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
Peer reviews
Requested moves

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


This discussion page is about the Chemistry project itself, for detailed, in-depth discussions about specific topics, you'd be best served at the talk page of the specific subject, e.g., Chemicals, Chemical infoboxes, etc. There is also an image request page which might be of interest to you.

Avermectin structure incorrect[edit]

Seeing as this will be important in light of the recently awarded Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine, could we get this corrected? -- the stereochemistry of the three substituents in the upper left disaccharide ring needs reversal. (See The only real difference between Avermectin and Ivermectin is the double bond in the upper right, I think. It is correct at Ivermectin is correct. Hansonrstolaf (talk)

Fixed as Avermectin skeletal.svg. I agree it seemed trivially similar to the Ivermectins, so I just cloned and adjusted that one's image. Someone please double-check it against the ref. The sec-butyl on the upper right of B1a was also problematic because it did not include the stereochemistry of the methyl within it (only had the stereochemistry for the whole alkyl group as attached to the ring). Looks like commons:Category:Avermectins needs a lot of cleanup. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

New tool?[edit]

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

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

Here's a page talking about the update:


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

You can contact me directly via wikipedia's email here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current options[edit]

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

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

{{Chem2|X2+}} → X+
{{Chem2|X+2}} → X+

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

Woulfe bottle[edit]

Waschflasche 2.jpg

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

I've seen different glassware companies list it under either name. I'd never heard of "Woulfe bottle", but I have used 2- and 3-neck wash bottles, so maybe use of this specific name is limited to certain fields? DMacks (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
When I looked at it I just thought it was a variant of a Drechsel bottlem where a screw cap replaced the ground glass joint, the following Chemistry World article ([1]) contains a reference to the Woulfe bottle with a written description. In some respects the image to me seems to be a modern hybrid of the 2. --The chemistds (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As an addition comment - I wouldn't associate the term Wash Bottle with this glassware. I think that the common usage of wash bottle would be a plastic squeezable bottle that dispenses a solvent/solution. Depending on the situation that it is used I would generally expect this glassware to be considered as a bubbler or scrubber (when gas is passed through a liquid), or as a trap when used to remove solid/liquid material from a flow of gas. --The chemistds (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
That squeeze bottle is also called a wash bottle, but so the bubbler/scrubber type. Often specifically a "gas-washing bottle" (it washes the gas) in many supply catalogs. Our wash bottle article needs some work. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The Woulfe bottle as i know it is a safety flask to prevent an evacuated experiment from sucking in water from an aspirator in case of water failure. It has three plugs, one of which has a valve that can be opened to the surrounding air, and the other two connect to the apparatus and the aspirator. The valve is opened before turning off the water, to prevent backwash into the bottle. The thing in the picture is totally unsuitable. The article Peter Woulfe is also not clear as to what Woulfes bottle actually is.--Maxus96 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I moved the image to File:Waschflasche 2.jpg, corrected the term but still in German. --Leyo 16:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Top-cited missing journals[edit]

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

Top-cited missing journals:

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

I came back to see if any progress was being made and I have to say I was hoping to see a little bit more blue links If anyone needs any help, just let me know! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the list to a separate page, linked above, so that it will persist when this page is archived, and can be more easily linked-to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

'tele' and 'pros' tautomers[edit]

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

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

Misidentified chemical elements[edit]

