Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Contents

R-phrase and S-phrase

I today reverted a TfD-notice on {{R-phrase}}, which majorly disrupted the chemical pages transcluding the template (in the chemboxes). The discussion about the deletion can be found here. I understand there are some concerns, but deletion would result in a major disruption of the pages. Guess some further input from the project would be in place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Right now, me and some others on IRC are standardizing the S-phrases to use the R-phrase template. I also made the underline and all that for them to be purple instead of blue. This will have to do until we find a long-term solution. ViperSnake151 14:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to promote the templates we have in the German WP. One template for the R-phrases and one for the S-phrases (instead of 126 + 74 individual templates here). Of course, the color and style can be changed to fit the requests here. For acetaldehyde e.g. {{S-phrases|(2)|16|33|36/37}} would result in S: (2-)16-33-36/37 (shown here without styles and tooltips), which is the way the phrases are given in the Annex I of Directive 67/548/EEC. With the currently used templates it looks like this: (S2), S16, S33, S36/37
The advantages of just 2 templates are IMHO the look, lower resources of the server and the possibility of easier changes if needed (instead of changing 126 + 74 individual templates). What do you think about that? --Leyo 15:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there are lower server resources at all. As it is, the server has to call up a very long template (de:Vorlage:R-Sätze (Texte)), and once for each R-phrase, every time that a page containing R-phrases is edited. The possibilities of changing the format of the links exist already on enwiki, but need more profound discussion that has currently been undertaken. Also, de:Vorlage:R-sätze uses a style which is specific to these abbreviations, whereas the current templates on enwiki (until someone changed them last night) used the same style as all other abbreviations on Wikipedia, that is <span class= "abbr" title="yyyyy">XXX</span>. Physchim62 (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I would not have a problem with this template change, it might indeed make it more easy to maintain (instead of 200+ templates). Serverload is not our problem, that is for the developers, and I think Chembox_new already does quite some with that (though the pages it is transcluded upon will be cached anyway, so not much of a trouble there). A bigger 'problem' is that the 200+ templates are transcluded onto at least 4000 pages, so before we would do the change, user:Chem-awb would have to do a run to change those all. Don't know if those small benefits would make it worth to do that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy to help, keep me posted! --Rifleman 82 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So everyone knows, the discussion that was running on my user talk page about this has been moved to Template talk:R-phrase. Bryan Derksen 17:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New template?

I am having difficulty in finding the different types of agents. This is due to not knowing them.

Thanks, Marasama 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a template for "agents" is required, as they are often not related except by accidentally sharing the word agent in their name. But if you want to find some additional agents (and reagents), you could look at Category:Reagents for organic chemistry. --Itub 09:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that is the case. But what is the general term for this? Chemical reaction? Although, I am not sure that anticaking falls under chemical reactions. Sorry to be a burden on this, Marasama 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Itub here. An "agent" in this sense is just "any chemical that does something". If you know what kind of thing you want to do, then there are already many ways to find chemicals that can do it (the various …Agent pages or articles about specific reactions, some catagories, etc.). DMacks 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lye needs tweaking

Lye says:

Lye is a caustic solution which is made from ashes and is used for glass, soap making, textile production and certain food preparations, for example: lutefisk, chinese preserved duck eggs also known as "hundred-year-old eggs" or century eggs, and table olives.
Lye may also refer to:

The "caustic solution made from ashes" is sodium hydroxide solution or potassium hydroxide solution, right? -- 201.37.229.117 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding you are correct except for the impurities. NaOH is the primary active ingredient.--Nick Y. (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's probably mostly the carbonate, but that depends on exactly how it's made. It is a "caustic" solution, definitely. Physchim62 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Where to relocate the section on chemistry articles from MOS

Dear colleagues

A section called Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Articles_on_chemistry has been hanging around MOS incongruously for some time. It really doesn't belong there, and people have raised the issue of moving it to a more suitable location, with a link at MOS to that location. Any suggestions? If it stays, it raises the question of why we don't create lots of subject-specific sections in MOS. That would be undesirable. Tony (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the main page of the MOS needs a section on Chemistry. We do have some detailed guidelines for chemicals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines, which could be linked from a relevant place in the MOS. --Itub 07:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There is work being done on the creation of a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry) for those points which are
  1. specific to chemistry; and
  2. of interest to other editors who might come accross chemistry articles.
I shall accelerate this work so that the redlink can be turned blue and that we can discuss what is included or not. Physchim62 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
{{MOSCHEM}} now exists, and I have placed a first draft of ideas for WP:MOSCHEM at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/MOSCHEM. Physchim62 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Tony1. I remember you from featured article review, something about dashes. So I am taking the liberty of fixing a link above. -Susanlesch (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion deletion discussions of interest

Please comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polyneutron, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizuno experiment, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CETI Patterson Power Cell ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Standard conditions for temperature and pressure

User:Mbeychok pointed me to this page, Standard conditions for temperature and pressure. It has lately been edited by some IPs in an IP-range (Special:Contributions/12.188.209.132 & Special:Contributions/12.188.209.185), who changed the wording in a definition [Standard conditions for temperature and pressure example diff]. It may be worth having a look, maybe there is something that could be changed that would satisfy our IP-user. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Ilya Prigogine needs expansion

Ilya Prigogine is still basically a stub. Can anyone add to this? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The German article is longer. You can include parts of that if you want. --Leyo (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide FAC

Hi there, NAD is up as a candidate for featured article. Reviews, comments and suggestions are welcome on the nomination page. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been very little traffic in this FAC, probably due to the technical nature of the material. Expert reviewers would be very welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The technical nature of the article is indeed impeding FA comment. However, it is also impeding readability by normal wikipedia visitors, and should be taken as a recommendation for improvement. I also left this and similar recommendations on the FAC page. Success with further improvements. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

User:B07

Can someone from this project take a look at the edits of user B07 (talk · contribs)? They seem fishy to me, and he's gotten a couple of warnings on his talk page. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a clone of 170.211.137.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who was doing this yesterday. DMacks (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it be bad to block that IP and see if B07 gets blocked? DMacks (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous editing from that IP is already blocked for the next 3 months, which is probably why he's back as a registered user. Are all the edits from B07 bad? Some seem ok when compared to data at the emolecules.com link in the infobox. Deli nk (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The user is adding MWs with up to 7 significant figures. One entry is clearly wrong - for PH3, which I will revert. A quick check indicates that others edits may be okay. The main issue is the validity of so many significant figures at least for some inorganics where the isotope ratios do vary somewhat depending on location. He/she should consult with WE-chem before undertaking this broad revision of key data, in my opinion. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Bupropion

Bupropion will end on the front page and the (+/-) in the IUPAC name sounds strange. R/S sounds better or best without everything, but I am not sure.--Stone (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(R/S) is definitely better. Physchim62 (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Zinc methyl

I would like to move the article to Dimethylzinc, like the already existing Diethylzinc, because it is the more common name.--Stone (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Google vs the world

Re Google's recently publicized idea about getting into the encyclopedia business, summarized in the article Knol. I am sure that the WE administrators are actively discussing this initiative, but I would be more interested in what the fellow chem-content providers think. What in the chem market would Google aim for? Of course, this line of thought may be terribly naive: if $ is on Google's mind (what else?), then a chemical encyclopedia may be a non-starter.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


NOCH

This was nominated for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag and also added the project tag to its talk page. It badly needs expansion but I think it might be notable for molecular modelers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talkcontribs) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for input re Science Super-Categories

There is a CFD discussion underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_15#Category:Physical_sciences regarding the relationship between, and possible merging of, two Categories: Category:Physical sciences and Category:Natural sciences. Thus far the discussion has attracted very few comments and it has been relisted. Two editors suggested asking for input from this Project, but as far as I can see there was no follow-through on that -- until now. So please give this some thought, and then share your thoughts at the CFD linked above. Thanks! --Bduke (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I have just made a significant alternative proposal. Please take a look and add your comments to this important discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice of chemistry related category rename

We really need imput on a proposed renaming of a category. If you have the time and the knowledge, please drop a word at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_21#Category:Various_mixtures. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 05:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for the safety sections

Can someone create a template, or a set of images that look something like this? They would be really useful to put on each compound page.Nergaal (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

See {{chembox new}}. Wikipedia is not an MSDS repository, so only a brief mention of the hazards are included. Examples of what *is* included: NFPA, EU hazard class, flash point. Other properties which are also mentioned in MSDSs such as bp, mp, solubility are also there. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand the reasong for the slight agressivity in your response, so I am going to assume you misunderstood my suggestion. Check this new link to be sure you got my suggestion. I did not ask for a full MSDS documentation! I was thinking only to the RHOMBUS that you see in the chemistry labs, with the four digits (the 0-4 scale) in the corners. It is the best gist you can have for a safety section.Nergaal (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The NFPA "fire diamond" is already part of the standard {{chembox new}} template (look for "NFPA"). The documentation could use some improvement to make these fields easier to find. --Itub (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Nergaal, I indeed misunderstood your suggestion. I thought you meant the *whole* page, rather than just the NFPA fire diamond. Quite a few people have attempted to turn wikipedia articles into all-encompassing MSDS and it peeves me. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry education or Chemical education

Please help us to sort which of these it should be in a debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 29#Category:Chemical education on whether this category should be renamed to Category:Chemistry education. This also has implications for the name of the article. I have given some background in a comment on the CfD discussion. Does it even matter that much? --Bduke (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

anyone know what reaction this is?

I just listed Image:Osvicsyndih.gif for deletion because it's orphaned and lacks a description. If anyone knows what reaction this is depicting please speak up at the deletion nomination to save it. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It depicts the oxidation of an alkene with osmium tetroxide. The image appears to be redundant with Image:Oso4mechanism.gif. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
And for what it's worth dept of curmudgeony chemistry (to start the New Year off!): both schemes are misleading, but this is the way such reactions are often depicted (I plead guilty of laxness too). It probably doesnt matter that much since it's the stoichiometry of the catalysis and the cis-ness of the addition that are of interest, and the artwork is more skillful that I can achieve. But notice how carefully the tetrahedral stereochemistry is depicted at carbon but poor old osmium is forced to exist in Flatland. And mongo OsO4 (Os=O ~ 1.7 A) shrinks, intimidated apparently, before the tiny alkene (C=C ~ 1.35 A). Also, not sure about the evidence for tetrahedral Os(VI)(OH)2O2, but that point may not be elucidated.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Urushiol vs Anacardic acid

Several articles state that the shell of the cashew nut from the Anacardium occidentale contain the Urushiol, which is a derivate of catechol (six membered ring with two OH), while the Anacardic acid article states that the cashew nut contains Anacardic acid, which is really similar to the Urushiol but is a derivate of salicylic acid(Six membered ring with one OH and one COOH). (Look at the picture in the Urushiol article and imagine that the second OH group is a COOH group). I will try to figure out what is right, but maybe somebody can help me with already established knowledge.--Stone (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, both are produced by Anacardiaceae; PMID 16095792 and PMID 8917839 may help you here. Cashew nuts certainly contain anacardic acids (apparently, cashew nut shell liquid is 90% anacardic acids), which can (also apparently :) induce contact dermatitis at high concentrations. Cardol, another compound found in cashew nuts and shells, is also a potent allergen. I guess the jury's still out on the causative agent. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
P.S. No structure for anacardic acid? :( Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a figure here [1], in case anyone wants to draw the structure. --Itub (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

van der Waals or Van der Waals?

Check out this diff. Was it the right thing to do? Does any know the correct capitalisation?

Ben (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The ACS Style Guide recommends van der Waals. --Itub (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking to Wikipedia for an answer, I found this: Van (Dutch). It suggests van der Waals is correct. "In terms like van der Waals radius (Dutch: vanderwaalsstraal) the 'v' is not capitalised, unless it is the first word of the sentence." -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"Van" is the equivalent of the German "von", the English "of", the French "de" and the Italian "di": it is not usually capitalized, except (as here!) when it occurs at the start of a sentence. Physchim62 (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
See also Johannes Diderik van der Waals :) Physchim62 (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed improvement of our article on ChemSpider

We have an existing article on this apparently-benevolent web site, which provides free chemistry structure searches and has no subscription fees at all. There was a bit of a furor in mid-2007, with a WQA complaint and an AfD discussion, because some people were concerned that the article was a COI and the topic not well enough known. The AfD closed with Keep. Six months went by. ChemSpider became a bit more famous, and the site's operator, Antony Williams, has been helping some of our chemistry editors curate the structures in our articles.

I thought the ChemSpider article might deserve some improvement, so I suggested to Antony, who edits WP as User:ChemSpiderMan, that he propose an expansion of that article on a Talk page. Others who weren't COI-affected could go ahead and move the material into the article, if we thought it was OK. He has proposed some new material at User talk:ChemSpiderMan#Improvement of ChemSpider article and your comments are appreciated. Comments can be left on his Talk. If you agree with any of the new stuff, move it into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Open access now required for EU-supported research

Please see this report which includes all the main links. The main gist is that "The ERC requires that all peer-reviewed publications from ERC-funded research projects be deposited on publication into an appropriate research repository....and subsequently made Open Access within 6 months of publication". Wikipedians may wish also to sign the Petition of support - this will help with the flak they are now taking from the commercial publishers. This news is a little stale but I'll try to write a short piece for the Portal and for Wikinews. Walkerma (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Great news!, but where can I sign the petition! V8rik (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Now added, sorry about that! Walkerma (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I am petitioner no 27006 V8rik (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I signed too.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • number 27013 - slow going! Axiosaurus (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Slow going indeed. I just signed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • And one more! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Geometry boxes - what gives?

Would someone please look over the work by User:The Valid One. I give up. This editor is entering information in so-called geometry information boxes, which is, IMHO, substandard or archaic or misleading, as well as jargon-y ("bond directions"). Its the usual problem - well intentioned but incorrect/incomplete and non-consultative. The editor leaves no edit summaries. I tried reverting and editing, but to no effect. So perhaps a more patient or kinder soul than me could get some action.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Jargon" changes have already been made. By overwhelming agreement hybridisation is deemed for removal, however nobody seems willing to explain to me what exactly a valid "fill" for that slot would be. I spent some time looking into molecular orbit, which was beyond my level of math, let alone scientific understanding. The only other applicable information I can think of would be a few things regarding stereochemistry, though that kind of thing is too compound-specific to really work on an infobox for a geometry.·· TVOtalk 07:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the hybridisation spot on the template for now. I've left the corresponding syntax on the geometry pages. Interestingly enough, quite a few articles (this one, this one, and others) seem to advocate the use of hybridization to describe molecular structure. I've removed it based on your message on my talk page, but I still think that hybridization is a valid piece of information. The format would be changed to reflect the involvement of the d-orbital on pages such as octahedral.·· TVOtalk 16:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
IMO these boxes should be removed, because they are misleading and unnecessary. It is part of a strange Wikipedia fashion of trying to put everything into little boxes whether it makes sense or not. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100%, they are misleading and unnecessary. I removed the one for linear geometry this AM. They should be removed.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If this information must be removed (this is a worst case scenario.), it needs to be saved so that the valid one and I can place this information somewhere. Molecular geometry is important, and some of the information in the boxes, while it is disorganized, is important. In what way should we organize this? Jokermole (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

On 16 January 2007, Richard 001 wrote, there could be "an article purely dealing with the different shapes (e.g. List of VSEPR geometries) and a brief list here." Why don't we just do that? Jokermole (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Before the kids get going, please repair the current boxes. Once again here are my concerns:
  • Point group: Square planar compounds usually are not D4h, right? so get rid of this entry or insert all of the lower sym groups.
  • Steric number →a serious problem, right? How many lone pairs are on the Ir in Vaska's complex?
  • Coordination number 4 → do we need a table for this number?
  • Bond angle(s) 90° →ditto, do we need a table for this number?
  • μ (Polarity) → most square planar complexes have a dipole moment, right? So this entry is incorrect or needs to be explained at length.

