Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2010←Archive 2013Archive 2014Archive 2015

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Following some detective work by the ever brilliant DePiep some 608 'lost' chemistry articles have been identified. We've defined lost as any article containing a Chembox which was not assigned to either {{WikiProject Chemistry}}, {{WikiProject Chemicals}}, {{WikiProject Elements}} or {{WikiProject Polymers}}. This post is mostly a shout-out to members following changes in the chemicals articles by quality log - a lot of new pages will be added over the coming days, please do not be alarmed. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Somebody added a lot of articles to out project ([1] and previous revision). I just want to be sure that consensus for the projects article is "chemical compound" (a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more elements). Christian75 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few of these should probably be shifted to WikiProject Chemistry... How many pages were added in total? --Project Osprey (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
477 articles was added (+ a lot of categories and templates) Christian75 (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that list, I see many that don't belong: locations, companies, biographies, etc. The criteria really should be only "a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more elements" and generally chemical compounds that are pharmaceutical drugs are handled by WikiProject Pharmacology instead. ChemNerd (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been meaning to ask about that: Should pages handled by WK-Pharma also be listed with WK-Chem? Pharmaceuticals are, by default, also chemicals.
I'm happy to help with sorting the list out, is there a plan for dividing up the work or are we just going to attack the list as is?--Project Osprey (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if there has been any discussion or consensus about the distinction between WP:CHEMS articles and WP:PHARM articles, but the common practice seems to be mostly to tag pharmaceuticals only for WP:PHARM. ChemNerd (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"Pharmaceuticals are, by default, also chemicals" - not necessary. E.g. mixtures of chemicals, and a lot of other stuff. But to answer the question, it depends on the compound. LiBr, cisplatin (and other relative simple compounds) should be taged with both projects IMHO. Christian75 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
What about families of chemicals such as bromides? Or for the ions, eg sulfate ion? What project should they go in? (Looks like Chemistry from the tagging) But for Talk:Buckminsterfullerene is says chemicals even though it is one element. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:InChI

Template:InChI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Won't be back any more

I will not follow or answer this WP:Chemicals any more. WP:CHEM. See WP:CHEMISTRY. Except for voting to kill it. What a mess. -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you proposing? Merging Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals? --Leyo 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia session at ACS Boston chemistry conference in August

This is just a quick ping here for those who missed my post at WT:CHEMISTRY. We're having a symposium on Wikipedia chemistry at the ACS national meeting in Boston in August. If anyone wants to give a presentation, abstracts are due by this coming Sunday. The full description is:

Chemistry information on Wikipedia has an enormous reach and impact. In this symposium, the connections between Wikipedia editors and the wider chemistry community will be explored. In particular, collaborations between educators, students and regular editors (Wikipedians) will be examined to understand how Wikipedia editing can be set up as a successful class project. Educators will demonstrate how Wikipedia projects can help students with understanding subject matters and improving information literacy skills. Meanwhile, we will explore how educators and the Wikipedia community can work together through the Wikipedia Education Program to ensure students' contributions to Wikipedia are valid and effective. Finally, we will exchange ideas on how to involve more chemists in contributing to Wikipedia, and how to use the site wisely.

We are also organising an Edit-a-thon, so even if you're not presenting, we'd love for you to help with that. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing Molecular formula to Chemical formula in chembox

I suggest changing "Molecular formula" to "Chemical formula" in {{Chembox Formula}} (the chembox), it is used for salts too - like Sodium chloride. Right now, its a piped redirect to chemical formula e.g. [[Chemical formula|Molecular formula]] which I propose should be changed to [[Chemical formula]]. There is one objection aginst this change, please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox#Changing_Molecular_formula_to_Chemical_formula Christian75 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Since http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk is discontinued, there are now ~200 dead links to MSDS in articles. I guess that in many cases Template:GESTIS might be used instead. This database is based on reviewed MSDS (among other sources). --Leyo 17:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

All or most through {{Chembox}}? Can we solve this in the template then? -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI {{Chembox}} has some 880 MSDS data values (880 pages have some MSDS data). Not all are to Oxford: Phosgene. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think the current practice of linking one MSDS makes so much sense. In many cases the values in the chembox are from different MSDS/sources. I strongly prefer to cite references for all non-trivial values. --Leyo 22:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
No edits in {{Chembox}} code for this, then. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Fux. Another distraction. Can't find that important post. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Which post? --Leyo 23:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dow Corning

Hi all, I'd like to suggest that Dow Corning get moved from WikiProject Glass to this WikiProject. Dow Corning produces silicone products and is a joint venture between Corning Inc. and Dow Chemical Company. Corning Inc. fits neatly into the scope of WikiProject Glass, which I'm assuming is how Dow Corning got the same designation, but Dow Chemical Company is a part of this WikiProject and in my opinion it's a better fit for Dow Corning too.

I'm asking here rather than changing anything myself because I have a conflict of interest: I work for a communications company that represents Dow Corning. If someone would be willing to consider/implement this change, I'd be really grateful. I'd also appreciate if someone could take a few minutes to assess the article's quality rating so we can get a better sense of where the article is lacking and how we can work with the community to improve it. Thanks so much. Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What about just adding {{WikiProject Chemistry}} (instead of replacing)? --Leyo 00:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think WP:Glass is still active, although I suppose that's not really the point. I've added {{WikiProject Chemistry}} anyway. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Radium

Should Radium-223-Chloride be an article about Radium-223 or Radium-223-Chloride ? Should this be an isotope article, or a pharmacological chemical article? See talk:Radium-223-Chloride for the discussion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Platinum tetrafluoride

This very basic two-liner was deleted by PROD but has now been restored by request at WP:REFUND#Platinum Tetrafluoride. It could do with some attention. JohnCD (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well that was a nice fundamental compound to rescue. Thank you, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ammonium Pertechnetate

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

Alert box

Recent changes in
WP:Chemistry and WP:Chemicals
List overview · Updated: 2017-05-20 (infobox articles) · This box:

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

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

Acetol

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

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Should Aromatic alcohol be a redirect?

