WikiProject Chemistry	(Rated Project-class)	ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
v t e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Chembox[edit]

I've just finished a review of phosphoric acid. Once again, the clumsiness of the chembox is apparent. A large chembox like this one forces an editor to put pictures and tables on the left and generally leaves less space for the article text. What about mobile phone access?

Here is a suggestion: make all the categories collapsible, with "collapsed" as default setting, A chembox could look like this

It will then be easy for a user to show a single category and view its contents, rather than having to trawl through a long list to find what he/she is looking for. Petergans (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Making the boxes collapsible is reasonable and could certainly be helpful for the extremely full chemboxes. But those situations are the minority, so if the sections become collapsible, then uncollapsed should be the default state. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of auto-collapsed tables as a rule. If it is better for mobile access then at least go with default un-collapsed on browsers and default collapsed on mobile view. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, "collapsed" (i.e., by [show/hide] button) does not exist in mobile view. In mobile, it will allways show uncollapsed. This too is why one must design for 'uncollapsed'.

In a wider view: the desire to collapse an infobox has this inconsistency: if you want to collapse parts, that part does not qualify for a WP:INFOBOX. For {{Chembox}}, this contradiction stems from the habit to make the infobox into a data sheet as well. So it tries to square the circle: infobox = main info — datasheet = complete info. Personally, I think this could best be solved by moving minor data into a "Data sheet" section, leaving main info into in the infobox. Same with {{Infobox element}} and {{Infobox drug}}. -DePiep (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Branches of chemistry[edit]

Hello. I work essentially in the Portuguese version of Wikipedia, which has serious problems in Chemistry related articles. I found one template which in my opinion is confused, and it's basically the same in English version. It's about Template:Branches of chemistry, which connects different areas in three main topics. I think it's a kind of arbitrary definition, some of that areas (eg Polymer chemistry, Physical organic chemistry, Pharmacy, Surface science, Geochemistry, Solid-state chemistry, Materials science, etc) are actually the result of mixing the three main topics (Physical, Inorganic and Organic Chemistry) with others scientific areas. I wonder if it wouldn't be better in a template such as in the Template:Branches of biology case, without these divisions. Att, Rafael Kenneth (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys, no opinion? Isn't it possible to understand what I've said? Rafael Kenneth (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I understand what you say, but I think that the organisation is OK. It is easier to see what is there than the more compact biology nav template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Unbibium[edit]

FYI there is an RFC at Talk:Unbibium regarding whether a page at that title should now exist. shoy (reactions) 19:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

3DMet article: substance needed[edit]

I have created article stub 3DMet, since "3DMet" is used in {{Chembox}} (144x). An editor asked for more substance, since it does need some sourcing & notability notes. Pls take a look & an edit. -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

ping Boleyn - DePiep (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we could use a navbox re Chemical database (and Category:Chemical databases (47)). Or Chemical ID (identifiers only, Category:Chemical numbering schemes (43)); does this overlap with {{Authority control}}? -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. The science publishing landscape In an ideal world ... no, bear with your editor for just a minute ... there would be a format for scientific publishing online that was as much a standard as SI units are for the content. Likewise cataloguing publications would not be onerous, because part of the process would be to generate uniform metadata. Without claiming it could be the mythical free lunch, it might be reasonably be argued that sandwiches can be packaged much alike and have barcodes, whatever the fillings. The best on offer, to stretch the metaphor, is the meal kit option, in the form of XML. Where scientific papers are delivered as XML downloads, you get all the ingredients ready to cook. But have to prepare the actual meal of slow food yourself. See Scholarly HTML for a recent pass at heading off XML with HTML, in other words in the native language of the Web. The argument from real life is a traditional mixture of frictional forces, vested interests, and the classic irony of the principle of unripe time. On the other hand, discoverability actually diminishes with the prolific progress of science publishing. No, it really doesn't scale. Wikimedia as movement can do something in such cases. We know from open access, we grok the Web, we have our own horse in the HTML race, we have Wikidata and WikiJournal, and we have the chops to act. Links ImageGrid SPARQL query for the Art+Feminism focus list on Wikidata. Run and then scroll ... The TABernacle tool for Wikidata editing, by Magnus Manske, has been upgraded. Demo with the ScienceSource focus list and main subjects: with a WiDar login you can edit directly in the table cells. Enslaved: People of the Historic Slave Trade, Michigan State University project for a linked open data platform. Quote: "Disambiguating and merging individuals across multiple datasets is nearly impossible given their current, siloed nature." As the Linked Data for Production (LD4P) project finishes its initial two-year cycle and moves into LD4P2, a list of its BIBFRAME and other RDF tools. Machine Learning with and for Semantic Web Knowledge Graphs, detailed slide pack by Heiko Paulheim, University of Mannheim. In Europe, Scientists Need to Share Their Research for Free if They Want Government Funding, Futurism, by Kristin House, 5 September 2018. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ternary compound and Tertiary (chemistry)[edit]

