Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    See also: Chemicals talk page, image request page, {{Chembox}} (talk).
    Article alerts

    Articles for deletion

    (15 more...)

    Proposed deletions

    Categories for discussion

    Redirects for discussion

    Files for discussion

    A-Class review

    Requested moves

    Articles to be merged

    Articles to be split

    Articles for creation

    (53 more...)

    Hydroxy group → Hydroxyl functional group

    [edit source]

    I was quite surprised about this move, since "hydroxy" seems appropriate (see e.g. doi:10.1351/goldbook.A00204). Furthermore, articles in Category:Functional groups do not tend to have "functional" in their name. Leyo 20:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend undoing that move. There are sufficient implications that such a move would require discussion.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly not a clear-cut uncontroversial move (and for the record I oppose it)...definitely should be undone promptly. DMacks (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the moved. @VidanaliK: you may wish to join this discussion to explain your reasons for a move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Stated reason for the move was
    the actual name of the group is hydroxyl; hydroxy- is just the prefix
    I'm very curious about a source on this, as it's contrary to every prescriptive distinction that I've seen, which favours "hydroxyl is the radical, hydroxy is the group" (as the linked Gold Book definition above). Usage of "hydroxyl" beyond simply the radical is still in sufficiently common use for me to consider it as a synonym (even IUPAC does it sometimes), but to assert hydroxy is "just the prefix" without citation while moving a major page is... spurious. Fishsicles (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Maltotriose

    [edit source]

    It would be sweet if someone could add additional sources. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bearian I see that Google Scholar has over 300 just looking within article titles, so expanding WP should be easy. I'm otherwise engaged at present. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the link! Bearian (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - great work by Graeme Bartlett and Smokefoot! Bearian (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Chembox request

    [edit source]

    I am making this request as a researcher, rather than a Wikipedian. I would like to see, when possible the following in the data for chemicals: band gap, electron affinity, ionization energy (first). The HUMO/LOMO pair could be substituted for EA and IE although they are not the same. This could either be in the box or the data page. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Band gap is already in Template:Chembox Properties. Is this edit the sort of thing you were thinking of?
    Electron affinity and ionization energy would need to be added. Unfortunately our regular chembox maintainer was banned a couple of years ago, though I suspect there are some other regulars around that might be able to do that for you.
    The paper Bredas, Jean-Luc (2014). "Mind the gap!". Materials Horizons. 1 (1): 17–19. doi:10.1039/C3MH00098B. (cited by HOMO and LUMO) claims The calculated HOMO–LUMO gap, i.e., the difference between the calculated HOMO and LUMO energy levels, only provides an approximation to the fundamental gap; the quality of that approximation strongly depends on the specifics of the computational methodology. I think that indicates that the HOMO–LUMO gap, which isn't directly measurable, isn't guaranteed to be consistent between different sets of quantum-chemical calculations either, which suggests it might be best to avoid (though I'm sure you know a lot more about this than I've been able to learn). Preimage (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That type of edit is what I was thinking of.
    EA & IA can be measured and are more reliable than calculated HOMO/LUMO as you say, but often have not been measured. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You could try asking at Template_talk:Chembox. The template is protected from regular editors. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Move Grignard reagents to "halide"?

    [edit source]

    We have a number of pages on Grignard reagents: CH3MgCl, C2H5MgBr, C3H7MgBr, (CH3)2HCMgCl, C3H5MgBr, C6H5MgBr. The pages seem to vary between the bromide and the chloride, but typically other RMgX compounds are present as redirects - e.g. methylmagnesium iodide and methylmagnesium bromide both point to methylmagnesium chloride (even though that page itself claims that the bromide is the more common form of CH3MgX).