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

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

What is this talking here?

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

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

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

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

* Oh dear. Somehow this again ended up in my watchlist (which illustrates the core point: top level WP confusion). re you all: yes it can be a full WikiProject (WP), and no, then it should not be a sub-WP of another full WP. We don't have sub-full-WP's, do we? -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing but sub-WPs. Eg. WP:CHEMISTRY is a sub-WP of WP:SCIENCE just to mention one. (some would say its a sup-WP of WP:PHYSICS - stamp collecting you know :-) ) Christian75 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Article Request: Hydrocarbon Wax

Friends:

This is the first time that I have requested an article, so please forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly.

An article on Hydrocarbon Wax would, I believe, be a good contribution to Wikipedia. The reason is that the S.C. Johnson Company has made an effort to improve the disclosure of the components in their consumer products. I am interested in the components of Glade Plugins (and other similar products)after reading an article in the popular press discouraging the use of these products because they are "bad for your health". Because the author didn't seem to have any particular qualification to make this claim and because I am surely not the only person to be interested, I think that we need input from people like yourselves, clearly presented. The only three ingredients listed for Glade Plugins are Hydrocarbon Wax, Paraffin Wax and Octabenzone. I'm not suggesting that I know anything about Paraffin Wax or Octabenzone, but "Hydrocarbon Wax" sounds particularly nefarious and it doesn't give the impression that regular folks are as unlikely to understand a write-up on it as an article on Octabenzone would.

Thank you for your consideration.

Peace to you all, David Dunaway --DWinstonD,(UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)}

We have the article paraffin wax - I think its related, maybe a redirect should be made? Christian75 (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Chemical formula of mixed valence compounds

First noticed at arsenic dioxide, we have places where the single chembox |Formula= field lists several different formulas. We usually use a reduced (empirical) formula for inorganics such as salts and network solids. PubChem and ChemSpider concur with "AsO2" (and the MW of that, though it's presumably generated from it not independently reported), which also matches the name. However, the cited ref is clear that there are not simply a 1:2 ratio, but rather two distinct and different arsenic atoms. That is, at the actual chemical level, it's really "As2O4", which agrees with the IUPAC name of it. I'm not sure which way to go, but having multiple independent values in this field without a standard way of identifying them as such (for example, newlines or some punctuation) seems confusing, especially since only one of them would agree with the |MolarMass= (unless it too were multivalued) and possibly other fields. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Going with the empirical formula seems fine. Thinking ahead, here are some cases we might deal with:
  • With molecules that are mixed valence, we would use the molecular formula. Example the two isomers of Phosphorus_sulfide#P4S4 are P4S4, not PS.
  • Another complication is phosphorus pentoxide. So we use P4O10 for the molecule, but notice that same article also discusses polymeric versions of this material, which we would call P2O5.
  • Prussian blue: we avoid giving a formula it appears.
  • Magnus' green salt, which has [Pt(NH3)4]2+ and [PtCl4]2- structural units, is described as H12Cl4N4Pt2, not with the empirical formula H6Cl2N2Pt (which would match that of cis-platin).
So the area is complicated. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Having multiple formulas identified by parameter instead of stringing them together using commas or linebreaks, as DMacks suggest, indeed would be an improvement seen from data-treatment point of view. Doing so, all variants must be specified for the reader, one can not give an unarticulated list (example of this bad: arsenic dioxide now, or when split over two lines as well).
Going practical: we could create a set of parameters like:
|Formula=, |Formula2=, |Formula_Comment=, |Formula2_Comment=. With it: |MolarMass2=, |MolarMass2= etc. Could need prefix option too.
If we work this out, this is to think of (note that I'm a layman in the chemical concepts & terms):
Already, most identifiers are indexed like |CASNo2= to cover isomers etc. In the background, I've kept open the option that each index will refer to the same substance (say, #1=R, #2=S) in the whole article's infobox. But if I understand this right, the |Formula2= index would not refer to the second CAS RN. This change would lead to an extra mental load/documentation visit for the editor.
-DePiep (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing CAS RN

The articles Caesium auride and Chromium(VI) oxide peroxide are missing the CAS RN. I couldn't find them. Could somebody please access SciFinder to check? --Leyo 22:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 09:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As I see just now, there are many more in Category:Chemical pages without CAS Registry Number. I started checking for de-WP versions of the articles in that category and started adding CAS RNs from there. --Leyo 21:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Today 1,747 articles out of 16,000 targeted pages. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Now 1,688 articles. There are quite some false-positives in that category, e.g. BCG vaccine, Theobromine poisoning or Insulin (medication). --Leyo 00:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Some of those might surprise you, for instance insulin has a CAS RN (now added). There are an unknown number of pages were the chembox should probably be removed or replaced. Sadly I don't think that much of this can be done via bot.--Project Osprey (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Insulin (medication) is in Category:Insulin therapies. Hence, the article is not about the peptide Insulin itself. --Leyo 10:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps that page shouldn't have a drugbox at all then? (although personally I can't see the harm in it). Also the GNF_Protein_box in Insulin doesn't have an option for CAS. --Project Osprey (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Leyo, by "false positives" you mean chemicals that do not have a CAS RN assigned at all? For those, we could add the option |CASNo=NA. (Like with ChemSpiderID and ATC code). -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I mean articles that are not about chemicals, but vaccines, poisoning, therapies etc. --Leyo 20:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
So what with those? -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Ideally the chembox would be swapped for a more appropriate type of infobox (normally drugbox) --Project Osprey (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no CAS RN to be added to those articles. Hence, they should not reside in this maintenance category. It may be achieved like this or by e.g. making the CAS_number parameter in the drugbox optional. Another option would be to define a keyword for articles that disables the category, e.g. CAS_number = none. --Leyo 08:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories for image cleanup

