomer wit two elements for the single isomers and one element for the racemate). The problem is not the representation, but the complete representation of the possible cases. We miss a tag or label which allows us to identify clearly the component pictured in the DB and in the case of PubChem I found several examples where the names were not coherent with the representation. Snipre (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Almost always where you have a compound name like Ormeloxifene and then a variant that has the dextro- or Levo- prefix the name without such prefixes is for the racemate. In this case this appears to be true see the INN documentation for the two names Ormeloxifene: [6] and Levormeloxifene: [7]. --The chemistds (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that but in the case of PubChem we can't use that rule so that was the ground of my question and if someone can find a DB which uses dextrormeloxifene or a similar name, this will solve the problem. Snipre (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Scifinder also appears to be having a problem with this: Ormeloxifene resolves to 31477-60-8 which is described in the text as being R,R but has an accompanying image labeled S,S by relative stereochemistry. Levormeloxifene resolves to 78994-23-7, which is also described in the text as being R,R but has a matching image labeled R,R by absolute stereochemistry. A lesser used CAS exists which is described as being S,S in the text and displayed as S,S by absolute stereochemistry, it's listed as being named Centchroman (CAS: 78994-25-9). Made of that what you will. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Allotrope of oxygene[edit]

Can singlet oxygen and triplet oxygen be considered as allotrope of oxygen ? According to allotropes of oxygen yes but according allotropy no. Snipre (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The physical and inorganic experts can correct this, but my general understanding is that O2 (dioxygen), O3 (ozone), etc. are the allotropes of oxygen, and triplet and singlet are the ground and excited electronic states of the dioxygen allotrope. See this source [8]]. But again, my field is not phys or inorg, and so there may be nuances of current usage, or new trends in meaning, of which I am unaware. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


This article is very sad. Anyone want to take a stab at cleaning it up, or should we just soft redirect to wiktionary? shoy (reactions) 15:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion opened regarding lack of datum-source correspondence in infobox citation "system"[edit]

The current "system" of directing readers to infobox sources—occasional inline citations following the datum/fact, but most often, just a general "Infobox references" link that takes the reader to a disorganized, poorly formatted, general (possible) list of sources—has been raised for discussion. Please, chemistry experts, join in, here [9]. Without an upswell in interest from chemistry experts, this process and so situation will remain poor, and the connections between data and source will remain untraceable (on any practical time scale). This "just trust us" aspect of many, many chemical articles leaves this aspect of them unhelpful to readers and unaddressable by time-limited editors (and formally in WP:VERIFY violation). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion si still going pretty strong, stop by if you care about how chem data and information are being sourced, and state your perspective. Le Prof (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

SpecBox idea[edit]

Here's an idea where editors who are semi-clever on formatting could join forces with editors who are semi-clever at spectroscopy: One might create a "spectroscopy box" that would list core information related to various forms of spectroscopy. These contents would be useful to many technically oriented readers. Some table entries might be

  • wavelength range
  • frequency range (a formula could convert wavelength to the frequency, minimizing errors)
  • lifetimes (1/frequency), which says something about the dynamics being studied, again linked to the preceding data by a formula
  • selection rules (related to intensity of absorptions) or sensitivity

Other parameters might be suggested by others. Light source is probably too variable. Populations (big deal in NMR where the excited state is virtually as populated as the ground state) could be calculated, again by formulas (that depend on field).