Wikipedia can be an effective teaching tool, but the teachers need to be careful. There is a related project called wikibooks that would probably be far more suitable for this class. Is there a section on VSEPR in wikibooks?--Smokefoot (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We will fix. It's probably not the best idea, but I don't think anything will change... Jmole (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you have a look at this wikibook link? This is a page essentially about molecular geometry and VSEPR that needs a lot of work. It would, as Smokefoot says, make a much better project. Chris (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This interesting discussion prompted me to look at what wiki has re symmetry point groups. Oh dear! What I found was too mathematical to be helpful from a chemists POV. The best article seems to me to be this french one. Does anyone share my view that we need a "Symmetry point groups-chemistry article.--Axiosaurus (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Is not Molecular symmetry what you want? If not, can that article be improved to what you want? The french article is on crystal groups not molecular point groups. --Bduke (talk) 10:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Now I see that molecular symmetry is almost what I had in mind. I didn't find it because I was looking for something with "point group" in the title. :) --Itub (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That French article is about space groups, not point groups. We have List of character tables for chemically important 3D point groups which is useful but too advanced (useful only if you already know what a character table is, how to use it, and how to assign the point group). The article on Point groups in three dimensions is mathematical and too general. What we need is an article with examples of real molecules belonging to each point group, listing the symmetry elements of each group, with pretty pictures of the molecules and a flow chart such as [2] to explain how the point group of a molecule can be determined. Basically what one can find in an appendix in many inorganic or physical chemistry textbooks. I like for example, Appendix 2, "Symmetry Elements, Symmetry Operations and Point Groups" in Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 0080379419. . We could call it Point groups in chemistry or something similar. --Itub (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I did spot the space groups but it was the symmetry elements that appealed. I remember you talking about space and point groups a long time ago and then sending me to see Sam Small! However molecular symmetry was one i didn't find so thank you for that. Its pretty good and close to what I had in mind when I was looking for a suitable link from say C2v and just couldn't find one. Pretty pictures are the key and I go along with Itub on that. Perhaps a separate article per point group would be justified. It could have pictures of mirror planes and rotation axes etc, a list of examples and discussion of the physical properties affected by the symmetry e.g. dipole moment, vibrational spectra as well as atomic orbital groupings. Something to turn symmetry into a chemical tool rather than a mathematical abstraction. --Axiosaurus (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Molecular geometry

I have tagged all of the articles in the molecular geometry template at the bottom of this article. A few were already tagged. Some of the articles are quite old, while some are new. Some of these surfer from the same problem as the note above. They need more eyes on them. I'm too busy right now. --Bduke (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

And while we're here, can we move Trigonal bipyramid molecular geometry to Trigonal bipyramidal molecular geometry? The latter is consistent with octahedral, tetrahedral etc, but already exists as a redirect to the former. For some reason, the latter was moved to the former a couple of years ago, but I've no idea why. It will take an admin to move it back. Chris (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC) PS: pentagonal bipyramid molecular geometry too.
Me again. I have problems with the idea of steric number in these infoboxes. For example, the square planar molecular geometry infobox says steric number 6, which may be all very well for XeF4, but is much less good for the equally square planar [PtCl4]2-, or indeed the [AuCl4]- that is given as an example on the page. Also, can we remove polarity from the diatomic box, because this whilst it's zero for all homonuclear diatomics, it will be different for all heteronuclear ones. Generally, I tend to agree with Smokefoot that these infobox things are a vast over-simplification that create more problems than they solve. Chris (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to let everyone know that our high school chemistry class, about 42 people in total, will be tackling the molecular geometry articles by the end of this week. User: The Valid One and I will monitor the class' progress. Just to warn over-eager editors, many of these people, although bright in chemistry, are relative newbs in wikipedia. I am confident with your patience, any possible errors will self-correct. We recently tackled the eudiometer page, and I believe the final product was quite acceptable. Jmole (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New article needing cleanup

In case anyone is interested: Nephelauxetic effect could use some expert love. --Itub (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it. Give me day or two....Chris (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly IRC meetings for WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEM

We had an IRC meeting on Jan 15, 2008 to discuss validation of chembox information and reuse of the data in databases and mashups. We agreed to meet again informally one week later (today, Jan 22) to discuss some of the details, like how to structure the data, how to deal with salts, etc. It looks like this will become a regular meeting, so we have set up a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/IRC_discussions. Please join us on January 29 at 1600h UTC (11am US EST, 1700h Central European Time)! We hope to discuss InChIs and InChIKeys, though it will depend somewhat on who is able to come to the meeting. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrussov oxidation

I will change Andrussov oxidation to Andrussow oxidation, because the name of the discoverer is only of russian origin, but after the revolution Leonid Andrussow lifed in Germany and later in France and there he used the writing with W and not with V what his publications and patens clearly show. So this is not a transcription of cyrylic letters, but true latin letters.--Stone (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

2-Phenyl-hexane

Is there anything noteworthy about this chemical? Notification of relevant AfD. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Phosphite fertilizers

(Moved from the IRC discussion page) I got to this page looking through the Phosphite discussions. I posted a question there that I will post here for response:

I am a turfgrass manager dealing with many variety of organic and synthetic fertilizers. People are beginning to talk about the use of Phosphite materials vs Phosphate(or the usual Phosphorous in fertilizer N-P-K formulations.) Regular phosphate fertilizers come in the form of P2O5 while the new phosphite fertilizers are H3PO3. Can anyone help me in explaining what is the main distinction between the two compounds are. I am trying to understand the role of each as it affects the nutritional role and nutrient availability to plant cell health. Basicly why one is better or worse than the other?

Thanks for your input! The chemistry page is awesome.

Hotlunch2000 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not the proper forum for this discussion. I'll think of where to move it. But in the mean time - are you certain phosphorus pentoxide is used as a fertilizer? That's strange because that material is rather caustic. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is because of the tradition of presenting % information for such things in terms of the oxides, it's not that the fertiliser actually contains P2O5 (or K2O, for that matter!). So from the chemist's viewpoint, the question should be phrased as, "How does hydrogen phosphate (or is it dihydrogen phosphate?) compare with phosphite (or is it hydrogen phosphite?) as a fertiliser?" The main difference is that phosphites are reducing agents whereas phosphates are not, but I don't know how that changes things in the ecosystem or in the nutritional sense. I would like to move this to WT:Chemistry, OK? Walkerma (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you mean phosphorous acid for H3PO3? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Phosphate is PO43- (i.e. comes form H
3
PO
4
, which is water+P
2
O
5
), phosphite is PO33- (i.e. comes from H
3
PO
3
which is obtained from water+P
2
O
3
). Basically the problem comes from ignorant industry employers that don't care about rigurous nomenclature and assign names based on what they find easier to remember, not what is more logical. Nergaal (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
doi:10.1081/PLN-100106017 should give a clue what is going on and what is pure marleting and blunt advertising.--Stone (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC) also Journal of plant nutrition 2000, vol. 23, no2, pp. 161-180 might also help to understand.--Stone (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the input. Stone: The journal article was helpful. Thanks! Too often in my industry(plant science) we are bombarded with the latest forms of fertilizer and nutrient transporters. They all seem great.....at first. I am sure this is the same everywhere: pharm, food prod, curative agents, etc.... If you would indulge me, here is the product information that was given to me by a sales person:

Phosphite 30 is a pure Potassium Phosphite fertilizer solution that is manufactured in a one step process by reatcing Phosphorous Acid and Potassium Hydoxide in a patented high temperature, rapid cooling process, that preserves the maximum amount of Phosphorous in the desirable H3PO3 form. This unique Phosphite 30 manufacturing process neither contains nor requires any H3PO3 preserving or solubility additives that are necesary in competitive products. As a result, Phosphite 30 economically feeds and protects plants through superior Phosphorous Acid nutrition.

Guaranteed Analysis Phosphite 30 (0-30-27)

Available Phosphoric Acid (P2O5) - 30.00% (AOAC method 960.02) Soluble Potash (K2O) - 27.00%

Comments? Thanks again. I am new to Wiki. This has been very informative and helpful!

Hotlunch2000 (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Participants

What shall we do with people not active any more:

Eequor -- Feb 2007
Dawn_Burn -- Jun 2006
Darrien -- Sep 2005
Chemist1828 -- Jun 2007
Causesobad -- May 2007
CarbonCopy -- Jan 2006
C_kam_yuen -- May 2006 only one edit
Bobo_The_Ninja -- Jul 2007

--Stone (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jawz -- Feb 2006
N4nojohn -- Aug 2007

--Stone (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

LOISBB -- no entry
Natalinasmpf -- no entry
Nitin.viswanathan -- Jan 2007
OrientalKnight -- no entry
Pez2 -- Jun 2007
Physical Chemist -- Jul 2006
Physicq210 -- no entry
Quantockgoblin -- Apr 2007
Rayleung2709 -- May 2006
Shoyrudude555 -- no entry
Silmarillion -- Jun 2006
Chemprincess5 -- March 2007
Terri G -- Jun 2007
ThinkOutsideTheTesseract -- Mar 2007
Tobes00 -- April 2007

--Stone (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

  • I simply deleted the people who have not been active in WP since 2006. Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

Functional groups style guidelines

I'm trying to prepare a style guide for functional groups. This would include articles like alkane, alcohol, aldehyde, etc. Of particular interest (to me, at least), is the spectroscopy section - how do we identify and characterize these compounds?

I've prepared a skeleton here. Please take a look and expand/comment! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the layout, I think it will work well in nearly all cases. I've changed it a little according to my viewpoint, feel free to revert anything you don't like. I think occurrence isn't the most important section, and so I wouldn't want it right after the lead, and also I think it belongs right before "preparation". I also added "Applications". Another possibility would to be to reduce the number of top-level sections by making some be ===Subsection style===. For example, the Structure/Properties/Characteristics sections go together somewhat, but I'm not clear how best to reorganize them. Walkerma (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for an expert view on Resveratrol

Howdy from the Wine Project! I was wonder if some folks from the Chemistry project would be willing to lend an expert eye to the Resveratrol article. While it is an important wine-related topic, it is a bit too technical for me to evaluate whether the recent furry of changes in the last few weeks should be cause for concern or not. It seems that a few editors (whose contribution history seems to be mostly confined to this one article) are sparing over competing agendas. Any expert view or help in sorting things out would be greatly appreciated. :) AgneCheese/Wine 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New articles

Chichibabin reaction, Vanillyl, Chloroauric acid. --Stone (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Element lists merge proposal

I've proposed merging the element lists; see Template talk:PeriodicTablesFooter#Merge lists proposal. (PS: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Articles to be merged is out of date) jnestorius(talk) 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Serial dilution

Just a quick new article, as it seemed easier than explaining a common term on every appearance. Adam Cuerden talk 08:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, I've added a ref. and a category. I'd mention the use in homeopathy, but that's probably not a good idea given the current edit wars. ;-) --Itub (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Colloid

Just ran across this while doing copyediting. I'm not a science guy but the article looks to be in dire need of attention. Aren't colloids one of the most important topics in chemistry? The university-level textbooks I've got all seem to think so. I'm not qualified to say if there are still outright errors (Nature savaged the article several years ago, talk page posters still seem to think there are) but it's so vague and jargonistic that even if technically correct, it's going to be of little help do anyone who doesn't already know the subject. I already added the "Needs urgent attention" tag for WP Physics, but your project doesn't seem to have one, so here I am. <eleland/talkedits> 03:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen

Hydrogen has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.—RJH (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben's RfA

Hi chemists,

I'm hoping to become an administrator.

If anyone wants to comment, my RfA is here.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Prolific "See also" molecular modeling spammer

Apparently user 212.16.161.89 is really proud of the molecular modeling page. He has placed links about 50 links from chemistry page to molecular modeling. Most of these seem highly tangential at best. I wanted to get the opinions of other on the best way to proceed. Let me know. M stone (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove if not directly relevant: WP:ALSO says it's for "related articles". It's not (to use the case at hand) just for any topic that could conceivably be modelled. The MOS also advises to "provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent", so could suggest that he do so. If he can't or it's the rationale is a stretch, then even more confidence in deleting it. DMacks (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed some of the links already at an early stage: fore example here [3] and here [4] with motivation stated V8rik (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I left a message at the Talk page of 212.16.161.89 (talk · contribs) inviting him to join this thread. He has not edited since 3 March, so if he's a spammer, he's not continuing. Though his edits are misguided, his contributions might conceivably be useful in the future. If editors here agree that all his edits are incorrect, someone who has AWB might roll them all back. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1-Octen-3-ol CAS numbers?

I'm trying to track down the CAS numbers for 1-octen-3-ol. The best I could find is this page from a book about coffee. It lists the numbers [3391-86-4], (±) [50999-79-6], (R)-(-) [3687-48-7], (S)-(+) [24587-53-9]. My question is: what's the difference between 3391-86-4 and 50999-79-6? Both appear to refer to a mixture of the two enantiomers. Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

CAS themselves are going to have a look at it, but for now, just add them and we will see what comes out of that. There are many cases of compounds having more than one CAS number, or compounds that don't have one, or CAS numbers pointing to two compounds .. at the moment a bit unreliable (and that is also one of the reasons why we don't link to an external linkfarm with it anymore. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
According to CAS, [50999-79-6] is a deleted CAS number and [3391-86-4] should be used instead. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Applications of groups in chemistry?

The group (mathematics) article is a current collaboration of the month in the WP Math. If some of you have time, can you please post a couple of applications of this notion in chemistry? (Please reply either by collaborating directly or at the talk page). Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005

I have added a new article. It is large and IMO needs to be split down. However I think a consensus on how this is achieved should be reached. There is also an existing article IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry that I could have add this tome into. However I think it is easier to see the problem doing it this way. I am off very soon for a short break and I look forward to seeing your comments/actions etc. on my return in a coupe of weeks time --Axiosaurus (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if this article noted that only some of the recommendations are followed, and even these only loosely. IUPAC is a well-intentioned operation but its recommendations, if followed scrupulously, would be unpleasant for practicing chemists. So one suggestion is that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/draft note the helpfulness of IUPAC (thorough examination of the scope of nomenclature world, with recommendations) but also note that orthodoxy is impractical and possibly unwelcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to make Entropy (disambiguation) the primary page for Entropy

What page should Wikipedia serve up as the primary page for the word "Entropy" ?

If a reader puts "Entropy" into the search box, should they be shown:

  • The current Entropy (disambiguation) page, from which readers can find thermodynamic entropy in the list if that is what they are looking for ?
  • Or the current Entropy page, which focusses only on thermodynamic entropy, with other uses covered by a hatnote leading to a disambiguation page ?

There is a proposal to change to the first.

Views and opinions are now being canvassed at Talk:Entropy#Requested_move. Jheald (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment please

Would someone please do an assessment for superheated water? Richard001 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Done, B/Mid. I left autogenerated comments on the talk page for further improvements. Actually, I think it should be assessed against Physics rather than Chemistry? Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC).

Template:Reqchemstructure

Any chance of you guys merging the features of Template:Reqchemstructure into Template:Chemical drawing needed to eliminate one of the templates? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since {{Reqchemstructure}} was only used on two pages, I have redirected it to {{Chemical drawing needed}}. Though Reqchemstructure has a name more consistent with other image request templates, so if anyone wants to migrate all the templates the other direction, feel free. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Periodic table

Someone moved Periodic table to The Periodic table, which IMO makes no sense. Could one of our many admins move it back please? --Itub (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a vandal account too. Will take a look. DMacks (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Fixed, modulo the probably zillion double-redirects in its wake...I think a bot will clear those shortly. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Polarity

Could some kind person do an assessment for chemical polarity? Also, the page needs quite a bit of updating... I've been wikifying it a little, but real attention is needed. Thanks in advance! Señor Lelandro 04:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cladinose

Cladinose is described as "hexose deoxy sugar" but it is rather something like a "methyl ether of a branched heptose dideoxy sugar" - what would be an appropriate description in the article? Icek (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen donor

The article looks like a wrong understanding of the concept of proton donor. Have a look!--Stone (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeisel

Ziesel reaction or Ziesel determination whats the difference and why do I have the feeling that both are the same?-Stone (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Useful biographical resource

I recently came across the Biographical Database of the British Chemical Community, 1880-1970, from the Open University. I see that it is used in several articles already, but as it has details on "some 4860 chemists", we could use it a lot more. Could someone please list the page somewhere where others will be able to find and use it. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Open Access Wiki

There is a new wiki designed to coordinate information on Open Access starting up at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page. It's organised by such OA luminaries as Peter Suber. This could be a useful resource for Wikipedians in general. Walkerma (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. But is there a more permanent place to list stuff like this and the link I provided in the previous section? Over time, people will lose track of what has been said here. Does anyone ever go back though the talk page archives and pick out the important points and links and changes? Carcharoth (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Reaction_mechanisms}}

New template, per request at my talk. Comments, please? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Why is E1 elimination a redlink though... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There are so many mechanisms already on wikipedia, though, what would define their inclusion? Off the top of my head, there are more SN's: SRN1, ANRORC, Vicarious nucleophilic substitution, then there are electrofilic substututions - (EAS, including DOM), various cycloadditions (including the famous Diels-Alder) and sigmatropic rearrangements (odd, there is no article for haptotropics). And this is just o-chem! Inorganics has its share of fun - Trans effect, Inner sphere electron transfer, Outer sphere electron transfer, and I am sure there's more related topics. --Cubbi (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are. There are three choices:
  1. no navbox
  2. navbox containing the most basic articles
  3. navbox containing all articles
I was originally thinking of the second choice, but even so, it'll be a judgment call. Fortunately, whatever I did there is not cast in concrete, we can still change it to be better. That's the approach I took for {{Chiral synthesis}}, {{Organometallics}}, {{Distillation}}, etc. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
E1 and E2 are both covered at elimination reaction. An eventual split could be considered. See also Category:Reaction mechanisms. --Itub (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a difficult task. It seems that organic chemists, who traditionaly most religiously bought into the classification business, are coming to grips with the messiness that comes with the other elements, as found in homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysis, electron transfer, and proton-coupled this and that. IMHO. And maybe my skepticism is misplaced.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Re R-82 comment above, it is my view that having a basic template with the most basic reaction mechanisms would be useful. At the moment there is no linking structure at all between various reaction mechanisms, all you can do is pop around from one "see also" page to another. Trying to make a definitive template with every mechanism is more trouble than it is worth, and in the end the big picture is lost amongst all the noisy details i.e. the importance of the SN2 mechanism as a concept would be lost when next to all the more specific reaction mechanisms such as the 2+3 sigma anti-angio plastic boo-hippy zip lock reaction mechanisms (yes I made it up) – option 2 is the only sensible (and useful) way to go -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, #2 looks like a good choice - just the major mechanisms. This is a very helpful template for bringing together the world of mechanisms - thanks a lot, Rifleman! It's surprising we didn't do this ages ago! One thing - is it only going to cover organic mechanisms, and if so, should it indicate that in the title? There is a list of the basic mechanisms here that is worth reviewing. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry wikis

