Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Today's featured articles
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Templates for discussion
Miscellany for deletion
Featured article candidates
Good article nominees
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.

Use of uncommon unicode charter[edit]

@Cedar101: has been slowly rolling these changes out. In some cases the results are baffling. I don't know what's happening with at Wurtz–Fittig reaction or Bicyclobutane - I think perhaps they're trying to display reaction schemes as text but I think perhaps its not rendering properly for me because I just see lots of seemingly random characters.--Project Osprey (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I take screenshots of the pages to show how it looks like for me: [1] and [2]. It indeed looks kind of weird, and it looks weirder if you don't have the rendering support.
Georginho (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Georginho, I have removed Cedar101's changes to those two articles, they displayed for me the same as your images and they look awful. EdChem (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Same problem on a whole bunch of aryl-addition reactions. Perhaps the intent is to have it is alt-text instead of caption, since it is completely redundant to the adjacent image? But is not a suitable benzene ring for inline would need to be about 5–10x normal size of text in order to be chemically correct. Likewise with other unicode cyclic structures. And they do not align properly when trying to make them bonded to other things. Examples include this cyclopentane, this chlorobenzene that I just undid, and this bicyclobutane that EdChem undid. The fact that it uses uncommon Unicode means it is possibly not suitable for widespread deployment yet (especially as what appears to be an alternative for well-drawn clean images). These edits are making things worse not better at this point. @Cedar101: please stop. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an odd addition, too. Now CSD'd. EdChem (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I understand this. I prefer to wp:mos#Avoid entering textual information as images. But in this case(if alternative images are exist), I'll stop to use the uncommon unicode characters. Cedar101 (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata as source for infobox data[edit]

Hello everyone! We have put substantial effort into improving data quality and compound representation in Wikidata (data coming directly from Drugbank, Pubchem), especially for FDA approved drugs, but more to come. As Wikidata is currently evolving into a generalized, structured data store for all Wikipedias, my suggestions would be to modify the chemical compound and drug infoboxes so they can pull as much data as possible from Wikidata. A good start would certainly be to get the chemical identifiers like CAS, UNII, Drugbank ID, Inchi key, Inchi, Smiles, etc from Wikidata. As we have shown for the Gene Wiki infobox, infoboxes can pull their complete content from Wikidata. In order to be able to do that for chemical compounds, some data in Wikidata is still missing (e.g. legal status, pregnancy category), but adding those should be fairly easy.

Main motivation:

  • High data quality due to data import from open primary data sources like Drugbank, Pubchem, NDF-RT, ChEMBL
  • All data with rich references to original data source.
  • Regular, comprehensive updates from the original source by (our) bots
  • Many more chemical compounds in Wikidata than in English Wikipedia, if a new article on a compound should be created, the structured data is most likely already in Wikidata. Also allows easy creation of compound stub articles.

