Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trytowearasmileeveryday (talk | contribs) at 15:21, 28 April 2012 (→New articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChemistry Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Article alerts

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(9 more...)

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

(33 more...)

Discussion of the WikiProject Chemistry - Please add your comment and discussion here. Older discussions are archived.

Shortcuts

This discussion page is about the Chemistry project itself, for detailed, in-depth discussions about specific topics, you'd be best served at the talk page of the specific subject, e.g., Chemicals, Chemical infoboxes, etc. There is also an image request page which might be of interest to you.

Template:SIDS

Template:SIDS presumes that the target page at OECD Screening Information DataSet (SIDS) is pdf. This is not always the case (e.g., the L-ASCORBIC ACID page is html). Please see the proposed update to the template here: Template:SIDS/sandbox; and test case here: Template:SIDS/testcases. Decstop (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead. Due to the limited number of transclusions, you may check them all after implementation of the update. --Leyo 19:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2C-TFM

A group of articles of interest to this WikiProject have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2C-TFM. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation needed - Conjugation

I have been working through all the pages that have links to the disambiguation page Conjugation, but I have been unable to resolve those listed here. I am hoping that an expert from this project will be able to fix these. MOFs for Catalysis, Bissulfosuccinimidyl suberate, Autoinducer, Diazonium compound, Hyperconjugation, Buchner ring expansion, Quinone methide, Steroid Delta-isomerase. Thanks. Derek Andrews (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done all bar Bissulfosuccinimidyl suberate and Autoinducer. Chris (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equation image → TeX

Is there someone with good skills in TeX? The (upper) equation image in Sodium phosphide#Uses should be converted, but my tries were not successful. --Leyo 18:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We also should aim to remove the English from this and other equations to the extent that is convenient or possible.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which (if any) of those experimental conditions actually important to keep? I say "none", because the point in this context is the reactants and products, and the prose can comment on any conditions required to make it work well or...whatever other details are relevant for the article. Which reduces it all to plaintext, don't even need TeX. DMacks (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the TeX one would want is probably some combination of \overset{}{} and \underset{}{}, but I'm not sure if there is a way to make the \rightarrow "automatically the correct width", or if one just uses normal tex ways to make it a specific size. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably a good idea to remove the experimental conditions. --Leyo 23:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? DMacks (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for me. --Leyo 15:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what??????

I was trying to find out what two chemicals and/or elements you would have to mix to make the colours pink and purple for a science project but when i read all of this none of it made sense but the purple. Can someone please change the info so its easier to read?????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.55.198 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brake_shoe_metal_specimen.JPG being used to show readers that C, P and Si are metals

The image "File:Brake_shoe_metal_specimen.JPG" (talk) is causing confusion across WP and leading to some embarrassing mistakes. A glance at the picture will show why: 3 of the 4 samples in the back row are nonmetals (Si, C and P). Example: the picture was being used with the caption "Some metal pieces" at the top of metal; I fixed that, but it looks like similar elementary (ha ha) mistakes persist on other pages using the image. These pages (most not in English) need to be fixed and, imo, the title and description of the file need to be changed. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image is on commons, so I filed a rename request there. DMacks (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed, with a thought - why is this image (showing only few metals) used in articles on metals? It is not so difficult to either make another photo or a montage of our excellent metal pictures. Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see only Si, C, Cu, Ni and a false formulas/descripion for: P, Mo, Mn and Cr. They are perhaps compounds or alloys of this elements, but not the pure elements. Perhaps is the japanese description the right description?! I can't read Japanese. An image without a right description have a no value for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the very confusing image from the Metal article too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Natural phenols and polyphenols

This seems relevant to you guys, since it's discussing whether or not to merge/redirect to this project, or just delete. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C8H3NO

I have nominated this page for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C8H3NO. ChemNerd (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GIF ball-and-sticks models

Are the following orphaned GIF ball-and-sticks models worth being moved to Commons?

