Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

  (Redirected from Template talk:Chem-stub)
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Article alerts

Did you know

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Peer reviews

Articles to be merged

(4 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(1 more...)


I found some missing chemicals.Edit

Bowlane, Alkaplane and Octaplane. --Sharouser (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

In general, chemical compounds should meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. Are there sufficient reliable sources about these compounds to support their notability? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
see Draft:Octaplane and please add to it. There appear to be at least three book references with several pages each on octaplane. There is also a little on bowlane in these too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User GroupEdit

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead Processing Plan Occupational Safety/Environmental Health Discussion at Doe Run CompanyEdit

There is a discussion over at Doe Run Company that might interest people in this wikiproject about the safety, health, and environmental impacts of lead processing facilities. -Furicorn (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Fire for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Fire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fire until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Glyphosate synthesisEdit

The scheme below is currently shown in the synthesis section for glyphosate - Commons shows that its being used on several different wiki's. The first step makes no sense to me and I'm very sure its wrong. I'm guessing that it's supposed to be chloroacetic acid and ammonia with Ca(OH)2? I don't currently have any editing software, would anyone be able to overwrite the commons image with a corrected one? --Project Osprey (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


If you mix chloroacetic acid and ammonia, you likely get an acid–base reaction to form ammonium chloroacetate in situ. The WP article notes that this mixing is what is done (and comparable to ammonium acetate it seems like one could start with that salt?). However, the ref explicitly says this is not the order of mixing ("chloroacetic acid is added to a solution of NH3 and Ca(OH)2"). The whole process descriptionin the article is convoluted, and the discusion of the synthesis of iminodiacetic acid should be offloaded to that article's page since it does not matter how it is formed (and the ref says there are many ways). Although the ref does say "The production of IDA is often part of the integrated glyphosate process." so at least having its synthesis-equation here also might be reasonable? But the ref doesn't support this specific IDA method as being especially popular, so I think it's not best to have this synthesis-equation if we were to have any. Which brings me back to "omit it". DMacks (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
For now, I replaced that image with just the second equation from it:
And adjusted the article content accordingly. Anyone is welcome to create some "synthesis of IDA" diagrams...especially for the Iminodiacetic acid that currently has zero content or images for any of its synthetic routes. The cited ref by Dill (free PDF) has some good details. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister projectEdit

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I oppose this idea, but sense that the horse is out of the barn. If you want to publish, then do so as an adult and deal with other adults. If you want to be a pretend scholar, join the boy scouts and earn merit badges. Next "wiki-authors" and "wiki-scholars" will invade Wikipedia and start citing this amateur stuff as if it is quality. We already have or at least had a problem with editors using Wikipedia as sort of a blog or a forum to cite themselves. Maybe I am too cynical. What next? Wiki-PhDs? Wiki Professors?--Smokefoot (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Smokefoot, the example papers E&E has linked have gone through external public peer review by credentialed expert reviewers. I don't see how they're any less "adult" than conventional peer-reviewed papers. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 12:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Then what is the point of all this Wiki-journal exercise? Is this exercise a workaround for open access? No, Wikijournal looks like a workaround to give nonplayers the false impression (IMHO) that they are players.
Want to write a review? Fine, write one and send it to a real journal with an illustrious, established editor, anonymous and illustrious reviewers, all operating under an editorial board exerting expert scholarly control, copyeditors and layout experts, etc.
But like I said, this initiatives is one that will not be turned back because that is just how things seem to work. Those that edit Wikipedia catch a whiff of the scholarly universe in which they are not participating, and they want to participate more fully. And if they are not allowed to participate in that scholarly world because they are unqualified (or too lazy to try to submit to a real journal), then these editors/aspiring scholars will recreate the review-like system.
Those are harsh words from an old-school editor that loves and admires Wikipedia, and wishes Wikipedia would stay Wikipedia. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggested edits related to diatomic bond orders and s-p mixingEdit