What would be your view of this proposal? I will create a sandbox demo and post it here as soon as I have it. Sebotic (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I would be in favour of this change. I see the benefits that you describe (I've been doing some of those things here locally, and it is a pain parsing the chemboxes and not flooding en.wikipedia). User:Sebotic, as most people will not be watching wikidata-changes (even though that can be done through a setting; Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist, select option "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist"), can you inform us a bit about anti-vandalism measures on WikiData regarding this, mainly, numerical data that most people do not know by heart (we know that if s.o. is changing the boiling point of water to 52°C it is wrong, but for more obscure liquid chemicals 99+% of the people seeing the change in numerical value would need to look it up to see whether the change was for the good or the bad). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure. One question is, should d: overwrite any local input, or keep local input as prio?
And I'd like to hear Beetstra on this wrt the CheMoBot. Using wikidata for say CAS RN would make the bot verify/validate process (and the tick/cross markings) superfluous in this, right? -DePiep (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I would !vote for overwriting all local data, and then remove all local data after full migration.
Regarding CheMoBot - I'd consider to abandon it on en.wikipedia, and if/when time allows consider a version on wikidata. In the way, it is related to the vandalism question I posed to Sebotic (though it also poses a question of 'how correct is the data on WikiData'). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We could check for "local input differs from wikidata value", and categorise them. (After a cleanup that cat can go). -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
That should be easy to program (now) into the chembox: 'if property on WikiData != local value, put it into category 'Wikipedia pages where property X has a different value than on WikiData'. For the true numerical data (identifiers) that should be a good comparison - for the rest it is likely going to be more hellish (depending how the local and WikiData value are stored - which unit, or whether units are given on both sides). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We could use a tracking cat for each main data point apart (CAS RN, PubChem, ..): "Category:CAS Number locally different from wikidata". -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
For the beginning, tracking and comparison of values cannot hurt. Sebotic (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
That is the type of thing that might be giving us insight and a feeling whether switching to WikiData is a go - see what percentage of articles with a CAS number has a different CAS number locally in comparison with WikiData, and then from those, do a random check to see which ones are more correct on average.
Wikidata might be better for identifiers, because (I assume) bots can relatively easily get other identifiers once one is given (judging by the more number of identifiers on wikidata than here), but not for other data items. GalobtterTalk to me! 16:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra: @Christian75: I agree that there need to be simple ways to track changes to the Wikidata item. Fortunately, User:H4stings on the French Wikipedia recently created a JavaScript extension to display the history of the Wikidata item which is linked to a certain Wikipedia page. That seems to work quite well, and as his version was only working on French Wikipedia, I modified his script so it would work with English Wikipedia. I expect that there will be some kind of official extension soon to handle that.
Regarding vandalism in Wikidata in general: It has been really low and most errors are rather mistakes by users than intentional vandalism, but certainly, the more users, the more vandalism is to be expected. Therefore, I think integrating the revision histories of Wikipedia and Wikidata item is a good way to go. In addition, the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint allows for extensive consistency checks of data and our scheduled bot runs will also make sure that data stays clean. Sebotic (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It should be possible to add {{citation needed}} (its not possible in the gene infobox). And for non-trivial values it should be referenced too (at enwiki; it may be possible to retrieve the refererence from wikidata too?). Christian75 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
How much vandalism has Wikidata? Personnaly, I check vandalism/changes in chemical articles from the chemicals article history (and not my watchlist) Christian75 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't have to source reference each and every point, do we? And anyway, the source is in wikidata, not to be added locally. -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The data should be referenced on WikiData - there it should be clear where the number is coming from. If you don't believe a datapoint, it should be tagged on WikiData. If there are references in WikiData, it should be trivial to transclude these as well (though I don't know if that is to be desired, a ref for each datapoint). It would also be great if the data on WikiData is in need of a citation, that that is transcluded as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that references in Wikidata only should be fine. If a users really wants to know the origin of the data, the Wikidata item is just one click away, to make that easier, a dedicated Wikidata link could be added to the infobox. (technically, it would not be a problem to pull the reference data from Wikidata and add e.g. a tooltip to each identifier in an infobox) Sebotic (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that in principle this could be a good idea. BUT.... There is a one big problem - there is currently no agreed definition as to what the subject of a WikiData item is (ok that is a bit of a problem on wikipedia pages too). My point is; take a look at the wikidata entry for Norvaline. There are 2 SMILES strings - one for the L-isomer the other with no defined stereochemistry - there are similarly 2 different UNIIs for the two isomers - looking at the associated Wikipedia articles the EN, FR, JA articles seem to be considering the racemate - the Italian one lacks any detail about the structure and the DE, RU and PT wikis seem to be about the L-isomer. Of course it is possible to create separate wikidata items the real question is: What are the criteria for knowing what chemical species a wikidata item is about? For organic compounds the InChI/InChI key could be a reasonable (but admittedly imperfect) mechanism for 'registering' a compound. Another case in point is the entry for Sparteine, the image used is for (-)-sparteine, there are two SMILES strings one with stereo one without, the InChI is for the (+)-isomer and there are 2 InChIkeys one for the (+)- and the other for the (-)- isomer. Depending on what field of the item you are looking at would affect what data might be added or changed in the item. Therefore, it is my contention that there is a need for a field that identifies the chemical species that relates to the wikidata item and to which all other data can be compared/validated. And this needs to happen before we try and map ChemBoxes to WikiData items --The chemistds (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
If I understand you well, wikidata should solve this? eg, wd should be able to differentiate between the three Norvaline substances? -DePiep (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
DePiep - I'm saying that at the moment it isn't clear to me how the three Norvaline substances are defined in the the WikiData model. Specifically, what attribute should used to define what chemical species a WikiData item refers to. Ideally, such an attribute would only have one value per WikiData item and would be unique to that WikiData item - and would be the fact that one could use to validate all of the other data fields against. Names are not specific enough as they often have one-to-many mappings to structures, depending on context and level of specificity. --The chemistds (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Stereochemistry is a complicated beast, I agree. So the general consensus in Wikidata is that everything which has it's own Inchi key gets its separate item. So for the D-, L- and racemate form, a separate item should be created. These items can be liked to each other in Wikidata, e.g. the DL- racemate item 'has part' the D- item and the L- item. With Lua code, that info can be retrieved from Wikidata an represented in a chembox. Sebotic (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Sebotic - could you point me to where the consensus about everything getting InChIkeys is as I haven't seen that discussion and need to read up on it. --The chemistds (talk)
@The chemistds: Here is the discussion, it does actually talk about CAS numbers, but as CAS numbers are ambiguous sometimes as well, imho, the conclusion is that InChI keys should be used to solve the stereochemistry issues. What also speaks in favour of having one Wikidata item per stereoisomer is the importance of the configuration in biochemistry. The great thing about InChI keys in this context is that one can immediately recognize two stereoisomers when looking at the InChI key (At some point, each of these items should have all relevant identifiers and notations anyway, smiles, inchi, inchi_key, etc). But I think it would be a great time for you to join the discussion on Wikidata as well, getting things right at this point is important because they will be substantially harder to change later on. Sebotic (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no familiarity with wikidata so I feel I should ask: if I find data that it wrong, how do I change it? Will the chembox still be there? If I change data in the chembox will it just be changed back? If I fill blank values in the chembox will they be changed back? In sort, how will this work for a normal editor? 09:25, 28 June 2016‎ Project Osprey (sign added)
The {{Chembox}} will be there. But it will be setup to read & show wikidata for main properties (it will read CAS RN directly from wikidata). Edits for that data should be made in wikidata, which is more difficult for us regular editors. (wikidata is supposed to have high-quality data for example by bots scraping the defining databases like PubChem). We could set it up so that the locally entered value takes prevalence (will be shown). Also, we could add tracking category ("Chemicals having CAS RN fromm Wikidata"). -DePiep (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. A lot of the discussion so far has been about verifying existing data but I'm also interested in how adding new data will work. If I create a new page with a new chembox, or fill-in a blank field in an existing chembox, will the new data be moved automatically to wikidata or will I need to make edits in both wikipedia and wikidata?--Project Osprey (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. wd is a black box to me, let alone editing wd. Also unhelpful is that nowhere (nowhere) is explained what the data model is. (This far I got: what we call "pagetitle" (article) in wd is "item", a "Q.." number). -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
... but of course en:Wikipedia:Wikidata helps. It does, for the 2013 interwiki link change (iw link was the easiest, earliest, most bottable wd feature. Actually, the only advertisement. Note the word "collaborative" in the lede). I did not check HELP:Wikidata. -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I would assume that you would have to edit the wikidata page and the chembox would update with the data. If it worked otherwise it would seem very weird and a pain to manage. GalobtterTalk to me! 16:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
So I was fiddling with editing wikidata and it seems reasonably easy to edit, but data quality (significant figures and references) seems lower than in the corresponding chembox, atleast for the pages I checked: water and ethanol. So I'm not sure about automatically overwriting local data. Also is data in chembox going to be automatically transferred to wikidata if there isn't the corresponding piece of data on wikidata? (wherever possible that is) GalobtterTalk to me! 16:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to arrive so late to the discussion, but I'd like to add my support to this change. I pretty much agree with everything mentioned above, and I'd like to see us perhaps do some tests before we dump all our Chemboxes. In particular, I'd like us first to save the information stored currently in en:wp chemboxes into a database - with citations - if someone can write a bot to do that. I had planned to spend much of my free time for the next month checking entries in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Index, but if CheMoBot becomes obsolete that's a waste of my time. How can I help on Wikidata and it's implementation on WP:CHEM, Sebotic? I'm happy to help out for the next few weeks if I can. Walkerma (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #1)[edit]