I've come across these sets of what seem to me like very similar articles: Ternary compound and Tertiary (chemistry), Quaternary compound and Quaternary (chemistry). Are these four distinct topics, or two topics unduly spread across four articles? And where does Quaternary phase fit into the picture? – Uanfala (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Quaternary compound and Quaternary (chemistry) look to be the same topic. But Ternary compound and Tertiary (chemistry) are very different subjects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Quaternary phase is (sort of) the four-element equivalent of ternary compound (which deals with three elements) and binary compound (that deals with two elements). These deal with compounds based on the number of different elements in the compound. Quaternary phase, though, is more a materials science term.


• 
  Tertiary (chemistry) and quaternary (chemistry) are related terms in organic chemistry dealing with substitution patterns. Quaternary compound is a badly written article overlapping with quaternary (chemistry) and the two should probably be merged. The former seems to confuse a quaternary cation with an ionic compound containing a quaternary cation, and the latter deals with quaternary compounds whether the quaternary centre is cationic or neutral. EdChem (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"Bromtoluolklorid"[edit]

Hi. I just started an article about Alfred Wahlforss, who researched subtance called "bromtoluolklorid" in Swedish, "bromtoluolikloridi" in Finnish. I could not find the definite English term, but suppose that it is bromotoluene chloride. Is this correct? Many thanks, --Gwafton (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd guess it's e.g. 4-bromo-3-chlorotoluene or any of its nine(?) other isomers. --Leyo 23:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's Br-C₆H₄-CH₂Cl, I think para. This according to:

• 
  Wahlforss, Henrik Alfred (1870). Om Bromtoluolklorid (doctoral). Universitetet i Helsingfors..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output q{quotes:"""""""'""'"}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-free a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  

DMacks (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right. BTW: ChemSpider, ECHA --Leyo 07:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my knowledge in chemistry is limited. So by what name shall I call the chemical in the article text? --Gwafton (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Like most chemicals, there are several names in use. I would probably go with para-bromobenzyl chloride, as it makes clear that this is a derivative of benzyl chloride. Yilloslime (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is now edited with the correct name. Many thanks for all who helped. --Gwafton (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it! Just for everyone's reference, Alfred Wahlforss is the article. DMacks (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Donna Strickland, case study in ...[edit]

If anyone is interested in a real mess/fiasco/mistake/whatever, take a look at Talk:Donna Strickland for some expert handwringing,, wiki-lawyering, and shoulda-woulda. Apparently the article on this weeks's Nobelists Donna Strickland had been deleted as not notable. Of course that changed on Tuesday.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear... that is a blazing PR disaster. Looks like the page was originally deleted for copyright infringement rather than notability. There was also a parallel draft which was declined due to lack of references. Obviously some confusion as to what's actually happened there - not that it matters now as its already hit the news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Osprey (talk • contribs)

Nomination of 3DMet for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3DMet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3DMet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Deletion of this artice would give {{Chembox}} a redlink in the lefthand side. DePiep (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of 3DMet data from {{Chembox}}[edit]

Wikidata has the property: 3DMet ID (P2796) (see uses)

At the moment, the article about 3DMet (one in the Category:Chemical databases (47)), is up for deletion (AfD). Reason is lack of WP:NOTABILITY, as measured by ~not being referenced in secondary (independent) sources. IOW, virtually no sources refer to it as useful etc. or actually use 3DMet.

