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
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Templates for discussion
Good article nominees
Featured article reviews
Requests for comments
Peer reviews

Discussion of the WikiProject Chemistry - Please add your comment and discussion here. Older discussions are archived.

Shortcuts:

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.

LD50 vs LC50[edit]

Hi everyone, I had a question about LC50 values for several different gases. Is it okay to put an LC50 in the LD50 parameter, or is this something that should be put in the body of an article? As an example, I have a data sheet for chlorine trifluoride here that lists LC50 values in various organisms with exposure times, so I wanted to ask here about what to do since it's interesting/useful information. Thanks! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Are they measurements of subtly different things, or different terminology for essentially the same thing? (The discussion in the article LD50 isn't entirely clear to me.) If there's a subtle difference, perhaps there can be separate fields in the infobox for LD50 and LC50. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 03:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Antony-22: LC50 is the lethal concentration (of a gas) while LD50 is the lethal dose, usually given IV or orally. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
They are clearly different things. LC50 is a concentration and LD50 is a quantity, usually expressed as a mass. The difference lies in the fact that LD50 refers to a quantity ingested whereas LC50 refers to a concentration external to the organism. That's why exposure times are important in relation to LC50. Petergans (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. So my next question is, it is possible for a single substance to have both an LD50 and an LC50, or is only one or the other meaningful for each substance? In any case, they both sound equally important, so my instinct is that either or both should be listed in Template:Chembox. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 18:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
(added after the comments below) Consider, for instance, chlorine gas. LC50 (LC=Lethal Concentration) gives the concentration at which exposure to the gas will be, eventually, lethal in 50% of cases. LD50 (LD=Lethal Dose) gives the amount of gas that, when inhaled, will be lethal in 50% of cases. For gases there is no ambiguity. For liquids LD50 refers to ingestion, but LC50 is not so well defined; it could apply to topical exposure, or, in the case of a volatile liquid, exposure to the evaporate. For solids LC50 has no real meaning. Petergans (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I would guess that in principle you could have both. But it's difficult to administer a weighed amount of a gas. So it makes most sense to use LC50 for gasses and LD50 for solids and liquids. Maproom (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
LC50 can be used for liquids or solids dissolved in a medium, particularly in in vitro testing such as the concentration of an antibiotic that will kill a bacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.240.135 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

So, returning to this - should we have a separate parameter in the chembox for LC50 or just add it to LD50 and note that it's an LC50? Thoughts? I don't particularly have a preference. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There was the same issue in de.wikipedia, too. The consensus then was, to replace the LD50 parameter in the chembox by a more general one and to use de:Template:ToxDaten. Like this, the input is more flexible (see de:Benzaldehyd for an example [bottom of the box] with both LD50 and LC50 values). I don't say that a similar solution would suit best also on en.wikipedia. --Leyo 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Leyo: That looks useful, though I don't speak enough German to follow well. DePiep, as the Chembox guru, would this be an easy thing to fix/do if we get a consensus for it? Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course we'll implement the outcome of a good talk. -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
My notes. About the German wiki, Leyo points to. It knows these types of toxy measurements: LD50, LC50, LDLo, LCLo, LCt50, TDLo, TCLo, EC50, IC50, LD, LC. This name is mentioned, but in the rh side with the data. It also can add the organisme, intake etc (required parameter!). Then they produce a righthand text like (See de:LSD):
  • Toxikologische Daten: 11,7 mg·kg−1 (LD50, Ratte, oral, Hydrochlorid)[1].
We too could add this, under one label. I don't know if we must make all those fields required input. Also, it is a laboratoy-result, ie more meaningless for The Reader (?, I ask). However, this is a bigger excercise to develop (all this input is done through a single template). And this solution can be used in many more Chembox inputs (The dewiki has all input this way).
For now: Since LC50 is well defined, we could start with adding it old style, enwiki style: in a separate datarow. Our article on LD50/LC50 could be improved anyway. Also I'd like to hear from medicine editors on how & what to present. Later I'll have time to make proposals here. -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I add, replying to earlier posts here (the top half, eg Petergans): we can simply add a data row LC50, and leave it to the article editor to make a useful entry. Thew template does not chekc the sens of its data. As wiki works, the nonsense-input (like: an LC50 value for a solid) will probably be edited out in the end. -DePiep (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I add #2: can someone explain why this LD50 is not in sister template {{Drugbox}}? (in the long term, these two can merge IMO). -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: Yay, thank you so much! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I would ask general attention[edit]

…from members of Wikiproject Chemistry at the Oxygen article, which was listed as FA, but has had some issues arise.

I am a newcomer there, arriving to edit because I wanted to reference the information on the structure of this homonuclear diatomic, and found the article in need of attention for its molecular orbital description, and successfully edited that.

I have, however, run afoul of two European, non-native English speaking editors for proposed changes that challenge their view of info box image content. There is no need to repeat those arguments here, for they are not the main issue any more.

The main issues are now three:

  • My edits are now being reverted just because they are mine. Because there are two editors involved, they view themselves as a consensus, and feel justified in their ability to do this.
  • Their reversions are comprehensive, throwing out baby with bath water. In the last reversion, I had (1) combined physical properties prose in two locations into one, separating it from molecular structure (MO) prose, and moving the phys prop text up in the article, (2) corrected gross errors in prose regarding an introduced image of a discharge tube, and (3) touched up the prose in the MO diagram section I had added earlier. All of these were reverted en masse with a personally directed edit summary.
  • Their reversions protect the very bad edits of one of the editors, which lack chemical expertise and do not pass as acceptable English.

