Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Active discussions
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

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Good article nominees

Articles to be merged

(6 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(9 more...)

Periodic table has an RFCEdit

 

Periodic table has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Samarium(III) sulfideEdit

Samarium(III) sulfide came to my attention as an unsourced stub that nonetheless meets our notability guidelines. It appears to be a semiconductor that is mostly studied as a thin film. Example sources include:

  • Kumbhar, V. S.; Jagadale, A. D.; Lokhande, C. D. (15 July 2013). "Supercapacitive evaluation of soft chemically deposited α-Sm2S3 thin films". Journal of Power Sources. 234: 107–110. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.01.078. ISSN 0378-7753.
  • Marin, Chris M.; Wang, Lu; Brewer, Joseph R.; Mei, Wai-Ning; Cheung, Chin Li (25 June 2013). "Crystalline α-Sm2S3 nanowires: Structure and optical properties of an unusual intrinsically degenerate semiconductor". Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 563: 293–299. doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2013.02.082. ISSN 0925-8388.
  • Aruga, Atsushi; Tsujimi, Sachiko; Nakai, Izumi (1996). "Crystal Structure of Samarium Sesquisulfide, .ALPHA.-Sm2S3". Analytical Sciences. 12 (1): 151–152. doi:10.2116/analsci.12.151.

I'll be too busy to expand this article right now. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have expanded the article, but in return can you please stop nominating chemical categories for deletion? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

HexachloroethaneEdit

Application in a specific protest was added into the article and I do not believe that inclusion of such into the chemical page is WP:DUE. Discussion at Talk:Hexachloroethane Graywalls (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Is The Faraday Institution within your ambit?Edit

They are all about batteries, it seems, and have no WP article. One of their employees has been given the job to write about them, but everything online is all based on their website, press releases, etc. No history seemingly is documented, for instance. However, I would guess that the Institution has archives on hand.

The unfortunate employee may not manage to get an article approved. If anyone out your way happens to be into batteries and history, they may want to help out on Draft Talk:The Faraday Institution or at the draft creator's Talk. In fact, anyone near London could even contact the Institution about their archives and try to gain access to them. risk offending the draft's creator.

I'm from the USA and from the insect and plant world, so I'm not that drawn to writing about the Institution; it just amazes me when something big and prominent is so hard to write about on WP.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Elsevier bookEdit

The newly published book is "The Periodic Table: Nature's Building Blocks An Introduction to the Naturally Occurring Elements, Their Origins and Their Uses" By J. Theo Kloprogge, Concepcion P. Ponce, Tom Loomis. isbn=9780128215388, 0128215380. Much of the chemistry content is taken directly from Wikipedia without attribution. I wrote to the lead author who responded: "We have used many different resources to write our book including the chemistry as reflected in the extensive References and Futher reading lists at the end of the chapter." Note: Wikipedia is not acknowledged. I also contacted Elsevier, the publisher, but it is a very large organization, so I am not optimistic that they will address the problem. It is inevitable that some losers would eventually repackage and take credit for our content, but it is still unfortunate. What can you do? Not much probably. If anyone has the time to independently inspect on-line versions of the book, you might notify Elsevier of any overlap that you detect. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Better contact some journalists:having an article in a newspaper spotting that problem will force the publisher to react. Snipre (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Some examples of copied or at least closely paraphrased content are in User_talk:Smokefoot#Possible copyright issue with an Elsevier book (should have posted my comment here instead of there) Is there some noticeboard where to report these kinds of plagiarism cases? Obvious WP:CIRCULAR potential here, if someone decides to cite this book when editing Wikipedia. jni(talk)(delete) 16:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I wrote to Retraction Watch. This book is nearly 1000 pages with lots of color images. My guess is that it was expensive to produce. Lead author claims to see no problems. The other two authors did not respond to my query. Elsevier is tough to crack. They dont exactly have a "report plagiarism here" link. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nitraus: Email received this AM from Elsevier: "I wanted to let you know that we investigated the plagiarism claim and found that many large sections throughout the book were taken from Wikipedia or similar sources, as you indicated. We are in the process of making the book unavailable on all of our platforms and withdrawing it for sale from all of our resellers.
Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention, and so quickly, so that we could remove it right away.
Best wishes for 2021," Many thanks for User:Nitraus for finding the problem.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Really a sad case, I have to just wonder how the authors didnt see this as an issue. You would assume that they would be familiar with the ethics of scientific writing having the positions they do. At least Elsevier acted. --Nitraus (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Good questions. Someone spent real money on this 1000-page color-illustrated book. My guess is that two senior authors wanted to showcase their geo-knowledge and their rock collections. And the junior author, a young woman in a Philipine university, was stuck with generating the chem content.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Full credit to you both for finding this and getting it dealt with. You might be able to get the whole story on 'In the Pipeline' or some-such, I'm sure a non-covid story would go down well at the moment. It serves as a interesting example: plenty of people still consider Wikipedia's articles to be of suspect quality, but in this case the book's editor/reviewer was reading them without knowing it and found the content good enough to be in a scientific textbook. It's a sign perhaps that this project is generating very good work in places. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Structural inconsistency among acetylacetonate complexesEdit