If and when this article is deleted, it follows that the {{Chembox}} data row (|3DMet= in {{Chembox}}) should be removed too (we should not link or point to an irrelevant and not-notifyable database). Today, some 126 articles use parameter |3DMet=: [1].

The only way to save this information is to prove notability of 3DMet by adding secondary sources (read the AfD though for an investigation already made into this: few sources are sound).

Parameter was added in 2007. -DePiep (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

If the article were to be deleted, why would that require that we remove the 3DMet parameter from the Chembox? -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk central is here. I'll reproduce your argument there shortly. -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Base modifying agent[edit]

Can anyone with some knowledge of chemistry advise me if this is a notable term that needs its own article, or can it be redirected elsewhere? I don't know enough about chemistry to determine if the few short book sources I've found on GBooks are reliable or sufficient. I'm happy to do any required legwork. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

And also heterosaccharide? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Heterosaccharide looks to me like a WP:DICDEF, and either a neologism or a misnomer for heteropolysaccharide. A sugar-cotaining monomer is a glycoside. Pectin is a polymer, and an example of a heteropolysaccharide. I suggest redirection (redirects are cheap, and someone might come across or misremember the correct name). Narky Blert (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, I like that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page[edit]

Polycarboxylates links to the DAB page threshold effect. I am (or, was) an organic chemist, and the relevant sentence puzzles me. It's unclear where calcite is (not) being deposited - on laundry or equipment? Has anyone got any ideas for resolving this problem? The best I can think of, is that it's a muddled way of saying that calcium will stay in solution while there's free sequestrant around. Narky Blert (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed. I just removed it.[2] Yilloslime (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. Wikidata imaged Around 2.7 million Wikidata items have an illustrative image. These files, you might say, are Wikimedia's stock images, and if the number is large, it is still only 5% or so of items that have one. All such images are taken from Wikimedia Commons, which has 50 million media files. One key issue is how to expand the stock. Indeed, there is a tool. WD-FIST exploits the fact that each Wikipedia is differently illustrated, mostly with images from Commons but also with fair use images. An item that has sitelinks but no illustrative image can be tested to see if the linked wikis have a suitable one. This works well for a volunteer who wants to add images at a reasonable scale, and a small amount of SPARQL knowledge goes a long way in producing checklists. Gran Teatro, Cáceres, Spain, at night It should be noted, though, that there are currently 53 Wikidata properties that link to Commons, of which P18 for the basic image is just one. WD-FIST prompts the user to add signatures, plaques, pictures of graves and so on. There are a couple of hundred monograms, mostly of historical figures, and this query allows you to view all of them. commons:Category:Monograms and its subcategories provide rich scope for adding more. And so it is generally. The list of properties linking to Commons does contain a few that concern video and audio files, and rather more for maps. But it contains gems such as P3451 for "nighttime view". Over 1000 of those on Wikidata, but as for so much else, there could be yet more. Go on. Today is Wikidata's birthday. An illustrative image is always an acceptable gift, so why not add one? You can follow these easy steps: (i) log in at https://tools.wmflabs.org/widar/, (ii) paste the Petscan ID 6263583 into https://tools.wmflabs.org/fist/wdfist/ and click run, and (iii) just add cake. Birthday logo Links Now Wikidata is six, Signpost Special Report Find out how @TheContentMine are attempting to mine scientific and medical literature to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia., Wikimedia UK tweet and video ScienceSource and the Semantic Web sciencesource-pmc-licenses tool by Oravrattas to extract Creative Commons license information from PubMed Central pages, created at the Cambridge Wikidata Workshop Whizzy use of SPARQL to map the London Underground system, whizzed past on Twitter. Wikidata birthday events mapped by SPARQL, too d:Wikidata:Sixth Birthday/Message from dev team If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Please consider[edit]