--Leyo 15:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That trioxidane appears to be a dup of an older revision of commons:File:Trioxidane 3D.gif (uploaded to commons at the same time by the same editor). DMacks (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and likewise for that carbonyl sulfide vs commons:File:Carbonyl sulfide 3D.gif. For this one, I'd even support deletion on commons because we have higher-quality ones in commons:Category:Carbonyl sulfide (including some based on cited structural parameters). DMacks (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and likewise for that cyanogen chloride vs commons:File:Cyanogen chloride 3D.gif. For this one too, I'd support deletion vs the higher-quality commons:File:Cyanogen-chloride-3D-balls.png. DMacks (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Iron titanate" doesn't appear to have this actual form. Titanate#Metatitanates notes that when "titanate" refers to TiO3, it's not discrete ions, and Ilmenite (the apparent actual compound for this formula) agrees with the "it's not that simple" analysis. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answers. I forgot that there is no bot on en.wikipedia to insert {{ShadowsCommons}} or {{NowCommons}}. OK, the last three are clear cases: delete here as NowCommons. A DR might be initiated on Commons afterwards. I'll file a DR for Iron(II) titanate. --Leyo 17:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Chemistry Barnstar

Template:The Chemistry Barnstar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 06:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This is only a merger proposal of two barnstars.

Question

I would like to know a bit more about the linear dinamic range as well as the sensitivity of the FID,TCD,SCD,PID,AED,ECD,FPD,and the TID. The properties that the stationary phase should have for the GC and the LC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.10.190 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for coordinating the improvement of Wikipedia's chemistry articles. You are more likely to get help if you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (and you'll probably have to elaborate and explain your acronyms, too, because the question doesn't make too much sense as is). -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natural phenol

It just seems that this article is some form of original research and it is also sort of a textbook thing. Comments on what could be done with this pretty strange article.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps biogenic phenols might be a better title. I don't like the title, because it seems to be associated with the strange "natural=harmless and beneficial" ideology. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I dislike defining and categorizing natural/unnatural chemicals as distinct. I'm not sure what to do about the article in question, but on a broader topic, I think the whole one-man-show at Wikipedia:WikiProject Natural phenols and polyphenols from User:Nono64/User:NotWith has become increasingly problematic. It is rife with problems with WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, inappropriate categorization, etc. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came across the butylated hydroxytoluene article today. Should we categorize BHT as a natural phenol too? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good example of why this categorization isn't meaningful. When this came up before (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_23#Overcategorization_.28again.29), there was consensus to get rid of categories that distinguished between natural and synthetic. Most were deleted then, but several were either missed or recreated. I propose that we empty and delete these categories: Category:Natural phenols, Category:Natural anthraquinones, Category:Natural phenol glycosides, Category:Natural phenol glucuronides, Category:Natural hydroxybenzoic acids. ChemNerd (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unable to find OR, can anyone help me out? There a plenty hits on biophenol so why the N warning (more obscure topics exist)? You will always have people who over-categorize articles, not a big deal. I know we are good at scaring away the newcomers who add material (as opposed of course to newcomers who delete stuff) but this is getting outrageous V8rik (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my reference to notability, I was thinking of the ever-growing collection of articles on "natural phenols" (such as Granatin A, just to pick one) which are hardly mentioned in the scientific literature and less, or not at all, in secondary sources. See Category:Natural phenol stubs. I'm happy to see new chemistry-related content and our editors' interest in expanding and improving it, but I'm concerned that we're accumulating something akin to "cruft" in this particular area based more on one person's intense interest, rather than on what's useful/meaningful to Wikipedia's readers. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
agree, articles like Granatin A have no merit. An alternative is to collect information on this type of compound in an article like biophenol V8rik (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like natural phenol seem poorly defined and narrowly executed. It could give the naive reader a poor perspective on a topic. Also there is a problem with curation. Knowledgeable editors shy away from weakly conceived articles (67 references, almost all primary, and beginning with a Hungarian botanical journal). The article and many contributions - all well intentioned, I am sure - from the same editor are too narrow for Wikipedia, IMHO. Its not a crisis, and maybe some of us - V8rik? - will help upgrade this article.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever did we get these awkward article titles of "Group N Element"

