WikiProject Chemicals | (Rated NA-class) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Archives: | |
A-list discussions · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 · 2016 · 2017 · 2018 · 2019 · 2020 · 2021 | |
Sections older than 6 months may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II. |
Chemical data pages cleanup / task
- The WP:DPCLEANUP task thread has been moved to dedicated page WT:CHEMICALS/Chemical data pages cleanup (see current status notes). Discussions can be continued or (re)initiated there. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Sodium germanate
May the (ugly) chemical structure be replaced by the crystal structure shown in the de.wikipedia article? --Leyo 21:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Has that actually been made by copy-and-pasting bits of other structures into Microsoft Paint?... it's like a ransom note from an 80s movie... de.wiki image is for sodium metasilicate, I don't know if that's the correct unit cell, but it probably is (de.wiki do a lot of this sort of thing and they're normally correct). --Project Osprey (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- It has a sister --Project Osprey (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would be interested in hearing of other ugly drawings. Also suspect articles. At our stage in evolution, the goal is not perfection, but avoiding embarrassment. So that the next time someone decides to criticize Wikipedia, they focus on the "Elvis articles" not us.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Hundreds. See the links the section below this one. I've isolated what should be the worst offenders (criteria: commons:Category:Disputed_chemical_diagrams > in-use on en.wiki or wikidata). A list of 26. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would be interested in hearing of other ugly drawings. Also suspect articles. At our stage in evolution, the goal is not perfection, but avoiding embarrassment. So that the next time someone decides to criticize Wikipedia, they focus on the "Elvis articles" not us.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- File:3oxstate.svg
- File:AbhinavBiochemMechanism.JPG
- File:Amitraz Synthesis Route2.png
- File:Ammonium-alum-3D-vdW.png
- File:Ammonium-hydrosulfide-3D-vdW.png
- File:Bacoside A.png
- File:Biosynthesis of CBC.png
- File:Cf oxyfluoride 3D.png
- File:Cholesterol, Tetrahymanol, Diploptene Structures.png
- File:De epoxynivalenol.tif
- File:Enolate alpha center model.svg
- File:Gladiolin.svg
- File:Hoiamide A and B.png
- File:HomoserineBiosyn.png
- File:Mercury(II)-sulfate-3D-vdW.png
- File:P-menth-1-en-4-ol.svg
- File:Peptide glycopeptide.png
- File:Potassium antimonyl tartrate.png
- File:Potassium-gluconate-3D-balls-ionic.png
- File:Potassium-thiosulfate-3D-balls-ionic.png
- File:Pyramidal dikation, hexamethyl.jpg
- File:Sodium-zincate-3D-vdW.png
- File:Synthesis of morphine.png
- File:Xenic-acid-3D-vdW.svg
- File:Zirconium(IV)-silicate-3D-vdW.png
- File:Оксид титана(III).png
There are so many 3D models of cation+anion. How to remake these files? --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Find a source describing the crystal structure, and make a new crystal structure in Jmol. In many cases, it is also acceptable to use an image of a similar crystal. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of "covalent" compounds...(Example: File:Cobalt_(II)_fluoride.png), but they are quite frequently used in eowiki(Why they use these 3D models in their reactions, example eo:Sulfura tetrafluorido)... --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Many (most?) chemistry pages on the Esperanto wiki appear to be the work of one very enthusiastic editor. As the images are in use there, they won't be deleted from commons. I don't see that there is much we can do about it, other than to keep an eye on our own pages. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Alternatives
--Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The concern about File:P-menth-1-en-4-ol.svg makes no sense, since one of the proposed renames already matches the filename, and the "other version" is an isomer that can be removed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Amino acid derivatives
I was moving Mecysteine to cysteine methyl ester (hopefully the conventional name sticks). We can expect eventual creation of numerous articles on amino acid derivatives. Exampless:
- Glycine methyl ester and Glycine methyl ester hydrochloride.