@Sebotic, Beetstra, DePiep, Christian75, The chemistds, Project Osprey, Galobtter, and Walkerma:. My two cents in the discussion:
  • Overwritten local data: it is depending on your lua module (see module:Wikidata) importing data from WD. But the consensus is that local data prevents the import and the display of WD data. This allows to create a local consensus when the topic is disputed and no "international" consensus can be found.
  • Anti-vandalism tools: Not so many until now. Along the traditional watchlist, we are using constraint analysis which allow us to detect some non compliance to some rules (like the format, the uniqueness,...). See for example the constraint reports about Pubchem CID here: this identifier should have a specific format (only numbers), to be unique among all Pubchem CID used in WD and only one Pubchem CID has to be present in one item. As you can see in the report, we have 6 items with several Pubchem CID and we have to clean these items. If it is correct to have several identifiers for one chemical, then we can add it in an exception list in order to remove it form the constraint report. Constraint reports are updated every day. This doesn't help if someone wants to introduce wrong data but in order to do it, he has to follow some rules: 1) to respect the format of the data (for example, CAS numbers have to have the following form XXXXXX-XX-X) and 2) to be different from all other CAS numbers existing in WD. These kind of rules prevent stupid vandalism.
Then there is a general tool to fight vandalism, ORES, which is working in WD.
  • Reference. Display of reference is possible according to the local lua module importing data from WD (module:Wikidata and perhaps other modules like Module:Infobox). This should be solved in WP:en by programming the import of the reference data and the insertion of the reference in the chembox.
  • Isomers/stereoisomer: From definition point of view each isomer/stereoisomer and each mixture of isomers/stereoisomers has to have an item in WD. Relation between stereoisomers and mixture is done by "instance of" relation. For example d:1-butanol is considered as an instance of d:butanol. Butanol is considered as a class (a collection of instances) of different type of chemicals. Same for d:(S)-2-pentanol and d:2-pentanol. This classification is based on ontology scheme but need to be developed in WD in order to create a logical relations network between items. A lot of work is still needed to distinguish what is the mixture and what is the isomers but this is in progress (see here for a list of chemicals needing an analysis based on UNII identifier).
  • Depending on the rules you have in WP:en, you have to change the wrong values in WD in order to change the display in WP:en articles. Or to write the correct value in the wikicode of the article in order to avoid the data import from WD (if local values overwrote WD data).
My personal advices:
  1. import data from WD only if the data have a reference in WD (reference in WD can be detected by the used of property "stated in" in the reference section of the statement (this allows to neglect data imported from other WPs recognized by the use of the property "imported from")). This can be done by defining a constraint before data import from WD in the wikicode of the chembox. See your lua modules for details.
  2. perform once a comparison check between your data in your chembox and the data in WD. This is the best to decide if the data set in WD has a similar quality as the data already present in WP:en.
  3. your local data should have the priority over WD data. Perform the deletion of your data only after checking that the data in WD is the same. If there is a difference, first check if your article is connected to the right item, if yes try to solve the data contradiction before any deletion.
Hope this can help your discussion. Snipre (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Snipre with respect to the points I raised a lot of people have seen this as an issue of stereochemistry which it isn't really - it was just in the examples I chose that stereochemistry was the problem. My point is about the identity of a chemical compound and I don't think that the use of an ontology really addresses that. The ontology defines some relationship between two concepts (in this case Wikidata items) - I'm concerned about how a chemical compound is defined as a concept - ie what feature of wikidata item can be used to determine if new data maps to an existing wikidata item or a new one - and if it is a new wikidata item what ontological relationships that item has with other wikidata items. --The chemistds (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@The chemistds: This is not yet clearly defined: as the chemistry project is not well represented, no rule was defined so any good proposition can be presented. My first idea was to used the InChI as parameter: if you can define an InChI which is different from the others, you can create an item. But then I found the problem of the conformers and tautomers. Here I don't know if we have to go into that level of details. So my proposition is the next one: any chemical which have an unique InChI and can be physically isolated in a pure form to measure some properties. But again we are still free to define the rule if we want to have one. here we reach an ontological problem: we should first define the purpose for the data we want to include in the WD database. And I don't think we should copy the Zinc database which collects all possible chemicals. We should aim for chemicals with more than a chemical formula and a drawing of the chemical structure. Snipre (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My angle, in subtopics:
1. For now: in {{Chembox}} and {{Infobox drug}} : show local input value over d: value. (~17K articles on enwiki)
2. Use tracking categories, smartly.
3. For high-end topics like CAS Number: use track cats: "CAS from local", "CAS from d:", "CAS d: and local differ", "CAS locally set to 'none'", "No CAS at al", etc.
4. Interested editors can check & improve situations (by tracking cat, edit d:). Say, one year from now, we can switch (because enwiki-chem editors trust d: & have fixed diffs): d: overwrites local input for CAS Nr.
5. Later on: what about multiple-value articles (multiple CAS Nrs?). But hey, rule #1 does not disrupt this.
-DePiep (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving on suggestion[edit]