Stumbled across these three cats, whose contents could use some human decision for transferring to commons, outright deletion, or keeping as-is:

Most entries are things that are conceptually ripe for moving to commons. But some are of chemicals that already have superior diagrams hosted there (no sense moving a small gif if have svg or good png). And some are pretty bad but don't have a replacement on commons (worth a few minutes to ChemDraw a good one and put it on commons). A few really are best retained locally for various reasons. We've been pretty good at keeping the manually-tagged categories clean:

For those inclined to do more from-scratch work, we have:

Is there a central place to put this TODO-ish list so I, I mean "we", don't lose it? DMacks (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How about you put it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals#Activities in progress, possibly under its own subheading? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that the three categories above may be emptied quite quickly. Having a look at the orphaned ones may help. --Leyo 22:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How does one join this group

I'm a pretty new editor and I would like to join this group, how do I do that?Lukejodonnell (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! There is no procedure for joining. This is an informal group. Anyone that wishes to participate in activity or any discussion here is free to do so. You can add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals#Participants if you wish to let others know of your participation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why FA-class articles in this project are not marked as such on the talk pages? The highest rating for this project seems to be A-class instead. For example, Talk:Amphetamine shows the article as A-class CHEM article rather than FA-class even though the parameter in the template is FA. Was FA simply never implemented? Sizeofint (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, FA was not implemented. I updated the class mask to correct it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
At the time, it was a deliberate choice NOT to implement FA-class. We had the assessment system (with A-class but no FA-class) here on WP:CHEMS before it was adopted more widely. Likewise, this project never adopted C-class in 2008 or so. At this point, though, I don't see any strong reason not to go along with the standard system - unless someone wants to make the case?! Walkerma (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Opabinia, I don't see a reason not to use the standard system. Sizeofint (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Water (data page)

I have nominated Water (data page) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water (data page). Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

New solvents

Of the six new solvents mentioned in the C&EN article Cleaning up a Solvent Problem, only 1,3-propanediol seem to have an article in Wikipedia. The other five, butyl 3-hydroxybutyrate (wd), N,N-dimethyl-9-decenamide, dipropylene glycol phenyl ether (wd), ethyl levulinate glycerol ketal and methyl-9-dodecenoate do all appear as red links. Or are some of them present under different names? --Leyo 21:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

searching by structure, only 1,3-propanediol currently exists. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
How did you do that? On-site or with an external tool? --Leyo 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
External tool, but one I would strongly recommend (http://www.cheminfo.org/wikipedia/) it uses the SMILES string in the chembox or drugbox to match the structure entered. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Swiss quality. ;-) Too bad, it's not available for other language versions of Wikipedia. --Leyo 10:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed ^_^ I believe the code is open source --Project Osprey (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

4'-Methoxy-α-pyrrolidinopropiophenone#Chemistry

The chemical structures seem to be cropped at the bottom. What's the problem there? --Leyo 13:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The table was enforcing a specific image height. I removed that particular formatting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bromelain

Please could someone take a look at the first infobox on Bromelain,and see if it can be replaced with something better? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, this is harder than it looks. Papain is just one enzyme family, so it gets a standard pfam infobox. Other botanical extracts seem to be treated in the article of the plant they're made from. I thought {{Infobox botanical product}} sounded like a good match, but it seems to be used just for a handful of psychoactive drugs of varying legal status. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Compromise on "remove content added by sock of blocked user Nuklear"?

I keep seeing very promising edits wiped with the edit summary "remove content added by sock of blocked user Nuklear". One of many examples: [[2]]. These removed edits are better than virtually anything anyone else is contributing. It almost seems that rules are trumping goals (improve content). One suggestion: non-blocked users be allowed to retrieve some of these contributions. There is some good stuff there, and readers would appreciate the effort. As far as I am concerned if a blocked user can help the project in such an indirect manner, its a win-win: we dont need to deal with their quirky behavior and we get to take their quality content.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

i remove these edits regularly per WP:REVERTBAN. The person behind the Nuklear account is mentally ill (literally) and compulsively comes to WP to add content about synthesis. There are often COPYVIO issues, issues with sourcing, and errors in the content. If you have not read the SPI you should do so.
Bigger picture, anyone is free at any time to restore any edits removed per REVERTBAN, but please carefully vet them for accuracy, sourcing and COPYVIO issues. If you restore it, you own it, and if you restore a bunch of COPYVIO, unsourced, or incorrect content, that will fall on your head.
I will also add, that I don't think it does the project or Nuklear much good to encourage them to continue by restoring a lot of their content. I find your last comment, Smokefoot to be stunningly ignorant (of course you can restore content) and worse, exploitative and cynical. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, when I look at his (Nuklear) edit history mostly 2005-2009 I see nothing out of the ordinary. So what exactly was his/her crime? Mentally ill? I happen to write compulsively about synthesis and yet I am not institutionalised. What am I missing here. I would expect rants in talk pages. Not there. I occasionally see edits from people having forgotten to log in so their edit appears anonymously. Does that make you a sock puppet? By the way, we love Smokefoot for being the cynical guy here V8rik (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why someone's mental health, literal or otherwise, is relevant.
That said, it looks like there are copyvio issues with this content, and copyvio appears to have been a recurring problem in the past. The cisplatin edit is from here (link to google cache because I can't seem to open the PDF). Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, clearly a problem in this case. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