Whether http://chemister.ru/ is an appropriate reference source for the English encyclopedia, relative to alternatives, especially given that its tabular information on chemical compounds appear without any sources. See for instance, reference 1 of the citric acid article. The standard for all article information, even in the infobox, is reliable, traceable sourcing, and not just the appearance of values that allow one to complete the desired fields. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:74A5:20A6:5D83:76ED (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

zinc isopropyl xanthate[edit]

Could some kind soul with chemical drawing software and a spare moment on their hands please make me a picture of zinc isopropyl xanthate? I really would be most grateful. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

These things are deceptive. Dithioacid derivatives of zinc are typically pentacoordinate. Most crystal structures are for adducts with py etc. It is this aspect that complicates writing simple articles on the dithiophosphates and dithiocarbamates etc. Turns out that Zn(S2CO-iPr)2 has been crystallized and is in the Cambridge Database and I could produce a drawing. doi 10.1107/S0567740872004881. .... but it is a tetramer. This article has the structure of pyZn(S2COEt)2: DOI 10.1071/CH9760731.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Zn(S2CO-i-Pr)2 tetramer from doi 10.1107/S0567740872004881.

Many thanks but I was only looking for a simple skeletal formula. I'm trying redo our articles on vulcanization and sulfur vulcanization. Various agents are involved, all with uncommon functional groups, so it seemed wise to add pictures.--Project Osprey (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Xanthates are used? There is this image too. Zinc bis(dimethyldithiocarbamate)

Structure of [Zn(S₂CNEtMe)₂]₂.doi=10.1016/0277-5387(95)00559-5

Any thiocarbonyl based functional group seems to do the trick. Xanthates are used for latex. I've already used that image to illustrate dithiocarbamates.--Project Osprey (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hype city[edit]

Cyanostar, check it out.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It is now toned down somewhat, but so little is written on this molecule that it is hard to make a useful Chembox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Arsonic acids[edit]

Can someone with Chemistry knowledge please check this new page out. How is this different from Arsenous acid? Both articles reference the formula H3AsO3. Also, there is Arsonic acid. I don't know enough to evaluate if they are covering the same subject. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The situation:

• Arsonic acid does not exist. Its tautomer arsenous acid does exist. It is a common form of arsenic.


• Since we have articles on chemicals that dont exist, we have Arsonic acid. The article is essentially a disclaimer that it does not exist (much).


• strangely, although arsonic acid itself is exceedingly rate, many organoarsonic acids are known. Essentially replace the As-H in HAs(O)(OH)₂ with As-organic. R groups do not migrate well (might be an interesting rsch project). These organic compounds, some of which are fed to chickens, are described under arsonic acids, emphasis on the plural.

--Smokefoot (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Add to Chembox a link to MetaCyc database?[edit]

Here people maintaining MetaCyc have proposed to add to {{Chembox}} a link option to MetaCyc (external link, like KEGG and PubChem). Please discuss whether this is useful. -DePiep (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Carbyne. Why?[edit]

There's a chemical compund class namely carbyne and also another chemical specie called by the same name (linear acetylenic carbon - LAC) in a large range of references. Are they related in somehow degree? Or is it just a misconcept? Does someone know where the name carbyne for LAC comes? Rafael Kenneth (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Review request for QM/MM article[edit]

Hi all, I have recently added a lot of changes to the QM/MM article. I would appreciate it if these changes are reviewed for accuracy, clarity and general English/formatting. EvilxFish (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Chembox taskforce[edit]

