Open main menu
Archive 15 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 25


Missing chemistry topics

I've updated my list of missing chemistry topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Wow! That's quite an overhaul on the missing topics page. Thanks. What should be done if we find a specific wiki page for the topic has been created or at what point should a link be removed from the list? --Triesault (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If the topics is relevant for a redirect, create one. If you think the topic does not merit an article, mention it in the page - Skysmith (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few redirects and created the articles Bismuthyl, Bismuth oxychloride and Triphenyltin.

Ben (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Melting/Boiling points in info box.

I have a question about the melting point and boiling point information in info boxes for different chemicals. I know we should use the MeltingPtC and BoilingPtC to display C, F and K but this template only works for a single point. There are several compounds that only seem to have a range of temperatures for boiling points and melting points. (ie, Boiling Point: 105-107ºC)

I would assume we would look to credible sources to find the exact point but sometimes they cannot be found. What should be done if only a range of temperatures can be found?--Triesault (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There's always the MeltingPt and BoilingPt parameters for difficult cases. Physchim62 (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Element infoboxes

Why boxes such as {{Infobox iron}}, {{Infobox uranium}} etc. are kept in their own page and transcluded? This has the drawback that if I watch Iron, changes to the infobox won't show up in my watchlist. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 10:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It reduces clutter, and prevents vandalism. See this discussion about it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Birch reduction

Are there any organic chemists able to help out with an unclear statement in Birch reduction#Basic reaction mechanism, please? The discussion is at Talk:Birch reduction#Basic reaction mechanism. Anyone who can shed a little light would be most welcome! --RexxS (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Suspected hoaxes - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potassium heptasulfate

Expert eyes would be welcome at this AfD on a string of suspected hoax articles on alleged compounds up to Potassium hendecasulfate. It would be good to know whether these are definite hoaxes, as a block of the author (who has other suspect articles) may need to be considered. JohnCD (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

All deleted, hoaxer blocked. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bent Bond

Hi there; first time using a Talk page, so please bear with me if I do something silly.

About the Bent bond article: I've seen a particular bond called a tau bond in an organic chemistry book I borrowed from the local library. After not getting any information from the Tau page, I searched on Google, and one page -- (see Abstract) -- apparently says that a tau bond is the same as a bent bond. Since I'm not really sure about this, can I get someone to check and clarify if the term "tau bond" is still used or obsolete already? If it is still used, can the Bent bond article be edited to let people know about this alternative name? Many thanks for any help.

Ziyingjiang (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taught chemistry in four countries and I had never heard the term "tau bond" until I read your post! However, it appears to be used by more-than-respectable authors... According to Fleming (2010, no less), the term was first used by Pauling: "banana bond" is the term I've heard most – you can see an example in the upper structural model here. You should remember that all of these terms are approximations or visualizations: any chemical bond is both bendy and stretchy (the latter is implied in the IUPAC definition of a chemical bond)!
With the general use of molecular orbital theory in the teaching of chemical bonding, discussions of "banana bonds" has been reduced, or quite simply eliminated. If you look at the "banana bond" model of ethylene from a teacher's point of view, it has two big problems: it implies that there is no electron density on the axis between the two carbon atoms, which is not the case, and it implies that the two lobes of the π-bond (or 1B2u-orbital, to be technical) are the two bonds of the double bond, when in fact they only act as one bond. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Iodobenzene dichloride

New article. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's nice stuff, we use it. But check your VSEPR!--Smokefoot (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing it out. I've strayed too far from my inorganic chemistry roots by hanging out with the organikers.... --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Amended, please take a look. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks OK to me although, if you have access to the X-ray structure, why not give the bond lengths and bond angles around iodine? And I'll bet you don't know the IUPAC name! (I'm going to have to look it up to check!) Physchim62 (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got the X-ray structure, it's BENICL01 on the CSD.

The reference, along with the dimensions, is given here: File:PhICl2-dimensions-from-xtal-1996-2D-skeletal.png.

Ben (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Great! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The bond lengths and angles Ben found suggest that the molecule does not have perfect C2v symmetry. Are they not due to crystal packing effects? If so, would a different measurement give (slightly) different bond lengths and angles? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a microwave or IR or GED structure would be useful.

Ben (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll never get perfect C2v symmetry in a crystal structure unless you impose it during the refinement! Modern computing power is such that crystallographers no longer need to impose a point group on the molecule, hence the appearance of packing effects such as we see here. I don't think the molecule is stable in the gas phase, so microwave spectroscopy and GED are out: IR doesn't have the resolution to identify any differences between the two chlorine atoms, but NMR might put a limit on the greatest possible chemical difference (chlorine nuclei are quadrupolar, so the line width will still be fairly broad). Physchim62 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So what do you all think the IUPAC name is? I'm not looking through anything... but I think phenyldichloroiodine would be unambiguous. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine, or phenyliodine dichloride (substitution of iodine trichloride).
Is the Red Book the source that decides?
Ben (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It's actually Blue Book territory, as a compound containing carbon–hydrogen bonds and no elements from groups 1–12. That makes it dichlorophenyl-λ3-iodinane, with (dichloro-λ3-iodinanyl)benzene as an acceptable alternative. Physchim62 (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dumas method

Split Dumas method of molecular weight determination from Dumas method. Take a look? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

New articles coming

I occasionally work with students that develop new articles for Wikipedia as part of their training in writing about chemistry. This year we will also be improving (hopefully) some articles. The new articles range from prosaic to exotic, but all have some notability. The students are not expected to be expert in wiki-editing tools, so editors are welcome to help with that aspect. I'll list the articles as they appear. If problems arise, feel free to contact me. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We might get a few to DYK, to be on the Main page is sometimes a nice additional fun.--Stone (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Aside from formatting, one way that experienced editors can help is to reinforce the guideline WP:SECONDARY. The students can always find journal references simply by Googling or untrained CAS searches, but the really good references, and the ones sought by Wikipedia, are to secondary sources - reviews, books, compendia.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
it is not possible to take WP:SECONDARY seriously when apparently peer-reviewed journals like science and nature are off-limits. Exactly what will students learn by copying reviews or Ullmann? Scientific articles are secondary literature and the best source for writing Wikipedia articles together with general guidance from reviews and books V8rik (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Rik, thanks for your comments, which I value. Anyway, my ability to impose my methods on this group is limited. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
about 25-35 articles and upgrades (other editors are welcome to revise strongly): Emamectin Benzoate, Poly(p-phenylene vinylene),Nickel (II) acetylacetonate, 4-nitrochlorobenzene, 2,6-Dihydroxypyridine, tetracarbonylhydrocobalt, iron tetracarbonyl hydride, Lithium tetrakis(pentafluorophenyl)borate, quadricyclane, selenium monochloride, HMn(CO)5, triphenylmethyl hexafluorophosphate, allyl acetate, molybdenum (II) acetate, Diethylaluminum cyanide, Tris(acetylacetonate) Ruthenium (III), 2-Methyltetrahydrofuran, (1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene) molybdenum tricarbonyl, Zirconium (III) Chloride, episulfide, phenyllithium, NiCl2(dppp), Dichlorotris(triphenylphosphine)ruthenium(II), Neocuproine

(many need to be renamed and we'll need several redirects each since the titles are complicated and slightly esoteric)

How about Hydromanganese pentacarbonyl --> pentacarbonylhydridomanganese, c.f. pentacarbonylhydridorhenium? Same for the iron complex. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault actually! It was originally named HMn(CO)5 and I renamed it based on a bit of Googling.
I prefer pentacarbonylhydridomanganese, though.
Ben (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I usually hear it called manganese pentacarbonyl hydride.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Smokefoot ... since you're leading these students, would you like to have a word with them about Stock nomenclature? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

they wont listen...
I have tried to deal with some of the issues raised. I thank many editors for helping out with a lot of nice editing and reinterpreting some strange statements, and for restraining yourselves from preaching at me or at them. A few more articles will appear soon, supposedly.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And thanks to you Smokefoot and the many students involved for creating these articles, the overall quality is very good and a great addition to wikipedia. V8rik (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(I accept the beer, esp if it is from that side of the pond--Smokefoot (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Qquadricyclane will be on the Main page soon! Might be a news for the students.--Stone (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Danke.