These edits by Nuklear (+ socks & IPs) have been consistently problematic for a variety of reasons. When this editor first arrived, most of his edits were blatant copyright violations and his first few accounts were all blocked because of this. Since then, he has mostly avoided the copyright issue by just including very little or no text descriptions for the syntheses. In my opinion, this leaves the articles in worse shape because there is little or no context for the synthesis diagrams, especially for the typical reader who can't parse chemical structure drawings. Many of these additions are also problematic for other reasons: they are highly prone to errors, they are poorly written, they describe outdated/unused methods, etc. I sympathize with those who don't like seeing potentially useful content just deleted so I suggest the following proposal:
Proposal. Instead of being deleted outright, the text, images and references should be moved to the talk page where editors who are interested in incorporating them into the article in a meaningful way will have access to them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Images, sure - these aren't copyrightable and are potentially useful. I don't think moving copyvio text to the talk page is a good solution though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi all, thanks for the comments. It is not like that I have plans to resurrect any of the banned edits, I may write the cisplatin synthesis section from scratch some time but that is it. Thanks again for the consideration and the effort V8rik (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This does seem to be a long term, ongoing problem, and some kind of compromise arrangement surely must be preferable to the current approach. It seems apparent that the user originally known as Nuklear suffers from some kind of low-level schizophrenia, and is unlikely to ever be able to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the point that their edits can be allowed to stand without external scrutiny. On the other hand though, I absolutely endorse what Smokefoot and V8rik have said, these "synthesis" sections are useful and encyclopedic, appropriately referenced, and importantly this is a task that no one else seems to be motivated to do. I feel it is quite inappropriate that Jytdog has taken it upon themself to WP:HOUND Nuklear's contributions and systematically delete everything they contribute, just because Nuklear can't follow the COPYVIO rules correctly. It is not Jytdog's place to decide whether or not someone else's desire to contribute to Wikipedia is helpful to their mental health. I also find it a rather weak argument that these synthesis sections are only of specialised interest which the "typical reader" would not be interested in, the same could be said about all manner of specialised topics that are covered here. Surely this is exactly why we have guidelines like WP:NOTPAPER. The images at least are certainly not copyvio, and the text simply needs to be rewritten in original wording. I strongly endorse the proposal that the text, images and references of these synthesis sections should be moved to the talk page until they can be added by another editor who is able to follow the rules correctly. This seems like a sensible, pragmatic compromise that avoids the adding of copyvio material to the article pages, while still retaining the useful material that this user is repeatedly attempting to add. Meodipt (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I agree that there are specious arguments in that SPI (the syntheses aren't interesting or well-chosen, the sources are primary, etc.) Whether or not it's a useful approach, WP:REVERTBAN is common practice. And as copyrightable text goes, this stuff is pretty uncreative. But you still can't put copyvio text on the talk page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
From what I've seen, the majority (perhaps all) of Nuklear's recent edits are not copyright violations - either the text or the images. So I don't think that's an issue now like it was with his original accounts/socks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can't say I've looked at his other edits in detail, but is that google cache link above not working for anybody but me? This edit that Smokefoot highlighted in their original post shows text directly copied from the 4th paragraph of this source, which he did not cite (though he did copy and format the references therein). The PDF download is working now, so you can also see it here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then how about just copy the image of the synthesis diagram and the references to the talk page, and abandon the text. That way it forces whoever takes it upon themselves to reinstate the synthesis back into article space, to write fresh prose summarising the synthetic route, based on the references supplied. Which should address any copyright concerns I would hope, while still retaining the key value of the content Nuklear had added. Meodipt (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure. If he could be convinced to post images directly to the talk page, so much the better. Or even to take image requests. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't like that the go-to for this user is removal because a lot of it seems very constructive to me. I disagree that synthesis images leave articles in a worse state. Testem (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but it seems to me that a talk page copyvio is still a copyvio. The go-to answer is delete it from the mainspace and provide a difflink to the deletion on the talkpage. That way, when someone gets around to replacing it with a paraphrased version, the source info can still be found. Even safer would be to just provide the source citation on the talkpage, without the difflink. @Moonriddengirl: may have a better idea. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, which is why I suggest just abandoning the text on the grounds it can be presumed to be copyvio, even if this isn't true in every case. But the images and references certainly are not copyvio, and are useful content which should be retained not deleted, as pointed out above. Putting them on the talk page until this can be done properly seems like a sensible compromise. Meodipt (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If anybody really thinks his contributions could be useful, I would encourage you to work with him via email so that his copyright violating, often inaccurate, context-less edits do not harm Wikipedia. In my view that would not violate WP:PROXYING since whoever works with him will have to do serious work to check accuracy, COPYVIO etc and provide context. I also feel strongly that random syntheses presented without context are not encyclopedic material. The first synthesis, the process used in manufacturing... something that matters - context is crucial for encyclopedic content. Random syntheses picked out of papers or patents are WP:INDISCRIMINATE garbage, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