There has been a lot of discussion of late regarding the possibility of a chemistry wiki. Many organisations such as ChemSpider (WiChempedia) and Rich Apodeca's Chempedia. What should be our response? Should we set up our own chemistry wiki, where we can do all the chemistry things we can't do on Wikipedia? Should we try to fight it? Collaborate with it? We will have an IRC discussion covering this topic on #wikichem on Tuesday at 1600h UTC (noon US EDT). ChemSpiderMan expects to attend, so he can give the ChemSpider view. Walkerma (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC meets can never please everyone. It will be 2.00 a.m. for me. Is this the place to discuss things before the IRC meet. If so, I have a few questions:-
  1. Do either of these wikis have a substantial editor base, sufficient to keep them self-sufficient?
  2. Do either of them allow things that are desirable, yet can not be added to Wikipedia as they are against WP policies?
  3. What sort of collaboration do you think is possible? --Bduke (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a real need for a place to compile useful chemistry knowledge. I would prefer establishing wiki to place routine procedures or useful tables that are often difficult to find. There are so many things that I end up searching forever to find, eventually forget, and then need to find 3 years later. If the Wiki's you are referring address only individual chemicals then they seem redundant. M stone (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See User:Rifleman_82/Proposal for some ideas a few of us have been throwing around on IRC. I must emphasize that these ideas are not set in stone; the proposed chemistry wiki is NOT intended to poach editors from WP. Rather, the point of this wiki is that WP guidelines on "encyclopedic" material restrict us from being a truly chemistry-centric repository. Where appropriate, work done at this wiki will be fed back into WP, and vice versa. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I added a "NOT" into Rifleman's post above - I'm pretty sure that's what he meant! Walkerma (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, the answers to my questions (2) and (3) are relatively clear. Let me return to question (1). I am also active in the Scouting WikiProject and there is a wiki called ScoutWiki (in fact 12 different language ones - curiously the French and Finnish ones are larger than the English one}. The differences between the English ScoutWiki and WP are very similar to what you suggest, although the content of course is quite different. ScoutWiki can take stuff like details of individual troops that WP can not and so on. However, it is virtually dead because there are so few editors, and this has been the case for months. A couple of us on WP are moving articles over, but progress is slow, and mainly confined to articles on WP that really should not be here, at least in their present form. Unless ChemWiki can attract a substantial number of editors, I fear Rifleman's roadmap will not be achieved. --Bduke (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but is there a Ph.D. thesis wiki/library, where if you were so inclined you could post your complete Ph.D. thesis. I'd would have to check with my old Ph.D. supervisor if he was happy for it to be published in this way (I think the most of the remaining publication have been squeezed out of it by now), but in principle I would consider publishing it in this way. I presume others would consider this also? The stable carbene article has large parts of it based on the introduction to my thesis (and which is now growing with new edits, which is nice to see). There are a few more bits and pieces in my thesis that I'm sure people in the stable carbene world might want to pick through, especially some of the gritty practical matters - another resource for the chemwiki? I'm shooting a little from the hip here so maybe this is one of the proposals, or even completely outside the scope of the project? regards -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As a distant spectator, sadly, I have to agree with Bduke's comments - I worry that R82's ideas are ahead of their time. When I last checked, even most of the Chem-oriented blogs were undersubscribed or lame. Certain sets of data are versatile and valuable, but I use Hans Reich's physical organic lists: http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/organic/index-chem.htm. One approach, admittedly vague, would be to get "anchoring" very useful data on WE or the wikichem project (pKa's, solvent purification, heats of formation) and more authoritative than many assume for WE-chem, possibly protected. Ideally such anchoring data could be imported from some benevolent source, in the US, possibly NIST.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To be fair to R-82, the whole wiki-experiment shows that with enough people working at the same goal even with small contributions at a time, quite a lot can be achieved. This seems to be an antidote to apathy. That said, I'm not too sure I have the time to really put lots of oophff into this idea, but it is good idea in principle. I guess the question is whether it is worth trying -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an idea that many of us have tossed around for years, but we have reached a point where people are beginning to go off and set up sites anyway. One key reason is that chemists want a structure searching capability (such as at chempedia), which is unavailable at Wikipedia. My own opinion is that isolated wikis will almost certainly fail, but if the various interested people (including many outside this group) can work together - either on one wiki, or by sharing content between sites - then I think a critical mass could be reached. If we can get a good amount of real content up fairly quickly, that could also get things moving and bring in more contributors. I'd also like to see groups like ACS, RSC, IUPAC supporting such a venture to give it some "official" status. (This may sound like wishful thinking, but these groups are all VERY interested in wikis.) This idea can definitely work, but it would have to be done very carefully. I think such a site would actually bring contributors to WP. More important, it could have a huge effect on the world of chemical information. Walkerma (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that while I believe every word of that proposal, it does not belong to me alone. Just in case anyone thought otherwise. That was written on a wiki, in the usual many-revisions by many people. Not that it matters much.

One of the ways we can generate content would be opportunistic. I was thinking of collecting detailed, in-depth procedures (c.f. Org/Inorg Synth) simply by interested chemists running reactions, either directly from the literature, or modified (benzyl instead of methyl). Secondly, when using new chemicals, I run its NMR, IR, etc spectra out of the bottle to create baseline data. Very quickly, our spectrum library will be populated. For example, I did the literature prep of menthone, and I couldn't find the NMR structure anywhere. The literature synthesis would be copyright by OrgSynth, and to post the whole (detailed) synthesis here, as well as the NMR structure here would be unencyclopedic. As a result, I stuck could only give the synthesis a brief mention here, and I gave Chemspider the 1H, 13H here.

The point is that by letting users add data in small steps, as a short detour out of their usual route, there is a lower activation energy, and you get many more edits. I've been editing here for a few years, and when I used to start new reactions, I'd wiki the reactants and that's how some of them got their images drawn, chemboxes filled out, etc. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Having our own wiki would also let us relook the chembox issue - perhaps storing the data in a database format, which is transcluded into the article when needed. This allows the data to be more easily curated, and mined, compared with the way we do it now - as an entry in the article itself --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sulfanilic acid is where I've been experimenting with doing that. DMacks (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also thought about chemically-enabled wikis, but the question I always come back to is: Why? In other words, what exactly is missing from MediaWiki or Wikipedia itself that makes these tools less than what they could be for chemistry? The answer I always come back to is "handling chemical structures." A secondary answer is "handling special datatypes such as spectra."

A Wiki that knew what chemical structures were, how to show them, how to edit them, and how to query them would enable many interesting scenarios. One of them would be a low-cost chemical laboratory notebook.

When seen from this perspective, it might make sense to do everything possible to first build on Wikipedia and/or MediaWiki before attempting to implement a solution from scratch.

Chempedia is an attempt to put this philosophy into practice: just build a cheminformatics layer on top of Wikipedia - don't try to replicate anything that Wikipedia is already doing well. The result, although far from where I want it to be, nevertheless shows what can be done with some fairly simple tools. Chempedia (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone into macromolecular chemistry or some flavor of nanotechnology?

I'm thinking of journals like http://pubs.acs.org/journals/ancac3 or the FNANO conference (http://www.cs.duke.edu/~reif/FNANO/FNANO08/FNANO08fullschedule.html). This is a fairly hot field in North Carolina, and I could probably find content experts and collaborators if there are interested Wikipedes. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of chemical images on Commons

Following the deletion of a perfectly good PNG skeletal formula on Commons, I have been discussing the issue with an admin there.

I think that (except in very simple, obvious cases) only chemists are fit to decide whether a chemical image is worth keeping or not, so I propose we draft a set of guidelines on the issue for all concerned.

Ben (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Were the images in use on Wikipedia articles? Seems like before deleting a commons item, one would check whether other WP projects are using that item instead of deleting it out from under them. If it's in an article, then that article would be a place to learn (or at least ask) if that image really is superfluous or of such poor quality that it should be killed. I don't know the technical terminology on commons nor what mechanism was used to delete this items for this case, but on en.WP, one uses PROD or similar and tags the articles that use the image with {{Ifdc}} instead of using administrative fiat. DMacks (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The image was in use at furosemide. The admin deleted the image, then put the SVG in its place at furosemide. No notification, no discussion.

Ben (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of raster images superseded by SVGs has been suspended for ages. As the uploader, you should have been notified of deletion, no matter the process (discussion, speedy, etc.) or reason!
As an aside, I'd like to apologize for the terrible quality of that SVG (one of my first, from when I barely knew my way around Inkscape). Regardless of the outcome here, I'll overwrite it with a proper structure ASAP. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This particular image isn't really of any concern. I thought it was worth raising here since many WP:CHEM editors commented on the deletion of superseded images on Commons previously, and this action seemed to go against the agreement reached there. Might be a good time to set down a few simple guidelines in a short, easy-to-read way that all admins at Commons can see and all users at Commons can refer to quickly.

Ben (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow—how much clearer than Commons talk:Deletion requests/Superseded can it get? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about what you exactly mean. The statment on Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded is very clear. However, looking at the talk page it is much less clear. While high quality PNG such as the ones by Ben or Edgar should definitifely been kept, I strongly support the deletion of low quality structures, especially for those in JPG or GIF format, if they are superseded by an SVG or PNG version. We don't have to keep every crap. --Leyo 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I quite agree. But the image deleted here was not GIF or JPG, was hi-res, big etc. If admins at commons can't tell the difference, we've got a problem!
Ben (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No, of course not; but the reason for deletion in such cases shouldn't simply be "superseded because there is an SVG". There should be a rationale for why the image was superseded in the first place—SVG is not inherently superior to PNG, which is why {{vector version available}} is not considered a "superseded" template anymore. Besides, there should be a discussion before a low-quality image is deleted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that Fvasconcellos's SVGs really are excellent and I'm sure everyone here will join me in thanking him for his enormous contribution to illustrating chemistry across the various Wikimedia projects. Fvasconcellos, NEUROtiker, Leyo, Slashme, Su-no-G and a few others are responsible for the vast number of top-quality SVG chemistry diagrams and structural formulae out there.

Some other uploaders have uploaded lower-quality chemical SVGs (1, 2, 3, 4) that clearly do not supersede the best-quality chemical PNGs from uploaders such as Ed, Smokefoot and Rifleman 82. The most common problem that severely affects a chemical SVG is bonds and atom labels not lining up properly due to some issue in the WP SVG-rendering software.

It's also important not to scare away users who are uploading top quality PNGs. Without those PNGs, half the SVGs we have wouldn't have been made anyway, as many of them are conversions. Also, there's nothing wrong with a good PNG, they do most of the things SVGs do just as well, with the bonus of being much easier to create for many people.

Ben (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The greatest advantages of SVG in my very humble opinion are small filesize (rarely more than 5 KB for a single structure, and often far less) and ease of editing (e.g. if one wants to create structures of closely related compounds from a "master" SVG, which I've done on several occasions). Nevertheless, PNGs are much, much faster—a minute or so once you get the hang of it—and much easier to create. I see no reason why both shouldn't coexist harmoniously :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for the compliment. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts, as I am the admin in question: I was editing the article de:Furosemide on de:WP, when I looked for an image on Commons. In fact I found four of them, one svg, one jpg, and two pngs. Believing in my youthful naivety that svg automatically is better I deleted the others and replaced them in the projects where they were used with the svg-Version.
One might argue that I did not follow due process (whatever that is), but the fact remains that we do not need four versions of the same formula. I have asked NEUROtiker to create a "nicer" version and replace the current, and he kindly agreed to do so in the next few days. Then at least the issue of the "prettier" image should be resolved.
I am now aware (admittedly I wasn't at the time of deletion) that the "Superseded-policy" has been suspended, however I strongly believe that the issue lies different with chemical formulas, for several reasons:

  • One version per structure is sufficient.
  • pixel-graphic have no advantage over svg
  • However svg have several advantages over pixel-graphics, as they are scalable, smaller in size, and as previously pointed out, easily adapted to other structures
  • The actual "creative" input that goes into creating formulas is relatively small, and they are PD anyways, so there is no (legal) need to preserve the history (saying this I mean no disrespect for those having created formulas. I have done a few myself and I know how much work goes in there until they are presentable. Therefore I am hugely grateful for the work done by the uploaders of the countless structures)

Therefore I would propose a different policy for chemical structures on Commons, stating that a) only 1 version should be kept and b) assuming chemical correctness and accordance with the guidelines for chemical structures, SVGs should be given preference. Lennert B (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC) P.S.:Sorry for all the confusion. I promise to never again do anything hasty structure-wise. But if a consensus is found then at least some good should come of it.

I place my comment down here, even though it's a reply to "Besides, there should be a discussion before a low-quality image is deleted.": There are so many crap structural formulas on Commons (besides many good or excellent ones), that it is not feasible to discussion each of them seperately. For this reason, we have the templates Template:Low quality chem and Template:Disputed chem and the associated categories Category:Low quality chemical diagrams and Category:Disputed chemical diagrams. Images in these categories can be deleted after one month and no reaction (upload of a new version, discussion) by the uploader or other users. --Leyo 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

One version per structure may not be sufficient - different views of the same molecule, for example (e.g. 1, 2). If one was SVG and the other PNG, some admins might follow the one-image-per-structure rule and delete the PNG, even though both images were good and had different uses.
SVGs are fine for display on WP, but try and insert them into a Word document and you're stuck. You need special software to use and manipulate SVGs. PNGs are easier to make and easier to use, so it is not true to say that raster images have no advantages over SVG. It would make sense to have one good SVG version and one good PNG version of each structure.
Also, are structural formulae all automatically PD? This was the subject of debate on Commons a while ago.
Ben (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was unclearly phrased. Of course I am not arguing for the deletion of two different views of the same structure.
Good point, however the Mediawiki-Software renders them anyways, so rightclicking and "Save image as" will yield a PNG.
Oh dear, that's an entire different can of worms. As far as I remember they are, but if there is any uncertainty about it I prefer to leave this out of the discussion rather than getting side-tracked.
Lennert B (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is all fine, then. It's good that we're discussing it, because it means we raise a load of issues, find a policy for each that we can all agree to, then write it down for others to refer to.
If we're going to put dodgy images into death-row categories, we should at the least inform the uploader on their talk page and give them a chance to argue against deletion. If no good reason to keep is forthcoming within a couple of weeks, fine, go ahead and kill it.
We should also to re-state our position that it is perfectly acceptable to create and upload chemical images as PNGs (as long as they meet all the other criteria) - don't want to discourage potential illustrators. If someone else subsequently uploads an SVG of the same thing, the original PNG author should be contacted, and given a chance to give their seal of approval to the SVG version before the PNG is deleted.
Finally, the benefits of SVG over PNG are not so great, and the pitfalls of PNG are not so bad, that it is not necessary to replace all chemical PNGs with SVGs. It's much more productive for SVG-capable editors to create new content, rather than SVGing old stuff that is raster but good quality.
Ben (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that crappy, faulty, or low resolution structures should be deleted sooner or later if there is a high quality replacement available. However, I do not agree that there is any inherent superiority of SVG over PNG. Compressed high-res b/w PNGs are extremely small and nobody will (or should!) edit SVG structures directly (a molecule editor with the correct settings should be used instead). Leaving ideological reasons aside, it does not matter which file format is used, it is the quality of the content that counts. And in my experience, the majority of SVG replacements of PNGs were of low and/or inferior quality, probably because they were made by chemistry-inexperienced users. In my opinion, the "should be SVG" templates did much more harm than good for chemical structure diagrams. A simple "superseeded by SVG" template should never be used as a reason for deletion if the original structure is of sufficient quality. Template:Low quality chem and Template:Disputed chem would be much better indicators. Cacycle 02:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After a wiki-holiday that lasted about a year, I'm a little fearful of mentioning this topic again ... but ... wasn't there talk about getting a "wiki-style template" on ACD [ChemSketch] (a very good and freeware chem-drawing package), and having the ability to save these structures in both .png and .svg format ([best link?])?
The advantage of a set "wiki-style" as a set style in the software package would be that every image drawn with it would automatically comply with the chemistry drawing style guidelines ([best link?]). This would solve many of the consistency problems, and would allow these images to be saved straight into .png and preferably .svg format. I don’t believe any free software (or even non-free software) currently offer this .svg saving option. Chemdraw I believe offers .png saving option.
I think the stumbling block was that the wiki-users interested in the idea (me included) seemed to drag their feet when it came to signing a sort of non-disclosure policy with ACD-chemsketch to test this wiki-template. I guess such a non-disclosure policy does not really fit in well with the general wiki-ish spirit of doing things. As this template and program are not being routinely used by chemistry wiki-users, I suspect that the idea never quite took off. As useful as I believe such a template and saving option would be, at the moment I don't have the time to breath life into this beast (in fact, I really should be doing something else as we speak!!), but maybe there are other editors that would be interested in picking up the baton (and showering themselves in glory) by establishing such a definitive wiki-style in a software package which can be used by anyone (even quite novice users) who wants to draw images on wikipedia ... -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I use ChemSketch. I lost the settings for wikipedia, but I found it easy to make good quality images by using ACS settings, and exporting directly to PNG at 300 to 480 dpi resolution (PNG available for ChemSketch 11). --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I use ChemDraw (created my own template, I think I just cloned & renamed ACS?), which does indeed save directly to PNG (no need to save and then convert, as...somewhere in the WP:CHEM guides...suggests). BKChem can save directly to SVG. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that ChemSketch 11 has PNG export is a direct result of our discussions last year. You draw it with ACS settings, then export to PNG as Rifleman describes and you're ready for upload. The thing that did flounder was the InChI export, because reaction schemes were generating bizarre combination-InChIs. Then ACD got interested in InChIKeys, so we decided to wait & see before we did any more. My plan was to get in touch with them to test InChIKey generation this summer (my best time) - with a hope of getting that into ChemSketch 12 or 13. That would make our structures findable using Google.
As for open software, GChemPaint (runs under Unix) allows automatic PNG generation, as was used in this demo image (which supposedly has embedded InChI too), as discussed here. Meanwhile I think BKChem allows direct SVG export, as described here. Walkerma (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On a related point, would people be interested in putting together a clear set of "quality criteria" for chemical images on Commons? I discussed this with some Commons people last year when we had the last bout of unhelpful PNG→SVG conversions, and the response was positive. We would need to coordinate with German WP on this, as they are also significant producers of chemical imagery. Physchim62 (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great sounds like good progress - just to conclude, would it be fair to say then that we can scrap the idea of a "wiki-chemical-structure template" as such, and simply state that the prefered wiki drawing settings are the same as the ACS drawing settings? Sounds like a simple solution, and no extra work required. -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, after a great deal of work by participants in the structure drawing workgroup, the conclusion was that ACS setting are at least as good as anything else proposed (and better than many structures currently on WMF projects). That's all most chemists need to know, but it might be useful to have some wider guidelines so that non-chemist admins can see that the details are important and have been discussed! Some of these are aleady in our style guidelines, but to put them on Commons we would need to format them and to check that other projects are OK with them. Physchim62 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tetrazolium chloride