Scientific references for s-p mixing and bond orders in diatomic molecules include Dekock and Gray's textbook [1] and Chen and Manz's recent journal article [2] . These two sources establish that s-p mixing makes the bond order in diboron greater than 1 and the bond order in dicarbon greater than 2. (1.) Diboron: The article Single bond states: "Usually, a single bond is a sigma bond. An exception is the bond in diboron, which is a pi bond." As the two sources listed above showed, the bond order in diboron is between 1-2 bonds and greater than 1 bond due to s-p mixing. Therefore, diboron is not an example of a single bond. (2.) Dicarbon: (a) The article Diatomic carbon states: "Molecular orbital theory shows that there are two sets of paired electrons in a degenerate pi bonding set of orbitals. This gives a bond order of 2, meaning that there should exist a double bond between the two carbons in a C2 molecule.[3] One analysis suggests instead that a quadruple bond exists,[4] an interpretation that was disputed.[5] CASSCF calculations indicate that the quadruple bond based on molecular orbital theory is also reasonable.[3] Bond dissociation energies of B2, C2, and N2 show increasing BDE, indicating single, double, and triple bonds, respectively." The statement about molecular orbital theory yielding 2 bonds for dicarbon is incorrect, because when s-p mixing is included molecular orbital theory gives a dicarbon bond order between 2-3 bonds. [1][2] (b) The article Molecular orbital diagram states for dicarbon "The molecule can be described as having two pi bonds but without a sigma bond.". This statement is known to be incorrect, because it neglects s-p mixing which is present in this molecule.[1][2] (3.) Information in the article Molecular orbital diagram is chemically inconsistent. The section s-p mixing correctly describes s-p mixing for Li2 to N2. The listed bond orders for diboron and dicarbon appearing on the same page are incorrect, because they do not include s-p mixing. Diboron is stated as having a bond order of 1; this should be ~1.75[2] (or 1-2)[1] because of s-p mixing. Dicarbon is stated as having a bond order of 2; this should be ~2.75[2] (or 2-3)[1] because of s-p mixing. (4.) Is there interest within WikiProject Chemistry to include an article or article section on diatomic bond orders? Would an article titled 'Diatomic bond orders' be appropriate? Would it be better to include a section on bond orders within the Diatomic molecule article? Would it be better to include a section on diatomic molecules within the Bond order article? The recently published heuristic model for all period 2 homodiatomics might make an interesting table of bond orders: Li2 = 1, Be2 = 0.75, B2 = 1.75, C2 = 2.75, N2 = 3, O2 = 2, F2 = 1, Ne2 = 0.[2] These bond orders are consistent with molecular orbital diagrams including s-p mixing for Li2, Be2, B2, and C2.[1] These bond orders also agree with bond orders derived from the bond lengths, as well as those computed using high level quantum mechanical calculations.[2]

Blue rover (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d e f Dekock, Roger; Gray, Harry (1980). Chemical Structure and Bonding (2nd ed.). University Science Books. pp. 183–271. ISBN 978-0935702613.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g T. Chen; T. A. Manz (2019). "Bond orders of the diatomic molecules". RSC Adv. 9: 17072–17092. doi:10.1039/c9ra00974d.


Is this correct and notable? Ketal formed using 4-dimethylaminobenzylidene? BTW it seems that this name is applicable to only one drug. Similar with e.g. Cyclopentanonide, Pentanonide. Acetophenide and Acroleinide seems a bit more popular, but still... I came across it on Wikidata. Wostr (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the meaning given in the article is a drug-term (a shortened form of a piece of a systematic name), just like the other two words in "Triamcinolone aminobenzal benzamidoisobutyrate". This should probably be merged into Benzylidene acetal, as a specific and novel example of class. DMacks (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I looked up crystal structures with N-C6H4C(H)(OC)2 skeletons in the Cambridge Xray database, thinking that maybe the 4-dimethylaminobenzylidene might be common. About 10 structures, and most are nitro derivatives (O2N-C6H4C(H)(OC)2), not anilines. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Expert help is needed at Gel pointEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Gel point. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Saturated and unsaturated compounds vs Saturation (chemistry)Edit

We probably should resolve these two articles so that the distinction is a little more crisp.

