Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2021

Archive 2015

←

Archive 2019

Archive 2020

Archive 2021

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

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) 11:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Help request

Help from someone familiar with the intricacies of pKa values is requested at Talk:Carbonic acid. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Beryllium chlorate

Does Beryllium chlorate really exist? One ref is https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_the_Alkaline_Earth_Compo/yZ786vEild0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Beryllium+chlorate%22&pg=PA79&printsec=frontcover, but that section also calls it chlorite, and has a formula for perchlorate, and suggests it is a hydroxy compound. The melting and boiling point look extremely dubious. So I am suspecting it is an unreliable source. Chemicalbook is not reliable and a listing in PubChem does not prove it exists. The only reliable reference I can find is [|10.1135/cccc19290377] from 1929, where it could not be made. So should we be deleting this beryllium chlorate page? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. SciFinder gives a CAS Number (94007-89-3) and all of 7 refs, none of which look promising (mix of computational studies and very obscure journals). Chorates are usually formed by metathesis but my understanding is that Be²⁺ ions are essentially unheard of in solution. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if it exists in theory, surely it is not notable enough for an article? The article was only created a week ago, by Keresluna, and perhaps that editor can tell us why it seemed important to them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, the same editor recently created a page for Potassium nitride, for which the only reference, dated 1894, states it does not exist and that earlier references saying it did were wrong! Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beryllium chlorate. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I am a beginner but I try to do everything right. I am sorry if I caused any trouble. I think both pages should be a redirect. Thank you for understanding. Keresluna (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. @Keresluna: We do have limits on imaginary chemicals. There could be an article if several people have written about them. But for a beginner, I suggest you stick to the chemicals that have actually been produced! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Prostaglandin-related articles as an example of cross-discipline issues

I have started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Molecular Biology#Time for an overview? that you are invited to join. It uses prostaglandins as an example but highlights some generic problems with incomplete, duplicated and sometimes misleading sets of articles. Project groups should have a role in taking an overview and improving our overall coverage of topics that cross boundaries between medicine, molecular biology, pharmacology and chemistry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 April 2021

Note: The edit request if for the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Organization, whose talk page redirected here.

The page has a missing end tag Lint error. It is in this line where the closing italic tag is missing -

| [[Urea]] || style="background-color:lightgrey;text-align:center;" | '''B-Class''' || ''See also [[#Building blocks|Building blocks]], more chem, references

Consistent with the closing tag in other rows, the italic tag should be closed after the Building blocks link -

| [[Urea]] || style="background-color:lightgrey;text-align:center;" | '''B-Class''' || ''See also [[#Building blocks|Building blocks]]'', more chem, references

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added in the '' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles for creation

As, unlike many other WikiProjects, there appears to be no area on this WikiProject where people may suggest new articles, I will place these here in the hopes that someone may be able to create them (or create the proper redirects to already-existing articles):

• Anthranol
• Methyleneanthrone
• Benzalanthrone
• Tetraphenylpropenol
• Diastereoisomeride
• Indolinol
• Eserethole
• Methylphenetidine

173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Chemistry. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Chembox validation

@DePiep: has suggested that we drop chembox validation, with those green ticks or red crosses. In my opinion I like to see a green tick as it makes me think that the value has been checked. However I see many people are useing blank templates that already have {{cascite|correct|??}} in them. This is clearly wrong, as the first time the value is put in it should be marked as changed, as no one has checked or validated. With the red cross, it suggests that the value is wrong, when in reality, the value is changed. Perhaps we should have a blue question mark to indicate changed. For wrong values, they should be removed, or have a comment added if they are relevant but wrong. Also User:CheMoBot seems to be inactive for about 3 years, so automation is not happening.

So should we give up on chembox validation with templates like cascite? Should we be adding proper references and links to the _Ref= subparameters, for those that are not self linking (eg CAS not from commonchemistry, inchi, smiles)? Are we ready to extract Wikidata values to fill chemboxes? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Some more info: Here a talk was started by Leyo about the presentation of |CASNo= in {{Chembox}}. Since many acting wiki-things come together (such as the CAS RN verification-&-bot in {{Chembox}}), I mentioned this aspect -- one of half a dozen. IMO best would be to pull that thread more generic (that is: into this talkpage), and discuss various issues mentioned. Hope I can help, the issue is complicated. -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Compounds of ..., would benefit from a plan or a template

@LaundryPizza03: Articles are being written on "Compounds of [your element here]". We can expect many of these articles. It seems that in these early days, we might explore some sort of template or plan for these articles. One suggestion is to follow the organization used by Greenwood and Earnshaw. Here is their organization for titanium:

• 21.3.1 Oxides and sulfides
• 21.3.2 Mixed (or complex) oxides
• 21.3.3 Halides
• 21.3.4 Compounds with oxoanions
• 27.3.5 Complexes
  • Oxidation state IV
  • Oxidation state 11I
  • Lower oxidation states
• 21.3.6 Organometallic compounds

If we could agree on a plan, we could quickly generate the several proto-articles with sectioning, then allow them to get filled in with time. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User:LaundryPizza03 is currently trying to organise them under "[element] compounds", so if you have any strong feeling on page-titles you might want make your mark now. Otherwise, there are currently 19 such pages listed at Category:Chemical compounds by element. There may be others hiding somewhere. In general sectioning by oxidation state seems sensible but I note that for a number of existing pages (Thorium compounds, Yttrium compounds, Oxygen compounds) there's only really one state to talk about. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the previous consensus was "compounds of .." but I don't really care. We should include a redirect from one style of name to the other. I have a tracking page at User:Graeme Bartlett/elementlist. For the subsections we probably also need binary compounds, for some we will need a section on anions and their salts. Cluster compounds are also of interest. There are yet other thngs that fall out of these categories like carbonyls, and amides. For non-metals the article may need a different page structure. Perhaps a reference to minerals is also relevant. Other subheadings might be organic acid salts, and compounds from living organisms. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

CAS Common Chemistry greatly expanded

(Also posted at WT:Chemistry.) Chemical Abstracts Service just made this official announcement: CAS Common Chemistry has now been expanded from the original 7800 to almost half a million substances, and new content added. This puts far more CAS Registry Numbers into open use, and the site itself is now listed as having a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. Previously the pages was mainly names, structure and Wikipedia links; the new version now includes some basic physical properties such as MP, BP, density. Some of you may recall the discussion last year on choosing the "top million substances"] - this was in fact part of this project, but we needed to keep the source of the project under wraps at the time - but it helped us define the substances that matter. I hope Wikipedians appreciate the value of CAS working in the open domain much more than we saw previously.