I notice we seem to have ended up with articles called things like Group 3 element and Group 4 element... perhaps we've all gotten used to this by now, as it's been like this for years - but it's surely a horribly clumsy and awkward title?! I could be wrong, but I have suspicions that it arose from some Englrish speakers, bless their cotton socks, who wanted to find an analogous title on a par with Halogens, Alkali Metals etc. I would strongly suggest that these articles be retitled Group 3 (or Group 3 (periodic table), if its necessary to disambiguate).--feline1 (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, we also have this naming convention with articles like Period 5 element. Yuk. --feline1 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard nomenclature. Not all groups have a common name like Alkali Metals. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Alkali metal" refers to one element in the group. "Alkali metals" refers to the group. Since all the articles for the named groups are at the singular forms (although this might not be best), the articles for the unnamed groups should also be at the singular forms for consistency. ("Group 3" would break consistency, as it would refer to the entire group rather than just one of its elements.) Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. There is an article for each group, and the article title should be the name of the group. The Alkali metal article is about all 6 alkali metals, not just one of them. Look in any English language inorganic chemistry textbook and you will not see chapter titles like "Group 3 element". --feline1 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:ListFiles/Cuigy

Is anyone willing to re-draw these GIF images and upload them as SVGs or hi-res PNGs? Otherwise, it is probably best to convert them into PNG to enhance the thumbnail quality. --Leyo 12:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

New articles have been written (I assume by students) and will need revision - formatting is easy to fix, but the problem is to decide whether they are encyclopedic, and how to integrate/reshape them. It would be nice to have a complete list, but here below is from what has appeared in my watchlist:

Its a narrow area but we should probably just try to improve.
this article does not have a problem, it is just one more level of specialisation starting from the fullerene chemistry article. The article should not link from the fullerene page itself though V8rik (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
blend into Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory
Propose deletion: cites are exclusively Jemmis V8rik (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to put in additional citations or have it be blended into polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory. Trytowearasmileeveryday (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC) I just want to make it clear that this wasn't a 'homework assignment.' I created the article Jemmis mno rules because I was surprised that it wasn't on Wikipedia, and the rules had been established for about ~10 years. I know that my article is far from perfect- which is why I absolutely expect it to be edited heavily- at least I have started the page. I do like the suggestion that it be blend into Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trytowearasmileeveryday (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC) They've been mentioned by others before, e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=z2cb9CIiUvsC&pg=PA14. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we blend Jemmis mno rules into Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory how should we go about it? I think it should have its own distinct section on the page and keep at least the better of the examples. What do other people think?Trytowearasmileeveryday (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike this kind of untra-narrow poorly executed article, but it shows how far Wikipedia chemistry has evolved that instructors are forced to create articles on such tiny topics. I recommend deleting it, but expect that others would not agree.
I agree that the redirection is best. The Photochemical Generation of Fp article is hard to follow, very narrow and not well explained. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the receiving point for Jemmis mno rules?
is now a redirect, it should be possible to discuss first V8rik (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some of the edits are pretty poorly supervised and I have tweaked or reverted. Some are correctable. My comments inserted on the above. It is really unfortunate that the instructor is not involved in this discussion. There are also many tiny edits by students trying with good intentions to un-orphanize their articles. Again, the non-involvement of the instructor is really sad because they are dumping a lot of mediocre work (referencing is narrow and poorly done, writing is often poor, undue weight to tiny, tiny topics.

I think cis effect should stay where it is. I'm surprised there's no overarching ligand substitution reactions article. Bridging carbonyl should be merged into metal carbonyl IMO. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more: Infrared_spectroscopy_of_metal_carbonyls. I think this should be incorporated into metal carbonyls. I'll look at it tomorrow. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Addition to pi ligands. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since User talk:Sar2714 created Photochemical Generation of Fp, one of the articles mentioned here, I've notified him of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Chemical ASCII-art nominated for deletion

I have nominated Wikipedia:Chemical ASCII-art for deletion, as it is outdated and use of ASCII art for chemical diagrams does not seem to be accepted. Thought I'd let this project know just in case I'm mistaken. The discussion is here. the wub "?!" 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text on calculating electron chemical potential within density functional theory

I'm in the process of deleting some text with mathematical details about how to calculate electron chemical potential within DFT. It is this section here. It is too specialized to keep within the general chemical potential article. If someone knows a good home for it, please feel free to put it there. (I'm also putting this note at Talk:Density functional theory.) Thanks! --Steve (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry&oldid=489636025"