But these are not just random syntheses though. These are in most cases cited from the original patent reference, or the very first mention of the compound in the primary scientific literature where the synthesis is first described. The "first synthesis" is an important piece of information about a chemical compound, just as important as the PubChem link or CAS number in some respects, and is often much harder to find especially for older compounds. This is information that a quality encylopedia article about a chemical compound should include. Nuklear seems to have quite a talent for tracking these down, and there seems to be general consensus from the comments above that this kind of information is useful and encyclopedic, even if Nuklear is unable to follow the rules closely enough to add it correctly himself. It's a shame that you feel this content is indiscriminate garbage, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for deleting it whenever you see it. And its all very well to cite WP:REVERTBAN but that policy states explicitly that "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)". These additions may go beyond "fixing typos or undoing vandalism" but they are still helpful changes in many respects, and this has gone on for so long now, there are dozens if not hundreds of pages where a correctly cited synthetic route has been added by Nuklear's latest sock and you have gone ahead and summarily deleted it, without discussion or clear consensus. That is a lot of content that has been removed. Certainly delete the copyvio text as needed, but to also delete all the images and references despite them being useful and not copyvio, seems uncalled for, enforcing policy for policy's sake without considering what would be best for the overall aim of writing a better encyclopedia. Surely the suggested compromise of copying these to the talk page so that other people can come along and add them to the article correctly at a later time, would be an improvement on the current scorched-earth approach.Meodipt (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I am going to object here. It seems to me that genuine editors here are being damaged because of the actions of another editor (Nuklear). I personally restored content on the tropinone page. Nuklear was involved but the edits restored originate from respectable editors. Same with cisplatin, there was nothing wrong with the original introduction of the synthesis section (again an editor unrelated to Nuklear), yet content deleted. Today content on the tropinone content was deleted, including an image created by myself. Am I a sock puppet? Or worse: mentally ill? No, another editor (hi, Edgar!) copied the content from tropone. I am concerned that deletion process is too indiscriminate. Also: it seems that Jytdog is biased with respect to synthesis content on chemicals pages. It is not garbage! On the contrary, it is highly valuable content. Do not use Nuklear as an excuse to get rid of content you are unhappy with in the first place V8rik (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't touch tropinone today - I take it you are referring to this edit I made a month ago. That may have been a step too far, sure. But it did remove this series of edits by Nuklear as Nuklear. And importantly, I didn't object to your restoration of that edit.
My actions are within the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. We are here to provide the public with reliable, encyclopedic information. I feel bad for Nuklear but his edits have and continue to violate policy -- they are often inaccurate and/or COPYVIO, and do not provide any encyclopedic context. Nobody has the right to edit WP - editing is a privilege freely offered to all; editors who persistently violate policy lose their privilges and get blocked. Policy exists for a reason; blocks exist for a reason. You are not dealing with those reasons.
More on the "encyclopedic" bit: A synthesis in any given paper/patent may or may not be commercially or scientifically or historically important - it takes work (and additional sources) to figure it out. For example, a synthesis in a patent may or may not be the first publication of a synthesis (there is a long time between filing and publication of a patent or patent application) - so it may have no historical value as "first"; it may have no commercial value as it could have been superceded by better methods or may never have been scalable, but was only benchtop. Secondary sources tell us what has commercial/scientific/historical value. Nuklear never cites them. So the syntheses he presents are indiscriminate. Random details are not encyclopedic be they syntheses or Bill Clinton's underwear preferences. See WP:FART and WP:TRIVIA and the two relevant policies, WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
I will not copy his edits to the Talk page, especially when they may be COPYVIO. Again, if V8rik or Mediopt wants to spend their WP time examining Nuklear's edits carefully to see if each edit is worth restoring/copying to the Talk page (and safe to restore/copy) knock yourselves out; you restore his edits at your own risk. And as I wrote above, either of you could reach out to Nuklear and ask him to email draft content to you. Then you could both be happy and the encyclopedia would be protected.
By the way I find the adjectives like "scorched earth" offensive and likewise the ascription that I do this out of some wierd bias. Nuklear has lost his editing privileges and for good reason - COPYVIO, inaccuracy, poor sourcing. If your goal is to persuade me to act differently, the negative descriptions and ABF only set you back. If your goal is to persuade others, nothing that you have written deals with the policy problems with his edits, especially not the COPYVIO issues. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Again I think V8rik is raising the real key issue here, it simply is not ok to delete content because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These synthesis sections are important information, whether you personally think so or not. And let's be clear, just because a compound is used in humans does not mean that every aspect of anything relating to that compound is "health-related content" to which WP:MEDRS applies. Synthetic compounds are made synthetically, using a defined synthetic route. There is nothing WP:FRINGE or controversial about that. And for the vast majority of compounds, there is only ever one synthetic route published, there will never be a secondary review that covers the synthesis except for rare exceptions like paclitaxel where the synthesis is so complex that a number of different groups have attempted it a number of different ways. To insist on secondary sources for the synthesis of every single compound just shows that you don't understand the field, in most cases the primary source cited is the only WP:RS that there will ever be for the synthesis, and any secondary source that mentions the synthesis will just cite that original reference - as should Wikipedia. I'm not especially passionate about defending Nuklear's edits, he is a problematic user who is hard to work with and seems unable to follow the rules, and I agree that much of the content he adds cannot be allowed to stand due to COPYVIO or whatever. But I am passionate about molecules, and about making sure that useful, encyclopedic content is not deleted from Wikipedia on spurious grounds. Just because Nuklear has added 100x more synthetic routes than any other editor does not mean you can use his history of misbehaviour as justification to delete synthetic routes wherever you see them. Again, no one is asking you to retain COPYVIO material. The suggested compromise is merely that the unambiguously non-copyvio content, namely the images and references, is copied to the talk page instead of deleted, so that it is easier to find when someone else decides to reinstate it appropriately. Meodipt (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I got as far as your first words. You continue to assume bad faith instead of dealing with the policy/guideline issues here. Happy to have a discussion based on policies and guidelines; I am uninterested to talk with people who personalize and ascribe bad motivations to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Wrote cisplatin synthesis section from scratch with fresh source, this should have solved one issue V8rik (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Carboxamide