    This vexes me. I doubt that each individual halide warrants a page for its slight differences from the analogues, but neither should a chloride redirect to a bromide as if they are synonyms. My thought would be to move these pages to either e.g. methyl Grignard reagent or methylmagnesium halide. I can't say I like either of these solutions but I think I like them more than status quo. Any other thoughts? Fishsicles (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This messiness doesnt bother me, but I confess to liking the slightly chaotic and eclectic style here, which says to me: "we've got you covered". I once had triethyloxonium redirect to trimethyloxonium because the information would be nearly equivalent and useful, but that approach got firmly slapped because they are different species. In my view, that change placed priority on "order" over helpfulness.
    But I respect your tastes if you want to lobby to unify all the methyl and all the phenyl Grignards. I think that chloride/bromide-based Grignards are more significant commercially because of cost factors, but academic contributors like bromide/iodide end of the halide spectrum.
    Another complication in the Grignard business is that they dont exist without ether coligands: some have Et2O and some thf.
    For people who are really into these reagents, the halides may make a difference, i.e. cross coupling with MeMgCl might differ from MeMgBr (BTW, I need to check but I think that we might gloss over the presence of LiX in some organolithium reagent pages).--Smokefoot (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the key question I have - and one that I'm not nearly informed enough about the internal mechanisms of the Grignard to answer - is whether the halide has any particular effects. In my experience the literature usually defaults to bromide; the explanation as I've been told is that it's easier to prepare the Grignard with a heavier halogen because the CX bond is weaker. What I'd want a more detailed analysis on - which may not even exist, as AFAIK the Grignard's internals are still a bit fuzzy - is how that in turn effects the performance of the actual Grignard reaction.
    I understand on one hand wanting to keep things casual. as any distinctions between these reagents in practice is beyond my ken, but I'm also leery of equating too many chemical species in the age of machines that lie to you. doi:10.7326/aimcc.2024.1260 shows the risk of those equivalences getting bandied about where they don't belong. Fishsicles (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The halide sometimes does have a relevant difference. One notable is the solubility of the RMgX, if you are trying to run a reaction fairly concentrated. Another is the ease of the metallation (I designed an undergrad experiment that easily quantifies the significant rate dependence on X, though the students had forgotten too much gen-chem to discuss it in terms of redox potentials). More-practical concerns are the financial, safety, and stability concerns of the RX precursor, leading to some X being more popular than others. DMacks (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects are designed to help the reader find information on a topic when there isn't a page named for the specific topic but the topic is covered in some other page. It's not only for alternatives of the article topic itself (synonyms, etc.), but "Subtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)". If, for example, article A is about notable topic A but also covers topic B that doesn't have its own article for whatever reason, a redirect B→A is exactly within guideline.
    If a certain RMgX reagent (a specific R and X) is notable enough to have an article, then WP:GNG and WP:NCHEM both say it's reasonable to hvae an article about it with its name. If several variants (other X) are not notable enough on their own except as variants, it's reasonable to make them a subsection (possible header "Other halides"). That's analogous to how we often cover modifications of reaction protocols that have different names in the main article about a major named reaction rather than having a generic-named article about the reaction type. Given our desire to have chemboxes, I think it's cleaner to have separate articles for each specific X than to have just an article on the class, to make sure that the chembox actually fits the guidelines for infoboxes ("for the article, at the top, containing key info"). DMacks (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Status quo. After reading these comments, I'd say leave alone the articles on the individual RMgX's. Gosh knows, for the transition metal (as well as organic) halides, we have individual articles for each halide variant.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this sounds best now that you articulate it. An "other halides" section can introduce the alternatives, and if as it develops there's enough specific information about them, it can easily be spun out to another RMgX page. Fishsicles (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Rhodium#Chemical_properties

    [edit source]

    Could someone with copy of Cotton or similar look at the third paragraph of Rhodium#Chemical_properties? Only the last sentence is sourced. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Talk:Pinnick oxidation § Proposed merge of Lindgren oxidation into Pinnick oxidation

    [edit source]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pinnick oxidation § Proposed merge of Lindgren oxidation into Pinnick oxidation, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Staraction (talk · contribs) 07:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    AI, again

    [edit source]

    Several of editors are justifiably wary of AI written contributions. But here is a twist: AI proofreading. Might be useful.