Soft chemistry

Has anyone heard of this before? I'm unfamiliar with the term and Googling it doesn't turn up much. I found this reference that uses the term, but is the term notable? Thanks, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There once was a marketing program from France called chimie douce. It was supposed to capture the assembly of inorganic or hybrid organic inorganic things using molecular precursors to produce solids with extended interactions. Intercalation, electrocrystallization, some sol-gel, and CT salt formation are typical techniques. The marketing agents are approaching retirement and the methods have become mainstream, without the label. Soft chemistry is an awful article, but around here we find that decent articles often grow from awful roots.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the article certainly needs some help. I was just wondering if folks think the topic is notable and verifiable, thus warranting its own article. Thanks for your insights. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I would favour deletion without prejudice. Tne term exists in French, I've heard it several times: It's OK for me to say that here on a talk page, but it would be WP:OR to put it in an article! Also (and more OR) I never really understood what people in France were classifying as chimie douce: it always seemed to be to be a simple tag name that they'd invented to try to get their research to sound more "sexy" for funding authorities. So I'm not convinced of the notability of the term, but I wouldn't rule it out as ridiculous. Physchim62 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks like a rough translation of fr:Chimie douce. I added some refs and a translation request. --Kkmurray (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


As I described here, I want to activate my bot to add the syntax {{Portal|Chemistry}} in all the pages that is related to Chemistry. In this manner more readers will visit portal:Chemistry.

  • Do you agree?
  • I have to write "chemistry" (lower case) or "Chemistry" (upper case)?

--Aushulz (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple portals for WP:Chemistry, see Category:Portal-Class Chemistry articles (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, so I'll choose the right one each time. --Aushulz (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature of clusters: closo, nido, arachno, and so on

I've come across several Wikipedia articles that briefly mention some of these prefixes that may be used to name deltahedral clusters. There are other articles that probably should discuss these names, but currently do not! Is anyone interested in helping me do this consistently and with the consensus of the Chemistry WikiProject?

Articles with partial coverage:

Articles mentioning the prefixes without really discussing them:

Articles that should redirect to or link to the main description:

All articles on cluster compounds that can in principle take a prefix like closo-, e.g.

I've also proposed a merger of Monomer clusters with Cluster chemistry.

Any help gladly received.

Ben (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should seek consensus on scope in this area. This consensus could guide future editing. Here are some comments:
    • Cluster chemistry decent attempt at an overview of a large field, the core article
    • Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory: a problem but salvageable, it is largely written by a student and focuses excessively on examples and a particular way of counting. Most examples can be cut (or moved to appendix). Wades rules can be presented far more concisely and the deviations later. The article also attempts to discuss applications and other tangential/irrelvant themes that could be moved into cluster chem.
    • Borane: decent overview of boron hydrides
    • Carborane: decent overview but somewhat lacking core info (the main carboranes)
Also to be included
    • Zintl phase. This area really became relevant with the soluble K(crypt)+ salts.
    • Cluster (physics). A suitable home for gas-phase clusters, which is huge are largely disconnected from condensed phase work. e.g. laser ablated species and the early history of buckyballs.
    • We probably could start an article on metal carbonyl cluster, currently a subtopic in metal carbonyl
--Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good topic to try to rationalize a bit. To add a couple of topics found in many or most undergrad courses to Smokefoot's list:
Each type of cluster compound has its own nomenclature rules: you don't use the same rules for boranes and for metal caronyls, for example... Physchim62 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses :)

Smokefoot, thanks for reminding me about Zintl phases. I looked into these a bit when I illustrated Plumbide. I might have a go at tidying up PSEPT, but I don't want to get too drawn in to a massive project, so I will probably make small edits here and there. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

Physchim, good points. This is worth mentioning alongside the explanation of the prefixes. What do you use for metal carbonyls? Just the usual organometallic complex terminology, like μ and η?


Ben (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Carbonyl clusters (and other coodination clusters) are usually described with descriptors such as triangulo-, tetrahedro-, etc. There is a more complete nomenclature system, called the CEP system, but I don't think even that is completely comprehensive: in any case, it is far too complicated for everyday use. I'm working on something for the nomenclature side on a test wiki, starting with boranes. Physchim62 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fluoroacetyl chloride

Another editor created the article Fluoroacetyl chloride which someone else tagged for speedy deletion. I added a reference, but the article is still a stub. It would be helpful if someone could edit the article to indicate how the compound is or was used. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 21:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ammonium arsenate

Another recently-created stub is Ammonium arsenate. It would be great if the article could be expanded. This PubChem page may be helpful. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Template for empirical formulae

Some pages have empirical formulae where the elements are linked to their respective articles - e.g. pyridine: C5H5N. Could we make a template for doing this automatically? Something like:

"{{Template|C2|H6|O}}" -------------> "C2H6O" for ethanol.

This would make editing easier, and could also be designed to remove underlines from the links, making the subscript more legible. Lfh (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a related template: {{Chem}}. However, I think linking elements in molecular formulas to their respective articles is discouraged based on prior discussions. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I looked for such a template, but couldn't find one that was in common use. {{Chem}} does include instructions for linking elements though - but I find the underlines obscure the subscript. Lfh (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked to see if I could find somewhere that this type of linking was discussed before, but I can't seem to find it. Maybe I am mis-remembering. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I would generally say, that they should not be linked like this (I also remember discussions about this, but where??). The product name should be linked (e.g. 'Ethanol, C2H5OH', and then if useful, the ethanol article will contain links to the elements (or through Chemical compound, Chemical formula; see also the {{chembox}}). But it is a bit stretching it .. not EVERYTHING needs to be linked, though maybe for me, as a chemist, it is obvious that C = Carbon, which will not be true for everyone.. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was just surprised that the linking was being done manually, and obscuring the subscript, but if a decision was already made to discourage links anyway, that's fine. Lfh (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Someone with patience or influence might try to rebalance the safety bit in sodium myreth sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate. These articles are not the usual ones. Because these surfactants are found in many domestic products, these articles are probably more widely consulted than our usual. The deal is that R(OCH2CH2)nOSO3- under some circumstances degrade somewhat to 1,4-dioxane (cyclization of the PEG), and the resulting 1,4-dioxane is under some circumstances a cancer suspect agent. Overall the link between the cosmetic and awfulness might be noted but is otherwise somewhat tenuous. User:MotherAmy has decided otherwise and seems to have some agenda that exceeds her technical ability and excludes alternative viewpoints. --Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

atom or weight %

The lowest melting alloy is 41% caesium, 47% potassium, and 12% sodium. A ip-user changed this to at-% in the caesium article. I have found a ref in the Ho-Wi, but there the % in (kg/kg) is not given. For me there is no doubt that this is weight%, but I have no proof. Is there anybody who can give me a a proof for that?

Done--Stone (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Emulsion polymerization

Hello, someone on the french Graphic Lab has created this diagram for the french article. He would like to know if it could be useful to translate the diagram in english (if you are interested)? Frakir (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Oxidizing agents

Why is the Category:Oxidizing agents so small? I started to expand it, but I don't know whether there is a reason for its minuteness. Many oxidizing agents, like chromates, aren't even included. Would it be good to expand it? Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the lanthanides to the Category:Reducing agents. Feel free to comment if you disagree because they are not commonly used as reducing agents, but they are because they react easily with oxidizing agents such as oxygen. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fraser Stoddart

Currently Fraser Stoddart redirects to James Fraser Stoddart. Whilst the latter is technically his correct name, he is universally known as Fraser, so the article should be there and JFS redirect to it. Could somebody who is an admin swap them over? Chris (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  •   Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary new category?