File:Triphenyltetrazolium Reduktion.png
Reduction of triphenyltetrazolium to formazan

Hi. Can you please have a look at the structure in the middle? We discuss(ed) on de-WP, if this reaction is correct or not. I would say no, because the 4 orbitals of the nitrogen atom are already occupied by the bonds and there is no space left for the radical. What do you think? --Leyo 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think you're right. It has 9 electrons, which is one too many. I think what is currently a N=N double bond should be a single bond, and the upe on the nitrogen atom that then only has 7 electrons. Of course, given that there is a mirror plane in reality the electron is not going to be localised on any one nitrogen atom, but delocalised; probably over the N-C-N fragment of the ring (off the top of my head, so don't quote me on that!).Chris (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to represent such radicals with conventional Lewis structures. In molecular orbital terms, the additional electron goes into an antibonding orbital, which results in "breaking half a bond". You can think about it in terms of three-electron bonds; Pauling used a notation with three dots in his famous book The Nature of the Chemical Bond, for molecules such as Cl2 and Ne2+ (ASCII art figure below).[5] --Itub (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  ..   ..         ..   ..
[:Cl···Cl:]    [:Ne···Ne:]+
  ..   ..         ..   ..
I agree with Itub here: there is no breach of the orbital requirements of nitrogen by forming the radical. The electron goes into a delocalised π*-orbital, which is probably very nearly non-bonding in such an extensive delocalised system, especially if the redox potential is such that tetrazolium chloride can be used as a redox indicator in bilogical systems. There is nothing particularly unusual about such delocalised radicals: a common example is the deep-blue radical anion of benzophenone, generated by reduction of the ketone with sodium in anhydrous solvent and widely used as an idicator of the dryness of solvents such as THF and toluene. As this anion is commonly drawn, it would appear to have nine electrons on the oxygen, but the extra electron is actually delocalised over the entire π-system. Physchim62 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I took the structure of the cation from Acta Cryst. (1997). B53, 451-456, and assumed the radical has the same structure. I put the structural data into Spartan and did a semi-empirical calculation of the relevant π MOs. If anyone wants to see the results, I can send them out or upload them somewhere.

Ben (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Computational Chemistry Wiki used to exist for this sort of data, but it seems to have died. I will see if there's anywhere else that would be interested in your upload – I'm sure there's somewhere, even if WP isn't quite the place! Physchim62 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, it's not worth all that! It's only a quick and dirty calculation. I just made it in case anyone wanted to look at the shape of the MOs, to see what the skeletal formula can't show. But no need.

Ben (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I would be interested in how the reduction reaction would have to be redrawn correctly. 84.75.152.187 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This paper might be worth taking a look at (scheme 1). --Leyo 23:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cocamide TEA

I have listed cocamide TEA for deletion as triethanolamides such as a "cocamido triethanolamide" do not exist (at least not as stable compounds). A Beilstein database search did not give a single hit for any triethanolamide and only 5 suspect hits for trialkylamides in general. The confusion probably stems from listings were "cocamide" and "TEA" (triethanolamine) were listed subsequently as different chemicals. Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cocamide_TEA. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

The Cold fusion article has seen a lot of argumentation in the two years since it lost "featured article" status. However, there was a recent mediation that ended in mid-April that seemed to go well, in which all parties agreed that the article should say that the issues aren't settled, and the cases for both sides should be presented briefly, with enough references for readers to follow up the subject on their own. I recently finished a review that ended in upgrading it to a Good Article. I did quite a lot of the editing myself, and I was quite happy with the article at the time of my last edit, 00:28, 29 May 2008. My hope was that this was going to be one of those articles that Wikipedia can be proud of, by virtue of the fact that we manage to treat a contentious subject much more productively than other encyclopedias do.

The problem is that the skeptics who participated in the mediation were largely uninvolved during the Good Article review, and they have continued to be uninvolved, even after the article has been changed to say that cold fusion has not only been demonstrated, but that some explanations of it conform to "textbook physics". (I must have been reading the wrong textbooks, the ones that don't mention coherent phenomena involving millions of atoms at ordinary temperatures.)

So, what do we do with this one? I made a request on the talk page of User:Seicer, since he was the mediator, and he replied "I'll try to get to this soon. I've been out of town a lot and I haven't been able to get too involved in anything as of late." But even with his help, future options are limited, unless there are people who are not proponents who are willing to take an interest in the page. I can't and don't want to maintain it myself, but I'm interested in the subject of what can be salvaged, and which version of the page Version 0.7 and Version 1.0 should be most interested in. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article on cold fusion risks emerging as another example of Wikipedia being exploited to legitimize pseudoscience. The non-involvement of prominent scientists in this area of research speaks volumes (who at MIT, Oxford, CalTech, Munich, Kyoto, etc has large programs focused on cold fusion?). We witness similar albeit smaller waves of editing on other topics. Advocates of marginalized perspectives are highly energetic editors whereas mainstream scientists are too busy to do battle with quacks and nutcases. If this trend continues, Wikipedia risks becoming a forum for folksy perspectives, with all POV's represented. Not a disaster, but not great either.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, we got enough participation (including from Smokefoot) that I felt comfortable editing the lead myself. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: we need some help from someone comfortable with quantum chemistry or physics to insert a couple of sentences to balance the sentence in the lead that says that some consider cold fusion to be consistent with textbook physics. Volunteers are encouraged to leave a message either on the article talk page or my talk page. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merger of Glyphosate and Roundup

Please take part in the discussion. As of now, the latter article is essentially a duplicate of the former, with a potential to become a POV-fork. Colchicum (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxypnictide

The new article Oxypnictide needs a hand from a inorganic chemist! What I would say that all nitrat, nitrit, phosphates and arsenates are part of this group?--Stone (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The name would suggest that nitrate is an oxypnictide, but apparently the it is actually used in practice, the pnictogen is nearly always As, sometimes P or Sb, and the compounds are not simple salts like sodium nitrate, but more complex materials such as LaOFeAs with interesting conducting properties. --Itub (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As the article gave no good description I was sure that it is not as simple! --Stone (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It is perhaps a bit of a neologism. I had never heard the term before. It produces zero google books hits and only 21 google scholar hits, most of which are from 2007 or later. The oldest are a couple from 1994, in the Journal of Solid State Chemistry. --Itub (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
All comes from the hype on the iron based superconductors and the name coined by these japanese guys who discovered the stuff back in 2006.--Stone (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Arsenobetane vs Arsenobetain

The article on Arsenobetane, but I think it should be called Arsenobetain. The main arsenic compound in fisch, crabs and in marine sediments is Arsenobetain according to various papers. doi:10.1039/b312956j or doi:10.1007/BF02143584. Should we rename it add a image and add the references?--Stone (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Betaine is Me3N+CH2CO2 so arsenobetaine must be Me3As+CH2CO2.
Ben (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Arsenobetaine is already in Organoarsenic compound, but does the person who created the article mean that or is it a simple typo?--Stone (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be Arsenobetaine; I'll move it. Chris (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done the move, and recategoriwed the article: however, it still has a deserved {{expand}} tag on it, if anyone is feeling bored and valient ;) Physchim62 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox inconsistency

{{Infobox plutonium}} indicates that Pu-240 decays by alpha emission, but the link for that label goes to beta emission. Which is correct? --Carnildo (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Highlighted to the Elements project: [6] --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Alpha (half-life 6563 a) to 236U; and spontaneous fission (half-life 1.14*1011 a.) (Reference: Gregory Choppin, Jan-Olov Liljenzin, Jan Rydberg, Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, 3rd edition, Butterworth-HHeinemann, 2002, page 73.) Cheers. Stan J. Klimas (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dehydrogenate

Is it just me, or this article is nonsense? --Itub (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems incoherent to me. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, complete rubbish. Although I like the idea of removing hydrogen from something by agitating it :) Chris (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox reaction}}

Had a short discussion with Itub and Walkerma here. I have an idea for an infobox for reaction articles. Some parameters I think would be relevant:

  • discoverer
  • year
  • first reference
  • substrate (class of compounds)
  • reagent (single compound or class of compounds)
  • reactants (superseding substrate/reagent for coupling-type reactions)
  • catalyst
  • related transformations
  • notable applications
  • notes (air free, protecting groups needed, etc)

It would be nice if the template can turn the values into metadata, to make it searchable. For example, we could search for all reactions which have aldehydes as substrates; we can find all reactions which use palladium dba as catalysts. The infobox should not be restricted to name reactions.

This is my wishlist, anyway. I'd like to do a test template, but I'm not too good with template writing so it might take a while. What do you guys think of the concept? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion issue

A new tactic being advocated is that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Cold fusion. I started a request for comment on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also one now asking whether Cold fusion can be categorized as a pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cryptands vs. Clathrochelates

So, what's the difference between a clathrochelate and a cryptand? Is the former a nitrogen donor and the latter an oxygen donor; if this is the case, the articles should make this explicit. However, what I suspect is that there isn't much difference, and maybe the articles could be merged? Also, the term clathrochelate isn't general used - aren't the N-donors more normally called sepulchrates? Thoughts, anybody?? Chris (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They look the same to me. For what it's worth, the Gold Book has an entry for cryptand, but no entry for clathrochelate. --Itub (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This book [7] discusses which ones are usually called each way. --Itub (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I support the idea to merge the articles by changing clathrochelate to a redirect to cryptand. (The naming difference is cultural: inorganic chemists invented the clathrochelates and organic chemists devised the cryptands).--Smokefoot (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the merge. Clathrochelate is a term to describe a class of ligands and are not simply nitrogen version of cryptands. They have a variety of different structures, in contrast with cryptands that are generally constructed from ethylene gylcol units. They are used in different contexts as pointed out by Smokefoot. In my opinion although they employ related ideas they are distinct and therefore both deserve their own pages. M stone (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The image at clathrochelate is a nitrogen cryptand, which makes it difficult to understand what is the difference between the two types. A mentioning of the other article in each of the articles is the first thing which is needed.--Stone (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, at the minute the articles definitely do not make clear what the difference is. Clathrochelate says: "In chemistry, clathrochelates are ligands that encapsulate a metal ion" - does that make cryptands clathrochelates?, coz that's what a cryptand does too. Chris (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the clathrochelate page needs to be improved and that the cryptand page should probably give a sentence or two about clathrochelates. I think that improving the pages is a much better idea then merging them. I will give both pages some attention. M stone (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI Blue shift

On July 1 someone redirected blue shift to redshift. This person didn't take note of the dab page, or hyspochromic shift either. 70.51.9.237 (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Atom is today's featured article!

Atom has had a lot of visitors today, because it is today's featured article. An unusually high number of anonymous contributions are being made, ranging from vandalism to some that are actually constructive. I'm leaving this note in case someone wants to look over the article. Tomorrow we'll have to assess whether the article got better or worse... --Itub (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

NERM talk

For those of you who are interested, the talk I gave at NERM last week on "Chemistry on the Internet" is available as a PDF file (3.9 MB, I'm afraid). (I managed to get "paradigm" and "Open access" into the same abstract, I must be getting very clichéed!) Feedback is welcome, Walkerma (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

2-Nonanol

This article is up for deletion. Is it worth keeping? --Bduke (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over table content at Standard conditions for temperature and pressure

If you could give your feedback on the talk page, that would be helpful.

Main issues are:

  • Which units to include
  • Where to place the "publishing entities"

Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 16:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

comical OR images

Aren't images of original research prohibited on WP and Commons?

I never thought I'd see such a thing, but check this out: [8].

Including my favourite, spherical benzene!

What's going on?

Ben (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my bluntness, but a lot of this looks like gibberish. If you go to the maker's personal website [[9]] looks like it was intended to put some original research on Wikipedia. See [[10]]. Motion to delete them all assuming theres no actual articles that link to them (and I shudder to think that there might be...) EagleFalconn (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for finding this, Ben! It is clearly original research. This is stated on his website, where he describes his attempts to publicise his hypotheses: "The result had been null. I have never been able to be reflected in any type of communication media, scientist or university any one of my contributions." Unfortunately, WP has to represent only mainstream thought, and so we should not allow any of this hypothesis to appear on Wikipedia. He has his website, and that will have to suffice.
However, I don't know what the policy of Commons is regarding this sort of thing; this page doesn't clarify this issue well. These are not pictures of "me and Joe really drunk at Sandra's party", they purport to be of educational/scientific value, whatever opinion we might personally hold. But the only solid thing we can use from that policy page is an IMPLIED policy that all media on Commons are there to be used in one of the WMF projects. In that case, one needs to ask: "What project needs these images?" I would say none, but in the absence of a clear "No OR" policy on Commons I don't know how we get these deleted. Walkerma (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think commons:Covalent bonds could be proposed for deletion under "The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (e.g. art by unknown artist)" on commons:Commons:Deletion guidelines#Regular deletion. If that succeeded, the images could then be proposed or speedy deleted as not used. Why not give it a go? --Bduke (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Do all Wikimedia projects have the same rules on OR images? The English Wikipedia is quite clear on OR images:

Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.

But there are all sorts of WM projects, not just other language Wikipedias but all sorts. Let's just try it and find out. No harm in exploring the boundaries of Wiki-law.

p.s. Does anyone know why, occasionally, the following text automatically inserts itself into articles when I edit them?

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">

Ben (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've proposed that Image:Hex172.gif be deleted - discussion here. Ben (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It has gone. If you know your way around the Commons deletion process, why not propose all of them? --Bduke (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Just so we can track what's going on, this is all from a pair (maybe cloned) users commons:User:Ferman and commons:User:Fmr cosm. Grr, can't figure out how to do {{userlinks}} into a different WP project. DMacks (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd try one image first, as a test case. Now we can propose the rest for deletion. Is there an easy way to propose all the images in one motion?

In other Commons news, Commons:User:Fabartus is adding patchy semi-encyclopaedic paragraphs of description to categories, seemingly from websites like this one. Time to write a policy on chemistry category descriptions at our Commons branch? Ben (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The author is contesting deletion, after the event. While spherical benzene has been deleted, we might need a stronger argument to delete all the images and pages, particularly as Commons doesn't have a no OR policy. Would anyone care to join the discussion?
Ben (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lanthanoid vs. 'Rare Earth'

Considering the 15/17= 88% overlap between the two articles is it really warranted to maintain two different lemma's for this? OK, so some people consider Y and Sc a 'rare earth' rather than the (group 3) transition elements they really are (this chemist would not, but IUPAC does more bizarre things). That is hardly worth more than a sentence that is already given on the lanthanoid page I would think. Merge please, and please say the truth about the whole term 'rare earth': it is a horrible misnomer that should have died a long time ago. I think the term coinage metal for the Cu-group has much more justification than these 'earths' that are not earths and not rare. But even 'coinage metal' has been rejected for a few far too expensive atoms purportedly observed in a reactor somewhere... Jcwf (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemical polarity

The Chemical polarity article reads like a badly-written school textbook introduction to the topic.

Is anyone available to help overhaul and reference this important article?

