Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

See also: Chemicals talk page, image request page, {{Chembox}} (talk).

Article alerts

Today's featured articles 01 May 2024 – La Salute è in voi (talk · edit · hist) will be Today's Featured Article; see blurb Articles for deletion 05 Apr 2024 – Man Singh (professor) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by User4edits (t · c) was closed as delete by Star Mississippi (t · c) on 12 Apr 2024; see discussion (6 participants) 04 Apr 2024 – Chirotechnology (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Ldm1954 (t · c) was closed as merge by Liz (t · c) on 11 Apr 2024; see discussion (7 participants) 28 Mar 2024 – Alpha factor (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Ldm1954 (t · c) was closed as keep by Liz (t · c) on 06 Apr 2024; see discussion (4 participants; relisted) 03 Mar 2024 – Elizabeth Moran (scientist) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by HyperAccelerated (t · c) was closed as delete by Arbitrarily0 (t · c) on 11 Mar 2024; see discussion (9 participants) 26 Feb 2024 – Sandrine Matiasek (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Justlettersandnumbers (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 04 Mar 2024; see discussion (8 participants) 28 Jan 2024 – Dihydroxyamine (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Graeme Bartlett (t · c) was closed as delete by Malcolmxl5 (t · c) on 04 Feb 2024; see discussion (8 participants) Proposed deletions 04 Apr 2024 – Platinaire (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by Reconrabbit (t · c) was deleted Categories for discussion 01 Mar 2024 – Category:Chemical Biology (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by ScienceChemBio (t · c) was closed; see discussion 24 Feb 2024 – Category:16th-century German chemists (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c) was closed; see discussion 24 Feb 2024 – Category:17th-century Dutch chemists (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c) was closed; see discussion 02 Feb 2024 – Category:Firelighting using friction (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Qwerfjkl (t · c) was closed; see discussion 24 Jan 2024 – Category:18th-century biochemists (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by Smasongarrison (t · c) was closed; see discussion Templates for discussion 11 Mar 2024 – Template:Reactionbox Name (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Gonnym (t · c) was closed; see discussion Redirects for discussion 18 Apr 2024 – Man’s red flower (talk · edit · hist) →Fire was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion 18 Apr 2024 – Man’s red fire (talk · edit · hist) →Fire was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion 18 Apr 2024 – Liquid nails (talk · edit · hist) →Adhesive was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion Miscellany for deletion 07 Mar 2024 – Draft:The prospective of Omniscient Alpha & Omega Thermodynamic Sigma ZG Matrix Technology and Traditional Thermodynamic (talk · edit · hist) MfDed by OverlordQ (t · c) was closed (deleted) by Liz (t · c) on 07 Mar 2024; see discussion Featured article candidates 13 Apr 2024 – Nonmetal (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Sandbh (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 11 Apr 2024 – Fiveling (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Ldm1954 (t · c); start discussion 02 Jan 2024 – Rhenium compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion Good article reassessments 31 Jan 2024 – Continuous distillation (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by AirshipJungleman29 (t · c) was closed; see discussion Requested moves 04 Apr 2024 – Ash (talk · edit · hist) move request to Ash (fire) by Crouch, Swale (t · c) was not moved; see discussion 17 Mar 2024 – Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society of Chemistry (talk · edit · hist) move request to List of honorary fellows of the Royal