The long-term plan is to refine the site as time/code allows, and both Wikipedia and Wikidata links will be added once we've figured out all the matches. Links from Wikipedia to CAS do seem to work, and I think that's true even for substances not previously in Common Chemistry. Egon Willighagen is coordinating this project and the cross linking in Wikidata. Walkerma (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a great advance. Before our chembox CAS link almost always had no results, but now it is coming up with something more than half the time. I note that if using the search function, you have to get an exact match on the name. Eg "Niobium diselenide" or "Niobium selenide (NbSe2)" works, but not "Niobium selenide" or "NbSe2". Search seems to work with canonical SMILES but not valid variants. (I have not checked stereoisomers yet). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone have the skills to implement a switch whether the chembox link to the Common Chemistry database is provided based on this type of information? --Leyo 13:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Cannot offer responses in coming weeks. -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I asked for assistance: WP:VPT#Accessing Wikidata references as plain text --Leyo 11:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The link is now omitted for chemicals without a referenced CAS number in their WD item (Special:Diff/1021643641, Special:Diff/1021645226). However, so far it is not possible to consider only references to the CAS Common Chemistry database. Hence, there are still dead links, but at least for fewer chemicals. --Leyo 21:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, as we update related things we should make sure to add the CAS numbers as redirects for compound articles. Be sure to add the {{R from CAS number}} redirect category. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Trimming some navboxes from alcohol

Alcohol has a crazy amount of navboxes:

Extended content

I'm afraid I don't understand too much of the chemical /pharmacological side of things and I was wondering if someone here could have a look and trim some navboxes? I'm crossposting at WP:CHEMICALS and WP:PHARM. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that is extensive. Everything starting with 'Transferases' or ending with 'modulators' is perhaps best decided by WP:PHARM. As for us, I don't think removing {{Alkenes}} or {{Orgchemsuffixes}} will cause any controversy {{Amino alcohols}} can probably just be deleted outright. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely support this, looks like someone indeed trimmed them to something reasonable. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

ALC-0315 19,337 (Total) 644 (Daily) Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Not so surprising, since it is a component of the Pfizer BioNTek vaccine. The article is not extensive but still gives the key details and, importantly, decent references. Did you have suggestions for improvement, Coin945? I would be happy to expand it further, having made minor contribution to it already. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have knowledge of this subject myself, but the fact that many people are turning to the Wikipedia article for authority on the subject tells me that the more comprehensive the better. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the patent, linked at the bottom of the article, (page 137) the last step of the synthesis should be worth inclusion, with a diagram. Although not likely to be the manufacturing method, per MOS:CHEM we usually show the first published route to a new chemical. I'll get on to that tomorrow. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Somehow, I just dont think that COVID-motivated readers are going to be very interested in the synthesis of this greaseball. Probably they would be curious about the recipe for the lipid nanoparticles, perhaps, with respect to the components, and how these components function to protect the mRNA, whether they leave a residue, approx how much is in a normal dose.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Who knows why people view a particular article, Smokefoot? Per MOS:CHEM. I've now added a short section on the synthesis, with proper attribution to the inventors. Incidentally, I think that the chemical reaction shown has some useful learning for chemists and even non-chemists. The formula is much easier to envisage when drawn as simple text and the use of sodium triacetoxyborohydride is a classic reductive amination. There's another subtle feature I've not included in the article: the starting acid is chiral (although almost certainly made as a racemate) but the product is meso, so non-chiral. Thanks, Coin945 for your lists here and at WT:WikiProject Chemistry#Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject, they are very helpful to focus us on articles people are actually reading! Perhaps you should document your searches somewhere? Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kinds words! As stated above, I've now coined these articles: 'PoP pages' (those which are an unfortunate combination of 'Popular + Poor'), giving the flocks of readers an unadequate information on a subject, and leading to a potential pop in the fragile balloon surrounding Wikipedia's reputation. I've taken the list from here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Popular pages--12:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Who knows why people view a particular article,..." Really? --Smokefoot (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe now a "Start", Coin945? Not for me to upgrade the article as I don't like marking my own homework but you could make the reassessments on Talk:ALC-0315. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Some super starts

FYI, here are the most viewed starts:

• Favipiravir 68,277 2,275 Start Low
• Molnupiravir 63,557 2,118 Start Low
• Ambergris 55,221 1,840 Start Low
• Erythritol 48,296 1,609 Start Mid
• Methocarbamol 45,150 1,505 Start Mid
• Triamcinolone acetonide 40,542 1,351 Start Low
• Fexofenadine 37,420 1,247 Start Mid
• Turpentine 37,111 1,237 Start Mid
• Colchicine 36,489 1,216 Start Low
• Tetrodotoxin 34,099 1,136 Start Mid
• Nicotinamide 33,355 1,111 Start Mid
• Celecoxib 32,132 1,071 Start Low

--Coin945 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a look at these and mostly they are rated "C" by at least one other project, usually because they are of interest as drugs. Nevertheless, our rating of "start" could be justified as their original synthesis (as per MOS:CHEM) or current manufacture, is usually missing. Taking nicotinamide as an example, the earliest synthesis is going to be in the 1800s German literature, which can be difficult to track down and for the synthetic drugs it will be in patents which again can be hard work to find (although I've done it for several pesticides which I'm more interested in). Maybe readers don't care about that aspect, although these are not "greaseballs" (that's a joke, not a dig at Smokefoot!). It's also possible we just haven't re-rated these articles recently. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Standardizing some navboxes

I'm implementing a standardized meta-template for chemical compound navboxes formatted like a monochrome periodic table, such as:

• Template:Acetates
• Template:Azides
• Template:Bromides
• Template:Carbonates
• Template:Chlorides
• Template:Cyanides
• Template:Fluorides
• Template:Hydroxides
• Template:Iodides
• Template:Nitrates
• Template:Nitrides
• Template:Perchlorates
• Template:Phosphates
• Template:Phosphides
• Template:Selenides
• Template:Sulfates
• Template:Sulfides
• Template:Tellurides

The template is at User:LaundryPizza03/sandbox/Salts by element and a testcase (for Template:Bromides) is at User:LaundryPizza03/sandbox/Salts by element/testcase. Any last comments before I move this template to template space and start converting?

I feel like some of the other chemical compounds navboxes could benefit from such a conversion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that there are more consistent outputs, and makes it simpler if new elements are added, or deleted. Perhaps also markup is simpler with less chance of mangling the table. But LaundryPizza03, what advantages do you see? One disadvantage is that the order of elements could become untidy in the source code. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Right now, some of the templates differ by aesthetics in an unappealing manner; it's common practice in most places to standardize groups of similar templates. Template:Phosphates also looks a bit cramped. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

also there is Template:Bromates (missing from Category:Chemistry compounds templates) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I moved to Template:Salts by element and implemented the above for everything up to Template:Chlorides except Template:Bromates. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks good. Some elements do not form chlorides, such as helium, neon, etc. Is it possible to change the background color of these elements from misty rose to light gray? --Leiem (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

the goal of these templates is laudable, but the details are often misleading. I mean look at the sulfates and nitrates... these things are more complicated than just imagining the binary sulfates/nitrates of common oxidation states. Many do not exist and some that could be construed (maybe in a mass spec) are probably super rare. These templates risk imposing high school (or worse) chemical preconceptions that just dont work.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's another thing. The anhydrous sulfates, nitrates, acetates, etc. are usually esoteric. It is the hydrates of these compounds that are so important, usually. So we have a template that often directs readers to either incorrect formulas (Ga2(SO4)3 which I have tried to fight against, but was overruled) or stuff that just doesnt matter (anhydrous ferrous sulfate). Just sayin' that this templating thing hopefully is a work in progress. --Smokefoot (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we need indexing on the formula in chembox, so that hydrate or salt variations can be covered by multiple entries - and in that case it could move to Identifiers section. The templates could include the different hydrates, if they have separate articles. This may be the case for minerals. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Substituted tryptamine