There is plenty of good-quality writing on the topic within WP, it's just dispersed across several articles:

Ben (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started collecting together information and ideas to improve the article at User:Benjah-bmm27/Polarity.
Ben (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

help, please

Hi, I'm not a chemist, but a math guy working on group (mathematics). To improve the article with some "real-world" stuff we are looking for a concrete, and easy-to-visualize (with a cute image) example of some chemical phenomenon which is somehow linked to groups, or where groups can be used to understand what goes on. Could you please help me out by giving such an example (preferrably together with the image(s))? Thank you much! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you can find applications in spectroscopy. Hermann-Mauguin notation, Schoenflies notation. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. Is it correct to say that the symmetry features of certain molecules have impacts on their chemical properties? (I guess so, but could you give me a concrete example?). Thanks again Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
For a starting point, look at Space group, Point group, X-ray crystallography and Infrared spectroscopy. I hope you'll consider examples in physics as well. Rotation group might be a start for that. I see that Group theory already has a nod toward some applications, which is good, though most of the references are to works of pure mathematics. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Jahn-Teller distortion talks about why a theoretically symmetrical octahedral complex will undergo tetragonal distortion, losing Oh symmetry to a D4h structure. This reduces the energy of the structure (=more stable). The first para talks about how this is due to group theory. If you can see the ref and explain it simply, I'd be much obliged! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. @Ed: I did already look there... What I was looking for (and the JT-effect is close to what I have in mind. I will try to read the given reference later.) is a statement like: the ammonia molecule has symmetry group with 3 elements. However the XYZ-molecule, which has the same shape, except that all atoms are in one plane, and thus its symmetry group is consisting of 6 elements, and this bigger symmetry group is responsible for the following physical/chemical properties: ... So my question is: does XYZ exist? (I realize that my way of asking is probably over-simplifying the situation, but this is just to explain what I'm after).

How do you have XYZ with the same shape, yet have all atoms on the same plane? Ammonia is trigonal pyramidal, which by definition is not planar. If you are looking for a way to link group theory in mathematics to group theory in Chemistry, maybe you can talk about how the Schoenflies notation relates to your mathematical notation (which I think is different).--Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It'd also be nice if you can discuss the matrix operations which lead to a cyclic group, etc! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
as regards chemical reactivity perhaps the symmetry of frontier orbitals could be an example. --Axiosaurus (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
By "same shape" I meant a molecule with 4 atoms, one in the middle. i.e. like ammonia, but flattened. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
An example will be ammonia versus borane. How you're going to link that to reactivity... I don't know! Do be careful, sometimes chemists ignore hydrogens when discussing symmetry, thus boric acid will also be a C3h (ignoring the protons). --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Haloform reaction

Together with Puppy, the article has been tidied up to remove the repetition. Comments please!

Also, a question here: what is the oxidizing agent when a secondary alcohol is converted to a ketone? Is it the halogen, the hypohalide anion, or the hypohalous free acid? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemical bonds pages

Most of them were not classified as chem pages, but I solved that. Meanwhile, there is a PR for metallic bond and besides some small parts, this could become a GA. Furthermore, hydrogen bond looks great, but it lacks refs to become a GA. I hope that somebody will add those refs to get these articles to GA. Nergaal (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of these articles are not very good, written by editors anxious to prove that they can use jargon, keen to classify and demonstrate organization where the distinctions between bond types are often foggy.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Smokefoot is right! A lot of content has been added to one of the pages- metallic bond - which was in need of improvement- there is a peer review as noted above- Wikipedia:Peer review/Metallic bond/archive1.--Axiosaurus (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarines to Ultramarine

Hello! There is discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultramarines to possibly redirect Ultramarines to Ultramarine. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Nobel icon proposed for deletion

A TfD has been convened, as to whether to prohibit all the little gold icons in Nobel prizewinners' infoboxes. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

General chemistry

I've just created an article for general chemistry as a course and as a concept. We've got articles for every chemical subdiscipline (analytical, organic etc), and it seems like having an article on general chemistry would make sense as someone might find it trying to learn about it. Its such a widely taught and taken course, it seems like a good idea. That said, it needs some serious fleshing out and I'd love some help. EagleFalconn (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the content as-is. Seems like quite a bit of synth/OR, with broad generalizations? I know my university didn't have this course when I was a student. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I also have reservations about this project, it reminds me of amateur chemistry. Sure, in the US, courses exist called General Chemistry, just as there are people who, I guess, could be called "amateur chemists." These kinds of fluffy writing projects, however, satisfy the strong urge many feel to contribute to the wikisphere. Such wiki-sprawl is harmless, except to imply categorizations that are fairly arbitrary and to divert potentially capable minds from projects that might be more pertinent. It's a consequence of infinite disk space.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There are too many problems with this idea and with this article. For a start, it has to avoid OR. Everything that is said must be reporting others. Yet this article, right now, has no references. Secondly it is US-centric. In Australia, we usually call the units, "Chemistry A" and "Chemistry B" in the two semesters of the first year. However, we might collectively call those "General Chemistry" and almost certainly we would be using a text book, for part of the course at least, that is named "General Chemistry". However, the content would differ from what is in this article as about 1/3 of the course would be organic chemistry. We also tend to make a distinction between courses, called "General Chemistry", which are for students who have successfully completed Chemistry at year 12 in High School, and course called "Introductory Chemistry", which are for students who did not, yet need to get up to speed and learn more chemistry. The article says "General Chemistry" course are taught in High School which jars. The variation in the use of this term across the world is just too great. I think this article should be deleted, or perhaps made a redirect somewhere (Chemistry education or even Chemistry). --Bduke (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Chemistry education seems to be an ideal home for this material, converting the present article into a redirect. In this way, EagleFalconn can address the US-centricity problem and still find an outlet for editing energies.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is potential for a good article on general chemistry, but it would be a lot of work. I think it plausible that journals such as J. Chem. Ed. have published articles comparing how such courses are organized in different schools and countries, the history of general/introductory chemistry teaching, and so on. If that is the case, they could be used as sources. But don't count on me to do that research! :) What we have now is mostly anecdotal information, which has the problems already mentioned. The "concepts taught" could be substantiated to some extent by referring to the table of contents of any General Chemistry textbook, although some might call it original research. But the statement that the course is used intentionally to "weed out" students, despite being part of college lore, might be harder to prove. --Itub (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Omar M. Yaghi

Can somebody take a look at Omar M. Yaghi? I suspect that much of the research section is lifted direct from his published papers, in which case it probably has copyright issues. Chris (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the bibliography section seems to come from here, but not entirely. It certainly needs cleaning up. --Bduke (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The editor who created this has done nothing else apart from the images that are in this article, including the one of Yaghi. It looks as if he is in Yaghi's research group, so COI might arise. --Bduke (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Water-fuelled car‎

I've been trying to clean up Water-fuelled car‎, and provide a clear and concise explanation of why one cannot power a vehicle on water alone. I think the article has come a long way, but it could definitely benefit from additional eyes. This article is a frequented by fringe theorists pushing perpetual motion devices and the like, and so it would greatly benefit from improved sourcing on the thermodynamic impossibility of using water as a fuel. Related articles include Oxyhydrogen and Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell. Yilloslime (t) 23:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Molecular Modeling Spam

Several different supramolecular chemistry pages have been repeatedly spammed with molecular modeling links placed under the "see also" subheading. This has been going on for a long time. Most recently by 130.235.1.71[11] I am tired of having to repeatedly revert these inappropriate links. Who can I contact to resolve this issue? M stone (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a vandal fighter. Normally I would say to slap them with warnings, and when they continue after your third and final warning (there are 4 levels but 3 warnings do the trick) report him to WP:AIV and request they get blocked. But this is tricky. They aren't spamming to external sites, or even a WP article about a company - they're just funneling everything they can to the Molecular Modeling page. I'd say the first step is to assume good faith and send the IP a note asking why they're doing this, and explain why it isn't helpful. THEN, when the IP doesn't respond, start with the warnings on their talk page. Check out WP:Warn; I'm thinking the "Adding spam links" or "Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion" templates would do the trick - start with level 2 and go up to level 4, one warning per incident, before going to WP:AIV. The good thing about the "assume good faith" step is you have an explanation how this behavior is really spamming for the admin to see when they're deciding whether to block or not. Let me know if you have any questions. --JaGa (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
While we are on this topic, I've noticed another IP, 210.212.244.136 (talk · contribs), who could be said to be "reference spamming" by adding his favorite book to the references section of numerous articles in computational chemistry (for one example, see [12]). While the book is on topic, it was certainly not used to write the articles themselves, is not a well-known book in the field, and does not contain anything that is not already covered by the other books that are already cited. Citing specific general books and not others is arbitrary to some extent, but there are dozens of general books in the field, so we cannot cite them all. What do we do? --Itub (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Bduke already posted a kind warning on this IP's talk page.[13] Let's hope that helps. --Itub (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
On the Supramolecular chemistry page I have already reverted this spam three times. Each time I requested that an explanation is given if they are place there again. No such explanation has been given. The first time the edits were made from a user account (Agilemolecule), but each time after that they are made from an anonymous address. The spam has been going on for over a year now, with this being the forth time and involving many more pages. I think that I am justified in no longer assuming good faith. I would appreciate assistance since I now realize that simply reverting the pages is not really solving the problem. M stone (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You can start a discussion on WP:ANI, see what they suggest. I don't think they'll block the IP before the IP's had multiple warnings, but maybe they'll make an exception since this has been going on for such a long time. I've seen them quickly block "vandalism-only accounts", for example. --JaGa (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The other account 212.16.161.89[14] is probably even worse and I see that it has been used to make and edit just recently. I don't know if blocking will help since the person has been using multiple accounts. To be honest it is weird and I don't understand why they are doing it since the molecular modeling already comes up at the top of a Google search. M stone (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That IP just made a non-chemistry edit. It's possible that it's a different person entirely now. --JaGa (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. 130.235.1.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (and also 81.170.234.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) have made another round of "see also" spamming. Now I see they are also adding links to ascalaph, and article on a computer program of dubious notability, which should probably be deleted. 193.232.68.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has also added lots of "see also" links. My guess is that this people are interested in promoting their software by creating an article about it and linking it from everywhere they can, even if indirectly. --Itub (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated ascalaph for deletion. --Itub (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
At least one of the users who keeps spamming these WP links is in the same IP-space as the company for that software...interesting no? DMacks (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Electron cloud into Atomic orbital

The article on Electron cloud is a much inferior version of Atomic orbital, the latter containing most of the detailed and referenced good stuff on the electronic structure of atoms (there is more in various subarticles on QM and the hydrogen atom, etc., which we might address later). I'm proposed that the first be merged into the second, but that ("merge") implies that some of it should go into the other, and on reexamination, I can't really see anything in electron cloud that merits saving, other than the title, which could simply be fixed with a general redirect. But I need some other eyes. Right now I've done the merge proposal and gotten one SUPPORT after some time, but if I'm just going to out-and-out delete-tag electron cloud and redirect all references to electron cloud to the atomic orbital article (including internal links in articles like atom) I'm going to need more community input. However, I think it's a no-brainer unless I've missed some bit which needs to be ported over. If so, can you find it? What say all you chemists? SBHarris 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing that could be ported over is the origin of the cloud metaphor, assuming that it can be sourced better (just appearing in Feynman's book is not enough, we would need a third party source that attributes the term to him). I agree that the atomic orbital article is much better than the electron cloud article, but I have a slight concern that the terms are not equivalent. Atomic orbital has a rigorous definition as a one-electron wavefunction for an atom, whereas electron cloud, as far as I know, is just a vague metaphor that could apply just as well to the set of all the electrons in an atom. But that's not a strong objection, just something that might use some clarification in the target article. --Itub (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I had the same thought-- the "sum" of all the atomic orbitals in a way defines the electron cloud, but even that's wrong, as they don't really "sum": it's exactly the same problem as viewing chemical bonds as LCAOs. In this case, it would be viewing the whole electron cloud of a single atom as a LCAO. Which is what we tend to do mentally, but most of us realize that it is not as though each pair of electrons occupies ONE atomic orbital and stays there. They do smear out as a cloud-- every electron in a bunch of degenerate orbitals equally occupies them all, and to some extent its wavefunction bleeds over even into the energetically different ones, according to the rules of QM. There should be something in the atomic orbital article to let readers know this article now caries most of the weight for describing the entire electronic structure of atoms! Let me see if I can come up with something in the LEAD or INTRO of the atomic orbital article to put that across. Feel free to add your own ideas, also. I'd be happy for contributions of BDuke here, since it's so similar to chemical bond problem. SBHarris 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Support the idea to redirect. The article was originally created as a redirect to electron but the atomic orbital idea is better still.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support the merge in general, but it could, as an alternative, be merged and redirected to Electron density.--Bduke (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction

I nominated the Oil shale extraction for FAC. Your comments and assistance are welcome. Beagel (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia ACS meeting

I think that several WP:Chemistry people (including myself) will be at the Philadelphia ACS meeting this coming week. If you'd like to get together for dinner and/or drinks, sign up here or email me. See you in Philly! Walkerma (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC) I'm in - ChemSpiderman--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Germanium hoax

The Germanium page states that: One of the leading uses for germanium is as a replacement for silica in the stationary phase in chromatography. GeO2 is an isostructural analogue of SiO2 and is compatible with the silica network present in the silica stationary phase. Has anybody ever heard about that?--Stone (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Commons:Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Edgar181

There appear to be no chemist-admins on commons. Maybe you guys might have something to say? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support everyone. If there are any chemistry-related administrative actions needed on Commons, such as deleting incorrect chemical structure diagrams, please just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox reaction?

Hey guys

What do you think of User:Rifleman_82/Petasis_reaction? I think it would be helpful for having a box which gives, at a glance, the gist of a particular type of reaction? I need a bit of help with the ifexist operator, but this is a start? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Rifleman_82/Heck reaction is another test example. Ultimately, I hope that we are able to use this template to categorize (= make searchable) reactions by substrate, product, catalyst, etc. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The above proposal was originally placed on the Physics Project Talk page, but has been added on other projects but not here. I think there should be input from chemists. --Bduke (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PR page

i think it should be labeled as historical since nobody uses it anymore. Nergaal (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Explosives

Hello, WikiProject Explosives has been launched; feel free to sign up and pitch in if you wish. EVCM (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Atomic models

I created this template so people could quickly-browse atomic models. The skeleton is there, but little meat. Help is appreciated. Headbomb {ταλκWP Physics: PotW} 01:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Elements report

Greetings, friends! I am Cryptic, a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. I am pleased to announce the first edition of my elements report. For those of you who have collaborated with us before (Stone and Itub, among others) or those who wish to lend a hand for the first time, this report is a good way to figure out exactly which areas need our efforts the most. Plus, if you praise me enough, I may be inclined to do a report for you guys, too! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice! How automatic is the report generation? I ask because while it is straightforward to constrain the elements report to 118 articles on the elements, there's no such natural constraint for chemistry or for chemicals, and the number of articles would probably be much larger. I suppose you could constrain it to articles that are currently rated Top and High importance (about 100 and 200 articles, respectively), but that would defeat part of the purpose, which is to identify important but under-appreciated articles. --Itub (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, I did it all myself using stats.grok.se and MS Excel; there was nothing automatic about it. As for a chemistry report, what if I restricted it to the first 3 pages of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chemistry articles by quality ? That would include 1203 assessed articles and lists and leave out the hundreds of unassessed articles. Or, to make it easier, I could then leave out biographical articles, such as Adolf von Baeyer and Nikolay Semyonov. Even without biographies though, that would take quite a while. Might need the help of a bot...? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this is very nice. You may also be interested in our Wikipedia 1.0 stats, for which we just generated our first "good" set of elements data using SelectionBot. There are similar results for chemistry and chemicals:

Perhaps these data are useful? They are generated by a bot, and placed on the Toolserver. FYI, the articles in bold are the ones that will (as a minimum) go on the next DVD; in fact, ALL known elements are already tagged to be in (for completeness). Walkerma (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. I had never seen that before. Perhaps I'll use that for publishing the next edition of the elements report using August's page view data. That's the most time-consuming part; updating the graphics is a piece of cake. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I see that Chemical reaction is of "unknown" importance to this project… just nipping off to fix that ;) Physchim62 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry Portals

I just came across Portal:Physical chemistry and then Portal:Analytical chemistry and Portal:Organic chemistry. All three were created by the same editor, User:Chaos last December and they have had no other edits since then. After that he created Portal:Pharmacy and Pharmacology, but that one has developed. All three, to not mince words, are a total mess. I did a few minor changes to the first one, that being my area, as I explored what is there. We do not seem to have noticed these. Can we bring them up to speed or should we just get rid of them? --Bduke (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Stats.grok.se reports the following pagehits for the month of August 2008:

Pagehits show that these portals are not very important (c.f. HCl which got 62k hits). However, they might be nice to have as a "content page" of our articles. The portals, as they stand, are pretty, but if we don't intend to update them much, they should remain more static for maintenance reasons. Perhaps we should fold them all into a Portal:Chemistry? Have a one-para blurb on the essence of a certain discipline, the key concepts (5-10), one picture with something interesting to catch the eye, and that's it? If you guys are interested, I can do that. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry :):):)

Sorry to anyone who felt compelled to revert my changes. It's just that I'm in my last year of Chemistry, and I had a small bit of trouble with understanding the structural formulas of Alkenes and the like, so I wanted everyone else to understand it without difficulty. Once again, my sincere apologies to everyone.