I'm trying to merge Carboxamide and it's associated category (Category:Carboxamides) into amide. I decided to start with the category merger first, as I'm unfamiliar with that process, but I'm not having much luck and I worry if the request here fails then it will have to be kept the way it is because that's the consensus. I would appreciate anyone weighing in on this. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about moving pronunciation to infobox

Please add your input at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox#Pronounce parameter?. This has been done at {{Drugbox}} and {{Infobox element}} and it may be worth considering for the chemical infobox as well. Sizeofint (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Shortcuts

Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Fluorine peer review

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

Adding images of peptide sequences

I work on commercial software for interconverting different peptide representations (e.g. SMILES, IUPAC names, sequence representations) and have been looking at (and fixing errors in) peptide data on Wikipedia, many of which have chemboxes. One of things I can easily do is generate SVG depictions of peptide sequences, and upload these to Wikipedia. I know that I'm recommended to BE BOLD, but it's a bit of work on my part so I'd prefer to get a second opinion or two from some native Wikipedians before I do it (just in case someone decides to revert everything).

As an example of the sorts of images I'm talking about, see Nesiritide and Pramlintide (these were not created by me) or this page at Sigma Aldrich. Recent versions of Accelrys Draw and ChemBioDraw both provide means to generate similar diagrams, while our own software can generate them automatically from a SMILES string or sequence.

I've temporarily uploaded a zip file of PNGs I've generated to this location. If you compare the all-atom depictions of Sincalide, Cilengitide and Terlipressin for example with the sequence representations in the zip, you will see that make clear not only what amino acids are involved, but the location of di-sulfide bridges, and any modifications present (e.g. D- instead of L-, a methyl on the backbone N, a substitution on the sidechain). I'm planning to make these available on Commons as SVGs and add them to Wikipedia. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Baoilleach (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions about validation of Standard InChIs

I've been correcting SMILES strings and Standard InChIs across peptide pages. The InChIS now have an X beside them. Does this mean that someone (or some bot) is going to revert back to the original values? And what does this text mean: "StdInChI_Ref =  checkY" Should I be deleting or editing that. Baoilleach (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Baoilleach: those parameters are maintained by a bot. It means that the parameter is different from the previous one, which was supposedly 'verified'. You'd have to check if all other fields which are maintained by the bot (which have a 'x' or a 'v' next to them) are correct as well (and of course the InChI you added), and if all are correct, you'd have to record the revid of the page where all values are correct (see 'permanent link' in the toolbox on the left), and record that in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Index. The bot will then see that all values in the current page are the same as in the 'verified revid', and mark all with a 'v'. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The fields in {{Chembox}}, maintained by the bot are: |CASNo= |ChEBI= |ChEMBL= |ChemSpiderID= |DrugBank= |KEGG= |StdInChI= |StdInChIKey= |InChIKey= |InChI= |UNII=. That is: when a parameter is present, it should be checked OK. When all present parameters are OK, one can set the 'verified revid' on that special page, as described. (btw, {{Drugbox}} has a similar bot checking). -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

New articles about possibly non-notable chemicals

Within the last month or so, two editors (who seem to be the same individual to me based on their editing) have created this group of short unreferenced articles about chemical compounds. They appear to be non-notable and I thought it would be a good to get input from other chemists about what should be done about them. Most are quite useless as they stand because they are essentially devoid of content beyond basic identification, but are they worth keeping and expanding? Or should they be redirected to parent articles (hexaborane(12) → boranes, for example)? Or should they be nominated for deletion? ChemNerd (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't en.wikipedia have guidelines on the notability of chemicals? In de.wikipedia, any individual chemical (except of different hydrate forms or isotopes) is notable if enough data is available to justify an article. However, since several of the above stubs are unsourced, I would support their deletion. --Leyo 21:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry says articles about chemicals should meet the general notability guideline (basically it requires "significant coverage in reliable sources"). That criteria is not demonstrated in any of the articles listed, but it may be possible that for some of them the criteria could be met with some research. ChemNerd (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be almost random selection of molecules. Articles are often poorly written. Pleas for interaction or collaboration are ignored. There is not a lot we can do when confronted with noise like that. The only consolation is that these articles can be ignored (even quarantined) unless they are notable, in which case we can help out. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I merged some articles with low notability to parent articles. --CxHy (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Spiropentane, Phosphorous mononitride, Lanthanum hydroxide and hexaborane are all notable. Diphosphorus tetroxide is dubious. But the quality of the articles is so low, that if anyone makes a draft, I am happy to delete these to make way. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I think these articles aren't acceptable in their current state. The best solution, in my opinion, is to move them to Draft space where the articles' creator and/or other editors can work on them and then move them back to Article space when they meet minimal standards. Unless anyone objects I will go ahead and move them. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree to this proposal.
Just as a side note: Four of the articles above exist in de.wikipedia, i.e. additions could be taken from there: de:Cyclobutanon, de:Spiropentan, de:Phosphortetroxid, de:Lanthanhydroxid. --Leyo 14:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have moved most of them to Draft space, but I left the ones with articles in other languages such as those mentioned by Leyo. I have tagged those with {{Expand language}}. When/if the Draft articles have been expanded, anyone should feel free to move them back to Article space. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW: Category:Chemistry articles needing translation from French Wikipedia and Category:Chemistry articles needing translation from German Wikipedia are red. --Leyo 13:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I switched them from chemistry to science to put them in existing categories. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Notablity of Pentaheptafulvalene is not dubious. It appears im many testbook for undergraduate student. --CxHy (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Textbooks are some of the best sources - so please cite yours!! The compound did not make it into my textbooks that I recall. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


Most of them are notable. --CxHy (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Please consider WP:SECONDARY (e.g. your textbook), as a good start to establish notability. The fact that a compound is mentioned in some journal is a good start. Operationally, the best way to establish notability is to write a coherent contextualized article. That last step you might try. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Monomer vs dimer RN's

An editor corrected tantalum pentaiodide chembox to give the registry number for the dimer. I went back and re-added the monomer now we have both numbers. These values are not displaying well BTW.