- Various N-protected amino acids such as N-BOCglycine, N-Cbz...).
- Amides like glycinamide.
- Simple dipeptides can be anticipated, e.g. glycylglycine.
So if colleagues have views on naming, now is a good time to discuss.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- The existing Category:Amino acid derivatives shows some variance. I only expect there'd be a problem if there were different naming conventions in biochemistry. --Project Osprey (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we can be prescriptive on this and we would be wasting our time to try to set rules in advance. Loads of chemicals are amino acid derivatives in the broad sense that they contain the substructure -N-C-C(=O)-hetero- and many won't even be categorised as such. I would cite nirmatrelvir and tirzepatide as recent examples. I'd stick to the principles of WP:Common on a case-by-case basis but I do agree with Smokefoot that "simple" esters should be named as derivatives of their parent. Incidentally, I see no reason why Glycine methyl ester hydrochloride isn't in an article entitled Glycine methyl ester, along with any other notable salts and the parent compound but I'm not prepared to fight about it..... Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not looking for prescriptions or fights...just advice and a heads up that lots of derivatives of 20+ parent amino acids will be the bases of many future articles. My feeling (not fightin words, I hope) is that the first few article titles will or could template many others. The quandry of Glycine methyl ester hydrochloride vs Glycine methyl ester illustrates the discussions I was inviting, the former can be purchased and put on the shelf, the latter is the more useful derivative. So I was thinking that the former would be the title, since readers want the info in the chembox for lab work, but the latter would comprise most of the content since experimentalists use the free ester. So its a gentle request. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we can be prescriptive on this and we would be wasting our time to try to set rules in advance. Loads of chemicals are amino acid derivatives in the broad sense that they contain the substructure -N-C-C(=O)-hetero- and many won't even be categorised as such. I would cite nirmatrelvir and tirzepatide as recent examples. I'd stick to the principles of WP:Common on a case-by-case basis but I do agree with Smokefoot that "simple" esters should be named as derivatives of their parent. Incidentally, I see no reason why Glycine methyl ester hydrochloride isn't in an article entitled Glycine methyl ester, along with any other notable salts and the parent compound but I'm not prepared to fight about it..... Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Sodium peroxynitrate
Has no evidence of existence, just one unreliable source, probably deletion. Keres🌕Luna edits! 01:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- It has a CAS No (146505-18-2) but no real refs in SciFinder. Weirdly, the free peroxynitrate ion has >200 refs, mostly from biology as a reactive nitrogen species. The structure looks borderline explosive, so I can't imagine anyone's in a hurry to crystallise this stuff. I would support deletion. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Category:Nitroso compounds and Category:Nitrosyl compounds
What is the difference of nitroso and nitrosyl? Perhaps these 2 categories should be merged. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nitroso compounds are typically organic (R-N=O) whereas nitrosyl compounds (X-N=O) are typically inorganic. It's probably best to keep the categories separate considering the number of articles in each (16+21=37 vs. 9) and the fact the properties tend to differ significantly between the two. Perhaps the nitroso category could become a subcategory of the nitrosyl category. We also have Nitroxyl which is not in either category at present. --Ben (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Ions
The appropriate infobox to use is {{Chembox}}. It is a modular, expandable infobox. Just use the parameters which you need; empty values will not be displayed. Chemboxes should be used for all chemical compounds, so long as they can exist in that form, even for compounds which are not isolable in pure, solvent-free form (e.g. hypochlorous acid). Chemboxes should not be used for ions, polymers, and proteins and enzymes (except simple peptides).
It said no chembox for ions, but many ion articles(tetramethylammonium, chloride) have their chembox. Also, there is a parameter(|FormulaCharge= ) in Chembox Properties that only useful for ions. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Archive 2021#Chembox for polymers. DMacks (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- At one point I made template:ionbox, but it really was a dumb idea as it was a just a duplicate of chembox. As molecules become more complex there is a much bigger chance that they will be ions, eg most biologic proteins or nucleic acids. Charge is just a property of a molecule. So we should explicitly state chembox can be used for ions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- If there are suggestions for extra {{Chembox}} parameters, to make ions feel better at home in it, please signal them. -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- My comments about chembox for ions:
- {{Chembox Identifiers}}, {{Chembox Thermochemistry}}, {{Chembox Structure}}, {{Chembox Related}} doesn't affected because it is an ion.