I noticed that there is an inconsistency in the structural formulas in Category:Acetylacetonate complexes, namely concerning the dashed bonds:

Is anyone aware of a IUPAC recommendation on how to draw the lines?

In addition, there are different types of ball-and-stick images, i.e. with and without dashed lines, e.g.:

--Leyo 09:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

the real problem is that at least two structures are incorrect. No way Ba is 4-coordinate and the Dy complex would typically has additional Lewis bases.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I made the Dy-complex diagram solely based on its given chemical formula ("Dy(acac)3 itself"). I agree it's likely to have additional ligands (looks like the commercial product is the hydrate but I don't know the hydration number). I can't find a gas-phase or matrix-isolation structure of the specific substance itself. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Part of the issue probably lies with the most common CAS numbers. 14637-88-8 (Dy) and 12084-29-6 (Ba) resolve the structures above and appear prominently in goggle if you search for the compounds by name. There are CAS numbers for Dy-acac as a trihydrate (18716-76-2) and Ba-acac as a general hydrate (206752-34-3) but they're obscure by comparison. Chembox supports multiple CAS numbers so we could include both sets with an explanation in the body text. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Well there's no fault for anyone, and admittedly I am picky about hydrates. Part of the problem is that these compounds are used as precursors by materials scientists, and all they really care about is that the precursor degrade to the oxides. I do think that Ba(acac)2 should be AfD'd. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd support that. Many of the more esoteric examples seems to have come from one enthusiastic editor. Our usual requirements for notability should apply, otherwise it's just stamp collecting. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I also support deleting the less notable ones (do we have consistent criteria for chemicals?). The OP asks about "how to draw the lines". I don't think that IUPAC gets in to that issue, since it usually sticks to nomenclature. For articles in Wikipedia, I think that the pseudo-3D representation is fine (assuming that the structure illustrated is in line with for example X-ray structures in sources). Note that representations in Chemspider and elsewhere often show these organometallic structures as salts with disconnected fragments. Chemical databases don't, AFAIK, allow partial bonds of the type implied by a dotted bond: they have to represent structures in conventional connection tables, and hence InChI strings. This leads to some difficult problems of representation, since the tendency is to draw one ketone in its enol(ate) form and the other as a ketone, which can lead to problems, since in practise the system is a resonance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we delete the errant pictures? If they remain on commons then some well-meaning editor will eventually reconnect them to the articles.--Project Osprey (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Definitely a good idea. But make sure there is a comparable correct image as replacement. Commons has a weaker standard than enwiki's WP:V/WP:NOR: "delete A because it's wrong" might be rejected by "but it's the best/only we have", whereas "delete A because B is a more correct version" is generally trivial. DMacks (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The errant images (could you list them?) should at least be removed from all articles before requesting deletion. Incorrect and orphaned files have a good chance of being deleted. --Leyo 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I've nominated the Ce and Dy images above for deletion. Not sure what to do about the Ba one as it's used in de:wiki and I don't know how to explain myself over there. I assume the other images are fine (@Smokefoot:)? --Project Osprey (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I updated several of the imperfect images. The Ln(III) complexes apparently are always 8-coordinate with two aquo ligands, although many L's are possible. The Ce case is curious because a Ce(IV)(acac)4 is also known (like Zr and Hf cmpds). I left a note on German article about the 4-coordinate Ba(acac)2 being bad. The English article on Ba(acac)2 is so heavily tagged that readers will know to be wary.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