Does the newly created category Category:Classes of organic compounds serve any useful purpose? Our organic compounds are generally categorized by functional group and/or by some inherent property (such as Category:Carcinogens). Nearly all the articles in this category are already in Category:Functional groups, so it seems redundant to me. Also, are there any articles in Category:Classes of organic compounds that aren't already in Category:Organic compounds or one of its subcategories? ChemNerd (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Alkali, Base, Alkali salt, Basic salt

These articles need clarification. Any thoughts on definitions that should be picked for each category? My idea: Alkali should be a hydroxide base of groups IA and IIA metals, including ammonia. Base should be any hydroxide base, including Lewis bases and Bronsted-Lowry bases. Alkali salt should be merged with basic salt. The definition would be: any salt of a weak acid and a strong base. Alkali salt, a subcategory, would be a salt of the alkali metals and a weak base. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that alkalis are just soluble bases, and bases are either:
The description of a basic salt as "any salt of a weak acid and a strong base sounds reasonable. Can anyone think of any counterexamples or exceptions?
It goes without saying that any update of these definitions in articles should cite verifiable, reliable sources, in this case probably school-level and university-level textbooks.
Ben (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Nearly anything can be made to act as a base (i.e., forced reaction with some sort of acid). And almost any neutral compound can be considered an acid (via reverse reaction of making it from some conjugate base and some other acid). But saying it for every compound is a lot of data with no real information. If we're trying to teach things and write about how nature is (not just how theories can be pushed to their limits), need to consider things either in their normal conditions or in situations that have been studied (WP:RS) or at least have some interest/application (akin to WP:N). I do'nt think it's a good idea, for example, to tag every compound with an H as an acid just because one could envision a base strong enough to deprotonate it. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Why not have alkali as a category in base? The hydroxide donors are proton acceptors; they give a proton to become H2O and a cation. The Arrhenius definition is incomplete; the Bronsted-Lowry definition covers Arrhenius acids and bases as well as all other acids and bases.
Why is calcium carbonate under alkalis? It is insoluble. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The at least one of the definitions given for alkali does not require high water solubility, therefore "it's insoluble" is not a reason to exclude. And the article for calcium carbonate talks at length about how it actually does behave as and is commonly used as a base, therefore applying rigorous theories and definitions that contradict these is not going to get you far. I'm not seeing an editorial problem here (or at least not a "let's try to read things intentionally in a way to be confused"). Could someone explain what problem we're trying to solve here, or what definitions conflict with others? DMacks (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Calcium carbonate is a base. But is it an alkali (as well as magnesium carbonate)? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
A strong, water-soluble inorganic base, originally one that could be used to saponify fats to make soap. From the OED
A chemical species or molecular entity having an available pair of electrons capable of forming a covalent bond with a hydron (proton) (see Brønsted base) or with the vacant orbital of some other species (see Lewis base). From IUPAC
basic salt 
A salt which contains a higher proportion of base than the corresponding neutral salt. From the OED and Webster's

Hence, calcium carbonate is not a basic salt, nor is sodium carbonate: Malachite is an example of a basic salt by this definition. I've never come accross the term "alkali salt". Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:JCW help

There's a new WP:JCW report. Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope. (Some of these I didn't know if I should include, so feel free to remove those that seem out of place.)

See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects (Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from chemistry from the list. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to improve my article on "Moebius-Hueckel concept" by putting in the requested Links. But ..

I have been trying to improve my article on "Mobius-Hueckel concept" by putting in the requested Links. But some of the links work and some do not. Where they do not work, the link is left in red and one gets the statement that an article on Moebius-Hueckel concept does not exist.

Also an attemting to do a search (or go) to the article doesn't work. What does work is using an old redirect: user:hezimmerman/Moebius-Hueckel concept.

I seem to be able to put in umlauts for Moebius and Hueckel only be cutting and pasting from words with the umlaut-o and umlaut-u. There must be a way of typing these in directly in Wikipedia rather than just using "oe" and"ue".

In any case, some help would be appreciated.

--Howard E. Zimmerman 15:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hezimmerman (talkcontribs)

There are ways to type them directly from an English-language keyboard, but you have to know the tricks! If you are using a Windows-based system, hold down the ALT key and type 0246 on the numerical keypad to get ö, ALT+0252 for ü and ALT+0150 for the en dash in the page title: you will end up with Möbius–Hückel concept, which is where the article is hiding.
What we try to do to make things simpler for people is to create redirects from alternative spellings: I have created redirects at Mobius-Huckel concept and Moebius-Hueckel concept (note the hyphens instead of en dashes) so that you can get to the article more easily. Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hill (chemist)

There is an AFD relevant to this project at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hill (chemist), if anyone is interested in contributing to the discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read the discussion, and although I don't really know anything about Anthony Hill, it raises an interesting point. Physchim suggests being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC) is insufficient for notability (WP:PROF), which sounds fair. But I seem to remember reading that being a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) would in and of itself satisfy the notability criterion. Do others agree? I've been thinking about writing a few biographical articles of chemists I know about. My most recent work is on Stuart Warren.
Ben (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that FRS is sufficient in itself to satisfy notability, at least on English-language Wikipedia. There may be about 1300 FRS, but that covers the whole of science, engineering, mathematics, medicine etc. FRSC is a much lower honour – it isn't given to just anyone, but the main requirement is to pay £102 p.a. (which, frankly, is why I don't have the letters after my name!)
As for Stuart Warren, I would say he is notable for his organic synthesis textbook, and for the synthetic strategy it describes ("disconnection"). COI: he taught me organic synthesis! Physchim62 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Chromium(VI) peroxide

Which reaction would seem right for the decomposition of chromium(VI) peroxide?

2 CrO5 + 20 HCl → 2 CrCl3 + 10 H2O + 7 Cl2
2 CrO5 + 7 H2O2 + 6 HCl → 2 CrCl3 + 10 H2O + 7 O2

If you have any other suggestions, contact me on my talk page. PS: I didn't post this on the science reference desk since it is sort of specialized and neither of them might be right. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First one's not balanced. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, fixed it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
2 HCrO5-+ 3 H2O2 + 8 H +→ 2 Cr3+ + 8 H2O + 5 O2 Ho-Wi page 1087--Stone (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the picture here looks more like I know it. The image in our article is brown and not blue.--Stone (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Since my picture is blurry (I took another picture which wasn't any better), it is hard to tell the color. You can change the appearance as you see fit. Since you said that, it does look sort of brown to me. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The Ho-Wi equation seems to be starting from the wrong place! I would say
2 CrO5 + 7 H2O2 + 6 H+ → 2 Cr3+ + 10 H2O + 7 O2
which is just a varient of Chemicalinterest's second equation. As for the photo, CI has not added an organic layer, that's why the colour seems odd. I have always done the reaction with a few drops of amyl alcohol, but apparently diethyl ether or ethyl acetate will work as well. I don't usually add as much organic solvent as in the photo that Stone links to: just enough to give a distinct layer that you can see. Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, does anyone have a copy of Vogel handy? This is a classic reaction in "wet" qualitative analysis, so a ref to {{VogelQualitative5th}} (or another edition) would be in order. Physchim62 (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The reactants smelled like chlorine when it decomposed (quite strongly). It can stink up a room. Maybe it is a mixture of the reactions. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sodium selenide

Why does sodium selenide redirect to selenide? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, presumably because there isn't an article on it. Chris (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should create one, but I do not have much information other than "Sodium selenide is a chemical compound. It can be formed by the reaction of sodium and selenium at high temperatures in an inert atmosphere. It reacts with oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air to form selenium and sodium carbonate. It reacts with acids to release hydrogen selenide gas. It can be used as a reducing agent, given the reduction potential of -0.67V for the reaction (Se + 2 e- ←→ Se2-)." Chembox would just contain molar mass, formula, some other names. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made it into a stub. Expansion welcomed.

Ben (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I add the reaction with acids to produce H2Se? It is seen in the selenide and hydrogen selenide article. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Zinke nitration

Zinke nitration‎ should be moved to Zincke nitration‎. The reactions is named after Theodor Zincke. The redirect has to be deleted and the article than moved, so it is work for the people holding the mop.--19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Stone (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

OrganoX chemistry

(I am replacing an earlier message by adding that issues are being resolved). BTW, the artices on organometallic chemistry of the elements are always welcoming of edits, e.g. organoiron chemistry, organoselenium compounds, organoiodine compounds, etc. These overview articles will become important resources in the future.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed re: text added to articles on the elements

User:Gurps npc (and his IP, Special:Contributions/ recently added a series of changes to the elements articles involving how they are created. The edits appear to be in good faith, but it would help if someone could please review them for accuracy as they are (as yet) unreferenced. Thanks; I've also left a note for the "Elements" project. --Ckatzchatspy 17:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


It might be enough in the Chloryl article to keep it but now it reads in a way that even I do not get the message.--Stone (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Stone (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to clean it up further (esp. the lede, which I rewrote) based on solid references. Please feel free to continue editing to improve it. Hope this helps.—Tetracube (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting NFPA values

Not sure where is most appropriate for discussing this, but here seems like the best place to get directed to the right place. :-) I've been noticing recently that NFPA values vary from source to source. For example, this MSDS claims that the NFPA values for xenon difluoride are H=1, F=0, R=1, OX, whereas this other MSDS claims that the NFPA values are H=3, F=0, R=2, OX. Which of these values should go into the chembox for xenon difluoride? This particular compound isn't the only source of confusion: see this edit, for example. I don't see how we can resolve this, unless we arbitrarily designate a particular source as the "official" source for NFPA values. I suspect that some of the inconsistencies may arise because different distributors ship the compound in different forms (differences in solvent, concentration, pressurization of container, etc.), which may affect these values. But still, the lack of agreement is disturbing. What should be done in such cases?—Tetracube (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As a personal policy, I always go with the International Chemical Safety Card where there is one: ICSCs are peer-reviewed, and usually contain NFPA ratings. That doesn't help with XeF2, because there's no ICSC! Tetracube's example highlights another inconsistency, that is between suppliers in different legal jurisdictions: U.S. suppliers will consistently provide "scarier" MSDSs than suppliers from countries using a European-type system, because of the different legal frameworks. Physchim62 (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry-related AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magnesium_lasering. Please weigh in if you have an opinion. Regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since deleted as its creator has a history of hoax articles. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bond dissociation energy