- {{Chembox Pharmacology}}, {{Chembox Hazards}}...maybe need to label what counterion for those data...(I prefer use their sodium salt or chloride)
- {{Chembox Properties}}, {{Chembox Explosive}} are useless for ions because they can't prepared in bulk if no counterions. Using counterions will make very different data.(Example: NaCl is very soluble in water, but AgCl is insoluble)
- --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- erm, I'm not familiar with these details. How would a "label" (full data row?) look like for counterion? ASnything to do with cation, anion? -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- See the right side(
| Hazards_ref =
is just a placeholder, I need new parameters). --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- My comments about chembox for ions:
- If there are suggestions for extra {{Chembox}} parameters, to make ions feel better at home in it, please signal them. -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hazards(sodium salt) | |
---|---|
GHS labelling: | |
NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | |
Flash point | Non-flammable |
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC): | |
LD50 (median dose)
|
6.44 mg/kg (rat, oral) 4 mg/kg (sheep, oral) 15 mg/kg (mammal, oral) 8 mg/kg (rat, oral)[2] |
NIOSH (US health exposure limits): | |
PEL (Permissible)
|
TWA 5 mg/m3[1] |
REL (Recommended)
|
C 5 mg/m3 (4.7 ppm) [10-minute][1] |
IDLH (Immediate danger)
|
25 mg/m3 (as CN)[1] |
Safety data sheet (SDS) | ICSC 1118 |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
- {{Chembox Properties}} includes molecular formula and weight, not just bulk physical properties like solubility and phase-chnge. DMacks (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, some {{Chembox Properties}} parameters are useful. Another useful parameter for ions is
| Appearance =
for the colour of it's solution. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)- I don't understand (yet). A salt is not an ion (eg, salt has no charge). So, what is the topic of the example?
What would its article title be? Then, in which article (=infobox main title) would this Hazards section belong?cyanide. Altogether, I do not see how this salt or ion relates to the compounds article, and why it should be in there anyway (for example, where are the sodium salt properties shown at this moment?). Shouldn't it be in {{Chembox Related}}, or in new dedicated Chembox section {{Chembox Salts}}? In an article section not in the infobox? Puzzling for me. Main line: if it is not about the main compound itself (article title), then it should be elsewhere not in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC) - Sodium salts exists. Why not add a chembox over there (with Hazards, Properties)? -DePiep (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Cyanide ion is toxic, but if there is no counterion, we can't measure how toxic it is, so I put data of it's salt. Same goes to any other ion. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand (yet). A salt is not an ion (eg, salt has no charge). So, what is the topic of the example?