On this last matter, I will give an example, and leave it for parties interested in high quality article evolution and protection to have a look.

Here is a recent edit made by one of the editors:

In an oxygen gas discharge spectrum tube, the molecular orbitals of oxygen are stimulated to emit light. The operating conditions for the oxygen image discharge tue: are a pressure of 5-10 mbar, a high voltage of 1.8 kV, a current of 18 mA and a frequency of 35 kHz. During the recombination of the ionized gas molecules, the characteristic color spectrum is emitted. In this case, a small part, caused reversibly formed by the supply of energy ozone. This kind of spectrum tubes are also important to study the spectral lines with a spectrometer.

Note that the text is rife with misspellings/English errors, and added very technical prose without any sources. I am a professional chemist, and could simply not begin to make sense of its meaning. Here is the correction I made that was reverted:

In an oxygen gas discharge spectrum tube,[clarification needed] the oxygen is stimulated to emit light.[citation needed] The operating conditions are a pressure of 5-10 mbar, a high voltage of 1.8 kV, a current of 18 mA and a frequency of 35 kHz.[original research?][citation needed] During the recombination of the ionized gas molecules,[clarification needed] a characteristic color spectrum is emitted.[citation needed] This kind of excitation is also important in general to the study of spectral lines with aid of a spectrometer.[clarification needed][citation needed]

In addition, this note was added, hidden in the article text, with the bracket-bang markup language:

  • Content referring to molecular orbitals emitting light removed as fundamental error. THIS SENTENCE REMOVED AS GIBBERISH: "In this case, a small part, caused reversibly formed by the supply of energy ozone."

My correcting and tagging edit was made, not in any sense as text to remain in the article "as is", but as a starting point to move the original poor edit in a direction to make it acceptable. (Only the grossest of error, that MOs emit light, and the completely incomprehensible prose were removed.) My edit was reverted, so the original, error-filled prose again appears. [The error-filled edit was by the first of the editors, and is what I referred to in (2) above. My edit was reverted carte blanche with the further edits (1) and (3), by the second editor, who returned the error-filled prose to the article.]

Note, the two editors in question insisted that the discharge tube image was needed in this FA article, and I insisted that if it appeared, prose needed to appear to explain the image, and how it fit into the article. I have no issue with the appearance of the image, just with the editorial control and poor quality that derives from the work of these two editors.

Finally, note, that the personal reversion by the second editor recombines the physical properties and molecular structure sections, which I believe are better discussed separately, and returns the problematic discharge tube prose to a section largely about physical (ground state) properties.

I leave this entirely in the hands of the Project. I haven't time or desire to fight with self-interested editors controlling an article as if it is their own. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My comments on the situation above, not that I am a mind reader or analyst: An edit like "In an oxygen gas discharge spectrum tube,{{what?}} the oxygen is stimulated to emit light.{{cn}} The operating conditions are a pressure of 5-10 mbar, a high voltage of 1.8 kV, a current of 18 mA and a frequency of 35 kHz.{{OR}}{{cn}} During the recombination of the ionized gas molecules,{{what?}} a characteristic color spectrum is emitted.{{cn}} This kind of excitation is also important in general to the study of spectral lines with aid of a [[spectrometer]].{{what?}}{{cn}}}}" could be seen as antagonistic. Coming from an editor with what could be seen as a pretentious user name "LeProf" probably makes such corrections seem stinging. If you find the prose so lacking, then I would recommend fixing it vs complaining about it. If an article is being over-protected by editors, then incremental (constructive) edits are required. If even incremental edits (not tagging) doesnt work, leave the alternative phrasing on the Talk page for some future edit-arguing/consensus forming process and move on to a more malleable article. Wikipedia has a ton or bio-organic articles that would really benefit from someone with your background. Those are my 2 cents. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The conflict between established contributors without the real world "qulification" and the real world academic with no reputaion at Wikipedia is always ending in suffering. The article Oxygen became a featured article and this needed a lot of work of alot of people. I was part of two very bad experiences and one ended with a chemist leave wikipedia, a chemist with a name reaction associated to his name. Is there a need to rush this? Is the problem in the article making it necessary to do tha mass tagging. Start a discussion on the talk page and stay on the path with the necessary patience. I am willing to help. Here are enough good chemists and wikipedia editors with reputation which will help with the problem. Wikipedia is a slow system with its own rules which are very much different what I learned in the university life. --Stone (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
All comments above apt, @Smokefoot:, @Stone: but no one with real world demands in the chemical field has time for the nonsense of having carefully constructed, meaningful prose reverted by individuals who neither have training nor writing credentials to be doing anything of the sort. When I happened upon the Oxygen article article, the MO explanation was simply wrong, and so I found a good UK text (Jack Barrett's) whose correlation diagram matched one at Wikimedia Commons, then integrated the MO correlation diagram and explanatory text into the article. At the same time I noticed a picture of a discharge tube that appeared out of place, and with no supporting text information. I moved that orphan image to Talk, explained what was needed for its return, and that is when the firestorm started. The baseless reverting and editing that followed reinserted twice-appearing superficial information about physical properties, and mucked up the MO section—see current Oxygen#Properties_and_molecular_structure and the edit history. (You can see the MO digram now follows immediately after the statement "At standard temperature and pressure, oxygen is a colorless, odorless gas…" though there is an explicit Physical properties section further below.) At the same time, the discharge tube image—which appears because one of the editors runs a private, small museum that features these, and he believes his images belong in all articles possible— was returned to the article, with placement in the Oxygen#Physical_properties section [sic.]. Moreover, my editing of the description of the discharge tube was removed, carte blanche, and the illegible prior material was returned (see the Talk section, there). Bottom line, stilted, noun-verb disagreeing description of this misplaced image was returned in place of a good chemist's English, and remains to this day:

In an oxygen gas discharge spectrum tube, the molecular orbitals of oxygen are stimulated to emit light. The operating conditions for the oxygen image discharge tue: are a pressure of 5-10 mbar, a high voltage of 1.8 kV, a current of 18 mA and a frequency of 35 kHz. During the recombination of the ionized gas molecules, the characteristic color spectrum is emitted. In this case, a small part, caused reversibly formed by the supply of energy ozone. This kind of spectrum tubes are also important to study the spectral lines with a spectrometer. [Bold emphasis of mistakes added.]