Substituted tryptamine is a mess. We have an unreferenced main article, plus Substituted alpha-alkyltryptamine and List of naturally occurring tryptamines. Should the lists be merged into a single List of tryptamines? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I agree this is a messy WP:CONTENTFORK and we should have everything consolidated into a nice single page, if anyone wants to take on the challenge! Mdewman6 (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have merge-tagged all the articles. I suggest creating a Draft:List of tryptamines and cobbling the list together there. How do I mark this discussion to keep it out of the archives? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how to keep this from being archived, but I would think we could reach consensus on the merge before it risks getting archived. As long as discussion continues in this section periodically I don't think it's at risk. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride#Requested move 25 May 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride#Requested move 25 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI this discussion was improperly closed by a participant and then this closure was reverted, but the discussion has not been relisted at requested moves. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Article title format for compounds with Greek letter prefixes

It looks like we need to amend the chemistry naming conventions to clearly address article titles for compounds with Greek letter prefixes, such as β-carotene. At present, the article on that compound is at Beta-carotene, but it's name is rarely written as such and appears to only be titled this way to avoid the use of the Greek letter, perhaps due to perceived technical limitations with page naming on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Prefixes_in_titles clearly presupposes that use of Greek letters in article titles is allowed, and such articles exist, such as α-Acetyldigoxin, through use of either {{lowercasetitle}} or {{displaytitle}} templates. At present, articles are titled using both approaches, and there appears to be no guideline for which is preferable. Two recent requested move discussions illustrate the problem. α-Ketoglutaric acid was recently moved to its title with the Greek letter prefix from Alpha-ketoglutaric acid after one discussion, while Alpha-olefin sulfonate was moved from α-Olefin sulfonate in another, nearly simultaneous discussion. Those pages that spell out the Greek letter prefix nevertheless typically use the Greek letter in the lead and infobox, so since there are no technical limitations to using the Greek letter in the page name, we should do so, in line with WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:LEAD. I would like to reach consensus one way or the other so we can work toward having consistent article title formatting. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support use of Greek letter in appropriate article titles, despite statement in one of the discussions mentioned above by LaundryPizza03 that we do not use non-Latin characters in article titles. We should follow MOS:COMMON as our guiding principle, which for certain chemicals means Greek prefixes and WP:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Prefixes in titles confirms this is acceptable. There will need to be a re-direct for all these articles from the corresponding "alpha-" or "beta-" title, since the Wikipedia search box doesn't work directly with Greek letters, although it can find them using "A-Acetyldigoxin" or "B-carotene" for example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• For chemicals commonly in use by the public, you will find that the spelled out "alpha", "beta", "omega" is more likely to be used. I guess that in English the public are not expected to recognise Greek letters. eg Omega-3 fatty acid, Omega-6 fatty acid. Even though I like the use of α, β, ω etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll have to use some discretion here, if the article is more about a product than the chemical compound, and specifically discuss some cases, but for articles on compounds I think we can make a general rule. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Support If we can use the correct name then we should, but as Graeme Bartlett points out no one is typing those characters into a search bar. Wikipedia's search suggest drop-down list also doesn't work if the α, β or ω is missing - try searching for 'olefin sulfonate' and see. So we'll need redirects for all the articles. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely we will need to ensure that all applicable redirects are in place, like both B-carotene (Arabic capital letter), Β-carotene (Greek capital letter), etc.. These should already be in place, regardless of what is decided here, so that whatever is entered allows users to reach the page. I will note that if you enter (or copy/paste) β-carotene into the search bar, it brings you directly to Beta-carotene, as it should, so intrinsically this really isn't a problem. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Renaming could spill over into MCB project too eg Alpha-2 adrenergic receptor, Alpha-aminoadipate pathway (which has a chembox) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Checked Alpha-2 adrenergic receptor. The references in our article uses "alpha" but the actual articles uses α. Regardless of the name of our article, we should not change the title of the references. Christian75 (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I just checked refs 1, 2, 4 in that article—the first three refs that use "alpha" in their title. Two of them actually use α in their title on the doi-linked reference item. I often see references pasted-in from various databases or other tools that do all sorts of mangling of the original. DMacks (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we recommend that chemical diagrams use coloured heteroatoms?

MOS:Structure drawing currently suggests that all chemical diagrams should be black and white. However, modern drawing packages now support standard atom colours and that's the default for images at Chemspider and Pubchem, although not for CAS Common Chem. Vortioxetine and I had occasion to discuss this today and agreed that atom colouring helps readers understand the chemistry, so we would like to seek a consensus to change the advice for new line drawings of chemical structures and reaction diagrams to use colours. The preferred file type would still be .svg and hence anyone wanting to convert a coloured structure back to B&W would find that easy to do.

We are not suggesting that colour use would be mandatory, nor that we would waste time converting existing B&W diagrams to colour ones, just that the MOS guidelines would state this as the preference. The only previous discussion of this I can find was back in 2008, at WT:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing workgroup/Archive 1#Colored atoms in structures but that didn't lead to a change, despite some support. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Weak oppose: In general I'm not terribly bothered either way, as I don't see it being much of a help or a hindrance (unless I suppose, you were trying to draw attention to part of a very large molecule?). My only objection is for page consistency. Many pages use images made by a variety of people with a variety of software. When the MOS has been followed this isn't always obvious, but when it hasn't and the drawing styles are all different the pages can look distinctly patchwork and unprofessional. I worry that colours might add to this. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Sulfur is always yellow (  in the Jmol coloration scheme used by most 3D models), which can cause accessibility problems on a white background. Ditto similar-colored atoms like magnesium   and chlorine   in methylmagnesium chloride. I wouldn't disallow it, however, where WP:COLOR is obeyed, or for other uses like highlighting key radicals. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose but worth discussing For the reasons listed by Project Osprey and LaundryPizza, I oppose general coloration. I agree with the comment that in some cases, coloring can be useful as illustrated by this image from chiral pool:

Use of verbenone (in red) as precursor to the drug paclitaxel.