We had a similar discussion to this at WT:WikiProject_Chemicals/Archive_2020#Carboxylic_acids_vs_carboxylate_anion/esters. Our consensus was that very few carboxylic acids merited a separate article and we merged a number of them into their parent acid. I think that cyanide is a case where the separate article is justified but it should only discuss the ion. We have an article on sodium cyanide and, indeed, lithium cyanide, potassium cyanide and others some of which can be linked in the Chembox as related compounds. I do not support repeating, for example, the toxicity data for sodium cyanide in an article that's supposed to be limited to cyanide. The same objection is valid for any other property that can only be measured for a real sample of a specific compound. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- About sodium salts, maybe the page could be renamed to "sodium compounds". (Wikidata:Q12555933) --Leiem (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it shouldn't just be deleted Category:Sodium compounds contains 167 pages. What can we meaningfully say about such a swathe of compounds? --Project Osprey (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nucleus: are you proposing a change of some sort? --Project Osprey (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Change what? --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- only discuss the ion...then put their salt data is really not an option. By the way, there is something like "(as CN)" in IDLH parameter, which really don't care the counterion. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think Nucleus is looking for something like: "In the Chembox Hazards subsection, add option to note "Hazards for cyanide sodium (salt): ..." for certain data rows (datapoints). -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If there is going to be such a facility, the logical material to supply hazard data for is hydrogen cyanide, the conjugate acid of cyanide ion. The simplest real samples associated with anions are their protonated forms. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think if you want to compare the effects of various counter ions against some particular property, then you should do it in the article text. Infoboxes are there to handle reams of data that are informative but don't need any narrative explanation. Describing properties across a series is inherently narrative. Make a table, explain the trend.--Project Osprey (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Project Osprey: Yes, "do it in the article text" is the route to go. This is the way I understand this subtopic, and our handling of it. Maybe if it appears stable over multiple compound articles, and there is a data-point in there to be discovered, then we can revisit this question and the infobox can follow. -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think if you want to compare the effects of various counter ions against some particular property, then you should do it in the article text. Infoboxes are there to handle reams of data that are informative but don't need any narrative explanation. Describing properties across a series is inherently narrative. Make a table, explain the trend.--Project Osprey (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If there is going to be such a facility, the logical material to supply hazard data for is hydrogen cyanide, the conjugate acid of cyanide ion. The simplest real samples associated with anions are their protonated forms. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think Nucleus is looking for something like: "In the Chembox Hazards subsection, add option to note "Hazards for cyanide sodium (salt): ..." for certain data rows (datapoints). -DePiep (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. "#0562". National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
- ^ "Cyanides (as CN)". Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Concentrations (IDLH). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
Revising guidance of naming of articles for organic compounds
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
All, I think it is long past due to revisit Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#IUPAC_preferred_name_vs._systematic_name, as it is misleading. First and most important, by referring to an IUPAC recommendation, this has been interpreted by some (see recent discussion with Pabsoluterince) to mean that articles should be at the preferred IUPAC name, which is not what is intended, resulting in this case in a set of messy page moves, where some redirect history was lost. The examples given are rare cases where IUPAC has acquiesced to the use of trivial (common) names, but most PIN's are systematic names, and we do not use these as article titles if there is a common name. Examples include Caproic acid rather than Hexanoic acid (see past consensus for carboxylic acids specifically), 1-Pentanol rather than Pentan-1-ol, Benzaldehyde rather than Benzenecarbaldehyde, Diethyl ether rather than Ethoxyethane, Benzophenone rather than Diphenylmethanone, etc. So, while stating "IUPAC recommends the use of non-systematic names for some [emphasis added] organic compounds" is correct, this technically only addresses a small minority of organic compounds, providing no guidance on cases where IUPAC recommends use of a systematic name, or even implying that systematic names should be used unless IUPAC recommends otherwise. Hence, the operative aspect here is not what IUPAC recommends, but the use of non-systematic names.
The section title should be revised to state "Trivial (common) name vs. systematic name" and in the text we should leave IUPAC completely out of it. Instead, we should state that trivial or common names should be used if they exist, following the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, using systematic names when there is no trivial name that unambiguously refers to the compound. A more robust list of examples, such as those above, should then be included to more thoroughly depict the convention and provide better guidance to those writing articles or considering page moves. If there is consensus for this, I can try to come up with something, that others are then free to improve. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well yes, case in point, I did misinterpret the current policy and moved an article because of it. I found the policy extremely misleading, and basically was lead astray by my experience of what the actual common name was for the acid. I think for certain (commonly short chain) molecules, the systematic name is more recognisable and natural to use. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Mdewman6 that the principles of WP:COMMONNAME take precedence. In particular, for pharmaceutical drugs we will nearly always use the international nonproprietary name and for pesticides the ISO common name listed here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for reminding us of this important issue. One reason that I was once very active in establishing articles on simple compounds was to pre-empt the IUPACers.