-Peace Out!-

mÆniac Ask! 17:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to excuse :-) I have made flat connectivity structures (Lewis structures?) for some simple linear molecules as they are indeed easier to understand for beginners (even if they are quite misleading with regards to three-dimensional structure). Feel free to add them to the respective articles (but please do not replace existing skeletal formulas):
Flat connectivity structure of methanol Flat connectivity structure of ethanol Flat connectivity structure of propanol Flat connectivity structure of butanol
Flat connectivity structure of acetaldehyde Flat connectivity structure of propionaldehyde Flat connectivity structure of butanol
Flat connectivity structure of acetic acid Flat connectivity structure of propionic acid Flat connectivity structure of butyric acid
Cacycle (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lithium sulphur battery

I was surprised that we didn't have an article on the lithium sulfur battery after reading that it had been used to set a record for the longest solar-powered flight. I created a stub, but it needs expert attention from one or more chemists. Can you help with it please? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IRC meeting

I'll be around today at 1600 UTC at channel #wikichem, as I proposed last week, for anyone who wants to discuss Beetstra's bot. We do need to figure out the best way to coordinate the upload of validated data. Walkerma (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

nomenclature

As WIKIPEDIA is increasingly used by college and graduate students Chemistry, it would be great of the chemistry sites of wikipedia would at least (also) mention the correct names of chemical compounds in the wiki, i.e. the names that IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) recommends to use. This would help enormously to help communication, and let students who consult wikipedia use correct names. Reedijk (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. But wikipedia is also used by non-chemists a lot, and therefore it was chosen here to use 'common names' in stead of the correct names (though it should be good practice to redirect all other names to the correct article.
E.g., Osmium tetroxide is the name that is the name we use here, as it is the 'common name'; Osmium tetraoxide is a redirect to the former one, and linking to both works. More info in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
But chemicals articles also give (or should give) the IUPAC nomenclature even if the common name is chosen for the article title. --Itub (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that happens (or should happen) in the {{chembox new}}. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to appreciate the world order that Reedijk seeks, then look at the edits on Tetrafluoroborate. We live in a complicated world, and many nomenclatures are currently evolving and devolving. The chem boxes should list alternative names, including the IUPAC ones, but we dont want to follow Reedijk's example. The non-IUPAC names are not simply for non-chemists, practicing chemists adhere only loosely to IUPAC. I am sure that the absence of lock-stepping infuriates them, but that's life. Also I dont think that Wikipedia is a vehicle for imposing culture, vs reporting on it. Otherwise we'd would be using IUPAC in Esparanto. But I digress, not having finished my cup of aqueous 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We go to quite considerable lengths to ensure that are articles about chemical compounds contain the various IUPAC names – note that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between structure and name – but we're not perfect. After all, even the experts sometimes make mistakes [15]! Nor would we wish to descend into pedantry or dogmatism: I, for one, am at a loss to see how IUPAC thinks it is "helping communication" by insisting on tetrafluoridoborate while still allowing perchlorate, to give but one example. Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what is controversial here. I thought that our policy was always to include the IUPAC name, and indeed I suspect that Smokefoot probably pasted the caffeine one in from our article! All Reedijk is asking is that we "would at least (also) mention" IUPAC names. We should. We have a database that we are going to start uploading (when we get around to it!), and I can reassure Reedijk that EVERY one of these articles will have a validated IUPAC name in it. These are mainly organics, but inorganics will follow. The main problem we have, though, is with pseudo-IUPAC names, where people try to replace the IUPAC approved name (such as acetone) with one their (badly written) textbook thinks is the IUPAC name (say, propan-2-one). But as for true IUPAC names, I say, yes, let's always include it! Walkerma (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's helpful to include the IUPAC names of molecules in their articles, but it is not necessary to replace every instance of, say, tetrafluoroborate with tetrafluoridoborate(III). Noting the IUPAC name is one thing, but using it everywhere (e.g. these edits) often makes an article less easy to read. IUPAC names tend not to roll off the tongue! And no-one should be changing the filenames of images, resulting in the disappearance of an image from an article.

Ben (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Alkaloid

Your comment would be welcome on Talk:Alkaloid, one user has very special ideas on what constitutes an alkaloid. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Chemistry

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Articles needing expert attention since January 2007

Almost every article in this category is a chemical under this Wikiproject. It would be very helpful if some knowledgeable could take a look through these.--BirgitteSB 06:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the template can be removed. These articles are simply stubs, and require just about the same amount of expertise as any other chemical article. --Itub (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Say the word and I'll run chem-awb (talk · contribs) through, removing the tags. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking VERY quickly through the list tungsten(IV) silicide caught my eye, this compound WSi2 is IMO best called tungsten disilicide to prevent confusion with other W-Si phases. Certainly tungsten(IV) is incorrect. --Axiosaurus (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The articles are mostly very short stubs along the lines of "Foobarium machinide is a chemical compound." They're often completely unreferenced as well. I think we actually need to do some work on them, rather than simply removing the templates. Physchim62 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at some of the yttrium compounds on the list, and it is really hard to come up with anything notable to say about them! For example, YAs has about 30 refs in CAS, but all I can say is that it has been made, and some of its structural, electrical, and thermodynamic properties have been measured. I haven't found any uses or anything remarkable to say. There is one hit in Google Books that talks of a "neodymium/yttrium arsenide garnet laser", but after trying to find more information about such a laser I think they may have confused it with a neodymium/yttrium aluminum garnet laser (it would have the same acronym).

I hate when people nominate chemical articles for deletion saying that they are not notable because they are usually wrong. But is it possible that this may be a real case of a non-notable chemical? --Itub (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Templates Disputed_chem and Low_quality_chem for deletion

The templates that we use to tag erroneous or bad chemical structures here and at the Commons have been listed for deletion, your comment would be welcome on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Chemistry_dispute_templates. Cacycle (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone knowledgable in HPLC check this edit?

Does increasing the polarity of the mobile phase in reverse-phase HPLC increase or decrease retention times? The IP has a history of good-faith contributions. This one either corrected, or created, a serious mistake. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 05:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while for me, but as I recall a more polar mobile phase will give a shorter RT in RP-HPLC. I've reverted the edit in question. Yilloslime (t) 06:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
That's my memory as well, but again, it's been a while. It also depends somewhat on the polarity of your analyte… Physchim62 (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. "It also depends somewhat on the polarity of your analyte..." – I'm no expert, but intuitively I'd have thought a more polar mobile phase would decrease the retention time of a highly polar analyte, but increase the retention time of a highly hydrophobic analyte. If there's any doubt, perhaps it would be safest just to delete the sentence in question? Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Melamine cyanurate" renaming debate

Hi, there's a discussion going on about a recent attempt to rename melamine cyanurate, located on the talk page here. I thought the naming guidelines were pretty straight forward, but I may be wrong. Please have a look. NJGW (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Equivalent (chemistry)

I'm trying to bring some order into our articles on the concept of the equivalent – for the moment, we have equivalent mass, equivalent weight, gram equivalent, molar equivalent and a section on normality in concentration as well as equivalent (chemistry)! I was wondering if anyone could supply an example of the use of equivalent in modern chemistry, as in the sense of "stoichiometric quantity" or similar. I would come up with one myself, but I've been out of the lab for quite a while now… Physchim62 (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dimsyl sodium?

I refer to Image:Ylideformation.png. Is this structure (bottom right) the best representation for dimsyl sodium? I'm wondering in terms of actual structure, and a "working model". C.f. BuLi's crystal structure versus its working model suitable for our purposes. Also, is dimsyl sodium a worthy article for creation? Or should it just have a mention at DMSO? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I found sodium methylsulfinylmethylide. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes?

Someone pointed me to these two suspicious articles: Erwin Braucheimer and Braucheimer Release Cap. They appear to be hoaxes, but could a few of the other chemists here please take a look? Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Erwin Schnitzer Braucheimer looks also like a hoax to me as a Swiss. A translation to English could be: “Erwin Escalope Use-Bucket”. :-) --Leyo 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Both have been now been deleted as hoaxes. (Thanks, Rifleman 82!) -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of articles on orbitals / atomic / molecular structure

In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Organisation of orbital articles I suggested that the Physics project might like to tidy things up, but someone suggested that this project might be more interested — any takers? PJTraill (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PJTraill's concern was about Electron configuration (where he added comments at Talk:Electron configuration#Redundancy with other articles) and Electron cloud (about a merge proposal Talk:Electron cloud#Merger proposal). He also commented on possible redundancy and bad organisation of e.g. Atomic orbital, Electron cloud, Molecular orbital theory, and Molecular orbital. The discussion really should be by chemists primarily. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that Atomic orbital and Electron cloud were not tagged for the Chemistry Project, only for the Physics Project. They are now. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Electron configuration is in a pretty sorry state. It does contain some unnescessary material which is redundant to atomic orbital, but more importantly it doesn't contain the sort of coherent explanation which is needed for chemistry! Physchim62 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IUPAC definition for transition metals

NOTE: This section is transcluded so the widest-possible number of people can comment

I've been auditing the nav images in element articles to fix wrong neutron counts and giving Lu and Lr the lanthanoid and actinoid coloring, respectively. Part way through, I started to review our definitions for element categories to check them against IUPAC's provisional recommendations. See IUPAC Red Book IR-3.6 GROUPS OF ELEMENTS. Turns out that their specific definition for transition metal deviates from ours in a somewhat embarrassing way:

  • IUPAC defines transition metals specifically as being those elements in groups 3 to 11. This excludes the group 12 elements!

ED NOTE: Turns out, that IUPAC's approved recommendations define transition metals as either the set of elements in groups 3 to 12 (our current set-up) or the set of elements from 3 to 11 (the set-up in the below table).

Fixing this results in somewhat modified periodic tables (Note, that the expanded 'Other metal' category includes all the post-transition metals plus aluminium):

Table showing the more IUPAC consistent element categories

So, before I finish my audit and fix of the nav images, I'd like to know if I should fix group 12 to be consistent with the provisional IUPAC definition of transition metals. OR should we wait for IUPAC to come out with the final-updated Red Book (comment period ends at the end of 2008)? I'm putting my audit and update of the nav images on hold until we figure this out. --mav (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how many agree to this definition so waiting would be ok. Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I just checked one of my college chemistry textbooks and it agrees with IUPAC. If this definition for transition metals is already widespread, then we may not need to wait for IUPAC's final revision of the Red Book. On the other hand, the updated document may impact other parts of the table and / or nav images. I'm simply not sure how or when we should proceed. --mav (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm, the comment period ended in 2004, according to the root of the file you quoted. The text approved in 2005 was (p. 51):

The elements (except hydrogen) of groups 1, 2 and 13–18 are designated as main group elements and, except in group 18, the first two elements of each main group are termed typical elements. Optionally, the letters s, p, d and f may be used to distinguish different blocks of elements. For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included; the f-block elements are sometimes referred to as the inner transition elements.

As far as I'm aware, there are no new inorganic recommendations planned for four or five years or so (until they get round to sorting out inorganic Preferred IUPAC names). Physchim62 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah - I saw this and assumed it also applied to the inorganic nomenclature. My bad. I also remember something about unfilled d-suborbitals as part of the definition, which also excludes group 12 elements (with a complication with at least one Hg compound). --mav (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Definition of this term has always been a problem- whether to base the classification on chemistry or atom electron configuration. I was taught at school (1942 Sherwood Taylor text book) that the transition metals did not include Cu group and Zn group - only then to be told at university that Cu was a transition metal. IMO we should go with current IUPAC - that definition has been around for at least 40 years (Cotton and Wilkinson 2d edition 1966)- it leaves a little problem of colouring in and explaining the position of Zn group which is neither main group nor transition metal, but is in the d block according to our chart- although the chart conflicts with the definition in the article (sic "..highest energy electron is in a d orbital") which would seem to exclude both copper (3d10 4s1) and zinc (3d10 4s2) - if our list of electron configurations is right. Best of luck.--Axiosaurus (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The current IUPAC definition (quoted above) gives us freedom to include group 12 or not. Let's not forget that Cotton & Wilkinson doesn't class scandium and yttrium as transition metals either, on chemical grounds. Greenwood and Earnshaw agrees with our current classification except for lanthanum and actinium, which they (correctly in my view) class as transition metals. I seem to remember that the edition of Sherwood Taylor that you quote classes thorium and uranium as transition metals and, in the case of thorium ([Rn] 7s2 5d2), a naive or dogmatic application of the electron configuration criterion would force us to do the same! Physchim62 (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
IMHO IUPAC does not clearly define the matter, that's why such a long discussion is needed. My experience is very close to the Axiosaurus' one. The first simple definition refers to empty d orbitals at the elemental state whereas at university I was taught that it's more useful to include group 11 (Cu, Ag, Au) as well because they form ions having empty d orbitals - that is the Cotton Wilkinson definition. This is supported by their behaviour, for instance because they can form coloured complex as the other transition metals. I've never heard that the 12th group (Zn, Cd, Hg) can be included in the transition metals because their behaviour, i.e as catalist, is completely different than the others due to their full d shell. Most of my teachers would have marked as a serious mistake. Cotton Wilkinson (III edition, 1972) includes Scandium and Yttrium between the transition metals. Chemical behaviour should prevail as even Mendeleev based and actually built the periodic table on this characteristic. Some authors try to bridge this describing group 3-12 as d block. Please do not be misled by the shape of the periodic table or, worse, by aestetics issues. Chemistry is an experimental science and sometimes cannot be oversimplyfied. --Avogadro-I (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought that our periodic tables have too many colors and that we could save ourselves a lot of trouble if we got rid of most of them. But I'm afraid I'm in the minority. --Itub (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But the table is so purty with the colors! And we'd have one less thing to argue about discuss - that would be boring. ;) --mav (talk)

Great feedback - thanks for finding the the current recommendations. Looks like IUPAC is giving us some leeway in the definition of transition metals in the approved recommendations. That means that our current table does not conflict with IUPAC. That is all I was worried about. We should therefore leave well-enough alone. We can revisit this if/when IUPAC comes up with a more rigorous definition. But I welcome anybody else to comment just in case we have missed anything. Again - Thank you everybody! --mav (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my own opinion is that it's one of those debates that creates more heat than useful work! Physchim62 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
And don't forget that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) allows us to go againt IUPAC occasionally, when circumstances demand it! Physchim62 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like I may be getting in here a little late, but I just wanted to note that in post-transition metal, it claims that the IUPAC definition for transition metals is in conflict with it self. Based upon what I've read here, that doesn't seem to be the case any more. I think it needs to be cleaned up to match the above conclusions. --Wizard191 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: first time we get the chance, we should try to get rid of the color differenciation between actinoids and lanthanoids. Nergaal (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why and what would replace it? --mav (talk)
does not add enough information, and within the TMs, the variations in chemistry are larger than those between Ac and Ln's. Any of the two colors used now would be fine, or some random mix of the two too. Nergaal (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The actinides and lanthanides are distinct enough for us to label them as separate element categories. That combined with the lack of consensus on what is an inner transition tells me that we should leave well enough alone. --mav (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercury is considered a transition element under both IUPAC definitions now, because the compound HgF4 has been synthesized in 2007, giving Hg a d8 electron configuration. Should this be incorporated in the table and the article? Kumorifox (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that mercury is a transition metal due to the observation of HgF4 under exotic conditions. See the article on HgF4 for details. --Itub (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing suggestion to Merge d-block and Transition metal

Well I showed up 3 months too late for the fun, but I based on what I read, I am removing the suggestion to merge these two articles. No change in IUPAC recommendations will ever alter Periodic table (by blocks). The blocks must have a number of columns corresponding to the number of electrons that a full subshell can hold. So the d-block must occupy groups 3-12. This is a man-made oversimplification because the chemistry and even the ground state electrons in Periodic_table_(electron_configurations) are messier than the blockiness, but that's ok. Oversimplifications are important because they make reality interesting. "Transition metal" on the other hand, is a convention, not an oversimplification. One bunch of folks call some elements "Transition metals" and another bunch of folks don't, and IUPAC says that's ok. When the most recent IUPAC book says "the elements of group 12 are not always included," they mean not always included in the transition metals. Group 12 has to be in the d-block because if it weren't, then the d-block would only hold 9 columns, meaning 9 electrons maximum in the d-subshell and Kimmie, the cute new 22-year old high-school chemistry teacher, would cry because even the oversimplifications would be too complex to teach, and angry mobs of high school boys who love Kimmie would grab torches and pitchforks and attack IUPAC folks and Wikipedia editors for making Kimmie cry. So that's why d-block and Transition metal should not be merged even though IUPAC says they -can- contain the same elements. By the way, Inner transition element and f-block should also be separate articles for the same reason. Conventions and oversimplifications are very, very different. Flying Jazz (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I'm glad to see you editing again. :) --mav (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if Kimmie is wrong, too bad I say. (^_^) Other than that, I agree they should remain separate articles (though that's probably because I am of the firm opinion that the d-block and the transition metals should be different groups). Double sharp (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Electron

I've been working steadily to upgrade this article and I've reached the point where it is discussing more complex interactions such as magnetism, chemistry, electricity and so forth. What I'd like to find out here is how much should this article cover concerning quantum chemistry? My preference is to follow the Wikipedia:Summary style guideline and leave the details for other articles. I.e. focus primarily on the electron's role, and less on the chemistry. Do you have any helpful advice on this score? Should I cover, for example, angular momentum coupling in quantum chemistry? The article is already large and I expect it to grow still further. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. the article's talk page appears to be subject to unhelpful troll baiting, so some caution is recommended there. I'm trying to avoid it.