It should be relatively trivial to rewrite one of our subboxes to compare local data to WikiData data (I would suggest that the first subbox to apply this to would be the identifiers box), and then categorise those into hidden maintenance categories (WD = Local; WD yes, Local no; WD No, Local yes; WD != Local, WD referenced; WD != Local, unreferenced - and that for each identifier). We wait a couple of days for the categories to populate properly, and then see what the contents is in each of them (total numbers of . That should give us a feel for the situation without 'disturbing' anything we have here. For now we are just blind in saying anything. For all we know the data on WikiData is all the same as what we have here, or just better than what we have here. When we know some numbers (maybe doing some maintenance where needed), we can then decide on the first subbox to move to WikiData and 'wipe' the data locally where appropriate (I like the idea of being able to overwrite where e.g. stereoisomers between local and WD don't match, but there then still should be the aim to solve those situations - that however has a lower priority than improving locally incorrect data). At the time of move, I would then suggest to use a YesY/N/Question? system (like CheMoBot) to mark differences (but at that time we abandon CheMoBot, for now it may be a way of getting some data updated on WD which is there incorrect).

When we are happy with one subbox, we move on to the next .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all the identifiers. One big problem with the rest of the data is the state (temperature/pressure) where we assume its standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) but Wikidata doesnt. (btw. the info is broken for some infoboxes, eg. ethanol, ethane but not CoCl2). Christian75 (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a comment: don't modify your current chembox when activating data import from WD but create a new infobox. Why ? To avoid any display problem when restoring an old version of the article.
@Christian75: WD requires pressure and temperature when necessary so when the value is different between WD and WP, just add an additional check to verif if the pressure and the temperature in WD are the ones of the standard state. Snipre (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Snipre: that would mean about 10.000 edits to replace the old infobox with something with a new name that is not as easy. For the chembox we might then go to 'infobox chemical', but for infobox drug that is not really an option. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra This is just a comment, feel free to do as you want. But most of the time, adapting the current infoboxes to include lua programming can lead to deep modifications which can lead to strange output when applying old wikitext to modified templates. I don't know your chembox and how complex it is, so perhaps my comment is out of scope. Snipre (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Snipre: it is very complicated, so I do see your point. I guess that the editor(s) who is/are going to try to implement this should try this on versions of a couple of years old to see if it generally doesn't break. Some of these problems do exist already, since some parameters have 'moved on' (either are not supported anymore, or have moved between sub-boxes, or have been repurposed). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
heh. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Dirk Beetstra We had that kind of discussion in WP:fr especially because one of the famous sentences of WP is "Feel free to contribute" based on the fact that wrong edits or bad modifications can be reverted to a previous version without any lost. But in reality and especially concerning templates we saw that some modifications in templates don't allow to restore old versions. This problem is more a breach in the Wikipedia concept than anything else and perhaps a stricter rule concerning modifications of templates should be discussed at community level. Snipre (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
If I understand this subthread right, I do not agree. I don't sdee the requirement having to accept old page versions. Template changes are improvements, and we should not be tied to old versions. That said, editors might want to restore old data (not page version). That of course is covered. -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Snipre: I'm new to Wikidata. I checked ethanol[3] and saw some entries without temperature, eg. crystal system (and related) (the temperature was in the reference), and pKa. Is it correct I can't add some kind of citation needed. I have two choices, ignoring/fixing it, or removing it (without the posibility to give a reason in edit summary?). Christian75 (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Christian75: Because for these two properties no requirement about temperature was defined. Thanks, I will add these requirements as mandatory constraints. For your information, constraints for properties are defined in talk's page of the property and missing data can be tracked using the constraint report. See for example density property where the pressure, the temperature and the phase have to be specified and then the corresponding constraint report to see how people respect these requirements. Snipre (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Beetstra: I am not so sure about your point regarding data in WD being the same as in the English WP chem infoboxes, my impression (based on the imported from citations) is that the data are a mashup of data imports from different Wikipedias, primarily from the English, German, Russian, Spanish, Italian. But the next step will be a data quality analysis and correction in WD anyway. Furthermore, I am currently working on an infobox displaying and comparing infobox content from English Wikipedia and Wikidata. See the Infobox drug sandbox. Sebotic (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sebotic: I think you're making the same point as me, in a different way. We have some clue about the 'correctness' (or incorrectness, if you like) of many values in the chembox. What we don't know is how well WD matches up with I presume that actually WD does pretty good, and we could safely switch (i.e. if the data on WD is the same as on, whether correct or wrong on both ends). But then, it is rather easy (through some clever template engineering) to compare (especially for the identifiers) and then get some numbers. Whether that is tested on the drugs or on the rest of the chemicals is equal to me, as long as we have a reasonable subset - I expect that the relative numbers are going to be the same (for the identifiers) between chembox and drugbox (in the time that I was actively working on the identifiers I have made no discrimination between drugboxes and chemboxes). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sebotic:, I saw your infobox drug/sandbox. Can I build the {{Chembox}} sandbox with a slightly different approach? I'm aiming at the maintenance categories Beetstra mentioned above. Indeed they should be helpful for the maintenance tasks (comparing WD-value vs local value). -DePiep (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@DePiep: Sure, I was only trying to display values from either the infobox parameters or Wikidata, depending where data exists and if it matches. Seems to be doable, but I agree that maintenance categories are a better way to get it done. I will explorer if it makes sense to offload some of the functionality for pulling chem data from WD into dedicated Lua scripts. Thanks! Sebotic (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thx. Yes a module would be useful. Some major ideas I want to push, eh propose:
  • Better not use visible notices (like YesY/N or color-marked text). Because the Reader should not be bothered with quality-markings. Tracking categories should do the trick.
  • Both {{Infobox drug}} and {{Chembox}} should use the same setup (cat scheme, logic, etc). As I have done for current tracking categories, both infoboxes can & should populate the same, say, CAS RN category ({drugbox} and {Chembox} articles together in there).
-DePiep (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me add (and ping Sebotic, Beetstra):
  • There is a third major issue. That is: {{Chembox}} today is build in wikitable format (for example, see the simple datarow/subtemplate {{Chembox AdminRoutes}}). And it has ~555 parameters.
Q: So why not make it use basic {{infobox}}, and maybe even use Lua for parameter treatment?
A: Because it works great, so far (as in: very very far). Current structure supported very many (isolated) improvements over the years.
Detailing: I have edited the last three years both {drugbox} and {chembox}. All data-row changes (that is: individual data input requests) could be handled nicely in the templates, based on content talk on talkpages. Not one request has been denied for template-technical reason. Meanwhile, same-data got the same treatment & presentation in both {drugbox} and {chembox} (eg CAS Number).
Q: Then when will {chembox} go into Lua and {infobxox}?
A: before or after {chembox} goes using wikidata as talked here. But one can not develop {chembox} into Lua/{infobox} when the core is changing simultanuously wrt WD.
My opinion: for both {drugbox} and {chembox}: let's go wikidata for identifiers & classes first. That's best for the Reader. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Deuterium in the chemical formula[edit]