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

It seems that, understandably, there's not much interest for these articles. I'm thinking of proposing them for deletion. — Sebastian 00:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Why? If you think they'd serve their purpose better merged (I think that's reasonable), and are bothered enough by their unmerged presence to delete them, WP:SOFIXIT and merge them :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The heart of WP:SOFIXIT is "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted". Merging is a lot of work, and it would be foolish to invest time just to get reverted by those who are better acquainted with chemistry. That's why I'm asking here. Moreover, even if I didn't get reverted, I'm contributing to this community endeavor because I want to help as best I can, and I don't want to waste time on something nobody else finds worthwhile. — Sebastian 03:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it makes sense to ask if anyone objects. But silence is assent. Maybe I'm just grouchy today but I'm having a hard time squaring 'I don't want to have my hard work reverted if I merge them' with 'nobody cares very much so let's delete them instead'. Isn't that almost as much work as a simple merge into a list? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. In my impression, Wikipedia has a problems with articles that have been created once, but are not cared about later. These drag the overall quality of Wikipedia down, which is recognized that the fact that such articles typically are declared as stubs with the request to readers to improve them, which in turn is a distraction for both readers and editors. — Sebastian 11:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
No objection to merging. But I don't think they all are best lumped into a single article. It seems like most of them are discoveries or declarations of "elements" that later turned out to be mixtures. But bohemium and helvetium were instead incorrect discoveries of what did turn out to be actual elements. Those latter cases would be better covered in the articles on the actual elements of those atomic numbers (neptunium and astatine, respectively) as part of their historical discussion. Maybe the ones that are mixtures could be mentioned in the articles about the actual components? That's encyclopediac info about those chemicals, whereas putting together an article about mis-identified entities feels like we (WP) are creating a topic that might not be notable. Lots of scientific discoveries are discredited, lots of things are reported that were later found to be incorrect, etc. DMacks (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Very good point about the distinction. For a mixture, another possible location might be the article of the chemist who proposed the element. — Sebastian 11:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd oppose the merge, although a list article could be created in parallel. A sortable table would be a good start.
I don't care if these are a set of very short articles. Provided that they each say enough, and that what they say is credibly sourced, then that's enough to be going on with. Just being short isn't a problem of itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting topic. I've put a list together at List of misidentified chemical elements, which wants polishing by those better able to do so.
The more I look at this, the less inclined I am to a merge. Except for Dianium, Ilmenium & Pelopium, which might be better explained as a group and certainly deserve footnotes in niobium and tantalum. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I too would oppose a merge. Most of the articles look perfectly fine, even if some are small. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what I meant in my reply to Opabinia regalis; it's just to be expected that there will be opposition in such cases, and I respect that. I am, however, disappointed with the fact that an administrator like Graeme Bartlett would just negate other peoples' arguments without addressing or even acknowledging their reasons; that is just a contradiction - a step down in Graham's hierarchy of disagreement.Sebastian 21:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Striking my last sentence, since I agree that these articles by themselves are not worth fighting over; only one was marked as stub when I checked. Some time ago, I gained the impression that we have too many stubs in general, but maybe that has changed, and at any rate it's not a topic for this page. — Sebastian 21:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the list page is a good idea. Many of these are not stubs, even though they are small, because there is not much more to say about them. One reason to keep, is that if a reader comes across one of these and wants to read about it, all the information is in one spot. They do not need to find the name in a bigger article. Small well written articles are perfectly fine. These articles don't "degrade" Wikipedia, compared to the large number of sub-stubs about moths and beetles generated by bots. I am sure there exist many stubs in this project, particularly among the chemical pages. Too many stubs could be a topic for this page though! Usually when I write something I prefer to start something new rather than add to what is there before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I like the list idea also, which satisfies my reasons for saying a merge seemed reasonable in the beginning - that these are collectively an interesting historical topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about whether to deprecate Template:Cite doi[edit]

Template:Cite doi allows editors to generate a citation from a digital object identifier. There is a discussion about whether to deprecate this template. Since doi's are used the sciences and this is a science WikiProject, I am inviting anyone here to comment. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

I'm currently working on improving the article Paper chemicals and am looking for assistance. Initially I need help converting chemical formulas in the table in the first section of the article. I formatted a few of them but am not familiar with chemical formulas and am afraid I may do it incorrectly. Also, this article, is all about refining and the chemicals and chemistry of the process. So would certainly appreciate help in other areas as well. Such as, I've been trying to come up with a better way of structuring the article sections but haven't been able to settle on a plan. Input by way of edit or recommendations on the article's talk page are appreciated. Thanks David Condrey log talk 07:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


The usage of Grain is under discussion, see talk:food grain -- (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


In the Sialon article is a dead link claiming the invention of sialon for 1984. Here is a work from 1977 dealing with sialon type materials: Sincerely, Ralph — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Request help with referencing for Dopamine[edit]

I've been working on the dopamine article, with the goal of bringing it to GA and then FA status, but I'm having a bit of difficulty. I wrote a short section on the chemistry of dopamine, by interpolating scraps of information from various places, but none of them are good references. I believe the information can be found in the Merck Index, but I don't have ready access to that book. I wonder if any of the participants in this project could help out by (a) checking the Chemistry section of the article for validity (I'm not very good at chemistry), and (b) checking whether the Merck Index does contain this information, and giving me a page number. (Ideally for the 2013 edition, but I'll take what I can get.)