- It might be worthwhile to collect some titles for conversion to their common names. Ethenone would be high on my list.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, once we've made the convention more clear, I think page moves to rectify clear-cut cases such as that can proceed without need for further discussion.
- I agree with Mdewman6 that the principles of WP:COMMONNAME take precedence. In particular, for pharmaceutical drugs we will nearly always use the international nonproprietary name and for pesticides the ISO common name listed here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I have drafted a revised section at User:Mdewman6/sandbox2, which would completely replace the existing "IUPAC preferred name vs. systematic name" section. Please take a look and feel free to comment, offer revisions, or add to the list of examples. If there are no objections or suggestions over the next week or so, I will implement the revision at the naming conventions page. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- There being no further comment, I am going to update that section. If concerns arise let's discuss them here. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have questioned the procedural strength of this GF conclusion; see § Procedural questions below. -DePiep (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Proposed new guideline
== Organic compound names ==
This text proposal box:Trivial names (non-systematic, or "common" names) are favored for use in titles of articles for organic compounds instead of systematic names. Trivial names are usually different from the preferred name following IUPAC nomenclature. For compounds lacking trivial names, as is often the case for complex structures, substitutive nomenclature or other systematic names may be used. The general rule is to use the name most commonly used to refer to the compound, as evidenced by use in reliable sources (in line with WP:COMMONNAME).
Classes of compounds may have more specific guidance on naming, such as the use of international nonproprietary names for pharmaceutical compounds (see below).
Examples of use of trivial names and not systematic names include:
acetic acid not ethanoic acid toluene not methylbenzene lysine not 2,6-diaminohexanoic acid 1-pentanol not pentan-1-ol benzaldehyde not benzenecarbaldehyde diethyl ether not ethoxyethane benzophenone not diphenylmethanone Systematic and other accepted names for the compound not used as the article title should instead be redirects tagged with the {{R from alternative name}} template and listed in the chembox as other names, with especially significant alternative names mentioned in the lede in bold font.
Procedural questions
- @Mdewman6: No opinion on the proposal, but I do think this needs a more formal and more wide discussion. After all, it is probably a controversial WP:MOVE (or thousands so). At least an RfC, and publication (invitations). The advantage of this is, that the new guidance has a broad and stable consensus. -DePiep (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have reverted the Good Faith change by User:Mdewman6 in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry). As I noted im my previous (06:41) post, the discussion better be more wide and strong as it affects many titles and possibly is controversial. I'm sorry for arriving late here. I note that I am positive to the proposal.
- Mdewman6, could we write a Wikipedia:Requested moves § CM proposal? DePiep (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- @DePiep:, I'm not opposed to reopening the discussion as an RfC, but there was consensus for the change above. I figured the users who cared the most about the revised naming convention, and have the pertinent expertise, are all right here. I do think I should have linked to the discussion from the chem NC talk page though, rather than after the fact.
- It's not so much a change but rather more clearly defining existing practice to avoid confusion (as discussed above). There will certainly be articles that could/should be moved based on the revised naming convention, but I doubt it would affect 'thousands' of pages. Per WP:RM#CM, articles that had past uncertainty or debate regarding the best name should still go through the RM process, but with the revised naming convention as justification. More straightforward cases could be moved boldly and reverted if there is opposition.
- I am not sure what you mean by writing a CM proposal? This is not a proposal to move a specific page. It's updating a naming convention. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I admid I did not see the impact of the guidance (change) that precise, and it seems to be less dramatic. However, I thought it could meet opposition afterwards, especially when pages are being moved, and possibly on procedural grounds. That would be problematic. And since the change (your edit) was recent still without following move actions, I reverted asap (instead of talking), to prevent such after-move-discussions. As said, I just only discovered this MOS-discussion.
- My point is: being a MOS guideline, I'd go for a tough and formal consensus. For example, wide invitations (WP:CHEMISTRY, WT:NC (chemistry), some candidate articles, ..). I find three replies (supports) a bit low for a MOS change. Indeed, probably not WP:RM. And doesn't is require a formal (uninvolved editor) closure?