Also I want to add that it is good to discuss ideas like this, and then summarize consensus (if any) in our MOS.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

weak oppose as it leads to more cluttered diagrams. However there may be some reason to highlight a particular atom, in which case colour could be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am not opposed to the use of color if the context calls for it, but I don't think we should have the MOS generally call for colored heteroatoms in structures. In most cases colors are distracting rather than helpful, but in certain cases color can be used to emphasize a particular point. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mdewman6 (general B&W but defintely allow color for highlight as relevant in context) and LaundryPizza03 and Project Osprey (inability to have enough distinct and accessible colors, interfereing in reuse outside of specific contexts). DMacks (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Mdewman6 and DMacks. Walkerma (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks everyone. The consensus is clear that heteroatom colours are not necessarily helpful and that other uses for colouring (as in diagram above) should take precedence. I'll update MOS:CSDG with some of the important points made here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I adjusted it. There are two distinct color-use cases, one consensus-oppose in general and the other individual-image-context-specific. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Infobox physical properties of samples due to impurities

Twice in the past few weeks I and others have adjusted odor or color entries that had content related to common impurities in actual samples rather than the intrinsic nature of the chemicals themselves. In both cases, the article had fuller information (statement about when-pure and also the likely impurities and their effects). I think the infobox, where space is limited, is best to have single details and focus on the chemical itself. But I could also see a case for including another detail (with footnote explaining slightly) for how a real-world sample is likely encountered. What are others' thoughts? DMacks (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have been really picky about this aspect. To be more inclusive (of those non-picky readers) I use phrases like "[old/aged/impure/...] samples can appear [yellow/brown/tan/...]". See Sodium ethoxide, Calcium hypochlorite, Osmium tetroxide, Squalene, Bronopol, , Methyl chloroformate, 2-Phenylethyl bromide, Chloroacetamide, Silicotungstic acid, Iodine pentafluoride. The issue is complicated for commercial materials that are produced and used in a semi-sloppy way, like pesticides (Captan), common building blocks (acryloyl chloride), and diverse additives (tetrabromobisphenol A). Of course, almost all alkyl amines are colorless, but they appear yellow owing to air oxidation. A related issue is English: we cannot really write "when ABC is pure, it is colorless" because when ABC is not pure, it is not ABC. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, to quote Albus Dumbledore "we must choose between what is easy and what is right". Personally, I think the chembox should shown info on the pure compound, with any messy realities being explained in the article text. Colour isn't trivial; in industry it's an important proxy for purity. Products which are analytically pure but wrongly coloured will simply be rejected by customers. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Project Osprey and I think that Smokefoot and DMacks are inclined the same way. The chembox should show the accepted consensus of the "true" value of a given property. Thus while MOS:CHEM/Chemicals#Preparation says that we should report the first synthesis of a chemical (sample), the melting point etc. shown in the chembox is very often different from that in the quoted primary source. In only a limited number of cases would the fact that a chemical in a real-world sample had a different colour, odor or MP/BP be worth mentioning in the text of its article. The principle is in line with the idea of reporting on a chemical substance rather than any particular chemical sample. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride#Requested move 25 May 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride#Requested move 25 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI this discussion was improperly closed by a participant and then this closure was reverted, but the discussion has not been relisted at requested moves. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Note, this discussion is still open, but no longer listed at requested moves. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted again. WP:AN has been notified to investigate this mishap. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: It was apparently closed by one of the participants of the discussion, who then removed the closed discussion wrapper. It should be reopened. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

GAR notice

Benzylpiperazine, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Hog Farm _Talk 06:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Iron sulfide

This disambiguation page has 63 incoming links from mainspace, including redirects. These should be retargeted to a more specific compound, where applicable. Is iron(II) sulfide the WP:PTOPIC? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a set index rather than a disambiguation page, we have hundreds of them. It's an inevitable effect of many compounds sharing similar common names. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that many of these links could point to a specific compound and someone could certainly examine each individually to decide whether it makes sense on a case by case basis if they were so inclined, but the general iron sulfide should remain a set index. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A WP:set index article is a special kind of list article, and should have references like all articles (except disambiguation pages). Most of the links to our SIA should probably be fixed. E.g. first link to iron sulfide (from alloy): "Sulfur combines readily with iron to form iron sulfide,..." (both sulfides or one of them?) Christian75 (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

excessive archiving?

I think archiving everything without discussion after 1 month is excessive and unnecessary and is actually hiding away discussions that could conceivably continue, since we often discuss big changes that take a long time to flesh out and implement. Can we use a different archiving bot, or otherwise change the settings to something like 6 months? Also the latest archives (2021) are not linked, which I will try to fix now. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the bot settings to only archive once 6 months has passed from the last timestamp. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert or change accordingly and discuss further here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Article title format for compounds with Greek letter prefixes

Based on the rough consensus in a recent discussion that was archived (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2021#Article_title_format_for_compounds_with_Greek_letter_prefixes), I have added some text attempting to make more clear a convention for handling compounds with Greek letter prefixes in their titles at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Prefixes_in_titles. Let me know if there are any questions or concerns, or feel free to improve what I added. I will begin to start moving some articles accordingly and see how things go, beginning with Beta-Carotene. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I support this conclusion. Esp using redirects, we can cover the issues systematically and correct (esp wrt search, link and keyboard). -DePiep (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. So long as Romanised redirects exist for search purposes. There should be a way to identify all relevant pages within the project... but I forget how. Toolforge is just uninterpretable these days. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aluminium monohydroxide#Requested move 5 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aluminium monohydroxide#Requested move 5 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Sodium hypobromite

Is there purposely no infobox image? --Leyo 10:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Leyo: There is File:Sodium_hypobromite.png, but I don't know if there is a reason not to use at least that or anything else. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of that image (that has a low technical quality). --Leyo 11:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Several simple inorganics, e.g. Potassium chloride don't have chemical structures in their Chembox. It has a photograph of a white powder on a watch-glass, which, frankly is difficult to verify as that substance. Maybe a space-filling representation of the crystal structure (see also the KCl article) would be appropriate, assuming anything is actually needed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Potassium chloride has its crystal structure in the chembox. Photographs are another topic. --Leyo 11:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Sodium hypochlorite cannot be isolated as a anhydrous compound; the closest you can get is the pentahydrate. I suspect sodium hypobromite is the same. So the question becomes 'what image best represents it'? As it's mostly handled as an aqueous solution (where it would be dissociated into ions) I think separate 'sodium' and 'hypobromite' images would do the best job. File:Hypobromite.svg should do. --Project Osprey (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What about these images? They arent perfect but at least one can see the halogen-O bond.