Let me add that it would be nice to add any important info that is missing, but we don't want to expand the section dramatically -- the dopamine article is very widely read, and ought to stay as accessible as possible. Anyway, thanks for any help you can give me. Looie496 (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reaction box[edit]

I missed any discussion of the "reaction box" as illustrated in Jones oxidation. My slight concern is the link to commercial sources, or ones that have a lot of advertising. Maybe that is not a problem since even journals have advertizing, but not as blatantly as But it would be useful to hear views. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC) is listed in Portal:Organic chemistry/Resources and it does have useful information, or at least a summary and lead refs or representative examples. But it fails WP:EL, as it seems to be nothing but that, which means it has nothing that wouldn't be written in a good WP article using those underlying refs (or secondary ones, etc.). I see Smokefoot pinged User:BiomolecularGraphics4All, a new account who is adding {{Reactionbox}} to tons of articles but who has not responded (unless "adding these boxes" is itself a problem, I don't see grounds for administratively acting against that account). Would be good to get User:Beetstra's input, as he worked on that infobox suite back in 2010. At the time (per Template talk:Reactionbox, there was lots of unfinished business, unresolved concerns, or at least discussion that petered out. DMacks (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
My apologies in advance if the utility of reactionbox has not yet been settled by the chemistry wikiproject, to the same extent as chembox or drugbox. But I think some of the discussion misses the point. My goal has not been to add external links WP:EL, but to add identifiers and cite sources using a standard template WP:CS. In fact, I agree that the pages referenced on and often contain less useful information than a good wikipedia article. It is not the link destination but the identifier that contains the key information that I'm trying to annotate. Consider the equivalent issue of CAS numbers and ChemSpider IDs in a chembox. Both contain links to sites with advertising, and often less information than the original wikipedia page. The important item is the identifier itself, the link purely cites the authority responsible for assigning them. Although I'm not the author of the {{Reactionbox}} nor {{Chembox}}, I do find them extremely useful, and the more consistently they are used the more useful they are. But I'd also like to hear people's views. It never occurred to me that the previous inconsistent state, of some pages with a reactiobox and others without was intentional after 5 years. BiomolecularGraphics4All (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Energy units for chemistry and physics[edit]

Please consider commenting at Template talk:Convert#Energy units for chemistry and physics. --John (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


Currently, we have the following redirects to WP:CHEMISTRY

We also have the following redirect to WP:CHEMICALS

There are other redirects as well (and lowercase variants), but they don't matter for this discussion. I put forward the claim that WP:CHEMS/WP:CHEM/WP:CHM are ambiguous and we should do something about it. In particular, when I see 'CHEMS' I'm thinking 'chemicals' as in 'did you order the chems?', and when I hear 'CHEM', I'm thinking chemistry as in 'Chem classes this afternoon?' or 'CHEM3000'. CHM I'd be ??? / leaning chemistry just because sometimes CHM is a class code instead of CHEM. And I'm tired of being brought to the 'wrong' page when I put WP:CHEM in the search box. If figure if this is confusing to me after years of editing and hundreds of thousands of edits, this surely is confusing to newcomers as well.

I suggest we either

  • 1) Re-target WP:CHEM to point to WP:CHEMISTRY, and WP:CHEMS to point to WP:CHEMICALS. Then make WP:CHM point towards a dab page. We can use bot cleanup to 'retroactively enforce' the new convention, so old links still point to the intended target.
  • 2) Endorse a new WP:CHEMIS and WP:CHEMIC. We use bot cleanup to enforce the new convention, so newcomers are only presented with the current shortcuts to reduce confusion.
  • a) We leave old shortcuts as they are, we just don't mention them anywhere 'visible' (like the front page of WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS.
  • b) We retire the old shortcuts, making all of them point to a dab page.
  • c) We do option 1) as well. We re-target WP:CHEM to point to WP:CHEMISTRY, and WP:CHEMS to point to WP:CHEMICALS. Then make WP:CHM point towards a dab page.

There's also option 3

  • 3) Do nothing.

The downside of 1) is the old fart factor. We have habits, and this would require veterans of these projects familiar with the current convention to change their behavior. There's a transition issue, but it should resolve itself after a month or two.
The downside of 2) depends on the sub-option chosen. Each have their pros and cons.