To enter a chemical formula in Infoboxes {{Chembox}} and {{Infobox drug}}, they have the option to use | C=20 | H=21 | etc.. (using {{Chem}} and straight HTML-text is possible too). An editor Aethyta asks that the parameter |D= (Deuterium, or 2H) be added, to make possible C11H15D2NO3 (Beta-D) to be entered that way. (Additional advantage is that the molecular mass can be calculated from these individual entries).

We could add "D" as an element symbol. I'd like to learn if there are any pitfalls or errors when doing so. -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it here. From what I've read on WP:MOSCHEM, |D= should be allowed just fine. No other element appears to have that same symbol, so there shouldn't be any complications. The very few deuterium containing compounds with articles on Wikipedia included "D" in their formulae for many years, the only difference this change would cause is making it possible to be used via the shortened input form that also calculates the molar mass. Aethyta (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
(quoting Aethyta here:) CIAAW recommends 2.0141017781 for atomic mass.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And this: the formula uses Hill system: "when C is present, put any C, H in front". (ie, it is organic. Note that this is about the simple, empirical formula. When structure is in the formula, like groups, do not use this input form. Better use {{chem}} or HTML). Should we treat D alike, ie, in front with C? Why not? -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I think D and T should be sorted as though they were H. Notice that IUPAC specifically recommended 2H and 3H as symbols (though accepting D and T) to preserve sorting, so this seems the best option. I can't imagine myself writing "CClD3"; it feels so wrong. Double sharp (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Move Dipolar bond to coordinate covalent bond[edit]

Although only a few have commented, it seems likely that editors would agree that the obscurely titled Dipolar bond should be renamed Coordinate covalent bond, which is currently a redirect. The practical problem is that a lot of housekeeping would be required to fix several dozen links and minimize double redirects. So my question is, iif there is agreement to do the move, would others help with this housekeeping? --Smokefoot (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Support rename and will to help with the housekeeping. EdChem (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Support rename (reverse redirect). I don't think anything else has to be done. Links to the name of the current article would continue to work because it would be left as a redirect to the new location. If it bothers anyone that articles are still displaying the old name, easy enough for AWB or some other script to fix it. And Wikipedia:Double redirects are usually fixed by bots pretty promptly, so likewise don't need any immediate attention. If admin help is needed with the actual move/redirect process, let me know. DMacks (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks to both of you. I will cut and paste Dipolar bond into Coordinate covalent bond and convert it to a redirect, and bots do their thing.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Please do not Wikipedia:Cut and paste move. Pages with content and edit-history need to be moved to rename without losing the edit-history attribution required by licensing terms. DMacks (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Well that is what I was getting at ... an admin needs to move an article to an existing redirect, I think. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Moved - actually no admin powers were needed, as the redirect was made by moving the other way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. A weird title is now less weird.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Glad the page has been moved. I have fixed all the double redirects, I think. EdChem (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Great. I had heard of coordinate and dative bonds before, but never dipolar. Double sharp (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act[edit]

Are there any plans to create an article for the act that will replace the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976? --Leyo 17:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Its legislative history (including some opinions about it) are currently in Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976#2015. Should be easy enough to write a stub for it from that main article. DMacks (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Is the name stated above OK, i.e. not too long? I took it from the red link in Template:United States environmental law. --Leyo 20:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Nobody? --Leyo 15:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Shiina esterification[edit]

I can't decide is this is a COI page or not. Its essentially been made a single editor and cites 10 papers, all by the same author... which is often a bad sign. I also find it had to believe, that in the 100 or so years we've had the Fischer esterification, that no one else has done this - it feels like someone has slapped their name on something that's been around for a while. On the flip side; the chemistry seems legitimate and I have found a few papers (not by Shiina) that refer to a Shiina esterification. See also the Shiina macrolactonization reaction; the page has been made by the same editor but the reaction is more prominently mentioned in the literature. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Without secondary refs for this specific variant and name applied to it, it does not meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. The more general idea of activating a carboxylic acid as a mixed-anhydride, using either an acyl halide or anhydride, for purposes of making esters, amides, etc. is a useful trick that could probably be an article. But it's much older and general than just using these conditions with aryl anhydride reagents. Compare to Yamaguchi esterification, which has secondary refs, an RSC ontology number, etc. DMacks (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
So... Prod, delete? --Project Osprey (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The two articles Shiina esterification and Shiina macrolactonization discuss essentially the same reaction, just intermolecular vs intramolecular. I'd be hesitant to just delete them - they are nicely written articles about a technique that is indeed used in organic synthesis. If brought to AFD, the articles would be unlikely to end up being deleted anyway because there is significant precedence for maintaining articles about relatively non-notable reactions on Wikipedia. See the nearly 500 articles in Category:Name reactions, for example. But as DMacks notes, Shiina's reactions are just variations of the older, more well known Yamaguchi esterification and maybe its worth consolidating multiple articles about esterifications/macrolactonizations (or maybe consolidating just the two Shiina articles). Based on my experience, there is almost certainly a COI issue here and the articles/talk pages can be tagged with {{COI}} or {{connected contributor}}. The only real way to fix the potential problem with the COI, unfortunately, is someone taking the time to do a thorough survey of the associated literature and bringing in references to other researcher's contributions. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Equol and (S)-Equol[edit]