The material mainly exists as a dimer in the solid state, but I dont know the situation in solutions of noncoordinating solvents, if such solutions are possible. There are probably about 20-30 compounds that have this issue where two molecularities exist or are discussed almost interchangeably. They are molecular halides, oxyhalides, and even some oxides. These are the derivatives of Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, Mo, W, and possibly Re and Tc. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the CAS RN presentation, using |CASNo2= etc. indexes. -DePiep (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a category for these. But what would we call it? category:Dimers does not cover the case of the mixture / alternate presence of monomer and dimers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
One possibility would be "molecular metal halides," as these compounds prone to exist as monomers and dimers. I'll keep a list and report back. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Chembox Validation Question

Hello, terribly sorry if this is in the wrong place, but I'm trying to understand ChemBox validation (what with the red "x" and the green "check") and I just don't understand at all. Could somebody please point me to a (concise, would be appreciated) useful resource and also rather explain the reason behind it? Thanks, --PiousCorn (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@PiousCorn:, we were just discussing a similar question here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Questions_about_validation_of_Standard_InChIs. Is that what you want to know? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@Beetstra: So, I think it is? I wish I could say that that made things clearer for me, but I'm not sure it has, unfortunately. I guess it's not a super important part of Wikipedia, but I can "verify" simple values like that, but I'm still not clear on how or if it matters. And if it doesn't matter, it does beg questions about why it's a thing.
I have a related question about when I create a new article, what should these values be set to? Usually I would just copy another article, but without understanding what that means for validation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
In a new article best remove all |_Ref= parameters (like |CASNo_Ref=). (that is: with capital _R, the {{cascite}} set). The bot will add them all right. If the values are checked OK, you can add the page to the list as described (making it a verified version). -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Tetrachlorodecaoxide#Structure

More opinions are needed. I don't have any experience with this type of compounds. --Leyo 20:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought that it was a hoax but it is a patented disinfectant that is mentioned about 50x in the medical literature but the preparation and structure are unclear. Possibly a buffered aqueous solution of chlorine dioxide.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Should File:Tetrachlorodecaoxide.png that is now orphaned get deleted? --Leyo 19:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
On commons things are not deleted because they are unused. But if it is misleading or a fraud then perhaps deletion could be argued. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
→ c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tetrachlorodecaoxide.png --Leyo 01:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Its not a compound, but a mixture. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#Tetrachlorodecaoxide Christian75 (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

TfD of interest

A merger has been proposed for three templates that format external links to pubchem in slightly different ways, but the discussion has seen very little participation. Please comment here if you're interested. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

4'-Fluoro-α-Pyrrolidinooctanophenone

What's the right name for this article? I would propose to use a lower case “p” and a prime. --Leyo 01:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:CHEMMOS doesn't seem to stipulate but there is variety across the series. I'm more bothered about the presence of α and ' in article names. Surely no one is going to enter such things into a search box? --Project Osprey (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Redirects may serve to find the articles using the search box. Article names need to be correct first of all. --Leyo 12:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
4-Fluoro-α-pyrrolidinooctanophenone in that case? --Project Osprey (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. In general, capitalization of the first word after a prefix and the remaining words uncapitalized. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The most common name for this compound is actually "4F-PV9" but this is a made-up "brand name" invented by the chemical suppliers selling it, which we try to avoid using as article titles. So it is preferable to name it consistently with earlier compounds in the series like MPHP, so 4-Fluoro-α-pyrrolidinooctiophenone is the most consistent, but 4-Fluoro-α-pyrrolidinooctanophenone also works. It might be technically more correct to use a prime after the 4, and there are some page titles with this in, but as pointed out above not many readers are going to enter this into the search box. Meodipt (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

On a separate note, this is the second article that I've seen linked recently on this page with an external link to Cayman Chemical. Should we be linking to chemical suppliers? It seems a little bit like spam. shoy (reactions) 16:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We sometimes do in order to cite SDS sheets but I don't think the links to Cayman are being used to back-up anything in this case. Delete as spam. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Almost all pyrrolidinophenones (see category with the same name that I can't seem to link here) contain an α and ' . There's 5 redirects up for 4'-Fluoro-α-Pyrrolidinooctanophenone, feel free to add more if you think it's needed. I sometimes include cayman chemical (or forendex and similar) links as those are usually the most up-to-date on designer drugs and open access for everyone, unlike most scientifical research papers. Aethyta (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Automated search for CAS RN

Wouldn't it be feasible to perform an automated search for CAS RNs for articles in Category:Chemical pages without CAS Registry Number, e.g. based on

  • the SMILES in the chembox
  • the InChI in the chembox
  • information available in the Wikidata item
  • information available e.g. in de.wikipedia

If found, a CAS RN may not be added to an article automatically, but needs a quick manual check. What do you think? Is anybody able to perform one of the options? --Leyo 21:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