Society of Chemistry by BarrelProof (t · c) was moved to List of honorary fellows of the Royal Society of Chemistry (talk · edit · hist) by Killarnee (t · c) on 24 Mar 2024; see discussion 21 Feb 2024 – Atomic theory (talk · edit · hist) move request to History of atomic theory by ReyHahn (t · c) was closed to History of atomic theory (talk · edit · hist); see discussion 19 Feb 2024 – Hydrogen economy (talk · edit · hist) move request to Uses of hydrogen by Chidgk1 (t · c) was not moved; see discussion 13 Jan 2024 – Polymorphism (materials science) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Polymorphism (crystallography) by Mikenorton (t · c) was moved to Crystal polymorphism (talk · edit · hist) by Vanderwaalforces (t · c) on 12 Feb 2024; see discussion Articles to be merged 23 Mar 2024 – Hydrogen economy (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Low-carbon economy by Chidgk1 (t · c); see discussion 01 Mar 2024 – Bioprocess engineering (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Biochemical engineering by Hanif Al Husaini (t · c); see discussion 01 Feb 2024 – Epoxidation with dioxiranes (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Oxidation with dioxiranes by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 01 Feb 2024 – Nucleophilic acyl substitution (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Acylation by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 31 Jan 2024 – Carbohydrate chemistry (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Carbohydrate by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 27 Jan 2024 – Phase-boundary catalysis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Phase transfer catalysis by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2023 – Metal salen complex (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Salen ligand by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 28 Dec 2023 – Glyphosate-based herbicides (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Glyphosate by Gtoffoletto (t · c); see discussion 04 Dec 2023 – Glenn T. Seaborg bibliography (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Glenn T. Seaborg by Lemonaka (t · c); see discussion 07 Apr 2024 – Hydrogen purity (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to Hydrogen purification by Smokefoot (t · c) was closed; see discussion (4 more...) Articles to be split 08 Mar 2024 – Cytochrome P450 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Smokefoot (t · c); see discussion 05 Aug 2023 – Double bond rule (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by DMacks (t · c); see discussion 01 Jun 2021 – Lithium metal battery (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Thomaszwilling (t · c); see discussion Articles for creation 23 Apr 2024 – Draft:VPM's B. N. Bandodkar College of Science (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by WoahCinnamo (t · c) 13 Apr 2024 – Draft:Ryutaro Tsuchida (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Scfslyzkf (t · c) 12 Apr 2024 – Draft:PMCC polymer (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Cysun999 (t · c) 11 Apr 2024 – Draft:Parallelism (laboratory test) (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by ICON2022 (t · c) 05 Apr 2024 – Draft:Charge detection mass spectrometry (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by TxAg2000 (t · c) 02 Apr 2024 – Draft:Solution-friction model (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Wikimembrane (t · c) 28 Mar 2024 – Draft:American Peptide Society (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Jaidit (t · c) 25 Mar 2024 – Draft:Clemens Burda (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Sigma Spurion (t · c) 22 Mar 2024 – Draft:David H. Russell (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by YX7299 (t · c) 21 Mar 2024 – Draft:Gary J. Pielak (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Larssahl (t · c) (48 more...)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry

I might be wrong, but my feeling is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry (project page) was getting old and dusty. So I removed almost all of the to-do list (most had been done), and rewrote some global statements. Others are encouraged to revise or revert or overwrite what is there. Goals of this page might be to welcome, guide, and, maybe, boast a little. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to add to the to-do list as it is looking pretty sparse! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The "things you can do" frame? I can add some more articles as I find them in the cleanup listing. Just added Glucoside, as it's still largely based on a 1911 source. Reconrabbit 12:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Our editors

Somehow, I've only just become aware of this Bot, which keeps track of editors on any given wikiproject:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory/Description/WikiProject_Chemistry
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Directory/Description/WikiProject_Chemicals

Between about 120-130 editors edited 5 or more pages associated with WP:Chem or WP:chemicals in the last 30 days. Looking at the lists I can see everyone I would expect to see, plus highly active WikiGnomes and some spill over from adjacent WikiProjects - but about two-thirds to three-quarters I don't recognise. Obviously there will be false positives, but I thought the list might be useful to identify orphan editors or trouble makers. Project Osprey (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it will be that useful to us, since Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory has been inactive for quite some time, and User:Reports bot has not been updating any of the pages since 2022.

There is something I would like to bring up related to this though: is it possible for this Wikiproject to get updates on new discussions? I use the page that Reports bot generates on WP OSH and it's pretty neat. Reconrabbit 21:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that... blast! I wonder if that function is now performed by other bots? I had a look at ToolForge but I couldn't see anything similar. The talk page aggregation you're talking about also seems to be handled by Reports_bot (a part of it which is still working). It doesn't currently cover this project, I guess we would have to ask User:Harej? --Project Osprey (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Continuous distillation

Continuous distillation has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Polymorphism (materials science)#Requested move 13 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Polymorphism (materials science)#Requested move 13 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Chemists in the Spotlight: Portraying Joseph W. Kennedy in 'Oppenheimer'

I'm working on the Wikipedia article for Draft:Troy Bronson 2024, particularly his role in "Oppenheimer" where he portrays Joseph W. Kennedy, a chemistry key figure in the discovery of plutonium. This part of the article touches on significant scientific achievements and the portrayal of chemists in popular media.

I thought it might be interesting and beneficial to bring this to the attention of experts here. I'm curious about your thoughts on how chemists and their work are represented in films and media, especially in historical contexts like the Manhattan Project. Are there aspects or nuances about the portrayal of chemists and their discoveries that you think are often overlooked or misrepresented?

Your insights could help ensure the article not only highlights Bronson's role but also respects the scientific integrity and contributions of the real-life figures it depicts. Plus, it could be a fun way to bridge the gap between chemistry and popular culture in our content.

Looking forward to any thoughts or comments you might have!

EagleSleuth~~~~ EagleSleuth (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I think most people would be able to name a famous physicist (Hawking, Marie Curie, Newton) and maybe a biologist (Darwin?) but not a famous chemist. We're usually relegated to the status of 'scientists' in the media. We seem to be different than the other major branches of science. Physics and biology discover cool and useful facts, but chemists just make nasty stuff which people get angry about (plastics, pesticides, PFAS, vaccines etc). Our public image isn't great. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The unsurmountable temptation to copy - an indicator of high quality?

There seems to be a shift in the opinions regarding the quality of Wikipedia articles. Some of us veterans may still remember the times when referring to our articles was faced with scoffs and ridicule. Few years ago I spotted a book published by Elsevier that had utilized Wikipedia content to the extent it was then withdrawn. Now I found another, Heterocyclic Chemistry by Alvin Pugh published by Edtech Press. If one compares the entries of this book to the corresponding Wikipedia articles they might find surprising amount of similarities. The optimist in me sees this as a sign of high quality in our end and not as just the laziness and greed of authors and predatory publishers. Any other views? Nitraus (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Cynically, the Internet has conditioned people to expect information without having to pay for it, so folks now can't get money for proper writing/journalism and need to plagiarize instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Two semi-random samples. IDENTICAL wording in this book and Wikipedia.

Atrane: "Silatranes exhibit unusual properties as well as biological activity in which the coordination of nitrogen to silane plays an important role. Some derivatives such as phenylsilatrane are highly toxic." Identical." Benzbromarone: "Benzbromarone is a uricosuric agent and non-competitive inhibitor of xanthine oxidase[1] used in the treatment of gout, especially when allopurinol, a first-line treatment, fails or produces intolerable adverse effects." --Smokefoot (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"We're awesome, as demonstrated by other people's violating our license policy!" Last year, User:Smartse identified plagiarism from WP in two other Edtech Press titles.[1]. Nitraus or Smokefoot, please update WP:PUS when you find this situation. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Bicapped square antiprism

Hello. I am not an expert in chemistry, but I have an article related to this topic. In this source, the bicapped square antiprism may have an example of such cluster, that is ${\ce {Ni_{10}C(CO)_{18}^{2-}}}$. But I do not know whether this is correct (from the article I linked). I really appreciate someone explaining the technical of this chemistry topic. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr The sources do seem to support the text in our article. The links (to Google books) give the specific pages with the information. I don't like the section title "Application" in the article: I would rather call this "Occurrences" or "Examples". You should be able to get a better feeling of the geometry of the antiprism by clicking on the 3D model image: this opens to a larger version which can be moved around to get a comparison with the diagrams in the publications. I presume that the chemical details were confirmed by X-ray crystallography. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

For such "deltahedra", the boron hydrides are always a good source. Check out the closo clusters [B₁₀H₁₀]^2-, [CB₉H₁₀]^-, [C₂B₈H₁₀], [NB₉H₁₀]. There may be some zintl ions with that geometry.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

doi:10.1021/ic00099a031 supports this geometry for [C₂B₈H₁₀] using electron diffraction. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Another example: File:Decaborate(10)-dianion-from-xtal-3D-bs-17.png. Ben (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull. Thank you for suggestions. But I think that applications is more suitable in the context, and we have two GA articles Square pyramid and Triaugmented triangular prism in which the geometry of chemical compounds explicitly described in the applications. I do think there are some other applications of gyroelongated square bipyramid, and the section of that article may have some connection with a project.