Nobody has a problem with it? That's great, thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Analytical stubs category

A puzzling thing: A lot of analytical topics (including Analyte, Analytical method, and Applied spectroscopy just to pick a letter...) are filed as physical chemistry stubs. I'm well aware that the line between the two can be a little fuzzy, but the current lists of p-chem stubs and general chem-stubs both include some clear examples to file as analytical stubs. Any objection to marking these out as a separate category? (I see that there used to be one, but it got speedy deleted in 2006 with no reason beyond "upmerged".) - Jaeger5432 | Talk 17:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that there are not that many editors active in the area (and so no WikiProject). I have some knowledge of the subject, but I'm a bit snowed under at the moment. Are there any other editors who are willing to take a look at some of these stubs and try to make sure that they're at least not factually inaccurate? Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to create a new stub type, you have to follow the bureaucratic procedure at Wikipedia:STUB#Creating_stub_types (at least if you don't want it be speedy deleted/upmerged again ;-) The main question is, will there be enough stubs of these type? --Itub (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think there will be enough. Having the category would help with activity in the area, since it'll provide a more specific focus for work. I'd be happy to spearhead the eventual sorting process, I'm an analytical chemist who'd love to see everything neatly sorted and turned into B class or better... I could go on and estimate the number if that would help the official process. -- Jaeger5432 | Talk 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you can come up with an order-of-magnitude estimate of the number, please do so, it will help the official process. Obviously you can set up a workgroup under this project to help coordinate things, if you think that would be useful, but we really need some idea of the scale of the problem as well. My own fear is that the problem is quite large… Physchim62 (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There were about 30 articles tagged with {{analytical chemistry stub}} and I found and tagged about 30 more that were rated stub in WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Spectroscopy. That should be enough to propose creation of the category. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Kkmurray. Proposed. It actually qualifies for speedy (re)create, looks like. -- 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Gallery of Lewis structures in 3-D

What should we do with this article? While this kind of 3D Lewis structure looks reasonable enough, it has a certain "original research" feel to it. --Itub (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the poor quality JPG images on Commons. --Leyo 17:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely OR. Lewis structures might be notable and verifiable but these aren't. If it's going to be anywhere it should be on the author's own website, or (at a push) at Wikibooks.

It's not encyclopaedic content and is therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia. Even if we ignore the nonstandard ideas, it's presented in a school textbook style, rather than a concise encyclopaedic style.

Ben (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is not encyclopedic and it gives a wrong impression of bond formation. It should be transwikied somewhere, possibly wikibooks. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I informed the author, Edguy99. --Leyo 21:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newbe here so I am not sure of protocol, sorry if I have erred. I am happy to fix the JPG images. With regards to OR, I dont feel that I am doing OR by drawing a 3D view of say a methane molecule that seems to be the natural way one would view a Lewis diagram of Methane if it were visualized in 3D. With regards to writing style, I am happy to work on a more concise encyclopaedic style if given a chance. Edguy99 (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your work that went into your program and into these images. But they do not resemble common molecular visualizations and models and are not generally helpful for readers of Wikipedia. Please use the more common rendered VdW radius CPK models or rendered (ball and) stick models for three-dimensional structures or flat circles if you want to to show the electron configurations of simple molecules. The current page should be deleted. Cacycle (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have grabbed a sample of commonly seen molecule representations for discussion purposes:

File:Sample99b.PNG

My drawing is a representation of this same thing in 3D. It is I think fair to argue what color the dots should be, but there is no doubt there should be 8 dots on carbon and 2 dots on hydrogen I dont feel I am representing anything new, different or original that should disqualify my drawings. In fact, I would argue, that a reasonable person would agree that this is a fair 3D representation of the 2D model, not original research.

My drawing of Carbon and Hydrogen:

Carbon1.gif

I separate and rotate the 3D drawing to give an indication of where the 8 dots for carbon are located in 3D. I do feel this is 'creative' giving me the right to distribute the pictures on such places as Wiki.

Most of the molecules are done with CPK space filling, all I have done is added the Lewis dots to visually represent how they can be connected together to form larger molecules. I drew a couple of molecules smaller and seethrough to help with the visualization. Edguy99 (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is those rotating diagrams that I most object to, as they give a quite misleading view of how a bond is broken or formed. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that they give the impression that electrons are somehow localized. Other diagrams do this as well, but at least those styles had actually been used before we knew that electrons cannot be localized to this precision. Finally, for your model of carbon and hydrogen, you should realize that carbon has six electrons and hydrogen has one – the diagram is fatally incorrect on this point! Physchim62 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Lewis diagrams usually only talk about the valence electrons (Carbon has 4, Hydrogen 1). With regards to the rotating diagram, I have animations that do not seperate, they just turn. They look pretty neat too.Edguy99 (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We dont want this kind of stuff in wikipedia-Chem. 100 years ago, it would be welcome. I dont see many redeeming features aside from the nice colors. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate what the author is trying to do and the effort involved, this is a novel representation of molecular bonding, and therefore constitutes original research. Yilloslime (t) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read the linked OR document and would like to point out two things:

1/ "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

For every 3D image on the page, there are reliable sources that can be cited for its 2D counterpart. This is the same picture, just from a different angle. These pictures whether 2D or 3D are simply a way of illustrating relatively straight forward rules on how oxygen, carbon and nitrogen can be combined. Oxygen has 2 valence holes, nitrogen has 3 and carbon has 4.

2/ "Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy"

Again, the pictures are only reenforcing the concept behind the rules of how many atoms can combined and in what way.Edguy99 (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, the 3D Lewis images, especially the animated ones, are just plain incorrect. Lewis structures are a fiction (albeit a useful one) that only illustrate a very few things (electron sharing/connectivity is about all) correctly. By taking re-extending the Lewis diagrams into 3D, you're emphasizing the parts of the fiction that are false (especially the spacial arrangement). Adding 3D rotations to a system that is solely about 2D connectivity is not useful at best. The carbon in Image:Carbon1.gif is square-planar! And the individual rotatable atoms (for example, Image:Carbon3d.gif) have the electrons and holes equally spaced in square-bipyramidal, as if each electron and hole is an independent entity, which again is nonsense. The normal planar drawings have electrons paired and correctly illustrate what is sharing and perhaps which atom would be assumed to contribute it and don't go beyond that by extrapolating from the incorrect implications of the model. DMacks (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have listed the article for deletion, please comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gallery_of_Lewis_structures_in_3-D. Cacycle (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, these 3D Lewis structures are somewhat reminiscent of Lewis's cubic atom. However, cubic atoms were published in JACS and are historically notable despite not being used much anymore! --Itub (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I will not be reviving this page in this form but I would like to say that both images (Image:Carbon1.gif and Image:Carbon3d.gif) are the same form. If the large sphere was allowed to rotate longer, I think it would be clearer. I constructed the object starting as tetrahedral object with 4 red dots, then copied, flipped and turned to make 4 white dots equadistance from red dots, but always keeping it as 2 tetrahedrals. I am not sure what this is called and would appreciate being told.Edguy99 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The red and white dots together make up the corners of a cube, but if you consider them as two tetrahedra, you have a stella octangula.
Ben (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I have looked at your pictures and they are very nice. I dont know if you have ever thought about it, but the dots and holes work very well to aide in the construction of 3-d stuff when you are doing it by hand (ie. trying to join one molecule to another in 3-d and figuring out which goes with which). For this shape of molecule, if you give the electrons and holes opposite charges and allow them to be attracted to each other, you can get the hydrocarbon molecules to self-assemble (some assistance required) into correct structures purely based on the relative concentrations of hydrogen and carbon. Same for joining in the Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules to the structure. It saves a lot of work.Edguy99 (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It has come back again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMemory Animation Software. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfluorooctanoic acid

Editors might check out perfluorooctanoic acid. This article has grown to 40,000 bytes and 85 specialized references under single authorship over the past few months. The basic storyline is that by virtue of its chemical resilience, perfluorooctanoic acid, mainly a by-product of Teflon production, is pervasive, e.g. it is detectable in most humans, reflecting its easy detectability and stability.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the heavy editor User:Shootbamboo (contribs) has not contributed to any other Wikipedia article, making him a clear single-purpose account that started from the very beginning with perfect Wikipedia editing skills. It might well be a professional attempt to support court cases using Wikipedia. Cacycle (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The report potentially exploits Wikipedia for a hidden agenda. The editor demonstrates no interest in communicating an overview, which is what I thought we do here. Instead the report enumerates articles that discuss occurrence or potential problems/insinuations with PFOA. Shootbamboo is writing a faux-review without enduring the rigor of a real review.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I think "mischief" is a bit a strong, and that the "basic storyline... that by virtue of its chemical resilience, perfluorooctanoic acid, mainly a by-product of Teflon production, is pervasive, e.g. it is detectable in most humans, reflecting its easy detectability and stability," is essentially correct.[see e.g., [16]] The article might give undue weight to the potential health effects of PFOA exposure while giving short shrift to its chemical properties and uses, but as a google news search will show, this is real controversy and something that WP can cover is some depth. Afterall, the Governorator just vetoed a PFOA ban in California, and a global ban on the related PFOS is currently be considered under the Stockholm Convention, so clearly this is hot topic. I'm not saying the article is fine as is, nor am I making assumptions pro- or con- about the WP:SPA involved, I'm only pointing out that this controversy is real, it's probably what most readers who go to the article want to find out about, and it's something the article should discuss at length. Yilloslime (t) 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Other related pages such as DuPont and C-8 and PFOS are probably worth keeping an eye on as well. shoy (reactions) 21:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I had perfluorooctanoic acid on my watchlist before User:Shootbamboo started to work on that article. Overall, I think he (or she) did a good job taking into account the different aspects of that substance. Yes, of course, the environmental issues are much more important here than they might be in most articles on chemical substances. I don't want to go to much into details here, but I have been to three international conferences, where perfluorinated substances like PFOA and PFOS were one of the main topics. I don't share your opinion on the lack of neutrality. PFOA has in fact very good properties and that's described in the article, e.g. “PFOA is an excellent surfactant because perfluorinated surfactants can lower the surface tension of water twice as low as the amount attained with hydrocarbon surfactants.” Of course, the section on the properties might be extended. It might also be a good idea to provide more details on the use of PFOA as an emulsifier in the production of fluoropolymers. IMHO it might also worth providing schemes on this process as well as on the different synthesis routes of PFOA. There are many references, but there are also many in other articles (Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, Decabromodiphenyl ether). In conclusion, I think the article is quite good, but certainly not perfect and it could be improved by other authors. On the other hand, DuPont and C-8 should be revised. --Leyo 00:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article is that bad either, although it does seem to have too many primary sources. If you want an example of an article that is overly focused on the toxicity, pollution, and suspected carcinogenicity while saying almost nothing about production, properties, etc., try 1,3-dichloropropene. --Itub (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is almost certainly from the "Environmental Working Group" (EWG, see also). I must say that it's better than the utter c*** they have produced in the past: however, it is still trying to prove a point, rather than discussing issues from a neutral point of view. Cleanup needed, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he/she's either CIA, al-Qaeda, or a double agent. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

References in Wikipedia articles - guidelines for how many

The previous section describes a debate about an article on perfluorooctanoic acid, which some of us think contains too many references and in a way constitutes original research. So now may be a good time to broach policy issues raised by this debate: how many references are appropriate for an article about a chemical compound, recognizing that some variability is inevitable? Experienced editors have noticed that for many chemical compounds, Googling locates lots of reports on toxicology and hazards. Even setting aside the tox/environmental papers generated through Googling, one could fill many articles with thousands of references of varying detail. Using Chemical Abstracts, I checked two semi-random compounds (mid-significance, with well-known, mid-level hazards): nitrobenzene gives 12,000 hits and methyl bromide generates 6000 hits. Obviously we dont want that many references. So, IMHO, the Wiki-Chem community need to discuss guidelines for referencing in our style guide.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and so its references should normally be secondary sources (ie, peer-reviewed review articles or generally-accepted textbooks). If no secondary sources are available, that starts to raise questions about the articles notability, at least as an independent article and not as a section in another article. In terms of chemical safety, this is particularly true: if nobody else has felt it necessary to do make a toxicological review then it shouldn't be for WP to say that X and Y's study is particularly important (because, quite simply, it probably isn't). See also WP:SOAPBOX and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. Physchim62 (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I support using secondary sources as references generally. However, I don't see a reason for not using primary sources (e.g. peer-reviewed journals, company reports) to include new findings. Of course, these findings should not weighted by Wikipedia authors. I agree that 85 references are a lot, but I don't think a fixed limit of references is a good idea.
Why not discussing guidelines on the need of citing references for chemical properties in the chemobox. Presently, hardly any chemobox is sufficiently referenced. In de-WP, the vast majority of the (non-trivial) properties in the chemoboxes are referenced now, after having put efforts on that during the last few month. When we added missing references, we discovered quite a lot of incorrect values. This would most probably also be true for en-WP (e.g. this old version concerning the density). --Leyo 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's an easy answer to "how many references?". Some chemicals have many uses, some don't. Some are the center of a controversy (would you like some melamine with that milk?), some at the center of several controversies (think DDT), and some are not controversial at all (pentane comes to mind). Some are historically interesting (e.g. Tartaric acid), some are just another derivative (e.g. Butylamine.) I do agree that we should try to draw from secondary and tertiary sources, rather than primary ones, and that concept applies to toxicology as well as chemical properties, uses, history, etc. We should not, however, scrupulously exclude primary sources, especially those that have come out since the last review and/or have garnered media attention. Historically important primary sources (i.e., ...first synthesized in 1865 by some german guy[1]), and illustrative examples can also be appropriate. Also, the introductions of primary sources are sometimes mini-reviews of a topic intended to put the authors' new work in perspective, and we should be able to cite these the same way we might cite a review. For example, a research article about a chiral, cationic, tridentate ligand might started off by saying, "Chiral, cationic, tridentate ligands have received a lot of attention in the last few years as potential ancillary ligands for unlikley catalytic reaction XYZ" and then cite several examples, before going on to describe the authors' work on a new ligand of that type. Whether the work described in the research article is notable or not is one thing, but we should be allowed to cite the paper as evidence that this general type ligand is being investigated for XYZ. Yilloslime (t) 00:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Firstly I agree with Yilloslime above regarding the the mini review at the beginning of many primary source articles.
Regarding the use of primary sources - in the area of inorganics I find that many chemical compound articles flagged as stubs require references to primary sources to improve them siginificantly as secondary sources e.g. major text books, review articles have insufficient compound specific detail.
Regarding the number of references - I believe that this is best taken on a case by case basis and I would avoid being too prescriptive. The driver for the number of references should be the content of the article and the level of detail - if we get that right and reference accordingly- secondary sources for preference and primary where necessary then the reference count for that article is, as Goldilocks would say, just right.--Axiosaurus (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to this question is: how many properties, uses, and various other things need to be noted in a comprehensive article? Yes, there are thousands of references, but there are usually a much more limited number of properties being studied, and most of these sources are full of redundancies. Finding a good, preferably freely-available review article which covers a lot of these properties is best, but for other facts, the most recent, easily-accessible, or most professional sources might be research articles. News articles are generally secondary (or tertiary) for chemical facts, but research articles are probably more accurate. Calling a review article a secondary source and a research article a primary source is a misnomer, by the way. A research article might easily cite 40-50 references -- each time it cites something for a statement, it is a secondary source for that statement. A research article will generally way more secondary facts than primary facts. II | (t - c)

Please expand Half cell

There was an expansion request at Half cell which was redundant with its stub note, so I am moving the request here. I've been trying to overhaul the Battery (electricity) and Galvanic cell-related articles. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Symbol for Chemical Equilibrium

Could someone from this Wikiproject weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Accessibility#Equilibrium_symbol regarding various ways of rendering the symbol for chemical equilibrium (is in equilibrium with)? Thanks- ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

List of elements

Hi, two of the periodic table related FLs have merge tags (List of elements by name and List of elements by symbol) and I found this discussion, where there appears to be consensus for a merge, but nobody has done it for whatever reason. I was going to remove the tags, but first I thought I would see if there was still any interest in a merge.

If you want to merge the pages, that would be fine, but the FLs would have to be formally delisted first (which shouldn't be a problem, it has been done before). Is there someone within this project who would be willing to do this? I would, but I don't have a lot of expertise with the periodic table so it would probably be better for someone familiar with the subject to do it. If nobody responds, then I am just going to remove the tags. -- Scorpion0422 03:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The featured lists List of elements by symbol and List of elements by name been nominated for removal. You can comment here and here. -- Scorpion0422 22:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Animation

I found this particularly useful in explaining the basics behind free-radical polymerisation and a free version for wikipedia would be a very useful addition to the relevant article if anyone has the time and knowhow. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wet alcohol

This looks dubious to me. Has anybody come across this in the context of fuel? Is this not just standard non-absoute ethanol? Chris (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Physchim62 (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fluorocarbon

What exactly is a fluorocarbon, and what should be the scope and title of the content currently at fluorocarbon. There are problems reaching an agreement. Please see Talk:Fluorocarbon#Integrity_and_Accuracy_of_Article and subsequent threads. --Itub (talk) 06:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As soon an answer has been found, it may be worth checking if content of the cats Category:Perfluorocarbons and Category:Organofluorides is consistent. --Leyo 10:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Lithium-sulphur_battery

This article was written mainly by a banned user using multiple socks, so someone knowledgeable should probably take a look. See Wikipedia:ANI#Bad_hand_account.3F. VG 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Project Chem,

Hello, I've found it frustrating that when you type an element symbol in Wikipedia, you then have to search through a long disambiguation page in order to find the sometimes arbitrarily placed link to the element. To solve this frustration, I propose Template:See-element. Tell me what you think. Could something like this be placed at the right of every disambiguation of a element symbol?