--Smokefoot (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. What about rearranging in a way that the two changes are next to each other? Moreover, it would be beneficial to increase the standard size as it currently is quite small on the file description page. --Leyo 10:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I do believe that some kind of image is helpful to show that the two ions are actually 'Na' vs. 'BrO-' (beyond explaining in the text). The chemical formula in the infobox is BrNaO (using Hill), which is not informative either. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I also support including the ionic representation for ionic substances. And I would agree with omitting solvate details, even if in fact the substance is only known in solution (hydrated ions). The image should match what we call the chemical (self-consistency) and how non-experts are taught to understand it in most contexts (WP as a part of the real world). I think including the explicit covalent bond within a polyatomic ion of an ionic substance is also useful, as it emphasizes the two different types of bonding and clarifies why that set of atoms isn't just a bunch more individual ions. Especially for monocation/monoanion substances, I think it's best if the cation is adjacent to the anion ("Na^+  –O–Br" rather than "Na⁺  Br–O^–")

Some editors on commons fundamentally object to almost all ionic structural representations of many substances (cf. crystal structures or skeletal diagrams of purely-covalent substances), even those that can be isolated in pure form. Given commons policy is to host whatever the wikipedia sites wish to use. we should make it clear here (enwiki) what is acceptable as standard representation. DMacks (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I am grateful for the above advice. At least readers can see that a bond exists between Br and O with these images. Based on DMacks, our tentative consensus preference is "Na^+  –O–Br" rather than "Na⁺  Br–O^–" or "Br–O^–  Na⁺".--Smokefoot (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Chembox for polymers

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Chemicals#Infobox says:

Chemboxes should be used for all chemical compounds, so long as they can exist in that form, even for compounds which are not isolable in pure, solvent-free form (e.g. hypochlorous acid). Chemboxes should not be used for ions, polymers, and proteins and enzymes (except simple peptides).

Is that last sentence still correct? I spot-checked and we have chemboxes on most inorganic ions (e.g, chloride) and polymers (e.g., Nylon 66). The summary on the top-level CHEM-MOS page does not make these exclusions either. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry#Compounds says:

All articles on chemicals, real or hypothetical, should have a Chembox. Formulae should be readily available, variables like n, x, or y are permissible for substances of variable composition such as polymers.

The first sentence simply says "all" and the second gives details related to polymers. Should the /Chemicals MOS be changed to match current practice? DMacks (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this would be a good extension of the scope. Were there prohibitive reasons back then?

Just noting: From Wikipedia:WikiProject Polymers § Templates: "Currently most of the polymer articles use {{Chembox}} as an infobox. Some use simple tables. An infobox completely dedicated to polymers has not yet developed". Begs the side-quesion: is {{Chembox}} technically fit for polymers and ions? (Could it use adjustments for these?). -DePiep (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should change the MOS to remove the polymer and ion restriction. There is explicit support for ions with Formula_Charge=. Perhaps we need support for polymers such as monomer=. I note many databases do not represent polymers well. Proteins and protein enzymes are covered by Template:Infobox protein. Another problem is mixtures, eg pigments which also often use chembox, and then will show up on exception lists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Chrozophoridine

I started an article about Chrozophoridine, a dye derived from a plant. The article includes a link to the journal article about the chemical, but I wasn't sure how to fill in the blanks in {{Chembox}}. If this is of interest to you, please help. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have added smiles and inchi. But I don't know the 3D structure of the sugar component (or how to correctly add @ and @@ to smiles). KNApSaCK, PubChem and ChemSpider do not appear to list this molecule. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The "1000-year-old mystery..." ref says the sugar is glocose, so that would mean all the chiral carbons on that ring are known. There are two atropisomers at the bond that links the other two rings, so we should probably have a regular skeletal of the permanent sugar stereo with the rest of the structure flat, and then two more that illustate the rotamer options. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Beryllium sulfite

We have an article on Beryllium sulfite which as far as I can tell does not exist. So I have marked it as a hoax. But perhaps someone else here knows better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

AFDed. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The structure of Nitromersol

We currently show Nitromersol as having an fused 4-membered ring. This matches the CAS depiction (and I guess the SMILES?) but all the other organomercury compounds I know of have bond angles of close to 180°, so a 90° structure seems a little strained. The only alternative is to break the Hg-O bond, giving an inner salt. SciFinder doesn't know of a crystal structure, CSD might but I don't have access. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

doi:10.3390/ph11020054 (2018) says "Nitromersol is a bicyclic compound", but provides no ref. The synonyms that SciFinder lists are consistent with the four-membered ring, and its IR does not have a substantial O–H stretch. I was hoping to find melting-point data to help decide if it might be oligomeric, but I couldn't find it. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Cant find it in the Cambridge Xray database. I searched the name and the 2-nitrophenylHg core. The closest thing is https://www.journal.csj.jp/doi/pdf/10.1246/bcsj.43.3070, which is open-access but marginally relevant. I chased DMacks idea of 8-membered C4O2Hg2 ring with no luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

If you draw the dimer, with Hg-O bonds between adjacent rings, then you can have 2x 180° C-Hg-O bonds. I'm just postulating there but it seems more realistic. To me, it's either notable as an extreme example of bonding, or notable for every depiction of it being wrong. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A SciFinder substructire search for phenoxy with ortho mercury as a four-membered ring gave mostly results that do not contain a C–C–Hg–O ring (despite that being part of my given substructure)...CAS oopsie? None of the other actual matches have IR or NMR data, many are theoretical-only. I do see some C–S–Hg–S four-membered rings with experimental data. DMacks (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it has a structure more like phenylmercuric nitrate with a methyl group somewhere on the ring. The smiles string matches the diagram, as can be seen from the JSmol image which suggests the ∠CHgO is less than 90°. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The original preparation I found is patent U.S. patent 001,985,949, which starts from any of several nitrophenol compounds. The process is acetoxymercuration (a known reaction that reasonably follows electrophilic aromatic substitution site selectivity), followed by treatment with base. I think it's unlikely that the nitro would rearrange from the ring onto the mercury. I can't find NMR, MS, or EA data, any of which would let us decide among a bicyclic-type vs monocyclic-nitromercurial. DMacks (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The oxymercuration reaction supposedly proceeds via a 3-membered Hg-heterocycle and although that isn't stable it may imply that a 4-membered ring isn't quite an improbable as I first thought - perhaps? I think part of the problem here is that this stuff was developed back in the 1930's (based on something similar called 'mercurophen') and probably hasn't seen much attention since. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Even odder, given that we have to follow sources, is that the InChI=1/C7H6NO3.Hg/c1-5-2-3-6(8(10)11)4-7(5)9;/h2-3,9H,1H3;/q;+1/p-1/rC7H5HgNO3/c1-4-2-3-5(9(10)11)6-7(4)12-8-6/h2-3H,1H3 quoted in the article (without a source) does seem to be correct for the six-four fused ring drawing BUT the StdInChI = 1S/C7H6NO3.Hg/c1-5-2-3-6(8(10)11)4-7(5)9;/h2-3,9H,1H3;/q;+1/p-1 (Chemspider and elsewhere, including using Biovia draw to interpret that text) converts to the strangest drawing I've ever seen, with a carbon radical and a charged mercury. That's how one of the chemical suppliers (bocsci, banned link so see Chemspider for this) depicts the structure. I suggest we let sleeping dogs lie! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we'll have to leave this here, for want of data. I've left a summery of this discussion on the article talk page in the faint hope of someone finding some data in the future. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