The topic Bond energy / Bond dissociation energy seems unclear to me and contains some errors. The enthalpies and energies are mixed, the values cited (from ref 3) do not correspond to the given temperature. I am not familiar with the Wikipedia process. I'd appreciate a collaborative revision. (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)JF Gal

  • This issue should have been addressed at the talk page of Bond dissociation energy or bond energy. it is possible that data are stated without the relevant temperature given. The first table appears to deal with bond energy (unreferenced) and should be moved, the second table gives bond dissociation energies which can be confirmed by the CRC handbook (298 K, enthalpies) V8rik (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Chromite (compound)

What is the formula for a chromite? It is only mentioned in passing in the chromium(III) oxide article. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In the course of researching books and journal papers on chromite (chromate(III) according to IUPAC), I discovered that there are quite a variety of formulations for the anion: from Cr(OH)3−
to CrO
to even CrO3−
(as in the lanthanum salt LaCrO
). So I don't think it refers to a specific chromium(III) anion; the chemistry of chromium in alkaline conditions appear to be quite complex (hehe, unintentional pun). However, there seems to be a dearth of papers directly discussing chromate(III) (as the oxygen/hydroxide complex); rather, there's an abundance of papers on other anionic chromium(III) complexes, such as Cr(CN)3−
, the pyridine complex (C
, various chloride complexes, the oxalate and citrato complexes, and other organic complexes.
Not sure how much of this should be included in the article: are we aiming for just the hydroxide/oxide complexes, or are we covering all chromium(III)-derived anions? The former seems reasonable but suffers from a lack of material, the latter seems too wide in scope (there are so many chromium(III) anionic complexes there's no way we can do the topic justice in a single article—besides, such a wide scope would make the article lose its focus).—Tetracube (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I would support the former. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oobleck and glurch

The Oobleck stub is currently at AfD, and needs some expert input. Does anyone here have ideas for a better title (that covers all these substances: oobleck, glurch, goop, gloop), and some time to briefly overhaul the article to better fit the science topic? Any assistance or advice (at the article or AfD) would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Chemical properties tables republication

Dearest wikipedians,

I am currently working on fr:wp on a project whose goal is to replace every thermodynamic properties tables with graphs, such as heat capacity toward temperature or vapor pressure toward temperature (if you are familiar with French, you may have a look at the discussions here and here). This action would benefit to all wikipedia projects by supplying them with english-written graphs of various physical properties. In spite of a quick search, I haven't been able to find many tables on your articles. It looks like we use them more extensively on fr:wp than you.

I've however noticed a legal issue with that. Many online resources, such as the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and the Dortmund Data Bank, have restricted their content to professional use in their User Agreement or Terms of Use. Data republication or distribution to third parties are thereby forbidden. I've questionned our french juridical staff, but they proved unable to tell me if Wikipedia was wrong by republishing these data, either as tables or graphs. Since the USA do not recognize any database protection law, is the interdiction stated in the User Agreement of these online databases still consistent? Have you already debated over this matter?

Yours sincerely, Tachymètre (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct that we use these kinds of tables less than you do on frwiki. Several years ago, we had a project to collect together this sort of thermodynamic data for common compounds, but it is very fastidious work so we didn't get very far! See acetic acid (data page) for an example of what we have, and Category:Chemical data pages for the full list.
You raise a very important point with your legal issue, and it's one we've had to discuss several times.
  • EU database rights. We believe that our use of chemical data is permitted under EU database rights as, in practice, we are only taking an insubstantial portion of a published database. See Art. L342-3-1º Code de la propriété intellectuelle for the position under French law.
  • Copyright. Individual data cannot be copyrighted. Collections of data can be copyrighted if the collection meets the threshhold of originality, but we don't think that our reuse of data that we choose from published collections is an infringement of the copyright in the collection. The important point is that we are choosing which data we go out and look for, so we are essentially creating a new collection rather than copying and existing collection.
  • To the best of my knowledge, nobody has complained to the Wikimedia Foundation over our practices on either of these two points. However:
  • User Agreements. These are governed by contract law (droit des obligations in France). In essence, you cannot force someone to let you have access to their database, the database owner is perfectly allowed to attach conditions to your access. So a user who goes to (for example) to find out that the boiling point of ethanol is 78 °C and then types that information in Wikipedia is breaching a contract with the database owner. We don't encourage users to do that, even though we know that it happens from time to time, not least because it might cause problems for the user with his or her employers (usually this sort of data can only be accessed through professional connections). We have had one complaint here at enwiki from a large and very well known provider of (expensive) chemical information, and that had to be resolved through negotiation. Our colleagues at dewiki have also had to deal with a different (but similar) problem, posed by the European Union of all people!
I hope this answers your queries: feel free to send me an email if you want any more details. Physchim62 (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, it's a really precise answer! I'll send you additional questions by mail soon. Tachymètre (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Molecular electronics and related topics

My semi-regular plea: we consider organizing a clean-up of organic electronics, molecular electronics, organic semiconductor, and conductive polymer. These articles are written in a way that elevates the achievements of User:Pproctor's advisor John McGinness (whose biography is largely maintained by Pproctor), whilst subtly but soundly deminishing the achievements of the Nobel Prize winners. The articles detract from Wikipedia's reputation.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm up for helping. This sort of vanity editing needs to be addressed head-on.
Ben (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm up for this as well. There additionally needs to be a more consistent distinction made between the bulk molecular materials stuff versus the single-molecule electonics of people like Mark Reed, James Tour, and Jim Heath. Antony-22 (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Periodic Table of Videos

I created this page today, and am in talks with the producer of those videos, Brady Haran, to get many element pictures and videos freely licensed for our use. I'm trying to get as many featured pictures (my tracking table) of the elements as I can, sorta a pet project a few of us over at the WP:FPC side has been hoping to do. Thought I'd give y'all a heads up on those plans. They recently updated their Fluorine video (link) with lots of footage of the element, in liquid form, and it reacting, so that was one of the first I requested images of for the article, since we're really lacking good picture of the element there. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The project is highly admirable, at least to me, and the Utube on F2 is especially superb. The article The Periodic Table of Videos is okay, slightly gushing (and slightly incorrect: "xenon hexafluoroplatinate" in not a compound, but a great pile of stuff). There are lots of films many readers would love to see: Ni evaporating under a stream of CO, reversible oxygenation of myoglobin, MOCVD in action, column chromatography, etc. We're all tired of looking at the film of oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Anything you see wrong, feel free to correct. I'm not a seasoned writer and did my best. ;-) I did a DYK on the article as well that is pending. I'm going to try to get him to upload video demonstrations, or even the entire element videos that are on youtube to Commons, I think they would make EXCELLENT additions to our element pages. For now though I'm going to link to the current video in the "External Links" on our element pages to the youtube video. Create a template that also links to our article about the videos. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Heres my silly template below. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Validity of these videos for external links

I was informed by Materialscientist not to add links to these videos on the elements page. And a discussion ensued on my talk page in regards too this. He seemed to indicate they where SPAM and POV. My counterargument is they are non-commercial and from a reputable institution (University of Nottingham) and have quite a few third party references including direct endorsement from noble prize winners and and a EPSRC grant for continued production of these videos. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Materialscientist is overreacting, but I'll give him/her a chance to make his/her arguments here. Physchim62 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A vote on mass addition of video links

As noted above, I have stopped user:Raeky in the middle of mass-adding youtube video links to the elements articles (example of a link, other elements videos). There are numerous pros and cons here. This might be a great video addition, but as a skeptic I'll focus on cons: (i) Promotion. On my PC, rather commercial Google ads appear below the youtube video vindow. (ii) Promotion. There is no monopoly on basic information, but all videos put in front explicit names and people. Important detail - those videos extend over all elements and many chemical compounds, thus we are talking about mass addition of those links to hundreds WP articles. (iii) Quality of information. Many videos I saw are short and focus on specific details. For example, the Al video focuses on shaky hands and Al coated mirror as representation of Al; some other videos I saw, together with nice lab. demos, have plenty of odd and stray details and comments - they do look like "chemistry is fun" for me, but is this encyclopedic? Many WP articles they link to are much more detailed.