Looking for people interested in helping out with converting {{Chembox}} to use {{Infobox}}. Anyone interested in taking part, please drop a line here. Thanks! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Second attempt. I have a working proof of concept and really need some help! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a sign that chem folks don't support your mission, given you are only asking for help accomplishing it and explicitly blocking discussion of whether it should be accomplished (for technical, time-use, or other reasons)? DMacks (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a mock up? Is there a rationale for why the Chembox needs replacing? --Smokefoot (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a partial proof of concept at {{Infobox chemical}}. From what I can tell this is a technical proposal aimed at changing the backend-code of chembox. The process of creating a chembox that we're use to (putting data into fields) ought not to be affected. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I am with DMacks here, it is a humongous amount of work where I do not see great benefit for (but good chance to break things ...). And for what it is worth (and what was blocked in the short-lived RfC): I don't like what I see in the examples. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Do I see it correctly that chembox is now silently replaced? {{chembox}} is marked as depracated? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I've un-tagged it as out-of-process, and loudly warned those involved to get WP:CONSENSUS before making changes. DMacks (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@DMacks: thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@DMacks: it is now proposed for deletion instead. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've followed up there as well. Thanks for failing to notify the wikiprojects, Zackmann08. DMacks (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(Pentamethylcyclopentadienyl)aluminium(I)[edit]

Hi again. Another new article. I'm not even sure that the title (with no spaces) is correct. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is one of several articles from Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/MIT/Main Group Chemistry (Fall 2018). The articles are of very high scholarly quality, but overspecialized. Many articles present the results of quantum calculations performed by the submitting editor (e.g. tellurophene). Beetstra and I tried at one point to remove these obviously OR results, but these students are determined to show-off their dexterity with DFT. Perhaps a grade is associated with their work. I guess that once the class is over (soon), someone might go through and discard the OR results. Overall, it is a little unfortunate that the students are unsupervised and that they fail to understand that Wikipedia is not a forum for super-specialized stuff.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I haven't noticed as much trouble with students assignments this year, I'm wondering if its just me?--Project Osprey (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Check out isocyanate and hydrazine. If one knows nothing but has a word processor, one can write reams about safety, citing sources from across the globe. There is a fair bit of this puffing up going on by students who, IMHO, are deluding themselves that they are (a) learning anything and (b) helping any reader very much. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input... obviously, you can see why I'm requesting help on these types of articles. One thing though, if there is OR, it can be removed immediately. If it's re-added, then follow WP:BRD… just a thought.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

These students are vying for a grade. It is more efficient and less aggravating to wait for the end of the school term, then do the cleanup. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The Phosphaethynolate Anion[edit]

And yet another new article. I can evaluate based on copyvio, citations, grammar, etc... but the guts of the article need expert input. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I renamed it to Phosphaethynolate. I am more concerned about Herbalism and Biotechnology which just seems to be about two very separate topics. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. Back numbers are here. WikiCite issue GLAM ♥ data — what is a gallery, library, archive or museum without a catalogue? It follows that Wikidata must love librarians. Bibliography supports students and researchers in any topic, but open and machine-readable bibliographic data even more so, outside the silo. Cue the WikiCite initiative, which was meeting in conference this week, in the Bay Area of California. Wikidata training for librarians at WikiCite 2018 In fact there is a broad scope: "Open Knowledge Maps via SPARQL" and the "Sum of All Welsh Literature", identification of research outputs, Library.Link Network and Bibframe 2.0, OSCAR and LUCINDA (who they?), OCLC and Scholia, all these co-exist on the agenda. Certainly more library science is coming Wikidata's way. That poses the question about the other direction: is more Wikimedia technology advancing on libraries? Good point. Wikimedians generally are not aware of the tech background that can be assumed, unless they are close to current training for librarians. A baseline definition is useful here: "bash, git and OpenRefine". Compare and contrast with pywikibot, GitHub and mix'n'match. Translation: scripting for automation, version control, data set matching and wrangling in the large, are on the agenda also for contemporary library work. Certainly there is some possible common ground here. Time to understand rather more about the motivations that operate in the library sector. Links Wikidata and Libraries: Facilitating Open Knowledge, book chapter by Mairelys Lemus-Rojas, metadata librarian and Lydia Pintscher, Wikidata Product Manager, from Leveraging Wikipedia: Connecting Communities of Knowledge (2018) LD4P and WikiCite: Opportunities for collaboration, WikiCite 2018 program abstract, Christine Fernsebner Eslao of Harvard Library Information and Technical Services and Michelle Futornick, Linked Data for Production Program Manager at Stanford University Shell Lessons for Librarians, Library Carpentry lesson At-risk content on Flickr, blogpost 3 November 2018, Andrew Gray Toward an Abstract Wikipedia, recent white paper by Wikidata founder Denny Vrandečić (Google) Account creation is now open on the ScienceSource wiki, where you can see SPARQL visualisations of text mining. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Admin help or advice or something with phenols?[edit]