One scenario:

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello. I am from the New Pages Patrol. Someone created this page: C15H25N3O into an index page for Caproxamine and Lisdexamfetamine. I have no idea if this is accurate. Can someone from this project or the daughter projects verify the accuracy of this page. Your help is much appreciated. Regards ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: the Infobox for each of those pages lists "C15H25N3O" in the "Formula" field. I also checked the structure-diagrams (the line-image) in each infobox and found that they match as well. DMacks (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
OK. I didn't notice the infoboxes. Thanks DMacks for looking into this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for NPPing and thinking to ask in a relevant active place! DMacks (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


There is a group of polymer chemists from IUPAC who want to work on bringing the Polymer article to FA. Hopefully there will be some serious work done on that article soon, but some guidance from here would be very useful and welcome. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

That's good to hear. It's an important article that could definitely use some improvement. Since this project is much more active than Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers, I would encourage them to bring any questions or concerns here. They should get more prompt responses here and the regulars are friendly and helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The polymer area is so big and in a way so mature, that most of the referencing should/could be achieved by reference to textbooks and encyclopedia, per WP:TERTIARY. Good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Why not aim for GA first? -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Some missing sections would be on history, use, and biologic function. But the article has to have a suitable level of detail, so that some content may have to go into the sub/related articles. Overall there should probably be 2 to 4 times as many references. Another step is peer review prior to a FA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, this is all helpful advice. I'd certainly support the idea of GA first. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussionEdit

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4-Ethylamphetamine had to be extended because additional input is needed. Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in contributing. ChemNerd (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Article alerts updateEdit

As a heads up, the alerts will now report proposals for mergers and splits, as well as AFC submissions. There's a bit of a backlog, but now you have a way to track it! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Some orphaned chemistry articlesEdit

Hello, I've been trawling through the orphaned articles categories and found a couple I could use help with: thioselenide and purinones. Are these important enough subjects to require standalone articles? If not, could they be merged, somewhere? Or is deletion in order? I can do any necessary legwork, I just need to be steered the right way by people who know what they're talking about (ie, not me). ♠PMC(talk) 13:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I added a bit of referenced content to thioselenide, enough to suggest it shouldn't be deleted, but perhaps it can be merged somewhere. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Ooh, and you de-orphaned it, brilliant, thank you :) ♠PMC(talk) 22:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

<chem>: an AI for people having structureless mindEdit

A miraculous AI achievement: the software is able to determine when the formula reaches a certain "complexity" and switches its syntax rules without warnings. The people of 2010s like AI – it brings equality between right and crooked hands, between the smart and the stupid. Everyone intelligent is susceptible to making the syntax wrong as much as an idiot who can’t tell a hyphen of a colon. Poor old guys like Incnis_Mrsi are confused – they are accustomed to predictable syntax patterns which permit for making localized tweaks without considering complexity of the whole code. Poor Incnis_Mrsi was able to avoid breaking most <chem>s only using suggestions by Mhchem (talk · contribs · central auth · count · email), who added several phrases to the manual. The phrases are about things not interesting for modern people – really, who may override default typesetting or care about other similarly dull things? It’s the domain of (Microsoft Office)-style AI. What an arrogant prick is this Incnis_Mrsi to imagine he knows how should be set in glyphs. And who likes the (Cold War)-era syntax now? This legacy cruft was favored by such people as Dennis Ritchie (C) or Donald Knuth (TeX), but modern developers are cooler than the dinosaurs. Modern developers may master even such languages as PHP which was unlikely possible in the 1970s or so. What for nowadays? Just push your dumb keyboard, username, and don’t try to bring any order into the resulting groups of characters.