List of compoundsEdit

I was reviewing the list of compounds and I noticed that a lot of super heavy compounds like SgCO6 are not in there and I don't know how to wikicode without doing to much damage. Not to mention some article are very vague about whether its a compound or not like NhOH. Can someone help? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The longest half life of Seaborgium is 14 min, for Nihonium it's about 10 seconds. What can we sensibly say about the chemistry of such elements - other than that it is brief? I doubt any 'normal' data exists as only vanishingly small amounts could ever be made (such levels of radioactivity would make bulk samples even less stable). What we're left with is fleeting observations, modelling, and to a certain extent conjecture. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Um, the fact that it exists and how its made? Besides NhOH and SgCO6 exist to I think, the article isn't very clear on that. plus fermium has to have some and einsteinium does too. Can't we put that in there? UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Blacephalon. You seem to be very interested in the chemistry of the super-heavy elements. For the reasons of very short half-life already mentioned, there is unlikely to be sufficient information in the chemical literature to make them independently WP:NOTABLE (in the very specific sense used in Wikipedia). For that reason, I feel that any discussion of them should go in the article about the relevant element. Any list of compounds such as at Glossary of chemical formulae should, for similar reasons, stick to those which have articles in Wikipedia (although I see that currently some are red-linked). There are at least 200 million organic chemicals in databases (see List of chemical databases) and clearly Wikipedia cannot have an article for each one, any more than it can have an article for each person on the planet. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I actually am very interested in the chemistry of ANY radioactive element. However I do suggest that we do something straight out of Wikipedia Pokemon and merge them into a group. But since I was previously told that it'd be too long, maybe we can group them by element rather than just grouping them anywhere. I feel like the lists of elements and compounds needs some work to be done on it and its gotten to the point to where we need to group it another way, ya know? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, can you make a specific proposal based on whichever example you think shows your idea the best? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think we should do 118 lists of every element and every compound it has and maybe a little more info? Just an idea. UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I figured you were going to say that but it seems overkill to say the least ;-) Are you the one who is going to type up the 200+ million each for hydrogen and carbon — and do you think readers will be interested? That's what databases are for and we already have Chemspider and Pubchem freely available, with links back to Wikipedia articles where one exists. I hoped you might suggest the more feasible task of listing the few well-characterised compounds known for the transuranics, where the list could go into the element's article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I really haven't thought of that. Well to solve this, maybe we can shorten those by not only linking the article like you said, but link an article of all the Hydrogen and carbon compounds if wikipedia has one. I was hoping to showcase the actinide series and the transneptunium series (Am I using that right?) by doing this but maybe we could add a separate column for any well known uses it might have. What ideas did you have? UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I've looked into this in more detail now and I fear that we are in more of a mess than I thought. Take [[Category:Inorganic molecular formulas]] for example. One might have hoped that all Wikipedia articles on inorganic compounds would be in this category via the re-direct pages for their molecular formula. This is only true for a minority. So while we find Uranium dioxide there as UO2, Uranium hexafluoride as UF6 is not included, although the redirect page exists. I suspect that the same may be true for organic compounds as well: the redirect from the molecular formula may exist but the formula itself may not be in [[Category:Molecular formulas]]. Furthermore it turns out to be impossible to search Pubchem, Chemspider, or eMolecules to find all compounds containing an element like Nh, your original example, Blacephalon. That's because the substructure searches are designed to be run on (part) organic drawings and the first step gets too many hits when the search doesn't contain anything except a rare element. So I'm afraid such list articles, even if warranted in some cases, will be impossible to generate in practice without great effort that is arguably not justified. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So is it really not possible to have all the compounds in Wikipedia? Maybe we can rearrange and add to the list. Can't we take from what wikipedia says about the compounds and update the lists there? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
You will also have to decide inclusion criteria. For the super heavy elements most compounds are hypothetical, and have no information published on them. There is no upper limit to complexity so there will be an infinite number of possible compounds. Wikipedia reflects published information, so we will have to be limited to that. That may include real or hypothetical compounds. And as mentioned before, the page has to be useful. We also have limits on the size of a page. For more extensive lists of substances, use wikidata. However I am working on many list articles containing mixed anion compounds, most of which are not-notable themselves. For common anion compounds of fleeting elements, they may get a mention in the article on the anion. I will also note that there are a lot of molecules of two elements that are not stable in bulk. These may exist in stars or be important theoretically, or even may need an article to say why the substance is not stable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Well we can maybe make a separate list of that in the future, but for now let's focus on compounds that we can prove are real first. I'm not sure what anions are (I think its negatively charged compounds but I could be wrong) but we could use some of that info to make the article. How about we can split the list up into organic compounds (H-Mo and Ru-Ra) and inorganic (Tc and Ac-Og) compound lists. We could exclude the H and C compounds by putting some of the most well known ones and moving on. What do you think? UB Blacephalon (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Chemical data pages - move to Wikidata?Edit