  • a) Requires the least amount of change from anyone, at the cost of the old abbreviation slowly creeping back into use over time because nothing is done to warn anyone WP:CHEMS/WP:CHEM/WP:CHM are kinda ambiguous and shouldn't be used.
  • b) Requires vets to adapt, but there's a dab page to help the 'victims' of those didn't.
  • c) Requires vets to adapt.

The downside of 3) is the current mess that we have.

My personal preference is option 1 = 2c > 2b > 2a >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have encountered this problem before. Kudos for bringing it up. If we go with strategy 1 should probably make a point of alerting the other science/medicine/engineering WikiProjects. Sizeofint (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else want to comment on this? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I object, and propose some other route. The problem is that to me, I have made mistakes tooo often between the two that I decided never to look at CHEMICALS again (it is a sub-wikiproject, isn't it). It always confuses me into where to look for a talk or argument. It's WP:CHEMISTRY for me. So I propose to remove the sub-shortcuts but one (leave WP:CHEMICALS, obviously). MUltiple other reasonable shortcuts can & should lead to CHEMISTRY. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC) (Well, please read this as an endorsement of your option #2. Especially the deprecation-part, can't be strong enough). -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Low-barrier hydrogen bond[edit]

Hi, I've done a few edits on the low-barrier hydrogen bond page. They're mostly from a protein and enzyme point of view. It would be good for a chemist to have a look through and clarify the causes and detection of LBHBs. (have also notified WP:Physics]]) T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Newly-revised recommended physical constants[edit]

As of June 2015, CODATA has released updated values for the fundamental physical constants. See, for example: NIST CODATA. I have started updating some of the relevant pages and have noticed that some of the pages have already been changed, but these values are so deeply embedded in all of Wikipedia, that it will probably take a while to update them all. To make matters more challenging, updating these values should be done periodically as new values are available. Any help swapping out the new values will be greatly appreciated! JCMPC (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

See Draft:II-VI semiconductor compounds. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoltan Hajos[edit]

Help with fixing some issues in Zoltan Hajos would be most welcome. --Leyo 08:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Halogenation halohydrins[edit]


While they fail the IUPAC definition would editors here concider compounds such as 2,2,2-trichloroethanol (structure shown) to be halohydrins or not? I ask because we seem to have quite a lot of compounds like this and I'm trying to figure out how to categorise them. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that category will do. The definition looks like there should be only one halogen atom though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it does. However I expect they share a similar chemistry, intramolecular cyclisation to give the dichloroepoxide is known and forms the basis of the Corey-Link Reaction. On the other hand some editors do feel strongly about us deviating from IUPAC definitions. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
No idea about the categorization, but Corey–Link reaction now exists (we didn't seem to have it in any WP language). DMacks (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The definitions are always difficult to read, mainly because of the misunderstanding of what these definitions define. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane is an alkene, despite alkenes being defined as "Acyclic branched or unbranched hydrocarbons having one carbon–carbon double bond and the general formula CnH2n". It is the core part that defines the functionality (the basic carbon-fragment), in which nothing to everything can be substituted (the hydrogens, and even the carbons). Here in 2,2,2-trichloroethanol we have a halohydrin ('Cl-C-C-OH'), where 2 hydrogens on the chlorine-bearing carbon are replaced by chlorides. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mercury nano-trap water filtration[edit]

Hello chemistry experts! This article was copy-pasted out of AfC into mainspace. It hasn't been assessed yet. Perhaps someone from this project should take a look at it. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Amino acid Representations[edit]