Seriously speaking, users who voted this AI punk into WP:MOSCHEM now earn my disgrace. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I am sure that use of <chem> and {{chem}} is deprecated here. {{chem2}} has some acceptable features. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Good news. I suppose nobody here objects throwing the unsyntax out of the atmosphere of Mars into deep space. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
We don't really stake much of a claim on the astronomy pages. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
An example of astronomy topic is atmosphere of Makemake. Atmospheres of Mars and even of Pluto are not astronomy… anymore. Welcome to the Space Age, Project Osprey. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The thing escalated to Help talk:Displaying a formula #RfC on <chem> where a user edit-wars against me apparently in favor of <chem> (or perhaps mostly for personal reasons, not sure). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Related: Template talk:Chem2‎‎ #Unexpected wrapping. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Chemical formula pagesEdit

I wrote an anon bot that gathers a few data from chemical infoboxes including chemical formulas. (Here is the list of formulas and articles.)

Now I am checking formula pages in enwiki and correct them manually. 80% of formula pages are redirs to compounds and over 3000 such redirs are missing. The list is on my user page.

I want to create them with a bot and am asking for your approval to mass-creating. Gyimhu (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the principle.
So "formula page" is like [[C100H132N26O13]] and you want to create these, as a redirect? Is this a common rewriting in chemistry? What if the formula is not just empirical (symbols & number-of-atoms only), but has structural info like ()-brackets?
It could be helpful to check formula on a infobox with the formula on wikidata. A difference might indicate an error. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Many isomers of C
Si may exist, not necessarily triethylsilane. Moreover, redirects are cheap, but not exactly costless. Does Wikipedia really need this burden in redirects to thousands compounds? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
For the complex organic molecules these redirects are not useful. However for the simpler inorganic compounds the formula redirect will be useful, as it is quite likely to determine the compound and article. For most of the multicarbon organics there are many known isomers and so the page should be a disambiguation or set index, even if many of the possibilities are not notable at this point in history. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to chemistry, Incnis Mrsi. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Special:Search seems to do a good job of finding articles by chemical formula as long as the infobox itself does not both manually override the default Hill order of the chemical formula and also omit the InChI. And it does so with zero maintenance (neither creating a redir not converting a redir to a DAB). DMacks (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
There's possible (probable) overlap with Category:Dictionary_of_chemical_formulas. I'm indifferent to this idea, I never search by formula myself but I'm sure there there are those that do, or would wish to without having to resort to Special:Search. Would some sort of complexity cut-off be necessary? - I can't imagine anyone actually searching for C100H132N26O13. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Chemical formula consists of atoms and number of atoms. All characters are alphanumeric. Organic compounds begin with C continued with H, the rests are in abc order. E.g. isomer page of formula C6H2(NO2)3CH3 will be C7H5N3O6.
I think this pages are more useful for organic compounds. The formula page contains isomers. If only one compound exists with a formula then the page is redir to the compound. 80% of formulas are uniq (redirs). I create/update the (not redir) isomer pages manually so it is an other case.
The isomer page is not my idea. My experience is that ⅔ of organic (more exactly: C-containing) compounds have correct isomer pages. There is ~18000 compound articles in enwiki, C is in ~15000, and in ~1400 my bot didn't find formula because they are polimers, more then one compounds in Formula field of infobox, or my bot didn't recognise formula because of crystallic water, more given formulas, isotope in it and there are few other reasons. Gyimhu (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
What the user is speaking about and why s/he pings me? Again, for most of the multicarbon organics there are many known isomers – it is about a scientific fact, not the user’s idea. Which namely of isomers should have (or are expected to have) distinct articles in en.Wikipedia is not a question solvable by a bot. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
He. Sorry for ping. I came recently from Hungarian wiki and there it is custom.
I wrote a bot that gathers chemical formulas from articles, order them and make them searchable. If there is only one compound with a formula then it is possible to create redir article by a bot. This is only a technical problem. Isomer pages with more then one compounds are different because they are used as disambiguation pages in enwiki and contain not only formulas but other information too. Gyimhu (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

To user:DePiep: I tried to compare formulas in wikidata, enwiki and huwiki. Wikidata is hopeless: full of errors. There are many compunds where there are quite other compounds in content and article name. I corrected a few then gave up.

Yes, nobody will search for C100... but the most formulas have only 10-20-30 carbons.