Phenols is a messy article. Its a compilation of a lot of factoids and lists. Phenol is in good shape. Probably phenols needs to be relabeled "Naturally occurring phenols", a change that that requires admin intervention. Wikipedia has some other article with "Naturally occurring ...", so that label could be a useful category and catch-all. If we spin-off "Naturally occurring phenols", then "Phenols" is allowed to grow into the chemistry of phenols, something we need.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Why does that need admin intervention? One can create Naturally occurring phenols, by a split pointing in its creation to the revid of phenols that the material came from (to retain attribution). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

OK I just split it. Naturally occurring phenols remains messy. Phenols less so. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Two links to DAB pages[edit]

Ineos links to the DAB pages DIB and EOA. Those links have been hanging around like H₂S_x since November 2016. Anyone any ideas? I used to be an industrial chemist, and have no clue about them (except that EOA might be a duplicate of ethanolamine). Narky Blert (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Narky Blert, DIB will be diisobutylene (2,4,4-trimethyl-1-pentene), the dimer of isobutylene, as is made clear by the statement .mw-parser-output .inline-quote-talk{font-family:Georgia,"DejaVu Serif",serif;color:#008560;quotes:none}.mw-parser-output .inline-quote-talk-italic{font-family:inherit;font-style:italic}.mw-parser-output .inline-quote-talk-marks{quotes:""""""}
Isoolefins are a family of monoolefins, obtained by oligomerisation of isobutylene. They include a dimer (DIB) and a trimer (TIB) from this INEOS page. Based on this page, I'd guess you are correct that EOA is a duplicate of ethanolamine. EdChem (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Use of "chem" in chemical equations instead of classical one[edit]

Hi, I would suggest to use the template "chem" when writing a chemical reaction, as it's far simpler to write and to modify (in case of mistakes) and has a better impact on the reader. What's more, is more professional. For example, if you write:

2 Na₂CrO₄ + 2 CO₂ + H₂O → Na₂Cr₂O₇ + 2 NaHCO₃

You may as well use:

2Na2CrO4+2CO2+H2O⟶Na2Cr2O7+2NaHCO3{displaystyle {ce {2Na2CrO4 + 2 CO2 + H2O -> Na2Cr2O7 + 2 NaHCO3}}}

The template "chem" is fit for these formulas, so the syntax is easier, the lenght of the source code is halved and the structure is more clear, even for those who are not really into Wikipedia editing. The space occupied by both this structures is more or less the same, so there should be very few problems about page formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcodpat (talk • contribs) 07:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Several reader-visible problems (affects the general public not just the few editors of a particular article). First is font mismatch vs the general text. Second is that the chemtex version is not searchable in the browser because it might (sometimes or always?) render as a graphic file instead of actual text. See WP:MATHCHEM for several other technical gotchas. DMacks (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not only that, you cannot copy and paste the formula. We should be making things best for our readers, which would include students that may wish to copy and paste the formula, and the chem markup makes that very hard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


• From a reader perspective, I find the rendering of the <chem>-code very ugly (though I agree easier to enter): it simply does not fit with the regular text of the document, and as mentioned, it is a graphic, so you cannot copy-paste the 'text' (literally, you even paste an empty image ..). I would actually !vote to replace <chem> with regular writing throughout.