I have noticed that many, if not all, the amino acids on their individual pages and on the amino acid page are represented in their non-ionic form. I feel this is misleading, or misinforming, as it is the form least likely found in nature. The Zwitterionic form would be the best form to include, in my opinion. I would be happy to change the structures if the community doesn't mind. I have noticed there has been some discussion on the amino acid talk page, and on some of the individual pages, but nothing has been changed. I asked about this in the WikiProject: Molecular and Cell Biology as well, but some of the discussion already on talk pages seemed to come from this project as well. So I am asking here also. Htienson (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. You'd have the opportunity to depict them with uniform drawing settings, in the event that they are not already that way. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that ideally we'd show both forms. The 'classic' non-ionic depiction is the most commonly used, even in text books, failing to show it may confuse our lay readers. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Project Osprey here - please show both. Showing the zwitterion is more correct, but these compounds are called 'amino acids' and not 'ammonium carboxylates' - a lay reader would/might maybe expect an amino-group and an acid-group, the zwitterionic form might be confusing to them (I presume that this concept is however properly explained in the article). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In principle, yes. In practice, I am not so sure. I assume you are referring to the graphic in the {{chembox}}. The down side of these graphics is that they cause the size of these already large infoboxes to grow even larger. This is especially a problem when viewing the article on a mobile device. One has to scroll down forever until one reaches the lead. If we include 2D depictions of both the neutral and zwitterionic forms plus the 3D structure, this really starts to get out of hand. In a related issue, I question why we are including 3D depictions at all. These are arbitrary selected conformations and IMHO, the ball and sticks depictions plus dashed lined for aromatic bonds are really ugly. I think these 3D depictions should be removed. Boghog (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
While I think a uniform depiction across multiple articles is a good idea, choosing which representation style is not easy. The functional groups in amino acids have different protonation states in different environments (aqueous vs solid, pH dependence, etc). Simple zwitterionic forms (ammonium carboxylates) are not always the accurate form when considering the physiological environment where amino acid ionization states are most relevant. And since 2D representations of chemical compounds already have many simplifications related to structure and bonding built into them, we shouldn't necessarily strive for the highest degree of scientific "accuracy" with them. They are meant as a kind of shorthand. As is done in most text books, I think it makes most sense from an educational perspective to show them in amino acid forms first, then describe zwitterions and more complex biological ionization states in the text. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. As amino acids are biological molecules I think the most relevant form is the proper ionization state under most normal physiological conditions (i.e. pH 7.4). From the discussion it sounds like a good compromise would be showing the physiologically relevant form next to the non-ionic form, without the 3-D structure at the top of the page. I also tend to find these difficult to look at and not very informative except in very specific settings. I will also make sure to add something early on in the introduction that explains the two different structures. Any other suggestions or comments? Htienson (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Lyndon Emsley[edit]

Hi, I was looking for some news in the NMR field and I've discovered that my old Ph.D. supervisor has received another award from the RSC. He is Lyndon Emsley: cited on Nature, published a Science this year, recipient of the Grand Prix Charles-Leopold Mayer in 2012, now head of the RMN lab at EPFL, member of Academia Europaea, h-index of 63 etc etc...

I think I could make a decent article about him in few minutes and I don't think there is any "conflict of interest", my Ph.D. ended 3 years ago (and I was already a skilled wikipedian at the time and I never though of writing an article about him).

Do you see any potential issue? May I start my draft?--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You could start at Draft:Lyndon Emsley and base the content on what others have written rather than your own knowledge. Starting a draft should not be a problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
While your intentions are admirable, I just think that you have a conflict of interest and if his contributions were so key to understanding the substance of Wikipedia content, someone else would start the article. That having been said, many biographical articles on comparable individuals appear to be written by either the person themselves or their appointees, which is pretty lame in my book. --Smokefoot (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm an expert user and I know how to find secondary sources. And I'm no appointee, after my Ph.D. I worked in a totallty different area so I don't see why it should be lame. What conflict of interest is that? someone else would start the article if someone else wuold know about ssNMR, which they don't because it is still a very skilled area, much more complicated than liquid NMR, so you see it takes some time to work in that field. As skilled wikipedians you know that you should never make the confusion that something will be written just if it is relevant. It will b written if there is someone who can write about it. And if it is just one person, that's just a specific competence, otherwise every situation where only one guy can write about it becomes a conflict of interest. Instead of reducing an asymmetric growth filling gaps, you therefore are incentivating it.
The truth is, if I had wirtten it without asking, you wouldn't have even known I was his Ph.D. years ago :D. But if I say it, you kinda expect something potentially "dirty" or "lame" and that's IMHO really against the true spirit of wikipedia. Who do you think was the guy who wrote the Robert G. Griffin article for example? I think I should come back when there will be less generic sentence and more attention to the real quality.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"The truth is, if I had wirtten it without asking, you wouldn't have even known" is exactly true and, as I mentioned, the source of many chem biographies. You might be absolutely correct that a readers would be interested in this biography and I am out of touch. In my experience when one asks about a possible COI, it exists even its harmless. On a more positive note, Wikipedia does need help with a lot of NMR spectroscopies, we should have an article for each of the I = 1/2 nuclei plus many others. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I say go ahead and write a draft; it's just not that difficult to write a short biography of an academic without turning it into a puff piece. I'm somewhat familiar with the field and don't mind taking a look at it (but next week at the earliest, too busy this week). And Smokefoot is right, our coverage of NMR in general is very poor, so if you have any interest in working on those articles it'd be a big help. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be beneficial to have an article on Lyndon Emsley and I support the idea of User:Alexmar983 creating a draft. Another bio article of an NMR scientist is at Robert G. Griffin though it's not very informative. Due to his personal knowledge of NMR spectroscopy and of Lyndon Emsley's work, I imagine that Alemxmar983 will be able to come up with something better. Alexmar983 has 32,000 edits on the Italian Wikipedia so he does have some relevant background. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
my edits on itWiki are mainly related to general maintenance, wikimetrics and help of newcommers with no specific focus on Chemistry. On enWiki I don't edit very much, but I usually insert some sources, sometimes when I'm cleaning my desk from old articles or magazines. I read them one last time and I use them to add few details on wiki. I usually write of "scientific stuff" in English so it's just more natural here. But I should know how to make a decent biography article...--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The core draft is almost done. I am visiting some friends in Lyon this week end (he is not there, he works in Lausanne now), so I should have access to the French magazines and newspapers I stored in the library at the time of the first 1 GHz NMR spectrometer inauguration. There are some descriptions or interviews on some of them, if I remember correctly.
I know his exact birthday date from an attachment to a grant proposal left on a desk, so sorry but that information remains a secret :D and, even funnier, Lyndon is actually his middle name. Again no source for that and I think he and his family didn't/don't like his first name so they/he never used it. It is a very common name BTW... again, I won't say a word.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Graeme Bartlett, Smokefoot: the draft is complete. I have to expand the "Research" section and find a reliable source for his year of birth.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