InChi is a good idea and I have plans with it and with SMILES. Gyimhu (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My point with InChI is that by defintion it already always includes the exact formula in its first layer. So it's guaranteed that the formula will be findable by searching. And I re-iterate my serious concern about keeping this up-to-date. I think it's worse that we have a formula page that does not link all existing articles than to have no formula page at all. It substantially hides what we actually do have as new pages are created (bias towards older compounds), rather than having them all automatically and equally visible.
If I understand your last sentence, you have a longer-term plan to create redirects for InChI and SMILES strings? I strongly oppose. Nobody wikilinks to specific compounds that way and again they are all already and automatically visible to searching both using the wiki search-engine and google itself. We tested that extensively when developing the hideable fields of chembox and during several validation and bot-monitoring projects. DMacks (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
DMacks, in my experience a search using the molecular formula of a certain chemical compound will not always result in finding the page for that chemical, even when that page includes both the molecular formula and the InChI in the infobox. Taking a random example, if I put C19H22F2N4O3 in Wikipedia's search box, the results don't include sparfloxacin. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
If I put it in quotes, that article was the only hit (which also means it's somewhere in the list when not quoted, though I'm not going to page through 52K hits to find it). As an alternative, I tried limiting the search to subcats of top-level chemistry and drug cats, but the number and depth of categorization overflowed Mediawiki's little brain. DMacks (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not that dangerous. :) My plans are for my homepage. First I want to write a program that compares chemical formulas with InChi and SMILES and list articles where they are missing. The results can be uploaded to a wiki page in my homepage or to an enWiki user page as you wish.
There were several thousands of formula pages (including redirs) when I started correcting them. The set of chemical articles is a special form database. I have been database admin for 20 years: I know that a database is either complete in some respects or not worth much. At least as bad are the wrong data. The database already exists: the best we can do to fix it I think. Later the maintenance is possible using a bot: it can list the changes in articles. Subsequent manual maintenance is no longer a big task.
After creating the redirs I find necessary another manual check where the bot checking fails. My bot is already monitoring the changes: the only thing to do is formatting the output. This is the next step.
A have created ~1000 redirs manually. This is a boring and time consuming task. Gyimhu (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Sidebar periodic table}}Edit

Can anybody look at this new concept for the sidebar? It provides hints for notation of groups and periods which may look cryptic for some people. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. There are no recent "new" things. "Hints"? (I pinged WT:ELEMENTS). -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
No recent "new" things, whaaaaat?? Yes, it perhaps is more topical for WP:WikiProject Elements than here, I unfortunately forgot about it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Sandbox proposals, then. Please propose changes properly. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Comparing the latest versions of the template and its sandbox (special:diff/896356272/910384468), the only differences I see are the addition of <span>...</span>, which doesn't seem to have any impact that I can see. Unless there is a specific reason for adding that stuff, I'd prefer to stay with the current one. But perhaps someone can enlighten me as to what benefit the <span>...</span> provides. Perhaps I'm missing something really obvious. YBG (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the request. Under "By periodic table structure" I can see three headings: Groups (1--18); Periods (1--7, …); and Blocks (s, p, d, f, …). So, I guess the PT can be structured by Groups, Periods, and Blocks. And if I want to know more I can click on a w/link. For an info, this looks OK to me.