    My query this morning: "Could you proofread Polyethylene terephthalate for problems with English or clarity or redundancy?" Long response, some selections:

    • " The phrase "thermoforming for manufacturing" is awkward; thermoforming is itself a manufacturing process, not a use-category"  Done
    • ""Color-conferring dyes can easily be formulated into PET sheet." — "Color-conferring" is unusual; standard phrasing would be "Colorants" or "Coloring dyes.""  Done
    • ""PET is hygroscopic and absorbs water." — "Hygroscopic" by definition means it absorbs water..."  Done
    • Summary of categories:
      • Missing words ("formation acetaldehyde," missing article "a transesterification"): items 4, 13, 15
      • Redundancy ("hygroscopic and absorbs water," "widely used…bottling"): items 8, 18
      • Factual/terminological error (IV not dimensionless): item 12
      • Awkward/unclear constructions: items 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20
      • Minor issues ("scarce information," "life-time," "recycling of PET"): items 5, 17
    • Overall the article is competently written but shows the typical signs of Wikipedia articles edited piecemeal by many contributors — occasional dangling modifiers, inconsistent parallel structure in lists, and a few factual imprecisions in the technical prose."

    To me, these remarks are useful. Of course one could ask AI app to delve more deeply, verifying relevance or quality of refs or even technical validity. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is a good use-case of AI as a tool, where it analyzes human-written and -cited content and proposes improvements for humans to consider how to implement. There was a recent (within the past few months, but not the past few weeks) item in Signpost or similar using this approach, with similarly useful results. DMacks (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-12-01/Recent research. DMacks (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, the Signpost article and comments make clear that some smart people are way, way ahead of this issue, but appropriately focused on fact-checking (like claims not really supported by references, etc). In any case, take a look at this Talk:Polyethylene#AI proofreading report. Maybe the appropriate way to proceed is to generate such a report but not reproduce it on the Talk page.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    AfC Draft Review Request: Dr. Russell B. Hodgdon Jr. (Polymer Chemist)

    [edit source]

    Hello. I have submitted an AfC draft for User:1jondreher/Dr. Russell B Hodgdon Jr.. He was a polymer chemist who developed the proton-exchange membranes (PEM) utilized in the NASA Gemini fuel cells. I have declared my COI on the draft's talk page. I am reaching out here because I would greatly appreciate it if an editor familiar with polymer chemistry or electrochemistry could review the sourcing (primarily NASA tech reports and Journal of Polymer Science) to ensure it meets the notability guidelines for scientists. Thank you. 1jondreher (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any publications that describe his role in the development of this technology besides a photograph of him and several of his patents? -- Reconrabbit 14:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    "In addition to the patent record, Hodgdon's role in resolving the Gemini membrane degradation issue is documented in the Handbook of Fuel Cells (Vielstich et al., 2003, Vol 3), where the 'S-type' membrane (poly-α,β,β-trifluorostyrene sulfonic acid) is identified as the critical transition from the unstable PSSA membranes used in early Gemini missions. Furthermore, his 1968 publications in the Journal of Polymer Science (Part A-1, Vol 6) serve as the foundational chemical descriptions for this technology. These peer-reviewed academic and reference works establish his technical leadership independent of his role at GE."

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229649992_Mechanisms_of_membrane_degradation Handbook of Fuel Cells – Fundamentals, Technology and Applications, Edited by Wolf Vielstich, Hubert A. Gasteiger, Arnold Lamm.Vo l u m e 3 : Fuel Cell Technology and Applications.2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN: 0-471-49926-9 1jondreher (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hodgson is mentioned a single time in the Handbook of Fuel Cells. I would not call this in-depth coverage. -- Reconrabbit 13:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Try again not "hodgson" the correct spelling "hodgdon" 6 times 1jondreher (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I see he's more extensively cited in chapter 49. -- Reconrabbit 15:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have updated the WIKI and included much more reference material. Showing his education. updated name to properly reflect Dr. Russell Bates Hodgdon Jr. Also added Selected publications
    Hodgdon, Russell B.; Boyack, James R. (1965). "Study of swelling in two new ion exchange membranes". Journal of Polymer Science Part A: General Papers. 3 (4): 1463–1472.
    Personal Details. Newspaper links to historical Facts. Please let me know if anything else is needed. 1jondreher (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Chemistry Article Rewrite