Such a table could be applied to magnetic resonance techniques: EPR at various bands, NMR for various nuclei (we have individual articles on many nuclei), NQR also I guess. Moessbauer. IR. UV-vis. Raman and resonance Raman. Rotational spectroscopy. The unifying feature is the use of electromagnetic radiation. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested, but perhaps the input is too diverse to be useful. One issue I have is the line might be a frequency in Hz, MHz, GHz or THz, a wave m=number in cm-1, a wavelength in cm, Å or nm, or an energy in eV. Substances can have a great many spectral lines depending on conditions. Eg helium has several series, then there is HeII, and also He2 occurs enough to appear in the spectrum in a discharge. Things get very complicated very quickly even for the simplest things. Molecules can have bands, and there are also "continuum" when you head into the UV. For many substances it may be worthwhile to have a spectrum of X article, eg spectrum of calcium and I plan to write such: User:Graeme Bartlett/spectrum of calcium, User:Graeme Bartlett/spectrum of magnesium. Also I would like to see support for Grotrian diagrams. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
For the record, Wikidata will soon create a datatype "number with units", so retrieving and storing the informations from Wikidata will allow to render the value correctly in the Infobox. TomT0m (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea, Smoke, but also appreciate Graeme's reservations; let me know where the drafts are being developed. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe one way of organizing would be by frequency value, so there would be a clear principle of ordering (the regime, like UV or IR, and then within each, in order of the frequency variable). Then each value would associate with a Note on the conditions under which it was observed. Shortcomings I see are (1) the tendency this would have to drive us to primary sources, a no-no, and (2) the rigour required to decide which transitions should be listed (i.e., the subjectivity associated with having to decide which from among a list of lines to list, having been there). But I will look to what you start trying to come up with. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank everyone for suggestions and comments. Maybe the way to go is start small, and focus on an "NMR box." Include natural abundance, mag moment, frequency vs H NMR, chem shift range.... Nothing imminent.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, let us know where we might look in to help. Even with NMR, as you well know, lines will be solvent dependent, and in some cases concentration dependent. Do this based on a standard spectra like from Aldrich (or the Japanese set)? Exclude computed data sets? Cheers, Le Prof (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Catalytic Carbonyl Addition through Transfer Hydrogenation[edit]

Dear chemists: This old draft will soon be deleted as stale. Is this a notable topic? If so, I am willing to remove the promotional language. However, not being a chemist I can't fix any other problems it may have (for example, being original research).—Anne Delong (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • blatant Krische promotion. Best delete. Note that in the past I have been more than happy to help you out so it is not laziness V8rik (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it is a notable topic. It is a very small niche topic. The content of the article is problematic as well. I thought at first that some of the content could be saved by merging into an existing article, but as the AFC reviewer and V8rik above note, the article is highly promotional and focuses entirely on one professor's research to exclusion of any related research by other groups - and it does so in an a very subjective manner. If someone wants to include content about this topic in Wikipedia, I honestly think it would be better to delete this draft and just start over. ChemNerd (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Can the citations from the article be pulled, and added to an existing article, as further reading? So what is good might yet be distilled out? If so, perhaps create a Talk section and collapse top and bottom, and add the text, if not to intrusive, at the same article. Cheers, Le Prof (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's gone now, deleted as a stale draft. If anyone wanted to do something with the references, I can retrieve them and drop them on his or her user talk page. Otherwise, I think our work is done here... Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Article on Römpp[edit]

Hi folks. I noticed today that the english wikipedia doesn't have an article on Römpp, a chemical encyclopedia published in germany. We've got articles on it in a few other languages and I suspect it's notable enough for the english wikipedia. However, I'm neither a chemist nor a german speaker, so my ability to sift mentions of Römpp in the press from citations or other confounded search results is somewhat limited. If anyone has english language sources on the subject I'd be happy to write a short stub on the subject. Thanks. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I created Römpp Encyclopedia Natural Products, including a link to the Google-translation of the DEWP article (has lots of technical and historical info, but no independent refs to support WP:GNG). May as well get at least a minimal item here as another for the ACS editathon. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, DMacks. I found one article comparing Rompp to WP, and there are a few others out there (most of which I can't read, so I didn't add them). Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that, a great ref for this subject, and for WP research. DMacks (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Römpp Encyclopedia Natural Products is just a spin-off. I've created an article to the main Römpp's Chemistry Lexicon.--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Other nonmetal[edit]

The redirects Other nonmetal and Other nonmetals, which currently point to Nonmetal are being discussed at RfD. Your input to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#Other nonmetal is invited. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


Does someone know a freeware to draw molecules able to generate the SMILES, the InChI and InChIKey from the structure ? A soft with a very low cost (max 200$) is ok too. Thank you. Snipre (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You might need an academic E-mail address for this but tis a fairly good package --Project Osprey (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Top-cited missing journals[edit]

WP:JCW has recently updated, and the coverage of chemistry journals is fairly good. There's still a few major journals of chemistry that don't have their articles on Wikipedia, so I've compiled this of chemistry-related/semi-related journals which may or may not be of interest to people in this project.