Granted, to take the convoluted prose from what they originally entered to anything remotely readable required tags to call attention to the need for clarification (leading to an appearance viewed by @Smokefoot: as antagonistic). But can anyone here otherwise make full sense of this completely unsourced paragraph? If not deleting part and parcel, what is the option besides leaving what one can, and tagging the rest? Someone, anyone, look to see what has become of this acknowledged good article. It is for this Project, and inorganic and chem education individuals here, to deal with. I'll return from time to time, and prod, but I will waste no more time doing solid, content-professional edits that get reverted by hobbyists that insert unsourced, near illegible material. If it isn't important enough for the inorg and chem ed folks here, it cannot be important enough for me. Cheers, and thank you to all for your real contributions. Tres bien, et bonne nuit. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Oxygen compounds, Template:Nitrogen compounds and others[edit]

Due to the arbitrary selection (and necessary incomplete listing) such navigation templates are completely useless IMO. Or is there a project guideline that supports them? --Leyo 08:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt their usefulness in articles. First of all, Category:Nitrogen compounds should cover this. OTOH, why not add this template to that category (and rm from articles)? It shows alternative identifiers (by formula), and has redlinks for those who are searching. Complementary to the category list, I'd say.-DePiep (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Because of incompleteness it would be better to just link to families, eg there is already a template:nitrates, perhaps we could have templates for nitrides, and amines and amides. And then there are all the biomolecules with oxygen and nitrogen we can't expect to navigate. There is already a Template:Oxides, and some like Template:Oxides of carbon, but really you can't expect to link to all the oxygen compounds in a navigation box. The closest we could do would be just to link to the family members in a nav template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It has been TfD in 2011 Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_16#Template:Rubidium_compounds (no consensus) - personally I found them usefull because its easy to navigate between related simple compounds of an element (which isnt possible with categories) - but some of these templates need some cleanup. An inclusion criteria could be that they are described in elementary chemistry books. Some of the templates are more organized, like Template:Molybdenum_compounds, and Template:Ruthenium_compounds. Christian75 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Your examples are actually useful because Wikipedia does not have so many articles on these element compounds, but the oxygena dn itrogen templates are still quite new, and have too many candidates to cover properly. So where there is a reasonable representation of what you might want to navigate to, then this is useful. But I don't think reproducing oxides in an oxygen compound template adds anything useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Haber Process[edit]

An editor with strong views on political and technical history has overhauled large portions of Haber Process. IMHO, these edits are soap-boxy, so it would be good if others helped out. I tried to slow down the process but was quickly dismissed, indicating at an article ownership issue. Ideally, we would revert all and then the proposed changes would be discussed on the Talk page so that we can achieve consensus. The article is heavily consulted, being viewed 22,000 times last month alone.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The additions are more than a little preachy (and wordy). There is some interesting history that could be added though, the Treaty of Versailles compelled BASF to license the Haber process to the French and the British managed to get them to sub-license it to ICI, so it was something of big deal politically. A lot of the other information could be cleaned up and moved over to Haber's page --Project Osprey (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Pyrazolone[edit]

Do the text and structures in pyrazolone actually describe dihydropyrazolones (or pyrazolinones)? See PubChem 11513733 for pyrazol-3-one. ChemNerd (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you need to get a card-carrying organic chemist for that info, i.e. Edgar. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm no Edgar, but I do have access to chemical databases. Scifinder resolves 3-pyrazolone and 1,2-dihydro-pyrazol-3-one to the same structure. It would seem that pyrazolone is used as a common name and 1,2-dihydropyrazolone is the IUPAC name; the Hantzsch–Widman nomenclature can become really confusing once you start substituting things so this might just be an historic cock-up. In any event searches using the IUPAC name get better results, which does make sense. Scifinder resolves pyrazolinone as the ring saturated compound (so the ketone of pyrazolidine, CASNo 27274-34-6), it's very rare in the literature and if you drop that CASNo into pubchem you get a different structure PubChem 351317 so there may be some confusion regarding that. Best I can do I'm afraid --Project Osprey (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Project Osprey. "Pyrazolone" is a chemical name that is used ambiguously. The structures described in pyrazolone are technically better named as dihydropyrazolones, but the term "pyrazolone" is commonly used for the related compounds with any degree of saturation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Heterogeneous Catalytic Reactors[edit]