CAS RN of 1P-LSD

Does 1P-LSD have a CAS RN? Unfortunately, I don't have access to SciFinder anymore. --Leyo 00:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No. In fact several of the recreational drugs we have pages for don't have CAS numbers. I often wonder what to do with these pages, they always give what amounts to medical advice but their references almost always fail WP:MEDRS. At one point I tried PRODing many of them (and still do on occasion) but they often get re-made and not always by the same people; there certainly seems to be a public interest in them. I'm also aware that research into recreational drugs receives little funding, so in reality we could be waiting decades for high quality review articles to come out on these things. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. What do we best do in this case? | CAS_number = none would remove the article from Category:Chemical pages without CAS Registry Number. --Leyo 20:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Just leave it blank, with any luck it'll get registered eventually. --Project Osprey (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This maintenance category cannot contain both substances that don't (yet) have a CAS RN and substances that have one, but it has just not been added yet. --Leyo 10:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Why not? --Project Osprey (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the reason obvious? In the latter case, the category may serve as a to do list, whereas in the former case, nothing may be done. --Leyo 13:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think it would be more accurate to say that nothing may be none right now. The nice people at CAS will eventually generate numbers for those compounds. What do we done then, if the relevant pages have been removed from the to-do list? --Project Osprey (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Waiting for the CAS to proceed, but first all substances that do have a CAS RN need to have to CAS RN added.
What about | CAS_number = none<!-- last checked 2015-11-12 --> or similar? none may not be shown in the article, but cause the Category:Chemical pages without CAS Registry Number to disappear from this article. --Leyo 00:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Have a special token, "unassigned" or something, that the template treats as a non-value for purposes of not-displaying anything but that puts the page into a different category? Then Category:Chemical pages without CAS Registry Number can eventually be cleared and kept clear, but instead its subcat Category:Chemicals that do not have CAS Registry Number assigned would be populated, and someone could check those every few months or so. DMacks (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice idea. Are any of us able to implement that? --Project Osprey (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
+1. I may implement that on the weekend. --Leyo 13:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
We have Category:Chemical compounds which do not have a ChemSpiderID, populated by |ChemSpiderID=NA (eg Abatacept). This differs from Category:Chemical pages without ChemSpiderID (no value entered at all).
For CAS RN, what would be the code word, and do we have to show that "none"? -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Chemical compounds that do not have CAS Registry Number assigned. Will work for {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} alike. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "... do not have a CAS Registry Number assigned"? I propose to use the word =none. -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I recap. My questions are:
  • What should be the code word? Propose |CASNo=none.
  • What should the infobox show in such a case? Nothing at all, or "CAS number: none"?
  • What should be the category name? (I like the "not ... assigned" wording).
  • Should we add the option for all those identifiers? Now they are in Category:Chemical articles with verified fields missing. ChemSpiderID already has this option (|ChemSpiderID=NA; this will be changed & aligned with this CAS outcome).
  • The mechanism will be applied in {{Drugbox}}} and {{Chembox}}.
-DePiep (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The code word may be none, NA or unassigned. IMHO the CAS RN line does not be shown in the chembox in such cases. --Leyo 01:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I like "unassigned" as it is clear it means that it is not assigned by the registry. It does not give the impression that it will never be assigned. "none" or NA could just mean that the person filling in the template does not know or has no access to the database. In this case it would be better to leave it blank. Nothing needs to be displayed, but the category, perhaps hidden can be set. On the ChemSpider side of things is it possible for us to get things added to it and so get an ID? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the NA misunderstanding (can mean 'I don't know'). Yes the cat is hidden (as a maintenance cat, it is not a defining property). What do you mean with the chemspider question? You can change the infobox when an ID is known. btw, {{Drugbox}} has option |ATC=none → Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code. -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done. Now available in {{Drugbox}}: |CAS_number=none, |ChemSpiderID=none, |ATC_prefix=none. Categories populated:
Category:Chemicals that do not have a CAS Registry Number assigned
Category:Chemicals that do not have a ChemSpider ID assigned
Category:Drugs not assigned an ATC code
{{Chembox}} to follow. -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
For this "not assigned an id" status, the input is =none (not NA). -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why you didn't consider the argument for unassigned by Graeme Bartlett. --Leyo 23:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I did consider, even more than once. But the parallel {{Chembox}} is so complicated, I decided to stick to just one option: =none. (the option =NA is gone too). The win is that for all params (three so far), the param option is the same. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
And there is a second thing in the back of my mind. I think it is gramatically sort of incorrect to write "CAS RN = unassigned", which reads like 'a CAS RN is unassigned', while instead it should say 'a CAS RN is not assigned'. And, writing "none" does not imply that this is forever; a change (=number assignment) can be edited without being inconsistent. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Chemspider question

Can we add new entries into Chemspider?

If so how is this done? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain. In {{Drugbox}} and {{Chembox}} there is parameter |ChemSpiderID=. What would you need? -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I know how to add chemspider ID to Wikipedia, but is it possible to make a change or addition to the ChemSpider database itself? This might be a question for Andy Mabbett. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The best person is actually David Sharpe, User:The_chemistds. Walkerma (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, it is possible to add a new entry to ChemSpider. If you have enough references to create an article (at least one of which that contains a structure) it should be perfectly fine to create a new record. You need to have a ChemSpider account (which I believe that you already do) - there are some instructions on the Help section of the site (under the heading Deposition). If you email the ChemSpider inbox then we could also arrange an online meeting to go through the process and discuss it with a more specific Wikipedia focus. --The chemistds (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will give it a go. Even though I have an RSC logon, it does not work, so I suppose I will be adding a fourth one! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly-unfree file discussion

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 December 10#File:Caesium Auride.gif. DMacks (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Intricate merge proposal

Hi all, I was clearing some of the older requested merge categories, and I came across this request on the Equol article. This is a rather old request, from June 2012; it looks a bit more intricate than the normal merge requests, and would preferably be actioned by someone from this WikiProject. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 17:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the two pages should be merged. It could probably also use some trimming per WP:MEDRS because of a reliance on primary sources. I can do it, probably later this week, unless someone else would like to do it sooner. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Done. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2015&oldid=1090639230"