In case anyone here is interested, these two articles cover the same topic (essentially) and should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiFactMine: Proposed Wiki Grant for chemical Wikidata[edit]

We are proposing a Wikimedia Project Grant (WikiFactMine) which will automatically scan the daily peer-reviewed scientific literature (up to 10000 articles /day) and extract scientific entities (definable in Wikidata). These, with their citations, are then offered to Wikidata editors for potential inclusion/update. These can also alert Wikipedia editors to new citations. The project includes a Wikimedian in residence in the University of Cambridge. The initial emphasis will be on articles which contain chemistry in a biological or medical context (natural products, drugs, etc.) We'd be grateful for comments, endorsement and offers of help.Petermr (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Editing and data are good components when introduced well but can be awful when contributed by determined do-gooders without a lot of expertise.
"we" is a group of Wikimedians who have met and worked together, including regular meetings in Cambridge.Petermr (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd argue that some of us have specific chemical expertise, especially in informatics.Petermr (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Worrying components in the above message: Who is the royal "we"? Why is it relevant to link University_of_Cambridge - seeking validation, are we?

The relevance of Cambridge is that that we have legal access to extract data from the closed access scholarly literature.Petermr (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedians in Residence have not proven particularly useful here, IMHO. The chemistry project is just too techy, and the quality of our article portfolio is strong already. If there are particular problems/opportunities that "we" have identified, please speak up specifically. The current community of editors can try to address such gaps without fanfare. We kinda do that already, but informally.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The relevance of the Wikimedian In Residence is to work with the library to have access to the closed scholarly literature.Petermr (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Paywalls pose a serious barrier for editors and readers alike. So a Wikipedian in residence (WiR) for that function would be indeed welcome. There are however several sources that editors here have grown to lean on, such as chemical catalogues, ChemSpider, NIST, and such. The greater problem is access to broad information, such as Annual Reviews of ... type things, but in those cases, the WiR could probably not legally pass on pdf's to other editors. Here are some projects for a WiR:
  • all articles have a general reference.
  • the top 10,000 compounds (CAS ranking?) are described, and if not the WiR generates a list of which are missing
  • photographs of compounds.
  • the spectroscopy articles are often deficient in representative spectra.

Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

  • About the missing topics, perhaps the keywords or titles could be used to work out where Wikipedia is deficient in a popular substance or process. But there are already plenty of deficiencies, and no shortage of possible things to write about. When I look through title lists of chemical journals I see quite a few topics that we have missing, but the actuall content of the article would have little to contribute, being primary references. New reviews and textbooks would be of much more interest to determine what is notable.
  • With images we would need freely licensed images, so only a few journals have such free licenses that could have images lifted for inclusion here. However it can be possible to ask authors to supply a different freely licensed image. So if our WIR can ask authors that are likely to have an image of something that we are missing here to supply a picture that would be great. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is ambitious to say the least. If I'm reading it correctly, this would almost automate the writing of Wikipedia - the program will collate facts on a concept or compound and all we'd need to do is copyedit them into a new page. It goes without saying that there is lots to go wrong there (I've worked with ontology-data-mining in the past, I could write you a long list). Personally I'd like to see a proof of concept on a much more limited scale. Many of our articles list melting and boiling points but fail to provide a reference. I think this might be a nice place to start; the ontology should be simple (it's pretty much always flagged mpt, bpt) and there is a way of weighting the data (normally the higher the mpt the purer the sample). --Project Osprey (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Category move for discussion[edit]

There is a proposal being discussed for moving (or renaming) Category:Science organizations by topic to Category:Organizations by academic discipline. The discussion is here [4] (at CfD). ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

American Chemical Society edit-a-thon[edit]

There's going to be an edit-a-thon on Wednesday, August 24, covering a wide range of topics under the theme "Notable Chemists and Chemistry." Participants can join in person if attending the American Chemical Society national meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or participate remotely at their leisure. Organizers welcome the thoughts, suggestions and participation of members of WP:Chemistry. Event details at Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia/American_Chemical_Society_Notable_Chemists_and_Chemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KLindblom (talkcontribs) 19:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


Maybe I am missing something, but Wikipedia seems to have no or few categories relevant to nitration or related reactions. Or perhaps the categories favor compound types vs reaction types. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many more articles about chemical compounds than about chemical reactions, so more chemical categories than reaction categories are needed for reasonable organization. There are hundreds of articles in Category:Nitro compounds and its subcategories, but if Category:Nitration reactions were to be created, would there be anything to put in it aside from Nitration? -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree, that category type would remain rather empty V8rik (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it would be a rather short list, but there are a few other things one could place in it. In addition to nitration (ionic), one could add free radical nitration, Menke nitration, Zincke nitration, reactive nitrogen species, and nitrotyrosine. Boghog (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
If someone ever adds a page for the Reverdin rearrangement (a.k.a. Reverdin reaction) that can also go in the new nitration reactions category, alongside the Wolffenstein–Böters reaction and some of the examples above. BiomolecularGraphics4All (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Likewise, if Ponzio reaction was given its own page (split out from Oxime) it would also be in Category:Nitration reactions BiomolecularGraphics4All (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Calcium chloride[edit]

Calcium chloride, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It was demoted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Name reactions with no chemist article[edit]

Someone has run a script for us to generate a list of name reactions where the ReactionBox is missing one or more of the chemists. It was created for today's Edit-a-thon at ACS since we're working on chemist articles. I thought it would be useful here as a list of chemist articles we (probably) need to create. Walkerma (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Some time ago we had a Wikipedian in Residence and all we got out of it were articles on chemists, chemical societies and medals. Not much progress was made on actual chemistry topics. Now I see the same topics listed here. We have the attention of the ACS community and what do we get? Alternative proposal: read 10 chemistry related articles and correct any mistakes / errors (with citations) V8rik (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I noted that for the first two articles in this list the 'missing' person is not wikilinked. I think that these warrant to be linked, to promote creation of the article (WP:REDLINK: Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Christopher J. Schofield[edit]

For a number of days the article Christopher J. Schofield is hanging around on the list "Articles With Multiple Dablinks". I have taken a look at it, but it is too much for me. Can somebody take a look at the article and solve the 5 links to disambiguation pages?