For the the chemical element:
4
Be
WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 16 in the periodic table of the elements
See Beryllium

Sir Stig (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the disambiguation manual of style and ask at the talk page there. I have the impression that images in disambiguation pages are generally frowned upon, unfortunately. --Itub (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I let them know. The template above is just an idea I threw together. The final version can be smaller and imageless, as long as it does its job of making the elements easier to find on Wikipedia. Sir Stig (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Naming consistency for organo_________ chemistry/compounds

There is a discussion going on about what the best title would be for an article on organofluorine compounds / organofluorine chemistry. See Talk:Organofluorine chemistry#Merge_tag_.28Organofluorine.29. However, I think this discussion should be broader because the same naming issue may apply to other articles as well. The list below includes all the articles I could find on organo__________ chemistry/compounds. As you can see, there is not a lot of consistency:

My opinion is that organofluorine (as well as the other one-word adjectival titles) is not the best name for the reasons I gave at Talk:Organofluorine chemistry#Merge_tag_.28Organofluorine.29. Namely, that it is an adjective, which goes against the article naming conventions and especially WP:ADJECTIVE. Given the flexibility of informal English grammar, some people may use organofluorine as a noun to mean an organofluorine compound, as evidenced by the plural "organofluorines", but this usage is less common in print (50 Google books hits for "organofluorines" vs 601 for "organofluorine compounds"). --Itub (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see them all renamed consistently as organo[element] chemistry.
The term "chemistry" (meaning both behaviour and study) is broader than "compound", and just seems better to me. Any objections?
As for the organofluorine/fluorocarbon/perfluorocarbon debate, I think the first port of call for readers should be the most general article, namely organofluorine chemistry. There's quite a lot of content spread over several articles (Perfluorocarbon, Fluorocarbon, Organofluorine and Organofluorine chemistry). If much of it is duplication, then the content could all fit nicely in one article. If there's too much information, or some of the information is too specialised, then multiple articles are appropriate. However, four articles (the current number) is too many in my opinion - it's too confusing.
I know there is this issue of the exact definition of perfluorocarbon and fluorocarbon, and different editors have different opinions on what each term means and which definition we should adopt here at Wikipedia. If it's confusing us, it'll really confuse most readers. I recommend focussing on the actual chemistry and properties of the different kinds of carbon-fluorine compounds, and keeping the nomenclature subtleties separate from the article names.
Ben (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Ben's comments 100 %. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep, me too. Chris (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly with Bens organoelement chemistry title suggestion. As for the fluoro / perfluoro debate I'm with Ben again- put it all together in "organofluorine chemistry" and split if the content warrants it. As to naming subtlety- well there are lots of instances of confusing/ conflicting usages of terms and if our objective is to inform a reader who has encountered a term and is looking for an explanation - surely we shouldn't just present our version of the truth?--Axiosaurus (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Objection. Here's my gripe. I think the term organofluorine compounds is definitely more inclusive than the term organofluorine chemistry. For example, some organofluorines might not be welcome in an organofluorine chemistry page, as perfluorodecanoic acid has "no significant commercial uses, according to a fluorochemicals consultant."[17] I see the danger of future unproductive discussions/debates, if not for current editors, then future ones, over the definition of organofluorine chemistry (as it results to the inclusion or exclusion of certain organofluorine compounds). By contrast, we can all agree on the definition of an organofluorine compound (C-F bond containing molecule) and agree that all angles of organofluorine chemistry would be welcomed in an organoflorine compounds page. In the spirit of merging, it seems most logical to pick the most inclusive term. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that one page for all C-F compounds is a good idea and that the most inclusive term is probably best. But I don't agree that organofluorine compounds is a more inclusive term than organofluorine chemistry. The latter implies nothing about commerical uses. Unlike compounds, chemistry includes reactions, transition states, bonding, general trends and effects... things that are not compounds but are important!

Ben (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the term "chemistry" (meaning both behaviour and study) is broader than "compound". Commercial use has got nothing to do with this issue. There is a lot of chemistry that is not commercial or even of any use. It should be "organofluorine chemistry" and similar for all related articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have such a strong preference here, but I'm leaning towards chemistry too. I don't think any specific compound would be excluded just because it has "no significant commercial uses"; in fact many (most?) of the organometallic compounds discussed in the other articles don't have commercial uses either, and yet they are still notable for basic science. Of course, the organofluorine _____ article, regardless of its title, cannot list every single organofluorine compound; it has to focus on the general trends and on a reasonable number of notable examples. I cannot say at this time whether it should include perfluorodecanoic acid or not, but I have my doubts because not having an article about it yet suggests that it may not be very notable.
Although I think chemistry is broader in general, there are a few areas that could arguably fit better under compounds than under chemistry. In particular, biological properties and economic impact. These appear to be areas that Shootbamboo finds of major interest, which may explain the worry about the title. But I don't think we should take such a narrow view of "organo_____ chemistry" that would excluded these important aspects of "organo_______ compounds". --Itub (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I think organo____ chemistry covers a bit more than organo______ compounds, and hence would be a better name. There are some generalities, and when parts of it become too big, they can split of in specialised parts. For some of these that are specialised groups of compounds (e.g. the perfluoro-compounds as e.g. 'organoperfluoro compounds' and HFC's), or specific group of reagents etc. (the highly fluorinated weakly coordinating anions; similar Grignards for the organomagnesium chemistry). These can then be linked from the 'main' organo_____ chemistry article via a {{main}}, maybe a link to the category that covers 'all the compounds', and that section can be reduced to 2-3 sentences. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Very good suggestions. Can we build a draft version somewhere, discuss and modify it, then make it an article?
Ben (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I not convinced by the arguments presented in this discussion for chemistry being the most broad. Some think chemistry is more broad, but it appears they do not provide much detail for these opinions. I maintain that all organo_____ compounds pages would be welcome to all aspects of organo_____ chemistry. By contrast, I think some organo_____ compounds might not be welcome to some organo_____ chemistry pages. Above, it appears an editor even conceeds this point. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The biological effects and economic impact of organofluorine compounds are a direct result of their chemistry, so that's why I think organofluorine chemistry is a broader title than organofluorine compounds.

Ben (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

is your position that no organo_____ chemistry article should ever seek to exclude any organo_____ compound (provided that compound exists on Wiki and that it is appropriate [in the sense that it adds understanding for readers] for the article)? that's my driving concern here. Itub addressed that concern, and I just want to check on that to make sure the consensus agrees with that perspective. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was only proposing a consistent set of names for organo-X articles. I wasn't trying to include or exclude content, I'd simply like to see our existing articles (listed above) renamed so their titles all have the same form.

The same rules as usual will apply to what content is appropriate (WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:REF, WP:GFCA), and it will always be important to discuss and agree (on article talk pages) what the article should cover.

Ben (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think in wide fields such as organofluorine chemistry, or organosulfur chemistry for example, the lead organo___ chemistry article (I wholeheartedly support the naming convention) should necessarily be an overview, linking to more detailed articles (when we get round to writing them!) on the different facets.
We will need to have a category tree which goes with it, of course. In most cases, I don't see the need to create a Category:Organo___ chemistry: this would only be necessary where there are several specific reactions, such as in organophosphorus chemistry. I think we should also be wary of creating Category:Organo___ compounds when such articles could be readily categorized in Category:___ compounds: again, there will be exceptions where Category:Organo___ compounds is justified, such as Category:Organolithium compounds. Comments, objections? Physchim62 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have an example that questions the whole consensus. I think it would be unwise to rename the article Organochlorine compound (which I just merged from organochloride) to Organochlorine chemistry. Organochlorine chemistry doesn't ring a bell with me, perhaps there is a journal with its name though. -Shootbamboo (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't ring a bell. Perhaps that's why it was at organochloride. What you did, BTW, was not a "merge", but a "cut-and-paste move", which is not allowed because it misplaces the page history. Normally you can just use the [move] button at the top of the page; sometimes it doesn't work because the target name, despite being a redirect, already has a history; in that case, you can request that an administrator move it at requested moves. If there is any chance that the move will be controversial, it needs to be discussed first. I don't care that much about the title of this specific article, but I've undone your cut-and-paste move so that the article history is in the page that actually has the content. --Itub (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
organochloride doesn't ring a bell either, (IMHO). i tried to follow the instructions (you put at my talk page) that were here under full content paste merger. but i didn't read the whole article but now i understand the difference between a merge and a rename/move. -Shootbamboo (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
move requested to Organochlorine compound from organochloride on Talk:Organochloride. -Shootbamboo (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

More Google data for consideration:

Organochlorine compounds are a bit different to most of the articles listed above (organometallics, mostly) because they are core organic chemistry. The extreme example is organooxygen, which is a term rarely encountered because most organic compounds contain oxygen.

Ben (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't like the idea of renaming/reworking the Organochloride page to the Organochlorine chemistry for the sake of consistency. i frame the discussion here in this way: what % do we want "consistency" and what % do we want "plasticity." I favor a majority % towards plasticity. one reason i say this is because of the law of unintended consequences. for example, if we set a rigid naming policy then the more out of touch (with google hits) each section will be over all. secondly, I think plasticity in naming would show experts of each respective field that we are sympathetic to their conventions, as it would ultimately attract experts of each field. (A bit visionary and optimistic, but still, if nothing else, then respect from each field.) I think that plasticity should be one of the advantages of Wikipedia, IMHO. As such, I am going to withdraw my move page proposal and replace it with organochlorine. Keeping with the consistency of plasticity, per Itub's good argument, I still support Organofluorine compound over Organofluorine. I am going to start a new section below for the many tangential issues I see (which could be a part of motivations for the discussions above, IMHO.) -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
move requested to organochlorine from organochloride on Talk:Organochloride. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
move requested to Organofluorine compound from organofluorine on Talk:Organofluorine. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fluorine

The fluorine article states in the Biological role section: Fluorine is not believed to be essential for humans, although small amounts of fluoride can make tooth enamel resistant to decay. This sound s really strange for me. Why on earth does my table salt contain fluoride if has no Biological role?--Stone (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"No biological role" is not the same as "not essential", although it could be a blurry line. --Itub (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Note however, that at least according to this book, "Today fluoride regarded as essential to humans".[18] --Itub (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
For me my teeth which contain Fluoro Hydroxylapatite have a "biological role". My biology wants to have something to chew with. Everyday soup would be boring. This literature states that the F concentration in the upper most layer of teeth is between 1247 and 331 ppm.FINN BRUDEVOLD, DWIGHT E. GARDNER, and FRANK A. SMITH (1956). "THE DISTRIBUTION OF FLUORIDE IN HUMAN ENAMEL". J Dent Res 35 (3): 420–429. --Stone (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Second and more serious point is that there are compounds like sodium fluoroacetate, which are produced by biology, so fluorine has a biological role in the plants producing these compounds.--Stone (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Silicene

An easy one - In silylene it says "The generic term analogous to carbene is "silicene." " I have come across proprietary elastomers and cleaning products with that name - but no chemical term--is it right ? IUPAC would say silylidene but I have come across that name referring to H2C=Si e.g.doi:10.1063/1.1531618 --Axiosaurus (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hydrogen#Split_proposal

Hi members of the WikiProject Chemistry, we need some participation to reach a conclusion, can you please have a look at Talk:Hydrogen#Split_proposal and join the disccussion ? Thanks Mion (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Odd molecule

Odd molecule is this something that deserve its own article?Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 13:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be merged into radical (chemistry). --Itub (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Acryl group

Someone claims that the Acryl group now is called the acrylyl group and has made changes to the article. Can someone knowledgeable look into this ? JoJan (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but while we think about it I've undone the change because it broke the image. --Itub (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I thought about it and I think it's right as acrylyl. I've restored the change but fixed the image. --Itub (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What about acryloyl, as in acryloyl chloride? So many names for one group.

Ben (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the 1993 Recommendations, it's acryloyl. Under the new draft Recs, they insist on prop-2-enoyl, although acrylic acid and acrylate will still be permitted for "general nomenclature" (not PINs). Physchim62 (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I think acryloyl is best then. As a test of usage in print, there are 61 hits for "acryl chloride", 618 for "acrylyl chloride", and 671 for "acryloyl chloride". So acryloyl is not only IUPAC-recommended but also the most popular by a small margin according to this sample. --Itub (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

YesY Done Physchim62 (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Template for Chemistry User

Does anyone have a template for Chemistry? If not, can someone make it and send it to all Chemistry Users? Albertgenii12 (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for one of these: {{User Chemistry Project}}, {{User WPChem}}, {{User WP-PChem}} or {{User WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering}}? --Leyo 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential tangential organo____ issues, and others, regarding organofluorine content

First of all, please see the carbon–fluorine bond page. I hold it up as a success that shows I can work well with other editors. On to the issues: I previously supported merging organofluorine/organofluorine compound with organofluorine chemistry but right now I am up in the air. I thoroughly reworked organofluorine yesterday (by transitioning to text instead of all those sections [also, I did the same bad paste things there that Itub pointed out above in organo____ {to organofluorine compound}] and I will submit appropriate move/rename proposals). I also have thoroughly reworked fluorocarbon into what I find as an efficient article (except for extraneous details at the bottom). Fluorocarbon could use a bit more detail, but not too much, IMHO. As for the unfortunately wordy and poorly written organofluorine chemistry (see talk page under quality of article, I was asked to have "patience" but I don't think I can give that editor the slightest bit of whatever "patience" means.) I have made a few edits there (mostly nomenclature but some general properties), but I still do not think it is the home for fluorocarbons and fluorocarbon derivatives. and IMHO, the perfluorocarbon page is a medical page, and the good chemistry like the fowler process would be better off inside the fluorocarbon page. IMHO, it was written from a completely slanted POV (see talk page) that seeked to pre-empt global warming afficiandos. (Resulting in a misguided violating NPOV article). Meanwhile, I have summed up the properties of fluoroalkanes, fluoroalkenes, and fluoroalkynes in fluorocarbon. IMHO, perfluorocarbon might be better moved to a new article, like Medical applications of perfluorocarbons (after fluorocarbon chemistry content is excised). and could then the medical applications could be reviewed in the fluorocarbon page succinctly (as are polymers, anesthetics, surfactants, etc.) I also want to say I think it's time once and for all that I was not treated like an enemy to Wikipedia. I see a lot of rhetoric against me on this page, and I was amused at first but ultimately disappointed and angry at Wikipedia to find it. I had to raise these issues, as an appeal to logic, as this talk page is not a monolith. Thank you for reading this as this has been a hell of a transition for a new bold editor into Wikipedia. And for those that, IMHO, are part of the "silent majority," but do not speak up as other "loud" editors have so thoroughly castigated my contributions, can you please start speaking up? IMHO, my editing has unfairly prompted viscerally negative responses from some editors who then rabble roused Wikipedia unfairly against me. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is affecting you, take a short break from it or just do a little bit each day (see meta:Wikistress). Maybe people haven't replied yet because they're busy. You've been doing a lot of editing, and it takes a bit of time to read all the changes that have been made before people can comment. How about doing some editing, then leaving it for a few days so other active WP:CHEM editors have a chance to see what you've done, form an opinion and give feedback or make their own edits?
It's not the end of the world if some article or other is not perfect - we can deal with that later. The most important thing is that we work well together and towards common, agreed goals.
Ben (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikistress aside, any gripes? -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing the discussion here. I'll definitely review all this stuff in 2-3 weeks time and comment (if I haven't missed the boat completely), once I have a bit of time. Please don't take my lack of comments as lack of interest! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

FrF & FrOH

Francium fluoride and Francium hydroxide were sent for deletion at WP:PROD 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to have redirects from both terms to Francium. Both terms seem likely search topics for a curious chemistry student, and the lede to Francium would quickly make clear to the reader why the other articles don't exist. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 08:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Transition metals (moved discussion)

I moved this remark from my talk page to here Wim van Dorst (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

I've noticed that wp considers Zn, Cd and Hg as transition metals in spite of the fact that the common definition between chemists do not include them (see i.e. Cotton Wilkinson, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, 3rd Edition, 1977, a book that my university teacher used to reference as the bible of Inorganic Chemistry). I've also joined the discussion but I would like to have that information corrected into metals of the d-block. Please note that most of the chemists and teachers consider that a mistake and would rank the related articles consequently. I would be grateful if you could give or ask for contributions on the subject. Please notice that many other projects rely on en:wp so that this information is spread and translated worlwide. Thank you very much in advance. --Avogadro-I (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cotton & Wilkinson's "electronic" definition of transition metals is nowhere near as widely accepted as you make out. On some versions, you would have to exclude copper silver and gold, on other versions you would have to include cerium, thorium and protoactinium, and on the widest version you include all the lanthanoids and actinoids as transition metas, excluding only zinc and cadmium (not mercury). In the face of such confusion, we have taken the IUPAC definition of a transition metal as "any of the elements from groups 3 to 12": it's simple, widely used and has as much basis in chemistry as any of the alternatives, as even Cotton & Wilkinson accept (Cotton, F. Albert; Wilkinson, Geoffrey (1988), Advanced Inorganic Chemistry (5th ed.), New York: Wiley-Interscience, pp. 597, 625, ISBN 0-471-84997-9 ). Physchim62 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • ^ nnnn