Dear chemistry experts: One more old AfC draft to consider before it is deleted. Is this a notable topic? Should it be improved, or let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd say let it go. It's a subset of reactor design...viable topics would be the parent idea of reactor design and the child ideas of each individual reactor design. The sole claim of notability for this specific subset ("one of the most commonly utilized reactors in the chemical engineering industry") seems pretty weak: yhe only other possible types seem like they would be "homogeneous" or "non-catalytic", and those are also very popular. We do have articles about at least some of the specific types and some of the specific reactions mentioned (with cites), and they do not completely agree with the article here (what type of reactor is used in a certain context, what the flow characteristics are). DMacks (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, DMacks. I have deleted it under db-g13. It can always be refunded if someone in the future decides that the topic has become notable, or wants to make a redirect out of it.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
DMacks, the article is in mainspace now, restored and accepted by DGG. If you still have concerns, you may wish to discuss them with him on the talk page, or you (or someone else who knows about the topic) may wish to improve the article.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I accepted on the basis that there should an appreciable technical literature on reactor design specifically, tho I'm not really in a position to look for it. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Flame retardant#California's fire safety laws[edit]

Sandcherry moved parts of the Chemtura article to Flame retardant#California's fire safety laws. The text does not seem to always be neutral. I am thinking of phrases such as Blum appears to be unable to accommodate the views of other scientists and fire-safety experts. I would appreciate if a native English speaker could go through the text. --Leyo 00:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That section is pretty awful. Just deleting the whole section would be my recommendation. The style furthers the tradition of Wikipedia being a forum for a lot "hippie science." --Smokefoot (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree on deleting the whole section. The topic is of high importance. --Leyo 14:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The article is generally "awful" and needs a lot of work (trimming!) particularly the material moved from Chemtura. I will edit it as time permits. Cheers! Sandcherry (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sandcherry, trimming is a good description of what needs to be done. --Leyo 19:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Better? Sandcherry (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Drafts about chemistry[edit]

Hello, chemists. While browsing in Draft space I came across these, in case anyone is interested:

Anne Delong (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
Draft:Division of Organic Chemistry of the American Chemical Society - I don't think it is notable on its own, but content could be merged into American Chemical Society.
Draft:Total synthesis of Mesembrine has already been merged into Mesembrine.
Draft:1P-LSD is a copy of the article that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1-propionyl-lysergic acid. It would qualify for WP:CSD#G4 if moved to article space in its current state.
Draft:1,2-addition of allylmetal compounds to carbonyl groups could be merged into Allyl#Allylation, or split out into a separate article at Allylation (currently a redirect).
-- Ed (Edgar181) 20:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Ed: Thanks for taking the time to check these out.
  • (1) The American Chemical Society apparently has 32 of these divisions. What if I start a section called "Divisions", add a short summary of this division (a couple of sentences), and then move the draft to Division of Organic Chemistry of the American Chemical Society as a redirect pointing to this section? If I move the whole draft it will overbalance the article, and besides, some of it is similar to material in the main article
  • (2) I moved the redirected draft to Total synthesis of mesembrine and added the appropriate merge templates on the talk pages, so that should be all done.
  • (3) It appears that you are the one who has recreated this, so I'll leave it for you to work on, although from the comments in the deletion discussion there doesn't seem to be much hope.
  • (6) This would need to be done by someone who knows the subject. I can help with the technical parts if necessary.
  • (4) and (5) Maybe someone else would like to comment on these two. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
#4 looks OK to me, with some formatting fixes. You might get better insight on #5 at WT:MED since this is a clinical chemistry issue - my first thought is to merge to Isotonic hyponatremia#Pseudohyponatremia with a redirect at electrolyte exclusion effect.
Selective merge sounds right for #1. This is by a good margin the largest of the ACS divisions with some 15,000 members, so it's not too unbalanced to have a lot of information about it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis, a concern has been raised on the draft that the references are all from the same researchers. Some other sources have been found and added as general references. Can you move these into the article as citations to replace or suppliment the ones which may be too primary?—Anne Delong (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
you cannot replace the original citations with general references, the original authors have based their edits on these original citations. General references if relevant can always be added and supplement the article. The (peer-reviewed) primary sources are important for fact checking and validation via the article summary, secondary / general sources are usually difficult to access (paywall, not available in library). V8rik (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Will look later tonight. Haven't had a chance to look at the papers in detail here, but agreed in the general case that Wikipedia's use of the term primary sources to refer to both peer-reviewed literature and fluff like press releases and blogs can be a problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: Done, I'll leave the processing to you. I'm pretty sure I left templates scattered all over last time I tried to manually accept an AfC draft! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the AfC Helper Script really makes it simpler. It's in mainspace now at Diffusive gradients in thin films. I agree that general references which can't be read because of paywalls can't accurately be made into citations. I'm surprised, though, to see V8rik write that general references are not in libraries; in my experience it's the other way around, and the journal articles are the ones behind paywalls, while textbooks and science magazines are more accessible. That's likely because I'm not a scientist, so I don't have the usual subscriptions. I also agree that primary peer reviewed sources are better sources than blogs and personal websites for facts, although studies have been known to contain errors, so more than one such source is better. However, it's what the secondary sources say about a topic that demonstrates notability and acceptance by the scientific community, so it's good to have some of these too. Anyway, thanks to all who helped out here; I'll get to work on the society article in the morning.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Note 1. Depends on your library and your library privileges? In my library I have access to all the electronic journals and a collection of general reference books but access to just any book is out of the question. Note 2. If the original author of the article is willing to replace references who am I to complain V8rik (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the original author, who is seemingly long gone, but in this case it turns out that one of the sources recommended by the reviewer (the INAP white paper) is free, comprehensive, and relatively easy to read, so it's an effective addition to subscription-only journal sources. In general I'm not in favor of this pattern of presenting the most important distinction in sources as 'primary' vs 'secondary', rather than the quality of the evidence presented. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Moved allylmetal page to allyl V8rik (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, V8rik. I moved the redirect to Carbonyl allylation, which I hope was an appropriate title, and added the usual attribution templates, so that's another one completed!—Anne Delong (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Mixbox[edit]