As well as explanation of the article I linked, is it possible to create a new article Bicapped square antiprism molecular geometry, along with the sources provision? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I the ideal world, we would edit square antiprismatic molecular geometry, with a subsection on the capping processes. In that way, we could also acknowledge the mono-capped shape corresponding to the nido clusters related to B9H13.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm no expert in chemistry once again, and maybe for the better idea, creating a section that contains a similar chemical compound: square prismatic and cubic geometry, capped and bicapped square antiprismatic molecular geometry? But perhaps we already have capped square antiprismatic molecular geometry, and the bicapped one could fit inside as well? That's my opinion; any other ideas are welcome. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Someone needs to check the symmetry groups: C4v and D4h for mono- and bicapped? --Smokefoot (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The point groups look fine to me, assuming that the substituents are all the same excluding the center. Bicapped square antiprismatic might just be d4 though depending on the identity of the different species, but that might leave you with a different geometry altogether. (Update: Just confirmed that it should be D4d. D4h is the group for a bicapped cube.) Reconrabbit 00:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of which, in the article Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory, what does 4n rules means here? Does it refer to the triangular face polyhedron? I'm kind of planning to add them to the article I linked, but it is not very clear to describe such rules, and it is somewhat technical to comprehend. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

n refers to the number of electrons provided by a vertex. I'm a little rusty on it, but HB "counts" as a 2-electron vertex. B has three valence electrons (third column) but allocates one electron to forming a very strong B-H bond (H provides the other). The remaining 2e are then available as the glue to hold the polyhedron together. The main parameters are number of "cluster electrons" and the number of vertices (B, C, metal atoms). There are magic numbers, which give deltahedra. Its a big area. Things get complicated because, for example, Fe(CO)₃ also is viewed as a 2-electron vertex. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Functional group compatibility

It appears that we lack an article on functional group compatibility. If anyone wants to create it, the new article or new section would be immediately linkable to multiple pre-existing articles, which is always very satisfying. One thought is that it could be a section within Protecting group or within functional group. March's organic text refers to the term 5x within the context of specific reactions. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

How to write crystal water in the chem template

For Tahoka Formation, how do I write the dot between the water and the rest of the formula? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't use chem, it has ugly output, instead use chem2. Chem2 converted the * to a centre-dot · . However I prefer to use • as it is more visible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Split x-ray diffraction from x-ray crystallography

I propose splitting X-ray diffraction out of X-ray crystallography, discussion started at Talk:X-ray crystallography#Split x-ray diffraction and crystallography. The two are not the same, and there are many areas of XRD where the focus is not on detailed determination of atomic positions. Examples are powder diffraction where comparison is made to known samples, SAXS and many more. There are many areas/pages where it is relevant to say "use XRD" but wrong to say use "X-ray crystallography This would also help to improve the current rambling X-ray crystallography page. Comments to the X-ray crystallography talk page please. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Definitions of chemical element

Is there a reason the definition of chemical element seems to vary according to the date you look at the article ? Currently it is defined as a monotypical atomic substance, but a few years ago it was the "species of atom with same atomic number" that was used. I wonder why it's not even mentioned in the article now, the Goldbook cited in the introduction gives the two. frwiki, dewiki, itwiki uses the atomic one, if I'm not mistaken.

The first one seems more complicated and actually a bit dated/historical, the second one is more convenient. The first one is « simple substance  » on Wikidata and there are several wikis that have articles about that. Maybe we should sort the interwikis and move articles to the right item ? TomT0m (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)