    [edit source]

    Hi all,

    I’m proposing a rewrite of the Chemistry article. If you’re interested, go here.

    Additional feedback and consensus would be appreciated.

    Thanks, Xyqorophibian (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Magnesium and nub

    [edit source]

    The disambiguation page Nub lists "Nilunbium [sic!], a systematic name for magnesium".

    • N is nil, or the digit 0. Leading 0s are omitted, so unbitrium is unbitrium (chemical symbol Ubt), not "nilunbitrium" (Nubt) or "nilnilunbitrium" (Nnubt). So its systematic symbol would be Ub (for 12), rather than Nub (for 012).
    • Even then, not all systematic symbols can be used backwards. For example, P is phosphorus (element 15), not boron (element 5, symbol B), and B is element 5, not 2 (which is He). Then He is element 2, not 69 (Tm).

    Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not ask @Oreocooke who added it to the disambiguation page 1 year ago today? -- Reconrabbit 19:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    responding to the valid claim on some systematic symbols conflicting with non-systematic ones: i think the nil-padding takes care of that. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 19:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just delete that entry, it is not a thing. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The assumption is that any systematic name for an element would be three digits, so there would be no overlap with existing symbols. Boron is Nnp, Helium is Nnb, Phosphorus is Nup... Thus the need for 0 as nil. -- Reconrabbit 20:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're speaking in assumptions, the assumption is that systematic names for elements are only needed when no official name has been agreed upon. Describing a reaction as something like "the nilnilhexothermic reduction of nilbibium dinilniloctide with dinilunseptium produces nilbibium tetranilunseptide and nilnilhexium mononilniloctide" is a hell I had never conceived of before today. New meta for the dihydrogen monoxide hoax, I suppose?
    The ability to construct a name from systematic rules does not make that name notable. Do we need to add eka-aluminium to Ea (disambiguation)? There's at least evidence that was used in (rather significant) literature! Fishsicles (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you are possibly the second person to ever type out the term "nilbibium" I don't think this is an accepted way to go about things by any authority. -- Reconrabbit 14:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    List of fragrance compounds

    [edit source]