RM Alpha-olefin sulfonate to Α-Olefin sulfonate

An editor has requested for Alpha-olefin sulfonate to be moved to Α-Olefin sulfonate. Since you had some involvement with Alpha-olefin sulfonate, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).Havelock Jones (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Substituted tryptamine

Substituted tryptamine is a mess. We have an unreferenced main article, plus Substituted alpha-alkyltryptamine and List of naturally occurring tryptamines. Should the lists be merged into a single List of tryptamines? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I agree this is a messy WP:CONTENTFORK and we should have everything consolidated into a nice single page, if anyone wants to take on the challenge! Mdewman6 (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I have merge-tagged all the articles. I suggest creating a Draft:List of tryptamines and cobbling the list together there. How do I mark this discussion to keep it out of the archives? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

    Not sure how to keep this from being archived, but I would think we could reach consensus on the merge before it risks getting archived. As long as discussion continues in this section periodically I don't think it's at risk. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that this thread was archived, I have reverted it and am adding this comment & timestamp to buy another month. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A merge seems reasonable, but given that there are (in all 3 articles) text describing the properties of these, I think that a merge of all to Substituted tryptamine, with either a section for one list, or multiple sections for relevant sublists, might be a better approach than creating a new list page. Klbrain (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Have had a go at cleaning up and expanding. Nearly ready for a merge, just got to copy a couple more across from the "List of naturally occurring tryptamines" page so they don't get lost. Meodipt (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Sodium trititanate

Redirect for discussion going on. See 2021_October_29#Sodium trititanate -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

this area of alkali metal titanates seems obscure, but probably harmless. These articles are created by folks that dont appear to have much knowledge of inorganic chemistry. Sodium metatitanate is a shitty article despited having been started years ago. That the article has not improved over the preceding 15 years indicates that the topic is obscure. According to ChemAbstracts Na2TiO3 has about 310 citations, most are sort of peripheral.

The core of any article on inorganic compound ordinarily would be the Xray structure, period. The X-ray structure tells readers two things: what the stuff is and that it can be obtained, to some extent, in pure form.

Here is a quick check of Na2TiO3 situation from searches: CsNaTiiO3 was structured in the 90's:

• Zwei neue Metatitanate mit fünffach koordiniertem Titan: CsNaTiO3 und RbNaTiO3 C. Weiß and R. Hoppe Zeitschrift für anorganische und allgemeine Chemie 1995 Vol. 621 Issue 9 Pages 1447-1453 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/zaac.19956210902

Only in the past few years have the ternary phases been characterized:

• Synthesis and crystal structure of Na2TiO3. S.-Y. Mao, X.-X. Ren and Z.-H. Zhou Chin. J. Struct. Chem. 2008 Vol. 27 Issue 5 Pages 553-557
• Study on the transformation from NaCl-type Na2TiO3 to layered titanate. Y. H. Liu, W. Zhao, W. J. Wang, X. Yang, J. L. Chu, T. Y. Xue, et al. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2012 Vol. 73 Issue 3 Pages 402-406. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpcs.2011.11.009.

The first journal has no DOI. The fact that the Na2TiO3 structure was buried in a Chinese journal probably tells us that the work got rejected from a Western journal or that the authors did not think that the work is impactful. Just sayin'--Smokefoot (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

We're supposed to discuss over there. -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I know.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021

Hi! I would like to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes paid by WMEE and WMCH) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for the USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photo, infographics or video to Wikimedia Commons, please consider submitting them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Bogus compound OsI₄

Now we have an article on Osmium(IV) iodide, which does not exist. It was claimed to exist in the 1893 reference and debunked in 1962. Should we just delete this page or convert it to one on dihydroxonium hexaiodoosmate? Perhaps we could leave it as it is, but this OsI₄ may not be notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lamro: specializes in weak chemistry articles with weak referencing and weak data overall. I support redirecting to some hexaiodoosmate salt.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Update since editing, @Keresluna: has moved this to Osmium iodides. It was originally created as Osmium(II) iodide by @Lamro:. So, yet another sensible possibility is to keep this as renamed, but it will need to be rewritten! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I redirected antimony(III) nitrate, also from Lamro. It does not exist so far as I can tell.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: sorry for causeing confusion, is the page better now? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The page is suitable now, as it does have references. Tanks for the improvement, Keresluna. Perhaps @Lamro: could ask here (or on my talk page) by giving a list of articles they are interested in making so that effort could be put into substances that are important, and at least preferably exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Redundant H phrases

I noticed that there is a number of articles with redundant H phrases:

hastemplate:H-phrases insource:/\{\{[Hh]-phrases[^\}]+41.\|41/

H410, H411, H412 and H413 refer to the same endpoint, just with indicating a different level of severity. Futhermore, GHS Rev. 9 says that If the statement H410 “Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects” is assigned, the statement H400 “Very toxic to aquatic life” may be omitted; (and the same for H411/H401 and H412/H402) I think this should be done here, too (as in de-WP).

hastemplate:H-phrases insource:/\{\{[Hh]-phrases[^\}]+400\|41/

hastemplate:H-phrases insource:/\{\{[Hh]-phrases[^\}]+401\|41/

hastemplate:H-phrases insource:/\{\{[Hh]-phrases[^\}]+402\|41/

On this occasion, I would like to emphasize that PubChem is not a reliable source for GHS. GESTIS, the ECHA website (harmonized classification, registration dossiers) and SDS of European and North American companies are more reliable sources. --Leyo 09:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's Module:GHS phrases § H400.

Source GHS Rev. 9 says, p. 37 (/556):

If H410 is present, one may omit H400

If H411 is present, one may omit H401

If H412 is present, one may omit H402

If H314 is present, one may omit H318 (Leyo)

Incidentally, expected today I will make {{H-phrases}} switch over to Lua Module:GHS phrases. I will hide the omitable ones. Shall I categorise "trespassers" as Category:GHS errors? -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. If H410 is present, there should also be no H401 or H402, in addition to the first case mentioned above (just one of the following: H410, H411, H412, H413). --Leyo 11:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I can apply (program): "When X is present, omit Y, Z". Now, is you latest in the rev9 source? (when we apply this Rule, we better be right). -DePiep (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done:

Omit Rules as applied by {{GHS phrases}} ()

Omit Rules: when the keep ID is present, do not show the omit ID phrase • keep H314, omit H318 • keep P203, omit P103 • keep P413, omit P235 • keep H411, omit H401 • keep P411, omit P235 • keep H412, omit H402 • keep H410, omit H400 • keep P236, omit P234 Categorised as Category:GHS warnings (1) under "O" Source: "Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals" (pdf). 2021. Annex 3: Codification of Statements and Pictograms (pp 268–385).

Waiting for more rules / sources -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, putting articles into Category:GHS errors should be sufficient. It's better to manually correct the phrases.