- I'm not from WikiLaw school, so maybe I am overconcerned. If so, I'd like to learn so; from experienced outsider? Can we ask outsider advice in this? -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Let's start by pinging two WikiProject Chem members who are also admins to get their perspectives, DMacks and Graeme Bartlett. I will also amend my note at Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions (chemistry) and leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. We can certainly to try to get a non-chemist outsider as well, not sure how best to go about seeking that, but feel free. Again, I'd favor more discussion if it were more of a change in existing practice as opposed to clarifying existing practice. Happy to setup a RfC, but we would have to transclude or copy stuff from here into a new section, probably on the naming conventions talk page. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will say, however, that in my view it would have been more appropriate to raise concerns here first rather than first reverting the addition, given there had already been discussion regarding the change. But I agree if there is any chance of the change not being the ultimate outcome, it would be best to not risk others making bold page moves based on the new text. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
DePiep, there has been no further discussion. If your only objection to the change was procedural and not to the change itself, then I am inclined to proceed. I don't think an RfC is necessary here. The discussion has been advertised in the appropriate places. Consensus can be assumed until there is evidence of disagreement. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- For the record: I support the proposal (sorry for being this late). -DePiep (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- User:Mdewman6: I agree, we can conclude consensus for the proposal. My compliments for the initiative. -DePiep (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The ambiguity of "silene"?
The disambiguation page for Silene used to list three different classes of silicon compounds with that name. Now it lists only one. Should any of the other two be brought back? – Uanfala (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the piped entry for Organosilicon#Silenes would still be appropriate. The other one, the redirect Silanylidene group doesn't follow MOS:DAB and redirects to a page about silanes, not silenes. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! I've brought back one of the two entries, and expanded the hatnote at Silenes. Given that I don't have any chemical knowledge and that there apparently was a past controversy among those who do, I don't trust that I would have gotten it exactly right. So, more eyes will be welcome. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Great! I rephrased your hatnote slightly, but this is all definitely an improvement over the previous status quo. We do need a better way to disambiguate the two compound classes, not sure how best to go about that at the moment though, and as you say, will require discussion due to the past debate. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! I've brought back one of the two entries, and expanded the hatnote at Silenes. Given that I don't have any chemical knowledge and that there apparently was a past controversy among those who do, I don't trust that I would have gotten it exactly right. So, more eyes will be welcome. – Uanfala (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Phosphonium iodide
I filed a request to create an image at c:COM:GL, but was directed here by Leyo (talk · contribs).
I intend to create 3D ball-and-stick and spacefilling models of the crystal structure of phosphonium iodide (PH
4I) as described in the listed references, to replace the current crude cation+anion combination. It is a distorted version of the NH
4Cl structure, with tetragonal symmetry.[1][2] The file names would be File:Phosphonium iodide 3D balls.png and File:Phosphonium iodide 3D vdW.png, like most other 3D molecular and crystal models. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Benjah-bmm27 is currently not very active … --Leyo 10:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Dickinson, Roscoe G. (July 1922). "The Crystal Structure of Phosphonium Iodide". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 44 (7): 1489–1497. doi:10.1021/ja01428a015.
- ^ Sequeira, A.; Hamilton, Walter C. (September 1967). "Hydrogen Bonding in Phosphonium Iodide: A Neutron-Diffraction Study". The Journal of Chemical Physics. 47 (5): 1818–1822. Bibcode:1967JChPh..47.1818S. doi:10.1063/1.1712171.