no comment so far?--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


I agree with Primefac's assessment, but wanted to double-check Draft:Templating Methods – Use of Metals in Supramolecular Assembly was correctly declined. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well intentioned but a little too amateurish. Anyway we have Template reaction. Will poach some of the declined article and make that title a redirect.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

More suspect articles by same editor[edit]

Here is another questionable article - Biosynthetic mechanism. Also by by User:Carolineneil. Maybe some patient editor could tap them on the shoulder and plea for more discussion before creating such articles. Possibly this stuff is the result of class assignments.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

These articles aren't class assignments. They're part of a project, with Dario Taraborelli at Wikimedia, to bring more advanced scientific content to Wikipedia. There were extensive discussions with Dario before the creation of these articles. -- User: Carolineneil.


I recently revised osmotic pressure. It became apparent that the subject of osmosis is badly fragmented.

to cite some of the relevant articles. These should surely be merged into one article? Reverse osmosis probably merits the separate article.

Is there an opportunity here for a collaborative project - chemistry and biology - leading to a unified treatment of osmosis? Petergans (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

IUPAC gold book definitions and dihedral angles[edit]

Hi I am no chemist but did edit the dihedral angle page, In it i did add the UIPAC goldbook definition. (but i did much more to the geometry part of it.

I would like a chemist to have a look at it.:

also on (sorry I don't know hoe to link there in proper wikipedia fashion ) I was wondering can we cite from the gold book or not? WillemienH (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The gold book definition is uneccesarily complicated and too specific to chemistry. A dihedral angle is simply the angle between two intersecting planes. To avoid any ambiguity, it is the angle between any pair of lines, one in each plane, that that have a common point on, and are normal (perpendicular) to, the line of intersection of the planes. For a non-chemical use, there may be a dihedral angle between the two wings of an aircraft. Petergans (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where that comes from. The IUPAC Gold Book gives the definition of a dihedral angle as follows
The angle between two intersecting planes on a third plane normal to the intersection of the two planes.
I have put this definition in the chemistry section. Petergans (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit, I am still wondering on 2 points: The previous definition was from torsion angle goldbook torsion angle, torsion angle is a redirect to dihedral angle I am thinking to put it back in but then n a new sub section. I was wondering about the UIPAC torsion angle definition and the description on the page, they do differ. (on clockwise and counterclockwise)