I recently became aware of the "data pages" located in Category:Chemical data pages and Category:Chemical element data pages - containing numerical information relating to various elements and compounds. These were all created long before Wikidata was a thing, and it's been brought up several times before that these types of pages probably aren't suitable for Wikipedia itself. (in 2007, 2015, 2016, and 2019) In the 2015 discussion, a couple of users objected to using Wikidata on the basis that it wasn't quite suitable for there at the time either due to technical limitations. As far as I can tell this is now a moot point, as all of the data included on these pages should fit into the site's current data structure without too much hassle (correct me if I'm wrong). Since it's been about four years since this issue was last brought up on this specific talk page, I wanted to know if there are still any objections to migrating this info to Wikidata. Would it be easiest to accomplish this by parsing the pages with a bot? Ionmars10 (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The information is probably too diverse for a bot. Wikidata may need more things created on a case by case basis to absorb this info. I see quite a bit that should be added to the chembox of the main article (eg Aluminium chloride (data page) could be fully merged), or could be in the main article, eg bond-lengths. Some might be moveable to a more specific page, eg solubility of xyz, or spectrum of acetaldehyde. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that some of the Category:Chemical data pages could be removed - namely those consisting of blank (or almost blank) tables which haven't been populated in 15-16 years (e.g. Valine (data page), Hydrogen iodide (data page)). I don't expect they'll ever be filled in, so we may as well merge them in to the main articles. Other pages, like Water (data page) I think should be left, merging to main-page is impossible but it's also probably a challenge for wikidata. Category:Chemical element data pages are different, I think they should be left as they are. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiserEdit

 

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of MDPI journalsEdit

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of MDPI journals. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § MDPI journals. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mary Ann MansighEdit

deletion discussion


Female programme writer, co-creator of moldyn method. Yo, we all need to come out for this one, especially if you're in the computational community in phy sci, bigly. Already posted on science wp's super-forum as well. Alder, Rahman and Wainwright are dead let's do this one while she still lives. Ema--or (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC) This one's still tight, people. If you know about Tsingou, the ENIAC Ladies, the Hidden Figures, Hamilton, and others (though not so much Hopper, she didn't really work in sci comp) then you should back Mansigh. She's a card-carrying member of that fellowship. Ema--or (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my non-NPOV canvas! Ema--or (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just an issue to discuss. Just wanted to name an issue, which I asked for consultation on, but was not able to get any thing on before the end of discussion. There is the issue of my inconsistencies on Mansigh btw main space and other-space, particularly afd- and Wp project-space, although it is particularly a matter for subjective interpretation. I’d like to end by once again apologising for any trouble and thanking anyone who offered any opinion or contribution to the chat, as well as for the space and audience in a place such as this. Bye, until the next time. Ema--or (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency in some Chemistry articlesEdit

I was doing some editing and research and came across this situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maleic_acid_dibutyl_ester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_maleate Dimethyl maleate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethyl_maleate Diethyl maleate

So Dimethyl maleate article is called that as is diethyl maleate. However, Dibutyl maleate (DBM) article redirects to Maleic acid dibutyl ester. Surely there needs to be some consistency. Probably needs a very experienced chemistry editor to look at. GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There is probably no reliable way to fix all these issues. In principle we have the general Wikipedia guidance to use MOS:COMMON, and hence give article titles the name most commonly used. Personally I think that Dibutyl maleate would be the one to choose and hence justify a move to be consistent with the others. However, as the Chemspider entry for that compound shows, it has been referred to by over 30 synonyms! We can use redirects to help with that (although I note that DBM as a synonym is not listed as one of the disambiguation terms for dibutyl maleate). Do you have a proposal to fix this and related issues, GRALISTAIR? Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My proposal would be to rename the Maleic acid dibutyl ester to Dibutyl maleate. (I dont think I have the permissions or skill to do that though) Once that is done I can add DBM as a synonym later. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Our article titles are indeed a little messy, but hey, we have redirects, which solve lots of problems. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the page. Dibutyl maleate does sound more systematic.--Project Osprey (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Chemistry".