Lead disulfide
The article lead(IV) sulfide said the oxidation state of Pb in PbS2 is +4. A newer ref (doi:10.1016/j.jssc.2018.10.023) states that PbS2 crystallizes in the CuAl2 structure. It should be Pb2+(S2)2−. --Leiem (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Good find! Our article cites a 1966 ref for structural analysis, but this new ref discusses mentions those results as lacking as-strong support due to lack of as-high quality samples or data. This isn't my field, so I can't comment on any apparent strengths of either actual research. DMacks (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
We have recently (thanks User:GRALISTAIR!) gotten a bunch of articles about glycidyl ethers, which are used as reactive diluents (I created both Category:Glycidyl ethers and Category:Reactive diluents). Each of them has a list of the others in their respective SEEALSO. It seems excessive to link all structurally–application-related chemicals to each other in this manner (and having to keep each one updated when new are created). Instead, WP seems like it would favor a navbox. I started Template:Glycidyl ethers. But now I wonder whether instead of this one, based on a structural motif, we should instead have one based on the reactive-diluent application case? Non-ether epoxies are possible, as are structures for non-epoxide polymer types. Would a Template:Reactive diluents (that would have the glycidyl-ethers blocks but also the vinyl compounds from that application's category) be better? DMacks (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think perhaps you've done it the right way, as some of these compounds (such as Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether) have uses beyond being reactive diluents. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with @Project Osprey . There is at least one Glycidyl ESTER also used as an epoxy reactive diluent. GRALISTAIR (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
However it does beg the question "Should I write an article that is entitled Glycidyl ethers?" It would be a general article possibly a stub that would give general background and reference the above GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best place to start might be Epoxy#Diluents, which fails to even link to reactive diluent? Glycidyl ethers seem to be used exclusively for epoxy systems but I can't find the line between diluent and monomer. Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether is clearly a co-monomer. Melting points (generally lacking for these article) might be informative, I expect all the dilutes will have broad liquid ranges with very high boiling points. --Project Osprey (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Paraloid B-72
Do we have such manually drawn structural formulas in other chemboxes, too? Are we fine with it? --Leyo 09:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- We are not fine with that sort of thing. I replaced it with File:Paraloid B-72.png and also uploaded File:Paraloid B-72 monomer-IDs.png if we wanted to discuss its structure in more detail. DMacks (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's what I thought, even though this image has remained in the article for ten years. ;-) --Leyo 12:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Issues with Template:Sigma-Aldrich
Template:Sigma-Aldrich, is commonly used as a reference for Chembox hazard data. Following a merger with Merk, Sigma-Aldrich appears to have reorganised its website, breaking links in some instances. The template uses the Sigma ID number to make links, e.g. 294993 for ammonia (which still works):
- {{Sigma-Aldrich|id=''294993''|name=Ammonia|access-date=27 December 2021}} → Sigma-Aldrich Co., Ammonia.
However in some cases the links, while showing as blue, do not connect properly.
- {{Sigma-Aldrich|id=''36735''|name=Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate|accessdate=2022-05-12}} → Sigma-Aldrich Co., Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Retrieved on 2022-05-12.
The template assumes that the URL should always be www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/aldrich/<id number>
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/aldrich/294993
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/GB/en/product/sial/36735
--Project Osprey (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- So the template should switch between /aldrich/ and /sial/. Can we determine this from name or id? Any other route? -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unsure as to the scale of the problem. There may be others beyond /sial/. One option: links default to /aldrich/ (to protect existing links) but add an manual override option to replace it with something else. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are some 175 transclusions. I've added option
|1=sial
to the documentation. There also seems to exist an option|1=CATALOG
(not explored). - Looks like the task is to check each instance. -DePiep (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you give me a transclusions list I'll do the leg-work. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are some 175 transclusions. I've added option
- I'm unsure as to the scale of the problem. There may be others beyond /sial/. One option: links default to /aldrich/ (to protect existing links) but add an manual override option to replace it with something else. --Project Osprey (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- it's the template page {{Sigma-Aldrich}}, then click What Links Here: [1] -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
BTW: de:Vorlage:Sigma-Aldrich#Vorlagenparameter has a few more options for this parameter. The template is transcluded in ~4500 de.wikipedia articles. --Leyo 20:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)