    There is a new page List of fragrance compounds created by DanyMations who rejected a prior draftification by Significa liberdade. Almost every entry is a redlink, of the three sources one is a paper on work-related asthma while other two are wikilinks to International Flavors & Fragrances#List of fragrance ingredients and Fragrance compound. This looks to me like a fairly obvious AfD for multiple reasons, but I thought I would ask here for comments first, particularly to explore if a more experienced editor feels the list merits repair and is willing to work on it. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it not allowed to use Wikipedia links as citations? They are tertiary sources, so what's the issue? And if there is an issue, is it best to reference each category link, such as https://www.iff.com/scent/ingredients-compendium/?_odor_family=amber (for amber scents), https://www.iff.com/scent/ingredients-compendium/?_odor_family=citrus (for citrus scents), and so on?
    Thanks! DanyMations (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered on your talk page, as this is a technical editing question as against the question of whether the current list passes any of WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Wikipedia articles are user generated content and are consequently not reliable sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The value I would see in this page is as a place to put the existing list from the main fragrance compound page, which currently {{main}}links this page despite it having less information and no organisation. What information exists in the table should be draftified and integrated into that scheme.
    Further, the large number of redlinked trade names raises my WP:PROMOTION hackles; I don't know what "Floral Super" is, but I doubt that's what its PubChem page is called. All of the page's sources are the catalogues of R&D firms in the fragrance industry, which doesn't even pass my low bar for WP:PRIMARY reporting on compounds. Fishsicles (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response,
    Is it best to use PubChem names as the title of such article? I can change the name of Floral Super to 4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal per PubChem,[1] as well as any other chemical.
    Also, per WP:PRIMARY policy 3, it states that straightforward facts, such as the existence of a compound and its characteristics, can be from primary sources. DanyMations (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not concerned with existence being established by primary sources, I'm concerned with establishing notability. It is a vested interest of these companies to showcase as many compounds as possible, because that makes them appear more productive to investors. "We made a new compound" is chemically very simple, and the standards of "new" are often "we stuck a superfluous methyl on it"; more significant in determining coverage is if there's analysis of the usage of a compound.
    I only really know fragrances insomuch as students spray them in poorly ventilated classrooms and asphyxiate me; how documented are their compositions? Is there a regulatory list akin to E numbers that could be a source for a listing? That would at least suggest some level of review outside the manufacturer's marketing team. I'd even be willing to consider some kind of industry awards, if they documented why a specific compound was worth highlighting. Fishsicles (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reply.
    So, for Floral super, would this study regarding its toxicity make the compound notable?
    https://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/71077-31-1.pdf
    If so, can any scientific study regarding a fragrance compound make such a compound notable? DanyMations (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    One study is not evidence of notability. Any known compound has a study that shows it exists by definition, and anything in consumer goods ought to have a few more that suggest they're safe for human use. Of more interest would be a literature review that establishes a wider field of substantial research into a compound.
    For consumer goods like fragrances, I think they key question is of production volume. If they're only making a couple tonnes a year, it probably doesn't merit an article unless it's been in the headlines. Fishsicles (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    It is best not to use brand names, unless that is by far the most used name, including in scientific literature. So better to use a systematic name if there is no common name. On whether the list exists, see if you can find books or papers that have such lists of fragrance compounds. Databases devoted to the topic may show notability, but if the company is trying to sell the product, then it is not independent. For content of an article on a fragrance, if all you can say it is a fragrance, it does not justify an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My main thought with the use of brand names is balancing two issues:
    • Pages on compounds should be about the compound, not specific formulations from specific manufacturers: the main page is methylphenidate, not Ritalin or Concerta
    • Pages should have names that reasonably fit on someone's screen: Allura Red AC, not "disodium 6-hydroxy-5-[(2-methoxy-5-methyl-4-sulfonatophenyl)diazenyl]naphthalene-2-sulfonate".
    My thought is to use brand-agnostic common names as are common in pharmaceuticals (often derived from systematic names, not always IUPAC; e.g. para-acetamidophenol -> paracetamol), followed by systematic names of reasonable length. In the absence of either, use a brand name if you can establish notable usage of the name in secondary literature. My absolute lowest bar is brand names as used in regulatory documents, which is why I'll settle for furrowing my brow and grumbling at Allura Red AC; is it better known as Red 40 or E129? Probably, but those are defined as synonyms for that specific brand name, and I'd prefer using a brand name than elevating USA or EU regulators over each other. That said, if your most notable source for using a name is the regulatory document, there should be significant secondary coverage to establish notability of the compound, as if the most notable independent references you can find are regulatory paperwork, I'd raise serious WP:GNG questions. Fishsicles (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see that this is well intentioned, but the IFRA list is over 3600 entries long. That is too long to be of practical use. Cross-referencing against the ECHA registry cuts this down to ~1200 chemicals (removing various extracts, tinctures and other complex natural mixtures). Limiting these further to those used in quantities greater than 100 tons per year in the EU gives a list of 413 entries. It can be found Here. There are many red listed articles, some aren't suitable for wikipedia but other are. They would be a fine place to start if you wanted into increase our content on the topic.--Project Osprey (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for assembling this list. I have cleaned up some of the links and sorted out a few more mixtures from compounds, though I'm sure there's some more alternate names etc to be found by a finer comb. Fishsicles (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Title naming conventions of arene substitution patterns