The sandbox changes look OK to me. They add little fly-out boxes to each of the w/links. Sandbh (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I like those extra boxes that appear when you hover over the links. Double sharp (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is the diff. -DePiep (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Will anybody help to characterize the group 3? Or any idea to make titles less verbose? To some extent we should conserve the end user’s bandwidth yet. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, now I see the difference. My general impression is that it is trying to cram too much info into an navbox and presenting that info in what seems to me to be an unexpected way that seems to come close to an WP:EASTEREGG. But this is not a hill I'd die on. If the consensus determines that what appears to me to be unnecessary clutter, then let's change the period titles, for example, from Period 2: Li–Ne, 2 < Z ≤ 10 to the more quickly readable Period 2: Li–Ne, Z=3–10 or something similar. YBG (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
And just a random thought: I suddenly disliked [my own] “Li–Ne” as the dash may be taken for a symbol of covalent bond. Going to replace it with “Li … Ne”. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Now I get it. The changes use the <span> title attribute a span to describe the topic (wheareas otherwise we would see the target article title). The title appears as a box, also knows as "tooltip box". As it happens, when hovering over with the mouse, my settings also show a preview of the article lede section (don't know the gadget name, sorry).
As YBG writes, it is cramming extra info in there (while still not being complete eg re the elements list of a period). Unlike YBG, I am not convinced yet. I think this is a slight misuse of the title attribute, and therefor not recommended HTML-wise. However, I cannot find the documentation on this. (Unfortunately, we have used this gimmmick a long time, eg here; I'm not sure about that one too).
So I'd prefer this usage be researched first (ask WP:VPT?). -DePiep (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
If title is used in {{abbr}} which is transcluded to thousands articles, then what’s the merit to discuss its use in navboxes specifically? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
From {{abbr}}: "The template {{Abbr}} is used to write an abbreviation with its meaning. It is a wrapper for the HTML element <abbr>...</abbr>, the element used by most web browsers to create a tooltip indicating the meaning of an abbreviation or acronym."
So: the http element <abbr> is not <span>, and so is not its title attribute definition. So the abbr reference is inappropriate.
Now both title attributed do signify a true title (for example, showing the title of an article in regular wikilink hovering). But in no way a title should be confused with a description, as the current sandbox proposal does.
On top of this all: the template mentions (in top) a link re {{Tooltip}} deprecation: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_9#Template:Tooltip. I think this RfD clearly prohibits "tooltip" text other than abbreviations. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion cited WP:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Text which advises against such things… in articles. It was silly not to consult MoS beforehand, but now asked for clarifications about navboxes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Science projectEdit

I just happened across the article Science project, which looks rather unloved. Expansion would be welcome and probably not that difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Diketone vs dicarbonyl: future move?Edit

We have a nice compact article on diketones, encompassing 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-diketones. I am guessing that most chemists would rather consult an article on 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-dicarbonyls, which would include the keto-aldehydes and the dialdehydes. Its a big class of compounds, and one could foresee future splitting into individual articles, such as 1,2-Dicarbonyl (biacetyl, glyoxal being prominent), 1,3-Dicarbonyl (acetylacetone and malondialdehyde being prominent), etc. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a useful re-organization of the material. It could also absorb Keto acid, an article that likewise does not have any unique unifying chemistry except by structural definition. DMacks (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
As specific unifying themes of position regardless of functional group, then the 1,2 section/article could talk about the general effect of the adjacent C=O (bond length, electrophilicity); the 1,3 section/article about formation by aldol-like addition, enhanced tautomerization, and as metal ligands; etc.. DMacks (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

SME needed for Draft:Inorganic carbodiimidesEdit

Could somebody please review Draft:Inorganic carbodiimides. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Intermetallic compoundEdit

Do we have any naming conventions about intermetallic compounds such as CaPt2, MgCu2, etc.? --Leiem (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know we use the most common name. Sometimes the literature only uses a formula. The title would then be the flattened formula. CaPt2. MgCu2. Then we could use an IUPAC name, but it may be unsourced. I have made up names for some articles I wrote. You could use calcium platinum or ?? Calcium diplatinide?? ... Let me see if that's a thing! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
It appears not to be in use, as the term is only used on Wikipedia talk pages. But platinide appears valid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Dictionary of Inorganic Compounds calls MgCu2 "copper magnesium (2:1)". ChemNerd (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The names in SciFinder are "Copper, compd. with magnesium (2:1)", "Magnesium, compd. with copper (1:2) (8CI)" and "Magnesium copper (Cu2Mg)" . --Leiem (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for input regarding Merge RequestEdit

There is a request for the merger of the Anionic addition polymerization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article into Living anionic polymerization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at the Merge Request Noticeboard. Discussion is at an impass. Your input is welcome at the discussion page >>>HERE<<<. Thank you, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Chemistry".