These are the culprits:

  1. Histone demethylase
  2. Hypoxia
  3. Inhibitor
  4. Kinetics
  5. Synthesis

Thanks in advance! The Banner talk 21:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done EdChem (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! The Banner talk 09:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quasi-elemental[edit]

I wonder if any chemists might be willing to offer a view? Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This article has nothing to do with chemistry. Sandbh (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the question Josh is asking is, in the event that the AfD is closed as 'merge' (as seems reasonable at the moment), should the page quasi-elemental be a redirect to the merge target or be pointed at some chemical / scientific target? I agree with Sandbh that the current content has nothing to do with chemistry, but a google scholar search linked at the AfD suggests the term "quasi-elemental" is used in the scientific literature at times. EdChem (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Addition of new Refrigerants to the list of refrigerants wiki.[edit]

Anyone here willing or capable of adding some of the new refrigerants to the list, The reason I am asking this is due to the new F-gas regulations in Europe and North America are making it a relevant topic Some of the new Refrigerants:

-R448 -R449

And other new HFO blends below 1500 GWP.

With best regards.

Curious Tech (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

MSDS, data pages[edit]

Hi. An editor was going through chemical articles adding ELs to the MSDS and tech specs from a single company and I reverted them as spamming. They left a note on my talk page saying they were looking to do this across many many more chemical articles, and I referred them here. They found some old discussions; I looked too, and it isn't clear to me what you all are doing now. The user seems to have chickened out from asking you all, so here I am. I run into some of this on drug articles I work on.

I looked at Sodium chloride and its associated Sodium chloride (data page) and MOS:CHEM as well as WP:MOSCHEM/SAFE (and i just now saw the discussion of MSDS at the bottom of that page, here and i totally get what it says there - it was one thing bothering me about the edits I reverted)

MOSCHEM doesn't mention "data page" at all; is creating these still your current practice?

It seems that for each article, you fill out the Template:Chembox and fill out the associated data page (?) but it is not clear to me where that data is actually coming from... sources aren't cited for everything. Are you actually using MSDS' for that data?

I can kind of understand where that editor was coming from, as sources for data in the chembox aren't clear to me. Where is it coming from?

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog If you look at the bottom of the infobox for chemical, you can see "Infobox references". By clicking on it, you are redirected towards the references section.
For the data pages, it is an old feature which not more used and recommended. Mainly because there were no references and no structure.
Then, this is my personal opinion, we should move from the current structure towards a structure where each data in the infobox should be linked to its reference with a clear link.
Finally, I think Wikidata is the solution to your questions. People add there their data there and then you can extract the data you want by excluding MSDS data if you want. Snipre (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Yes I reckon there is some syncing between WikiData and Chemboxes. WikiData is, as far as I can see, a huge pile of unverified data. I worry about it.
I struggle with the hand-wavy link to the references section, as a way to source all the data in any infobox.
as a nonmember of your project, i think it would be great if you all included some statements in your style guide about the defunct status of "Data pages"
Thanks again! Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


looking for β-Hydroxyisovaleric acid(CAS # 625-08-1) information page on SciFinder[5] but don't have access, this is for an FA article nominee, thank you----Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

3-Hydroxy-3-methylbutanoic acid,3-Hydroxy-3-methylbutyric acid, 3-Hydroxyisovaleric acid, β-Hydroxy-β-methylbutyric acid, β-Hydroxyisovaleric acid
1062 articles, patents, reports etc on this compound. 53 reviews.
Top cited reviews:
  • "Dietary supplements for body-weight reduction: a systematic review" By Pittler, Max H.; Ernst, Edzard American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2003),  Volume Date2004, 79(4), 529-536.
  • "Nutritional role of the leucine metabolite β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (HMB)" By Nissen, Steven L.; Abumrad, Naji N. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry (1997), 8(6), 300-311.

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Calls to non-existent templates[edit]

Template editors, please see this note about Template:Reactionbox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a redirect discussion of which members of this project could help.[edit]

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_2#Misfolded is ongoing. We are not sure whether "misfold" is a purely biochemical term or if it could WP:SURPRISE people who were looking for info about folding blankets. Your input would be much appreciated.--Mr. Guye (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There are now two (consecutive) discussions at RfD – Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 2#Protein misfolders and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 2#Misfolded – covering 13 different redirects with variations on the term "misfold". I suggest contributors from here comment in both discussions. EdChem (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Concentrated electrolyte solutions activity coefficient[edit]

Hello wikifellows! Can someone take a look at Activity coefficient#Concentrated solutions of electrolytes and access the full text of the mentioned cited source for the formula present in article for the statistical part of the activity coefficient in order to add further details of its derivation? Thanks!-- (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, this source Trans Faraday Soc could also be relevant to the mentioned topic.-- (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Lolitrem B needs "translation"[edit]

Hello. Can someone please "translate" the above article so normal readers can understand somewhat what the article is about? I've added a {{expert needed}} tag to the article with the |reason= parameter filled in. While you're at it, you may want to fill in the {{WikiProject Chemistry}} data on the talk page, specifically the quality scale and importance scale ratings. I've already added the template, but left the parameters blank. Gestrid (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I've had a stab at the lead but as this is about a neurotoxin you might have better luck with someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology --Project Osprey (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'll post on their talk page. Gestrid (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Early transition metal pincer complexes[edit]