A discussion could be overly long, thus I would suggest voting instead. Please look beyond my hasty and naive comment - you will likely see more than I did in those few minutes I had to write this. I believe we do need a proper vote to avoid potential edit wars (like those spelling wars). To keep the vote centralized, I post this here and link from WP:ELEMENTS. Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Neutral, just to start the queue. Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Most of my rationale is above, but to address others, Promotion. There are Google ads on some of the videos (most I think), but these are similar ads on MANY respectable and accepted sites, like CNN and BBC, the project it's self is non-commercial and grant funded. They may be a bit "chemistry is fun" and a big purpose of their creation is to make chemistry fun and interesting to kids and to a large degree they've been quite successful at that. I think they would be a good addition here for the same purpose, if kids could find the link buried down in the external links to begin with. None of the information they present is analytical and overly technical, they do present lots of "cool" experiments and explosions that make things interesting to viewers. Quite frankly I think many of our articles could do with in-line videos that make these topics more "alive" to the reader, and I'll hopefully be working with the producer of these videos to license us some video content we can use for that purpose, along with some illustrations of elements we're lacking good illustrations for. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    Not to bug you, just minor comments, (i) some other wikis focus on kids education, not wikipedia; (ii) it is different when the links jump below a small video window and when they stay on top of a long page. Materialscientist (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    I think Jimbo would very much disagree that education and kids are not a big focus of Wikipedia. Thats how YouTube handles advertising to accommodate in-line placement of videos and still keep ads in them. Hopefully they're not opposed to just directly uploading these videos to Commons, which would solve all those concerns, yes? — raeky (talk | edits) 06:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support but I think we should link to the main site, , rather than to the YouTube mirror. Maybe that would address some of MS's concerns. The videos are informative and basically correct. They often contain material which we cannot expect to be available freely in the foreseeable future (unless the producer releases it under a free licence). There maybe an element of PoV in the narrations, but it's not just anyone's PoV – Martyn Poliakoff is a respected inorganic chemist working at a well-known university. These videos seem to me to be exactly what "external links" are there for: they are potentially useful to our readers, but not something we can quote verbatim. Physchim62 (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Linking to the site as opposed to direct videos wouldn't solve the advertising, but it would solve the problem when they update a video to a newer version we won't have to update it here and track those. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
      • That in itself is a benefit! As for advertising, WebElements also has plenty of adverts, but it doesn't stop us from linking to it... Physchim62 (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as external link Although I was really impressed by the fluorine video, I am swayed by Materialscientist's views that (i) these videos have too much marketing content and (ii) some videos are kiddie shows and might be better in other parts of Wikipedia universe. The first point is more important: the relentless encroachment of marketing (logo's, adverts, etc). The scientists in the videos might be a reputable, but many scientists are also insufferably vain promotors, and it would be nice to minimize that aspect here.--Smokefoot (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to something other then the Google ads that YouTube inserts? — raeky (talk | edits) 06:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree that many scientists are insufferably vain promotors (let's call the IVPs for short), but science usually tolerates that when they do something useful! I think that Smokefoot is referring to something other than the GoogleAds, but I wouldn't like to comment for risk of a BLP violation ;) Physchim62 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I've watched LOTS of these videos has haven't noticed anything in them that would be considered promotional or advertising... — raeky (talk | edits) 07:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
          • In terms of non-ideal promotion, I was referring partly to the U. of Nottingham logo and the adverts on the UTube site, but more importantly the idea that the charming/natty/clever prof will lead to unforeseen on-line antics. The promotionalism by academics is very difficult to stop. Once we incentivize professors to use Wikipedia more directly to advance their fame, there will be a tidal wave of contributions that blend legitimate content with flattering portrayals of these charming/natty/clever individuals. See Raeky's comment in The Periodic Table of Videos "Poliakoff ... reminiscent of Einstein". But again, perhaps I over-react, and we can keep a lid of such antics.--Smokefoot (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't think there is anything wrong with a likable persona or how you put it "charming/natty/clever" presenting science in an easy to understand and fun way. One of the HUGE things in schools these days is the disinterest in the sciences by kids, and anything to promote science is a good thing. These videos are not intended to be technical or intended for a technical audience. They're intended to be interesting and quick for laymen and kids alike. And this addresses User A1's rather conversational flow breaking comment below as well, their intent is not to be a technical presentation. They're produced in part by a university and they've chosen to brand the films with a their logo in the opening, not unusual, MIT brands their courseware films too, as does many other people. Lots of these videos are not cheap to produce, they consume in some fairly expensive amounts of chemicals, so it's not unusual that the university would like to be recognized for their production, at least the elemental videos wasn't funded by a grant, I'll have to see if I can get a source for where that funding came from, but I don't feel a half a second small logo at the bottom of a splash screen constitutes overtly branding. And I don't feel that the only video we can link too or use has to be technical and bland! — raeky (talk | edits) 13:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose : Is this where the discussion is happening?? I have copied my comments from User talk:raeky
Hello, I watched the aluminium video, and I felt that it was very lacklustre. There is very little scientific information imparted by these links. I do not believe that they have any "nutritional value", so to speak, and would support the removal of these links. the points made in the aluminium video were "Aluminium when first discovered was expensive, it can make smooth surfaces readily (this is probably done using some form of PVD, or sputter coating.

More interesting points about aluminium include:

  • its crystal structure : the lattice parameter is near that of a radically different metal, gold.
  • Its passivating nature,
  • Its reactivity when passivation is inhibited
  • Its amazing rollability
  • Its lack of strength which is amazingly enhanced when alloyed (pure aluminium has a very low yield strength)
  • Its low specific weight, and hence when alloyed a high strength to mass ratio.

In short the video really was not particularly informative, and I feel that yes, this has a bit of a PR feel, and sympathise with User:Materialscientist's comments. User A1 (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Some additional points:
  • A good video might be:
  • Freely redistributable (CC licenced)
  • Free from institutional or corporate branding
  • Display phenomenological effects that are difficult to convey in a text form (for example a tensile test of aluminium vs steel), or the use of aluminium powder as a pyrophoric compound. etc.
  • Refrain from focussing on persona, and keep to the topic.

User A1 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • oppose :When an article contains all the information it needs I always delete the webelements link, because it does not give anything what is worth keeping it. The same with the videos and the Royal Society podcasts on the elements. The videos are nice made but they only give minimal additional value. --Stone (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Has there been any update on this? I don't support the idea of a vote; but currently I would say there isn't any consensus to keep these videos. As for the comparison to the opencourseware videos -- this is somewhat incorrect as the OCW videos are licenced under a CC-BY-NC licence; you could chop off the labelling if you had a mind to. Secondly, although technical (somehow this is "dry?" -- are we not a reference material?) they make some exceptionally good points in the OCW videos that I have seen -- if you have any interest in mathematics, for example, the gilbert strang series is very good; and the presentational flow makes the video format actually useful. I don't think the comment about inline rich media needs be addressed here, this opens up its own can of worms. (eg Many readers of WP are from non-western countries where bandwidth may be limited.). In short I would like to see a "wrap up" or extension of this discussion, lets not have it simply peter out. User A1 (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have asked for a bit more input, but none seems more forthcoming. I am going to slowly pick off the worse videos, at which point I expect there will be objections, and more discussion. User A1 (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy issues

In a related discussion, Materialscientist (talk · contribs) raised the issue of WP:EL: in my (rarely humble) opinion, these links fall under point 4 of Links to be considered, namely "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Physchim62 (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Element thumbnails

Hello, I just noticed that when on an article of a specific chemical element, the main illustration (the periodic table with electron configurations and structure) the electron config can't be seen clearly as it is too small. Anything we can do?-- (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Expert help please

Would a polymer process expert please take a look at Cobalt mediated radical polymerization and Catalytic chain transfer. They look like notable subjects but need bringing up to snuff per MOS etc. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


I just wrote a stub on metadynamics. If anyone wants to jump in and help, just do!   --Cyclopiatalk 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Help at bullvalene

I've been doing a little editing of the bullvalene article and noticed something I don't know how to fix. In the section bullvalene#semibullvalene the following synthesis is given:

Scheme 3. Semibullvalene synthesis

The accompanying text states that the "compound was first prepared by photolysis of barrelene in toluene with acetone as a photosensitizer". But, looking at the scheme, we have the substance (CH3)2CH2CH2CH3 which can't possibly exist (note the pentavalent carbon). I don't know if this is meant to be toluene (to match the text) or is mis-written methylbutane or what... can the scheme be edited, or failing that replaced, and does anyone know what the correct chemistry is? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • It is one of those days: someone spots a mistake in a chem image, automatically assumes that the fundamental rules of science are violated and cries murder Check the original article (first page for free!) and it will simply tell you isopentane is meant. Fundamentally big mistake?, I disagree. Check the author name, it will tell you it is Howard Zimmermann who happens to be a Wikipedia editor so you could have asked him directly instead of complaining here. Unfortunately no mechanism exists for correcting images because it is not possible to get an agreement on a single free-access graphics editor within the Wikipedia chemistry community. I for one am not going to correct the image for the simple reason that I am annoyed V8rik (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. I recognised the possibility that the formula might have been intended to be methylbutane (isopentane), but was puzzled as the text refers specifically to the reaction being carried out in toluene, so was having trouble reconciling a clearly impossible formula with a name that was not even close to what the formula might plausibly have been meant to be.
  2. I have now corrected the url provided and read the article... it says 1 - 2 % isopentane solutions of barrelene, so I remain unsure as to why the WP page says the reaction is carried out in toluene.
  3. I neither assumed the fundamental rules of science were violated, nor screamed bloody murder. I simply and politely asked for assistance. I was not in any doubt that the formula was simply incorrect but I was not certain what it should have been.
  4. "Check the author name ..." - are you serious? Go looking for the author of a nearly 45 year old paper on the off chance that he or she might have a WP account under their own name?
  5. It is a shame that correcting images is not possible, thanks for at least answering this part of my question.
  6. "I for one am not going to correct it ..." - what a childish attitude, given that you are the originator of the image and thus likely have the source file. Since you admit that there is an error in the image, is the better outcome to simply remove it from the encyclopedia? I will correct the text to note isopentane rather than toluene is the solvent. I hope someone else can come up with a better solution to the diagram issue than leaving it with a mistake or removing the diagram entirely.
  7. I truly hope you are simply having a bad day, because otherwise your attitude could do with some improvement, in my opinion.
EdChem (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a CC/GNU released free image PNG. Simply download it, edit it in Microsoft Paint or MacPaint or what have you, and reupload it at commons under the same name, with an edit summary stating your fix. If you're careful with font sizes and placing the edit box, overwriting the error with new text is simple. (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My mood has improved since yesterday thank you. I have corrected the image, I have included the source file in the commons section. My general advice, next time you see pentavalent carbon in an image assume an error was made. The best place for notifications of this type is the talk page that goes with the article. V8rik (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for your reply and the updated image, and I am glad for you that your mood is improved. I should have considered posting at talk:bullvalene, I accept that. I brought it here because of my confusion about how the mention of toluene fit with the structure, but my choice can certainly be criticised. No matter what, I am glad that the article content is now consistent with the underlying reference. Regards, EdChem (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Did you know?" help

I started the article gold-sulfur bond. I want to expand and improve over the next few days, and add elaborations and numerous sources, and of course pretty images, but it is difficult with my current workload. I do wish to make the five day deadline...thanks! John Riemann Soong (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice effort but the contents should probably be folded into Self-assembled monolayer (SAM) and into gold. Otherwise the article is pretty naive, relative to the principles of coordination chemistry. "This bond that has puzzled chemists for centuries," "The electronics of this bond between is not exactly clear" "Spectroscopic work has been key in studying this bond" are naive and unintendedly approach pseudoscience, IMHO. In general, the issues raised are associated with SAMs (whether the H is still on the surface-bound thiol). The article suggests to readers that certain ligand-metal combinations are very special, which can be very misleading and even unhelpful, IMHO. The article on gold needs help on the chemistry front, e.g. the great resilience of its thiolate derivatives. Possibly a rewritten section in that fundamentally important article could be highlighted in the DYK. For some reason the gold business has motivated the launch of several very strange articles, such as gold chalcogenides, which was converted into a redirect, and gold cluster, jargon of some sort that required complete rewrite. As a side note, the DYK business needs to be careful about attracting unvetted articles by enthusiastic authors who are uncalibrated in chemistry.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I make thiol-functionalised gold nanoparticles all the time that are not SAMs. In particular the question I am currently dealing with is whether Au-(H?)S-R is susceptible to attack by hydrogen peroxide; does the thiol detach from the surfaceas sulfonic acid, or does the Au atom it is attached to remove most of its kinetic reducing power? Gold-sulfur linkages are very popular but to me there are two alternate ways of (strongly) linking something to gold, albeit more experimental.
I am rushing a project now so I don't have time to elaborate with good sources -- I hope someone can do that for me, such as previous work and the literature on the hypotheses. I am particularly interested in the gold-sulfur interactions and not SAMs; a comparison of gold's interactions between thiolate, thiol, thiol radical and thioethers, as well as a direct comparison to bonds between Au(I) and thiols and thiolates. John Riemann Soong (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
You just made the case that this article is original research (or a merit badge project for the Boy Scouts). The problem with the gold-sulfur bond article is that it is promotes naive perspectives and requires major clean-up. There are more prosaic topics needing help that require less creative writing and more reporting on facts. Like gold.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure most of what I'm doing is not OR, but things that people do all the time. We order these things from a company. ;-) At the moment there's a lot of weasel words because I don't have time to search the lit and pull the appropriate authors and papers. I am told research in gold-sulfur bonding goes a long long way back -- even the sources in the journals I cited in that article tell me that. John Riemann Soong (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There's your lesson for the day, right there: get your sources ready before you write an article!

I am interested in gold and sulfur, so I'll make a draft article on Au-S chemistry and you can see how I would go about it.

Then you can pinch any good bits of my draft and use them to expand Gold-sulfur bond.

Ben (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First attempt: User:Benjah-bmm27/Au-S
Ben (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Water of crystallisation

There's some stuff in this article I'm concerned about, like this:

Other types of water that may be present in a crystal are anion water (with hydrogen bonds to anions), [1]

lattice water (no direct bonding with an ion) and constitution water (water present as hydroxyl groups). Zeolite water is water that occupies vacancies (empty sites in the crystal lattice) and may be removed without changing the crystal structure. [2][3][4]

Classically, "water of crystallization" refers to water that is found in a crystalline framework of a metal complex but that is not directly bonded to the metal ion.

Anion water and constitution water anybody? User_talk:Wickey-nl has been going round linking things to this page which I'm not sure are appropriate. Anybody else have any opinions? Furthermore, they've changed the redirect at Epsom salt from Magnesium sulphate to Epsomite, which is technically not incorrect but not useful, since all the medicinal uses of Mag Sulphate are at the former. Am tempted to revert.... Chris (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to get this editor to become a little more communicative. So did others. Tone deaf + determined + not necessarily expert = difficult situation.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I commented out the section I disagree with. It comes from this source here, but this does not actually say that the things mentioned are Water of Crystallisation. It also says "Coordinated water: Water forms a chelate ion in a chelate complex", which is just plain nonsense. In my opinion, as a reputable source this is useless (I suspect it's just a bad translation from the Japanese). I also reverted the Epsom salt redirect. Epsomite should be a page about the mineral, and Magnesium sulphate about the chemical. Chris (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture help

Can anybody undistort the picture in the infobox at 2,2'-bipyridine so that the rings are hexagonal? Ta, Chris (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the image file to another one available on commons. EdChem (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I never thought of that. Chris (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ACS Boston meeting

Is anyone else from here attending the Boston ACS meeting next week? I'll be there, and giving a talk about chemistry on Wikipedia (CHED session, Sunday afternoon), so you can come along and heckle me if you like. User:ChemSpiderMan will also be there, and probably others too. We could maybe meet for lunch or something. Please be sure to say hello, at least! Walkerma (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename Atomic Mass Unit article to Dalton (unit)?

As a result of a decision made in 2005, the article Dalton (unit) was merged into and redirected to the article Atomic mass unit. Since then the standards bodies appear to have changed their stance. I have proposed that the Dalton (unit) become the definitive article and that Atomic mass unit consists of a redirection. Please comment on this proposal at talk:Atomic mass unit.

