Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this page or visit the project page for details on the project.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Chemicals Discussion[edit]

The discussion here concerns all parts of the Chemicals WikiProject, including the infoboxes, lists, standards, includes/excludes, tools, contributors, etc etc etc. Feel free to add your comments to any section here, or start a new topic. Topics not specifically related to the Chemicals WikiProject would be better served at other wikipages.

Actual wikiproject info: statistics and alerts[edit]

The worklist shows the actual work to be done to achieve the goals of the Chemicals wikiproject. The choice of important compounds articles to work on has been finalized in an earlier stage of the wikiproject (around mid 2005), and no further articles are added, although we remain open for strong suggestions on this talkpage. The work these days focuses on improving the articles, from Chem Stub all the way to Chem A-Class articles. The table below shows that progress.

Worklist historical status
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Jun Oct May Oct Mar Oct Feb Aug Apr Dec
A-Class 29 26 32 32 33 25 25 23 18 18
B-Class 71 84 101 130 148 156 158 180 185 188
Start 112 131 199 190 174 174 180 153 160 161
Stub 97 130 46 29 27 27 19 26 19 18
unclassified 76 - - - - - - - - -
Total 385 371 378 381 382 382 382 382 382 382
Chem Start
55.1 65.0 87.8 92.3 92.9 92.9 95.0 94.0 95.0 95.3
progress, %
42.2 50.4 57.8 60.8 62.2 61.7 62.4 63.1 63.2 63.9

The percentage ≥ Chem Start was indicative of the initial effort. Now that we are progressing to more advanced progress, the weighted progress indicator is used, calculated as (Unclass*0 + Stub*1 + Start*2 + B-Class*3 + A-Class*4) / (Articles*4).

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

Article alerts
Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Templates for discussion
Requested moves

Fluorine peer review[edit]

Please review and fix "Fluorine". In particular, I know there are some top notch practicing chemists here. What I want is a check of the science, especially the structural compound review at the end for mistakes in fact or emphasis. Thanks.-TCO

Ammonium Pertechnetate[edit]

I made an article that may be of interest to your Wikiproject: Ammonium pertechnetate DudeWithAFeud (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What is this talking here?[edit]

I spend 1000's of edits on chemicals, and I don't follow this talkpage. Kill it, and redirect. -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Where to? The Chemistry project talk page? If this project has a page then I think it is fair enough to have a talk page to go with it. Just because you DePiep don't want to follow it is not enough reason to get rid of it. But perhaps Chemicals project could be merged into Chemistry project. There is also an Elements project that may dilute the effort as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Graeme Bartlett that the project should include a individual talk page. Maybe a box with links would be a better alternative, plus addition? Though, in my opinion, combining with Chemistry Project would be futile. My reasoning is because the subject of Chemistry could technically, and easily, assimilate any subproject that's in reference to chemistry. As for the Elements Project, it would be very diluting because the page deals with basics, whereas the Chemical Project encompasses compounds of elements so would, again in my opinion, be a greater discipline. DeadFire999 (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, this project deals with chemicals, not necessarily with the chemistry a chemical performs. It has within its goals to have certain basic coverage (certain compounds, and certain classes of compounds that HAVE to be covered), and can include merely physical behaviour of chemicals (which one could argue to be includable with a physics wikiproject) without going into it's chemical reactions (or into detail of chemical reactions) for the discussed chemical. The chemistry project encompasses more the chemistry itself. There is hence a certain overlap, but combining may result in confusion in topics which can easily be distinguised. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Then I think you should stop edit the template:Chembox, because its directly connected to this project. If you have no interest in chemicals at all, why make all the edits to the chembox? I think its a really bad idea to merge this project with chemistry, but if (and only if) it should be merge I will suggest WP:MCB or WP:PHARMA Christian75 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
People can continue to edit Chemicals related pages without signing up to the project. The real issue here will have been that another editor upset De Piep. Sometimes I am not clear on what should be in this project. But I will include molecules and ions, or families of related chemicals as well. But I would also include chemical reactions of chemicals inside an article about a chemical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: - of course, most articles about chemicals (a term used in the wider sense - including ions, and families of chemicals) will/should contain information about their reactivity. As I saw it when I started editing, this project at that point was mainly focusing on articles that really needed a Wikipedia article (hydrogen chloride, water, methane, ethylene .. core articles), and to have a representation of the periodic table (I think the initial choice was to have of every element in the periodic table at least one compound, and I think they chose chlorides for that. Since that, this project kept an eye on all chemicals. Maybe a better description of the scope would be a good idea, but I think that Chemistry, Chemicals and Elements are a reasonable split, also because other projects are less concerned with the chemistry per sé but still are dependent on the chemicals (pharmacology e.g.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - Came along, same old accidnt/mistake. Did not read this. -DePiep (talk)

I agree with Beetstra here. This project has always had editors working outside the WikiProject, which is of course their own choice, but this page is the perfect place to discuss things like the ChemBox which are specific to chemical substances. Also, notice that WP:CHEM (this project) has twice the number of articles tagged compared to WP:CHEMISTRY. Walkerma (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
But, if and only if, the project should be split. Then I would suggest the articles were spilit between WP:MCB, WP:PHARMA, WP:ELEMENTS and WP:CHEMISTRY, and not just a redirect to one project. Christian75 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Should Aromatic alcohol be a redirect?[edit]

Currently, Aromatic alcohol is a redirect to Phenols, and has been since June 2014. However, CHEBI defines it as "Any alcohol in which the alcoholic hydroxy group is attached to a carbon which is itself bonded to an aromatic ring", which is different to "a class of chemical compounds consisting of a hydroxyl group (—OH) bonded directly to an aromatic hydrocarbon group" (our definition for phenols). Should aromatic alcohol be turned back into its own article? (I am not a chemist and I don't know the answer myself.) Thanks, User:GKFXtalk 11:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC).

Yes it sounds as if phenols is a subset of Aromatic alcohols. But until there are some references and content to put in there the redirect is better than nothing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither this CHEBI ontology nor IUPAC Gold Book support phenols as being subset of aromatic alcohols (not even clear that a phenol is an "alcohol" at all). Maybe redirect to alcohol or benzylic, because its key aspects are that it's an alcohol and that there is an aromatic substituent on its carbon, respectively. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Alert box[edit]

Nuvola apps edu science.svg
Recent changes in Chemistry
List overview · Updated: 2015-06-28 · This box: view · talk

User:DePiep has prepared an alerts box for the project, {{Recent changes in Chemistry}}, which should be useful. Walkerma (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Chemistry. It's {{Recent changes in Chemistry}}. -DePiep (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was getting mixed up between the two! Thanks anyway! Walkerma (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Walkerma No not your fault! I edited after your post here. It's just I don't want to be bothered with "WP:CHEMICALS" any more, too much confusion -- clearly (I do WP:CHEMISTRY only). Enjoy the box. -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


In case any editors here aren't following the WP:CHEMISTRY talk page, I've posted there about a potential issue with the chemical acetol. Please see here. Probably best to keep the discussion over there. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:48, 2 July 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 (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)