    [edit source]

    Some articles fully spell out the type of substitution (e.g. para-Methoxyamphetamine), while others use a single letter (e.g. p-Dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde). Is there a naming convention? RajanD100 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    SeeWikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Capitalization of elements and compounds which says that names should be written without abbreviations. so para- not p-. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I agree with that read of the conventions. Per the linked section,
    The names of elements and other chemicals should be written without abbreviations and treated as common nouns.
    Prefixes that are [sic] such as sec-, tert-, ortho-, meta-, para-, α-, β-, D-, L-, (+)-, (−)-, (R)-, (S)- and the numerical prefixes are not considered part of the name
    The subsequent section at WP:CHEMPREFIX notes
    Article titles for compounds and related topics should reflect how the compound name is commonly written
    I would say that this says either convention is acceptable, contingent on whichever form is more widely used. A quick Google Scholar turns up ~206,000 results for p-xylene and only 13200 for para-xylene; the Wikipedia page uses the abbreviated p-Xylene. I'd say when in doubt, copy CAS or PubChem - though in this case that'd mean moving both, as they use "p-methoxyamphetamine" and "4-dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde". Fishsicles (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking to get a chemical structure illustrated

    [edit source]

    Hello all, I'm looking to get a drawing of Brevetoxin B5 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tetlet.2003.10.124) for an article I'm working on. Where would be the best place to request something such as this? I did see "WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request: Revision history", but that appears to be abandoned. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Would File:Brevetoxin B5.svg work, or would you prefer a specific style or orientation? Wostr (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow that's perfect! Thank you so much, I didn't expect such a quick response. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    chemicalland21.com

    [edit source]

    This website, which is used as a reference in many chemistry articles, is apparently defunct. The web address has been usurped or hijacked by a sketchy-looking website. I think external links to this website (both when in an "External links" section and when used as a reference) should be removed. I know this can be done using the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Link rot/Usurpations, but it's a big task to do manually because there are currently 150 articles that use chemicalland21.com (Search results). Is there an easier or automated way to deal with this? Marbletan (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests, which seems to deal with issues such as this, and made a report there. Marbletan (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't look like there are many cases where this source shouldn't be replaced wholesale. It looks more like a commerical site to buy and sell chemicals with some brief encyclopedia entries. If the information there can't be verified elsewhere it may as well get removed. On Boron, I removed where it was citing "boric acid is used in swimming pool treatments"; other text from the source read It can be used for skin cooking sensation due to good thermal conductivity. It is also known boron compounds made with all 10B isotope selectively destroy cancer cell. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you come up with a recipe that can be applied with automation, I can help with the application. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think External-links links can simply be removed. DMacks (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed ~20 that were used solely as external links. I think those that now remain are used as references. Marbletan (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Improve Richard P. Van Duyne please

    [edit source]

    The page Richard P. Van Duyne is a stub that could do with some improvements. I published some with him so it would be a bit close to COI for me. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    You could always make an edit request on the article's talk page. The hard bit is finding useful sources, which you may be aware of. Even WP:ABOUTSELF sources would help, as he already passes WP:NACADEMIC. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    An edit request which is a 60+% expansion is a bit much to ask; I have seen those get bounced. There are a stack of orbits on him so siurces are not that hard to find. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Neptunium(IV) oxalate/GA1

    [edit source]

    Would anybody be willing to help me spotcheck this GA? I tried to do it myself, but I couldnt figure out anything the sources were saying. I took it up intentionally not knowing about chemistry, so an average person could understand the article, but I didnt consider that I wouldnt understand any of the sources. :/ Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be a better question for WP:WikiProject Chemicals. I'm pretty sure WP Chemistry is for chemistry concepts and WP Chemicals is for the chemical compounds themselves.
    UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 21:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    alrighty, thanks Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry&oldid=1353868876"