This notice appears at both the Physics and the Chemistry Wikiproject pages. Martinvl (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI: volunteers needed

There’s a good number of people, e.g. Kww (talk), Tim Vickers (talk), Coren (talk), among many others, who have expressed desire to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia for writing on the subject of the “human molecule”, efforts of which resulted in a one year ban on me, back in 2007. To exemplify one objection, as expressed by Coren earlier this year: “You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is not the proper venue to document your novel theories.” The central problem here is that this is not “my novel theory”; but rather the theory dates back over two hundred years, with over ninety different people publishing content on this subject:

There have been at least six books written on the subject, one painting, four aluminum Molecule Man statues (one 100-foot tall), movie mentions, articles, over a dozen videos, many debates, posters, as well as college courses (dating back to 1894) taught utilizing the human molecule perspective as a basis. What seems to be the case is that either: (a) I have been mis-labeled as an editor with aims of self-promotion over that of an editor with a genuine interest in a subject (that very few people write on or know about); or (b) the subject is an anathema to many editors (and as such are using the various bylaws of Wikipedia in their favor to block the subject from Wikipedia)? To give a bit of history of my failed efforts to write neutral overview article on the subject:

Article EoHT article Deletion #1 Deletion #2 Desired neutral article
Human molecule (human molecule) AFD (I requested deletion) redirect to nanoputian (10 Oct 2007) Delete per WP:CSD#G4 (11 Jun 2010)

What I am looking for, at this point, being that there obviously exists some form admitable of conflict of interest (being that I wrote a history book on the subject of the human molecule in 2008 and that I seem to be one of only three people, including Robert Sterner and James Elser (2000), who have every made an attempt at the calculation of the molecular formula for one person), is for a minimum of about two or three neutral volunteer editors to write up a one page article (or even stub paragraph) on the subject of the “human molecule” (encompassing its derivative terms human atom, social atom, human chemical, human element, etc.), and I will confide my contributions or guidance of the article to the talk page. The topic, to note, is very controversial being that it is at odds with many cherished theories, particularly those of religion as well as many secular theories, such as life, free will, choice, purpose, etc.

My interest in having a Wikipedia article on this subject is so that children, age 15 or younger, will know that there is an alternative viewpoint out there on what it means to be a “human” (in contrast to the dogma of outdated subjects such as religion or other secular philosophies), and that this subject has been tossed around for at least 200-years now. At a minimum I would like to see:

(a) the mention that French philosopher Jean Sales (friend of Voltaire) coined the term in 1789 as follows: "we conclude that there exists a principle of the human body which comes from the great process in which so many millions of atoms of the earth become many millions of human molecules."
(b) the Sterner-Elser 2002 published calculation for the empirical molecular formula for one “human molecule”, as found in their Ecological Stoichiometry textbook, where they define a human (a publication which has been cited over 750-times): [5]

It is my view that the ban of this topic from Wikipedia is equivalent to the hysteria that results in acts of book burning of olden days or the inquisitions of Galileo for believing in the work of Copernicus. As Physchim62 (talk) put in on 11 Jun 2010 "It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events". I would like to think that there are more than myself and Physchim62 amenable to having a short stub article on the subject of the human defined atomically. I will post this help-message on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry talk pages. Comments welcome. --Libb Thims (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons needs YOUR help

More "chemistry" Admins to Commons

As you see on that deletion "debate" here I encourage you to candidate for an admin on commons. I will also do that and I will support you. We have plenty of pictures to maintain, update - or - decide deletion debates by person with some deep knowledge in chemistry and biochemistry, respectively. Not to speak of those categories...--Yikrazuul (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to make a concrete illustration of "activity coefficients"...

Click image for larger version. A hypothetical reaction A- + A- → A22-, in pure water (left) and saltwater (right). As the two A-s approach, they experience a stronger and stronger repulsive electric force (orange arrows). However, the repulsion is always much weaker in saltwater, because a cloud of Na+ cations can screen the charges. Therefore the reaction enthalpy is different, as are the equilibrium concentrations. This means NaCl has changed the activity coefficients of A- and A22-.

Hello! I tried to make an illustration that would show a very concrete pedagogical example of "activity coefficients" -- an example where activity (which determines equilibria, etc.) is very obviously different from concentration. I came up with the diagram and caption on the right. I knew from the start that it wouldn't be very clear, and now Petergans (talk · contribs) has pointed out on my talk page that it's also incorrect! (Or at least misleading.) Can anyone suggest improvements to salvage this animation? Or, I can do something completely different from scratch. (Making this animation only took 20 minutes, using MS Powerpoint, no big deal.) What is the simple picture that you imagine when you think about activity coefficients affecting some chemical process? Or another way to put it: When you think about a non-ideal solution, what does the non-ideality look like in your mind's eye, and why does it alter equilibrium concentrations? I was thinking of dissolved chemicals originally, but a gas (fugacity) example would also be worthwhile.

The textbooks I've seen so far don't have the kind of concrete pedagogical examples I'm looking for, they just go through formal derivations.

Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To me a non-ideal solution is one whose overall Gibbsian energy at equilibrium is a complex function of the concentration of the involved species. This could be for many reasons -- some kind of geometric frustration in a species which might have a preferred arrangement being disrupted if the ratios of the two species are wrong; complex docking type behaviours. I think trying to sum up all of these as the single "cause" is nearly impossible -- you might be able to provide examples for known highly nonideal cases; (this could well be a boat-load of work..) but attempting to provide a single graphic that encompasses all reasons might be tricky. User A1 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
For sure, it can't and shouldn't be all reasons. It's an example, and will be clearly labeled as such. ("This is an example of one situation where activity is very different from concentration...")
Docking and geometry are generally very easy to depict, but I'm not quite sure what you're referring to (Are you talking about solid crystal structures, or something else?) Thanks! --Steve (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, maybe I could show pure water, and then add more and more lipids, and then at some point they start forming micelles? Maybe I could show pure octane, and you add more and more acetic acid, and at some point they start forming dimers? Something like that? --Steve (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an issue of a very general nature here, that is, the near impossibility of reconciling thermodynamics with molecular structure, especially when dealing with equilibria in aqueous solutions. It comes down to the difficulty of separating enthalpy and entropy components of delta G. petergans (talk · contribs)

Here's my second try, to the right. Any suggestions? Concerns? (I'm trying to convey a very very simple idea here.) Thanks! :-) --Steve (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A simple example of a non-ideal mixture between two liquids A and B. In this example, the attraction between A and B molecules is similar to between B and B, but the A-A interaction (red arrows) is very unfavorable (repulsive) by comparison. At higher concentration of A, the A-A interactions become more frequent, so the activity coefficient of A (free energy per molecule of A) goes up.

Pi interaction

Pi interaction is a nearly orphaned article, i.e. very few other articles link to it. If possible, work on it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No update from WolterBot for five months?

Hello all, I am new here, but have always had an interest in chemistry and have poked around Wikipedia a good bit. I noticed the cleanup list was last updated on March 23, 2010! After looking at a few entries I realized how very outdated it was, many of the articles there no longer require attention etc. Is it normal for this much time to elapse between updates?

Also, what is the general direction of the project at this point? Have the stated goals on the main page been met?

Excited to hear back! Scientific29 (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems others have encountered this difficulty as well, and a new bot is currently being tested. Please do respond to other questions though!!! Scientific29 (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made a sample list at User:CleanupListingBot/Test Reports/WikiProject Chemistry. I'm in the process of recoding/optimizing the bot, so it will be another week before its good to go. Enjoy.Smallman12q (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok thank you! Scientific29 (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Chemical commentary