An other point the "Atan2" formula's in the article, they seem strange in 
\varphi = \operatorname{atan2} \left( \left([\mathbf{b}_1 \times \mathbf{b}_2]\times [\mathbf{b}_2 \times \mathbf{b}_3]\right) \cdot \frac{\mathbf{b}_2}{|\mathbf{b}_2|}, [\mathbf{b}_1 \times \mathbf{b}_2] \cdot [\mathbf{b}_2 \times \mathbf{b}_3] \right).
atan2 seems to be a function of 2 vectors not of 2 numbers. while the atan2 page says atan2 is a function of 2 numbers. the formula seems to be comming from a book on computational chemistry can you check them out? Maybe best to continiue this discussion on talk:dihedral angle WillemienH (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A torsion (aka twisting) vibration is a term used in vibrational spectroscopy to signify a vibration in which the angle between two planes changes. For example, in ethane, rotation of one CH3 group with respect to the other, about the C-C bond is part of a torsion vibration. In this context torsion angle and dihedral angle are synonymous. In principle left and right torsions could be distinguished from each other in a chiral molecule, but I don't know if it has ever been done. Petergans (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I have completely revised the article. I have eliminated the section referring to atan2 (comment of WillemienH, above) because I am unable to find a source for it, nor could I see the relevance of a 3-vector formula to an angle that can be defined in terms of the dot product of 2 vectors, as illustrated by the formula :\cos \varphi =  -\frac{ \mathbf{n}_A \cdot \mathbf{n}_B}{|\mathbf{n}_A | |\mathbf{n}_B|}. Also I have cleaned up the extensive duplication that was present before. Petergans (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez[edit]

Can someone with good chemistry knowledge please evaluate a request posted on behalf of Ariel Fernandez -- here? There's a long history of COI here. We don't want an article that is unduly negative, but I'd like to make sure that the proposed changes are not flawed in terms of the claims we'd add. Is the idea of a dehydron coherent? That article (not the redirect) was originally created by Arifer (talk · contribs) (see [2])... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The idea of the dehydron is coherent. There is software that can calculate them in a reproducible way. Whether or not the dehydron is a legit concept is not why Fernandez's work is being called into question. Rather, it is due to claims made regarding purported relationships between dehydrons and molecular evolution, for which the reproducibility of the data has been challenged significantly enough to result in three expressions of concern and a fourth article placed on publication hold for around a year now. Molevol1234 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Seeking input on a student handbook for chemistry[edit]

Hello all! The Wiki Education Foundation is preparing to print a handbook to help student editors working with chemistry articles. You can find the draft text here. I'd really appreciate input from other editors on the Talk page. This WikiProject has already been an invaluable resource in creating this handbook, so thanks! Any feedback is especially helpful prior to Nov. 13 (this Friday). Thanks again! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The obsession for editors Wiki-chem is content yet the goal for Wiki Ed is some sort of experience involving learning markup language and communication skills, both admirable. It seems as though Wiki-Ed views student contributions as a recruiting tool, which is debatable. In fact it might be an unrecruiting tool because the students often get beaten up and the instructors pissed off. There are two central problems:
  • Central problem #1: Wiki-chemistry is now so sophisticated that, with rare exceptions, contributing is beyond any reasonable undergraduate's ability, in the absence of active involvement of a professor. So what we get instead is a lot of safety cruft or hyper-esoterica such as articles on compounds selected seemingly at random from a chem catalogue.
  • Central problem #2: It is difficult (almost impossible) for students to contribute unless the instructor is an experienced Wikipedian.
Isn't there another venue such as Wikitextbooks that could be used to engage these young editors? --Smokefoot (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Smokefoot! Thanks for your comments. For Wiki Ed, quality content trumps editor recruitment. That's why I think the goals of WikiProject Chem and student assignments are pretty aligned: we want people to contribute good, well-resourced content to Wikipedia (in this case, concerning chemistry). Of course, the majority of this community, like most communities on Wikipedia, has been extremely helpful to new editors, regardless of whether they edit from a classroom or from a living room. As you mentioned, we're working to create a resource that helps students contribute content with the guidance of experienced Wikipedians and instructors. We've specifically highlighted to avoid the "safety cruft," among other advice found in WP:MOSCHEM and other resources. Other guidance you'd have for editors who are students would be well appreciated on the Talk page of the handbook itself, so we can make sure the content of the handbook reflects the concerns of the Chemistry community on Wikipedia. Thanks again for the feedback! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
There perhaps should be some information on notability — how to determine whether Wikipedia should have an article written on the topic. Sometimes students write about a very narrow topic, that could be a title for a journal article, but could be much broader in an encyclopedia. Also we sometimes get useless stubs that say almost nothing about a substance. So there should be some review about what subjects are suitable for the first time writers. For student assignments I find that plagiarism is a serious problem, even though there is warning against it. Perhaps there should be negative marks if it is detected. Another problem I have seen recently is registering user accounts for groups, rather than individuals. Make sure that each individual has their own user on Wikipedia. (not a Chemistry problem however.) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Graeme Bartlett! We expect plagiarism enforcement from instructors, and we're actively searching for plagiarism. It's a top priority for us - if you see plagiarism, please notify us! We do address plagiarism on the first page, and in the complementary online training and student editing brochure, but I'll see about reiterating it elsewhere in the handbook as I agree it is critically important. And we agree that registering group accounts doesn't work. That's why Wiki Ed requires each student to have a distinct username. You shouldn't find group accounts coming from the instructors we work with. The last point, on notability, is also a concern that's addressed outside the specific chemistry handbook. We work with the instructor to steer students away from overly narrow topics and find articles that are backed by significant literature. Thanks again for the feedback! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Eryk (Wiki Ed): Recently I came across an Extinction course which has added plagiarism. I suspect this is not assisted by Wiki Ed. I made a list of users at User:Graeme Bartlett/ext2015 but have not yet checked much of the contributions. (Nothing to do with Chemistry). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, thanks for flagging that. You're correct that it isn't a Wiki Ed-supported course, but we'll be reaching out to this instructor. Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Other places to help out could be Wikiversity, Wikisource or Simple English Wikipedia. These will also have Chemistry work that needs to be done, but will have their own rules. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