What should be done with this page, which seems to have been moved into the wrong namespace? Is it worth moving it to the main namespace? Graham87 02:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Graham87: .. it appears to be about "Early 'transition metal pincer complexes'" (and not about the pincer complexes of the early transition metals). I think that this would be a welcome addition to the contents of Pincer complex, so my !vote is to merge. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll merge it in a couple of days unless others have alternative suggestions. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Multiple articles on one chemical[edit]

Hello, I have a small problem with a chemical, octopamine: en:WP is the only Wikipedia which does the difference between the drug (Octopamine (drug)) and the neurotransmitter (Octopamine (neurotransmitter)), all three articles having their own item in WD. This is your choice. But for WD this splitting is a problem because we don't want to do the differences between the possible uses: this is a chemical so all data regarding this chemical should be located at the same place.

Is it a problem if I merge all data in the item linked to octopamine and recycle the 2 other items for R- and S-octopamine ? The consequence of this action is the lost of items dedicated for the drug and for the neurotransmitter with the possibility to link to articles in other Wikipedias (but currently only WP:en is doing the distinction). Snipre (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a deficiency of WD if there is no way to cope with different *.wp having different levels of subarticles vs only higher-level ones available. That said, in this case, I can see reason to merge since it really is the same topic. But but, is the neurotransmitter (in vivo/enzymatically produced) really racemic? And is the drug, which appears to derive from natural extracts, also racemic? I would still support a unified article about the chemical, but "the chemical" might need to be better-defined in order to have the subsection about...biochemistry and/or drug-application also chemically correct. DMacks (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
There are other articles that are split into two articles about the use of an endogenous compound as a drug and the compound in general (e.g., Norepinephrine (drug) and Norepinephrine). The latter article is usually the parent article of the former. In this case, octopamine (neurotransmitter) should probably be moved to octopamine, with a subsection added on the use of octopamine as a drug/pharmaceutical and a {{main article}} link to octopamine (drug) in that section. IIRC the main reason for creating separate articles in both of these cases was to address a dispute about the use of {{infobox neurotransmitter}} vs {{infobox drug}} as the article's infobox. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@DMacks: This is not a deficiency of WD: WD can do what WP is doing. The problem is in the difference between WPs and in the splitting of data. The splitting implies that all people agree and know the splitting and how the data are shared between the different parts. If people don't agree about the splitting no system can solve that problem.
WD currently deals with the mixture of stereoisomers and each pure form of stereoisomer. So for the case of octopamine we have 3 items: octopamine (mixture of stereoisomers), R-octopamine and S-octopamine. Why ? Because for each item we can have unique identifiers like isomeric SMILES, InChI, InChIKey, CAS number,... These identifiers are objectives because based on physical rules. The difference between drug and neurotransmitter is not objective: if you are in front of two molecules of octopamine, can you say which one is the neurotransmitter and which one is the drug ?
How en:WP want to split its articles is not my concern, I just want to create in WD a logical splitting based on objective rules. Then if WP:en wants to link its Octopamine (neurotransmitter) article to the octopamine item or to the R-octopamine item, it is the choice of WP:en based on its criteria. Snipre (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Thanks to show that the current splitting is not based on rational reasons. But if this is the choice of WP:en, I don't want to put pressure to change it. I just want to change the items on WD. The only consequence is the lost of the Wikidata item link in the toolbox on the left side of the article. As there is no interwikis, this doesn't have any consequence. Snipre (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Big data improvement in Wikidata[edit]

Just to announce you than thanks to the work of @Sebotic:, Wikidata increases its coverage of chemicals with a total of ~98'000 chemicals having an item. All data were imported from PubChem and ChEBI and respect the rules about sources leading to a high improvement of the data quality. Right now an important step has to start to curate the data especially to merge duplicated items. You are welcome to take part to this action and you can get in touch with the Chemistry project in WD for details.

From that work additional importations can start in order to add more identifiers but please announce your intention of data import before any huge importation in order to coordinate the work of bots and of contributors curating the conflicts. Snipre (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

How do I join?[edit]

How do I join WikiProject Chemistry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wretertert (talkcontribs) 00:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

You can add your user name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Participants. But it is optional, I am not there, but I still participate in discussions here, and edit Chemistry articles. There also a related project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sulph- to Sulf-[edit]

The international standard nomenclature is sulfur, and -f- for all usages (established over twenty years ago). So it makes no sense that many pages still link to Sulphur and Sulphuric acid, and there is no good reason to (see editorial in Nature Chemistry. It would be a relatively trivial manner for somebody's bot to automatically replace all references. TehAnonymous (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Since there is a redirect in place, there is no real need to do it. The non standard form can still be used in non chemical/stry project article pages, or in quotes, or journal article titles. There are quite a few places we should not change it. So I would not let a bot loose on the job. But for chemistry articles you could have a look to see how big the change would be. In my opinion it is better to write some more content than to alter spelling between forms that are both equally understood. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Video downloads of chemical demo's[edit]

User: Kiril Simeonovski has added several videos of chemical reactions to articles. The aspect that worries me is that these videos download to my computer. So I wonder about infection of my machine. Kiril assures me that all is OK here, but reassurance from computationally adept editors would be welcome. Other aspects of these videos can be debated later.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Smokefoot, there's also a discussion about this at Commons:Village pump#Concern regarding WebM. Files provided by Commons should be perfectly safe for end users. As to the video automatically downloading, I'm not sure why exactly that would be the case. The videos in question play in the browser for me. I'd guess that your web browser doesn't know what to do with a WebM file, so it defaults to downloading it. If you use Firefox, this discussion may be of use. clpo13(talk) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)