The Chemistry section of this incubator article is beginning to fill in. Is any one willing to give me some constructive feedback? There's a strong possibility that this very-controversial 25-page article will end up in afd. As many will remember, in 2007, I was banned for an entire year for attempting to write on this subject, particularly through the efforts of biochemist Tim Vickers's whose efforts to smear my name, painting a picture of me as a fringe theory conman, has resulted to turn me into a Wikipedia demon, not only in Wikipedia but in conversations with other physicists and chemists outside of Wikipedia. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like steaming horse manure reeking of pseudoscience and cloaked in scholarly gobbledygook. Tim Vickers is one of the most skillful editors in Wikipedia-Chem. Wikipedia is, however, host to many articles on farces and fringe theories.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Christoph Wieland called the same topic “nonsense and childish fooling around” and a “truly horrible” subject, exactly 200-years-ago. The key term in my last post, however, was "constructive feedback". Vickers may be a skillful editor, but he certainly is no genius. The subject of deriving theory on the view that people are molecules, however, is a subject worked on by geniuses: Voltaire (IQ=190), in 1777, Johann Goethe (IQ=225), in 1808, Humphry Davy (IQ=185), in 1813, and Christopher Hirata (IQ=225), in 2000. Hirata, in fact, wrote up his first theory "Thermochemical Approach to Relationships", just four years after becoming the youngest person (age 12) to win the International Physics Olympiad in 1996. The central equations used by Hirata are:
where X and Y are females and males, respectively. Goethe, likewise, the central pioneer of this subject, according to both Tony Buzan's (Book of Genius, 1994) and Catherine Cox's (Early Mental Traits of 300 Geniuses, 1926) is said to have been the most intelligent person to have ever lived. This is corroborated by the fact that Goethe's 52-volume collected set of works represented the largest portion of Einstein's personal library (wherein Einstein kept a bust of Goethe). The central equations used by Goethe are:
where A and B, in the topic equation, are people, and A in the bottom equation is chemical affinity. Goethe, in his own words, considered his this theory to be his "greatest work", out of his total 52-volumes of published work. I find it very disingenuous, therefore, Smokefoot, to resort to childish mudslinging on a subject worked on by four of the world's greatest geniuses. In any event, what matters, from the point of view of Wikipedia, is that subject is referenced and established. Aside from disagreeing with the subject, does anyone have any feedback, as to the Wikipedia-five piller aspects of the article? --Libb Thims (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Scientific progress is neither based on "I think my theory X is my best" (no matter how famous the person is) bor on "famous person Y has a copy of X his library". Everything must stand or fall on its own actual merits. Nobel laureates can have crackpot ideas, hilariously ridiculous writings can be popular for that reason alone among scholars, etc. DMacks (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
It is not for us to decide whether or not someone’s theory is “crackpot” or not. An established reference would be needed for such an assertion, i.e. Goethe’s theory is crackpot[1]; Hirata’s theory is crackpot[2], etc. --Libb Thims (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've managed to read the comment above (IQ is irrelevant there, as it does not measure the ability of non-chemists do develop a chemical theory), but not the article - it is overly long and unfocused. Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding IQ, although this is not immediately relevant, I bring the fact up to wake up some debate on this topic. Why, for example, do the economists, such as MIT-trained philosophy professor Alan Nelson, have entire articles and book chapters written on the theory that economic agents are "human molecules"?; why have the limnologists been the ones to do the first stoiciometric calculation for the molecular formula for a human?; why has the literature department (Goethe (1809), Adler (1977), Fink (2001), been the ones to develop human chemical reaction theory?; why have the historians and sociologists been the first to apply thermodynamics (Adams, 1910) and thermochemistry (Carey, 1858) to human molecular theory?, etc., etc., etc., all the while, we chemists sit around and sling mud at each other calling the subject pseudoscience? --Libb Thims (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the article being “overly-long and unfocused”, I have been forced into this predicament, out of necessity. My very first edit to Wikipedia, in 2005, of over 10,000 edits (and 100+ new articles) was a stub on “human thermodynamics” a subject defined by C.G. Darwin in 1952 as the statistical mechanics of systems of “human molecules”. This was soon driven out of the village as pseudoscience. I attempted a similar stub on “human chemistry”, in 2007, a subject defined by Henry Adams in 1885 as the study of the attraction of equivalent “human molecules”. This was again driven out of the village as witchcraft, for which I was burned at the stake. On June 10th, of this year, deciding to forgo attempts at re-writing an article on either human chemistry or thermodynamics, I attempted a simple 5-reference stub on the 2002 published calculation for the molecular formula for one “human molecule”, by Sterner and Elser, cited over 750 times, with a short mention that others have attempted chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics formulation of this subject. This was quickly driven out of the village by User:Tim Vickers (the same person who drove me out of the village in 2007) on the grounds that the article human molecule is “hoax/fringe”, and that I was simply writing this article to promote my books. I am thus sick and tired of getting driven out of the village to be burned at the stake, by people like Tim Vickers, and am thus slowly adding enormous numbers of references to substantiate, what in any other non-controversial article, would have been appeased with ten or fewer references. --Libb Thims (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to express yourself within a few lines, maximum, would help, and talking about writing should not substitute writing. Answers to "why" above would be self-serving. Materialscientist (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


Try getting permanently banned for doing such mundane things as mentioning, by suggestion, that photon exchange is a component of heat, or writing a stub on "human chemistry", and possibly you won’t be writing such short defensive statements? Re: "Answers to "why" above would be self-serving", I don't know what this means? --Libb Thims (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Death threats are forbidden on Wikipedia. Either cite it and let's address that behavior, or explicitly retract that accusation immediately. DMacks (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I’ll take the following three in-context comments by admin kww directed at being representative of his view of me:

  • Delete and salt and ban author: Another in the web of "human chemistry' garbage perpetrated by Sadi Carnot. No real notability, an involvement with a fringe pseudoscience that is so far on the fringe that it nearly seems to be an analogy, no good third-party sources, and the only Wikipedia editor that has taken any interest in him writes dishonest self-promoting articles as a hobby. Kill the article, ban the author." Kww (12 Oct 2007)
  • "Glad to see that I didn't have to wait for the heat death of the universe to get someone to agree that he is deserving of a ban. I'll ask again ... what is the proper forum to discuss banning him?" Kww (15 Oct 2007)
  • "The one I wish I had handled better was Sadi Carnot. I allowed myself to get goaded into anger. I learned from that. I may still get angry at times, but you'd have a hard time seeing it from the words I write." Kww (06 Jun 2009)

These are three of dozens directed at me by Kww all for writing a stub article that “human chemistry: the study of the attractions of human molecules” (Henry Adams 1885 definition). Kww was the one who improperly speeded my 2010 attempt at a rewrite of the human molecule article. Hence, I do not take lightly these types of attacks on me personally regarding this subject, especially by someone, who, in Kww's own words, "wields a few of the magic admin buttons", and improperly uses them against topics he doesn't like. --Libb Thims (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? You cannot comprehend the difference between "heat death of the universe" and wikipedia bans/blocks vs a death-threat? I see no death threats against you. Retract your statement or I will indef-block you for gross incivility. This is not a personal attack on you, this is merely a direct response to your on-wiki behavior here now and whether you are making a good-faith effort to contribute collaboratively here. Go spend time working on the article as others mentioned. DMacks (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I have retracted my comments, per your order. Given that you do not see the full picture of Kww's campaign against me personally, I will assume you do not see the big picture and are being polite. But, for the record, I'll take Kww's admittedly "anger"-filled comment "kill the article, ban the author" to mean something uncivil. If this was a one-time comment, this would certainly be no big deal, but I have been digging through some of the 100-pages of archives of Kww's three-year campaign against me, and I see this as sentence "in-context". --Libb Thims (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
"kill the article, ban the author" most certainly does not mean "kill the author". I suggest you retract that at once. You are your own worse enemy as you were in the past. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have retracted the comment. But, as I have commented at the Admin noticeboard, I do not think admins should be talking about killing anything, however one takes this comment. --Libb Thims (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Any issues with the article?

I apologize to everyone if I seem on edge, but I have been persecuted to no end, since my very first (2005), with mention of anything and anyone who has developed theory about the behaviors of "human molecules". At one time, Bduke and I used to be on good terms. I assume everyone in the WikiProject chemistry now hates me? Whatever the case, everyone's dislike of me aside, does anyone have any feedback as to why, potentially, the human molecule could get deleted? --Libb Thims (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think we were on either good terms or bad, and that remains so. Above, I was simply objecting to your claim that an admin had threatened to kill you. You do not get friends by making such a claim. My objection to the article is summed up by the editor on the section "Nothing but WP:SYNTHESIS?" on its talk page, which I see you utterly failed to address. As a consequence it is far too long and gives undue weight to a fringe subject. I am also concerned that you have a massive conflict of interest in view of your books and your own wiki. I suggest you leave it to others. If this fringe topic is notable someone else will add something about it on WP. However, I certainly will not do so. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Example: Anion water in gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) and hemihydrate (CaSO4·1/2H2O)
  2. ^ Hiroaki Masuda,Kō Higashitani,Hideto Yoshida: Powder technology handbook CRC Press, 2006 (google books)
  3. ^ Kazuo Nakamoto: Infrared and Raman Spectra of Inorganic and Coordination Compounds Part B Wiley-Interscience, 2009 pp. 57-60 (google books)
  4. ^ Wells, A.F. (1984) Structural Inorganic Chemistry, Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-855370-6.
  5. ^ Sterner, Robert W. and Elser, James J. (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere (human molecule, pgs. 3, 47, 135). Princeton University Press.
  6. Return to the project page "WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 20".