See our journal writing guide at WP:JWG for help on writing these articles. Any help you can give is greatly appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed on substituted chemical classes[edit]

I'm posting here with regard to a discussion over at Talk:Substituted amphetamine. Are the parent molecules of a class of substituted molecules considered to be in that class. For example, is Amphetamine considered to be a Substituted amphetamine; is Tryptamine considered to be a Substituted tryptamine? Sizeofint (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

'tele' and 'pros' tautomers[edit]

Has anyone here ever heard of 'tele' and 'pros' tautomers as described in Histamine? I've never encounters the terms before. Google does give hits but these are also largely discussing histamine, which makes it feel slightly cyclical. --Project Osprey (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Never heard that term, but I know that in bioinorganic there is much interest in which of the two N's are coordinating in histidine. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A draft at AFC needs help[edit]

Please help evaluate Draft:Multi oxidant solution. If you do not wish to, or know how to do a full AFC review, simply post your comment on the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Misidentified chemical elements[edit]

Category:Misidentified chemical elements currently contains 17 articles, all of which are small, many very small and borderline notable. They all would fit neatly into one article named Misidentified chemical elements or some such. Would it make sense to merge them? — Sebastian 22:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that, understandably, there's not much interest for these articles. I'm thinking of proposing them for deletion. — Sebastian 00:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Why? If you think they'd serve their purpose better merged (I think that's reasonable), and are bothered enough by their unmerged presence to delete them, WP:SOFIXIT and merge them :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The heart of WP:SOFIXIT is "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted". Merging is a lot of work, and it would be foolish to invest time just to get reverted by those who are better acquainted with chemistry. That's why I'm asking here. Moreover, even if I didn't get reverted, I'm contributing to this community endeavor because I want to help as best I can, and I don't want to waste time on something nobody else finds worthwhile. — Sebastian 03:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it makes sense to ask if anyone objects. But silence is assent. Maybe I'm just grouchy today but I'm having a hard time squaring 'I don't want to have my hard work reverted if I merge them' with 'nobody cares very much so let's delete them instead'. Isn't that almost as much work as a simple merge into a list? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. In my impression, Wikipedia has a problems with articles that have been created once, but are not cared about later. These drag the overall quality of Wikipedia down, which is recognized that the fact that such articles typically are declared as stubs with the request to readers to improve them, which in turn is a distraction for both readers and editors. — Sebastian 11:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
No objection to merging. But I don't think they all are best lumped into a single article. It seems like most of them are discoveries or declarations of "elements" that later turned out to be mixtures. But bohemium and helvetium were instead incorrect discoveries of what did turn out to be actual elements. Those latter cases would be better covered in the articles on the actual elements of those atomic numbers (neptunium and astatine, respectively) as part of their historical discussion. Maybe the ones that are mixtures could be mentioned in the articles about the actual components? That's encyclopediac info about those chemicals, whereas putting together an article about mis-identified entities feels like we (WP) are creating a topic that might not be notable. Lots of scientific discoveries are discredited, lots of things are reported that were later found to be incorrect, etc. DMacks (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Very good point about the distinction. For a mixture, another possible location might be the article of the chemist who proposed the element. — Sebastian 11:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd oppose the merge, although a list article could be created in parallel. A sortable table would be a good start.
I don't care if these are a set of very short articles. Provided that they each say enough, and that what they say is credibly sourced, then that's enough to be going on with. Just being short isn't a problem of itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting topic. I've put a list together at List of misidentified chemical elements, which wants polishing by those better able to do so.
The more I look at this, the less inclined I am to a merge. Except for Dianium, Ilmenium & Pelopium, which might be better explained as a group and certainly deserve footnotes in niobium and tantalum. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mixed Oxidant[edit]

A new article has appeared, at Mixed Oxidant (which has the wrong capitalization) It was moved from DRAFTspace by its creator, but needs cleanup -- (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The article was returned to DRAFTspace at draft:mixed oxidant (now with correct capitalization) -- (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)