Note that we have {{chemical formula}}:

2 Na₂CrO₄ + 2 CO₂ + H₂O --> Na₂Cr₂O₇ + 2 Na₂HCO₃

though that is difficult to edit (if you are a newbie), and results in links to the elements which is not optimal here (heavy overlinked). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. If we can achieve some sort of consensus, please let's register our preference for normal text for formulas in our MOS.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

This example is WP:OVERLINKING (three time linking to sodium?). Also, no clear need to link to the elements anyway. Should not be our example. -DePiep (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

{{Chem}} does not do the overlinking and I personally quite like it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly prefer normal text instead of the <chem> formatting. I find the supposed advantages of <chem> to be vague ("more professional") or unimportant (shorter length of source code). I agree with the arguments presented by DMacks, Graeme Bartlett, and Beetstra of why plain text is best. ChemNerd (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


• <chem> is the only solution in certain circumstances: matrices, multiline formula, images not available as a character (not in Unicode). Also uncommon characters like the triple bond (≡) are not at hand in html code. In general, many chemical notation forms (apart from super/subscripts) are not easily written in html text; they have to be "encoded". <chem> OTOH, does have an intuitive order & setup (though different, and needs initiation/excercise); it is more systematical and expandable in knowledge (always something more to learn, good). WP:MATHCHEM has the documentation & examples to go to.

Sidenotes: In mobile view, the resulting font shows as regular text font (not "ugly" or so different). There is the omnious message "Do not use {{chem}} in citations" because of WP:COINS. I've never felt happy with this: what is wrong?

When the formula is single-line (usually indented), <chem> is not disturbing the regular text with its font-changes. So, when single-line, &ltchem> may be preferable.

In general, editorts writing more complicated chemical frmulae should consider learning the LaTex coding. After all, it was designed to create correct and graphically beutiful results. -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Then why can't it look beautiful (rather than just professionally aligned layout)? It wasn't until the past few weeks or months that the reaction-arrow was even a single uniform-thickness line! I agree for complicated layout, such as matrices, or lots of equations where we want certain details to align, TeX is awesome. Isn't triple-bond ≡? DMacks (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO the "uglyness" originates from two fonts being mixed (serif/nonserif even). That is typographically absolutely not done. By itself, Latex typographically has great whitespace, placement, relativeness etc. in its typography. So especially when stand-alone (in a single line), it looks nice. And yes special symbols are available, but they are not "at hand" (a list search needed). The more complicated formulae are easier & nicer with <chem>. But alas, not yet (see post below). - DePiep (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I cannot recommend any chem tags at the moment because for the next few months we will still have problems created by texvc in combination with a legacy mhchem version that can produce a very different rendering than expected. I am about half through checking all mhchem on all wikis now and removing some of the current workarounds or replacing them with other workarounds (w:de:user:Debenben/mhchem, help is very much appreciated) so that we can remove texvc and the legacy option to get something which does not render different to what you get everywhere else. We are also trying to improve the visual appearance. If you are interested you are welcome to join our commission, see phab:T195861.--Debenben (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  


• We have {{chem2}} too. {{chem2|2 Na2CrO4 + 2 CO2 + H2O -> Na2Cr2O7 + 2 Na2HCO3}} gives 2 Na
  2CrO
  4 + 2 CO
  2 + H
  2O → Na
  2Cr
  2O
  7 + 2 Na
  2HCO
  3, {{chem2|auto=yes|2 Na2CrO4 + 2 CO2 + H2O -> Na2Cr2O7 + 2 Na2HCO3}} gives 2 Na
  2CrO
  4 + 2 CO
  2 + H
  2O → Na
  2Cr
  2O
  7 + 2 Na
  2HCO
  3. Christian75 (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)