If you were asking, if rev. 9 is the most recent version, the answer is yes. --Leyo 01:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find the Rules that says "just one of the following: ...", so not implemented (please point to source text). IMO, it's not an error, so no errorcat for Omitting Rules. The Omit Rules process will cut these out (and in Preview, there is a note).Demo for|H410|H400= Preview: H410. Nicely, one can say |omit=false to skip all this. -DePiep (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to omit, or try to list the most severe, as labels will just have a selection from these. If you just list the entries from 1 label that would be valid, but other labels may have another choice. The entries here are not so that you can make a label yourself. If you pick the most sever choice, you will get the more common products being more dangerous appearing than the uncommon ones. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a common misunderstanding, I quote a few important definitions from GHS rev. 9:

Hazard category means the division of criteria within each hazard class, e.g. oral acute toxicity includes five hazard categories and flammable liquids includes four hazard categories. These categories compare hazard severity within a hazard class and should not be taken as a comparison of hazard categories more generally;

Hazard class means the nature of the physical, health or environmental hazard, e.g. flammable solid, carcinogen, oral acute toxicity;

Hazard statement means a statement assigned to a hazard class and category that describes the nature of the hazards of a hazardous product, including, where appropriate, the degree of hazard;

It is obvious that within the same hazard class, a substance may only have one hazard category. For example, a substance cannot be fatal if swallowed (H300), toxic if swallowed (H301) and harmful if swallowed (H302) at the same time. The same applies to H410, H411, H412 and H413, as mentioned above. --Leyo 21:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: "There is no need to omit"??? The source literally says so. What you describe depends on editor's carefullness (sure, the doubles should not be on the label so just copy it rightly from the label. And the wiki editor should not enter doubles, because everybody knows that such errors never occur). -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Leyo: still waiting for the source quote that states your "H410, H411, H412 and H413, ..." statement. Do you understand this question? -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a trivial conclusion from what I wrote. Due to its triviality there is no such statement in the GHS text. --Leyo 22:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example correction to a totally weird GHS labelling. --Leyo 22:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Leyo: thx. Sounds reasonable, but IMO this (a) should be effeced in the source (i.e., the formal label of the substance should have this selection; we are not supposed to change a source), and (b) so far, we do not use Hazard Category nor Hazard Class. (I know these can make distinctions wrt the statements). Do you think it is acceptable to not apply this second set of (trivial) rules? One can always start dedicated discussion(s) anew, below. I am about to go live with the new module. -DePiep (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No credible source will have this error. Hence, it's not about changing a source. In the example above, the H and P phrases in the article did not correspond to the SDS in the reference. If a source provides incorrect GHS information (i.e. PubChem), a switch to a credible source is needed.

I would be sufficient to put articles with incorrect combinations of H or P phrases into Category:GHS errors. Hence, no omit rules need to be applied. A manual inspection and correction is needed. --Leyo 10:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Issue (1-Pentadecanol example)

I noticed that in e.g. 1-Pentadecanol that contains the incorrect combination of H410 and H411, the error message does not match: Preview warning: Omit Rules: keep H410, omit H400
Furthermore, as this is clearly an error (two different hazard categories of the same hazard class), affected articles should be listed in Category:GHS errors (not Category:GHS warnings). Just to be clear: Category:GHS warnings is fine for articles with e.g. H400 and H410. --Leyo 09:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The message displayed does match the situation as there is both an H400 and H410 in addition to H411. There is not an omit rule for 410 and 411, but perhaps there should be a rule to only use the smallest out of H410 H411 H412 H413, but it will be tedious to write out 6 rules for this. Since I am the perpetrator of this sorry list of H phrases I should fix it, but perhaps the display code can take care of it too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Leyo & GB posts:

Moved to Template talk:GHS phrases § Issue (1-Pentadecanol example)

 – DePiep (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please for posting any further remarks go to {{GHS phrases}} (talk). -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

New module now live

The new Module:GHS phrases is now live. It serves old {{P-phrases}} and {{H-phrases}}. Extra features. Main template is {{GHS phrases}} (talk).

Feature request discussed here will be channels into central Template talk:GHS phrases for continued attention. -DePiep (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yay thanks for all the back-end work and unification of related things! DMacks (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanx! Today: Remove Duplicates is added (see Category:GHS warnings (1)). Leyo has added dozens of phrases. Development talks continue at Template talk:GHS phrases. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Copper(I) nitrate

The existence of CuNO₃ is unknown but there are many literatures about its complexes. Perhaps we could rewrite the article and move it to tetrakis(acetonitrile)copper(I) nitrate (d:Q65060675) or bis(triphenylphosphine)copper(I) nitrate (d:Q82441449/d:Q72447585), etc.--Leiem (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think deletion would be preferable, it almost certainly doesn't exist. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I revised the article but if colleagues want to remove it, then we might move some content to a section within copper(II) nitrate. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I can find no literature on any simple gold nitrate either.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Our Aqua regia page implies that it's possible... Regarding the copper species: it's too esoteric to be harmful. I may make some comments of my own. I assume that there's no such thing as a copper(I) aquo complex, so we can rule out it having any wet chemistry. --Project Osprey (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I need to dig into what aqua regia produces. I have found respectable publications saying that binary nitrates are flimsy for Hg^2+, Cu⁺, any oxidation state of Au. Possibly Pt2+. I and other editors long assumed that simple nitrates mirrored the halides, but apparently that is not the case.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

There is this reference doi:10.1002/9780470166093.ch4. It's old and I can't get into it myself, but I'm happy to recommend Cotton's work on general principle.--Project Osprey (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Gold nitrate

If anyone wants to help, please do so. I cant find any info on gold(III) nitrate. It may well exist and there might be literature supporting such, but I cant find it.

The present article cites these two sources:

• Arthur Messinger Comey (1896). A Dictionary of Chemical Solubilities Inorganic (2nd ed.). the University of Michigan: Macmillan & Company. p. 250. Now that source would qualify as unreliable, not to mention irrelevant, but the protective author (@Keresluna: of gold(III) nitrate insists on using it to support the lede.
• Ripan R., Chetyanu I. (1972). Inorganic chemistry. Chemistry of metals. Vol. 2. Moscow: World. Publisher = World? isbn.

I am a fan of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY, but these two sources really push the limits. Our goal here is highly reliable info, not guessing or "it should exist".--Smokefoot (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Found doi:10.1002/chin.200439008 for nitroauric acid, but none for gold(III) nitrate. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Great find Keresluna!--Smokefoot (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The original non-cheminform paper is here doi:10.1002/zaac.200400092, searching for the tetranitratoaurate core also revealed doi:10.1039/DT9720001440 and doi:10.1021/cm800066r. This review might also be of value doi:10.1021/cr60323a002. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Best I can find is the tetranitratogold(III) acid (with some xray data doi:10.1002/zaac.200400092) compound already mentioned I see. (NO)[Au(NO₃)₄] has also been reported (doi:10.1002/anie.201106107). --Project Osprey (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've redirected the old article to the new one. If this compound does indeed exist, or if you find a source claiming that this compound does not exist, it's better covered there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Problematic navbox

Template:Chemical agents has become bloated with redlinks and articles that do not mention use as chemical weapons, incapacitating agents, or in riot control. The vast majority of entries were added by Basquyati (talk · contribs) and Zakblade2000 (talk · contribs) since November 20; this is what it looked like before they started expanding the navbox. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

B could be, also now an R would be acceptable. No sources, no editsummaries, redlinks. We can ask for / expect more base IMO. D started ("that do not mention use as ..."). And why these two editors in synch? -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs), the resolution is simple, create the page of the respective agents. If I were to take the template literally. No V compound, with the exception of V-X, would be mentioned, as it was not used in chemical warfare.