I'm creating a draft for various mixbox sub-templates, which can substitute the equivalent chembox sub-templates. Since I'm adding new fields, how do we decide in what order they (fields) are to be listed in? I'm currently working on template:Mixbox Identifiers. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mix? What mix? Are you suddenly into music or snacks (but then why post it here?).
Anyways, what is the proposed content of this template? I think that is an important question to answer before we define what we .. need to identify there. And then, do we actually want a box for that (if my presumption that you are actually talking about a mixturebox template, then my answer is likely: "I oppose creating a template for that"). --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a mixture infobox. It seems that you're a bit late to the party, so to speak. See the above section under Tin indium oxide. I've decided to create a drafts for consideration. The mixbox is going to contain information about heterogeneous and homogenous mixtures, when the mixture contains a solid, the mixbox will only pertain to the circumstantial, elected phase composition, such as the range of α+β in a hypothetical system. Furthermore, the mixbox will show properties and other data only for special compositions, such as eutectic melting point, eutectoid mp. azeotropic bp., etc. The mixbox has another goal, inspite of major overlap in some of the mixbox fields, it use implementation will ensure that fields which pertain solely to pure substances will not be mistakenly filled for the mixtures, as happened to Hydrochloric acid in the past. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Plasmic Physics: If you end up creating this, would you be able to put in safety data parameters? NIOSH has IDLH, LC50, LD50, PEL, and REL values for a pretty decent number of industrial chemical mixtures and it'd be nice to have a slot for these in this infobox as well as the regular chembox. Thank you! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Noted, I'll add these fields to the draft. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Plasmic Physics: Ah, I see I missed that discussion, I've been out. So, someone asked about a chembox for a mixture, someone answered that mixtures do not go into chemboxes and then a bilateral discussion started regarding whether this could be caught in a template. There is no discussion whether the template should be there in the first place.
By the way, Hydrochloric acid is not a mixture, ITO is. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Solutions are classed as mixtures. If you're still in doubt, the article on the acid even uses the exact word "mixture" to describe it under the section Physical properties. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Solutions are not classed as mixtures. I argue again, hydrochloric acid is not a mixture (and using Wikipedia as a reliable source for that is a nono .. solutions are not mixtures). However, you obtain the solution by mixing two compounds. Moreover, you misread "Hydrochloric acid as the binary (two-component) mixture of HCl and H2O has a constant-boiling azeotrope at 20.2% HCl and 108.6 °C (227 °F)." .. that is talking about the gas phase, not about the liquid (which at best one might consider to describe as a mixture of solvated Cl- ions, solvated H+-ions solvated water molecules and maybe the occasional solvated HCl molecules, but not as a mixture of H2O and HCl), and the gas phase is (indeed) a mixture of HCl molecules and H2O molecules.
I would consider a solution a mixture (and I think that is what IUPAC does) if one in principle could take out the individual constituents, in other words, some solutions behave as mixtures (hexane in benzene, where the molecules do not physically change each other beyond Van der Waals interactions), some solutions are not mixtures (HCl in H2O, where the molecules in the system are not the components the solution was made off), and some mixtures are not solutions (sand and sugar). I get the feeling that that is also what IUPAC gold book suggests in their terminology (they certainly do not talk about mixtures in their definition of solution, or about solutions in their definitions of mixtures), so even the disctinction I made here may be far beyond what IUPAC describes as mixtures and as solutions.
Anyways, I still do not see why we need a mixture box, where the articles about (true) mixtures can describe them and link to the individual components, whereas for solutions a chembox can be more than appropriate to describe a typical concentration (and the rest of the article can describe other 'notable concentrations', and some 'standard concentrations' (1,5, 10, 20, 30% .. )). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
H
2
O
| [H
3
O
]Cl + H
2
O
+ δ HCl | δ [H
3
O
]Cl + H
2
O
+ HCl | HCl - this is called the H
2
O
/HCl system, The second boundary is equivalent to the solubility of hydrogen chloride in water. I did not say that all mixtures are solutions, but instead that all solutions are mixtures. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you produce me some reliable sources stating that all solutions are mixtures? Again, IUPAC GoldBook does not use the word 'mixture' in their description of a solution, nor does their description of a mixture mention solution. And I still disagree that hydrochloric acid should be treated as a mixture (a mixture of what and what?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Will the Oxford Dictionary of Science work for you? Heuristically Water and hydrogen chloride is just fine, they exist at the extremes, and all other species present in the system at any one time are in chemical equilibrium with them. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Over IUPAC .. mwaahg. Can I have a linky to that entry in the Oxford Dictionary? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's a paperback. If you're still interested, it is the fourth edition. Good libraries, such as those found at universities should have a copy or two, albeit of the more recent editions. It's good reading, I've read it cover to cover twice. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I still insist that I trust an organisation like IUPAC more to give the definitions than, even, the Oxford dictionary. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
What's the proposed scope here? I get the feeling that its all mixtures, including things like aqueous solutions of common compounds (salt, hypochlorite etc), various liquid/liquid mixtures (EtOH/water) as well as alloys and ceramics etc. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
That is correct. Just so that I'm clear, I'm not going to create articles on mixtures, just to use this template to death. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
In what circumstances do you envisage it being used then? Is this a replacement or an alternative to Chembox? Or would you have both on the same page? --Project Osprey (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
In exactly those circumstances which you listed. It is not entirely a replacement of the Chembox, since it uses the Chembox; what it is, is a selection of alternative sections which are more suitable than the standard Chembox sections. Thus it is a case of either/or - both will not be displayed, concurrently in the same article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't entirely follow. You say that it uses the Chembox; does that mean that this is actually a new subtemplate for Chembox? i.e in the same way that Chembox is comprised of {{Chembox Identifiers}}, {{Chembox Properties}}, {{Chembox Structure}} etc this would be {{Chembox mixtures}}? --Project Osprey (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Huh .. a {{Chembox mixtures}}-subtemplate which then would reproduce identifiers, hazards, properties, structures .. and so the main Chembox would only contain this subtemplate. This does not make any sense. I presume that it is the other way around, that this is a new chembox, '{{Mixturebox}}' which contains {{Mixturebox identifiers}}, {{Mixturebox Properties}}, {{Mixturebox Structure}} etc. prepared for having mixtures of different composition in it. As for, e.g., hydrochloric acid, the possibilities go infinite in concentration-choice between 0 and 37% (excluding fuming varieties) I wonder how this will ever be a readable solution either - until now, I think that this is better solved with in-text prose and tables as is currently done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Precisely! The new templates will be used in the Chembox under names such as {{Mixbox Identifiers}}, etc. With regard to HCl(aq), its Chembox will only display composition specific data at 20.2%, and at the four eutectic compositions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Only? That is 5 datapoints. And although systematic, the randomness of these datapoints makes distinguishing trends difficult (so one would consider to add 1M, 5%, 10%, 15% to it .. and drown in the table. I argue again, this is better represented in tables in the prose. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but 5 useful data points nonetheless, where the solution exhibits very particular behaviour. As with the Chembox proper, it is not the intention of the mixbox to show trends. Trends can indeed be represented in the main prose, if they are actually desired. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If this goes ahead, this systematic method of choosing data points is really the only practical option. Consider what happens as the number of constituents are more than two. If the mixbox is to show a trend like you're proposing, then the number of required data points would increase exponentially (figuratively speaking) with each extra constituent. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with Beetstra that phase diagrams don't belong in the Chembox - they've often very complex (particularly for alloys) and need to be explained. However, I do see a case where you might like to provide some information on how something behaves as a mixture without having to write a whole section about it (which might not fit the tone of the rest of the article). In the simplest sense that might involve creating some new parameters for {{Chembox Properties}} such as Eutectic point and Azeotrope --Project Osprey (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean by extension that you agree with me too, because I am also opposed to having entire phase diagrams in the Chembox?. I'm drafting exactly what you're proposing, albeit in a dedicated sub-template to avoid confusion by novice editors, who will no doubt try and fill (incorrectly) non-applicable or otherwise inappropriate fields. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I also suggest that we limit the composition range to the isothermal phasic structure in which the most common formulation is located. For example, if at STP a mixture with the common formulation A:B has the phasic structure of α+β, then the compositional range of the Chembox is limited to the α/α+β and α+β/β boundaries. Also limit the temperature in a similar manner, take only the temperature range about RT, for which there are one to one transitions within the afore limited compositional range. Accordingly, the Hydrochloric acid Chembox will only cover the liquid solution, not the solid, vapour, or liquid and vapour portions, and will only cover 0-68% wt, if that is its solubility. I see one problem having arisen, what to do about miscibility gaps? Do we split the composition range in two, or do we ignore the gap entirely in terms of the range? I'm in favour of the latter, for the sake of continuity. Or, is there a third option not yet considered? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
For what its worth, and I am sorry to have to say this - I have rarely seen anything done by Plasmic Physics that is good good for Wikipedia. He may have good intentions, but he is possessed by frantic instincts and strange or weak technical perspectives. IMHO, almost every article he touches is worse for his contributions. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You're are most certainly not sorry, as this is an absolutely unnecessary criticism of my character. You've been warned before by others for laying into me for no good reason. I strongly suggest you stop before you take this somewhere we both don't want to go. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Not only unnecessary, but unacceptable. WP:NPA refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, there is nothing wrong with PP making the templates and see what comes out of this. I do however expect that PP regularly consults the community (like this question here) , including how this actually is going to be (maybe not as a replacement of the chembox (more boxes is less recognisability) but as a systematic box further down the page. I also suggest to apply the condition that before anything goes life in mainspace, it is first properly put into sandboxes in user or project space and discussed to death, and we get a clear 'go' by consensus (clear support to get it implemented in mainspace, not a situation where there is no one commenting and hence no opposition). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm having a hard time picturing what this is going to look like; you say you don't want to include phase diagrams but then go on to talk about listing α+β, then α/α+β and α+β/β boundaries - which sounds very much like a phase diagram to me. Is there any way you could do a mock-up of it so we could see that it would look like? I feel I should point-out that PP can't actually edit Chembox. Partly because he's already banned from doing so, but also because its protected so that only template editors and administrators can edit it. We would at some-point have to move this conversation over to Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox and see what DePiep makes of it. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No, no, I didn't mean that the boundaries are to be expressed in detail, but only that they be used to limit the scope of the infobox. I'm not actually banned from editing the master chembox, only the field entries in articles which use it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I was planning on discussing it once the first drafts were completed, but it seems that I've been preempted. And for all that has been said, I still lack an answer to my original question. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Your first question was " Since I'm adding new fields, how do we decide in what order they (fields) are to be listed in? I'm currently working on template:Mixbox Identifiers" - its really hard to answer without knowing which fields we are talking about. Do you btw. have a link to the template? {{Mixbox Identifiers}} doesnt exist. Christian75 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying that there is no general method, that each new field is added in a particular position on a whim? So far, I'm going to add USN number to the identifiers mixbox, while removing others. It's in my sandbox, it has not come very far. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The identifiers are alphabetical order, and other fields in other "properties" are what the template editor thought was a good idea. Sometimes "the most important" are first ... Christian75 (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. What is the purpose of the CASNos, CASNoOther, and CASOther fields? Is anyone aware that the EINECS field entry is a dead link? Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
If I don't get an answer from someone, I'm going to assume by default that they are unnecessary, and consequently remove them from the draft. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The identifiers are currently in alphabetical order (if the edit has not been undone), but there it seems there was no consensus for the bold implementation of that
CASNos, CASNoOther and CASOther are I think all obsolete now (replaced with multiple CASNo#-fields; it may be that one is left over for hand-formatting and addition of more in extreme cases), EINECS is of interest, though maybe the link needs to be adapted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Plasmic Physics (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
If the Mixbox call up a template, how do I add the template directly? For example, the Chembox calls up:
{{#if:{{{UNII|}}} |{{Chembox UNII |value={{{UNII|}}} }}}}
How would I add {{Chembox UNII}} directly into the chembox, rather than create a dedicated article? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Just use as normally: {{Chembox UNII|{{{UNII}}}}} - but then it shows up when there is no UNII parameter given. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I see, so would need a dedicated template for it to only show when the value is not empty. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
You could also do {{#if:{{{UNII|}}}}|<what to display including {{{UNII}}}>}}, then all between '|' and the final '}}' will be displayed only if there is something in the parameter 'UNII'. You will however find that on more complicated templates that quickly turns into a form of spaghetti that is very difficult to read (especially if the 'what to display' becomes multiple lines). Keeping a line for each, with a short statement and calling a subtemplate keeps it more clear. Also to keep the subtemplates in line with each other is easier, and depending on the sensitivity of the subtemplates ('Chembox UNII' in this case), you can leave some free to edit, others to template editors, and yet others to admins only (the calling template ('Chembox Identifiers') generally gets a high protection level due to the damage a single edit (by any editor, or a vandal) can do to many pages). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In creating a new field for the Mixbox Properties, I need help to figure out why it is not displaying. The field is composed of a value, and a comment, only the comment is displaying, why? The template is being tested at User:Plasmic Physics/sandbox1. The field I'm concerned with is Eutectic Density. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Plasmic_Physics/Mixbox_EutecticDensity/format has no code to display it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 awards and prizes[edit]