Is this already covered and/or is it notable - Ionosilica Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@JMHamo: @Peter Hesemann:. Peter Hesemann, the name of the editor who created this article, is also the name of an active researcher on modified silicas. This article appears to be self-promotion of a pretty specialized topic, although one can be sure that Hesemann is convinced that it is very, very important. Why people like this cannot contribute anything more general that does not benefit themselves reveals about how many scientists interacts with Wikipedia, which is seen as a venue for publicity. Aside from WP:COI, a specific concern is the usual one: WP:SECONDARY - it would be nice if the article cited a review. Oh well, life goes on. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The review is also written by our author. I have done a bit of peacock culling, and fixed refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

TfD of interest[edit]

A merger has been proposed for three templates that format external links to pubchem in slightly different ways, but the discussion has seen very little participation. Please comment here if you're interested. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Slow Science[edit]

Slow Science has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Slow Science -- (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question: Lists of isomers of Alkanes[edit]

(originally a help-me request at my user talk page)

Short question: Are the sources used by the Lists of isomers of (n)-alkanes articles copyrighted, or do the lists of isomers fall under fair use?


This question pertains to the following 6 list articles:

  1. List of isomers of nonane
  2. List of isomers of decane
  3. List of isomers of undecane
  4. List of isomers of dodecane
  5. List of isomers of tridecane
  6. List of isomers of tetradecane

Prior to 28 November 2015, only the first 4 articles existed (-nonane — -docane). I created the -tridecane and -tetradecane articles on 28 Nov, by copying the data from I neglected to cite my sources when I committed, and @User:Seagull123 helpfully asked me to do so. (see also initial discussion of the issue).

I am only able to find 3 such lists of isomers of alkanes up to tetradecane on the internet, and they all seem to be exact copies of each other:

I have reversed my thinking from the original discussion on @User:Seagull123's talk page. I believe the lists of isomers is non-copyrightable, much as a list of States in the United States is simply statement of fact. The sequence of the number of isomers for the first n alkanes is, in more general terms, the number of n-node unrooted quartic trees (graph theory)[1]. The naming of the isomers is formulaic, following IUPAC rules.

While Wikipedia:Copyright in lists is an essay, not policy, I think it and its talk page are very instructive in the conversation.

sbb (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No I think there will be no copyright in the list of names. It will be public domain. Fair use is not required, and if it was, then it probably would not be justified. The way it is presented with the subheadings, could add some creative content though. The scribd list is poorly presented, and normally I would not consider this a reliable source either. I checked some of the combinations, and they looked OK. But do you know if there are no duplicates (same shape with two different names) in the list? Is there a computer program around that will generate all the isomers? ( Also chirality does not seem to make any appearance in the list. At which point is the isomer impossible due to being overcrowded? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC) does the job for tetradecane but does not give the names, and it also refers to a dodecane list in another paper. It says this was worked out in the 1930s. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)