All compounds cited were screened as a candidate for chemical warfare agent and research. Basquyati (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This should have been a reply to the existing thread. By the way @DePiep: What are , "B", "D", and "R"? in your comment? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits are Bold, there are reasons to R (eg you mentioned), and Discussion can follow. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Redlinks are less than useless in a WP:NAVBOX. Will remove then. Consider creating an article than lists like EA-*-series etc. -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I figured that, too. I suspect that most of these chemicals are non-notable or have never been actually used as chemical weapons. Once I remove all the redlinks, the remaining articles need to be assessed individually to see if they have actually been used as chemical weapons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I asked about this two months ago.[1] It was a problem then, and it had become even more of a problem since. WP:EXISTING instructs not to have redlinks. WP:WTAF and such. DMacks (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Chemical agents

As a general rule, toxic compounds cataloged by EA are candidates and potential agents of chemical warfare. The template is self-refuting, as a number of compounds were never used as a chemical weapon, but as candidates. EA-3167, EA-3443, GH, GE, VM, VE, VS, VP, KB-16, EA-2192. None of these were used as chemical weapons, but were investigated as agents of chemical warfare. Deleting the red links from this template, something that is not usually done with others, will only make life difficult for others. Basquyati (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this till about Template:Chemical agents? I cannot find a Template Chemical Warfare. In general: make the articles first, then update the template. It's supposed to be a navbox, not a to-do-list. --Project Osprey (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(I've ===-sectioned this, and changed the name as suggested) -DePiep (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Or at least create a list of agents, like all "EA-*", where you can also add sources. Once reasonably stable, the list can be linked (once) from the navbox. -DePiep (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

A nice cup of Cinnamon tea

In my opinion this list becomes a massive OR list with no end. Where is water? That has been used in waterboarding and to test witches, and hence is used as a choking agent. And I don't know about others, but I think that cinnamon (where the essential oil is 95% cinnamaldehyde) actually smells wonderful.

Hence, I suggest we only include compounds in this navbox where our article has a referenced, independent paragraph on the intended use of 'Chemical agents', and that the rest goes into a list-article where we need independent references for every red-linked compound and for every blue-linked compound that does not have abovementioned independent paragraph on the qualifying use.--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Chembox has an RFC

Template:Chembox 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. DePiep (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hazmat pics (like Xn, F+) to keep?

 {{Hazchem Xn}} {{Hazchem F+}}

• R and S phrases have been removed (deleted), replaced by {{GHS phrases}} &etc (TfD R1, TfD S1). What to do with Category:Hazmat templates (30) images? Still relevant? (often used in {{Chembox}}, by |EUClass= -- which is outdated too, see Category:Chembox having DSD data (0)).
• Another question: when the old DSD hazards are cleaned up & replaced by GHS label elements, any need to keep Category:Chembox having GHS data (3,518)? @Leyo and Graeme Bartlett: -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  These templates might be useful for certain history context.

  The category could be useful to keep an overview an articles with/without GHS (see e.g. hastemplate:Chembox -incategory:Chembox_having_GHS_data). --Leyo 21:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I expect those Hazmat templates can go if they are unused. Possibly subst them on pages where they should remain, such as talks or articles about the historic situation. We should check for use outside EUClass= though. Well I have never used Category:Chembox having GHS data, but I am using Chembox having DSD data. Off on a related topic I see there are substances labeled with a green circle or yellow triangle, according to impact on the environment. Perhaps we should support those symbols (with hover text). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The old CHIPS classification's are supposed to map to GHS. So it should in theory be possible to 'find and replace' the old labels for new. AutoWikiBrowser job perhaps? --Project Osprey (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

CHIPS? Anyway, afaik we are pulling GHS data straight from the source (pubchem, gestis, sigma-aldrich). Then remove R-, S-phrases from article {{Chembox}} (all done); now left todo removing ~50 |EUClass={{Hazchem}} instances.

If Hazchem images are not meaningful any more (and higly unused), someone might propose TfDeletion (as with R1, S1 phrase sets). We'll see.

I understood here, Category:Chembox having GHS data (3,518) (who helped early on in the process) can stay as useful GHS tracking/maintenance listing. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Chemical data pages

There are other data pages that contain very little additional information that may even be poorly referenced. We should get rid of those, in my view. --Leyo 20:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should either merge back into the main article or split into more focussed topics, eg equation of state of x; or spectroscopy of x; or electrical properties of x; or x solutions....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)

I think if the data of these data pages can put inside the chembox, there is no way we need that data page.--Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What kind of procedure would you propose? Nominating each data page after merging individually for deletion? --Leyo 23:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, merge to chembox and delete data pages. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep good data: data that is worth keeping but does not fit into the {{Chembox}}/{{Drugbox}}:

1. Unsourced data in these pages must be confirmed from a source or can be removed. In general, we can consider actual Infobox data to be more thoroughly checked and stable.

2. Create subsection preferedly named ==Data sheet== (=same everywhere, easy to be expanded with more table- and list-like data).

3. Move that good data into that Data sheet.

4. AfD the "(data page)".

For example, Acetaldehyde (data page) § Vapor pressure of liquid (refcheck needed)

-DePiep (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced data can be removed...so should we just delete unreferenced data pages(example disiloxane (data page)) without put the data to the main article? --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should do that.

I wouldn't call the subsection Data sheet, but rather Properties or so (depending on the data). --Leyo 10:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I mention "Data sheet" because it can nicely work as 'overflow' for the Infobox (move data from Infobox to Data sheet). It can have tazbles and ghraphs without requiring with (expected) extensive verbose description. "Properties" OTOH, can be, or already is, a more descriptive section; so this section name is already in use). Claiming the name "Data sheet"for this also helps further automation & linking. -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, these pages were originally created because in the early days the Chemboxes were getting huge - sometimes bigger than the article itself. Some pages like Methanol_(data_page) are really nice, and capture a lot of information that chemists appreciate. We do not want all the data in the main article, but there is also a great need for specialist information like this to be in the public domain. Having said that, the advent of Wikidata has meant that perhaps the best place for the more specialist information is in Wikidata rather than in Wikipedia. I would oppose mass deletion of data until that information has been captured in Wikidata - something I'm afraid I don't know how to do well. (I'm happy to help in coming weeks if someone can show me how.) Walkerma (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)