The 2015 RSC award and prize winners have been announced. Lots of biographies and articles about the awards need to be updated, (as do the Wikidata items); and perhaps some new biographies written Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Royal Society of Chemistry editathon, 29 July 2015[edit]

You are warmly invited to an editathon in the library of the Royal Society of Chemistry, London, on 29 July 2015. Booking essential. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Solvent models in computational chemistry[edit]

Please review this draft, it is one of the oldest at AFC still waiting for review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes an expert look would be much appreciated (I intended to ask about 3 weeks ago, but forgot). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dodger67 and Joseph2302: Good enough for mainspace IMO. Partially overlaps with implicit solvation and water model, but is a reasonable overview of the topic. Could be titled just solvent model, since there's no other field competing for the title. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: Thank you for your help, I accepted it, and named the article Solvent models. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It is an important topic - accolades to those helping this thing along. My advice, as almost always, is to start an article almost exclusively with reviews and books. As it stands, refs 9-27 appear to be primary references published in Western (natch!) journals. One is risking WP:UNDUE to select a handful primary refs from 840+ articles published on this large subject. In the past decade, ca 40 reviews, satisfying WP:SECONDARY, have appeared on "solvent models" according to Chemical Abstracts. But the main thing is the article is certainly welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
@Smokefoot: Most of those are references to the papers that describe the method/application/parameter set. It would be good to add reviews to demonstrate that they're the most relevant/highest impact methods though. It is IMO best practice to cite the actual original descriptions as well - no need to make people follow citation breadcrumbs, and in many cases the choice of review article to cite is significantly more arbitrary than the choice of methods papers. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

International OSH data[edit]

Hi everyone! I was wondering what people thought of incorporating international exposure limits and guidelines into the chembox somewhere. Currently it's pretty US-centric, but standards can vary around the world. An example of the data we have on hand at NIOSH is here. My concern is that it could become unwieldy, but I also think it's pretty valuable information. What do you all think? Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a nice idea but I don't think its workable. We clearly couldn't include all the data in that document, that really would be unwieldy. I also don't think it's possible to include data in such a way that it only displays on the relevant language wiki (i.e. 'Occupational Exposure Limit - FRANCE' only showing in https://fr.wikipedia.org/); although maybe oneday Wikidata could allow for this. However, I note that there's quite a lot of info there about how mutagenic/carcinogenic things are; that is of public interest as most people seem to feel that virtually any chemical may give them cancer. Perhaps there's a discussion to be had about whether we include some of that? --Project Osprey (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH): I'd be happy to steer you through getting a relevant property for adding this to Wikidata, if you need help. We'd probably start by just adding the "RRD59F8" identifier from your example. Does NIOSH publish an equivalent of http://www.cdc.gov/niosh-rtecs/RRD59F8.html as linked data (yet)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Thanks - that would be very helpful! Could you drop me a note on my Wikidata talk page? (We're very interested in helping to improve Wikidata.) I don't believe we have it published as linked data but I will ask. Thank you again! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't include them into chembox, but in a section entitled Occupational exposure limits or similar a table with these values would be helpful. --Leyo 12:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Leyo: That's a great idea - much better than chembox and much less unwieldy. what do other people (@Project Osprey:?) think? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Potentially, but perhaps with some constraints? If the exposure limits are the same everywhere then maybe don't bother with a table, a referenced sentence stating the limit and the counties should suffice. Personally I'd avoid adding such detail on stub pages as it would just turn them into a de facto MSDS. I would suggest that the contents of Group 1, Group 2A and Group 2B carcinogens might be a good place to start, as too would be Mutagens, Teratogens and Pesticides. That's a pretty big area to cover and should give plenty of opportunity for feedback from other editors, on the basis of which we could reconvene to discuss possible expansion into other articles. Does that sound like a good idea to everyone? --Project Osprey (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Project Osprey: That sounds great, I can start with the Group 1 and Group 2s and see what people think, and if it turns out to not be useful it'll be pretty easy to undo. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH): See your wikidata account. Snipre (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

what can Wiki Education Foundation do to help WikiProject Chemistry?[edit]

Hi WikiProject Chemistry,

The Wiki Education Foundation wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Wikipedia.

If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the Wikipedia Education Program and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Wikipedia community directly.

In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Wikipedia Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Wikipedia ("science" interpreted loosely). Whereas our classroom program, as with many other extra-organizational initiatives, is premised on attracting and/or training new users, my aim is to figure out the sorts of things we can do to help the editors who are already engaged in the improvement of science content. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though, again, this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more chemistry-related articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?

These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give shape to the "Year of Science" campaign.

I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning it is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.

Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (volunteer account: User:Rhododendrites)

Dear Ryan: Many technical editors here tremble each time we hear about Wiki-Ed projects because another wave of these forced labor groups (aka homework doers) is poised to unleash chunks of uneven content, often with light supervision by an instructor with little experience with Wiki-Chem culture (notability criteria, general perspectives (vs blogging), peacock-free writing, reliance on good sources).
Another problem is that your team seems determined to recruit new editors (not sure why you need to do that) and the team here at Wiki-Chem is determined to improve and protect content. These goals can be in conflict. The quality of the chemistry content has improved to the stage that the average undergraduate student is over their head unless carefully supervised by a pro. Probably for this reason, student projects seem to be shunted into environmental and toxicological themes. Such topics are easier for them to write about and content is readily Googled. These soft science topics actually take a lot of judgement, so I worry about the quality control, and hopefully folks at Wiki-Ed are also concerned about quality, but we never hear about that aspect, only about effort to recruit. Well, those are my views. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Smokefoot: I understand where you're coming from, and that's why I'm a little confused by this response. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but the program I'm looking for help with is one intended to support active community members like yourself and explicitly not about bringing students in. Maybe I should've tweaked my wording/length/presentation along those lines?
Wiki Ed wants to cultivate learning by enriching content on Wikipedia and to do that we focus on building connections between Wikipedia and academia. The classroom program, while it exists for Wikipedia, necessarily places most of its efforts on the academia side of things -- bringing students and instructors from academia to Wikipedia. That's not what I'm working on now, though. In fact this community engagement program is, in part, informed by concerns people have expressed about outreach programs in general -- concerns that you're voicing now: that some of the resources being dedicated to outreach (bringing in new users) might be better spent supporting the existing editor base.
So I want to know what WikiChem needs/wants, thinking outside of the classroom program paradigm -- or, if anything, thinking about it as a reversal: Wikipedians have helped academic organizations and institutions by working with instructors and students; what can they now do for you? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation (I lined-out my response as being irrelevant). About "connections between Wikipedia and academia" As to why more academics do not edit here: possibly Wikipedia is seen as "lame" if one is established. Maybe because the content is not viewed as respectable scholarship. Many academicians are focused on career advancement (vs altruism), and editing Wikipedia does not help one's career - in fact editing Wikipedia might even do the opposite. When academics do edit here, it is usually pretty WP:COI-ish. Even famous chemists mainly edit here with a focus on citations to their own work - I see this all the time. One group of academic/industrial chemists that have a broad view (and perhaps have their egos slightly more under control) are retirees. Getting more them on board would be a useful goal. I sense that trend is slowly happening.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
One thing I would like is some drawing tools for drawing crystal structures. Perhaps inputting a set of atom coordinates in a standard form and spitting out a .svg file. Another is to draw electronic orbitals, or cross sections through electron density. Perhaps all these topols are readily available, in which case instructions would be good. Other thing we could get from academics are photos of equipment or substances. We could get numeric data such as coordinates for a spectrum plot, so that a free diagram can be produced. Perhaps Wikipedia editor business cards could be produced for active people here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Public attitudes to chemistry[edit]

The Royal Society of Chemistry (where I'm Wikimedian in Residence) has published a major study into "public attitudes to chemistry in the UK". Perhaps someone would like to make use of this in a relevant article(s)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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:).

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 http://www.ontology4.us/Ontologies/Chemical%20Ontology/index.html 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: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi/periodicTableElementsForward.do 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 ». [1]

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 : [2] 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).

Proposition[edit]

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[1]. 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.

References


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)

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:

Novogenesis:Chem

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
3
13
CH
2
CH
3
, SO2–
4
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
    O
  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
    2
    O (Christian75 21:48 below)
Discuss
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
2
+ N
2
→ 2NH
3
. 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
3
for CaCO
3
. 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)

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. 2.110.98.101 (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 it.wiki, 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.

Suggestions:

  • 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)

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 Chemistry
List overview · Updated: 2015-06-28 · This box: view · talk

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

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

Acetol[edit]

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)

kcat/KM[edit]

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)